Is the utopistic Trek gone with this movie?

[Sci]

There was a utopian vision in this one.

I didn’t see it. If fact we didn’t get to see much of Federation society except the confirmation that child raising is no better in this future that it is now.

I hardly think that a single troubled family is an indictment of the entirety of Federation society. Even in a world with excellent parenting, there will always be some children who are emotionally troubled. It's just life. And even for someone as troubled as Kirk, things seem to have turned out okay -- his emotional problems did not deny him a good education, nor lead to him being trapped in an abusive judicial system that denied him the chance to make something of himself. The system seems to have treated an emotionally troubled guy a hell of a lot better than it often does today.

There are large chunks of this movie without a bad guy.

Don’t recall too many of those either. Spock’s young tormentors are hardly good guys

The Vulcan bullies were canonically established in "Journey to Babel," and they were hardly villains.

Older Kirk is an "improvement", but far worse are the undisciplined thugs he meets in the bar who have unaccountably managed to steal Star Fleet uniforms.

Right, because no Starfleet officers ever started fights for poor reasons in TOS.

Even after the academy Kirk’s still treating women badly and cheating on a test!

Both of which were established character traits of Kirk's in TOS and in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Then Spock is shown to have a relationship involving an obvious potential conflict of interest. Its debatable whether a conflict actually occured. Regardless I really can’t imagine how that got into the film.

As long as human beings interact, there will always be people falling in love. And as long as people fall in love, there will be times when it happens between people with differing ranks within power structures. If anything, nuTrek's depiction of an emotional supportive, egalitarian relationship between Spock and Uhura is quite optimistic, since it's clear that Spock neither gave Uhura undue favors nor used his position of authority to sexually harass or extort her. They're egalitarian behind closed doors, which is something real couples who start out in different power ranks have trouble with.

Finally, the behaviour of both Kirk and Spock after Nero’s defeat is well known and not "normal" for TOS (TV or movies).

?

They offer to save Nero, and he refuses. They recognize that since the Narada survived one journey through a black hole, it might do so again, so they destroy the ship. Seems fair to me.

 

[Greg Cox]

I would say the reboot is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, and it isn't as preachy about how enlightened humans and the federation races are. .

That's more of a TNG thing anyway.

The movie felt more like TOS to me--which is a good thing.

And, oh, speaking of Starfleet cadets, who like a good brawl, and mercilessly pick on underclassmen, have we all forgotten about Finnegan?

Like I keep saying, TOS was nowhere near as "utopian" as people keep trying to pretend. Thank God.

 

[Devon]

I would say the reboot is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, and it isn't as preachy about how enlightened humans and the federation races are. .

That's more of a TNG thing anyway.

The movie felt more like TOS to me--which is a good thing.

And, oh, speaking of Starfleet cadets, who like a good brawl, and mercilessly pick on underclassmen, have we all forgotten about Finnegan?

Like I keep saying, TOS was nowhere near as "utopian" as people keep trying to pretend. Thank God.

Exactly. Nor was TOS as "deep" either. It was just good entertainment (and I'd like to be entertained by it through Netflix but Netflix is having major issues today.)

 

[UFO]

Actually, Kirk did discuss great utopian ideas. Please see "Dagger of the Mind" for starters. The Federation’s penal institutions are so enlightened they put us to shame now (not hard to do), let-a-lone in the 60’s.

Aside from the mad scientists brainwashing people with neural neutralizers, that is.

I mean, seriously, how do you cite "Dagger of the Mind" as proof of TOS's utopian ideals while missing the fact that it's actually a somewhat cynical horror story about a sadistic "saint" abusing mental patients?

As you say Star Trek has a tradition of making drama out of fallen heroes, but, especially in this case, that doesn't change their past achievements. I was pointing out that not only does Kirk discuss "utopian" ideals (Kirk and co point out Dr Adams’ impressive social improvements), but clearly the Federation has found better ways of treating criminals, irrespective of Dr Adams character faults. Even star ship crews know about it.

For a utopia, they've got an awful lot of crazy admirals and scientists!

True, but there are not many stories (that would appeal to us) in utopia. By the way, I'm not sure it is ever made clear why Dr Adams went over the edge, or whatever.

