I think that is explicitly it from ST 09's outset. And it frustrates me that so many gloss over it by calling it a "dumb action film."
What do older fans think?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
I respectfully disagree. Abrams inflated the myth (Kirks a horndog!!)
And deconstructed the events of TOS
TOS: Kirk cheats at the Kobayashi Maru and gets a commendation
NuTrek: Kirk cheated!! He should be punished!
TOS: Kirk beats Khan physically
NuTrek: Thats ridiculous! Khan is a superman. Lets have Kirk be ineffectual against him and have Spock beat Khan.
TOS: Kirk breaks the PD and rationalizes it away.
NuTrek: Its the PD!! Kirk cant get away with that. Demote him.
None of the above has anything to do with a different childhood. And by the way growing up a self-made man was how i always imagined Kirk given he never mentioned his family except for a brother he didn't seem too close to. Now you may agree with the decisions, but its still fanboy writing and deconstruction.
Finally (and i mention it here cause it has nothing to do with either timeline) They have him running and screaming like five year old.
BUT, I want to reiterate. I enjoyed Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness. My complaints didn't ruin it for me. And i adore Chris Pine. He's my fave Chris.
Edit: But at least Abrams kept the fact Kirk is a good hand to hand fighter (Supermen not withstanding)
No one knew he cheated in TOS.
Well, Kirk was dead so, yeah...couldn't exactly be Khan at the moment
He also falsified a report, and expected Spock to be complicit with him. He showed a flagrant disregard for the rules, as Pike rightfully pointed out.
I disagree pretty much on this entire paragraph. It isn't "fan boy" dissection to recognize that Kirk's impulsive nature, his disregard for rules no matter what, and rather poor impulse control all comes down to parenting. And Spock Prime mentions this to him, so even if you disagree with this interpretation it is set up in the film that Kirk's dad was the big influence for him.
Mileage and all that jazz.
I'm pretty sure "They gave me a commendation for original thinking" is to be interpreted as 'an award for thinking outside the box/cheating'
But i can see how one would think it just means 'an award for winning'.
But i'm starting to stray into nitpicky territory.
That is, from what I am told, the nature of fandom-to nitpick.
But, I never took it that way. Even Saavik seemed annoyed at the fact that he had cheated and there was no actual way to win the test.
But, that's my interpretation. Regardless, I view Kelvin Kirk's behavior not as deconstructionist but playing with the what if. Similar in idea to the Mirror Universe.
While I am enjoying reading the posts and discussion, I am a little surprised at 46 to be an "older fan". But like others, I watched TOS in reruns Sat and Sun on channel 50 every week. I saw the TOS movies in theater first run. I remember being excited about TNG, but thinking Data looked ridiculous. But in middle school and high school, TNG cast were my only friends and I loved them dearly. In my first year of college I read everything I could about the exciting new show set on a space station. I cried very ugly and pathetically when seven years later we pulled away from DS9 the last time.
I had a harder time with Voyager. The concept was great, the execution left me wanting. Why don't the events of prior episodes impact the next? But Seven was a great character. I admit I stopped watching Enterprise in the second season, I think it had to do with that awful theme song and the beginning of a bad breakup with a boyfriend. Who bursts out in tears during that stupid song and expects to be taken seriously? Also, he was an ass
I've watched Nutrek. I enjoyed 2009, though how does one go from cadet to Captain in like a couple of days? Into Darkness wasn't my favorite, but I enjoyed Beyond. Mostly though I wanted to see what happened after Nemesis. All respect to Kirk and Spock, I had seen all the shows, all the movies and read all the Pocket books. I don't know I needed it reimagined.
I lived for information about Disco kind of like how I did for DS9 in college. I've enjoyed it and managed to overlook the things that piss off a lot of people (the modernized look, the Klingon redesign, the spore drive, etc). I think its weird how they write Burnham. I get she is the lead, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the chain of command that she is so frequently the decision-maker, speech maker, etc. Also I miss the family feel of TNG. I am less interested in knowing what Burnham is doing and feeling and more interested in what the rest of the crew is doing.
