I don't quite like Abrams' attitude

[stonester1]

Bar fights.

And Kirk is a playboy...*shudders!*

Did any of you even watch the original show?

I've seen laughable, LAUGHABLE attempts at some Trekkies trying to rationalize that Kirk WASN'T a ladies man. It's embarrassing how squeamish some fans seem to get around sexually oriented conduct/content.

This is a very good point. People like to mention that TOS Kirk only had sex 3 times throughout the series. Now, its a true enough fact (as far as we know anyway), but what people are forgetting is that TOS was 60's television! If Kirk was constantly banging every woman he saw in every episode, the show would have been canned faster than you can say, "He's dead, Jim!" All you have to do is watch the series. Don't just focus on the women he banged or kissed, look at how he interacts with women who come on for, say, one line or so with Kirk. Look at the once over he gives her and the smirk that totally says, "I could hit that whenever I want!" that we all love him for.

Exactly. And the fans have known this for years.

For exhibit B (exhibit A are TOS eps), I give you the movie "Free Enterprise".

 

[Shazam!]

The point is that this is rare for the TNG era where its characters are always perfect and almost never flawed (same for Enterprise), which some Trekkies complained about XI that it had flawed characters who got into bar fights, ETC.

I've seen laughable, LAUGHABLE attempts at some Trekkies trying to rationalize that Kirk WASN'T a ladies man.

Who said that?

 

[stonester1]

The point is that this is rare for the TNG era where its characters are always perfect and almost never flawed (same for Enterprise), which some Trekkies complained about XI that it had flawed characters who got into bar fights, ETC.

I've seen laughable, LAUGHABLE attempts at some Trekkies trying to rationalize that Kirk WASN'T a ladies man.

Who said that?

It's something I've seen in pieces here and there. Go look them up, probably easy to find.

It's a criticism I've seen from folks who complain about this movie, too (I have no idea if it applies to you), how Kirk's flirtatiousness and ways with women were overplayed.

Hardly.

 

[Char Aznable]

Who said that?

As far as the XI characters being flawed, I can think of quite a few who had that complaint, but I don't want to name names.

There was an article I read on some site that did go to ridiculous lengths to "prove" that Kirk wasn't a ladies man (thats where I got my 3 banged women count from I believe).

Edit: Damn, beaten to it.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

The point is that this is rare for the TNG era where its characters are always perfect and almost never flawed (same for Enterprise), which some Trekkies complained about XI that it had flawed characters who got into bar fights, ETC.

I've seen laughable, LAUGHABLE attempts at some Trekkies trying to rationalize that Kirk WASN'T a ladies man.

Who said that?

It was said in every comment and criticism of Kirk and Spock for being arrogant, emotional, and acting like jerks, IE not being perfect parodies of TOS characters. Every time I saw a criticism it was about one of the character flaws or their flawed actions which is part of the story which is a good one. I have seen a lot of complaints about these characters not being great noble super people.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

^Agreed!

The point is that this is rare for the TNG era where its characters are always perfect and almost never flawed (same for Enterprise), which some Trekkies complained about XI that it had flawed characters who got into bar fights, ETC.

I've seen laughable, LAUGHABLE attempts at some Trekkies trying to rationalize that Kirk WASN'T a ladies man.

Who said that?

It's something I've seen in pieces here and there. Go look them up, probably easy to find.

It's a criticism I've seen from folks who complain about this movie, too (I have no idea if it applies to you), how Kirk's flirtatiousness and ways with women were overplayed.

Hardly.

 

[3D Master]

No, but Kirk does describe himself as "positively grim." Of course, that Kirk grew up with a father and in a stable household (but for the incident on Tarsus IV) so he's bound to be different. (That Shatner's Kirk was not engineered to snare bad boy loving teeny boppers might have something to do with it, too, but that's out-of-universe.)

The "positively grim" guy who cheated on the Kobyashi Maru test?

Again, I have to ask, why is it that EVERY novelist, LONG before this movie came along or was even thought of, has written young Kirk as a young handful? Not necessarily happy go lucky. In fact, in "Best Destiny", he IS grim. But he has flip moments, and pretty much is just like in AbramsTrek. Defiant of authority, flip, irreverant, drifting...

It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

All those novels are bad novels, and whether or not they exist or not, changes nothing of how bad Trek XI is.

And yes, indeed, a "positively grim" Kirk is exactly the man the who would for equally "positively grim" reasons reprogram the Kobayashi Maru test with several of his class mates.

It would be one of, if not the first think this Kirk would do that allowed him to loosen up a little; not that he's ever truly loosened up. He was positively grim in many ways during TOS, and he still is during the TOS movies.

