The Wormhole wrote:
The Stig wrote:
[These little bon-mots are fun, but hardly representative of the actual process. Orci and Kurtzman wanted Khan from the very beginning and I've never seen them in a suit.
Please, the "actual process" is even worse, what with them creating the new character John Harrison and then turning him into Khan because "it's what everyone wanted." Seriously, they went through the process of creating and developing a new character and then abandoned him. That says loads about what to expect from them.
So you knew that what you said about 'the suits' was incorrect and said it anyway, just to be a curmudgeon? Fair enough.
And if you actually paid attention to the process, Orci and Kurtzman developed the story first to ensure that, in their mind, it worked as a standalone. They wanted to have a film that didn't depend on Khan as a crutch. It's fair game to debate on whether or not they pulled it off, but none of your comments jibe with the facts and smack entirely of trolling for effect.
I'm sorry, what? What relevant current day topics does STID touch upon? The movie pays lip service to terrorism, but not in any kind of profound or thought-provoking way.
In actuality, it was the first Trek film to successfully marry a relevant current-day topic to a thrilling action-adventure story.
touched on these in far more detail than I would have. The back and forth between Kirk and Spock on the morality of drone attacks felt exactly like classic Trek: a little too earnest and on the nose but not without some value.
I'll never stop marvelling at the sainthood fans bestow on old Trek, as if it was some towering moral treatise that spoke truth to power. STiD had more going on upstairs than most action-adventure fare at the movies last year. The same could be said for TOS. Neither were particularly courageous or affecting, but it's nice to know they tried.
Some say that, of all the souls he has encountered in his travels, his was the most human.
know is, we've lost a legend.
Goodbye Leonard Nimoy.