In fact, a certain healthy skepticism towards "utopias" runs all through TOS. ...

I agree, but that doesn't mean there aren't statements, actions and hints that make you feel, despite the requirements of story telling, that the Federation etc isn't generally an improvement on the way things are now (particularly the 1960's).

If the Terran Empire had disposed of a Nero-like "terrorist", would that make them "good cops"?

Nero would probably be admired by the Terran Empire. But if two bad guys have conflicting interests and want to kill each other, I think that is venturing into film noir, which states "there are no heroes."

They may admire him but they would still have to try to get rid of him. However my point is that merely disposing of a terrorist doesn't automatically make a government "good guys". Nor does sucess imply optimism except in a relative sense.

You make some good points and I agree, on balance the crew aren't bad guys, but neither did they seem like Star Fleet personal entirely. Never-the-less you obviously appreciate that the issues exist. That there is a point of departure form traditional Star Trek, so my thanks for that. I can only hope the writers come to the same state of "enlightenment".

Clearly, the moral here is that conquering poverty, war, and racisim is child's play compared to getting along with our families--even in "utopia."

Indeed, but it is therefore one of the "final
frontiers" if they want to add a worthwhile theme rather than just repeat past cliché.

Seriously, anyone who thinks that the nuTrek isn't as "utopian" as TOS isn't remembering the same show I watched back in the sixties. TOS was hardly a weekly symposium on Gene's utopian "vision." It was a rollicking space opera adventure full of fistfights, barroom brawls, space monsters, and scantily-clad alien babes, set in a future one would actually want to live in.
Just like the new movie.

And yet a "utopian vision" of sort manages to make an impact on some fans if not all. Heck, there's even a thread based on that very issue!

I hardly think that a single troubled family is an indictment of the entirety of Federation society.

I guess I just wasn't impressed by the trite characterisation to be honest but of all the children that have dialogue in the movie (five I think, not sure all of Spock's bullies have lines) 100% are either poorly raised or troubled in some way. And no, the bullies are not "villains" (I never said they were) but their behaviour is certainly bad (hence "bad guys").

I accept its possible you have a point about how the system treated Kirk after his joy-ride. It would be nice to think so but we don't get to see even a glimpse of that any so we can't really tell. He may have been lucky. He may have been able get an education despite official indifference or worse. That can happen now occasionally. But after such dedication and discipline why is he still so directionless per Pike's comment? It seemed to me he was "given" an education because he would need it to get into SF.

The Vulcan bullies were canonically established in "Journey to Babel," ...

Its an alternate reality. Nothing is written in stone, not that it every was I guess.

Older Kirk is an "improvement", but far worse are the undisciplined thugs he meets in the bar who have unaccountably managed to steal Star Fleet uniforms.

Right, because no Starfleet officers ever started fights for poor reasons in TOS.

Can you name an example where SF officers behave that badly in that context? No, this was not a "good brawl" (even if you think it started out that way) so neither Finnegan nor the Tribble episode qualify.

Even after the academy Kirk’s still treating women badly and cheating on a test!

Both of which were established character traits of Kirk's in TOS and in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Kirk was a ladies man certainly but that's not necessarily the same thing. Whatever Kirk Prime did he got a commendation for it. Here he got dragged before some sort of board of inquiry. Vive la différence.

You make some good points regarding Spock and Uhura but I am surprised the academy allowed such a thing to happen. Even if your assessment is correct, the situation almost costs Uhura her life! Clearly it effected how they related to each other in some ways. But the principle is not to allow even the perception of conflicting interest.

They offer to save Nero, and he refuses. They recognize that since the Narada survived one journey through a black hole, it might do so again, so they destroy the ship. Seems fair to me.

Kirk: Your ship is comprised. [You are] too close to the centre of the singularly to survive without assistance which we are willing to provide.

Nero doesn’t disagree! But even if they believed there was still a small chance of the Narada surviving, no such reason is given. The clear impression is that Kirk uses Nero's refusal of assistance as an excuse to kill him (which scarcely follows form "I don't want your help). Even before that Spock advocates a different course (however understandable) from the start. Ironically, after all that, we get the impression the only difference the Enterprise's firing makes is the moral one. I guess when the blackhole starts in the centre of your ship its not so easy to travel through.

