Vaderisnothayden, what do you so bad about TWOK and Montalban's performance? I've never heard anyone describe it as anywhere near stomach-turning, and why is the character of Khan so beyond belief? I agree that majority isn't always right but when so many think a movie is good, I've got to believe there is a good chance that the movie has some sort of merit in it.
As far as the ST series went, there is a very observable pattern:
-Someone would make a mediocre movie, putting the franchise in jeapordy
-Nicholas Meyer would come in and make a great film that re-energized the series.
-Someone would make a mediocre movie, putting the franchise in jeapordy
-Nicholas Meyer would come in and make a great film that re-energized the series.
As far as I am concerned, without Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country, not only would there be no TOS feature film series, but what was there would be pretty sorry. Meyer took great liberties with the series, but that is precisely what was needed, because what was there wasn't very interesting or dramatic. That's the same reason I always approved of First Contact.
I have to kind of take issue with that, because you are sort of saying that TOS itself wasn't interesting or dramatic. It never seemed to me that Meyer's took great liberties with the series.
He turned it from a utopian science ship to a naval battlecruiser in WOK.
He turned a then-serious sci-fi intellectual series into an outright contemporary comedy in VH.
He turned a idealistic view of the characters and humanity into racist, cold-war allegorys in UC. So much that members of the cast protested some of the lines they were given.
He re-wrote the series and what it was each time he went up to bat, and each time it alienated some fans because of the liberties and deviations, but each time it was met with enthusiastic approval from everyone else because finally the series was good!
Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.
It's easy to lampoon but it's also effective within the kind of melodrama that TWOK is.
I watched a mostly forgotten 1968 ITV adaptation of Uncle Silas the other night.
J. Sheridan Le Fanu boffins may possibly foam at the mouth at the presentation but the uber-mannered performances and stark production dressing gave the piece more than a touch of Mervyn Peake.
Uncle Silas himself was a wonderful Palpatine like creation.
The same series had an adaptation of Dracula with Denholm Elliott in the title role, which in my opinion was utter bobbins.
I'm not sure if that's because I'm more in love with the source material so I'm less willing to cut it some slack or not but for me both adaptations could be described as ham dishes but it was the quality of the ham that made me enjoy Uncle Silas (ITV 1968 stylee).
The same can be said about Shat Vs Montalban in TWOK.
Sure it's ham but it's ham with such character and taste that who cares if it's Kosher or not?
zombie84 said:
He turned it from a utopian science ship to a naval battlecruiser in WOK.
he didn't change it that much. They always had the shields phasers and Photon Torpedoes.
zombie84 said:
He turned a then-serious sci-fi intellectual series into an outright contemporary comedy in VH.
apparently you've never seen The Star Trek episodes "The Trouble With Tribbles", or "A Piece Of The Action" or "I Mudd" The series contained alot of comedy.
zombie84 said:
He turned a idealistic view of the characters and humanity into racist, cold-war allegorys in UC. So much that members of the cast protested some of the lines they were given.
I agree that some of the lines some of the characters never would have said. Especially Kirk's "let them die". But as for the cold war allegorys that too was part of TOS. Watch episodes like "Errand Of Mercy" and "A Private Little War". The Klingons were always allegory to the Russians.
zombie84 said:
He re-wrote the series and what it was each time he went up to bat, and each time it alienated some fans because of the liberties and deviations,
funny I don't recall this alienation you refer to.
zombie84 said:
because finally the series was good!
in your mind maybe. But in mine and many others, the series was always good, and I don't feel alienated by Star Treks 2,4, and 6.
zombie84 said:
He turned a then-serious sci-fi intellectual series into an outright contemporary comedy in VH.
Nimoy directed IV. Meyer was only one of a number of screen writers, and VH is far from a typical Meyer film.
I generally agree with you though that Meyer's take on Star Trek was a great deal different from Roddenbery's vision. While the Enterprise had always been structured in terms of hierarchy as a naval ship, the feel of the ship was markedly more militaristic in Meyer's films. Roddenberry considered human society in the future to have evolved beyond prejudice and disliked what Meyer had done with VI.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Um, that looks like the opening to the old Doctor Who show.
Let me try something. You Will Dislike Khan!
Working?
