Actually I found it irritating that whoever write this couldn't tell the difference between enlisting and commissioning. Minor nitpick of mine. Actually the time separation that's already in the movie is the biggest plot hole of the movie, simply because there is no reason for Nero and gang to have been sitting there doing nothing. I've seen people bring up the deleted scene, but even if that actually counted since it's not actually in the movie, it just changes the exact conditions of the plot hole. I didn't think so. I saw in it the same kind of mentality that I saw in Abrams Trek, which is to say not much to it, but there was a lot of movement and a lot of shiny things and explosions, and a lot of awkward attempts at humor. Tough, because they're there whether you like it or not, and the simple fact is they could have been avoided. So? Sounds like an excuse to do crappy work to me. :garmet: So what if all the other kids are doing it? That shit negatively impacts the quality of the movie, even if it is otherwise good. Are you really going to argue against something that would make a movie better, even if you already think it's good? No, it;s just a sign of laziness on the part of the writers and/or the producer(s). Sure are plenty declaring it good. Except that I've pretty much just been taking what others have said and spitting it back at them, (e.g. "this is a bad movie" instead of "this is a good movie").
A plot hole can be so irritating that it makes it hard to enjoy the movie. Take Double Jeopardy. Good performances by Ashley Judd, Tommy Lee Jones & Bruce Greenwood. Interesting concept (being free to kill the person you're convicted of killing already). And several plot holes that were galling; The first one is big but you can overlook it because most viewers would never understand it. That is Double jeopardy does not attach to the victim. It attaches to the act itself. So theoretically, a person could be convicted of murdering the same person.....over and over again and double jeopardy would not be an issue. That kind of plot hole is ignorable because you have to know something about the law to see it. But Libby's husband 1) Not killing her outright in the cemetary?!??!?! Why not? He apparently killed her best friend. Thus he is no stranger to murder. He clearly intends for her to die trapped in the coffin. 2) Libby's husband putting her in the coffin and never noticing that she has both a revolver and a cigarrette lighter in her pockets. Both items she uses to escape. Those kinds of plot holes are a damn distraction because they're painfully obvious. And could've been fixed with an extra scene or a couple of lines of dialogue.
ENTIERLY different "time seperation" if you want to say "Nero shouldn't have hung around waiting" that's fine (a problem solved by a tiny tweak in the plot like "It takes over 20 years for Red Matter to expand to a useable enough amount to accomplish the goal" or some shit) - not my pony. I'm saying If you expand your tease sequence from: Kirk born/Kirk is wild child to: Kirk born/Kirk is brilliant but troubled cadet/Lt. Kirk bails (and I kinda like the idea that it wold be a classic case of "Daring Kirk saves anal Starfleet from damage via it's one regulations" sort of situation) THEN you skip ahead say 7 years for your bar fight, then you explain how Kirk is older and more experienced than his Jr officers will be. He could still have met and interacted with Spock and McCoy at the Acadamy - hell you could have had a nice touch by doing th Casanova stuff with Carol Marcus or Ruth or some such. Any competent Trek fan could parse it out. The point is, whether Nero waits 15 years or 25 is irrelevant if you have him wait AT ALL. If you don't want him to wait at all, write it that way and you can still put a gap between kirk bailing and the bar. Or it's like going to a war movie and complaing about gun violence. if you review my comments, here and elsewhere, about the movie you will find that I freely discuss how the movie can be or should have been made better in almost every respect. I may quibble whether your prefered change would be mine but I'm not arguing against the idea it could have been better. But I am going to judge a film for what it is. If I go to see Schindler's List i'm not going to bitch there were not enough laughs, if I go see "Dumb and Dumber" i'm not gong to complain it didn't emotionally move me. And if I go to see a shiny summer action movie, I'm not going to nitpick plot holes. it is what it is. I'd have loved to have seen a serious thought provokeing Trek film - still would - but such will never be made for the big screen. If you want a Trek movie, the odds are thousands to one you'll get an action movie. judge it for what it is. Compareing it to Transformers is fine, but comparing either of them to "The English patient" or whatever constitutes a good movie with tight plotting in your mind is an exercise in fultility for you and frustration for the folks you preach to. "good != "awesome"
Have a heart. You'd have told the graphics people that they could make a mining ship and a planet and whatever else, but they weren't going to get to design an Enterprise? 1. "Big star goes boom = bad for everyone else." 2. "Stuff gets jarred = blobby stuff goes boom = black hole." 3. "Blabbity blah = parking brake." If they'd nattered on about the containment field for the red matter, or explained at great length all the extra nonsense particles in the star that would make it an especially fatal boom, that would be technobabble. This was not. IMHO. In fact, #3 could be considered as making fun of technobabble. I didn't like that either. But Old!Spock is still around, and if he can make a tricorder out of bearskins then by George he can fix this via time travel somehow. There were a few plot points that annoyed me, but probably not the same as your list. You have to remember that, at this point, they haven't had the experience of every space amoeba, renegade probe, doomsday machine, and mad archvillain in the universe zeroing in on Earth. Agreed, they could have done a better job with that. No, no, see above. Spock will come up with a way to snatch victory from the intestinal tract of defeat.