Like I keep saying, TOS was nowhere near as "utopian" as people keep trying to pretend.

So it is "utopian", just not as much as you feel people are making out. That's progress.

Exactly. Nor was TOS as "deep" either.

But still deeper than the latest movie I'm sure you'll agree. Not that that's too big a problem so long as the next one picks up the slack. I understand its supposed to, which will be interesting.

 

[Devon]

But still deeper than the latest movie I'm sure you'll agree.

Here and there. But they weren't trying to make it too deep either. It was just good solid television (for the first two seasons anyway.)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There was a utopian vision in this one.

I didn’t see it. If fact we didn’t get to see much of Federation society except the confirmation that child raising is no better in this future that it is now.

I hardly think that a single troubled family is an indictment of the entirety of Federation society. Even in a world with excellent parenting, there will always be some children who are emotionally troubled.

True that. William Riker, for example.

Then Spock is shown to have a relationship involving an obvious potential conflict of interest. Its debatable whether a conflict actually occured. Regardless I really can’t imagine how that got into the film.

I would imagine through the same mechanism as Jean Luc Picard's flash-in-the-pan romance in "Lessons."

Finally, the behaviour of both Kirk and Spock after Nero’s defeat is well known and not "normal" for TOS (TV or movies).

I agree. For a change, it was actually BELIEVABLE.

I was pointing out that not only does Kirk discuss "utopian" ideals (Kirk and co point out Dr Adams’ impressive social improvements), but clearly the Federation has found better ways of treating criminals

Truly, and in NuTrek James T. Kirk is shown to be, in fact, a PRODUCT of those new techniques himself. That does not, however, mean that he is inclined or capable of implementing those methods. He is a Starfleet officer, not a social worker.

They may admire him but they would still have to try to get rid of him. However my point is that merely disposing of a terrorist doesn't automatically make a government "good guys".

To be sure, "good and evil" in THIS context is defined entirely on personage. Nero is the bad guy, because he's trying to kill the protagonists. The "why" of Nero isn't really important, neither is the political angle. OldSpock could have destroyed Romulus ON PURPOSE, and it still wouldn't change this dynamic, it would only change the inter- and intra-personal conflicts that bring all these characters together.

That there is a point of departure form traditional Star Trek...

Is, in my opinion, a VERY timely development.

I guess I just wasn't impressed by the trite characterisation to be honest but of all the children that have dialogue in the movie (five I think, not sure all of Spock's bullies have lines) 100% are either poorly raised or troubled in some way.

Which simply makes Star Trek 2009 a product of its times, since its producers expected (possibly correctly) that the lion's share of its audience experienced troubled childhoods and/or asshole parents. Not coincidentally, alot of those troubled children grew up into equally troubled adults, the kinds of people for whom the phrase "You settle for a less than ordinary life, but you think you were meant for something better..." has a singular resonance.

You see, Star Trek's appeal isn't that it's a story about THE future. It's appeal is that it's a story about OUR future. About us as a race, us a country, us as a community, us as individuals. In the 23rd century, the Kirks and Spocks of the world DO get their shot at glory; for alot of people in this world, that's a utopian ideal in and of itself.

Can you name an example where SF officers behave that badly in that context?

Jean Luc Picard vs. Three Surly Naussicans.

You make some good points regarding Spock and Uhura but I am surprised the academy allowed such a thing to happen.

The Academy cannot prevent what it does not know about. Just ask Kirk.

Nero doesn’t disagree! But even if they believed there was still a small chance of the Narada surviving, no such reason is given. The clear impression is that Kirk uses Nero's refusal of assistance as an excuse to kill him

That's the impression I got too. And in TOS/TNG, it would have ended one of two ways:
1) Nero looks around at his dying crew and his ruined space ship and surrenders, Kirk beams him aboard and puts him in the brig and afterward comments to Spock and/or Bones "You know something? Part of me was kind of hoping he'd refuse to surrender."

