"I like the new movie better..."

[Psion]

It's a bit silly but not as silly as promoting a cadet with no experience to captain...

It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen.

I'm sorry, you think the Navy would go easy on a group of officers who stole a ship and crashed it somewhere, creating an international incident, simply because it was going to be decommissioned? Fail.

You, uh, seem to have left out the part where they saved the planet Earth from destruction.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's a bit silly but not as silly as promoting a cadet with no experience to captain...

It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen.

I'm sorry, you think the Navy would go easy on a group of officers who stole a ship and crashed it somewhere, creating an international incident, simply because it was going to be decommissioned? Fail.

You, uh, seem to have left out the part where they saved the planet Earth from destruction.

Uh...no.

Kirk and company save the planet Earth from destruction in both ST IV and the new Star Trek. So it's a wash - if one has any interest in being honest there's no point in arguing that the implausible treatment of the characters in one of the movies makes more or less sense than the implausible treatment of the characters in the other movie, if one wants to use "they saved Earth" as the justification for the unrealistic behavior.

Try again.

 

[Pauln6]

Uh...no.

Kirk and company save the planet Earth from destruction in both ST IV and the new Star Trek. So it's a wash - if one has any interest in being honest there's no point in arguing that the implausible treatment of the characters in one of the movies makes more or less sense than the implausible treatment of the characters in the other movie.

Try again.

Ok then, in STIV, Kirk has 30 years of experience including two 5 year missions AND he has saved the Earth twice. There were extenuating circumstances surrounding his decision to steal the ship, which he captained for over 10 years and which was going to be scrapped in any event. He rescued two Starfleet officers and prevented Genesis from getting into the hands of the Klingons AND he saved 3 whales. Not sure whether bringing Gillian is a plus or a minus...

NuKirk has NO experience and immediately following his graduation, he has cheated on his test, disobeyed orders at least twice, assaulted a superior officer, and while he saved Earth, his strategy was hugely risky (beaming only 2 people onto Narada in spite of having the information provided him by Spock Prime). There were extenuating circumstances but he has nevertheless displayed consistent behaviour and it's more in keeping with Zap Brannigan than anybody else. He should be rewarded and fast-tracked for a command after more training, seasoning, experience, and time to mature.

There are similarities but the first scenario is based on a long track record; the latter based on a short very insubordinate track record.

 

[Captain Mike]

Uh...no.

Kirk and company save the planet Earth from destruction in both ST IV and the new Star Trek. So it's a wash - if one has any interest in being honest there's no point in arguing that the implausible treatment of the characters in one of the movies makes more or less sense than the implausible treatment of the characters in the other movie.

Try again.

Ok then, in STIV, Kirk has 30 years of experience including two 5 year missions AND he has saved the Earth twice. There were extenuating circumstances surrounding his decision to steal the ship, which he captained for over 10 years and which was going to be scrapped in any event. He rescued two Starfleet officers and prevented Genesis from getting into the hands of the Klingons AND he saved 3 whales. Not sure whether bringing Gillian is a plus or a minus...

NuKirk has NO experience and immediately following his graduation, he has cheated on his test, disobeyed orders at least twice, assaulted a superior officer, and while he saved Earth, his strategy was hugely risky (beaming only 2 people onto Narada in spite of having the information provided him by Spock Prime). There were extenuating circumstances but he has nevertheless displayed consistent behaviour and it's more in keeping with Zap Brannigan than anybody else. He should be rewarded and fast-tracked for a command after more training, seasoning, experience, and time to mature.

There are similarities but the first scenario is based on a long track record; the latter based on a short very insubordinate track record.

That is what I've been getting at that some of the posters on here are trying to ignore. Oh, and as most of you are here have said ....It's only a movie...NOT real life?...

 

[Pauln6]

That is what I've been getting at that some of the posters on here are trying to ignore. Oh, and as most of you are here have said ....It's only a movie...NOT real life?...

Lol - yes well a lot of our criticism, mine included, often lacks internal consistency too 'It's only a movie' can be used to argue for and against various viewpoints depending on which way the wind is blowing.

