I don't think too many people have said that, but what's some hyperbole when trying to win a point.
2160s or 2390s or?
- Thread starter Tarek71
- Start date
I don't think too many people have said that, but what's some hyperbole when trying to win a point.
I think the idea was to reboot TOS, and create an open ended future with different personal destinies for the characters.
A Federation, an Earth, a Vulcan and a crew that cannot be plausibly threatened didnt interest them dramatically, I think.
A bit like saying that you can blow up a planet, as long as it's a planet of Red Shirts that no ones cares about or has ever heard of. At the very least I can understand why they didn't want to do that.
There really seems to me to be more dramatic tension in not knowing the future and necessarily more options for storytelling. You can, for the movies, or even for JJverse fan fic, have anything happen for these characters and this Federation.
It certainly does not betray a hatred of Trek or a lack of understanding about storytelling. On the contrary, it greatly aids the storytelling.
Everything you mention can still be done. We can still have many new stories about new or fleshed out species AND new destinies for the characters and for the Federation.
Last edited:
Nah it means people spent money to see it and liked it.
When it comes to "philosophy" Star Trek has always played in the shallow end of the pool.
Starborn Dragon
Captain
I've always wanted to see the Daedalus in action myself.
I would too, but not if it's a ball and three tubes.
You do understand that adding an emoticon after every single post you make in an effort to pretend that you're making a joke when you're really not isn't fooling anyone, don't you?
As have I. And I think an Daedalus Class Enterprise with occasional interaction with Admiral Archer, and others would be very interesting.
I dont mind the sphere, but the rest needs work. But I think the design could work with significant updating.
Balance is good, sure. Sure, but I would just point out that there's a world of difference between these three:
1. "not a fan" (never seen it).
2. "not a fan" (saw it but was indifferent).
3. "not a fan" (saw it and actively didn't like it).
Harve Bennett was vaguely aware of Trek but hadn't seen it (1), whereas Abrams had seen it and actively didn't like it (3), specifically that it was "too philosophical". Though both could be describes as "not a fan".
Harve took what was there and went in a slightly different direction. TWOK was more militaristic, brought in an old villain for a revenge plot, kept the relationships and characters, had a strong positive message, some talk of philosophy... because he was "not a fan" (never seen it).
Abrams took what was there and threw it away. 2009 rejected the core message, tore out the philosophy, destroyed the characters, blew up the homeworld of the poster child in Trek for philosophy, had a strong negative message... because he was "not a fan" (saw it and actively didn't like it).
Sorry, keep forgetting that the quality of art is based solely on how much money it makes. So since 50 Shades of Grey sold more copies than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it is objectively a better book.
Thanks for reminding me.
There is no evidence that he hated Star Trek while making these movies , let alone that anything in the plot or characterizations was motivated by this supposed "hate".
It might have been ballsier to blow up Earth, but I dont see any hidden anti-philosophy message any more than blowing up Romulus was an anti-militaristic message.
At some point, in all the incarnations of Trek, the day is not saved. At least not without cost. No reset button saves the planet. It was OK in prime trek for V'Ger, the planet killer, the Borg or Dominion to destroy other worlds, but not precious Vulcan or Earth. Red Shirts and Red shirt planets, but no one and nothing that's sacred.
I might not have blown up Vulcan, but I get it. I get the power of the sort of deaths you have in Game of Thrones, where producers and authors have balls and kill main characters or locations.
I am not expecting that level of main character killing in JJTtek, but I get saying that THIS time, it wasn't a Red Shirt planet. And no, there is no magic reset button.
That doesnt destroy any core message of Trek.
It might have been ballsier to blow up Earth, but I dont see any hidden anti-philosophy message any more than blowing up Romulus was an anti-militaristic message.
At some point, in all the incarnations of Trek, the day is not saved. At least not without cost. No reset button saves the planet. It was OK in prime trek for V'Ger, the planet killer, the Borg or Dominion to destroy other worlds, but not precious Vulcan or Earth. Red Shirts and Red shirt planets, but no one and nothing that's sacred.
I might not have blown up Vulcan, but I get it. I get the power of the sort of deaths you have in Game of Thrones, where producers and authors have balls and kill main characters or locations.
I am not expecting that level of main character killing in JJTtek, but I get saying that THIS time, it wasn't a Red Shirt planet. And no, there is no magic reset button.
That doesnt destroy any core message of Trek.
He found TMP boring so he went to the source (TOS) and mined that for inspiration.
