If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ComicMix)   Some dork watches The Wrath of Khan for the first time   (comicmix.com) divider line 90
    More: Silly, Wrath of Khan, Star Trek, moral dilemmas  
•       •       •

6161 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jan 2013 at 11:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-13 08:06:10 AM
Yup he's a ignorant dork to.  Not because he hasn't watched star trek.  Stolen dvr movie?  Thats ignorant.
 
2013-01-13 09:40:58 AM
FTA:    I'm finding just why so many people are smitten by Shatner.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-13 09:43:59 AM
I gave my nephew, a huge Star Wars nerd, all three seasons of TOS for Christmas. He's about to finish Season 3. He called me to tell me how childish he thinks Star Wars is compared to this show that's approaching 50 years old.

It's not about the Wars. It's always about the Trek.

/Give me Gary Mitchell in the new movie
 
2013-01-13 10:06:34 AM
It constantly annoys me how often scifi substitutes technobabble for strategy, logic and thought. TOS did it too but STII stood out for not doing so. Do you win because you have a 1% chance and you are the hero or do you win because you really know your stuff, have a smart plan and understand your enemy enough to exploit his mistakes? Too many choose path 1 and it makes for crappy movies.
 
2013-01-13 10:07:38 AM
But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.
 
2013-01-13 10:12:40 AM
I bet this guy loves Big Bang Theory.
 
2013-01-13 10:16:33 AM
But what could be next? Doctor Who?

Not likely


Good, please don't
 
2013-01-13 10:19:06 AM

thornhill: But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.


It's Horatio Hornblower in space.

Which was a novel concept and done quite well.

It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.
 
2013-01-13 10:29:31 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: thornhill: But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.

It's Horatio Hornblower in space.

Which was a novel concept and done quite well.

It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.


Which is farked up, because in Khan, they used all three dimensions of space during the battle, not just one dimensional head on tactics.
 
2013-01-13 10:29:56 AM
About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.
 
2013-01-13 10:32:53 AM

Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.


He was reason #2 why I could not watch that show.
I can't describe reason #1 because this is Fark, and, well, you know...
 
2013-01-13 10:32:56 AM

Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.


if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...
 
2013-01-13 10:34:09 AM

Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.


You're funny.
 
2013-01-13 10:35:30 AM

AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...


It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.
 
2013-01-13 10:36:09 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

You're funny.


Aw, are you still mad people like new Star Trek?
 
2013-01-13 10:38:14 AM

Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


No fair on the Voyager and Enterprise, they both sucked for a lot more reasons then their lack of compelling characters :P
 
2013-01-13 10:38:42 AM

Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


Dude. BLACK VULCAN. "Word, that is logical."
 
2013-01-13 10:46:12 AM

FirstNationalBastard: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: thornhill: But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.

It's Horatio Hornblower in space.

Which was a novel concept and done quite well.

It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.

Which is farked up, because in Khan, they used all three dimensions of space during the battle, not just one dimensional head on tactics.


I am almost finished watching the final season of BSG (so I'm a little behind), and I have to say that I appreciate the show's attempts to use hard science fiction. There was one battle scene between the Galactica and a base star or two where Adama orders the ship to roll to the side so it can basically protect one flank while trying to expose the base star's side. It was a few seconds of dialogue, but it did seem to disobey the rule that the starships have to be pointed at one another and a few yards apart before they start firing.
 
2013-01-13 10:50:06 AM

Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.


I don't know about Abrams, but I agree with the first part. Scotty never wasted five minutes explaining how he was going to reconfigure the shields, and send a beam of subatomic particles through the subspace wave condenser. He just went down to engineering, pressed a few buttons and farking did it.
 
2013-01-13 10:57:55 AM

Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


The Doctor and Commander Shran
 
2013-01-13 11:00:01 AM

khhsdude: Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.

The Doctor and Commander Shran


I'll give you The Doctor.
 
2013-01-13 11:01:54 AM

Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


The Doctor and Seven were good enough to make some episodes of Voyager enjoyable. The rest of the cast, not so much.

I can't speak to Enterprise, since I still haven't taken the time to watch it yet. I stopped part way through the first season when it first aired. It's on my list of things to watch, now that it's on Netflix.
 
2013-01-13 11:05:05 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.


I seem to recall the space battles in Babylon 5 being pretty good about not just doing nose-to-nose face offs but it has been a while since I watched the show. In general though I think much of the problem is that it's confusing to audiences to set up battles in a way that they aren't use to. So directors take the easy, and probably smart, way out in order to make the movie/tv show accessible to a general audience.
 
2013-01-13 11:07:09 AM

EngineerAU: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.

