"We can synthesise this man's magical blood to resurrect Captain Kirk! " "Wow, should we synthesise more to keep the whole human race alive forever? " "Nah, it'll be fine."
Systhesizing a serum from a few drops of blood to save a life is one thing. Using the blood of all of the Botany Bay crew and in the process killing them to potentially restart the eugenics war would be pretty unethical.
Just like Borg can use spacial trajector tech to literally travel in a second to every place they want. But I think flying in a Cube is just more fun for Borg
@@Mortifix Thats true, but boats have advantages when it comes to weight, cargo space, fuel cost ETC - as opposed to teleporting and then yeeting across the galaxy at will
The Wrath Of Khan is like an insanely well crafted game of chess. Into Darkness is like two people competing to see how far they can shove the chess pieces up their nose.
@@siasti Force Awakens made a big profit because people were hungry for a Star Wars sequel. But the box office dropped massively for Last Jedi and dropped again for Rise of Skywalker. The problem with Force Awakens was the lack of a character arc for ANYONE....Rey was way overpowered without explanation...and, although it seemed to be a repeat of "A New Hope", it didn't have any of the charm...any of the logical plot...any of the sense that the filmmakers knew what they were doing.
@@jscottupton Your criticism applies more to Rise of Reywalker than it does to Force Awakens, which did have a certain amount of logic and charm. Also, anyone could tell that Rey's powers were because of the Force. What other explanation do you need? The real backlash began with Last Jedi, which needlessly tinkered with Star Wars conventions and betrayed Luke. As for Rise of Reywalker, the story is pure trash (But despite that it made a billion dollars, which proves that many fans will turn up for anything with a Star Wars label)
Hollywood today: Let's remake all the old great movies, but update them with lens flare, social justice, and explosions. Also Hollywood today: Stop being critical of our work. If you don't like it you're just mean, racist, sexist, misogynist, or just uneducated. Consume and shut up.
For all his "failings," Roddenberry was a veteran, and knew the structure of military service. Many of the cast members as well. James Doohan was an infantryman who landed on the beach in France in June 1944. Nimoy was US Army. Many of the cast understood the concept of military service, and acted accordingly. Plus, Roddenberry was a damn decent writer.
Relevant to all atrocious nu-Star Trek, they also all understood old war movies and how to make bridge scenes good with just dialogue. That's why I was actually excited Quentin Tarantino might direct one--he understands old war movies.
6:40 "rocontour"? Like, what exactly is that, there is actually no translation yet into German on leo. Can someone explain that to me? What does that mean? I mean, I can already figure, but I want more detail! Sorry for asking this so late on such an old video, it just now occured to me...
raconteur [ˌräˌkänˈtər] NOUN a person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way. "a colorful raconteur" synonyms: storyteller · teller of tales · spinner of yarns · narrator · relater
Spock was my hero growing up, and it kills me to see his character bastardized just because writers can't stand that he doesn't experience human emotions. He was always saving the day by calmly dealing with the situation while everyone else lost their shit. That was what was special about him as a character, but, no, we can't have that.
And, on the rare occasion Spock did lose his shit, it was dramatic and impactful, because it was so unusual, such a deviation from the norm, not a thing he did everyday. Crying or screaming Spock means something because he doesn't do that normally. It means nothing if that's his default setting. In fact, with modern Spork, it would be far more shocking if he went a day not having a toddler tantrum. We might actually sit up and take notice and go "well what's happening here? What new and different thing has caused this unusual behavior?" But that's not what happens. They have him yell and weep with the expectation that we'll be interested and care, but it's totally unearned because there's nothing to compare it to but his last emotional meltdown.
Lol! And people called him the next Spielberg? His only good movies are Super 8 and Mission Impossible 3, and even one of those is criticized as being a rip off of E.T..
"Giving the entire sequence all the impact of a left hook from Steven Hawking" this one line has more creative genius in it than the entire script of this god forsaken movie.
As a real life veteran. McCoy being the 3rd part of the trio and arguing with Kirk and Spock made sense. He was the third highest ranking and the chief medical officer. He had the rank to disagree. A LT com officer does not. It throws off the rank structure.
It probably helps that they were all seasoned career sailors who I'm assuming did a good job of balancing their friendships with each other with doing their jobs as higher ranked officers. None of this horrible mess of being romantically involved and struggling to focus on the job instead of saving and protecting their lovers. Even in a freaking supermarket spouses/lovers have to report the matter and accept any transfers to other stories or other departments within the same store needed to make sure one is not in charge of the other. These movies completely fail to deal with that requirement. Even if she wasn't overly involved in making choices for the whole crew, she or Spock should have been transferred as soon as the crisis in the first movie was resolved.
the other dynamic was that while lower in rank, McCoy was the medical officer, so in certain circumstances he could override the orders of even the captain.
I remember years ago an interview with George Lucas where he said, “A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.” It’s a shame JJ Abrams never got that memo.
JJ Abrams dosent give a s&^%, all he cares is dumping on classics and providing ridiculous amount of EFX for an audience made up of teens with a mind spam of only 2 secs.
I don't know where this stereotype came from that Kirk was a brash impulsive hothead. I just watched TOS recently and Kirk was NOTHING like that. He was strategic, strict, calculating. I was waiting every episode when this stereotypical Kirk would come out and it never did. The worst thing he did was steal a starship in the movies but aside from that he was pretty much by the book..
It’s because Chris Pine is a hyper active man child. It’s the infantilization of all characters. It’s why there’s no real rank structure in these Jar Jar Abraham’s Star Wreck. A society is only as good as the stories they tell.
@@johnmagill9496 Exactly. "Oh, Drinker has uploaded a new video? Cool! Let's see, keyboard wrapped, check. Monitor safe distance away, check. TRY to take only small sips while watching, check."
I've learned to stay away from costly drinks when I watch Drinker videos, but that line still got water all over my monitor and microphone. Took me quite a good pounding to clear my nose.
You'd think Starfleet would revoke Kirk of his captaincy based on how many times they have to do extensive repairs on the vessel. That is a lot of resources they are dumping into one ship.
@@nick0875 Nah, they happily fix his ship, especially considering how many times he's bailed the Federation out from complete annihilation. Imagine all the "space babies" he's fathered, with all the lonely curvaceous sex starved alien chicas he's met throughout his travels!
"How does it feel to live long enough to see all your favorite franchises go down in flames?" - Richard from RedLetterMedia I remember this quote every time Hollywood decides to produce another shitty reboot or sequel of a beloved franchise from the past
considering Red Letter Media is part of the cancer encouraging bullshit SJW horseshit and shit canning actually good movies because they didn't bribe RLM enough they can kiss the fattest part of my ass.
A major plot hole that I NEVER see brought up is when the dreadnaught is about to destroy the Enterprise and Scotty shuts down their systems. He's talking to Kirk in the communicator scene who says "we're a little low on power right now" and Scotty replies "What do you mean, 'low on power'? What happened to the Enterprise?" IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE ENTERPRISE WAS BEING SHOT TO PIECES AND NEARLY DESTROYED, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT MOMENT TO SHUT DOWN THE DREADNAUGHT? HOW DID YOU EVEN KNOW THE ENTERPRISE WAS THERE TO CALL KIRK? WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR LITERALLY ANY OF THIS ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS?
That's a Star Wars Prequel and _beyond_ issue. The story arcs are just made up as they go along and that's why it always feels like somebody puked on Phantom, Clones, and Sith. People say it was made for little kids but to me, there's nothing good for little kids to watch containing multiple decapitations, amputations, younglings lmao being slaughtered, a torso on fire in incredible agony while still alive, betrayal of best friends, yep, a little kid movie all the way. Phantom was the kid movie though. It _had_ an annoying little kid for darth vadar, had even more annoying kids in the little village where his mom was a slave, and then showed a kid actor the rest of the time which destroyed the whole movie. Don't forget the poop and gaseous noises with Jar Jar. They made Star Wars a comedy when before it was anything but that. Kind of went on a tangent there but really came to say that when young, I saw Wrath of Kahn about a dozen times with my parents at the drive in. The most horrifying thing (I was pretty young..) was the ear bugs. I'd have to turn my head most of the times being too painful to watch, kind of like gore pourin flicks like SAW that came later, where it shows a needle poking into a human eye, etc. But when spock died, being a huuuuge fan of the original show, I was devastated. Could NOT believe the movie did that with a sacrifice so great to save the entire ship and crew but it seemed proper for him as even at that age, I knew his movie career (as semi old spock) was limited and it was a great way to see him go like that. Watching this NuStar Trek version was mostly unbelievable junk with red herrings tossed in at every point with no resolution. Stuff not even worth remembering as it doesn't tie in with anything significant in the Star Trek movie I recall about Khan that would help explain his origins (what the audience wants even if it's horrible) if that's what the movie was trying to do. I can't tell. Have watched it 2-3 times and it's so sloppy I still don't understand exactly what's happening. It's also hard to stay awake and focus being stretched out too many ways. NuKirk eating the apple, being too cheerful during wargames, while obviously indicating to others (who shouldn't have needed to say anything about it, they knew, the crew isn't that stupid that something wasn't being cheesed) he'd won by cheating, yet in the show, they acted surprised or shocked even. That's a part that's extremely unrealistic. Same with them being able to teleport spock as he plummets into pure stone from a million foot free fall dive from the atmosphere: "I've got a lock on!" where they say maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, _trying_ to build mood or suspension, but did I or anyone really think it wouldn't work? No. Plot armor. He can't die in the first 5 mins. Everybody knows that and that's what helps ruin these movies.
I actually liked it when I saw it first time, but now I do sort of cringe. BC Khan portrayal is epic ally bad. Some of acting is really not good either as is some the script choices. Not a classic like TWOK.
Right. You can't improve perfection. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to think you have the right to remake a movie like WOK? It's like trying to remake 2001 or Back to the Future or something. What hubris.
I'm not clear still if the Torpedoes were just cryo-tubes and they were designed to deliver the super-men to the surface and defrost them and set them loose on the Klingons or if they were designed to EXPLODE cause minor damage and worry the klingons that someone attacked their homeworld and stir up a conflict the make The Federation pivot to a authoritarian section 31 take over of Starfleet. (and also kill the supermen to annoy Khan and get rid of them as a potential problem). If they are not designed to explode bu just crash with enough left over that the analyse then the Klingons will have fresh Augment DNA to experiment on. Then that is either designed to make the Klingon more dangerous as part of the plan or it's just idiocy to give them that idea. Human Augments are a combination of skills that puts them above most other alien races on a variety of skills though they are not much stronger than a Vulcan and their hearing is similar, (their vision may even be a little worse than a Vulcanoid & their healing a little worse than a Klingon) ; but they have the generalist boon across all categories - agility, strength, speed, tactical ability, aggression, reaction times all amped up as far as they can go - though they still may be a bit less up the food chain than the supersoldiers we saw on TNG as they had even more abilities. I do wonder though is the alpha male principle the only thing keeping them in check as otherwise wouldn't they just backstab each other to death very quickly ? I feel it's a question still under-explored - perhaps we need them to be the antagonist for an entire TV show - but then some would say that show exists it's Andromeda.
"we've located the suspect in the densely populated down town area of a major city. Finally his spree is over. 10 people is enough. Call in the airstrike boys."
You missed a plot hole: when Sherlock is in the Super Enterprise and demands the characters in the regular Enterprise hand his cryogenically frozen friends over, Spock (or someone) calls his bluff, saying "if you blow us up you'll kill your friends!" Sherlock laughs and says he doesn't need to blow them up, he can remote access their life support systems and switch off the oxygen, killing the crew of the Enterprise while leaving his friends in cryo intact, after which he can turn the oxygen back on and recover his friends himself. ....so.....why doesn't he just _do_ that? If he _can_ do that, why doesn't he? Why is he even wasting time talking to the Enterprise crew? The only remotely plausible explanation would be that he has something resembling a conscience and would prefer to get what he wants without killing the Enterprise crew - but that is immediately debunked because he tries to murder them all in the very next scene. I remember sitting in the cinema, scowling, trying to figure out why if he _can_ kill them all by turning off the oxygen, he doesn't just _do_ exactly that, before realizing it was just terribly written. Also, I'm pretty sure there's some nonsensical continuity type stuff regarding _where_ they actually are. They have a chase through warp speed as one ship is trying to make it to Earth. The other ship blasts them out of warp speed before they could make it, but then later on they start crashing down into Earth without going back into warp speed. So.... am I supposed to assume they were blasted out of warp speed right as they were about to arrive at Earth anyway? If so, that means that whole sequence was taking place in Earth's orbit...in which case, why did rest of the Federation at Earth just choose to completely ignore what was going on in their orbit? The whole movie was nonsensical.
What bothered me is how they find out Khan's blood has magical healing properties. Apparently McCoy just happened to have a dead tribble lying around and decided to inject Khan's blood into it. Why would anyone do such an insane pointless thing in the first place? I have no goddamned idea.
I mean. If you could hire movers to move your 72 super heavy tubes for free, wouldn't you? Why would he want to bother with the hassle of going to the ship himself to get them lol
wow, why even go to see a movie at all if your just going to super over analyze the shit out it, what your talking about won't happen either as it's all fiction /imagination oriented.
What I really hated is how much these movies sidelined McCoy. Bones was always my favorite character. This grumpy, old west doctor in space who was also the voice of compassion and morality who butted heads a lot with more clinical and coldly logical Spock. Spock was the brains, Bones was the heart, Kirk was the soul. And it was SO GOOD that the Star Trek brand is still here to this day. It's been around so long that the people in charge of it now don't even know what made it good the first place.
A big problem with Hollywood that these remakes expose is that kids are the target audience. Pre 90s blockbuster films were made for adults but kids also liked them. Now they are made for kids and it shows. No depth and smarts to the plots.
The new shows are not geared toward kids. Each incarnation of the Star Trek series has reflected the morals and standards of the age its produced in. The original had a simplistic future Marxist society with people still struggling with their inner demons. The Next Generation featured a more authoritarian society the fully embraced socialism and painted it's main characters as more enlightened. It weaponized the "prime directive" and used it as an excuse to punish societies that hadn't embraced it's own views. The latest series of movies were, in the beginning cynical cash grabs banking on re-imagining the original cast. Shallow but not terribly so. The new series has embraced a very narrow and intolerant view of modern society as a whole and spreads a message of entitlement and moral superiority. I don't quite see that as "made for kids".
@@splinteredworld unfortunately it doesn't help with modern day expectations of instant gratification and readily chewed without intellect. Same with games, everything.. Disgusting.
