Thanks, tamusc.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah. It just misses the point of what made him such a great villain in Wrath of Khan. They had a history.

Someone made the point in one of the reviews you posted, and I agree: For trekkies, the movie imported a lot of unearned emotion.

What I always loved most about Wrath of Khan is that the ship-to-ship combat was not on a 2D plane. It was in all three dimensions. Sci-fi film/TV, ESPECIALLY Star Trek, almost never do this.

quote:

---

What I always loved most about Wrath of Khan is that the ship-to-ship combat was not on a 2D plane. It was in all three dimensions. Sci-fi film/TV, ESPECIALLY Star Trek, almost never do this.

---

It was actually a key plot point. Spock commented to Kirk that Khan appeared to have only two-dimensional thinking.

I just want to let the average movie-goer, which is what we all are, know that this movie was great fun to watch. I think the majority of the people with their plot holes and nitpicking are confused about what movie they were going to see.
Most of us go to see Star Trek to have a good time and see cool ideas of what space travel might be like. I don't want their problems with the movie to stop you from seeing it, because I guarantee you will like it. They are the exception.

quote:

---

Most of us go to see Star Trek to have a good time and see cool ideas of what space travel might be like. I don't want their problems with the movie to stop you from seeing it, because I guarantee you will like it. They are the exception.

---

Which reminded me of another thing I got a kick out of. When Kirk, Spock and Uhura go to Kronos, there's something that looks like a nebula between Kronos and the Enterprise. My friend and I both started laughing immediately.

This was a fun movie.

But I do think Abrams is a lot less wedded to the science than others making movies and TV shows in the Star Trek universe have been.



[This message has been edited by Jacques (edited 5/28/2013 12:29a).]

Wow. This explains everything...

quote:

---

Let’s talk about Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch). Take us through why you went with Khan as the villain and, also, can you clarify why he does what he does?

ORCI: OK, I’ll do a deep dive with you. In a way, (fellow co-writer and co-producer) Damon (Lindelof) and I were the biggest debaters about this. He argued for Khan from the beginning and I argued against it. The compromise that we came to was, let us devise a story that is not reliant on any history of Star Trek. So, what’s the story? Well, we have a story where our crew is who they are and they’re coming together as a family. Then, suddenly, this villain arrives and his motivations are based on what happens in the movie. They’re not based on history. They’re not based on Star Trek. They’re not based on anything that came before. They’re based on his used by a corrupted system of power that held the things he held dear against him and tried to manipulate him. That story stands alone with or without Star Trek history. That’s how we approached it, and God bless Damon for going down that road.

So, once we had that, that’s when Damon came back and reared his ugly head and said, “OK, now that we have that, is there any reason why we cannot bring Star Trek history into this?” And he was right. So we ended up sort of reverse engineering it. We started with, “What’s a good movie? What’s a good villain? What’s a good motivation? We cannot rely on what’s happened before. Now that we have that, can we tailor this villain into something that relates to Star Trek history?” And that’s what we did. So, step one was “Don’t rely on Star Trek.” Then, step two was “Rely on Star Trek.”

---

http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-orci-opens-up-about-star-trek-into-darkness-part-1

So Kurtzman & Orci's initial draft had the same basic plot, only with a different, fresh villain (I seriously would have loved to have seen that version). Then Lindelof came in and convinced them to make it Khan. Khan was literally cut-and-paste into the movie, and that's exactly what it feels like. Funny, because Lindelof did the opposite here of what he did to Prometheus, only to get the same, generic result. And then Orci kind of throws him under the bus, taking the blame off he and Kurtzman (just like he did with Transformers 2 and Michael Bay). So lame. Please let all three of these guys stay as far away from Trek 3 as humanly possible.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 5/28/2013 6:06p).]

If really would have taken a different tack of it would have been a new villain. We didn't come to see Kirk v Kahn. We came to see Star Trek. This reboot doesn't have to have all the same backstory.