Wow, what a brilliant, well thought out counter argument!

Why would I need to give out a counter argument that's been given out a hundred times over before? Do you think if you just keep repeating the same flawed statement again and again, that it's suddenly going to be a right statement? Even if those who know better have given up through sheer being tired of it, don't correct you for the thousandth time? Sorry, nope, it's still going to be every little bit as wrong then as it was the first time it was stated.

I love how people call the new movie mindless, when people offer several examples on depth in XI, they are either ignored or declared as anti-intellectual.

No. We did not ignore them, the first multiple times the examples were given, back then we showed again and again how the examples are bullshit and have not a single shred of depth to them whatsoever. After hearing the bullshit for the thousandth time, we just get tired of repeating the counter argument and we no longer bother. Doesn't make the examples any less true.

It is frustrating to engage in discussion when one side has its fingers in its ears going, "la la la, can't hear you!" Granted I know a lot of XI bashers aren't always like that, but enough are to grate at me.

We do no such thing. You can spend your time recounting "examples of depth" all you like, doesn't mean they are actually "examples of depth". And we've shown this a thousand times over already, we're just tired of repeating ourselves again, and again, and again, and again.

People who look at Star Trek as this so severely deep and complex franchise are looking at it through rose tinted glasses. Let us look at two TOS episodes that are typically at the top of fan polls and favorites in general (granted, they may not be everyones favs, but this is just for an example).

1) City on the Edge of Forever: Brilliant episode, but what message did it have? I mean really? I guess you could find one if you fish around enough (IE: One person can make a difference, or whatever), but that is really reaching and the episode makes no effort to offer any sort of real message. At its heart, it is a simple love story involving time travel as the plot device.

You don't need to have a message in order to be deep. City on the Edge of Forever is exactly deep as it works on multiple levels, and because it has the audacity to ask: "Maybe stopping WWII isn't such a good thing," the exact opposite of every time travel story involving Nazis has ever done before that, and most of them even still today.

2) The Trouble with Tribbles: Funny ep (Though I prefer I, Mudd personally), but what is its message? I know some people will come in and try and claim its about what happens when you move an animal to another land where it'd have no predators. However, that is a load of crap since the tribbles are nothing more than, again, a device for the comedy to ensue. The episode had no greater motive than to make people laugh.

Not every episode requires depth, and not even every movie. However, the reboot movie that's supposed to show to the non-fans what Star Trek is all about, SHOULD have been deep. Now everyone expects the next Star Trek to be another bullshit SFX fest, and we'll be stuck with bullshit SFX fests for the forseeable future, if not all the future.

Now, isn't it interesting that the TOS episodes that were the most message heavy tend to be regarded as the weaker episodes? For instance:

1) The Omega Glory: Now, I actually like this one in all its hammy glory (it doesn't grate on my nerves until the end, but it still has a charm, albeit not a serious one), but the episode is typically not a popular one because its message is so ham-fisted and pretentious that it comes across as impossible to take seriously.

There's nothing hammy about The Omega Glory. It is one of the best episodes of TOS, and I have an odd idea, you don't even know what it's message is.

2) Let That Be Your Last Battlefield: The infamous black on one side, white on the other ep. I don't have to remind anyone of how hard it is to take this one seriously, what with the cheezy make up, overdone acting, and ridiculous direction. The only thing I like about the episode is the self destruct sequence and the fact that the Riddler's in it.

I don't want to do this, because your complaining about it, but then, you've made your bad. Congratulations, you proven yourself an anti-intellectual.

"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" is one of the, if not THE best episode of TOS. It so unbelievably poignant, even today, it's amazing.

It is also one of the most serious episodes ever. It wields it's message also like a sledge hammer: GOOD! It was needed to get the message slammed into shitloads of people's brains back in the 60s, and even today it's necessary like that, because racism still isn't gone.

So, yeah. I really question people who insist that the success of Star Trek always lied with its, "suffisticated, intelligent, messages,"

Nobody ever did that, but eh, miss represent people's words, it's such a great thing to blacken people, isn't it?

when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. While Trek DID have some rather good episodes that reflected society or whatever, really, the heart of Star Trek has always been the characters interacting and working together to get out of a jam. It never mattered what the show was saying so long as it was being said in the swash buckling adventures of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock.

And all of them, were great stories and drama, and concisely written plots, instead of plothole ridden piles of shit, with more plotholes in one four minute season, than entire movie series have across all their movies.