@@splinteredworld he's talking about the movies, not the series. the movies are shallow, geared towards young demographics with relentless action. i would agree if you say they're pushing an unwanted and unnecessary SJW agenda, but they in no way contain the same level of characterization, originality, and plot they were based on. of course, JJ is the worst offender. but, your argument doesn't hold much water, imo, as spreading a message of entitlement and moral superiority isn't something that has to be contemplated, it's just there and easily consumable by kids. that said, i rather do agree with your assessment of the ST societies hardly being the utopia they pretend. in particular, when scotty scoffs at our society for still using money, it begs the question how kirk is able to put together a fine collection of artefacts for his apartment. it's fine to say we'll evolve into a society that doesn't rely on money or some form of credit to represent our labour, but without saying how that works i'm going to call bullshit. a lot of the ST 'utopia' is designed around the idea that we'll outgrown the part of our yin-yang nature that causes violence and negativity. meanwhile, kirk says he *needs* his anger in a movie, and illustrates the importance of that aspect in an TOS episode. to me there's a lot of contradiction in the canon, not to mention these wonderful ideals are fairly dependent on eliminating free thought, action, and individualism. everything is 'for the greater good of society,' and where have we heard that before?
The new star trek is like meeting one of your old childhood crushes from school and realising that now, she's horribly warped and almost unrecognizable from the wonderful fantasy person that your mind had shaped for many years. You feel almost traumatised, you wondered what happened and you wish her all the best, knowing you will never see her again.
"What is a cold fusion device?" It's the miniature sun they created in Spider-Man 2. But, since it has the word "cold" in it, the writers thought it would be a good jargon word for a device that freezes a volcano.
It's also an actual theoretical scientific concept. But as is tradition now in modern star trek, they completely misunderstand even the basics of the idea, and then completely misuse it. Remember when trek had scientific advisors? Yeah... Not since the reboots...
@@jonathanathor117 Yeah. Well depends on how it's used. If it's applicable, and makes sense, then fine. But just slapping quantum onto something to make it sound "sciency" is stupid.
I actually learned lately that the harmonic reinforcement, the tridium, all that shit from Spidey 2 is actually like, legit in theoretical/experimental fusion technology. I figured it was all made up gobbledygook for years because, it was Spider-man. It didn't really matter. The difference between creative teams who give a shit about their project vs don't.
To be fair to the film (not to JJ Abrams, as he had little-to-no hand in the script), they do address why Marcus used Khan's help. Kirk asks Khan why Marcus would use someone from over 200 years ago to design weapons, and Khan explains that Marcus had all the technology and tech guys he needed, but he also needed someone with a better understanding of warfare to optimize the tech. "He needed a warrior's mind; my mind. He needed my savagery. (Turns to face Spock) You, Spock, can hardly break a rule. How would you be expected to break bone?" So, to reuse the simile, it's less like asking Hitler to help design an iPhone, and more like telling Hitler how an iPhone works and asking him how to optimize it for killing millions of people.
Ur racist 🤣 you must hate black people if seeing them in a movie makes you cry that much. Roddenberry made Star Trek because the world was and still is full of ppl like you 🤡
Modern movies in a nutshell: "Wow an explosion", "Hey a pretty hot girl", "Cool someone running / jumping / flying". Lets add some lens flares / shaky cam / impatient cuts. Fill the rest with fragments of story and take most of it from nostalgia.
It’s because of ADHD culture, and by ADHD culture I mean the practice in films and other media emphasizing fast pacing and flashy action packed scenes every ten minutes. Film makers make movies now to appeal to a practically non-existen audience of mouth breathing morons who can’t pay attention to a movie unless there’s explosions, space ship battles, loud noises, or vibrant sets. They don’t realize that most people over the age of 12 like action sequences, round relatable characters, and a good story arc to be in an equilibrium of sorts.
Shaky cam: that trope made the Bourne sequels almost unwatchable which sucks because I love the Bourne movies but I also don’t want to get motion sick watching a movie
Honestly, that could still be kinda entertaining if done well but it never is. How is it that Phantom Menace has one of the greatest lightsaber duels of all time, while the action in RoS (which came out two decades later) looks like shit?
I will say this, Leonard Nimoy gave his all to the end. His performance is way better than the script deserves. All the actors were really let down by the script. I actually think Chris Pine does a decent young Kirk... when he's playing Steve Trevor in Wonder Woman. Here he's a parody of Kirk. I also think Karl Urban could've been a great young McCoy but they gave him nothing to do.
@@mikeb53 You can blame Alex Kurtzman for that one. He didn't understand the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic, as this video shows: th-cam.com/video/zH7oWJV7HOM/w-d-xo.html
Gotta hand it to J.J. Abrams, he's made a good living recycling Phillip K. Dick's alternative timeline schtick into everything he fucking does. Lost, Fringe, Star Trek, everything he touches; over and over, and people still buy it.
Old wrath of khan: Spock beats Khan by stating repair hours will seem like days, uses the prefix code to drop Khan’s shields, recommends entering the nebula will equalize the odds, and repairs the warp drive at great expense. New Spock yells, jumps, and keeps beating Khan in the face.
@@DelDuio : The bug that went in your ear and controlled you creeped me out so bad! And they gave you insight into why Khan was Khan, and you could see he wasn't entirely a bad guy. There was nuance. But this was back when they didn't have to make SURE that you KNEW one or more characters was gay or dark-skinned or both.
Always cracks me up when you refer to actors by better roles they played in other movies, and sticking with it throughout the entire review. You're a legend.
Jim Kirk's one true love was the Enterprise. Every other lady just couldn't compare. That said, Chris Pine COULD have been a passable Kirk but he was failed by his director, scriptwriter, producer, agent, and probably the set's caterer as well. All three of these JJverse films were, as Dr. Clayton Forester once said, a "stinky cinematic suppository".
Yeah Pine's got the gravitas to pull off Kirk, but JJ has the mind of a methhead maniac, couldn't write a 10 pg children's book coherent, let alone a film.
@@JamesRDavenport I totally agree. Art means nothing to a hack like Jar-Jar Abrams. Why they keep throwing $$ at him is beyond me. When I was watching the first of the Abrams Abominations, I wanted to see more of Kirk's dad. THAT was the movie I would pay big bucks to see.
Problem isn't the actor. Chris Pine is more than enough to put out a decent Kirk, becase have the looks and has talent. He's never gonna be Shatner, let's not forgett Shatner wasn't exactly just a young random actor, he was one of the best young secondary actors Hollywood had to offer before Star Trek begun back in the 60s, but that's not the point. There's no even need to remake Star Trek, because Star Trek hasn't finished. Imagine that, instead of picking a bold, angry and aggresive leader as Sisko as the counterpart for the always civilized calm and diplomatic Picard for DS9 and put him with Kira, Bashir, Jazdia and Odo or people like Garak or Quark, they just made a remake of new generation with Picard being Sisko and Riker the bar's owner. It will have been a shit of epic proportions. Instead, DS9 invented new characters and introduced them into Star Trek, creating something unique that gives even more persoanilty and dimension to the already existing franchise. This is a remake no one asked for. Like the previous movie.
@@JamesRDavenport If you like people making Fun of Nonsene, theres an entire Channel about this Concept that C-Drinker did here: Hbomberguy. Creaky Blinder also. Many make fun of looneys, ya know, just like Professor Dave and Sci Man Dan do (flat earthers are prefered Targets and its fun) but if it has to be about Doctor Who specifically, Jay Exci is right for you.
JJ Abrams is the most overrated director. He’s held up along the likes of Chris Nolan and Ridley Scott but he is essentially a slightly more modern Michael bay that just does sci fi and doesn’t do it that well.
If you don't know this already, you'll be pleased to learn that his last Star Wars film has pretty much ripped off the mask and exposed him to the world as the talentless hack he is. I think he knew it would, as he made damned sure to sigh a big new contract with another company before the film even released. He wanted to lock in enough high dollar work to live off of for the rest of his miserable life because no one will want to hire him again now.
@Isaac Mounce Nolan will give you some thing interesting in a film, whether it's good, bad, or average. He has vision, and passion. I'm not saying he is the best, just that he can make some thing interesting in some way. Now if he had a producer and co writer to help fill in his gabs then you can get some thing more than good.
JJ Abrams originally wanted to design roller coasters, but didn't have the patience for engineering, so he settled on making movies where it doesn't matter if the car flies off the track.
They basically wrote Kirk to be like Lightning McQueen from Pixar's "Cars". A cocky narcissist who learns in the movie that making friends and helping others is more important than winning. Except they didn't do that and just had Spock punch a guy for 10 seconds straight instead.
More than that - they would trigger galactic warfare unending. Because if you no longer need ships to invade somebody's planet... everyone would invade everyone else, all the time. There would be literally nothing to stop them, and everyone would be perpetually paranoid about everyone else doing this. Hell, even the old planetary restrictions wouldn't matter - walls? Nope. Doesn't matter. Transport right past them. In fact, you wouldn't need to invade. Think nuclear weapons are scary? What if someone in a different system, on a different planet, could just... beam nukes into your cities at a moment's notice? The introduction of interplanetary transporters would turn Star Trek into Warhammer 40k, for there would be only war.
Don't forget they now have blood that can bring back the dead. So not only can you invade planets at a moment's notice but you can revive all your soldiers too.
Only if you also develope a portable Air-Space wepaon system capable of destroying enemy starships in orbit. Starships are not just for transport, duh!
The key to understanding Star Trek II is the story of Moby Dick. The parallels between Khan's rage and Ahab's determination to kill the object of his hate are palpable.
He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.
Remember back when Star Trek was about a brighter tomorrow where people solved their problems with words and only resorted to violence if all other options were used up and even then only used to the extent necessary to stop the threat? Remember when captains of the ships were actually captains who gave orders and took personal responsibility for their failures rather than act like total assholes and endanger missions for the sake of personal vendettas? Remember back when there was actual attempts at sticking close to science and the show actually had NASA scientists on set to inform the writers, directors and actors what was and was not scientifically possible or accurate? Remember back when their were little nods to philosophy and relevant satire regarding politics but done in such a way that it was subtle and tasteful? Remember when Starfleet was about exploration, and not a collectivist group of hyper violent, self entitled, borderline psychotic people that resort to violence and attack cultures who seek to remain themselves rather than be part of a collective? I remember my favorite episode of DS9. The pale moonlight. The one where Sisko and Garrick have to use subterfuge and assassinate a romulan representative in order to frame the dominion and gain Romulan support in the war. I remember the scene where siscko at first attacks Garrick, thinking this act is horrible when he finds out that the senator was killed in a shuttle explosion. Then Garrick reveals that this act, in addition to planted evidence will get the romulans on the federations side and he says that classic line “You got the romulans on your side and all it cost you was one romulan senator and a guilty conscience. I call that quite a bargain”. I remember the end when sisko is making out his log and you see him grappling with his conscience. He keeps repeating the phrase “I can live with it”, almost like he’s rehearsing the phrase. He’s trying so hard to justify it that he is lying to himself and trying to act like he doesn’t care. It’s a powerful scene that shows the price of war and the toll it takes on the commanders. Now compare that to new Trek. I weep for the future of this series.
I started watching TNG from season 1 and I'm appalled at what Star Trek has turned into over the last 10 years or so. Wonderfully written and acted show by people who gave a shit, and it shows. Stuff like Picard and Discovery are just travesties, complete and total imagination vacuums.
DS9, particularly the last seasons, was the last Star Trek that dealt with big issues of morality and compromise, of breaking rules for the greater good, but actually asking big questions about what that meant, and if sacrificing everything a free society stood for actually preserved that society. The episode you refer didn't overreach by giving Sisko an answer. It leaves the question unresolved, and, because the writers understood plotting and tension, it carried through to the final episode. But that's when Star Trek was being written by intelligent and thoughtful people, for intelligent and thoughtful people, where there were consequences, and bending one's morals left an unresolved dilemma that gave a character depth and growth.
In Wrath of Khan, Spock's death was shattering, sad, and unsettling. We had no idea what they would do to bring him back, or even IF they would bring him back. In Into Darkness, when Kirk died, my first thought was "Wonder what lame shyte they'll use to bring him back to life". Seriously, if you're gonna copy something, at least make it a GOOD copy...
Yeah, and bringing back Spock was a whole new movie. In Darkness it's just some magical blood that brings back the dead, which makes me wonder how Khan can actually die.
@@fischkopp1234 LOL Good point! If his blood is so powerful that it can literally raise the dead (and apparently cure any disease), then how can Khan die? Looking at the movie, death has suddenly become a thing of the past. And let's not forget the replicator. They have a sample of his blood, right? They can now manufacture all they need, so that anytime someone is injured and/or dies, all it requires is a brief moment at the ol' replicator, and he's back on duty in a few minutes! Ah, what a glorious future the Federation has before it now!
To be fair... though this movie doesn't deserve it... the transporter was used to restore people's original molecular makeup in order to heal or resurrect them at least once in the Animated Series and once in Voyager IIRC. I do think the fact the transporter disassembles and reassembles people's molecules (as said by the characters) creates the possibility for unlimited resurrections, healings, and even clonings and Star Trek doesn't really address this question directly. There are some implied problems with this idea like the fact that transporter patterns degrade over time (which doesn't really work because food replicators can store patterns for years and Scotty was able to hide in a replicator to appear in TNG) or, in the case of healing, there can be viruses that can be missed when decontaminating someone. It can't be that resurrecting someone with the transporter creates a new person with a new consciousness, because if that were the case then the transporter is doing the same thing. However, even if we aren't given a specific reason why the transporters can't be used to resurrect people indefinitely, that doesn't mean there isn't necessarily a good reason why they haven't. Perhaps consciousness or Katra really is transferred to the recreated body in a transporter, but as soon as the person dies, that consciousness can no longer inhabit a corporeal form, and any attempts to recreate the person end in soulless empty people. Meanwhile, if you invent magic McGuffin blood that can heal people, internal consistency means that the characters would of course try to use this again. The Genesis Wave that resurrected Spock in Star Trek III was the product of unethically-used proto matter which destroyed the Genesis Planet, so we could imagine that it wouldn't be used to resurrect anybody else. (Plus as far as we know non-Vulcans can't store their Katra in other people.) Khan's McGuffin blood doesn't have the same excuse.
@@MajorTomFisher Interesting that you mention things used once and then forgotten. There was an episode of the original series, "Turnabout Intruder", I believe, where a woman used an alien device to switch her "soul" or mind, with Kirk's. Which means that all that would be needed for true immortality would be that device, and one's pattern, from one's younger self. Then, just swap your mind into that new, younger body. And if your proposal that a replicated body is soul-less is true, then it's the perfect solution, and immortality for all is achieved. Couple that with Khan's blood, which clearly heals pretty much any disease/ailment, and no one is ever going to get sick or die, ever again. AND, if we take technology of the Nomad probe from the OG episode "Changeling", then Starfleet ships could - and should - be vastly more powerful. So there should be an invincible fleet, crewed by immortals. Damn...sign my ass up!!
The only character remotely similar was Karl Urban's Bones and they wrote him into the damn corner. McCoy was my favorite from TOS and I love Karl Urban, so it was pretty irritating to see both the character AND the actor disserviced.
This succinctly summarizes how I've felt about Trek since 2008. I've been a hardcore fan of everything Trek since I discovered TOS in reruns in the mid 1970s. I've got all the toys, books, comics, VHS tapes, DVDs… thousands of dollars in memorabilia and merchandise from every iteration of Star Trek. Then in 2008 millennials came in and shat all over it all like they do with everything else, while calling it "better", "modernized", and "for a new audience". But I digress.
