|
I'm not bothered by this considering Wrath of Khan was very specifically set later in both the character's lives after they had already encountered each other once. Khan's motivations should be unique in this film, especially since things probably play out differently due to the altered timeline. They aren't trying to remake Wrath of Khan. They are just introducing the character to this new timeline, which isn't really a problem considering how well-liked the character is.
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Man I was much more hyped when it was Edgar Ramirez. In Carlos he was already playing a handsome, charismatic, international, brilliant, and dangerous leader and he would have been perfect if he had just done that in space. I like Cumberbatch but trying to imagine him as a charming genetic superman doesn't really work for me. Wonder if they'll do a flashback to the 90s.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
LooseChanj posted:There's the problem. Given how the franchise was rebooted, he should be identical to the Khan who appeared in the original tv episode. Well the split in the timeline happened like ~30-35 years before Space Seed, right? Maybe a Vulcan refugee ship runs into the Botany Bay on the way somewhere and Khan has a much different introduction to the future. Why future Spock didn't mention it to new Starfleet (along with, say, Vger, the whale probe, the Borg, ...) to nip it in the bud.....
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
JohnnySavs posted:Why future Spock didn't mention it to new Starfleet (along with, say, Vger, the whale probe, the Borg, ...) to nip it in the bud..... If the Nimoy cameo is for Old Spock to phone up the Enterprise and be like, "Yeah, Khan, I met this guy a couple times," I think that would be pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
Star Trek II 2: Wrath of Wrath of Khan
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
JohnnySavs posted:Well the split in the timeline happened like ~30-35 years before Space Seed, right? Maybe a Vulcan refugee ship runs into the Botany Bay on the way somewhere and Khan has a much different introduction to the future. I did like that Simon Pegg made a tweet a while ago when he realized that now we're gonna need to find some whales all over again.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Well, I was anxiously looking forward to this movie. Now I'm more curious how he will pull it off. Don't get me wrong, Abrahams is more than capable, but there's many routes he can go and only a handful that are right.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
I don't care how good the movie is, if somebody doesn't shout "KHAAAAN" during it, it's bad 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
Should have been Gary Mitchell or Sybok. I never understood why Sybok was so hated. Obviously Sarek would have been betrothed to a Vulcan princess before Amanda. Such an underrated film. Best music of them all too I think.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
It's somewhat telling of how narrow minded the Trek execs have been since Wrath of Khan as they're always trying to find some clunky way to reference the Kahn/Kirk dynamic be it Gorkon eating the scenery or Shinzon trying to outdo Picard. However there's far more room to adapt Kahn than it seems. The Eugenics Wars haven't been elaborated on and at the start of JJ Trek Kahn is floating around in a chilly bin waiting for the inevitable investigation by the Enterprise. What's going to be weird is that Khan was written to be a literal Genghis Khan in space which doesn't quite fit the look of the actor. However Cumberbatch is a pretty solid actor - watch him in Atonement for an idea of how he can play someone who's a seductive villain - I can sort of see him working his charm on Uhrua much to the chagrin of Spock.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
^ In the commentary for Generations the writers say the Paramount suits handed them a laundry list of plot points the film was required to have and one of them was literally something like, "a grandiose villain like Khan."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
They could make it totally different with a young Khan if they wanted. Just have them be fighting Klingons when they find him and then they team up against the loving Klingons but then Khan tries to take over the ship and they toss him and oh no he ends up leading the loving Klingons for the third act!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:They could make it totally different with a young Khan if they wanted. Just have them be fighting Klingons when they find him and then they team up against the loving Klingons but then Khan tries to take over the ship and they toss him and oh no he ends up leading the loving Klingons for the third act! Yea I'm not sure why so many assume this is a Wrath of Khan remake. I really hope we see young Khan, since it'd be far less of a time jump if we're sticking to following the general flow of the originals. Hell, it even sets Khan up to be a figure that could actually return, just have it end with the whole 'you've beaten me, and I respect you as a foe for it' thing instead of Nero's "FIRE EVERYTHING *falls into a giant trap and dies like a dumbass*" method and bam, instant plotline for a future movie that totally fits with what we've seen already established for Kirk/Khan.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
