I would have preferred a Romulan War movie myself, but right now I am just relieved that (a) this will not be a reboot and that (b) Berman and Braga will be nowhere near it!
-MMoM Posted by Kobi (Member # 1360) on :
I hope they realise that Spock was already a commissioned officer when Kirk left Academy ... and let us pray to the Great Bird that they don't make the Lieutenant Kirk before graduation nonsense canon ...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Mr. Grey? There is a reason the Starfleet Academy story has never been made. IT'S STUPID! This is a drastic understatement, but I'm tired and about to go to bed.
Dear God, if this gets made it'll probably kill Trek for good.
--Jonah
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kobi: I hope they realise that Spock was already a commissioned officer when Kirk left Academy ... and let us pray to the Great Bird that they don't make the Lieutenant Kirk before graduation nonsense canon ...
When did each of them graduate? Is there any specific canon information? All I can find are general references to the 2250s
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, my initial response was "How does this idea suck any less now than it did fifteen years ago when Harve Bennett first pushed it?"
I'm assuming it would be set chronologically before "The Cage" so that gives them more leeway in terms of design (sets, costumes, props). I don't think you can have Kirk on the Enterprise-nul before he becomes her captain though, so will be we saddled with yet another previously-unmentioned variant? 'Cause the dedication plaque must be getting pretty long by now - "Sixth Starship To Bear The Name - No, Seventh, Ooops, Tell A Lie, Eighth If You Don't Count That Ring Ship. And the Space Shuttle. Or The Aircraft Carrier(s). And That Galleon Spelled With a 'Z' Which Aren't Starships Anyway."
Then, while having a crap just now, I had this really bizarre casting idea. Josh Hartnett as Spock. He has the right look. Whether he'd do it is a good question, his career post-Pearl Harbour hasn't amounted to shit, but then since Lucky Number Slevin came out he seems to be getting some good press of the "He can actually act, sort of" variety.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
No need for there to be any Enterprise, is there?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, no, but there's a school of thought that'd expect the more casual potential viewer (ie non-Trekkies, an audience the producers're sure to want to attract as much as the fans) with only a passing familiarity with Trek to expect it to be on a USS Enterprise at some point. It can't all be at the Academy.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
My guess is the TOS enterprise will show up at some point in the movie follwed by an overly forseeable line by a newly commissioned Ensign Kirk to the effect of, "Some day, I'm going to be at the helm of one of those... Starfleet's finest... That's who we are Mr. Spock."
I remember at least one view of Kirk's Academy days uniforms. Didn't an old class mate of his show up on a fantasy panet wearing an academy tunic? It was just a grey version of the then-current officer's uniforms. Which makes little sence being that "The Cage" uniforms would have been used in the interim. So I think we have to assume that the uniform Kirk's delussion was wearing was the Academy uniform current to the episode, not Kirk's stint.
Who votes to get Rev's Antares design in as the main ship? I do, I DO!!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Meh. I'm getting sick of all these revival plans. It's too soon. But, if Berman and Braga won't be anywhere near this movie, then that's at least one mitigating factor. I'll withhold judgment, but I'm extremely dubious that this will be any good...
Also, anyone want to place wagers on a William Shatner cameo in a movie featuring a young version of his former character? Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I've got one word to describe this idea: "shit".
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Meh. No more prequels! At BEST, a movie like this willb e left as an afterthought in the franchise. Even if Abrams is in charge, I really doubt it will be anything but mediocre.
Mark
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
After "These are the Voyages", I would be thrilled with mediocre.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I dunno about this...I also think its too soon. And the idea of a young Kirk and Spock makes me nervous. I mean who else other than Shatner could Talk. In. Pauses.
I say let the grapes ferment before making wine. Wait until there's another huge science fiction boom in television and the movies and then try to revive trek. And let's stop whoring out the name Enterprise.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Also, anyone want to place wagers on a William Shatner cameo in a movie featuring a young version of his former character?
What do you mean, with a little makeup, an industrial strength girdle, and the right hair system, Shatner will be able to reprise the younger version of Kirk.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
No, I think he means that Shatner will play some other character that probably interact with young Kirk. I sure hope not.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Or maybe the last vestiges of Nexus-Kirk will return to the Academy to inform Ensign Kirk that if he will get a few buddies together he has an "Idea" that will "train" them how to pass next week's Kobayashi Maru test.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, if there be a new ship... NCC-1000.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Are you just guessing at the registry or are you recommending that transporter accident calendar thing? Because I don't like either of those ideas. I can think of several ways this could be cool. Especially if the Academy was as sneaky and paranoid as that one episode where they made Wesley think people were dying. Like The Prisoner, with SPACE!!!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Shatner as George Kirk. Obviously. (not George Samul "Sam", but their dad.)
I need to clean out my pants after seeing this. Not full of jizz, but of the loose squidgy shit that howitzered from my anus in horror over this whole idea.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Oh great. Now I've got the theme tune in my head.
The Constitution class has been around for, like, a decade. We know Kirk served on the Farragut and the Republic. Written material has him commanding a Destroyer before the Enterprise... We know Spock served with Captain Pike for eleven years before Pike left the Enterprise nd Spock stayed. It was generally presumed that those eleven years were aboard the Enterprise, and that Pike was April's successor, and tht Kirk taking command was the first time he and Spock met.
Besides, anything dealing with the Academy had better have Gary Mitchell.
Also, Kirk being a Lieutenant before graduation is not a problem. We saw several Lieutenant, j.g.'s taking the Kobayashi Maru test in TWOK, all wearing cadet red. Bob Fletcher did that in reference to Kirk and Gary's exchange in "WNM...". Face it, Starfleet Academy does not have to work EXACTLY like a real world military academy.
--Jonah
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well, I for one am cautiously optimistic
"The new film will be a prequel to the original Star Trek series, featuring younger versions of characters like James T. Kirk and Spock. The movie will chronicle events such as their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission into outer space." Doesn't tell us a whole lot more than the setting and some events that may take place. Despite the popular belife that "Starfleet Academy" is the stupidest idea ever, I belive that its just a setting. I don't see any real story details there, so what do we know? Yes, there is the potential for terrible, terrible stories, but we've already seen that those can strike anywhere. There's also the chance that it could be a good story.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Seann William Scott as Kirk. Kiss of death, I tell you.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
TERRY O'QUINN AS: EVERYONE.
(That is all I ask.)
((Also, the whole Lost production staff?))
(((Seriously, Terry O'Quinn, come on.)))
[I sure love all this "YEAH NO BRAGA MOVIE HOORAYS!" seeing as how the TNG films he had nothing to do with were miserable. Yeah, I sure hope we get another awesome Insurrection or Nemesis instead of that lame First Contact, or that. . . OK, I'm not sure what I think of Generations, but it is the second best TNG film.]
((((Terry O'Quinn))))
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'm sorry but again, this idea sounds like absolute shit, not just your regular shit but nasty, smelly, runny shit.
JJ Abrahms etc and the rest of the Lost staff - again sounds like crap - they are busy with a little show at the moment. And if they do it'd have to be done in Lost's Haiatus - and that time period hardly gives even some ACTORS time to do another movie, let alone exec producers/writers/directors who are back at work earlier than the actors preparing the new season.
And if they do go with the Starfleet academy scenario - it is VERY obvious that McCoy and Scotty wouldn't have graduated at the same time as Kirk - neither would have Spock. Chekov and Uhura and Sulu different years as well. People get assigned to ships - they don't just stick together from the Academy.
Dumb, dumb, dumb idea.
If it goes ahead... it will... well they really can't get any lower (as someone said) than "These are the voyages".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well I just looked at Google News and there is a front page 'article' about it!
They speak to some 'normal' sounding Trek fans and they sum up what most think about the idea:
JJ Abrahms = cool Starfleet Academy = not so cool.
--Jonah
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
He's at 24 at the moment...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Where is that H coming from?
(Also, Abrams hasn't actually had much to do with Lost all season, or even for most of the first season, as he's been busy making ((coincidence!)) a movie for Paramount. Lindelof is a hands-on showrunner, though.)
Starfleet Academy doesn't really interest me as a setting either, since learning how to do something is intrinsically less interesting than actually doing it, but TSN wisely tells me that my concern is more suited to a TV series rather than the one-time events of a film. Still, I like Lost more than is socially acceptable, so I will be super excited about this long after all the grim casting details and bizarro plot points come out.
(Seriously seriously: I am excited by this news while fully aware of the potential pitfalls.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I don't really know why everybody is so down on the Starfleet Academy idea. I doubt they're going to go all Scooby-Doo Kids or anything. I see it as an exciting opportunity to revisit the pre-TOS era and to potentially find out more about the Battle of Axanar and the subsequent peace mission in which Kirk participated.
There's nothing canonical that says Kirk and Spock weren't at the Academy together. As a matter of fact, they probably were. Spock apparently entered in 2249. (This can be extrapolated from a line in "Journey To Babel" [TOS], set in 2267, stating that Spock and Sarek had not spoken as father and son for eighteen years prior to the episode.) Michael and Denise Okuda's Star Trek Chronology assumes that Kirk entered a year later, in 2250, when he was seventeen. (This was also in the TOS writer's guide.)
The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 herself is conjectured to have been launched in 2245 in most contemporary sources, but this is rather open to reinterpretation. Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry's The Making Of Star Trek puts her commissioning (or at least the introduction of her class of vessels) even earlier, circa 2228. By 2254 she was under Pike's command and Spock was serving aboard her as science officer. In any case, she was definitely around during this time period.
Gary Mitchell and Kirk were not students at the Academy during the same timeframe. Kirk was his instructor circa 2259, after Kirk had graduated and gone on to serve aboard the U.S.S. Farragut.
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
MMOM: Not that I don't agree with everything you've stated (I do), but do you seriously believe J.J. Abrams or whatever the hell his name is will give two shits about any of that? Or Paramount? They want to make a movie that will make a lot of money. They're not going to care about continuity.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, yeah. I was just trying to point out that there is nothing wrong (continuity-wise) with the basic premise of a movie about Kirk and Spock at the Academy.
-MMoM Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: MMOM: Not that I don't agree with everything you've stated (I do), but do you seriously believe J.J. Abrams or whatever the hell his name is will give two shits about any of that? Or Paramount? They want to make a movie that will make a lot of money. They're not going to care about continuity.
You stole the words right out from under my fingers. Continuity-whores will be having kittens because they sure as hell won't be worrying about Shaemus Finnegan, Gary Mitchell, the Launch date of NCC-1701, the Battle of Axanar or even probably the Kobayashi Maru.
People say Kirk+Spock is doable but it wasn't always about Kirk+Spock TOS was always about Kirk+Spock+McCoy - and to a certain extent the other four.
Which series did fans dub "Boldy going where they've already been"? This is what this smacks of.
Snotty Academy brats. Wasn't that a series of Kids books?
The best Academy Story they've done was the Red Squad take the Valiant. That was brilliant but that was because those kids were such over-zealous arseholes etc. etc. Oh and it was DS9.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I think it will be funny when Spock and Kirk get lost while walking up the always moving stairs of Starfleet Academy, and they have to get a hold of the Fleet Admiral's lost pet as part of a bet and also there will be a group of cadets that are opposed to Kirk and Spock and play pranks on them because they hate aliens and want to keep Starfleet muggl- I mean alien-free.
Damn!
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: MMOM: Not that I don't agree with everything you've stated (I do), but do you seriously believe J.J. Abrams or whatever the hell his name is will give two shits about any of that? Or Paramount? They want to make a movie that will make a lot of money. They're not going to care about continuity.
