Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?
- Thread starter ColeMercury
- Start date
Yes, the window dressing is similar.
Some of those things aren't something the Federation/Starfleet has any responsibility for and the rest I suspect are artificially prominent because Star Trek follows the exploits of a starship.
P.S. I have to ask: What in the 2009 movie made you think that that future "looks worse than the present." I don't remember seeing any evidence of wars, poverty, political oppression, racism, religious strife, etc, all of which are plentifully abundant today. According to the Abrams movie, humanity has gone to the stars and is co-existing peacefully with various alien races. How is that worse than present?
I mean, okay, Kirk gets beaten up in a bar fight, and the Vulcan Science Council are kind of dicks, but that's not exactly Road Warrior or the Planet of the Apes.
Well I suppose that to most people Kirk getting beaten up was just another bit of thoughtless violence in a Hollywood blockbuster. But I saw it as a clear indication that the Federation (which I agree never was perfect, but even so) and in particular Starfleet, are not what they should be. Trainee Starfleet security personnel, of all people, should not be that easy to provoke when confronted by a drunk civilian and Starfleet itself should not be so "relaxed" about their behaviour.
Then you have Spock Prime who effectively sabotages the career of his alternative self, not because it was necessary to save the Earth/Federation, but to get nuKirk in the Captain's seat.
Uhura's decision to advance her career, in the face of a temporary humanitarian emergency situation no less (when there could have been a very good reason she was needed on another ship), is not a good look in my view.
And of course everyone's familiar with Kirk and Spock's attempted part in Nero's final demise (whether they achieved anything or not).
UFO, I'm going to attempt to address some points you brought up because I found them interesting.
First of all, I think that Trek 09 offers an optimistic future in that a screw up like Kirk can still reach for his potential. I'll admit to some minor straining of credulity, but its par for course as far as Trek goes
Well I will grant you the entire universe seemed to be rooting for him, but I'm not sure he would have made it otherwise. I guess that's the straining credulity part.
Is that a variation on the "it's all about friendship" motif?
Well we may never know for sure but watching the original episode I thought the MU was just a parallel universe with no branching involved. I only mentioned a possible split because that seems to be how it is being viewed now. Thank you nuTrek!
Point taken to a degree, but a coup is something you generally need help with. Marcus just seemed to do what he liked on his own say so. Building secret bases and starships, hiring mercenaries, whatever it took.
Except Marcus is shown making spur of the moment decisions without consulting anyone. He must have had a plan to deal to with Khan going to Kronos (and a pastie to blame for it) but suddenly Kirk volunteers and he just gives the go ahead then and there. Besides, if something helps make for a more plausible story it is important in my view.
But actually, according to Memory Alpha, Section 31 were Marcus' "conspirators" (when you would expect them to be exposing him!), so perhaps Starfleet aren't as directly complicit as I thought. Of course they don't offer objections: Marcus seems to BE Starfleet, as well as heading Section 31.
Now there is an attempt to put things back on track at the end of the film. This and one or two other things are why I feel STid is "better Trek" (to me anyway) than the first movie, even if some may not like it (or not like it so much) for other reasons.
Edit: My position is that I don't mind if a Trek story shows "problems in paradise" so long as they are acknowledged and discussed etc . The first movie made the problems seem like standard procedure. Having said that, I'm not as bent out of shape as I once was, believe it or not.
Heh, yeah, well in moments of cognitive dissonance I just pretend they got the years wrong and it still to happen.Hell, I don't think either universe follows from our present, because I don't think the Eugenics Wars actually happened!
Hell, I don't think either universe follows from our present, because I don't think the Eugenics Wars actually happened!
And that is one whole other can of worms...
He probably wouldn't need to consult anybody. It'd make sense for the conspirators to act autonomously, so that if they do get caught out (and Marcus seems prone to making decisions that would see him court-martialed if they ever got out), then they can be cut loose without the others falling with them. Also if Marcus is a pretty senior member of the group he wouldn't likely need anyone's permission to do whatever he damn well likes.