We must have seen different films. What philosophy was torn out? The film I saw was about people realizing their potential. Rising to a challenge and meeting it. Finding their first, best destiny. Seems very positive to me.
Losing his homeworld hardy makes Spock less of a "poster child". Though I don't see how he's the poster child for the philosophy of Trek as he's almost militantly Vulcan and loves to needle humans for their emotions. When he cracks and acts on instinct and emotion he's quick to deny it. Kirk is more of the poster child in my opinion. He's the guy who does most of the talking about brotherhood, equality and other high minded ideas. And shows those in judgement that it's more than just talk.
Not sure which characters were destroyed. Well Amanda was killed, but that's not the same thing. If any thing the lesser lights actually got development. especially Uhura. I'd like to see Sulu get more in the next film though. The others are intact and on the journey to become the characters we know.
What's the negative message again? I'm still missing it.
Nothing that happened in the film came of of Abrams not liking Star Trek as a child. As I said others in the writing team were fans and they probably shaped the story more than Abrams. Orci and Kurztman were hired as writers before Abrams. He wasn't working as an auteur here.
Where did any one say that? Why is it when some one mentions success, someone else acts like they mentioned "quality" or "art"? The film made money. The critics liked it. The audience liked it. The folks who put up the money were pleased. That's success. Art and quality are subjective so not something the studio looks at when gaging success.
Must have. Because I watched Pike invite a high-IQ criminal Kirk into Starfleet Academy on the basis of his dead father doing something cool 20-some years prior. Three years in, Kirk cheated on a test and was about to be kicked out of Starfleet Academy for academic dishonesty. But thanks to a perfectly timed invasion, he was only put on suspension. Bones injected Kirk so he could sneak him on board the Enterprise. Once the drug wore off, Kirk insinuated himself into the situation. For no discernible reason, Pike then promoted the third-year academically suspended Kirk to acting First Officer above all the other cadets... and this bit is relevant... above all the other actually graduated and experienced officers on board the Enterprise. Pike made Spock the acting captain, then left the ship. After Spock failed to save his planet and his mother, Kirk emotionally manipulated a near-genocide survivor--who had also just watched his own mother die--into attacking him so he could gain command of the ship. So really, at no point till the absolute end of the film did Kirk do anything to earn the chair. And then, it was only because he had an imbecile for a mentor and was more than willing to emotionally manipulate a colleague who'd just lost both his home planet and his mother (right in front of him no less).
And what was the big, bold, only one man in the whole of the universe, "you're a wizard, Harry", kind of staggeringly brilliant plan did Kirk have? "Um... let's take the fight to him." GENIUS! No one else in the whole of the universe could have possible thought of that. But whatever, destiny... or something.
So I guess things like friendship, hard work, teamwork, finding a balance between logic and emotion... yeah, none of that matters. It's all about fulfilling your destiny by any means necessary. Which is basically what Spock Prime told nuKirk.
Sorry, but just because Kirk Prime was an amazing captain does not in any way translate to nuKirk being a good captain. You know, all those life experiences... and actual experience as an officer that made Kirk Prime good... that nu-Dude completely lacked. But hey... destiny, I guess.
Exactly. The interplay between Spock, Kirk, and McCoy in TOS can be summed up in three words. Logic, Bridge, Emotion. Bridge here meaning a bridge between logic and emotion. When McCoy's not around the dynamic shifts to Kirk being emotion, whilst Spock remains logic. The problems the crew faced in TOS were almost always solved by some combination of Spock's logic, McCoy's emotion or compassion, and Kirk's ability to bridge those two, his emotion when McCoy wasn't around, or a nice hammer fist.
That reason, logic, self-control, discipline are all good things is part of the message and philosophy. Optimism for the future. That the species will move beyond its pettiness.
The overarching message, the philosophy, working together, teamwork, that we need both logic and emotion, and a good hammer fist... Abrams discarded that for destiny, duck face, do anything to get what you want, and hammer fists.
Kirk and Spock.
Kirk I talked about above, but Spock? Well, in two films in a row now we've had a screaming, overly emotional Spock pounding on things. I wouldn't take bets on whether they go for the trifecta or not. All the logic and science and reason and self-control is basically a punchline for a screaming Spock now.
Star Trek was a good movie. I'm years past wanting to back it up with much more than that, but on occasion I still see the direction these threads inevitably end up taking and feel compelled to reiterate it.
I also think Into Darkness is a good movie, but that's a tougher sell no matter where on the 'net I choose to 'scape. Poor Into Darkness.
