Public perception of Star Trek?

[BillJ]

The Romulans are supposedly many millennia past warp speed. They use singularity drives which are arguably a higher form of technology than matter-antimatter combustion. The Federation steals a Romulan cloaking device in TOS and is astounded by the capacity of their "plasma torpedo" weapon in "Balance of Terror." In Enterprise the Romulans use long range drones with holographic technology to change the kind of ship they're flying centuries before the Federation seems to have holographic technology.

By the 24th century it seems that the Federation and Romulans are pretty much evenly matched but I would argue that the singularity engine is actually a more advanced technology than matter-antimatter reaction.

As I said, their ships run on singularities - they are evidently quite knowledgeable about them. I don't know why Spock would know something about this "red matter" that the Romulans don't given their apparent vast experience with creating artificial black holes.

Arguably, we just don't know about the engines. But Romulan ships seem to be no faster than their Federation counterparts. Plus, we don't know that they are many millennia past light speed. Their flight from Vulcan could've been done in sublight craft (as conjectured in the Vulcan's Soul novel series). We also don't know how long they've used singularities. But LaForge and company didn't seem too impressed by it, if I remember correctly.

And whose to say that Romulans don't know about Red Matter? Knowing about something and being able to make a working item are two distinct things.

I don't see long range drones as being a game changer. We see robot ships in TOS.

The plasma weapon was obviously a failure as it came and went pretty quick. Making its final appearance in "The Deadly Years".

All in all, I'd say the Feds and Romulans were on pretty equal footing where technology was concerned.

 

[Trekkin]

Wasn't the holographic tech from ENT? Where they also established humanity's strength lies in their ability to technologically and culturally evolve faster than other species like the Romulans and Vulcans? Humans were presented as a younger race (that nuked the crap out of itself at one point), yet still managed to play catch up with their intergalactic neighbours by the time of TOS.

When did they establish that any of the tech mentioned was better than what the Feds had? Simply having different tech (like plasma torpedoes) alone is hardly an indication of such advancement, especially considering the freaking Kazon also managed to develop them. I also don't remember the singularity drive being established in TOS.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Part of the marketing of ST09 was that it was "not your father's 'Star Trek'." That upset a lot of fans on these boards, as I remember. Torch-passing is hard. But, you're right, we had a good run. I've enjoyed the hell out of TOS, TNG, DS9, and to a lesser extent, VOY and ENT. But that was another lifetime. Whatever anyone thinks of millennials in general, they are the new demographic. My daughter is a fan of "Star Trek" today. No matter how good TOS or TNG is, she's not going to respond to those any more than she responds to The Beatles or Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Luckily, like you, there's enough in Trek to keep me. Can't say that about One Direction, though. At least I see the essence of Trek in Abrams' work, but I'll take "Rubber Soul" over "Midnight Memories" any day.

This is not a relativist notion. I was born in the 80s and I'm quite fond of some of the Original Series, but I don't respond to it as well as I respond to TNG and DS9. The thing is, though, those shows were actually PROGRESS in storytelling, coherency, and worldbuilding. These new movies are regressive in the same way making everyone in Enterprise follow spooky holograms from the future was regressive storytelling. I grew up watching TOS quite fine in the 80's.

As for your music metaphor... Tom Petty is alright, but most "pop" music I really like is from the 70's. Like Pink Floyd, Cream, Rush, King Crimson, and others.

And whose to say that Romulans don't know about Red Matter? Knowing about something and being able to make a working item are two distinct things.

The point is the holographic technology of the drone which is enough to fool the Tellarites, Humans and Andorians. The Romulan Empire is defeated in the the Romulan war because they can't fight the combined forces of the Vulcans, Humans, Andorians and Tellarites.

Also Plamsa torpedoes are still in use during DS9 according to Berman: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Plasma_torpedo

All in all, I'd say the Feds and Romulans were on pretty equal footing where technology was concerned.

Oh yes, also, in Nemesis, the Schimitar is far more than a match for the Enterprise-E which is supposed to be more of a destroyer type vessel - the absolute latest in Starfleet military ship technology.

