STiD, Kirk and the Abrams Team

[Opus]

You think we've had it tough here? You should read what Trek fans are saying on other sites:

I feel constrained to tell you that Kirk's character was severely distorted in STiD. Even I, who liked the movie, can be objectively aware of that. His actions in the movie are perfect examples of characterization rape. The screenplay was written by a people who had to be sat down to watch Star Trek and had never watched it before. Abrams is NOT a fan of Star Trek. His professed love of the concept has always struck me as hypocrisy - He knows beans about James T. Kirk or how Kirk would act.... Look, it's a sad fact of life that from now on the 'public' Star Trek is JJ Abrams's show. He, in all his vast, omnipotent, well-meaning ignorance will do whatever the hell he wants to do with it and Kirk.

Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting.

STiD was created for the money ...big bucks and for the mass audience at large, and this is fine to a degree. But it neglected the most important factor... Roddenberry' s ideology.

... and much more.

Anybody agree?

 

[CorporalClegg]

I agree this post makes a fair point.

 

[Ln X]

STID is not that repulsive! There's some good to it you know: Pike, Karl Urban, references to Section 31, scenes where Spock is dealing with the aftermath of the destruction of Vulcan, the silly but entertaining introduction scene and tribbles. Plus STID has the best graphics and action period out of all the Trek movies.

I don't see how it is possible to absolutely dislike something. STID had some cool and good features and I have little love for this film but action wise it had some cool bling I'll give you that.

 

[Set Harth]

There is actually a fair amount of similarity between the way PineKirk acts in STID and the way Kirk acted in TOS.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ Here Here

Kirk was dealing with a lot of BS in that film. Only one year ago he saved the Earth and potentially the entire UFP. He breaks the Prime Directive one time (seriously does ANYONE in Starfleet take that thing seriously) and get's sent back to the Academy. How humiliating for a decorated hero. Pike fights to make it a mere demotion to Commander a few scenes later. Next his mentor and father figure is murdered by a terrorist and Kirk goes on a crusade to bring that man to justice. Only to discover the terrorist and Kirk himself have been manipulated by the very chain of command they both swore to uphold.

 

[Opus]

Some have said, though, that Pine's Kirk is much different than the Kirk from TOS.

Others have decried there are NO redeemable qualities in STiD here. It's also spoken elsewhere...

 

[Amaris]

Some have said, though, that Pine's Kirk is much different than the Kirk from TOS.

Others have decried there are NO redeemable qualities in STiD here. It's also spoken elsewhere...

It may come down to bias. In fact, I would be it comes down to bias. For myself, I kept open the idea that Pine's Kirk would be different, but when I watched ST09 (and again in STiD), I saw Pine really echo many of Shatner's mannerisms in Kirk. Not so much to be a copy, but enough for me to believe that yes, these two men, Kirk from TOS and Kirk in these movies, is the same man.

 

[Maurice]

If I wanted to see old-fashioned Star Trek I can watch the old show and the old movies. To me it's fun to see a different take on something that I felt had long ago gone stale. But, seriously, the constant bellyaching of people who didn't like it became tiresome months ago.

 

[DonIago]

It became tiresome in 2009, if not earlier.

We get it, you don't like it. Can we move on now, please?

 

[Awesome Possum]

Pine really seems like a young Kirk. He's Kirk before getting slapped down a few times, that's why he's a little more laid back and in control later. It's called going from your 20s to your 30s.

 

[Opus]

So it seems STiD might have some redeeming qualities. That's positive.

Consider this. I believe a number of people here expressed this:

And most importantly, shouldn't we expect a Trek production to reflect its original intent? I expect a movie to at least reflect SOMETHING of the original ideology. To me, STiD failed miserably in this area. Therefore ,it isn't the real Trek in my opinion. Merely a reflection of its look, its feel. Anotherwards, it is a dramatist's view which is enjoyable but unbelievable; a real space opera... You are right. JJ did his best. Does that mean I have to swallow it whole? And who said the movie had to be perfect? The TV show wasn't, why should one expect it of the movie? Maybe a few fanatics, but the majority of us just want the real thing. And I wouldn't worry too much about what JJ and the makers think. They're rolling in the bucks, and success has made them content to start another... And I am happy for those who were satisfied with STiD and got some type of deep meaning from it. Myself, I hope the next film will try and do a little more justice to its creator by expressing its original message.

ETA:

It looked like Trek and it smelled like Trek, but it definitely did not taste like Trek.

 

[ComicGuy89]

A paragraph about "original intent" without actually expressing what that intent was. I suppose TWOK's militarized feel reflected the original intent? Or TNG's conflict-free bridge? Or Deep Space Nine's dark moral ambiguity and deconstruction of a utopia? Or Voyager's reversal of venturing to the final frontier and instead venturing back? Or Star Trek's vision of the future suddenly going back more than 200 years in Enterprise?