 

[stonester1]

It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

Then you've obviously never read William Shatner's "Collision Course" http://www.amazon.com/Collision-Cou...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299005&sr=1-3

Or Diane Carey's "Best Destiny" (which I'm reading right now) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Des...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299160&sr=1-2

All those novels are bad novels,

WTF do you know? You've never read them? You only know they don't hold to your white knuckled holdings to your preconceptions of what young Kirk was like.

and whether or not they exist or not, changes nothing of how bad Trek XI is.

They do. Epic fail. And you are entitled to rage in your lone, squeaky voice of how "bad" Star Trek is. And your isolation only fuels said rage.

And yes, indeed, a "positively grim" Kirk is exactly the man the who would for equally "positively grim" reasons reprogram the Kobayashi Maru test with several of his class mates.

Not really, because the way it's been played is pretty much like a prank. He may have had a point, but he sure as fuck was having more fun than you seem to be willing to allow for.

It would be one of, if not the first think this Kirk would do that allowed him to loosen up a little; not that he's ever truly loosened up. He was positively grim in many ways during TOS, and he still is during the TOS movies.

Oh, BULLSHIT. He had grim MOMENTS. But he had even MORE moments where he seemed happy, cheerful, content, humorous. It made those grim moments or other moments of departure stand out more by comparison. His smile and humor standing in contrast to Spocks stone face stoicism, or McCoy off on one of his tirades.

It was his general cheerful demeanor is what helped provide memorable contrasts in scenes such as this.

So when he DID go grim, or angry or steely determined, it STOOD OUT.

 

[3D Master]

The point is - is that Star Trek needed to get out of its preachy, obvious messages, get away from the talk fest and cheep milk the fans for all there worth approach which was shamless. Star Trek had been stagnating and needed to evolve and grow and how can it do that if it doesn't take in new elements that could potentially improve it. This new movie is not Star Wars thought it clearly has learned some things from Lucas but it still Star Trek, still the genre that Lucas could have learned a thing or two about before he had put out his new prequels which were so terrible.

It needed to evolve into the Dark Knight. Deep stories that work on multiple levels along with kick ass action. Not mindless, plotless, story-less, drama-less SFX fest.

Most importantly story is the most important thing in this new movie,

What story? Evil bastard travels back in time to destroy Earth, and now we have to stop him?

Please. It's about as non-existent a story as you can get. Maybe it would work if there was a shitload of side-stuff and multiple levels tact onto it, that all fill each other in, like an orchestra. But there was no such thing.

where characters who are flawed can grow and change going through a story arc where in they become better people.

What characters that were flawed, grew?

Kirk is an asshole, which some people would consider flawed, then again he was depicted as being right from beginning to end, which means he was portrayed as not having any flaws at all. There was no reason for him to grow, and as a result, obviously, he didn't. He's the same asshole at the end of the movie as he was in the beginning.

Spock is the only other character in it long enough to have a possibility of a character arc. But once again, what growth? Any growth was OFF SCREEN! And a growth (being with a woman without his brain being compromised) that was neither necessary, usefull, or desired. To top it off, it was growth that you can consider disgusting, as he entered in a relationship with one of his students. Anything else, there's not growth. His just mister logic all around.

This is something that Star Trek had forgotten in the show Enterprise, and Lucas doesn't seem to know how to do at all anymore. I am glad that JJ saw ways to help and improve Star Trek and his analogy about the rock and classical music is just that an analogy it doesn't mean that JJ is trying to dum-down Star Trek for a wider audience he was just trying to make it more fun and I think he did a great job.

He screwed the pooch, that's what he did. Star Trek XI is a plothole ridden, unholy abomination of unprecedented proportions. There's nothing to it whatsoever but a story-less pile of SFX.

Wait until XII he will add even more depth to these characters in that story, you'll be much happier than you think you will.

1. There wasn't any depth.

2. There won't be more, it's more likely there'll be less.

Orci & Kurtzman also wrote Transformers 1 & 2. You can be expecting Transformers 2 with Trek XII. An even bigger SFX fest, with even more plotholes and bullshit.

Actually there are similarities other than action, Picard in First Contact is, and this is rare in any TNG, depicted as a flawed character who goes through a story arc where he changes and grows. This is very much like XI.

No, that actually is one of the many reasons why First Contact is such a good story, while XI is not, because nobody in XI changes or grows.

Bar fights.

And Kirk is a playboy...*shudders!*

Did any of you even watch the original show?

I've seen laughable, LAUGHABLE attempts at some Trekkies trying to rationalize that Kirk WASN'T a ladies man. It's embarrassing how squeamish some fans seem to get around sexually oriented conduct/content.

