or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › STAR TREK INTO MAJOR SPOILERS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAR TREK INTO MAJOR SPOILERS

post #1 of 227
Thread Starter 
by Daniel W. Baldwin: link

Seriously, DO NOT READ if you want to be "surprised". I'm not kidding.
post #2 of 227
I don't care that it's Khan. I care that Abrams made cast and crew keep up a smokescreen of bullshit and insulted everyone in the process, not least the audience. It's the need to keep this a secret all this time that pisses me off. Abrams looks like he's embarrassed of his script now, and from the sound of things he ought to be.
post #3 of 227
It's Star Trek in name only as far as I am concerned so I'm not too upset. Still, the whole "John Harrison" angle is pretty stupid. If Abrams really wanted to surprise audiences and Trekkies there could have been far more creative routes to take. He can't pull an EMPIRE shocker and have it be predictble. I guess this is the kind of shit you get when the writers of TRANSFORMERS and PROMETHEUS are involved.
post #4 of 227

Not sure what they thought they'd gain from hiding the character of Khan from the general public.

 

the people who are going to talking about this movie per-release are the movie geeks and Star Trek fans, all of whom will discuss this to death and eventually figure out his identity prior to the movie, and all of who will be let down by it - general movie geeks and Star Trek fans hold Wrath of Khan in such high regard that reintroducing the character will not have the same effect (it won't be "Oh wow, Khan!", More "Khan? Really? Think you can outdo Wrath of Khan?) and simply sully the new movie by trying to cash in on the original movie's high regard.

 

The rest of the movie going public who have no idea who Khan is from either the original series or Wrath of Khan will simply not know/care who he is, thus negating the point of hiding the character's identity.

 

I always thought the uniqueness of Khan's character was his personal grudge against Kirk (and with no Botany Bay marooning where is that grudge?) and the uniqueness of Wrath of Khan was the final submarine battle which was more cerebral and in direct contrast to the PEW PEW of the other space franchise at the time, Star Wars.

 

Surely they could have come up with a better villain of the piece, unless it is the original Khan who was reborn in the Genesis explosion and fired through the wormhole from ST'09.

 

Or something. 

post #5 of 227

Personally, I find this hilarious. They should have just said “Fuck it!” and made pale-skinned, Englishman Benedict Cumberbatch’s alias not John Harrison but Ming Kwon Wong.

post #6 of 227
So.... how come we now know this to be true, compared to all the other times this has been said? And I thought the "reverse reactor" scene was debunked and turned out to just be him in the brig? Guess I'm in denial, but sue me.
post #7 of 227

As great a villain as Khan was in the original, the main reason that film worked was because we'd had at least ten years of investment in the characters of Kirk and Spock.  We'd been watching them on TV for most of the 70s, where they were unassailable heroes who always prevailed over impossible odds.  A lot of WoK's power comes from seeing these characters brought low and forced to deal with something they've never dealt with, and with a past that had a real sense of time having passed to it.  New Khan has all of one film to play off of, and no benefit of a "Space Seed" to add any backstory to the proceedings.  I'm not saying Into Darkness will be bad, but the mere presence of Khan isn't some instant win.

post #8 of 227
Wow. Congratulations, JJ, you managed to keep this shocking twist a secret from nobody except for a few tube worms down at the bottom of the ocean who hadn't quite caught up on things yet until, like, over a month before it comes out. This was totally worth all the bullshit "secrecy" and misdirection!

Geez Louise. Guy's setting himself up to be another M. Night Shyamalan. For the next movie, it'll be set on a farm and then we'll be stunned by the revelation that Star Trek actually takes place in the far future, despite seeing a shuttlecraft go by overhead in the opening shot.
post #9 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

As great a villain as Khan was in the original, the main reason that film worked was because we'd had at least ten years of investment in the characters of Kirk and Spock.  We'd been watching them on TV for most of the 70s, where they were unassailable heroes who always prevailed over impossible odds.  A lot of WoK's power comes from seeing these characters brought low and forced to deal with something they've never dealt with, and with a past that had a real sense of time having passed to it.  New Khan has all of one film to play off of, and no benefit of a "Space Seed" to add any backstory to the proceedings.  I'm not saying Into Darkness will be bad, but the mere presence of Khan isn't some instant win.

Yup. Even ignoring what came before, STAR TREK II still makes a very powerful film not just because of Khan alone but also many other factors. Unless he has a phenomenal script that's worth it, bringing in Khan just feels like Abrams is taking the easy route of brand recognition where people will be more interested if it has certain boxes ticked. That's what the last film pretty much was. I do hope it turns out all well, I'm not entirely cynical. I just wouldn't be surprised if the film turns out the way Spock comments on Trelane's setting:

"It simply means that Trelane knows all of the Earth forms, but none of the substance."
post #10 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

"It simply means that Trelane knows all of the Earth forms, but none of the substance."
Oh, bravo, sir.