For instance, Kirk's deep-seeded hatred of Klingons comes from them killing his son. Not necessary.

Ugh, as if I didn't already dislike Lindelof's work enough.

This reboot doesn't have to have all the same backstory.
-----
Though they cheated on that by having Spock import the backstory at the last minute.

Here, Orci gives an overly-complicated reason as to why they'll never venture too far off the beaten path...

quote:

---

ORCI: We can do whatever we want. However, the rule that we have for ourselves is that it has to harmonize with canon. This is going to get way too geeky, and I apologize ahead of time… Quantum mechanics, which is how we based our time travel, is not just simple time travel. Leonard Nimoy didn’t just go back and change history (as Spock Prime in the 2009 film), and then everything is like Back to the Future. It’s using the rules of quantum mechanics, which means it’s an alternate universe where there is no going back. There is no fixing the timeline. There’s just another reality that is the latest and greatest of time travel that exist. So, on the one hand we’re free. On the other hand, these same rules of quantum mechanics tell us that the universes that exist, they exist because they are the most probable universe.

---

I appreciate the thought and science behind their thinking, but it's like they're coming up with every reason not to try 100% fresh and "original" stories/situations with these characters.

I saw no problem with the villain being Khan. Would it really have been more interesting if his name wasn't Khan?

Also I'm curious how Prometheus felt generic, and how you can put that on Lindelof. If anything he prevented it from being a complete rehash of Alien.

if you did not enjoy STID then I say go eat some pizza

quote:

---

This reboot doesn't have to have all the same backstory.

---

quote:

---

appreciate the thought and science behind their thinking, but it's like they're coming up with every reason not to try 100% fresh and "original" stories/situations with these characters.

---

i think the issue is that the backstory is identical up until the rift in the timeline (at Kirk 2.0's birth). Hence, Kahn exists in both timelines, as he is 300 years old.

Late to the party, but I just saw it a few days ago and thought it was great. The plot wasn't particularly novel or complex, but it was still a fun, entertaining flick.

I just saw it yesterday and liked it a lot. I liked it better than the first one, actually.

And I don't think keeping Khan alive is a plot-hole, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that we don't know if all the other people's blood would've revived Kirk.

Really enjoyed this movie. I haven't seen much star trek but did like the 2009 movie as well.

My lady and I saw it this evening! We LOVED IT!!

quote:

---

Quantum mechanics, which is how we based our time travel, is not just simple time travel. Leonard Nimoy didn’t just go back and change history (as Spock Prime in the 2009 film), and then everything is like Back to the Future. It’s using the rules of quantum mechanics, which means it’s an alternate universe where there is no going back. There is no fixing the timeline.

---

Isn't this another plot hole?

Either Nimoy's Spock is from an alternate universe (where speaking with him makes no sense) or he's from the future (where he'd know nothing about Khan (as Quinto's Spock just changed his future).

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah. It just misses the point of what made him such a great villain in Wrath of Khan. They had a history.

Someone made the point in one of the reviews you posted, and I agree: For trekkies, the movie imported a lot of unearned emotion.

---

I think both of you have missed the point here. Kahn wasn't supposed to have a meaningful connection to the enterprise crew. As someone pointed out on a previous page, this was original series Kahn, not wrath of kahn.

Now, when/if Kahn wakes up again, he'll be out strictly for Kirk and Spock. And, unless his entire crew gets out with him, he might think they are dead...blown up by Spock in the torpedos.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quantum mechanics, which is how we based our time travel, is not just simple time travel. Leonard Nimoy didn’t just go back and change history (as Spock Prime in the 2009 film), and then everything is like Back to the Future. It’s using the rules of quantum mechanics, which means it’s an alternate universe where there is no going back. There is no fixing the timeline.

---

Isn't this another plot hole?

Either Nimoy's Spock is from an alternate universe (where speaking with him makes no sense) or he's from the future (where he'd know nothing about Khan (as Quinto's Spock just changed his future).