Unsurprisingly I don't:
- It was an even fight, no ganging up.
- The Klingons, unlike nuKirk (who was just a drunk smartass), offered ongoing provocation
- Scotty and Co at least attempted to ignore said provocation.
- The TOS scene was obviously comedy, which quite seriously is actually relevant.
- The response, and at least there was one, was therefore appropriate to that tone.
- But most importantly, no one was beaten to within an inch of their life (or so it seemed) and certainly long past their ability to fight back which looked like it would have continued without Pike's intervention.
- Finally, unlike the ST09 version, the TOS fight was obviously necessary!
He probably wouldn't need to consult anybody. It'd make sense for the conspirators to act autonomously, so that if they do get caught out (and Marcus seems prone to making decisions that would see him court-martialed if they ever got out), then they can be cut loose without the others falling with them. Also if Marcus is a pretty senior member of the group he wouldn't likely need anyone's permission to do whatever he damn well likes.
Which, in a way is my point. His co-conspirators, if any, are essentially underlings who do what ever he wants. The powers that be have let the same guy who heads Section 31 also control (apparently) Starfleet with no oversight.
Lets just say it doesn't inspire confidence! Neither does the fact that Marcus makes snap decisions involving the fate of empires and no one in Starfleet objects to it. 
What's the normal procedure when you want to fire missiles at the Klingon home world anyway? 
Unsurprisingly I don't:
- It was an even fight, no ganging up.
- The Klingons, unlike nuKirk (who was just a drunk smartass), offered ongoing provocation
- Scotty and Co at least attempted to ignore said provocation.
- The TOS scene was obviously comedy, which quite seriously is actually relevant.
- The response, and at least there was one, was therefore appropriate to that tone.
- But most importantly, no one was beaten to within an inch of their life (or so it seemed) and certainly long past their ability to fight back which looked like it would have continued without Pike's intervention.
- Finally, unlike the ST09 version, the TOS fight was obviously necessary!
So now we're holding Academy cadets to a higher standard than the chief engineer of the Starfleet flagship?
-The Klingons said something mean, so Scotty gets to beat them up?
-We don't know what the response was, because the other cadets were not the focus of the movie, Kirk was. For all we know, Pike locked them up in their dorm rooms for a week.
And let us not forget that Finnegan apparently hazed Kirk mercilessly back in their academy days. And that Ben Finney, a Starfleet officer, tried to destroy Kirk out of professional jealousy. And that Lawrence Marvick, the designer of the Enterprise, was driven to murder and sabotage because of his unrequited lust for Miranda Jones. And that Marla McIvers chose Khan over her duty, putting the entire crew in danger. And then there was Valeris . . ..
And as for Star Fleet admirals going rogue, have we all forgotten The Undiscovered Country and Insurrection?
Starfleet, as in institution, is all about peace and progress. But nobody ever said that it's composed entirely of saints and paragons. Admirals, officers, cadets . . . they're all just human, no matter what timeline you're talking about. As TOS often reminded us, mankind is still a half-savage "child" race with a long way to go.
"We're not going to kill . . . today."
And as for Star Fleet admirals going rogue, have we all forgotten The Undiscovered Country and Insurrection?
Starfleet, as in institution, is all about peace and progress. But nobody ever said that it's composed entirely of saints and paragons. Admirals, officers, cadets . . . they're all just human, no matter what timeline you're talking about. As TOS often reminded us, mankind is still a half-savage "child" race with a long way to go.
"We're not going to kill . . . today."
Which, in a way is my point. His co-conspirators, if any, are essentially underlings who do what ever he wants. The powers that be have let the same guy who heads Section 31 also control (apparently) Starfleet with no oversight.
But we have seen other Starfleet officers act with similar impunity such as Leighton (who was already mentioned), Sloan (who was a part of Section 31 and had no scruples committing genocide, and did not seem to consult any superiors or fellow agents), as well as the conspirators in TUC (I think already mentioned).