Wait, the dog didn't convince you? You still dislike Kahn?
Dear RLM,
Why don't you return my calls? Have you been talking to Typho again?
Faithfully Yours,
Ric
Warbler,
All of the elements in the Meyers films come from TOS, I'm not disputing that. Some episodes played on comedy, some played on political intrigue and some played on action and cat-and-mouse space stuff. But in the total package, they never were so overt as the way Meyer presented him. Beginning with WOK, he radically overhauled the Enterprise into a naval battlecruiser, even going as far as totally re-designing the uniforms to be navy uniforms and giving the torpedo way a sort of galleys design. You would have never seen that in TOS because the enterprise was a science vessel in a utupian socialist conception of the world. And while there was comedy in some episodes, and that one where they went back to the 1940s, that's worlds apart from a whole 2 hour film set in 1980s San Francisco with Spock giving the nerve pinch to a punk rocker on a public bus. And, of course, Nimoy directed the film, but the film is what it is because of Meyer's writing and central role in the focus of the film.
Anyway, I love TOS and I'm almost equally fond of TNG, but the approach needed to be more ambitious to bring them to the big screen. ST TMP tried a more heady, 2001-inspired approach that is much more in line with TOS--it really does feel like a big-screen adaptation to me--but for whatever reasons it didn't click, and so they went as far in the opposite direction they could for the sequel, which is a naval action film between two arch nemeses. I would say that STIII and V are actually closer to the spirit of the TV in how they mix action, character, humour, adventure and ideas, but those are the films people hate the most in the series, it was the Meyer films that were always the most popular and beloved because they took chances and re-thought the franchise for what would be best as films, with legacy to the TV show being less important. In the end, this ended up winning more fans, because even though some were put off by being slightly deviant from the formula, more were appreciative that they were simply really good films.
I would compare this with Irvin Kershner and ESB. He took chances, deviated from formula, re-thought the entire style and approach to the series, and while this alienated some (including Lucas) in the end people appreciated it because it was just a really good film.
I would put ST FC in this category as well, although in a slightly lesser way, which was the problem I had with RLM's review. He's reviewing it as a fanboy a lot of the times, instead of as a viewer of a film. That was why I liked his TPM review, because fanboys could explain away some of the holes based on their knowledge of the inner workings of the characters and the worlds, etc. but as a film it just fails, for much simpler reasons (shitty characters, shitty drama--the main thing that FC avoided, which was why it was so successful).
I wish I was in the TPM review more. It seems like RLM could have spent a few minutes on me, right?
zombie84 said:
All of the elements in the Meyers films come from TOS, I'm not disputing that.
Apart from the Tiberian bats! :-D
I don't really like the idea of making a movie-length review of a movie just because you hate it so much. To me, that kind of crosses the line from "entertaining" the way The Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd are, to being downright obsessive. It seems kind of like the guy who refuses to stop complaining about his ex, not because she's every bit as bad as he says, but because he's still emotionally attached and can't let her go.
I have a better idea: instead of making a 70 minute movie complaining about everything that's wrong with The Phantom Menace, why not try and fix it? I'm sure that the Phantom Editor could have just made an angry video review of Episode I if he wanted to, but rather than just complain about the movie he actually did something, and helped launch what would become the fan edit movement.
I think it's a waste of time to invest that much time and effort into a movie that you claim you despise, only to come out at the end saying you still despise it. Likewise, why should I spend 70 minutes watching a movie whose only reason for existing is to tell me why I shouldn't like another movie, when I could spend that time watching a movie that I will enjoy? I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next guy, but I can think of plenty of better ways to spend 70 minutes than watching someone angrily dissect a movie.
Timstuff said:
I don't really like the idea of making a movie-length review of a movie just because you hate it so much. To me, that kind of crosses the line from "entertaining" the way The Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd are, to being downright obsessive. It seems kind of like the guy who refuses to stop complaining about his ex, not because she's every bit as bad as he says, but because he's still emotionally attached and can't let her go.
I have a better idea: instead of making a 70 minute movie complaining about everything that's wrong with The Phantom Menace, why not try and fix it? I'm sure that the Phantom Editor could have just made an angry video review of Episode I if he wanted to, but rather than just complain about the movie he actually did something, and helped launch what would become the fan edit movement.