Who's to say? There is always the chance he has a respect for the source material.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
The idea of an Academy Movie is not what bothers me, its just the fact that the idea just sounds like the rehashing of things that people like the most in Trek, this case Kirk and Spock. It hust doesn't sound original. And AndrewR is right, there were Starfleet Academy books featuring young Kirk and Spock.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I honestly don't like the idea of recasting Kirk and Spock to younger versions of themselves. Sure, it happened in the TNG episode Rascals but everything went back to normal... and frankly it was during the same time period, just explained away with a shuttle accident.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Plus, I mean "Rascals." I'm having trouble imagining any young actor being able to flourish in the shadow of The One True Shatner and The Great Leonard Nimoy. So I'm on board with the idea of Terry O'Quinn as everyone excepting, of course, freshman co-ed Janice Rand (Alexa Davalos).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
They're not going to be kids, you know. They're essentially going to be college students. Which, in American cinema, means they'll be played by 25-year-olds. I'm sure they'll invest a good deal of time and care in casting the parts, as well, since these are two popular culture icons we're talking about.
I wonder if Kirk's earlier encounter with Kodos the Executioner will be mentioned...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
What if they actually use Tom Hardy? I could picture him with a nausican broadsword through his naughty bits. And Paul Bettany as various Andorians.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I can see it now....
Joaquin Phoenix as Kirk Tom Welling as Spock Matt Damon as McCoy Leonardo Dicaprio as Scotty Beyonce as Uhura Jessica Simpson as Rand
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*sobs uncontrollably*
--Jonah
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
The Academy script that was dug up a month or so ago was really good, so if they based the movie on that I'd be quite happy. But due to the quality of recent Treks, it pays to be sceptical, even with the apparent absence of B&B.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Having seen "Jarhead" recently, I keep thinking about how a similar movie would play out if if were set at Starfleet Academy. Certainly, a Trek film would use less colorful language, unless they wanted to make an "edgier" addition to the series...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
And then again, it could turn out to be like the greatest science-fiction film...no, make that the greatest film OF ALL TIME, Starship Troopers.
I=full of shit.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Starship Troopers was fun.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
So many possibilities to work with (the Earth-Romulan War, the missions of the Enterprise-B or C, other ships' experiences during the Dominion War, DS9 or Voyager after season 7, the missions of the Titan, etc.) and this is what they choose? Even if the movie were done well, what would it really add to the Star Trek universe? I personally wouldn't mind a movie based on the Starfleet Corps of Engineers series of e-books.
However, since this movie is supposed to include some of Kirk and Spock's initial space adventures, perhaps they'll use this opportunity to make some of the starships from Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual (e.g., the scout and dreadnaught class ships) canon. Or, perhaps, as in today's navy, they'll show that Starfleet cadets are trained in older ship classes. I wouldn't mind seing a Daedalus-class starship.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Even if the movie were done well, what would it really add to the Star Trek universe?"
A few million dollars?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wait... They made a movie of Starship Troopers? *checks Google*
Oooooohhh, you mean Johnny and the Bug-Men! Yeah. That was fun in its own right (DARK DOOGIE!!!), but it was NOT Starship Troopers.
--Jonah
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Mee-owww. Someone got some spice in their lower GI tract.
If this were my movie, I'd have it be the lady-killer Kirk sorting out that there's more to life than nailing everything with plausibly compatible genetalia. Kirk getting shook-up a bit, realizing he's gonna have to work for utopia.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Broadsword. Chest. Ever.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Boh: Well, I for one am cautiously optimistic
"The new film will be a prequel to the original Star Trek series, featuring younger versions of characters like James T. Kirk and Spock. The movie will chronicle events such as their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission into outer space."
...and their first date, and...
This is a horrid idea. What's more, bitch all you want, Berman and Braga protected Trek from many worse Hollywood hacks.
I can see it now: Collin Farrel as Kirk and Jack Black as Spock...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I was flicking around the channels the other night, came across The Faculty. Literally hours after suggesting Josh Hartnett as Spock. It'll work, I tell you, he has the timbre of voice, the right look. . . Matt Damon as McCoy? Hmm. . .
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Paramount has confirmed that Berman will not be involved.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: MMOM: Not that I don't agree with everything you've stated (I do), but do you seriously believe J.J. Abrams or whatever the hell his name is will give two shits about any of that? Or Paramount? They want to make a movie that will make a lot of money. They're not going to care about continuity.
While I'm not overly mad on this idea, proclaiming this movie to be worse than having one testicle removed and the other infected with AIDS seems a bit over the top. While "great storytelling" doesn't necessarily equal box office success, having a bad movie will do them no favours what so ever.
"They're not going to care about continuity."
They'll care about it as much as they have to. Slightly fudging the dates Spock entered the academy is fine. On the other hand, if they have Dominion joining with the Borg to try and wipe out Starfleet before they finish making peace with the Cardassians, then I will be annoyed.
They won't though.
Really.
"They want to make a movie that will make a lot of money."
The absolute bastards. I hope they burn in hell for that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So they'll have the Romulans and Klingons and Borg working together instead.. I fear that much of what was shown on Enterprise will get scrapped somehow.
I liked Enterprise.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
How much can they screw things up? We're talking about a time period roughly one-hundred years after ENT. What's to scrap?
Klingons would be fine. Cardassians would be fine. Romulans would not be, but I don't think we have to worry about that after NEM.
The decade immediately preceeding TOS is, just as the 2150s were, one that we know very little about, continuity-wise. The fact that we're going to focus on KIRK and SPOCK, already well-established characters from Trek's heyday, represents from the get-go a solid anchor in the extant franchise. I see this as a positive thing.
Will there be a lot of ENT Season Four-style fanwankery? Almost definitely not. Will there be some minor retconning? Quite possibly, just as there has been on every single new Trek project in the past. This is not an inherently negative thing.
I don't understand how people can be so pessimistic so early in the process. What do we even know yet? Really, only that it will feature young Kirk and Spock having their first meeting and space mission together and that all new people will be behind its production. I guess I'm in the minority, but to me it sounds as if we're starting off on the right foot.
-MMoM
P.S.
For the record, I thoroughly enjoyed ENT Season Four and its fanwankery. Continuity porn for its own sake, however, is not the way to make a successful film or to reinvigorate the public's interest in Trek. The basic premise of this film seems to be a compromise that holds much potential. Fans who are already familiar with the franchise will have plenty to interest them, and those who aren't will find an ideal point of entry.
-M Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd be happy with the overall concept if A.) it were not some "academy" thing. too much chance for it becoming "Star Trek: Saved by the Bell"
B.) it used new or undeveloped characters. We all know Kirk, Spock and McCoy ad naseum and their sendoff in STVI was nice closure.
How about Pike as the lead (in an instructor role prior to the mission shown in The Cage) with new characters and possibly Sulu (or someone) familiar in a minor role?
Less cheesy by far than a "this is how they all became pals" movie.
Continuity wise, they could easily do a story thing with a bunch of familliar races (not Cardassians)- as long as they dont do something dunb like say that humans First Contact was with the Bolians or that humans and Klingons are pals or something that obviously changes things.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
My objections would be the same that came up with B5's In The Beginning: "If most of them met up before they were on the station, WHY DID NO ONE REMEMBER ANYONE ELSE?!?"
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Kirk and Spock were already friends when we first saw them together in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS). And who said anything about McCoy? Certainly not either of those TrekToday articles.
As someone above stated, the Academy is merely a location; furthermore, it's quite a plausible one for Kirk and Spock's first meeting. And from the sound of things, it won't be the focus of the entire film:
"The movie will chronicle events such as their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission into outer space."
-MMoM Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There isn't anything ever said about how Kirk knew Spock, or McCoy. I've always found that a little odd. I mean, considering how much dramatic and thematic weight was put on their various interactions. Complicated or detailed backstory wasn't really the style at the time, or so it seems to my decadent modern eyes, granted, but you'd think someone would have dropped it into one of the films. Or something.
(Anyway, shouldn't everyone be excited about Abrams just from his 47 credentials alone? ((OK, not necessarily his specifically.)))
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why could they not be friends from, you know...serving together on a small ship for years at a stretch?!?.
They were the command staff after all: if they did not like each other at least a little, they'd have transferred off.
It doesn't have to be a "and then fate brought them together again on the Enterprise" kinda thing (though it probably will be).
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The problem(s) is (are)... Watch "WNM..." again. Kirk and Gary are friends. Kirk and Spock have just met recently. Presumably when Kirk took command, and Spock remained in his post as Science Officer.
As for McCoy. He was an Earthbound MD, who joined Starfleet as a surgeon to get away from personal problems back home in Georgia. No reason to think he knew any of the others until he was posted to Enterprise.
The early careers of the Big Three, and a lot of the backstory of the supporting characters, and even Pike and April, have been gone into in novels, comics, and role-playing games. I have a fairly detailed picture of the 2250s. Other people have bits and pieces of the same backstory that they cling to. hat's why anything they do in the era which doesn't take into account all that's been written over the last thirty years (HAH!) is going to tick at least SOME people off.
Plus, that whole official timeline is off anyway, but don't get me started...
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not saying they couldn't have just met on the Enterprise. All of them could have met at almost anytime, in any combination for all the show ever said, is my point.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's a great take on Pike in one of the Captain's table novels. Makes him really unique in that he was never real confortable sending others into danger (or, more to the point, the occasional deaths under his command) and liked serving on Earth.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The early careers of the Big Three, and a lot of the backstory of the supporting characters, and even Pike and April, have been gone into in novels, comics, and role-playing games. I have a fairly detailed picture of the 2250s. Other people have bits and pieces of the same backstory that they cling to. hat's why anything they do in the era which doesn't take into account all that's been written over the last thirty years (HAH!) is going to tick at least SOME people off.
. . . Actually, this is the best thing about the whole deal: no matter how much we might get pissed off over continuity violations, there are going to be this whole load of noncanon expanded-universe fanwankers who'll be even more pissed off!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
.....Not quite sure how to take that.
All I'm saying is that, as far as I'm concerned, Kirk and Spock met when Kirk took command, or maybe shortly before. Neither met McCoy until he was posted to the Enterprise] about two years into Kirk's command, at the beginning of his Five-Year Mission.
Prior to Enterprise Kirk commanded a Destroyer that he'd taken command of after the Captain died during a battle.
Spock is one of the only -- if not THE only -- Vulcans in Starfleet at the time.
And the problem is compounded by both the official and fanwanker chronologies being significantly off.
And we're probably going to see more of Okuda's retcnning of the registries of the era. Sorry, Mike -- your system didn't start until around 2288 or so...
*sigh*
--Jonah
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's great that you believe that. Really, it is. Unfortunately, the percentage of the potential audience that have built up a "detailed image of the 2250s" through the novels is roughly 0.0001%. And I think they can do without the people who declare First Contact the worst Trek film ever because the registries on the new classes are a bit low.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: My objections would be the same that came up with B5's In The Beginning: "If most of them met up before they were on the station, WHY DID NO ONE REMEMBER ANYONE ELSE?!?"
On the other hand, "In the Beginning" is generally considered to be pretty good. Certainly the best of the B5 movies (which, admittedly, isn't saying much.) It's also different than Trek, as there never was a scene where everyone "got together" in TOS. I still don't see how WHMHGB proves that Kirk has just met Spock.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Your mission, should you choose to accept it - support all of your claims made in this thread based SOLELY on FILMED/AIRED material.
Star Trek novels are not canon. There was never as much care taken with the various novels as there has been with the Star Wars novels. That's why in some novels Uhura's first name is Penda.
The information about McCoy joining Starfleet to escape from problems at home in Georgia are through the novels and, perhaps, even from the writer's bible, but I do not recall any on-screen mentions or references to these events. Even the existance of his daughter, Joanna, isn't strictly canon (thanks to changes made to WTE). Is there ever any dialogue stating he's from Georgia? It's obvious he's southern, but that's it, isn't it?
Now, some facts first mentioned in novels have become canon. The T in James T Kirk is Tiberius. Sulu's first name is Hikaru.
Dialogue from WNMHGB implies that Kirk and Spock have only recently met. Nothing is ever stated, but the implication is there.
There is no evidence supporting Spock being the only Vulcan in Starfleet. That was always implied or assumed, but never explicitly stated. In fact, the opposite is implied to be true with the loss of the starship Intrepid manned by over 400 Vulcans. If the Intrepid was a Starfleet vessel, then these Vulcans were part of Starfleet.
