I don't quite like Abrams' attitude

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by shadowedgalaxy, Nov 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stonester1

    stonester1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Exactly. And the fans have known this for years.

    For exhibit B (exhibit A are TOS eps), I give you the movie "Free Enterprise".
     
  2. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Who said that?
     
  3. stonester1

    stonester1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    It's something I've seen in pieces here and there. Go look them up, probably easy to find.

    It's a criticism I've seen from folks who complain about this movie, too (I have no idea if it applies to you), how Kirk's flirtatiousness and ways with women were overplayed.

    Hardly.
     
  4. Char Aznable

    Char Aznable Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    As far as the XI characters being flawed, I can think of quite a few who had that complaint, but I don't want to name names.

    There was an article I read on some site that did go to ridiculous lengths to "prove" that Kirk wasn't a ladies man (thats where I got my 3 banged women count from I believe).

    Edit: Damn, beaten to it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2009
  5. GhostFaceSaint

    GhostFaceSaint Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    On the north pole in GhostFaceSaint's workshop.
    It was said in every comment and criticism of Kirk and Spock for being arrogant, emotional, and acting like jerks, IE not being perfect parodies of TOS characters. Every time I saw a criticism it was about one of the character flaws or their flawed actions which is part of the story which is a good one. I have seen a lot of complaints about these characters not being great noble super people.
     
  6. GhostFaceSaint

    GhostFaceSaint Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    On the north pole in GhostFaceSaint's workshop.
    ^Agreed!

     
  7. 3D Master

    3D Master Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

    All those novels are bad novels, and whether or not they exist or not, changes nothing of how bad Trek XI is.

    And yes, indeed, a "positively grim" Kirk is exactly the man the who would for equally "positively grim" reasons reprogram the Kobayashi Maru test with several of his class mates.

    It would be one of, if not the first think this Kirk would do that allowed him to loosen up a little; not that he's ever truly loosened up. He was positively grim in many ways during TOS, and he still is during the TOS movies.

    Why would I need to give out a counter argument that's been given out a hundred times over before? Do you think if you just keep repeating the same flawed statement again and again, that it's suddenly going to be a right statement? Even if those who know better have given up through sheer being tired of it, don't correct you for the thousandth time? Sorry, nope, it's still going to be every little bit as wrong then as it was the first time it was stated.

    No. We did not ignore them, the first multiple times the examples were given, back then we showed again and again how the examples are bullshit and have not a single shred of depth to them whatsoever. After hearing the bullshit for the thousandth time, we just get tired of repeating the counter argument and we no longer bother. Doesn't make the examples any less true.

    :rolleyes: We do no such thing. You can spend your time recounting "examples of depth" all you like, doesn't mean they are actually "examples of depth". And we've shown this a thousand times over already, we're just tired of repeating ourselves again, and again, and again, and again.

    :rolleyes: You don't need to have a message in order to be deep. City on the Edge of Forever is exactly deep as it works on multiple levels, and because it has the audacity to ask: "Maybe stopping WWII isn't such a good thing," the exact opposite of every time travel story involving Nazis has ever done before that, and most of them even still today.

    Not every episode requires depth, and not even every movie. However, the reboot movie that's supposed to show to the non-fans what Star Trek is all about, SHOULD have been deep. Now everyone expects the next Star Trek to be another bullshit SFX fest, and we'll be stuck with bullshit SFX fests for the forseeable future, if not all the future.

    There's nothing hammy about The Omega Glory. It is one of the best episodes of TOS, and I have an odd idea, you don't even know what it's message is.

    I don't want to do this, because your complaining about it, but then, you've made your bad. Congratulations, you proven yourself an anti-intellectual.

    "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" is one of the, if not THE best episode of TOS. It so unbelievably poignant, even today, it's amazing.

    It is also one of the most serious episodes ever. It wields it's message also like a sledge hammer: GOOD! It was needed to get the message slammed into shitloads of people's brains back in the 60s, and even today it's necessary like that, because racism still isn't gone.

    Nobody ever did that, but eh, miss represent people's words, it's such a great thing to blacken people, isn't it?

