What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Tallguy]

The problem with 09 is not that the characters were "different". I still think the idea of splitting the timeline to "preserve" Original Trek is still brilliant.

The problem is that you very quickly find out that you didn't want to tell stories about these characters doing what 20 somethings should be doing. You want to tell stories where Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise and Spock is his first officer and everyone else is right where they're supposed to be.

("You" here is the writers / producers / suits of the 09 movie.)

 

[fireproof78]

I thought the story did well.

 

[Lord Garth]

There's an Akira Kurosawa film called Stray Dog (1949), which is about a young detective who gets his gun pickpocketed, and then begins an obsessive quest to find the criminal who took it after the gun is used to commit more crimes.

One of the bits of trivia about the movie is that, in some of the original forms of the script, the movie began with like a 30-40 minute backstory for the characters and the theft of the gun didn't happen until the end of Act 1. However, Kurosawa was convinced the movie should begin with the theft (i.e., one of the first lines of the movie is: "Someone stole your gun?"), and the backstory was unnecessary. That you could learn everything you need to know about the characters through their actions and choices that unfolds throughout the rest of the movie.

I think a fundamental flaw of a LOT of the prequel/origin stories is that they are built around trying to turn what is essentially that unnecessary backstory setup segment into something that feels significant. They tend to underline stuff the audience already knows, instead of offering up something insightful about the story or characters. Because if we know where the story goes, and we're just getting a reiteration of who we know the characters to be from what's already out there, what's the point? Star Trek (2009) I thought tried to mitigate that problem with the prequel but not really a prequel or reboot timeline shenanigans, by both establishing that things will be different (e.g., when Vulcan is destroyed you know you're not in Kansas anymore), and the characters are not exactly the same people (Quinto's Spock is a more emotional character).

That's why I'm somewhat curious as to the news of Paramount's idea for a prequel movie to the Kelvin Universe, and what that would be? Like are we talking about a Kelvin Universe version of Strange New Worlds turned into a 2-hour movie? Or the Earth-Romulan War?

Exactly. My rule of thumb is, "Can I understand what's going on?" If the answer's yes, then I don't need a story setting it up.

 

[Shat Happens]

Spider-man has an origin story worth telling/seeing. Batman too. Darth Vader had a trilogy telling his origin story (and that was a tremendous stretch that only worked because George Lucas is a genius. Compare Hans Solo origin story movie).

Kirk's origin story was told in a line by Gary Mitchell: he was in SF Academy, he was a walking stack of books there. Boom, origin story told, that's all we needed to know. Let's watch Star Trek.

Romulan-Earth war is another thing we already know enough about. Spock made a complete presentation. It happened, and originated the Neutral Zone. Boom, let's watch Balance of Terror now.

 

[fireproof78]

Kirk's origin was far more interesting than Vader or Spider-Man.

 

[Tallguy]

Superman, Spider-Man, and The Fantastic Four: Origin stories I will read / see / hear as many times as you want. (Although seeing a good FF adaptation before I die would be swell.)

 

[Lord Garth]

Spider-man has an origin story worth telling/seeing. Batman too. Darth Vader had a trilogy telling his origin story (and that was a tremendous stretch that only worked because George Lucas is a genius. Compare Hans Solo origin story movie).

I think The Dark Knight Trilogy is the most overrated thing ever, and it collapsed under its own weight with The Dark Knight Rises. I love Matt Reeve's The Batman because it doesn't feel like a Comic Book Movie and it feels raw. Tim Burton's two Batman movies are the runner-up, IMO, because I love Tim Burton's take.

Spider-Man, ehhh... Church is the only other place I've heard more sermons. Haven't seen any of the reboots. I've lost count of how many they've done in such a short span of time.

I'm not a Star Wars fan, but the Prequel Trilogy felt like a chore to watch. I only went because I was hanging out with my friends who all went. I liked the Original Trilogy better. The Sequel Trilogy isn't bad, it's just forgettable. There are my non-fan opinions of all three trilogies.

Kirk's origin story was told in a line by Gary Mitchell: he was in SF Academy, he was a walking stack of books there. Boom, origin story told, that's all we needed to know. Let's watch Star Trek.

True. Between that and other stories we heard about Kirk throughout TOS (and TWOK), we get a pretty good picture. That having been said, the scene with Kirk's birth in the 2009 Film was very well done.

