Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

[James Stocks]

Agreed. I do see dramatic potential in what would have been Singer's follow-up, but a lot of it wouldn't work because SR already screwed it up in the first place. Particularly the kid. In SR he is such a non-entity of a character that any follow-up would have to do some serious weight lifting in order to make it effective and I don't think Singer had it in him to pull it off. As controversial as the kid is, I believed there was some potential to the character but it's completely wasted in the final form, like many other ideas present in the film. Singer doesn't justify the kid's presence other than a vague promise of getting more into that in the next film as if he believes it's a sure thing.

Funnily enough, this goes right back to Star Trek. He kept saying his second film would be his "Wrath of Khan", which was the film that introduced Kirk's son David, who is killed in the next film. Singer also gave nods to WRATH OF KHAN in X2 with the final act carrying the same structure of the climax with Jean's sacrifice and the ending where she recites the monologue that Xavier did in the first film, mirroring Spock reciting Kirk's monologue. X2 pulled it off effectively, but it would have become predictable of Singer to go that route again in SR2.

[thecolorsblend]

Saw it today. Never was a core Trek fan so this wasn't necessarily a midnight premiere for me. Anywho, I enjoyed it. I see the complaints and get what core Trek fans are pissed off about but I dug the interplay between Pine and Quinto.

One thing that seriously grated me was Nimoy. (A) It felt perfunctory and (B) the alternate timeline needs to stand on its own at some point. Constantly bringing back Nimoy is something of an admission that this iteration of Trek cannot survive without tangible connections to the original. Whether it can or not, it should strive to do so. I love Nimoy, I dig the original timeline and I don't have blind adoration for the new one but it's time to cut ties with what came before.

One thing that should have worked for me but didn't was Khan. I dig that portrayal and whatnot but although I am always happy to get a Star Trek villain who doesn't constantly quote from great works of literature, Khan is the guy who started all that. I can't remember Khan ever doing so in STID though.

On that note, the Khan twist seems kind of arbitrary. This could have been a completely original villain and I would argue it would have worked just as well, if not better. I predict there will be fan edits that remove all references to Khan and, for once, I kinda have to come down with those fan editors. This is a plot twist that simply didn't need to happen.

Anyway. Greatest Trek movie ever? No. But it's pretty good and, apart from some apparently common reservations, I had fun with it.

[thecolorsblend]

The writers explained that the reason Khan looks different is because Admiral Marcus put him under plastic surgery, because if he started walking around in public somebody would recognize him since he's one of Earth's most vicious dictators from the past, or at least attract some attention over his resemblance. Problem is that they never explain that in the film, thus that invited a lot of criticism of whitewashing of what's supposed to be an ethnic character.

This reminds me of something from Trek2009. They basically said that the reason the alternate timeline was starting to realign somewhat with the original one (ie, Kirk joining up with Starfeelt, Spock eventually serving under him, etc) is because the universe was attempting to correct what had gone wrong or some such. They then tossed out some fuzzy science that people a lot smarter than me say actually has considerable merit.

But, as with the Khan thing, they never fucking explained it. It was apparently in some comic book or novel or something. But guess what assholes? I shouldn't have to do anything but watch the damn movie to follow the story. Now, the timeline matchup thing is small potatoes but the Khan thing really is relevant. I'm sure that's probably in some fucking comic book too and, sorry, the movie should give me what I need to know. I don't need everything spelled out for me but important shit like that ought to be covered.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Abrams wanted to turn Trek into a true blue multimedia franchise which tells basically one story across more than one medium. Star Wars in some ways is better geared for that and I sure hope he improves his editorial process because if he leaves important stuff like this out, it'll only weaken the whole.

Like I said, it's an ok film, but I would put 'IM3' waaaay ahead of it so far this summer. I have a feeling 'Man Of Steel' is going to be the best thing I see this year. I really do.

The more summer films I see, the more convinced I become of the same.

[James Stocks]

This reminds me of something from Trek2009. They basically said that the reason the alternate timeline was starting to realign somewhat with the original one (ie, Kirk joining up with Starfeelt, Spock eventually serving under him, etc) is because the universe was attempting to correct what had gone wrong or some such. They then tossed out some fuzzy science that people a lot smarter than me say actually has considerable merit.

Yeah, that's a theory many brought up because when the film came out the TV show LOST was playing with the idea that time has a way of making a course correction if someone tries altering the past. I don't think that holds a lot of water though, because Spock's home planet is destroyed and his race becomes an endangered species. That's a pretty big fucking event for time to try to "correct".

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Abrams wanted to turn Trek into a true blue multimedia franchise which tells basically one story across more than one medium. Star Wars in some ways is better geared for that and I sure hope he improves his editorial process because if he leaves important stuff like this out, it'll only weaken the whole.

Yeah, basically the franchise is split in two. Paramount has rights to the films while CBS has the TV shows. They have some sort of mutual agreement so it hasn't been too rocky, but it definitely got in the way of Abrams trying to expand his mark beyond the films. From what I understand he tried to get CBS to play ball by shutting down all their merchandise related to the original show, because he wanted all focus to be on his films and felt that toys still based on Shatner and such would compromise things. CBS refused, because the original show still has a strong following and they're not going to just shut down their whole program when it's doing good business. That does make sense, you didn't see Lucas stop making toys of the original trilogy in favor of the new prequels. Either way, with Abrams moving onto Star Wars he likely has a better chance expanding his branding beyond the films, assuming Disney approves.