    And all of them, were great stories and drama, and concisely written plots, instead of plothole ridden piles of shit, with more plotholes in one four minute season, than entire movie series have across all their movies.
     
  8. stonester1

    stonester1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Then you've obviously never read William Shatner's "Collision Course" http://www.amazon.com/Collision-Cou...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299005&sr=1-3

    Or Diane Carey's "Best Destiny" (which I'm reading right now) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Des...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299160&sr=1-2

    WTF do you know? You've never read them? You only know they don't hold to your white knuckled holdings to your preconceptions of what young Kirk was like.

    They do. Epic fail. And you are entitled to rage in your lone, squeaky voice of how "bad" Star Trek is. And your isolation only fuels said rage.

    Not really, because the way it's been played is pretty much like a prank. He may have had a point, but he sure as fuck was having more fun than you seem to be willing to allow for.

    Oh, BULLSHIT. He had grim MOMENTS. But he had even MORE moments where he seemed happy, cheerful, content, humorous. It made those grim moments or other moments of departure stand out more by comparison. His smile and humor standing in contrast to Spocks stone face stoicism, or McCoy off on one of his tirades.

    It was his general cheerful demeanor is what helped provide memorable contrasts in scenes such as this.

    So when he DID go grim, or angry or steely determined, it STOOD OUT.
     
  9. 3D Master

    3D Master Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    It needed to evolve into the Dark Knight. Deep stories that work on multiple levels along with kick ass action. Not mindless, plotless, story-less, drama-less SFX fest.

    :guffaw:

    What story? Evil bastard travels back in time to destroy Earth, and now we have to stop him?

    Please. It's about as non-existent a story as you can get. Maybe it would work if there was a shitload of side-stuff and multiple levels tact onto it, that all fill each other in, like an orchestra. But there was no such thing.

    :guffaw:

    What characters that were flawed, grew?

    Kirk is an asshole, which some people would consider flawed, then again he was depicted as being right from beginning to end, which means he was portrayed as not having any flaws at all. There was no reason for him to grow, and as a result, obviously, he didn't. He's the same asshole at the end of the movie as he was in the beginning.

    Spock is the only other character in it long enough to have a possibility of a character arc. But once again, what growth? Any growth was OFF SCREEN! And a growth (being with a woman without his brain being compromised) that was neither necessary, usefull, or desired. To top it off, it was growth that you can consider disgusting, as he entered in a relationship with one of his students. Anything else, there's not growth. His just mister logic all around.

    He screwed the pooch, that's what he did. Star Trek XI is a plothole ridden, unholy abomination of unprecedented proportions. There's nothing to it whatsoever but a story-less pile of SFX.

    1. There wasn't any depth.

    2. There won't be more, it's more likely there'll be less.

    Orci & Kurtzman also wrote Transformers 1 & 2. You can be expecting Transformers 2 with Trek XII. An even bigger SFX fest, with even more plotholes and bullshit.

    No, that actually is one of the many reasons why First Contact is such a good story, while XI is not, because nobody in XI changes or grows.

    Except that he doesn't, but eh.

    And the few times that he's being a LADIES' MAN, not the dark opposite of that - a player. Kirk is not an inconsiderate prick and an asshole about it.

    William Shatner's novels are horribly bad. It's his own self-glorification, not good novels, let alone good Kirk novels.

    I've read one Diane Carey novel and it was so bad I never wanted to read another one of them. And obviously I was right, as she wrote another bad novel. You got a novel where Kirk is the opposite of what he's supposed to be, you have a bad novel.

    :rolleyes: They aren't preconceptions, they are what he's said to be in TOS episodes. That's not pre-conceptions, that's proper conceptions.

    Writing Kirk as a maverick when he was young, in fact, is exactly the preconceptions people have about him that are wrong. They wrote young Kirk, as if he's old Kirk, THOSE are the preconceptions. It also goes against that whole growth Santa Clause likes so much.

    :guffaw:

    :rolleyes: The positively grim Kirk, the real Kirk, wouldn't have played it like a prank. It would have been deadly serious to him.