OR

2) Kirk tries to save him anyway, Nero takes the opportunity to lock onto Kirk with a tractor beam and try to drag the ship into the black hole behind him, THEN Kirk opens fire, destroys the Narada, and makes a big show about how sorry he is for having to kill Nero.

Pretentious pseudo-morality does not a utopia make. More importantly, it's a bitter pill that your audience has to swallow, presumably because it's good for them. But vengeance is sweet, and I wouldn't realistically expect Starfleet officers who are trained to use deadly force in defense of Federation policies would really hesitate to drop the hammer on somebody like Nero given the flimsiest excuse.

But still deeper than the latest movie I'm sure you'll agree.

Yes, we can find greater moments of depth and substance from seventy hours of TOS than we can in two hours of STXI.

In other news, water is wet.

 

[UFO]

I would imagine through the same mechanism as Jean Luc Picard's flash-in-the-pan romance in "Lessons."

I can still imagine a line being drawn between student and teacher that might be relaxed a bit between serving officers.

I agree. For a change, it was actually BELIEVABLE.

That’s what they decide to make believable?!

Truly, and in NuTrek James T. Kirk is shown to be, in fact, a PRODUCT of those new techniques himself. That does not, however, mean that he is inclined or capable of implementing those methods. He is a Starfleet officer, not a social worker.

Perhaps, but that was not my point.

Which simply makes Star Trek 2009 a product of its times, ...

Some of the best parts of Star Trek are when it isn’t a produce of its times or where it uses those foundations to rise above its times.

Jean Luc Picard vs. Three Surly Naussicans.

Covered that in post #109.

Pretentious pseudo-morality does not a utopia make.

If it is as blatant as you suggest, I would agree, but can you provide any examples? Surely there were better options such as in Balance of Terror? Are you suggesting that in those situations Kirk came across as false?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I would say the reboot is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, and it isn't as preachy about how enlightened humans and the federation races are. .

That's more of a TNG thing anyway.

The movie felt more like TOS to me--which is a good thing.

And, oh, speaking of Starfleet cadets, who like a good brawl, and mercilessly pick on underclassmen, have we all forgotten about Finnegan?

Like I keep saying, TOS was nowhere near as "utopian" as people keep trying to pretend. Thank God.

Exactly. Nor was TOS as "deep" either. It was just good entertainment (and I'd like to be entertained by it through Netflix but Netflix is having major issues today.)

This is why Ebay is nice you can buy the series and watch it at home without having to deal with website issues.

 

[Thomas.B]

Never-the-less you obviously appreciate that the issues exist. That there is a point of departure form traditional Star Trek, so my thanks for that.

Certainly.
I think a big part of all this is that movies can't spend time on character and details the way a TV adventure-drama can.
Any version of Star Trek made for the big screen is going to have plenty of "Die Hard" moments with explosions and sneering bad guys being enveloped in fireballs. It was really odd to see TNG try to morph into that kind of movie when Picard was so much into being diplomatic and peaceful.
(The point about TOS being less concerned with diplomacy and more about conflict many made is well taken.)
And while moments like those are not typical of what Star Trek has been on television, I think most of us would admit to enjoying them once in awhile.
One of these days, they might get around to doing another series and maybe they will fill in the blanks and flesh out the Abrams universe more.
...or maybe the sequel will have a plot that poses an interesting dilemma that will challenge the characters' values more.

 

[Greg Cox]

Actually, Kirk did discuss great utopian ideas. Please see "Dagger of the Mind" for starters. The Federation’s penal institutions are so enlightened they put us to shame now (not hard to do), let-a-lone in the 60’s.

Aside from the mad scientists brainwashing people with neural neutralizers, that is.

I mean, seriously, how do you cite "Dagger of the Mind" as proof of TOS's utopian ideals while missing the fact that it's actually a somewhat cynical horror story about a sadistic "saint" abusing mental patients?

As you say Star Trek has a tradition of making drama out of fallen heroes, but, especially in this case, that doesn't change their past achievements. I was pointing out that not only does Kirk discuss "utopian" ideals (Kirk and co point out Dr Adams’ impressive social improvements), but clearly the Federation has found better ways of treating criminals, irrespective of Dr Adams character faults. Even star ship crews know about it.

