5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[cultcross]

There's the teaser for The Undiscovered Country

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That didn't mean TUC was going to be a clip show.

There's a lens flare at the end! Not my Star Trek!

I've seen this article before. The people who write these articles always seem to assume there's a huge Star Wars/Star Trek crossover audience.

That's because there is. Probably not quite as true the other way around as Star Wars has a larger 'general public' audience, but I'd take a wild guess that 90% of Star Trek's regular audience have seen Star Wars.

Both Chang/Cartwright's motive is utterly absurd: I want to keep fighting my enemies, so I'm going to commit treason and conspire with them. That's one giant shot glass of whiskey-tango-fox.

Not really. As well as people being generally against change, it isn't that uncommon for people to believe that war is preferable to peace with certain enemies, that peaceful solutions are weaknesses that will be exploited further down the line. You can imagine quite easily, I think, that Starfleet officers who are "used to hating Klingons" not feeling comfortable trusting them in an alliance. And then the same feeling, reversed, in the Klingon military.

I'm just about 100% sure that no single person in the US/British/etc. navies opened the newspaper on April 27, 1986 and said to him/herself, "Oh shit. I'm out of a job."

Probably not. But they were, though. US military spending is a different topic entirely, but certainly since the end of the Cold War there has been an enormous scaling down of the militaries of most other antagonists. The UK has quite literally mothballed it's fleet. Defence cuts continue to reduce the size of all of our forces, and the end of the looming threat of war with Russia is a huge contributor to that.

the foremost Xeno-biologist in the Federation not knowing anything about Klingon anatomy

Not sure who you mean here, but I assume McCoy - what makes him the foremost xeno-biologist in the Federation? And when would the Federation have gained detailed knowledge of Klingon anatomy? We know from The Trouble with Tribbles that he knows enough to tell a Klingon from a human using a tricorder, but that hardly qualifies as enough anatomical knowledge to save someone from a direct phaser hit.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Not really. As well as people being generally against change, it isn't that uncommon for people to believe that war is preferable to peace with certain enemies, that peaceful solutions are weaknesses that will be exploited further down the line. You can imagine quite easily, I think, that Starfleet officers who are "used to hating Klingons" not feeling comfortable trusting them in an alliance. And then the same feeling, reversed, in the Klingon military.

War doesn't have to mean fighting, just the certitude of an enemy to justify to allies the need for alliance and cooperation. It keeps smaller powers in line if greater ones have enemies to justify their existence and overlord-ship in order to keep the lesser folk safe.

 

[Paradise City]

Cartwright's warhawkery is interesting and it depicts a Federation that's been sorely tested and brutalised so much so that it's many senior officers are in a war mindset. Presumably Cartwright has been so immersed in the Klingon threat, that Starfleet's exploratory mandate has slipped down his priority list that would leave them open to the space Vikings. The Klingon's in their turn are toast because they're economy has been blown open and their key planets have been devastated. So they are faced with a choice; either a full scale offensive with the last of their energy reserves in a last die effort to conquer that which they lack or throw in their lot with a peace process so that the Federations expertise and resources in terraforming and what not. The fact that hawks and doves on both sides struggle for power in the new reality pursuant to the Klingon catastrophe added a touch of authenticity. The overall backstory to this film is what is to be commended in this film.

 

[cultcross]

Presumably Cartwright has been so immersed in the Klingon threat, that Starfleet's exploratory mandate has slipped down his priority list

This is how I view his character. When looking at threat analysis it is easy to become blinkered when one is a specialist in a particular field. It is easy to overstate a threat because you look at nothing else. Cartwright had probably spent years and years focused on the Klingon threat and now he was being told not to worry about it, we're all going to be friends? You can see why he was wary. And his counterparts on Qo'nos, who had spend the same amount of time looking at Starfleet as a threat didn't get it either. Why are we getting in bed with the enemy? Why can only I see how much of a risk this is? I have to act to save us from making this mistake!
Actually, it's one of the more believable villain motivations in the Trek films. STVI overdid it (racism from the Enterprise senior officers etc) but actually the base motivations of those involved made sense. Kirk's log entry sums it up - even the person spearheading this new diplomatic mission of peace can't quite shake the ghosts of the old days. He was an easy scapegoat because he had genuine reservations.

 

[Paradise City]

This is how I view his character. When looking at threat analysis it is easy to become blinkered when one is a specialist in a particular field. It is easy to overstate a threat because you look at nothing else. Cartwright had probably spent years and years focused on the Klingon threat and now he was being told not to worry about it, we're all going to be friends? You can see why he was wary. And his counterparts on Qo'nos, who had spend the same amount of time looking at Starfleet as a threat didn't get it either. Why are we getting in bed with the enemy? Why can only I see how much of a risk this is? I have to act to save us from making this mistake!
Actually, it's one of the more believable villain motivations in the Trek films. STVI overdid it (racism from the Enterprise senior officers etc) but actually the base motivations of those involved made sense. Kirk's log entry sums it up - even the person spearheading this new diplomatic mission of peace can't quite shake the ghosts of the old days. He was an easy scapegoat because he had genuine reservations.