But I can't wait to see the third season. For me, going to the future is a lot like the Voyager concept. They are a crew lost with no friends in a strange land. I want to see them come together and be a family. And maybe not save all of Federation kind... Again.
Picard had been an improvement largely for me with it's slower pace (over Disco). I think in some ways I have a hard time letting go of the books, because the future was less bleak than what we get in the show. And the Destiny trilogy was all kinds of awesome. In any event I was up at 530 am every Thursday to watch Picard.
Sorry, this was long. I've pretty much watched everything, DS9, TNG are #1 and 2. Picard is #3. Disco is #4. Then VOY and ENT (I did go back and watch all four seasons). If you read to here thanks
I had a harder time with Voyager. The concept was great, the execution left me wanting. Why don't the events of prior episodes impact the next? But Seven was a great character. I admit I stopped watching Enterprise in the second season, I think it had to do with that awful theme song and the beginning of a bad breakup with a boyfriend. Who bursts out in tears during that stupid song and expects to be taken seriously? Also, he was an ass
I've watched Nutrek. I enjoyed 2009, though how does one go from cadet to Captain in like a couple of days? Into Darkness wasn't my favorite, but I enjoyed Beyond. Mostly though I wanted to see what happened after Nemesis. All respect to Kirk and Spock, I had seen all the shows, all the movies and read all the Pocket books. I don't know I needed it reimagined.
I lived for information about Disco kind of like how I did for DS9 in college. I've enjoyed it and managed to overlook the things that piss off a lot of people (the modernized look, the Klingon redesign, the spore drive, etc). I think its weird how they write Burnham. I get she is the lead, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the chain of command that she is so frequently the decision-maker, speech maker, etc. Also I miss the family feel of TNG. I am less interested in knowing what Burnham is doing and feeling and more interested in what the rest of the crew is doing.
But I can't wait to see the third season. For me, going to the future is a lot like the Voyager concept. They are a crew lost with no friends in a strange land. I want to see them come together and be a family. And maybe not save all of Federation kind... Again.
Picard had been an improvement largely for me with it's slower pace (over Disco). I think in some ways I have a hard time letting go of the books, because the future was less bleak than what we get in the show. And the Destiny trilogy was all kinds of awesome. In any event I was up at 530 am every Thursday to watch Picard.
Sorry, this was long. I've pretty much watched everything, DS9, TNG are #1 and 2. Picard is #3. Disco is #4. Then VOY and ENT (I did go back and watch all four seasons). If you read to here thanks
I'm 39 and grew up with TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT all airing in "first run" during my lifetime, and DSC is my favorite series in the franchise because it scratches every 'itch' I have as a would-be storyteller and combines everything that drew me to DS9, VGR, and ENT (compelling stories, great characters, and a balance between the Serialized and the Procedural) into one package that simultaneously feels like quintessential Star Trek and something unique.
Wait, but don’t you watch the best of television in 2020 and doesn’t most of Star Trek come across as average, DSC included? I also grew up with many of those shows (initially skipping much of VGR and almost all of ENT), but it’s quite clear that the franchise has a long way to go. I’m not too interested in seeing how DSC stacks up next to other Star Trek shows, though one might argue it’s weaving between VGR and ENT in quality as it changes direction in the absence of one motivated showrunner.
It’s very important that fans maintain a calibrated sense of great television even as they rewatch ST several times because it’s ST and they’re fans. Every time I see actual appreciation for DSC, I really have to wonder what else people are watching at the same time, because it seems impossible not to see other TV lower one’s opinion of the current Star Trek efforts. I mean a show like Better Call Saul can choose to be a perfect prequel with no arbitrary reimagining and still find ways to innovate step by step, shot by shot as the story moves towards Breaking Bad, whereas Star Trek still feels the need to refresh its eye candy and bring back this and that for fun.
Trying to judge one television series in comparison to another television series is a pointless exercise.
I judge Star Trek based on its own merits and metrics, and, by those merits and metrics, DSC is the best iteration of the franchise we have ever been given.
I judge Star Trek based on its own merits and metrics, and, by those merits and metrics, DSC is the best iteration of the franchise we have ever been given.
But we don’t know how he got from cheating to commendation. I imagine it wasn’t a unanimous crowning, I’m sure there were people who weren’t thrilled with what Kirk did.