I think it's a waste of time to invest that much time and effort into a movie that you claim you despise, only to come out at the end saying you still despise it. Likewise, why should I spend 70 minutes watching a movie whose only reason for existing is to tell me why I shouldn't like another movie, when I could spend that time watching a movie that I will enjoy? I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next guy, but I can think of plenty of better ways to spend 70 minutes than watching someone angrily dissect a movie.
I'd say spending dozens of hours (hundreds?)making a fan-edit is a much more severe manifestation of "not being able to let go" than making a 70-minute video. I mean, let's face it, people here, myself included, have hundreds of posts bitching about the film. Whats less work? Making a 70-minute video rant and being done with it, or going to a message board every day and making a post about it, day after day, for years on end?
"Damn fool I knew you were going to say that." ;-)
Bingowings said:
Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.
It's easy to lampoon but it's also effective within the kind of melodrama that TWOK is.
I watched a mostly forgotten 1968 ITV adaptation of Uncle Silas the other night.
J. Sheridan Le Fanu boffins may possibly foam at the mouth at the presentation but the uber-mannered performances and stark production dressing gave the piece more than a touch of Mervyn Peake.
Uncle Silas himself was a wonderful Palpatine like creation.
The same series had an adaptation of Dracula with Denholm Elliott in the title role, which in my opinion was utter bobbins.
I'm not sure if that's because I'm more in love with the source material so I'm less willing to cut it some slack or not but for me both adaptations could be described as ham dishes but it was the quality of the ham that made me enjoy Uncle Silas (ITV 1968 stylee).
The same can be said about Shat Vs Montalban in TWOK.
Sure it's ham but it's ham with such character and taste that who cares if it's Kosher or not?
There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath. Shatner's hamming in Wrath was inept acting but tolerable, if still damaging. Montalban's was revolting. And the presence of such hamming from the two of them certainly brings down the film. A guy screaming "Khaaaaaan!" like that does nothing to improve the credibility of a movie. Nor does such a leeringly overblown performance as Montalban's. It doesn't convince. The movie was done ineptly in a number of other ways too. I have trouble sitting through it. Though it is more tolerable than the first movie, which is completely unwatchable.
TV's Frink said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Um, that looks like the opening to the old Doctor Who show.
Let me try something. You Will Dislike Khan!
Working?
Wait, the dog didn't convince you? You still dislike Kahn?
I still dislike Khan. Wait, that was a dog?
Warbler said:
Vaderisnothayden, what do you so bad about TWOK and Montalban's performance? I've never heard anyone describe it as anywhere near stomach-turning, and why is the character of Khan so beyond belief? I agree that majority isn't always right but when so many think a movie is good, I've got to believe there is a good chance that the movie has some sort of merit in it.
Why do you have to believe that? The majority is so often wrong that its views are really no guide to quality. Shit is often hugely popular. Look at Titanic. Total shit. Massively popular.
I don't go by the critics' views either, because too often they are totally wrong, and pretentious about it, too. Sometimes critics seem to be the people who understand movies the least. I often run into reviews that show an amazing lack of insight or perception.
The Montalban Khan performance is ridiculous hamming of an extremely self-indulgent sort. If you can't see why it's revolting I don't know how to explain it to you. I would think it would be obvious. No film needs a character like that. He was awful in the TOS episode he was in, too. It's enough to make Ricardo Montalban one of my least favorite actors. Shatner's hamming didn't help either, but it was far more tolerable. I generally find Shatner's acting in TOS movies to be lower key after this film (compared to how he is in Wrath), which is of great benefit to the movies.
As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you, but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.
I also don't appreciate the casting of a Hispanic guy to play an Indian role. It stinks of the attitude that all darker-skinned people are the same. You get the same thing in Lost with Sayid, with a guy of Indian background cast as an Iraqi. To me that's racism. However, it is a bit more forgivable in TOS and Khan, because that's in an earlier eera. It is totally unforgivable in Lost.
But having a Hispanic guy play an Indian certainly doesn't help the movie be convincing. And it really needs help in that area. Between the racism and the hamming, Khan must be one of Trek's worst characters ever.
