I agree, though he was a lieutenant.
Again, completely fair, but from a character point of view? Yeah, Kelvin Kirk's journey is top of my list for character journeys in Trek.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
He was a lieutenant? My bad
Still, I thought the journey was too fast. If he became captain at the end of Into Darkness then I could buy it.
Also I don't care for the Spock Uhura romance. Especially in Into Darkness
Easy to miss but it's on one of the displays during the jump. Also, per naval rules, he was inserted in to the chain of command and eligible to move up and down it.
Agreed.
Probably should come as no surprise that I enjoy Spock's journey, including his romance, quite well as well.
I guess I prefer less romance in my trek, but I just don't find the romance believable. And Into Darkness reduced her to a nagging girlfriend.
Into Darkness is my least favorite in terms of Uhura/Spock but it felt more realistic to me not that she was nagging but because she didn't know of any other way to get him to open up. He didn't even when he faced death. I don't know; guess I relate with Spock.
I do prefer less romance in my Trek as well, but this is one of the few examples I find enjoyable enough.
I just don't like the "why aren't you paying attention to me" girlfriend trope where the guy won't open up. It's cliche even by then. Honestly Into Darkness handled its female characters poorly IMO
Personally, and this is just me, I've lived that life, and I've seen the impact on the couples I work with in terms of counseling. So, far from a trope it's one of the most relatable things I've seen in Trek in a while (at the time, at least).
I do agree that more could have been done with the female characters but this is one trope that doesn't bother me because I see it in real life.
Rewatching TNG and by the time I get to season five I seriously start skipping episodes. There are some excellent episodes in s5 onwards but the series also lost something and I’m not sure what…? Maybe the sheer lack of narrative drive or purpose outside of strictly episodic storytelling. I don’t feel the writers really thought beyond the next episode or two. Which I guess simply makes the show a product of its time. The severe downturn in the music following the loss of Ron Jones didn’t help.
I’ve also noticed that around the time s5 began they did something to the photography. It looks like there’s a yellow/orange filter over the camera which gives everything a yellowy glow; particularly noticeable in the bridge scenes but others too. Did anyone else notice this?
I’ve also noticed that around the time s5 began they did something to the photography. It looks like there’s a yellow/orange filter over the camera which gives everything a yellowy glow; particularly noticeable in the bridge scenes but others too. Did anyone else notice this?
Fair enough, but to reduce Uhura mostly just to that is what really bugged me
Again, I agree. But that doesn't make the relationship lesser in my view.
Uhura could have done more, and I think 2009 did the best in terms of an ensemble and really showing the characters and their strengths. Into Darkness needed some reworking to make that work better.
I had forgotten about that and I just watched Journey to Babel about two days ago…
It sort of is, but is also isn’t, because of all the continuity references in all of them (self explanatory in ‘09 and Into Darkness, and Beyond also has significant callbacks to ENT, for example). The Abramsverse films are a mass of contradictions.
If I remember right, in the commentary for the movie that was on the Blu-Ray, Abrams talks about showing the movie to other filmmakers, and I believe it was Edgar Wright who HATED Pine's version of Kirk and thought he was an arrogant jerk in some of the initial cuts.
And if you go back and watch the movie now, there is something to be said about the Kelvin Universe version of Kirk being based on the popular conception of the character and not exactly what William Shatner actually did with Kirk during the show.
Beyond is one of the best Star Trek movies made.
Well of course, but that's on purpose and part of the narrative conceit. Kirk is rudderless. Pike straight up asks him "Do you like being the only genius level repeat offender?" You can see that Kirk has a chip on his shoulder about his dad, from Pike's question, to Spock's jab, to Nimoy's Spock hitting the truth. It's a wonderfully constructed arc, based in a lot of psychological cases I've read, and it works. It's an amazing human story and will always be my favorite Trek character arc.
What would that be then? Most Romulans we see are in the military, spies or diplomats. I think "Unification" might be one of the few times we see common Romulans until Picard.
Hell, a lot of Romulans in the franchise don't act "Romulan." This is nothing new.
Nero and Ayel in the 2009 movie were pretty savage even for emotional Romulans.
Nero and Ayel in the 2009 movie were pretty savage even for emotional Romulans.
The PTB believe viewers are like squirrels who like shiny objects and kids who like loud firecrackers, so if they can make something as "bright" and "explosive" as possible, they feel that's what will attract viewers. That did not work with modern ST, but that's the "creative" impulse behind current productions.
TOs did not have anything approaching "cardboard" sets, but designs--particularly for the 1701--that were advanced for their era and influenced generations of sci-fi designs. The visual strength of TOS was the reason it was so seamlessly blended into shows produced decades later, such as DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" and ENT's "Through a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter.
I guess the Romulans were never fleshed out enough to be certain but I mean it in the sense of acting with a recognizable personality without being flanderized. Compare Garak and Dukat, or Kira and Kai Winn. Both are of the same species but not the exact same person.
Similar threads
- Locked
