Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0
Sign in to follow this  
Whill

Star Trek (Spoiler Alert!!!)

Recommended Posts

The wait is over. The new Star Trek movie is finally here. We no longer have to merely debate whether this movie should be given a chance or it should be boycotted because time travel changes the franchise's previously established continuity.

 

This thread was created for anyone to read. But if you plan on eventually seeing the movie and care about the movie being "spoiled" for you, then please read no further and come back here after seeing the movie. You have been warned. You will be spoiled.

 

However, this thread was not created for anyone to post in. I am stating this criteria up front so there is no confusion. Please don't feel excluded or take offense. We have already had a couple threads discussing the movie before anyone had actually seen the movie. Now that the new movie is available to watch, this new thread here was specifically created for only those who have seen the movie to discuss it.

 

All responses to the movie are welcome - good or bad, love it or hate it. But only educated opinions are welcome, meaning you had to have actually seen the movie to post here. If you have not seen the movie, please do not post anything in this thread. If you would like to discuss not seeing the movie yet (or ever), waiting until video release, whatever, then please create another thread about that. Thanks.

 

Maximum warp in 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most people will either love it or hate it.

 

In many ways, this new movie is boldly different than most anything from the previous Star Trek franchise, and I think it is likely this will polarize the geek/nerd community into two opposite extreme reactions. For that reason I am especially interested in hearing any mediocre reviews, so please post here and prove that theory wrong.

 

One of the main differences is genre. A lot of people are not that aware of the difference between science fiction and space opera. It is true that they are intertwined and most movies that could be called one genre could also be called the other. Trek is both. In recognition of that, I've always classified Trek as a combination of sci-fi and space opera that I refer to as "pop sci-fi" or "sci-opera."

 

Trek has always attempted to have the main sci-fi component of being a story taking place in a futuristic setting, but symbolically being about humanity today. Some Trek episodes have more sci-fi in them than others. I like sci-fi, but I'm an action/adventure junkie, so one of my complaints about some Trek episodes is they have a bit too much sci-fi, because they have an excess of dialogue and very little action.

 

That cannot be said about the new movie. In fact, if you're a fan of the sci-fi in Trek, an undeniable criticism of this movie is that there's very little sci-fi in it at all. There's somewhat of an absense of deep meanings in this movie's story. However, I do want to point out that this new Star Trek does at least feature the humanist themes that Star Trek is famous for, in the main characters of Kirk and Spock: men that overcome the adversity in their lives to reach their full potential. So it is still technically sci-fi for those reasons, if not much else.

 

All that being said, this new Star Trek movie, perhaps more than any other previous Trek movie or episode, is unapologetically full-throttle space opera!

 

Action! Adventure! Epic scale! An evil villain mad with revenge! Stars exploding and planets being destroyed! And heroes that rise to the challenge and save the galaxy! (Or at least the Federation.) As a die hard fanatic of the ultimate space opera films of all times, Star Wars sets the bar very high for this genre. So high that most space opera films are not even worthy of mentioning in the same sentence as Star Wars, IMO. This Star Trek movie is worthy. Better than Star Wars? No. Quality space opera? Hell yes! Another forum member once used the term "Die Hard in space." That is fairly accurate description because the movie leaps from one action sequence to the next. I love Die Hard. I was not dissappointed in the adventurous spirit of this movie.

 

I was a tad bit disappointed that the musical score didn't quite live up to the movie it was in. Not too bad, but could have been better (with a different composer).

 

As indicated by the comments on the humanist themes, the main characters are Kirk and (young) Spock. Just as I expected, the new actor for Kirk is a better actor than Shatner ever was. But the new actor (and his direction) stil paid a small homage to Shatner's performance - there were a few nods to Shatner, mannerisms retained in tribute to Shatner's Kirk, which means those are being preserved for all time as characteristics of the Kirk character and not just Shatner. So to all the fans that think that Shatner should have been involved with this movie, or to the extremist that feel that there can be no Kirk without Shatner, at least Shatner's Kirk is somewhat immmortalized in a few ways. Shatner will always be the first Kirk, and I wholeheartedly acknowkledge that there could be no subsequent Kirks without the first.

 

My wife and I immediately sympathized with the new Kirk from the very moment of his birth, due to the dramatic circumstances thereof. What a masterful, gut-wrenching way to get the viewers emotionally involved in the plight of the main protagonist: showing Kirk's father heroicly sacrificing his life to save his pregnant wife as she gives birth to their son, which he only gets to name (but not even see) before he dies. My wife, being pregnant with our first child, was balling. That made me think the unthinkable tragedy of me leaving my wife and child fatherless, and I become more emotional than when the Old Kirk died in Generations. Maybe it's a cheap trick, but it's still genius. It totally worked on us.

 

In this new movie, Kirk is total a bad-ass. James T. Kirk, action hero. A younger, even more impulsive Kirk, yes. As shown in the movie, not exactly the same Kirk. The new timeline's Kirk's father died immediately after Kirk was born, so this Kirk grew up without ever knowing his dad or having his dad's direct influence in his life. This rebellious Kirk's childhood had a Beastie Boys soundtrack to it. :-) This Kirk joined starfleet a little later in his life, and only after some nudging from Captain Pike. More on Kirk and the new timeline later.

 

The new Spock's background is even moreso based on the old Spock. I think that even Gene Roddenberry himself would have at least approved of Spock's growing up sequences. But this story brought this human-vulcan hybrid aspect of his character front and center. I thought it was so cool that the prejudice and ridicule that he experienced growing up was shown to be his primary motivation in joining Starfleet. Most Vulcans looked down on him for having a human mother and being a half-breed. Even the Vulcan Science Academy council stated this matter-of-factly as they annouced his acceptance into the Academy. As logical as Spock may try to be, it was cool to see Spock not accept the offer of membership because of his faithfullness to his own humanity. They referred to Spock's mother and human side as disability that he had overcome, and his choice to join Starfleet served as a statement of disapproval of rationalizing prejudice. Of course that portrayal of Vulcans doesn't generate any sympathy for them as a people, but audience sympathy is somewhat restored later by the plot of the movie. More on Vulcans later, and more on Spock soon and later.

 

I was very surprised that the new Uhura character was elavated to the same level of importance as McCoy. The old Uhura was not much more than a simple switchboard operator, always trailing behind the main male officers in importance at #7. Not any more. This new Uhura follows the lead of Hoshi from Enterprise in which the communications officer is also a linguistical expert - that just makes too much damn sense. But the real twist is that she developed a closer relationship with Spock that has a romantic element to it. This only adds to both characters, and makes them both more interesting to me. I met the actress Nichelle Nichols after Trek IV, and I think she probably loves what they've done with the character. And a quick side comment from a male hetero: the new Uhura is smoking hot! (This totally makes up for the tramautizing old Uhura dancing seductively in Trek V.)

 

The classic relationship between Spock and McCoy is not fully present in this film, but it is hinted at. In this new Trek, Kirk and Spock can be said to be the two lead protagonists, each individually having a main supporting character out of the "classic crew" characters. Uhura is Spock's supporter, and McCoy is Kirk's supporter. The new actor's portrayal of McCoy is dead-on. Even though his role is much smaller so far, Karl Urban really captured the essense of DeForest Kelley like Ewan McGregor captured Sir Alec Guinness. It is very easy to imagine Kirk's friendship with McCoy throughout Starfleet academy from their very first meeting. And of course, the plot makes clear that this is a story of how Kirk and Spock resolve their conflicts and begin to become friends by the end (with a little nudging along the way by Old Spock).