I'm always willing to be convinced otherwise with evidence and persuasive argument but so far I haven't been convinced by either of the polar extremes. It was an enjoyable movie but it had a lot of pretty dumb moments, it was delporably sexist, and the morality of the characters has started to drift. Only time will tell if NuKirk ends up more like Han Solo than Shatner's TOS Kirk.

 

[Devon]

Sure it had

This is what you mean:

Sure I thought it had

But this I chalk up to silly-science and a poorly-thought out plot device.

Bob Orci has actually backed up the theory behind this a few times with articles from scientists working on the hypothesis, most recently on AICN a few weeks ago. So if it's "poorly thought out" (and something that's a bit hard to prove or disprove right now as many things have been or are with all of Trek,) it wouldn't be his fault as it isn't his theory!

This, thanks. And to clarify, Devon accused me of arguing "those things didn't happen", which is BS because I never said that.

That's true, you didn't say it.

Yeah, whatever To me, it's being treated like any other ST movie or series or episode. Some people like it

Most do.

and some people have problems with it. Some adore it, others hate it. Big Deal. Except XI is being propped up as the holy grail or something, because there's this almost hostile intolerance to anything negative.

There's intolerance to negativity, not anything "negative." Difference.

 

[Psion]

Uh...no.

Kirk and company save the planet Earth from destruction in both ST IV and the new Star Trek. So it's a wash - if one has any interest in being honest there's no point in arguing that the implausible treatment of the characters in one of the movies makes more or less sense than the implausible treatment of the characters in the other movie.

Try again.

Ok then, in STIV, Kirk has 30 years of experience including two 5 year missions AND he has saved the Earth twice. There were extenuating circumstances surrounding his decision to steal the ship, which he captained for over 10 years and which was going to be scrapped in any event. He rescued two Starfleet officers and prevented Genesis from getting into the hands of the Klingons AND he saved 3 whales. Not sure whether bringing Gillian is a plus or a minus...

NuKirk has NO experience and immediately following his graduation, he has cheated on his test, disobeyed orders at least twice, assaulted a superior officer, and while he saved Earth, his strategy was hugely risky (beaming only 2 people onto Narada in spite of having the information provided him by Spock Prime). There were extenuating circumstances but he has nevertheless displayed consistent behaviour and it's more in keeping with Zap Brannigan than anybody else. He should be rewarded and fast-tracked for a command after more training, seasoning, experience, and time to mature.

There are similarities but the first scenario is based on a long track record; the latter based on a short very insubordinate track record.

Well played, Pauln6. I was trying to set Dennis up with that move, but I'm not here enough for effective strategy before most conversations move on.

"It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen," Dennis said, but it's absurd ... preposterous ... ridiculous to claim the two are equal. Distantly similar, sure, but not at all the same. Kirk was demoted for his actions by the end of Trek IV. His skills as an accomplished starship captain were already a part of his service record. So in careful comparison of his crimes versus his successes, he was stripped of rank and put where he was most useful to Starfleet. That makes sense within the context of that movie and everything that came before it. But to Starfleet Command in Trek 09, nothing good came before it. Kirk used his girlfriend to cheat at an academy test*, disobeyed orders, flaunted the chain of command ... he wasn't the picture of starship captain material!

The only way to make it exactly the same as Trek09 would be to conclude the whalesong incident by having the Federation Council decide to deify Kirk and give him absolute control of the United Federation of Planets. Which, of course, would have been seen as nonsense and counted against that film quite rightly.

In Trek 09, Kirk's done a bunch of things wrong and only one -- admittedly magnificent -- thing right. There is no way Kirk should have gotten the Captain's chair that fast. Not of the Enterprise. Maybe a little cutter somewhere, but not of the biggest, most advanced ship in the fleet. Trek 09 should have ended with an award for Ensign or Lieutenant Kirk and Pike quietly telling Kirk, "One day, you'll have my seat ... if you don't pull another stunt like the Maru."

They could then go into the next Trek film with an option to continue with Academy Days stories or just jump straight into having Kirk and Co. on the ship a few years later. For the love of Mike, it was the denouement! A slightly more realistic ending would have done nothing to compromise the movie's success!