I seem to recall the space battles in Babylon 5 being pretty good about not just doing nose-to-nose face offs but it has been a while since I watched the show. In general though I think much of the problem is that it's confusing to audiences to set up battles in a way that they aren't use to. So directors take the easy, and probably smart, way out in order to make the movie/tv show accessible to a general audience.


That's the only real explanation. It's also why the bridge is in the worst possible location on most Federation ships. Everything is running on instruments. The bridge should be centrally located to better protect it, like the Enterprise-D battle bridge. Having it top and center of the saucer is just too tempting a target.
 
2013-01-13 11:14:13 AM

FirstNationalBastard: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: thornhill: But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.

It's Horatio Hornblower in space.

Which was a novel concept and done quite well.

It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.

Which is farked up, because in Khan, they used all three dimensions of space during the battle, not just one dimensional head on tactics.


Tallships use two dimensions.

And that was the "ace in the hole" of Khan: Spock telling Kirk "We're in space, dummy". That was how they defeated the supergenius.

Sulu even had sliders labeled "altitude" so that they could conveniently "sink under" the Reliant for the game-winning sneak attack.

It was silly at the time, but we didn't have Futurama back then so we laughed where we could.
 
2013-01-13 11:15:16 AM
He should watch Balance of Terror to see just how damn good TOS can be.
 
2013-01-13 11:20:27 AM

dennysgod: He should watch Balance of Terror to see just how damn good TOS can be.


Immediately followed by "Spock's Brain" to so the complete range in quality of TOS.
 
2013-01-13 11:22:33 AM

NeoCortex42: EngineerAU: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.

I seem to recall the space battles in Babylon 5 being pretty good about not just doing nose-to-nose face offs but it has been a while since I watched the show. In general though I think much of the problem is that it's confusing to audiences to set up battles in a way that they aren't use to. So directors take the easy, and probably smart, way out in order to make the movie/tv show accessible to a general audience.

That's the only real explanation. It's also why the bridge is in the worst possible location on most Federation ships. Everything is running on instruments. The bridge should be centrally located to better protect it, like the Enterprise-D battle bridge. Having it top and center of the saucer is just too tempting a target.


Well, here's the other lasting legacy of Khan: Star Trek was never meant to be about military adventurism, but the exciting box office sales made it start leaning that way. This is even more hilarious with the TNG movies in which Patrick Stewart stops playing the scholarly diplomat of Picard and instead goes full Bruce Willis. Because that shiat sells.

The bridge was placed for maximum observation. They're explorers. In the original show the weapons would never work as a way of showing that the characters had to think their way out of a situation.

Roddenberry was a hippie who was excited by NASA.
 
2013-01-13 11:30:20 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Star Trek was never meant to be about military adventurism


"Balance of Terror", one of the best TOS episodes, definitely was a military adventure. Overall, I agree: Star Trek is at its best when it's about exploration and discovery. But that doesn't translate well to movies, and without some careful editing and direction, it doesn't work so great on TV either.

But you do hit upon why I hate First Contact. While it's the only TNG-era film that actually holds together as a movie and creates something watchable, it's so contrary to everything I know and love about Star Trek that I simply can't take it.

TWOK my add a lot of military adventure, but at its core, it's still a story about discovery; the MacGuffin that drives the plot is a discovery built by human genius that gives us the awesome power to reshape worlds- and we have to choose between using it to create or using it to destroy. That's a very Star Trek theme. It's why TWOK works as Star Trek while the equally action-oriented First Contact doesn't.

It's also why The Search For Spock is a little rough- the writers backpedal on the power of the Genesis device.
 
2013-01-13 11:30:42 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: NeoCortex42: EngineerAU: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.

I seem to recall the space battles in Babylon 5 being pretty good about not just doing nose-to-nose face offs but it has been a while since I watched the show. In general though I think much of the problem is that it's confusing to audiences to set up battles in a way that they aren't use to. So directors take the easy, and probably smart, way out in order to make the movie/tv show accessible to a general audience.

That's the only real explanation. It's also why the bridge is in the worst possible location on most Federation ships. Everything is running on instruments. The bridge should be centrally located to better protect it, like the Enterprise-D battle bridge. Having it top and center of the saucer is just too tempting a target.

Well, here's the other lasting legacy of Khan: Star Trek was never meant to be about military adventurism, but the exciting box office sales made it start leaning that way. This is even more hilarious with the TNG movies in which Patrick Stewart stops playing the scholarly diplomat of Picard and instead goes full Bruce Willis. Because that shiat sells.

The bridge was placed for maximum observation. They're explorers. In the original show the weapons would never work as a way of showing that the characters had to think their way out of a situation.

Roddenberry was a hippie who was excited by NASA.


But the location of the bridge never actually aided them in observation since they only had instruments and the viewscreen to go off of. It would be different if they had a guy sitting in a chair towards the ceiling looking out the window.