 

I like that the story gave the new Sulu something to do besides fly the ship. Going all the way back to a quitessenstial 1st season TOS episode ("The Naked Time"), they bring out the fencer in Sulu, and give him a swiss-army sword and Romulans bearing melee weapons to do battle with along side Kirk. Cool.

 

The whole movie I kept thinking, Where's Scotty? until Kirk and Old Spock finally met him in the Starfleet outpost. Delaying his entrance into the story did serve the plot, and Old Spock giving Scotty the formula for mid-warp transporting that the original Scotty developed later in his life was a humorous reference to Trek IV when Scotty gives the formula for transparent aluminum to that guy (who the novelizaion reveals was actually the man who invented the thing a little later in his life). Scotty (and Bones) will probably have slightly bigger roles going forward in the new franchise.

 

In the altered timeline, the movie takes place even earlier than the beginning of the original Kirk's original 5-year mission. So to include Chekov and minimize changes to the new timeline as much as possible, Chekov is now a 17-year-old childhood prodigy genius in Starfleet. I have to admit that I had a brief flashback to Wesley Crusher [shudders]. But it may serve the purpose of getting new young fans into Star Trek, like Wesley Crusher was supposed to do (not saying that worked, I don't really know). And being a little older, the new Chekov is not so annoying as Wesley was. I've heard criticism of how thick the new Chekov's Russian accent was, and I also have to admit that it did sound a bit odd at first. But I think they were just going for a few cheap laughs as another throwback to Trek IV ("nu-cle-ar wessels"). I think that subsequent viewing of the new movie will lessen that feeling of oddness as I get used to it. It is likely that his accent will be toned down as the new series progresses (realistically as he spends more time with non-Russian-accented people).

 

Captian Nero and the Romulan miners. I have to admit that it seems that they didn't spend a lot of time developing his background, but I suspect that there may be some deleted scenes with him. Eric Bana's performance was adequate for the part. Nero is expanded upon in the prologue comic book Star Trek: Countdown. And I must say for the record that the brief portrayal of Romulans in this new movie was still a much better one than the more in-depth but absurd portrayal in Nemesis. It is like this movie just completely ignores that movie and says, here are the Romulans we haven't used as villains in a Trek movie yet. (Well, it's true they hadn't been villains to the classic Trek characters since the TOS). The inclusion of Old Spock and his involvement with the Romulans is a continuation of the TNG storyline with Spock, which I had always felt was a vacuum that I needed filled since the last reference to it in TNG.

 

Ahh, Old Spock, time-travel, the altered timeline and continuity changes. They could have made a true prequel and maintained the previously established continuity, and it's true that some fans may have liked it. I think that may have had a limited success. But it seems to me that what they really wanted to do is boil the franchise down to the very essence of what Star Trek TOS and the film series was, and then boldly go where no Star Trek has gone before (at least in the future sequels). This is not your granddaddy's Star Trek. This is the Star Trek of the new millenium.

 

Instead of just merely following the recent movie trend of rebooting something and starting over, they wanted this Trek to follow from the previous Trek franchise. I feel this makes it more of a tribute to the original Trek than just merely pressing the reset button and starting fresh like Batman or James Bond which have no in-story time-travel to explain the reboot. Yes, this new Trek does alter the previous continuity, but with the story mechanic of time travel, this "reboot" only happens subsequently to the events of the entire Star Trek cannon from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" to 8 years after the events of the last TNG movie. The previous franchise is still a part of the continuity of the new timeline, because the new timeline is dependant on the events of the old timeline. The Old Spock could only exist if the events of the previous franchise really did happen leading up the point that Nero and Spock got sucked back in time. This new movie is definitely a sequel to all previous Trek.

 

As a side note, I do have to admit that I fnd it ironic that the least popular series among Trekkers, Star Trek: Enterprise, is the only one that still survives in the new timeline. IMO, Enterprise wasn't the best Trek but it sure wasn't the worst. And I found it funny that they even put a reference to Jonathan Archer and Porthos in the new movie.

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

 

You could think of the "divergent" timeline as an "alternate" timeline. The two timelines were originally one timeline, until Nero's ship appears in the past and starts changing things. Then one line breaks off into 2 lines, like the lines on Doc Brown's chalk board as he is explaining the alternate 1985 they appeared in (and plot of the movie to the audience). Maybe time travel is how alternate realities are created in Star Trek? Maybe the so-called "Mirror Universe" is actually a divergent reality created by time travel to some point before Earth's First Contact with Vulcans, and the multiple timelines/universes still all somehow exist at the same time? (I'm just speculating here. I'm really just trying to help fans cope with the "loss" of your beloved continuity.)

 

Time travel is such a common element of the Star Trek franchise that it has been handled in various ways, so there is no consistant logic that can be applied to it. Since time travel into the past is impossible like so many things on Star Trek, you can't really criticize that inconsistancy too much. But I'm still very happy to say that this movie finally portrays the time travel that I imagine in stories I've dreamed up since I was kid. There are no paradoxes. If you travel to the past and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother, it does not create an endless causality loop of you not being being born and not travelling back and not killing your grandpa so you will be born and go back, etc. It does not cause a tear in the space-time continuum or destroy the universe. If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, you become stranded from the time line you came from, but nothing happens to you. No fading away like in Back to the Future. In this new timeline, you came into existance at the moment you appeared back in time. Whether you go back to the future or not, it will be in a reality that you were never born, so no one will know you and you will not have any identity. You will still have all of your original memories. They only way to change things back would be to go back in time again to the same time or before you originally appeared back in time, and then stop yourself from killing your grandpa. But then at that moment your original self appears back in time, there are now two of you. This time travel just intuitively makes the most sense to me.

 

This is like it is in the new Trek. When Nero changes the timeline, there is no causality loop or epic space-time disaster. Old Spock does not disappear and his memories are not altered. The new timeline travels on it's new path. With respect to the new timeline, Old Spock just comes into existance at the moment he appears back in time. But his past self still existed in the original timeline because that timeline existed in his past. And as a further tribute to the previous franchise, Old Spock survives the end of the movie in the new timeline. Old Spock is a living testament to that old timeline, and his memories of it are still intact.

 

Of course the original timeline is instrumental to the life of the new Kirk, because the two timelines skew when Nero appears back in time, right before Kirk is born. And then 25 years later, Old Spock finally appears back in time and is intrumental to the events leading up to the new Kirk being promoted to Captain of the Enterprise. The new Kirk could not exist without the Old Spock, and the Old Spock could not exist without the old Kirk. Again, this new movie is a part of Star Trek continuity because the story could not have happened without the original continuity.

 

This new, bold Star Trek is undenialbly different from the old, but it's not too much of a stretch to account for all of the differences of the new timeline. The USS Kelvin being destroyed by Nero (when it wasn't before) could shape the progress of Starfleet over the next 22-25 years as it was portrayed in the film. That could have been a major setback like the two space shuttle disasters have been to NASA's space program. In this new timeline, the Constitution-class starship could have been severely delayed in it's construction, and over the course of that delay it could have redesigned and improved slightly to explain it's slightly different (but much cooler) appearance. And the identification of Nero's ship as Romulan could have really altered the history of Earth and even the Federation, because the first time around Romulans hadn't resurfaced until much later (in the TOS episode "Balance of Terror"). In fact, the movie indicated that Nero had encounters with Klingons and other races in the 25 years he was waiting for Old Spock to resurface. He may have even had other encounters with Starfleet over the years. And Uhura ended up falling for Spock this time around, and Spock reciprocated some feelings as well. Things went askew with the destruction of the Kelvin and the death of Kirk's father, but they continued to further diverge for 25 years before the main bulk of the new movie's story. So despite entering Starfleet Academy a few years later in this new timeline, the new Kirk gains command of the new Enterprise a bit earlier.