Can't wait to see what this visionary does with the other Star franchise. You thought the prequels had name-check syndrome bad?
post #11 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Oh, bravo, sir.

Can't wait to see what this visionary does with the other Star franchise. You thought the prequels had name-check syndrome bad?

 

He's got other writers for STAR WARS. I'm not concerned with that franchise.
post #12 of 227

Yeah this movie sucks big time! Booo

post #13 of 227
Abrams has the right energy for Star Wars, but at least somebody else is doing the writing for that. Orci and Kurtzman for me are the real problem with these BAD ROBOT era Trek films. I don't have too much of an issue with Abrams' direction besides the lens flare. The tone and energy was perfect for the last film, but the script was big fucking mess and the characters came off wrong at crucial points. The ending alone where they kill the defenseless Romulans while smirking instead of beaming them up into holding cell really sums up how these filmmakers have no idea what Trek is supposed to be about.
post #14 of 227

Based on the arguments against presented in this thread alone I can't see how they wouldn't have already thought of these for reasons against using Khan in pre-production/script phase - they're all so obvious to anyone who gives this character, his basis in the show and his place in the existing films even the slightest thought. Which leads me to believe that Cumberbatch isn't Khan. They simply wouldn't/couldn't be that lazy could they? I simply refuse the believe they could be.

post #15 of 227
They just don't make spoilers like they used to.
post #16 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

They just don't make spoilers like they used to.

 

HE WAS DEAD ALL ALONG!

 

I really dont care about the whole Khan hoax/name thing,(since im more of a casual fan of Star Trek) as long as it makes some lick of sense in movie.

post #17 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I don't care that it's Khan. I care that Abrams made cast and crew keep up a smokescreen of bullshit and insulted everyone in the process, not least the audience.

 

Oh no.  The sacred bond of trust between filmmaker and guys who sit at their computers obsessively thinking about filmmaker's upcoming film is now broken.

post #18 of 227

If true, the worst thing about it is that the reveal will likely fall completely flat when it comes.  Trek fans will either just groan, or give a sarcastic "what a surprise!"  Non trek fans turned on by the previous movie will have little to no clue who he is.  I can already imagine some of my friends I'm likely to see this with turning to me asking, "who?"

post #19 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieFerguson View Post

If true, the worst thing about it is that the reveal will likely fall completely flat when it comes.  Trek fans will either just groan, or give a sarcastic "what a surprise!"  Non trek fans turned on by the previous movie will have little to no clue who he is.  I can already imagine some of my friends I'm likely to see this with turning to me asking, "who?"


It won't matter "who" as his character is in an alternative timeline and so taken out of context of the original character's arc.

 

Other than a nod to the existing fans (who will judge him by the the existing character/movie, to which he'll never live up to) there simply is no reason to have this character as Khan.

 

Perhaps old Spock will show up and give the character some perpective and weight - Is old Spock in this?

 

Nope, can't believe this character is Khan. I'm in denial. Not even a Star Trek fan, but I'm in denial in regards to lazy story/franchise product placement.

post #20 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieFerguson View Post

If true, the worst thing about it is that the reveal will likely fall completely flat when it comes.  Trek fans will either just groan, or give a sarcastic "what a surprise!"  Non trek fans turned on by the previous movie will have little to no clue who he is.  I can already imagine some of my friends I'm likely to see this with turning to me asking, "who?"

 

Yeah, this is one of those rare occasions where I'm GLAD to have had a moment spoiled. This sounds like a groan-inducing moment designed only to scream DRAMA at the audience. I'm not sure who this plot point is supposed to impress ... it will only piss off long-time fans and confuse the newbies. The audience they're gunning for aren't even old enough to remember the SEINFELD parody, after all.

post #21 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

 

Nope, can't believe this character is Khan. I'm in denial. Not even a Star Trek fan, but I'm in denial in regards to lazy story/franchise product placement.

 

No oiled chest and mullet? Not Khan.

post #22 of 227

The great thing about this is that I can now go back to referring to him as Benedict Khanberbatch.

post #23 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

The great thing about this is that I can now go back to referring to him as Benedict Khanberbatch.

 

Saxon, stop trying to make Khanberbatch happen.

 

post #24 of 227

Star Trek: The Quickening

 

It's good that Abrams is cramming so much in so fast.  It's not like he's sticking around.

post #25 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Based on the arguments against presented in this thread alone I can't see how they wouldn't have already thought of these for reasons against using Khan in pre-production/script phase - they're all so obvious to anyone who gives this character, his basis in the show and his place in the existing films even the slightest thought. Which leads me to believe that Cumberbatch isn't Khan. They simply wouldn't/couldn't be that lazy could they? I simply refuse the believe they could be.

