mazag08 - I'm simply defending a point. Everyone in this thread is defending a point. Not worked up at all.

No, it proves that you think you are right and you take this way too seriously.

This is my job. Analyzing movies is essentially what I do for a living. It helps me try and make better ones. If I wasn't taking this seriously, I'd be failing at what I'm trying to do.

If people taking movies seriously rubs you the wrong way, don't read message board threads devoted to discussing them.

And yes, I DO think I'm right. I wouldn't be arguing otherwise. Don't understand why that's such a negative thing for most people.

TCTTS seems pretty calm to me.

Its just funny to watch someone argue harder than most people do with their families.. over a movie.. with obviously debatable plot elements that are obviously left to the eye of the beholder.

This dismissive "over a movie" thing you keep harping on is honestly kind of disrespectful. Implying that movies are just these meaningless, throw-away things. For you, that's exactly what movies may be. I totally get that, and that's fine. But for someone trying to make them their profession, it's insulting, and missing the point completely.

Regardless, this is a five-page, 5600-viewed, 146-reply discussion on the Internet about a popular sci-fi movie franchise. What were you expecting? It's like showing up at baseball card convention and griping that someone's taking baseball cards too seriously. What's the point?

All I'm saying is that there is no right answer, yet you argue like there is and you are the one who knows it. You let people have their opinions.. and then you make sure they know that you are right and you don't stop arguing about it.

And while it may be a career to you. We are your customers. In my business, when a customer says they loved something.. I don't immediately respond with an essay on why they are wrong. Debate is fun.. but not when you constantly attempt to stronghold your viewpoint with over stating it rehashing it.. when facts point to the answer being very up in the air.

I know I can come off as strong-willed, or passionate, or whatever. If that offends people, I'm sorry. In this instance, however, my whole point was that there IS a clear right answer, because the movie itself stated as much. It has nothing to do with my opinion or me being right. I'm not trying "win" or assert my dominance or anything like that. Just trying to say that the movie itself did, in fact, clear this particular issue up. If it was "up in the air," it wouldn't be something that could be proved. And thus, I wouldn't have tried to argue it with a post in that manner.

Either way, I hadn't even replied on this thread in over a day. Then this morning, with ONE reply, I tried to clear up ONE issue multiple people were debating about, and then you swooped in and told me to calm down, quit taking it so seriously, etc. Seemed a bit too reactionary, for someone accusing me of the very same thing.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 5/25/2013 2:27p).]

Maybe it was the multiple all caps words.

You know I appreciate you.. it just felt like you were coming very strong on something that overall could have gone either way.

If I do multiple caps, it's only for emphasis. I'm not yelling the words in my head, but I can see how it could come across that way. In the future, I'll do my best to be more considerate when it comes to things like that, and will try and show more respect for others' opinions as well. Because I do respect everyone's opinions here, including yours, mazag08. It's why I love posting here so much to begin with. Because the vast majority of you are far smarter and more tuned-in than most movie-related boards. There's also a sense of enthusiasm here which is usually lacking elsewhere, and that makes for great and lively discussion. It's infectious, and sometimes I can perhaps get too involved. But it's never out of selfishness, assertiveness or disrespect. It's only out of passion.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 5/25/2013 2:39p).]

Can we just agree that by taking blood from the frozen people.. they would have been taking a risk as opposed to the sure thing?

I can totally agree that yes, for the crew, it would have been somewhat of a calculated risk. My main point was that we, as audience members, can be sure they were the same, because the movie itself stated as much. On another level, it was just frustrating that the writing is even causing an argument like this. There were a thousand ways to explain it away or do it differently, and the filmmakers just didn't put forth the effort to do so. That's what's so maddening, and evident in many other choices in the film.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 5/25/2013 2:46p).]

quote:

---

No matter how you cut it, the very fact that people are even having this argument proves what bad writing it is.

---

I'd say that since we are still talking about the details of the movie, it was actually fairly well done. I don't typically argue over details from a ****ty movie.

saw it again today, enjoyed it again. all I'll say is at what star-date will fire-hoses become obsolete?

Yeah, John McClane would have been proud of that take-down.

The 3D showing was really dark in the theater I where I saw the movie, so I couldn't tell what was going on at all in a lot of the action scenes, it was just a bunch of indistinct motion. That's probably a theater issue though.

Spock yelling "Khan" was a little forced in that context... would have worked better during the fight scene maybe?

I don't mind the plot holes too much; I'm really there to watch the acting and be amazed more than to analyze the tech; I'm not a trekkie and I don't really know the "rules" of that universe, I'm just along for the ride.

My only real problem with the movie was that I knew from the first conversation with Kirk that Peter Weller was trying to start a war, which made waiting for the "surprise reveal" a little tiresome... I felt like it was a little condescending to the audience as well as to Kirk's intelligence. He's a hothead, not a moron, and Weller's explanation was completely transparent.

Saw it last night and enjoyed the hell outta this movie!

Thought it was great. Maybe Bones didn't want to thaw out a Khan person while they still had a chance to capture Khan himself because doing so might risk actually waking one of them up. If that were to happen then you would have a raging super man on your ship in the middle of everything else going to hell.

TCTTS, I think you can come across as strong willed, and with your ties to the movie industry (and usually a more sophisticated and detailed response than a typical "it was fun to watch, or that sucked ass"), it can sometimes come across as an I am better than you mentality. I think most people here understand that this is pretty much your life, I have a co-worker who is very much like you. I have had to learn to back off a little when he gets passionate about certain issues, because there are times in can rub the wrong way. I know several coworkers haven't realized this and it has caused issues in the past.


