Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

[BillJ]

Everyone who is here is a Star Trek fan, interested in discussing Star Trek. That doesn't come with any kind of obligation to always be positive or to just never discuss the things you didn't like.

But there's a point in time where people need to let go of the negativity. Should I rush into the Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise forums to harp on how shitty I found those shows (overall), how poor their creative staffs were and how they all had dwindling ratings over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Why does anyone need to continually piss on something other people enjoy?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

That they WERE keeping it from their own command? That's part of the movie, and what I said logically follows from that.

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.

 

[BigJake]

If you believe Our Heroes have any idea what they're doing then it seems reasonable to assume that they had a good reason for doing what they did.

You tried this before, and again, I don't think it works. One of the most basic rules of storytelling is "show, don't tell." To be merely told that our heroes know what they're about Because The Writers Say So is bad writing, particularly when you have to engage in speculative gyrations or simply switch your brain off to make it jive with what is happening on the screen.

 

[BillJ]

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.

Kirk always had a bit of disrespect for those in positions of power over him. What we see in "Into Darkness" isn't anything new. What he lacks is the seasoning that the Prime Universe version of the character has, so he is a bit more "in your face" about how he feels and reacts to those above him.

 

[shapeshifter]

Not very original, First Contact used a moon to hide the Enterprise from the Vulcans.

Actually the "hiding behind / in a moon" device dates back to The Wrath of Khan. (Extra TWOK reference points!)

So re-using an already overused idea is "better writing"

 

[F. King Daniel]

That they WERE keeping it from their own command? That's part of the movie, and what I said logically follows from that.

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.

Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Everyone who is here is a Star Trek fan, interested in discussing Star Trek. That doesn't come with any kind of obligation to always be positive or to just never discuss the things you didn't like.

But there's a point in time where people need to let go of the negativity. Should I rush into the Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise forums to harp on how shitty I found those shows (overall), how poor their creative staffs were and how they all had dwindling ratings over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Why does anyone need to continually piss on something other people enjoy?

If you want to discuss any of those things, and can find other people who want to discuss them with you, would you want me barging in on all of you, telling you all 'It's done, just get over it already!'?

If people want to talk about the things they didn't like about something, they have every right to do so. Don't they?

Even beyond that, how would you even define this 'point' at which people should just leave the negativity behind? Exactly when does that happen?

And how are you defining this idea that there are people 'continually piss[ing] on something other people enjoy'?

When I engage in a handful of threads specifically created for discussing the quality of these specific movies, stating my opinion (including the positive aspects of the films) and then continue to defend my position (mainly re the negative aspects, since that's where the discussion focussed itself) in exactly the same way that other posters continue to defend theirs, is that really all it takes to constitute 'pissing' on things? And how long do I have to keep participating in the discussion before I have been pissing 'continuously'?

I mean, I only saw STID for the first time last week, so I guess I'll need to get all my pissing done asap before my criticism window runs out...

 

[BigJake]

So re-using an already overused idea is "better writing"

I didn't say it was "overused." It's an idea that makes organic sense in the setting and has come up more than once for a reason. As long as it's given a fresh twist and execution, and as opposed to hiding a ship on the bottom of an ocean because of reasons, yes, I think it's better writing. (Admittedly not a high bar to clear.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.

Kirk always had a bit of disrespect for those in positions of power over him. What we see in "Into Darkness" isn't anything new. What he lacks is the seasoning that the Prime Universe version of the character has, so he is a bit more "in your face" about how he feels and reacts to those above him.

That makes a reasonable amount of sense, for me. Yet, it makes the film rather more problematic, not less - since this kind of attitude, especially to such an extreme degree, simply shouldn't be tolerated by an organization like Starfleet.

That they WERE keeping it from their own command? That's part of the movie, and what I said logically follows from that.

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.

Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.

 

[BillJ]

If you want to discuss any of those things, and can find other people who want to discuss them with you, would you want me barging in on all of you, telling you all 'It's done, just get over it already!'?

I'd hope someone would tell me to get over myself and grow the fuck up. YMMV.

But even then, there are respectful ways to deal with the issues you want to discuss. I've seen "bad writing" thrown around so often by people who simply can't define what "bad writing" is and then acting like those who defend the film are ignorant hicks whose only reading gets done when jerking off to a Playboy in the outhouse.

 

[BillJ]

That makes a reasonable amount of sense, for me. Yet, it makes the film rather more problematic, not less - since this kind of attitude, especially to such an extreme degree, simply shouldn't be tolerated by an organization like Starfleet.

But the whole reason Pike recruited Kirk in the first place was to give Starfleet a kick in its complacency.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

If you want to discuss any of those things, and can find other people who want to discuss them with you, would you want me barging in on all of you, telling you all 'It's done, just get over it already!'?

I'd hope someone would tell me to get over myself and grow the fuck up. YMMV.

But even then, there are respectful ways to deal with the issues you want to discuss. I've seen "bad writing" thrown around so often by people who simply can't define what "bad writing" is and then acting like those who defend the film are ignorant hicks whose only reading gets done when jerking off to a Playboy in the outhouse.

I think you're overstating some of the other posters' attitudes.

But regardless, I've seen rather nebulous claims of the last two films being 'the best' Trek films ever being bantied about quite often, as well. Plenty of people occasionally have trouble explaining exactly what they're trying to say - especially when the people they're trying to explain it to aren't entirely open to it in the first place. (That's not a criticism of these particular film's defenders - it applies equally in both directions, imo)

Maybe that makes all these discussions pointless and redundant, but it clearly doesn't stop people from feeling the need to continue discussing it all anyway.