 

[Trekkin]

A war with the Romulan Star Empire. Like the Feds, they also would have been a combined force.

I love how the second page of that wiki entry showed why the plasma torpedoes were a pretty crappy weapon.

This type of high-energy plasma weapon was first encountered by Starfleet when a Romulan Bird-of-Prey destroyed several of the Federation's outposts near the Romulan Neutral Zone. The weapon expended large amounts of energy, forcing the vessel to decloak in order to fire, and limiting the vessel's operational range. Upon detonation, the torpedo would unleash an enveloping energy plasma, forcing an implosion in the target. The weapon had a limited range, the plasma effect would dissipate after a few minutes of faster-than-light travel. (TOS: "Balance of Terror") The Romulans assaulted the USS Enterprise in 22

Truly an improvement on photon torpedoes. It makes your ship completely vulnerable every time you try to use it, and you have to put yourself right in your enemies sights to even have a chance of hitting them. And thanks to the lack of secondary effects and damage, you had to make damn sure that you hit them right on.

The Schimitar was purely Reman tech (they go to great pains to point that out), and the Romulan military couldn't do much against it either. They tried with three ships, and got whooped even harder than the Enterprise. They also established no such thing about how advanced the Ent-E was by NEM. The crew had manned it for 3 movies by that point, and nothing stays the biggest and bestest. Just ask the Ent-D.

 

[Gov Kodos]

This is not a relativist notion. I was born in the 80s and I'm quite fond of some of the Original Series, but I don't respond to it as well as I respond to TNG and DS9. The thing is, though, those shows were actually PROGRESS in storytelling, coherency, and worldbuilding. These new movies are regressive in the same way making everyone in Enterprise follow spooky holograms from the future was regressive storytelling. I grew up watching TOS quite fine in the 80's.

As for your music metaphor... Tom Petty is alright, but most "pop" music I really like is from the 70's. Like Pink Floyd, Cream, Rush, King Crimson, and others.

To paraphrase Dickens

Star Trek was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of its ratings burial was signed by the networks, the advertisers, the studio, and the chief mourners, Berman and Braga signed it. Old Trek was as dead as a door-nail.

One ship, you say here...

Oh yes, also, in Nemesis, the Schimitar is far more than a match for the Enterprise-E which is supposed to be more of a destroyer type vessel - the absolute latest in Starfleet military ship technology.

Ships are not the whole of technology, nor is the performance in a battle evidence of superiority.

 

[AdmiralShran]

To paraphrase Dickens

I have no idea what that quote is from. TNG was pretty successful in ratings and DS9 and VOY both did pretty well. Enterprise was awful - there's no disputing it. As my name might indicate, Shran is the only redemptive thing about that series and he's in it like 11 episodes. You're absolutely right it was too self-referential - also it was dull beyond dull and had that horrific theme song that sounds like nails on a chalkboard. VOY was showing the signs of terrible writing that Enterprise would pick up and take to levels that only someone delusional would think might be decent writing - if it weren't an attempt to sink the franchise by Braga and Berman because of the changing leftist narrative in the United States which, as we've seen in Into Darkness, has turned from "we believe in our ideals" to "maybe the theocratic Islamic terrorists who execute rape victims are right."

 

[Trekkin]

I've got to admit, "JJTrek supports murdering rapists" probably is a criticism that we've never heard before.

if it weren't an attempt to sink the franchise by Braga and Berman because of the changing leftist narrative in the United States which, as we've seen in Into Darkness, has turned from "we believe in our ideals" to "maybe the theocratic Islamic terrorists who execute rape victims are right."

Hey, remember when I said people who are morally or politically outraged by a piece of fiction always express their distaste in a manner that's way more vitriolic than simply saying 'it's overhyped, cheesy, outdated and lame'?

I'm now feeling oddly vindicated about that point. I assure you, I have no idea why.

 

[M'Sharak]

I have no idea what that quote is from.

It's paraphrasing the opening paragraph from Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol".

Also:
I've combined your three consecutive posts above into one. Try to remember to use the +Quote feature when responding to several posts at once.