 

Of course, the divergences didn't stop there. This movie makes it perfectly clear that the future of the franchise in this divergent timeline is wide-open. This way, you don't know what is going to happen. There is no future continuity to mainain. Nothing has to happen. This is an ideal situation for writers and the dramatic element of future stories. As cool as Revenge of the Sith was, we knew that Yoda, Palpatine, Vader and Kenobi were all not going to die in their respective lightsaber battles. In the new Star Trek, anything can happen. That's why the timeline diverged. We don't know if any of the main characters will die. Their situations will be more dramatic now because anything could happen.

 

In the new timeline, the planet Vulcan was destroyed! Epic! I actually read a complaint that the new Star Trek was too much like Star Wars.. Funny, I used to think the old Star Trek was not enough like Star Wars. :-)

 

Vulcans are now an endangered species. Spock's mother is dead. Sarek admitted to Spock that he had loved her. Spock has a romantic relationship with Uhura. The Old Spock lived most of his career in Starfleet trying to be more Vulcan, surpressing his human nature. Instead of a character that strictly choses his Vulcan nature, we now have a much more tragic and human young Spock this time around. Fascinating! And because of his compassionate human side, it makes sense that the young Spock would want to resign Starfleet at the end to help the surviving Vulcans preserve their culture, establish a new colony and repopulate the Vulcan species. But Old Spock to the rescue!

 

It is ironic that this Old Spock, who had long since come to terms with his humanity and sucessfully integrated his two halves, is now working to aid the Vulcan survivors of the new tragic timeline. It seems appropriate that Old Spock would help the Vulcans, urging the young Spock to continue to serve Starfleet where he belongs: at Jim Kirk's side.

 

I admit that I went into this movie hoping that Old Spock would finally die, since he had already cheated death and came back to life. But after seeing this movie, I think it is very apporpriate that the original Spock would be the last survivor of the original timeline. And with two Spocks, there is one for the Vulcans and one for Starfleet (thankfully the young one). I think Old Spock will become good friends with Sarek.

 

Probably the most unrealistic thing about the new Star Trek film is this: Kirk was supposed to face the consequences of his violations of starfleet regulations, but as a result of him saving the planet Earth, he was instead rewarded with the rank of captain and command of the new Enterprise. Sound familiar? Yep, this was yet another throwback to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

 

Instead of being busted from Admiral down to Captain, the new Kirk skipped from being a cadet on the verge of graduation from officer training who got in trouble for cheating on the Kobiyashi Maru test, to being a captain in command of a starship. Well, the stakes were even higher because Vulcan had already been sucked into a black hole and Earth was in the same danger. The original story arc from Trek II (which opened with a Kobiyashi Maru test) to Trek IV was about Kirk feeling old because he wasn't where he belonged, where he was when he was younger. His "voyage home" was regaining command of a starship, as in his youth. This new movie features the "origin" story of the new Kirk, and how he gains his command for the first time. And Trek IV was a thinly disguised (but far superior) remake of The Motion Picture (probe endangering Earth, Kirk and crew to the rescue, Kirk taking command of the "new" Enterprise). And TMP was the first Trek movie, so you can see that with this new Trek movie we have come full circle. One of the many working titles of this new movie (besides "Star Trek XI") was "Star Trek 0". Indeed.

 

What's in the future of this new Star Trek franchise? At least 2 more movies. I'm looking forward to them. And since they've already had the (re)introduction story, they can add themes and more meaning. Maybe spinkle a little more sci-fi into their new space opera. With this new movie setting such a high bar for epic scale, they can't back down too much from there or it will just seem boring in comparision. They've upped the ante, and they now have to play the cards out. Let's hope they're not just bluffing. Let's hope they instead have a couple more aces under their sleeves.

 

But that may not be it. The old Trek franchise has 28 seasons of TV under it's belt, so I've read there are talks of a possible new TV series. New ship, all new characters, but set in the new divergent 23rd century. So like when they added TNG during TOS films, except the new TV series will be chronologically concurrent with the new movies, like the TNG movies were while the other 24th century TV series were on the air. New Star Trek on TV would very likely be more sci-fi like the previous series. If they could come up with something somewhat orginal, I think a new TV series could do well too. This new movie has revitalized the Star Trek franchise, like Spock's dead body was revitalized by the Genesis Wave. I just hope there is no more time travel stories! Just keep going into the future from where they are now, with no huge leaps forward like The "Next" Generation which was set 78 years after Trek IV.

 

My wife, who loves Lord of the Rings and likes Star Wars, calls Star Trek "silly movies" in general. She's seen a few but didn't care for them that much. But when we got home from the movie, she said that this new one was good enough that she could watch it once a year. And maybe also the one with the whales, she added.

 

That made me go over to my DVD collection and open the case for Star Trek IV. Thankfully, the DVD had not disappeared like in Back to the Future. My entire Trek collection is still all there for me to enjoy whenever I want. Regardless of what some fans have stated, the new movie has done absolutely nothing to the previous franchise. How could a new movie ruin something that came out before it? And like I tried to demonstrate, all previous canon is still official continuity, because it was all vital for the continuity of this movie. The old Trek made the new Trek possible. It was either this new Trek movie or no new Trek at all. But only you can define what is canon to you. Now I have two timelines to say that TMP, V and Nemesis never happened in. :-)

 

As stated at the beginning, I think that most people will either love the new Star Trek or hate it. Overall, I love it!

 

This movie is officially dedicated to both Gene and Majel Barret Roddenberry (who died a mere two weeks after recording her part for the new movie). I feel the memory of Gene Roddenberry deserves being highly honored for creating the TV series that spawned the entire franchise, and specifically for creating the characters of this new movie. There could be no Star Trek without him. Thanks, Gene.

 

"The king is dead. Long live the king!"

 

Or rather, may the king "Live long, and prosper."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bave

Much shorter version.

 

Movie was good, Uhura was not good looking at all IMO.

 

Liked the main actors, Kirk/Spock/McCoy, didn't like the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a long discussion on one of the Trek RPG forums I frequent I think the split on this movie comes down to how you define Trek. There is no correct answer as after ten earlier movies, five series, and hundreds of episodes it is save to say that Trek represents many things to many people. However, the main split on those who either love this movie and those who hated this movie is whether they see Trek as best exemplified by swashbuckling adventure or its more intellectual and visionary aspects. If you just want a fluffy action Trek this movie really resonates whereas if you are looking for thoughtful Trek you are going to be surely disappointed.

 

I couldn't shut off my brain so I ended up being disappointed with this movie. If you want to enjoy it - don't think about it. Treat it like a typical summer blockbuster where you don't really examine the plot and story.

 

Also do realize that the old Trek movies were about adults and dealt with adult issues, but this new Trek is about kids and kid issues. However, the youth and energy of the cast make it entertaining, but they don't really bring any depth to the movie. I think the best thing about this movie are the adults, I mean any depth in this movie came from Pike and Spock Prime. The kids were just there for the action, big explosions, jokes, and sex appeal. Still that is what the goal of this movie was - brainless fun and on this point it does well. However, this difference is key - this is not a mature crew of adults, no, this is a group of hormonal kids with a cool spaceship. Embrace it don't fight it.

