STID realistic?

[Commishsleer]

... it made Uhura a much less appealing character where she is not only bringing unnecessary baggage on an away mission but that she blatantly dismisses her captain with the "no, just give me one second!" As a captain, I would have snapped at her for such insubordination. It's the kind of behavior I expect from a typical summer blockbuster featuring a badly written romance subplot, not Star Trek.

Kirk had already confessed while on duty that Uhura's boyfriend was 'driving him nuts' (my pharaphrasing). So Kirk's setting the tone of personal interactions here.

In ST09 Kirk blatantly disrespected the acting Captain (Spock) and tried to fight him on one ocassion and then instigated a fight with the acting Captain by taunting him with his failure to save his Mother . All while on duty.
You can say the end justifies the means but Kirk has established the type of discipline on board.

Uhura's insubordination seems minor in comparison.

I respect your right to dislike the romance though.

 

[Timewalker]

^Just because he did it first, that's no reason for her to continue.

It comes down to one's expectations of Trek. I remember the TOS where Kirk shagged his way across the galaxy, solved problems with fist fights, where Scotty started bar brawls over slurs against a spaceship and where he once tried to drink an invading alien under the table.

Kirk's "shagging" consisted mostly of flirting. There are only 3 instances when we know for sure that he actually had sex with one of the guest characters: Miramanee (rather obvious, since she became pregnant), Deela, and Drusilla. If you add in the movies, there's Carol Marcus. In all other instances, there's no evidence that they actually had sex (although it would be reasonable to assume that he did with several of his old girlfriends, that was never shown nor mentioned by either character).

 

[BillJ]

I remember feeling that their "romance" in the 2009 film was very off putting, but eventually I thought I could roll with it and see where it goes. Where it went in STID is something I very much disliked and only reinforced my belief that this pairing doesn't work and should just be dropped immediately, especially since it made Uhura a much less appealing character where she is not only bringing unnecessary baggage on an away mission but that she blatantly dismisses her captain with the "no, just give me one second!" As a captain, I would have snapped at her for such insubordination. It's the kind of behavior I expect from a typical summer blockbuster featuring a badly written romance subplot, not Star Trek.

I felt exactly the opposite. I liked that they mined TOS for material but that the romance in Star Trek 2009 simply didn't work. In Star Trek Into Darkness it felt much more like a real relationship.

I always thought of the "stack of books with legs" thing to simply refer to the younger Kirk, not actually representing the Kirk we see in TOS. I actually like that idea better than Frat Boy Kirk.

Thing is, everyone goes through their periods of immaturity as they grow up.

Kirk committed what would be considered a major crime today by hacking into the Starfleet Academy computers in order to alter the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Then he obviously went through a string of women at some point including Carol Marcus (there's some debate whether or not she's the "little blond lab technician" from Where No Man...), Ruth, Janet Wallace, Janice Lester and Areel Shaw. Kirk also had no issues with pushing or disrespecting people of higher authority than himself while in command of the Enterprise in several episodes of TOS.

Carol Marcus was right, "Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a Boy Scout."

Look, you people seem to want me to like the movie, you'd prefer I stop posting negative things about it, so it would help achieve these things if you would help me understand the damn thing when I ask for explanations.

I don't care whether you like the Abramsverse movies or not. But if you're going to dislike them, at least dislike them for what's actually in the films not what you think is or isn't in them.

 

[BigJake]

I don't care whether you like the Abramsverse movies or not.

You have to give it to him: if there's one thing BillJ is known for, it's indifference to whether somebody likes the Abramstrek movies.

 

[BillJ]

I don't care whether you like the Abramsverse movies or not.

You have to give it to him: if there's one thing BillJ is known for, it's indifference to whether somebody likes the Abramstrek movies.

I'm consistent.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Just because he did it first, that's no reason for her to continue.

It comes down to one's expectations of Trek. I remember the TOS where Kirk shagged his way across the galaxy, solved problems with fist fights, where Scotty started bar brawls over slurs against a spaceship and where he once tried to drink an invading alien under the table.

Kirk's "shagging" consisted mostly of flirting. There are only 3 instances when we know for sure that he actually had sex with one of the guest characters: Miramanee (rather obvious, since she became pregnant), Deela, and Drusilla. If you add in the movies, there's Carol Marcus. In all other instances, there's no evidence that they actually had sex (although it would be reasonable to assume that he did with several of his old girlfriends, that was never shown nor mentioned by either character).

It was the 1960's, of course they didn't show as much as they can today. If we're gonna be nitpicky, we only saw nuKirk kissing Gaila while in bed together in their underwear. Ditto the cat girls in ID.

34-year-old PrimeKirk seduced the 19-year-old Lenore Karidian. Or was he just using her and the others for his own ends? Isn't that actually worse?

 

[BigJake]

It was the 1960's, of course they didn't show as much as they can today. If we're gonna be nitpicky, we only saw nuKirk kissing Gaila while in bed together in their underwear. Ditto the cat girls in ID.