Khan should’ve mopped the floor with Kirk. Into Darkness was far more real in that regard.
Like we see so often in life, it wasn’t the crime, it was the coverup. Does Starfleet want a captain out there who is straight falsifying reports about what is going on?
No, the best iteration is either TNG or DS9, and it’s not a pointless exercise in a world where the Emmy Awards, the Hugo Awards or any number of other awards exist. Next thing we’ll be saying is that Star Trek is conceptually doomed not to be of interest to one showrunner with a clear direction and a great sense of storytelling across seasons, and therefore can never be evaluated in those terms. It’s perfectly OK rewatch the shows many times and still say the franchise is not even close to its maximum potential because of how it compares to other franchises or individual shows. That’s what fandom is all about, to provide a highly informed outside view of the franchise and support it by never saying that good-enough is fine.
Still subjective.
Also, that greatness in the past doesn't automatically mean I compare it to current shows made my different people under different circumstances.
Comparison is a fool's errand for me.
Reducing the issue to subjectivity diminishes the work of showrunners who push for innovative storytelling, music, cinematography as opposed to those who feel like they can get away with standard sci-fi tropes because it’s Star Trek. Should the former not bother in that case? Fortunately, competition and awards do exist so that innovation can be recognized, and discerning viewers can see and express the difference even if it doesn’t come with measurements attached. It’s not a mark of fandom to “support” a franchise by not saying what it is compared to what it could be.
Last edited:
I have no control of what the showrunners do, or the awards, and they can strive for those all they want.
I will not compare.
I would've thought that I wouldn't have had to clarify that I was making a personal assertion in my last post about DSC being the best series in the Star Trek franchise, but I was apparently mistaken.
Because DSC is my favorite Trek series based on its content, concept, and characters, I consequently see it as the best Star Trek series.
Because DSC is my favorite Trek series based on its content, concept, and characters, I consequently see it as the best Star Trek series.
When it comes to entertainment if I am watching it I am not sitting there going, "Yeah, but this other show did it way better."You probably do compare, even if you don't realize it. Just the nature of humans.
And Star Trek taught me that humans can evolve past their nature
I think it depends for me, if a show has captured my attention then I'm likely not comparing it while watching it (though I think it is natural to compare things later on). If it isn't capturing my attention, then I'm absolutely comparing it to shows that do it better.
Plus, there are certain things that are ripe for comparison. Like if it is made by mostly the same people behind the scenes (Discovery, Picard), if they have actors in common or are tackling roughly the same themes/subject matter. Or if they do something like a big reveal plot point (Westworld, Discovery, The Orville).
But, everyone is different and what is important to them is different.
Mileage definitely varies. I hate comparison and hate how often it is used to beat something else down. I will stick with a story or move on. No comparison needed. Either it's enjoyable or its not.
“Beat something else down”? We live in a civilization that has evolved art and art criticism, whether it applies to literature, film or television. Art can always be better and so can Star Trek. What is this sci-fi franchise that it should be exempt from criticism, that its viewers should merely take it or leave it? Of course they won’t, so why would you reject entire critical disciplines? Film schools should stop covering great directors and examining why they’re considered great? There are no well-constructed stories which try their best to avoid tropes? Or perhaps there is some kind of an unwritten law that forever excludes Star Trek from such consideration, even in mere fan opinion if not that of CBS?
I can be bored by DSC, mildly enjoy PIC, greatly enjoy Better Call Saul and know why. It’s mind-boggling how the latter goes from shot to shot and avoids the lazy option all the time. So what’s wrong with saying that Star Trek should be like that: if there is a prequel or a sequel, they should be almost perfect in connectivity to avoid the distraction of scenery/reimagining and let the series live or die by step-by-step episodic construction rather than visual gimmicks or random callbacks (which would become difficult if connectivity with visual TOS is undesirable). You’d pick a showrunner, let them choose a direction, motivate them enough to stay and bring their show to the conclusion they desire. Even if CBS cannot make it happen, there is nothing wrong with fans saying that it should be done, because fandom exists as an informed check on the property owner, not as unquestioning supporters.
Similar threads
- Locked