The point being, that just because there was no oversight or that Marcus didn't consult anyone does not some how translate in to no plan on his part. He needed a fall guy, and Kirk would work just fine. He was planning on sacrificing whatever patsy did it-Kirk was just dumb enough to walk in to it.
Marcus clearly had this plan in the works to start a war, since the Vengeance was already built and ready. Khan just forced him to move the time frame up. It's not like he was going to the Admiralty to ask permission to start his war. Section 31 operated outside of the normal operating procedures. Marcus was simply a war-monger, hyping the Klingons likeliness of attacking, which given what we see in TOS was not unreasonable expectation.
In addition, one aspect of the "optimistic future" of Trek, especially in TNG, was that no one would use positions of power in an inappropriate way-that was GR's objection to TUC was the Starfleet abuse of power and conspiracy to commit murder, etc. I mean, look at Picard's line in "The Neutral Zone" in response to a question about people using the comm system without permission. No one would even think to use it the wrong way.
As for the cadets, who is to say they were not reprimanded? We don't see any thing about their careers aside from their brief roles on the Enterprise, besides Uhura, who was hardly the instigator in the fight.
I guess I'm wondering why it all must be explained on the face?
A
Amaris
Guest
...
...
As for the cadets, who is to say they were not reprimanded? We don't see any thing about their careers aside from their brief roles on the Enterprise, besides Uhura, who was hardly the instigator in the fight.
I guess I'm wondering why it all must be explained on the face?
It depends upon how you approach the film. If you find yourself in the darkened theater, staring at the screen, you may be approaching it this way:
Entertainment value - You seek to be entertained by a familiar story and familiar characters. You realize there will likely be errors, and you plan on having fun pulling them apart later. For now, you're just hoping for a great film. Sometimes, people do this and end up disliking a film.
Justification of existence - You seek the film's reasons as to why it has to exist. While you may wish to be entertained, your primary focus is on where the film falls short, where it fails, in order to point out that it didn't need to exist at all. You are unforgiving of even minor plot issues, because you find its existed unwanted and unwarranted. Sometimes, people do this and end up loving the film anyway.
If you're a member of the former, your mind will gladly fill in any seeming gaps, unless they're glaring, at which point you may rationalize them, or concede that they are erroneous.
If you're a member of the latter, you do not give any leeway. The film must fill in everything you demand of it, otherwise it has failed, and you're going to be very vocal about how bad it failed, too. If anyone else disagrees with you, it's because they want to like it and refuse to accept the film's errors.
Granted, these don't apply to everyone, but I've been here long enough that I can weed out who is coming from which standpoint, and why.
Well, I appreciate the brief summary.
Personally, I have always seen myself in the first, but will lean more towards the second as time wears on. In the case of nuTrek, I'm willing to fill in the gaps, even as I know it could have been a whole lot better.
I feel the same way about many movies. Some, on the face, are just ridiculous and fun. Others are fun on the surface but have more beneath. nuTrek is one of those for me that has more depth and enjoyment the more I watch it.
Yeah, I have to fill in gaps, but so what? I've had to do that since I was 8 with most of my fictional reading and watching
Personally, I have always seen myself in the first, but will lean more towards the second as time wears on. In the case of nuTrek, I'm willing to fill in the gaps, even as I know it could have been a whole lot better.
I feel the same way about many movies. Some, on the face, are just ridiculous and fun. Others are fun on the surface but have more beneath. nuTrek is one of those for me that has more depth and enjoyment the more I watch it.
Yeah, I have to fill in gaps, but so what? I've had to do that since I was 8 with most of my fictional reading and watching
Unsurprisingly I don't:
- It was an even fight, no ganging up.
- The Klingons, unlike nuKirk (who was just a drunk smartass), offered ongoing provocation
- Scotty and Co at least attempted to ignore said provocation.
- The TOS scene was obviously comedy, which quite seriously is actually relevant.