If this crew knew each other prior to meeting on the Enterprise, the galaxy is indeed a small place. How many command staffs on a U.S. Navy ship knew each other from their Academy days? And these people are from a much smaller location (the U.S., as opposed to the whole Earth, Luna, Mars area). Credibility is a little strained on this point, and is strained further when you factor in ages (if Kirk, for example, is more than 5 years older than Uhura or Sulu or Chekov).
I've always thought Spock was older than Kirk. Again, if their ages are more than 5 years apart, then it's less likely they new each other at the academy, unless one was an instructor.
In fact, Spock's death scene in STII:TWOK implies Kirk didn't know much about Spock's Academy experience (Spock had to tell Kirk; "I never took the Kobyashi Maru. What did you think of my solution?") Of course, you could take that line as Spock stating/reminding Kirk of already known information.
But the casual fan won't pay attention to continuity point any more than they do on any other show. And the casual fan is where the big bucks are earned, not the hard-core ones.
Romulans COULD be used in a movie set during the Academy days. Mr. Stiles from BOT had family that fought the Romulans and he definitely seemed to have heard first-hand accounts of those battles.
I used to be of the opinion that a Starfleet Academy concept wouldn't work all that well, but, after reading Heinlin's Starship Troopers and Space Cadet, I've changed my mind somewhat. I think they could do a viable series based around the Academy and different training situations, but I'm still not sold on a movie idea. Some concepts work better on the small screen than the large.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The blessing and curse of the movie format is that there will have to be a Big Story, High Intrigue Thing to drive the events.
This means that there is less room for fluff - so there are less chances for the writers to get details wrong, and less reason to insist that we should see Finnegan or Ben Finney or Carol Marcus or Mallory or Garrovick. Those people could have been present during the events, but would not have warranted a mention because the Big Story, High Intrigue Thing was so much more prominent.
Unfortunately, this also means that the writers have to come up with said story. Will it be cliched and dull "teens (or young adults, or whatever you call hot bodies nowadays) struggle with Issues while supposedly studying" stuff? Or will it be such a galaxy-shattering event that the audience cannot suspend disbelief that the meddling kids and their Vulcan solved it all?
I'd perhaps take the latter if I could choose. But I fear the answer could be "both of the above".
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: (thanks to changes made to WTE).
WTE?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Way to Eden?? Maybe?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Correct.
In the original script the character that went on to become Chekov's old flame was originally Joanna McCoy.
Or something like that.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: But the casual fan won't pay attention to continuity point any more than they do on any other show. And the casual fan is where the big bucks are earned, not the hard-core ones.
You raise many god points, Herb, but I don't feel this is one of them. That's where the bucks are for a MEDIOCRE film, as the hard-core fans either see it once and then stomp off in a huff, or stay away altogether.
My parents are divorced, and each has remarried. My dad saw all three of the Lord of the Rings movies once at the cinema, with my step-mother and a couple friends. I rousted my mom and step-dad to out of the house to go see Return of the King (they had only seen the other two on DVD). For the trilogy? A grand total of fourteen ticket sold to six different people.
I will leave my girlfriend and other friends I saw those movies with out of this equation. I personally say the three movies a grand total of ten times in the cinema.
For six casual fans, they sold fourteen tickets. For one hard-core fan, they sold ten. Good story and good film-making get a response from the people who care about the subject matter. Even Revenge of the Sith, with all its continuity issues, I saw five times before it left theatres. If George had assistance with the script, and hired a better director, it probably would have been more.
The only Trek movie I've seen more than once was TVH. Which I saw twice. I probably would have seen TWOK more than once, were I not seven at the time. *shrug*
New Line and Twentieth-Century Fox took a gamble and decided to spend what they needed to get a quality porduct (LOTR, X-Men), and it paid off big time. Paramount cuts as many budgetary corners as it can, and ends up with an adequate (barely) product THAT WILL NEVER BRING THEM IN IN DROVES! You need to go balls-to-the-wall with science fiction or it will seem at least a little... off.
I even saw Insurrection twice, despite my problems with it, because I liked he story and I wanted to support Trek at a time when viewership was flagging. My reward? They gave me Nemesis -- the only movie I've ever walked out in the middle of IN MY LIFE, and my movie-viewing life goes back to when I was two-and-a-half years old.
So, to wrap up this rather-longer-than-I-intended post, make a movie that appeals to both the casual fans AND the hard-core ones. THAT's where the big bucks are -- not in alienating a potentially very lucrative minority. If my parents had been serious Tolkien fans like me... Six casual fans and me = twenty-four tickets sold to seven people; seven me's = sixty tickets sold to seven people.
Seems simple enough...
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
How is hiring a production team with huge buzz behind them "cutting corners?"
Also, fans are worth nothing. Zero. Possibly they're even a detriment to a movie's success. (Serenity. What happened? The world is run by the Devil, is what.)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Even Revenge of the Sith, with all its continuity issues, I saw five times before it left theatres.
But but but but but... you are so far in the minority here it's almost impossible to make you out. Of all the things in that film that annoy people (Hayden's super acting, "oh, I've killed Mace I'd better be evil now", gratuatous Chewie stuff, younglings as a word for children, "noooooooo!") you were annoyed by the continuity issues?
(And I actually dread to ask this, but...what were they? Cos I can't really think of anything.)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Revenge of the Sith was the most pointless amount of pap - but not as bad as the first two.
What royally pissed me off with that movie was that it was going along great guns and then Lucas went "oh shit I have to wrap this up and fit everything in to tie it in with episode 4!"
ep 1 and ep 2 should have been one movie and ep 3 should have been fleshed out into two movies.
BTW does anyone know where you can see that Phantom Edit fan edit of The Phantom Menace - I remember they basically cut all the cutesy Annakin stuff out and most of the Jar Jar Binks stuff and where he was left in they scrambled the voice to make it sound alien and put subtitles in to make him sound rather wise.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I really can't see this movie as anything that will "alienate the fans" any more than VGR, ENT, and NEM. While I have no concrete evidence to back this up at the moment, I rather think that a new story about Kirk and Spock would be welcomed by most Trekkies.
I certainly don't care what some novel from the 70s said, and neither will the vast majority of any Trek audience. I mean, it's been very clearly established that the print franchise is a separate enitity. We all know the ground rules. It's not as if that stuff hasn't been contradicted already by contemporary Trek.
On a not-too-closely-related note, I've notcied that there's been kind of a trend towards stylistically "retro" movies within the sci-fi/fantasy genre over the past several years--Sky Captain and the World Of Tomorrow, the Star Wars prequels, Van Helsing, Hellboy, Sin City, V For Vendetta, etc. For the most part, I've enjoyed it, and I can envision this new-old Star Trek film as part of it.
-MMoM Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Will they keep the feel of the old series - colours, designs etc. or revamp it for a modern movie - if they do - that will truely suck. The Defiant in the Enterprise Mirror universe when lit in a modern way and filmed with modern film styles looked very cool.
Andrew
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: How is hiring a production team with huge buzz behind them "cutting corners?"
Also, fans are worth nothing. Zero. Possibly they're even a detriment to a movie's success. (Serenity. What happened? The world is run by the Devil, is what.)
If only! I'd have won Lotto by now! contrary to popular beief, Satan's not that bad a boss, once you get to know him, anyway...
quote:BTW does anyone know where you can see that Phantom Edit fan edit of The Phantom Menace - I remember they basically cut all the cutesy Annakin stuff out and most of the Jar Jar Binks stuff and where he was left in they scrambled the voice to make it sound alien and put subtitles in to make him sound rather wise.
EpII on the Imax cut most of the "riding a bull and rolling in the grass" stuff. Made things flow much better.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Incidentally, I meant to include King Kong in my list of "retro" films.
Carry on.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Apparently, its all a bunch of lies. Well, the 'story' information anyway.
Posted by CoffeeAddictMike (Member # 144) on :
So... he might end up with TNG again? He might as well finish up two more movies for the Next Generation crew... the search and reovery of Data.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Five times? I don't think I've seen a single film in the cinema more than twice. FIVE TIMES?! And Revenge of the Sith, at that?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*huh...* My two notions for what might make a good movie would be Captain April taking the Enterprise out for the first time, even if it doesn't follow Diane Carey's notion of what happened (lot of errors there anyway). Could get Rod to play the role, since he looks so much like his dad it's scary.
Or else something contemporary with Ambassador Spock on a peacemaking mission to Cardassia or the Dominion, when things go awry. Especially cool if it includes the little bit from the recent Relaunch novel that he married Saavik sometime after 2327. Especially since Kirstie Alley is looking so much better...
Each one has a recognisable icon to anchor the casual fan's focus. Then we'd be freed up to get an otherwise unpredictable story. Which would be nice to have from Hollywood for a change... But I personally feel that the Original Series cast IN THAT ERA is off limits. They shouldn't be recast, and The Undiscovered Country was a good farewell. Something right before or right after would be cool, though.
--Jonah
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Rod? Surely you don't mean. . ?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, shit. Nevermind, then.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
None other but Eugene Wesley Roddenberry II.
--Jonah
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
So how many messages do you think Abrams has on his phone left by Takei? It's been about a week now, so.. pfft, five hundred?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I woudn't mind a pre-Tomed Incident story involving the Excelsior and the Enterprise-B, even though I know it'll never happen.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Fuck The Excelsior idea- it's waaaaay too late for that.
I'd like to see something sweeping with a (gasp!) peaceful exploration theme. How much idiotic "inspired by today's headlines" do we really need to see.
Mabye a post-Dominion War story with an Alpha Quadrant at peacetime and an exploration mission with the major powers sending representives on a ship...mabye even into the Gamma Quadrant(allowing for some guest cameos).
Anything but re-hashing the past: Enterpise did a good job of it and still failed miserably.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I had a thought the otherday - Spock's role on Romulus was left open-ended - he may take a look at that?
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Isn't Nimoy retired?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Retired" just means "wants waaay more money". He did those Priceline commercials after all.
I think he gave up the movie biz mostly to stay close to his family (IIRC).
Not that I think anyone wants to see more Romulan anything for a long long while.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
A final chapter for Spock would be awesome however - something that actually brings his efforts to bridge his "halves" to a close.
I'd actually like to see a cerebral trek story again, but I don't think it will ever happen.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Thing is Nemesis was more a Reman/Human crazy clone movie not a Romulan movie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: A final chapter for Spock would be awesome however - something that actually brings his efforts to bridge his "halves" to a close.
I'd actually like to see a cerebral trek story again, but I don't think it will ever happen.
No Trek movie has ever, in any way, been "cerebral".
While I agree that the the resolution of Spock's work would be nice, it would also eliminate the Romulans as baddies (and trek has a derth of intresting villans).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
TMP was cerebral.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: "Retired" just means "wants waaay more money". He did those Priceline commercials after all.
I think he gave up the movie biz mostly to stay close to his family (IIRC).
Not that I think anyone wants to see more Romulan anything for a long long while.
Well, a commercial isn't exactly a difficult or some consuming role. A simple one can be shoot in an afternoon.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
His line "...they may yet live" makes me wonder if he'll be giving Shatner a bell. Considering that Kirk's dead and all.
Considering the track record of the bloke, I think whatever it is it's going to be original and not what the fans want. Which is good because lets be honest, most of the fan suggestions I've seen would make terrible movies that only 3 people on the planet would enjoy. Not sure how good an idea it would be to bring back Nimoy & or Shatner in the absence of DeForest, I think it would seam wrong somehow.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Do British people really spell seem with an "a"?
Weirdos.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No, we don't.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Only when we're being dyslexic or distracted by all the tea and crumpets what-what!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: TMP was cerebral.
But not their movies. As close as they got with that was Insurrection, and not many people liked that.
Mainly for the poor humor, IMHO- I cringed at the singing scene, the "giant zit" routine and the woefully bad "flotation device" idiocy... And the Joystick.
Who in their right motherfucking mind though that was a good idea?!?
But I've over-illustrated my point- it was a deep plotline with lots of slapstick garbage distracting from the story.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Cheerio, pip-pip, and Bob's your uncle, and all that...
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
...and Jane's your aunt.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Do British people really spell seem with an "a"?
Weirdos.
Yes but only when refering to a junction of materials.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: TMP was cerebral.