.

But those are only a couple of throwaway lines at the beginning of the episode, which have nothing to do with what the story is actually about. Narrative-wise, they're just there to explain why Kirk doesn't suspect Adams right away. It's a red herring, not an inspirational message.

It's not like the point of "Dagger" was to demonstrate an enlightened, utopian approach to the treatment of the mental illness. I doubt that anyone comes away from it thinking, "Wow. What an inspiring story about the future of mental hospitals!"

It's about a thriller about a mad scientist brainwashing mental patients. There's nothing utopian about it . . . except that apparently people still have embarrassing encounters at Christmas parties!

Never mind some misdirection in Act 1. The only times we ever actually see insane asylums on TOS, in this ep and in "Whom Gods Destroy," everything has gone to hell . . . .

 

[UFO]

But those are only a couple of throwaway lines at the beginning of the episode, which have nothing to do with what the story is actually about.

In my view, far from being throwaway lines, what was portrayed was actually quite daring. I mean most people even now (perhaps especially now!), would be put off by such remarks on principle. They are pretty impressive for throwaway lines.

It's a red herring, not an inspirational message.

Its part of the history of the Federation. They could have given Adams any sort of humanitarian background but they chose one that runs counter to general public opinion (like an interracial kiss). In a sense it may just be "wallpaper", but it fits in with the subtle optimism that runs through TOS, particularly in the behaviour of the main characters, as opposed to the sometimes heavier handed variety of TNG.

It's not like the point of "Dagger" was to demonstrate an enlightened, utopian approach to the treatment of the mental illness. I doubt that anyone comes away from it thinking, "Wow. What an inspiring story about the future of mental hospitals!"

It's about a thriller about a mad scientist brainwashing mental patients. There's nothing utopian about it . . . except that apparently people still have embarrassing encounters at Christmas parties!

There may be nothing utopian about the "story" itself, but we do get a glimpse at the ethos of the Federation generally. We begin to see why the main characters act as they do. Ie in ways that people raised in our society might call unbelievable. It may not be the point of the story, but its there in the same way any detail can be seen and appreciated if you care to.

Never mind some misdirection in Act 1. The only times we ever actually see insane asylums on TOS, in this ep and in "Whom Gods Destroy," everything has gone to hell . . . .

It’s the Enterprise’s "fortuitous" job to sort out these rare and unlikely problems, in the same way a show about the police portrays more murders than the average citizen will come across.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Some of the best parts of Star Trek are when it isn’t a produce of its times or where it uses those foundations to rise above its times.

Exactly. NuKirk provides a perspective that a modern audience can understand and aspire to: he doesn't HAVE to settle for a life of mediocrity just because of his past. One day he decides to pick himself up go for it, and the result is personal glory and redemption, not just for himself, but for his family legacy.

In times like these, that's more than alot of us can hope for. But we can still dream about it, and that's what Star Trek is about.

Jean Luc Picard vs. Three Surly Naussicans.

Covered that in post #109.

Then I fail to understand why this continues to escape your attention. It's almost the exact same situation, except that nobody got stabbed.

Pretentious pseudo-morality does not a utopia make.
If it is as blatant as you suggest, I would agree, but can you provide any examples?

Off the top of my head, there's

Picard v. Hugh in the "let's almost wipe out the borg but I can't do it!" incident.

Data vs. Kivas Fajo, "Discharging, you say? Well, gee, I don't know how that could have happened, but I certainly wasn't trying to shoot a cleptomaniacal sociopath with it."

Picard vs. Crystaline Entity, "It's not evil, it's just hungry. Who are we to judge a voracious planet-eating predator that just happens to devour intelligent life by the truckload?"

Kirk vs. Kruge's infamous "Hey there mister psychotic Klingon warlord who destroyed an entire starship, destroyed MY ship, murdered my son and just tried to beat me to death on an exploding planet... GIMME YOUR HAND!"

Kirk vs. the Gorn in "Maybe you thought you were defending your territory... when you bombed an entire city to the ground and then tried to lure my ship into an ambush."