Sometimes it feels like the Abramsverse has been received about as well as the ending to Mass Effect 3. These moments are brief, however, for I then ask a bunch of far more casual fans I've met to repeat their opinions on the Abramsverse films, and they remind me that they rather dig them indeed. As a fan myself, it is reassuring, because goodness, TrekBBS sure knows how to make me feel like it is absolutely nothing short of terrible.
And, well, I don't think they are.
I also think Into Darkness is a good movie, but that's a tougher sell no matter where on the 'net I choose to 'scape. Poor Into Darkness.
Sometimes it feels like the Abramsverse has been received about as well as the ending to Mass Effect 3. These moments are brief, however, for I then ask a bunch of far more casual fans I've met to repeat their opinions on the Abramsverse films, and they remind me that they rather dig them indeed. As a fan myself, it is reassuring, because goodness, TrekBBS sure knows how to make me feel like it is absolutely nothing short of terrible.
And, well, I don't think they are.
A Star Trek 3.0? This soon? I have ZERO interest in that. It's about as appealing to me as the Spiderman, Hulk, and Fantastic 4 reboots (all of which sucked or will suck, IMHO), and would probably turn out about as well. And really, for people who tout how successful NuTrek is to already be calling for a second recast & reboot makes no sense to me.
Either stick with the current incarnation of Abrams-Trek and let it ride out however many movies they will do (3,4, 5, or whatever), create another cast and premise not already explored, or just put Star Trek to bed, already.
One other thing, returning to Post Nemesis Prime universe (at least in official Paramount "Trek Canon." Who knows, maybe a fan film will come along, and may even have some Trek actors in it, a la Renegades, Axanar, etc): won't happen in a million years. And as much as I think Enterprise deserves at least a miniseries to rectify the gawdaweful finale, THAT won't happen either.
TOS wasn't consistent enough to have a philosophy. It had a moral or a message of the week, but no overarching philosophy. The pseudo philosophical crap came later, and was dismissed summarily with a 'Bullshit!' within the very series that had tried so hard to push it.
Unless you mean "a better world can only be achieved when people never stop trying to better themselves, even in the face of hardships and mistakes." But you can't mean that, because that's in the new movies.
Oh, and the 'we totally aren't doing a cliff notes version of 2001' ideas in TMP. I think that was trying for philosophy, but didn't quiet get that you have to 'explore' not just 'relate what someone else said.'
People don't use the quantity of books sold to show quality, they use reviews. Hence why the general consensus is that the Nu Star Trek, FC and TWOK are overall considered to be good films because they have an insane amount of positive feedback from the majority of the people who have seen them, whilst FSOG and Transformers are considered to be popular and profitable because they are a product that sells.
Evidently the a Prime Universe ended up missing the 'core' of Star Trek too. Considering how Trekkies ended up abandoning it in droves, in some cases celebrated wildly at its demise, and laughed in the faces of those impotently grasping at ways to try and save it. Don't see how just going back there will bring that special something back.
Nope. Pike was impressed by Kirk's potential, based on his test scores and other things in his file. He does see some similarities between James and George and feels they posses something Starfleet has lost. That why Pike recruited him, not because he thought Kirk,Sr did something cool. Prime Kirk had his own sponsor for the academy, a fellow named Mallory.
Prime Kirk cheated on the same test and got a commendation. We can assume Kirk would have as well had the hearing continued. And according to Carol Marcus, Prime Kirk was no "boy scout"so he was no angel as well.
Pretty sure he was on suspension from the second the hearing started. (Which doesn't help my case, but the facts are the facts)
Kirk had information he felt was pertinent to the mission and shared that with the Captain. I don't see that as insinuating himself into the situation. He was doing his duty as Starfleet officer.
Kirk was technically a "fourth year". As he had, as promised, finished the Academy in three years. ( no reason to have that line if it didn't happen) He's also the lead character. So yes he will be placed in a position to become a leader. That's storytelling 101. In universe I'm sure Pike thought Kirk and Spock would compliment each other and be an effective team. More so than Spock and Lt. No One Cares About.
Yes he did. And in doing so saved the Earth and the Federation. Worth Spock feeling bad? I think so.
This really seems to bother you. Prime Kirk does this to Spock a few time as well. Manipulating Spock when he's emotionally vulnerable to Kirk's own ends
. No one in command of the Enterprise did. And that's all that mattered.
Teams require leaders and frankly Spock wasn't cutting it.
Its a movie. Destiny is important. Getting Kirk to the center chair is important. That why they do backflips in TMP ,TWOK and TVH to get Kirk there as well.
