What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[Brutal Strudel]

What war? The Federation was at peace at that point--the Next Big Threat, Nero's renewed attack on the UFP, was three years away and suspected by no one.

And Kirk wasn't looking for trouble, he was looking for pussy. Since when is that a bad thing?

 

[Chrisisall]

What war? The Federation was at peace at that point--the Next Big Threat, Nero's renewed attack on the UFP, was three years away and suspected by no one.

Sorry, I meant that they had just been through one major incident, like as in where Kirk's dad died...

And Kirk wasn't looking for trouble, he was looking for pussy. Since when is that a bad thing?

P**y or a fight- same thing, tension relieved.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

As Spock said when asked about he dissipation of his need to schtup T'Pring upon "killing" Kirk: "It must have been the combat."

 

[Chrisisall]

As Spock said when asked about he dissipation of his need to schtup T'Pring upon "killing" Kirk: "It must have been the combat."

 

[Hartzilla2007]

By all rights, he should've been courtmartialed at the end of this movie, not promoted.

Why for saving Earth, or pointing out to a superior officer that he is obviously emotionally compromised in a life or death situtation, or saving the life of a superior officer.

What bugs me about the 'emotionally compromised' bit is that it wasn't affecting Spock's command decisions in the slightest. Spock had orders to rendevous with the fleet

No he did not, Spock ordered them to head to the rest of the fleet when they were talking about what to do next. Stafleet didn't call them up and tell them to do that. Kirk pointed out that in the time needed to do that Earth aka where the Federation Council and Starfleet command are would be destroyed so they should try to STOP Nero before he destroyed ANOTHER planet.

In retrospect, since just about the entirety of Starfleet portrayed in this film doesn't seem to have the brain power required to screw in a light bulb, a court martial for gross insubordination and conduct unbecoming, not only for Kirk but also for Spock, might be asking a bit much....

When has that ever NOT been the case st least this time they weren't corrupt bastards.

By all rights, he should've been courtmartialed at the end of this movie, not promoted.

Why for saving Earth, or pointing out to a superior officer that he is obviously emotionally compromised in a life or death situation, or saving the life of a superior officer.

Yes. Because in the military, as in corporations, what WORKS is second to a good-looking chain of command & the idea that peeps know more than you do due to their rank, and not their intelligence or innate problem-solving ability.
Oh wait- that's now... in the 23rd Century it could be different.
Never mind.

THATS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE WITH KIRK DID YOU NOT WATCH STAR TREK III OR SOMETHING!?

What war? The Federation was at peace at that point--the Next Big Threat, Nero's renewed attack on the UFP, was three years away and suspected by no one.

Sorry, I meant that they had just been through one major incident, like as in where Kirk's dad died...

That was 25 years ago and no the army is not aloud to beat the shit out of civies for hitting on another member of said army, what kind of armed forces outside of a dictatorship does that anyway.

 

[Warped9]

Funny how people are quoting Diane Carey's interpretation and the Shatnerverse as Gospel on teen-Brando Kirk, when these are the books that get the least love from Trek Lit fanatics.

While "Best Destiny" gets slammed often, it's always been my impression that "Final Frontier" is highly respected.

I rather like Final Frontier as a book. There's interesting stuff in it although I think some of the continuity and timing is off. There are ideas in it I like, but I don't accept it gospel.

Best Destiny was a bit much, though. I didn't like it near as much as its predecessor.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think some of the continuity and timing is off.

That's because it takes its dating from Fred & Stan Goldstein's "ST Spaceflight Chronology", a ST:TMP tie-in. The current dating system wasn't possible until Data mentioned an Earth date in TNG's "The Neutral Zone".

 

[Noname Given]

this movie does assassinate Kirk's essential character in order to bring him in line with the 21st Century entitled pretty boy brat archetype (and yes, I know this noxious archetype has been around for ages--thing is, Kirk was never an exemplar of it);

And yet the tie-in novels (and comics) have almost always portrayed young Jimmy Kirk as a petulant, pretty boy brat archetype in their flashback scenes: "Final Frontier", "Best Destiny", a short story ("Though Hell Should Bar the Way", IIRC) and even Shatner's own "Academy: Collision Course".

I haven't read a Star Trek novel since 1986--I re-read The Entropy Effect about five years ago but that's about it. The only young Kirk I know is the one described in TOS.

The ONLY thing we have Re: 'young Kirk' from TOS is "a stack of books with legs" (from Where No Man Has Gone Before; and his run ins with Finnigan and an affair with an older worman from Shore Leave.