Yeah, soon as you read that "for a new audience" sentence as applied to something cherished and original you know it'll be a polished, bread crumbed massive turd and you have no drink to swallow it down with.
I don't know where this stereotype came from that Kirk was a brash impulsive hothead. I just watched TOS recently and Kirk was NOTHING like that. He was strategic, strict, calculating. I was waiting every episode when this stereotypical Kirk would come out and it never did. The worst thing he did was steal a starship in the movies but aside from that he was pretty much by the book.
Ever since Generations it seems to be all they can do; let's keep making a big budget action flick out of a heady, intellectual sci-fi premise. Sigh. I know old Trek probably wouldn't work, but I just wish they had left it alone.
The original Enterprise was elegant, and when it took actual damage in Wrath of Khan it was like a punch in the gut. There is literally no movie in which the JJ Enterprise is _not_ falling apart with bits flaking off like like it was a junker held together with duct tape and Bondo.
When Kirk committed to the self destruct sequence in Star Trek III... I wanted to puke. Now? Whatever. I think they make "Enterprise" decals they can slap onto another anonymous ship they're already building.
Dan, the funny thing is that when that happened in previous Trek movies, whether it was the 1701A or D, is that the audience cared about those ships. No one cares if the 1701JJ burns on re-entry.
"I've always known I'll die alone" ---- Captain Kirk, Star Trek V Little did he know how prophetic those words would be for the franchise as a whole. The entire Star Trek universe will die alone as the fans abandon it in droves :-(
I always wondered why after seeing one of these films I felt a little empty, as if I was hoping for a believable story that would outlast the fantastic CGI and really cool visuals. As if was, one day later, I could barely remember I was at the theatre no matter how nice the movie looked. You can't blame the cast, they can only read the script they're given. It's just not a good script, or story, or plot, or decent use of logic. Besides, I can make better popcorn at home anyway and it only cost me about 50¢ per adult serving. Great review!
@@mayanksharma3651 A couple I know decided to splurge and see the 1st John Wick movie in the theater. The tickets were $20.00 and she said if they got drinks and popcorn it would have been $40.00. That was 2014 I think. The people were talking and it was hot and crowded. That was it for them. You can have a much better experience at home and if you wind up thinking the movie stinks you can stream another without going broke.
i still go back watch my favorite TOS movies star treks II and III regularly (kind of consider them parts 1 and 2 of the same story, Genesis). masterpieces that still hold up to this day, even if some of the set pieces and visual effects are a little wonky.
asdf asdf - the 3 movies from Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and Voyage Home are considered the Spock trilogy, as they’re all a continuous storyline, from the death of Spock (II), the rebirth of Spock (III), to the returning of Spock with the crew (IV)
10:03 "They shoehorn Uhura into every scene now... She was never that important in the original movies." Ah, but she is a black woman in movies in 2019. Her currency is now through the roof.
@@rogereisnaugle6012 or just stop consuming crap entertainment. They'll be forced to stop this nonsense in a few years when the well runs dry. The NFL is about to learn this very lesson.
The first battle in Wraith of Khan between the Enterprise and Reliant is probably the best written, directed, acted and scored scene in all of sci fi. I watched a video on that breakdown a few months ago and god the tricks they used to make that scene from awesome to legendary were so simple and subtle.
Yea well if Uhura looked like Zoe Zaldana even Data would get an erection. He is fully functional in all areas you know. Plus the original Spock didnt see his planet destroyed, so in the JJ universe, it makes sense for him to not be as "Vulcan" as Nemoy's Spock.
@@boogienightsmarkwahlberg6011 Original Spock wouldn't have passed on the Vulcan Science Academy over an insult. He would've joined Star Fleet because that's where the important accomplishments were to be achieved.
@@InfernosReaper While I agree that Spock joined in an ilogical manner, in the original series his decision wasnt entirely logical either. Joining the Federation instead of the VSA was not the logical choice. Especially given his family, the logical choice would be to remain on Vulcan. How could he honestly reason that humanity would be the better choice when they are controlled by their emotions. Pure research was conducted on Vulcan. Spock isnt a robot tho, after all. He actually shows emotions in the series, but catches himself soon after.
@@boogienightsmarkwahlberg6011 Humans may hog the spotlight, but other races are party of the Federation too. A science academy that barely goes anywhere or takes any real chances is too stagnant to really accomplish anything truly worthwhile in the field of science. Compare that to the humans, who have advanced considerably and continue to advance, despite being how illogical they were. Truly humanity is a fascinating subject to study, especially while pursuing other scientific study. Makes sense enough to me.
Man, I remember when Spock shouted that. That felt quite awkward like they really couldn't find a place to add, so they forced it instead. I was wondering as he was screaming that fans would not like this scene.
JJ Abrams - "Transwarp beaming, no other lazy, overrated hack director will ever come up with a stupider way to ruin the internal consistency of a beloved sci-fi film franchise." Rian Jonson - "Hold my beer."
Like other OP technology, if it's balanced out right or the repercussions of such technology was shown, it can work. Remember the Iconian gateways that created the Iconian empire and rogue Jem'Hadar used it to commit terrorism? In those episodes, everyone knew it was a grave threat and that technology HAD to be destroyed. In TNG, Picard blew up the facility and in DS9, Sisko and Weyoun teamed up. In 09, Scotty says that he tried it on the Admral's beagle and it didn't work, which was the minimum necessary to show that this technology couldn't be used. Unfortunately, that was not explained in Into Darkness, so if I only saw ID, I would think "why can't they all use this transwarp transportation?"
One of my biggest gripes with the newer Star Treks (and many other shows/movies) is they START with all the characters who just met be best friends. By Khan, Kirk, Spock and McCoy had developed genuine friendships over decades.
Rian Johnson only has a few years left to make a shitty Star Trek movie where William Shatner plays a dour miseryguts parody of James Kirk who says it's time for Starfleet to end.
He was only one day from retirement, when he was called back to blow up the enterprise one more time. Living alone in the Nexus on nothing but tribble milk.
And then he shoots himself in the head after projecting a hologram of himself fighting the evil menace after saving all of Starfleet, which is only 10 guys
I was tolerant of the first Trek film, even though I didn't like it. Once this piece of shit came out, I was livid. As you said, everything about Wrath of Khan works, because it is earned. Khan had a whole episode in the TOS which was good. And Ricardo Montalban returned to the film with a vengeance, making one of the top 10 bad guys in film history. ID was just a typical Jar-Jar production. Take a better movie, rip it apart, and badly reassembly it into some undead, patchwork construct of what it once one, and then declare it better than the original. That's what co-writer Roberto Orci did when he launched into a tirade against fans who hated ID. He basically pulled the Star Wars "you aren't a true fan if you didn't like it" bullshit. Everything about this film was bad, but it was made so much worse, as you point out, because it burrowed from a much better film. Shatner was on point as an aging captain having a post mid-life crisis. Both his acting at Spock's death, and his eulogy at Spock's funeral were outstanding. Nothing this piece of filth did could compare.
@@mneedes2 Not really, the Drinker's point stands. You wouldn't send the navy, or a navy captain, to do the job of the police or the army... And even marines are still just infantry units.
Don't you also love the race-swapping of Khan? Khan in the original was brown. Specifically Indian. It's hard to tell in Wrath of Khan because the actor's skin had gotten really pale as he aged in real life, but the actor is actually brown and it's even mentioned in the original series that he was an Indian dictator. For Into Darkness they cast Benedict lilly-white Cumberbatch. This doesn't make sense because the JJ Abrams movies are supposed to be a parallel universe, separated by the differences caused by OG Spock time travelling about 40 years. How can anything caused by OG Spock's presence affect the RACE of a character, especially one that was born and frozen like 200 years prior? JJ Abram's actually said in an interview - proudly - that they deliberately changed Khan's race from brown to white in order to be more "Progressive." Literally the only time Hollywood race swaps from non-white to white is when the character is a villain. 🤔
In the prequel comic it's said that he got plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Into Darkness expects us to believe one of humanity's most famous dictators was able to show up in the future on Earth (and get a position in Starfleet!) and no one noticed.
@@BiggieTrismegistusTo be fair, if the Century 23 educational system is a result of Century 21's ...it is (sadly) VERY PLAUSIBLE that people will pay SO LITTLE attention to history that Khan COULD pass unnoticed.
It's too bad, cause Cumberbatch played a good villain. He was surprisingly ruthless. He could have been one of the great Star Trek villains...but then they went and tried to make him Khan... ☹️
Khan's full name is Khan Noonien Singh. He was of Indian decent.Not that it made sense to cast a Mexican actor as an Indian man, but at least he could almost pass as a light skinned Indian guy, unlike Benedict Cumberbatch, who is the whitest person in this film. It does not make sense for his backstory, not that they gave a fuck about any other aspect of his backstory anyway.
And to be fair, when Khan made his first appearance in TOS... he didn't look quite so obviously Mexican, and his Indian heritage was more prominent in the story.
I thought that was so rich. SJW hollywood always lectures us on diversity and racism, but they get a chance to have a badaas Indian and hes a white guy.
I remember JJ "the franchise destroyer" Abrahams being questioned before the film came out and straight up lying about Sherlock being Kahn. I understand that he couldn't just admit it, but ideally he shouldn't have simply remade Star Trek 2, but worse. .....cough...cough...the force awakens.
Exactly. Why not bring back any of the myriad other antagonists or storylines that could have been developed, fascinating and just as compelling with other elements? Why choose the only episode previously also continued into a movie? There are SO many elements that could have been used, plausible directions it could have gone. Not even bothering with examples because there's too many to choose from for anyone with a little imagination and creativity and prior knowledge of the characters, stories, arcs and history? Did they absolutely have to completely copy "Star Trek 2" in terms of who was on the cast list and a one paragraph Cliff's Notes breakdown on the plot/breakdown of "The Wrath of Khan" and "Space Seed", if they ever even went that far? (This next part is sarcasm/what they may have been thinking): I mean, it's the movies, not the show! And there's a lot of shows that are Star Trek shows, that's a lot of research to do! Use the Internet to solve this problem you say? How? That's not what it's used for!! How are you going to do that? Seriously though, even if you're"remaking/revamping everything" for whatever reason of "originality," put some work in to show a story about how the changed elements enhance the story or make it interesting, and use it to engage fans past, present and future. Don't just change elements to fit trends without considering or successfully filling out a compelling story and reason why, like the original storytelling did. Storytelling is an art, not bullet points. This is SUCH a great video and everything is so relevant and true. The first video of yours I've ever had and I feel like I've struck gold. Subscribed. Edit: Adding the sarcasm/thought process clarification and the paragraph about why to make changes.
@@thedeejaeebee5babee JJ doesn't have an original bone in his body. Everything he does is half-baked derivitive drivel for the drooling masses. This is basically Trek for morons and people too young to have any reference point.
You make a very good point about McCoy being the moral counterpart to Spocks pragmatism. Isn't it telling that as Star Trek went modern, it is that element that got replaced with Uhura?
Old Trek: Organic synthesis of different characters who melded into a strong crew because they rallied behind their common mission, and their differences became the Enterprise's collective strength. New Trek: Contrived diversity of characters who all seem the same because they couldn't give a shit about their common mission, and the Enterprise's crew is a derivative mish-mash of selfish, egotistical twats that makes it a wonder the Enterprise survives leaving space dock. Live long, and fester, JJ Abrams.
I actually enjoyed 'Into Darkness' at the theater, largely because my girlfriend had managed to stay ignorant regarding the identity of the antagonist. When Cumberbatch said his overblown "Khaaaaan..." she just had the biggest smile on her face. As much as Drinker is completely correct about that atrocity of a Trek movie, we still had a lot of fun. 'Beyond' was awful. It didn't even have the decency to be somewhat entertaining. When the Beastie boys music saved the day and "Kirk" is riding a motorcycle around in circles, I realized what little interest I still had in the Abramsverse had just been murdered.
Hopefully with how successful The Boys on Amazon is, Karl Urban will finally start getting his due. The man is a great actor and one of the only redeeming things about this JJ mess.
@James Merkle oh I know man. That Dredd movie was SO good. How many male Hollywood leads would actually go a whole movie never showing their face, cause it fit the character? I've always heard Urban wanted to do a sequel too, such a shame.
@@denroy3 No, he had responsibility for any tech or weapons loaded into the cargo bays. He was asked to sign for them, with his f*cking actual signature or biometrics, without checking them or knowing what was inside. I've signed for literally lorryloads of goods over my working life. I would never have signed without knowing what the goods were, and whether they presented any hazards to my colleagues handling them. Scotty knew his job ("all weapons visually accounted for" - STVI) and was perfectly entitled to refuse to put his name down as accepting the load - that put him potentially responsible for any injuries, damage or deaths resulting from their presence on board.
@@Neil070The disgusting thing is Scotty would have called up to Kirk and said they're not letting me look at these weapons and Kirk would have backed Scotty up with the exact same response. I'm responsible for this ship and crew, you're not bringing that on my ship unless my engineer gives his approval. And that gives us a perfect and authentic to the character reason for demoting Kirk.
The fact that Khan has a "the rest of his name" doesn't help. It's like if you had taken a dude who was secretly Hitler prisoner and he revealed that his name isn't "Sum Gai" but "Adolph" as if that's gonna really tell us who he actually is.
It's kind of... in the tone of the movie and the story they were telling. RE - telling, eash. Which is a story about Spock and his complex relationship with having feelings for his contemporaries. It might not compare with the dignity of the story told about quarter of a century before, but this was a modern telling for a modern audience. An audience less sophisticated and with a shorter attention span. And shallow. And Narcissistic. And a bunch of snowflakes Maybe
Watched Wrath of Khan yesterday. After one of the space battles, Scotty shows up on the bridge holding a dead body, and you don't need dialogue to tell you what's going on in the minds of the bridge crew. The dead crewmember wasn't a main character, his face is too charred to tell who he is, but he's dead. He's dead and he's not coming back.
My favorite part is that the scream in Wrath of Khan was actually a decoy to trick Khan so that Khan wouldn't be aware that Kirk had planned all along to be rescued by a ship Khan wasn't aware of.
Yeah. It bothers me that, to this day, there are people that still point at that scene as Shatner being a bad actor. When in fact it was actually Kirk that was deliberately overacting for Khan's benefit. Still, I bet those people love the new Trek for its... simplicity.
For the record, I like Cumberbatch as an actor... but his casting as KHAN made about as much sense as casting a black woman to play Abraham Lincoln or Adolf Hitler... Later! OL J R :)
I fucking love coming back to your Star Trek videos. I’ve never gotten into the Star Trek franchise but hearing you talk about the old movies is an an art form in an of itself. You just describe everything so beautifully and I love it.
@Cataclysmic Dildoser yeah, I think they good have done something more like the the original series w/ th eyoung trio instead of aping the more accomplished movie. Actors were good but damn poor story.
Hang on - the torpedoes would have obliterated a sizeable chunk of the surface of a planet, but when they go off inside a starship... they damage it a bit?