---

I always try not to think too much about time travel in movies, but I don't think alternate universe is the right phrase. Alternate timeline is more accurate. Why wouldn't Spock know about Kahn? If you went back in time tomorrow, would you somehow forget that you posted on Texags a few times? A younger you choosing to frequent an LSU forum instead would not change your memories of texags.

Great, in-depth article that completely eviscerates the science of STID. Makes me dislike the movie even more...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

Bob Orci shows up in the comments (as "Butthurt Fanboy" - seriously, it's him) and kind of whines a bit. I applaud him for actually engaging fans in this way (he posts on a lot of different boards), but here he just comes off as bitter.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 6/17/2013 11:11a).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quantum mechanics, which is how we based our time travel, is not just simple time travel. Leonard Nimoy didn’t just go back and change history (as Spock Prime in the 2009 film), and then everything is like Back to the Future. It’s using the rules of quantum mechanics, which means it’s an alternate universe where there is no going back. There is no fixing the timeline.

---

Isn't this another plot hole?

Either Nimoy's Spock is from an alternate universe (where speaking with him makes no sense) or he's from the future (where he'd know nothing about Khan (as Quinto's Spock just changed his future).

---

I always try not to think too much about time travel in movies, but I don't think alternate universe is the right phrase. Alternate timeline is more accurate. Why wouldn't Spock know about Kahn? If you went back in time tomorrow, would you somehow forget that you posted on Texags a few times? A younger you choosing to frequent an LSU forum instead would not change your memories of texags.

---

I am a believer that you cant change the present by changing the past.

So if I go back in time today, that has already happened in my present.

And that is what confused me about the current series, forgetting about things like Back to the Future.

Trying to analyze the science of science fiction isn't a worthwhile endeavor. First of all, who wants to watch a movie set in space where it takes 120 years to get anywhere. It's fine in a movie like Prometheus where they cryogenically sleep because of the long trip but Star Trek isn't that type of movie.

The knock on Nibiru: I'm guessing not many people picked up on that reference and what if he just put it in to be funny? What if it's not showing disdain instead of respect for science?

The Volcano bit, sure there's a point there but it's also science fiction. I don't remember the wording of the characters but maybe it wasn't a mass extinction event and instead more like Pompeii where everyone was going to die that way. You can wipe out a civilization on an island with a volcano.

The underwater Enterprise presents issues. The bubbles for the water boots are there for effect, much like sound in space in Star Trek and Star Wars. Volanic interference is the reason transporters don't work, we don't know what materials the volcano was made of. That would explain the need to be LOS. Why they were underwater in the first place I don't know. Ionization in the atmosphere prevented shuttles from making it down or transporters from working in orbit?

Harping on the communicators bit isn't worth the time since Star Trek does have subspace communications. I don't think we can equate modern wireless communication with future ones.

Will this guy write an article about how a man can't fly or be bulletproof? When watching movies that are based on the supernatural, far into the future and magic you really gotta leave the science hat in the car. I understand he wants it to be more accurate but that's not a reason to hate a fiction movie.

The whole point is that Star Trek is the ONE franchise that was built on being pro-science, is supposed to further our love of science, etc. That's why this guy tackles Trek - and Trek only - and not Man of Steel or whatever. Has Trek always featured ridiculous technology? Absolutely. But they at least had consultants and established rules they sticked to, etc. It's Orci & co's complete disregard for those things in this iteration that rubs people the wrong way.

That may be the case for older star trek, but these new films are just different. JJ and crew took a somewhat fringe movie franchise and mainstreamed it to maximize exposure. It pulls people in and will get them to check out previous Trek films/shows.

That some science nut gets his panties twisted is of no consequence to the majority of viewers.

quote:

---

\Trying to analyze the science of science fiction isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

---

That is a big difference with Star Trek from a lot of other science fiction...it begs you to analyze the science. In fact, there's a a book (a great one) called the Physics of Star Trek.