 

Do not pay attention to the plot if you want to enjoy this movie. Do not think about the villain's motivation and situation if you want to enjoy this movie. Do not dwell on the bad science and technobabble which was worse in this movie than most Trek movies. Do not dwell on the fact that most of the best dialogue came from an earlier Trek movie or episode (the exact quotes will drive you insane, but fortunately most people won't recognize all the plagiarism, sorry, I mean homages). Do not dwell on the fact that some scenes were practically taken right from Star Wars and the Matrix as well as once again earlier Trek movies. There was even a dash of Lord of the Rings with the Vulcans who are now truly Middle Earth elves. This movie was a string of homages for better or worse and it was a little annoying if you are too discerning. So in other words - don't think about the movie just enjoy it.

 

I mostly enjoyed the movie as I watched it though the homages got old, I felt like I was in one of those parody movies. It was only an hour or so after the movie as I was talking about it with my wife that the movie really started to annoy me. I should not have given the movie serious thought that was my mistake. This is a summer blockbuster and you need to treat it like that and not like earlier Trek movies.

 

Though I can tell you the single worse thing about this movie for traditional Trek fans - 250 years in the future both Budweiser and Nokia are still around and doing well in the post-capitalistic society of the Federation. Product placement is alive and well. I was just waiting to hear Windows turning on as Sulu first piloted the Enterprise. Do not be surprised if in the next movie there are Apple logos all over the bridge and McDonalds is served from the food dispensers. This is the new Star Trek for better or worse. Just embrace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for adding your feedback guys!

 

...how you define Trek. There is no correct answer as after ten earlier movies, five series, and hundreds of episodes it is save to say that Trek represents many things to many people.

 

Agreed.

 

However, the main split on those who either love this movie and those who hated this movie is whether they see Trek as best exemplified by swashbuckling adventure or its more intellectual and visionary aspects.

 

I do not see Trek as "best exemplified" by swashbuckling adventure. I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear in that I like the intellectual and visionary aspects as well (that's what I meant by the "sci-fi" aspect). And there hasn't been a whole lot of swashbuckling adventure ("space opera") before this movie, so I don't see how anyone could see Trek as "best exemplified" by that type of story. Maybe there are people out there like that, but I do not know any of them, and I am not one of them. Those people must enjoy Trek on a whole level I never imagined, because they have missed the point on a lot of episodes if they only watched it for the action. Also, if they didn't get into the intellectual and visionary aspects, then they must have fallen asleep during a lot of episodes. I had no clue this movie was going to be this dramtically swashbuckling before seeing it, and I had never envisioned Trek as being this "swashbuckling" before. I was totally surprised. Yes, I admit I long wanted a little more swashbuckling adventure in my Trek, but this movie went far above and beyond my wish for more action. But that doesn't mean I think Trek is best exemplified by that. Trek should be both, IMO. I think the action-adventure is long overdue, but I still expect a bit more intellectual and visionary content in future movies (just maybe not as much as before - to balance out with the higher level of action). This was the (re)introduction.

 

If you just want a fluffy action Trek this movie really resonates whereas if you are looking for thoughtful Trek you are going to be surely disappointed.

 

I couldn't shut off my brain so I ended up being disappointed with this movie. If you want to enjoy it - don't think about it. Treat it like a typical summer blockbuster where you don't really examine the plot and story.

 

That sounds like good advice, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the term "fluffy." But since it is too late for those of us who have already seen the movie to heed your warning about having expectations going into it, the only ones who could benefit from your advice are those who haven't seen it yet. I hope they didn't read my posts, because if so the whole movie is ruined!

 

Also do realize that the old Trek movies were about adults and dealt with adult issues, but this new Trek is about kids and kid issues... The kids were just there for the action, big explosions, jokes, and sex appeal... However, this difference is key - this is not a mature crew of adults, no, this is a group of hormonal kids with a cool spaceship. Embrace it don't fight it.

 

I'm not sure what your definition of "kid" is, but it seems to be very old. You can of course have whatever criteria you want, but I'm afraid that people may misunderstand what you mean. It is clear you are critical of the movie and obviously view it as immature, but I politefully and respectfully disagree with the extremes you indicate, sir.

 

Yes, of course all the TOS movies are about "adults" because the characters were all old when the movie were made. Old age itself was a major theme of the TOS movies. And for TNG movies, they had already gotten rid of Wesley Crusher and the rest of the characters are middle-aged or more. Picard was very old.

 

Kirk is 22 when he drunkenly tried to pick up Uhura in a bar, then the bulk of the movie is 3 years later when Kirk is 25. Uhura, Sulu and Checkov are the only characters younger than Kirk, and the movie really wasn't about them that much. As in the previous timeline, young Spock, Scotty and McCoy are all older than Kirk. Saying they're "a group of hormonal kids with a cool spaceship" is really exagerrating, IMO.

 

Yes, they were younger characters, but sex appeal wasn't a very big or important part of the movie. Yeah Kirk was still getting laid at 25, but sex is not just a "kid" thing. The original Kirk in his 30's was shown to have a very healthy sexual appetite, and that was a part of many stories. This new Kirk is a chip off that ol's block. The action, big explosions and jokes should have no age bounderies. Look at Live Free or Die Hard for example.

 

KJW, it seems like some of your criticisms about the movie itself seemed to really be about the viewers that you feel the movie was made for. You were expecting an intellectual Trek, which you seem to equate with maturity and yourself, as opposed to swashbuckling, which you seem to equate with immaturity. Maybe those are trends, and maybe there was a younger "target" audience. But there are exceptions to trends and targets.

 

I used to be a junior high kid that got into Star Trek for it's intellectual and visionary content. Now I'm an adult that loves swashbuckling adventure. I really like both, then and now. But I assure you, I am not immature. I'm in my late 30's. But part of my maturity is acknowledging my inner child, like one of the themes of Star Trek: Insurrection (the kid teaching Data to "play" everyday, etc.). I didn't know how to do that until age and maturity taught me how.

 

Though I can tell you the single worse thing about this movie for traditional Trek fans - 250 years in the future both Budweiser and Nokia are still around and doing well in the post-capitalistic society of the Federation. Product placement is alive and well. I was just waiting to hear Windows turning on as Sulu first piloted the Enterprise. Do not be surprised if in the next movie there are Apple logos all over the bridge and McDonalds is served from the food dispensers.

 

That's the single worst thing about the movie? I am definitely not a traditional Star Trek fan then. Those carefully placed products are such a minor detail in the movie. If this is the single worst thing, then that tells me this was the smallest nit they could find to pick. Ugh. And one of my favorites, Star Trek IV, had product placement as well, so this is not even new. The movies might be about a utopian future somehow existing without free enterprise, but the movies are made in a society that still has it. These movies are fiction. The entire franchise is made up of products created to make a profit. That's why you had to buy your ticket to see the movie.

 

I should not have given the movie serious thought that was my mistake. This is a summer blockbuster and you need to treat it like that and not like earlier Trek movies...

 

This is the new Star Trek for better or worse. Just embrace it.

 

You give that advice but it seems you don't really accept it yourself. I'm not sure what about this movie's hype made you think that this movie was going to be like all of the rest. I was surprised by a lot of the movie, but the trailers alone had made it perfectly clear to me this Trek was going to be way different than the previous films.

 

But regardless, you are obviously a big Trek fan, and I am sorry that you were so dissappointed. I truly mean that.

 

And I really appreciate all your feedback from the traditional Trek fans on a Trek board. I admit I had a misconception of what the biggest concern of all the Trek fans going into the movie. All this time I thought the biggest issue was the feeling that the time travel in this movie somehow invalidated their beloved continuity, which is why I spent so much time above on that topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a youth, I was most likely a Trekkie, but have never been and doubtfully never will be a Trekker. Trekkie was what Gene called them, which is good enough for me.