Universal Screen Shorthand for sex you don't want to show is having the characters in bed together. It's very old; when TOS wanted to show Kirk had actually shagged somebody they used it too.

34-year-old PrimeKirk seduced the 19-year-old Lenore Karidian. Or was he just using her and the others for his own ends?

Yes, that's usually what he was doing. Skeevy? Totally, but in his defense... it was the Sixties. There were way skeevier dudes around than Kirk...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

34-year-old PrimeKirk seduced the 19-year-old Lenore Karidian. Or was he just using her and the others for his own ends? Isn't that actually worse?

Actually, at most, Kirk only thought he was seducing Lenore; she thought she was seducing him, to butter him up for the kill! Innocent she was not, in any sense of the word!

 

[BillJ]

Actually, at most, Kirk only thought he was seducing Lenore; she thought she was seducing him, to butter him up for the kill! Innocent she was not, in any sense of the word!

Very, very true.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You don't seem to have much familiarity with Star Trek either.

I'm familiar with the forms of Star Trek that matter to me. For the rest, I either ignore it or ask for explanations.

You're in here asking for explanations for things you have clearly ignored. That is a waste of your time and ours.

If you don't like STID, do us all a favor and ignore it. Don't half-watch it and then complain that it sucks just because you don't get it.

^ That seemed to be the whole point of the episode, actually. Jameson's interpretation of the Prime Directive was the same as Kirk's, but there's a bit of fridge horror as you realize that the logical consequence of Kirk arming the second faction means they'll be killing each other by the truckload from here on in. The Federation is therefore at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath.

That's an incomplete description of the premise of A Private Little War.

That's because it's not the premise of "A private little war." It's the premise of "Too Short a Season" which is a variation on that theme.

I remember feeling that their "romance" in the 2009 film was very off putting, but eventually I thought I could roll with it and see where it goes. Where it went in STID is something I very much disliked and only reinforced my belief that this pairing doesn't work and should just be dropped immediately, especially since it made Uhura a much less appealing character where she is not only bringing unnecessary baggage on an away mission but that she blatantly dismisses her captain with the "no, just give me one second!" As a captain, I would have snapped at her for such insubordination.

But that's not the dynamic they have at this point. They all trained together at the academy, they've worked together as long as they've known each other. They are friends as well as coworkers with Kirk being their superior in the working capacity.

That's the tempo of the scene, especially Kirk's "No! No, don't drag me into this! She is right, though." And even the earlier scene "A-Are you guys fighting? Oh my god, what is that even LIKE?"

I have a feeling nothing will change for the next film, and that we might get Frat Boy Kirk despite the ending of STID

Doubtful. I'd bet a month's pay he's going to pull some kind of insane high-flying space stunt in order to save carol's life.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ That seemed to be the whole point of the episode, actually. Jameson's interpretation of the Prime Directive was the same as Kirk's, but there's a bit of fridge horror as you realize that the logical consequence of Kirk arming the second faction means they'll be killing each other by the truckload from here on in. The Federation is therefore at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath.

That's an incomplete description of the premise of A Private Little War.

That's because it's not the premise of "A private little war." It's the premise of "Too Short a Season" which is a variation on that theme.

You said,

"...but there's a bit of fridge horror as you realize that the logical consequence of Kirk arming the second faction means they'll be killing each other by the truckload from here on in. The Federation is therefore at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath."​

Since your final sentence used the word therefore, after following an independent clause that discussed Kirk, it sounded to me that your last sentence was meant to apply to A Private Little War. My point is that I don't think it does, for the reasons I gave.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Pedantic as always, but I'll play along for now.

That's an incomplete description of the premise of A Private Little War.

That's because it's not the premise of "A private little war." It's the premise of "Too Short a Season" which is a variation on that theme.

You said,

"...but there's a bit of fridge horror as you realize that the logical consequence of Kirk arming the second faction means they'll be killing each other by the truckload from here on in. The Federation is therefore at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath."​

Since your final sentence used the word therefore,

And also used the words "fridge horror." In this case, "Too Short a Season" is an expansion on "A Private Little War", addressing the fact that the Federation is at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath.

So Jameson's suffering is his atonement for his part in the tragedy. Karnass' final line is his epitaph: "Your long night, and mine, are now over."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In this case, "Too Short a Season" is an expansion on "A Private Little War", addressing the fact that the Federation is at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath.

Too Short a Season is not an expansion on A Private Little War.

It's similar in certain broad strokes, but there are key differences.

First of all, in Too Short a Season, unlike in A Private Little War, there's no Quadrant-wide adversary vying for control of the planet against the Federation.

Secondly, in Too Short a Season, Jameson supplied weapons to both sides on the planet. On the other hand, in A Private Little War, it was the Klingons who introduced weapons to one side, and the Federation who restored the balance in the only practical way.

Thirdly, the motive for interfering was completely different. Jameson interfered in the interest of rescuing Federation hostages. Kirk interfered in the interest of preventing the extermination of one of the native tribes at the hands of the other armed by the Klingons.