You know, in retrospect, Wrath of Khan really bites ass. The Genesis device? Come on! What kind of nonsense is that? They're not even consistent about what it does. In the summary, it's stated that the device is to be used on a moon or somesuch; when it detonates at the end, it makes a friggin' planet out of a nebula! And, boy, isn't it lucky for our side that the planet is at the right distance from a nearby star? Otherwise it coulda got c-c-c-old there... Not being able to tell Ceti Alpha V from Ceti Alpha VI? What kind of substandard job is Starfleet record-keeping doing, anyway? We send space probes to rendezvous with planets because we can predict where they'll be in 10 years with astonishing accuracy, but the Reliant team actually gets two planets confused? What the fuck?!? Were the two planets IDENTICAL to begin with? Would you not notice if Earth were swapped with Mars? And shouldn't their sensors have picked up the debris of Ceti Alpha VI? And why would an outer planet exploding cause the orbit of an inner planet to expand? Just weak... And, hey, why does Khan recognized Chekov? He wasn't even on the damn show when Khan was on! This is just lazy writing by the screenwriters. They just don't give a shit about adhering to the canon. And Kirk HAS A SON?!? And that never got mentioned? Never during those countless times Kirk was faced with death did he say "Oh, and if I don't make it back, I want you to give a message to the son I've stayed away from all these years..." I don't buy it. And how come Khan's crew are so friggin' young? I don't recall seeing any of them on the Botany Bay episode. And what's with calling Saavik "Mister?" Are Romulan bitches secretly swinging thick green pipe in their pants? Even if so, isn't it a little presumptuous to call her that when she wear purdy makeup and has sexy long hair? Where's the 23rd Century respect for diversity that Trek is supposed to have? Hmmm? And why was beaming down from the Regula One station so dangerous? I would hope the damned transporter has scanners that can sense the area it's beaming you into. I mean, in The Corbomite Manuver, Scotty can tell the men beaming over to the Fesarius that they should duck low. But the thing can't give you a heads-up on whether you're going to materialize inside solid rock? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy... Yeah, Khan sure is a crummy movie...
And then there was that thing about Kirk getting old. Was that supposed to be some sort of deep, philosophical stuff or something? Cuz I totally didn't get it. They should have spelled it out in easy-to-understand words if they wanted me to care about it. And the Kobayashi Maru. Why did they keep bringing that up? That wasn't one of those "thematic" things, was it? Themes are for people who actually want to think about movies. Now, the theme of starships shooting at each other? I can get behind that. That was good stuff.
I've never said that Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan didn't have plot holes. But. It was only the second Star Trek movie ever made and its budget was all but nonexistent so I think allowances have to be made. As for the Genesis device. The concept came out of the idea about what terraforming would be like using 23rd century technology. And IIRC, using the term "Mister" aboard ship is a British Royal Navy practice that Nick Meyer was familar with and used to give the movie a "nautical" feel.
As I was watching this the other day, something struck me - Kirk says he's never truly faced death, meaning he doesn't think he's ever truly had to deal with the death of someone as close to him as Spock. Um, what about his brother and sister-in-law? They're killed in Operation: Annihilate by the flying booger/pancakes. Were he and his brother estranged? Did he not care? And BTW - whatever happened to his nephew, who survived? I might have been an interesting twist to keep him on the Enterprise as a kind of early Wesley prototype.
