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.

(Film School Rejects)   If the internet had existed when Wrath of Khan hit theaters   (filmschoolrejects.com) divider line 90
    More: Obvious, Wrath of Khan, Star Trek, plot holes, Leonard Nimoy, trekkers, The Sound of Music, Gene Roddenberry, Walter Koenig  
•       •       •

6409 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 21 May 2013 at 9:38 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-21 06:54:59 AM
In 1982,it did exist, subby. Most people just didn't know about it or have access to it.
 
2013-05-21 07:09:24 AM

Fark Me To Tears: In 1982,it did exist, subby. Most people just didn't know about it or have access to it.


Was it even called the Internet back then? IIRC 1985 was the split betwixt ARPANET and MILNET and I believe that is the birth.
 
2013-05-21 08:36:34 AM
Back then we called it the Letters section of Starlog.
 
2013-05-21 08:45:55 AM
Article written by Bob Orci andAlex Kurtzman. Those aren't plot holes, douchebags. Not ones as big as yours.

/liked STID
 
2013-05-21 09:52:14 AM

cman: Fark Me To Tears: In 1982,it did exist, subby. Most people just didn't know about it or have access to it.

Was it even called the Internet back then? IIRC 1985 was the split betwixt ARPANET and MILNET and I believe that is the birth.


It was the Internet, Jim, but not as we know it. TCP/IP was standardized that same year, though Usenet was about two years old. The questions are, was there a Star Trek newsgroup at the time, and if so, are there still archives of it?
 
2013-05-21 10:00:19 AM
Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.
 
2013-05-21 10:07:05 AM
they should have just ripped off a couple of episodes of Space 1999. no one remembers them anymore.
 
2013-05-21 10:07:29 AM
It's one thing to tear apart Star Trek for bad science. You can do that with the series as a whole.

You'll notice their attempt to find plot holes in WoK fell a little short, which both defeats their point and makes the point of critics of the reboot.
 
2013-05-21 10:11:37 AM

mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.


Even if Cumberbatch had been a different "superman", and they had one of hte final shots of him looking in a container and seeing Khan, nothing would have been lost. And they didn't need the Warp core death bullshiat, or the fight on the hover platform. Christ, the more I think about that movie, the worse it ges.

/enjoyed it a lot at the theatre
 
2013-05-21 10:12:04 AM

mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.


I, for one, am shocked that their tactic of insisting that a movie I really liked was terrible didn't pay off.
 
2013-05-21 10:14:41 AM
I'm pretty sure the article is intended to be tongue in cheek, no one really believe WoK is a bad movie.

I do have one niggle with it though, when Khan activates the genesis device why can't they destroy it and the rest of Reliant with another torpedo or two? did they suddenly run out?

In my head I have decided that the Genesis device is some sort of containment unit which would activate if destroyed, but it would have been nice to have a line of dialogue to explain that.
 
2013-05-21 10:21:27 AM
Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.
 
2013-05-21 10:22:49 AM

Type40: I'm pretty sure the article is intended to be tongue in cheek, no one really believe WoK is a bad movie.

I do have one niggle with it though, when Khan activates the genesis device why can't they destroy it and the rest of Reliant with another torpedo or two? did they suddenly run out?

In my head I have decided that the Genesis device is some sort of containment unit which would activate if destroyed, but it would have been nice to have a line of dialogue to explain that.


That's how I gathered it. I think it's making fun of the folks who hate anything popular and/or fanbois.
 
2013-05-21 10:25:18 AM

thurstonxhowell: mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

I, for one, am shocked that their tactic of insisting that a movie I really liked was terrible didn't pay off.


This, and despite all the nerd rage over STID, I really enjoyed that movie as well.
 
2013-05-21 10:26:33 AM
I liked this.
So sick of the stick up the butt nerds who feel the need to slam it for their blog followers.
 
2013-05-21 10:26:41 AM
Wait a minute... I haven't see Wrath of Khan yet... it's in my Netflix queue.  Spock dies?  Way to go internet!!  Why the fark did I click that link!?!

What?  I planned to watch it right after The Empire Strikes Back.   Can't wait to see if Luke and Leia hook up!
 
2013-05-21 10:27:21 AM

mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.


That's the thing that bugs me.  There are a couple of really good movies in here.  One discussing the ramifications of an alpha quadrant without a strong Vulcan presence and the increasing militarization of both the Humans and Klingons following Nero's attack.  There's also an interesting Iraq War allegory story to be made if Marcus uses Harrison's attack and subsequent transport to Kronos to launch a preemptive strike on the Klingons.  But instead they go with a retelling of WoK that doesn't really understand what makes the original so great and it just doesn't stand up.
 
