Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Brutal Strudel, Jan 23, 2014.
Finally we agree on something
"James T. Kirk was many things, but he was never a boy scout!" - Carol Marcus, STII.
He was called "A stack of books with legs" in WNMHGB (a pilot episode packed with dubious comments), but even there, nothing about being shy.
That was TNG not TOS. TOS still had money and it still had significant meaning, what with things like rich lithium miners, paying credits for tribbles and the federation investing money in the training of its Starfleet officers.
Good point, although the implication from the context of the conversation was that he didn't have much time (or skill) for women until Gary pushed him in the right direction and even then he ended up in a serious relationship. It still contradicts the notion of a womaniser. And what he actually did once with his partner once he was in a relationship is entirely something else... Maybe Carol liked a moresome with the local Caitian girls too?
Ok, so they were definitely hookers then.
Or they were simply two girls out looking for a good time? God knows I never ran into that when I was single.
If there was evidence on screen that Kirk had any skill at pulling women (Orion women don't really count) I might believe it but he's a disaster. He usually only manages with alien women where the universal translator is doing the hard work for him and they've never heard of pressing lips.
I might believe it if the Caitian twins show up in the next movie as Romulan spies, otherwise I'm sticking to my hooker theory.
With the possible exception of Shaw (and we don't know that he had sex with her), I think he had relationships with those women spread out over a period of 15 years. But of course he could have had many other flings during that time too. He certainly implies in one episode (when a yeoman walks past) that he's horny and looking for action on his shore leave. I think the point is that the popular assumption isn't borne out by much in the way of actual evidence.
Of course you are. You stick with any theory that casts the Abramsverse characters in the worst possible light.
You keep telling yourself that...
Not quite. I prefer theories that cast NuKirk as an individual with serious character flaws rather than a someone to be idolised. His blase attitude during the Kobayashi Maru test being one example (I'd always visualised Kirk changing the upper parameters of the test so it didn't keep upping the ante). He's more interesting to me as a slightly desperate character overcompensating with a front of arrogant confidence. Sex with twins because he'd paid for it makes me like him more than sex with twins because he's so cool twins can't wait to have sex with him. I think it's the fact that the movie feels like it's willing me to like him because he's a bad boy makes me dislike him more.
However, I do appreciate that some people love him because he's a bad boy. That's why it's cool that the scene is vague. We can both justify our personal view of him if we like.
Another example could be Casino Royale. Everyone knows Bond is a womanising psychopath but the character came alive more when they delved beneath the surface to show his vulnerabilities.
I don't think there's anyone here who has said he should be idolized. I think Abramverse Kirk is a very flawed character, I also happen to think the Prime Kirk is also a flawed character. That's why I find both versions interesting.
Well I never said either of them wasn't interesting! Only that disliked the way his behaviour was presented as groovy and cool - he's right and Starfleet is just stuck in the mud because they can't see it. This is not an unusual plot device in TOS but usually it's Starfleet acting so dumb that a 6-year old could tell Kirk was right.
STiD moved more towards recognising Kirk as flawed but in the first movie they really were trying to make us idolise him. Even Pike's dialogue states this early on and he gets promoted to captain at the end.
Still, NuKirk is becoming more interesting as the franchise progresses.
Correction: it was one of a number of options that were not explored in the handful of seconds Kirk had to make a decision on what to do next. If this had been a 3-part TV episode they might have had time to go into a conference room and discuss what to do about it, or if they had known ahead of time it would go down like this they might even have come up with a plan to arrest Nero instead of killing him.
But they didn't have that kind of time. Their planning session, if you remember, came down to "How do we stop Nero from destroying Earth?" It goes without saying that when it comes to a final dealing with Nero, they hadn't actually thought that far ahead.
They do. It's called the "stun setting" on phasers. That system, of course, has its limits and is difficult to use when your enemy is protected by the armored hull of a starship.
Starfleet's good at improvising when they have some lead time, but they're not omniscient and their technology is not (and should not be treated as) magic.
Which, of course, always works the way it's supposed to.
Assuming the Enterprise just happens to be carrying five tons of nerve gas for some reason, why would they GAS Nero's crew instead of phasering them to death? Or are you under the impression that "non-lethal" nerve agents are a thing?
Because the Federation doesn't go around committing war crimes just for the hell of it?
Yeah, just like your cell phone can reach phone numbers on the other side of the planet, so there's no way you would ever be in a situation where you couldn't call 911, especially in a disaster area.
More to the point: Nothing was ever established for the TMP Enterprise transporter capabilities, as we only ever see one transporter room and it's the same one in all three films. As far as we know, the ship only HAS one transporter room. It's equally unclear if the NuEnterprise has more than one transporter, but considering the size of the shuttlebay and the number of craft carried I would be very surprised if it did.
What do you have against Caitian hookers? lolcats need love too!
