Khan May Actually Be In Star Trek 2
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
If they wanted to do an origin story I think they should have focused on the core cast: Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I suspect a movie like this would have worked well, and they could have added the rest of the cast in the next movie. Instead they had to force the classic crew together quickly and much earlier than they ever were before, and this not only made the origin story jarring but it will making keeping them all together quite odd.Akalabeth said:
Star Fleet may not technically be a military organization, but they are arranged like one and that means you work where you are assigned. Do we really believe that the top brass will give young Mr. Kirk command of the Enterprise and assign all of his young friends to the top command slots? We've already had one movie of magical coincidences getting them together, I don't see how the next movie can avoid a second series of convenient coincidences to keep them together.
Had the movie been set later, when they were all together, these problems would have been entirely avoided. Had the movie focused on a few characters, rather than attempting to get all of them involved, this would have also avoided these problems. Abrams wanted an origin film and he wanted the entire crew together and he wanted it set during their academy years - and in my opinion attempting all of these just resulted in a mess.
Do you always make baseless accusations and non-arguments, or are you just looking for attention?Akalabeth said:
Says the guy deliberately looking to start shit.Akalabeth said:
Fallacy: Correlation =/= Causality
Similar =/= Same.
It's entirely possible I arrived at a similar opinion independently, or through years of discussion and thought. Especially on a topic as widely discussed as Reboots and Sequel exploitation.
But I suppose that thought never crossed your mind; you were too busy projecting to notice.
So your constant desire to smear me (which is another Fallacy: Poisoning the Well) is both childish AND meaningless.
I suggest either replying with something relevant to the topic, or leave me the fuck alone.
I'm glad the Borg aren't in it. The only Star Trek series I didn't watch was Deep Space Nine, so I got horribly bored of the Borg due to Voyager. Also, the Borg weren't until the later Generations, so why would they even be in the running? If we're gonna use it as an excuse to run enemies out of their time, we could consider even the Xindi or Q for that matter. I loved Q.
Also. I'd like it to be known that I've always been a relative Star Trek fan and that I actually liked the Star Trek movie. Of course there was tons wrong with it, but yeah, I liked it.
Also. I'd like it to be known that I've always been a relative Star Trek fan and that I actually liked the Star Trek movie. Of course there was tons wrong with it, but yeah, I liked it.
Intentionally or not, the film-makers have reserved the Klingons for the second film, since they don't feature in the reboot(apart from a brief mention here and glancing reference there). They're far away the most iconic and well-known Star Trek villains and one of the main things people associate with the franchise. It almost makes too much sense not to use them (I refuse to say 'it's logical...').
- Immediately recognisable to 99% of the audience, visually and audibly. Very little exposition needed.
- Have appeared in several of the films and every TV series, therefore the film wouldn't have to compete against any one specific yardstick. Rather, it would be judged on its own creative merits, i.e. the way in which the Klingons were used in the story.
- The Klingons have been alternately villains, allies, rogues and even core characters. Thus they are potentially flexible protagonists.
- Everyone loves a good warrior race.
- All of a sudden my purchase of a Klingon Dictionary a few years back would appear to be a shrewd investment.
- Immediately recognisable to 99% of the audience, visually and audibly. Very little exposition needed.
- Have appeared in several of the films and every TV series, therefore the film wouldn't have to compete against any one specific yardstick. Rather, it would be judged on its own creative merits, i.e. the way in which the Klingons were used in the story.
- The Klingons have been alternately villains, allies, rogues and even core characters. Thus they are potentially flexible protagonists.
- Everyone loves a good warrior race.
- All of a sudden my purchase of a Klingon Dictionary a few years back would appear to be a shrewd investment.
khan in new trek...does not make sense. he wouldnt fit in at all in JJ's version of the 'verse. half of khan's appeal was being nemesis to kirk; experienced captain vs experienced captain, two born leaders using all their wits to try and defeat each other...and the luke perry wannabe that is JJ's kirk would not at all work with that dynamic, and changing khan to be a better analogue to new kirk wouldnt be khan. frankly why would they even consider putting khan in for anything other than nostalgia-bait? he isnt a main character, he's a one-off villain (well, one movie and one episode) who happened to be pretty damn memorable.
eh...i dont have much faith in the sequel anyway. the first one was decent, considering the usual quality of star trek films, but if theyre even thinking of putting khan in, this will truly be a creatively bankrupt movie.
eh...i dont have much faith in the sequel anyway. the first one was decent, considering the usual quality of star trek films, but if theyre even thinking of putting khan in, this will truly be a creatively bankrupt movie.
Huh, so sharing an opinion equals shit now. Fancy that.Akalabeth said:
You don't like my opinion? Fine. Differences in opinion occur all the time.
Jumping to conclusions based on the thinnest of correlations and possible hatred of someone else to JUSTIFY your protest of my opinion and to subtly insult me?
No, that's bullshit. And I'm calling YOU out on it.
Fact is: Your entire argument against me is one huge fallacy (Correlation is not Causality) desperately trying to support another fallacy (Poisoning the Well/Smearing) and failing.
Go ahead and doubt me. I have my own doubts about you. I doubt you gave a fuck about anything beyond the potential to insult someone on the internet.
2 out 2 isn't erratic or inconsistent; Ergo, it's constant. Your persistence in this proves me right.
Your post was intentionally insulting me. How is that anything but childish?
Hiding behind pidgeon-hole-statements ("victim strategy") and poor logic doesn't change the facts.
"Your opinion is invalid because someone else had it first! I can't prove how you arrived at your opinion at all, but I'm going to state it as fact and preach to you anyway!"
