ST09 - 5 years

[Smellmet]

I'm glad you agree with me (at least on this point).

But I don't agree that it represents anymore of an issue than every other plot contrivance that has littered Star Trek since its inception. I like the Abrams films. They are big and fun.

I'm not speaking of plot holes, I'm talking about all the scenes which require every character involved to be complete morons for them to work. Take the example I cited, when Kirk attacks the two security guards. After we've firmly established that his objective is to convince the crew, but particularly now-Captain Spock, to alter course and intercept Nero, and that Spock does not intend to do that, Kirk flips out and attacks the two security guards. How is this supposed to advance his objectives? Does he expect that the rest of the crew will witness him beating up the guards and come to the conclusion that his plan of action is therefore the correct one?

The only explanation for that scene is that Kirk is a complete idiot. I wonder how anyone can watch that scene and then come to the conclusion that Chris Pine's Kirk is a perfect adaptation of William Shatner's. I don't recall the latter ever doing something quite like that.

Things like that. On a vastly different level than anything we've seen in Star Trek before, on the big or small screen.

'Don't call me tiny'

You mean like that? When Kirk is desperate to accomplish something at any cost?

 

[Franklin]

I'm glad you agree with me (at least on this point).

But I don't agree that it represents anymore of an issue than every other plot contrivance that has littered Star Trek since its inception. I like the Abrams films. They are big and fun.

I'm not speaking of plot holes, I'm talking about all the scenes which require every character involved to be complete morons for them to work. Take the example I cited, when Kirk attacks the two security guards. After we've firmly established that his objective is to convince the crew, but particularly now-Captain Spock, to alter course and intercept Nero, and that Spock does not intend to do that, Kirk flips out and attacks the two security guards. How is this supposed to advance his objectives? Does he expect that the rest of the crew will witness him beating up the guards and come to the conclusion that his plan of action is therefore the correct one?

The only explanation for that scene is that Kirk is a complete idiot. I wonder how anyone can watch that scene and then come to the conclusion that Chris Pine's Kirk is a perfect adaptation of William Shatner's. I don't recall the latter ever doing something quite like that.

Things like that. On a vastly different level than anything we've seen in Star Trek before, on the big or small screen.

Remember the Kirk in ST09 is ten years younger than the Kirk we first meet in TOS. He's about 30 years younger than Kirk in TWOK (where even with his experience, I think he made the worst and most tragic mistake of his career in not raising his shields, also revealing his worst trait, occasional hubris).
A genius learning to think, the young ST09 Kirk was mostly still a cocky brawler who found himself trapped in a corner and lashed out fighting. Was it irrational? Probably. Was it in character? At that moment in his immature life, I'd say so.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

But I don't agree that it represents anymore of an issue than every other plot contrivance that has littered Star Trek since its inception. I like the Abrams films. They are big and fun.

I'm not speaking of plot holes, I'm talking about all the scenes which require every character involved to be complete morons for them to work. Take the example I cited, when Kirk attacks the two security guards. After we've firmly established that his objective is to convince the crew, but particularly now-Captain Spock, to alter course and intercept Nero, and that Spock does not intend to do that, Kirk flips out and attacks the two security guards. How is this supposed to advance his objectives? Does he expect that the rest of the crew will witness him beating up the guards and come to the conclusion that his plan of action is therefore the correct one?

The only explanation for that scene is that Kirk is a complete idiot. I wonder how anyone can watch that scene and then come to the conclusion that Chris Pine's Kirk is a perfect adaptation of William Shatner's. I don't recall the latter ever doing something quite like that.

Things like that. On a vastly different level than anything we've seen in Star Trek before, on the big or small screen.

Remember the Kirk in ST09 is ten years younger than the Kirk we first meet in TOS. He's about 30 years younger than Kirk in TWOK (where even with his experience, I think he made the worst and most tragic mistake of his career in not raising his shields, also revealing his worst trait, occasional hubris).
A genius learning to think, the young ST09 Kirk was mostly still a cocky brawler who found himself trapped in a corner and lashed out fighting. Was it irrational? Probably. Was it in character? At that moment in his immature life, I'd say so.

I agree that it was in character, as his character is a complete moron.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

Off topic:

But if the Enterprise raises shields, then there is simply no movie because the Enterprise obliterates the Reliant the moment the latter opens fire.

