The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
movie: star trek: into darkness
children of dune - leto 1
seperis
These are gonna be the shortest thoughts on Star Trek ever, mostly because I have cramps, though you may not know this, Star Trek can fix those for like, the entirety of the movie. I shall add this to my ibuprofen and water daily. Possibly hourly.



I understand why a POC terrorist superman would be a terrible idea. Which this could have been fixed really easily; use the correct version of fucking Khan, and problem fucking solved.

The biggest problem with this movie has nothing to do with the actual movie itself. If you're a very casual or even new viewer of Star Trek, you will seriously love this. If you watched all of TOS, TNG, Voyager, most of DS9, and every movie ever (except the post-First Contact TNG, of course)--to say, if you are me--you stopped short and realize exactly why Abrams says he's not a fan.

See, this wasn't Khan. It should have been, but it wasn't, because you see, Khan was a superman with delusions of grandeur, but if you know your TOS--Abrams, you know google, right?--you'd know we handled this part when Khan was young and foolish and crazy. Kirk did, I mean. Khan got a girlfriend, discovered the power of love, and settled down with his people on a distant planet to live in peace, because the message was if you talk enough--and you are Jim Kirk and made of magic and ponies--you can do this (this is a very short summary of what actuallly happened, I'm bending a lot here). He came back actively insane for revenge on James Kirk because death blah blah blah. And for like, five minutes, I almost thought that half-way through it was going to go that way; Khan would take his people and go be at peace until he went crazy--crazier and came back for revenge. I get we don't have the TV show format, but you have to have seen the potential for how this could have been a set up for a later movie to bite Kirk in the ass, right? Come on. Everyone would have sat up straight waiting for the inevitable betrayal in a couple of movies. Because we all love when your good deeds come back to fuck you over.

We could have gotten Khan's race right because Khan actually had right on his side--except for Pike, you fucker--so hello, not a random ass terrorist, this would have been a huge Starfleet betrays its own movie--I love that, I eat up fighting for ideals like you have no idea--and we could have had the awesome of Khan really getting his shit on in personal goddamn revenge later. And it would have been epic. And nothing of the actual primary plot would have been sacrificed.

But no, we had to try and do it all at once.

Two--the entire downgrade for Kirk was the stupidest and pointless thing ever. It had no bearing on the movie whatsoever. It had no point whatsoever. It was random and I guess to show Pike and Kirk together, but it did nothing since we all assume Pike is Kirk's father figure and this did nothing.

Three--that was the stupidest use of the Prime Directive ever. And yes, Spock did throw Kirk under a bus, and they had to make him stupid to do it and not know it. Spock is not stupid. Spock exiles people to frozen planets, takes control of random starships to send Pike to live out his life in a paradise on another planet, and indulges in mentally compromising people with a grasp of sophistry that's charming in its ruthlessness. And they made Spock--SPOCK WHO MIND RAPED VALERIS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GODDAMN BRIDGE ONCE UPON A TIME--be completely shocked and bewildered how writing WE SERIOUSLY BROKE THE PRIME DIRECTIVE IN ALL THESE WAYS LET ME TELL YOU HOW could lead to tragedy. Dude, can he count to ten or does he need his fingers? Spock is honest, but he's practical.





Okay, I had general thoughts, and now I have very specific.

If this was about Kirk's bad decisions, then they have to give me slightly more than 'saved a civilization who just invented the wheel'. Yes, their development will now include thinking of wild leviathan starships in their oceans that can occasionally fly. The Prime Directive was built to avoid hurting their development, to avoid the horrors of colonization, to assure that no civilization assumed they knew what was best for another; it was not meant to watch them be destroyed by something they did not do to themselves because their development into extinction is a better idea. If they'd been a more advanced civilization with teh ability to grasp what they'd seen in the correct context, yes, this would have been a problem. If this was a nuclear war they'd caused, this would be a problem. But this is mythology for them.

If they dream of the stars earlier, if they stare into their skies and wonder what else lingers beyond it, if they look into infinity and their hearts believe that something's looking back, waiting for them, if as a people this is something that drives them, that they work toward--this is what people are. To say their extinction is preferable to the hopes and dreams of what could be, the unexplored potential of something not yet even begun--that's not Starfleet or the Federation, that's not ideals, that's fucking genocide.