This is a very good point. People like to mention that TOS Kirk only had sex 3 times throughout the series. Now, its a true enough fact (as far as we know anyway), but what people are forgetting is that TOS was 60's television! If Kirk was constantly banging every woman he saw in every episode, the show would have been canned faster than you can say, "He's dead, Jim!" All you have to do is watch the series. Don't just focus on the women he banged or kissed, look at how he interacts with women who come on for, say, one line or so with Kirk. Look at the once over he gives her and the smirk that totally says, "I could hit that whenever I want!" that we all love him for.

Except that he doesn't, but eh.

And the few times that he's being a LADIES' MAN, not the dark opposite of that - a player. Kirk is not an inconsiderate prick and an asshole about it.

It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

Then you've obviously never read William Shatner's "Collision Course" http://www.amazon.com/Collision-Cou...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299005&sr=1-3

Or Diane Carey's "Best Destiny" (which I'm reading right now) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Des...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299160&sr=1-2

William Shatner's novels are horribly bad. It's his own self-glorification, not good novels, let alone good Kirk novels.

I've read one Diane Carey novel and it was so bad I never wanted to read another one of them. And obviously I was right, as she wrote another bad novel. You got a novel where Kirk is the opposite of what he's supposed to be, you have a bad novel.

All those novels are bad novels,

WTF do you know? You've never read them? You only know they don't hold to your white knuckled holdings to your preconceptions of what young Kirk was like.

They aren't preconceptions, they are what he's said to be in TOS episodes. That's not pre-conceptions, that's proper conceptions.

Writing Kirk as a maverick when he was young, in fact, is exactly the preconceptions people have about him that are wrong. They wrote young Kirk, as if he's old Kirk, THOSE are the preconceptions. It also goes against that whole growth Santa Clause likes so much.

They do. Epic fail. And you are entitled to rage in your lone, squeaky voice of how "bad" Star Trek is. And your isolation only fuels said rage.

And yes, indeed, a "positively grim" Kirk is exactly the man the who would for equally "positively grim" reasons reprogram the Kobayashi Maru test with several of his class mates.

Not really, because the way it's been played is pretty much like a prank. He may have had a point, but he sure as fuck was having more fun than you seem to be willing to allow for.

The positively grim Kirk, the real Kirk, wouldn't have played it like a prank. It would have been deadly serious to him.

It would be one of, if not the first think this Kirk would do that allowed him to loosen up a little; not that he's ever truly loosened up. He was positively grim in many ways during TOS, and he still is during the TOS movies.

Oh, BULLSHIT. He had grim MOMENTS. But he had even MORE moments where he seemed happy, cheerful, content, humorous. It made those grim moments or other moments of departure stand out more by comparison. His smile and humor standing in contrast to Spocks stone face stoicism, or McCoy off on one of his tirades.

It was his general cheerful demeanor is what helped provide memorable contrasts in scenes such as this.

So when he DID go grim, or angry or steely determined, it STOOD OUT.

You must not have watched TOS much then. The few times we see him smile or bee cheerful, are exactly the few things that contrast his usually serious attitude. Cheerful usually only arrives after an episode is over, when there is a time to relax.

 

[JarodRussell]

Good thing I'm not the only one who thinks the characters in this movie had no growth or development whatsoever.

Yes, they are in different places at the end of the movie, but the characters do not ever go through a development. Captain Kirk is the same character as the kid that drove the car over the cliff, the same guy who started a fight in a bar, the same guy who cheated at the test. He didn't learn anything. But this time he got a commendation and not a warning.
Spock is unstable in his childhood, beating up kids who said "Your mom!", Spock is unstable as an adult, beating up Kirk who said "Your mom!". And at the end of the movie, he still is unstable. Would somebody again come along and say "Your mom!", he would beat him up again. No development there at all.

Yeah well, and the others are totally 1-dimensional.

And the worst thing is the "development" of the friendship between nuKirk and nuSpock. They are only becoming friends because oldSpock told them they needed to to that. How awfully funny is that?

 

[Char Aznable]

It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

Thats one interpretation, that doesn't make yours any more right.

All those novels are bad novels, and whether or not they exist or not, changes nothing of how bad Trek XI is.

LOL, "those novels are bad automatically because they conflict with a few lines from a pilot early in the series!" Real mature attitude there.

And yes, indeed, a "positively grim" Kirk is exactly the man the who would for equally "positively grim" reasons reprogram the Kobayashi Maru test with several of his class mates.

Have any examples or proof of this?

It would be one of, if not the first think this Kirk would do that allowed him to loosen up a little; not that he's ever truly loosened up. He was positively grim in many ways during TOS, and he still is during the TOS movies.

LOL, conjecture. Also, if you think TOS Kirk was grim, you haven't met many grim people in real life. The only instances where Kirk seemed at all like that were when the scenerio called for it.