 

Yes, this is Orci and Kurtzman and Lindelof.  They are EXACTLY that lazy.

post #26 of 227

I hope the collective shrug audiences make when Khan is "revealed" convince Abrams to give up this magic shell-game of his. He's a decent filmmaker; just let the damn movie speak for itself and stop trying to convince us you're the goddamn wizard or some shit.

post #27 of 227
It's so unfortunate if this is true. They have an amazing cast, especially in the trinity of Kirk, Bones and McCoy--but even Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov are great. The uniforms look great. The universe looks great. They just need a good story.

What a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars.
post #28 of 227

so.....there aren't any whales in this movie?

 

:(

post #29 of 227

Frankly, I'm not really bothered by Abrams' magic shell game.  I think it's every filmmaker's right to say, "I'm not telling you anything.  Watch the movie."  I think someone like Marion Cottilard was totally in the right lying to people by saying she wasn't playing Talia.

 

In STAR TREK's decades of existence, there are two iconic bad guys:  Khan and the Borg.  And maybe, just maybe, there was a reason in-film that you weren't supposed to know who he was.

post #30 of 227
I wonder if they kept it a secret to cover up white washing complaints. Having an Indian character played by a white man. In any case it's sad this is what Star Trek has come to. The point has been made a million times over, but what ever happened to boldly going where no one has gone before?
post #31 of 227

Confirming it's Khan better mean we get those mind-controlling bugs that possess Lt. Traxler and Chekov!

post #32 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I wonder if they kept it a secret to cover up white washing complaints. Having an Indian character played by a white man. In any case it's sad this is what Star Trek has come to. The point has been made a million times over, but what ever happened to boldly going where no one has gone before?

 

It died when nobody liked THE MOTION PICTURE and they brought Khan back in STAR TREK II.

post #33 of 227
Speaking only for myself, it's now at the point where I am hoping this film bombs. To damage Abram's career (Star Trek is about vendetta, after all...) and to kill this bastardized Trek so a new, better trek can one day grow from the ashes. Preferably TV Trek. I have no interest in seeing another of these brainless, dour , action movie retreads in another 2-3 years.
post #34 of 227

"Begun, this fanboy rage war, has."

 

So when this thing makes $300m+, are you going to grumble-grumble-grumble all the way?

post #35 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Speaking only for myself, it's now at the point where I am hoping this film bombs. To damage Abram's career (Star Trek is about vendetta, after all...) and to kill this bastardized Trek so a new, better trek can one day grow from the ashes. Preferably TV Trek. I have no interest in seeing another of these brainless, dour , action movie retreads in another 2-3 years.


Why do you want to see someone's career damaged? It's just a fucking movie.

post #36 of 227

We're all assuming that the film is gonna suck now that we know it's Khan.  

 

Here's an idea: why don't we wait for the film to come out and judge the film on its own merits?  Who knows, it may be fantastic and the fact that he's Khan may be a non-issue.

post #37 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

"Begun, this fanboy rage war, has."

So when this thing makes $300m+, are you going to grumble-grumble-grumble all the way?

If that came to pass I'd probably not like it, but honestly, today is the day where I unhitched my wagon from Abrams' Trek. As far as I'm concerned, it's not trek, and it's not for me. I'll just move on, remembering the golden era of TNG-DS9, and hope that this new trek can collapse in on itself before irrevocable harm is done to the franchise.

This latest bullshit revelation was signal that the time to try and hope for the best with Abrams has ended - for this Trek fan, it's shields up red alert from this point forward.
post #38 of 227

That's fair.  I just thing it's odd to get up in arms about Abrams using TREK's most popular villain.

post #39 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

We're all assuming that the film is gonna suck now that we know it's Khan.  

Here's an idea: why don't we wait for the film to come out and judge the film on its own merits?  Who knows, it may be fantastic and the fact that he's Khan may be a non-issue.

I feel like there is now enough information available for me to declare this movie something I am not interested in. From the director to the writers to the trailers and their violent, anti Trek tone, to this latest round of mystery box nonsense all in service of covering up the intellectually bankrupt origins of this sequel, all that's left now is for me to throw up my hands in a Picard face palm and back slowly out of the room.


Obviously though, it must be said I'd love to be wrong. If this movie was somehow great and true to Roddenberry's vision, then of course that would be great. The point is though that my hope for that outcome has now cratered.
post #40 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J View Post


Why do you want to see someone's career damaged?

So that Abrams opportunities to apply his 'magic' to other beloved franchises are curtailed.
post #41 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

That's fair.  I just thing it's odd to get up in arms about Abrams using TREK's most popular villain.