That being said TCTTS, from a movie going perspective on this board, I do have a lot of respect for your reviews, even though a lot of the time I don't agree. I can pretty much go to a movie and look past its flaws and not let it bother me. I can respect, though disagree, the fact that you go to movies for a different reason and can dissect them much more thoroughly.

[This message has been edited by Marsuvees (edited 5/26/2013 12:00p).]

TC is good. But he's definitely not always right.

But I am

That's understandable, Marsuvees. I totally get it.

And Simplebay - you're wrong. We're BOTH always right

quote:

---

That's understandable, Marsuvees. I totally get it.

And Simplebay - you're wrong. We're BOTH always right

---

Terrible script writing there. How can he both be wrong and ALWAYS right?

That was the point.

I guess they don't teach sarcasm in film school. :-/

There needs to be a sarcasm font. That's the problem.

quote:

---

Where are the consequences for the crap on Kronos? (Everyone said it would mean war with Klingons, but at the end of the film they send their newest ship on a 5 year deep space exploratory mission??)

---

Obviously there was the blood thing. But this, more than anything, bothered me. Especially since it gives you the set up for a sequel.

TCTTS is the primary reason I read this board.

quote:

---

Makes sense. I'm no Trek purist. In fact, I only saw Wrath of Khan for the first time earlier this year, and thought it was kind of horrible. I can see how it blew minds back in '82, but it just doesn't hold up well at all. Point being, whatever they've messed with canon-wise, I doubt I'll care or even notice.

---

The Wrath of Khan is a fantastic movie. The problem is that it is straight out of the early 80s. Everything from the set design to the costumes screams early 80s. It is really hard to get past.

Once you do, though, that movie pretty well perfectly captures a sort of Horatio Hornblower in space feel.

Today, it's not good enough. With CGI no one wants to see just two ships dueling it out that way. On top of which, even for the time, I think it was done cheaply because the first movie was such a failure.

[This message has been edited by Jacques (edited 5/27/2013 1:17a).]

quote:

---

But as much as the Khan stuff bugged me, it was nothing compared to the contempt I have for the allegorical BS this movie tried to push. For those who don’t know, Bob Orci, one of the film’s screenwriters, is a HUGE conspiracy theory nut. Like, offensively so. If you follow him on Twitter, every time there’s a shooting, or some government controversy, he’s peddling all these conspiracy links and articles and what not. Like with that TDKR shooting in Denver, Orci’s convinced it was tied in with the government somehow and blah, blah, blah. It really is disgusting. Point is, he’s also a Truther. He believes without a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. And I’m honestly surprised this hasn’t been mentioned here yet, but STID is blatant and admitted Truther propaganda. Admiral Marcus is Bush/Cheney (Orci confirmed as much on Twitter a couple days ago), a man who “wants his war,” and then uses a terrorist attack as an excuse to perpetuate that war. Khan is bin Laden, the man responsible, but also someone Marcus uses as an excuse to attack the Klingons (i.e. Iraq). Granted, in real life, any of that can be argued as truth. It’s when Orci ties Marcus to Khan with that whole convoluted backstory, that he’s trying allude that our government had ties with the 9/11 attacks/attackers, etc. It’s just utter nonsense, and it almost pisses me off that Orci uses a Star Trek movie to try and make whatever crazy point he was trying make. Granted, filmmakers using their films to push an agenda is nothing new, but when Orci tackles something like 9/11 like he does here, and uses that ridiculously out-of-place title card at the end, it comes off as distasteful, and even disrespectful. And the thing is, the allegory wasn’t even done well. Or subtly. I still don’t know what Orci was trying to say, exactly. I’m sure it had something to do with Kirk’s speech there at the end, but I honestly had stopped paying attention at that point.

---

I thought the 911 touch was odd. Especially since the screenwriters had just destroyed half of downtown San Francisco (and probably killed at least 20,000 or more people) but you're supposed to be concerned about whether Kirk lives. Yes, we'll never forget. But to dedicated a movie to 911 12 years after the fact (and as a sequel to boot) seemed odd, especially with the heavy handed political allegory.

I didn't know one of the screenwriters was a truther.

If it was all supposed to be about Bush, though, the joke's on him, because I walked out thinking it was about drones.

quote:

---

Just watched the original TV series episode with Kahn. I thought he was a more recurring villain. Def helps me understand ST:2 better.

---

It's interesting. After the disastrous Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the producers went out and re-watched TOS to find the perfect villain. Khan was a great villain, and had a kind of open ended ending that they could use.

I'm a little surprised they re-used him in this way.

Khan in the Wrath of Khan had a genuine grudge against Kirk that made it much more interesting.

Jacques - Such a great point. Khan had no connection to this crew in any meaningful way. Kirk wanted to kill him because he killed Pike. Totally justifiable, and decent motivation to peg the movie on. Guess I just wanted more of a reason for Khan to be against Kirk & his crew, specifically, instead of only against Marcus/Starfleet.

And thanks, red, - much appreciated.

I saw it again in IMAX 3D with some friends who have been out of country and everyone really enjoyed it. For me, the enjoyment held up to a second viewing, but I did find myself trying to catch additional possible explanations for some of the issues being discussed on this thread.

To me, STID seems to be more of an extension of the first movie to complete the introduction to the new timeline. The conflict with the Klingons has been brought into focus for future movies and Kahn is now possible arch villain to utilize moving forward as well.

TCTTS, I don't post much on this board, but I lurk quite often just to get yor take on current or upcoming movies. I appreciate and enjoy your contributions to this community.