Why would I need to give out a counter argument that's been given out a hundred times over before? Do you think if you just keep repeating the same flawed statement again and again, that it's suddenly going to be a right statement? Even if those who know better have given up through sheer being tired of it, don't correct you for the thousandth time? Sorry, nope, it's still going to be every little bit as wrong then as it was the first time it was stated.

Frankly, that sounds like a quitter's attitude from people who think they know TOS when they couldn't be any more clueless.

No. We did not ignore them, the first multiple times the examples were given, back then we showed again and again how the examples are bullshit and have not a single shred of depth to them whatsoever. After hearing the bullshit for the thousandth time, we just get tired of repeating the counter argument and we no longer bother. Doesn't make the examples any less true.

In your opinion. I've never seen a single valid counter to the argument that Star Trek XI has depth by detractors other that an, "lol nuh uh!" Seriously, not a single one.

We do no such thing. You can spend your time recounting "examples of depth" all you like, doesn't mean they are actually "examples of depth". And we've shown this a thousand times over already, we're just tired of repeating ourselves again, and again, and again, and again.

Why aren't they examples? Because you say so? You haven't shown jack shit besides just how ignorant and immature the detractors can be.

You don't need to have a message in order to be deep. City on the Edge of Forever is exactly deep as it works on multiple levels, and because it has the audacity to ask: "Maybe stopping WWII isn't such a good thing," the exact opposite of every time travel story involving Nazis has ever done before that, and most of them even still today.

Ok, so you agree the episode has no message and that any depth it has is what we take from it, right?

Not every episode requires depth, and not even every movie. However, the reboot movie that's supposed to show to the non-fans what Star Trek is all about, SHOULD have been deep. Now everyone expects the next Star Trek to be another bullshit SFX fest, and we'll be stuck with bullshit SFX fests for the forseeable future, if not all the future.

Who says? Again, the Tribbles episode is one of the most popular episodes, yet its plot isn't all that deep. You haven't offered a valid reason as to why the new movie had to have some pretentious message in order to be good.

There's nothing hammy about The Omega Glory. It is one of the best episodes of TOS, and I have an odd idea, you don't even know what it's message is.

In your, minority, opinion. I constantly see people bitch about this episode.

Also, don't presume to condscend to me, son. I know damn well what that episode was about. Nothing groundbreaking to be frank.

I don't want to do this, because your complaining about it, but then, you've made your bad. Congratulations, you proven yourself an anti-intellectual.

I just know if I said something like this I'd get a warning.

"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" is one of the, if not THE best episode of TOS. It so unbelievably poignant, even today, it's amazing.

Again, this is a minority opinion. Most people I've encountered don't care for this episode.

It is also one of the most serious episodes ever. It wields it's message also like a sledge hammer: GOOD! It was needed to get the message slammed into shitloads of people's brains back in the 60s, and even today it's necessary like that, because racism still isn't gone.

Excuse me for not wanting to be talked down to by a TV show. People have it beaten into their heads that racism is bad since they're in kindergarden. Either they'll listen or they won't. Again, its hard to take this episode seriously considering how ridiculously they presented its message.

Nobody ever did that, but eh, miss represent people's words, it's such a great thing to blacken people, isn't it?

I know several people who have said just that on this forum.

And all of them, were great stories and drama, and concisely written plots, instead of plothole ridden piles of shit, with more plotholes in one four minute season, than entire movie series have across all their movies.

Again with the, "la la la I can't hear you!" mentality. If you really think every ep of TOS was golden then you're simply blind. TOS was a brilliant, groundbreaking series, but it had a shit load of flaws.

 

[stonester1]

And your bad eps, like all TV shows do.

Thing is, the characters are so good and the actors who portray them are so good, usually bad Trek is still entertaining.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

Then you've obviously never read William Shatner's "Collision Course" http://www.amazon.com/Collision-Cou...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299005&sr=1-3

Though the young Kirk in Trek Xi seemed to have more commont sense than Collision Course young Kirk did at times.

Or Diane Carey's "Best Destiny" (which I'm reading right now) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Des...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260299160&sr=1-2

In fact I do believe Trek XI's take on young Kirk was based on this novel.

Oh also it's not a good idea to get into a debate with 3D Master, all you do is end up going in circles as he repeats the same arguments over and over again.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I'll go so far as to say that TOS had more bad-to-mediocre outings than good-to-great ones. Thing is, it's the good-to-great ones that made me--most of us, I'd hazard to say--a fan. I loved this new movie but I have to say, any argument that seeks to defend it's relative lack of brains (though the movie is convoluted as all hell, I'll grant it that) by contrasting it with Trek's worst hours is setting up an entirely meretricious argument.