At the end of the day, all it comes down to is that each fan has his or her own definition of what Star Trek is to them. It's all subjective when it comes to defining Trek. And yes, I regard each and every one of those I mentioned as Star Trek, but I do like some aspects more than others.

 

[Sindatur]

... The screenplay was written by a people who had to be sat down to watch Star Trek and had never watched it before. ....

Isn't this a complete falsehood? Aren't Orci and Kurtzman huge Fans from way back and wrote the screenplay?

In addition to this, in TOS, we never met Kirk this young, but, here in today's world, it's very likely someone like TOS Kirk would indeed be very much like Bad Robot Trek's Kirk when he was younger

 

[Opus]

Well to be fair, I didn't write that. I was quoting someone else.

Here's another interesting tidbit:

What I have come to learn is that fans cannot count on Paramount for accurate information especially about Star Trek; for some reason it's very important to the studio to keep things under wraps. Rather we must examine what the executives and the actors say more closely and assume that what is true is either the opposite or only partially explained at best. Let's not be so naive as to think that everything we see on the printed page or on the internet is the truth.

As well as:

They have refused Roddenberry's vision - removed the subtle layerings of meaning of the original in favor of a "Star Wars* style action, complete with a nasty villain and blood.

And:

And Benedict Cumberbatch's performance was definitely in the realm of "Khanned Ham"; I think I'll take some mustard and rye bread along next time in order to get full benefit from it.

Also:

The musical score was too bad to be called "forgettable", and was positively intrusive at times, very unpleasantly so.

Poor Michael Giacchino...

 

[ComicGuy89]

I wonder, why are you sharing these? This is not a snide remark, I'm just curious as to what you wish for us to do with them. Discuss them?

They have refused Roddenberry's vision - removed the subtle layerings of meaning of the original in favor of a "Star Wars* style action, complete with a nasty villain and blood.

Subtle layerings? Like these?

"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."

"How often mankind has wished for a world as peaceful and secure as the one Landru provided."
"Yes. And we never got it. Just lucky, I guess."

"We share the same history, the same heritage, the same lives. We're tied together beyond any untying. Man or woman, it makes no difference. We're human."

"We all have our darker side. We need it! It's half of what we are. It's not really ugly. It's human."

"Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate."

"Maybe we weren't meant for paradise."

In TOS, the moral was often whammed into your face with a healthy side of phaser action.

 

[Sindatur]

Well to be fair, I didn't write that. I was quoting someone else.

Yea I read that, but, if you don't want the quotes challenged, why post them?

 

[Opus]

I wonder, why are you sharing these? This is not a snide remark, I'm just curious as to what you wish for us to do with them. Discuss them?

Absolutely discuss them. They are from Trek fans on another board. Any agreement/disagreement? So far people acknowledge that perhaps STiD has more redeemable qualities than first thought, which is good.

In TOS, the moral was often whammed into your face with a healthy side of phaser action.

I agree. It was ham-handed most of the time. Was this the case at all with STiD?

Yea I read that, but, if you don't want the quotes challenged, why post them?

I do want them challenged. Or agree.

Some on the STiD creative team indeed were fans. Abrams was not, however. And he's steering the ship, after all.

 

[Ln X]

Yea I read that, but, if you don't want the quotes challenged, why post them?

I do want them challenged. Or agree.

Some on the STiD creative team indeed were fans. Abrams was not, however. And he's steering the ship, after all.

You mean you want to forcibly change the opinions of those Trek fans who did not like the movie?

 

[Opus]

Do you agree with these statements about the movies I've posted, or are the bunk? Not trying to force anyone's opinion to change.

 

[Sindatur]

I wonder, why are you sharing these? This is not a snide remark, I'm just curious as to what you wish for us to do with them. Discuss them?

Absolutely discuss them. They are from Trek fans on another board. Any agreement/disagreement? So far people acknowledge that perhaps STiD has more redeemable qualities than first thought, which is good.

In TOS, the moral was often whammed into your face with a healthy side of phaser action.

I agree. It was ham-handed most of the time. Was this the case at all with STiD?

Yea I read that, but, if you don't want the quotes challenged, why post them?

I do want them challenged. Or agree.

Some on the STiD creative team indeed were fans. Abrams was not, however. And he's steering the ship, after all.

Ah, OK. the way you replied "To be fair, I'm just quoting someone else" seemed like you were offended that I asked if that was bit about the screenplay writer(s) having to be forced to watch some Trek was true. Sorry about that