Really, though,the narrative doesn't require Kirk to not raise shields (against Saavik's advice!). If starship strength is roughly proportional to the size of the vessel, the refit Enterprise is only 7.8% bigger than the Reliant. If the Reliant got off a volley of phaser and torpedo fire before the Enterprise knew what was happening, I'd bet the Reliant would have the upper hand. (Unless starship strength is roughly proportional to prettiness, in which case the Enterprise would indeed wipe the floor with the Reliant.)

On topic, I enjoyed ST09. I guess my main feeling about the film after seeing it for the first time was that it was full of energy and enthusiasm, which was completely the opposite of Nemesis. (No, CGI firefights don't change how that movie felt.) I realized the thematic similarity with Nemesis about midway through ("I aspire" and "I dare you to do better" are basically the same thing), and it was funny how the reboot Romulan movie about nature versus nurture was so much better than the previous Romulan Reman movie about nature versus nurture.

As for nitpicky things, the Enterprise's nacelles just needed to be on straight struts and spaced somewhat further away from each other. Those are minor details, but they would have made the ship look more "right", I guess? It's subjective, but that was my feeling at the time.

I'll also admit to cringing when Kirk orders the Enterprise to destroy the crippled Narada, though in retrospect, Kirk basically kills a genocidal maniac so that doesn't bother me anymore.

There are a fair number of plot contrivances, but I'll just chalk that up to the Lucky E. (Off topic again, after BOBW, ST:FC, ST:NEM, and ST09, I'd probably fake engine problems whenever the Enterprise is around. This probably also explains the lack of any other ships near the final battle between Vengeance and Enterprise.)

But at the end of the day, I enjoyed ST09. I probably could nitpick it until it died in my mind from a thousand cuts, but I don't see the need. Now, I'm going to find time to watch it again.

 

[BillJ]

Really, though,the narrative doesn't require Kirk to not raise shields (against Saavik's advice!). If starship strength is roughly proportional to the size of the vessel, the refit Enterprise is only 7.8% bigger than the Reliant. If the Reliant got off a volley of phaser and torpedo fire before the Enterprise knew what was happening, I'd bet the Reliant would have the upper hand. (Unless starship strength is roughly proportional to prettiness, in which case the Enterprise would indeed wipe the floor with the Reliant.)

The Enterprise damn near cripples the Reliant with a few phaser bursts from her batteries, once the shields are down. Enterprise would've mopped the floor with Reliant in a straight up battle.

 

[Franklin]

I'm not speaking of plot holes, I'm talking about all the scenes which require every character involved to be complete morons for them to work. Take the example I cited, when Kirk attacks the two security guards. After we've firmly established that his objective is to convince the crew, but particularly now-Captain Spock, to alter course and intercept Nero, and that Spock does not intend to do that, Kirk flips out and attacks the two security guards. How is this supposed to advance his objectives? Does he expect that the rest of the crew will witness him beating up the guards and come to the conclusion that his plan of action is therefore the correct one?

The only explanation for that scene is that Kirk is a complete idiot. I wonder how anyone can watch that scene and then come to the conclusion that Chris Pine's Kirk is a perfect adaptation of William Shatner's. I don't recall the latter ever doing something quite like that.

Things like that. On a vastly different level than anything we've seen in Star Trek before, on the big or small screen.

Remember the Kirk in ST09 is ten years younger than the Kirk we first meet in TOS. He's about 30 years younger than Kirk in TWOK (where even with his experience, I think he made the worst and most tragic mistake of his career in not raising his shields, also revealing his worst trait, occasional hubris).
A genius learning to think, the young ST09 Kirk was mostly still a cocky brawler who found himself trapped in a corner and lashed out fighting. Was it irrational? Probably. Was it in character? At that moment in his immature life, I'd say so.

I agree that it was in character, as his character is a complete moron.

Maybe the writers were hoping that some of us hated the way Kirk was acting so much that we didn't like him right off the bat.

I thought the beauty of the character development throughout the movie was they let the characters be far from perfect and even do some rather stupid or questionable things.

 

[YARN]

I think Kirk's mistake of not raising the shields makes perfect sense pertaining to him (Kirk was arrogant and overconfident, which came back to haunt him a couple times in the movie), so I tend to think of it as a character-based fault rather than writer's convenience.

How many times has lowering shields, or not raising them, or otherwise not taking what could be perceived as aggressive action been the right move by Kirk?

In "The Ultimate Computer," Kirk gambles and lowers his shields and Commodore Wesley breaks off his attack. By the book, Wesley should have taken advantage of the one moment he had to stop the Enterprise, but his humanity (which Kirk was gambling on) causes him to pause and call of the attack.

