I watched them from pretty much the same emotional and critical stance I did Abrams's film and didn't like either nearly as much nor did I think either was nearly as well-made.
Did Kirk's rather *enthusiastic* execution of Nero bug you?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
- Status
I watched them from pretty much the same emotional and critical stance I did Abrams's film and didn't like either nearly as much nor did I think either was nearly as well-made.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
And yet if I group them all about the same for emotional and critical standpoint I'm being unfair to XI? Toss ST:V into the mix and they pretty much make up my bottom four. But somehow XI gets a pass. You prefer some, I prefer others. I don't recall ever referring to anyone who disliked the other movies as haters.
^ This.
Actually, as I've gotten older I've begun to find Picard and especially Janeway's moral grumblings more than a little sanctimonious. Doesn't seem to me anymore to be "moral guiding principle" so much as "I insist on doing this the hard way to be consistent with some philosophical preference that I won't bother to justify."
The difference between righteousness and self-righteousness is that the former is defined by the situation and the latter defined by social rules. I guess in a sense that makes Janeway and Archer types to be kind of wonky "We have to do this because society tells us to," contrast with Kirk (both timelines) who was more "We have to do this because my instincts tell me to."
ST-One
Vice Admiral
No one would really bat an eye if you just disliked Star Trek.
The problem is that a few of those who don't like that film are insulting the people who like it; they question their intelligence for liking it.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
And those that like it aren't insulting those that don't? There's been more than enough name calling on both sides to go around.
When I offer reasons why I'm not a fan of this particular production I get told I'm stuck in the past, that I don't really get it, that I'm a hater. Is it not possible that at least some of my criticisms have merit? It doesn't appear that way here most times.
When I offer reasons why I'm not a fan of this particular production I get told I'm stuck in the past, that I don't really get it, that I'm a hater. Is it not possible that at least some of my criticisms have merit? It doesn't appear that way here most times.
You can’t have the writers paint themselves into what you consider a corner (only one good outcome) and then use that as evidence they had to end it that way.
Unfortunately Nero isn’t presented as a dragon. Spock called him "troubled" (in traditional ST fashion) and it is explained that he is insane, not evil. Even we currently recognise that distinction. So because its a Federation principle (not because there is a particular way to write ST) they should have been seen to hold to ST values, or someone needs to be called to account if not. That in itself would be a source of drama. It is simply expedient hypocrisy to go from the "correct" federation response (though apparently it wasn’t suggested for humanitarian reasons but for political advantage) to what looks like a sating of blood lust without stated excuse.
Khan, interestingly enough, seemed more the true evil villain than Nero. Sure he had a legitimate complaint against Kirk but, he was always a dictatorial megalomaniac who had no concern for the welfare of others if they got in his way. Nero, by contrast was a "simple" miner apparently rendered insane by the tragedies that afflicted him. If there was a way to save him and his crew, by the standards of the Federation, it should have been taken. So its not a matter of doing things the Star Trek Way, it’s a matter of writing a story that conforms to the standards of the Federation. If they didn’t want to do that, they shouldn’t have made a ST movie in my opinion. I don’t expect individuals in ST to be perfect. But I do believe it is necessary for the federation to uphold its valves. It’s not as though good drama can’t be made out of such conflicts if things go wrong.
I appreciate you may be using a somewhat different definition of "emotional let down". Perhaps more akin to a "futile or empty result", whereas I was taking it a little too literally. However I don't agree that removing Nero as a threat without killing him, or his death without further Federation involvement, qualifies as a bad or deflating result if presented well. It might have even been hailed as courageous rather that trite and morally questionable. In short, the writers go themselves into that situation, they should have faced up to the result. Pandering to the baser desires of the audience is not in the best tradition of Star Trek or any good movie I submit.
As for it being cathartic, that may well be the case, for Kirk. It taught him a lesson about no win situations you can’t get in a simulator too apparently. But I have trouble believing the audience would agree with you. Not from the way an audience Manny Cote was in reacted (according to the TWOK commentary). He said they were happily rocking along and then when Spock died there was just silence. I’m guessing more shock and dismay than healthily purged emotions. Your arguments seem to be based on what the viewers want or feel after all.
Not just the general audience I suspect. So yes, it would have to be handled well.
Except the important thing. I think modern audiences are starting to understand that. And if the scene was played with enough real drama I don’t think it would have hurt profits much, if at all. But I am not even demanding they save Nero, just not be seen to take delight in helping him on his way. It probably comes back to the general problem of aiming the movie too far down the "Big Mac" path, to borrow another poster’s helpful term.
I rather hope you are presenting a false dichotomy. For a start I wouldn’t say there should be a "The Trek way" of writing stories. More a need to live up to Federation ideals or make drama out of occasions when that doesn’t happen. Not simply ignore them as inconvenient or old fashioned. Secondly I don’t think doing so has to make for a boring or poor movie.