Now, NOTHING in the new Star Trek film contradicts any of that. Hell, young Kirk in the bar states he'll graduate in 3 years instead of the usual four and DOES IT (and no I'm not talking about the promotoion in the film as before that Kirk IS a senior set to graduate after only three years). You can't do that without major work or study, thus he probably was STILL "a stack of books with legs." Finnigan and the older woman affair probably still happened as well, so please show me where the TOS info on 'young Kirk' was contradicted in the film?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

this movie does assassinate Kirk's essential character in order to bring him in line with the 21st Century entitled pretty boy brat archetype (and yes, I know this noxious archetype has been around for ages--thing is, Kirk was never an exemplar of it);

And yet the tie-in novels (and comics) have almost always portrayed young Jimmy Kirk as a petulant, pretty boy brat archetype in their flashback scenes: "Final Frontier", "Best Destiny", a short story ("Though Hell Should Bar the Way", IIRC) and even Shatner's own "Academy: Collision Course".

You know interestingly enough the writers of the movie said they got their inspiration for young Kirk from a Carey novel I think Best Destiny was the one.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

And yet the tie-in novels (and comics) have almost always portrayed young Jimmy Kirk as a petulant, pretty boy brat archetype in their flashback scenes: "Final Frontier", "Best Destiny", a short story ("Though Hell Should Bar the Way", IIRC) and even Shatner's own "Academy: Collision Course".

I haven't read a Star Trek novel since 1986--I re-read The Entropy Effect about five years ago but that's about it. The only young Kirk I know is the one described in TOS.

The ONLY thing we have Re: 'young Kirk' from TOS is "a stack of books with legs" (from Where No Man Has Gone Before; and his run ins with Finnigan and an affair with an older worman from Shore Leave.

Now, NOTHING in the new Star Trek film contradicts any of that. Hell, young Kirk in the bar states he'll graduate in 3 years instead of the usual four and DOES IT (and no I'm not talking about the promotoion in the film as before that Kirk IS a senior set to graduate after only three years). You can't do that without major work or study, thus he probably was STILL "a stack of books with legs." Finnigan and the older woman affair probably still happened as well, so please show me where the TOS info on 'young Kirk' was contradicted in the film?

This Kirk is hardly "positively grim." He's cocky, jokey and arrogant--he has more in common with Finnegan and Gary Mitchell than he does with the young Kirk as he is described in TOS.

The "out in three years" thing? Already addressed this: the movie folds that into the entitled pretty boy brat thing. We hear it but we never see Kirk working his ass off to get there. Instead, we see a guy who uses "study" as a euphemism for fucking so often that his best friend swats it away with a "my ass" when he hears it.

And hey, this is totally keeping in with the zeitgeist, where bright kids think they should get As for being bright rather than for working. I'm a teacher, I've seen it again and again.

But you know what? You can argue that the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, that the humorless cadet TOS implicitly established over its first season is consistent with the cocksure punk we see in XI. Because it was implicit, there's no way to explicitly refute it. But it's still revisionism. If you're cool with that, so am I.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I haven't read a Star Trek novel since 1986--I re-read The Entropy Effect about five years ago but that's about it. The only young Kirk I know is the one described in TOS.

The ONLY thing we have Re: 'young Kirk' from TOS is "a stack of books with legs" (from Where No Man Has Gone Before; and his run ins with Finnigan and an affair with an older worman from Shore Leave.

Now, NOTHING in the new Star Trek film contradicts any of that. Hell, young Kirk in the bar states he'll graduate in 3 years instead of the usual four and DOES IT (and no I'm not talking about the promotoion in the film as before that Kirk IS a senior set to graduate after only three years). You can't do that without major work or study, thus he probably was STILL "a stack of books with legs." Finnigan and the older woman affair probably still happened as well, so please show me where the TOS info on 'young Kirk' was contradicted in the film?

This Kirk is hardly "positively grim." He's cocky, jokey and arrogant--he has more in common with Finnegan and Gary Mitchell than he does with the Kirk as he is described in TOS.

The "out in three years" thing? Already addressed this: the movie folds that into the entitled pretty boy brat thing. We hear it but we never see Kirk working his ass off to get there. Instead, we see a guy who uses "study" as a euphemism for fucking so often that his best friend swats it away with a "my ass" when he hears it.

And hey, this is totally keeping in with the zeitgeist, where bright kids think they should get As for being bright rather than for working. I'm a teacher, I've seen it again and again.