Come to think of it, with all the windows on those ships, they really should have made better use of them for navigating/targeting during all those times when nebulae screwed with the sensors. I think the only time they did anything like that was when the sent Geordi to look out the window in Ten Forward with his VISOR.
 
2013-01-13 11:32:50 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: And that was the "ace in the hole" of Khan: Spock telling Kirk "We're in space, dummy". That was how they defeated the supergenius.


Nope. They defeated the supergenius by playing on his overconfidence and belief that they were ignorant and weak ("Shields up captain?", "not so hurt as we were lead to believe"), their knowledge of the local terrain and it's effect on the ship gleaned from doing their job for decades (nebula and effect on shields, sensor and manuver), and then by predicting how he would behave because he was unfamiliar with space combat given that technology - no matter how smart he was. The last is a classic experience vs. intelligence screwup.

If you are going to pull apart the tactics you need to look at what brought them to the last point as well as the point itself because it wouldn't have worked unless each step before worked as well. Of course Kahn's overconfidence was no doubt inspired by the colossal stupidity of not raising shields when no communications were possible.
 
2013-01-13 11:46:54 AM
No one noticed this interesting read (NSFW) linked at the bottom of the article?
 
2013-01-13 12:01:41 PM

Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


Well other folks have mentioned the Doctor and Seven for Voyager. Enterprise made an attempt at making some of the characters interesting, and they almost managed it with Tits Mclogic, but the rest of the cast only had brief moments. And honestly, TNG only really had one interesting regular character, Data. Captain Baldy was a pompous Dudley Doright. Riker was Kirk 2.0 without the rebellious streak. LaForge was techie plot crutch. Troi was absolutely worthless as anything except eyecandy. Worf was the muscle meant only to show how tough the bad guy was. The vast majority of the characters had almost no growth. I liked the show at the time, but as I go back now and watch TNG again I realize that it kinda sucked.
 
2013-01-13 12:07:43 PM

BigSlowTarget: "Shields up captain?"


Whoops quote from different movie. The principle still holds from the other one and Kahn's willingness to negotiate for surrender.
 
2013-01-13 12:11:33 PM

thornhill: But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.


No its about Khaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!

/no .jpg
//wrath is the best though
 
2013-01-13 12:15:41 PM
Obligatory, necessary and absolutely required YouTube link for any STII-TWoK thread.
 
2013-01-13 12:15:55 PM
FTFA: In my short time on this blue ball

Imagine that...a nerd talking about blue balls.
 
2013-01-13 12:37:26 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.

Well other folks have mentioned the Doctor and Seven for Voyager. Enterprise made an attempt at making some of the characters interesting, and they almost managed it with Tits Mclogic, but the rest of the cast only had brief moments. And honestly, TNG only really had one interesting regular character, Data. Captain Baldy was a pompous Dudley Doright. Riker was Kirk 2.0 without the rebellious streak. LaForge was techie plot crutch. Troi was absolutely worthless as anything except eyecandy. Worf was the muscle meant only to show how tough the bad guy was. The vast majority of the characters had almost no growth. I liked the show at the time, but as I go back now and watch TNG again I realize that it kinda sucked.


Worf was much improved once he moved on to DS9. His TNG character was basically reduced to "get knocked out by alien to show that alien is really strong". Picard had some good character episodes, particularly his post-Borg family visit. Other than that, Data was probably the only fully-realized character. They tried several times with Geordi trying to find love or something, but it just never worked.
 
2013-01-13 12:37:50 PM
Who could forget "the Borgs"
 
2013-01-13 12:42:22 PM

Confabulat: JJ Abrams has it right.


I guess he has some characters, now he has to get the concept of putting them into an actual plot that makes sense.

I swear, the new Trek is a poster child for Fridge Logic. (Warning: TV Tropes)
 
2013-01-13 12:51:33 PM
I'm just surprised that there is a dork left who hasn't seen it, like, a hundred times already.

Heck, I've watched most of those stupid movies myself. True, I watched most of them with the MST3K-style commentary from Rifftrax.com, but I still watched them.

They're funnier with the jokes. Marginally. They're pretty funny to start with.
 
2013-01-13 12:52:03 PM
TWOK works for precisely the reason that Star Trek TOS works -- they're about telling the story of three main characters amidst adventure backdrops. James T. Kirk is fascinating not because he's an old movie-serial hero, but because he's smart, he's a team player, he's in control and he excels at spotting weaknesses. His weaknesses are offset by his willingness to rely on others. He's essentially the space age version of Odysseus.

Spock is the personification of empiricism and reason, but is made interesting by having to grapple with emotions that he struggles to control. Bones, by contrast, is a cranky pragmatist who reacts emotionally to everything despite his training in science and medicine. Both Bones and Spock lack the capability to lead others.