I guess I'm in the minority in not looking forward to this film and not caring for JJ Trek. To me it was a boring, paint by numbers, recycled story retold in a hipster tone. The performances were good, but Abrams to me is like a beautiful woman who is lousy in the sack. I've expected great things from his work, but have been disappointed every time, finding his work to be derivative (much like all of Hollywood these days). Its almost like the Family Guy/manatee episode of South Park where you grab random topics and mash them together for a story. "Hey - let's remake the Goonies with E.T and call it Super 8 to reenforce the nostalgia we will invoke in our audience.". Cumberbatch is very talented, and will probably be awesome, but revisiting Khan shows how creatively bankrupt they are. If you're going to say that the first movie kicks off an alternative timeline, then why in the world would you ignore the endless possibilities open to you to riff on the Trek universe and instead reuse a classic villain from both TOS and ST2 ? I guess I'm just a jaded old man, but they could have done so much more with the reboot instead of repackaging old ideas in an ironic T-shirt. Edit: I thought Nimoy announced his complete retirement from acting about a year ago ? (How is old Spock going to keep his Vulcan cool around the guy that killed Kirk's son and who is also responsible for killing Spock's original incarnation ?) ColonelPanic fucked around with this message at 22:20 on May 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
ColonelPanic posted:Edit: I thought Nimoy announced his complete retirement from acting about a year ago ? He did. He said after filming his scenes in Fringe S2 that it was his retirement from acting, and specifically said he wouldn't be in the next Trek movie because it was time to pass the torch. He's done a bit of voice work since, but I'm pretty sure that's it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
So let me get this straight: Khan, whose name sounds Indian, was played by a Hispanic guy, and people are getting all up in arms over race now? He was all over the place to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Crozier Saves posted:So let me get this straight: Khan, whose name sounds Indian, was played by a Hispanic guy, and people are getting all up in arms over race now? He was all over the place to begin with. Whitewashing is an ongoing issue in American cinema and every instance should have attention drawn to it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Crozier Saves posted:So let me get this straight: Khan, whose name sounds Indian, was played by a Hispanic guy, and people are getting all up in arms over race now? He was all over the place to begin with. You mean to say that a non-white character was played by a non-white actor? A Latino in "tanface", no less...44 years ago, and that's going to be your standard, now? At least 44 years ago they decided to hire someone who wasn't whiter than Kirk for the role of an Indian. 2012, however, and we're back to square one.  Not even considered, I bet.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
ColonelPanic posted:To me it was a boring, paint by numbers, recycled story retold in a hipster tone. I can understand someone being bored by the film. That's fine. But recycled? Sure, the script was kinda weak due to there being a very limited chance at rewrites due to the writer's strike, but the movie was far from recycled. What was it recycled from? Not any previous Trek film, nor any space action adventure movie I can remember. Also, I'd love clarification on how it was told in a hipster tone. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
ColonelPanic posted:but they could have done so much more with the reboot instead of repackaging old ideas in an ironic T-shirt. There wasn't an OUNCE of irony in Trek 09.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
ColonelPanic posted:I guess I'm in the minority in not looking forward to this film and not caring for JJ Trek. To me it was a boring, paint by numbers, recycled story retold in a hipster tone. So do you call anything you don't like "hipster"?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think I'd be more enthusiastic if the last two Trek films hadn't also had Khan-esque villains- one guy driven by vengeance over the death of his homeworld, another guy driven by anger about... something, I dunno, I've blocked out most of Nemesis. I'm not sure if you're saying this exactly, but I think Star Trek (movies) work best when the Enterprise is up against real people instead of concepts or just in general getting too sci-fi-y. It was funny after reading your post that I thought "it should be like... a series of pirate movies. Great captains and their crews facing off, except in space." And then Jersualem posted this a couple posts down: Jerusalem posted:I'll also be happy so long as we get more stuff like this: If that isn't a boat majestically cresting a wave then I don't know what it is.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