You know, the OG Kirk in the original story line grew up with his own father and mother at his side. I am guessing that would've helped create a more stable, less rebellious Kirk like the one we saw in 2009. Just a thought.
As I just now posted on your "Star Trek Beyond" review: "I was surfing channels tonight and happened to come upon--on AMC Cable, I believe--the first 'Star Trek' with Chris Pine as Kirk. It was just about to start, and a politically-correct warning flashed up on the TV that, along with other drivel, said that the movie contained stereotypes and depictions that were inconsistent with modern standards of tolerance and other 'values.' It was like seeing a satire of wokeness on screen, except that it was painfully real."
Brilliant. Perfect. You’ve nailed it completely. You make me understand why I always go back to my classic movies to unwind and enjoy what used to be adult and considered movie making. The analogy is modern audio mastering - brick-walling with no dynamic range - a constant explosion which is neither enjoyable nor satisfying and totally fatiguing. These Star Trek movies are just that - one big explosion. Great videos, love your channel and thanks.
10:30 The scene where O'Hurra and Spock fought on their way to a planet because she was being a professional victim instead of a professional whatever rank she's supposed to be, was the worst. They also dramatized Spock "I felt feely feels, therefore I made the professional decision to kill the feels." She spent the whole time being a "woe is me" girlfriend character that I didn't know her name until you said it here.
@@indy_go_blue6048 In the Undiscovered Country she's a Lieutenant Commander. In some of the novels (which I'm not sure if they're canon) she becomes the most senior admiral in Starfleet.
The worst thing about NuTrek is its complete misunderstanding of Spock, a character so simple, you can explain him in two words: "no emotions". Now, other characters in the 3 Abramsverse films SAY that Spock has no emotions, but can you point to a single scene where he doesn't? Spock is the most emotional character on the crew! It's like every single scene wants to prove that THIS is the occasion when things are REALLY serious, because even SPOCK is emotional. Okay, in reality, the original character was more complex than that; his human half means he does have emotions, but he's spent a lifetime learning to suppress them, and 99% of the time, his reaction to every situation and comment from humans is not the smug, barely-masked contempt Zachary Quinto injects into the scenes where Spock isn't freaking out and assaulting people. The Vulcan neck pinch was invented because it was utterly unthinkable for Leonard Nimoy to punch someone in the face like Quinto does in the finale of Into Darkness. He was so emotionless, that on the rare occasions when he showed just a slight touch of warmth or concern, it had weight. Leonard Nimoy played Spock with a detached, centered calm that imagined what it would be like for humans to interact with a truly alien being. NuTrek thinks of Spock's emotionlessness as a kind of repression that he just needs a little therapy to work out so he can be happy.
This is not true. Spock is a stoic, but does have emotions. Vulcans are in fact so emotional they have no choice but to suppress these emotions heavily. Spock is also half human.
@@FlorisDVijfde Except we never see Original Spock's emotions, or rather very rarely, and on very special occasions, so it has punch. NuSpock is a whiny baby throwing tantrums all the time. What a bore.
@@FlorisDVijfde I think the point is not whether or not Spock has emotions... we all agree that he does. The point is how he interacts with them. How he FEELS about emotions. Originally, Spock was locked into a position of trying to be 'as good as' Vulcans who had trained all their lives to put their emotions off to one side. Showing an emotion was something close to soiling yourself in public. Utterly humiliating. Vulcans looked down on humans because they seemed to be in a position of not even being ABLE to avoid soiling themselves constantly, and worse, were often quite proud of it. Original Spock was more understanding of the excesses of humans, but he never really WANTED to partake of them. The idea of him yelling at someone or throwing a fist in anger would be moritfying. In Nu Trek, though Spock seems to go through the act of being emotionless the subtext is that he will never succeed because 'that's not who he really is'. He's barely in control and slips rather regularly, and when he does he's not less powerful but MORE so. And while in the first movie he considers himself completely unfit for duty on this basis, this is never true again. It's just a thing he does. Worse, he engages in romances with humans; where before he was trying hard to be Vulcan, now he doesn't seem to care much at all. It is a very different character.
@@HerculesBallsInc Perhaps the difference is, despite the little puns that are thrown Spock;s way and McCoy who keeps trolling him, his stoicism is respected in TOS and seen as a power where NuTrek wrongly treats it as suppressing disorder, matching with our current emo zeitgeist. The only excuse they can make is we're witnessing a younger, less wise Spock. Barely out of his teens where Vulcan emotions explode through the roof.
The first one was all right. Not really proper Star Trek, sure, but it was entertaining enough. This one, however, was a far cry even from being amusing.
@@Megatron_95 The original series doesn't hold up nearly as well as the movies, and most episodes don't add anything significant to the lore. So maybe watch a few of the fan-favorite episodes (they have all been remastered in HD), especially "Space Seed", then the Movies.
Nah. Spock represents a logical extreme while McKoy represents an emotional extreme. The devil and angel concept is about helping oneself vs helping others.
Star Trek 2009 was fun to watch, although I can completely understand why it alienated much of its original fan base. But you gotta give Karl Urban a MOUNTAIN of Credit for his spot-on portrayal of Dr. Bones
"We can synthesise this man's magical blood to resurrect Captain Kirk! "
"Wow, should we synthesise more to keep the whole human race alive forever? "
"Nah, it'll be fine."
Same with high distance Teleportation that Khan uses... Ships are now useless
@@aldoushuxley5953 Long Distance?
@Mark Kouznetsov why? They have space travel in a mostly empty universe... Overpopulation is not a concern for them.
Systhesizing a serum from a few drops of blood to save a life is one thing. Using the blood of all of the Botany Bay crew and in the process killing them to potentially restart the eugenics war would be pretty unethical.
Considering the blood is 200 year old tech, you think they’d not need to rely on it.
"Because Transwarp Beaming is totally a thing now apparently."
Which, and I can not stress this enough, totally negates the need for starships at all.
1989: "What does God want with a starship?"
2013: "What does a society with transwarp beaming want with a starship?
@@trublgrl 2020: "What does a starship with a spore drive want with warp drive?"
Just like Borg can use spacial trajector tech to literally travel in a second to every place they want.
But I think flying in a Cube is just more fun for Borg
Well to be fair we have airplanes but we still use boats.
@@Mortifix Thats true, but boats have advantages when it comes to weight, cargo space, fuel cost ETC - as opposed to teleporting and then yeeting across the galaxy at will
"Resistance Is Futile" - the Borg
"Character development is futile" - JJ Abrams 🤢🤮
The Wrath Of Khan is like an insanely well crafted game of chess. Into Darkness is like two people competing to see how far they can shove the chess pieces up their nose.
And _both_ winning..
**ass
@@IAmTheOnePunchMan Why not both?
That made me laugh. Thank you!
I love that! 😆
J.J. Abrams has become death. The destroyer of franchises.
He can't even separate 2 from 3 to 5
@@siasti Force Awakens made a big profit because people were hungry for a Star Wars sequel. But the box office dropped massively for Last Jedi and dropped again for Rise of Skywalker. The problem with Force Awakens was the lack of a character arc for ANYONE....Rey was way overpowered without explanation...and, although it seemed to be a repeat of "A New Hope", it didn't have any of the charm...any of the logical plot...any of the sense that the filmmakers knew what they were doing.
@@jscottupton Your criticism applies more to Rise of Reywalker than it does to Force Awakens, which did have a certain amount of logic and charm. Also, anyone could tell that Rey's powers were because of the Force. What other explanation do you need? The real backlash began with Last Jedi, which needlessly tinkered with Star Wars conventions and betrayed Luke. As for Rise of Reywalker, the story is pure trash (But despite that it made a billion dollars, which proves that many fans will turn up for anything with a Star Wars label)
@@siasti I agree with George Lucas. Force Awakens was trash. It's just that the next 2 movies were WORSE,
Franchise: Into Darkness!
Hollywood today: Let's remake all the old great movies, but update them with lens flare, social justice, and explosions.
Also Hollywood today: Stop being critical of our work. If you don't like it you're just mean, racist, sexist, misogynist, or just uneducated. Consume and shut up.
Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product!
EAT OUR PIG SLOP YOU RACIST TRANSPHOBE
@@evrbody Unfortunately that seems to work most of time. What was the last summer blockbuster that I thoroughly enjoyed...hmm
So you dont want to live in a society that has justice... got it. Hope you enjoy living in Somalia!
Exactly
For all his "failings," Roddenberry was a veteran, and knew the structure of military service. Many of the cast members as well. James Doohan was an infantryman who landed on the beach in France in June 1944. Nimoy was US Army. Many of the cast understood the concept of military service, and acted accordingly. Plus, Roddenberry was a damn decent writer.
Well said sir.
Relevant to all atrocious nu-Star Trek, they also all understood old war movies and how to make bridge scenes good with just dialogue. That's why I was actually excited Quentin Tarantino might direct one--he understands old war movies.
6:40 "rocontour"? Like, what exactly is that, there is actually no translation yet into German on leo. Can someone explain that to me? What does that mean?
I mean, I can already figure, but I want more detail! Sorry for asking this so late on such an old video, it just now occured to me...
raconteur
[ˌräˌkänˈtər]
NOUN
a person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way.
"a colorful raconteur"
synonyms:
storyteller · teller of tales · spinner of yarns · narrator · relater
@@Tree_Dee Ah, thanks a lot! So I guess, TH-cam just spelled that wrong there...
Spock was my hero growing up, and it kills me to see his character bastardized just because writers can't stand that he doesn't experience human emotions. He was always saving the day by calmly dealing with the situation while everyone else lost their shit. That was what was special about him as a character, but, no, we can't have that.
It was also fun knowing that he was more emotional than he let on and Bones ribbing him about it.
*Or at least that he had much, much better control over them then the others
You shouldn't have idols , it's blasphemous.
I hope you learned your lesson. Good day.
@@BoleDaPole Screen name checks out.
And, on the rare occasion Spock did lose his shit, it was dramatic and impactful, because it was so unusual, such a deviation from the norm, not a thing he did everyday. Crying or screaming Spock means something because he doesn't do that normally. It means nothing if that's his default setting. In fact, with modern Spork, it would be far more shocking if he went a day not having a toddler tantrum. We might actually sit up and take notice and go "well what's happening here? What new and different thing has caused this unusual behavior?" But that's not what happens. They have him yell and weep with the expectation that we'll be interested and care, but it's totally unearned because there's nothing to compare it to but his last emotional meltdown.
Original Kirk was raised by his father, and nuKirk was raised by a single mother. There, I said it.
That only makes the plot of these movies misogynistic as well as ill-conceived and trite.
Actually, he had a stepfather.
@@optillian4182 stepparents are either alcoholic losers or pedos so...
@@csehszlovakze don't know you that orphans can't be loved? So half-orphans are infinity loved more.
That's an incredible observation, man. Fathers are IMPORTANT!
11:54 - "It's Forced, It's Dumb, It's Irrelevant..."
Me: Its JJ Abrams....
JJ Abrams: It's free real estate.
Just like that accent...
Eat your heart out Superman
Me: it's a sh1tstorm
And now he has star wars.
JJ is a fraud. Ripped this film from previous better film, then did it again with Star wars EP7 blatantly. And he's still getting work...
He's a hack that has normies fooled into thinking he's talented.
He's rewarded in a way that Nolan should be
For real. All his work is a cheap parody of better filmmakers.
Lol! And people called him the next Spielberg? His only good movies are Super 8 and Mission Impossible 3, and even one of those is criticized as being a rip off of E.T..
@@JoshuaKevinPerry 100%
"Giving the entire sequence all the impact of a left hook from Steven Hawking" this one line has more creative genius in it than the entire script of this god forsaken movie.
"it'd be like reanimating Hitler and asking him to design a new iphone for you...." Hurt myself laughing.
:)))))))))
Brilliant line.
After Steve died, who do you think took over? Also a board member of PG&E.
I think it's pretty evil to design a phone so fragile it breaks if dropped, slows down after a year or so with updates, and costs over $1,000.😡
The man dropped out of art school, so...
As a real life veteran. McCoy being the 3rd part of the trio and arguing with Kirk and Spock made sense. He was the third highest ranking and the chief medical officer. He had the rank to disagree. A LT com officer does not. It throws off the rank structure.
But, but she is getting boned....
It probably helps that they were all seasoned career sailors who I'm assuming did a good job of balancing their friendships with each other with doing their jobs as higher ranked officers. None of this horrible mess of being romantically involved and struggling to focus on the job instead of saving and protecting their lovers. Even in a freaking supermarket spouses/lovers have to report the matter and accept any transfers to other stories or other departments within the same store needed to make sure one is not in charge of the other. These movies completely fail to deal with that requirement. Even if she wasn't overly involved in making choices for the whole crew, she or Spock should have been transferred as soon as the crisis in the first movie was resolved.
the other dynamic was that while lower in rank, McCoy was the medical officer, so in certain circumstances he could override the orders of even the captain.
Modern day Star Trek writers probably simply don't "believe" in rank anymore...
Naa, she needs to be there for "diversity" reasons which obviously trumph rank or logic.
JJ Abrams: “what if there was no plot. But it looked good”
Isn't that his style?
Who'd have thought we could find a woke Michael Bay?
And thus, the "Star Wars" sequels were born.
Paramount: "We're in!"
@@guyfurman2463 So like Michael Bay movies? Or like that but worse?
I remember years ago an interview with George Lucas where he said, “A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.”
It’s a shame JJ Abrams never got that memo.
Well... George mostly forgot that in the prequels. And then Disney forgot it completely in the sequels.
@@Swiftbow You are not wrong.
JJ Abrams dosent give a s&^%, all he cares is dumping on classics and providing ridiculous amount of EFX for an audience made up of teens with a mind spam of only 2 secs.
Now the tools are the ones making these crappy movies...
George forgot that also!
The problem will JJ is not that he steals, but that he can't steal competently...
He's like a pick pocket trying to steal your wallet, but pulls your pants off instead.
Good artists borrow, great artists steal. Bad artists pretend their work is 100% original because they're "CONS!"
@@larryyeadeke7409 Mystery boxers!
He steals the bank, but leaves the money.
@@larryyeadeke7409 Underrated comment
the worse thing about that movie was...they didn't have to shoe horn Khan into it. John Harris as a completely new villain would have sufficed.
It was on a checklist of ideas and characters to ruin.
Still would have been crap.
@@JohnnyZenith but less crap. The needless Khan reveal adds nothing but takes so much away.
Plus, he was nothing like the original Kahn who was Hispanic.
And the cringy denials that he's Khan wen people figured it out months in advance.
You don't need a good story nor great characters when you have... FLAAAAARES !
Lense flares at every angle till they burn out your retinas.
*In Honest Trailer guy voice
With trailer generic rythmic soft rock action movie montage
As E;R once said, the director is the esteemed flairsmith
i didn't notice the poorly written story because of all the lens flares going off or what razorfist would say "LENNSS FLEERRRS!!"
I don't know where this stereotype came from that Kirk was a brash impulsive hothead. I just watched TOS recently and Kirk was NOTHING like that. He was strategic, strict, calculating. I was waiting every episode when this stereotypical Kirk would come out and it never did. The worst thing he did was steal a starship in the movies but aside from that he was pretty much by the book..
