|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 31, 2013 7:56:34 GMT -5
Wishful thinking. Unless they flat out say it's a different universe, it's not.
When the writers use the same character name, and make it clear they mean to use the same character from Space Seed, it's him. There are tons of Trek decisions that have been made by lousy writing that I didn't like, but I can't disqualify them based on wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 31, 2013 9:50:15 GMT -5
Wishful thinking. Unless they flat out say it's a different universe, it's not. When the writers use the same character name, and make it clear they mean to use the same character from Space Seed, it's him. There are tons of Trek decisions that have been made by lousy writing that I didn't like, but I can't disqualify them based on wishful thinking. Except that it's not wishful thinking. They made a calculated decision to turn him into a different character, therefore, regardless of what they say outside of the film, in the film he's a noticeably, notably different guy. They don't get to imply he's the same guy when clearly he's not because of how they chose to change him. This Khan is not an Indian, nor was he interested in being the leader of most of the Third World I would have to assume. This character would have been more interested in conquering Europe and all of North America just to start with, then he would have focused on the Third World once all of that was out of the way. Ruling India would have been of interest to him no doubt as well, but it wouldn't have been first on his list, nor would there have been anything personal in it for him because it clearly wasn't his homeland. Did Khan as originally conceived matter to you as a character and as a villain? Was he memorable or forgettable? He's the most recognized iconic villain of the series for God sake. There's no way the two can be considered the same guy. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 31, 2013 12:37:32 GMT -5
But it's not. I'm sure if you asked them, "was this supposed to be Khan from Space Seed," they would say unequivocally yes.
If they cast a Vulcan named Spock, and made him say, have an inappropriate relationship with Uhura, it would still be Spock.
He's Khan, unless they somehow pull a reveal that he's another of the 72.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 31, 2013 16:28:10 GMT -5
But it's not. I'm sure if you asked them, "was this supposed to be Khan from Space Seed," they would say unequivocally yes. And they would be full of shit quite obviously. There's absolutely now way it can be said he's the same character from that episode because of the differences they introduced. So who cares what they say? They're the ones that shattered established canon by choosing to ignore it. If they were to tell you that you should jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you take their word about that too? You do get to think for yourself in relation to all this too believe it or not. Add to that the fact that Uhura uses the term "alternate reality" to describe their circumstances in the first film. That, in conjunction with the fact that it's a different Khan further drives the point home that it is a different reality and universe from the one we already knew. From a canonical standpoint, that's a totally legitimate position given what they've done. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 31, 2013 21:44:47 GMT -5
Any time there is time travel with changes, you have an alternate reality. But an alternate reality does not mean a different universe. Unless they flat out say alternate universe, and establish that the prime universe exists, it doesn't.
There's nothing to indicate this isn't the same character.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 1, 2013 7:25:26 GMT -5
Any time there is time travel with changes, you have an alternate reality. But an alternate reality does not mean a different universe. Unless they flat out say alternate universe, and establish that the prime universe exists, it doesn't. There's nothing to indicate this isn't the same character. Of course there is, and they wrote it, in what they changed. I refuse to subordinate my ability to think for myself to them and what they may say. A bunch of assholes, as I had anticipated at the outset on Sunday, were branding me a racist over on reddit for my daring to oppose the way they changed the character in "Into Darkness". We have a serious problem in this country where that charge is now used to silence people over virtually anything. If you oppose anything about this president and his policies, for example, it's automatically because you're a racist supposedly, not that anything about his policies and ideology are bad, destructive and somehow problematic for the country. No, it's just because you hate the idea of seeing a black man in the White House supposedly. Well, I'm sick of that shit and I refuse to put up with it. I've been a Reagan conservative long before Obama showed up on the national scene. Which is why I enjoyed posting this article to the reddit Trek group last night right before going to bed. And that right there are the indications as to why the two are not the same character. You can't ignore who the original Khan was as a character. Orci and company don't get to just void it by saying pretend all that never happened the first time around". They just don't. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 1, 2013 7:53:46 GMT -5
There's absolutely no evidence that the guy is a different guy with the same name. The only way that could work would require a major set of balls, which would be to cast someone else as Khan, and bring back Cumberbatch as a different character after all.
They would NEVER do that.