Kirk, Spock and Bones each have complimentary characteristics and can serve as perfect foils against each other. Spock and Bones also serve as the compass to Kirk, who often needs to rely on both of them to effectively get through a crisis. (Sulu, Chekhov, Scotty and Uhura, on the other hand, are caricatures who remain in the background until they're needed, and while they're occasionally allowed to be characters in the story, their adventures are rarely about what makes them unique as people and more about placing them in the peril of the week situation.)

That's exactly why the JJ Abrams film irritated some fans, incidentally - it turned all seven of the characters into angsty, boiled-over caricatures based upon decades worth of cultural accumulation and then embedded them into an incredibly stupid plot that felt more like Star Wars than Star Trek.

It's also the reason that TWOK works so well. You don't have to know anything about Star Trek to enjoy the film, but you'll leave it feel like you just had a rich experience and that you owe it to yourself to find out more. Unlike some of the other Trek films which are closer to the original series in plot (as dreadful as I and V are, their stories are much more true to the weekly show), TWOK focuses on taking these very interesting characters, putting them in an escalating situation and playing things out to an exciting endgame.
 
2013-01-13 12:59:24 PM
I also set my DVR to record the once-a-week rerun of the retro-upgraded Original Series on cable.

I don't know why anyone would want to watch those. Much of the charm in TOS comes from its era and working with what they had. If you want to see smoother effects or set pieces there are many, many newer things to watch. A lot of them also happen to be Star Trek.
 
2013-01-13 01:00:36 PM

secularsage: It's also the reason that TWOK works so well. You don't have to know anything about Star Trek to enjoy the film, but you'll leave it feel like you just had a rich experience and that you owe it to yourself to find out more. Unlike some of the other Trek films which are closer to the original series in plot (as dreadful as I and V are, their stories are much more true to the weekly show), TWOK focuses on taking these very interesting characters, putting them in an escalating situation and playing things out to an exciting endgame.


I rewatched it a few months ago and was pleasantly surprised that it holds up well as a film, not just a sci-fi flick. Plus, you have some not-so-subtle tweaks at Kirk as he was originally portrayed. The youthful hotshot who banged green-skinned ladies from here to Arcturus finds he now needs glasses to see the fark trophy who thinks he's just another entitled authority figure flying a desk.
 
2013-01-13 01:27:42 PM
The Undiscovered Country is my favorite. That's probably an unpopular decision, but "the Berlin wall comes down in space" is just a perfect fit for the time when it was made, and the Klingons choosing Kirk, of all people, to make their peace offer to, is just brilliant, especially when everything inevitably goes horribly wrong, because who better to put in a position of having to save the peace than the guy who wants it least?
 
2013-01-13 01:40:19 PM
As a fan of TNG when it originally aired, whenever I happen across a rerun on TV, I kind of sit back and realize it did not age very well...and agree that in hindsight that all of the characters we kind of lacking. In the end, the characters that I liked the most were Guinan and Pulaski...both of which were kind of temporary characters.

On the other hand, thanks to netflix, I'm finding that DS9 holds up quite well, and almost all of the characters interesting, if only due to the fact that they are almost all designed to work AGAINST each other, instead of the well oiled machine where everyone works together on TNG.
 
2013-01-13 02:10:36 PM
What he loves is not Trek -- what he loves is Nicolas Mayer.
 
2013-01-13 02:13:25 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: FirstNationalBastard: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: thornhill: But let's all be real; Wrath of Khan is all about Khan.

Uh, no. It's all about Kirk getting old and his refusal to accept the inevitability of death.

It's Horatio Hornblower in space.

Which was a novel concept and done quite well.

It's just slightly annoying to me that every sci-fi movie, tv show and videogame thereafter treats space battles like tallship skirmishes.

Which is farked up, because in Khan, they used all three dimensions of space during the battle, not just one dimensional head on tactics.

Tallships use two dimensions.

And that was the "ace in the hole" of Khan: Spock telling Kirk "We're in space, dummy". That was how they defeated the supergenius.

Sulu even had sliders labeled "altitude" so that they could conveniently "sink under" the Reliant for the game-winning sneak attack.

It was silly at the time, but we didn't have Futurama back then so we laughed where we could.


that whole battle was a very intense submarine combat sequence.
 
2013-01-13 03:06:48 PM

Confabulat: FirstNationalBastard: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

You're funny.

Aw, are you still mad people like new Star Trek?


No we don't give a f*ck if you like Star Trek: A Generic Space Movie. The reason why we hate it is because it's bland, generic and mediocre at best. The only reason why it got 95% on the RT meter. Is because the producers ran a junket on it and gathered the usual boot lickers. Does anyone here actually believe the ST:AGSM is better than The Wrath of Khan, Voyage home and Undiscovered Country?