2013-05-21 10:40:09 AM

gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.


I noticed it. It's kind of the 23rd century equiv of a flame war.
 
2013-05-21 10:45:04 AM
Even without the internet, there were still thriving online communities on BBSs and Compu$erve. There's probably some interesting archaeological data out there somewhere.

/or not
//yes, I went there with the $
 
2013-05-21 10:47:39 AM

mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.


Sorry people who didn't like ST:ID but you're a minority. A very vocal one, but with 86% faovirable rating among critics and 89% among viewers you can whine all you want people enjoyed the movie.
 
2013-05-21 10:51:01 AM

Millennium: It was the Internet, Jim, but not as we know it. TCP/IP was standardized that same year, though Usenet was about two years old. The questions are, was there a Star Trek newsgroup at the time, and if so, are there still archives of it?


net.startrek was apparently created in August 1982, about 2 months after the film's opening.
 
2013-05-21 10:52:04 AM

Hebalo: Christ, the more I think about that movie, the worse it ges.

/enjoyed it a lot at the theatre


This is exactly what I've been going through.
 
2013-05-21 10:54:30 AM

gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.


what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.
 
2013-05-21 10:56:57 AM

frepnog: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.


i261.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-21 11:00:35 AM
huh, I knew about the rumors that Khan would be in the new movie, but I didn't know it was an official thing until I read this thread. I'll probably see the movie when it comes to Redbox or something, but the more I hear about it, the less I like.

I seem to be in a minority (on Fark) who liked the last film, despite some glaring flaws, but everything I've seen from the new film just seems like Generic SciFi Action Film with the names of Star Trek characters grafted on top. It doesn't strike me as a reinvention so much as "not originally written as a Star Trek script."
 
2013-05-21 11:19:44 AM

Carth: mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.

Sorry people who didn't like ST:ID but you're a minority. A very vocal one, but with 86% faovirable rating among critics and 89% among viewers you can whine all you want people enjoyed the movie.


This. I especially like the attempts by some Farkers to make people who liked Star Trek Into Darkness feel stupid for doing so.
 
2013-05-21 11:27:06 AM

FeedTheCollapse: huh, I knew about the rumors that Khan would be in the new movie, but I didn't know it was an official thing until I read this thread. I'll probably see the movie when it comes to Redbox or something, but the more I hear about it, the less I like.

I seem to be in a minority (on Fark) who liked the last film, despite some glaring flaws, but everything I've seen from the new film just seems like Generic SciFi Action Film with the names of Star Trek characters grafted on top. It doesn't strike me as a reinvention so much as "not originally written as a Star Trek script."


The problem is the nerdrage group is expecting a traditional Star Trek movie with the "elements that made it classically Star Trek".  They fail to realize they're never going to get that, because that formula is gone and sells TERRIBLY.  It killed the TNG movies, which had only one success in four attempts, and the last two TV series clunked pretty badly outside of the core enthusiast group.

The formula that worked for Trek 20+ years ago is gone.  It's not coming back anytime soon.  The new direction is to go the way of the Marvel movies - big budgets, big effects, nostalgia moments, lots of polish, with big twists on old favorites.  Studios will always take Transformers movies over a Gatacca.  They make money, jump demographic groups, and allow for mass marketing beyond the intellectual movie-goer.  That's what they want, and honestly, it's what Trek needs right now (yes, I realize how sad of a state that is for the general public to have to say).

Trek's franchise fatigue was killing it, and they needed something new.  This is it.  Sure, it may turn over to something headier in later iterations, but let them get established financially and get a new fan base in place.
 
2013-05-21 11:28:44 AM

chewielouie: This. I especially like the attempts by some Farkers to make people who liked Star Trek Into Darkness feel stupid for doing so.


I have plenty of reasons to feel stupid but liking Into Darkness isn't one of them.
 
2013-05-21 11:39:34 AM

Khellendros: The problem is the nerdrage group is expecting a traditional Star Trek movie with the "elements that made it classically Star Trek".  They fail to realize they're never going to get that, because that formula is gone and sells TERRIBLY.  It killed the TNG movies, which had only one success in four attempts, and the last two TV series clunked pretty badly outside of the core enthusiast group.


I get that, though I think the complaint of "the only resemblance to TOS begins and ends with the names of the characters" is certainly a valid complaint: If it doesn't resemble Star Trek beyond the characters' names, why bother calling it Star Trek? It kind of strikes me as taking a risky script and making it more sellable by changing all the names to something recognizable (albeit in a relatively cult sense).

personally, I can get beyond that, but with the previous film acknowledging the "alternate (read: TOS)" universe and the new film villain being Khan, it kind of just makes me wish they'd move beyond the TOS, especially if they're supposed to be some kind of reimagining of the series.
 