What Jim and Spock and Uhura and Sulu and McCoy did for that planet was not just a right act, but one fundamental to the nature of sentient beings; compassion and empathy and the need to help, the drive to do just that when given the chance, to risk all in pursuit of life and its potential in all its forms. To do less would make them less than what they are; to do nothing would render the Federation's promise of freedom meaningless. They're what the Federation, what Starfleet, should be, ideals brought into practice, not meaninglessly parrotted in abstract.

Compare and contrast with Admiral Marcus, who is all that the Federation isn't and shouldn't be; warlike and colonialist, expedience over justice, power unchecked--Spock might say: I object to intellect without discipline, power without constructive purpose. Frank Herbert would say: power attracts the corruptible.

Kirk's bad decisions seem to include the following:
1.) Saving a planet from extinction as well as his first officer.
2.) Volunteering to bring Khan to justice and getting an admiral's orders to do it.
3.) Not wanting to kill him without a trial.
4.) Not wanting to let Marcus kill him without a trial.

I'd almost say allying with Khan was a bad idea, but I'm not sure how to reconcile this with "better to die in space for no reason" and let Marcus cause a galaxy wide Federation war with the Klingons. I'm willing to say that the risk here was kind of worth it. The other being galaxy wide war with billions of deaths and no guarantee of winning and morally, I'd have to hope they'd lose because the Federation started a fucking illegal war for kicks and I don't know about anyone else, but if this wasn't almost a pre-Mirror Universe scenario, I don't know what is.



This was not a bad movie, it was just not a movie for hardcore fans who kind of thought the entire Khan arc was awesome.



1.) Uhura and Spock -- still together! Like, with fights. Like people! I wasn't sure how Trek would handle it--or even if they'd bother--but dude, it wasn't just a random thing; it was a part of the tertiary plot and pressures going on in their lives.

2.) Uhura nailing Spock to the wall about not caring about his life in that ship and dragging Kirk in, since he didn't realize that he's part of one of the most adorable threesomes in history. If you rewatch the movie with the understanding that they're all sleeping together but Kirk's still fighting the idea he's in a committed relationship with them, everyone's behavior suddenly makes a lot more sense. And Spock's intensely hostile reaction to Carol Marcus is fucking hilarious. Not to mention Uhura waiting until she's got them both in an isolated area to bang this shit out, since she's kinda tired of everyone meditating or being busy when they're supposed to be communicating.

I do actually like how they're friends; Spock and Kirk, and Uhura and Kirk (I love this), and I think the reboot series needs these kind of strong relationships, not just as bridge crew, but because of Spock and Kirk's friendship and not making this into a very idiotic competition between Uhura and Kirk over Spock--adult relationships, who saw that coming. And I think honestly that of everyone in their lives, Uhura needs someone like Jim who knows Spock as well as she does, because other than sex, their issues with Spock's relationships with them are gonna have huge overlap, and since they aren't children or teenagers, they can turn to each other for help or support both as two of his primary relationships as well as officers.

In the turbolift, I didn't get the impression from Uhura that Kirk's knee-jerk question about her relationship was intrusive but not a good time when they were both acting as officers, and I also got the impression she did want to talk to Jim about it but was still working on it in her head herself. The scene in the ship later confirmed it; Spock, you pissed me off and this is why, and the Captain is upset, too. Which I'm inclined to think, from that, that she had at that point talked to Jim already and thrashed it out.

(Not being an idiot, she didn't warn him that his presence was mandatory during the Spock Intervention later; she's a communications officer. She knows what not to communicate.)

3.) Uhura getting her Klingon on. Hell, yes. Actually, Uhura in this movie did a lot to reconcile me to the screwing of the Khan characterization. And it was about her abilities that were needed--speaking Klingon, knowing Klingon culture--and their necessity.

4.) Spock running to Engineering when Scott called. That was amazing. I'm surprised he didn't walk through walls to get there.

5.) Spock's reaction to Carol Marcus. And like the good, ruthless Spock he is, researched the fuck out of her because reasons. Totally not about anything but doing his job. That would be getting her ass off his ship and his captain--er, the ship.

6.) Spock beating the hell out of Khan. I will say this for their Khan--he was kind of really asking for that, and Cumberbatch totally made me want to punch him with a fork forever. That was very cathartic. Uhura standing there coolly phasering his ass was also deeply gratifying, with a look on her face suggesting she'd happily do that forever with her goddamn boot, which again, cathartic.

I know how a lot of people feel about the use of Kirk and Spock in that iconic scene--yeah, ti was a cheat--but here's what did work about it for me:

1.) Kirk saying he was afraid, and the way Spock looked like he wanted to chew through that glass to get to him.