My list from best to worst

Wrath of Khan
Undiscovered Country
Voyage Home
Search for Spock
The Motion Picture
A Generic Space Movie
Shatner's Ego
All TNG films tie for last.

I haven't seen Nemesis, yet. Not going out of my way to see it.
 
2013-01-13 03:24:25 PM

Freschel: I haven't seen Nemesis, yet. Not going out of my way to see it.


It's remarkable how similar Shinzon, the villain in Nemesis, is to Nero, the villain in Star Trek '09. To basically reheat the antagonist from the film that put the franchise in a coma and hope that carries your big-budget reboot is a baffling move. I guess they calculated that Nemesis failed because people didn't go see it, not because people saw it.
 
2013-01-13 03:37:48 PM

Freschel: I haven't seen Nemesis, yet. Not going out of my way to see it.


Take all of the worst possible things that could be in a Star Trek movie, and put them together. And no, you haven't finished. You forgot about the psychic rape scene that added nothing to the plot, and only served as a really ham-handed way to establish that the bad guy was actually a bad guy. A bad guy who was bald for no reason. Oh, sure, he was cloned from Picard, and this movie retconned the idea that Picard went bald at the age of 18.

Oh god, just thinking about this is giving me braindabhtneadbglrcnhgxlcdnhtwm
 
2013-01-13 03:39:03 PM

Freschel: Wrath of Khan
Undiscovered Country
Voyage Home
Search for Spock
The Motion Picture
A Generic Space Movie
Shatner's Ego
All TNG films tie for last.


I have to disagree

Wrath of Khan
Voyage Home
Undiscovered Country
First Contact
A Generic Space Movie
Motion Pic - All Other TNG films - Search For Spock (tied for penultimate badness)
Shatner's Ego - dude, giving this utter piece of shiat anything but last place is just an admission that you have a green alien chick vagina pulsating away where your heart is supposed to be.

Nemesis is bad. Continue to skip it.
 
2013-01-13 03:39:23 PM

Nem Wan: Freschel: I haven't seen Nemesis, yet. Not going out of my way to see it.

It's remarkable how similar Shinzon, the villain in Nemesis, is to Nero, the villain in Star Trek '09. To basically reheat the antagonist from the film that put the franchise in a coma and hope that carries your big-budget reboot is a baffling move. I guess they calculated that Nemesis failed because people didn't go see it, not because people saw it.


A little from column A, a little from column B.

Nemesis was a bad attempt at doing a TNG version of Wrath of Khan. It failed miserably, both because it was a lame rehash, and because Paramount chopped nearly an hour out of the film that would have helped it make a bit more sense.
 
2013-01-13 03:40:51 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Paramount chopped nearly an hour out of the film that would have helped it make a bit more sense


Oh christ, there was more of it? It was already too crowded with utter nonsense. You could have chopped another hour from it and it wouldn't have changed the movie significantly. The issue isn't that the movie didn't make sense, it's that it did- a terrible, horrifying and pointless kind of sense.
 
2013-01-13 03:44:33 PM

t3knomanser: FirstNationalBastard: Paramount chopped nearly an hour out of the film that would have helped it make a bit more sense

Oh christ, there was more of it? It was already too crowded with utter nonsense. You could have chopped another hour from it and it wouldn't have changed the movie significantly. The issue isn't that the movie didn't make sense, it's that it did- a terrible, horrifying and pointless kind of sense.


The Special Edition DVD released back in '04 had something like 45 minutes of deleted scenes... not re-inserted, just there to watch, including Wesley Crusher back in a Starfleet Uniform and at Riker and Troi's wedding, and a scene at the end with Picard and his new First Officer, Commander Martin Madden (had to look it up on a Trek wiki)..

/Okay, maybe the deleted scenes wouldn't have helped. Why would Wesley Crusher ever come back to Starfleet from exploring the Universe with his alien Catholic Priest?
 
2013-01-13 03:48:19 PM
Ffi

t3knomanser: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Star Trek was never meant to be about military adventurism

"Balance of Terror", one of the best TOS episodes, definitely was a military adventure. Overall, I agree: Star Trek is at its best when it's about exploration and discovery. But that doesn't translate well to movies, and without some careful editing and direction, it doesn't work so great on TV either.

But you do hit upon why I hate First Contact. While it's the only TNG-era film that actually holds together as a movie and creates something watchable, it's so contrary to everything I know and love about Star Trek that I simply can't take it.

TWOK my add a lot of military adventure, but at its core, it's still a story about discovery; the MacGuffin that drives the plot is a discovery built by human genius that gives us the awesome power to reshape worlds- and we have to choose between using it to create or using it to destroy. That's a very Star Trek theme. It's why TWOK works as Star Trek while the equally action-oriented First Contact doesn't.

