
- Time
- Post link
SilverWook said:
My internet is pretty spotty lately, and upload speed is abominable.
If someone really wants the ABC cut, I'd be happy to snail mail a copy once my house is back in order.
He'll do it for sure, have no doubts!
SilverWook said:
My internet is pretty spotty lately, and upload speed is abominable.
If someone really wants the ABC cut, I'd be happy to snail mail a copy once my house is back in order.
He'll do it for sure, have no doubts!
SilverWook said:
My internet is pretty spotty lately, and upload speed is abominable.
If someone really wants the ABC cut, I'd be happy to snail mail a copy once my house is back in order.
I'd really be grateful, and I of course would reimburse you. Just let me know when you're ready, and I'll probably drop a reminder now and then if I haven't heard from you for a while. Thanks, Wook!
Amidst my search for Khan related material, I've recently learned something that maybe others here knew, but I sure didn't. Apparently there was a toddler among Khan's party at the Botany Bay. Apparently Chekov and Terrell first saw the child when they discovered the Bay on the surface of Ceti Alpha 5. For the rest of the movie the child is no longer seen, till the last moments of Khan's life on board the Reliant. The child toddles on up to the Genesis device, attracted by the pretty light, only moments before its destruction. Kind of weird, but interesting.
http://mystartrekscrapbook.blogspot.com/2009/08/man-who-saved-star-trek.html
At first I thought it was a silly rumor and an altered picture, but then I found the second picture and the blog with the printed article about it. Crazy!
I can see why those scenes were deleted.
I'd not actually seen the top picture, but noted Khan historian John Tenuto brought that up on an episode of "The Ready Room".
http://trek.fm/the-ready-room/the-ready-room-80-taking-out-the-khan-baby.html
I don't believe it's actually Khan's son as the caption states, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they would have put such incredibly morbid imagery in STII.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Presumably there was some sort of alternate or ending where Khan is shocked back to his senses by the sight of his child next to the Genesis device.
It would be a reasonable fall back position if the writers changed their minds about killing Spock or wanted to keep the secret by leaking the false ending.
Or maybe they were making a comment about how Khan's quest for vengeance has no bounds, that he is willing to sacrifice the product of the union with his wife to avenge her death while Kirk is ultimately rescued by his son sacrificing himself to save Saavik and Spock in the next film.
Throwing exploding children into a family movie is a bold move to say the least.
I suspect that it was a last minute idea. I too wondered if it wasn't truly his son, especially since he was marooned on that planet for 15 years and only got his wife pregnant in the last year shortly before her death. But if it were his child, I believe the notion would be that Khan was so obsessed with destroying Kirk that he not only gave up his own life in the process, but was even willing to sacrifice his young child--truly an overpowering vendetta! But I am glad it was cut.
JEDIT: Bingo beat me to it, but put it better and offered other ideas as well :)
What's wrong with seeing exploding children? :-)
Photos of the scenes in question here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=34153&highlight=khan
And since when was TWOK considered a family film? ;)
Nope, no morbid imagery here...and I couldn't even find a shot of the unlucky Enterprise crew member engulfed in flames when the Enterprise takes a direct hit.
Where were you in '77?
Keeping the child in the final film, alongside all the other violent imagery, probably would have pushed it over the darkness threshold; instead of an optimistic movie with some pessimistic overtones, it would have been a pessimistic movie with some optimistic overtones.
So, just like STID then? ;)
Where were you in '77?
No, that's a movie too unintelligent to have overtones. Or undertones. Or any tones other than, "Let's blow stuff up! Whoo-whee!"
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
^^Can't say, as I refuse to watch anything that exists in Abrams' Abortion Trek Universe.
Abortion Trek?
That doesn't even make sense.
Well, Miscarriage Trek doesn't carry as much oomph, so ...
Would you prefer Stillborn Trek, DE? :-/
Choose you words with more care, please.
I simply don't see how dead unborn babies have anything to do with J.J.'s Star Trek films, or how it makes any sort of logical sense calling it that as a way to insult it.