But not their movies.
Jason... Look again. That's 'TMP', not 'TNG'.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, knew-jerk reaction, and too late to edit it once I saw it.
Still, TMP was NOT "cerebral"- it was a bad '70's movie in Trek clothes with 2001 pretrnsions.
Purdy models and effects though.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
"Cerebral" means focusing on thoughts/ideas over action/emotions. I think TMP qualifies.
-MMoM Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And what is it called when it focuses on visual effects, rather than ideas or action?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The Matrix.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
*sigh*
There were no visual effects in TMP that did not serve a purpose within the context of the plot and theme.
Many people don't like the film, and that is their prerogative, but it was the ONLY Trek film that was made using the old-school cinematic techniques of true professionals. Its deep-running observations on the needs of human beings and how they are met are expressed through each subplot and event, coming together to form a cohesive and layered whole that can scarcely be compared to the hackneyed, juvenile antics of, say, TWOK.
I bet the people who like TWOK better than TMP are the same ones who would say that Adrian Lyne's 1997 version of Lolita is better than Stanley Kubrick's 1962 version...
-MMoM Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
LoWhata?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
While we are staking out the extremes, people who prefer Star Trek One over Star Trek Two are not legal adults.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
An interesting note I just thought of then... out of the TOS movies the ODD numbered movies are the movies with the better soundtracks.
TMP, TSFS, and TVH are fantastic soundtracks. Actually TWOK and TUC are fantastic too - maybe it should just be TVH is utter crap (soundtrack wise).
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
That's funny, Sol -- last time I checked I was 31 years old. That makes me a legal adult, in this country at least...
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"There were no visual effects in TMP that did not serve a purpose within the context of the plot and theme."
The problem wasn't their existence. It was the quantity thereof.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'll take the effects over the '70 disco attire on McCoy and the AM/FM reciever waistlines.
Besides, the real problem is that they went to extremes to re-create the (supposed) grandur of space shown in 2001: a Space Odyssey, and it works with the itroduction of the "new" Enterprise, but the movie never picks up speed from [i]there and earned the title "motionless Picture".
Besides, as they realized with the success of TWOK, Trek is better (and far more popular) not being 2001. ...though TWOK was still "a submarine movie inside a lava lamp".
Anyone want the TMP Director's cut? Trade ya for...almost nothing.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Its deep-running observations on the needs of human beings and how they are met are expressed through each subplot and event, coming together to form a cohesive and layered whole that can scarcely be compared to the hackneyed, juvenile antics of, say, TWOK.
You take that back right now, mister. TSFS you could call hackneyed, TVH, trite from a certain point of view, TFF, I don't think you'll find any arguments there, and while TUC has its fans, it was definitely patterned after the Greatest Star Trek Film Of All Time Evar. No, but I'm not sure how the themes of all-consuming vendetta, loyalty, old-age/mortality, sacrifice, and the destructive aspects of creation could be catagorized as juvenile antics. I doubt Melville or Dickens would be inclined to agree. I don't see in what way bringing these elements together in a thrilling action movie that just happens to be set in in literal space directly proportional to those well-worn human themes--so you wind up with the main character in the throes of real pathos in the midst of a space-battle action-adventure saga with a final resolution so painful and yet so beautiful could be counted as hackneyed. Attack the other films if you must, talk about how Chekov wasn't in "Space Seed", mock the popularity of the Ceti Alpha system but if you go after the storytelling or themes in Khan, you better back that shit up. I am fully prepared to throw down for the second Star Trek movie.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I bet the people who like TWOK better than TMP are the same ones who would say that Adrian Lyne's 1997 version of Lolita is better than Stanley Kubrick's 1962 version...
Well you're just wrong all over the place, aren't you? I do love me some Jeremy Irons, but James Mason, I mean c'mon.
TMP does get a bad rap. Those who would dismiss it for the seventies fashion and haircuts, are missing the point (and perhaps also completely ignoring the three seasons of TOS). Honestly as originally cut, the special effects sequences are indulgent. And to those who haven't already checked it out, I recommend the Director's Cut. It's emminently more watchable. And though it is often compared (unflatteringly) to 2001 (and undeniably it does deal with some similar themes) but it does so in a more overtly calculated way, the method of the rationalist reflected by the spectre of V'ger itself, while maintaining the essential optimism, curiosity and spirit of exploration lacking in the later Trek films.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm with him.
(Also, the earlier thing, Peregrinus, was an indirect way of accusing people of having mental problems.)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
OOoooohhh. Well, in that case, never mind. I've definitely got some-a them. Rage issues, escapism, parthenophilia, mild vampiric tendancies, TruGoth�-ism, eidetic memory, mild OCD, mild bipolar disorder...
--Jonah
P.S. In truth, I can find something to like and to not like with each Trek movie thus far -- except Nemesis. Can't think of anything I liked in there...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Shiny new tricorders?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hate those stupid fucking things. My personal fave, and personal prop is a nice, hi-detail Type VI from TNG 1st season, with detachable scanner.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What about McCoy's medical "brain scanner" from STVI? It's the impulse engne/hangar deck from the K'Tinga model kit. Not even fucking painted!
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
ST:IV? That he pressed to comatose Chekov's head to make his cerebral edema or whatever go away? I kind of liked that thing. Didn't it have, like, blue LEDs or something?
I found a few things to like in Nemesis. Like the story of Shinzon and exploring the nature of what makes an individual unique. But there were so many distractions that had nothing at all to do with that (explain to me again why he mind-fucked Troi?) not even a throwaway mention of Lore (which only would have supported the theme) and jumping the jeep into the shuttle was a LONG silly sequence for fuck all. While it was hard not to appreciate the scale of the Reman supa-shippy, I had a hard time connecting that very visual threat with the weapon of mass destruction thingy (which didn't seem half as scary as genesis, btw) so the ultimate stakes were a bit less ultimate for me. Dina Meyer's Romulan cavalry and ramming speed was neato, though. And I while I guess Data's sacrifice was cool (hooray for jumping!) but I was more or less completely distracted by the ridiculous micro-mini transporter dot thing. WTF? Lotsa crap. Definitely opportunity lost.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:ST:IV? That he pressed to comatose Chekov's head to make his cerebral edema or whatever go away? I kind of liked that thing. Didn't it have, like, blue LEDs or something?
Yes- that thing. No there were no lED's, but it was molded in the light blue plastic of the kit.
My big issue with the Scimitar is the stupid "transformation" bit. I can sorta see the wings unfolding, but those long spikey arms that open up like flowers reminded me of the old Inspector Gadget cartoon, where impossibly large devices retracted into his tiny head.
I;ve said it before, and I'll say it again, gaint starships should not have moving parts: it's stupid as hell and makes Trek seem like a bad Robotech knock-off.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Jason:
quote:No there were no lED's, but it was molded in the light blue plastic of the kit.
You traitor! Sure there are LEDs, we just haven't found them yet!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: OOoooohhh. Well, in that case, never mind. I've definitely got some-a them. Rage issues, escapism, parthenophilia, mild vampiric tendancies, TruGoth�-ism, eidetic memory, mild OCD, mild bipolar disorder...
This is right next to "Sorry, I was on medication when I made my preceeding post where I talked complete shite" on the big list of Things That Should Not Be Posted On An Internet Forum.
I'd like to make some sort of point about how people who like TMP over TWOK are the same people who have to like different things for the sake of it, and who are the sort of people who would abandon a band that they liked if they ever maintained mainstream popularity. I am not going to, as I am unable to properly articulate exactly what I mean.
Also, Simon prefers TWOK to TMP.
But sometimes he is so non-conformist that he conforms! Ahhh!
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:ST:IV? That he pressed to comatose Chekov's head to make his cerebral edema or whatever go away? I kind of liked that thing. Didn't it have, like, blue LEDs or something?
Yes- that thing. No there were no lED's, but it was molded in the light blue plastic of the kit.
My big issue with the Scimitar is the stupid "transformation" bit. I can sorta see the wings unfolding, but those long spikey arms that open up like flowers reminded me of the old Inspector Gadget cartoon, where impossibly large devices retracted into his tiny head.
I;ve said it before, and I'll say it again, gaint starships should not have moving parts: it's stupid as hell and makes Trek seem like a bad Robotech knock-off.
/me Growls in Anger and irrationally skull-fucks Jason with a Cudely Seal Pup, yelling 'Never say that name, Macek~Humper! Never! NevaNevaNeva!'
Sorry, Jason. Bad day at work + hated meantion of Macross's Bastard child = made me angry... :|
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Battle for the Planets was awesome though.
And Samurai Pizza Cats.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Battle for the Planets was awesome though.
And Samurai Pizza Cats.
Star Blazers.
i built a lego Argo when i was little... until my brother blew it up a fire cracker (the turrets were the first generation legs and a single 2 piece brick)...
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I loved Starblazers, but I don't think it'd hold up. I mean for more than one or two episodes. Better than Voltron to be sure. Also Battle for The Planets did rule.
(So do people who take disproportionate offense whenever the Westernly corrupted names of anime are used fall into the same catagory of those who feel compelled to like differently for the sake of setting themselves apart? What are the rules regarding subbed/dubbed? I am asking and not only trying to be snarky.)
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: ...I can sorta see the wings unfolding, but those long spikey arms that open up like flowers reminded me of the old Inspector Gadget cartoon, where impossibly large devices retracted into his tiny head...
Yeah it's pretty bad when you're giggling at the bits where they're trying to build tension. I didn't really get the whole thing with the Scimitar. Because when it shows up, clearly it's massive, intimidating: mission accomplished. One might even just assume that because of it's size that it is possessed of some catastrophicly destructive power. But so yes, a gigantic unstoppable dreadnought, and then they put a cloaking device on it (which seem to do bugger all these days), and it's ducking and weaving invisibly through the space battle. And had I written it would have been all about the fuck-off impenetrable shields and just soaking up whatever everyone threw at it and kept lumbering towards it's increasingly nebulous objectives (kill Enterprise, no the entire population of Earth, no Starfleet, no wait, save Picard, I need his blood for some reason and using our transporter logs couldn't possibly be feasible or something, but kill everyone else including all Romulans). But so with the mega weapon and the gigantic and the invulnerable and maybe just stop there and not feel the need to go to invisible and sprightful as a frolicking lamb.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd have approached the ship's introduction diffrently: This is the first ship we've seen that can cloak/decloak portions of itself so I'd have initially shown only a small part of the ship to Enterprise, then, once the hostile intentions re revealed, I'd have allowed the rest of the ship to be de-cloaked and scanned. That way Picard and crew would go from "We can take 'em" to "Oh man, we're fucked.
The "flys like a fighter" was pretty lame too.
quote: Star Blazers.
i built a lego Argo when i was little... until my brother blew it up a fire cracker (the turrets were the first generation legs and a single 2 piece brick)...
A live action movie just got greenlighted and announced.
quote:Star Blazers to Fight Big Screen Battle Source: The Hollywood Reporter April 24, 2006
Benderspink and producer Josh C. Kline are teaming to adapt the classic Japanese anime Star Blazers into a live-action feature, says The Hollywood Reporter.
Known for its epic imagery and themes of brave sacrifice and respect for heroes lost in the line of duty, Star Blazers is the U.S. name for 1970s Japanese anime TV series Space Battleship Yamato. It comprised three television series, five animated features and a host of merchandise. Star Blazers, distributed in the U.S. by Voyager Entertainment, aired stateside in the early 1980s.
The story is set in the 22nd century after an alien attack on Earth has forced survivors to live in underground cities. After a message arrives from a distant planet promising a cure for the proliferating surface radiation, Earth's last vestige of hope rests on the crew of a powerful yet untested spaceship, which must reach the purported new ally and return home before mankind ceases to exist.
They're gonna have to tweak quite a lot of stuff to make it remotely plausable.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I think if the anime production company handles hiring voice actors vor both Japanese and English dialogue (Pioneer), dubbed is good. If t's an American importer doing the dubbing, worry. I still writhe when I hear the wave motion gun referred to in the dubbed version of one of the Yamato movie as the "undulation gun". Ack.