Fuck I’ve just seen your name brother looool
Fucking proper made my day 🙂 you should watch admin results last mg vid dude
It’s because Chris Pine is a hyper active man child. It’s the infantilization of all characters. It’s why there’s no real rank structure in these Jar Jar Abraham’s Star Wreck. A society is only as good as the stories they tell.
Just watch Kirk surrendering to the klingons scene on Star Trek VI to see how much of an "impulsive hothead" he is.
It's almost as if the writers never actually watched the original series. It's as if their understanding is based on parody skits they heard about.
"All the impact of a left hook from Stephen Hawking."
I choked on my beer and sprayed my keyboard/monitor.
That's why I had to put a layer of saran wrap on everything.
@@johnmagill9496 Exactly. "Oh, Drinker has uploaded a new video? Cool! Let's see, keyboard wrapped, check. Monitor safe distance away, check. TRY to take only small sips while watching, check."
I've learned to stay away from costly drinks when I watch Drinker videos, but that line still got water all over my monitor and microphone. Took me quite a good pounding to clear my nose.
hail and kill brother
@@AJHTGE "a good pounding"
Oh my! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
The Enterprise crashes more often than vertibirds.
[The Brotherhood of Steel has entered the chat]
"Ad Victoriam!"
[The Brotherhood of Steel has left the chat]
Get those pilots some Fancy Lads Snack Cakes!
@@thee_morpheus & he could wash it down with some Sunset Sarsaparilla!
You'd think Starfleet would revoke Kirk of his captaincy based on how many times they have to do extensive repairs on the vessel. That is a lot of resources they are dumping into one ship.
@@nick0875 Nah, they happily fix his ship, especially considering how many times he's bailed the Federation out from complete annihilation.
Imagine all the "space babies" he's fathered, with all the lonely curvaceous sex starved alien chicas he's met throughout his travels!
"How does it feel to live long enough to see all your favorite franchises go down in flames?"
- Richard from RedLetterMedia
I remember this quote every time Hollywood decides to produce another shitty reboot or sequel of a beloved franchise from the past
Was it Rich that said that? Or was it Mike?
@@davidkeys4284
th-cam.com/video/tsD4im7K3wg/w-d-xo.html
Actually. I’m no longer watching new movies. So I don’t have to see my favorite movies go down in flames.
considering Red Letter Media is part of the cancer encouraging bullshit SJW horseshit and shit canning actually good movies because they didn't bribe RLM enough they can kiss the fattest part of my ass.
@@blakestone75 me to.
A major plot hole that I NEVER see brought up is when the dreadnaught is about to destroy the Enterprise and Scotty shuts down their systems. He's talking to Kirk in the communicator scene who says "we're a little low on power right now" and Scotty replies "What do you mean, 'low on power'? What happened to the Enterprise?"
IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE ENTERPRISE WAS BEING SHOT TO PIECES AND NEARLY DESTROYED, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT MOMENT TO SHUT DOWN THE DREADNAUGHT? HOW DID YOU EVEN KNOW THE ENTERPRISE WAS THERE TO CALL KIRK? WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR LITERALLY ANY OF THIS ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS?
That's a Star Wars Prequel and _beyond_ issue. The story arcs are just made up as they go along and that's why it always feels like somebody puked on Phantom, Clones, and Sith. People say it was made for little kids but to me, there's nothing good for little kids to watch containing multiple decapitations, amputations, younglings lmao being slaughtered, a torso on fire in incredible agony while still alive, betrayal of best friends, yep, a little kid movie all the way. Phantom was the kid movie though. It _had_ an annoying little kid for darth vadar, had even more annoying kids in the little village where his mom was a slave, and then showed a kid actor the rest of the time which destroyed the whole movie. Don't forget the poop and gaseous noises with Jar Jar. They made Star Wars a comedy when before it was anything but that.
Kind of went on a tangent there but really came to say that when young, I saw Wrath of Kahn about a dozen times with my parents at the drive in. The most horrifying thing (I was pretty young..) was the ear bugs. I'd have to turn my head most of the times being too painful to watch, kind of like gore pourin flicks like SAW that came later, where it shows a needle poking into a human eye, etc.
But when spock died, being a huuuuge fan of the original show, I was devastated. Could NOT believe the movie did that with a sacrifice so great to save the entire ship and crew but it seemed proper for him as even at that age, I knew his movie career (as semi old spock) was limited and it was a great way to see him go like that. Watching this NuStar Trek version was mostly unbelievable junk with red herrings tossed in at every point with no resolution. Stuff not even worth remembering as it doesn't tie in with anything significant in the Star Trek movie I recall about Khan that would help explain his origins (what the audience wants even if it's horrible) if that's what the movie was trying to do.
I can't tell. Have watched it 2-3 times and it's so sloppy I still don't understand exactly what's happening. It's also hard to stay awake and focus being stretched out too many ways. NuKirk eating the apple, being too cheerful during wargames, while obviously indicating to others (who shouldn't have needed to say anything about it, they knew, the crew isn't that stupid that something wasn't being cheesed) he'd won by cheating, yet in the show, they acted surprised or shocked even. That's a part that's extremely unrealistic.
Same with them being able to teleport spock as he plummets into pure stone from a million foot free fall dive from the atmosphere: "I've got a lock on!" where they say maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, _trying_ to build mood or suspension, but did I or anyone really think it wouldn't work? No. Plot armor. He can't die in the first 5 mins. Everybody knows that and that's what helps ruin these movies.
I hated Into Darkness as well! They should never have tried to recreate Wrath of Khan.
But they never made these films. They don't bloody exist. They just bloody don't.
Didn't they claim that they weren't going to make it a Wrath of Khan remake?
I actually liked it when I saw it first time, but now I do sort of cringe. BC Khan portrayal is epic ally bad. Some of acting is really not good either as is some the script choices. Not a classic like TWOK.
@DillyDyson007 you nailed it there and I salute you..
Right. You can't improve perfection. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to think you have the right to remake a movie like WOK? It's like trying to remake 2001 or Back to the Future or something. What hubris.
It's amazing how these movies can be both dumb and pretentious.
Pretensions are a basic component of dumb, just like arrogance, that is why you never meet a self aware dumb person.
I'm not clear still if the Torpedoes were just cryo-tubes and they were designed to deliver the super-men to the surface and defrost them and set them loose on the Klingons or if they were designed to EXPLODE cause minor damage and worry the klingons that someone attacked their homeworld and stir up a conflict the make The Federation pivot to a authoritarian section 31 take over of Starfleet. (and also kill the supermen to annoy Khan and get rid of them as a potential problem).
If they are not designed to explode bu just crash with enough left over that the analyse then the Klingons will have fresh Augment DNA to experiment on. Then that is either designed to make the Klingon more dangerous as part of the plan or it's just idiocy to give them that idea.
Human Augments are a combination of skills that puts them above most other alien races on a variety of skills though they are not much stronger than a Vulcan and their hearing is similar, (their vision may even be a little worse than a Vulcanoid & their healing a little worse than a Klingon) ; but they have the generalist boon across all categories - agility, strength, speed, tactical ability, aggression, reaction times all amped up as far as they can go - though they still may be a bit less up the food chain than the supersoldiers we saw on TNG as they had even more abilities.
I do wonder though is the alpha male principle the only thing keeping them in check as otherwise wouldn't they just backstab each other to death very quickly ?
I feel it's a question still under-explored - perhaps we need them to be the antagonist for an entire TV show - but then some would say that show exists it's Andromeda.
@@jamezh2822 Forest Gump. *mic drop*
@@thisismyname3928 who is a fictional character. These movies as a whole are the result of actual minds, or groups of them.
@@waltercomunello121 No.
"That would be like deploying the US Navy to track down a serial killer" Not gonna lie, that would be epic
They did,back in 2001 n 2003. Forgot who it was after tho. But yea,they did do that. Lol
"we've located the suspect in the densely populated down town area of a major city. Finally his spree is over. 10 people is enough. Call in the airstrike boys."
Isn't that what NCIS pretty much is?
Oh my God, the collateral damage...:D It would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
My exact same thoughts XD
You missed a plot hole: when Sherlock is in the Super Enterprise and demands the characters in the regular Enterprise hand his cryogenically frozen friends over, Spock (or someone) calls his bluff, saying "if you blow us up you'll kill your friends!" Sherlock laughs and says he doesn't need to blow them up, he can remote access their life support systems and switch off the oxygen, killing the crew of the Enterprise while leaving his friends in cryo intact, after which he can turn the oxygen back on and recover his friends himself.
....so.....why doesn't he just _do_ that?
If he _can_ do that, why doesn't he? Why is he even wasting time talking to the Enterprise crew? The only remotely plausible explanation would be that he has something resembling a conscience and would prefer to get what he wants without killing the Enterprise crew - but that is immediately debunked because he tries to murder them all in the very next scene.
I remember sitting in the cinema, scowling, trying to figure out why if he _can_ kill them all by turning off the oxygen, he doesn't just _do_ exactly that, before realizing it was just terribly written.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's some nonsensical continuity type stuff regarding _where_ they actually are. They have a chase through warp speed as one ship is trying to make it to Earth. The other ship blasts them out of warp speed before they could make it, but then later on they start crashing down into Earth without going back into warp speed. So.... am I supposed to assume they were blasted out of warp speed right as they were about to arrive at Earth anyway? If so, that means that whole sequence was taking place in Earth's orbit...in which case, why did rest of the Federation at Earth just choose to completely ignore what was going on in their orbit?
The whole movie was nonsensical.
What bothered me is how they find out Khan's blood has magical healing properties. Apparently McCoy just happened to have a dead tribble lying around and decided to inject Khan's blood into it. Why would anyone do such an insane pointless thing in the first place? I have no goddamned idea.
I mean. If you could hire movers to move your 72 super heavy tubes for free, wouldn't you? Why would he want to bother with the hassle of going to the ship himself to get them lol
wow, why even go to see a movie at all if your just going to super over analyze the shit out it, what your talking about won't happen either as it's all fiction /imagination oriented.
@@donhimmelman1736why are you here?
Spot on I thought all this and more
What I really hated is how much these movies sidelined McCoy.
Bones was always my favorite character. This grumpy, old west doctor in space who was also the voice of compassion and morality who butted heads a lot with more clinical and coldly logical Spock.
Spock was the brains, Bones was the heart, Kirk was the soul. And it was SO GOOD that the Star Trek brand is still here to this day.
It's been around so long that the people in charge of it now don't even know what made it good the first place.
And they had Karl Fucking Urban.
He could run away with the show.
And they benched him.
Good Grief
Bones was my favorite too!
@@kendiamond7852so true, he is so underrated
"It would be like reanimating Hitler and asking him to design a new iPhone for you."
I frikkin love this sentence.
He would build the Einphone
@@drivenbyrage5710 The IchPhone
@@AndDiracisHisProphet "Heilo? Heil-o?!" *Checks signal strength* "Si-eg-ri, call Eva." *Waits, looks at phone, shakes head* "It's not an SS!!"
I had to go back because I couldn't hear the next minute of content over my uncontrollable laughter.
Terrible fucking line. Just terrible. Shit writing
A big problem with Hollywood that these remakes expose is that kids are the target audience. Pre 90s blockbuster films were made for adults but kids also liked them. Now they are made for kids and it shows. No depth and smarts to the plots.
The new shows are not geared toward kids. Each incarnation of the Star Trek series has reflected the morals and standards of the age its produced in. The original had a simplistic future Marxist society with people still struggling with their inner demons. The Next Generation featured a more authoritarian society the fully embraced socialism and painted it's main characters as more enlightened. It weaponized the "prime directive" and used it as an excuse to punish societies that hadn't embraced it's own views. The latest series of movies were, in the beginning cynical cash grabs banking on re-imagining the original cast. Shallow but not terribly so. The new series has embraced a very narrow and intolerant view of modern society as a whole and spreads a message of entitlement and moral superiority. I don't quite see that as "made for kids".
@@splinteredworld unfortunately it doesn't help with modern day expectations of instant gratification and readily chewed without intellect. Same with games, everything.. Disgusting.
@@splinteredworld he's talking about the movies, not the series. the movies are shallow, geared towards young demographics with relentless action. i would agree if you say they're pushing an unwanted and unnecessary SJW agenda, but they in no way contain the same level of characterization, originality, and plot they were based on. of course, JJ is the worst offender.
but, your argument doesn't hold much water, imo, as spreading a message of entitlement and moral superiority isn't something that has to be contemplated, it's just there and easily consumable by kids. that said, i rather do agree with your assessment of the ST societies hardly being the utopia they pretend. in particular, when scotty scoffs at our society for still using money, it begs the question how kirk is able to put together a fine collection of artefacts for his apartment. it's fine to say we'll evolve into a society that doesn't rely on money or some form of credit to represent our labour, but without saying how that works i'm going to call bullshit.
a lot of the ST 'utopia' is designed around the idea that we'll outgrown the part of our yin-yang nature that causes violence and negativity. meanwhile, kirk says he *needs* his anger in a movie, and illustrates the importance of that aspect in an TOS episode. to me there's a lot of contradiction in the canon, not to mention these wonderful ideals are fairly dependent on eliminating free thought, action, and individualism. everything is 'for the greater good of society,' and where have we heard that before?
Well said
It's made for Kidults.
The new star trek is like meeting one of your old childhood crushes from school and realising that now, she's horribly warped and almost unrecognizable from the wonderful fantasy person that your mind had shaped for many years. You feel almost traumatised, you wondered what happened and you wish her all the best, knowing you will never see her again.
Close but I'd say it's a completely different person
"Why do these new movies insist on shoehorning Uhura into every possible scene?"
*You know perfectly well why.*
Arroway2357 because as an actor she was one of the biggest names of the cast?
BEWBS!
@@mancamiatipoola Blax
@@aBerlin1945 😂😂😂👌
Black and female. There, I said it.
"What is a cold fusion device?"
It's the miniature sun they created in Spider-Man 2. But, since it has the word "cold" in it, the writers thought it would be a good jargon word for a device that freezes a volcano.
No joke I made a "book" in fourth grade with the same idea (roughly). They must have stolen it from midget little me.
It's also an actual theoretical scientific concept. But as is tradition now in modern star trek, they completely misunderstand even the basics of the idea, and then completely misuse it.
Remember when trek had scientific advisors? Yeah... Not since the reboots...
@@johanwittens7712 I hate it when sci fi concepts always have to use quantum to sound smart.
@@jonathanathor117 Yeah. Well depends on how it's used. If it's applicable, and makes sense, then fine. But just slapping quantum onto something to make it sound "sciency" is stupid.
I actually learned lately that the harmonic reinforcement, the tridium, all that shit from Spidey 2 is actually like, legit in theoretical/experimental fusion technology. I figured it was all made up gobbledygook for years because, it was Spider-man. It didn't really matter. The difference between creative teams who give a shit about their project vs don't.
"It would be like re-animating Hitler, and asking him to design a new iPhone for ya."
