The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Sequel is not about villain
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:11 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I gotta disagree with you about Khan. Of course he isn't justified to go after Kirk and of course Kirk didn't have responsibility for their well-being but we can understand why he blames Kirk. In fact the largest part of Khan's dialogue (i.e. I disagree also with the general opinion that Khan's lines are bad and that only Montalban's performance saved it, his lines were fine) is about revealing how he ticks.
Well, actually no I can't agree with that entirely.

I could only believe it if I was of the opinion that somehow the whole thing really was worth 'blaming' Kirk for. But it wasn't. It really wasn't. Khan played a conscious part in his own fate and kinda conveniently forgot about it when it didn't pan out.

If it was because he went a little crazy in the process, well, fair enough - but I can't quite board the Khan had a substantial grievance against Kirk train. But not quite buying is nowhere near fatal for the film when I watch it through. None of my gripes against TWOK are - but that doesn't mean I don't have them!

I also would have to disagree about some of the lines that Khan has, I'm afraid. Some of them are particularly of the grand theatrical nature that an actor not of Montalban's ability could have very much edged into pantomime. Hell, I actually watched him in an old 70s episode of 'Columbo' last weekend and he managed to elevate the dialogue there as well. Some actors just have that innate ability. Patrick Stewart also has this ability working in his favour though as well and it's a real gift.

With the usual caveat that TWOK is - sure it doesn't sound like it but it really is - still my favourite of all the films, I really have to remind myself mentally not to pick at the thread that is 'Khan's motivation' too much to prevent it unravelling. Certainly, from my present perspective on how he ended up in his predicament anyway. But then, as also noted by Sam, Khan is just a device to explore Kirk in ways he hadn't been explored before as well, and since I think we are all grateful he got a bit of (needed) battering in the film which was good for his character, the ends balance it out.

But then one could say that about Nero as well and it's legitimate. He wasn't as strong as we know he could have been from other sources of information and that's regrettable. But also not fatal to the film either.

Quote:
I also don't agree with the broad stroke that all villains in Trek suck. There are better and worse ones but they rarely have that much of an impact upon the respective movie. A Chang doesn't make TUC terrific and a Kruge doesn't draw TSFS down. Soran is great and Nero is pathetic yet GEN doesn't rock and ST09 doesn't suck.
'Suck' is indeed a fairly general term, but I think if we look at them as sort of body of characters across the whole of the films then we certainly are not talking about a collection of classics.

Sure, at this point 'your mileage may vary' enters the fray because I've never been of the opinion that Soran was great. Others do, however, and that's just variety.

Although, I also agree that the quality of the villain does not directly reflect the quality of the film they appear in - and I think that's been noted before as a kind of general truth about the films.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 10-18-2010 at 11:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:29 AM
TheTrekkie's Avatar
TheTrekkie TheTrekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Movies of the sort Trek films seek to be need villains (or to a lesser degree, a protagonist of some description) for the antagonists to face.
I disagree.
There are good movies without villain and a Star Trek movie doesn't need a villain, either, to become a good Star Trek movie.


The problem is a different one:
Those people who are attracted by movies without a "heroes vs. villains"-story don't expect Star Trek to satisfy their wishes, they avoid Star Trek movies or at least aren't specifically attracted by them.
On the other hand a lot of the average people who actually watch Star Trek in the cinemas, without being a Trekkie, expect a "Star Wars-like" action-movie, they think Star Trek is just an other kind of Star Wars, an action genre.

And these expectations kill Star Trek as a movie. Because it is very hard to change the expectations and attract an other kind of people and because Hardcore-Trekkies alone aren't many enough for a high-budget-movie, you have to follow these expectations. Even when they lead to declining qualitiy.
__________________
And if tyrants take me, And throw me in prison, My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry:
Thoughts are free!

Last edited by TheTrekkie : 10-18-2010 at 11:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:35 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
I disagree.
There are good movies without villain and a Star Trek movie doesn't need a villain, either, to become a good Star Trek movie.
I'd love to agree with that but 9 out 11 films don't lie. A succession of writers have placed a villain/antagonist into their films. So, it's obviously a structure that they feel is required. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the powers that be making them seem to believe there's something in having a 'baddie' of some description.

Technically TMP has one as well and so does TVH - but they are of a slightly different nature.

Quote:
The problem is a different one:
Those people who are attracted by movies without a "heroes vs. villains"-story don't expect Star Trek to satisfy their wishes, they avoid Star Trek movies or at least aren't specifically attracted by them.
On the other hand a lot of the average people who actually watch Star Trek in the cinemas, without being a Trekkie, expect a "Star Wars-like" action-movie, they think Star Trek is just an other kind of Star Wars, an action genre.
Which would be fine, if the Star Trek movies themselves didn't also want to be movies that not just Trek fans went to see and which were not action-adventure driven films for the most part.

Don't get me wrong - TV Trek blows movie Trek out the water most days and twice on a Sunday, but in a movie you aren't going to get 'CoTEOF' type Trek stories.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:39 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
And these expectations kill Star Trek as a movie.
Then maybe the truth is movies and Trek just don't really satisfy anyone properly and there should just be TV series.

They're not 'Trek' enough for the fans, not broad or accessible enough for the general audience.

TV only Trek wouldn't really bother me too much anyway.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:44 AM
TheTrekkie's Avatar
TheTrekkie TheTrekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Which would be fine, if the Star Trek movies themselves didn't also want to be movies that not just Trek fans went to see and which were not action-adventure driven films for the most part.
That's the problem.

If you want to satisfy more than just the fans you automatically will have to piss off some fans.