For some fun, here's a video where the folks at RedLetterMedia point out every possible reference/rip-off that the new Trek movie did of previous TV shows and films. Some I might call coincidences, but others like a space ship ambushing a meeting in a building is strikingly similar.

[thecolorsblend]

The building getting shot up by an aircraft thing reminded me of Godfather III.

[thecolorsblend]

Yeah, that's a theory many brought up because when the film came out the TV show LOST was playing with the idea that time has a way of making a course correction if someone tries altering the past. I don't think that holds a lot of water though, because Spock's home planet is destroyed and his race becomes an endangered species. That's a pretty big fucking event for time to try to "correct".

Eh. I found it convincing enough to believe from the point of view of completely BS/unknowable science.

Yeah, basically the franchise is split in two. Paramount has rights to the films while CBS has the TV shows. They have some sort of mutual agreement so it hasn't been too rocky, but it definitely got in the way of Abrams trying to expand his mark beyond the films. From what I understand he tried to get CBS to play ball by shutting down all their merchandise related to the original show, because he wanted all focus to be on his films and felt that toys still based on Shatner and such would compromise things. CBS refused, because the original show still has a strong following and they're not going to just shut down their whole program when it's doing good business. That does make sense, you didn't see Lucas stop making toys of the original trilogy in favor of the new prequels. Either way, with Abrams moving onto Star Wars he likely has a better chance expanding his branding beyond the films, assuming Disney approves.

I sure hope he doesn't think licensing for previous Star Wars iterations will cease simply because he's on the scene now. I could see maybe phasing out something like Clone Wars (which I and zillions of other people have absolutely zero stake in) but the idea of deleting even the prequel stuff is probably off the table. Toys and other merch were a big factor in Disney's decision to buy Lucasfilm to begin with. I get what he's trying to achieve here but this kind of scorched earth approach would only really work with something like BSG or something similar.

For some fun, here's a video where the folks at RedLetterMedia point out every possible reference/rip-off that the new Trek movie did of previous TV shows and films. Some I might call coincidences, but others like a space ship ambushing a meeting in a building is strikingly similar.

I could usually give a crap about him but I thought this review was amusing enough.

[James Stocks]

Roberto Orci on why they cast a pasty white guy as Khan.



Right, and whitewashing is much better. It's ironic how the writers in the 1960s were a lot more forward thinking than these current folks. Khan wasn't some racial stereotype demonizing his ethnic background. He had a ethnic background, but Trek never put a lot of emphasis onto that. He was actually one man among 70 others who were all from different regions of the world, just like how the heroes in Star Trek are all from different regions. See the point? He wasn't representing his ethnic background or skin color, he was representing the genetically engineered people who believe they're superior just because they were engineered.

But then again this guy is a truther, so I rarely ever take anything he says seriously.

[non_amos]

I see something else in what you quoted Orci as saying. He 'doesn't want to offend anyone especially of middle Eastern descent'. See where I'm going with this? In other words, political correctness. Or is it more? I mean, I'm sure Orci doesn't want to be the victim of a suicide bomber, right? So go & make the guy a 'honkey' & all is well with the world. But what is it with this trend in the media and Hollywood to try & sugar-coat this subject?! Have they forgotten 9/11?! And if I'm not mistaken this ain't the first time something like this has been changed due to 'Middle Eastern sensibilities'. I'm not suggesting racism but I'm not suggesting living in FEAR either! Cut the crap already Hollyweird! And besides, Khan was basically an Indian character played by a Hispanic man so why go the fear route in the first place?

[thecolorsblend]

It's a very revealing comment. Don't get me wrong, you'd have to go a hell of a long way to find someone further right than me but on one level, the guy really does have a point. If they'd cast someone ethnic in the role, odds are some "news" rag out there probably would've played the race card. But on another level, I guess we're supposed to forget about the potential for the same exact accusation in replacing an "ethnic" character with just another whitie.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we must go political on this, to me this is exemplary of everything the left is all about... which is why I'm enjoying liberalism eating its own tail in this instance.

[James Stocks]

I can see his point, and there probably would be a group calling foul for "demonizing" an ethnic group, but I think he's overestimating it. Not only would the complaining come from a vocal minority (no pun) but that it would be really difficult to pin it on STAR TREK of all franchises because its always been known for its very progressive views on humanity since the beginning. It would be a big "so what?" when the heroes are comprised of all ethnic backgrounds, even non-humans. It is very much a case of a man's leftist views getting in the way common sense. Trek is supposed to be beyond that sort of backward thinking. They might mean well, but they need to look at the bigger picture, especially when it comes to writing Star Trek stories.

[James Stocks]

'Star Trek Into Darkness' Promotes Bestiality Says Pastor Kevin Swanson (Audio)

Well, that's one way of criticizing a film. He probably should stay away from SUPERMAN RETURNS.

[Sponsored content]