It's also why The Search For Spock is a little rough- the writers backpedal on the power of the Genesis device.


I have to defend First Contact. Picard going apeshiat is completely and utterly reasonable when you think about what the Borg did to him and Picard's utter contempt for losing control. Watch the episodes where he comes home after being Locutus and where he is tortured by the Cardassians.
 
2013-01-13 03:50:17 PM

Atillathepun: Ffit3knomanser: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Star Trek was never meant to be about military adventurism

"Balance of Terror", one of the best TOS episodes, definitely was a military adventure. Overall, I agree: Star Trek is at its best when it's about exploration and discovery. But that doesn't translate well to movies, and without some careful editing and direction, it doesn't work so great on TV either.

But you do hit upon why I hate First Contact. While it's the only TNG-era film that actually holds together as a movie and creates something watchable, it's so contrary to everything I know and love about Star Trek that I simply can't take it.

TWOK my add a lot of military adventure, but at its core, it's still a story about discovery; the MacGuffin that drives the plot is a discovery built by human genius that gives us the awesome power to reshape worlds- and we have to choose between using it to create or using it to destroy. That's a very Star Trek theme. It's why TWOK works as Star Trek while the equally action-oriented First Contact doesn't.

It's also why The Search For Spock is a little rough- the writers backpedal on the power of the Genesis device.

I have to defend First Contact. Picard going apeshiat is completely and utterly reasonable when you think about what the Borg did to him and Picard's utter contempt for losing control. Watch the episodes where he comes home after being Locutus and where he is tortured by the Cardassians.


Honestly, the out of character bit was in I, Borg, when Picard DOESN'T take the opportunity to use Hugh as a trojan horse to destroy the Borg because Hugh was made cute and cuddly.
 
2013-01-13 03:52:05 PM

Atillathepun: Picard going apeshiat


Picard going apeshiat was the best part of the film. There's a lot of other bullshiat in the film that basically ruins it as a Star Trek film.
 
2013-01-13 03:59:14 PM

t3knomanser: Atillathepun: Picard going apeshiat

Picard going apeshiat was the best part of the film. There's a lot of other bullshiat in the film that basically ruins it as a Star Trek film.


On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.
 
2013-01-13 04:06:27 PM

Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.


Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.
 
2013-01-13 04:09:01 PM

t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.


And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.
 
2013-01-13 04:14:08 PM

FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.


Dude did love his booze though which could contribute to that quite a bit, not to mention stresses of life after WW3.
 
2013-01-13 04:21:21 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.

Dude did love his booze though which could contribute to that quite a bit, not to mention stresses of life after WW3.


Yeah, the general fanboy explanation is radiation poisoning from WW3 made a 30-year-old look like he's in his 50s.

/makes as much sense as Geordi's usual technobabble.
 
2013-01-13 04:22:04 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Dingleberry Dickwad: FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.

Dude did love his booze though which could contribute to that quite a bit, not to mention stresses of life after WW3.

Yeah, the general fanboy explanation is radiation poisoning from WW3 made a 30-year-old look like he's in his 50s.

/makes as much sense as Geordi's usual technobabble.


Tachyon poisoning.
 
2013-01-13 04:22:28 PM

FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.


Between World War III and the types of energy he was working with, his dosimeter badge probably came to life and hitchhiked to Seattle.
 
2013-01-13 04:26:54 PM

Nem Wan: FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.

Between World War III and the types of energy he was working with, his dosimeter badge probably came to life and hitchhiked to Seattle.


Y'know, I was about to ask where Cochrane got Dilithium crystals from on Earth, then I answered my own geeky question and remembered that they were using Lithium crystals until at least the 2250s.
 
2013-01-13 05:19:37 PM
No one worthy of the term "dork" hasn't already seen Wrath of Khan a dozen times.

/From hell's heart I stab at thee, submitter
//[snorting laugh]
 
2013-01-13 05:31:25 PM

semiotix: No one worthy of the term "dork" hasn't already seen Wrath of Khan a dozen times.

/From hell's heart I stab at thee, submitter
//[snorting laugh]


I watched the TV Khan episode on Netflix followed by Wrath of Khan the other night. I hadn't seen either in 20 years. I was pleasantly shocked to find how well the original TV episode stood up. As good as the movie it, the original episode is just as good.
 
2013-01-13 06:28:54 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Which is farked up, because in Khan, they used all three dimensions of space during the battle, not just one dimensional head on tactics.


But they still presented it as some unique, one off, trick that Kirk came up with rather then the bleeding obvious it should have been. It was also played like a submarine battle, with the Enterprise having to "surface" before it could fire.
 
2013-01-13 06:31:53 PM

Old enough to know better:

I don't know about Abrams, but I agree with the first part. Scotty never wasted five minutes explaining how he was going to reconfigure the shields, and send a beam of subatomic particles through the subspace wave condenser. He just went down to engineering, pressed a few buttons and told Kirk it would take six hours before he farking did it in five minutes.

