Quinto returns as Spock!

[Vagabond Elf]

I don't see how that's true.

"You understand what the Federation is, don't you? It's important. It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada."
"We done?"
"I'm done. Riverside Shipyard. The shuttle for new recruits leaves tomorrow oh-eight hundred. You know, your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives, including your mother's. And yours. I dare you to do better."

And then the entire movie boils down to "psychopathic mass murderer can only be stopped by shooting him." The writers put a few nods to what Trek really is in the dialogue, and Abrams made the actual story a cataclysmic battle where some scrappy underdogs barely manage to stop a supership by engaging the villain in personal combat, but not until after it blows up a planet and leaves most of the other ships on our heroes' team drifting wrecks. Gee, it's almost like someone made almost that movie in 1977.

Again, this is my interpretation of a piece of art. (Yes, Star Trek 2009 is art. I don't think it's good art but that doesn't make it not art.) Interpretations of art are opinions. So if you see something different, if you feel that those two lines are enough to salvage the message of the rest of the story, that's as valid as my opinion. But I don't; I choose to evaluate the movie based on what it does, not on what a couple of lines of dialogue say.

And before someone brings it up: no, I don't think Wrath of Khan is particularily good "Trek" either. It's a very good movie, but it too leans into a simple revenge-and-fight story. It is, however, better than 2009 because there is in the story at least an attempt to resolve things non-violently. So it goes into the subset of stories that ask "trying to resolve everything diplomatically is all well and good but what happens if the other person doesn't want to play." This set of stories isn't the best "Trek," in my view, but it's a valid set of questions to ask.

For me, 2009 doesn't fit that because we never see any real attempt to stop the Romulans without just shooting them. It's just straight up "someone hurts you, you hurt them more."

Anyway, this is meant to outline why I feel the way I do, not to try and say "you're wrong." If you see things differently, then you see things differently. I hope that comes across in my tone.

 

[gabby1701]

For the context of that show - ordinary people wearing Hallowe'en costumes - it makes sense. Find a random group of people dressed in Trek uniforms in a bar on Hallowe'en and they'll be from a mix of shows and eras.



Hunh. From this I can only conclude that you and I have very different opinions about what constitutes good Trek content. For me, the '09 movie was entertaining and worth the ticket price, but it's not "Star Trek," it's "Star Wars with a Trek skin on it." That movie forgets the most important thing about Trek: hope, and the idea that we can make the world a better place if we only try.

In my view, while '09 isn't the worst Trek we've gotten this century, it still gets a failing grade. Whereas SNW, for me, is a very good TOS reboot; I give it an A- on the "being Trek" task and a B+ on the "being entertaining TV" task.

(Please note that I draw a distinction between "Is this good Star Trek" and "is this an entertaining movie/TV show." Many of the things labeled as Trek that fail to be good Star Trek are still very entertaining and well crafted media, they just forget the point of Trek and make a more standard action/adventure/war story. Likewise, many things that really lean into and capture the "we can make the world better and don't need to fight" themes aren't particularly good TV or movies.)

Anyway, these are just my opinions, not some sort of objective fact. If you like '09, then I'm glad it's there for you to enjoy, just as I'm glad SNW is there for me.

oh boy -I joined this forum since I myself I am bizarrely dunt on the pushed narrative.

Star trek 2009 is not star wars not even close that is a false narrative. star trek 2009 is actually closer to TNG First Contact movie. its funny that when people say trek 2009 is like star wars they never give evidence and when they do, it is star wars that is copying star trek tos. Streaming star trek has felt more like star wars than kelvin trek as they do more fantasy stuff.

for the most part trek 2009 is sci fi and has realism. star wars is not even this at any basic. the characters in trek 2009 felt like people you hang out with. Star wars has never given that, it is a fantasy mythic.

Also the idea that SNW is closer to ''real Trek'' shows no evidence. I have seen the show as I am thinking you have so we can compare what we have watched. I even watched SNW and Kelvin back to back and Kelvin trek surpasses SNW in being more like real trek. this is why I joined a trek forum because I could see the false narrative that was been put out there to sell SNW to the point of trashing kelvin trek when that merited no subtance.

SNW is even further from the characters than Kelvin trek. can you name any kelvin character that differs as much from their tos counterparts like Spock or Chapel in snw? who is more like tos spock? peck or quinto?

SNW is a soap opera with generic cw story lines, heck even the spock/uhura romance why sort of problematic in kelvinverse is superior to any of the romantic stories in SNW and is easier to deal with and works a tad better in the star trek world were romance was little or subtle.

in SNW the love boat stories stand out stronger than the sci fi action adventure stories something kelvin trek managed to avoid. all 3 trek films are sci fiction action and adventure. they are not soap with CW Level story sci fi stories.

Mount in SNW was meant to be the lead character and even central character, SNW Purpose was for Mount and Rebecca to have their own show but in SNW they are now the supporting characters. Bruce Greenwood had a far more captain presence in trek 2009. Bruce Greenwood would have lead a pike spin off better based on his bar scene with kirk in trek 2009.