2.) Spock crying. Jesus, that hurt.

3.) Uhura crying. That hit me out of nowhere.



I may have more thoughts later. Mostly, I'm working into what I did like, which actually does outnumber what I don't on the strength of how much I do like how there is a surprising amount of personal character development going on

Posted at Dreamwidth: http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/976461.html. | You can reply here or there. | comment count unavailable comments

  • 1
On casting Khan, I have to wonder if Abrams intentionally cast Cumberbatch because he didn't look anything like Khan Prime. The script was so hush, hush, that casting too close to the original would have given it away from the get go.

I think there were multiple reasons, and that one was probably a big one. And that Cumberbatch can expressionlessly project how inferior everyone is to him without even trying. *g*

Two--the entire downgrade for Kirk was the stupidest and pointless thing ever. It had no bearing on the movie whatsoever. It had no point whatsoever. It was random and I guess to show Pike and Kirk together, but it did nothing since we all assume Pike is Kirk's father figure and this did nothing.

The first ten minutes actually gave me hope that this was going to be the movie I wanted to see, because STXI Kirk is in no way ready for command and his so-called greatness is all tell and no show. (Stripping people of their self-control in full view of their subordinates, 'for their own good'? Pull the other one.) He deserves to get kicked, and I was actually impressed for a second there, thinking Pike's hasty decision was going to be challenged. But by the end of this movie, all is forgotten, because once again the logical fallacy 'willingness to sacrifice self = wise and good leader' trumps all.

Like in the first movie, the universe contorts itself to fit Kirk, while Kirk remains the same adolescent he was at the beginning. He's learned nothing. Drives me. up. a. wall. If that's Starfleet-style enlightenment, I want no part in it. Bring on the Klingons.

I know you're ST all the way, but to someone with only a casual acquaintance with the original series, these movies are a complete turn-off.

YMMV, of course.

My problem isn't in the interpretation of whether or Jim is ready for the chair; whether he is or not, that particular reason to do it doesn't mesh with most Star Trek canon on the Prime Directive. There are a lot, lot, lot of ways--I can think of ten that work with how I see Kirk and probably with how you see him--that would have achieved the same aim, made it both sympathetic to Kirk but understandable to the audience. They chose to do one that unless you are both a very strict Trekkie and take a super strict take on the Prime Directive--in which case, they'd loathe most of TOS--makes the Federation look either mindbendingly stupid or breathtakingly callous. And makes Kirk being a rule-breaker not a character flaw that should be tempered, but a character trait required to avoid becoming a sociopath. And worse, they did absolutely nothing with it, it had no continuity with any other choice bad or good he made, and it seemed only to exist because they were worried after four years, the audience needed to slam the Pike and Kirk relationship in our faces really hard so we'd react appropriately to his death. I don't even know what part I find more annoying; that they did it badly, or that it existed just to add cheap emotional drama.

I agree with your comment. I was so enraged by Abrams using the Prime Directive not because Kirk violated it (hardly a new thing) but because Kirk seemed so *clueless* about the consequences. It was all a set-up to knock him down a peg when he really didn't need to be, if the narrative had simply treated the saving of that planet with a bit more gravitas and Jim hadn't called it "no big deal". The movie did absolutely nothing with that so-called demotion--it added nothing to the debate of the PD or the philosophy behind the Federation, except to show the brass as rule-bound hardasses.

I don't even know what part I find more annoying; that they did it badly, or that it existed just to add cheap emotional drama.

The former, for me. I can live with being emotionally manipulated, because of course they're going to up the angst quotient if they can. But if they aren't going to do it well, then they should have left well enough alone. If Kirk was going to violate the Prime Directive and suffer for his choice, the least Abrams could have done was write it properly.

ETA: Also, I was enraged about the PD because of the racism. I mean, if the point was to show a planet in jeopardy, fine, but there are a million ways to do that without resorting to blatantly racist visuals.

Edited at 2013-06-10 03:00 am (UTC)

it added nothing to the debate of the PD or the philosophy behind the Federation, except to show the brass as rule-bound hardasses.

Pretty much this. They managed, however, to make a convincing argument of how the PD is terrible and evil with this one, though.

ETA: Also, I was enraged about the PD because of the racism. I mean, if the point was to show a planet in jeopardy, fine, but there are a million ways to do that without resorting to blatantly racist visuals.

