Moderator: Vympel
No, he was the human-supremisist John Fredrick Paxton, leader of the Terrorist organization Terra Prime, and owner of the Orpheus Mining Colony.Enigma wrote:He was militant too as Colonel Green in Enterprise.
Yeah I do agree on that assessment. I was watching some youtube video 'reviews' and some of the reviews commented on how kirk's punch did nothing to khan versus spock as if it was some sort of mistake in the movie continuity or that it was some sort of revelation that spock is supposed to be far stronger than a human.Surlethe wrote:I really enjoyed the movie. J.J. Abrams really knows how to handle outer space -- he makes the "Star" in Star Trek super fucking beautiful. Khan was the best character, trailed closely by Spock; I want to echo CC and Valdemar that this movie was about Khan versus Spock, down to the fight scene at the end. I would have liked more foreshadowing about this, including somehow a reminder that Vulcans are alien. Spock is faster, stronger, and smarter than humans; he was the only character in the movie capable of posing a serious challenge to Khan. Not reminding audiences of this diminishes Khan's villainy.
That's exactly it. The original series had 79 episodes. That's literally days of content for plot development. A movie has 2 hours, and you can't really exceed that by too much without being forced to chop a lot of stuff or make it into two movies because very few people will spend 3 or 4 hours sitting still watching a movie. Whereas a TV season can take 12 hours to gradually expand on everything, a movie has 2 hours to get everything out. Especially since even with the most successful films, you're never guaranteed a sequel or spinoff unless the deal was already made before filming ever began.open_sketchbook wrote:I think that might be a reality of a universe that is only seen through film, though; they don't have the luxury of being able to do quiet, introspective episodes of puttering through space. Pacing, especially action movie pacing, has it's demands.
I gotta echo the love for the warp chase scene. I winced at every impact.
I'm willing to bet that's exactly what we're getting. The Klingons got shafted in the first film with the scenes being deleted (though there was still very little content with them, mainly existing to set up the plot of the cold war). This film sets the two galactic states up as on the brink of war, with the intentional incitation of a war being the driving plot point. The logical continuation for the third film is for a war to actually begin.I was a little disappointed that we saw so little of the Klingons, but I get it, and hopefully they'll get their own movie next time around.
I doubt it. Much ado was made at the end of STID about the Enterprise finally departing on its destined 5-year voyage. So we've been baited with a big-screen movie of nuTrek finally trying its hand at oldTrek's "to seek out new life and new civilizations." Skipping that, or prematurely ending it in the first ten minutes of the movie for the sake of THERE IS ONLY WAR would just be stupid.I'm willing to bet that's exactly what we're getting. The Klingons got shafted in the first film with the scenes being deleted (though there was still very little content with them, mainly existing to set up the plot of the cold war). This film sets the two galactic states up as on the brink of war, with the intentional incitation of a war being the driving plot point. The logical continuation for the third film is for a war to actually begin.
It depends on whether they can pull off the Organians. I don't think they will go the war route simply because STID was very much an anti war film. That said I'd love to see the Klingons in an even more adversarial role, maybe targeting Kirk for invading their homeland. You can have Klingon adversaries without them being in a full scale war.Kuja wrote:I doubt it. Much ado was made at the end of STID about the Enterprise finally departing on its destined 5-year voyage. So we've been baited with a big-screen movie of nuTrek finally trying its hand at oldTrek's "to seek out new life and new civilizations." Skipping that, or prematurely ending it in the first ten minutes of the movie for the sake of THERE IS ONLY WAR would just be stupid.I'm willing to bet that's exactly what we're getting. The Klingons got shafted in the first film with the scenes being deleted (though there was still very little content with them, mainly existing to set up the plot of the cold war). This film sets the two galactic states up as on the brink of war, with the intentional incitation of a war being the driving plot point. The logical continuation for the third film is for a war to actually begin.
I really don't think the production crew on the nuTrek movies actually cares about the Klingons beyond Treknerd fanservice and using them as an excuse for "woo flashy lights! blam! blam!" Both of which they can wring out of Star Trek 3 without using Klingons.
It's the Enterprise timeline, altered by the Borg in First Contact, IMO.Havok wrote:No, we are getting Klingons. They could have had Harrison go to any planet and have the exact same setup, have it actually make sense that there was zero fucking realistic response from Kronos and call it Gritorgan, home of the warrior like, but not warp capable Gritorgs. No, no, we got Klingons because we are getting Christopher Walken/Plummer (take your pick) in the next movie.
P.S. The Klingons in this movie cement, for me at least, that this isn't an alternate timeline, but an actual alternate dimension and that the prime timeline was unaffected by Nero and Spock.
Not that this wasn't a light TUC combined with a light WOK anyway. The behavior of the corrupt Admiral matches the behavior of the corrupt flag officers of the old TUC to a T.Kuja wrote: You know what I'd love to see them try, even though it will never happen in a million years, is for Star Trek 3 to be three to three and a half hours and feature two or three 40-50 minute stories about the Enterprise encountering weird shit out in the galaxy with 5-10 minute intermissions. Essentially, do several big-budget commercial-less Star Trek episodes. You could fit a lot of eye candy and light character stuff into something like that, although you wouldn't get something as heavy as, say, TUC. But the nuTrek writers aren't interested in doing TUC anyway, they want flashy bitz and zany antics. A Star Trek anthology-type movie would be perfect for zany antics and flashy bitz. Budget aside, it's not like we really got more out of STID than we would out of a decent Star Trek episode anyway.