Kirk didn't seem to be particularly broken up about his brother's death or his sister-in-law. I don't recall if he said anything about the relationship he had with his brother or not. Of course, Kirk couldn't be bothered to check on his nephew's progress, either.
I've always interpreted that as Kirk personally has never faced death. Let's face it Kirk was one lucky bastard of a Captain.
It made the star. NASA can't tell Imperial measurements from the Metric ones and loses a couple probes.
All Quiet on the Western Front, It happened One Night, Mutiny on the Bounty, Mrs Miniver, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Hamlet, All About Eve, From Here to Enternity, On the Waterfront, Ben Hur, Bridge on the River Kwai, West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia ???
Kirk didn't know. KIRK: Why didn't you tell me? CAROL: How can you ask me that? Were we together? Were we going to be? You had your world and I had mine. And I wanted him in mine, not chasing through the universe with his father.
1941 (14th) Blossoms in the Dust -- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Citizen Kane -- Mercury Here Comes Mr. Jordan -- Columbia Hold Back the Dawn -- Paramount *How Green Was My Valley -- 20th Century-Fox (Winner) The Little Foxes -- Samuel Goldwyn Productions The Maltese Falcon -- Warner Bros. One Foot in Heaven -- Warner Bros. Sergeant York -- Warner Bros. Suspicion -- RKO Radio 1947 (20th) The Bishop's Wife -- Samuel Goldwyn Productions Crossfire -- RKO Radio *Gentleman's Agreement -- 20th Century-Fox Great Expectations -- J. Arthur Rank-Cineguild Miracle on 34th Street -- 20th Century-Fox 1952 (25th) *The Greatest Show on Earth -- Cecil B. DeMille, Producer High Noon -- Stanley Kramer, Producer Ivanhoe -- Pandro S. Berman, Producer Moulin Rouge -- Romulus Films The Quiet Man -- John Ford and Merian C. Cooper, Producers 1956 (29th) *Around the World in 80 Days -- Michael Todd, Producer Friendly Persuasion -- William Wyler, Producer Giant -- George Stevens and Henry Ginsberg, Producers The King and I -- Charles Brackett, Producer The Ten Commandments -- Cecil B. DeMille, Producer 1963 (36th) America America -- Elia Kazan, Producer Cleopatra -- Walter Wanger, Producer How the West Was Won -- Bernard Smith, Producer Lilies of the Field -- Ralph Nelson, Producer *Tom Jones -- Tony Richardson, Producer 1980 (53rd) Coal Miner's Daughter -- Bernard Schwartz, Producer The Elephant Man -- Jonathan Sanger, Producer *Ordinary People -- Ronald L. Schwary, Producer Raging Bull -- Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff, Producers Tess -- Claude Berri, Producer; Timothy Burrill, Co-Producer 1990 (63rd) Awakenings -- Walter F. Parkes and Lawrence Lasker, Producers *Dances With Wolves -- Jim Wilson and Kevin Costner, Producers Ghost -- Lisa Weinstein, Producer The Godfather, Part III -- Francis Ford Coppola, Producer Good Fellas -- Irwin Winkler, Producer 1994 (67th) *Forrest Gump -- Wendy Finerman, Steve Tisch and Steve Starkey, Producers Four Weddings and a Funeral -- Duncan Kenworthy, Producer Pulp Fiction -- Lawrence Bender, Producer Quiz Show -- Robert Redford, Michael Jacobs, Julian Krainin and Michael Nozik, Producers The Shawshank Redemption -- Niki Marvin, Producer 1995 (68th) Apollo 13 -- Brian Grazer, Producer Babe -- George Miller, Doug Mitchell and Bill Miller, Producers *Braveheart -- Mel Gibson, Alan Ladd, Jr. and Bruce Davey, Producers The Postman (Il Postino) -- Mario Cecchi Gori, Vittorio Cecchi Gori and Gaetano Daniele, Producers Sense and Sensibility -- Lindsay Doran, Producer 1996 (69th) *The English Patient -- Saul Zaentz, Producer Fargo -- Ethan Coen, Producer Jerry Maguire -- James L. Brooks, Laurence Mark, Richard Sakai and Cameron Crowe, Producers Secrets & Lies -- Simon Channing-Williams, Producer Shine -- Jane Scott, Producer You can find a listing of nominees and winners from the start up to 2009, here, along with a discussion of the films. As you can see from the samples I've listed above, the nominated films are often better (or better known today) than the films which won. No, no, no. Kirk knew damn good and well he had a son. The line is: Kirk: How could you not tell him? Kirk knew that David was his son, and that's one of the reasons why he kept an eye on Carol and followed her career over the years. Its also why he was stunned when David tried to kill him. Don't forget that earlier in the film, David calls Kirk an "overgrown Boy Scout," so its certain that they had met prior to this, but David was the one who didn't know the relationship between him and Kirk.
