What's the Big Lesson in STXI?

[M'Sharak]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

And that's a wrap folks.

Yep. It was spoon-fed to us in the movie, and it only took 211 posts before someone here got it. There are obviously waaaaaay too many graduate students and pseudo-intellectuals posting here.

Only it didn't really take 211 posts. Destiny and choice cropped up within the first ten posts, and more than a few times since.

No argument about the grad students and pseudo-intellectuals, though -- those have never been in short supply around here. (And no, Trilliam, I don't mean you. )

 

[Trilliam]

And that's a wrap folks.

Yep. It was spoon-fed to us in the movie, and it only took 211 posts before someone here got it. There are obviously waaaaaay too many graduate students and pseudo-intellectuals posting here.

Only it didn't really take 211 posts. Destiny and choice cropped up within the first ten posts, and more than a few times since.

No argument about the grad students and pseudo-intellectuals, though -- those have never been in short supply around here. (And no, Trilliam, I don't mean you. )

 

[Vicki]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

Bingo. That's it.

 

[Jeyl]

Military articles of discipline and law no longer apply to the Federation. This includes assault and disobeying orders.

we saw both in tos, your point???

Nothing. I'm just saying they no longer apply.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Military articles of discipline and law no longer apply to the Federation. This includes assault and disobeying orders.

we saw both in tos, your point???

Nothing. I'm just saying they no longer apply.

What do you mean no longer apply, since when have they ever applied in Trek?

 

[neozeks]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

I guess you could call that the Big Lesson of the movie, the only problem is it is the most unoriginal, generic message I could think of (which is part of my complaint that there's nothing original, not-seen-it-a-million-times, in this movie), especially when you unsubtly spoon-feed it that way.
Plus, the very concept of destiny is in complete contrast to what Trek stands for.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

I guess you could call that the Big Lesson of the movie, the only problem is it is the most unoriginal, generic message I could think of (which is part of my complaint that there's nothing original, not-seen-it-a-million-times, in this movie), especially when you unsubtly spoon-feed it that way.
Plus, the very concept of destiny is in complete contrast to what Trek stands for.

I wouldn't categorize the lesson that choice is instrumental in deciding your own destiny as either "unoriginal" or endorsing pre-determination. How much of our lives is determined by choice? And how often do we really make the "right" decisions? Stories that explore the how's and why's of choice can be incredibly powerful and have made for some of the best books, films, and epics in history. It isn't generic, it's a fundamental archetype of storytelling.

I accept that this story in its execution didn't move you, but that doesn't mean the attempt itself was flawed to begin with. As for destiny vs. free-will ... that's precisely what the film is about. The audience knows how these characters would end up had there been no intervening appearance by Nero. Now that he has, it's up to the characters' decisions, their choices, to allow them to reach their own full potential. That isn't embracing destiny, it's embracing the power of choice to determine our own futures -- to allow ourselves to reach our fullest potential.

Again, I can accept and appreciate that you didn't particular enjoy how the lesson was conveyed on-screen. But that doesn't mean that the lesson itself was somehow flawed.

 

[FailedLurker]

"You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Plus, the very concept of destiny is in complete contrast to what Trek stands for.

I think you're reacting too strongly to the mere word "destiny" rather than reading the quote. The whole point is that you decide your own destiny, and that you're the only one who can.

 

[pookha]

Military articles of discipline and law no longer apply to the Federation. This includes assault and disobeying orders.

we saw both in tos, your point???

Nothing. I'm just saying they no longer apply.

well evidently they never did apply..

 

[M'Sharak]

^ They apply when it's convenient for them to apply and get out of the way when it isn't, same as always.

 

[VulcanJedi]

I think the biggest lesson in Star Trek is that it should have rebooted a long time ago.

Ha! Yes, good point. The main point I think and a summation of what Star Trek wasn't: everything that recent Trek was. Back to basics in so many ways: courage, overcoming fear and value family bonds.

Furthermore-one problem with recent Trek has been it's broken moral compass. Sometimes the morality has been out right wrong (tossing Trip's clone into space) and often times so vague as to be nihilistic.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^ They apply when it's convenient for them to apply and get out of the way when it isn't, same as always.

Fo'sho.

While adhering to strict military rules of conduct and regulations can at times provide for good drama, sometimes it doesn't. Writers of fiction, including Star Trek, have tossed it, altered it, and hemmed and hawed it to suit their needs.

The promotion of Kirk could've been handled better, but it is what it is. I think such rapid promotion has been dealt with better in other fictions, like Midshipman's Hope. Nevertheless, I can turn a blind eye to Kirk's captaincy in favor of the emotional thrill it gave me at the end to see them all on the bridge.

 

[Cheapjack]

If people don't like the moral, they wouldn't watch it, unless they're too dumb to see there is a moral and just watch it for the action.

You might want be careful about statements like that. People might get the idea you're calling them stupid.[/QUOTE]

You're the one who talks of 'pseudo intelllectuals'!

I disagree that a message is just an addition, and isn't necessary. Star Trek was set up as a morality show in the 60's, right at the beginning. Even ST11 has an implicit message, which may be the way things are going, but I certainly wouldn't want the next one to have none. Then it would have lost it's soul and I would want to know what sort of audience would just want to watch pure action. Surely a football game would have the same effect??

 

[Mr Awe]

Especially since Kirk and Co. didn't really know that there was no Federation out there, only that the Enterprise was no longer in orbit of that planet in the new timeline.

Actually, they did know. Spock had recorded the altered history when the Guardian replayed it. That's also how they figured out how to restore history. The literally read about the changes in the newspapers on his tricorder!

Mr Awe

 

[suarezguy]

Back to basics in so many ways: courage, overcoming fear and value family bonds.

Furthermore-one problem with recent Trek has been it's broken moral compass. Sometimes the morality has been out right wrong (tossing Trip's clone into space) and often times so vague as to be nihilistic.

But isn't it more interesting to see difficult dilemmas and flawed characters? Most comic book or fantasy movies are about courage (against Bad Bad Guys).

Kirk's promotion gave me the idea (as with the Vulcans being helpless and the Enterprise being the close ship, which was bad enough in TFF) that Starfleet/the Federation was pretty small; that sort of insinuation is part of why I dislike reboots. If we've been following a universe, why not show something new and more complex (if it can't get a mainstream audience, that's a sign that the franchise has run its course and it's time for people to create something new) rather than a new, updated beginning?

 

[Cassy4]

This thread is deep. Yeah to throw in my 2 cents, the "message" is definitely what Sarek said to Spock about being the only one capable of choosing his own destiny. Both Spock and Kirk had to overcome preconceptions about themselves and challenge these beliefs they had about their destinies and what they were meant for. Not the MOST orginigal message...but not bad either.

I think this movie shows that your "destiny" is controlled by both fate and choice. I mean, outside influences and circumstances will always have some control over you. (as in Kirk's father dying and his early decision to settle for a less than ordinary life) However, fate and choice both have control over destiny. So Kirk and Spock must both try to carry out whatever they need to to follow what they want their destiny to be.

Forgive me if this sounds like complete philosphical mush...

 

[SonicRanger]

What's the Big Lesson in STXI?

Don't make a movie just for Trekkies. The public loves Kirk and Spock.

 

[Theonethatis]

I personally feel that Trek X1 was about embracing your humanity and emotions. At least that was Spocks character arc. Kirks arc was about embracing responsibility. So maybe the general message is embracing parts of yourself that you are afraid of.