 
2013-01-13 06:42:00 PM

FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.


And was born on Alpha Centauri not Earth.
 
2013-01-13 07:34:16 PM
I just loved when Cochrane totally wasted that Vulcan and stole his ship.
 
2013-01-13 08:40:34 PM

Freschel: FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.

And was born on Alpha Centauri not Earth.


... what? Cochrane was born in Montana.

/neeeerrrds!!
 
2013-01-13 08:45:16 PM
I was totally going to snark at this guy until my sister-in-law admitted the same thing at dinner tonight - and she's married to a geek.
 
2013-01-13 08:57:27 PM

Confabulat: AdamK: Confabulat: About time someone figured out Star Trek was always about the characters, not Geordi Laforges bullshiat 5-second explanation on how to get out of this mess we'll all forget about next week.

JJ Abrams has it right.

if only the star trek reboot had interesting characters...

It does. Reboot Spock is a wild card. Reboot Kirk is still Kirk. Reboot Bones is great and I hope he gets more screen time this time around.

Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


Shran. If ENT got one more season, he was supposed to be on the crew. That would be pretty neat-o, man.
 
2013-01-13 09:22:32 PM

Freschel: FirstNationalBastard: t3knomanser: Atillathepun: On the other hand, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard were fine supporting actors.

Great actors, but Cromwell, at least, was horribly miscast.

And a reeeeeeeeeeeally rough 30, since Cochrane was born in the 2030s, and FC was set in 2061.

And was born on Alpha Centauri not Earth.


How was the inventor of the first human warp drive, who made first contact with the Vulcans possible, born anywhere other than Earth?
 
2013-01-13 09:24:04 PM

raptormh: ... what? Cochrane was born in Montana.


Without getting into the deeper issues of Cochrane being a backwoods lunatic, Cromwell was not well suited to the "redneck mad scientist" role. Then we run into the idea of somebody with barely any resources building a warp drive- that's roughly like somebody building their own version of the LHC in their backyard (note, it's actually easy to build a particle collider in your back yard, and your old CRT TV is arguably already halfway there, but the LHC is orders of magnitude more complex).
 
2013-01-13 09:54:16 PM

t3knomanser: raptormh: ... what? Cochrane was born in Montana.

Without getting into the deeper issues of Cochrane being a backwoods lunatic, Cromwell was not well suited to the "redneck mad scientist" role. Then we run into the idea of somebody with barely any resources building a warp drive- that's roughly like somebody building their own version of the LHC in their backyard (note, it's actually easy to build a particle collider in your back yard, and your old CRT TV is arguably already halfway there, but the LHC is orders of magnitude more complex).


No, because Cochrane was that brilliant :) I've seen worse plot holes.
 
2013-01-13 10:20:29 PM

raptormh: I've seen worse plot holes.


It's not so much a plot hole, as much as it's annoying. It's such a cheesy, tropey thing to do. The story could have been much more interesting if the Enterprise crew were really working under the constraints of infiltrating a laboratory. They would have had more challenge, which would have balanced out the action sequences which essentially rendered the Borg completely without threat or menace.
 
2013-01-13 10:40:02 PM

Confabulat: Name one character from Voyager or Enterprise that is half as interesting. I'll give you Deep Space Nine and call it even on TNG.


On paper, you're right. Most of Enterprise's characters were no more interesting than Voyager's, which is to say "not very." Although they were vastly less annoying.

But the thing about Enterprise is that it was actually a rare and wonderful thing: solid serial TV science fiction, nine weeks out of ten. It was as good (and occasionally as bad*) as Stargate: SG1 ever was, and that show ran for, what, ten years? It actually paid off on Voyager's premise (naive, idealistic humans way the fark out of their depth) better than Voyager ever did.

And actually, the characters were more interesting than their portrayals. Captain Quantum Leap ought to have been good, but he was pretty meh. The guy who played Travis was... I won't even say bad, because bad actors still act. Jolene Blalock was actually watchable in this (for reasons other than her breasts), although that may be because she was never asked to do more than not emote, or, in extreme situations, almost not emote.

In an alternate universe with a slightly better cast, in proper syndication instead of being condemned to UPN, and a little luck, it's in its twelfth and final season. In fact, when the proper timeline is restored, it will be again.

* yes, yes, I know. Alien Nazis, and a few other suckfests. But even the best shows have those episodes.
 
2013-01-13 10:50:45 PM

raptormh: No, because Cochrane was that brilliant :) I've seen worse plot holes.