Okay, I'm dying here ....
A heil of a hit idea.
Fucking terrible knee slapping attempt at humor. Original ST writing is so much better than Jar Jar Abrams
God forbids he understand 5G.
That really explains Apple.
To be fair to the film (not to JJ Abrams, as he had little-to-no hand in the script), they do address why Marcus used Khan's help. Kirk asks Khan why Marcus would use someone from over 200 years ago to design weapons, and Khan explains that Marcus had all the technology and tech guys he needed, but he also needed someone with a better understanding of warfare to optimize the tech. "He needed a warrior's mind; my mind. He needed my savagery. (Turns to face Spock) You, Spock, can hardly break a rule. How would you be expected to break bone?"
So, to reuse the simile, it's less like asking Hitler to help design an iPhone, and more like telling Hitler how an iPhone works and asking him how to optimize it for killing millions of people.
“Why do these new movies insist on shoehorning Uhura into every possible scene and situation now?”
You know exactly why.
T H E M E S S A G E
Ur racist 🤣 you must hate black people if seeing them in a movie makes you cry that much. Roddenberry made Star Trek because the world was and still is full of ppl like you 🤡
T H E. M E S S A G E
@@mikoto7693 why do you call it the message? Is it cuz ur scared to admit u believe in white supremacy
@@mikoto7693 Indeed. In modern Star Trek, every damn character must be boink-worthy.
Modern movies in a nutshell: "Wow an explosion", "Hey a pretty hot girl", "Cool someone running / jumping / flying". Lets add some lens flares / shaky cam / impatient cuts. Fill the rest with fragments of story and take most of it from nostalgia.
Star Trek: Beyond in a nutshell.
@@WannabeWRX And Picard. Fuck Picard.
It’s because of ADHD culture, and by ADHD culture I mean the practice in films and other media emphasizing fast pacing and flashy action packed scenes every ten minutes. Film makers make movies now to appeal to a practically non-existen audience of mouth breathing morons who can’t pay attention to a movie unless there’s explosions, space ship battles, loud noises, or vibrant sets. They don’t realize that most people over the age of 12 like action sequences, round relatable characters, and a good story arc to be in an equilibrium of sorts.
Shaky cam: that trope made the Bourne sequels almost unwatchable which sucks because I love the Bourne movies but I also don’t want to get motion sick watching a movie
Honestly, that could still be kinda entertaining if done well but it never is. How is it that Phantom Menace has one of the greatest lightsaber duels of all time, while the action in RoS (which came out two decades later) looks like shit?
Yeah, I hate this version of an alternative timeline or whatever. What a waste of Leonard Nimoy
Im glad im not alone in my sadness that Leonard Nimoy was used to "validate" (sorta.. ugh) this shit rebooted timeline. Its BOLLOCKS.
I will say this, Leonard Nimoy gave his all to the end. His performance is way better than the script deserves. All the actors were really let down by the script. I actually think Chris Pine does a decent young Kirk... when he's playing Steve Trevor in Wonder Woman. Here he's a parody of Kirk. I also think Karl Urban could've been a great young McCoy but they gave him nothing to do.
@@ThriftEGaming Karl Urban was virtually channelling Deforest Kelley! Urban needed more to do, much more.
@@mikeb53 You can blame Alex Kurtzman for that one. He didn't understand the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic, as this video shows: th-cam.com/video/zH7oWJV7HOM/w-d-xo.html
Gotta hand it to J.J. Abrams, he's made a good living recycling Phillip K. Dick's alternative timeline schtick into everything he fucking does. Lost, Fringe, Star Trek, everything he touches; over and over, and people still buy it.
Old wrath of khan: Spock beats Khan by stating repair hours will seem like days, uses the prefix code to drop Khan’s shields, recommends entering the nebula will equalize the odds, and repairs the warp drive at great expense. New Spock yells, jumps, and keeps beating Khan in the face.
There's no comparison, ST:2 is my favorite still.
And he only uses ONE hand to do the Vulcan neckpinch on Khan?
And real Trekkie knows he can use BOTH at the same time!
@@DelDuio : The bug that went in your ear and controlled you creeped me out so bad! And they gave you insight into why Khan was Khan, and you could see he wasn't entirely a bad guy. There was nuance. But this was back when they didn't have to make SURE that you KNEW one or more characters was gay or dark-skinned or both.
Plus they could have defrosted one of Khans crew to save Kirk. They could have killed Khan.
@@TwoStageTrigger Supposedly, they blew them all up... except they actually didn't.
Always cracks me up when you refer to actors by better roles they played in other movies, and sticking with it throughout the entire review. You're a legend.
Jim Kirk's one true love was the Enterprise. Every other lady just couldn't compare. That said, Chris Pine COULD have been a passable Kirk but he was failed by his director, scriptwriter, producer, agent, and probably the set's caterer as well. All three of these JJverse films were, as Dr. Clayton Forester once said, a "stinky cinematic suppository".
Yeah Pine's got the gravitas to pull off Kirk, but JJ has the mind of a methhead maniac, couldn't write a 10 pg children's book coherent, let alone a film.
@@JamesRDavenport I totally agree. Art means nothing to a hack like Jar-Jar Abrams. Why they keep throwing $$ at him is beyond me. When I was watching the first of the Abrams Abominations, I wanted to see more of Kirk's dad. THAT was the movie I would pay big bucks to see.
Pine's Kirk was written pathetic. To turn to his crew and say , Im sorry was totally un Shatner.
Problem isn't the actor. Chris Pine is more than enough to put out a decent Kirk, becase have the looks and has talent. He's never gonna be Shatner, let's not forgett Shatner wasn't exactly just a young random actor, he was one of the best young secondary actors Hollywood had to offer before Star Trek begun back in the 60s, but that's not the point. There's no even need to remake Star Trek, because Star Trek hasn't finished. Imagine that, instead of picking a bold, angry and aggresive leader as Sisko as the counterpart for the always civilized calm and diplomatic Picard for DS9 and put him with Kira, Bashir, Jazdia and Odo or people like Garak or Quark, they just made a remake of new generation with Picard being Sisko and Riker the bar's owner. It will have been a shit of epic proportions. Instead, DS9 invented new characters and introduced them into Star Trek, creating something unique that gives even more persoanilty and dimension to the already existing franchise. This is a remake no one asked for. Like the previous movie.
@@JamesRDavenport
If you like people making Fun of Nonsene,
theres an entire Channel about this Concept that C-Drinker did here:
Hbomberguy. Creaky Blinder also.
Many make fun of looneys, ya know, just like Professor Dave and Sci Man Dan do (flat earthers
are prefered Targets and its fun) but if it has to be about Doctor Who specifically,
Jay Exci is right for you.
JJ Abrams is the most overrated director. He’s held up along the likes of Chris Nolan and Ridley Scott but he is essentially a slightly more modern Michael bay that just does sci fi and doesn’t do it that well.
If you don't know this already, you'll be pleased to learn that his last Star Wars film has pretty much ripped off the mask and exposed him to the world as the talentless hack he is. I think he knew it would, as he made damned sure to sigh a big new contract with another company before the film even released. He wanted to lock in enough high dollar work to live off of for the rest of his miserable life because no one will want to hire him again now.
Abrams and kurtzman are the worst things to have happened to Scifi since ed wood.
Jar Jar Arsebandit...
@@darthmeow1370 This is Hollywood, people fail up.
@Isaac Mounce Nolan will give you some thing interesting in a film, whether it's good, bad, or average. He has vision, and passion. I'm not saying he is the best, just that he can make some thing interesting in some way. Now if he had a producer and co writer to help fill in his gabs then you can get some thing more than good.
“That’s like deploying the US Navy to track down a serial killer” brilliant line and so true 😂
Unless its the NCIS.
YEAR111, you mean sending the Navy's internally police instead of the 5th fleet.
To be honest I would like to see that case.
Arguably it's more like deploying the Army to track down a terrorist, E.G. Osama
@@MagickJam Well he gathered all "the starship captains", so it would still be like sending the Navy.
JJ Abrams originally wanted to design roller coasters, but didn't have the patience for engineering, so he settled on making movies where it doesn't matter if the car flies off the track.
Let's strap him to one of his movies!
McCoy: " The film is dead, Jim."
I legitimately lol'd at this. Well done, bro.
"I'm a doctor, not a film maker."
Kirk: Bones - the franchise... is it all right?
Bones: It’s dead, Jim.
They basically wrote Kirk to be like Lightning McQueen from Pixar's "Cars". A cocky narcissist who learns in the movie that making friends and helping others is more important than winning. Except they didn't do that and just had Spock punch a guy for 10 seconds straight instead.
Dosn't trans-warp transporting sort of make starships totally obsolete?
More than that - they would trigger galactic warfare unending. Because if you no longer need ships to invade somebody's planet... everyone would invade everyone else, all the time. There would be literally nothing to stop them, and everyone would be perpetually paranoid about everyone else doing this. Hell, even the old planetary restrictions wouldn't matter - walls? Nope. Doesn't matter. Transport right past them.
In fact, you wouldn't need to invade. Think nuclear weapons are scary? What if someone in a different system, on a different planet, could just... beam nukes into your cities at a moment's notice?
The introduction of interplanetary transporters would turn Star Trek into Warhammer 40k, for there would be only war.
Don't forget they now have blood that can bring back the dead. So not only can you invade planets at a moment's notice but you can revive all your soldiers too.
Only if you also develope a portable Air-Space wepaon system capable of destroying enemy starships in orbit. Starships are not just for transport, duh!
@@sunnyjim1355 Why would you need to? If the enemy parks space ships in orbit around your planet... just transport to their planet.
Just imagine transporting that black hole material from the first movie of this trilogy. Instant black hole anywhere you want.
The key to understanding Star Trek II is the story of Moby Dick. The parallels between Khan's rage and Ahab's determination to kill the object of his hate are palpable.
He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.
Glad you noticed the paraphrase of Moby Dick by Khan "I will chase him round the malestromes ..."
Remember back when Star Trek was about a brighter tomorrow where people solved their problems with words and only resorted to violence if all other options were used up and even then only used to the extent necessary to stop the threat? Remember when captains of the ships were actually captains who gave orders and took personal responsibility for their failures rather than act like total assholes and endanger missions for the sake of personal vendettas? Remember back when there was actual attempts at sticking close to science and the show actually had NASA scientists on set to inform the writers, directors and actors what was and was not scientifically possible or accurate? Remember back when their were little nods to philosophy and relevant satire regarding politics but done in such a way that it was subtle and tasteful? Remember when Starfleet was about exploration, and not a collectivist group of hyper violent, self entitled, borderline psychotic people that resort to violence and attack cultures who seek to remain themselves rather than be part of a collective?
I remember my favorite episode of DS9. The pale moonlight. The one where Sisko and Garrick have to use subterfuge and assassinate a romulan representative in order to frame the dominion and gain Romulan support in the war. I remember the scene where siscko at first attacks Garrick, thinking this act is horrible when he finds out that the senator was killed in a shuttle explosion. Then Garrick reveals that this act, in addition to planted evidence will get the romulans on the federations side and he says that classic line “You got the romulans on your side and all it cost you was one romulan senator and a guilty conscience. I call that quite a bargain”. I remember the end when sisko is making out his log and you see him grappling with his conscience. He keeps repeating the phrase “I can live with it”, almost like he’s rehearsing the phrase. He’s trying so hard to justify it that he is lying to himself and trying to act like he doesn’t care. It’s a powerful scene that shows the price of war and the toll it takes on the commanders. Now compare that to new Trek. I weep for the future of this series.
Beautifully put. This is the element that defined star trek and contrasted it from every other sci-fi. An element totally devoid in modern trek.
I started watching TNG from season 1 and I'm appalled at what Star Trek has turned into over the last 10 years or so. Wonderfully written and acted show by people who gave a shit, and it shows. Stuff like Picard and Discovery are just travesties, complete and total imagination vacuums.
Well put and fuck yes to the pale moonlight. My favourite ds9 episode as well. I quite enjoy the entire dominion war arc.
DS9, particularly the last seasons, was the last Star Trek that dealt with big issues of morality and compromise, of breaking rules for the greater good, but actually asking big questions about what that meant, and if sacrificing everything a free society stood for actually preserved that society. The episode you refer didn't overreach by giving Sisko an answer. It leaves the question unresolved, and, because the writers understood plotting and tension, it carried through to the final episode. But that's when Star Trek was being written by intelligent and thoughtful people, for intelligent and thoughtful people, where there were consequences, and bending one's morals left an unresolved dilemma that gave a character depth and growth.
That assassination was politics. Happens in " peacetime ", as well.
Khan was right to blow up the Enterprise, seeing as their ship's command chairs were not upholstered in rich, Corinthian leather.
I see what you did there.
I see that at least 11 of us have enough age to get that.
AND Kirk stuck him there on Fantasy Island with that annoying little mutant; and that's "ZE PLANE!" truth.
Anything less would be uncivilized
Ha brilliant 👏
In Wrath of Khan, Spock's death was shattering, sad, and unsettling. We had no idea what they would do to bring him back, or even IF they would bring him back. In Into Darkness, when Kirk died, my first thought was "Wonder what lame shyte they'll use to bring him back to life".
Seriously, if you're gonna copy something, at least make it a GOOD copy...
Yeah, and bringing back Spock was a whole new movie. In Darkness it's just some magical blood that brings back the dead, which makes me wonder how Khan can actually die.
@@fischkopp1234 LOL Good point! If his blood is so powerful that it can literally raise the dead (and apparently cure any disease), then how can Khan die? Looking at the movie, death has suddenly become a thing of the past. And let's not forget the replicator. They have a sample of his blood, right? They can now manufacture all they need, so that anytime someone is injured and/or dies, all it requires is a brief moment at the ol' replicator, and he's back on duty in a few minutes!
Ah, what a glorious future the Federation has before it now!
To be fair... though this movie doesn't deserve it... the transporter was used to restore people's original molecular makeup in order to heal or resurrect them at least once in the Animated Series and once in Voyager IIRC. I do think the fact the transporter disassembles and reassembles people's molecules (as said by the characters) creates the possibility for unlimited resurrections, healings, and even clonings and Star Trek doesn't really address this question directly. There are some implied problems with this idea like the fact that transporter patterns degrade over time (which doesn't really work because food replicators can store patterns for years and Scotty was able to hide in a replicator to appear in TNG) or, in the case of healing, there can be viruses that can be missed when decontaminating someone. It can't be that resurrecting someone with the transporter creates a new person with a new consciousness, because if that were the case then the transporter is doing the same thing.
However, even if we aren't given a specific reason why the transporters can't be used to resurrect people indefinitely, that doesn't mean there isn't necessarily a good reason why they haven't. Perhaps consciousness or Katra really is transferred to the recreated body in a transporter, but as soon as the person dies, that consciousness can no longer inhabit a corporeal form, and any attempts to recreate the person end in soulless empty people. Meanwhile, if you invent magic McGuffin blood that can heal people, internal consistency means that the characters would of course try to use this again. The Genesis Wave that resurrected Spock in Star Trek III was the product of unethically-used proto matter which destroyed the Genesis Planet, so we could imagine that it wouldn't be used to resurrect anybody else. (Plus as far as we know non-Vulcans can't store their Katra in other people.) Khan's McGuffin blood doesn't have the same excuse.