This movie... Is it the painful one with the Arizona replacing the [i]Yamato/i]? Or something new?
There's been a recent remastering of Uchuu Senkan Yamato for DVD that's very nice. It restores the original plot points/storylines and un-dumbs-dwn the stuff the censors thought would be too traumatic for American audiences -- like people dying and shit.
And for the record, I like both Macross AND Robotech.
--Jonah (*puts on his No-Squick� helmet*)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think it's the (too American-ized) "Arizona" treatment.
"Argo" sounds sooo much better.
There was a supposedly incredible Starblazers video game that I dont think ever made it to the states.
While I never followed Robotech or Macross, I do love Scott Bernard's Cyc;one battlesuit/motorcycle.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I got the recently made "Macross Zero" five-part prequel series, done in Anime/CGI combination, very much like "Ghost in the shell: Stand alone complex". It is most glorious.
If the Blazers-movie will be anything like that, and with the japanese battleship, I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You're now facing the power of our fully armed and operational cemetery?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by bX: (So do people who take disproportionate offense whenever the Westernly corrupted names of anime are used fall into the same catagory of those who feel compelled to like differently for the sake of setting themselves apart? What are the rules regarding subbed/dubbed? I am asking and not only trying to be snarky.)
I will insult at anyone who takes disproportionate offense over anything, so I'm quite fair. Unless they say "Bejita" though, in which case I will buy a plane ticket, fly to wherever the hell it is they live, and then urinate on them while they sit in front of their friends/hentai collection. And then I will smear their car with poo.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I think it's the (too American-ized) "Arizona" treatment.
"Argo" sounds sooo much better.
There was a supposedly incredible Starblazers video game that I dont think ever made it to the states.
That next to last link is a clip of Macross Zero. Think I'm going to watch the whole series now. Good a time as any. Excelsiorrr!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I keep the storylines separate. I like the Robotech storyline (Macross Saga, Sentinels, Southern Cross, New Generation), as well as the Macross stuff (Superdimension Fortress Macross, Macross II, Macross Plus, Macros Zero...).
With Star Blazers... I dunno. I like that they retrofittted the Yamato. The Arizona is a horrible candidate. I do think the new ship should be renamed, and I like Argo. The characters... I think the names in the English version are pretty lame, but at the same time, I don't want such an international-looking crew to all have Japanese names either. Plus, some of the science in Star Blazers was atrocious, and I keep forgetting to check to see if it's straight from USY, or if it's the result of stupid American translation. The voice actors were well cast, though...
--Jonah
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Derek Wildstar was the bomb, yo. Mark could go and suggit. Sandor was also cool.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Double-Super-Trible Post!
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
quote:Originally posted by Nim: That next to last link is a clip of Macross Zero. Think I'm going to watch the whole series now. Good a time as any. Excelsiorrr!
i'll warn you now, at the end of the series, it will seem like K-Dawg was smoking a VERY big bong at the beginning of episode five, but once you get to see Shin battle Nora, while BOTH their VF-0A and SV-51's are doing cobra tilts, you be asking for a passing from that bong too, with a very big 'Fucking Out-A!' smile too!
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Its deep-running observations on the needs of human beings and how they are met are expressed through each subplot and event, coming together to form a cohesive and layered whole that can scarcely be compared to the hackneyed, juvenile antics of, say, TWOK.
You take that back right now, mister. TSFS you could call hackneyed, TVH, trite from a certain point of view, TFF, I don't think you'll find any arguments there, and while TUC has its fans, it was definitely patterned after the Greatest Star Trek Film Of All Time Evar. No, but I'm not sure how the themes of all-consuming vendetta, loyalty, old-age/mortality, sacrifice, and the destructive aspects of creation could be catagorized as juvenile antics. I doubt Melville or Dickens would be inclined to agree. I don't see in what way bringing these elements together in a thrilling action movie that just happens to be set in in literal space directly proportional to those well-worn human themes--so you wind up with the main character in the throes of real pathos in the midst of a space-battle action-adventure saga with a final resolution so painful and yet so beautiful could be counted as hackneyed. Attack the other films if you must, talk about how Chekov wasn't in "Space Seed", mock the popularity of the Ceti Alpha system but if you go after the storytelling or themes in Khan, you better back that shit up. I am fully prepared to throw down for the second Star Trek movie.
I love this post.
Star Trek needs/needed/will need more fans like you.
Seriously.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But will he dig Ben Aflek as Kirk? SCARY RUMOR. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I have no problem with the themes of TWOK--friendship, age, obsession, sacrifice, parental responsibility, etc--but rather with the way in which the writers and director chose to carry those themes across. Take Khan as The Evil VillainTM, for example. Evil VillainTM-type characters are a ridiculous and hackneyed Hollywood movie plot device in general, but turning Khan into one was an especially stupid move. In "Space Seed" (TOS), Khan was cunning and ruthless, but not evil and hateful for the sake of being so. The key element of that episode and of Khan's character was the ambiguity of the line between being a strong leader who looks after his people and being a tyrant who goes too far. Kirk, McCoy, and Spock debated whether Khan and his ilk were to be admired or reviled, coming to no definitive conclusion, and of course McGivers had her own ideas.
Flash forward to TWOK, Khan has turned into just another Evil VillainTMa la James Bond. For all the lip service that his genetically-engineered intellect gets paid, we really see nothing of it. There's no depth or reason to the character. He's just a nemesis for Kirk, and the great bulk of the plot is just constructed as an excuse to bring the two of them into conflict. (Along with carbon-copying numerous other elements from TWOK, Nemesis would [unsurprisingly] do the same thing with Shinzon and Picard, only there was no nostalgia factor to mitigate the response to that film.)
Additionally, look at all the incongruities in the movie that can only be the result of sheer thoughtlessness on the part of the writers/director/production staff: -- Why is the entire former bridge crew of the Enterprise conducting an inspection of the ship together? -- How could the Reliant crew possibly mistake Ceti Alpha V for Ceti Alpha VI? -- Was Kirk really so irresponsible that he never reported the Ceti Alpha system as Khan's location, so that other ships could avoid it? -- Why do all of Khan's followers look like 20-year-olds? -- The Enterprise is the only ship in the QUADRANT??? Besides, what about the Reliant? As far as Starfleet is aware, she's only days away from Regula. (If SF had called upon the Reliant to investigate, they would have found something amiss and the whole film would be cut short! Can't have that, can we?) -- McCoy doesn't scan Chekov and Terrell? (If he had, he would have detected the Ceti Eels.) -- If Khan "never made it down" to the Regula One's transporter room, how did he get aboard the station? Site-to-site transports were extremely dangerous at this time. -- Why does Scotty bring his injured nephew from engineering to THE BRIDGE instead of Sickbay? -- Where the hell did Khan learn Klingon proverbs? -- 23rd-century starships have torpedoes that are loaded and fired manually by deckhands??? -- If the Mutara Nebula could have been used to test the Genesis Device in the first place, then why was the Reliant out looking for a testing ground? -- They can't just BLOW UP the Genesis Device before it finishes building up to detonation? -- Kirk needs a lousy pair of 400-year-old glasses to read? They don't have corrective surgery or contact lenses in the 23rd century? -- Why do we have huge spacecraft maneuvering at proximites of mere hundreds of feet?
I could go on with this, but it's getting tiresome. You may say that these things are not important and that I'm just nitpicking. You may say that you enjoy the movie so much that they don't bother you. Fine. I enjoy (parts of) it too, and I'm not saying it's the worst movie or the worst Trek ever, by any means. It's not anywhere near on par with TMP as far as coherent and well-thought-out sci-fi drama is concerned, though.
-MMoM Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Do you really want answers to any of those? I could probably pull a few out from my rectal TARDISspace if you like.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Of course you could, but the point is that you should not have to. It shows a lack of creativity and careful planning on the part of the writers and director if the fans have to invent ways for the plot to make sense.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
ANY film can be similarly deconstructed. Especially TMP. I'm sure we can all collectively come up with a similar number of plot holes for that film. Especially your no. 5 - just because TMP was the first film to use the "only ship in range/in the quadrant/etc." excuse doesn't make it any less silly than all the other occasions.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Not to mention Khan's obsession is rather far removed from simple evil. He does not pursue cruelty and torture or even Genesis as ends. He is not working to conquer the Federation. Ultimately, he isn't even trying to kill Kirk, but to best him, and to do so on Kirk's own terms, namely starship commanding. Here's a revenge movie in which the two parties never stand in the same room together.
Your points strike me, for the most part, as just silly, and Lee is absolutely right. Many of them apply to not just Star Trek in general, but movies in general. Why are the ships so apparently close to each other? Well, why can we even see them at all? But more than that, most of them have nothing to do with the plot at all. Since when aren't the heroes of a film the only people who can handle the events of that film? Since when in Star Trek couldn't they beam anywhere they wanted? (And who says they beamed over at all, if we're going to descend to such depths.)
quote:Small reason was there to doubt, then, that ever since that almost fatal encounter, Ahab had cherished a wild vindictiveness against the whale, all the more fell for that in his frantic morbidness he at last came to identify with him, not only all his bodily woes, but all his intellectual and spiritual exasperations. The White Whale swam before him as the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, till they are left living on with half a heart and half a lung. That intangible malignity which has been from the beginning; to whose dominion even the modern Christians ascribe one-half of the worlds; which the ancient Ophites of the east reverenced in their statue devil; - Ahab did not fall down and worship it like them; but deliriously transferring its idea to the abhorred White Whale, he pitted himself, all mutilated, against it. All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by MMoM: Of course you could, but the point is that you should not have to. It shows a lack of creativity and careful planning on the part of the writers and director if the fans have to invent ways for the plot to make sense.
Actually the point is that if the story is good enough, you tend to look past little incongruities such as, there are no such things as Starships, or energy weapons would probably have invisible beams--that sort of thing.
quote:...Take Khan as The Evil VillainTM, for example. Evil VillainTM-type characters are a ridiculous and hackneyed Hollywood movie plot device in general, but turning Khan into one was an especially stupid move.
*cracks knuckles* Here we go.
First off: I seriously hope you're not arguing that having an antogonist in the story is a hackneyed Hollywood movie plot device.
quote:...In "Space Seed" (TOS), Khan was cunning and ruthless, but not evil and hateful for the sake of being so.
Khan is NOT just some generic Evil Villain�. All those Moby Dick references aren't in there accidentally. Khan's singular purpose is to destroy Kirk. Not merely to kill him, for this would not be enough, he must break Kirk's spirit entirely, conquer the very idea of Kirk. His obsession is not applied arbitrarily: Kirk had abandoned Khan and his people in a paradise which not long after (via some iffy planetary cataclysm) became a hell. Which alone might have been forgivable, understandable perhaps, but no rescue ever came for them. No one came to see what sort of fruit might come of the seed they'd planted. And so Khan watched his people die, many of them horribly agonizing deaths afflicted as they were by the Ceti Eels. Even the beautiful Ms. McGivers-- possibly the only thing he still held that could have tempered his anger was forced to suffer this gruesome end. And so Khan's hatred for the man responsible for his impossible fate sharpened, forged in the demonic fires of what had been his paradise, any softness long ago eroded by his dead planet's poisoned winds.
The choice of Khan specifcally was no less arbitrary. He's not some unrecognizable character chosen at random (from, say, a race of warriors) come to have some nefarious (or god forbid, politically motivated) beef with our protagonist. And like any good antagonist he's there in part to reflect our hero. Disregarding the centuries he spent in cryogenic suspension, he and Kirk are of a similar age. Both are cunning warriors and capable leaders. But where now-Admiral Kirk has grown pudgy and soft, promoted to piloting a desk, listless as to his purpose, Khan has been finely honed, sharp-minded, focused and literally rippling with strength. Aghast after the initial volley has crippled Kirk's ship, the viewscreeen reveals the well-muscled, impossibly virile Khan standing ready to receive Kirk's capitulation. The glasses Kirk must wear to call up the prefix code are only one further humiliation for the aging Admiral. Who else could so vividly embody Kirk's counterpoint? Perhaps a feisty cloud _4 A.U.s across?
quote:...For all the lip service that his genetically-engineered intellect gets paid, we really see nothing of it. There's no depth or reason to the character.