It's a straw that broke the camels back situation for me. I was already right on the edge of coming out against this movie.
post #42 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Frankly, I'm not really bothered by Abrams' magic shell game.  I think it's every filmmaker's right to say, "I'm not telling you anything.  Watch the movie."  I think someone like Marion Cottilard was totally in the right lying to people by saying she wasn't playing Talia.

 

In STAR TREK's decades of existence, there are two iconic bad guys:  Khan and the Borg.  And maybe, just maybe, there was a reason in-film that you weren't supposed to know who he was.

 

Agreed. A lot of the anger over it strikes me as the petulance of people too accustomed to getting what they want. I would've liked to have seen something a bit more surprising as well and I dunno if bringing back Khan this way will work or not, but I don't find the idea inherently worse than a Batman movie bringing The Joker back or whatever. Yeah yeah "what happened to boldly going where no man has gone before?" I just don't care about those dull arguments anymore. For people obsessed with journeying into the unknown, Trekkies certainly love to repeat themselves over and over.

 

Also I have to echo the confusion over why this is suddenly being treated as official. People claiming to have inside sources have been saying all this stuff (inc. the bit about the reactor) for ages now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
As great a villain as Khan was in the original, the main reason that film worked was because we'd had at least ten years of investment in the characters of Kirk and Spock.  We'd been watching them on TV for most of the 70s, where they were unassailable heroes who always prevailed over impossible odds.  A lot of WoK's power comes from seeing these characters brought low and forced to deal with something they've never dealt with, and with a past that had a real sense of time having passed to it.  New Khan has all of one film to play off of, and no benefit of a "Space Seed" to add any backstory to the proceedings.  I'm not saying Into Darkness will be bad, but the mere presence of Khan isn't some instant win.

 

I don't buy it. The main reason Wrath Of Khan worked is because it was well written and well executed. The characterization is way more subtle and nuanced in that movie than in what had come before. Yeah the extra background helps but no movie needs hours of television to make it work.

post #43 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

We're all assuming that the film is gonna suck now that we know it's Khan.  

 

Here's an idea: why don't we wait for the film to come out and judge the film on its own merits?  Who knows, it may be fantastic and the fact that he's Khan may be a non-issue.

 

We're not assuming the film is going to suck because it's Khan.  We're annoyed at the constant denials about what everyone knew to be true.  And if there's some plot twist that hinges on a Khan reveal, well, that was poor planning on their part, because it's not like we weren't going to find out beforehand.

 

The "assuming this is going to suck" vibe is because these spoilers seem to confirm that Abrams is only interested in putting his shiny new coat on the same old plots.  Up to and including, apparently, cramming the resurrection of our heroically dead hero into the same film where he makes his sacrifice.

 

But it's not like if the film works people won't say they were pleasantly surprised.

post #44 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

We're not assuming the film is going to suck because it's Khan.  We're annoyed at the constant denials about what everyone knew to be true.  And if there's some plot twist that hinges on a Khan reveal, well, that was poor planning on their part, because it's not like we weren't going to find out beforehand.

 

But you're not owed these answers.  All of these interviews, these press visits, they're all just marketing spots for the film itself; and if the filmmaker (not just Abrams, but any filmmaker) would rather not reveal anything during said promo, that's his right.

post #45 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

"Begun, this fanboy rage war, has."

 

So when this thing makes $300m+, are you going to grumble-grumble-grumble all the way?

 

Nah, the Internet community will turn on it and pretend they didn't love the '09 reboot.

post #46 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

 

But you're not owed these answers.  All of these interviews, these press visits, they're all just marketing spots for the film itself; and if the filmmaker (not just Abrams, but any filmmaker) would rather not reveal anything during said promo, that's his right.

 

Sorry? I never said we were owed answers.  I said if the film depends on a Khan reveal, it was poorly conceived, because many would be expecting it, and so everyone would eventually find out.

post #47 of 227
Quote:
We're annoyed at the constant denials about what everyone knew to be true.

 

The fact you know it to be true doesn't mean they owe it to you to say that it is.

 

"Mr. Lucas, it's well-known from an online leak that Darth Vader is in fact Anakin Skywalker.  How do you plan to address--"

 

"Wait, what?  I don't know where you're getting that.  It's not true."

 

Would Lucas be wrong in taking that approach?

post #48 of 227

Wow, total ret-Khan...

post #49 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

 

The fact you know it to be true doesn't mean they owe it to you to say that it is.

 

 

Again, you keep using the word "owe."  I don't think they owe us anything.  I think it would have been smart to not try to serve up something expected as a reveal.  I think it's poor planning.  That's it.

post #50 of 227

You think they should structure their film based on geeks online?  (I happily call myself a geek, by the way -- I'm not throwing anyone under the bus here.)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › STAR TREK INTO MAJOR SPOILERS