|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Sept 9, 2018 0:25:00 GMT
I suspect that I am in the Minority on this one but I honestly think that Ricardo Montalban should have gotten a Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nomination for His Performance in " STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN". He was So Freaking Awesome and Amazing in it!  What does everybody else here think ? |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Sept 9, 2018 0:52:54 GMT
He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 9, 2018 0:59:18 GMT
He's good, but I don't know if I'd give him an Oscar nomination/win for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Sept 9, 2018 1:13:49 GMT
It sure was one hell of a performance. That whole movie was well acted though. Shatner himself has never given a finer performance than he did there (and I say that as someone who loves the guy).
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Sept 9, 2018 1:22:24 GMT
He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up! |
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL on Sept 9, 2018 1:29:26 GMT
How would you compare and contrast Montalban's repeat performance as Khan in 1982's Khan with his first performance as Khan in the 1966 Star Trek episode Space Seed?
Was the movie Khan a logical progression of the TV Khan, in terms of story, production, acting, and the different eras in which each was made?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigwhiskey on Sept 9, 2018 1:32:09 GMT
How would you compare and contrast Montalban's repeat performance as Khan in 1982's Khan with his first performance as Khan in the 1966 Star Trek episode Space Seed? Was the movie Khan a logical progression of the TV Khan, in terms of story, production, acting, and the different eras in which each was made? I remember my hilariously disabled father, deformed like a pretzel, comically wedged in his wheelchair of deserved penance. Myself, and another legend who's name I can't remember, throw him down some stairs - his campy, brain-dead, mongoloid laughter forever staying with me. |
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL on Sept 9, 2018 1:37:18 GMT
Fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Sept 9, 2018 5:01:19 GMT
What does everybody else here think ?
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 9, 2018 5:08:26 GMT
I know I'm in the minority, but I thought Christopher Plummer's Klingon bad guy in Star Trek VI was way better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 5:13:32 GMT
He should have been nominated. But they rarely nominate SF films for acting. That's been pretty consistent over the years. I doubt anyone can remember the one who won it or the others nominated. People will remember Montalban's Khan forever. That's the bigger prize.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 9, 2018 5:39:51 GMT
He should have been nominated. But they rarely nominate SF films for acting. That's been pretty consistent over the years. I doubt anyone can remember the one who won it or the others nominated. People will remember Montalban's Khan forever. That's the bigger prize. Louis Gossett Jr. won and I know that off hand. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 9, 2018 5:44:56 GMT
He gives a good performance and he probably deserved a nomination over a couple of the actual nominees that year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 5:49:46 GMT
He should have been nominated. But they rarely nominate SF films for acting. That's been pretty consistent over the years. I doubt anyone can remember the one who won it or the others nominated. People will remember Montalban's Khan forever. That's the bigger prize. Louis Gossett Jr. won and I know that off hand. Impressive! |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 9, 2018 5:54:41 GMT
Louis Gossett Jr. won and I know that off hand. Impressive! I actually like his performance in "An Officer and a Gentleman" quite a bit and have no problem with him winning the Oscar. My personal win is Rutger Hauer for Blade Runner. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Sept 9, 2018 6:41:51 GMT
I know I'm in the minority, but I thought Christopher Plummer's Klingon bad guy in Star Trek VI was way better. Oh, Christopher Plummer was Freaking AWESOME in " STAR TREK VI". His character "General Chang" in that Movie just also happens to be My own Number 1 Favorite " STAR TREK" Movie Main Villain. |
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL on Sept 9, 2018 18:53:32 GMT
For me personally, my favorite is Christopher Lloyd's Klingon Commander Kruge (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock).
He is the most generous, compassionate, understanding, and kind of all the Star Trek movie villains.
"I give two minutes, for you and your gallant crew."
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 10, 2018 0:54:28 GMT
I think Kirk was too old fuddy duddy in the movie. It was only a couple of years removed from TMP and yet he was now acting like an old man. How did he go from wrestling command from Dekker to that? Too much Romulan ale?
Montalban was pretty close to the Space Seed character but deranged. In the original he was basically playing a Sikh Hitler (Sikhs supported Third Reich).
I think they dumbed down the Kirk Khan relationship too much--the original relationship was more interesting.
Khan blames Kirk for being stranded on the planet but it goes against how the character was depicted in the episode.
He was expecting hardship. That's why he references John Milton at the end.
It's amazing how illiterate culture has become compared to the 60s actually. Kirk could reference Milton and no one bats an eye.
These days if asked by Khan if he knows Milton, Fake Kirk would reply, "Sure do! I love Uncle Milty!"
"Save your strength captain. These men and women swore to live or die at my command 200 years before you were born."
"Allow me to introduce you to Ceti Alpha 5's only remaining indigenous lifeform..You see their young enter through the eaaars, and rub themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to.... suggestion. Later as they grooow, follows madness, and death. These are just pets of course, not quite domesticated."
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL on Sept 10, 2018 4:42:39 GMT
I think Kirk was too old fuddy duddy in the movie. It was only a couple of years removed from TMP and yet he was now acting like an old man. How did he go from wrestling command from Dekker to that? Too much Romulan ale? Montalban was pretty close to the Space Seed character but deranged. In the original he was basically playing a Sikh Hitler (Sikhs supported Third Reich). I think they dumbed down the Kirk Khan relationship too much--the original relationship was more interesting. Khan blames Kirk for being stranded on the planet but it goes against how the character was depicted in the episode. He was expecting hardship. That's why he references John Milton at the end. It's amazing how illiterate culture has become compared to the 60s actually. Kirk could reference Milton and no one bats an eye. These days if asked by Khan if he knows Milton, Fake Kirk would reply, "Sure do! I love Uncle Milty!" "Save your strength captain. These men and women swore to live or die at my command 200 years before you were born." "Allow me to introduce you to Ceti Alpha 5's only remaining indigenous lifeform..You see their young enter through the eaaars, and rub themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to.... suggestion. Later as they grooow, follows madness, and death. These are just pets of course, not quite domesticated." "I think Kirk was too old fuddy duddy in the movie. It was only a couple of years removed from TMP and yet he was now acting like an old man. How did he go from wrestling command from Dekker to that? Too much Romulan ale?" Actually, The Motion Picture is set two to three years after the original five-year mission, and The Wrath of Khan (and all subsequent Star Trek movies prior to 2009) is set in real time in relation to the original series/original five-year mission, with Khan specifically being set fifteen years after Kirk and Khan's first encounter, the same span of time in real life between the Space Seed episode and the Khan film. These time references are mentioned in dialogue in each film ("Two-and-a-half years behind a desk may have made me a little stale, but I wouldn't exactly consider myself untried."; "There's a man I haven't seen in fifteen years who's trying to kill me, and you show me a son who'd be happy to help him."). Approximately one decade has passed in story time between The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan, with comics, novels, and general fan and official consensus establishing that a second five-year mission commenced immediately after the events of The Motion Picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 10, 2018 4:56:05 GMT
Actually, The Motion Picture is set two to three years after the original five-year mission, Oh a retcon.
I find that hard to believe since Bones has a beard and acts like he hasn't seen Kirk in ages "I hear Chapel's an MD now" while Spock was off on his spiritual thingamajig. Why would Kirk tell Scotty "I might be a little stale but I wouldn't consider myself untried."
It is clear from the film that after five years the Enterprise either had another 5 year mission without Kirk (from 1970-75) and then the refit for the TMP in 79 (2-3 years redesigning and refitting the Enterprise).
|
|