Trek 2009 with Kirk and Spock- Pine and Quinto in all 3 films worked well as captain and first officer that was the heart of the films and also what makes TOS good. it is all about kirk and spock cumbo. SNW does not even have this basis. Una on the show is underused a lot and Pike is mostly absent. SNW is the first trek show that has a very forgettable or non existence captain/first officer dynamic. It is not even a thing on the show.

Kelvin also has stronger nsync casting ensemble. the cast worked spectually well as one unit. something SNW does not do that well. A lot of characters get obvious focus over the rest.

So please I am curious about this narrative. as of 2025 SNW has collapsed in reception both critically and commercially. this is why I am even more optimistic for star trek 4 since kelvin trek already did it a lot of things better and they can just wrap it up with a 4th film. Paramount is likely to get more attention by announcing a star trek 4 than more snw seasons.

Star Trek 2009 had it issues but as a movie under less than 3 hours it managed to tick all the boxes well and most importantly it got their two important characters right. Kirk and Spock. SNW has failed on this basis. Peck Spock is rightly criticized for the way he is written and Paul Wesley casting has been met with mixed to negative reception. Paramount are better making a trek 4 than a year one. I do not feel Paul can carry the show.

Also when I said star trek 2009 was the best content you can also back it up by ratings and critical reception. in 2000s star trek by RT IMDB Reception and audience ratings is ranked the highest of the trek in 2009.

The Kelvin films on average had a higher and better critical score than all the streaming star trek and the kelvin films has been out for more than 15 years and was more mainstream.

Calling kelvin trek not good trek is fine but to say SNW is ''good trek'' I find to be quite the illusion.

to honest truth is that if JJ Abrams has pulled some of the stuff that we have seen in snw compared to kelvin. JJ would have been trashed more. The hypocrisy is truly bizarre and disturbing.

 

[Set Harth]

And then the entire movie boils down to "psychopathic mass murderer can only be stopped by shooting him."

Because sometimes that's what it takes to make the "world" ( quadrant? galaxy? ) a better place. In this case, it was surely a better outcome for the inhabitants of the Federation planets Nero had intended to destroy.

 

[fireproof78]

And then the entire movie boils down to "psychopathic mass murderer can only be stopped by shooting him." The writers put a few nods to what Trek really is in the dialogue, and Abrams made the actual story a cataclysmic battle where some scrappy underdogs barely manage to stop a supership by engaging the villain in personal combat, but not until after it blows up a planet and leaves most of the other ships on our heroes' team drifting wrecks. Gee, it's almost like someone made almost that movie in 1977.

Again, this is my interpretation of a piece of art. (Yes, Star Trek 2009 is art. I don't think it's good art but that doesn't make it not art.) Interpretations of art are opinions. So if you see something different, if you feel that those two lines are enough to salvage the message of the rest of the story, that's as valid as my opinion. But I don't; I choose to evaluate the movie based on what it does, not on what a couple of lines of dialogue say.

And before someone brings it up: no, I don't think Wrath of Khan is particularily good "Trek" either. It's a very good movie, but it too leans into a simple revenge-and-fight story. It is, however, better than 2009 because there is in the story at least an attempt to resolve things non-violently. So it goes into the subset of stories that ask "trying to resolve everything diplomatically is all well and good but what happens if the other person doesn't want to play." This set of stories isn't the best "Trek," in my view, but it's a valid set of questions to ask.

For me, 2009 doesn't fit that because we never see any real attempt to stop the Romulans without just shooting them. It's just straight up "someone hurts you, you hurt them more."

Anyway, this is meant to outline why I feel the way I do, not to try and say "you're wrong." If you see things differently, then you see things differently. I hope that comes across in my tone.

While I disagree strongly because there is efforts for peace you did express well.

Because sometimes that's what it takes to make the "world" ( quadrant? galaxy? ) a better place. In this case, it was surely a better outcome for the inhabitants of the Federation planets Nero had intended to destroy.

It was done in TOS repeatedly, starting in the second pilot.

Calling kelvin trek not good trek is fine but to say SNW is ''good trek'' I find to be quite the illusion.

It's almost like different Trek means different things to different people. If only we had some sort of phrase to reflect this diversity of thought.

 

[gabby1701]

While I disagree strongly because there is efforts for peace you did express well.


It was done in TOS repeatedly, starting in the second pilot.


It's almost like different Trek means different things to different people. If only we had some sort of phrase to reflect this diversity of thought.

I think so but Gene Roddenberry and his writers did have some specific on what they envisioned for their series.

now some can take liberty as time goes on but it is safe to say shows like discovery and snw has taken even more liberty than kelvin trek.

which is ironic since kelvin trek is an alternate reality where liberty would be more welcome.

 

[fireproof78]

now some can take liberty as time goes on but it is safe to say shows like discovery and snw has taken even more liberty than kelvin trek.

Yes, and that's good

 

[gabby1701]

Yes, and that's good

its good as long it it make some sense and fans are consistent in their criticism. I am all for more consistency and less hypocrisy.

 

[fireproof78]

its good as long it it make some sense and fans are consistent in their criticism. I am all for more consistency and less hypocrisy.