But here's a thought. Spock Prime was there at the Academy at the end, presumably to watch the pieces fall into place. I wonder if he went to someone important, proved his identity, then testified that Kirk needed command of the Enterprise now. Presumably to tackle Khan, or the Planet Killer, or one of the other big baddies he knows to be out there. Maybe in the Trek 09 timeline, Kirk is taking too long to get into the Captain's chair and Spock needs to get him where he needs to be faster ... again, for the sake of the Federation. His testimony, possibly kept very hush-hush for obvious reasons, might also play a role in Kirk's ridiculously fast promotion.

I'm willing to accept that as a bit of fan wankery so I can put this movie aside and enjoy the next. It's a bit like shaking your head over "Spock's Brain" with a derisive "whatever", and then setting it aside a week later so you can enjoy "The Enterprise Incident".

--------------------
*I liked the way they handled the Kobayashi Maru test in this movie. The idea that Kirk would get a commendation for original thinking as stated in TWOK always struck me as odd. I could never figure out how that would play out short of a high-ranking officer interceding on his behalf. The smart thing about Trek 09 is that we're not necessarily seeing how things played out for Kirk in the Prime universe; we're seeing how they should have gone down. Kirk should have been severely reprimanded.

 

[Devon]

Well played, Pauln6. I was trying to set Dennis up with that move, but I'm not here enough for effective strategy before most conversations move on.

You could have just said it instead of trying to "trap" someone.

"It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen," Dennis said, but it's absurd ... preposterous ... ridiculous to claim the two are equal.

I dont think he was saying that, outside of the fact they both likely wouldn't happen in the real world. However, they both happened in a fictional world, so what can ya do?

 

[Pauln6]

Well played, Pauln6. I was trying to set Dennis up with that move, but I'm not here enough for effective strategy before most conversations move on.

"It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen," Dennis said, but it's absurd ... preposterous ... ridiculous to claim the two are equal. Distantly similar, sure, but not at all the same. Kirk was demoted for his actions by the end of Trek IV. His skills as an accomplished starship captain were already a part of his service record. So in careful comparison of his crimes versus his successes, he was stripped of rank and put where he was most useful to Starfleet. That makes sense within the context of that movie and everything that came before it. But to Starfleet Command in Trek 09, nothing good came before it. Kirk used his girlfriend to cheat at an academy test*, disobeyed orders, flaunted the chain of command ... he wasn't the picture of starship captain material!

The only way to make it exactly the same as Trek09 would be to conclude the whalesong incident by having the Federation Council decide to deify Kirk and give him absolute control of the United Federation of Planets. Which, of course, would have been seen as nonsense and counted against that film quite rightly.

In Trek 09, Kirk's done a bunch of things wrong and only one -- admittedly magnificent -- thing right. There is no way Kirk should have gotten the Captain's chair that fast. Not of the Enterprise. Maybe a little cutter somewhere, but not of the biggest, most advanced ship in the fleet. Trek 09 should have ended with an award for Ensign or Lieutenant Kirk and Pike quietly telling Kirk, "One day, you'll have my seat ... if you don't pull another stunt like the Maru."

They could then go into the next Trek film with an option to continue with Academy Days stories or just jump straight into having Kirk and Co. on the ship a few years later. For the love of Mike, it was the denouement! A slightly more realistic ending would have done nothing to compromise the movie's success!

But here's a thought. Spock Prime was there at the Academy at the end, presumably to watch the pieces fall into place. I wonder if he went to someone important, proved his identity, then testified that Kirk needed command of the Enterprise now. Presumably to tackle Khan, or the Planet Killer, or one of the other big baddies he knows to be out there. Maybe in the Trek 09 timeline, Kirk is taking too long to get into the Captain's chair and Spock needs to get him where he needs to be faster ... again, for the sake of the Federation. His testimony, possibly kept very hush-hush for obvious reasons, might also play a role in Kirk's ridiculously fast promotion.

I'm willing to accept that as a bit of fan wankery so I can put this movie aside and enjoy the next. It's a bit like shaking your head over "Spock's Brain" with a derisive "whatever", and then setting it aside a week later so you can enjoy "The Enterprise Incident".