... because of the changing leftist narrative in the United States which, as we've seen in Into Darkness, has turned from "we believe in our ideals" to "maybe the theocratic Islamic terrorists who execute rape victims are right."

Oy. Less of this, please. In this forum we talk about Star Trek. Save the political rants for some other soapbox; they're out of place here.

 

[fireproof78]

Apparently his whole crew is psychotic too because they could all just head over to that supernova star and drop their red matter into it. But I guess they're in an alternate universe where timeline incursions don't affect the future or something and they somehow know this... I don't remember. He has no reason to blame Spock - it's really stupid. That's assuming the Romulans would ever trust an outsider with something so important as saving their solar system - which they never would - or that they're all so stupid that Spock is their last hope which is absurd because we actually understand the Romulans to be more technologically advanced than the Federation.

The loss of a person's entire homeworld would warrant a psychotic break, considering that individuals have psychotics breaks due to less stressors.

Spock promised the Romulans to help them save their world, something that the leadership was unwilling or unable to do. Spock being a known person to the Romulans, especially in wake of their power vacuum might have made his help more acceptable. Nero's blame is irrational, but Spock said he would help, and that's the last time Nero saw his home. I really don't think i can communicate it any better than Nero went crazy. And I could write papers on the reasons why and why he blames Spock. No, it's not rational, and that's great to have a villain who is sympathetic, and tragic and interesting all at once. Trek has done psychotic a couple of times, some successful and some unintentional but Nero feels different. He isn't a superman (Khan), a genius gone wrong (Daystrom) or an enemy commander (much longer list). He is an everyday guy who witness an horrific tragedy. Romulans are supposed to be passionate people and I'm supposed to treat a world's destruction with a shrug?

Also, as BillJ pointed out, I don't know that the Romulans are more advanced that the Federation. We've seen the Federation detect cloaked vessels, and the Enterprise-D stare down two Warbirds without flinching. So, I think it could be argued but the general play I see is the Federation and Romulans on similar technological levels, even if the means are different. Certainly not enough for me to think the Romulans have an edge.

To the larger point of public perception of Star Trek there is a lot of self-referencing that hurts it, but there feels like an opinion that Trek's best days are behind it, in that TWOK is held up as the gold standard, and nothing can surpass it. An argument could be made that both First Contact and Nemesis attempted to retell the Khan style story in TNG fashion before the controversy of STID.

Star Trek's perception is simply that it is not accessible and unwilling to change. That's why I like Abrams Trek. It goes back to the roots, to TOS with the basics of action/adventure with some social commentary and adds a contemporary feel and commentary to it. It's not TNG, or DS9, or VOY or ENT. It's TOS for the 2000s, good, bad or otherwise.

 

[AdmiralShran]

The loss of a person's entire homeworld would warrant a psychotic break, considering that individuals have psychotics breaks due to less stressors

"All bad writers are obsessed with the epic." - Earnest Hemmingway

Orci needs to destroy three populated planets to get his audience's attention... THREE... It's a cheap emotional trick indicative of a writer that pushes all in in the very beginning of his story - but doesn't have the gravitas to deliver. Nicholas Mayer only needed a two ships, a nebula, and a logical Vulcan.

That's why I like Abrams Trek. It goes back to the roots, to TOS with the basics of action/adventure with some social commentary

It matters what social commentary you make. Frankly, STID was about a decade too late to beat the "I hate George Bush" dead horse (it's almost a religion with these people that they'd still be looking out for "the evil eye" well into Obama's 2nd term - similar to how it's necessary to have an anti-Nazi episode in Star Trek Enterprise to support the allied efforts in the war against the Axis powers that were defeated 50 years prior).

We've seen the Federation detect cloaked vessels, and the Enterprise-D stare down two Warbirds without flinching. So, I think it could be argued but the general play I see is the Federation and Romulans on similar technological levels, even if the means are different. Certainly not enough for me to think the Romulans have an edge.

The Romulans don't have an edge on the Federation because the Federation has many different species making it up. The Romulans are just the Romulans (and apparently the goblins on the adjacent planet).