I agree with you, but now I'm curious how you think it should haev been handled. I've been thinking on this actually, and trying to work out how I'd do it--or rather, how I'd avoid it. Then again, gah.

Ooh, an open-ended question! Excuse me while I blab at you. :D

I wanted to comment on what you said in your post: Yes, their development will now include thinking of wild leviathan starships in their oceans that can occasionally fly. [...] If they'd been a more advanced civilization with teh ability to grasp what they'd seen in the correct context, yes, this would have been a problem. [...] But this is mythology for them.

As recently as the 19th century, we've got the Bahá'í Faith and Mormonism emerging as new-ish religions. I'm no expert so forgive me if I mangle this, but they are new in the sense that they are distinct, yet built on the foundation of older religions. Joseph Smith discovered the golden plates in 1823, which is NOT that long ago, historically. What if those plates had been a dropped tricorder? Or Jesus had been transported up from his tomb and resuscitated? I don't think we can say that interfering with the religious beliefs of a people in their stone/bronze/whatever age is any better or worse than interfering with them in their industrial age. I mean, it only makes a difference insofar as, if they start a religious war, whether they blow themselves up with bombs or only do relatively little damage with spears.

And if that's the case, then why not have a budding Enlightenment era city on a hill? Or, if you want to go back in time, a city that's equivalent to Pompeii? Again, I'm no expert, but Wikipedia says Pompeii had ~20,000. And a city that close to the ocean, close to shipping lanes and ports, could easily have some racial diversity, right?

Really, I would take anything in place of Jim "What These People Need Is a Honky" Kirk stealing a religious icon in order to get painted tribesmen chasing after him and chucking spears and then bowing down to images in the dirt. At least Jim didn't get the sexy native girl.

Sorry, I forgot to come back and comment on this and say YES THIS.

I don't think we can say that interfering with the religious beliefs of a people in their stone/bronze/whatever age is any better or worse than interfering with them in their industrial age. I mean, it only makes a difference insofar as, if they start a religious war, whether they blow themselves up with bombs or only do relatively little damage with spears.

For me, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's 'better' if the underpinning logic of the Star Trek universe is that all hominid sentient civilizations have a similar development curve, especially if we assume--and why not--that they only interacted with a small portion of the entire population and this is, for all intents and purposes, almost before the recorded age of mythology if they're only at the wheel and written language. They're a single isolated population on this planet that may have many groups. Saying this could screw with their development is kind of like saying that a spaceship appearing pre-Pharaoic Egypt to a group of living on the Nile was going to have a huge cultural effect on the early European tribes when they meet a thousand years later. While sure, it could happen, they don't even have context for spaceships; they're about as affected by this as seeing a distant supernova or a comet.

Whereas yeah, when they build roads and trade across the planet and interact much more--and learn about fission--I see the point. The danger is the civilization having just enough context on what they're seeing but not the--forgive the word I'm using here--maturity as a species or people to deal with it.

Really, I would take anything in place of Jim "What These People Need Is a Honky" Kirk stealing a religious icon in order to get painted tribesmen chasing after him and chucking spears and then bowing down to images in the dirt

I seriously hated that--for those reasons--and for the fact there was absolutely no explanation of what the hell was going on or why they were in the temple at all when Spock was doing his volcano thing. The thing is, either way it came off wrong, but it seems somehow worse they threw it in as "Look at Primitive People Run After Kirk For Their Silly Scrolls"! I mean, it wouldn't have been better to explain why, don't get me wrong, but it was equally insulting, just in a different way, that it came without context of any kind and left us with Hilarious Primitive People instead of even giving them a modicum of anything.

My twin sister and I were born 1959, so we grew up with the original characters. We didn`t like the movie and I couldn`t define what it was that made me feel uneasy about it but you nailed the flaws beautiful. Thank you very much for writing your thoughts down.

You're welcome!

It's a lot easier to watch the movie without any previosu or very little Trek knowledge.

There was a brief moment during the movie when I thought Khan might stay on the side of good, but the movie instead went for another fight with more and bigger explosions.

but if this wasn't almost a pre-Mirror Universe scenario, I don't know what is.

I hadn't thought about that, but you're completely right.

Marcus creeped me the hell out more than Khan did. I mean, Khan was already crazypants, but he didn't have an entire Federation of planets and superships behind him (though an argument could be made he didn't need one). The movie actually saying that Marcus was trying to militarize Starfleet--and wanted a war with the Klingons--is an interesting juxtaposition, because chicken-egg; did he want to militarize because of the Klingons, or were the Klingons an excuse to militarize Starfleet? I'm actually thinking the latter, since Marcus's argument is Kirk can't kill him because who will lead them to glory? Dude, not a good argument. He wants to be Alexander the Great, get a holodeck like a sane person.