--------------------
*I liked the way they handled the Kobayashi Maru test in this movie. The idea that Kirk would get a commendation for original thinking as stated in TWOK always struck me as odd. I could never figure out how that would play out short of a high-ranking officer interceding on his behalf. The smart thing about Trek 09 is that we're not necessarily seeing how things played out for Kirk in the Prime universe; we're seeing how they should have gone down. Kirk should have been severely reprimanded.

We're definitely on the same page here. I don't look to 'trap' people per se - it's just a lawyer's technique to try and herd your opponent in a certain direction to show up the flaws in their argument. As I said, I'm always willing to to be persuaded by contra evidence but Dennis and Devon can often be evidence lite, so thus far I haven't been persuaded.

I would have been happy if the movie finished as you describe and they had opened the sequel with Kirk stepping onto the bridge of the Enterprise a few years later. I don't accept that alluding to Kirk being a captain in the future would have been unsatisfying for casual viewers any more than the ending of Sliding Doors was unsatisfactory - the audience doesn't need a lot of imagination to feel upbeat about where Kirk is headed.

Initially, I disliked the way he cheated on the test but I can now see that he was so obvious about it because it wasn't about succeeding, it was about challenging the whole concept and using ingenuity to overcome the obstacles that prevented him from succeeding and making sure everybody could see the point he was making. Very Kirk.

I also assumed that Spock Prime had a hand in Kirk's promotion but I'm not sure I'm happy about it. Spock knows that this Kirk is more inexperienced and understands that events in this timeline can affect people greatly such as the death of his own mother. To assume that Kirk is going to be awsome because it's his destiny is not logical and not even suggested from the evidence that we've seen so far. He has potential but he needs to be guided so that he can learn to moderate his own self belief for the sake of his crew.

EDIT: Maybe it's Spock's own self-belief that the influence of his own younger self at an earlier stage in Kirk's career will moderate his attitude. Sounds risky to me though.

 

[Devon]

As I said, I'm always willing to to be persuaded by contra evidence but Dennis and Devon can often be evidence lite, so thus far I haven't been persuaded.

I'm flattered, but as you'll note I haven't exactly been active in trying to "persuade" to you think one way or the other. I'm not even really that interested in the discussion other than a few comments I wanted to make.

 

[Pauln6]

As I said, I'm always willing to to be persuaded by contra evidence but Dennis and Devon can often be evidence lite, so thus far I haven't been persuaded.

I'm flattered, but as you'll note I haven't exactly been active in trying to "persuade" to you think one way or the other. I'm not even really that interested in the discussion other than a few comments I wanted to make.

Yeah, that was why I told ST-One that I didn't think there was any point to specificity. People pretty much know what category they are in by now and will rarely be persuaded to change their mindset.

However, I personally find it interesting to read other people's views and to compare them to my own. If they have no interest in persuading me to their view then clearly they aren't going to succeed. Still, if I'd had a closed mind I would never have started watching TNG and I grew to love that over time.

 

[Psion]

Well played, Pauln6. I was trying to set Dennis up with that move, but I'm not here enough for effective strategy before most conversations move on.

You could have just said it instead of trying to "trap" someone.

You don't play much chess, do you, Devon? It's rather common strategy to offer something that looks tempting in the hope your opponent will take it while you have a strong response in the offing. Dennis is a clever fellow, and he had a choice of trying to see the point being made or taking the club in the noggin for being deliberately obtuse. Had he engaged in dialog instead of put-down, I bet things would have played out differently. Still, it's a lot of fun fencing with Dennis. Aw crap, I've gone and hopelessly muddled my metaphors!

"It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen," Dennis said, but it's absurd ... preposterous ... ridiculous to claim the two are equal.

I dont think he was saying that, outside of the fact they both likely wouldn't happen in the real world. However, they both happened in a fictional world, so what can ya do?

Well, I directly quoted Dennis. Those were his words, not mine, and if he meant something other than what he said, that's his own darned fault. Are both situations unlikely? Absolutely! Are they "exactly as unlikely"? Uh ... no. Not by a long shot for reasons Pauln6 has already enumerated. Dennis is an intelligent and gifted writer, in addition to his other talents, but I love "calling him on it" when he plays the role of a demagogue. He's smarter than that.