As far as Kirk's own self-description of himself as "grim" in "Shore Leave" goes vs. what's in the novels: the books have no bearing on anything for me, not even the ones I like. They are little more than fanfic and carry about as much weight. (Besides, I stopped reading them ages ago.) You do make a better point when you bring in TWoK, which has supplanted TOS for many people in their conception of these characters, but that was almost as revisionist as Trek XI. Besides, I can see a grim brainiac of a young Kirk--a grind completely consistent with the guy we hear about in "Where No Man..." and "Shore Leave"--reprogramming the simulator out of righteous indignation rather than cocky insouciance. I very much doubt the prime universe K-M went anything at all like the one in the Abrams film. I'd always imagined it was so subtly different that it took Star Fleet a while to figure out it had been hacked.

 

[stonester1]

The point is not the "canon" or lack thereof of the books. The point is that this idea that young Kirk was just a big pile of deadly serious, well behaved, no fun is not even a universally held idea in fandom.

Based on available speculations on the subject, which WOULD included novels, some people clearly believe otherwise.

I personally envision a young rowdy tamed somewhat and well matured by later experiences. That's why I have no problem reconciling a young, devil may care Kirk with a "stack of book with legs deadly serious" jr officer Kirk. Experiences. And young thirties Captain Kirk is a maturation and sythesis of these experiences and the personality that has developed.

 

[3D Master]

It isn't every novelist. "My Brother's Keeper" novels show nothing of a young handful. In fact, I've NEVER read a Kirk as a young handful.

Thats one interpretation, that doesn't make yours any more right.

This sentence makes no sense.

All those novels are bad novels, and whether or not they exist or not, changes nothing of how bad Trek XI is.

LOL, "those novels are bad automatically because they conflict with a few lines from a pilot early in the series!" Real mature attitude there.

Have any examples or proof of this?

You're actually asking for examples or proof of a story that hasn't been told?



There's no examples and proof, only an understanding of how a certain character might or might not act.

A serious, by the book person, a walking stack of books, a brainiac, and even geek, is perfectly capable of breaking a rule and "cheating" if something is wrong and it needs to be set right, and even if it's their personal sense of right and wrong.

A by the book person who does not believe there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, and believes it is a defeatist attitude that will cost lives, would be exactly be the person to cheat to show this very thing.

Some brash hot head, in fact, is more likely to just say, "Fuck it, man" and move on, then cheat on a test he couldn't win anyway.

LOL, conjecture. Also, if you think TOS Kirk was grim, you haven't met many grim people in real life. The only instances where Kirk seemed at all like that were when the scenerio called for it.

You'll never find Kirk laughing his way through a threat. Maybe that's not grim, but he most definitely is serious.

Frankly, that sounds like a quitter's attitude from people who think they know TOS when they couldn't be any more clueless.

In your opinion. I've never seen a single valid counter to the argument that Star Trek XI has depth by detractors other that an, "lol nuh uh!" Seriously, not a single one.

Let's see; there's no growth in any of the characters. They're the same in the beginning as they are at the end.

The sheer amount of plot-holes exist solely to keep whatever there is of a story as flimsy thin and ongoing as possible. A cadet, for example, being the only one to detect the fight between the Narada and the Klingons, and not telling it to Starfleet command, so they can have the convoluted bull that is Kirk "figuring out the trap" despite there being no trap, let alone that his figuring out makes any sense whatsoever, and put him on the bridge. If there was even the remotest hint of depth in this movie, there would have been others who picked it up, or Uhura would have told those above her, which would have meant that Pike already knew all about it.

The plot is nothing but; newest villain and his doomsday weapon.

Anything that might have brought some depth to it; like the destruction of Vulcan, is glossed over near immediately as if it barely even happened. Nobody seems to give a care one way or the other; thus eliminating any depth the destruction of a planet might have bring to the movie.

Thus, there is nothing there, not a bit.

Which leads me to fire the question right back at you; where is all this depth you speak of? Those who have claimed depth have never once brought anything up that's actually depth.

Why aren't they examples? Because you say so? You haven't shown jack shit besides just how ignorant and immature the detractors can be.

Oh, yes, that's really helpful... not.

Ok, so you agree the episode has no message and that any depth it has is what we take from it, right?

Nope. All depth it has, is what it has.

Who says? Again, the Tribbles episode is one of the most popular episodes, yet its plot isn't all that deep. You haven't offered a valid reason as to why the new movie had to have some pretentious message in order to be good.

BECAUSE THE REBOOT, THE NEW START! That means the new reboot should be showing people what Star Trek is all about, and what's so good about it.

Plothole-ridden SFX fest is NOT what's good about Star Trek.

