Edit: I completely misread your post. But I agree that it's much more dramatic the way you proposed.
Last edited:
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Edit: I completely misread your post. But I agree that it's much more dramatic the way you proposed.
I mean, it should have all been space based.
If they had the Season 4 writers, I wouldn't be so sure.
The JJ Abrams films constituting the Kelvin timeline deviate significantly from the core essence of Star Trek, warranting exclusion from canon. Departing from established lore and thematic depth, these movies sacrifice the franchise's emphasis on moral exploration and diplomatic nuance in favor of action-driven narratives. Their divergence creates inconsistencies and fractures within the established universe, risking confusion and alienation among fans who value continuity. By prioritizing spectacle over substance, the Kelvin timeline films fail to capture the essence of what defines Star Trek's enduring appeal. Therefore, excluding them from canon preserves the integrity and coherence of the broader Star Trek universe, ensuring that its rich storytelling tradition remains faithful to its foundational principles.
Agreed.
Gonna say...no. I may not like everything about the Kelvin Timeline movies but they got Trek out of the doldrums of ENT's ratings and the failure of NEM and revitalized the franchise.
Wrong. 1000 percent wrong. One, Star Trek is built on an action/adventure framework, see the Original Series bible. Two, the Kelvin films explore how a leader is built, rather than emerging fully developed like some mythological being leaping from the head of Zeus.
No, it doesn't. It embodies the foundational principal of both entertainment first, making money second, and diversity of stories third.
Last edited:
I think '09 and INTO DARKNESS are terrible, but even I will give credit to '09 for bringing interest back to the franchise.
I'm happy to never watch either movie again, but I can't say '09 should be erased from existence. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't have DISCO, PICARD, SNW, LOWER DECKS, or PRODIGY.
I'm happy to never watch either movie again, but I can't say '09 should be erased from existence. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't have DISCO, PICARD, SNW, LOWER DECKS, or PRODIGY.
There are many who would say those shouldn't exist either, though.
Perhaps that would be for the best.
Hell, PIC and the Vulcan-Romulan reunification as Ni'Var in later seasons of DSC wouldn't even happen unless the Romulan supernova of 2387 happens and destroys Romulus.
I enjoyed Star Trek (2009) but it’s a film whose flaws become more apparent with each viewing. It’s an action film with the elements of Star Trek overlayed and adapted on top of a formula, with JJ Abrams using Star Wars as his guide.
For example, Kirk’s story is basically Luke Skywalker’s “hero’s journey” by way of Joseph Campbell. A boy without much of a connection to his parents, but a family legacy of greatness, who is pushed by an elder figure (Obi-Wan/Pike) to embrace his destiny and leave a rural backwater and join the larger universe to affect change.
It also has Abrams’ tendency to skip over plot and character development if it gets in the way of the action. So stuff like the passage of time or natural progression of decisions get thrown out the window if it gets in the way of moving the action from where it is to where he wants it to go. The perfect example of that is Spock ejecting Kirk out of the Enterprise in an escape pod. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason in the story to do that. But the story NEEDS that to happen in order to introduce Prime Spock and Scotty.
The escape pod lands on a planet, and after an unnecessary action scene with an ice monster, what would you know Kirk landed right near where Prime Spock is, and what would you know they’re within walking distance of where Scotty is stationed, and what would you know Spock has the technical ability to beam them back to the Enterprise.
When you get to Into Darkness, all of these issues become amplified, in part because Into Darkness instead of growing from the events of (2009) decides to redo a lot of them. Instead of building on the Kirk-Spock relationship, they redo the tension of them finding a way to be friends. Instead of Kirk building on ways for him to be a leader, he spends a good part of the film redoing the same self-doubts about whether or not he should be in the chair in the first place. And it’s all compounded by the fact that the entire story revolves around a villain reveal that has no significance to these characters, because they don’t have the history with him that gives Wrath of Khan its edge and theme of consequences.
For example, Kirk’s story is basically Luke Skywalker’s “hero’s journey” by way of Joseph Campbell. A boy without much of a connection to his parents, but a family legacy of greatness, who is pushed by an elder figure (Obi-Wan/Pike) to embrace his destiny and leave a rural backwater and join the larger universe to affect change.
It also has Abrams’ tendency to skip over plot and character development if it gets in the way of the action. So stuff like the passage of time or natural progression of decisions get thrown out the window if it gets in the way of moving the action from where it is to where he wants it to go. The perfect example of that is Spock ejecting Kirk out of the Enterprise in an escape pod. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason in the story to do that. But the story NEEDS that to happen in order to introduce Prime Spock and Scotty.
The escape pod lands on a planet, and after an unnecessary action scene with an ice monster, what would you know Kirk landed right near where Prime Spock is, and what would you know they’re within walking distance of where Scotty is stationed, and what would you know Spock has the technical ability to beam them back to the Enterprise.
When you get to Into Darkness, all of these issues become amplified, in part because Into Darkness instead of growing from the events of (2009) decides to redo a lot of them. Instead of building on the Kirk-Spock relationship, they redo the tension of them finding a way to be friends. Instead of Kirk building on ways for him to be a leader, he spends a good part of the film redoing the same self-doubts about whether or not he should be in the chair in the first place. And it’s all compounded by the fact that the entire story revolves around a villain reveal that has no significance to these characters, because they don’t have the history with him that gives Wrath of Khan its edge and theme of consequences.
Canon is the body of work produced by the Rights holders. It is not Holy Writ. (And even that gets debated). The principal of Star Trek TOS was a Space Western that entertained and made money. On that basis the Trek09 movie fulfilled its remit.
Last edited:
Only the IP owners can "exclude something from canon."
Oh, and then they can change their minds.
So...no.
"Hi Christopher, I'm Nero" is one of the best lines in all of Trek.
He lost everything he loves and he's mad and irrational about it. I get it.
I only saw the 2009 film once, and I hated it. I skipped both Into Darkness, and Beyond as well. J.J. Abrams is a decent director, when he's given good material to work with...but I don't think the Star Trek franchise was a good fit for him at all. James T. Kirk is not Luke Skywalker, and treating him the same way is a serious lapse in judgment.
Similar threads
- Locked