Well, since we're discussing opinions (specifically, my opinion): How does it degrade my experience?
When I see specific imagery or hear old lines used without the original context, it takes me out of the movie. Why? Because I tire of nostalgia exploitation.
So, as an example, here's my own opinion on a few points in that movie.
I doubt you will read it, and continue on your crusade, or whatever the point of your post is, but at that point I am beyond trying to reason with you.
: JJ Abram's Star Trek wasn't bad on its own merits, but certain scenes struck me as being removed from their original context. The Kobayishi Maru test in particular struck me as odd and completely misused.
I thought it was a test of morality in the face of inevitable death; more than the captain leading his/her own crew into death.
Remember: The captain could very well ignore the distress call since it violates the law to enter the Neutral Zone, even for a rescue; yet, if the captain chooses the life of his/her crew over that of innocent civilians, it's still the weight of death upon his/her conscience.
"How we deal with death, is as important as how we deal with life."
So even in this, there was no clear "win-win" solution. It's a literal no-win scenario, even if you do survive.
Abrams turned it into a plot hook for Kirk and Spock to start out at odds with each other, but he did so by changing the nature of the test. Now, it's apparently some sort of vague stress test ("The purpose is to experience fear").
I assumed originally that it was the fear of death, but apparently not. Rather than receiving a commendation, Kirk was punished for his line of thinking; which fits into Kirk's character, but betrays his backstory; this WAS supposed to be an interpretation of a character origin story, right?
If they're keeping certain establishing elements of the canon, but eliminating others, doesn't it defeat the purpose of using those original elements to begin with EXCEPT as nostalgia-bombs?
That sort of thing took me out of the experience, and I didn't quite know why the first time I saw it. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of "blunt adaptations" in films; I prefer a bit more subtlety. It took me years before I realized that Star Trek 2 was directly quoting Moby Dick; not just its themes.
Same thing with the names of the protagonists in "Splice" (Elsa and Clive, cute).
Which brings me back to my original example: So why use the Kobayashi Maru test at all? Nostalgia. It's incredibly well-known in sci-fi culture and even in pop culture to a lesser degree.
As for the filler...eh. I admit it wasn't as bad as most action movies. Every scene featuring Nero made little sense to me except to remind the audience that he was still there, and that he still hated Spock. I'll chock that up to weak characterization though; Khan had a genuine obsession, and showed passion in his ruthless pursuit of Kirk.
Aside from that: Mr Scott getting flushed through the bowels of the Enterprise or Mr. Sulu getting into a sword fight seemed highly distracting and fairly unnecessary.
Kirk getting into that fight...I kind of understood. Kirk knew he was expendable at that point and was trying to prove his worth; after all Kirk wasn't even supposed to be on the Enterprise), but why was the ship's navigator getting into death-defying swordfights? I thought they had people for that?
If this alternate-Starfleet was supposed to be more militaristic (based on the designs of their ships, it sure seems as though the new Enterprise has WAY MORE point defense weaponry on it now), why aren't there special ops teams or "marines"?
I thought it was a test of morality in the face of inevitable death; more than the captain leading his/her own crew into death.
Remember: The captain could very well ignore the distress call since it violates the law to enter the Neutral Zone, even for a rescue; yet, if the captain chooses the life of his/her crew over that of innocent civilians, it's still the weight of death upon his/her conscience.
"How we deal with death, is as important as how we deal with life."
So even in this, there was no clear "win-win" solution. It's a literal no-win scenario, even if you do survive.
Abrams turned it into a plot hook for Kirk and Spock to start out at odds with each other, but he did so by changing the nature of the test. Now, it's apparently some sort of vague stress test ("The purpose is to experience fear").
I assumed originally that it was the fear of death, but apparently not. Rather than receiving a commendation, Kirk was punished for his line of thinking; which fits into Kirk's character, but betrays his backstory; this WAS supposed to be an interpretation of a character origin story, right?
If they're keeping certain establishing elements of the canon, but eliminating others, doesn't it defeat the purpose of using those original elements to begin with EXCEPT as nostalgia-bombs?
That sort of thing took me out of the experience, and I didn't quite know why the first time I saw it. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of "blunt adaptations" in films; I prefer a bit more subtlety. It took me years before I realized that Star Trek 2 was directly quoting Moby Dick; not just its themes.
Same thing with the names of the protagonists in "Splice" (Elsa and Clive, cute).
Which brings me back to my original example: So why use the Kobayashi Maru test at all? Nostalgia. It's incredibly well-known in sci-fi culture and even in pop culture to a lesser degree.
As for the filler...eh. I admit it wasn't as bad as most action movies. Every scene featuring Nero made little sense to me except to remind the audience that he was still there, and that he still hated Spock. I'll chock that up to weak characterization though; Khan had a genuine obsession, and showed passion in his ruthless pursuit of Kirk.
Aside from that: Mr Scott getting flushed through the bowels of the Enterprise or Mr. Sulu getting into a sword fight seemed highly distracting and fairly unnecessary.
Kirk getting into that fight...I kind of understood. Kirk knew he was expendable at that point and was trying to prove his worth; after all Kirk wasn't even supposed to be on the Enterprise), but why was the ship's navigator getting into death-defying swordfights? I thought they had people for that?
If this alternate-Starfleet was supposed to be more militaristic (based on the designs of their ships, it sure seems as though the new Enterprise has WAY MORE point defense weaponry on it now), why aren't there special ops teams or "marines"?
Better get your Parthian Shot in quick; I won't be seeing your posts again soon after this.
