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 37
    More: Obvious, Wrath of Khan, Star Trek, plot holes, Leonard Nimoy, trekkers, The Sound of Music, Gene Roddenberry, Walter Koenig  
•       •       •

6412 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-21 02:32:37 PM  
3 votes:

chewielouie: 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.


Gimme the dunce cap then cause, fark it. I enjoyed the damn film alot. Sure there were clumsy bits (how did they get the Enterprise under the ocean without being seen?) and you could see the Deus Ex Machina ending with Khans blood if you had at all been paying attention from the moment Kirk entered the containment unit but so what? Did anyone really think Kirk was going to die for real?

 Overall I like it better than any other ST film I've seen other than WoK itself, and even then it's only because the film isn't complete without having seen WoK so it can hardly be seen as superior.

Nerdrage on haters, this nerd has embraced ST with actors who can actually do action Wout looking ridiculous and that avoids the fuzzy communist attitude that Roddenberry tried to push. Don' like it? Quit watching.

Nerdrage away folks
2013-05-22 09:48:07 AM  
2 votes:

if_i_really_have_to: ThatBillmanGuy: Seriously? So Wrath of Khan is a bad movie now? I liked Into Darkness a lot more than I expected to, but it doesn't suddenly make all of the old stuff into overrated crap, like all of Fark is suddenly trying to claim, apparently.

Not suddenly.  I've always thought the entirety of Star Trek was overrated crap.  TOS was probably awesome in its day but its day was a long, long time ago.  The acting was by and large amateur theatre bad, and if it aired these days people would laugh it off as shallow "monster of the week" "CSI in Space" crap.

/Watched TNG because I had a crush on Wil Wheaton
//It was better than TOS in that the actors could actually act
///Also better scripts, better character progression


Star Trek has never been "overrated" by anyone but its most devoted fans.  TOS was always terrible and honestly at the time I don't believe that many people thought otherwise.  The draw of Trek has little to do with the actual quality of the provided programming; rather, it is the universe created and that people would love to live in it.  As far as TNG being better, well of course it was.  The acting was better ( in some cases anyway.  TONS of people on that show could act no better than any of the original show's cast), the set design was superior and the show actually got 7 seasons so it had time to grow beyond the horrid first seasons (which are mostly just as bad as the original show) and become a decently written show.

The truth is this - as a lifelong Trek fan, Trek was just stagnant.  The people in charge of the IP had pretty much just dropped the ball.  The shows mostly sucked (DS9 was never really all that good, retooling didn't help, Voyager always sucked, Enterprise was an abomination), the movies sucked (ALL of the TNG films suck, even the good one, First Contact, SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS).

I knew JJ had done well when I sat in the theater in 2009 watching Star Trek for the first time and within the first 15 minutes I already cared about the characters and shed tears for them.

Stop with the "bad fan-fiction" crap.  JJ's Trek IS Star Trek now, so you'd better all get used to having FUN, EXCITING Trek movies that actually DON'T SUCK.
2013-05-21 12:13:12 PM  
2 votes:
io9 totally tore the movie a new asshole: (warning: spoilers)
2013-05-21 11:27:06 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:47:39 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:27:21 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:14:41 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:07:29 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:00:19 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:45:55 AM  
2 votes:
Article written by Bob Orci andAlex Kurtzman. Those aren't plot holes, douchebags. Not ones as big as yours.

/liked STID
2013-05-21 08:36:34 AM  
2 votes:
Back then we called it the Letters section of Starlog.
2013-05-21 10:33:07 PM  
1 votes:

mjbok: FeedTheCollapse: 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).

This is the problem I had/have with the reboot.  They used a lazy writing out to get things to be how they wanted, completely changed things that based on the timeline split point shouldn't have changed, etc.  I'm not a huge Trek fan (have seen most of TOS, all of TNG, and a handful of the rest), but saw all of the pre-reboots in the theater.  That means I saw more Trek movies in the theater than any other series.

There was no reason not to have the new Trek either be:  unseen stuff within the five year mission (other than no one can die) or have it be different Trek.  It could be the same time period, during the B or C Enterprises, or even post Picard E.  Or F, or G...there just was no non-$ reason to make it Kirk's Enterprise.  It would be like if the BBC started the Doctor Who revival with a flashy remake of An Unearthly Child.


to clarify: I don't have a problem with them rebooting the series in an alternate timeline... i just don't think they've really done much with the idea. It feels more like they're trying to make Star Trek to be Star Wars. That's necessarily a bad thing, but it just strikes me as the films being named Star Trek solely for some kind of name recognition than a genuine interest Star Trek.
2013-05-21 09:00:12 PM  
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Because prequels and interquels have been done before, and are bound by the fact you have to take into account what is set after them (though that didn't stop Enterprise from shiatting all over established canon). And it would have been more of the same, for the hundredth time.


Sequel route or concurrent (both non-Kirk) would have worked.  I honestly would have respected it more if they just said, "fark it, we're rebooting it" and not had the stupid prime/non-prime timelines.  It would have been more legitimate (to me).  As it was they messed around with people's ages and still (20 years after the timeline split) they end up together on the Enterprise.  They should have just done an origin story, and erased (or ignored) the existing history.  They tried to have it both ways, which feels like an easy out, a writer's crutch, a cheat.