Interesting article though.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 1, 2013 8:13:45 GMT -5
There's absolutely no evidence that the guy is a different guy with the same name. The only way that could work would require a major set of balls, which would be to cast someone else as Khan, and bring back Cumberbatch as a different character after all. The only way you could reach that conclusion is by deliberately ignoring who Khan was originally, in which case you're playing right into the hands of the powers that be, and as I said, I refuse to do that at this point. But the evidence indicating otherwise is most certainly there. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 1, 2013 8:48:40 GMT -5
TPTB decide canon, and they obliterated the prime universe to give them more leeway. There wasn't much in this movie that would indicate this is a different guy other than a real world casting choice.
That's no different than trying to argue that the prime universe survives despite no indication that it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 3, 2013 9:13:25 GMT -5
TPTB decide canon, and they obliterated the prime universe to give them more leeway. There wasn't much in this movie that would indicate this is a different guy other than a real world casting choice. That's no different than trying to argue that the prime universe survives despite no indication that it did. I couldn't care less how they wrote it or what they would like us to believe at this point. As far as I'm concerned, they deliberately changed the race and nationality of a major well known character, and that's enough to indicate that it is a different universe in my view. So they would say it's the same Khan, and they would be lying because of what they did with the character. You claim there isn't enough in the film to indicate it's a different character beyond a casting decision. The problem is that casting decision in and of itself was ignoring the roots of the original character deliberately, and in doing so they changed him into someone else. There is no way in hell that any reasonable, rational personal looking at the facts can conclude that Cumberbatch's Khan is a Sikh from Northern India. No way. And yet, we know that's who he was. McGivers would not have been painting a portrait of him in her quarters reflecting that regarding who he was as an individual if it didn't apply. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Aug 3, 2013 9:46:22 GMT -5
TPTB decide canon, and they obliterated the prime universe to give them more leeway. There wasn't much in this movie that would indicate this is a different guy other than a real world casting choice. That's no different than trying to argue that the prime universe survives despite no indication that it did. I have to disagree. Only Roddenberry is Canon. It's his creation. Anyone else's vision is nothing but writer's license. I'm a Sherlock Holmes buff and I love some of the non-Doyle Holmes books, but some I hate. Only Doyle's work is Canon. I can choose to enjoy or hate anyone elses vision of the consulting detective of Baker street. I choose to ignore Abram's vision. I will watch STID when it comes out on video, and I may like some of it or I may hate all of it. But it's NOT canon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2013 19:23:21 GMT -5
StarFuryG7, captainbasil & TrekBeatTK we agree. In fact, when Star Trek Into Darkness first came out with white British actor Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan Noonien Singh who crushes Admiral Marcus' skull among other inconsistencies, I knew Star Trek 2009-present is now definitely an alternate universe despite what anyone else says, like we saw on Fringe, another Abrams project and even made my reply here as such.  Marc just wants the prime timeline wiped out for one reason only, so that Captain James T. Kirk isn't dead, but alive later! Abrams apologist. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Aug 3, 2013 21:57:11 GMT -5
If I was basing this just on the first movie, I'd agree that the timeline is overwritten, since that's the most likely given what we saw onscreen.
But ID doesn't really follow that logic. Nor does it follow the writers' intent of being a divergent timeline which changed when Nero showed up. Because as we've said, that wouldn't have altered the Khan thing so much. Here it truly seems like the Eugenics Wars and Khan did occur, but things were slightly different or off from the way we saw them in the prime timeline, which definitely suggests a completely different universe.
Indeed, it's very much like how they wrote Fringe, which started out as the other universe being divergent based on our decisions (just like in "Parallels", and just like they wanted us to think with Trek09). But then, in later episodes, the other side is very different and there are zeppelins and crap and Fringe Division is in a totally different place, which completely clashes with the first time Olivia crossed over in season one. The "other side" of season 2 on is clearly a separate parallel universe with no causation from our own. These guys just do not know how to write alternate universes or timelines at all.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 4, 2013 0:11:38 GMT -5
Actually, I have no problem with the prime timeline existing--except that it doesn't, because Abrams wiped it out.
Yes, this wipes out Generations, but unfortunately, at the cost of everything else. Paramount owns Trek now, and we can't pick and choose canon personally.