I was (interestingly) impressed with Kirk's moral stance on Khan once they had him. I didn't expect him to do that quite so blatantly.

Well, ethnicity aside this is a Khan that did come back crazy-crazier and out for revenge. But he was after Adm. Marcus and not Kirk. This is a Khan that had been seperated from his 'family' and basically inslaved for years by the Admiral. One of them was gonna end up dead no matter what.

I got the impression that Adm. Marcus was one of if not the major architect behind this more paranoid and more militarized version Starfleet.

Nero crash landing in the past upset a whole bunch of apple carts in the TOS verse.

Kirk grew up with a stepfather he clearly rebelled against while his mother was off planet much of the time. He was not ready to be given command of a ship. But because he saved the planet & more importantly since most of their ships & crews were destroyed by Nero at Vulcan, Starfleet had captian chairs to fill and a lack of candidates. And part of his riase captianancy probably also was about giving the public a poster boy hero to look up to.

But by the time the events in ITD happen Starfleet has been able to promote enough qualified officers and enough time has passed that after one more in what seemed to be a long list of reg violations of the regulations, demoting Kirk wasn't going to create a public relations bruhaha (though I got the impression Pike was more upset about Kirk lying to him than the actual infraction).

When Khan shot up and killed most of the senior command staff & their 1st officers (and after Kirk & crew saved the planet one more time) there was again a lack qualified candidates and a need for a public 'hero'.

Nero crash landing in the past upset a whole bunch of apple carts in the TOS verse.

That's exactly how I saw it, and it would have been a much stronger movie had it embraced this narrative of a civilization careening off course after a major security incident, using these rebooted Kirk and Spock to drive the point home. Instead they sweep the consequences (of everything) under the rug and make it look like they stumbled upon a cool storyline by accident (which I'm pretty sure they did): The political exploitation of 'heroism', whereby the hero's own hubris is the very tool the PTB use to keep the masses subservient. A triumph of conservatism. I'll wait for the fic.

Well, ethnicity aside this is a Khan that did come back crazy-crazier and out for revenge. But he was after Adm. Marcus and not Kirk. This is a Khan that had been seperated from his 'family' and basically inslaved for years by the Admiral. One of them was gonna end up dead no matter what.

Yea, that's the Trek person in me. Khan was Kirk's enemy for a very specific reason and the vendetta against Kirk was personal; it's what made him dangerous. It had no freeze-dried crew prupose; this was pure and crazy revenge for the death of his wife, and he didn't actually care if he survived provided he killed Kirk because he felt Kirk--who had let him go and gave him a planet to settle on--had betrayed him.

So that's why for me, it was fundamentally a problem. This is an iconic character with an iconic, bigger than life personality and an iconic archenemy. This reduced him to a petty terrorist given five minutes of backstory and interchangeable with any other generic Trek enemy, and he was never that.


Having used Nero blaming old Spock for his wife, child and planet's death last movie imo blocked them using Khan's motivation from WoK - but then IMO reusing Khan was a bad idea.

The thing is, and I use this term loosely--Khan was semi-redeemed in the episode as accepting the exile as a challenge. He also wasn't evil in any sense of the word, but ambitious, driven, and certain of his own superiority, but part of the charm of Khan was he wasn't evil and dangerously charismatic because of that (benevolent tyrant).

Khan here was enslaved, blackmailed, and threatened with the death of all his people by Marcus, and using him to expose Marcus and then having an equivalent of Kirk somehow coming to an understanding with Khan and his people and leaving them on a planet somewhere safe from being enslaved by Starfleet would have been a very, very cool way to emphasize the schism in the upper echelons of Starfleet in regard to militarization versus peaceful exploration and the five-year mission at the end would be kind of the confirmation of the choice to be explorers. Instead, we're immediately distracted with DOUBLE CROSS!Khan so we dont' get the full benefit of that theme of choosing to be peaceful explorers, choosing to be better.

...I could go on about this all day. It's just--so frustratin to see waht could be.

As always, U write fuckingawesome meta!!

I also enjoyed Prime Directive very much, and agree with your thoughts re the PD. TNG's approach really creeped me the fuck out. Especially pen pals because, ew.


i always want the obvious creepy child star to die, it's a flaw, but it's mine.