Might as well call it any other number of totally nonsensical things that carry unpleasant connotations. Like Genocide Trek. Or Rape Victim Trek. Or Dead Puppy Trek. Triple Bypass Surgery Trek. Double Mastectomy Trek. Bellybutton Rash Trek. Dying of Cancer Trek.
Abrams destroyed Trek.
From now on I'm calling it Star Destroyer
.
However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r
Well, strictly speaking, when you abort something, you don't necessarily have to be talking about babies, just like when you rape something, you don't necessarily have to be taking advantage of someone sexually, and when something is retarded, it doesn't necessarily refer to a human with a mental handicap. Those terms do have broader meanings than are used in popular culture.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
Well, strictly speaking, when you abort something, you don't necessarily have to be talking about babies, just like when you rape something, you don't necessarily have to be taking advantage of someone sexually, and when something is retarded, it doesn't necessarily refer to a human with a mental handicap. Those terms do have broader meanings than are used in popular culture.
He said both abortion AND miscarriage. I reserve my right to be offended.
Using terns like abortion, rape, or retarded in these situations is offensive regardless. It's a fucking movie.
Having said that, I'd definitely watch Dead Puppy Trek.
Let's not sully our Trek thread with intolerance.
Speaking of intolerance, I'm currently reading Harlan Ellison's "City On The Edge of Forever" for an upcoming Commentary: Trek Stars podcast. That man is a crazy person. He spends over a quarter of the book on the introduction, which reads like a person resprenting himself in court while pleading insanity. It's mostly a "this person said this in his book, that's not true, everyone knows that" over and over again, while insulting everyone including the reader.
I'm in the third draft of his treatments, not into the script itself. Thankfully someone told him that the Federation probably wouldn't sentence a murdering drug dealer to death and take him to the nearest uninhabited planet to shoot him and leave his body behind. Also, it might be more dramatic of the old men "Guardians of Forever" guarding a time portal didn't flat out tell Kirk & Spock that Edith Keeler must die by being hit by a van in exactly 1 week BEFORE they go back in time and Kirk falls in love with her. And that it might be more dramatic if McCoy is the one who tries to save her, instead of the drug dealer who's been trying to kill them since coming back in time.
Like I said, I haven't gotten to the actual script draft that was deemed "unfilmable", so I'll probably end up saving most of my thoughts for the podcast.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
TV's Frink said:
He said both abortion AND miscarriage. I reserve my right to be offended.
Didn't notice the other one. So I can agree with you on that.
Using terns like abortion, rape, or retarded in these situations is offensive regardless. It's a fucking movie.
However, I can't agree with you on that. There is nothing inherently offensive about any of those words. In certain contexts? Certainly, emphatically so. But just taking those words at their literal meanings at face value? No. And there's also nothing about any of those words that cannot apply in a valid sense to a movie.
"Kirk's character arc was aborted to make room for more action."
"The high-profile director raped the studio of all of its assets for his dream project so that no equipment was left for the first-time director to make his film."
"The villain's demonstration of his sadistic nature was retarded by the director's choice to show him in a more sympathetic light."
Now, maybe DE meant to use those words in a legitimate sense, or maybe he used them as slurs. I don't know. Miscarriage, too, is a word that has other contexts than in reproduction, but, as I said, it does seem to be an unfortunate choice to put abortion and miscarriage back to back.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
TV's Frink said:
Having said that, I'd definitely watch Dead Puppy Trek.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Gaffer, in your examples, other words work just as well.
I'm not trying to be insensitive, Frink, because I know these issues are personal to you, but I just can't get behind limiting legitimate uses of words with broad, far-reaching definitions just because they have been applied in certain contexts as a shorthand to sensitive subjects. So, yeah, other words could work as well, but so do these. Honestly, it's as if someone in a science fiction movie said, "In order to solve the problem, we must bombard it with microwaves," only for someone to chime in, "Why do you want to throw that black box in the kitchen at it?"
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.