ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan Review with a 2013 fan's mindset

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 1:40 am

Fireproof; you're bitching just to bitch.. every single one of these plot points has been discussed extensivly since the film was released 30 friggin years ago


 


Give it a rest.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 9:27 am

Quote: Kornula @ Jun. 05 2013, 1:40 am

>

>Fireproof; you're bitching just to bitch.. every single one of these plot points has been discussed extensivly since the film was released 30 friggin years ago

>Give it a rest.

>


Which points have been discussed extensively? Please be more specific so I know what I am "bitching" about.


Like I said, I don't view TWOK as the "perfect Trek movie" and it is not my favorite film. However, I think it is a good movie. I think Meyers did a good job. I think UC is one of the best Trek films, and that also was Meyers work.


However, Meyers was the Abrams of his time. What I wonder about is why Meyers gets a pass and Abrams gets scorned.

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 9:42 am

What you're saying fireproof is that Trek fans have no reason to criticize Abrams Trek films, unless or only if they are willing to apply the same criticism to other non-Abrams Trek films. That's been done already. Abrams' Trek films are topical because he's made the last two Trek movies. Meyers has long since disappeared from making Trek, so no reason to discuss his films. Also, what we are talking about is a qualitative and quantitative difference, Meyers and Abrams did not make the same type of Trek films. You're comparing apples with oranges. Also, I would add Trek fans have a right to criticize Abrams Trek movies without having to bring in Meyers Trek films into the discussion, this is not hypocrisy.

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 8:38 pm

Comparisons like this are always fun, but the truth is that newer movies will always be held to a higher standard. I love ST09, but I wish it didn't have so many plot holes. There's no reason why a film from 2009 should have had as many holes as it did compared to a movie from almost 30 years ago...


We all laugh at how rudimentary the original King Kong was, yet it's considered a classic and forgiven for its short comings because of the era it was made -- the newer Kong movies not so much.


fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 9:01 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 05 2013, 9:42 am

>

>What you're saying fireproof is that Trek fans have no reason to criticize Abrams Trek films, unless or only if they are willing to apply the same criticism to other non-Abrams Trek films. That's been done already. Abrams' Trek films are topical because he's made the last two Trek movies. Meyers has long since disappeared from making Trek, so no reason to discuss his films. Also, what we are talking about is a qualitative and quantitative difference, Meyers and Abrams did not make the same type of Trek films. You're comparing apples with oranges. Also, I would add Trek fans have a right to criticize Abrams Trek movies without having to bring in Meyers Trek films into the discussion, this is not hypocrisy.

>


Fair point, but the only reason I bring it up is Abrams is criticized for being things that Meyers was. Please answer me the difference.


Criticizing the movies is fine, and I'll do my fair share. I never, ever, once said Abrams' movies were perfect or even close. I simply pointed out that problems like the ones in his movies have existed in the past and yet are ignored, seemingly. I could be wrong.


Secondly, every criticism of Abrams' movies turns in to hatred of him, for many reasons, including the three I listed. "He's a Star Wars fan! He's not a true Trek fan! He's disloyal to the franchise!" etc. Critique the movie is fine, but tar and feathering Abrams?

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 9:36 pm

One of the criticisms I have the least patience for, when it comes to Abrams' Trek or Meyers' Trek or anybody else's Trek, is this charge that it violates Gene Roddenberry's vision.  Gene Roddenberry's vision has been mythologized out of all proportion.  I'm not trying to take anything away from Roddenberry's creativity, but Star Trek is not and never was one man's vision.  Television is much more of a collaborative and compromised medium than that.  Filmmaking, in many cases, allows one creative individual to dominate more, but not entirely.  And the unique history of Star Trek films, the different times and situations in which different batches of them were made has further diffused the creative life of the franchise, pulling it further away from any one person's controlling vision (certainly away from Roddenberry's).


Even if we want to talk about just one movie or set of movies, people give Meyers the praise for Star Trek II and blame Abrams for everything they dislike about the newest movies, but there are so many others involved at so many different levels.


And in my opinion, it's a good thing for the franchise that its collaborative identity has allowed it to be re-worked and re-imagined many times over.  At best, it makes the franchise excitingly diverse and vibrant.  At worst, it means you can pick out the stuff you like best from the past and probably count on a change you'll support in the future.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 10:17 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 03 2013, 10:46 pm

> Meyers for the most part maintained Star Trek as it existed. So no comparison.


funny, GRodenberry felt that Meyers took Trek and turned it on its ears.


Making Kirk a cheator, a dead beat dad, making starfleet feel and look more like a militery


 


Photobucket

Lt. Spitfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 12:36 am

I just watch the movies for enjoyment.... if you can comment on ALL those points, you're taking this way too seriously.  Gotta go, company just beamed over for some Romulan Ale....  Spitfire signing off....

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 1:50 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Jun. 06 2013, 12:01 am

"Fair point, but the only reason I bring it up is Abrams is criticized for being things that Meyers was. Please answer me the difference."


-------------


As I said above, I don't think the criticisms are being ignored, I think they're being forgiven because of the eras they were made in -- almost 30 years apart. Imagine if the new Man of Steel movie came out with all the production/acting/story of the original 80s Superman movies. The press would have a field day. Wouldn't you expect them to be scrutinized as such if they were released with all the short comings of the 1980s movies??


(not saying that ST09 or TWOK was as "bad" or "good" as those)


chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 3:38 am

Kelis,


I think the only reason Meyer's TWOK has entered discussion recently is due to the figure of Khan in the latest film, if Abrams didn't want the comparison he shouldn't have included the character in his latest Trek film. I, for one, don't hold up TWOK as the best Star Trek film. I'm not willing to overlook criticism of any Star Trek film, its just not relevant to criticize Meyer's Trek films at this time. The passage of 30 years has turned the film into a classic, this is why many are unwilling to criticize it.