Now with respect to you, I apologize about not answering your earlier reply. I don't think the ridiculous coincidences in the film are as subjective as you seem to imply. Perhaps the art direction was.

I'm also curious about these scientific theories you're claiming the writers explored. If you could please respond with a link to one, I'd appreciate it, but to my recollection, the only theory they brought in dealt with the many-worlds hypothesis of parallel realities, not with the properties of Red Matter that I was complaining about. I'm fine and dandy with alternate timelines. I don't like the notion that Red Matter only works when you drop it into a very deep hole ... except when you don't. That self-contradiction weakened the movie. Unless drilling the hole was somehow critical to getting Red Matter to collapse, then why waste time doing it? Just pull up to the planet of your choice and drop a kilo of Red Matter on it and move on. Heat activated? Drop the kilo on the planet and phaser it. I just don't get that aspect of the plot. Maybe Nero was just toying with the worlds he wanted to destroy, but the drilling felt like it was integral to the use of Red Matter.

We're definitely on the same page here. I don't look to 'trap' people per se - it's just a lawyer's technique to try and herd your opponent in a certain direction to show up the flaws in their argument. As I said, I'm always willing to to be persuaded by contra evidence but Dennis and Devon can often be evidence lite, so thus far I haven't been persuaded.

You don't play much chess, do you-- Oh wait, I've used that line already today. My play was more subtle than an effort to trap him ... I just had a surprise lurking in case he decided to go for the easy fruit instead of a discussion. A really obvious surprise, as you showed by finishing the move -- no offense. Honestly, though, why does Dennis even need to belabor his point in discussion anyway? He's quite right about two things: he liked the movie, and it's a critical and box office success. There's no reason for him to defend the film if he doesn't want to. I'd be happy with that except he loves to answer well-reasoned criticisms of the film with zingers instead of discussion.

I would have been happy if the movie finished as you describe and they had opened the sequel with Kirk stepping onto the bridge of the Enterprise a few years later. I don't accept that alluding to Kirk being a captain in the future would have been unsatisfying for casual viewers any more than the ending of Sliding Doors was unsatisfactory - the audience doesn't need a lot of imagination to feel upbeat about where Kirk is headed.

Initially, I disliked the way he cheated on the test but I can now see that he was so obvious about it because it wasn't about succeeding, it was about challenging the whole concept and using ingenuity to overcome the obstacles that prevented him from succeeding and making sure everybody could see the point he was making. Very Kirk.

I also assumed that Spock Prime had a hand in Kirk's promotion but I'm not sure I'm happy about it. Spock knows that this Kirk is more inexperienced and understands that events in this timeline can affect people greatly such as the death of his own mother. To assume that Kirk is going to be awsome because it's his destiny is not logical and not even suggested from the evidence that we've seen so far. He has potential but he needs to be guided so that he can learn to moderate his own self belief for the sake of his crew.

EDIT: Maybe it's Spock's own self-belief that the influence of his own younger self at an earlier stage in Kirk's career will moderate his attitude. Sounds risky to me though.

Agreed. But like I said, it's fan-wankery that gives us an opportunity to explain the unexplainable enough to go on to the next "episode". Devon and Dennis are absolutely right about that, too. We've been doing it for decades ... why stop now?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm flattered, but as you'll note I haven't exactly been active in trying to "persuade" to you think one way or the other. I'm not even really that interested in the discussion other than a few comments I wanted to make.

Oh, am I supposed to be trying to persuade someone? I'm just stating my opinion. And I'll just go along being positive as long as these guys keep up the negativity. I only tend to read those posts to the extent that they're quoted by someone I ordinarily pay attention to, anyway.

Beyond that...sorry, but I don't give a fuck - like nuTrek or not, watch it or don't. I like it, and I'm glad that it's reset the Franchise off in a new direction and is here to stay...until the next reset, which will be as inevitably aimed at the young contemporary audience of its time as this one.

 

[Pauln6]

I play chess - I have a set of hand-painted LotR character pieces - I'm just not very good at it.

One possible explanation for the red matter contradiction is that Nero tried to deploy it in space thus causing the seismic disturbances noted by the Vulcans while communications were still working (as has been pointed out before, if the disturbances had been the drill, the Vulcans would not have been able to get a message out at all).