Believe me, I wish I had the power to decide what Star trek stories were canon. The Shatner books would take care of the Generations issue, and quite a few Star Trek episodes would be wiped from the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 4, 2013 10:43:35 GMT -5
Actually, I have no problem with the prime timeline existing--except that it doesn't, because Abrams wiped it out. Yes, this wipes out Generations, but unfortunately, at the cost of everything else. Paramount owns Trek now, and we can't pick and choose canon personally. Believe me, I wish I had the power to decide what Star trek stories were canon. The Shatner books would take care of the Generations issue, and quite a few Star Trek episodes would be wiped from the books. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Aug 4, 2013 11:26:09 GMT -5
What a little Tool !
Is someone at Paramount standing on your balls, JJ ?
Actually that's pretty much impossible because the guy's a nutless wonder. First he talks trash when he's making the first one telling people he doesn't like the original show and this won't be your dad's Trek etc. and then puts Nimoy in it. So now that Paramount has figured out that his meddling has jeopardized the marketing of their older Trek content they send him out for a little apology tour. Sure the last 2 flicks made a bundle but if they damage the brand Paramount's in for a long term problem. I just wish TPTB had figured it out before they hired this jerk. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 5, 2013 20:33:23 GMT -5
The problem with that is what we see onscreen certainly would trump what he says out of both sides of his mouth. It was clear based on Trek rules that the prime timeline was wiped out. Likewise, nothing within the movie indicates this wasn't Khan.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 6, 2013 7:05:09 GMT -5
The problem with that is what we see onscreen certainly would trump what he says out of both sides of his mouth. It was clear based on Trek rules that the prime timeline was wiped out. Traditional Trek rules don't really apply given that no one had ever traveled through a black hole in the mythology previously. It happened with V'Ger, but that was a mechanical construct, and in its case it traveled to the far side of the universe rather than to a different, adjacent universe, but speculative theory asserts that black holes may actually be doorways to other universes or dimensions. No one really knows one way or the other if that's the case, and we may never know as a species, but it could well explain why Spock Prime made no effort to try and correct the timeline and go back to his own time. Maybe he couldn't, as he would have had to return via the way he came, and it may have been far too risky and with little chance of success. Could they have been more specific and canonized that? Sure, but these guys think they're cute, and they figure whatever they tell fans will be lapped up and accepted as gospel, and for a significant portion of the fan base, clearly they do get their way in that regard. Likewise, nothing within the movie indicates this wasn't Khan. Other than his accent, the color of his skin, his nationality, and stature compared to that of Ricardo Montalban. Yep, nothing at all, all right. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 6, 2013 7:25:33 GMT -5
That's just poor casting choice, but given that the movie recast everyone, and we're supposed to assume they are all the same people, that doesn't matter for this purpose.
That's the real world v. the canon world.
If Ron Moore wasn't an idiot looking for a cheap laugh, the appearance of the Klingons would be another example. We were supposed to assume they always looked like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 6, 2013 10:42:23 GMT -5
That's just poor casting choice, but given that the movie recast everyone, and we're supposed to assume they are all the same people, that doesn't matter for this purpose. Except that it wasn't just a poor casting choice. It was a calculated casting choice which altered who the character was as a person, so that simply does not get them off the hook. That's why I said at the outset that it would have been harder to dismiss had they indeed gone with Benicio del Toro instead. And what would you be saying if they had changed Khan to a woman here? The kind of idiotic thinking that resulted in his being changed into totally different person could just as easily have applied and led them to cast a woman in the role instead for this movie. Also, even aside from that, it's the official policy of the powers that be it's a separate universe, apart from the original. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 6, 2013 22:07:12 GMT -5
They didn't change Khan to a woman though. It would have opened up a lot of cans of worms if they did.
They may act as if it's a separate universe, but they didn't establish that on screen, and that's what counts. The evidence on screen is the exact opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 6, 2013 22:51:50 GMT -5
They may act as if it's a separate universe, but they didn't establish that on screen, and that's what counts. The evidence on screen is the exact opposite. I totally disagree --the new Khan proves what these assholes didn't have the balls to implicitly or explicitly say in their first two movies. And they pay lip service to it being a separate universe so I've decided to take them at their word about that despite the fact that they're a bunch of gutless wonders--all four of them. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Aug 7, 2013 6:58:02 GMT -5
They still talk about it like it's a DIVERGENT universe, which only changed when Nero showed up. But that doesn't account for Khan either. The whole thing is just stupid and there's no reason for the character to even BE Khan. I was much happier when he was a disgruntled Section 31 operative.