Exactly. While we can’t demand private organisations promote positive long term social values, even when they are sorely needed, doing so is part of ST tradition and it devalues its reputation to actually go in the opposite direction and succumb to our baser "instincts".
That’s an argument form choosing a better horse rather than not entering the race at all or actually betting on the wrong horse.
You mean the reasons aren’t obvious? Principles are usually a distilled summary of long term social experience. If you think they are wrong you should have good reasons, not just complain that they are "the hard way". Of course they are the hard way! Do you think you should be able to get something for nothing?
Having said that I am not a big fan of the Prime Directive when carried to extremes (No man is an island). However I do like to think I understand why it was adopted.
In summary, moral issues can be source of great drama and a foundation of good action. You just have to get the mix right. I don’t see any value in going along with our base instincts because it is popular or easy.
Star Trek does need to have more depth than the brainless popcorn level we usually get from summer blockbusters. We'll never get the kind of intelligent stories that should be interspersed between the brainless fun stories until Star Trek has more than two hours every three years to work with. That's why it won't be back to its old self till its back on TV. Trek XI was unusually intelligent for a summer popcorn flick, so don't start expecting the next one to be Citizen Kane.
About as obvious as a sledgehammer to the groin, dramatically speaking. A morality play is supposed to TEACH a moral lesson, not reinforce a lesson the audience is supposed to have taken for granted by now; in the context of character development, the most effective way of doing this is to have the character discover those moral lessons on his own, though the action of the plot.
Take a time honored trek example. The Enterprise discovers that an ancient alien doomsday machine has been eating entire solar systems for fuel and is now headed for the Rigel colony. This story can be told one of two ways:
1) Kirk figures out immediately that it's some kind of doomsday machine and has a big introspective conversation with Spock about how the machine represents everything that is evil in the galaxy and must be destroyed; he tries hard as hell to defeat it, only to be foiled by Decker who thinks the machine should be captured and studied for posterity.
2) Kirk figures out immediately that it's some kind of doomsday machine and spends the entire episode simply trying to avoid getting killed by it, only to stumble upon the machine's weakness when the machine later kills the deranged Commodore Decker.
Both approaches have the same basic message, but delivered different ways. A cautionary tale about the potential hazards of weapons of mass destruction can either be delivered as a consequence of the story, or as the basic premise of the story to begin with. Which approach you choose depends on what kind of story you tell: are you going for a morality play, or is the story more centered on the more personal conflicts of the characters? (more specifically: is Decker a representative of a flawed moral position, or is he just traumatized out of his fucking mind?)
Same with STXI. Were the writers attempting to create parable about tragedy and retribution and the quality of mercy in promoting peace, or were they trying to tell a story about Jim Kirk's rise to fame? We both know what the intent was, in which case the most the situation calls for is "Showing compassion may be the only way to win peace with Romulus... it's logic, Spock."
Sure. IF you're telling a story about moral issues in the first place. STXI wasn't intended to look deeply at Starfleet's moral underpinnings, it was intended to look deeply into the early careers of Kirk and Spock. A story grounded primarily in the evolution of its characters can't really transform into a morality play and still remain coherent. It can include a timely moral commentary, sure, but that's a very different type of device.
You mean like Kirk did in "The Apple," or "Patterns of Force" or "Omega Glory" or "Return of the Archons" or "A Piece of the Action" or "Obsession" or "A Taste of Armageddon"? Yeah, there's no value in that at all.
I'm sorry, do you need to have someone tell you that it's okay to have an opinion?
It's okay for you to have an opinion. Better?
I'm afraid that there's nothing that can be done about the fact that most folks hereabouts have different opinions and aren't impressed by a lot of fan criticism of the movie. Asking people to treat your opinions as if they have "merit" when they read them and are simply not impressed isn't something you can expect.
Actually, the insults commonly come from the "critics" with comments like "I actually have high standards in films," or "This film is for the ADD/MTV generation" or "Non-Star Trek films are the only ones who like this and only REAL Star Trek fans don't like this." Now, this isn't to say that insults haven't come from those who like it (so please don't claim that I'm saying it's entirely one sided,) but not anywhere near the bitterness or ridiculousness put on by the ones who don't like this film. Several of the ones who don't like the film have unfortunately cemented this reputation for all who don't like the film.
Because those of us who didn't like it didn't find it fun or adventurous.
Oh, I thought you were disappointed by the lack of justification.
Yes, I’m usually more a fan of subtlety myself even if I don’t always pick it up!