In TMP Kirk does not return scans or go to battle stations (screens and shields) to avoid giving the impression of an offensive posture, contrary to his procedurally minded XO (after the Klingons provoked V'Ger directly and after Epsilon 9 reports that their scans might be being received as hostile shortly before they get de-resed).

In The Corbomite Maneuver, Kirk does not beat a hasty retreat or attempt to harm his aggressive captor when his ship appears to fail, but rather puts himself at risk by attempting to help Balok.

In TWoK it is a mistake in terms of the "by the book" proceduralism with which Lt. Saavik is so fixated and it was a mistake congtingently; it just so happened that in this case a sister Starship was an actual threat. Khan, however, was right in reasoning that a Starship Captain would not see a sister ship as a threat. They really were "one big happy fleet." Khan wasn't counting on Kirk's arrogance per se, but rather the general presumption any Starfleet captain would be operating under. And it's not like he needed to keep the ruse up forever, just enough time to sucker punch Enterprise with a full broadside. Khan gambled on Kirk's humanity, the assumption of goodwill, in much the same way that Kirk gambled on Wesley's.

Kirk not raising the shields is not Kirk making a rookie move or getting senile, but rather is a moment designed to show Kirk's uncertainty, to show the flip side of all those risks he's taken over the years (as McCoy asks in the same film "Can all your guesses be right?"). The point is to get him to second-guess himself and get him to confront, in his advancing years, his mortality.

The point is not that Kirk is some bumbling idiot, but rather that he is mortal, and that his weaknesses as a character are related to his strengths. In the Song of Roland, for example, the greatest of all of Charlemagne's knights refuses to blow a horn to call for help. He does this, in part, out of pride, but also because his job as the rear guard is to make sure that the King and the rest of his company make a clean exit from Spain. Valiant Roland waits a little too long to blow the horn (he was betrayed by another of his peers and gets ambushed) and the rear guard gets obliterated. Yes, Roland should have blown the horn, but we have to remember that Roland's strength lies in his willingness to do his duty facing bad odds.

Kirk is in a risky business and his success stems from his brilliance as a risk-taker. Kirk makes unconventional chess moves (literally and figuratively) and is not afraid to bluff a weak poker hand. With Kirk as our captain, as a Uhura notes in TMP, "our chances of coming back from this mission in one piece may have just doubled." Kirk is THE MAN, but he is also, just a man.

I think a lot of people watch TWoK and misperceive Kirk as repeating the dumb moves he initially makes in TMP (warping into wormholes and getting lost in the ship's corridor's). If you do so, it is easy to see this moment in TWoK as a mere character fault. Arrogant Kirk flaunting procedure, etc. This is, however, not what TWoK is trying to tell us. It is not that Kirk is a fool, but rather that Kirk finally has to confront failure, aging, and death. He has to, for the first time, really confront the flip side of all those guesses. It's not that our hero is not our hero, but that he has finally been forced to inspect his own clay feet, and it's terrifying.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I didn't enjoy watching this very much when I saw it in the theater, but there were aspects about it that I admired and such. The biggest plus was finally getting a Trek film with jovial energy to it, which was refreshing after the very tired NEMESIS. But like that notorious film, it suffers from a lot of the same issues (too many plot contrivances, dumb characters, ect), the only difference being that that film felt like a reunion that nobody wanted to attend whereas Abrams' is a rave party with the most insufferable people collected, except for Bruce Greenwood.

As far as sci-fi films in 2009 goes, my favorite is probably MOON. It was a real treat to watch that on the big screen after how disappointed I was over nuTrek.

 

[Amaris]

I went in hoping it would be "decent." If it would have just been decent, I would have been fine. For me, though, it wasn't just "decent," it was a thrill ride moving at a thousand miles a minute; we had new people playing younger, classic characters, new situations, aboard a new ship that was just familiar enough to warm the cockles of my fanboy heart, and an ending that promised more to come. In short, I loved it. It blew the doors off of what I was expecting.

I knew what I was in for, after the first 10 minutes of the film. The intro left chills going up my spine. Honestly, the screen could have went dark, and the movie over, and I would have been thrilled with the end result. That opening was spectacular, and I have no problem calling it the best Trek movie opener in the franchise's history.

Star Trek '09 and Star Trek Into Darkness still duke it out as to which is my favorite movie. They're both fun, spectacular, wild, and adventurous thrill rides, with a lot of heart, and great characters. I can't wait until the third installment.