 

As for my opinion of the movie: Best. Trek. Ever. Well, at least Trek movie. Previously, I really liked 2, 4, 6, 3 and to some extent 5, in roughly that order, the rest were just okay or plain bad (the actor switch for Duncan Idaho in Children of Dune was way more believable than Shinzon supposedly looking like a young Picard). Definitely will get it on DVD or Blu-Ray when it comes out.

 

I had a few issues but they were mostly plot holes/continuity errors and so not really worth marking "Star Trek: The Retcon" down for. The only one I felt that was really "bad" was the way the Kobayashi Maru scene played out, too artificial/unrealistic to be believable.

 

People may not like the comparison I am about to make but a few others have agreed with me about it after I mentioned it to them. The new film is like the Brady Bunch movie made a few years back. Both of these movies were able to re-awaken most of the elements that made their originals "good" and filter them in a more "modern" version while still having the old school feel. The movie opens lots of cans of worms though. :eek:

 

Hopefully Old Spock remembers/is willing to share enough history to prepare the Federation for some of the really important threats it will face, like The Doomsday Machine, V'Ger, The Whale Probe from ST4, The Great Barrier at the edge of the galaxy, all the different wars with the Klingons, Romulans, Borg, all those packs of "gods" or all those Earth clones with Romans & Nazis. Spock's brother needs to be told not to bother looking for "God" unless he was never banished in this timeline, then I guess he won't be around to care. Will "Young" Spock have to deal with Pon Farr?, Kind of hard if his original childhood "bride" is no more. ;) Will Saavik even be born (not sure when Old Spock actually rescued her and the other kids)?

 

They have to save/help Zefram Cochrane from/with his alien "girlfriend". Wait, odds are that much of the Next Gen crew will not be born now, so who will go back and help Zefram Cochrane meet the Vulcans? They also have to time travel a few times or else they screw their pre-history too, unless they are "okay" because the "original" timeliners will take care of it. :D

 

Darn Nero, now we know why they normally take the time to fix the original timeline, much easier than trying to remember when they have to go back to fix the stuff in the new timeline if they let the changes "stay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what your definition of "kid" is, but it seems to be very old. You can of course have whatever criteria you want, but I'm afraid that people may misunderstand what you mean. It is clear you are critical of the movie and obviously view it as immature, but I politefully and respectfully disagree with the extremes you indicate, sir.

 

Go watch the earlier movies and you will see what I am talking about. The themes in this movie can be summed up as boys trying to deal with parent issues. Seriously, this is the main issues for the characters in this movie. Kirk is a disorderly brat because his dad died and his mother was a poor parent. Do Abrams or any of the writers have kids? Because I seem to doubt it the way this movie was written. I'll admit that some people have to deal with issues with their parents well into adulthood, but most mature people deal with it at an earlier age.

 

Kirk is 22 when he drunkenly tried to pick up Uhura in a bar, then the bulk of the movie is 3 years later when Kirk is 25. Uhura, Sulu and Checkov are the only characters younger than Kirk, and the movie really wasn't about them that much. As in the previous timeline, young Spock, Scotty and McCoy are all older than Kirk. Saying they're "a group of hormonal kids with a cool spaceship" is really exaggerating, IMO.

 

Really? A brawl on the bridge of the Enterprise between Kirk and Spock. Spock making out with Uhura on the transporter pad. Lots of angst. It was a bunch of hormonal kids with a cool spaceship. However, this is what people want and this is why this movie is making tons of money. Youth and sex sells - i.e. Twilight. (As a side note - Twilight has been driven as much by middle-aged mothers as teenage girls so youth and sex sells to a big demographic, especially, in our youth and sex obsessed society.)

 

Yes, they were younger characters, but sex appeal wasn't a very big or important part of the movie. Yeah Kirk was still getting laid at 25, but sex is not just a "kid" thing.

 

Yes, but it is a kid thing when people obsess about it like this movie. Why do we have to have the Uhura strips scene? That was gratuitous just to make teenage boys happy. Sex was a big part of this movie, the Uhura-Kirk-Spock triangle was a major subplot of the movie. I was almost expecting them to have a detox scene where they had to run decontamination oil over one another - that was about when I stopped watching Enterprise.

 

That's the single worst thing about the movie? I am definitely not a traditional Star Trek fan then. Those carefully placed products are such a minor detail in the movie. If this is the single worst thing, then that tells me this was the smallest nit they could find to pick. Ugh. And one of my favorites, Star Trek IV, had product placement as well, so this is not even new. The movies might be about a utopian future somehow existing without free enterprise, but the movies are made in a society that still has it. These movies are fiction. The entire franchise is made up of products created to make a profit. That's why you had to buy your ticket to see the movie.

 

I don't think you get Trek's vision of the future nor why product placement would make sense in IV but not here. IV took place in the 80s, at the time the movie was made so you actually have to use product placement to help the story along. I mean was their product placement in the Star Wars movies? There was none in Serenity for example. Product placement is not a requirement for a movie, sure it makes a cheap buck, but it can undermine a movie like it did with this movie.

 

And I really appreciate all your feedback from the traditional Trek fans on a Trek board. I admit I had a misconception of what the biggest concern of all the Trek fans going into the movie. All this time I thought the biggest issue was the feeling that the time travel in this movie somehow invalidated their beloved continuity, which is why I spent so much time above on that topic.

 

This is a huge misconception. Every diehard Trek fan will agree that the franchise had been run in the ground, they differ on who they think ran it into the ground. I had no problem with changing continuity. I think some of the changes were poorly thought out, knowing where Trek has gone wrong in the past as well as running Trek RPGs for almost two decades I can see where the new franchise has already gotten themselves in a little trouble story wise. I was hoping they would have avoided the technobabble problem (i.e. making up tech to solve a problem instead of having the characters solve the problem by their decisions), but alas this is one thing which survived from earlier Trek. Hopefully, they will keep it reined in before they box themselves into corners story-wise like Voyager did for the franchise.

 

Trekkies agree that changes were needed and a young brood is needed to give the movies energy. The fans who have problems with this movie, and to be honest, we are a minority of diehard Trek fans (probably 15-20%) are mostly upset as Abrams abandoned the Trek vision of a brighter future where humanity has grown and was in the pursuit of further growth. The new Trek is EXACTLY the same society as today just with spaceships. I'll quote something I posted on another forums:

 

1) Nokia/Budweiser. This basically established that the future economy is pretty much like ours and that the same companies exist. I get product placements makes the studio money, but it makes 250 years in the future the same as today. I get that makes it more accessible to audiences, but it's a little ridiculous. I can guarantee that whatever the future is that neither Nokia or Budweiser will be around in 250 years.

2) Kirk's bad mother. Kirk's behavior at the beginning of the movie was aggravating, because it basically showed that Kirk's mother was fundamentally incompetent as well as all the schools and counselors Kirk was subjected to. It's a nice throwback to the 60s when that was true, but not today and certainly not 250 years in the future. I think that anyone who has kids or dealt with kids who have lost parents realizes that the sloppy portrayal of Kirk was written by people who don't have kids. You could give Kirk arrogance, but remove the chip on his shoulder because his father died. In reality from my experience with kids who lost parents - Kirk would have idolized his dead father and Starfleet far more than if his father had died. It was poorly thought out and went on cliche in the movie, but the subtext showed that Earth society at least in regards to young Kirk had totally failed.