    You must not have watched TOS much then. The few times we see him smile or bee cheerful, are exactly the few things that contrast his usually serious attitude. Cheerful usually only arrives after an episode is over, when there is a time to relax.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2009
  10. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Good thing I'm not the only one who thinks the characters in this movie had no growth or development whatsoever.

    Yes, they are in different places at the end of the movie, but the characters do not ever go through a development. Captain Kirk is the same character as the kid that drove the car over the cliff, the same guy who started a fight in a bar, the same guy who cheated at the test. He didn't learn anything. But this time he got a commendation and not a warning.
    Spock is unstable in his childhood, beating up kids who said "Your mom!", Spock is unstable as an adult, beating up Kirk who said "Your mom!". And at the end of the movie, he still is unstable. Would somebody again come along and say "Your mom!", he would beat him up again. No development there at all.

    Yeah well, and the others are totally 1-dimensional.

    And the worst thing is the "development" of the friendship between nuKirk and nuSpock. They are only becoming friends because oldSpock told them they needed to to that. How awfully funny is that?
     
  11. Char Aznable

    Char Aznable Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Thats one interpretation, that doesn't make yours any more right.

    LOL, "those novels are bad automatically because they conflict with a few lines from a pilot early in the series!" :rolleyes: Real mature attitude there.

    Have any examples or proof of this?

    LOL, conjecture. Also, if you think TOS Kirk was grim, you haven't met many grim people in real life. The only instances where Kirk seemed at all like that were when the scenerio called for it.


    Frankly, that sounds like a quitter's attitude from people who think they know TOS when they couldn't be any more clueless.


    In your opinion. I've never seen a single valid counter to the argument that Star Trek XI has depth by detractors other that an, "lol nuh uh!" Seriously, not a single one.


    Why aren't they examples? Because you say so? You haven't shown jack shit besides just how ignorant and immature the detractors can be.

    Ok, so you agree the episode has no message and that any depth it has is what we take from it, right?


    Who says? Again, the Tribbles episode is one of the most popular episodes, yet its plot isn't all that deep. You haven't offered a valid reason as to why the new movie had to have some pretentious message in order to be good.

    In your, minority, opinion. I constantly see people bitch about this episode.

    Also, don't presume to condscend to me, son. I know damn well what that episode was about. Nothing groundbreaking to be frank.


    :rolleyes: I just know if I said something like this I'd get a warning.

    Again, this is a minority opinion. Most people I've encountered don't care for this episode.

    Excuse me for not wanting to be talked down to by a TV show. People have it beaten into their heads that racism is bad since they're in kindergarden. Either they'll listen or they won't. Again, its hard to take this episode seriously considering how ridiculously they presented its message.

    I know several people who have said just that on this forum.

    Again with the, "la la la I can't hear you!" mentality. If you really think every ep of TOS was golden then you're simply blind. TOS was a brilliant, groundbreaking series, but it had a shit load of flaws.
     
  12. stonester1

    stonester1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    And your bad eps, like all TV shows do.

    Thing is, the characters are so good and the actors who portray them are so good, usually bad Trek is still entertaining.
     
  13. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    Though the young Kirk in Trek Xi seemed to have more commont sense than Collision Course young Kirk did at times.
    In fact I do believe Trek XI's take on young Kirk was based on this novel.

    Oh also it's not a good idea to get into a debate with 3D Master, all you do is end up going in circles as he repeats the same arguments over and over again.
     
  14. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    I'll go so far as to say that TOS had more bad-to-mediocre outings than good-to-great ones. Thing is, it's the good-to-great ones that made me--most of us, I'd hazard to say--a fan. I loved this new movie but I have to say, any argument that seeks to defend it's relative lack of brains (though the movie is convoluted as all hell, I'll grant it that) by contrasting it with Trek's worst hours is setting up an entirely meretricious argument.

