Wrath of Khan does anyone agree

[blukrank]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

My Emphasis

The first 40 minutes are called the buildup. This is where a lot of information is imparted to the viewer which the rest of the story builds upon. Ridley Scott did the same with "Alien" and "Blade Runner"... which are other acclaimed classic Sci-Fi movies. However in order to appreciate them fully an attention span is required. This is probably where Star Wars wins out... it is all bang bang and effects from the moment the movie starts.

Yeah but after the bang,bang effects of the original Star Wars we meet R2 and 3PO and they was the stars of the movie up to when they got to Luke Skywalkers home.Then it became Luke's movie. And then Han became his tag team partner when they got to the death star and went to rescue Leia.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Nothing so drastic, you just have different taste, nothing wrong with that.

Wrath Of Khan is without a doubt the best Star Trek movie and let's not turn this into another thread where we argue for 40 pages how Star Trek 2009 is the best one, it's not. It's not a bad movie, far from it but you can't have a movie with Kirk, Spock & McCoy without Shatner, Nimoy & Kelley no matter what amazing job the actors replacing them do.

So is this a fact or your opinion? Or your opinion presented as a fact?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by fireman325

So is this a fact or your opinion? Or your opinion presented as a fact?

Kelley, Shatner and Nimoy ARE Star Trek and always will be, at least to those of us who grew up with them in those roles. So yes to us, there will NEVER be actors who can replace them, not even ones like Simon Pegg who nail the performances.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Kelley, Shatner and Nimoy ARE Star Trek and always will be, at least to those of us who grew up with them in those roles. So yes to us, there will NEVER be actors who can replace them, not even ones like Simon Pegg who nail the performances.

I grew up with them too, but it's just a pet peeve of mine when someone presents their opinion as a fact and makes it seem like you're wrong if you disagree.

[blukrank]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Kelley, Shatner and Nimoy ARE Star Trek and always will be, at least to those of us who grew up with them in those roles. So yes to us, there will NEVER be actors who can replace them, not even ones like Simon Pegg who nail the performances.

So true.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Wrath of Khan is the 7th best fantasy movie of all-time. It had everything - action, drama, romance, comedy, suspense and tragedy. Best Star Trek film to date and I doubt that will ever change.

it also includes bad eighties hair, funny stunt 'over'acting and is just plain fun, the crowd I saw this with at a recent 35mm print at the AFI Silver last month had a grand time! We all screamed 'KhAAAAAn!!' in unison when Kirk utters the famous line

[tjericks]

Originally Posted by blukrank

Yeah but after the bang,bang effects of the original Star Wars we meet R2 and 3PO and they was the stars of the movie up to when they got to Luke Skywalkers home.Then it became Luke's movie. And then Han became his tag team partner when they got to the death star and went to rescue Leia.

I think that if you remove the childhood attachment many of us have to Star Wars Ep IV, we could all agree that many people seeing that movie for the first time in 2009 would say the first 30-40 min are "boring". There really isn't a lot going on, aside from that small thing called character development and the introduction to a world (in this case universe) and its problems. Those things are vital to any good movie, whether it's sci fi or not, summer blockbuster or not.

Wrath of Khan is no different, and that's why it is a solid movie, not just a solid Star Trek movie. Just my opinion, but I always find character driven movies to be by far the best ones. Also my opinion, but I don't think strong character development and action/explosions are mutually exclusive. If there's no character development and all a movie has is 2+ hours of non stop action and things blowing up, it leads to sensory overload and detachment for the viewer. That's what happened for me with TFormers 2. The difference between Tformers and iconic movies in their genre like WOK in sci fi and Die Hard in action are that those movies develop character and build toward a crescendo so that the big action scenes actually mean something and it isn't just "oh yay, more shooting and explosions". Just my opinion.

[blukrank]

Originally Posted by tjericks

I think that if you remove the childhood attachment many of us have to Star Wars Ep IV, we could all agree that many people seeing that movie for the first time in 2009 would say the first 30-40 min are "boring". There really isn't a lot going on, aside from that small thing called character development and the introduction to a world (in this case universe) and its problems. Those things are vital to any good movie, whether it's sci fi or not, summer blockbuster or not.

Wrath of Khan is no different, and that's why it is a solid movie, not just a solid Star Trek movie. Just my opinion, but I always find character driven movies to be by far the best ones. Also my opinion, but I don't think strong character development and action/explosions are mutually exclusive. If there's no character development and all a movie has is 2+ hours of non stop action and things blowing up, it leads to sensory overload and detachment for the viewer. That's what happened for me with TFormers 2. The difference between Tformers and iconic movies in their genre like WOK in sci fi and Die Hard in action are that those movies develop character and build toward a crescendo so that the big action scenes actually mean something and it isn't just "oh yay, more shooting and explosions". Just my opinion.

Yeah I can think of plenty of horror films with good character development. You get atached to these characters and then nasty things start to happen to them. The original Night of The Living Dead-Gush none of the main cast survived that movie. Well some people would disagree with me about the characters of Night of The Living Dead,but I got atached to them the first time I scene that movie.And I was sad that no one made it out alive including the star of the film Ben. Gush Ben survived the night of horrors,but then when he went to go outside the following mourning he got a bullet in the head.
The 2nd film Dawn of The Dead also had a good character development.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Why do you think the new Star Trek borrowed half its references from the movie?

I'll see your "7th best fantasy" and raise you "On the short-list of 10 Best TV-Rerun Spinoff Movies Ever Made, if not topping it".

True, true. Kirk’s re-programming of the no-win scenario is one example. Shatner has the best line that Kirk has ever had in the entire franchise, in Star Trek II:

“I don’t believe in a no-win scenario”.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Ok. To weigh in on the original statement of the thread, I agree with the fact that it isn't the BEST Star Trek film ever made. However, I don't consider the first 40 minutes to be anything remotely deserving the categorization of "boring." Here's my list of top 5 favourites in order of preference:

#1. Star Trek: First Contact
#2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
#3. Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
#4. Star Trek (2009)
#5. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Of course, that's just my opinion. I know many will disagree with me, but that's how I feel. Also, I grew up as a Star Trek: The Next Generation egghead, so that explains why First Contact takes the #1 seat.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Dam why dont i like it then!!! i think its those mind altering bugs

at the time {1982} the opening of that movie was a stunner.we heard rumors at the time spock would die.it looked like the whole crew got knocked off at the beginning of the film.they had me for a min or so.i rememeber looking at my friend saying ''what the hell is going on!"it was a affective beginning that hooks you into the film.

i've seen it so many times over the years it doesn't hook you anymore.good film.

[tvine2000]

i have always believed adapting tv shows to the movies is always been tough.in treks case theres a lot of people who never saw a trek tv show so they had to target those people.like it or not startrek 4 did the best job of that.the rest of them were really for the fans.besides every film that came out everyone thought it was the last film.since then i think trek2009 did a real good job of pleaseing fans and getting new trek fans.the box office has spoken.