Timstuff said:
I don't really like the idea of making a movie-length review of a movie just because you hate it so much. To me, that kind of crosses the line from "entertaining" the way The Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd are, to being downright obsessive. It seems kind of like the guy who refuses to stop complaining about his ex, not because she's every bit as bad as he says, but because he's still emotionally attached and can't let her go.
I have a better idea: instead of making a 70 minute movie complaining about everything that's wrong with The Phantom Menace, why not try and fix it? I'm sure that the Phantom Editor could have just made an angry video review of Episode I if he wanted to, but rather than just complain about the movie he actually did something, and helped launch what would become the fan edit movement.
I think it's a waste of time to invest that much time and effort into a movie that you claim you despise, only to come out at the end saying you still despise it. Likewise, why should I spend 70 minutes watching a movie whose only reason for existing is to tell me why I shouldn't like another movie, when I could spend that time watching a movie that I will enjoy? I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next guy, but I can think of plenty of better ways to spend 70 minutes than watching someone angrily dissect a movie.
Not everybody is interested in fan edits or believes they're a solution. I'm not on this site for the fan edits, nor do I think making a fan edit is fixing the problem. The problem is only "fixed" if the fan edit becomes the recognized officially canonical version of the film, sold on the official dvds, which is not going to happen. And I don't think a fan edit should usually become that, because I feel that usually a film should be left the way it was when it was released.
Whereas making a review is perfectly valid. And I don't why see making a review of something you dislike is any less valid than making a review of something you like. Criticism is a valid contribution. There is plenty value in putting time into explaining exactly what's wrong with something bad. Maybe you don't get value out of discussion of movies you dislike, but other people do. To diagnose the precise nature of a movie's problems gives some relief from those problems. And when those problems afflict a movie series that matters a lot to you then such relief is welcome. Analysis can be an interesting activity, whether or not the subject of the analysis is liked.
Warbler said:
I have to kind of take issue with that, because you are sort of saying that TOS itself wasn't interesting or dramatic.
TOS is mostly crap. Nimoy is great as Spock and there's some good character interaction, but the show is inept in the extreme. I don't think anybody should approach Trek with any illusions about TOS.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I still dislike Khan. Wait, that was a dog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoolander
wiki said:
In reality, the "spa" that Derek has been taken to is in fact a brainwashing facility, where he is programmed to attack and kill the Prime Minister when Frankie Goes To Hollywood's song "Relax" is played at the Derelicte show.
The dog was part of the brainwashing.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Not everybody is interested in fan edits...
Whereas making a review is perfectly valid.
Both are valid. Of course, depends on how you define valid. What I mean is that if you are interested in fan edits, it's valid. And if you're interested in the review, it's valid too. No one forces you to watch a fanedit or the review, and neither diminishes Star Wars. If you're not interested, it doesn't have to affect you.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Bingowings said:
Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.
There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath.
I just don't see a guys who's spent 20+ years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge and quoting Milton as the sort of performance that calls for extreme subtlty.
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Bingowings said:
Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.
There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath.
I just don't see a guys who's spent 20+ years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge and quoting Milton as the sort of performance that calls for extreme subtlty.
Under those circumstances he's almost restrained....almost.
I don't remember Milton (Roy Batty quotes him all the time) but he certainly likes to quote Herman Melville.
A much more apt use of his work than in the inferior First Contact which is just the story of Aliens dressed up in TNG clothing.
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Bingowings said:
Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.
There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath.
I just don't see a guys who's spent 20+ years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge and quoting Milton as the sort of performance that calls for extreme subtlty.
I don't see why it shouldn't. But I'm not insisting it should have great subtlety, just not be horribly overdone and unconvincing. And the telling thing is Montalban over-acted Khan in TOS, before Khan had spent 20 years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge.
Bingowings said:
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Bingowings said:
Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.
There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath.
I just don't see a guys who's spent 20+ years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge and quoting Milton as the sort of performance that calls for extreme subtlty.
Under those circumstances he's almost restrained....almost.
I don't remember Milton (Roy Batty quotes him all the time) but he certainly likes to quote Herman Melville.
A much more apt use of his work than in the inferior First Contact which is just the story of Aliens dressed up in TNG clothing.
Roy Batty is another of science fiction's more annoying and overrated characters. From another overrated film. The novel was way better.