@@MajorTomFisher Interesting that you mention things used once and then forgotten. There was an episode of the original series, "Turnabout Intruder", I believe, where a woman used an alien device to switch her "soul" or mind, with Kirk's. Which means that all that would be needed for true immortality would be that device, and one's pattern, from one's younger self. Then, just swap your mind into that new, younger body. And if your proposal that a replicated body is soul-less is true, then it's the perfect solution, and immortality for all is achieved. Couple that with Khan's blood, which clearly heals pretty much any disease/ailment, and no one is ever going to get sick or die, ever again.
AND, if we take technology of the Nomad probe from the OG episode "Changeling", then Starfleet ships could - and should - be vastly more powerful. So there should be an invincible fleet, crewed by immortals.
Damn...sign my ass up!!
I literally laughed out loud at the cinema when Spock shouted "Khhaaaaaan!"
"Impact equal to a left hook from Stephen Hawking" I died
“Lands about as well as a retarded horse on a greased up water slide.” Fucking killed me.
It's Hawking.
@@arctos49 oh sorry! My bad
I spat my food everywhere 😂😂
The only character remotely similar was Karl Urban's Bones and they wrote him into the damn corner. McCoy was my favorite from TOS and I love Karl Urban, so it was pretty irritating to see both the character AND the actor disserviced.
Urban has been getting dunked on by bad scripts until The Boys
D i a b o l i c a l .
exactly! that actor nailed bones! then they didn't use him.
Rohirip!
@@ryanorton2386 What about Lord of the Rings, Judge Dredd? Btw, Boys season 2 is shit.
Star Trek: The Search for Cash.
Yep... Fucking terrible movie.
Yeah, "The search for more money", haha.
Mel Brooks has entered the chat.
Hopefully we will all see each other in Spaceballs 2: The Search For More Money!
This succinctly summarizes how I've felt about Trek since 2008. I've been a hardcore fan of everything Trek since I discovered TOS in reruns in the mid 1970s. I've got all the toys, books, comics, VHS tapes, DVDs… thousands of dollars in memorabilia and merchandise from every iteration of Star Trek. Then in 2008 millennials came in and shat all over it all like they do with everything else, while calling it "better", "modernized", and "for a new audience".
But I digress.
Yeah, soon as you read that "for a new audience" sentence as applied to something cherished and original you know it'll be a polished, bread crumbed massive turd and you have no drink to swallow it down with.
Man, the millenials are the people borned between the 80s and 2000 (sorry for my english)
I don't know where this stereotype came from that Kirk was a brash impulsive hothead. I just watched TOS recently and Kirk was NOTHING like that. He was strategic, strict, calculating. I was waiting every episode when this stereotypical Kirk would come out and it never did. The worst thing he did was steal a starship in the movies but aside from that he was pretty much by the book.
Ricardo Montalbán will be ever the only true Kahn.
There Can Be Only One!
He was also great as Juni and Carmen's Grandad in Spy Kids 3.
@@FUN27UYIRT And Señor Senior Sr.
He made roles his own.
Ricardo Montalbán will ever be the only true Mr. Roarke.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Star Trek movie in which the Enterprise...I dunno, doesn't get completely obliterated?
Ever since Generations it seems to be all they can do; let's keep making a big budget action flick out of a heady, intellectual sci-fi premise. Sigh. I know old Trek probably wouldn't work, but I just wish they had left it alone.
The original Enterprise was elegant, and when it took actual damage in Wrath of Khan it was like a punch in the gut.
There is literally no movie in which the JJ Enterprise is _not_ falling apart with bits flaking off like like it was a junker held together with duct tape and Bondo.
Watch Star Trek II.....
When Kirk committed to the self destruct sequence in Star Trek III... I wanted to puke.
Now? Whatever. I think they make "Enterprise" decals they can slap onto another anonymous ship they're already building.
Dan, the funny thing is that when that happened in previous Trek movies, whether it was the 1701A or D, is that the audience cared about those ships. No one cares if the 1701JJ burns on re-entry.
"I've always known I'll die alone" ---- Captain Kirk, Star Trek V
Little did he know how prophetic those words would be for the franchise as a whole. The entire Star Trek universe will die alone as the fans abandon it in droves :-(
I always wondered why after seeing one of these films I felt a little empty, as if I was hoping for a believable story that would outlast the fantastic CGI and really cool visuals. As if was, one day later, I could barely remember I was at the theatre no matter how nice the movie looked. You can't blame the cast, they can only read the script they're given. It's just not a good script, or story, or plot, or decent use of logic. Besides, I can make better popcorn at home anyway and it only cost me about 50¢ per adult serving. Great review!
I know the feeling man. I haven't watched a movie in cinema for the last 7-8 years. And I'm 24.
@@mayanksharma3651 A couple I know decided to splurge and see the 1st John Wick movie in the theater. The tickets were $20.00 and she said if they got drinks and popcorn it would have been $40.00. That was 2014 I think. The people were talking and it was hot and crowded. That was it for them. You can have a much better experience at home and if you wind up thinking the movie stinks you can stream another without going broke.
Just hearing your talk about and explain how great the originals were makes me want to rewatch all the old movies and the OS.
i still go back watch my favorite TOS movies star treks II and III regularly (kind of consider them parts 1 and 2 of the same story, Genesis). masterpieces that still hold up to this day, even if some of the set pieces and visual effects are a little wonky.
This exactly.
asdf asdf - the 3 movies from Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and Voyage Home are considered the Spock trilogy, as they’re all a continuous storyline, from the death of Spock (II), the rebirth of Spock (III), to the returning of Spock with the crew (IV)
10:03 "They shoehorn Uhura into every scene now... She was never that important in the original movies."
Ah, but she is a black woman in movies in 2019. Her currency is now through the roof.
The men had better get used to it. They are being replaced. Or they could just go Mgtow.
@@rogereisnaugle6012 or just stop consuming crap entertainment. They'll be forced to stop this nonsense in a few years when the well runs dry. The NFL is about to learn this very lesson.
The only time I can remember Uhura being important in the movies was Star trek v on nimbus three
so a black female having more screen time is this threatening to you? lol, okay, you whiny incels.
@Goodfeather Please enlighten me as to what I said that was racist? lol
PLEASE shit on Discovery. My god, the glory days of DS9 are long past
Discovery makes enterprise look ok
Discovery is TV cancer
Its called STD for a reason. ;-)
Von Splatterblast Enterprise is ok. It is Star Trek.
Discovery is a disjointed hot stinking fetid mess.
@mjr2015 Amen to that.
The first battle in Wraith of Khan between the Enterprise and Reliant is probably the best written, directed, acted and scored scene in all of sci fi. I watched a video on that breakdown a few months ago and god the tricks they used to make that scene from awesome to legendary were so simple and subtle.
Oooh, link please?!
Original Spock was not emotional and would definitely never find himself boning Uruha.
I wonder if his dick is pointed too. Let's ask uhura
Yea well if Uhura looked like Zoe Zaldana even Data would get an erection. He is fully functional in all areas you know. Plus the original Spock didnt see his planet destroyed, so in the JJ universe, it makes sense for him to not be as "Vulcan" as Nemoy's Spock.
@@boogienightsmarkwahlberg6011 Original Spock wouldn't have passed on the Vulcan Science Academy over an insult. He would've joined Star Fleet because that's where the important accomplishments were to be achieved.
@@InfernosReaper While I agree that Spock joined in an ilogical manner, in the original series his decision wasnt entirely logical either. Joining the Federation instead of the VSA was not the logical choice. Especially given his family, the logical choice would be to remain on Vulcan. How could he honestly reason that humanity would be the better choice when they are controlled by their emotions. Pure research was conducted on Vulcan.
Spock isnt a robot tho, after all. He actually shows emotions in the series, but catches himself soon after.
@@boogienightsmarkwahlberg6011 Humans may hog the spotlight, but other races are party of the Federation too.
A science academy that barely goes anywhere or takes any real chances is too stagnant to really accomplish anything truly worthwhile in the field of science. Compare that to the humans, who have advanced considerably and continue to advance, despite being how illogical they were.
Truly humanity is a fascinating subject to study, especially while pursuing other scientific study.
Makes sense enough to me.
The entire movie felt like it was made so that someone could shout KHAN.
Yes, I KHAAAN!
No, you KHAAAAAANT.
(Employ cockney accent FTW)
Man, I remember when Spock shouted that. That felt quite awkward like they really couldn't find a place to add, so they forced it instead.
I was wondering as he was screaming that fans would not like this scene.
@@Jogeta5 As a fan, I can tell you, that was when I wanted to walk out. I stayed, cause it was almost over.
@@Jogeta5 it was extremely awkward. I actually felt embarrassment for the movie at that point.
19:16 😫
JJ Abrams - "Transwarp beaming, no other lazy, overrated hack director will ever come up with a stupider way to ruin the internal consistency of a beloved sci-fi film franchise."
Rian Jonson - "Hold my beer."
Like Rian drinks beer.
@@michaelplowman8674 Hold my soy latte
Like other OP technology, if it's balanced out right or the repercussions of such technology was shown, it can work. Remember the Iconian gateways that created the Iconian empire and rogue Jem'Hadar used it to commit terrorism? In those episodes, everyone knew it was a grave threat and that technology HAD to be destroyed. In TNG, Picard blew up the facility and in DS9, Sisko and Weyoun teamed up.
In 09, Scotty says that he tried it on the Admral's beagle and it didn't work, which was the minimum necessary to show that this technology couldn't be used. Unfortunately, that was not explained in Into Darkness, so if I only saw ID, I would think "why can't they all use this transwarp transportation?"
Star Wars is Science Fantasy not science fiction.
@@davidkeys4284 his Statement was about fictional rules not science based rules Aka. The hyperspace bullshit
One of my biggest gripes with the newer Star Treks (and many other shows/movies) is they START with all the characters who just met be best friends. By Khan, Kirk, Spock and McCoy had developed genuine friendships over decades.
Rian Johnson only has a few years left to make a shitty Star Trek movie where William Shatner plays a dour miseryguts parody of James Kirk who says it's time for Starfleet to end.
I think William Shatner would refuse to do so :)
He was only one day from retirement, when he was called back to blow up the enterprise one more time. Living alone in the Nexus on nothing but tribble milk.
And then he shoots himself in the head after projecting a hologram of himself fighting the evil menace after saving all of Starfleet, which is only 10 guys
Don't leave him alone he murdered his wife
@@hadrieliwinters969 what???
I was tolerant of the first Trek film, even though I didn't like it. Once this piece of shit came out, I was livid. As you said, everything about Wrath of Khan works, because it is earned. Khan had a whole episode in the TOS which was good. And Ricardo Montalban returned to the film with a vengeance, making one of the top 10 bad guys in film history. ID was just a typical Jar-Jar production. Take a better movie, rip it apart, and badly reassembly it into some undead, patchwork construct of what it once one, and then declare it better than the original. That's what co-writer Roberto Orci did when he launched into a tirade against fans who hated ID. He basically pulled the Star Wars "you aren't a true fan if you didn't like it" bullshit. Everything about this film was bad, but it was made so much worse, as you point out, because it burrowed from a much better film. Shatner was on point as an aging captain having a post mid-life crisis. Both his acting at Spock's death, and his eulogy at Spock's funeral were outstanding. Nothing this piece of filth did could compare.
I guess they never paid a attention to Mass Effect 1, "A fleet cannot track down a single man".
That's creepy because I thought of the exact same reference...
Well it sort of happened in Afghanistan and then later in Pakistan.
@@mneedes2 Not really, the Drinker's point stands. You wouldn't send the navy, or a navy captain, to do the job of the police or the army... And even marines are still just infantry units.
Don't you also love the race-swapping of Khan? Khan in the original was brown. Specifically Indian. It's hard to tell in Wrath of Khan because the actor's skin had gotten really pale as he aged in real life, but the actor is actually brown and it's even mentioned in the original series that he was an Indian dictator.
For Into Darkness they cast Benedict lilly-white Cumberbatch. This doesn't make sense because the JJ Abrams movies are supposed to be a parallel universe, separated by the differences caused by OG Spock time travelling about 40 years. How can anything caused by OG Spock's presence affect the RACE of a character, especially one that was born and frozen like 200 years prior?
JJ Abram's actually said in an interview - proudly - that they deliberately changed Khan's race from brown to white in order to be more "Progressive." Literally the only time Hollywood race swaps from non-white to white is when the character is a villain. 🤔
In the prequel comic it's said that he got plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Into Darkness expects us to believe one of humanity's most famous dictators was able to show up in the future on Earth (and get a position in Starfleet!) and no one noticed.
@@BiggieTrismegistusTo be fair, if the Century 23 educational system is a result of Century 21's ...it is (sadly) VERY PLAUSIBLE that people will pay SO LITTLE attention to history that Khan COULD pass unnoticed.
It's too bad, cause Cumberbatch played a good villain. He was surprisingly ruthless. He could have been one of the great Star Trek villains...but then they went and tried to make him Khan... ☹️
@@joshuaweston6531Agreed. No problem with Cumberbatch as an actor, and he does indeed play a good villain. Just totally miscast as Khan.
In fairness, Ricardo Montalban was Hispanic (from Mexico, specifically) but your point still holds.
Khan's full name is Khan Noonien Singh. He was of Indian decent.Not that it made sense to cast a Mexican actor as an Indian man, but at least he could almost pass as a light skinned Indian guy, unlike Benedict Cumberbatch, who is the whitest person in this film. It does not make sense for his backstory, not that they gave a fuck about any other aspect of his backstory anyway.
And to be fair, when Khan made his first appearance in TOS... he didn't look quite so obviously Mexican, and his Indian heritage was more prominent in the story.
I thought that was so rich. SJW hollywood always lectures us on diversity and racism, but they get a chance to have a badaas Indian and hes a white guy.
@John Gooch Generally true but I have two words for you: Idris Alba.
Anthony LoGiudice Wesley Snipes in Demolition Man
@@roosterbooster6238 That's pre-woke era and, ironically enough, a satire on the inevitable results of their ideology.
I remember JJ "the franchise destroyer" Abrahams being questioned before the film came out and straight up lying about Sherlock being Kahn. I understand that he couldn't just admit it, but ideally he shouldn't have simply remade Star Trek 2, but worse.
.....cough...cough...the force awakens.
Exactly. Why not bring back any of the myriad other antagonists or storylines that could have been developed, fascinating and just as compelling with other elements? Why choose the only episode previously also continued into a movie? There are SO many elements that could have been used, plausible directions it could have gone. Not even bothering with examples because there's too many to choose from for anyone with a little imagination and creativity and prior knowledge of the characters, stories, arcs and history? Did they absolutely have to completely copy "Star Trek 2" in terms of who was on the cast list and a one paragraph Cliff's Notes breakdown on the plot/breakdown of "The Wrath of Khan" and "Space Seed", if they ever even went that far?