 

[BillJ]

How many times has lowering shields, or not raising them, or otherwise not taking what could be perceived as aggressive action been the right move by Kirk?

But here it makes absolutely no sense. If the Reliant is truly having issues, then the Captain isn't going to be offended because they know the regulations. Otherwise, the ship is being controlled by someone who shouldn't be there and already represents a threat to Enterprise.

Kirk already has a red alert on his hands with someone supposedly ordering Genesis be removed from Regula One. If he knows about Genesis, he likely knows about Reliant being attached to the project. Kirk should've been able to verify through his communication with Starfleet Command that no one was authorized to remove Genesis from Regula One.

Fake orders with his name attached, communications with Regula One being jammed at the source plus the starship attached to the project refusing to respond to proper protocols equals raising your shields until you verify what is going on.

Trying to spin it any other way is someone just trying to make excuses for Kirk (and the writers of the movie). The movie requires Kirk to act in a way that flies in the face of common sense in order to move forward. Even if rusty, there's no way Admiral Kirk should make such an incredibly rookie mistake. I say this as someone who ranks Kirk as their absolute favorite Star Trek character and probably my favorite entertainment character of all-time.

 

[StarMan]

All I can say after 5 years is... What fantastic teaser!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkZFWr0vR8Q

The result was regrettably a smeared patch of hyena shit on the twat of an eviscerated baboon left to bake in the sun. However, YMMV.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

Trying to spin it any other way is someone just trying to make excuses for Kirk (and the writers of the movie). The movie requires Kirk to act in a way that flies in the face of common sense in order to move forward. Even if rusty, there's no way Admiral Kirk should make such an incredibly rookie mistake. I say this as someone who ranks Kirk as their absolute favorite Star Trek character and probably my favorite entertainment character of all-time.

Yeah, given Kirk's history as a competent officer, it would have made more sense to have Khan lower the Enterprise's shields with her code (to actually have a scene where Khan does demonstrate some of his proclaimed intellect), and then have Kirk pull the same trick on Khan like he does in the movie.

 

[BillJ]

Trying to spin it any other way is someone just trying to make excuses for Kirk (and the writers of the movie). The movie requires Kirk to act in a way that flies in the face of common sense in order to move forward. Even if rusty, there's no way Admiral Kirk should make such an incredibly rookie mistake. I say this as someone who ranks Kirk as their absolute favorite Star Trek character and probably my favorite entertainment character of all-time.

Yeah, given Kirk's history as a competent officer, it would have made more sense to have Khan lower the Enterprise's shields with her code (to actually have a scene where Khan does demonstrate some of his proclaimed intellect), and then have Kirk pull the same trick on Khan like he does in the movie.

That entire section of the movie should have been rewritten if we hold The Wrath of Khan to the same standard as some are holding Star Trek Into Darkness to.

 

[Set Harth]

Abrams' is a rave party with the most insufferable people collected

Isn't that a little redundant?

 

[Mach5]

It was bad. But I fucking loved it. Although I loved STiD more. It too was bad, though.

It's not a cognitive dissonance thing, really. I honestly loved these movies.

 

[YARN]

How many times has lowering shields, or not raising them, or otherwise not taking what could be perceived as aggressive action been the right move by Kirk?

But here it makes absolutely no sense.

Sure it does. Kirk has habituated into being a "communicate first" type of guy.

If the Reliant is truly having issues, then the Captain isn't going to be offended because they know the regulations. Otherwise, the ship is being controlled by someone who shouldn't be there and already represents a threat to Enterprise.

I didn't say it was a strategic decision. Kirk was not gambling to get more information or leverage. He was simply trying to figure out what was going on. By the book he should have acted sooner. Our hero has clay feet.

Kirk already has a red alert on his hands with someone supposedly ordering Genesis be removed from Regula One. If he knows about Genesis, he likely knows about Reliant being attached to the project. Kirk should've been able to verify through his communication with Starfleet Command that no one was authorized to remove Genesis from Regula One.

Meh, communications take place at the speed of plot. What Kirk knew is what the audience knew. That's it.

Fake orders with his name attached, communications with Regula One being jammed at the source plus the starship attached to the project refusing to respond to proper protocols equals raising your shields until you verify what is going on.

Well, it's damned peculiar, isn't it? That's probably why he goes to yellow alert, isn't it? Enterprise energizes her defense fields on this order. What does this mean? Who knows, but it is some sort of precautionary measure and we see a computer read out indicating that the fields have been activated.

