Star Trek Into The Darkness-Khan

[+ Gar1eth]

Ok I haven't finished watching this on DVD yet. In fact I'm only up to the point where Jim has just had his captaincy taken away- almost at the beginning. And it's not that I want any spoilers. But while I think Benjamin Cumberbatch is cute. I still keep comparing him to Ricardo Montalban- esp as he looked in the Wrath of Khan with that bare chested tunic. Montalban just seemed more masculine/muscular to me than Benjamin. It's almost like the difference between Sean Connery's rugged/manly Bond and Roger Moore's manly but more sophisticated Bond. I mean the other main characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Scott seem very similar to their predecessors in the series ( well Urban seems more of an action star than Deforest Kelley ever was- but in general you could imagine the younger characters could possibly have won the roles in The Original Series if they had been born back then). So without giving away too much of the movie since I still need to watch it, how do you think Benjamin stacks up to Ricardo in terms of 'manliness'? Also if you had your choice who would you prefer to take to bed?

 

 

 

 

Gman

[tyro]

Wow...even though I am a "Cumberbitch" I can see your point.

T

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

Benedict Cumberbatch is beyond hot.

 

And they all die.

 

Kidding.

[+ poolboy48220]

it's a different kind of alpha male. Montalban's Khan was more swaggering. Cumberbatch's Khan is more coldly logical and ruthless. I have some theories why but don't want to give anything away.

[+ Gar1eth]

Benedict Cumberbatch is beyond hot.

 

And they all die.

 

Kidding.

 

Thanks a lot, Chris:p

 

Seriously, I think Benjamin is really sexy, but I wish he were a bit more muscular. Oh well, I guess I would do him if he showed up in my bed. I wouldn't want the poor guy to feel unloved- although to tell you the truth I think I'd really prefer Chris Pine. :o.

 

But does that make all us makes who like Benjamin CumberBastards? I just can't take being called a

bitch!! It messes up what little masculine self- image I have.

 

Gman

 

PS I wouldn't throw John Cho out of bed either! Come to think of it I always liked Garret Wang ( Harry Kim) on Voyager too.

[big-n-tall]

To be fair, Benedict is a rather thin man. He bulked up quite a bit for the role (however, if you look at current pics he lost a lot of the muscularity).

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

Come to think of it I always liked Garret Wang ( Harry Kim) on Voyager too.

 

I would have been banging Chakotay on Day Two, and sabotaging the ship trying to get home.

[uwsman2]

But how about the real, honest-to-goodness gay man in the cast? Zach Quinto is hot, hot, hot!!

[+ Gar1eth]

But how about the real, honest-to-goodness gay man in the cast? Zach Quinto is hot, hot, hot!!

 

He's cute, and I like his hairy chest. But he seems very 'actory' talking about his process or making sure things flow 'organic'. Chris Pine and Karl Urban seem like more regular guys to me.

 

 

And as regarding Voyager- I definitely wouldn't have complained if Tom Paris showed up in my bed either.

 

Gman

[+ poolboy48220]

Robert Duncan McNeil (Tom Paris) was reputed to be somewhat of a homophobe. There was a movement to get a regular gay character on one of the Trek series. Someone asked him about it in an interview and he said rather shortly "I don't see the need".

[JT Brooklyn]

Karl Urban who I first noticed in "Riddick" is a definite Hunk! He has a New Sci-Fi Series on Fox.....hopefully it will last at least 1 or 2 Seasons.

[Decatur Guy]

Are there any "Trek" fans out there who are not particularly big fans of what J.J. Abrams is doing with the franchise?

 

I give the new movies thumbs up on great casting and in some other areas, but overall, I just have a lot of qualms with what he's done. I realize the "Trek" movies were getting stale, but I don't think this reboot fuckin' with the timeline was the way to go. I also don't like the overreliance on "Die Hard" / "Matrix" styled scenes.

[+ Gar1eth]

Are there any "Trek" fans out there who are not particularly big fans of what J.J. Abrams is doing with the franchise?

 

I give the new movies thumbs up on great casting and in some other areas, but overall, I just have a lot of qualms with what he's done. I realize the "Trek" movies were getting stale, but I don't think this reboot fuckin' with the timeline was the way to go. I also don't like the over reliance on "Die Hard" / "Matrix" styled scenes.

 

I can certainly understand your not liking the way he has rebooted the Star Trek "Canon" if I am understanding your complaint. But I actually think it was a good way to go with the need for recasting the characters with younger actors. It certainly freed the series up from a lot of the limitations story-wise and special effects-wise that were a holdover from the 1960's. Some things I don't like--the death of Spock's mother. I realize it was a fairly significant plot point in the previous movie--but still. I also don't like the fact that they seem to have written out Kirk's brother. I also hope that if they write David Marcus--Kirk's son-- into the series at some point, he won't be killed this time. I thought that was an odd choice last time--if they had played it right--he could have been Jim's successor eventually.