A planet has far more mass than the Narada and one assumes that without an influx of mass the artificial singularity collapses quickly. Therefore popping the red matter within the planet means that it can gain mass and eat the planet easily. Nero may have used trial and error and thankfully had a giant drill to get the job done.

My own view is that since red matter was designed to eat supernova he'd have had faster success imploding their sun(s) but oh well. Like many things a line of technobabble-lite dialogue could have made a bit more sense of the situation.

The worst absences are the absence of a cloak (how did the ship sneak all the way from Klingon space to Vulcan without one and if they had one why was Nero so worried about Earth's defences?) and an explanation as to how Enterprise could beat Nero to Earth at all, let alone at warp 4.

Mind you, I suppose he could sneak past them but would have had decloak to drill so taking out the defences was still a good thing to do but if he can destroy 47 Klingon ships and 7 starships I'm sure they could have just blasted the defence drones. Tricky.

 

[number6]

This isn't a chess game. It's a discussion forum. On it I see the same handful of people declaring their hatred and pointing out everything that's "wrong" with the film. One wonders why they're still here 18 months later.
I do agree with Dennis. People are criticizing the film for the same flaws every film has, as if Trek XI needs to be held to some higher standard to prove its ultimate "failure." Don't forget, this film was a complete flop.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

People are criticizing the film for the same flaws every film has, as if Trek XI needs to be held to some higher standard to prove its ultimate "failure."

Fortunately, if one is honest then pointing out the many ways in which all previous versions of Trek fall similarly short or are in some cases less plausible and watchable than nuTrek is pretty easy to do.

 

[Psion]

People are criticizing the film for the same flaws every film has, as if Trek XI needs to be held to some higher standard to prove its ultimate "failure."

Fortunately, if one is honest then pointing out the many ways in which all previous versions of Trek fall similarly short or are in some cases less plausible and watchable than nuTrek is pretty easy to do.

Which is why I like the film better than some Trek movies, but not as much as others. Discussing the flaws of Star Trek, in all its forms has been a pass time of Trekkies/Trekkers since before the original Nitpicker's Guide came out, so I doubt the nitpickers are likely to go away for this film just because it's favored by some.

Besides, it's fun to come up with the stuff you call "fan wankery" to explain each production's shortcomings.

 

[ST-One]

The Red Matter stuff also introduces some slight contradictions in that it seemed to require a hole to be drilled in a planet before it created a black hole, but the Jellyfish caused a collapse within the Narada itself ... so that raises the question of why Nero had to waste time drilling holes. But this I chalk up to silly-science and a poorly-thought out plot device.

There is a reason why they place the red matter into the core of Vulcan: so that the black hole) it creates can gain mass as fas as possible so that Vulcan can collapse into it (an 'empty' black hole has no mass).

The same happened with the Narada.

Others that spring to mind include raising shields and then being damaged by debris,

Yes.
The saucer section of another starship.
(also there is TUC where each and every torpedo hit the hull despite the shields).

speed of plot varies wildly (speed Earth to Vulcan, Rura Penthe to Vulcan, Vulcan to Earth (including comparative speeds of Enterprise & Narada),

No.
Educate yourself on the concept of 'time cuts'.

they can teach students to speak Romulan fluently but can't rely upon universal translators to idnetify & translate the language etc.

Yes.
They chose to use the characters instead of faceless technology. How dare they!?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They chose to use the characters instead of faceless technology. How dare they!?

Everyone knows that you're just supposed to realign the lateral deflector grid to emit a stream of verteron particles. Or shove a torpedo up a starship's tailpipe (wow, how stupid was that?). Or something.

 

[Captain Mike]

They chose to use the characters instead of faceless technology. How dare they!?

Everyone knows that you're just supposed to realign the lateral deflector grid to emit a stream of verteron particles. Or shove a torpedo up a starship's tailpipe (wow, how stupid was that?). Or something.

Let's not go reaching with the "tailpipe", Dennis. No explanation was needed as far as Uhura stating "What about that equipment we are carrying to catalog gaseous enomolies?".
It was totally explained just by that one remark.