But you know what? You can argue that the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, that the humorless cadet TOS implicitly established over its first season is consistent with the cocksure punk we see in XI. Because it was implicit, there's no way to explicitly refute it. But it's still revisionism. If you're cool with that, so am I.

Yes lets ignore the different upbringing thing.

 

[Ronald Held]

I do not see him as grim with a stack of books. Without a LOT of seasoning, Khan would defeat him easily, if he were the next villain.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I do not see him as grim with a stack of books. Without a LOT of seasoning, Khan would defeat him easily, if he were the next villain.

Kirk only beat Khan the first time becuase McGivers stoped Khan from killing him in the decompression chamber, and the second time becuase Khan wanted to gloat and get the Genesis data instead of just finishing off the Enterprise. What the hell did seasoning have to do with anything?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The ONLY thing we have Re: 'young Kirk' from TOS is "a stack of books with legs" (from Where No Man Has Gone Before; and his run ins with Finnigan and an affair with an older worman from Shore Leave.

Now, NOTHING in the new Star Trek film contradicts any of that. Hell, young Kirk in the bar states he'll graduate in 3 years instead of the usual four and DOES IT (and no I'm not talking about the promotoion in the film as before that Kirk IS a senior set to graduate after only three years). You can't do that without major work or study, thus he probably was STILL "a stack of books with legs." Finnigan and the older woman affair probably still happened as well, so please show me where the TOS info on 'young Kirk' was contradicted in the film?

This Kirk is hardly "positively grim." He's cocky, jokey and arrogant--he has more in common with Finnegan and Gary Mitchell than he does with the Kirk as he is described in TOS.

The "out in three years" thing? Already addressed this: the movie folds that into the entitled pretty boy brat thing. We hear it but we never see Kirk working his ass off to get there. Instead, we see a guy who uses "study" as a euphemism for fucking so often that his best friend swats it away with a "my ass" when he hears it.

And hey, this is totally keeping in with the zeitgeist, where bright kids think they should get As for being bright rather than for working. I'm a teacher, I've seen it again and again.

But you know what? You can argue that the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, that the humorless cadet TOS implicitly established over its first season is consistent with the cocksure punk we see in XI. Because it was implicit, there's no way to explicitly refute it. But it's still revisionism. If you're cool with that, so am I.

Yes lets ignore the different upbringing thing.

Um, I brought up the different upbringing thing. I'm cool with that, too:

Now that we're on the subject of Kirk--thanks to Therin quoting an old post of mine--let me just make the counter-argument myself, without resorting to non-canonical sources: TOS Kirk grew up with a father, Trek XI Kirk without. Instead, he was saddled with a step-father who was, at best, a douche and a mother who was apparently so deranged by the loss of her husband that she became stupid enough to hook-up with said douche and selfish enough--apaprently--that she often skips out and leaves her boys to his mercies. This Kirk has only a little more in common with TOS Kirk than Shinzon had with Jean-Luc Picard.

But let's get one thing clear: the out-of-story reason for the different upringing was just so they could do this to the character.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

I've said this in other threads so at the risk of being severely beaten about the face and head with a blunt object:

First viewing: it was OK. But it wasn't "My Trek".
Second viewing: It was great. Still didnt excuse the re-writes but could live with them.
Third viewing: I could kiss JJ full on the mouth. LOVE IT!

 

[RobertMfromLI]

I thought it was a good movie (even considering holes in the story/plot/production design and so forth); and BAD TOS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It wasn't TOS - good, bad or indifferent. TOS ended forever, forty years ago. Abrams's movie was just good Star Trek.

 

[RobertMfromLI]

It wasn't TOS - good, bad or indifferent. TOS ended forever, forty years ago. Abrams's movie was just good Star Trek.

Yes... you are more accurate. It was not TOS. Though I would like to think that TOS hasn't quite ended yet (but I am biased in that matter).

 

[Cakes488]

It wasn't TOS - good, bad or indifferent. TOS ended forever, forty years ago. Abrams's movie was just good Star Trek.

Yes... you are more accurate. It was not TOS. Though I would like to think that TOS hasn't quite ended yet (but I am biased in that matter).

TOS may have stopped being produced 40yrs ago...but it most certainly has not ended. The phenomenon continues!

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

It wasn't TOS - good, bad or indifferent. TOS ended forever, forty years ago. Abrams's movie was just good Star Trek.

Yes... you are more accurate. It was not TOS. Though I would like to think that TOS hasn't quite ended yet (but I am biased in that matter).

TOS may have stopped being produced 40yrs ago...but it most certainly has not ended. The phenomenon continues!

Phenomenon? That's a big word for a bunch of repeats of an old series.