WebDog posted:It's somewhat telling of how narrow minded the Trek execs have been since Wrath of Khan as they're always trying to find some clunky way to reference the Kahn/Kirk dynamic be it Gorkon eating the scenery or Shinzon trying to outdo Picard. I realize we're all talking about on-screen stuff, but The Eugenics Wars do get a decent explanation in book form. A two book series, "The Eugenics Wars Vol. 1 & 2: The Rise And Fall Of Kahn Noonien Singh." Provides a lot of backstory for Kahn, and the wars. As a bonus, you get a lot of stuff with Gary Seven.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
Honestly, there's enough story behind Khan that they could totally bring him back without making it a WoK rehash.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Like most people I enjoyed the 2009 star trek movie, but I'm also torn about seeing this follow-up as I'm severely disturbed by the very obvious white-washing going on here. You have a new Star Trek movie that has a less racially diverse cast than a Star Trek movie made 30 years ago. Just that fact alone really kills my interest as it seems that Hollywood is getting WORSE with respect casting non-white actors in big roles.
G-III fucked around with this message at 04:55 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Its late, my meds have kicked in and and I'm half asleep, but I'll try to explain my previous comments on JJ Trek/Star Trek 2009, as they seem to have come off as overly harsh. A few of the many plot elements that I found to be recycled: The unstoppable genocidal threat from Nero/The Narada = the Borg = the energy cloud from ST1 = the whale aliens from ST4 = Annorax from Voyager = the Death Star = Galactus = etc. The villain motivated by revenge over the loss of his family = Khan in ST2, among many others Nero's torture method for captives = Khan's torture method for captives Kirk Senior's death is the corollary to the death of Sysco's wife as explained in DS9. Delta Vega = Hoth from Empire Strikes Back, complete with snow beast *********************************************************************** As to my "hipster" and "ironic" comment, I was referring more to the tone of the film with respect to its handling of the basic well-known Star Trek elements. I felt that it was trying to make every touchpoint with past Treks "cool" in a somewhat condescending manner. It seemed to me that Abrams was continously winking at the audience by exaggerating each of the main character's most well known personality traits and using them as comic relief, or even fabricating new ones. For example, Kirk as the ladies man (complete with an Orion girl), Sulu's fencing skills, Chekov's exaggerated accent, Scotty presented as a general goofball nutjob complete with a little alien sidekick. I sound like I was offended that the material wasn't handled with more reverence, but that's not it. To me, it felt like Breakfast Club Trek in parts. I felt that the source material was almost being mocked, just as Kirk was mocking Star Fleet by eating an apple during the "fixed" Kobayashi Maru exercise. That scene's direction choices turned Kirk's rebelliousness into a general disrespect towards Star Fleet. I kind of see that as a metaphor for Abram's opinion of Trek fans. Anyway, I hope you can get where I'm coming from. I'll clean this up in the AM and make it more intelligible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:So do you call anything you don't like "hipster"? No, I actually rarely use that adjective and when I do it is almost always in reference to a bar.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
^Nice of you to articulate your thoughts, ColonelPanic, just watch out because SMG is gonna come in here and tell you "of course it's being disrespectful to Star Trek and its fans, because they deserve to be disrespected they suck and that's why this movie's good" and when he doesn't get an overly defensive response from a Trek fan he will continue trying to bait them with various "This is the only good Star Trek film" comments at a high frequency even though no one bites.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
lizardman posted:^Nice of you to articulate your thoughts, ColonelPanic, just watch out because SMG is gonna come in here and tell you "of course it's being disrespectful to Star Trek and its fans, because they deserve to be disrespected they suck and that's why this movie's good" and when he doesn't get an overly defensive response from a Trek fan he will continue trying to bait them with various "This is the only good Star Trek film" comments at a high frequency even though no one bites. WoooooOOOOOOOOoooooo, SMG is coooomiiiing for yoooouuuu! Watch out for his asseeeertively-phraaaaaased opinioooooons!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