Fans haven't been consistent since TOS. This is not new to the fan experience, because the fan experience is not about knowledge but enjoyment. What about a story makes it engaging and enjoyable, from characters, to story to design and music.

Two, humans are hypocritical beings. We often exist in contradiction, loving rules, yet anger at the officer who pulls us over for speeding.

Accepting the variety is what makes Trek fun.

 

[flandry84]

Peck vs. Quinto!!
It has to happen.

 

[Set Harth]

It is, however, better than 2009 because there is in the story at least an attempt to resolve things non-violently. So it goes into the subset of stories that ask "trying to resolve everything diplomatically is all well and good but what happens if the other person doesn't want to play."

I suppose Kirk's final offer of assistance to Nero doesn't count? What about Pike's demand for Nero to withdraw from Vulcan so that the Federation and Romulan governments can work on a political solution?

For me, 2009 doesn't fit that because we never see any real attempt to stop the Romulans without just shooting them.

Nero was bent on destroying Federation planets. What other way to stop him is there? What were they supposed to do, invite him to a hoe-down?

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Fans haven't been consistent since TOS. This is not new to the fan experience, because the fan experience is not about knowledge but enjoyment. What about a story makes it engaging and enjoyable, from characters, to story to design and music.

Two, humans are hypocritical beings. We often exist in contradiction, loving rules, yet anger at the officer who pulls us over for speeding.

Accepting the variety is what makes Trek fun.

Fans weren't consistent even during TOS. I'm not old enough to have watched the shows live, but I'm old enough to have read early fan 'zines. The conversations there aren't much different than they are here, the only difference being it took so much longer the language tended to stay more polished and calm.

Anyway, I just wanted to say "thanks for not pretending there's only room for one opinion on a piece of entertainment." It's a shame other people aren't willing to give me the same space I offered to them.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

I suppose Kirk's final offer of assistance to Nero doesn't count? What about Pike's demand for Nero to withdraw from Vulcan so that the Federation and Romulan governments can work on a political solution?

Nero was bent on destroying Federation planets. What other way to stop him is there? What were they supposed to do, invite him to a hoe-down?

I freely admit the last time I saw the movie was, in fact, in 2009. So I'm not in a position to argue the tiny details with you. I have no memory of Kirk making a final offer of assistance to Nero, but if it's there, then perhaps my impression is somewhat oversimplified.

However, your second paragraph speaks to my point. Because the story is the problem. And the story is not the sum of the decisions the characters make inside of it. The story is the decision that the screenwriters, the producers, and/or Mr. Abrams made to put in a character that was hell-bent on destroying planets.

Because the storytellers made that choice, the story becomes one of revenge, not hope. And that makes it bad Star Trek.

I probably should've walked away from this already, because you're very clearly not interested in exchanging ideas. You obviously disagree with my opinion of the movie, and seem determined to change my mind. All I want is for you to acknowledge that we have different views of the nature of a film that's old enough to drink in Ireland, and move on.

If you can't do that, then your partner gets my pity, and I'll move on myself.

 

[fireproof78]

Nero was bent on destroying Federation planets. What other way to stop him is there? What were they supposed to do, invite him to a hoe-down?

A strongly worded letter with action words.

Fans weren't consistent even during TOS. I'm not old enough to have watched the shows live, but I'm old enough to have read early fan 'zines. The conversations there aren't much different than they are here, the only difference being it took so much longer the language tended to stay more polished and calm.

Anyway, I just wanted to say "thanks for not pretending there's only room for one opinion on a piece of entertainment." It's a shame other people aren't willing to give me the same space I offered to them.

True enough and you're welcome.

 

[Set Harth]

The story is the decision that the screenwriters, the producers, and/or Mr. Abrams made to put in a character that was hell-bent on destroying planets.

Not exactly unheard of either in science fiction generally or in the realm of ST movies specifically. So as an objection in and of itself it's fairly bizarre. In theory it would be a little hard to get people super jazzed about going to see a movie about a friendly disagreement resolved through peaceful debate.

All I want is for you to acknowledge that we have different views of the nature of a film that's old enough to drink in Ireland, and move on.

But are all views of the "nature" of a film equally valid? Does the actual content of the film have any relevance, its advanced age notwithstanding? Are those of us living in the present day even capable of understanding a prehistoric artifact such as this?

 

[gabby1701]

Peck vs. Quinto!!
It has to happen.

Quinto is closer to tos by objective evidence
The only core difference is quinto has a stable gitlfriend.tos spock did not.
Peck is not even close to tos to the point that the creators of the show have been trying to explain this reason why and failing at it

 

[gabby1701]

Y'know. Sort of.

His character on 'Brilliant Minds' dresses up as Spock for Halloween.

View attachment 49743View attachment 49744

I am Never optimistic when spock dates girls steady since it can be just weird but I think this pairing spock/uhura AOS are the lesser of the wrongs that they have forced down out throats in the nu trek era of spock getting multiple sex partners....just because?

 

[Tosk]

Peck vs. Quinto!!
It has to happen.