General example in Picard/Janeway against inexplicably xenophobic alien-of-the-week: Ship takes weapons fire, Captain answers with "Keep trying to hail them!"

And don't even get me started on the whole Kodos the Executioner incident.

Are you suggesting that in those situations Kirk came across as false?

Not in Balance of Terror, no. Not even in Corbomite Maneuver, actually. But Star Trek is replete with examples of trophy goodguyism, morality for the sake of demonstrating morality.

 

[UFO]

Some of the best parts of Star Trek are when it isn’t a produce of its times or where it uses those foundations to rise above its times.

Exactly. NuKirk provides a perspective that a modern audience can understand and aspire to: he doesn't HAVE to settle for a life of mediocrity just because of his past. One day he decides to pick himself up go for it, and the result is personal glory and redemption, not just for himself, but for his family legacy.

First, I don’t see where "Exactly" fits in as we can aspire to/dream about such things now. The film is not doing anything new. Not that I have a problem with that. Second, he is a genius level repeat offender, not a mediocre one. Third, he didn’t just "one day" decide to "to pick himself up [and] go for it". He was talked into it by Pike, and it took a bit of doing. Forth, why did his family legacy need redeeming? Apart from not being able to raise troubled children that well. Or were you referring to the glory part? Anyway his father was already a hero.

Then I fail to understand why this continues to escape your attention. It's almost the exact same situation, except that nobody got stabbed.

Perhaps the writers thought so too. But unfortunately not in my view. While Picard and Co may be said to have behaved "badly", it was not dishonourably, in fact you could argue the reverse. As opposed to the STXI officers who looked like they were just trying to provoke a fight almost from the start (see below).

1) Picard stated that he originally started the fight with the Nausicaans because he was young and cocky. But there was more to it since he was "defending" or helping his friend. Further it looked like the Nausicaans, even in the original version, were the ones who provoked it, both directly and due to their earlier actions (cheating).

2) Contrast that the STXI officers who had little to no reason to believe Uhura needed help (she was actually joking and laughing with Kirk when Cupcake "went to her assistance". When Uhura said she could handle things, honour should have been satisfied. Granted Kirk made a smart remark but he assured them it was a joke. Instead the goon squad escalated the situation and received another "clever" reply. But it was obvious from the fact Kirk stupidly turned away from them that he wasn’t really trying to start a fight (as the Nausicaans had been). The brave Star Fleet officers use that to get in the first punch and worse, were not only prepared to take advantage of their greater numbers (another important difference) but weren’t even able to recognise when the fight was over.

So yes, there was a bar and a fight in both, but the distinction is in the context (who did what and why). The stabbing was an optional extra.

Pretentious pseudo-morality does not a utopia make. More importantly, it's a bitter pill that your audience has to swallow, presumably because it's good for them. But vengeance is sweet, and I wouldn't realistically expect Starfleet officers who are trained to use deadly force in defense of Federation policies would really hesitate to drop the hammer on somebody like Nero given the flimsiest excuse.

No, I suppose not. But that was what made the prime Star Trek great! Whether is was done well or not. If the rationale didn’t always convince everyone, well, that’s a small price to pay. Besides the stories were still good most of the time.

Kirk vs. Kruge's infamous "Hey there mister psychotic Klingon warlord who destroyed an entire starship, destroyed MY ship, murdered my son and just tried to beat me to death on an exploding planet... GIMME YOUR HAND!"

I see what you mean, but it is almost so over the top (from our perspective anyway) that it just might make us think there is something different about how duty and honour are regarded in this version of the future.

Picard vs. Crystaline Entity, "It's not evil, it's just hungry.

Technically that's either true or a misconception right?

Picard v. Hugh in the "let's almost wipe out the borg but I can't do it!" incident.

I prefer to see that as an example taken to extremes for effect.

Lets just say there are probably fewer examples that I have a problem with than you do.

But Star Trek is replete with examples of trophy goodguyism, morality for the sake of demonstrating morality.

You see I don’t feel the answer to that is just to take morality out of the picture completely. Even Kirk's offer of help to Nero was based on pragmatism in STXI. OK, maybe morality is in the end too, but I like to keep one or two layers of separation.