Trek has done psychotic a couple of times, some successful and some unintentional but Nero feels different. He isn't a superman (Khan), a genius gone wrong (Daystrom) or an enemy commander (much longer list).

Khan is absolutely not psychotic in any way. He is absolutely sure he can win because Kirk is his inferior - that is his fatal flaw: he has no humility.

 

[AdmiralShran]

I've got to admit, "JJTrek supports murdering rapists" probably is a criticism that we've never heard before.

Hey, remember when I said people who are morally or politically outraged by a piece of fiction always express their distaste in a manner that's way more vitriolic than simply saying 'it's overhyped, cheesy, outdated and lame'?

I'm now feeling oddly vindicated about that point. I assure you, I have no idea why.

Originally I was just upset about Kirk being an incompetent asshat through the first two movies and acting like he has no respect for Spock at all ever while McCoy has been reduced to making stupid one-liners. But the more I thought about it, the more I found wrong with the whole thing.

Honestly, the movie plays out like someone who actually hates the Kirk character. Unfortunately, our modern audience no longer knows what a hero resembles so a lot of them apparently don't notice that Kirk has nearly no heroic qualities.

 

[Trekkin]

Khan's entire motivation in TWOK is based on a delusion - he's convinced Kirk purposefully abandoned him to die. In the movie itself, Chekov puts a pin in that and points out Khan's own input into that decision. The backstory in SS also shows Khan volunteered to go there. TWOK's Khan is the very definition of psychotic.

As for your reply to my post...did you by any chance hear a 'whoosh' sound as you read it?

 

[AdmiralShran]

Oy. Less of this, please. In this forum we talk about Star Trek. Save the political rants for some other soapbox; they're out of place here.

Both Simon Pegg and Benedict Eggs said Into Darkness is about Bush, Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. I'm talking about Star Trek.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Khan's entire motivation in TWOK is based on a delusion - he's convinced Kirk purposefully abandoned him to die.

I don't remember it well enough (honestly I'm not a super WoK fanatic - it's good - but I'm way more into something like ST VI and definately list that one as my favorite Star Trek movie). I was under the impression that Khan was interested in revenge as anyone would be.

By contrast, Nero truly is absolutely delusional - and I think it's boring because Starfleet's finest vs. escaped from the mental asylum is a poor matchup in my book.

 

[Trekkin]

Khan and Nero have the same motivation - they lose everything and obsessively hunt the person who is connected (but didn't actually cause) their predicament. They even share a dead wife monologue.

Hell, in comparison to Nero, Space Seed actually set up that it's takes a lot less to make Khan completely lose it. Slightest bit of grumpiness from his hostages and it's all "IM BEING NICE TO YOU, WHY DONT YOU LIKE ME?!! IMMA GONNA TO TORTURE YOU UNTIL YOU DO!!! AND NOW I'M BLOWING UP THE SHIP IM STANDING ON OUT OF SPITE!!!!"

 

[AdmiralShran]

Khan and Nero have the same motivation - they lose everything and obsessively hunt the person who is connected (but didn't actually cause) their predicament.

Kirk actually did sort of cause Khan's problem. One would think that the Federation probably doesn't just dump people on planets and then ignore them - even if they're criminals. The idea that they accidently landed on Ceti Alpha 5 thinking it was 6 is wholly absurd in the first place and they seem to be unaware that there's been some major natural disaster in the system.

However, we're not dealing with a planet being exploded. The smaller the event that leads to the meeting between the villain and the protagonist, the less it really absolutely must be cogent. By contrast, blowing up planets, in an ideal film, should be tremendously impacting on the viewers - which should encourage you to ensure you've really got your bases covered for plausibility, plot coherency, and motivations.

What they should have done is have Spock accidentally blow up a star near Romulus or something. Kirk is by no means passively responsible for Khan's predicament if you assume for some reason the Federation has never thought to stop by and check on Khan's colony. Spock, however, isn't responsible at all for the destruction of Romulus. There's no way that Nero's crew is going to sit around in space for 25 years intently certain that it's all Spock's fault - this is not the Romulan Empire - this is a bunch of children throwing a tantrum. The Romulan Empire I know doesn't need help from anyone and would resent getting it and would probably blame themselves more than anyone for trusting an outsider who so wholly failed.