That makes a reasonable amount of sense, for me. Yet, it makes the film rather more problematic, not less - since this kind of attitude, especially to such an extreme degree, simply shouldn't be tolerated by an organization like Starfleet.

But the whole reason Pike recruited Kirk in the first place was to give Starfleet a kick in its complacency.

Which, personally, I regard as yet another problematic plot point in regards to the question of whether Kirk really deserves his command at this point in the story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.

Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.

Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.

Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?

Yep,Kirk's been a rule bender and breaker since TOS. So has Spock. Kirk was constantly tweaking the noses and rubbing the wrong way authority figures from Earth to the edge of the Galaxy. Audiences like fictional heroes who buck authority. Reality is less kind to rebels.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.

Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?

I know Kirk's anti-authority history - but that Kirk stood up for his decisions and faced the consequences. He didn't try to sweep everything under the rug like a teenager hiding his playboys. An ability to think independently, even when that means questioning your own orders is clearly a desired quality in Starfleet captains (and rightly so, given how many insane admirals we've seen) - but when you turn that into Kirk ignoring his orders while at the same time casually trying to convince Starfleet he's doing everything by the book, that's basically saying that Starfleet doesn't even matter to him. Like its beneath him, because he clearly knows best in all things.

That's not the kind of personality you want in control of a starship.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

So does anyone else remember when this thread was about whether or not it was a good idea to bring back the Prime Universe and NOT about complaining about either or both Star Trek (2009) or Star Trek Into Darkness?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.

Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?

I know Kirk's anti-authority history - but that Kirk stood up for his decisions and faced the consequences. He didn't try to sweep everything under the rug like a teenager hiding his playboys. An ability to think independently, even when that means questioning your own orders is clearly a desired quality in Starfleet captains (and rightly so, given how many insane admirals we've seen) - but when you turn that into Kirk ignoring his orders while at the same time casually trying to convince Starfleet he's doing everything by the book, that's basically saying that Starfleet doesn't even matter to him. Like its beneath him, because he clearly knows best in all things.

That's not the kind of personality you want in control of a starship.

You must hate Spock then, who on two occasions falsified orders to follow a personal agenda. Not to mention trying to kill his CO on at least two occasions! Why is he still in Starfleet?

I wonder if Kirk told Starfleet he disobeyed orders in "Amok Time"? Or did he just pretend he got the revised orders and then proceeded to Vulcan? He also agreed to hide Cochrane's where abouts and the circumstances of Hedford's death.

 

[BigJake]

So does anyone else remember when this thread was about whether or not it was a good idea to bring back the Prime Universe and NOT about complaining about either or both Star Trek (2009) or Star Trek Into Darkness?

You mean, before post #7?

I voted I want it back. Into Darkness bugged me too much to vote anything else.

Reaction to the films is kind of unavoidably built into the question for a lot respondents, it would seem to me. Though I do feel that maybe the film discussion could use a break.

On the question of the thread, I did not vote in favor of the Prime Universe on the poll. Whatever problems there might be with the BadRobot films, they made the TOS setting relevant again. As primarily a fan of that setting (and someone who felt the Berman-era franchise had gotten stale and overcrowded) I can only see that as ultimately a good thing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.

Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?

I know Kirk's anti-authority history - but that Kirk stood up for his decisions and faced the consequences. He didn't try to sweep everything under the rug like a teenager hiding his playboys. An ability to think independently, even when that means questioning your own orders is clearly a desired quality in Starfleet captains (and rightly so, given how many insane admirals we've seen) - but when you turn that into Kirk ignoring his orders while at the same time casually trying to convince Starfleet he's doing everything by the book, that's basically saying that Starfleet doesn't even matter to him. Like its beneath him, because he clearly knows best in all things.

That's not the kind of personality you want in control of a starship.

He did sweep things under the rug. From "Flashback"...

JANEWAY: You may be right. Nevertheless, I've been studying the Excelsior logs.

KIM: What do they say?

JANEWAY: Unfortunately, they don't say anything at all.

KIM: Nothing?

JANEWAY: It would seem that Captain Sulu decided not to enter that journey into his official log. The day's entry makes some cryptic remark about the ship being damaged in a gaseous anomaly and needing repairs, but nothing else.

KIM: You mean he falsified his logs?

JANEWAY: It was a very different time, Mister Kim. Captain Sulu, Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy. They all belonged to a different breed of Starfleet officer. Imagine the era they lived in. The Alpha Quadrant still largely unexplored. Humanity on verge of war with Klingons. Romulans hiding behind every nebula. Even the technology we take for granted was still in its early stages. No plasma weapons, no multiphasic shields. Their ships were half as fast.

KIM: No replicators, no holodecks. You know, ever since I took Starfleet history at the academy, I always wondered what it would be like to live in those days.

JANEWAY: Space must have seemed a whole lot bigger back then. It's not surprising they had to bend the rules a little. They were a little slower to invoke the Prime Directive, and a little quicker to pull their phasers. Of course, the whole bunch of them would be booted out of Starfleet today. But I have to admit, I would have loved to ride shotgun at least once with a group of officers like that.

http://www.chakoteya.net/voyager/225.htm

 

[SeerSGB]

Perhaps they were underwater, and flying shuttles around beneath ash clouds, to keep Starfleet and their long-range satellites from seeing Kirk break the prime directive?

Finally we start explaining plot holes by making the characters look bad.

So, SOP for explaining anything in Trek?