3) Evil cadets. Next to the Romulans, who at least had a reason to be angry, the cadets who beat up a farm boy in Iowa were real villains. They started the fight and they beat Kirk senseless. Sure Kirk got in a few good hits, but he was clearly victimized by Starfleet cadets. Kirk gets in trouble for tweaking a program, but a cadet who nearly killed a kid apparently graduated and got posted to the flagship with no problem.

4) Women in secondary roles. The only roles for women really portrayed in this movie are as mothers and girlfriends. If Abrams and company had guts, which they didn't. It should have been a woman captain on the USS Kelvin. That would have been a better message than the fact that when it comes to being in charge it's all guys. Same with the dean or whatever of the Academy why not make it a woman. The message in this movie is that women can come along, but it's the men who are in charge. This isn't even true today let alone in 250 years.

5) Rampant favoritism in Starfleet. Scotty get's exiled to a desolate outpost by a senior officer who doesn't like him. Uhura gets not posted or posted to ships based on her personal relationship. Kirk gets made first officer and then captain on the whim of an officer who wrote a paper about his dad. Starfleet is a messed up organization when a new lieutenant is given the flagship for saving one out of two planets.

6) Bones' divorce. What does it mean his wife got the whole planet? That can't happen today in divorce proceedings so why would it happen 250 years in the future? I get the reasons for this story wise, but it was a clear jab at the future utopia.

7) Kirk on trial. In what legal system do you bring a cadet on charges of cheating in front of his entire class. Think this through. Even in an utopia you would have a few proceedings like this a semester and you are going to hold it in front of the whole class? This was idiotic, but it shows some sort of inquisitorial state at the Academy. Plus how do you graduate in three years when every week you have to have the entire class gathered to hear trials on why some cadet hasn't paid his parking tickets.

8) No themes for growth. The only growth in this movie was ambition, that and overcoming teenage angst. No one really grew in this movie, they only secured their positions. Kirk never learned to follow orders, which you have to learn before you learn which orders to disobey. There was no real growth and this went against the Trek tradition that every adventure is an opportunity for personal growth.

 

A lot of people don't get why this stuff is a big deal, which is fine, but it is really this lack of vision that annoys some fans. All it would have taken is a few lines of dialogue here and there, a little sharper writing at some points, and I think all Trek fans would have loved this movie. There was no vision in this movie - none. So Trek's vision of the future, that was an undercurrent of the franchise from the beginning was gone. It would be like a Star Wars reboot where the Force is removed from continuity, it might be a very popular reboot, but a small percentage of fans are going to feel like something is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bave

 

1) Nokia/Budweiser. This basically established that the future economy is pretty much like ours and that the same companies exist. I get product placements makes the studio money, but it makes 250 years in the future the same as today. I get that makes it more accessible to audiences, but it's a little ridiculous. I can guarantee that whatever the future is that neither Nokia or Budweiser will be around in 250 years.

 

There are quite a few companies that have been around for 250 years, and in that period there has been a great deal of economic and market upheavel that was very challenging, to assume this will not continue is the height of ignorance. Most will not survive that long, but many will. I would take a bet that Coca-Cola will be around for a very very long time as an example and I think Budweiser in particular is in the same crowd. Nokia is not so much as it is a tech company, which can be surpassed as opposed to a consumer discretionary with brand image and loyalty.

 

2) Kirk's bad mother. Kirk's behavior at the beginning of the movie was aggravating, because it basically showed that Kirk's mother was fundamentally incompetent as well as all the schools and counselors Kirk was subjected to. It's a nice throwback to the 60s when that was true, but not today and certainly not 250 years in the future. I think that anyone who has kids or dealt with kids who have lost parents realizes that the sloppy portrayal of Kirk was written by people who don't have kids. You could give Kirk arrogance, but remove the chip on his shoulder because his father died. In reality from my experience with kids who lost parents - Kirk would have idolized his dead father and Starfleet far more than if his father had died. It was poorly thought out and went on cliche in the movie, but the subtext showed that Earth society at least in regards to young Kirk had totally failed.

 

I don't think it cast any sort of image on his mother, I think you are over-reading into it. Sometimes children rebel against authority and it takes many shapes and forms, and in extreme circumstances there is little that a parent can do except ride the course out. I wouldn't cast judgement on a parent trying to raise a child who lost their father under similar circumstances, the expectation the kid is going to be 100% normal is ludicrous.

 

3) Evil cadets. Next to the Romulans, who at least had a reason to be angry, the cadets who beat up a farm boy in Iowa were real villains. They started the fight and they beat Kirk senseless. Sure Kirk got in a few good hits, but he was clearly victimized by Starfleet cadets. Kirk gets in trouble for tweaking a program, but a cadet who nearly killed a kid apparently graduated and got posted to the flagship with no problem.

 

Seriously? Did we watch the same movie? Kirk started that fight hands down. He may not have swung first, but he forced the other cadet to take a swing by his statements and actions, particularly in that environment. He was no victim, he was a willing participant in a fight, that he clearly chose to happen. He was no more a victim than anyone else losing a fight.

 

4) Women in secondary roles. The only roles for women really portrayed in this movie are as mothers and girlfriends. If Abrams and company had guts, which they didn't. It should have been a woman captain on the USS Kelvin. That would have been a better message than the fact that when it comes to being in charge it's all guys. Same with the dean or whatever of the Academy why not make it a woman. The message in this movie is that women can come along, but it's the men who are in charge. This isn't even true today let alone in 250 years.

 

For crying out loud. Are you some sort of activist about sexist, racism, victimization, and child cruelty along with sociology? Why does everything this day and age have to be politically correct in every single way all the time. Why was there no woman in a command position? Why was there no flamboyant homosexual in charge? What about a black? asian? hispanic? catholic? buddhist? We can go on and on. How about the simple fact that in military institutions around the world they are dominated by men for a whole host of reasons, of which sexism is about the last on the list.

 

5) Rampant favoritism in Starfleet. Scotty get's exiled to a desolate outpost by a senior officer who doesn't like him. Uhura gets not posted or posted to ships based on her personal relationship. Kirk gets made first officer and then captain on the whim of an officer who wrote a paper about his dad. Starfleet is a messed up organization when a new lieutenant is given the flagship for saving one out of two planets.

 

Look at WW2. It is not about favortism that gets Kirk his command. It is much more about the fact that a huge portion of their trained and experience officer corp was KIA'd. They ran out of officers, and while he was young he demonstrated command leadership at a pivotal moment, saving the human home world. That's not worth a command? He would be the hero of the federation at that point. You give the man a ship for advertising if for no other reason.

 

6) Bones' divorce. What does it mean his wife got the whole planet? That can't happen today in divorce proceedings so why would it happen 250 years in the future? I get the reasons for this story wise, but it was a clear jab at the future utopia.

 

It was a clear jab at the bitterness of divorce when people feel cheated. In 250 years will you be ok with losing half of your stuff that you don't feel you should? Has nothing to do with timeline, everything to do with the most basic human psyche.

 

7) Kirk on trial. In what legal system do you bring a cadet on charges of cheating in front of his entire class. Think this through. Even in an utopia you would have a few proceedings like this a semester and you are going to hold it in front of the whole class? This was idiotic, but it shows some sort of inquisitorial state at the Academy. Plus how do you graduate in three years when every week you have to have the entire class gathered to hear trials on why some cadet hasn't paid his parking tickets.

