Uploaded December 2016 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
VISIT THE WEBSITE ► cultpopture.com
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK ► goo.gl/9EFEIa
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER ► goo.gl/tuixnW
FIND US ON ITUNES ► goo.gl/7VuQ6L
FOLLOW US ON SOUNDCLOUD ► goo.gl/YGC7oK
EMAIL US AT ► cultpopturemedia@gmail.com
Films used in this episode:
Star Trek Into Darkness, 2013, dir. J.J. Abrams
Spectre, 2015, dir. Sam Mendes
From Russia with Love, 1963, dir. Terence Young
You Only Live Twice, 1967, dir. Lewis Gilbert
Both “Star Trek Into Darkness” and “Spectre” are franchise films which pull from decades worth of source material, and both reveal their villain’s true identity to be a classic bad guy part way through.
In both cases, critics responded poorly to these revelations, but I'd like to make a case that if you're gonna use a character in your film whose relevance is more for fan service than organic storytelling, then “Into Darkness” did it better.
Khan’s reveal happens about a third of the way into the movie, and is followed by a reasonably succinct explanation on who exactly Khan is, so even if you know nothing about Star Trek or it's history, you're able to understand and appreciate Khan as a villain all the same.
Blofeld’s reveal in “Spectre” means nothing to those with no knowledge of Bond movies. His role in the story is just another villain, so knowing his real name doesn't do anything other than arguably tarnish the iconic characters legacy
“Spectre” tries to retroactively say Blofeld has been pulling strings since Casino Royale, but it holds no water. The original Blofeld is established 3 films before you even see his face in the Connery movies.
Both Khan and Blofeld’s inclusions in their respective films are fan service, no doubt about that, but at the very least Khan still felt relevant and served the plot.
CULT POPCORN! 60 second video essays which focus on film, television and any other type of media we consume and devour handfuls at a time.
All external media in this video is used for educational purposes
VISIT THE WEBSITE ► cultpopture.com
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK ► goo.gl/9EFEIa
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER ► goo.gl/tuixnW
FIND US ON ITUNES ► goo.gl/7VuQ6L
FOLLOW US ON SOUNDCLOUD ► goo.gl/YGC7oK
EMAIL US AT ► cultpopturemedia@gmail.com
Films used in this episode:
Star Trek Into Darkness, 2013, dir. J.J. Abrams
Spectre, 2015, dir. Sam Mendes
From Russia with Love, 1963, dir. Terence Young
You Only Live Twice, 1967, dir. Lewis Gilbert
Both “Star Trek Into Darkness” and “Spectre” are franchise films which pull from decades worth of source material, and both reveal their villain’s true identity to be a classic bad guy part way through.
In both cases, critics responded poorly to these revelations, but I'd like to make a case that if you're gonna use a character in your film whose relevance is more for fan service than organic storytelling, then “Into Darkness” did it better.
Khan’s reveal happens about a third of the way into the movie, and is followed by a reasonably succinct explanation on who exactly Khan is, so even if you know nothing about Star Trek or it's history, you're able to understand and appreciate Khan as a villain all the same.
Blofeld’s reveal in “Spectre” means nothing to those with no knowledge of Bond movies. His role in the story is just another villain, so knowing his real name doesn't do anything other than arguably tarnish the iconic characters legacy
“Spectre” tries to retroactively say Blofeld has been pulling strings since Casino Royale, but it holds no water. The original Blofeld is established 3 films before you even see his face in the Connery movies.
Both Khan and Blofeld’s inclusions in their respective films are fan service, no doubt about that, but at the very least Khan still felt relevant and served the plot.
CULT POPCORN! 60 second video essays which focus on film, television and any other type of media we consume and devour handfuls at a time.
All external media in this video is used for educational purposes