Kirk expresses very entrenched views against the Klingons in that episode with Kor. The Klingons confront Federation values in some fundamental ways and after decades upon decades of clashes many Starfleet personnel have written them off and are horrified at the vulnerability that may indeed follow on from a comprehensive peace process with such an incorrigible warlike power. The Klingons and the Federation have been battling each other for decades without each of them securing a real edge; now that the balance of power has fundamentally shifted, it's not unsurprising we have some hawks like Cartwright arguing for a first strike seizing the new opportunity to reduce this main threat to a third rate power, winning for the Federation and for Federation values an uncontested influence in the galaxy for the first time.

It takes Spock's and Gorkon's vision to "counter confound" what is conventional thinking and to win the peace that we see our heroes enjoy in TNG. A peace moreover that has both the Klingon Empire and the Federation retained as strong powers, so Gorkon's vision was also vindicated. I liked that about TUC; the way it was elegantly weaved into the overall Trek tapestry.

 

[cultcross]

It takes Spock's and Gorkon's vision to "counter confound" what is conventional thinking and to win the peace that we see our heroes enjoy in TNG. A peace moreover that has both the Klingon Empire and the Federation as strong powers, so Gorkon's vision was also vindicated. I liked that about TUC; the way it was elegantly weaved into the overall Trek tapestry.

Probably one of the best examples of continuity porn, or 'how this came about' stories. It's a setup for what we know came later (the Federation/Klingon peace) but at the same time is a great story in itself. And ending with such a fundamental change in the galaxy is a nice handover from the TOS crew to TNG.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Insurrection and Into Darkness performed very similarly in the U.S. box office relative to their budgets.

And yet Into Darkness crushed Insurrection both in DVD sales and international sales. This, in addition to STID having a much larger budget, makes a financial comparison meaningless.

 

[CorporalClegg]

You can imagine quite easily, I think, that Starfleet officers who are "used to hating Klingons" not feeling comfortable trusting them in an alliance. And then the same feeling, reversed, in the Klingon military.

Yes. So what do they do? They form an alliance to execute a plot that requires them to set aside that hate and have absolute trust the other will hold his end of the bargain.

 

[cultcross]

Yes. So what do they do? They form an alliance to execute a plot that requires them to set aside that hate and have absolute trust the other will hold his end of the bargain.

I suspect both sides thought they had the upper hand in that little deal. On Cartwright's side, this gave the Federation the opportunity to press it's advantage, and the fact he found Klingons willing to take part only deepened his conviction that peace was unwise - Valeris points out herself that they were willing to conspire with us to assassinate their own chancellor.
On the Klingon side, it is of no surprise that the treacherous Federation would take part in a plot like this, and it had every chance of preventing peace if they could get rid of the dishonourable Gorkon who wanted that most unKlingon of things, to sue for peace.
It was a deal with the devil on both sides but the motivation of both makes perfect sense, IMHO. They both wanted the same outcome for different reasons and thought they had the upper hand. There's no real trust there, just both sides being self serving.

 

[Paradise City]

Yes. So what do they do? They form an alliance to execute a plot that requires them to set aside that hate and have absolute trust the other will hold his end of the bargain.

Both Klingons and the Federation have diplomatic relations, their higher ups might very well know each other from diplomatic soirees, perhaps commanders become familiar with each other on neutral stops over the decades and then finally break bread because both suddenly realise they have a stake in continuing their long running war with each other and without that they maybe "mothballed" or rendered "obsolete" which is another theme in this film.

Now there's a bits and pieces they could've tightened up on with the conspiracy, fine. But the fact that the perceived interests of the internal opposition within both rivals aligned and they formed a temporary alliance of convenience to achieve short term goals, is not something that struck me as implausible. All part of the underworld of intrigue, plausible deniability and secret deals between power brokers that takes place behind closed doors and underpins many great events in history.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Cartwright's warhawkery is interesting and it depicts a Federation that's been sorely tested and brutalised so much so that it's many senior officers are in a war mindset...

Er.... no. Cartwright's warhawkery is a symptom of him being both an alarmist and a racist asshole. He doesn't REALLY believe the Klingons are a tactical threat to the Federation; his hyperbole in the conference room equates "peace" to "safe haven" and the drawdown of border patrols as "dismantling the fleet." That's not a war mindset, that's just bluster and irrationality.

The Federation doesn't need to have been "brutalized" for that. Kirk displays some unsubtly racist attitudes himself, stemming from his past encounters with Klingons in TOS and Kruge having murdered his son. It doesn't take ALOT of brutality to produce that, even in the real world, just a handful of atrocities a bit too close to the heart.

Presumably Cartwright has been so immersed in the Klingon threat, that Starfleet's exploratory mandate has slipped down his priority list that would leave them open to the space Vikings.