An additional key differences is that Jameson initially expected a short war, and based his actions of arming the natives on that belief, whereas Kirk and McCoy always expected a war that would go on for a very long time.

These differences all fundamentally alter who's responsible for the aftermath. In settling the question of whether and to what degree the Federation is responsible for the aftermath, there's no parallel between the two episodes at all.

Pedantic as always, but I'll play along for now.

Pedantic because I don't agree with you?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

... it made Uhura a much less appealing character where she is not only bringing unnecessary baggage on an away mission but that she blatantly dismisses her captain with the "no, just give me one second!" As a captain, I would have snapped at her for such insubordination. It's the kind of behavior I expect from a typical summer blockbuster featuring a badly written romance subplot, not Star Trek.

Kirk had already confessed while on duty that Uhura's boyfriend was 'driving him nuts' (my pharaphrasing). So Kirk's setting the tone of personal interactions here.

The comparison rings false because when Kirk was expressing that it was in a turbolift, private between the two, before the Enterprise left space dock, not when they were deep in enemy territory.

In ST09 Kirk blatantly disrespected the acting Captain (Spock) and tried to fight him on one ocassion and then instigated a fight with the acting Captain by taunting him with his failure to save his Mother . All while on duty.
You can say the end justifies the means but Kirk has established the type of discipline on board.

I really hated that moment too. Just because Kirk did something like that in the previous film doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to vent out all your shit while flying in Klingon air space!

To make it clear, my problem with the scene was Uhura isn't just that she's whining about her relationship, it's that she's doing it during a very critical moment such as flying into Klingon air space. And as we see, once they get all caught up in their emotions, they suddenly get attacked by Klingons.

 

[BillJ]

Too Short a Season is not an expansion on A Private Little War.

It's similar in certain broad strokes, but there are key differences.

First of all, in Too Short a Season, unlike in A Private Little War, there's no Quadrant-wide adversary vying for control of the planet against the Federation.

Secondly, in Too Short a Season, Jameson supplied weapons to both sides on the planet. On the other hand, in A Private Little War, it was the Klingons who introduced weapons to one side, and the Federation who restored the balance in the only practical way.

Thirdly, the motive for interfering was completely different. Jameson interfered in the interest of rescuing Federation hostages. Kirk interfered in the interest of preventing the extermination of one of the native tribes at the hands of the other armed by the Klingons.

An additional key differences is that Jameson initially expected a short war, and based his actions of arming the natives on that belief, whereas Kirk and McCoy always expected a war that would go on for a very long time.

These differences all fundamentally alter who's responsible for the aftermath. In settling the question of whether and to what degree the Federation is responsible for the aftermath, there's no parallel between the two episodes at all.

This is pretty much spot-on.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Is there any truth to the idea that it was originally supposed to feature Kirk trying to make up for what he did in "A Private Little War"? When you think of it, the whole thing with aging drug was probably introduced to feature Shatner with less make-up as the episode progresses, but somewhere along the line it was decided not to bring back Kirk (especially since Shatner was vocal of TNG) but remake the circumstances and the character ("Jameson" would be an obvious nod to Kirk) yet keep the drug that deages him anyway.

It's something that always intrigued me about "Too Short a Season".

 

[BillJ]

Is there any truth to the idea that it was originally supposed to feature Kirk trying to make up for what he did in "A Private Little War"? When you think of it, the whole thing with aging drug was probably introduced to feature Shatner with less make-up as the episode progresses, but somewhere along the line it was decided not to bring back Kirk (especially since Shatner was vocal of TNG) but remake the circumstances and the character ("Jameson" would be an obvious nod to Kirk) yet keep the drug that deages him anyway.

It's something that always intrigued me about "Too Short a Season".

We had this discussion in another forum not too long ago and we couldn't find any evidence that Too Short a Season was suppose to be a sequel to A Private Little War.

Think the discussion was in the TNG forum.

 

[BigJake]

Is there any truth to the idea that it was originally supposed to feature Kirk trying to make up for what he did in "A Private Little War"

Who knows if somebody may have hoped for that at some point, but I don't think there's any reliable report to that effect. Certainly not the sort of thing I could see Shatner signing on for.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Yeah, still it's a very interesting "what if", something I would have liked to see. However, if that had ever actually happened, that might have hurt any tension for Kirk in the following TOS films.

 

[M'Sharak]

Is there any truth to the idea that it was originally supposed to feature Kirk trying to make up for what he did in "A Private Little War"? When you think of it, the whole thing with aging drug was probably introduced to feature Shatner with less make-up as the episode progresses, but somewhere along the line it was decided not to bring back Kirk (especially since Shatner was vocal of TNG) but remake the circumstances and the character ("Jameson" would be an obvious nod to Kirk) yet keep the drug that deages him anyway.

It's something that always intrigued me about "Too Short a Season".

We had this discussion in another forum not too long ago and we couldn't find any evidence that Too Short a Season was suppose to be a sequel to A Private Little War.

Think the discussion was in the TNG forum.

This one?