If Kirk were totally off his nut, Spock - paragon of logic and regulations - would have said something. Instead, he tells the officious Saavik (quoting General Order 12) to pipe down as they try to figure out what's going on.

Trying to spin it any other way is someone just trying to make excuses for Kirk (and the writers of the movie). The movie requires Kirk to act in a way that flies in the face of common sense in order to move forward. Even if rusty, there's no way Admiral Kirk should make such an incredibly rookie mistake. I say this as someone who ranks Kirk as their absolute favorite Star Trek character and probably my favorite entertainment character of all-time.

LOL, as if anything nuTrek has done even comes close to that first encounter with the Reliant.

Also, you're totally missing the point of the writing. The point was not for Kirk to be totally blameless in the exchange.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

The point I got from that whole movie was that Kirk felt burnt out, was off his game, and has to get his groove back in the end "I feel young". Not lowering the shields in the context of all that makes sense for me. Kirk was very wrong in that moment, but I can understand why given what was laid out prior.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

The point I got from that whole movie was that Kirk felt burnt out, was off his game, and has to get his groove back in the end "I feel young". Not lowering the shields in the context of all that makes sense for me. Kirk was very wrong in that moment, but I can understand why given what was laid out prior.

I can understand the rationale behind having Kirk make the wrong move (although in this case, it's a blunder of monumental proportions). The problem is that Saavik points out the correct course of action just moments prior. In some ways, it was kind of a cheap way to demonstrate Saavik's competency while throwing Kirk's character under the bus. The scene might have been less facepalm-inducing if Saavik didn't let the viewer know that Starfleet had a regulation for that exact scenario. Just let Kirk try to figure out what was going on with his gut instinct and guess wrong.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It's really to bring Kirk down so that we can see him come back up, rather than just throwing him under a bus. What makes it work for me is that Kirk acknowledges this and damns himself for it. Even when Sulu tries to give him a compliment for coming up with that prefix code, Kirk throws it right back "I did nothing!". He may have gotten them out of the pit, but he's fully aware he put himself in it in the first place. If Kirk's error was never addressed after the attack, I would understand why many would have such a big problem with it. There's at least a point to it.

Then there's nuKirk. I never get the sense that he truly learns from mistakes or is even aware of them in ST09. In the end he gets on top thanks to sheer luck, or what others might call "destiny". This is why I put STID ahead of it, because at least in that film when Kirk makes a mistake it bites him in the ass and he learns something from it. It was sloppily done, but it was still refreshing to see this Kirk be put in his place and it made him seem more of a believable person.

 

[YARN]

I can understand the rationale behind having Kirk make the wrong move (although in this case, it's a blunder of monumental proportions). The problem is that Saavik points out the correct course of action just moments prior.

Does she? This is how it goes down

SAAVIK: Sir, may I quote General Order 12: 'On the approach of any vessel, when communications have not been est --

SPOCK: Lieutenant, the Admiral is aware of the Regulations.

SAAVIK: Aye, sir.

KIRK: This is damned peculiar. Yellow alert.

SAAVIK: Energize defense fields.

We never get the full reading of General Order 12. For all we know, it reads "On the approach of any vessel, when communications have not been established, the commanding officer shall order Yellow Alert."

What viewers had seen on the original series was inconsistent with regard to protocol for approaching ships when communication was not established. Consequently, the audience did not have prior knowledge or expectation that what Kirk was doing was necessarily wrong.

Sometimes the Enterprise (in TOS) will jump to "Red Alert" or raise "shields," "deflectors," or "screens" when she encounters a non-communicative ship. This happened in episodes like Corbomite Maneuver, Space Seed, Doomsday Machine, and Omega Glory. Then again, sometimes the Enterprise will not do so. Examples here include Operation Annihilate! (Denovan ship running for the sun), The Tholian Web (Enterprise encounters a non-communicative and strangely green sister starship, the Defiant adrift in space), Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, Mudd's Women, The Way to Eden.

We should also note that on at least three occasions the shields automatically turn on when the ship detects a threat, in addition to one "Double Red Alert" and multiple Yellow Alerts (some of which were accompanied by raising of shields or deflectors or screens).

True, Kirk damns himself later, but he generally tended to blame himself when he lost crewmen. Should he have been more prudent? In this case, yes. But Kirk didn't get to where he was by being overly cautious. He's a by-the-book kind of guy, but also a he's also humanist/altruist who is willing to take risks. We don't know that he broke any rules here, but we do get the sense our hero's intuitive guesses can't all be right.