- The response, and at least there was one, was therefore appropriate to that tone.
- But most importantly, no one was beaten to within an inch of their life (or so it seemed) and certainly long past their ability to fight back which looked like it would have continued without Pike's intervention.
- Finally, unlike the ST09 version, the TOS fight was obviously necessary!
So now we're holding Academy cadets to a higher standard than the chief engineer of the Starfleet flagship?
-The Klingons said something mean, so Scotty gets to beat them up?
-We don't know what the response was, because the other cadets were not the focus of the movie, Kirk was. For all we know, Pike locked them up in their dorm rooms for a week.
Often the circumstances of vaguely similar events (in this case fight scenes) changes how we view them. Now if you can honestly tell me you have the same emotional (therefore moral) reaction to the events of both fights, then I will happily concede the point.
Would I expect to see 23rd century society socializing people better? Sure. But I am happy to admit that we will always live in an imperfect universe so some people will do less than desirable things and, as I say, the Enterprise is likely to see alot of those. What I'm saying with respect to this scene is that the action and the complete lack of response shows Starfleet and the Federation in a very bad light, IMO. Even if people on average are no better behaved than the present, you would expect Starfleet to choose the best of them for their purposes. Then you would expect them to train those people far better. I.e not be ill-disciplined thugs. Then you would expect them to take some, preferably enlightened, action if things go wrong. None of this happened apparently. Like a lot of ST09, things occurred to help move Kirk (and Co) in the desired direction without much consideration for the side effects. Something that was handled a bit better in the second movie in my view.
As for Santa Claus' theory on filling in gaps, I am as happy to do that as the next movie goer. Heck, most of the time I probably don't even see the gaps if I'm honest, because I don't usually sweat the small stuff in movies. But when something important is missed and when it combines with other issues to create a general impression, then the gap becomes significant. Especially when the perpetrators were on the same shuttle as Kirk the next morning and I don't think they were in hand-cuffs.
Which, in a way is my point. His co-conspirators, if any, are essentially underlings who do what ever he wants. The powers that be have let the same guy who heads Section 31 also control (apparently) Starfleet with no oversight.
But we have seen other Starfleet officers act with similar impunity such as Leighton (who was already mentioned), Sloan (who was a part of Section 31 and had no scruples committing genocide, and did not seem to consult any superiors or fellow agents), as well as the conspirators in TUC (I think already mentioned).
But putting the same guy in charge of both Starfleet and Section 31 (if Memory Alpha is to be believed. I'm not sure how they know to be honest.
), the organisation that might be charged with stopping people like Marcus? That just screams "conflict of interest" and "asking for trouble". As for the cadets, who is to say they were not reprimanded? We don't see any thing about their careers aside from their brief roles on the Enterprise, besides Uhura, who was hardly the instigator in the fight.
I guess I'm wondering why it all must be explained on the face?
I would have thought that if you do something like that you would get court-marshalled or perhaps cashiered and end up on civil charges. I might be wrong about that I suppose, but I find it ironic that they do the whole court of inquiry thing for Kirk's "cheating", but imply (by the fact that we even see these guys again) that its business as usual if you damned near kill a drunk townie. As I say, I can happily fill in gaps if they're not important (at least in my view ), but its not the only thing in the movie that casts doubt of the optimistic nature of Star Trek.
But, again, Finnegan, Ron Tracy, Ben Finney, Marla McIvers, Valeris, Admiral Brock, etc. are all Starfleet as well. So how is it that a couple of cadets misbehaving darkens the entire nuTrek universe, when we've seen Starfleet officers plotting murder and whatnot in the previous shows and episodes? (And let's not forget that Valeris had two accomplices aboard the Enterprise-A.)
Plus, that bar scene was hardly the sole portrait of Starfleet in that movie, or even the most important one. Heck, the movie begins with Starfleet Captain Robau bravely commanding the Kelvin and Starfleet Lieutenant George Kirk heroically sacrificing his life to save others . . . how is that not a positive and optimistic view of Starfleet? Which, to my mind, hugely outweighs a bunch of green cadets getting into a brawl?