 

This is getting worse and worse. It was not a legal system, it was a disciplinary hearing not a civil or criminal trial. They were determining whether he had violated the "Honor Code". If you have never heard of this, then you need to look around some of the oldest educational institutions in the world. I spent 8 years at a boarding school in New Hampshire where this is very near how things were handled. If there was an allegation of ethical/moral misconduct (as in cheating) a group of your peers was to determine your innocence or guilt and then pass it on to the dean or committee to determine punishment. The idea is that when you are enforcing an honor code it needs to be public in order to reinforce the idea of it. I believe the US Academies and Sandhurst do something very similar in certain circumstances as well.

 

As for graduating in three years. Again, go back to WW2. The US graduated entire classes from West Point early. Why? They needed officers in the field. They "graduated" just after their entire fleet was destroyed and Vulcan was under attack. They were needed to man ships, not because of some sort of academic reason. What would you do? Have them serve in combat, tell them thanks, and send them back to class? That is what War Colleges are for, continuing educated of fielded officers.

 

8) No themes for growth. The only growth in this movie was ambition, that and overcoming teenage angst. No one really grew in this movie, they only secured their positions. Kirk never learned to follow orders, which you have to learn before you learn which orders to disobey. There was no real growth and this went against the Trek tradition that every adventure is an opportunity for personal growth.

 

That is debatable. Did Kirk not learn how to deal with an adversary (Spock?) Did he not learn how to forgive and work together with him? Did he not offer an olive branch by permitting him to be his XO? How much growth did you see Spock exhibit? The entire subplot of this movie was about how Spock would come to grips with his own emotional needs and how he became the way he was.

 

A lot of people don't get why this stuff is a big deal, which is fine, but it is really this lack of vision that annoys some fans. All it would have taken is a few lines of dialogue here and there, a little sharper writing at some points, and I think all Trek fans would have loved this movie. There was no vision in this movie - none. So Trek's vision of the future, that was an undercurrent of the franchise from the beginning was gone. It would be like a Star Wars reboot where the Force is removed from continuity, it might be a very popular reboot, but a small percentage of fans are going to feel like something is missing.

 

You can argue all you like about Vision, but that ceased a long time ago in the movies. These movies are not an educational piece about how to get along with your neighbors, they are movies. The last thing I want is popular media trying to educate our population on morale theories. That is what education and parenting is for. I go to a movie to be entertained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really going to address most of what you said as apparently you are letting your political ideology govern your opinions. Though I will say I am a lawyer so I know contemporary law fairly well and I am also a parent of children who lost parents, plus more importantly to this discussion I know Trek pretty well. My points were aimed at traditional Trek canon. I don't think these forums are geared for political discussions so you might want to keep posts on topic.

 

Now if you want to try a sensible and thoughtful critique of my statements based on past Trek movies, series, and traditions then I might respond, but otherwise just two points.

 

First, trust me - in 250 years neither Budweiser nor Nokia will be around. I'll even make it a $50 bet with anyone that this will be the case. :)

 

Second...

 

That is debatable. Did Kirk not learn how to deal with an adversary (Spock?) Did he not learn how to forgive and work together with him? Did he not offer an olive branch by permitting him to be his XO? How much growth did you see Spock exhibit? The entire subplot of this movie was about how Spock would come to grips with his own emotional needs and how he became the way he was.

 

Adversary? No, Spock was a superior officer. When do you have to forgive and learn to work with a superior officer? Even in Trek, which is quite progressive as you dislike, never had a situation where it wasn't expected that the chain of command be followed. Yes, Starfleet officers do break the rules, but in this movie Kirk was blatantly disrespectful to a superior officer who honestly had done nothing wrong. Also, how is letting the person who was your commanding officer be your XO an olive branch? That's a slightly delusional perspective. Spock was the one who forgave Kirk not the other way around and Spock did this as it was logical. As for Spock - what was his growth? He had all his growth when he decided to go to Starfleet in recognition of his human side near the beginning of the film. The rest of the movie was just him dealing with the traumas of the loss of his mother and homeworld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bave
I'm not really going to address most of what you said as apparently you are letting your political ideology govern your opinions. Though I will say I am a lawyer so I know contemporary law fairly well and I am also a parent of children who lost parents, plus more importantly to this discussion I know Trek pretty well. My points were aimed at traditional Trek canon. I don't think these forums are geared for political discussions so you might want to keep posts on topic.

 

Now if you want to try a sensible and thoughtful critique of my statements based on past Trek movies, series, and traditions then I might respond, but otherwise just two points.

 

First, trust me - in 250 years neither Budweiser nor Nokia will be around. I'll even make it a $50 bet with anyone that this will be the case. :)

 

Second...

 

 

 

Adversary? No, Spock was a superior officer. When do you have to forgive and learn to work with a superior officer? Even in Trek, which is quite progressive as you dislike, never had a situation where it wasn't expected that the chain of command be followed. Yes, Starfleet officers do break the rules, but in this movie Kirk was blatantly disrespectful to a superior officer who honestly had done nothing wrong. Also, how is letting the person who was your commanding officer be your XO an olive branch? That's a slightly delusional perspective. Spock was the one who forgave Kirk not the other way around and Spock did this as it was logical. As for Spock - what was his growth? He had all his growth when he decided to go to Starfleet in recognition of his human side near the beginning of the film. The rest of the movie was just him dealing with the traumas of the loss of his mother and homeworld.

 

I don't see how my "political ideology" has had any effect whatsoever on my post and furthermore I don't see how your post was based on Star Trek canon whatsoever. You made critique of the disciplinary hearing, the way the movie was portrayed, the discussions of corporations etc. Most of your critique was decidely not related to Star Trek canon, though I fully admit to being a Trek layman.

 

As I said before, I would bet that the brand "Budweiser" will likely be around for a 250 year history, the brand was founded in 1795. So it is almost 250 years old already and it survived some minor things like prohibition. I think it can survive a bit further. Also this is one example, we can rattle around a long list of companies that have a very good chance at long term survival. I can think of many companies that have longer histories yet... Lowenbrau I beleive is 500-600+ years old, Beretta is 500 years old, and those are just two I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Spock was absolutely his adversary. During his hearing for cheating it was very clearly an antogonistic environment where both men questioned one anothers ethics, morals, and intents. This was not a philosophical debate of logical points it was one person being called a cheater and that person in turn calling the creator of the test a cheater for rigging the test to fail under any circumstance. Where do you need to forgive and forget? I will start with the fact that Spock attempted to have Kirk thrown out of the Academy, though I agree he was doing what he felt was right, though Kirk would likely have an issue with this. Second, Spock put Kirk's life in danger by marooning him with no survival gear on a very lethal world and in a completley unnecessary way, the ship didn't have a brig? Third, Spock physically assaulted a Starfleet Officer, on the command bridge of a vessel. I believe you are looking at a long list of reasons why Spock should be resented by Kirk, but in the end, Kirk respected Spock enough to agree to accept him as his XO. He very easily could have said no, and told him to get the hell off the ship.

 

Where did Spock grow? How about in the end of the movie when he said that he was going to stop hiding from his human emotions and lineage, accept and embrace them, and turn over a new leaf as a result? He left behind his old way of thought and embraced his feelings, the definition of growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can somewhat agree by your examples - the writing on this movie was poor. The story and characters were inconsistent and took actions that made no sense in many situations. You would think with $150 million to spend they could have put a little more effort in the script, but most summer blockbusters put script secondary to the action so I guess I can't really condemn this movie for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great feedback Temprus, bave and KJW. I really appreciate everyone keeping it civil. If not, then we couldn't share ideas like this on such a hot topic.

