[Zardoz]

I agree with alot of what is said here, but POTA? Considering POTA came out as TOS was ending, there is no comparison.

Also POTA (1968) was adapted for the screen by Rod Serling (Twilight Zone/Night Gallery) and it coems accross very "Twilight Zone" like.

Trek for me "borrowed" a whole lot from Forbidden Planet!!

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

I think that's part of the problem - for me Nemesis has neither originality nor quality. Obviously everyone has a different definition of quality but there's just nothing new in that film and what is there isn't well done. Now, I know that the same thing can be said for the new film and that's fair comment, yet it's by far a more entertaining couple of hours in the cinema.

Star Trek works better in that sense because there is a better director at work making it all flow into a seamlessly energetic couple of hours, instead of the leaden NEM.

That said, I think that Montalban is part of what elevates Khan above the ordinary - his core motivation is not much different from Nero (death of his wife sends him on a mission against the person he holds responsible) and certainly much of Khan's actual dialogue in the film is not of the highest quality.

That Khan expresses that more clearly and is played by an actor who can make sometimes iffy dialogue genuine (always a plus when casting Star Trek at times) is what lifts him and makes him more memorable.

Sure, Montalban made the most popular Trek villain out of a a mediocrely written character. But Khan was still better written than Shinzon or Nero:

Kirk was responsible for the deaths of Khan's wife and followers, he did not oversee the kind of prison he put Khan&Co. into.
Picard and all of humankind on the other hand were not responsible for Shinzon's fate, the Romulans were, just like Spock and the Vulcans were not responsible for the destruction of Romulus, the Romulan were. (So is ST09 a rip-off of NEM? )

But is this really such a big deal, after all they are both a bit crazy and you could explain Shinzon's desire to erradicate humankind as a form of self-hatred and Nero's act of blaming Spock, the Vulcans and the entire Federation as typical Romulan behaviour, they are not used to critisize their fascistoid government.

While these points are valid, they neglect other characters. Nero says nothing about anyone, Shinzon makes at least Picard think shortly about fate and Khan says a lot about Kirk, about duties he neglected and the people who died because of that (part of Khan's crew as well as part of Kirk's crew when he does not raise the shields before the first attack of the Reliant).

But as already mentioned, Nero being badly written has only a small effect upon the quality of ST09.
The only scene which made me cringe was when Nero cried "Spock!" and went after him in the Jellyfish, because it immediately reminded me of the analogous scene in TWOK ... and Nero going after a young Spock who has not wronger him in any way (OK fate, young Spock will become PrimeSpock) felt so weak in comparison.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Sure, Montalban made the most popular Trek villain out of a a mediocrely written character. But Khan was still better written than Shinzon or Nero:

Kirk was responsible for the deaths of Khan's wife and followers, he did not oversee the kind of prison he put Khan&Co. into.
Picard and all of humankind on the other hand were not responsible for Shinzon's fate, the Romulans were, just like Spock and the Vulcans were not responsible for the destruction of Romulus, the Romulan were. (So is ST09 a rip-off of NEM? )

But is this really such a big deal, after all they are both a bit crazy and you could explain Shinzon's desire to erradicate humankind as a form of self-hatred and Nero's act of blaming Spock, the Vulcans and the entire Federation as typical Romulan behaviour, they are not used to critisize their fascistoid government.

While these points are valid, they neglect other characters. Nero says nothing about anyone, Shinzon makes at least Picard think shortly about fate and Khan says a lot about Kirk, about duties he neglected and the people who died because of that (part of Khan's crew as well as part of Kirk's crew when he does not raise the shields before the first attack of the Reliant).

But as already mentioned, Nero being badly written has only a small effect upon the quality of ST09.
The only scene which made me cringe was when Nero cried "Spock!" and went after him in the Jellyfish, because it immediately reminded me of the analogous scene in TWOK ... and Nero going after a young Spock who has not wronger him in any way (OK fate, young Spock will become PrimeSpock) felt so weak in comparison.

I think Kirk's actions are - well, he cheaped out by letting Khan go to the planet, and not ensuring he faced a belated trial for his past - but I think Khan is being selective when he blames Kirk. He did choose to go to that planet and his followers (McGiver's included) chose to go with him.

They didn't carry out a full survey, but it's debatable what level of study would have shown up the creature. But I think Khan's fury is partly his own anger that it's also his fault they were put there and thus as much his fault she died.

It's not really ALL Kirk's fault.

(as an aside, the issue of Kirk/Khan and Starfleet still bothers me in as far as the whole scenario continues to make no sense.

Did Kirk even tell Starfleet he left Khan there? When the planet blew up how did Starfleet not notice? If they knew Khan was there did they not think to check on him? Did they just ignore him?

So many problems arise out of the start, but I digress)

While I agree that Khan forced Kirk to face an aspect of his life, I don't feel Shinzon particularly challenged Picard in any serious way. Picard had already been through some examples of meeting himself (Time Squared, Tapestry) which both contain more pertinent observations than those Shinzon could muster - another reason he's rather irrelevant as the villain, he doesn't even bring anything new to the table.