That's and interesting point. Because upon reflection, I think the Trek troika thing is over blown. As you pointed out quite often one of the troika is missing and yet those remaining manage to work things out. Often it's Kirk out on his own who finds solutions with out Spock's logic or Bone's emotion. And when the troika is together, Spock's logic is usally the losing opinion. Trek celebrates the "flaws" of humantity. The emotions, the compassion and gut instincts that make us human. Even Spock resorts to this, though he passes it off as the logical thing to do. So no, I don't think there is balance. Emotion usually wins. Gut instinct usually wins. Logic, silver medal and sometimes bronze.
Really? Because all he mentions is his high IQ and the cool bit of captaining his father did, then Pike dares Jim to do better. There's nothing about "other things in his file".
There's no reason at all to assume the events played out the same in Prime. No mention of Spock being the one in charge of the Maru whilst Kirk was in the academy taking the test in Prime. If you watched that scene you would see how seriously everyone in the room seems to take it except Kirk. Including Madea, Head of Starfleet Academy. Likely things would not have gone well.
Which is nice to say, but you're ignoring other facts because they don't help your case.
There it is. Kirk knew important information about the situation at hand? Really? Information that no one else on the whole ship knew? Let me guess, you're going to mention the lightning storm in space, right? Of course you are. Because that's the bit that caught Kirk's ear and caused him to run to the bridge. One hitch in that plan, or simply bad writing... Pike did his dissertation on that same lightning storm in space that led to the death of Jim's father. Pike already knew all about it. There was literally nothing Kirk knew that Pike didn't. Other than maybe reminding Pike, "Hey, you remember that long-ass paper you wrote as the culmination of your four years at Starfleet Academy, the one that would have determined if you were able to graduate or not? The one about my dad and the lightning storm in space?"
Have you ever written a dissertation, Nerys Myk? You don't forget the topic.
No, he was three years in. That's stated. Kirk bragged that he would "do it in three". Simply because he bragged doesn't mean it happened that way. So if he didn't actually do it in three, why's the line there? Characterization of Kirk as a braggart.
Storytelling 101 is that your stories have to be internally consistent and the characters have to behave in a "realistic" fashion, ie have to behave consistently with their personality and the situation around them. Kirk was shuffled into the chair because the fans expected it, but there's nothing about the way it happened in the film that makes a lick of sense in-universe. It requires basically everyone suddenly deciding to be galactically stupid for a few days.
The ends justifies the means. Another antithesis to Trek sentiment. Check out the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moon Light" for a good comparison. Therein Sisko laments the death of two people and a bit of his self-respect in exchange for bringing the Romulans into the Dominion War and thereby saving the whole of the Alpha Quadrant from being taken over. It's a 45-minute character study. It's a wonderful episode because despite knowing he's saving billions of lives, Sisko knows the ends do not justify the means and it's tearing him apart that he's done this.
Kirk? Not so much. And the substantive difference between the situations? Kirk was told by Spock it was his destiny to be the captain, so "by any means necessary" kicks in, apparently up to and including the death of nuSpock. All because the man Spock Prime knew from his universe was a good captain. Yet the kid before him had none of the life experiences of the Jim Kirk he knew... so it must be magical destiny time. Screw experience, dedication, hard work, honesty, loyalty... because the only thing that matters is DESTINY.
Undermining the fundamental nature of characters I've grown up watching and using a franchise I've loved my whole life to send out messages that are literally the opposite of what the franchise has stood for for the 45-years prior to that moment tends to do that.
Citation needed.
Of course it's a movie, but it's still got to make sense. Destiny isn't important at all in the Trek universe. The word is used as shorthand, but actual "destiny" as in "You must complete your DESTINY!" only appeared once before now, and it was shitty when it did. Trek is all about leaving that kind of magical thinking and woo-woo bullshit in the past where it belongs.
It was a joke. A reference to this. Pursed, pushed out lips reminiscent of a duck's bill.
Well, if pretending I'm being hyperbolic helps you justify your position, more power to you. Doesn't change the facts. 2009 is "Trek" in name only and destroys what was good about the characters and the franchise.
For you. For me, who has been watching since 1975, it is the closest we've been to TOS since "Turnabout Intruder". The Abrams films are fun to watch and delight my inner Trekkie to no end.
Sorry.
For you. For me, who has been watching since 1975, it is the closest we've been to TOS since "Turnabout Intruder". The Abrams films are fun to watch and delight my inner Trekkie to no end.
Sorry.
I agree with BillJ. And calling your opinion "fact" seems a bit hyperbolic.