In your, minority, opinion. I constantly see people bitch about this episode.

I haven't, but eh, you mush see different people than I do.

Also, don't presume to condscend to me, son. I know damn well what that episode was about. Nothing groundbreaking to be frank.

What is it about then in your opinion?

Again, this is a minority opinion. Most people I've encountered don't care for this episode.

Once again; must be different people than I know.

Excuse me for not wanting to be talked down to by a TV show. People have it beaten into their heads that racism is bad since they're in kindergarden. Either they'll listen or they won't. Again, its hard to take this episode seriously considering how ridiculously they presented its message.

You see, the whole point is, that there are LARGE amounts of people who HAVE NOT had it beaten into their heads that racism is bad. And that number was much higher back in the 60s. Those who do not listen, are exactly those people who black on the left, and black on the right might be the one thing that gets through to them.

Nobody ever did that, but eh, miss represent people's words, it's such a great thing to blacken people, isn't it?

I know several people who have said just that on this forum.

Who?

Because last time I checked, it was about lacking depth, and not a message.

And all of them, were great stories and drama, and concisely written plots, instead of plothole ridden piles of shit, with more plotholes in one four minute season, than entire movie series have across all their movies.

Again with the, "la la la I can't hear you!" mentality. If you really think every ep of TOS was golden then you're simply blind. TOS was a brilliant, groundbreaking series, but it had a shit load of flaws.

Exactly where did I say that every ep of TOS was golden? Nowhere, not even close. Which makes this you "La la la, I refuse to hear what you wrote, I'll just fill in there what I want to hear."

There were some seriously bad episodes of TOS, not a one of them, can even come anywhere in the neighborhood of near of close to the sheer horrifying badness that is Trek XI. I've never seen a movie as bad as Trek XI, EVER, and that's without taking into account it's supposed to be a Star Trek movie. With it...

 

[Char Aznable]

You're actually asking for examples or proof of a story that hasn't been told?

There's no examples and proof, only an understanding of how a certain character might or might not act.

A serious, by the book person, a walking stack of books, a brainiac, and even geek, is perfectly capable of breaking a rule and "cheating" if something is wrong and it needs to be set right, and even if it's their personal sense of right and wrong.

Here's the thing though, what evidence is there that Kirk got into any trouble or broke any rules prior to his cheating on the K-B exam in XI? I didn't get the impression that NuKirk was some trouble maker who was constantly starting shit as a cadet. Really, he just seemed like someone who was ridiculously confident to me.

A by the book person who does not believe there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, and believes it is a defeatist attitude that will cost lives, would be exactly be the person to cheat to show this very thing.

Not really, a by the book person wouldn't change the program and cheat on a test to begin with. A by the book person would just accept the reasoning for the test being there and moving on. Thats what "by the book" means.

Some brash hot head, in fact, is more likely to just say, "Fuck it, man" and move on, then cheat on a test he couldn't win anyway.

Again, not really. Hot headed people tend to hate losing and would do anything it took to win, sometimes even cheating.

You'll never find Kirk laughing his way through a threat. Maybe that's not grim, but he most definitely is serious.

Yeah, because Kirk was laughing like mad when they were almost pulled into the black hole.

Let's see; there's no growth in any of the characters. They're the same in the beginning as they are at the end.

Yeah, Kirk's totally still a drunk bar fly whose life is going nowhere and Spock is still conflicted about dealing with his emotions!

The sheer amount of plot-holes exist solely to keep whatever there is of a story as flimsy thin and ongoing as possible. A cadet, for example, being the only one to detect the fight between the Narada and the Klingons, and not telling it to Starfleet command, so they can have the convoluted bull that is Kirk "figuring out the trap" despite there being no trap, let alone that his figuring out makes any sense whatsoever, and put him on the bridge. If there was even the remotest hint of depth in this movie, there would have been others who picked it up, or Uhura would have told those above her, which would have meant that Pike already knew all about it.

These aren't even really plot holes. Most of the so called "plot holes" are rather plot conveniences. Granted, your mileage may vary on how well they work, but they aren't mistakes.

Anything that might have brought some depth to it; like the destruction of Vulcan, is glossed over near immediately as if it barely even happened. Nobody seems to give a care one way or the other; thus eliminating any depth the destruction of a planet might have bring to the movie.

A group of professionals aren't going to be sitting around moping and crying over that. Especially when Nero and the Narada are still out there and headed for Earth.

Thus, there is nothing there, not a bit.

Which leads me to fire the question right back at you; where is all this depth you speak of? Those who have claimed depth have never once brought anything up that's actually depth.

Fine, one thing that struck me when I saw XI was how the three main characters all had one thing in common.

Kirk, lost his father to Nero as he was born.