 

[Greg Cox]

Perhaps the writers thought so too. But unfortunately not in my view. While Picard and Co may be said to have behaved "badly", it was not dishonourably, in fact you could argue the reverse. As opposed to the STXI officers who looked like they were just trying to provoke a fight almost from the start (see below).

.

Again, sounds like something Finnegan would do.

And let's not forget Scotty and Chekov, who were not just green cadets, but actual Starfleet officers, starting a barroom brawl with the Klingons in "Tribbles." Sure, the Klingons "provoked" it by insulting the Enterprise, but it was Scotty, a veteran officer and fourth in command, who threw the first punch . . . .

 

[UFO]

Again, sounds like something Finnegan would do.

And let's not forget Scotty and Chekov, who were not just green cadets, but actual Starfleet officers, starting a barroom brawl with the Klingons in "Tribbles." Sure, the Klingons "provoked" it by insulting the Enterprise, but it was Scotty, a veteran officer and fourth in command, who threw the first punch . . . .

Yes, Finnegan was known to provoke fights but if he was still a bully in modern parlance, at least he did it in a good natured way. These guys came across as deadly serious thugs, evidenced by their unwillingness to stop. Granted TOS red-shirts weren’t always held to the same standards as the main crew but this was just plain brutal.

But if the distinction between the Tapestry and STXI fights seems a bit murky, surely the difference between the Tribble and STXI fights is clearer? This isn't principally about who throws the first punch though that can tie in. It’s about motivations and intentions, the spirit of the thing, the intangibles if you will, and the context!

 

[T'Girl]

but it was Scotty, a veteran officer and fourth in command.

Who was third in command then?

 

[Greg Cox]

It just seems to me that there's a lot of selective amnesia and double standards when people try to insist that TOS was somehow on a higher plane than the new movie. TOS was this serious, utopian vision of the future, you see, whereas in the new movie there's (gasp!) brawls and questionable sexual escapades and bad parenting and Starfleet personnel who behave recklessly--which never happened on TOS!

Speaking of "Dagger of the Mind," what about that bit where Helen Noel playfully uses the neural neutralizer to make Kirk think they'd slept together?

That minx! You just know that if Zoe Saldana or Rachel Nichols had pulled a stunt like that in the new movie, people would be citing it as "proof" that nuTrek characters are irresponsible and morally unfit compared to old Trek.

Like I said, selective amnesia.


(Note to T'Girl: Oops! You're right. Scotty was third in command. I was obviously thinking of star billing instead!)

 

[HaventGotALife]

but it was Scotty, a veteran officer and fourth in command.

Who was third in command then?

It usually was Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and Sulu.

 

[Greg Cox]

but it was Scotty, a veteran officer and fourth in command.

Who was third in command then?

It usually was Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and Sulu.

Yep, I got it wrong before.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Some of the best parts of Star Trek are when it isn’t a produce of its times or where it uses those foundations to rise above its times.

Exactly. NuKirk provides a perspective that a modern audience can understand and aspire to: he doesn't HAVE to settle for a life of mediocrity just because of his past. One day he decides to pick himself up go for it, and the result is personal glory and redemption, not just for himself, but for his family legacy.

First, I don’t see where "Exactly" fits in as we can aspire to/dream about such things now. The film is not doing anything new.

It's new for Star Trek, which was my point.

Second, he is a genius level repeat offender, not a mediocre one.

To be sure, he's a talented genius leading a less-than-mediocre life.

Third, he didn’t just "one day" decide to "to pick himself up [and] go for it". He was talked into it by Pike, and it took a bit of doing.

To be sure, it took one look at the Enterprise under construction to get him to finally decide to go for it. I doubt Kirk had actually gone to the shipyard to join the academy, and hadn't made up his mind to do so until he got there.

Forth, why did his family legacy need redeeming?

The car, the runaway brother, the abusive stepfather, the dad who died as a martyr in a career cut disastrously short.

While Picard and Co may be said to have behaved "badly", it was not dishonourably, in fact you could argue the reverse.