TV's Frink said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
I still dislike Khan. Wait, that was a dog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoolander
wiki said:
In reality, the "spa" that Derek has been taken to is in fact a brainwashing facility, where he is programmed to attack and kill the Prime Minister when Frankie Goes To Hollywood's song "Relax" is played at the Derelicte show.
The dog was part of the brainwashing.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Not everybody is interested in fan edits...
Whereas making a review is perfectly valid.
Both are valid. Of course, depends on how you define valid. What I mean is that if you are interested in fan edits, it's valid. And if you're interested in the review, it's valid too. No one forces you to watch a fanedit or the review, and neither diminishes Star Wars. If you're not interested, it doesn't have to affect you.
As long as you're not trying to brainwash me into killing any political leaders.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Warbler said:
Vaderisnothayden, what do you so bad about TWOK and Montalban's performance? I've never heard anyone describe it as anywhere near stomach-turning, and why is the character of Khan so beyond belief? I agree that majority isn't always right but when so many think a movie is good, I've got to believe there is a good chance that the movie has some sort of merit in it.
Why do you have to believe that? The majority is so often wrong that its views are really no guide to quality. Shit is often hugely popular. Look at Titanic. Total shit. Massively popular.
in your opinion its shit. not mine. granted, I think it could have been done better. I wish it would have stuck more to the real story rather than a fictious love story. But it is a good movie, imho. As for why I believe a movie has a good chance of having some sort of merit, its because I just find it hard to believe that so many people could like a movie that has absolutely no merit. If figure if millions and millions of people like a movie, at least somewhere in those millions of people must be a few that have good judgement and/or judgment simular to my own.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I don't go by the critics' views either, because too often they are totally wrong, and pretentious about it, too. Sometimes critics seem to be the people who understand movies the least. I often run into reviews that show an amazing lack of insight or perception.
while I don't always agree with critics, I do not find them to be people who lack an understanding of movies. I necessarily go by them either, but I do respect their opinions. I more interested in not whether like or hate movie, but why they hate or like that movie.
Vaderisnothayden said:
The Montalban Khan performance is ridiculous hamming of an extremely self-indulgent sort. If you can't see why it's revolting I don't know how to explain it to you. I would think it would be obvious.
well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?
Vaderisnothayden said:
As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you,
yes you did. right here:
Vaderisnothayden said:
But Khan is awful. It's badly made generally and the character of Khan is awful beyond belief, including a stomach-turning performance from Ricardo Montalban. I can never fathom why some people think this movie is so good.
Vaderisnothayden said:
but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.
the Khaaaaan screem is part Shatner's performance, not Montalban's.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I also don't appreciate the casting of a Hispanic guy to play an Indian role.
Khan is supposed to Indian? I never got that.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Warbler said:
I have to kind of take issue with that, because you are sort of saying that TOS itself wasn't interesting or dramatic.
TOS is mostly crap. Nimoy is great as Spock and there's some good character interaction, but the show is inept in the extreme. I don't think anybody should approach Trek with any illusions about TOS.
TOS is crap???? to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous. It is certainly not crap. Are the special effects crap? maybe. But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget. I find many of the episodes have a powerful message. Take City on The Edge Of Forever. That is certainly not crap. I don't how you can call TOS crap. If it was, explain how 5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.
I think you are approaching Khan in the wrong way VINH. It's hammy and over the top--and that's what's great about it. Shakespear is hammy and over the top, too, and that's what is enjoyable about it a lot of the time, you can relish in the pure cartoonish stylization of it. Khan is a masterpiece, and a big part of that is the fact that you have Khan and Kirk as these two really big personalities, the film is almost like a sophisticated comic book.
I have to agree, I never heard of ANYONE disliking WOK while liking the others, and certainly haven't heard of anyone liking ST V more than any other film, least of all WOK. There's a reason why critics, audiences, and fans alike have been hailing the film for 25 years as a great film, let alone the best in the series. "I'm not crazy, EVERYONE ELSE is crazy!!" But to each his own. I find this sort of view incredibly bizarre--I have to wonder, if you think ST V is the second-best in the original series and WOK among the worst, what exactly are you looking for in a ST film? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious as this viewpoint is the inverse of almost every other person on the planet that has seen the films.