Honestly I don't care enough anymore. At the core of my frustration is that I feel Orci doesn't respect two of my favorite Trek species: Vulcans and Romulans. I feel anyone who loved Star Trek would never treat these species so flippantly in his plots - blowing up planets, having girlfriends nag a vulcan boyfriend, having Kirk hurl actual insults at Spock, making Romulans stupid and extremely irrational rather than disciplined, traditional, and militaristic.

To me the new Star Treks isn't like a new generation of people took over Star Trek, it's more like a bunch of assholes who hate Star Trek came in and decided to make fun of Star Trek and then try to sell it back to me. I've been called "trekkie" in a derogatory way enough even though I've never really done anything that trekkies do other than like Star Trek that I don't need to pay Paramount to tell me "you stupid geeky trekkie, this is really cool! not like your boring show, look cool space battles!"

 

[Rahul]

Oh boy. This has gotten WAY Off-topic...

As someone who generally likes the new movies (although not as much as old Trek):

1.) Admiral Marcus has a clear motivation. It's only that this motivation is stupid. Especially compared to other Trek villains. But with Star Trek now being a blockbuster this has to be expected. In fact, his motivation (and actions) are better justified than the villains of other recent blockbusters (like Zod in Man of Steel or Malekith in Thor: The Dark World - remember him?)

2.) There is a fundamental problem with Adm. Marcus though: He's not a rotten apple in a bunch. He's the LEADER of Starfleet! And in this universe, it seems the Military (Starfleet) is the secret ruler of all the Federation. And this is the one (and only) point where I have to agree with AdmiralShran: The 9/11-truther-conspiracy bullshit is all over this movie. The big, giant military-industrial conspiracy, whose evil heads secretly rule the galaxy, manipulating the public with inside jobs, and all democratic leaders basically non-existend puppets, resulting in giant black starships crashing the Twin Towers errr San Francisco...
... all of this belongs into a cheap X-files knock-off. Not in Star Trek.

That being said:
The general perception has mostly ignored/forgotten Into Darkness. Those few (outside this forum) who haven't forgotten the movie exists will barely remember anything of the plot, much less the stupid conspiracy crap. STID has vanished in the recent wave of summer blockbusters, noted by few, forgotten by most.

This is why the public perception of Star Trek is still "nerdy" and "inclusive". That's whay the new movie Beyond still has to focus it's marketing on: "hey look, Star Trek isn't boring this time", even though that's a job that by this point, the recent two JJ-abrams movies should have done.

But the truth is: the recent two movies have been competent. But they are far from being remarkable or even leaving a mark on public consciences. That's why the public perception of Star Trek is still mostly shaped by it's presence of the 90s and it's appereance on the big bang theory.

 

[BillJ]

I like Mountain Dew and explosions, I also love Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Star Trek is a big enough sandbox for lots of different types of stories.

Besides, I'd rather have Mountain Dew and explosions than be bored. Which is what I was for most of the Berman years. Your Mileage May Vary.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Besides, I'd rather have Mountain Dew and explosions than be bored. Which is what I was for most of the Berman years. Your Mileage May Vary.

I was only truly bored with Enterprise except when Shran showed up. Explosions and actions sequences generally do nothing for me and bore me out of my mind. There's absolutely nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion action sequence to me in almost all cases. Unless you have a good plot and character development that naturally implies your action sequences, I will be bored because I simply won't care what happens to the characters and I know, in all likelihood, they're going to survive your action sequence anyway. And, if they don't survive your action sequence, and I don't care about your character, I won't care that the character didn't survive.

 

[AdmiralShran]

But the truth is: the recent two movies have been competent.

I think we disagree on what qualifies as competent as I think the last two movies can be called incompetent for many many reasons - one of the most glaring being that they completely tossed out the core Spock/Kirk/McCoy dynamic that has really defined Star Trek - but thanks for the shout-out and a "cheap x-files knock-off" might be a decent comparison.