Enterprise has been clearly established as the TOS/TNG timeline.Flagg wrote:It's the Enterprise timeline, altered by the Borg in First Contact, IMO.Havok wrote:No, we are getting Klingons. They could have had Harrison go to any planet and have the exact same setup, have it actually make sense that there was zero fucking realistic response from Kronos and call it Gritorgan, home of the warrior like, but not warp capable Gritorgs. No, no, we got Klingons because we are getting Christopher Walken/Plummer (take your pick) in the next movie.
P.S. The Klingons in this movie cement, for me at least, that this isn't an alternate timeline, but an actual alternate dimension and that the prime timeline was unaffected by Nero and Spock.
Age is your problem. Age of the crew. You still very much have a crew that is only two movies out of training. Kirk is only just now learning what it is to be a ship captain. This is a role people retire in. You're asking for a movie that depends on aged actors and characters to carry it at a slow burn and cook the tension of the film that way. What we've got, what the series started with is a young set of officers still in training that is forced into the field by circumstances. What you're guaranteed to get from the start and for the first few movies until the characters age into the type of roles you want is a very fast, very direct style, even now that Kirk's figured himself out. It's possible he could be comparable to the Captain we saw in the tv series(the other characters are already where they need to be), but he's not the Admiral of the movies. He's still a young character, even if he isn't as hot-headed as he started out as.Kuja wrote:When I said TUC, I meant a movie like TUC- slow burn, character focused, atmosphere building with action used to heighten the tension rather than carry the movie, saving the major fight scene for the climax of the film.
<snip not really interested in criticism of popcorn parts of movie>
Modern ST wants zany antics, flashy bitz, and some cheap bad guys...so let's go get some of those. Let's have the Enterprise chasing down a pirate vessel that looted a Federation outpost - make the pirates Ferengi if you want to pander to the oldTrek crowd. Cool ship to ship action! Naval combat! Boading parties! Have the Enterprise run into world where the aliens are essentially The Thing, copying the away team and attempting to replace them. High stakes tension! Who is the real Kirk? Have the Enterprise encounter a damaged sister vessel, with the crew gone except that we can still occasionally hear their voices while onboard. Turns out the ship was investigating a strange alien object. Spooky! Mysterious!
Let's see nuTrek actually embrace it's cheesified flashbang roots instead of ham-fistedly trying to be deep and being laughable at it. Flashy bitz and one-liners are pretty much universally agreed upon as the strengths of the nuTrek movies, so let's see them push that further.
So how many movies do we need before Kirk can finally evolve out being a rookie?Gaidin wrote:Age is your problem. Age of the crew. You still very much have a crew that is only two movies out of training. Kirk is only just now learning what it is to be a ship captain. This is a role people retire in. You're asking for a movie that depends on aged actors and characters to carry it at a slow burn and cook the tension of the film that way. What we've got, what the series started with is a young set of officers still in training that is forced into the field by circumstances. What you're guaranteed to get from the start and for the first few movies until the characters age into the type of roles you want is a very fast, very direct style, even now that Kirk's figured himself out. It's possible he could be comparable to the Captain we saw in the tv series(the other characters are already where they need to be), but he's not the Admiral of the movies. He's still a young character, even if he isn't as hot-headed as he started out as.
How long until your expectations actually match the movies and aren't set on some other movies that aren't related?ray245 wrote:So how many movies do we need before Kirk can finally evolve out being a rookie?
Since Kirk in the movies was largely sad or slow and confused, I don't look forward to this period.Screw Lord of the Rings, people will watch Transformers for two and a half hours. Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country are less than two hours, but still pace themselves well with quiet moments. All the action scenes aren't necessary (Off the top of my head, I'd say Khan's gunship attack and the Klingon chase/Khan killing Klingons to prove how badass he is could be cut down a bit and/or removed in some way.) and even some characters are completely unnecessary: You could completely remove Carol Marcus from the movie and replace her one point of importance with Chekov (The torpedo disarming scene) and the movie would not change a bit. In fact, giving Anton Yelchin some time with the rest of the cast instead of running around smoke-filled rooms in goggles would be a huge improvement.chitoryu12 wrote:That's exactly it. The original series had 79 episodes. That's literally days of content for plot development. A movie has 2 hours, and you can't really exceed that by too much without being forced to chop a lot of stuff or make it into two movies because very few people will spend 3 or 4 hours sitting still watching a movie. Whereas a TV season can take 12 hours to gradually expand on everything, a movie has 2 hours to get everything out. Especially since even with the most successful films, you're never guaranteed a sequel or spinoff unless the deal was already made before filming ever began.open_sketchbook wrote:I think that might be a reality of a universe that is only seen through film, though; they don't have the luxury of being able to do quiet, introspective episodes of puttering through space. Pacing, especially action movie pacing, has it's demands.
I gotta echo the love for the warp chase scene. I winced at every impact.