Star Trek (09) would have been a decent action film by itself.  They could have had Ensign Martin (improbably) get command of the flag ship of the Federation and it would have been better (once again to me).
2013-05-21 08:36:50 PM  
1 votes:

mjbok: FeedTheCollapse: 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).

This is the problem I had/have with the reboot.  They used a lazy writing out to get things to be how they wanted, completely changed things that based on the timeline split point shouldn't have changed, etc.  I'm not a huge Trek fan (have seen most of TOS, all of TNG, and a handful of the rest), but saw all of the pre-reboots in the theater.  That means I saw more Trek movies in the theater than any other series.

There was no reason not to have the new Trek either be:  unseen stuff within the five year mission (other than no one can die) or have it be different Trek.  It could be the same time period, during the B or C Enterprises, or even post Picard E.  Or F, or G...there just was no non-$ reason to make it Kirk's Enterprise.  It would be like if the BBC started the Doctor Who revival with a flashy remake of An Unearthly Child.


Because prequels and interquels have been done before, and are bound by the fact you have to take into account what is set after them (though that didn't stop Enterprise from shiatting all over established canon). And it would have been more of the same, for the hundredth time.

Abram's Trek is free to do what it wants, to go where it wants, without having to worry about what's been established, because it's set in a universe/timeline that's still being created. TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY still exist and are still doing their thing in the Prime universe/timeline. As someone said upthread, the old formula just doesn't work anymore. Trek was stagnant, the franchise limp, it needed to evolve and do something different. Yes, not everyone will be happy with it, but it's better than letting the franchise die and fade away, and the only ones who are major Debbie Downders are the super-nerds mired in nostalgia and demanding everything be how they want it to be.
2013-05-21 08:18:41 PM  
1 votes:

FeedTheCollapse: 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).


This is the problem I had/have with the reboot.  They used a lazy writing out to get things to be how they wanted, completely changed things that based on the timeline split point shouldn't have changed, etc.  I'm not a huge Trek fan (have seen most of TOS, all of TNG, and a handful of the rest), but saw all of the pre-reboots in the theater.  That means I saw more Trek movies in the theater than any other series.

There was no reason not to have the new Trek either be:  unseen stuff within the five year mission (other than no one can die) or have it be different Trek.  It could be the same time period, during the B or C Enterprises, or even post Picard E.  Or F, or G...there just was no non-$ reason to make it Kirk's Enterprise.  It would be like if the BBC started the Doctor Who revival with a flashy remake of An Unearthly Child.
2013-05-21 06:45:17 PM  
1 votes:

Khellendros: 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.


So much this. Deep Space Nine was the last Trek series to do anything new and interesting. The bean counters reacted to it not being a mega-ratings monster like TNG by saying "Maybe people don't like it because it's not Monster of the Week, Problem of the Week, Aesop of the Week, status quo is God, sail off into the stars, rinse and repeat next week style of TOS and TNG! We'll make ANOTHER Trek series that goes back to the amazing formula that everyone loved and demands!". And so Voyager became TNG Lite, Trek comfort food. You tuned in every week and knew you were getting the same thing each time. And Enterprise... ugh, raping the canon of the franchise, anyone? Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis played like two-hour big-budget TV episodes, and had a host of their own individual problems, the biggest of which was they were all (and First Contact, too) "The Picard And Data Show! Also starring these other people".

The franchise was circling the drain. It needed fresh blood and energy to survive. Abrams provided it, and while it's not exactly like what came before that's a good thing. The franchise can try different directions, take chances, retell old stories with new twists while making new stories. At its core it's still Star Trek. It's merely evolved to adapt to today. Franchises that don't evolve die out.
2013-05-21 06:12:54 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Aside from Khan, the acting in that movie is laughable. Kirk literally does the "jaw drop" expression when Khan first shows up on the communicator. It's an overrated movie I'd say.
2013-05-21 03:44:52 PM  
1 votes:
My favorite part of STID was when anikin was fighting that bad guy on top of the flying car and then had to jump down to a lower car being flown by Obi Wan but then he almost fell but didn't fall. That was super awesome. Then they had water rocket boots to swim down to submerged star ship. No one in the entire production of a $280m movie thought that sounded retarded.

Hated ST09, really enjoyed this one, but it was stupid as hell
2013-05-21 03:43:42 PM  
1 votes:

Phil Moskowitz: The degree of JJ Abrams apologism on the net this last week has come to toxic levels.


I'm not apologizing for liking a movie that either A) you haven't seen; or B) you did see, which would be odd behavior for someone determined to hate a movie. There's obviously C) that you just watched it illegally or read reviews online instead of forming your own opinion, but I'll hold you to a better standard than that.

Why do you think anyone needs to apologize for liking a movie? I don't. Do you? Weird.
2013-05-21 03:03:48 PM  
1 votes:
The degree of JJ Abrams apologism on the net this last week has come to toxic levels.
2013-05-21 01:51:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:34:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:28:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:01:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:58:19 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:57:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:39:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:56:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:26:33 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:22:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:21:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:11:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:07:05 AM  
1 votes:
they should have just ripped off a couple of episodes of Space 1999. no one remembers them anymore.
2013-05-21 07:09:24 AM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report