1. It is the writers' choice I criticise rather than the characters' choice. The characters didn't need to cycle through all the options, although i wouldn't have minded if they did.
2. Nothing works all the time. Not even, as you say, phasers on stun.
3. Wibbly wobbly Trekky wimy nerve agents. I mean knock out gas and I apologise if the term used has a more lethal application on Earth. Using knock out gas is something that has been used on the Enterprise. I suppose I don't see why it isn't beamed over to enemy ships ahead of a boarding party. You don't really need tons of the stuff since you only need to beam it to locations where there are life forms and it should be fairly obvious fairly quickly if it had worked.
4. They put a LOT of effort into the TMP Enterprise right down to labelling the buttons on the bridge so I tend to go with the deck plans I've seen, especially if they make sense. For example, if you only have a transporter in the Saucer section you're screwed following separation.
I don't see that the writers would have really had a good moment to slip that kind of discussion into the story; there's no real room for it there without derailing the way the story progresses.
More to the point, the scene was WRITTEN differently than it was actually filmed; Narada wasn't nearly as close to the singularity in the original script and Enterprise firing on it was literally that, an attempt to keep Nero from potentially escaping.
And I would prefer for Starfleet officers to focus on getting their mission accomplished rather than risk their lives AND the mission on a misguided act of compassion. If that makes Kirk a little less the white knight, that's fine with me; rescuing Nero is superogatory.
Probably because (mind you, this is a bit of fridge logic) that the putative knock-out gas is, like most sedatives, lethal in high enough doses, and that it is extremely difficult to control the actual dosage in an uncontrolled environment. My suspicion is that the "knock out" gas on the Enterprise, if it even IS that, is distributed by the computer which is careful to regulate the gas density in any given area based on the number of people in the room, the size of the room, its density and ventilation characteristics.
You're describing a coordinated and well-practiced neutralization and rescue mission of a type that would make an American SWAT team look like amateurs. I don't know that Starfleet actually specializes in that sort of operation; I don't know that they even should.
The only deck plans we ever saw from TMP were the David Schmidt ones, and those are related to the TMP design only inasmuch as it's probably similar to the Enterprise-A.
Assuming the TMP Enterprise can even sparate, and also assuming that having a transporter in the engineering section would make you less screwed than easy access to escape pods and/or shuttlecraft.
The one thing that kind of bothers me about transporters is that they're sort of depicted as being a big fancy room with the transporter pad and you can just magically deposit someone anywhere you want them to. The thing is, the transporters have their own sensors and beam emitters just like the phaser banks and, strictly speaking, should require even more care and precision than a starship weapon. It makes sense in the 24th century that a ship might have six or seven transporter rooms all operating in parallel, but the 23rd century vessels might be lucky to have more than one.
I think we're missing something, though: the dialogue explicitly states the Narada was doomed. Why are we being told we are essentially stupid for then wanting someone to explicitly voice the idea that Kirk opened up on her in order to guard against a possibilty the script had explicitly dismissed? Really, I think Pauln6 and I and others would have preferred that--and a degree of solemnity at the ensuing arguably justified execution--to the glibness we got.
No long conference scenes. Hell, not even the antithesis of that: my suggestion that Nero make one last attempt at destroying he Enterprise. No. Just. One. Line. Of. Dialogue.
Good God, the height of being judgmental is assuming that someone is sleeping with someone we don't like because they were paid to do it.
The dialogue explicitly says one thing. The visual effects (the ship disappearing into the very same phenomenon through which it appeared in the beginning of the film) explicitly say another.
The problem is faulty writing, not faulty morality.
I'd say it's a heavy dose of both.
The twins dialogue never came off like hooker dialogue to me. There's no money in the utopia anyway.
I think the term 'misguided act of compassion' is interesting. I would not view it as a rescue mission but an arrest. Arresting criminals is not an act of compassion, it's their lawful duty.
If I'm honest, I would prefer to see Federation crews appear a bit more slick and competent. Archer's crew had the most appalling laissez faire attitude except for T'Pol and Tucker and they were frequently criticised for their attitude
Check out this for some amazing refit deck plans: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=92307
Even if you don't view the deck plans as canon or common sense, the model of the saucer has landing struts so they definitely carried the idea across from TOS. I don't think the JJPrise would be the only version that shouldn't separate.
But in terms of transporters I think the ideas from the TMP plans make a lot of sense. Never mind evacuating the ship, if for any reason the engineering section had to go on a mission without the saucer, it could be hamstrung without any transporter capability. It has its own auxiliary bridge, why not transporters?
There are huge conceptual problems with transporters when you aren't transporting from pad to pad. I don't recall spotting a 2-man transporter on the bridge in TMP though. Hmm - different plans - one suggests transporter to the right of the viewscreen and another suggests gravity control.... and it was a 1-man transporter. There are no great images of that console but no obvious transporter platform. I think it might be an idea that was never implemented on screen.
Separate names with a comma.