    As far as Kirk's own self-description of himself as "grim" in "Shore Leave" goes vs. what's in the novels: the books have no bearing on anything for me, not even the ones I like. They are little more than fanfic and carry about as much weight. (Besides, I stopped reading them ages ago.) You do make a better point when you bring in TWoK, which has supplanted TOS for many people in their conception of these characters, but that was almost as revisionist as Trek XI. Besides, I can see a grim brainiac of a young Kirk--a grind completely consistent with the guy we hear about in "Where No Man..." and "Shore Leave"--reprogramming the simulator out of righteous indignation rather than cocky insouciance. I very much doubt the prime universe K-M went anything at all like the one in the Abrams film. I'd always imagined it was so subtly different that it took Star Fleet a while to figure out it had been hacked.
     
  15. stonester1

    stonester1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    The point is not the "canon" or lack thereof of the books. The point is that this idea that young Kirk was just a big pile of deadly serious, well behaved, no fun is not even a universally held idea in fandom.

    Based on available speculations on the subject, which WOULD included novels, some people clearly believe otherwise.

    I personally envision a young rowdy tamed somewhat and well matured by later experiences. That's why I have no problem reconciling a young, devil may care Kirk with a "stack of book with legs deadly serious" jr officer Kirk. Experiences. And young thirties Captain Kirk is a maturation and sythesis of these experiences and the personality that has developed.
     
  16. 3D Master

    3D Master Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    This sentence makes no sense.

    :rolleyes:

    :guffaw:

    You're actually asking for examples or proof of a story that hasn't been told?

    :guffaw:

    There's no examples and proof, only an understanding of how a certain character might or might not act.

    A serious, by the book person, a walking stack of books, a brainiac, and even geek, is perfectly capable of breaking a rule and "cheating" if something is wrong and it needs to be set right, and even if it's their personal sense of right and wrong.

    A by the book person who does not believe there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, and believes it is a defeatist attitude that will cost lives, would be exactly be the person to cheat to show this very thing.

    Some brash hot head, in fact, is more likely to just say, "Fuck it, man" and move on, then cheat on a test he couldn't win anyway.

    You'll never find Kirk laughing his way through a threat. Maybe that's not grim, but he most definitely is serious.

    :rolleyes:

    :rolleyes:

    Let's see; there's no growth in any of the characters. They're the same in the beginning as they are at the end.

    The sheer amount of plot-holes exist solely to keep whatever there is of a story as flimsy thin and ongoing as possible. A cadet, for example, being the only one to detect the fight between the Narada and the Klingons, and not telling it to Starfleet command, so they can have the convoluted bull that is Kirk "figuring out the trap" despite there being no trap, let alone that his figuring out makes any sense whatsoever, and put him on the bridge. If there was even the remotest hint of depth in this movie, there would have been others who picked it up, or Uhura would have told those above her, which would have meant that Pike already knew all about it.

    The plot is nothing but; newest villain and his doomsday weapon.

    Anything that might have brought some depth to it; like the destruction of Vulcan, is glossed over near immediately as if it barely even happened. Nobody seems to give a care one way or the other; thus eliminating any depth the destruction of a planet might have bring to the movie.

    Thus, there is nothing there, not a bit.

    Which leads me to fire the question right back at you; where is all this depth you speak of? Those who have claimed depth have never once brought anything up that's actually depth.

    Oh, yes, that's really helpful... not.

    Nope. All depth it has, is what it has.

    BECAUSE THE REBOOT, THE NEW START! That means the new reboot should be showing people what Star Trek is all about, and what's so good about it.

    Plothole-ridden SFX fest is NOT what's good about Star Trek.

    I haven't, but eh, you mush see different people than I do.

    What is it about then in your opinion?

    Once again; must be different people than I know.

    You see, the whole point is, that there are LARGE amounts of people who HAVE NOT had it beaten into their heads that racism is bad. And that number was much higher back in the 60s. Those who do not listen, are exactly those people who black on the left, and black on the right might be the one thing that gets through to them.

    Who?

    Because last time I checked, it was about lacking depth, and not a message.

    Exactly where did I say that every ep of TOS was golden? Nowhere, not even close. Which makes this you "La la la, I refuse to hear what you wrote, I'll just fill in there what I want to hear."

    There were some seriously bad episodes of TOS, not a one of them, can even come anywhere in the neighborhood of near of close to the sheer horrifying badness that is Trek XI. I've never seen a movie as bad as Trek XI, EVER, and that's without taking into account it's supposed to be a Star Trek movie. With it...
     