You're right. We don't get to hear any of the haiku he's composed in his spare time scraping out an existence for himself and his people on that horrible rock. We don't even see him winning a tri-D chess-match against Spock, (ooh, maybe that would make for a more compelling climax!). He does figure out how to deprive Enterprise of power in just a few hits and not long after it is revealed that he somehow through his blinding vengeance recognizes the important potential of a device like genesis. But more than this, Montalban's smoldering portrayal more than adequately conveys the intense intellect alluded to in the script.
quote:...He's just a nemesis for Kirk, and the great bulk of the plot is just constructed as an excuse to bring the two of them into conflict.
Are you reading what you're writing? Of course he's a nemesis for Kirk and the bulk of the plot IS written to bring them into conflict. That's sort of the point. The B story here would of course be Genesis. As we all know Genesis is a technology to take something lifeless and infuse it with life. Is it any wonder that these two aging men, one concerned at his own decrepitude, the other hollowed out by vendetta and hate, might both be questing for such a thing? When you've watched the movie a few times, you may be able to discern the ways in which this ties into a central theme. Add to this the idea of Carol Marcus and the son Kirk didn't know he had. As he says in the film, "My life that could have been and wasn't." Again you may notice the ways this might tie into a theme or two.
I'm not going to get into the incongruities you point out because I see them as secondary considerations to what for me constitutes some of the finest story-telling in sci-fi ever. All of it was done in service to the story. I'm not going to engage in some debate as to which is better, TMP or TWOK because, well that way lies silliness. But I do think you're really giving Khan short shrift. And I think most of your reasons for doing so are spurious and not very well thought out.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System:
quote:Small reason was there to doubt, then, that ever since that almost fatal encounter, Ahab had cherished a wild vindictiveness against the whale, all the more fell for that in his frantic morbidness he at last came to identify with him, not only all his bodily woes, but all his intellectual and spiritual exasperations. The White Whale swam before him as the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, till they are left living on with half a heart and half a lung. That intangible malignity which has been from the beginning; to whose dominion even the modern Christians ascribe one-half of the worlds; which the ancient Ophites of the east reverenced in their statue devil; - Ahab did not fall down and worship it like them; but deliriously transferring its idea to the abhorred White Whale, he pitted himself, all mutilated, against it. All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.
"Jean-Luc, BLOW UP THE DAMN SHIP!"
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
To me, this is almost starting to sound like a TV Trek vs. Film Trek argument. Those 500+ hours of televisual Star Trek have spoiled us in providing the kind of character development and character exploration that you're just not going to get in the 20-odd hours of filmed Star Trek.
In respects of the Big Bad, TMP's V'Ger is more like many of the series antagonists - presented as the enemy, and then as events play out we come to learn why it's the enemy, and that really it's all down to circumstances, and a lack of communication/understanding, and that in the final analysis it's really not that different from us in what it wants. The same could be said for the Cardassians, or the Klingons, or just about any of the other major opponents our (assorted) heroes have faced.
By contrast, Khan is presented straight-off as the enemy, and that's just about it. His motivation is touched on, but we're left to fill in the gaps for ourselves, as Balaam has just done. We're dealing with one person, not a race or a gestalt entity like V'Ger is (being a combination of basic NASA programming and a mysterious machine civilisation), and that person is obsessed, probably insane, and totally intractable. Whereas TV Trek can take the time to, in effect, have them all sit down on beanbags (to use my wife's favourite phrase about Trek) and work things out, with Khan they don't have that luxury - he needs to be taken out before more people die.
And that's what's always going to happen in the format of a Trek movie (although Insurrection combined the two in having both the obsessed, probably insane and totally intractable baddie, and also the opposing race who turned out to be just like - literally, in fact - their foes). TMP was a Roddenberry film and he was always prone to let the message override the entertainment. So, yes, TMP is closer to the spirit of Trek - but so was TNG season 1, and that way lies crewmen in skirts.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:By contrast, Khan is presented straight-off as the enemy, and that's just about it. His motivation is touched on, but we're left to fill in the gaps for ourselves, as Balaam has just done.
Wherein lies the main problem with his charcter: motivation. Almost no viewer of STII knows anything about the original appearance of Kahn (hardcore Trek fans are really in the minority of that movie's audience) and other than "we were left to die by your hero" it's just left hanging- worse still, NO ONE even fucking ASKS why Kahn wants Kirk dead! Kirk says "I know why!" when Terrell tries to explain to Kirk (and the audience!) Kahn's motivations. Everybody else just calls Kahn a "madman". Obviously Kirk knew all about Kahn's plight and did nothing- this should have been touched on- mabye making the movie about redemption for old mistakes (with David there, it would have been a recurring theme).
In any other action movie, Khan would have been the hero out for revenge and Kirk the military creep hat left him and his beautiful wife to die...
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The contrasts of Kirk & Kahn don't stop with the age, leadership, and abilities. There is also the Father/Son dynamic.
First there's Kirk, who has never even SEEN his son and has nothing to really pass on to him. This further magnifies the feelings of age and regret in Kirk. As he says "there's a madman out there trying to kill me and you show me a son that would be glad to help him". But, through all the hardship and losses they endure in a short time, a respect is born between the two. They become reconciled individuals through their ordeal. Their relationship as father and son evolving to one of man to man. From this, each can take pride in the accomplishments of the other.
Then there is Kahn, who has kept his son (Joaquim) alive on a hell planet. For all his abilities and intelligence Kahn says it best "While I, on the other hand, are in a position to grant...NOTHING". This is a great wound to his pride. Kahn was all about his LEGACY. His followers worshipped him as a god among men, including his own son who has seen him keep his people alive through years of hell. Then with the sudden appearance of Reliant, they are presented with a miraculous opportunity to free themselves and truly create a paradise of their own. Except for Kahn's pride. It is his pride that drives him to hatred. So blinded has he become that even when presented with the facts by his son he cannot see past his hatred. "He tasks me....he TASKS ME". Kahn had the opportunity to give the son who worshipped him an absolute paradise where he would eventually rule but instead chose a legacy of vengeance. The destiny of his son was decided by his pride. Even his son's dying words served as an accusation: "Yours.... is the....superior...intellect...". At that moment Kahn faced the realization of the death of all that he held dear, his people, his son, his legacy. And yet, all that was left in him was his hatred. "I shall avenge you".
End the end Kirk who rued letting go of his son's destiny was able to be reconciled with him while Kahn who commanded his son's destiny cost him everything.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Um, huh? I don't ever recall hearing anything that would identify Shield Boy as Khan's son.
B.J.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yah... there was nothing in "Space Seed" to indicate he's got a kid, so you're likely implying that he's the child of Kahn and his wife, born on the planet after being exiled. But that was only 15 years prior to TWoK. Joaquin looks fairly mature for a 15 year old.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think Kahn has a kid- the younger members of his crew were probably just defrosted after they made planetfall and the 'ol "genetic engineering" thing might have slowed their ageing process a bit too.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
True, but he was one of those geneticaly thingambob'd augment's, so he could have matured faster. Or it could be that Harve Bennett et al didn't give a toss.
Either way, there was more of a connection between Khan and Joaquim than between Khan and the other baddies. And I don't mean superman loving.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I think it was the "OFFICIAL NOVEL" then that stated he was the offspring of Kahn & McGivers. As GB stated above there is definitely more of a connection.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I just figured he was Khan's "Number One" or right-hand man.
B.J.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Even if Joachim is not the fruit of Khan's loins, the parallels with David are still there.
I feel compelled to point out that while I have above elaborated on Khan's motivations, that I am not pulling this out of my ass. It's all right there in the script, vividly and hauntingly delivered by Montalban to the captive audience of Chekov and Terrell in Khan's introductory speech.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Wherein lies the main problem with his charcter: motivation. Almost no viewer of STII knows anything about the original appearance of Kahn (hardcore Trek fans are really in the minority of that movie's audience) and other than "we were left to die by your hero" it's just left hanging- worse still, NO ONE even fucking ASKS why Kahn wants Kirk dead! Kirk says "I know why!" when Terrell tries to explain to Kirk (and the audience!) Kahn's motivations. Everybody else just calls Kahn a "madman"...
Technically, the lines are "...He blames you for the death of his wife." And "I know what he blames me for." This after Terrell relates what happened to the Regula Station's crew "He... tortured those people... He went mad. He slit their throats. He wanted to tear the place apart..." Although he's under the sway of the Ceti Eel squeezing his brain, it's clear this respectable Starfleet officer has never witnessed this level of barbarity. I would argue that in addition to underlining Khan's motivations, this is Terrell's vain attempt to explain why all of this is happening.
I remember when we were much younger, my sister insisting that Khan was insane because he thinks that "hurting" Kirk is worse than "killing" Kirk. Give the kid a break. She was, like, 8. I had a difficult time explaining it to her then, and twenty years later it's still not an easy thing to put into words. His motivation isn't madness, it's wrath: terrifying, anti-rational, unquenchable, all-consuming wrath. Its very existence defies explanation, understanding.
It's a darker aspect of man and as such makes the perfect counterpoint to the enligtened, egalitarian society of Starfleet. When Terrell glimpses that darkness, he cannot help but be changed by it. I would argue that the genius of Montalban's performance is that we get to see the engines of this malice turning. For example, the way he pounces on the information that Kirk has become an Admiral. It should be apparent to anyone, even those who never saw the TOS episode that these men share a colored history.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I agree with what Sol and bX have said, and I would add more but I think they've summed it up perfectly.
Of course, if the statement is "TMP is better than TWOK" and everyone's argument is based around "TWOK" is much better than you think, it's interesting to note that the flip-side ("TMP is much worse than you think") hasn't been touched on. If it wasn't so late I might offer something more useful than "it's really, really, really boring", but I can't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Pacing is part of what kills TMP- lots of "people sitting talking in a lounge" scenes really kill any built up tension of Earth's potential destruction. The ultra-bright lighting does not help much either (this is toned waaay down in TWOK and gone to idiotic levels in Generations). Also, the changes in scenery of TWOK help break up the story, whereas TMP suffers through just a few (on-ship) sets until the very end. TMP also suffers from there not being any villan to be intrested in- V'Ger is like fighting a tidal wave- it's just this incomprehensible force to be dealt with, but you cant get any satisfaction from it's defeat/destruction like you can with Kahn or the klingons.
I still say Kirk's a total scumbag for leaving Kahn's gang there; and yeah, it's aparant he knew all about the star going nova. I wonder if Spock knew? McCoy would have insisted on a rescue mission.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"I still say Kirk's a total scumbag for leaving Kahn's gang there; and yeah, it's aparant he knew all about the star going nova."
Of the three statements here, one I disagree with, one I think is factually wrong, and one never happened.
Anyway, just why Kirk is giving Khan and his cronies a second chance on Ceti Alpha V isn't really addressed in "Space Seed" that I can remember, beyond that sort of thing being more or less standard practice in the series. But, to get to my disagreement, one could argue that Kirk was doing Khan an unreasonable favor by letting him sneak off to his own private Io. Is there a statute of limitation for war crimes? (That is, assuming you meant Kirk was a "scumbag" for leaving them, and not for failing to bring them to justice, assuming any justice was to be had.)
re factually wrong: Why would you assume Kirk knew that Ceti Alpha VI was going to explode? There's nothing in the "text" to suggest it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Noooo, I meant that Kirk already knew that the star had gone nova when Terrell tried to explain Kahn's motivations. Mabye it was his Admiral status that got him the info, but it's sure not anyone telling him onscreen why Kahn shows up after forever looking to kill him. Kirk's suprised to see Kahn, but never needs to ask him why he's doing all this revenge shit. Kirk was suprised to see Kahn was alive at all.
So, Kirk knew the disaster had happened prior to Reliant stumbling on Kahn's survivors. It makes him (to me) a scumbag for not trying to rescue them -or even checking to see if anyone had survived!