...and you know, here's another thing that bugs me: the movie implies from Spock Prime's own mouth that it took great cost to defeat Khan. But actually, as far as TWOK goes, they NEVER defeated Khan. Not really. They tricked him with 3-dimensional thinking and shot up the Reliant, which left him wounded. But then Khan detonated the Genesis device and that's what blew up the Reliant and killed him. So either he was already defeated at that point, which only cost them a few crewmen like Preston and damage to the ship, or he wasn't already and their great loss comes from KHAN's last act. Spock's death helped them survive and escape the Genesis wave, but that's it. Spock died to help them escape, but Spock's death in no way helped them defeat Khan.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 7, 2013 9:14:30 GMT -5
That's a flaw in the movie. There was absolutely NO REASON for that character to be Khan. Similarly, there was no reason for the guy who helped Picard in Generations to be Kirk. Anyone could have done that.
As for Spock describing TWOK, I would say they DID defeat Khan. That last volley in the battle left the Reliant decimated. Khan was done. Kirk and crew had won. The only issue was the Khan tried to take Kirk with him. To prevent that, Spock sacrificed his life. A great cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK on Aug 7, 2013 11:49:26 GMT -5
But then, Spock's death saves Kirk and the ship, but has no bearing on Khan's defeat. So I stand by my point that the "great cost" had nothing to do with defeating Khan.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 7, 2013 13:01:12 GMT -5
Well, look at it this way...
What happens if Khan is beaten, but manages to take the Enterprise with him? Does that turn the defeat into a tie? Both sides lose.
What good is a defeat of your opponent without a victory? A stalemate where both sides lose is not a win.
Without Spock's sacrifice, everyone on the Enterprise dies. Wouldn't that mean Khan wins, since he probably cared more about that than his own life?
There was great cost in defeating Khan, not just Spock's life, but the lives of the others that died on the Enterprise in that battle, including Captain Terrell, the people Khan killed to get Genesis.
Not to mention, Khan's defeat led to a chain reaction that ended up in Kirk and crew giving up their careers to get Spock's body back, which led to destruction of the Enterprise, and even more important, the death of Kirk's son.
I think that's great cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 13, 2013 7:23:22 GMT -5
I took the subject header for this from over on reddit, where this article was brought to my attention. I haven't had the chance to read the piece for myself yet, but it is being discussed over on reddit, so I'll include the links to that topic as well.
Over at IGN:
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 13, 2013 11:59:02 GMT -5
Did I miss something or was STID not in that 6 minute video?
The ranking I saw was:
Ins
Nem
5
TMP
Gen
III
FC
VI
09
IV
II
In reverse order.
Personally, maybe from a movie standpoint, that bottom 5 is correct, but as a die hard Trek fan, no movie could possibly do a greater disservice to the franchise than throwing Kirk off a bridge and killing him.
My ranking from top to bottom:
1. TWOK
2. TVH
3. TSFS--VERY UNDERRATED
4. TUC
5. STID
6. ST09
7. FC
8. TMP
9. Trek V
10. Nem
11. INS
12.Gen
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Aug 13, 2013 18:24:53 GMT -5
I can't judge STID yet because it's not at my local Redbox. But I just had a conversation with my best friend about ST 2009. His defense of the movie was it "Wasn't Trek". Well if it isn't Trek why are they calling it Trek ? I loved the fact that they included Galaxy Quest which tells you that the people who compiled this list are cool and have a sense of humor. My complaint with Abrams and his ilk is this. If you don't like something, leave it alone. For instance, I just can't get into Stargate. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. and if I became a film producer it shouldn't give me the right to piss on everyone's parade by making a Stargate Movie that is "my vision" or a "reimagining" of Stargate. Abrams is a fraud and a lazy film maker. End of story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 1:22:26 GMT -5
I took the subject header for this from over on reddit, where this article was brought to my attention. I haven't had the chance to read the piece for myself yet, but it is being discussed over on reddit, so I'll include the links to that topic as well.
Over at IGN: I'm loving this picture!  Here are my rankings... Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Star Trek: The Motion Picture Star Trek (2009) Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek: Generations Galaxy Quest Star Trek: First Contact Star Trek: Insurrection Star Trek: Nemesis |
|