Romulan-Earth war is another thing we already know enough about. Spock made a complete presentation. It happened, and originated the Neutral Zone. Boom, let's watch Balance of Terror now.

100% agreed, and I can't figure out how they'd get a General Audience interested in seeing this in a theater. You'd have to be a Hardcore Fan and, even there, one interested in the 22nd Century. Different strokes for different folks, but that ain't me.

 

[Macintosh]

I think The Dark Knight Trilogy is the most overrated thing ever, and it collapsed under its own weight...

See also – every other Christopher Nolan movie...

 

[Shawnster]

100% agreed, and I can't figure out how they'd get a General Audience interested in seeing this in a theater

Audiences would flock to a Sci fit war movie with a lot of action, super special effects, and a good story. Star Trek would be happy with a Marvel or Transformers movie level of success.

They'd have to retcon and ignore the fact that humans never saw what Romulans looked like, but as long as the broad strokes are in place the writers are comfortable with changing and ignoring those minor details for sake of a good story. The general audience doesn't know or care about that detail.

 

[Enterprise1701]

See also – every other Christopher Nolan movie...

Oh, I see Tenet, but I can't hear any of the damn dialogue.

 

[Lord Garth]

See also – every other Christopher Nolan movie...

I won't lie, I left Interstellar with tears. I also liked Oppenheimer. But, otherwise, yeah...

 

[cooleddie74]

I'll always prefer the two Tim Burton Batman movies over the Nolan trilogy, and I genuinely like and find rewatch value in The Dark Knight.

 

[Tallguy]

I won't lie, I left Interstellar with tears. I also liked Oppenheimer. But, otherwise, yeah...

The Prestige is one of the best movies ever.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They'd have to retcon and ignore the fact that humans never saw what Romulans looked like

Any ground troops Starfleet meets will certainly be armored, and this would extend to headgear. So nobody is ever going to see what the Romulans really look like. They'll have helmets, just like in BOT.

Or they could always have the Remans be the boots on the ground. In fact, isn't this what the novelverse did?

 

[Farscape One]

And any dead Romulan ground troops that get killed, simply remove their helmets for a look.

Unless the Earth-Romulan war was fought almost entirely in space or in orbit of worlds. Easier to not see what your opponent looks like if their ship is totally destroyed, either by weapons or self-destruct.

 

[BillJ]

Unless the Earth-Romulan war was fought almost entirely in space or in orbit of worlds. Easier to not see what your opponent looks like if their ship is totally destroyed, either by weapons or self-destruct.

I believe that is how many of the early books explained the Romulan war.

 

[Imaus]

I imagine that it was mostly a orbit-to-orbit ship war, yes. Romulans would only put troops on the ground after nuking out the human bases, if at all. More likely they would tug some space stations for the infrastructure as long as the war was going, then build bases later if needed.

I mean these are the guys who would destroy 2000 troops 200 years later just for being found out (Sela and the Klingon Civil War thing) in a flash. Romulan command doesn't care for their ground troops.....

And I dunno, the thought of UE fighting Reman troops doesn't sit right with me, its too...cliche?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I disagree. M'Benga's presence in A Private Little War was significantly more than a minor extra with a couple of lines. He had major dialog and screen time that was important to the story. We gained information about Vulcans through him, and that the Enterprise had more than one medical doctor. There was also a continuation of the show's policy of showing Black characters in meaningful roles. Not a given in the mid 1960's.

What you listed there, these are all things that don't define M'Benga's personality or reveal anything about M'Benga personally, so that's why I said he was "hardly a character on TOS." Said another way, at best M'Benga was a one-dimensional character on TOS, and that's being extremely generous.

For comparison, Scotty is at best a two-dimensional character on TOS, and there's way more Scotty on TOS than M'Benga.

To change away from M'Benga, I'll argue, though, that Scotty approached being a three-dimensional character in "Relics."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And any dead Romulan ground troops that get killed, simply remove their helmets for a look.

Remember the Breen? Their armor is rigged to explode if opened.

I can see the Romulans being that paranoid as well.

 

[Farscape One]

Remember the Breen? Their armor is rigged to explode if opened.

I can see the Romulans being that paranoid as well.

I liked this purely for the speculation on the Romulans being that paranoid.

But when was it ever said that the Breen armor would explode if they were ever opened?

That would have made it difficult for Kira and Dukat to wear their armor in "INDISCRETION"...