2013-05-21 11:53:19 AM

thurstonxhowell: mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

I, for one, am shocked that their tactic of insisting that a movie I really liked was terrible didn't pay off.


interesting gambit. this is like insisting that empire strikes back has plot holes and isn't as good as you remember in order to say that attack of the clones is a good movie.
 
2013-05-21 11:57:48 AM

gilgigamesh: You'll notice their attempt to find plot holes in WoK fell a little short, which both defeats their point and makes the point of critics of the reboot.


There's a gaping plot hole in the very premise: we have spaceships that can warp across galaxies and computers that can analyze every minute detail of everything, and yet nobody noticed that Ceti Alpha VI wasn't where it was supposed to be? I would think that, given warp drive technology (or even sub-warp navigation), knowing the orbital mechanics of planets is kind of important. You know, for not running into them or getting caught in gravity wells and suchlike. I'd think that a navigator entering a solar system would pay pretty close attention to what planets are supposed to be around where you're going and make sure that, you know, they're actually where they're supposed to be.

"Captain, we're entering orbit around Saturn. Except ..."
"Except what, Mr. Sulu?"
"Except that our charts show that we're within Jupiter's orbital band..."
"Hmm... well, that's probably just bad arithmetic or old data or a software bug or something, because, you know, planets just get up and switch places all the time. No matter, Saturn ho!"
 
2013-05-21 11:58:19 AM
Hebalo: Christ, the more I think about that movie, the worse it ges.

This a common thing for me with Orci/Kurtzman films. See also: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
 
2013-05-21 12:01:01 PM

Khellendros: The problem is the nerdrage group is expecting a traditional Star Trek movie with the "elements that made it classically Star Trek".  They fail to realize they're never going to get that, because that formula is gone and sells TERRIBLY.  It killed the TNG movies, which had only one success in four attempts, and the last two TV series clunked pretty badly outside of the core enthusiast group.

The formula that worked for Trek 20+ years ago is gone.  It's not coming back anytime soon.  The new direction is to go the way of the Marvel movies - big budgets, big effects, nostalgia moments, lots of polish, with big twists on old favorites.  Studios will always take Transformers movies over a Gatacca.  They make money, jump demographic groups, and allow for mass marketing beyond the intellectual movie-goer.  That's what they want, and honestly, it's what Trek needs right now (yes, I realize how sad of a state that is for the general public to have to say).

Trek's franchise fatigue was killing it, and they needed something new.  This is it.  Sure, it may turn over to something headier in later iterations, but let them get established financially and get a new fan base in place.


Fair enough. Just don't call it science fiction. Gattaca was science fiction. Blade Runner, 2001, TOS Star Trek, or more recently, Moon.

That's the problem the fanbois have with nu-Trek. It co-opted something that is classic science fiction and turned it into something that is no longer science fiction. Now every idiot who wants to make money off an action flick will get the bright idea to put it in space and call it science fiction to make more money, and that will be what the genre will become.

The Great American Dumbening is becoming ubiquitous and unavoidable. Its even infected the once virgin territory of nerdom.
 
2013-05-21 12:08:11 PM

Uzzah: There's a gaping plot hole in the very premise: we have spaceships that can warp across galaxies and computers that can analyze every minute detail of everything, and yet nobody noticed that Ceti Alpha VI wasn't where it was supposed to be?


Meh. You aren't the first to point that out.

But then you forget: space is big. The Ceti Alpha system is established to be a pretty unremarkable uninhabited system; that's why they chose it both for Khan's exile and as a possible test site for the third stage Genesis experiment.

Its probable that starfleet hadn't been back in the 15 years since Kirk dumped off Khan. Sensors have limited range, so the explosion would not have been detected unless the system was being monitored. And its conceivable, given that the system is basically an empty lot, that starfleet just never bothered to get (or perhaps lost) detailed information about the system in the interim.
 
2013-05-21 12:13:12 PM
io9 totally tore the movie a new asshole: (warning: spoilers)
 
2013-05-21 12:16:08 PM
 
2013-05-21 12:34:24 PM

chewielouie: This. I especially like the attempts by some Farkers to make people who liked Star Trek Into Darkness feel stupid for doing so.


Why? Do you feel stupid?
 
2013-05-21 12:36:08 PM

gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.


HOLY FARKING SHIAT!!!!!!
 
2013-05-21 12:45:01 PM

gilgigamesh: That's the problem the fanbois have with nu-Trek. It co-opted something that is classic science fiction and turned it into something that is no longer science fiction. Now every idiot who wants to make money off an action flick will get the bright idea to put it in space and call it science fiction to make more money, and that will be what the genre will become.