(This next part is sarcasm/what they may have been thinking): I mean, it's the movies, not the show! And there's a lot of shows that are Star Trek shows, that's a lot of research to do! Use the Internet to solve this problem you say? How? That's not what it's used for!! How are you going to do that?
Seriously though, even if you're"remaking/revamping everything" for whatever reason of "originality," put some work in to show a story about how the changed elements enhance the story or make it interesting, and use it to engage fans past, present and future. Don't just change elements to fit trends without considering or successfully filling out a compelling story and reason why, like the original storytelling did. Storytelling is an art, not bullet points.
This is SUCH a great video and everything is so relevant and true. The first video of yours I've ever had and I feel like I've struck gold. Subscribed.
Edit: Adding the sarcasm/thought process clarification and the paragraph about why to make changes.
@@thedeejaeebee5babee JJ doesn't have an original bone in his body. Everything he does is half-baked derivitive drivel for the drooling masses.
This is basically Trek for morons and people too young to have any reference point.
@@badlaamaurukehu "This is basically Trek for morons "
So IOW, Star Trek. Except Abrams actually make it watchable.
How do you destroy a franchise that ended with Nemesis?
You make a very good point about McCoy being the moral counterpart to Spocks pragmatism. Isn't it telling that as Star Trek went modern, it is that element that got replaced with Uhura?
damn... Kirstie Alley looked stunning in that movie. Awwwww rip to Leonard Nimoy and Kirstie 😢
She was an excellent Vulcan..but then she asked for more 💰 to do the sequel.
*Reads title* “Star Trek: Into Darkness was a terrible mov…”
*LIKED*
“F*** OFF FILM!” Lol gets me every time
What is that brief sequence with the fart from? I can't figure it out.
@@matthewblack7206 lol that’s a good one. “Not another Teen Movie” 😂
Old Trek: Organic synthesis of different characters who melded into a strong crew because they rallied behind their common mission, and their differences became the Enterprise's collective strength.
New Trek: Contrived diversity of characters who all seem the same because they couldn't give a shit about their common mission, and the Enterprise's crew is a derivative mish-mash of selfish, egotistical twats that makes it a wonder the Enterprise survives leaving space dock.
Live long, and fester, JJ Abrams.
It's Jar Jar Abrams
Both comments deserve more likes
Different characters = mostly white dudes and one or none whites.
I actually enjoyed 'Into Darkness' at the theater, largely because my girlfriend had managed to stay ignorant regarding the identity of the antagonist. When Cumberbatch said his overblown "Khaaaaan..." she just had the biggest smile on her face. As much as Drinker is completely correct about that atrocity of a Trek movie, we still had a lot of fun.
'Beyond' was awful. It didn't even have the decency to be somewhat entertaining. When the Beastie boys music saved the day and "Kirk" is riding a motorcycle around in circles, I realized what little interest I still had in the Abramsverse had just been murdered.
Star Trek: Into Reference
Karl Urban is the best thing about these movies.
He is an excellent McCoy!
Hopefully with how successful The Boys on Amazon is, Karl Urban will finally start getting his due. The man is a great actor and one of the only redeeming things about this JJ mess.
@James Merkle oh I know man. That Dredd movie was SO good. How many male Hollywood leads would actually go a whole movie never showing their face, cause it fit the character? I've always heard Urban wanted to do a sequel too, such a shame.
I to, frequent @RedLetterMedia.Com
@Hitler Dindunuffinrong Karl Urban's chin gave a better performance in Dredd than Chris Pine manages in all 3 of these Shit Trek films.
To be fair, Scotty seemed like the only one questioning this convoluted murder mission
Lol...he quit because he was anti torpedo or something. That guy shouldn't be an officer on a Starship.
@@denroy3 No, he had responsibility for any tech or weapons loaded into the cargo bays. He was asked to sign for them, with his f*cking actual signature or biometrics, without checking them or knowing what was inside.
I've signed for literally lorryloads of goods over my working life.
I would never have signed without knowing what the goods were, and whether they presented any hazards to my colleagues handling them.
Scotty knew his job ("all weapons visually accounted for" - STVI) and was perfectly entitled to refuse to put his name down as accepting the load - that put him potentially responsible for any injuries, damage or deaths resulting from their presence on board.
@@Neil070The disgusting thing is Scotty would have called up to Kirk and said they're not letting me look at these weapons and Kirk would have backed Scotty up with the exact same response.
I'm responsible for this ship and crew, you're not bringing that on my ship unless my engineer gives his approval.
And that gives us a perfect and authentic to the character reason for demoting Kirk.
that "Kahn" line delivery so insanely bad.
The fact that Khan has a "the rest of his name" doesn't help. It's like if you had taken a dude who was secretly Hitler prisoner and he revealed that his name isn't "Sum Gai" but "Adolph" as if that's gonna really tell us who he actually is.
It's kind of... in the tone of the movie and the story they were telling. RE - telling, eash. Which is a story about Spock and his complex relationship with having feelings for his contemporaries. It might not compare with the dignity of the story told about quarter of a century before, but this was a modern telling for a modern audience. An audience less sophisticated and with a shorter attention span. And shallow. And Narcissistic. And a bunch of snowflakes
Maybe
Yeah, is not intimidating or it doesn't get any emotion at all.
@@markiv7867 that's not true! Atleast it gave me a good laugh like some cartoonish villain.😂
@@vvcreative2628 Yeah, that's the best it can cause laughter.
Watched Wrath of Khan yesterday. After one of the space battles, Scotty shows up on the bridge holding a dead body, and you don't need dialogue to tell you what's going on in the minds of the bridge crew. The dead crewmember wasn't a main character, his face is too charred to tell who he is, but he's dead. He's dead and he's not coming back.
My favorite part is that the scream in Wrath of Khan was actually a decoy to trick Khan so that Khan wouldn't be aware that Kirk had planned all along to be rescued by a ship Khan wasn't aware of.
Yeah. It bothers me that, to this day, there are people that still point at that scene as Shatner being a bad actor. When in fact it was actually Kirk that was deliberately overacting for Khan's benefit. Still, I bet those people love the new Trek for its... simplicity.
There will be only One Kahn: RICARDO MONTALBAN.
@Old Corps Marine -- "de plane, de plane..."
BURIED ALIVE, BURIED ALIVE...
That fake chest plate in the movie though 😂 I will never understand it.
Yeah cummmberpatch should stick being Sherlock
For the record, I like Cumberbatch as an actor... but his casting as KHAN made about as much sense as casting a black woman to play Abraham Lincoln or Adolf Hitler...
Later! OL J R :)
Has all the impact like a left hook off Steven Hawkins.. brilliant...
fing A
I was looking for your comment. Damn, that line had me laughing !
@@real5609 RANDOM Question cause Randomness makes life spicey:
Do you know Sci Man Dan?
Oversimplified?
Hbomberguy?
Bluejay?
Or a round house kick from Christopher Reeves.
@@Master_Yoda1990 *Reeve.
He probably could have done that, pre 1995
I fucking love coming back to your Star Trek videos. I’ve never gotten into the Star Trek franchise but hearing you talk about the old movies is an an art form in an of itself. You just describe everything so beautifully and I love it.
Say it with me. J.J. Can’t write good Science Fiction!
*Edited by The Storm*
J.J. can’t write
DragonRealms JJ sucks generally speaking
Agreed
"JJ can't write". There, I fixed it for you.
The Storm hahahaha! I’m adding that
Ready for Episode IX yet? can't wait!!! :/
Karl Urban was good casting for McCoy.
@Cataclysmic Dildoser yeah, I think they good have done something more like the the original series w/ th eyoung trio instead of aping the more accomplished movie. Actors were good but damn poor story.
@@rds4629 Agreed. I didn't have a problem with the castings. The story however has been typical Hollywood fashion of mucking up classics.
Agreed. I don't think the problem was ever with the casting. Just the piss poor writing and rehashing and directing.
He is way better as Judge Dredd
@@dvhh Damn it, Jim. I'm a Judge not a doctor.
Hang on - the torpedoes would have obliterated a sizeable chunk of the surface of a planet, but when they go off inside a starship... they damage it a bit?
They have to be ARMED.
They lied about the destructive capability of those particular torpedoes.
Lol in all Star Trek weapons do very low damege as visual effects.
I feel like the torpedos would have completely destroyed that dreadnought
You know, the OG Kirk in the original story line grew up with his own father and mother at his side. I am guessing that would've helped create a more stable, less rebellious Kirk like the one we saw in 2009. Just a thought.
As I just now posted on your "Star Trek Beyond" review:
"I was surfing channels tonight and happened to come upon--on AMC Cable, I believe--the first 'Star Trek' with Chris Pine as Kirk. It was just about to start, and a politically-correct warning flashed up on the TV that, along with other drivel, said that the movie contained stereotypes and depictions that were inconsistent with modern standards of tolerance and other 'values.' It was like seeing a satire of wokeness on screen, except that it was painfully real."
Hell is other people.
Wait, that’s real? Oh man.
If I see shit like that in any movie intro, I'd pirate that movie just to skip past the bullshit wokeness.
WTF is this planet coming to? 🤦🏼♂️
Wow... I don't think I've ever seen that on amc and here I thought they only did that with games (but in reverse to pat themselves on the back)
Don't watch the channel if you're so triggered by a trigger warning.
Brilliant. Perfect. You’ve nailed it completely. You make me understand why I always go back to my classic movies to unwind and enjoy what used to be adult and considered movie making. The analogy is modern audio mastering - brick-walling with no dynamic range - a constant explosion which is neither enjoyable nor satisfying and totally fatiguing. These Star Trek movies are just that - one big explosion. Great videos, love your channel and thanks.
@Beyonder But then why so many references? Who do they think are going, "Oh, I recognize that"?
@@Selrisitai To satisfy fans on a surface level
Dude, it's a JJ Abrams movie. You're not supposed to think about it. You're supposed to look at the pretty lights and hand over your money.
You are the problem.
@@thisismyname3928 and you're r/wooooshed I guess...
@@irislore69 Go back to knowyourmeme.
@@thisismyname3928 people who make jokes are the problem? Okay *l i b e r a l*
@@fulldisclosureiamamonster2786 stop trying to turn things political you *a n m o n.*
10:30 The scene where O'Hurra and Spock fought on their way to a planet because she was being a professional victim instead of a professional whatever rank she's supposed to be, was the worst. They also dramatized Spock "I felt feely feels, therefore I made the professional decision to kill the feels." She spent the whole time being a "woe is me" girlfriend character that I didn't know her name until you said it here.
*Uhura :)
@@sanna9062 Did she ever get promoted above lieutenant?
@@indy_go_blue6048 In the Undiscovered Country she's a Lieutenant Commander. In some of the novels (which I'm not sure if they're canon) she becomes the most senior admiral in Starfleet.
The worst thing about NuTrek is its complete misunderstanding of Spock, a character so simple, you can explain him in two words: "no emotions". Now, other characters in the 3 Abramsverse films SAY that Spock has no emotions, but can you point to a single scene where he doesn't? Spock is the most emotional character on the crew! It's like every single scene wants to prove that THIS is the occasion when things are REALLY serious, because even SPOCK is emotional.
Okay, in reality, the original character was more complex than that; his human half means he does have emotions, but he's spent a lifetime learning to suppress them, and 99% of the time, his reaction to every situation and comment from humans is not the smug, barely-masked contempt Zachary Quinto injects into the scenes where Spock isn't freaking out and assaulting people. The Vulcan neck pinch was invented because it was utterly unthinkable for Leonard Nimoy to punch someone in the face like Quinto does in the finale of Into Darkness. He was so emotionless, that on the rare occasions when he showed just a slight touch of warmth or concern, it had weight. Leonard Nimoy played Spock with a detached, centered calm that imagined what it would be like for humans to interact with a truly alien being. NuTrek thinks of Spock's emotionlessness as a kind of repression that he just needs a little therapy to work out so he can be happy.
This is not true. Spock is a stoic, but does have emotions. Vulcans are in fact so emotional they have no choice but to suppress these emotions heavily. Spock is also half human.
@@FlorisDVijfde Except we never see Original Spock's emotions, or rather very rarely, and on very special occasions, so it has punch. NuSpock is a whiny baby throwing tantrums all the time. What a bore.
@@FlorisDVijfde I think the point is not whether or not Spock has emotions... we all agree that he does. The point is how he interacts with them. How he FEELS about emotions. Originally, Spock was locked into a position of trying to be 'as good as' Vulcans who had trained all their lives to put their emotions off to one side. Showing an emotion was something close to soiling yourself in public. Utterly humiliating. Vulcans looked down on humans because they seemed to be in a position of not even being ABLE to avoid soiling themselves constantly, and worse, were often quite proud of it. Original Spock was more understanding of the excesses of humans, but he never really WANTED to partake of them. The idea of him yelling at someone or throwing a fist in anger would be moritfying.
In Nu Trek, though Spock seems to go through the act of being emotionless the subtext is that he will never succeed because 'that's not who he really is'. He's barely in control and slips rather regularly, and when he does he's not less powerful but MORE so. And while in the first movie he considers himself completely unfit for duty on this basis, this is never true again. It's just a thing he does. Worse, he engages in romances with humans; where before he was trying hard to be Vulcan, now he doesn't seem to care much at all. It is a very different character.
@@HerculesBallsInc Perhaps the difference is, despite the little puns that are thrown Spock;s way and McCoy who keeps trolling him, his stoicism is respected in TOS and seen as a power where NuTrek wrongly treats it as suppressing disorder, matching with our current emo zeitgeist. The only excuse they can make is we're witnessing a younger, less wise Spock. Barely out of his teens where Vulcan emotions explode through the roof.
It's probably to promote the mindset of the new culture: Roleplay discipline while it doesn't require any effort.
Yeah. I remember watching JJ's first Star Trek years ago. I thought this film was going to get me into the Star Trek franchise. It didn't work
Same here. The older movies hold up way better to scrutiny than the current iterations. I recommend watching the old ones
The first one was all right. Not really proper Star Trek, sure, but it was entertaining enough. This one, however, was a far cry even from being amusing.
@@Dragonrealms245 shouldn't I watch the tv series first to better understand the characters and the lore?
The last thing you’d want is for reboots/remakes to be responsible for making you a fan of something that existed before.
@@Megatron_95 The original series doesn't hold up nearly as well as the movies, and most episodes don't add anything significant to the lore. So maybe watch a few of the fan-favorite episodes (they have all been remastered in HD), especially "Space Seed", then the Movies.
I always thought of Spock and Mckoy as as the extreme sides of Kirk's personality. They served as a devil and angel on his shoulders.
Much like Kirk in the S-1 STO story "The Enemy Within."
Nah. Spock represents a logical extreme while McKoy represents an emotional extreme. The devil and angel concept is about helping oneself vs helping others.
Star Trek 2009 was fun to watch, although I can completely understand why it alienated much of its original fan base. But you gotta give Karl Urban a MOUNTAIN of Credit for his spot-on portrayal of Dr. Bones