I was under the impression that Cochrane wasn't really all that brilliant. He was clearly smart, but the impression I got of him was a home-grown tinkerer who stumbled on a working principle, then just chased it till he finally got it to work by trial and error. It'd be like a more physics inclined version of one of those good old boys who likes to tinker with electronics despite having no real idea how they work stumbling on a working cold-fusion process, then 200 years later guys like Geordi worship him for what amounts to narrowly missing out on blowing up himself and half his neighborhood.
 
2013-01-13 11:32:49 PM

Revek: Yup he's a ignorant dork to.  Not because he hasn't watched star trek.  Stolen dvr movie?  Thats ignorant.


To be fair, Revek, my "stolen" movies were just "recorded" on my DVR during 'free weekends' over the holidays. I was being facetious. But thanks for reading!
 
2013-01-14 12:04:32 AM

semiotix: The guy who played Travis was... I won't even say bad, because bad actors still act. Jolene Blalock was actually watchable in this (for reasons other than her breasts)


Sure, Jolene Blalock was watchable... on mute.

I'll stick up for Anthony Montgomery here: he's a standup comedian / musician from the inner-city of Indianapolis who was told to pretty much play Will Robinson, except slightly older. And then after a while only occasionally thrown a bone by the writers and given no further direction. He might not be Gielgud but he clearly got dealt a bad hand with this show.

Linda Park is a decent actress but she suffered from this crappy direction too. She went from "Hoshi Sato, linguistics genius" to "Hoshi Troi" in like three episodes and never really recovered.

The curvewrecker was John Billingsley, the only person in the cast to actually give a damn. And I don't blame them; it was a dumb show. The executive producers' writing credits prior to Enterprise were stories revolved around time travel and people turning into animals. The show was seriously doomed from the start.
 
2013-01-14 12:19:41 AM

OhioKnight: What he loves is not Trek -- what he loves is Nicolas Mayer.


I thought it was pretty interesting that Nicolas Meyer had no previous Star Trek experience. And that is exactly what killed ST: Nemesis. Too much control by the actors and being able to dictate all over the movie.

Meyer sat down over a couple of days and went through TOS and finally settled on "Space Seed" as the gem of an idea. When they approached Ricardo Montalbán about it he initially said "Thanks, but no thanks." They then called his agent begging him to get Ricardo to change his mind. When the agent sat down to talk about it Ricardo said "I'm really not in it that much and there's not a lot of screen time for me"... to which his agent pointed out the fact "Well when you're not on screen you are all that they are talking about!". That and I believe one of his grandchildren pestering him made him change his mind.

Of course it also helped that he was still in fantastic shape physically and was quite believable as an older but dangerous Khan.
 
2013-01-14 01:03:49 AM

Tsar_Bomba1: OhioKnight: What he loves is not Trek -- what he loves is Nicolas Mayer.

I thought it was pretty interesting that Nicolas Meyer had no previous Star Trek experience. And that is exactly what killed ST: Nemesis. Too much control by the actors and being able to dictate all over the movie.

Meyer sat down over a couple of days and went through TOS and finally settled on "Space Seed" as the gem of an idea. When they approached Ricardo Montalbán about it he initially said "Thanks, but no thanks." They then called his agent begging him to get Ricardo to change his mind. When the agent sat down to talk about it Ricardo said "I'm really not in it that much and there's not a lot of screen time for me"... to which his agent pointed out the fact "Well when you're not on screen you are all that they are talking about!". That and I believe one of his grandchildren pestering him made him change his mind.

Of course it also helped that he was still in fantastic shape physically and was quite believable as an older but dangerous Khan.


Not quite... Harve Bennett did the Trek watching and chose Khan after he was basically assigned the Trek franchise after it was clear Roddenberry had went around the bend.

Nick Meyer was brought in because he said he could deliver a shootable script within something like 14 days... and he did.
 
2013-01-14 09:25:08 AM
 
2013-01-14 10:27:21 AM
I just recently watched Kahn with my girlfriend for her first time. She loved it, but she likes other Trek stuff. I haven't seen anything but bits of TOS abd TNG over the years so all them are on our mental netflix queue. Someday.
 
2013-01-14 10:45:34 AM
Mart Laar's beard shaver

/Give me Gary Mitchell in the new movie

You realize it was written by this a--hole, don't you?
www.hollywoodreporter.com
 
2013-01-14 12:26:48 PM

OnlyM3: Mart Laar's beard shaver

/Give me Gary Mitchell in the new movie
You realize it was written by this a--hole, don't you?
[www.hollywoodreporter.com image 349x466]


Great, so we'll get to see a lot of Chekov's gun in this one.

/Go with the euphemism, if it makes you feel better.
 
2013-01-14 04:42:19 PM
The two lowest points in any Star Trek movie were:

"Row Row Row your boat..."

and

UHURA FAN DANCE - blarf.
 
Displayed 90 of 90 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report