 

That "gratuitous" sexuality of showing Uhura in her underwear did not "just" make teenage boys happy. It made me happy. But I understand clearly that it didn't make all middle-aged men happy.

 

I respectfully submit that in the movie I watched, no Uhura-Kirk-Spock "triangle" existed. And nothing involving Uhura was a "major" subplot of the movie. After hitting on her drunk when they first met, Kirk did not have any serious interest in her. She's hot - that's it. The only thing I can think of that this triangle reference might refer to the running "joke" that she wouldn't tell Kirk her first name. If you are familar with the original crew part of the franchise, then you may know that no TV episode or movie had never previously revealed Urura's first name. The actress Nichelle Nicols created Uhura's first name and that was generally accepted by fandom, but nothing is truly considered canon until it is in a TV episode or movie. Kirk trying to get her name was a very small gag that served as an out-of-universe joke to the Trek fans in the audience. Kirk was surprised as we all were to find out that that Spock had anything at all going with Uhura. It wasn't Uhura he was so surprised about (or jealous as the word triangle implies). It was the fact that Spock would be romantically involved with any human woman. After he learned that, he still tried to confirm the name he had heard and Spock wouldn't repeat it. Little joke, nothing more.

 

Some of the arguments presented in this thread criticize the movie because it is too much like our society and not futuristic enough, while others are used to criticize that the new movie is invalid because it has no basis in our modern society. I respect opposing views but I admit I have trouble understanding that.

 

Sci-fi as a genre is about humanity of today. If all of the problems of today are all resolved before the story takes place, then there are no messages that would have any meaning to us. We would be looking at a completely alien society and culture. Sci-fi is supposed to have some things different and others the same, so there can still be some identification with it.

 

I agree that Spock definitely did have growth as a character. As I mentioned in my original posts, young Spock and Kirk were just about the only ones who did.

 

Kirk's father dying is a difference in his background, and it lead to his mother remarrying a bad step-dad. I suspect that even in the future, kids may not be so well adjusted in the case that they have overbearing step-dad day-to-day. The original Kirk was always a rebel, disregarding starfleet regulations whenever it suited him. The new Kirk's dead father and oppressive step-father was used to show why his rebellious tendancies were ramped up a notch. I think it helps young people of today identify with him. But Kirk had to give up some of his youthful rebellion to fulfill his best destiny and take command. Not all of it, but some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From other discussions I have had on this I think most everyone at the end admits that Trek has jettisoned its intellectualism and that under the hood there isn't a lot going on with this movie compared to Trek of past, which I will admit sometimes went way overboard sometimes. However, this has given it mainstream appeal and for the first time in a long time - Star Trek is a genuine cultural phenomenon. I still think you could have had both, but there is a good possibility I am wrong.

 

Anyway here's hoping the sequels gain some relevance, a lot of franchises raise it up a bar or two with the sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...under the hood there isn't a lot going on with this movie compared to Trek of past, which I will admit sometimes went way overboard sometimes. However, this has given it mainstream appeal and for the first time in a long time - Star Trek is a genuine cultural phenomenon. I still think you could have had both, but there is a good possibility I am wrong.

 

Anyway here's hoping the sequels gain some relevance, a lot of franchises raise it up a bar or two with the sequels.

 

Well said. I think we can agree on that. I do hope the new Star Trek starts "sneaking" a greater level of sci-fi content back in with the sequels (and TV). I think there can be a balance between swashbuckling adventure and intellectual content. I feel both are possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think so too. I mean a lot of franchises have an entertaining, but weak first movie which hooks fans and then they often add layers to the sequels. I have to admit Star Trek had a lot to accomplish in its first movie. Introduce the characters, create a different alternate reality, and present it in some story form. The next movie will have more freedom to show us what Abrams' vision of the future really is and hopefully give us a good story. I imagine in two years I'll be ready to watch another movie in the franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Spock - what was his growth? He had all his growth when he decided to go to Starfleet in recognition of his human side near the beginning of the film. The rest of the movie was just him dealing with the traumas of the loss of his mother and homeworld.
He finally had to admit/realize that there was someone "better" than he was on something he felt an expert/Grand Master/etc. in. In this case it was: "Who is the 'better' leader for this situation?" Sadly, Kirk is only a better leader in this movie because of Plot Handwavyism, not because he actually is a/the better leader.

 

I would say that if we were playing a RPG, the Kirk character has a high Charisma stat (or equivalent) but that the player does not really have the ability to play the character that way. :D Then again, maybe Spock's player just had to deal with the fact that the new player was going to be the group's new leader from now on and was man enough to allow it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stating how a Movie or show would go as a game always makes me thing of this . LMAO

 

I didn't make it all the way through, but some of those are very funny. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comic book lead-in to the new movie (issue #3 just came out) makes it pretty clear that this isn't a reboot in the commonly held sense of "starting over from scratch". Instead it's that hoary old Trek favorite, time travelers altering history to change their present.

 

The comic is set after the Next Generation era and up through #2 (I haven't picked up #3 yet) has had appearances by old Spock (as seen in TNG), Picard and Data (quickly glossing over the whole B-4 business from Nemesis). It's basically the backstory for Nero, the Romulan who's behind the events we'll see in the movie. Nero does something (I won't say what but it's pretty easy to find online) which changes Federation history and Kirk's history in particular, leading to many of the differences between the movie and the original series.

 

Cool. I didn't know about the comic but just read up on it a bit. The 4-issue comic is said to be a prequel to the movie and not overlap with the movie. It's supposed to have little details about the set-up that aren't in the movie itself. #4 ends supposedly ends with a cliff-hanger and the movie's first minute is supposed to pick up seemlessly where the comic left off.

 

Hopefully, the glossing over of B-4 in the comic means that the specific events of Nemesis won't be refered to in the new movie. A human clone of Picard takes control of the Romulan Empire, and yet another android "brother" of Data appears. Absolutely rediculous and lame.

 

Anyway, thanks Jim.

 

I'm sure the new movie won't have any reason to mention it, I expect Nero and old Spock probably won't even make any references in the movie that could tie into the Next Gen era at all.

 

l may let you guys know what I think after I read it, but then again I've read it's not really meant to be a stand-alone story as much as a prologue, prelude, prequel, or backstory to the movie, so I may just wait to give my opinion until I see the movie. Hell, I may just even wait until the week of the movie to even read it.

 

I read the trade paperback a couple days before watching the movie. It was meh, and it really wasn't an independent story. It really was made to be a prologue to the new movie, but the authors also took advantage of the opportunity to also make it a bit of a epilogue to the Next Generation. A segue between the previous movie and the new one. Even though the comic takes place before the 24th century narrative of the new movie (shown in the old Spock-Prime's flashback mind-meld with Kirk), the comic was made long after the movie's story was set.

 

After seeing the movie and could judge them both as parts of a whole, I really didn't care for the comic. It contradicts the movie. Spock-Prime's dialogue in the movie doesn't make it sound like he knew Nero that well or had ever adventured with him before, as shown in the comic. And then there were little errors like how long Spock-Prime had lived on Romulus, which I read in an interview that the authors had tried to back-pedal out of with lame excuses.

 

But the real issue is, the comic really doesn't add anything valuable to the movies IMO. I disregard Nemesis, and the inclusion of Picard, Geordi, Worf, B4/Data, and the Enterprise here isn't anything special anyway. The mind-meld flashback in the movie is adequate to explain how Nero and Spock-Prime got sent to the past withut contradicting the rest of the movie.

 

So I'll be selling my copy of the TBP. At least I gave it a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...