I enjoyed the movie more than not, and still don't have a problem with Cumberbatch's skin colour, because really and truly, there are Sikhs of *all* kinds of colours including white with red hair. I didn't like Spock's tears because I thought he already srsly converyed it with his face, much as LN always did -- the tear for me was an Abrams Unnecessary(tm) touch.

I did like how this Khan was more human, more understandable, not quite so over the fucking top. I liked TWOK's Khan too, though -- very limber, that's me XDDD

anywhoo -- thanks for yet another awesome thinky post!! I *always* enjoy these, no matter whether I agree or not, you always make me think about *why*, and that is AWESOMESAUCE!!!

*doffs his hat*

*sends hugs* I do wish they'd done more with Khan. And he was sympathetic, and dude, the crying thing? EVERYONE CRIED. It was hilarious! Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Khan, Carol Marcus. Just...hilarious.

yeah, went and saw it again today and yer right!! *everyone* cries at least once. holy fucking emo, batman!!

ah, well. ya can tell, ol JJ didna get much when he was a lad, amirite? XDDD

it's funny too -- already saw it twice and didn't notice teh waterworks until today. so much lols at that. I know what JJ was trying to do, writingwise -- but to me it's just silly.

still, it is fun to watch. Happy 'splodey fun times!!

Boat drinks!

Greywolf, grinning

You've written a masterful summary of my reasons for giving STID A- instead of A+
I agree that Khan was off from TOS although BC plays the new version so well I was willing to overlook it even after my first viewing. The second time I realised that nuKhan didn't act directly against Kirk until after Scotty stunned him without obvious provocation, and he only aimed the Nemesis at Star Fleet HQ after Spock had apparently blown up his crew as well as crippling his ship. IMO although he probably meant to turn on the Enterprise crew all along that's not certain.
wrt the PD I agree with you, I've seen a surprising (to me) number of posts on the ST forums on the lines of omg Kirk broke the PD!

IMO although he probably meant to turn on the Enterprise crew all along that's not certain.

That's the biggest problem with how they set this up. There's no way that Kirk can ally with Khan without him coming out looking stupid. IE, if he hadn't stunned Khan on teh bridge, if he'd immediately turned on them right then, Kirk woudl look mindbogglingly stupid not to see that coming. However, shooting him first works only if you're a trekkie who already knows Khan will betray them, but from outside, you have no idea waht the hell.

wrt the PD I agree with you, I've seen a surprising (to me) number of posts on the ST forums on the lines of omg Kirk broke the PD!

I swear to God that drives me nuts. PD is a guideline and it should adn did have obvious exceptions. The movie was a textbook case of a viable exception, depressingly enough. TNG did no one any favors in making the PD an iron rule but all its test cases for that were either obvious obvious obvious or there were secondary reasons to enforce it. I mean, it's insane.

I'm with you, on pretty much everything.

While a lot of people see the iconic scene at the end as a cheat, I choose to read it a little differently. I saw Spock's rage and sorrow not over what he already had with Kirk but over what he sudden realized he COULD have had with Kirk. I saw it as his sorrow over his loss of possibility, which is different than what we saw in Wrath of Khan.

I don't know- I felt like Abrams was trying to manipulate me, and that kind of pissed me off, but as a log time manipulator of texts myself, I worked with it and came up with my own interpretation that I felt more, ahem, comfortable with.

(edited b/c I had "chest" instead of "cheat", which means you can tell that I recently watched Wrath of Khan and have Khan's magnificent chest on the brain...)

Edited at 2013-06-14 01:38 am (UTC)

I saw it as his sorrow over his loss of possibility, which is different than what we saw in Wrath of Khan.

Yes, this. It works not as losing something you had had for years, but the beginnings of what is already becoming an epic friendship.

(I will add this: Uhura's presence in this helped me a lot on interpretation; I am a huge fan of the Kirk and Uhura friendship, and her reaction honestly brought that scene together.)

(Also, it totally caters to my attraction to Kirk/Spock/Uhura, which is carried over to the pursuit of Khan. I could watch Uhura phasering him forever, probably muttering "And this is for making Spock cry, and this is for making me cry, and this is for killing my captain". I also have vague fantasies of Uhura and Spock taking Jim to Iowa to recover and work on their relationship after. Because I am that kind of a girl.)

the only thing that interests me is, did the movie inspire you to write some more fic :D?

  • 1
?

Log in