Spock, lost his mother and his planet to Nero.

Nero, lost his wife and his home planet and blames Spock/the Federation for failing to save them.

The movie subsequently shows us how these three deal with their loss: Kirk initally lives a troubled life wasting his gifts until Pike tells him to get off his ass and honor his father, who gave his life to save his son plus 800 lives. This inspires Kirk to join starfleet and live a life that matters. Spock becomes severely conflicted by Vulcan's destruction, making irrational decisions and trying to fight against his human impulses. When Kirk gets him to relinquish command, Sarek lets Spock know that it is ok for him to feel grief and anger. Nero lets his grief overcome him and becomes a raving madman who wants everyone to feel the pain he felt.

More on this point later though.

Oh, yes, that's really helpful... not.

How kind of you to prove me right.

Nope. All depth it has, is what it has.

No, sorry. Thats not how it works

BECAUSE THE REBOOT, THE NEW START! That means the new reboot should be showing people what Star Trek is all about, and what's so good about it.

Pretentious messages aren't what was so good about Star Trek though to most people. Don't presume to speak for the entirety of the fanbase.

You see, the whole point is, that there are LARGE amounts of people who HAVE NOT had it beaten into their heads that racism is bad. And that number was much higher back in the 60s. Those who do not listen, are exactly those people who black on the left, and black on the right might be the one thing that gets through to them.

It is true that racism was more prevalent in the 60s than today as well as the fact that racism indeed still exists. However, just because an episode talks about race doesn't mean it is automatically good. Another point I want to bring up is your assertion that people would actually listen to a Trek episode and change their ways. That is frankly a naive view point. Most people who have such narrow minded views on race and/or ethnicity tend not to be the sort to watch TV like Star Trek in the first place. Typically, liberal minded individuals are the ones more interested. So, what is the point of beating the message that racism is bad into the heads of people who already agree with that point?

Honestly, I get the impression that the people who think Star Trek always needs some sort of message or allegory are just looking for something to validate their own beliefs.

Who?

Its not polite to name names.

Because last time I checked, it was about lacking depth, and not a message.

Again, I hear constant complaints on this and in the movies forum that XI needed a message.

Exactly where did I say that every ep of TOS was golden? Nowhere, not even close. Which makes this you "La la la, I refuse to hear what you wrote, I'll just fill in there what I want to hear."

Um, you just said, "And all of them, were great stories and drama, and concisely written plots," which gives me the impression that you think every TOS ep was brilliant.

There were some seriously bad episodes of TOS, not a one of them, can even come anywhere in the neighborhood of near of close to the sheer horrifying badness that is Trek XI. I've never seen a movie as bad as Trek XI, EVER, and that's without taking into account it's supposed to be a Star Trek movie. With it...

I'm sorry, I just can't take such a ridiculous opinion seriously. The worst movie EVER? Really? Now I think you're just being a troll.

Hell, worse than Nemesis I can't wrap my head around . . .

 

[Shazam!]

It was said in every comment and criticism of Kirk and Spock for being arrogant, emotional, and acting like jerks, IE not being perfect parodies of TOS characters. Every time I saw a criticism it was about one of the character flaws or their flawed actions which is part of the story which is a good one. I have seen a lot of complaints about these characters not being great noble super people.

I think you can quite reasonably call certain characters in the movie those things.

The characters in the movie are literally different people - Kirk and Spock are off in another universe somewhere. We are told that in the film. Comparing new Kirk to old Kirk is basically like comparing Archer to Picard. They are different people leading different lives.

It's not like anyone gave a shit that mirror Sisko was different to 'our' Sisko.

 

[stonester1]

It was said in every comment and criticism of Kirk and Spock for being arrogant, emotional, and acting like jerks, IE not being perfect parodies of TOS characters. Every time I saw a criticism it was about one of the character flaws or their flawed actions which is part of the story which is a good one. I have seen a lot of complaints about these characters not being great noble super people.

I think you can quite reasonably call certain characters in the movie those things.

The characters in the movie are literally different people - Kirk and Spock are off in another universe somewhere. We are told that in the film. Comparing new Kirk to old Kirk is basically like comparing Archer to Picard. They are different people leading different lives.

Uh, no, it's not.

That would be like comparing Picard...to Picard in another timeline. He's NOT another person, he's PICARD. That may be another Picard, but it's still Picard.

Another you is not the same thing as some other joe-blow.

That would be saying this new movie isn't really about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.

When it CLEARLY is.

 

[Shazam!]

Another you is not the same thing as some other joe-blow

Yes it is. He isn't me; I'm me. He is a different person.

The movie was about mirror versions of those characters. They are different people.