^That is correct. As originally scripted (and it made its way into the novelization) when David Marcus tries to kill Captain Kirk, that is the first time they've ever met and Carol Marcus says something along the lines of "if you kill him, you'll be killing your father" which shocks BOTH Kirk and David. But reportedly (I think mentioned in the Star Trek: Compendium) Nick Meyer thought that would be overally dramatic and too predictable, so he altered the dialogue while filming to indicate that A) Kirk and David had met at least once (probably more times) before. B) Kirk was fully aware David was his son. Meyer reportedly also thought it made the character of Kirk look weak (at a very bad time, during the confrontation with Khan) to be completely ignorant of the fact that he has a grown son.
Kirk referring to Savikk as a Mister Savikk is a navy tradition. Wing Commander Movie was another bad movie.
Not if you're talking about time that was skipped over by the movie. The only problem with that fix is that it was very obvious that Nero didn't need the magic tomato juice to wreak havoc on the Federation - he already had a powerful ship that was extremely difficult to destroy. I kind of agree, but at the same time I recognize that something like that would disrupt the flow of the story. Except that it makes the villain kind of stupid and/or weak and it just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. No, it's like going to a movie and complaining about a lack of quality. Then why did you complain about people pointing out plot holes, without which the movie would have been better, or attempt to defend against this criticism by claiming plot holes that massive should just be expected? And there's a reason no one takes movies like that seriously. Do you not want Star Trek to be taken seriously? If all you want is a dumbed down dumb action movie, there are already plenty to choose from without making Star Trek into that. Which is the other half of what makes Abrams Trek a bad movie - the fact it;s supposed to be Star Trek. Bullshit, there have already been a few made, starting with TMP. Even TWoK is somewhat thought provoking despite being slanted heavily toward action. Plenty of thought provoking sci-fi has been made even recently, like Moon, and even the occasional "normal" movie is somewhat thought provoking. So please, don;t try to drag out the bullshit "viewers are morons" argument and try to pretend it's anything more than the straw man that it is. If someone wants to make something like what Abrams did, they can just fuck off and change all the names to make it their own "original" ripped off version of Star Trek like plenty of others have done in the past. Trying to appeal to me by saying no new Star Trek will be made if it isn't some moronic version of itself that's even more dumb than VOY and ENT were is a waste of time and effort, because I really would rather that nothing new be made if that was the price. Sarcasm - try looking it up sometime.
Not sure what you mean here. How does having a "young Kirk/mature Kirk separation tell us ANYTHING about the villain? Noting that a plot hole exists, and speculating on how you might have done it differently, is not the same thing as saying "OMG the movie sucks SO BAD because of the massive plot holes!!!" There are surely cases when a movie is, literally, destroyed as a story by the plot holes - but far more often you just note "damn, that bit could have been better" and enjoy the movie anyway. A serious, dramatic, moving Star Trek film (such as, say, Balance of Terror) will almost certainly never be made and if it is the box office will be so modest that the suits will go back to the big shiny method. The industry is what it is. I submit as evidence "Serenity" and they made LESS money even though the passion among the public for Star Trek was FAR higher 30 years ago than it is now. You really think profit minded suits want to go back to the less profitable model? How much money did Moon make? Hell they didn't even arse themselves to distribute it nationwide. OF COURSE many "normal" movies are often thought provoking and compelling - that's not REMOTELY my argument. I'm saying big-ticket franchise action movies rarely are. I'll give you the exception of the Nolan Batman movies have their moments, and that's the best we can hope for - but how many Chris Nolan's are there out there making big-ticket franchise films/ As a general rule, though, Transformers or Indiana Jones or Jason Bourn or James Bond or Superman or Spiderman or X-Men or anything else that has as it's bread and butter the big-shiny summer action film is NOT going to be the sort of movie you describe. would i LOVE for Trek to be the exception? For it to live up to the best of the stories told in the 60's? SURE! Do i EXPECT it? do i refuse to accept any Trek that's not? Not remotely. Unless we get astonishingly lucky - that's the price.