You're still thinking about the revised history in "Tapestry." In Picard's retelling of the event, the loudmouthed Ensign Picard caught the Naussicans cheating and then intentionally picked a fight with them.

I don't see how fighting with three foreigners in a bar over a glorified pool game counts as "honorable" while a misguided attempt at chivalry does not.

So yes, there was a bar and a fight in both, but the distinction is in the context (who did what and why).

There's no distinction as far as I can tell: in BOTH cases, Starfleet officers threw the first punch in defense of their own reputation. In STXI, it was "So get some more guys and it'll be an even fight." In "Trouble with Tribbles" it was "Enterprise should be hauled away AS garbage!" and in "Tapestry" it was "Coward! Like all Starfleet! You talk and you talk but you have no guramba!" all three cases, Starfleet throws the first punch. The reasons are immaterial; it all boils down to an officer's pride.

No, I suppose not. But that was what made the prime Star Trek great! Whether is was done well or not.

Speak for yourself. I thought it was an obligatory TV-trope intended to please the moral-majority demographic and therefore a necessary evil for ratings purposes.

Now we live in a post-9/11 world where even the moralizers among us will loudly applaud the deaths of terrorists and/or tyrants. Swift justice is all the rage these days.

I see what you mean, but it is almost so over the top (from our perspective anyway) that it just might make us think there is something different about how duty and honour are regarded in this version of the future.

Which makes the characters that much harder to relate to, whatever the subtext is.

The other problem, seldom recognized in these discussions, is that whatever duty and honor means to humans in the future, it doesn't mean the same to ANYBODY ELSE. Utopia can only exist in a vacuum; Picard's "evolved sensibility" becomes a vain pretension in a universe inhabited by the Romulan Star Empire, the Borg, the Dominion, and a wide pantheon of sociopathic races/organizations/individuals looking for every opportunity to gain an advantage over their competitors. On first contact with the REAL WORLD, those evolved sensibilities are exposed for what they really are: maddening naivete.

Which Kirk found out the hard way, when he shouts "Give me your hand!" and Kruge immediately tries to pull him over the edge. Humans--and Kirk in particular--have spent enough time around Vulcans to know by now that it is ILLOGICAL to offer aid or compassion to a man who is detremined to kill you.

Technically that's either true or a misconception right?

It's immaterial. If the crystaline entity is intelligent enough to communicate--and we know for a fact that it is--then it is malevolent towards life forms unlike itself. If it is NOT intelligent enough to communicate (and Lore is some kind of entity-whisperer) then it is a predatory form of life that by its very nature poses a threat to beings around it.

To use Picard's "cuttlefish" homilie: a school of fish would not hesitate to kill a sperm whale if the opportunity presented itself. To use a more familiar analogy: if it great white sharks had the capacity to reason, then we would be forced to put them on trial for all the surfers they have knowingly eaten over the years.

But Star Trek is replete with examples of trophy goodguyism, morality for the sake of demonstrating morality.

You see I don’t feel the answer to that is just to take morality out of the picture completely. Even Kirk's offer of help to Nero was based on pragmatism in STXI. OK, maybe morality is in the end too, but I like to keep one or two layers of separation.

Pragmatism, IMO, is preferable, since morality for the sake of morality more often devolves into naivete. In TOS, for example, Kirk demonstrated his moral superiority ONLY while standing over the battered corpses of his enemies. The Gorn incident I find questionable, but I also recognize that that position--standing over the bloodied, unconscious form of the Gorn captain--is a relatively safe place to ponder the moral conundrum of this encounter. It would, on the other hand, be quite pretentious if in the middle of his fight with the Gorn Kirk started pontificating on whether or not the Federation was at fault for violating Gorn space, even inadvertently, and wondering if this was all some kind of misunderstanding. The only time TNG handled this issue reasonably well was in "Conundrum," where Picard voiced many misgivings about their supposed war but ultimately followed his putative orders until it was perfectly clear the Lyssians were in no position to threaten him.

Vulcan's influence on Earth--and especially on Kirk--have to be taken into account too. Vulcan logic is ruthlessly pragmatic, to the point that even their moral quandries can be quickly jettisoned whenever there is a good reason.