However there are successful movies that aren't stupid.
But how do you attract their audience to watch a Star Trek movie, when all they know about Star Trek is the fact that 9 of 11 movies aren't their type?

It's a vicious circle.
You could create a better movie. But you attracted the wrong audience in the past to make the movie not only good but also succesful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
Then maybe the truth is movies and Trek just don't really satisfy anyone properly and there should just be TV series.
Or you at least hope that the movies make enough money to force the studios to make a TV series afterwards.
And you have to hope that the TV market rewards quality series with good ratings at the time market research for a new Star Trek series begins and at the time a new Star Trek series enters the market.
__________________
And if tyrants take me, And throw me in prison, My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry:
Thoughts are free!

Last edited by TheTrekkie : 10-18-2010 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:47 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
I disagree.
There are good movies without villain and a Star Trek movie doesn't need a villain, either, to become a good Star Trek movie.


The problem is a different one:
Those people who are attracted by movies without a "heroes vs. villains"-story don't expect Star Trek to satisfy their wishes, they avoid Star Trek movies or at least aren't specifically attracted by them.
On the other hand a lot of the average people who actually watch Star Trek in the cinemas, without being a Trekkie, expect a "Star Wars-like" action-movie, they think Star Trek is just an other kind of Star Wars, an action genre.

And these expectations kill Star Trek as a movie. Because it is very hard to change the expectations and attract an other kind of people and because Hardcore-Trekkies alone aren't many enough for a high-budget-movie, you have to follow these expectations. Even when they lead to declining qualitiy.
I'd also like to see small budget movies which don't have to sell on mass markets. Interestingly the Trek movie with the smallest budget is the most popular one.
Yet it doesn't seem as Trek can break out of blockbuster mode. So given this fact the question is whether the respective moviemakers wanna make the third large-budget action flick with a hypersimple villain in a row or whether they wanna make something a bit more complex.
I firmly believe that they have that choice, there is a market for GI Joe as well as Dark Knight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
Or you at least hope that the movies make enough money to force the studios to make a TV series afterwards.
And you have to hope that the TV market rewards quality series with good ration at the time market research for a new Star Trek series begins and at the time and a new Star Trek series enters the market.
If movie Trek, a new cash cow for Paramount, brings in money which is used for more risky TV Trek I won't ever b*tch again about another O&K movie.

Last edited by horatio : 10-18-2010 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:56 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
That's the problem.

If you want to satisfy more than just the fans you automatically will have to piss off some fans.

However there are successful movies that aren't stupid, as well.
But how do you attract their audience to watch a Star Trek movie, when all they know about Star Trek is the fact that 9 of 11 movies aren't their type.

It's a vicious circle.
You could create a better movie. But you attracted the wrong audience with your past movies, to make the movie not only good, but also succesfull.
I don't mind fans being pissed off particularly - even if I'm one of them from time to time - simply because there are numerically too many to keep happy anyway in the first place.

That said, I honestly don't see how someone who has watched enough TV Trek couldn't get onboard most (or all) of the films as they stand as present.

While certainly the BEST of Trek is on TV there's also plenty of TV Trek that's way worse than the films (on balance) as well. This also includes the stupidity factor as well, which is perfectly present on TV Trek along the way.

But the truth is, a lot of people only want a film that entertains them on some level. Jackass 3D made $50 million dollars at the box-office this weekend and on online movie forums half the people who went to see it who 'loved it' are at pains to point out their professional qualifications and/or that they also loved Inception so as to prove some sort of point about the audience for this kinda stuff.

To attract intelligent people, you don't actually have to have a 'smart' movie in your pocket. That's the ugly truth about the movies.

You just have to have one that gives them what they want at that moment in time for the two hours they sit in a theatre. A lotta entertainment and maybe a little food for thought. The latter being optional at times.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-18-2010, 12:03 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

So what, educated people also watch Big Brother. Doesn't make the show any better.
Of course we wanna get entertained when we watch TV or a movie, the question is on what level.
TOS is still watched today not because it tried to satisfy everybody in its day, otherwise Kirk would have never kissed Uhura, but because it adamantly sticked to its principles. The south doesn't wanna broadcast an interracial kiss? F**k the south.
The same is true for Trek in general. For a contemporary audience TNG is visually anything but hot sh*t but the spirit of the show is timeless.

Last edited by horatio : 10-18-2010 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-18-2010, 12:05 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
So what, educated people also watch Big Brother. Doesn't make the show any better. Of course we wanna get entertained when we watch TV or a movie, the question is on what level.
Exactly - as such there's no point pretending that making the smartest or most intellectual series of films ever is actually key to the process.

TOS didn't work strictly on one level and neither should the films.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 10-18-2010 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-18-2010, 12:11 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
Or you at least hope that the movies make enough money to force the studios to make a TV series afterwards.
And you have to hope that the TV market rewards quality series with good ratings at the time market research for a new Star Trek series begins and at the time a new Star Trek series enters the market.
Which in turn takes time.

TNG didn't get off the ground until Trek had three films and a fourth in development that had proven successful and had established the potential of an audience for it.

Much as I enjoyed the Abrams film, just because it made $250 million plus in the US doesn't mean there is a similar audience for a new series. It will take a couple more films, maintining a certain level of success to indicate strong interest in a new show.

Then, you have that fact that TV is changing a lot just now and it's harder for shows to succeed even if they are good shows. The days of an (almost) assured seven year run are well and truly gone, so again, to capture an audience a future series is going to have to have something which will draw in and maintain viewers quickly.

But then TV is yet another vicious circle!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.