Or so he would like to claim. But his hawkish stance isn't based on any real need to protect the Federation from an alien threat, but from his emotional need to see the Klingons get what they deserve (as he put it "Bring them to their knees" and then "dictate terms.")

The fact that hawks and doves on both sides struggle for power in the new reality pursuant to the Klingon catastrophe added a touch of authenticity.

It added a touch of SINCERITY, since that was the essence of Kirk's internal struggle between his own racism and his personal commitment to peace.

But beyond that, it was laughably unauthentic. If Cartwright wanted to assassinate Gorkon and start a war with the Klingons, he didn't actually NEED the Klingons' help to do it; he could have just ordered Burke and Samuel to shoot Gorkon during the tour, or had Valeris rig a manual override that would allow them to fire the Enterprise's torpedoes by remote and had the two of them beam aboard as planned.

I've said in the past that the only reason it makes sense for Chang to be involved with Cartwright AT ALL is if Chang really is (and has always been) a Federation plant. Otherwise, his being involved AT ALL is just plain silly (especially considering that Chang never bothered to kill Azetbur and rig the Empire of its last idealist).

The overall backstory to this film is what is to be commended in this film.

Your INTERPRETATION of the backstory is pretty good. The backstory presented by the film is rubbish.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Not really. As well as people being generally against change, it isn't that uncommon for people to believe that war is preferable to peace with certain enemies, that peaceful solutions are weaknesses that will be exploited further down the line. You can imagine quite easily, I think, that Starfleet officers who are "used to hating Klingons" not feeling comfortable trusting them in an alliance. And then the same feeling, reversed, in the Klingon military.

I don't think it's so much that Chang is after war so much as he doesn't want to be under the thumb of the Federation in any way, shape, or form - and the same is true of the Federation officers who work against a peace treaty.

KERLA: In any case, we know where this is leading. The annihilation of our culture.
McCOY: That's not true!
KERLA: No!
McCOY: No!
CHANG: 'To be, or not to be!', that is the question which preoccupies our people, Captain Kirk. ...We need breathing room.

And yet Into Darkness crushed Insurrection both in DVD sales and international sales. This, in addition to STID having a much larger budget, makes a financial comparison meaningless.

I'm not so sure Beyond will be able to do the same. Whereas I have no like of anything JJ Abrams has done, he appears to have quite a following. With him simply producing, I'm thinking this movie will probably perform more poorly than STID.

It speaks to Paramount having no pride in their work such that they'll take their franchise and fundamentally change its entire nature to make a dollar. They're a corporation and obviously their loyalty is to their shareholders, but it's not like Star Trek is the only thing they have rights to that they can make an action special effects reel out of. It seems like they should still avoid selling Diet Coke as Coke just because Diet Coke will make more money if it's sold as Coke.

That's because there is. Probably not quite as true the other way around as Star Wars has a larger 'general public' audience, but I'd take a wild guess that 90% of Star Trek's regular audience have seen Star Wars.

I was thinking that Star Trek people are less likely to be into Star Wars. My dad grew up watching Star Trek, he's seen Star Wars, but he's not a huge fan. Likewise, I've seen all the Star Wars except for Abrams' one and I think it's meh. It's like watching the Superbowl for me - I'll watch it because it's culturally expected for the most part to watch it. There's never been a time in my life where I was really excited about Star Wars. Star Trek, on the other hand, is quite exciting to me - except for these latest incarnations.

 

[Nerys Myk]

First saw Star Trek in 1966. First saw Star Wars in 1977. Enjoy them both. Most of my friends feel the same.

 

[Gov Kodos]

First saw Star Trek in 1966. First saw Star Wars in 1977. Enjoy them both. Most of my friends feel the same.

Same here. TV and films don't require exclusive commitment. It's not marriage we're talking here.

 

[Trekkin]

Science fiction fans might have seen the biggest science fiction films ever made? Perish the thought. Next you'll be saying that most people on the board went and saw The Avengers.

Cue the 'Star Wars isn't sci-fi...'

 

[BillJ]

It speaks to Paramount having no pride in their work such that they'll take their franchise and fundamentally change its entire nature to make a dollar.

I don't see a fundamental change between the Abrams films and The Original Series.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It speaks to Paramount having no pride in their work such that they'll take their franchise and fundamentally change its entire nature to make a dollar.

They have enough pride in it to modernize it and make three consecutive films based on the rebooted version of the IP. As for "fundamentally change"ing it's entire nature... well, it worked the first time they did it, mostly worked the second time, sorta worked the third time and didn't work at all the fourth time. Fifth (sixth? Seventh?) time's a charm.

I was thinking that Star Trek people are less likely to be into Star Wars.

And you'd be wrong.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Same here. TV and films don't require exclusive commitment. It's not marriage we're talking here.

Science fiction and I are in an open relationship.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see a fundamental change between the Abrams films and The Original Series.

This has been my position for many years.

 

[drt]

I don't see a fundamental change between the Abrams films and The Original Series.

And I think The Force Awakens was specifically designed to call back to the original Star Wars movies and ignore the prequels for similar reasons.