And even the bar fight serves to set up the scene in which Pike, a paragon of virtue if ever there was one, shows up to give Kirk a pep talk and reminds us of George Kirk's heroism. Once again painting Starfleet in a positive light.
Maybe it's just me, but one little bar fight hardly presents a dystopian view of the future, especially compared to the whole opening aboard the Kelvin.
Last edited:
I guess my point is that it cast no more doubt on the optimistic than the bar fight on K-7, where it was obvious that several Starfleet officers joined in the fray, yet they are not disparaged in any way as being less than ideal officers.
I know you listed off several points that seem to decrease the apparent optimism of the Federation, but I don't necessarily see that as a reflection of the Federation or Starfleet as a whole.
As for Section 31, we are never given clear understanding as to how it works, beyond the occasional glimpses in to their operations. It is a clandestine organization, I would imagine design to be reflective of the CIA in some ways, where it is obvious that the director knows some things are going on and may be unaware of other things. Marcus is someone who strikes me as wanting more and more control as the war he fears is coming looms closer. As Chief of Starfleet Operations, having some control over S31 is well within the possibility, at least in my mind.
Finally, as for the cadets in the brawl, who is to say they were not disciplined? Harry Kim received a permanent reprimand on his record barring him from promotion but still served. Kirk committed theft of Starfleet property as received a demotion, but was still allowed to serve in Starfleet. The fact that we don't see any punitive action taken, or that they are still in Starfleet does not mean nothing happened.
I don't agree, I suspect Paramount sees 50 years worth of material in this reboot universe. When the TOS reboot has run its course in 5-10 (or 20... they're all young enough) years, Paramount could jump forward 100 years and give us an Abramsverse TNG. In 2025, we may find ourselves with new alt versions of Picard, Data and Worf. Then they'd have seven seasons and three movies worth of stories to retell.
...Not that I'm saying I want to see them do all that.
Apart from the emotion of it, which I won't deny, I think its a systematic problem. To me these guys are representatives of "Starfleet" in a much more immediate and institutional way that the other examples you give (my previous post explained why I think that), which might be regarded more as anomalous problems than what Starfleet is "about", if you see what I mean. Now if the fight had involved a couple of punches and that was it, I would say fine. But one of the four kept beating Kirk and none of the other three (or anyone else) did anything about it. I think that's the emotional impact that hit me. And its interesting that not getting involved in stopping such things is a recurring theme. At least the same thing happened when Spock attacked Kirk. Again, no better than the present day.
Sure, but such individual behaviour happens throughout history. Its not unique to Star Trek. I like to think that Star Trek society, as a whole, is just a bit better that ours, as exemplified by how a more normal member of that society might behave or how 23rd century society treats mental patients or criminals etc. This is backed up by the way the prime universe generally treated its "enemies". Now its fair to say that some of my other examples are more of the individual type too but excuses aside, they tend to contradict what those same characters had done in past Trek.
Well it paints George in a positive light, but Pike is the one who seems at ease with what happened to Kirk.
No, its not just you.
But don't get me started on the opening scene. Except we only find out why Scotty "snapped" because Kirk called all those involved to account. Even lined them up and interrogated them IIRC. But as mentioned earlier, if people can't appreciate that similar types of situations can have markedly different circumstances which change their impact completely (a pretty standard concept I should think), then it will be difficult to come to agreement on this point.
I agree in that respect, except for the point I made above and the fact that Starfleet seemed to endorse what Spock and Kirk did to Nero by promoting Kirk (which was a strange decision anyway).
Only if you don't value a free society I would suggest. Which isn't too optimistic.
So what was the response in STiD? I don't think we can rely on the "who is to say" argument when the opposite impression (if anything) is given in the movie and once again we seem to be leaving out the circumstances of those other examples (some of which [Harry Kim] I don't recall).
Similar threads