The Great American Dumbening is becoming ubiquitous and unavoidable. Its even infected the once virgin territory of nerdom.


That's just doomsaying.  Sci-fi will continue to exist and grow, as it has for a century.  EVERY piece of sci fi that gets popular gets glitzed and cashed in on.  But for every Trek that gets glitzed and pushed through the Hollywood filter, you have hundreds of new books and series that keep the genre fresh and new.  The genre isn't in danger of anything.  Sci-fi is more than safe.  And Trek will return to its roots, eventually.
 
2013-05-21 12:46:33 PM

Khellendros: That's just doomsaying.  Sci-fi will continue to exist and grow, as it has for a century.  EVERY piece of sci fi that gets popular gets glitzed and cashed in on.  But for every Trek that gets glitzed and pushed through the Hollywood filter, you have hundreds of new books and series that keep the genre fresh and new.  The genre isn't in danger of anything.  Sci-fi is more than safe.  And Trek will return to its roots, eventually.


I hope you're right.
 
2013-05-21 12:48:59 PM

TheLopper: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

HOLY FARKING SHIAT!!!!!!


I assume that is because its established that Khan is still stronger than many men put together, and Kirk's whole arc is about establishing that he is tired and jaded as he enters late middle age.

It would strain credulity to say the least to have them duke it out without Kirk getting his ass royally stomped.
 
2013-05-21 12:50:28 PM

TheLopper: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

HOLY FARKING SHIAT!!!!!!


Well, duh. Imagine placing both William Shatner and Ricardo Montalban in the same room, and watching in horror as space-time collapses around the resulting "macho hole."
 
2013-05-21 12:57:36 PM

FormlessOne: TheLopper: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

HOLY FARKING SHIAT!!!!!!

Well, duh. Imagine placing both William Shatner and Ricardo Montalban in the same room, and watching in horror as space-time collapses around the resulting "macho hole."


From what I remember reading, their parts were shot months apart, and they never even got to really correspond during filming (other likely have more details).
 
2013-05-21 01:28:59 PM

rugman11: mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.

That's the thing that bugs me.  There are a couple of really good movies in here.  One discussing the ramifications of an alpha quadrant without a strong Vulcan presence and the increasing militarization of both the Humans and Klingons following Nero's attack.  There's also an interesting Iraq War allegory story to be made if Marcus uses Harrison's attack and subsequent transport to Kronos to launch a preemptive strike on the Klingons.  But instead they go with a retelling of WoK that doesn't really understand what makes the original so great and it just doesn't stand up.


Plus, Khan was always described as the most benevolent of the augment dictators.  He doesn't go full batshiat crazy until they maroon him on a rock and his wife dies, after "Space Seed."

I thought they were setting Khan up to be sort of an anti-hero, preventing Admiral Marcus and the Starfleet brass from launching a pre-emptive war against the Klingon Empire.  I enjoyed the film, especially the first half.  I just got kind of annoyed with the fanservice wankery in the second half.
 
2013-05-21 01:34:14 PM

Sgt Otter: He doesn't go full batshiat crazy until they maroon him on a rock and his wife dies, after "Space Seed."


Uh, he stole the Enterprise way before then.
 
2013-05-21 01:44:53 PM
Same as it every was SAME as it EVER was

/KHHHHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!
 
2013-05-21 01:48:57 PM

chewielouie: thurstonxhowell: mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

I, for one, am shocked that their tactic of insisting that a movie I really liked was terrible didn't pay off.

This, and despite all the nerd rage over STID, I really enjoyed that movie as well.


Give him a break. You'd be angry too if one of your Spock ear prosthetics melted in the dishwasher.
 
2013-05-21 01:51:27 PM

Confabulat: Sgt Otter: He doesn't go full batshiat crazy until they maroon him on a rock and his wife dies, after "Space Seed."

Uh, he stole the Enterprise way before then.


Well yeah, because that is a pragmatic move for a despot seeking to get his mojo back.

But after 15 years stranded on Ceti Alpha, he's gone insane and is interested solely in a murderous revenge campaign against his white whale.
 
2013-05-21 02:08:24 PM
 
2013-05-21 02:25:24 PM

gilgigamesh: Confabulat: Sgt Otter: He doesn't go full batshiat crazy until they maroon him on a rock and his wife dies, after "Space Seed."

Uh, he stole the Enterprise way before then.

Well yeah, because that is a pragmatic move for a despot seeking to get his mojo back.

But after 15 years stranded on Ceti Alpha, he's gone insane and is interested solely in a murderous revenge campaign against his white whale.


Always with the whales isn't it.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report