 

Maybe the reboot doesn't bother me so much because I read several of the Star Trek Sci-fi books when I was younger. There were so many different author that they often consisted of non-canonical elements.

 

But again I understand the discomfort rebooting can bring. While I haven't read them regularly for over 20 years, I was a big DC and Marvel comics reader when I was young. DC had an entire multiverse that they had been writing about since at least the '60's. Either in the late '80's or early '90's they basically rebooted the entire DC Universe--different origins-elimination of the multiverse. They offered some lame explanation that it was too complicated for new readers to figure out what had already been established. On top of that the artwork in my opinion has gone downhill since the '80's. I think a lot of the art is inspired by Manga nowadays--and I never liked that style. Or if not, I still don't think the artwork is as good as in the '70's. I almost never read them anymore and the reboots still bug me majorly (the last time I picked a comic up was probably about 6 or 7 months ago when I just happened to browse a few because I was at a science fiction/fantasy bookstore that had them). So believe me while the reboot of Star Trek doesn't bother me, except for the points I made, I do understand.

 

Gman--still trying to get through "Into The Darkness"

[+ poolboy48220]

I'm a Trek fan since I got to stay up late at age 9 to watch the original series third season (Fridays at 10:00). I don't care much for the JJ Abrams movies. Nothing to do with staying canon, or reworking the timeline and events. It's more that they're just poorly written. Weak plot and contrived story points, just in service of making an exciting action scene. I have a couple examples but it's too early to get them all down :-)

[Decatur Guy]

Gar1eth -- Thanks for your great response. Excellent conversation.

 

My problem with the time line isn't that it's been altered. It's that they KNOW it was altered and seemingly don't give a fuck about it or even tried to fix it.

 

Do you remember the episode "Yesterday's Enterprise," in which Enterprise C comes through a rift during a battle with four Romulan warbirds? Merely leaving the battle altered the time line and the Federation was in a state of war with the Klingons. Guinan knew things weren't quite right, and she and Picard had some TERRIFIC scenes arguing about what to do. (She insisted on fixing it; he questioned who was to say which time line was right). That was the best part of the whole episode -- two deeply connected friends of extremely good will on opposite sides of an argument, both with valid points.

 

There was nothing like that in JJA's movie. Original Time Line Spock tells Alternate Time Line Kirk that his father saw him graduate from the Academy. Kirk didn't seem to care. No one seemed wonder if they should travel back in time to the moment Nero arrived and destroy his ship -- thus restoring the time line. After all, Uhura is putting out in the ATL -- so why fuck that up just to save the entire planet of Vulcan, which they also all know was a thriving member of of the Federation in the OTL?

 

If they had simply addressed that and came up with a reason why it was impossible to restore the OTL, then I would have been OK. But they just didn't even seem to bring it up. All of this makes me wish Joan Collins had never been hit by that car in 1930s America -- that way, none of this would have happened either.

 

Poolboy -- I agree with you. He's too focused on setting up action sequences. The entire movie plot services the set up of action sequences instead of giving us character-driven movies where the plot drives whatever action sequences they do.

[Decatur Guy]

My problem with the second movie is this: OK, you've fucked up the time line, and we now have this big new canvas. You're no longer beholden to the original series and the way things happened then. I disagree with doing that as stated above -- but creatively, I do understand the appeal of a "fresh start."

 

So for better or for worse, you've established your fresh start. What do you do?

 

Why, let's dip straight back to the Khan well! GOOD LORD! Why revisit the old story lines if the whole point was to give yourselves a new canvas? And to do it on what's generally considered to be the best of the OTL movies at that?

 

I didn't have a problem with the set-up within the movie. Events before Nero's intrusion happened just as they did before, so Khan's already frozen in his spaceship. It's isolated in some random part of deep space, and it's logical none of the events surrounding Nero's initial attack would have in any way affected that. And then of course, it was a different Federation ship that eventually found him, thus a different rollout of events involving Khan. All of that made sense.

 

But what didn't make sense was even deciding to go down that road. One thing that made the OTL movie so good was it was personal -- Kirk and Khan already had a history. And it was all the more bitter for Khan because the rivalry was everything to him, and to Kirk, Khan was just a footnote in his career until Project Genesis.

 

In the ATL, the big villain actually has to be explained to the ATL cast by OTL Spock. So they are missing the key element of what made "Wrath of Khan" so great from the get-go.

 

I understand some things would be dramatically altered in the ATL and some things would be kind of the same -- for instance, Nero's intrusion should have no immediate effect on the Dominion, the Borg, the Cardassians, Bajor, the assorted odd denizens of the Delta Quadrant. They are all out there still going about business as usual not having had contact with the Federation anyway.

 

But the Federation is without Vulcan. To me, that's the meat of the story now. Amanda is gone. Vulcan is gone. It's a new kind of Spock because of that. To me that's what you explore.