I hear SMG appears when you say his name three times in front of a mirror (hence why we always abbreviate it).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I hear SMG appears when you say his name three times in front of a mirror (hence why we always abbreviate it). SuperMechaGodzilla SuperMechaGodzilla SuperMechaGodzilla And I said that in front of a mirrored finished, too.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Dude hasn't even read my past Trek opinions. I consider Star Trek 2009 the proper culmination of an unoffical trilogy started by The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan. Yes, I think it's better than those - but only marginally. Star Trek 2009 is disrespectful to some Star Trek fans in the sense that it's specifically designed of a condemnation of everything that had happened to the franchise late in its life (like the notion that it must be a franchise), culminating in Nemesis. Its closest equivalent is probably Godzilla 2000, with its specific attacks on the worst Godzilla films and its return to the thematic roots of the series - without pretending that the intervening 50 years hadn't happened. The implicit point, in either case, is that a proper fan has the ability to think critically about these artworks as art, instead of as 'expanded universes', franchises, simulations, or what have you. Star Trek 2009 treats "Star Trek" first and foremost as an aesthetic. That's why it's great.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Dude hasn't even read my past Trek opinions. I consider Star Trek 2009 the proper culmination of an unoffical trilogy started by The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan. Yes, I think it's better than those - but only marginally. I summoned the beast. and it was for the better. SMG, everything you say is spot on. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
I'm sure everyone's sick of everyone else's opinion of Trek '09. I'll be brief. Good: Well made popcorn flick. Discarded a lot of Trek's bullshit. Got a new generation of people interested in Trek to check out all the old movies and TV shows. Bad: Narrative regression in a franchise that professed to be progressive. Pseudo-nostalgic imagery was large part of the appeal... which is both well-calculated yet kind-of cheap. Abrams is skilled enough of a filmmaker that he could have "won" an audience over with new characters, but played it safe by riding Hollywood's reboot machine with his own flavor. Style over substance. Also, plot holes. Since what's done is done, I'll just hope we get a few good action/adventure stories with the reboot without being totally dumbed down. And hopefully in another decade or so, the torch can be "passed down" to new characters and new sci-fi ideas, rather than be "passed back" again. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 09:36 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
The problem with the Trek franchise is that it's too safe and has too large a canon. It's like trying to tell a new Superman story or something. You're either going to run afoul of the 'rules' or you're going to end up retreading stories that have already been told before.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 09:47
|
|
|
Barometer posted:
That dude has about as much gravitas as my balls. I have seen him in two non Daily Show related roles, and he was basically just his character on the Daily Show. One of those should not have had me expect every line he delivered to end with him looking at the camera and saying "Jon?"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Trek 2009 treats "Star Trek" first and foremost as an aesthetic. That's why it's great. If anyone can make the slightest amount of sense of this sentence I would love to hear it. What a meaningless puff of a comment.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Pretty sure he means that the film treats Star Trek chiefly as a sensory space/setting in which certain narratives can thrive, rather than as a rigid world to be documented and all its elements measured against established canon. Tying into the new film, this is why it shouldn't be tripping up anyone's canon alarm that the new Khan doesn't look anything like the old Khan; that's misplacing priorities. The whitewashing is problematic as a social aspect of the current Hollywood system, but not as a contradiction of Star Trek Facts. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 10:58 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:If anyone can make the slightest amount of sense of this sentence I would love to hear it. What a meaningless puff of a comment. It's a setting rather than a set continuity. There are Klingons and the Enterprise and a Starfleet but it's not behoven to choices made a few decades earlier. A good analogy of this is probably Inglourious Basterds - it uses the "setting" of WW2 without being behoven to the continuity of how the war concluded, and still made an interesting film out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
I was looking forward to this movie, now you guys are making me rethink. drat you! :P
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 11:16
|
|