I wouldn’t rule out positive reinforcement though. There is certainly plenty of the negative variety around to offset. Depends who they are aiming that side of things at perhaps. It is of course unfortunate if it interferes with enjoyment of the story. If that is what is meant by the "Star Trek way", then that could do with improvement.
But I am not suggesting ST should go out of its way to contain moral lessons at all. I just hope that they will live by their own values reasonably consistently and react (if possible "correctively") when that doesn’t happen. From that standpoint the latest film moves Star Trek back two to three centuries.
I don’t agree with that. Moral issues seemed to keep cropping up in TOS. It kind of went with the territory. As you say neither they or their solutions have to be explicit or rammed down our throats but that doesn’t lessen the potential drama.
Accepted. But I’m suggesting it actually undermined Starfleets moral underpinnings and presented doing so as perfectly OK on more than one occasion (four at least). Well actually it didn’t quite look into the early careers of Kirk and Spock either, even though it seemed to be promoted as a prequal, but that is a separate issue.
Yes, I saw that coming!
I guess I should have added "if it seriously compromises the brand." Well something along those lines if you get what I mean. Not that in most people’s minds STXI did comprimise its image. Not even most fans, which I found a bit more surprising.Although I was seriously put off by the issue I mentioned I don't deny STXI has a lot of potential and although there are quite a few things that could be improved, none of the others are really deal breakers for me.
Indeed. Its not something people can turn on and off. What may seem relatively trivial, or not even a problem to some, can be a major issue for others, depending on what’s important to them.
You know what, you all can argue until your Andorians (blue in the face), but the FACT is many more people liked this movie than liked INSURRECTION and NEMESIS (probably combined). Take your PC, thoughtful, "we must not harm one (deadly) life-form for it may evolve into something great" ideology and try to run a movie studio with that.
The movie was good fun because of its pacing, humour, and decent performances but the approach doesn't have to be all or nothing.
The characters could have attempted to beam off the villains but be thwarted by the distortions caused by the black hole, they could have stated that they can't take the chance of the ship surviving the trip through the wormhole (in place of stating that the ship is doomed), and they don't have to look or sound smug when they make the decision to blow up the ship.
They made no effort to see if Nero has accumulated any 'innocent' prisoners or children in the last 25 years. Taking enjoyment over the possible deaths of innocent people killed while you take down a villain is a current political hot potato given all the civilians that have been killed in the middle east. As somebody said, their kind of approach isn't a deal breaker but they could have been more thoughtful and less eye for an eye.
Are you comparing a few dozen (even a few hundred) "innocent" civilians to a planet with billions of a highly evolved (though arrogant) species (Vulcans)? AND his plan was to destroy ALL the other Federation planets. Maybe he no longer had (Spock-Primes' supplied) RED matter, but since he know of it he can probably get/make more as he needed. Kirk may have said the ship is doomed, but there is always a chance it wasn't AND there's this escape method called.....oh, yeah, escape pods. Or a transporter.
A comparison for what purpose? I suppose you can argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but check out Torchwood: Children of Earth to see how keen you are to see the Federation practice this as a standard policy.
Innocent people, including children, don't derserve to die regardless of the circumstances, do they? Federation officers should do all in their power to avoid loss of life, shouldn't they? During World War II, when the tide started to turn, the German high command sent down orders to execute any survivors of destroyed British ships instead of taking prisoners in accordance with the articles of war. Was this justifiable because the British and their allies had killed millions of Germans by that point? Many German sailors in the thick of the battle, viewed this as a horrific concept.
Escape pods or even weapons wouldn't have been able to escape the gravity well. It's quite likely that transporters couldn't either but it would have been better to state that specifically in my view. If it was necessary to carry out an execution then some formal recognition of the rationale would have been better.
Instead, the writers made a decision to imply that revenge = good
Even if Nero was likely to be executed for genocide following a trial, I don't see that destroying his helpless ship with every man, woman, and child aboard as being the appropriate default response when the captain refused assistance. 
No "probably" about it - many more people did, and do. For that matter, more people like it than just about any Trek movie ever made.
Torchwhat?.
No, actually I've watched Torchwood since season 1.
Torchwood as an institution has no ethical guidelines.
They exist to protect the Crown and the Kingdom from alien threats. That was their charter per Queen Victoria when she vanquished the Doctor (and Rose "We am not amused" Tyler") from Earth, well, England at least.
What Jack did the first time the 456 came 'round saved the rest of the world from an unstoppable threat. When they came back, their demand was outrageous, but it was the UK govt that decided 10% was acceptable, not Torchwood or Jack.
Do you give up 10% of the population to save 90%? If the enemy was that powerful, most likely, yes. Would I protect my son from collection if he were in the group picked to be turned over, frig yeah! That doesn't mean it's not the best solution to the problem, though.
- Status