 

The Federation has to be much weaker with Vulcan destroyed -- they've lost their most stable, advanced member that kind of kept a lid on things for the rest of them. It's enemies would be bolder than in the OTL. Second movie could have had the same set-up (the terrorist threat and the threat posed by an overresponse; I actually liked that part of it), but instead of Khan, it should have been a Starfleet admiral in cahoots-gone-wrong with the Orion Syndicate.

 

The Syndicate in the ATL should be stronger now that the Federation is weaker. Plus, it would have been a great excuse to throw in the green Orion slave girls with significant screen time and set up plenty of action sequences with such a salacious bunch.

 

I hope the third movie somehow involves Klingons (they have set that up) but with something entirely NEW since that was the purpose of the reboot.

 

Lord, let's just pray that V'Ger has decided to go somewhere else.

[Decatur Guy]

I don't want anyone to think I think about these things much!

 

P.S. -- Silver lining to all of this: Wesley Crusher might not ever be born now!

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

Silver lining to all of this: Wesley Crusher might not ever be born now!

 

But who will save us?

[Decatur Guy]

But who will save us?

 

Nog from Deep Space Nine.

[+ Gar1eth]

I didn't have a problem with the set-up within the movie. Events before Nero's intrusion happened just as they did before, so Khan's already frozen in his spaceship. It's isolated in some random part of deep space, and it's logical none of the events surrounding Nero's initial attack would have in any way affected that. And then of course, it was a different Federation ship that eventually found him, thus a different rollout of events involving Khan. All of that made sense....

 

....

I understand some things would be dramatically altered in the ATL and some things would be kind of the same -- for instance, Nero's intrusion should have no immediate effect on the Dominion, the Borg, the Cardassians, Bajor, the assorted odd denizens of the Delta Quadrant. They are all out there still going about business as usual not having had contact with the Federation anyway....

 

Don't be too sure that Nero only affected people, events, and places near him or even events prior to his interference. As Connie Willis writes in her excellent comedic novel on Time Travel 'To Say Nothing Of The Dog'

 

“How is that possible? In a chaotic system, every event is linked to every other.” “Yes, but the system’s nonlinear,” T.J. said, looking at the papers, “with feedback and feedforward loops, redundancies and interference, so the effect of some objects and events is multiplied enormously, and in others it’s cancelled out.” “And a parachronistic incongruity"

 

Of course they were making the argument that most likely things couldn't be changed. Or if they were that the Universe had multiple failsafes to try to get things back to the way they were supposed to be. Maybe in this Alternative Time Line in the last they don't have enough knowledge to correct things?

 

 

 

 

 

The Federation has to be much weaker with Vulcan destroyed -- they've lost their most stable, advanced member

 

Well there are still the survivors of Vulcan left. And what a great plot point. Will the destruction of their planet and their people cause enough psychic trauma to warp their dependence on the teachings of Surak? It would me- but then I'm not a Vulcan.

 

I never thought The Wrath of Khan was the best movie ( but I know it made the most money)- on the other hand it was so much better than Star Trek- The Motion Picture. I can't believe after all that time and money spent on it they had the audacity to recycle the Voyager Plot.

 

Lord, let's just pray that V'Ger has decided to go somewhere else.

 

As I just wrote, I agree with you. A third time to see V'ger would definitely not be a charm.

 

As for preferring Edith Keeler/Joan Collins to survive-are you really sure about that? I'm not really very sanguine about seeing Nazis goose-stepping all over the US OF A

 

Despite your protests to the contrary ( maybe protesting too much to the contrary- eh wot?), I think you have been thinking about these matters a lot.:o. And I'm am quite impressed. I am. I don't usually analyze plots like this so in depth. I'm a simple guy at heart. Give me hunky actors, explosions, and some good fight sequences- hopefully exposing some skin, and I'm HAPPY!!!

 

But you've given me a lot to think about.

 

Gman

 

PS If you are into light- hearted books on time travel, you really should pick up To Say Nothing Of The Dog by Connie Willis from 1997. It won the Hugo and Nebula Awards. It might be considered a pastiche- or maybe better an ode to a great comedic novel Three Men In A Boat by Jerome K. Jerome. Willis has written several other time travel books in the same milieu. But those are all more serious. To Say Nothing Of The Dog is very light-hearted and laugh out loud funny.

[Decatur Guy]

Thanks for the reading suggestions. I will check them out!

[+ Gar1eth]

But who will save us?

 

Maybe we can count on...

 

[video=youtube_share;MS4_Z84-rRE]

 

Gman

[leigh.bess.toad]

He's cute, and I like his hairy chest. But he seems very 'actory' talking about his process or making sure things flow 'organic'. Chris Pine and Karl Urban seem like more regular guys to me.

Gman

 

By all reports of a friend, he is a really sweet guy.

 

 

And as far as who will save us and time travel, the only thing that applies is this:

 

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/what-do-we-want-time-travel-when-do-we-want-it-its-irrelevant.jpg

[Michael Wayne]

Big closet Trekkie here. PINE is absolutely DREAMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!