I dont think Kirk knew about the Star's instbility back when he set Kahn down there- If he did, he would be a total evil fuck. I figure someone ws keeping tabs on the colony of super war-criminals and figured "good riddance", thus never updating the starcharts about the nova (and thus dooming the Regula crew and probably much of Reliant's crew as well- no way the entire crew would have squeezed into those tin shack's Kahn was living in).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Can we stop with the star going nova? The next planet over blew up, although it does sound a bit bizarre, can planets just blow up?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
If something big hits them I guess. Like another planet or Shatners ego.
I think that's the current theory on how the moon came to be. It's called the giant impact hypothesis. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
At what point is it established that Kirk knew about Ceti Alpha VI exploding?
(I always wondered whether Chekov even realises they are in the same solar system as Kahn. He knows that he was dropped off on Ceti Alpha V, not VI, but I can't tell if "Botany Bay...oh no!" is "Shit, I've forgotten Kahn was nearby", or "Hang on, this is the wrong planet!" Not that it matters in the end.)
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
With ALL the different times their lives were on the line do you really think that an event 15 years ago is really going to have much more than a vague recollection in Kirk's or Checkov's minds? This is the same Checkov that survived the OK Corral gunfight because to him only the girl was REAL! So yeah, Ceti Alpha didn't trigger anything but frigging "Botany Bay" made him leak lubricant in his enviro-suit.
As far as Kirk knowing about the explosion of the neighboring planet, he might not have received the news of that until months or even years afterwards. Seeing as how the Reliant's sensors only picked up "a minor fluctuation on one dynoscanner" it is reasonable to assume that the sensors 14 1/2 years earlier were not near as sophisticated or sensitive that they could read ANY life forms. So Kirk COULD have sent a ship to look or inform Starfleet to have them look (since I don't think he was an Admiral at that time) but having detected nothing he simply assumed that they had all perished.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Possible, but why no
quote:"Fuck, Kahn, I thought you were dead! I was gonna check, but then, you know, stuff happened and there was this V'Ger thing... Man, I am so fuckin' sorry..."
Seriously, not even a hint of remorse or shock that Kahn's people get hosed- including his sexy "Instant Stockholm Syndrome" former history officer.
How the hell does a planet "just blow up" and the Reliant not notice several quadrillion tonnes of debris floating around the system (and you know, that it's suddenly missing a whole planet!!)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
God, I love this place.
(That was not a sarcastic comment. It's fun here.)
In light of the sheer volume of responses and discussion that has intervened since I made my last post, this one is probably is going to seem a little scattered. My apologies.
Firstly, one should not make the mistake of thinking that I cannot appreciate or enjoy the drama of TWOK. The movie is exciting and entertaining. It offers some good character development for Kirk. It contains one of the most emotionally-moving scenes yet seen in any Trek.
However, it suffers greatly from being formulaic and inelegant as a motion picture. It's a typical Hollywood flick with its chase-'em-down, shoot-'em-up, good-guys-versus-bad-guys scenarios, and appeals ONLY to the audience's emotions and NOT its intellect.
I, for one, am not particularly interested by so-called "revenge movies." I mean, what's deep and meaningful about revenge? It seems to me that whatever is has already been covered by Melville and other serious authors. I'm sure Nick Meyer et al thought they were being sophisticated and literary in cribbing lines from Melville and Shakespeare but, to me, it just comes off as crass. I am quite familiar with those authors and do not feel that their interjection into the film was as artful as so many do. I sort of expect more depth, complexity, and originality from Star Trek.
I deeply lament the dumbing-down of American film that has occured in the last couple of decades, and the increasing willingness of audiences to refrain from looking critically at motion pictures as pieces of art and to overlook "the details." Thus, part of what irks me about TWOK's persistent deification as the pinnacle of cinematic Trek is the very nonchalance towards those "minor" plot holes I mentioned that so many people exhibit. (By the way, I would be most interested to see anyone claiming that TMP has similar logical flaws present their criticisms; we might want to start a new thread, though.)
That about sums up my general feelings on the subject of TWOK's flaws, aside from the aforementioned issue of the film significantly altering and greatly oversimplifying Khan's character and the dynamic between him and Kirk. Now, on to a few specific things:
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Anyway, just why Kirk is giving Khan and his cronies a second chance on Ceti Alpha V isn't really addressed in "Space Seed" that I can remember, beyond that sort of thing being more or less standard practice in the series.
Kirk did it because he felt it would be "a waste to put them in a reorientation center." It's part of what I was trying to get at earlier--Kirk admired Khan, and vice versa.
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: At what point is it established that Kirk knew about Ceti Alpha VI exploding?
I think Jason's comments are based on the scene where Terrell says to Kirk that Khan blames him for the death of his wife and Kirk replies: "I know what he blames me for." I hadn't really thought of this exchange in that light before, but it's an interesting angle.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Pacing is part of what kills TMP- lots of "people sitting talking in a lounge" scenes really kill any built up tension of Earth's potential destruction.
[...]
TMP also suffers from there not being any villan to be intrested in- V'Ger is like fighting a tidal wave- it's just this incomprehensible force to be dealt with, but you cant get any satisfaction from it's defeat/destruction like you can with Kahn or the klingons.
See, in my opinion, these are precisely the sort of things that make TMP a better piece of science fiction cinema than TWOK. The impact, the payoff, of the film is not in dramatic devices like building tension or in simple emotional reactions like taking satisfaction in the destruction of an enemy, but rather in its probings into the human psyche and the nature of sentient existence. Its main purpose is not mere entertainment, but exploration of those abstract concepts.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: [...] just because TMP was the first film to use the "only ship in range/in the quadrant/etc." excuse doesn't make it any less silly than all the other occasions.
In TMP, the issue of the Enterprise being "the only ship in interception range" was due to the fact that her recent engine and weapon upgrades made her the only vessel with any reasonable chance of meeting and dealing with the V'Ger threat in a timely fashion. There were a number of other ships around, (several of them are mentioned by name in early drafts of the script: the light cruiser Aswan, the Boston, the Paris, and the Delphi) but none of them were powerful or fast enough to be effective.
Anyway, it's not really surprising to me at all that I'm very much in the minority on this issue, but differences of opinion are part of what make us individuals. IDIC, yo.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:I think Jason's comments are based on the scene where Terrell says to Kirk that Khan blames him for the death of his wife and Kirk replies: "I know what he blames me for." I hadn't really thought of this exchange in that light before, but it's an interesting angle.
It's one of the plot holes of the movie- I had always excpected there was a deleted scene somewhere with Kahn expounding on how Kirk screwed him over, but as there's no such scene, I figure Kirk knew about the planet's devestation and wrote Kahn off as a goner.
The possibly damning thing is the lack of any records on the matter- Reliant would have had access to them if they were available... that leads to the possibility that Kirk knew about the destruction of the settlement and that someone covered it up for whatever reason.
Mabye the re-emergence of Kahn was kept classified to prevent would-be followers from seeking Kahn out (and providing him with space travel capibility).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: In TMP, the issue of the Enterprise being "the only ship in interception range" was due to the fact that her recent engine and weapon upgrades made her the only vessel with any reasonable chance of meeting and dealing with the V'Ger threat in a timely fashion.
Er, where'd you get that from? I recall Kirk saying the above line to Decker, but "only ship" is not the same as "only suitable ship". Besides which, sending out a ship with untested weapons and engines does not seem to be the smartest move.
Whereas, in TWOK, the Enterprise had possibly been flying around for a while before they picked up the distress call. The ship worked fine, the only problem was that it was full of cadets. Them being the only available ship was less of a necessary-but-credability-stretching plot point, as they should have been able to handle most situations fine. The main reason things went wrong there was Kirk making mistakes.
(I also fail to see how 5 minute long sequences of the Enterprise flying over a cloud while a bald woman walks around in a miniskirt tell you much about the "human condition". But that might just be me. You should start your thread, though.)
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:TUC has its fans, it was definitely patterned after the Greatest Star Trek Film Of All Time Evar.
TUC is my second-favorite Trek movie (after TWOK). I think some of the patterning was intentional, especially with Nicholas Meyer as director for both movies.
An early version of the script had the character of Valeris originally being Saavik. While I would have hated Saavik being made into the "villian," this would have really have that much more of an impact and developed an established character even more, instead of introducing yet another Vulcan female officer mentored by Spock.
Plus, this would have made the patterning after TWOK more acceptable, since it would be a sequel of sorts.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Maybe I'm getting this from the TUC novelisation, but I thought the main reason for Valeris' betrayal was that as a Vulcan she had concluded that maintaining the pre-Praxis status quo was the logical course of action. Whereas the other conspirators were either motivated by fear of change or the inability to change (Cartwright, Nanclus, Chang, West) or racism (Burke & Samno were presumably chosen because they were up for the chance to zap a few Klingons) she was motivated not by feelings but by (flawed) logic. Using Saavik in that role would have emphasised that, I think.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: [QUOTE](I also fail to see how 5 minute long sequences of the Enterprise flying over a cloud while a bald woman walks around in a miniskirt tell you much about the "human condition". But that might just be me. You should start your thread, though.)
The "human condition" part comes in when they are in "wormhole effect" and said bald chick's tits are jiggling in slo-mo.
When I first saw that (as a little kid and on cable) I was mesmerized by her boobies. Possibly I thought her boobies saved the ship. I may still believe that.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Sounds like a case of Decker envy to me.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Persis Khambatta's best role was in Megaforce.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Man, even if she was stark nekked, I would never watch that.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Er, where'd you get that from? I recall Kirk saying the above line to Decker, but "only ship" is not the same as "only suitable ship". Besides which, sending out a ship with untested weapons and engines does not seem to be the smartest move.
The script makes things a bit more clear, but the key words are "in interception range." The other ships were either not fast enough to catch up with V'Ger while it was still some distance from Earth or not powerful enough to be capable of intercepting it. This is what made the Enterprise "the only ship."
quote:(I also fail to see how 5 minute long sequences of the Enterprise flying over a cloud while a bald woman walks around in a miniskirt tell you much about the "human condition". But that might just be me. You should start your thread, though.)
Like all art, it's somewhat open to interpretation but, as I see it, the vast scale and labyrinthine nature of V'Ger mirror the infinite and layered complexity of the human consciousness. The realization that what we have believed to be an awesomely powerful enemy vessel is in fact a sentient lifeform of colossal proportions--born originally of Mankind's own ingenuity, and now struggling to comprehend its origins--forces us to reexamine our conceptions of intelligence and existence. The contrast between the Enterprise, which seems the pinnacle of Man's achievement at the beginning of the film, and the comparably-boundless Intruder is central to the film's underlying themes. THIS is the reason why so much time is spent visualizing it.
As for the wormhole sequence, I can understand why it would be off-putting to some, but how would you portray the warping of space and time on film?
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Woah. Will you write some deep shit about me when I die?
quote:Possibly to be posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: ...even Jason's typos and mis-spellings were the clever (and intentional) way in which he pointed out the flaws in the human condition. His every post was a well thought-out reply, meant to invoke an almost Aesop-like view of man's flaws...
Seriously- it was more like "then the VFX guys have the ship fly through all this cool shit" than any deep psychological conparison.
At least, that's wht the storyboards I've seen would indicate. No idea what went on down at ILM's studios or what they might have been smoking (of if your narritive only applies to the Special Edition), but it seems aside from the director's "vision" at the time.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Of course, the fact that the VFX guys didn't realy know what they were supposed to be building up to because the ending hadn't been written might be a contributing factor.
I still find it's more re-watchable than TWOK though, I just go through that thinking "...KHHHHAAAAAAAAAN!"
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
It's part of the transcendent journey, physically within V'Ger's vast consciousness. The visuals are intended to stimulate you to some higher order of thinking, of being. Except that everyone had already seen the end of 2001 and frankly thought even that might have been a tad too much (but we all cut Stanley a break because he's British and clever.) Plus everything was so rushed in making the VFX, Bob Wise hadn't had time to pare down all that footage.
quote:Originally posted by MMoM: However, [TWOK] suffers greatly from being formulaic and inelegant as a motion picture. It's a typical Hollywood flick with its chase-'em-down, shoot-'em-up, good-guys-versus-bad-guys scenarios, and appeals ONLY to the audience's emotions and NOT its intellect.