As for Abrams being held responsible for what's in his movies, absolutely he should be held 100% responsible, even if filmmaking is a collaborative process. Who else is to be held responsible? The director can pretty much decide after all has been said and done, what stays in the film or out, picks out who is responsible for what in the film, can authorize rewrites, fire people, etc. Its the director's vision that makes it on screen.

OneDamnMinuteAdmiral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1401

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 7:43 am

I was reading through all this and read about how seemingly Meyer gets a pass and Abrams doesn't. It got me thinking maybe that is true because at that point Star Trek could have gone away, so you can argue that making into a fun action submarine movie helped keep it going and without which we wouldn't have TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and even the new one. And because we have such content now Abrams doesn't get much of a pass because we have Star Trek to fall back on?


As for me I don't hate the new movie however after seeing it a few times now the only things that makes my eyes roll a bit are all the direct scenes from TWOK, OK so you are going to rehash Khan etc, then why not have a totally different outcome that doesn't take scenes directly from another movie. Would the Dark Knight have been as great if Heath Ledger just reenacted scenes from the '89 Batman? Homage is one thing, doing the same thing only in reverse isn't very original. 


Having said all that I still like the movie, I will own the blu-ray and I will watch it more. Star Trek has provided me with so many years of entertainment I can look past all the things I don't agree with, heck I've seen Nemesis a lot and that one needed a lot more work. 


By the way to OP is pretty funny but you forgot one thing. If the academy final is the Kobayashi Maru why are the teachers taking the test with the cadets? Shouldn't the whole bridge be full of seniors? HaHa


Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 10:22 am

Quote: Blockman @ Jun. 06 2013, 1:50 am

>

>Quote: fireproof78 @ Jun. 06 2013, 12:01 am

"Fair point, but the only reason I bring it up is Abrams is criticized for being things that Meyers was. Please answer me the difference."

>-------------

>As I said above, I don't think the criticisms are being ignored, I think they're being forgiven because of the eras they were made in -- almost 30 years apart. Imagine if the new Man of Steel movie came out with all the production/acting/story of the original 80s Superman movies. The press would have a field day. Wouldn't you expect them to be scrutinized as such if they were released with all the short comings of the 1980s movies??

>(not saying that ST09 or TWOK was as "bad" or "good" as those)

>


 


its all relative though, so I don't agree. Sure technology has changed...but writing is writing. These points above are story points. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 12:22 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 06 2013, 3:38 am

>Kelis,

>I think the only reason Meyer's TWOK has entered discussion recently is due to the figure of Khan in the latest film, if Abrams didn't want the comparison he shouldn't have included the character in his latest Trek film. I, for one, don't hold up TWOK as the best Star Trek film. I'm not willing to overlook criticism of any Star Trek film, its just not relevant to criticize Meyer's Trek films at this time. The passage of 30 years has turned the film into a classic, this is why many are unwilling to criticize it.

>As for Abrams being held responsible for what's in his movies, absolutely he should be held 100% responsible, even if filmmaking is a collaborative process. Who else is to be held responsible? The director can pretty much decide after all has been said and done, what stays in the film or out, picks out who is responsible for what in the film, can authorize rewrites, fire people, etc. Its the director's vision that makes it on screen.
Your argument that Meyer is only being compared to Abrams because Abrams used Khan is not true with respect to me, though it may be true with respect to others making the comparison.  I have been comparing Abrams to Meyer (and Berman and Braga and many other creative people involved with Star Trek) since I first saw Star Trek (2009).  I'm not saying you have to agree with the specific terms of my comparisons, but to argue that I shouldn't make any comparisons as such does not make sense (and if that's not your argument, sorry that I misunderstood it).  Comparison is a normal way of arguing and processing information, and it's certainly logical to compare Star Trek movies with other Star Trek movies, as they are alike in many ways and have a common interested audience.


I think your argument about a film director's power is an overstatement, but I will readily concede that film directors have much more control over their creative vision than anyone involved with the creation of television series and episodes--which is the primary reason I think it is a mistake to overstate Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 12:34 pm

BTW, did Meyer get a pass from all the fans at the time he did what he did?  That's a sincere question, not a rhetorical one, because I was not alive when Star Trek II was released and don't have a lot of knowledge about its initial reception.  It's clear from the movie's box office success that the majority of fans had a positive response, but Abrams' movies have had tremendous box office success, as well, and contrary to the claims of some of the movies detractors, many Star Trek fans love these new movies.


Of course, the internet was not around when Star Trek II was released as a cite for registering (and fomenting) the extreme criticisms of disgruntled minorities.


I do know that my Dad always complained about the way Star Trek II and the other original cast movies changed Star Trek.  He loves the movies and owned them all on VHS as soon as they were available to own and introduced me to them when I was very young, so his complaints fell in the category of fan nitpicking, not fan rebellion or disgruntlement.  Nevertheless, he did complain (still does) about how the Enterprise looked different, the characters were represented differently (especially Spock), and how everything in the movies had been Star Wars-ized (his term), with more action and effects and weird aliens.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Jun. 06 2013, 1:27 pm

Stovokor,


The changes Meyers made in STII are necessary to the story being told, and humanize the character of Kirk, making Kirk into a cheater is done to illustrate that he doesn't like to lose, and Kirk doesn't know he has a son, so how does that make him a dead beat father? That versus Abrams' arbitary changes to the Kirk character for laughs, making him a drunk, horn-dog who admits to beastiality. You really want to defend that?

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum