Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

Spock Prime wasn't given his face or his voice. Just his name.

This wasn't a stand-alone film; it's part of a larger franchise.

Completely irrelevant. This is about what the viewer knows, from watching Space Seed and STID.

It did need to be explained, you just don't care.

 

I know that. That's my point. If Ambassador Spock had played a larger role and recognized the voice and mannerisms, but not his face, then you could make a case for plastic surgery in the film.

This is where the problem lies. Not everyone gives a **** about the television series and films that came before it. That's why the last two movies made more money that the ten films before it did, not accounting for inflation. The people that went to see film eleven, a large portion had never really watched Trek before. It was a clean slate for them. A secondary portion that went, only saw a few episodes of the first two series and some of the films. The rest were the Trekkies. To the larger audience that went to see the last two films, details like this aren't relevant. They're just looking for popcorn entertainment and not the deeper themes and context that the original version of the franchise provided. Not to mention, they're not so obsessed with details like Khan's different face because a different actor with a different nationality played him. Most people that went to see "Into Darkness" never watched "Space Seed". They remember Khan from "The Wrath Of Khan", if that. That's why there's no mention of plastic surgery in the film.

No, that's the fanboy mentality of everything needs to be explained, otherwise there's chaos and anarchy. If it really needed to be explained, it would have been in the film and not some non canon piece of fiction.

 

But if viewers don't recognize Khan's characteristics, it means nothing? I guess Spock's conclusions are better than ours because he's Spock, or something?

The point is that Spock simply wasn't shown Cumberbatch's face, and that works both ways. It does not, in some ridiculous way, only support your preferred version of events. A "case for plastic surgery" does not somehow depend on scenes of the film being rewritten so that plastic surgery or its equivalent becomes inevitable even from the viewpoint of the all-important popcorn-chewers who never heard of Khan before. It remains a possibility, even when prior canon is summarily thrown under the bus because it's been getting in the way of someone's position.

In fact, we might ask why the film is structured in this fashion. Why not have Quinto simply show Nimoy a hologram of "Harrison"? Why put helmets on Klingons?

And I'm supposed to give a **** about that?

That's your whole argument? People are ignorant? What about addressing the discrepancy with the character, instead of pointlessly hiding behind the ignorance of movie audiences?

So it's all about the money?

In other words, by definition, nothing in a film can ever require explanation. This is an obvious logical fallacy.

As you just said, the films aren't making money from people who need things to make sense or have any experience with prior canon or who really give a crap about anything at all other than getting some kind of entertainment value for their money. So how does that universe cross over with the one you're sketching above, in which nothing that "needs" to be explained can ever end up on screen?

 

No, it means that different actors do things differently. They don't do impressions unless they're specifically asked to. Ewan MacGregor asked Lucas back in 1996, if he wanted him to do an impression of Alec Guinness and he was told no. Just do it your way. It wasn't until ROTS, that Ewan chose to use some mannerisms that Sir Alec had used. But he still approached the role the same way he did on the previous two films.

It only matters if people care about nationality and has any idea about it. No one screamed bloody murder when Harvey Dent went from being black to being white, except the anal retentive fans. Everyone else went along for the ride as they understood that recasting took place.

There is no discrepancy in the film. Only obsessed fans think that there was one and in order to milk more money out of them, IDW and Orci created this comic to do that. The rest of the world either didn't see one, or don't care if there is one between actors.

Yep. All expanded universe material is about bleeding you dry, while keeping you interested in the product. EU material is another form of merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made.

It only needs to be explained if someone thinks that it does. That's why it was never made an issue in the film. The majority of the world don't question why Chris Pine doesn't use William Shatner's mannerisms to play Jim Kirk. Just like no one cared that Roger Moore's Bond wasn't as harsh as Sean Connery's Bond. They accept that they are two different actors with two different acting styles, were playing the same character.

The only reason for any reference to the original universe was to shut up the people who would complain the loudest about rebooting the universe and making sweeping changes. To shut them up, they concocted a plot about a parallel universe, so that they could get their money and their silence. Otherwise, they would have just made the last two films without any direct reference to history being changed by Nero's arrival.

I can sit down and re-write the 09 film without it connecting to the previous universe and make it work. Meaning I would leave out time travel, quantum universes and Ambassador Spock. And it would have been almost the exact same film.

 

I can tell you're a big fan of apples and oranges. If I was focused on doing impressions I'd be asking why Pine didn't do a Shatner impression.

That some people don't care is really irrelevant. Continuity issues exist whether people care about them or not.

I said "discrepancy with the character". The film is not a standalone.

It's amusing that you act as if you speak for "the rest of the world", but not worth much rhetorically speaking.

You thought I was talking about "EU"? I was responding to a statement specifically about films.

Do you really mean "someone", or is "someone" really being used as a synonym for "everyone"? Because as should be exceedingly obvious, someone does indeed think that it needs to be explained - and thus, by the above dictum, it does need to be explained. Or does "someone" really mean a specific person, who may or may not be a random person on the internet?

Speculation about motives sure is entertaining, but it fails to address the contradiction cited in my post. Why are those people so important, if they comprise such a small percentage of the overall viewing public?

 

The difference is that the two aren't that dissimilar from each other.

Continuity issues only exist when people choose to make an issue out of them.

The character is the same, just because he's not played Indian or Latino. If either one had been cast, it wouldn't have been an issue.

That's only because fanboys care about Khan being physically different, while non fanboys could give a rat's ass less.

It being about the money in regards to the films, also matters. That's why Paramount went back to the well with Kirk and Spock and having someone outside of Trek make these films.

Orci and IDW only care because they want to make money, by exploiting the fans who want every last thing explained to them. Which is what the EU is. One great big cash exploit. If it was ever a serious issue, it would have been in the film.

Repeat viewings and word of mouth are essential to success. By placating the Trek fanbase with Nimoy and 24th century references, the studio and the director would hope that the use of social media would bring more butts in seats, which is precisely what it did. Having learned how volatile the fandom could be from TNG and in other franchises, as well as the general disdain for remakes and reboots, Paramount and Abrams were able to turn it around to their advantage. They got their reboot, while making it a continuation of what came before.

 

I've honestly lost track of which side I'm on and can't actually tell who agrees with whom. I'm not sure whether to root for Arawn or not...

 

Pine wasn't my first choice for James T. Singh. In fact, he wasn't even on the list.

So when mommy plays peek-a-boo, mommy's really gone? If we squeeze our eyes shut really hard, the things in front of us no longer exist?

Scary.

He's supposed to be the same, but he's different. Even the comic books say so. Hence "discrepancy".

As I said, very amusing, but fantasy doesn't accomplish much. Meanwhile, a little internet surfing easily proves the above statement false. But even if we are somehow forced to take it at face value - regardless of the "I don't care" factor - it still leaves us with an admission that Khan is physically different, which was the whole point. And is the comic writer a "fanboy" by definition? Why is the same old tired Salem-witch-trials logic being offered up here as though it has any validity at all? Is that really the best you can do?

Money really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Yawn. Do you have a magic/alien device that shows you their thoughts, or do you just like to waste space talking about your fantasies?

Self-fulfilling prophecy aside, the example of its predecessor arguably disproves that assumption.

But the real money is being made from the people who just don't care.

A random person on the internet calling it a reboot doesn't make it a reboot. It's only labeled a reboot by people who refuse to accept it, but the creators of the films have publicly taken a different stance. You can continue to insist that their secret motives and thoughts match up with your preferred version of reality, but you have no way of knowing that.

 

Eh, I think Harvey Dent as a white guy wouldn't have been a big deal since the Dark Knight trilogy was basically a reboot, a re-imagining of Batman...so you can do stuff like changing a character's ethnicity or personality or whatever. Whereas Star Trek '09 was explained as being this alternate universe, so it ought to have at least resembled the original "prime" universe. Personally I don't mind Khan being recast as a caucasian, but I'd say Arawn does have a point on this.

I'm not so sure they could've gotten away with a pure reboot. With something like Batman, we've come to expect all these alternate depictions, what with the different comics, movies, and animated series all existing without any unified continuity...basically none of them are canon. When it comes to Star Trek and Star Wars though, there is a unified continuity, so if you try to ignore that and say "I'm going to do my own thing", you just end up creating a lot of chaos and confusion with fans who follow that stuff. If ST'09 had gone with a straight reboot, that's what would have happened...people would be saying "Huh? What? How does this tie in to the original series? Is it a prequel? Doesn't it contradict <insert backstory for some character mentioned on some episode>?" and if told that it was a reboot, they'd probably be like "Why?".

Also, I'd say the time travel plot in ST'09 was actually pretty central to the film. Not that I liked it as a plot device mind you, but it explains what Nero was doing there in the first place, why Kirk's life turned out differently--actually everything that turned out differently from the prime universe is due to the time travel incident...and depicting this different, re-imagined universe is the whole point to the film isn't it? Not to mention that once you take away the time travel, all you have left is a bad guy with a scary battleship.

 

I thought maybe he was referring to the transition between the Burton films and Batman Forever.
( But a lot of other examples cited earlier on were from indisputable full-on reboots. )

 

Reports indicate JD Payne and Patrick McKay are tapped to write ST3, though Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman will supervise.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=842454&ocid=rr-mov-news

 

That line that "They've never written a movie that has been made" inspires all sorts of confidence...

In other news, I've been unreasonably excited to see that STID had to lower their prices to GI JOE: Retaliation prices ($8) and has been advertised that way...

 

Well lol it can't be worse than the previous writers rehashing the Wrath of Khan plot they came up with in FOUR years.

 

It's true, and being unproduced writers doesn't necessarily mean anything... or it could mean everything.

 

Personal choices aren't even a factor. The fact is that Pine acts his way and that is in contrast to Shatner.

Not even remotely on target.

The comics aren't even canon. The film says nothing about plastic surgery. Nor does Abrams and Cumberbatch.

There is no admission other than for the comics and to appease. Yes or no, does the film itself say there's a difference? No. End of story. The movie is canon. The EU is your wallet weeping.

Sure it does. Want to sell more comics, let's make up something that's not even part of the story just to earn a few more bucks.

Again, is it in the film? No. End of story.

Your argument fails because everyone looks the same, even though they are played by someone else.

But it doesn't hurt to shut up the rabid fanboys and earn their money as well.

You don't have to be a mind reader. You just have to use common sense. Common sense says that Paramount wanted to reboot Trek because it became a burden as is. The folks at Bad Robot came up with the alternate universe to appease the fans who would otherwise put up a big stink about any changes made. This isn't my fantasies. This is reality.

Pretty much why it was done the way it was.

Nah, take out the time travel and what you have is Nero as a renegade Romulan whose family dies along with a bunch of other Romulans. He then goes out on a quest to destroy the planet Vulcan and the Federation, because they reached out to them but were shot down. Where Ambassador Spock plays a role, you just drop him and have Scotty and Kirk work together to figure out how to do transwarp beaming. The Jellyfish is an experimental Federation ship and the Enterprise is already carrying Red Matter. Commander Spock is encouraged to stay on the Enterprise by Sarek.

Bam, the story is essentially the same without time travel.

I was. All there was was a bunch of jokes about the acid being so strong that it turned a black man white.

 

DVD's and Blu-rays always get heavily discounted during the Christmas shopping season.

 

Yes, but this is below where many of the others (say, Man of Steel) have been discounted and some haven't come off at all.

 

I'm just saying I doubt sales are low. And the MoS Blu-ray/DVD is newer.

 

I thought this was LOL, but then again, your mileage may vary:

 

darth-sinister: You two have been debating for ages now, and I don't even remember where I fell on the original question anymore. I will say this, though. Sinister you're correct that what brought down this movie is not some quibbles about the continuity from one episode of the original television show. But you're argument is self-defeating. The fact that this wasn't the major issue doesn't mean there were no issues. It just means it was super-ceded by more fundamental issues like the near-total lack of character development, and the multiple non-sensical (or at best heavily under-explained) plot elements.

 

I think the important thing to take away from this long and arduous debate is that STID is an awful, awful movie.

 

I never denied that the film itself has issues with the story and direction. I just think that something so trivial as casting can be made into a mini-series is really a crap idea. I've seen a lot of odd things in the various bits of EU I've read from across different franchises, but this one really sticks out as scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

Of course, I agree with Recession Spending the most. That said, I'd agree with you sinister. I was unaware of these plans, but they seem really stupid.

 

I think you may have missed the point on that one...

Not even remotely a counterargument. Actually, it is as precisely "on target" as it can possibly be. The claim that continuity issues simply go away if no one makes an issue out of them is nothing more than worthless denial. It wouldn't even be applicable in this case, since "people" are in fact making an issue out of it, on this site and others. I are people?

The non-canonicity of the comics is not the point; the approach taken by the comic is intended as a bridge between inconsistent portrayals in things that are canon. You see, Star Trek Into Whitewashing isn't a standalone film. It's part of the same overall continuity as prior ST films and TV episodes. But then again, what does the writer of the comic know? He's just one of those dirty "fanboys" who don't toe the party line that AbramsTrek is infallible and incapable of producing plot holes.

You're becoming incoherent. The admission referred to is your own: only fanboys care about Khan being physically different. Completely aside from the fact that this employs the amusingly pathetic rhetorical tactic of using "fanboys" as a pejorative to casually dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, it is notable because it can be contrasted with "only fanboys think that Khan was physically different", something which was conspicuously not said. In other words, Khan is physically different but I don't care and no one else should either! This can't be mistaken for a real argument, not even at a great distance. ( As to the question of appeasement, who were you trying to appease? Me? )

Oh, I've seen this before: this is the part where you tell me about your fantasies regarding the motives of people you've never met and the reasons for decisions made when you weren't there, all of them strangely undocumented outside your testimony. But we're not in creative writing class. By the way, a comic that's not a straight film adaptation is always, by definition, going to make something up that isn't part of "the story". So the above quote really breaks down to "if you want to sell comics, you write a comic". Amazing!

The correct answer was #2.

^ Setting aside the fact that everyone does not look the same, this response, for some reason, has nothing to do with the post it's quoting. To reiterate: "anything not in the film is not a serious issue" is simple Salem-witch-trials nonsense, on the same level as "anyone who believes in the fallibility of Abrams is a fanboy", and a counterexample is found in the 2009 film.

No, this is you making up fiction about the reasons why certain people did certain things. You haven't spoken to these people; you haven't been present for their meetings; they haven't forwarded you their emails; they haven't confirmed your speculations in print, or on the internet, anywhere. That's what makes it fantasy as opposed to something that can be confirmed as reality. In all the places in reality where the proof of your speculations could have turned up, it failed to do so. So what are we left with?

 

So whats special about Khan's blood? I've watched the movie maybe...three times since the summer and I don't think I've caught why. Maybe I'm just not paying attention and zoning out at that specific time.