This is precisely my problem with the tack you are taking in your posts. What goes unstated by you here is that's in your estimation. If you don't personally like it, I can't really argue with that. When you say TWOK is a typical Hollywood flick, I can only assume you are placing it in the same bracket as, say, Eraser or maybe Die Hard: 2, and if that is what you are in fact saying, you are wrong.
When you say it appeals "ONLY" to the audience's emotions and not its intellect, well frankly that's really condescending. Certainly I think it's fair to say that TMP is more cerebral than TWOK (and vice-versa for emotionality), but that's a long way from saying it's without intellectual merit. That's just insulting. Did you even read anything I wrote? The grand themes of death, loyalty, sacrifice...? That awkward imagery with the honing and the sharpening and the eroding?
But it's when you start calling it formulaic and inelegent, where I really take issue. Khan-Kirk, David-Joachim, veterans-recruits, paradise-Hell, "How we face death is at least as important as how we face life", creation-destruction, self-absorbtion-self-sacrifice,"The best of times...the worst of times"-- these axes, these words, they aren't in there by accident, they didn't come off some roll of stickers. They are intricately woven into a visually stunning action-adventure story with a huge emotional charge. Pacing alone sets it apart from the pack. This film is amazing, and there's a reason it is my favorite of all time ever. I defy you to point out a "typical Hollywood flick" that could hold a candle or the shoot-'em-up it's patterned after.
Here is the thing. I do respect the film-making in TMP. I don't think it's just a seventies farce and point out McCoy's silly beltbuckles or beard. I like it, on a lot of levels. The tensions between Decker and Kirk is great. The exploration of Spock's character is epic and brilliant. The problems I have with it have to do with structure and characters, with performances. Maybe even with it biting off a bit more than it could chew thematically. But these are only my opinions. And, as has been grotesquely demonstrated above, I'm a bit mad about these things. Which is to say, I don't think you're silly for preferring this film. I think you're silly for so blithely writing off Khan.
[ May 06, 2006, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: bX ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Like I said earlier, Star Trek needs more fans who catch the big-picture elements that the makers are trying to convey.
However, Mim is entitled to his opinions, of course, and he has valid points. It is up to each person and each person's tastes to make that final value judgement as to what is liked and what is not liked. Such aesthetic criteria result in one's personal preferences. These are not wrong, unless you think Voyager is the best Trek show and "Threshold" the best episode.
All other opinions are largely okay, provided they are honest.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Obviously, everything we're saying here is our opinions. I never claimed to be tapping into some great ethereal radio broadcast of indisputable universal truth. This is what I think.
Perhaps things *have* gotten a tad too polarized in this thread. Really though, there are two types of Trek fans: those who think TMP is the best Trek film and those who think TWOK is. This schism, of course, runs deeper and farther back to those who think "The Cage" was a better Trek pilot than "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and those who take an opposing view. I suspect it's really about plot-driven versus character-driven aesthetics. In the former, the chracters only exist to move the story along and reveal aspects of its themes; in the latter, the plot is constructed as a vehicle for the characters.
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: Of course, the fact that the VFX guys didn't realy know what they were supposed to be building up to because the ending hadn't been written might be a contributing factor.
This is not really accurate, as the basic framework of the story was laid out as early as the original script (entitled "In Thy Image," intended for the pilot of the scrapped Phase II television series) that the film was built on, though revisions did occur throughout the production stages.
quote:Originally posted by bX: When you say TWOK is a typical Hollywood flick, I can only assume you are placing it in the same bracket as, say, Eraser or maybe Die Hard: 2, and if that is what you are in fact saying, you are wrong.
Oh, I certainly wouldn't go that far. To me, those are not "typical" Hollywood films, but rather "especially bad" ones.
I must admit that I've been thinking in somewhat reactionary terms since this discussion began. Perhaps its fruitfulness as a critical discussion is waning. Nobody is wrong in prefering whatever they choose to, and I did not intend to imply so.
-MMoM Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Again though, your personal opinion overrides your objective viwepoint. Die Hard 2 is not, by most stretches of the imagination, a "bad" movie. You could say that you don't care for "man verses bad-guys" type films, but within that genre (and indeed, the action genre in general), the Die Hard films are high quality representations.
(I do accept that there might be people who honestly think that the Die Hards, Terminator 2, Goldfinger are objectively bad, but most people who dislike them do so out of a dislike for the genre, not the film. And that's not the same thing.)
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Er, where'd you get that from? I recall Kirk saying the above line to Decker, but "only ship" is not the same as "only suitable ship". Besides which, sending out a ship with untested weapons and engines does not seem to be the smartest move.
The script makes things a bit more clear, but the key words are "in interception range." The other ships were either not fast enough to catch up with V'Ger while it was still some distance from Earth or not powerful enough to be capable of intercepting it. This is what made the Enterprise "the only ship."
Okay. It's still a stupid plot hole though.
And do you like Encounter at Farpoint?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
There were certainly worse TNG episodes. "Genesis," "Masks," and, well, most of the seventh season spring to mind.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That is soooo right. As to there beine "two types of fans", I guess I'm in a minority, in that I think First Contact is by far the best Trek movie.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, I guess I was talking more about TOS fans. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't get why everyone hates Genesis. Sure, it's stupid, but it's also quite fun. I'd take that over dullness (The Masterpiece Society) or mildly offensive gibberish (The Host).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Sure, it's stupid, but it's also quite fun.
This argument never holds up for me with Star Trek. TNG was an intelligent show most of the time, and those kinds of "House of Horror" episodes fell sooo far from the best of it. If I want something that's stupid, but fun, I'll watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
-MMoM Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
In truth all Trek films fall short when measured to the film that The Great Bird ripped off for his "Wagontrain to the Stars".
Forbidden Planet.
I think that TMP was good, but not great. It fell short in conveying many of the themes it tried to explore due to some rather wooden acting and the fact that the visuals didn't "grab" like they should have. It was trying to evoke 2001 style storytelling when most people were running around having sword fights with wrapping paper tubes and yelling "Jedi! JEdi!". People were let down by the LACK of action much in the same way that the movie Stargate did. The previews led you to believe there was going to be this great epic battle but those few scenes were minimal and unfulfilling. So while there was good story in both, it failed in being appreciated because it was not the bill of goods that was sold.
The expectation that was built for TWOK was much better. I still remember the trailer "Somewhere...in the darkest reaches of the universe.... a battle is about to be fought. Between "Good" ....and "Evil".....Between a "Hero" .....and a "Madman".... Between the awesome power of the starship Enterprise......and "THE WRATH... OF KHAN". People went into TWOK with an expectation of a fight of epic proportions and that was what they got. But in the process, there was also this richness of character and development that was intertwined with myriad themes of death, life, redemption. And it worked because it was made a PART of the whole that the trailers wetted your appetite for. People went to TWOK HUNGRY for the meat of Hero-Trek, and got along with the meat the delicacies of plot, character and grand themes.
I liked First Contact as well. My only complaint about the plot was this: Why did the Borg have to travel all the way to Earth to go back in time? Why didn't they just do it in their own quadrant and then just make the couple of weeks journey to Earth with NO possibility of interference? And if it HAD to be done AT EARTH...then why only ONE cube? Kinda reminiscent of Ra only having a couple dozen Jaffar with him at Abydos in the Stargate movie. But all in all, it delivered what was promised.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: In truth all Trek films fall short when measured to the film that The Great Bird ripped off for his "Wagontrain to the Stars".
Forbidden Planet.
Which was itself a through rip off.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by bX: (but we all cut Stanley a break because he's British and clever.)
Clever, yes, British, no. He was an American Anglophile who hated travelling, hence recreating Vietnam in Docklands.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Wow. I knew he hated to travel, I just always assumed that because so many of his films were shot there and were UK releases that he was like a Hitchcock who didn't take to LA. I guess maybe I'm less impressed at his ability to nail American culture.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Depends what you mean by "nailling" American culture. A complete list of his films reads thus:-
Day of the Fight (1951) Flying Padre (1951) The Seafarers (1953) Fear and Desire (1953) Killer's Kiss (1955) The Killing (1956) Paths of Glory (1957) Spartacus (1960) Lolita (1962) Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) A Clockwork Orange (1971) Barry Lyndon (1975) The Shining (1980) Full Metal Jacket (1987) Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
. . . The first three being short documentary films, the first two of which I've seen and are superb snapshots of little bits of '50's Americana.
Beyond that, how many of his feature-films are about (or even set in) America? Fear and Desire I've not seen so can't say; Killer's Kiss and The Killing I have, and are; Lolita and Dr. Strangelove are, but do suffer because of the international casting and (obviously) English location-shooting; then you have nothing until the Shining, FMJ and EWS. So are you saying his films aren't American enough?
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Oh no, to the contrary. It's just that though Lolita and Strangelove feature British characters and actors in decidedly USA contexts, they seem to realistically convey an intimate familiarity and comfort with (perhaps even a healthy disdain for) American culture, but not from an outsiders perspective. The speech patterns, themes and setting of FMJ might be a more contemporary example. Is what I meant by 'nailing' American culture. And when I thought he was British, this was all the more surprising and impressive. His nationality in no way diminishes his brilliance, I just didn't know. I've not seen much of his early work, certainly no documentaries. I'd be curious to, certainly.
As an aside, this discussion of Kubrik enables me to post this image of Gnarls Barkley which makes me extremely happy:
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The two doco's I've watched are interesting, yes, but really their main appeal lies in the fact that they are Kubrick's early work. Killer's Kiss I've seen but din't like much, it seemed a rather nasty story - just not my thing I guess.
The Killing remains one of the best heist movies ever, the only problem I have with it is that when the leader of the gang is arrested at the end, it feels tacked on, because at the time it was required that criminals not be seen to profit from their activities - quite literally, in Hollywood films crime must not be seen to pay! On the other hand, it may be that Sterling Hayden's getting caught ties in with the overall motif of a good plan brought down by tragic circumstances, but it doesn't matter, because you know he's going to get caught because that's what always happened in films of that era!
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Crank up the Ludwig Van my droogies and lets do some UltraViolence.
And Jason, just what did Forbidden Planet rip off?
(if you say Freleng's Metropolis I will know that you are indeed the angel of the pit)
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Forbidden Planet = sci-fi version of Shakespeare's "The Tempest"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Pump up the peculiar.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...Freleng's Metropolis..."
I'm picturing Bugs Bunny as Freder, Tweety Bird as Maria, and... oh, let's say the Tasmanian Devil as Rotwang.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
"...Rotwang."
*snicker*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: Forbidden Planet = sci-fi version of Shakespeare's "The Tempest"
Exactly...though many would call it a "update" "remake" or even "tribute", but so few fans of the film realise what they're watching that any discription works.
Lots of cool Shakespere movies are around- see John Turturro in Men of Respect for a fantastic (mobster) MacBeth flick.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I'm partial to Daffy as Rotwang. Porky Pig as Freder's dad.
While I do get the The Tempest/Forbidden Planet connection, I guess maybe I'm not seeing how they've been directly ripped off by/for Star Trek.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I think the connection between FP and Trek is considered more thematic in nature, plus similarities in look and concept.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I could squint and sorta see a Prospero/Caliban/Arial comparison with Soong/Lore/Data but that's about it.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No. Forbidden Planet borrows its plot, loosely, from The Tempest. What Trek took from Forbidden Planet was the concept, the idea of ordinary, altogether-human humans going around exploring the galaxy. The quasi-military look, the notion of an all-American heroic captain backed-up and advised by his senior staff. What needs to be emphasised is that just because FP = Tempest, and Trek = FP, does NOT mean that therefore Trek = Tempest.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah, but it could be done so easily, and with good results.
As pointed out, most viewers would never know and critics would think it was cool because of it.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Anyone heard the rumour that Affleck might play a young Kirk?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I could be wrong but I think that rumour started here....
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Scary!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I posted that a couple of weeks back in this very thread, but I did not make it up.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Robotech ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