Indeed, a major subtext of the film is dealing with growing older and how we handle the choices we've made over the years. As someone who is growing older and could potentially be facing the same issues as Kirk over an old flame and a kid, I can tell you that one of the reasons I keep watching the film is in observing how Kirk handles the situation and how my own experiences match up/differ. I don't keep watching it because of the effects, I keep watching it because there's a story there. A story about people who are forced to interact with one another in different ways, and not entirely by choice. I will never have to make a decision about firing phasers on an enemy, but I will and have had to make a decision about which direction my life was going in, and sacrificing something I cared about, because of someone I loved. When Kirk says to McCoy, "As a physician, you of all people should know the danger of reopening old wounds." I know from experience of what he speaks. When Khan says, "He tasks me. He tasks me. And I shall have him!" I know from experience of what he speaks. And that is why I watch the film. Over and over again. If I want to watch mindless explosions, there will always be a plethora of movies out there to offer that. But the films which, in one form or another, deal with the same issues that I have to face, even if they're set hundreds of years into the future or millions of lightyears away from Earth, those are rare indeed.
As in it makes no sense at all to have the villain sit on his ass and do nothing for all that time if he's such a driven madman bent on destruction, especially when he has the means to cause great destruction. It may not be the worst movie evar!!! But it is certainly a bad movie in part because of the major plot holes. I can't enjoy it when the movie takes me out of its narrative due to sloppiness like Nero not doing anything for 25 years. Then they shouldn't bother making any Star Trek films. And I still can't help but notice you dodged my actual question here. What, that it lost most of the charm of the series and basically got turned into a dumbed down dumb action movie? Well, it certainly has that in common with Abrams Trek. TVH made some of the most money out of all of them and TMP made a pretty good amount of money when it was made, too. So did TWoK. Them being screwed by their distributor didn't help anything. And since we seem to be going in that direction again, do I really need to remind you of movies like Blade Runner that were flops at the time? That isn't the question, or rather it shouldn't be. The question should be why more movies don;t shoot for that kind of quality. When it can be shown that it can be done and work, then that pretty much ends the line of argument you're making. Hell, Indiana Jones and Borne Identity had mroe depth than Transformers or Abrams Trek did. Oh wait, that's right, everyone keeps thinking I'm like a TOS purist or something. If you expect shit, then that's all you will ever get, and you only insure this by rewarding it. Then no more should be made.
Please keep up. i already postulated one could re-write the bit about the bad-guy so that he's not waiting. That has nothing to do with setting up Kirk's character development - all you lose is having the same bad guy kil kirk's dad but that's not indispensable. A view you are entitled to - i was just answering your question. Noted. Opinions obviously differ. It's not a dodge. It's an acknowledgement of reality. what do I WANT? I want an onscreen role in a serious dramatic moving Star Trek movie. What I want and what actually happens ain't ever exactly similar. No, that it was serious, dramatic, and had an actual story with an actual point to tell. Precisely what you want in a Star Trek movie. It was not an "action movie" any more than the series was except for the climactic space battle. when judged against other Trek movies not made by JJ. not at all. How many films were there in the Blade Runner franchise? How anxious is Hollywood to make a new version of it? You make my point for me. If your point is that the entire movie industry is a fuck up - i doubt you'll get much counter-argument. Relatively? Sure? compared to, say, BladeRunner? Not remotely. Kinda like being the tallest midget at the NBA tryouts. I don't know whether you are or not. But if I'm talking about a TOS-crew film, that's the obvious series to refer to. It's what I mean whether it's what you mean or not. I'm sure that if we few, we happy few, among the VAST THRONGS of folks who flock to the theater tonight in search of mindless entertainment will somehow inspire the suits in Hollywood to forsake the profit motive in order to make great art. Or, ya know, probably not. Again, an opinion you are entitled to. The folks at Paramount who like the idea of making money probably don't share it.