  17. Char Aznable

    Char Aznable Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Here's the thing though, what evidence is there that Kirk got into any trouble or broke any rules prior to his cheating on the K-B exam in XI? I didn't get the impression that NuKirk was some trouble maker who was constantly starting shit as a cadet. Really, he just seemed like someone who was ridiculously confident to me.

    Not really, a by the book person wouldn't change the program and cheat on a test to begin with. A by the book person would just accept the reasoning for the test being there and moving on. Thats what "by the book" means.

    Again, not really. Hot headed people tend to hate losing and would do anything it took to win, sometimes even cheating.


    Yeah, because Kirk was laughing like mad when they were almost pulled into the black hole.

    Yeah, Kirk's totally still a drunk bar fly whose life is going nowhere and Spock is still conflicted about dealing with his emotions!

    These aren't even really plot holes. Most of the so called "plot holes" are rather plot conveniences. Granted, your mileage may vary on how well they work, but they aren't mistakes.

    A group of professionals aren't going to be sitting around moping and crying over that. Especially when Nero and the Narada are still out there and headed for Earth.

    :rolleyes:

    Fine, one thing that struck me when I saw XI was how the three main characters all had one thing in common.

    Kirk, lost his father to Nero as he was born.

    Spock, lost his mother and his planet to Nero.

    Nero, lost his wife and his home planet and blames Spock/the Federation for failing to save them.

    The movie subsequently shows us how these three deal with their loss: Kirk initally lives a troubled life wasting his gifts until Pike tells him to get off his ass and honor his father, who gave his life to save his son plus 800 lives. This inspires Kirk to join starfleet and live a life that matters. Spock becomes severely conflicted by Vulcan's destruction, making irrational decisions and trying to fight against his human impulses. When Kirk gets him to relinquish command, Sarek lets Spock know that it is ok for him to feel grief and anger. Nero lets his grief overcome him and becomes a raving madman who wants everyone to feel the pain he felt.

    More on this point later though.


    How kind of you to prove me right.

    No, sorry. Thats not how it works

    Pretentious messages aren't what was so good about Star Trek though to most people. Don't presume to speak for the entirety of the fanbase.

    It is true that racism was more prevalent in the 60s than today as well as the fact that racism indeed still exists. However, just because an episode talks about race doesn't mean it is automatically good. Another point I want to bring up is your assertion that people would actually listen to a Trek episode and change their ways. That is frankly a naive view point. Most people who have such narrow minded views on race and/or ethnicity tend not to be the sort to watch TV like Star Trek in the first place. Typically, liberal minded individuals are the ones more interested. So, what is the point of beating the message that racism is bad into the heads of people who already agree with that point?

    Honestly, I get the impression that the people who think Star Trek always needs some sort of message or allegory are just looking for something to validate their own beliefs.


    Its not polite to name names.

    Again, I hear constant complaints on this and in the movies forum that XI needed a message.

    Um, you just said, "And all of them, were great stories and drama, and concisely written plots," which gives me the impression that you think every TOS ep was brilliant.

    :rommie: I'm sorry, I just can't take such a ridiculous opinion seriously. The worst movie EVER? Really? Now I think you're just being a troll.

    Hell, worse than Nemesis I can't wrap my head around . . .
     
  18. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    I think you can quite reasonably call certain characters in the movie those things.

    The characters in the movie are literally different people - Kirk and Spock are off in another universe somewhere. We are told that in the film. Comparing new Kirk to old Kirk is basically like comparing Archer to Picard. They are different people leading different lives.

    It's not like anyone gave a shit that mirror Sisko was different to 'our' Sisko.
     
  19. stonester1

    stonester1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Uh, no, it's not.

    That would be like comparing Picard...to Picard in another timeline. He's NOT another person, he's PICARD. That may be another Picard, but it's still Picard.

    Another you is not the same thing as some other joe-blow.

    That would be saying this new movie isn't really about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.

    When it CLEARLY is.
     
  20. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Yes it is. He isn't me; I'm me. He is a different person.

    The movie was about mirror versions of those characters. They are different people.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.