That said, Nero's ultimate effect in the film is to bring this crew together to begin their mission as the Enterprise crew - he is the catalyst for the new timeline and it's because of him that they now serve together.

He's almost the creator.

In the final analysis, of course, it hardly matters - weak villains are a problem Star Trek has always had difficulty overcoming since they decided to go down the 'villain-of-the-week' style approach.

[horatio]

It seems pretty straightforward to me that Kirk did not tell Starfleet or that he kept a lousy record of the events.
It would repeat what we see in the movie, that he does a lousy job in administration. While he previously ignored regulations to do things more efficiently and creatively (ST09 pointed this out very well), he does it now just because he is used to. Then people die, ironically people like Spock or Scotty's nephew who died while the excelled at their jobs.
And after Kirk has learned his lesson, he breaks rules for a purpose again in the next movie.

Anyway, it does not matter how it happened precisely or whether Kirk is really responsible for Khan&Co.'s misery, all that matters is that Khan is not just a mad dude who has to be eliminated but connected to Kirk and the key themes of the movie.

Shinzon was a weak attempt to do something similar and as you correctly pointed out, Nero was just a plot device.

[JSnyder4]

Originally Posted by kevin

I think Kirk's actions are - well, he cheaped out by letting Khan go to the planet, and not ensuring he faced a belated trial for his past - but I think Khan is being selective when he blames Kirk. He did choose to go to that planet and his followers (McGiver's included) chose to go with him.

Kirk gave him what he asked for.
"Better to Rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."
Seems as though for Wrath of Khan they took that phrasing a bit literally.
The allegory isn't missed. Khan as Satan, exiled by choice (to a prison acceptable to him).
Unrepentant, irredeemable and unapologetic (and apparently a whiner).

Better to rut in glory than be neutered in safety.
What was left? Captain Garthing him and everyone with a Tantalus field? Kill him outright? Kirk gave him the challenge he wanted and Khan wasn't up to it and got royally pissed off at his lack of success because the world didn't stay static for him. Simple really. Although from Khan's excuses it seems he wanted Kirk to come check up on him like a nursemaid regardless. Khan seemed to be more intelligent than to expect Kirk to be able to predict a natural disaster, so it all came down to the blame game.
"Why didn't you know the next planet over would go boom months after you left me here and that it would alter this one as well! You suck! I deeply and truly hate you white whale."

as an aside, the issue of Kirk/Khan and Starfleet still bothers me in as far as the whole scenario continues to make no sense.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although in a way, Kirk's own demise was similar in nature.
A man out of time, already thought to be dead long ago.
Did Picard really make a report about Kirk or is it just fandom that wants it to be so. Kirk died a "hero", Khan died a "bad guy".
Is adding one more medal to Kirk postumously worth it in the end?
Would Kirk making a report about Khan improve Khan's image any? Or would it simply be an excuse to hunt him down for interviews on Galactic E! True Hollywood Story. Kirk dropped the charges and Khan took the plea-bargain.
Then got angry jail wasn't a resort.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Originally Posted by horatio

It seems pretty straightforward to me that Kirk did not tell Starfleet or that he kept a lousy record of the events.

I think it's safe to assume he told them but given the nature of Khan & Co., stopping by and checking on them with any more than an orbital survey would be dangerous. I always assumed(again) that Starfleet would've looked in on the situation after 20 yrs or so when a generation would've been born and raised and they could get a good idea on how things were developing. If they went at all, Khan had nothing to offer but trouble.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by JSnyder4

Kirk gave him what he asked for.
"Better to Rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."
Seems as though for Wrath of Khan they took that phrasing a bit literally.
The allegory isn't missed. Khan as Satan, exiled by choice (to a prison acceptable to him).
Unrepentant, irredeemable and unapologetic (and apparently a whiner).

Oh, he's a massive whiner. His little Kingdom goes south and it's all someone else's fault.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although in a way, Kirk's own demise was similar in nature.
A man out of time, already thought to be dead long ago.
Did Picard really make a report about Kirk or is it just fandom that wants it to be so. Kirk died a "hero", Khan died a "bad guy".
Is adding one more medal to Kirk postumously worth it in the end?
Would Kirk making a report about Khan improve Khan's image any? Or would it simply be an excuse to hunt him down for interviews on Galactic E! True Hollywood Story. Kirk dropped the charges and Khan took the plea-bargain.
Then got angry jail wasn't a resort.

I never thought of Kirk's death that way, there may be parallels.

The basic set up of TWOK works better if the assumption is that Kirk never told Starfleet what he did, it papers over a few items.

[horatio]

If you put someone in jail, you are responsible for his or her well-being and secure imprisonment. Kirk failed twice, whereas Spock or Picard have done nothing wrong.

Simple difference between a good and a bad script.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Originally Posted by horatio

If you put someone in jail, you are responsible for his or her well-being and secure imprisonment.

Which is probably why Kirk chose to send them into exile instead.

[Odradek]

Everyone noticed that Warner played something almost a parody of his character from the movie "Steiner" in Star trek V ?