2160s or 2390s or?

[T'Girl]

[You do understand that adding an emoticon after every single post you make in an effort to pretend that you're making a joke when you're really not isn't fooling anyone, don't you?

No I really don't understand. I place some form of smiley face at the end of most of my posts (here and elsewhere), at the end of my emails, in social media, and at the bottom of my snail mail letters.

Whether or not humor as included (or attempted) isn't a determining factor. A perfectly serious posting will also conclude with a smiley.

I just like them.

 

[Overgeeked]

I agree with BillJ. And calling your opinion "fact" seems a bit hyperbolic.

No, my opinion isn't a fact. But my opinion is based on facts. Characters behaved one way in TOS and they behaved the opposite in Abrams. Trek has always done largely positive messages, Abrams has put out explicitly opposing messages with his films. On and on. I see no point in making the case again as you seem to be past the point of actually reading or responding to anything you disagree with.

 

[BillJ]

Characters behaved one way in TOS and they behaved the opposite in Abrams.

While I disagree with this assessment, there is fifty year gap between the two incarnations. I find Kirk still being the brash, big risk/big reward leader and Spock as the outsider who plays it cool but is a bubbling cauldron of emotion under the surface. Outside of those two, we honestly don't know much about the others because we only really got superficial details on them during TOS, so they are blank pages for the most part.

Trek has always done largely positive messages, Abrams has put out explicitly opposing messages with his films.

Star Trek (the original), largely did those positive messages as learning exercises. Kirk wanted revenge numerous times and had to learn as he went that wasn't the wisest course of action (sound like anything from one of the Abrams films?). Kirk armed peaceful hill people in order to not lose the planet Neural to the Klingons. Which likely perpetuated a cycle of violence that would last decades, if not centuries. While I don't think he was "wrong", I don't see anything positive there.

The original Star Trek seemed more like a critique of humanity than "lalala everything is perfect" propaganda. And I think that Abrams hit the bullseye there with his interpretation.

On and on. I see no point in making the case again as you seem to be past the point of actually reading or responding to anything you disagree with.

Seems like you guys are on the same page then because you seem to ignore points that don't agree with your premises.

 

[Overgeeked]

The original Star Trek seemed more like a critique of humanity than "lalala everything is perfect" propaganda. And I think that Abrams hit the bullseye there with his interpretation.

TOS was at times an allegory for modern society that played out against the science fiction backdrop of the setting. So the society it was set in was largely quite positive and easily much better than ours today, but the lessons learned by the main cast were often directly applicable to modern life. Granted, many of them were ham-fisted and hammer over the head style treatises on basic morality, "Look kids, racists aliens... don't be racist".

As I've said a few times now, Trek, not just TOS but the franchise almost as a complete whole, has used things like honor, discipline, hard work, team work, intelligence, curiosity, etc and portrayed them as largely positive traits. What positive traits did Kirk exhibit in 2009? Having an idiot for a mentor? Having an alternate reality hold-over reveal his destiny? Stubbornness? Dishonesty? Knowing with utter certainty that he was right and that everyone around him was wrong no matter what? The drive to prove that he was right no matter the cost? Those last few aren't positive traits, I'm afraid. Perseverance and sticking to your guns (to a point) are positive traits, knowing with utter certainty that you're the only one who is right in the universe and being willing to risk the destruction of your home planet to prove it... not so much.

Seems like you guys are on the same page then because you seem to ignore points that don't agree with your premises.

I'm not sure what you mean as I'm reading and responding.

 

[BillJ]

As I've said a few times now, Trek, not just TOS but the franchise almost as a complete whole, has used things like honor, discipline, hard work, team work, intelligence, curiosity, etc and portrayed them as largely positive traits. What positive traits did Kirk exhibit in 2009?

Finishing the Academy in three years would seem to be indicative of a hard worker. But what do I know?

Having an idiot for a mentor?

A starship captain that seemed to have an eye for talent.

Having an alternate reality hold-over reveal his destiny?

I thought it was a clever way to spin the new universe off of the old one.

Stubbornness?

Stubbornness can be both a good and bad quality. It served Kirk well in the Prime timeline as well.

Dishonesty?

The Kirk's of both timeline's cheated a bit. So if you see that as a bad trait in one, it should automatically be seen as a bad trait in the other.

Knowing with utter certainty that he was right and that everyone around him was wrong no matter what? The drive to prove that he was right no matter the cost?

Ever see Star Trek: The Motion Picture? The Search for Spock? Quite a few episodes of TOS? Kirk gambled many, many times that he was right. It was part of what made him a memorable character.

 

[Overgeeked]

Finishing the Academy in three years would seem to be indicative of a hard worker. But what do I know?

He didn't finish the academy in three years. He bragged that he would, jump cut to "three years later" and a few scenes in he's about to be kicked out for dishonesty. No evidence of him successfully completing a four-year program in three years.

A starship captain that seemed to have an eye for talent.

A Starfleet captain who, during a time of extreme jeopardy to not only his ship and crew, but to Starfleet itself (remember they warped into Vulcan and most of the fleet was already destroyed by that point), and to the home planet of at least one founding member of the Federation, decided to risk it all by picking the single least qualified person on the ship to be second in command. The movie was written with a happy ending. But if this were in any way to have played out without Kirk needing to end up in that chair, there'd be a whole lot of dead people on that ship. The problem is the progression doesn't make sense. It all comes down to destiny and bad writing.

I thought it was a clever way to spin the new universe off of the old one.

Using Nimoy as a guest star was great. Changing the tone of Trek from one of hard work, dedication, and relying on your team to accomplish goals into one "you can all go to hell, it's my DESTINY" wasn't.

The Kirk's of both timeline's cheated a bit. So if you see that as a bad trait in one, it should automatically be seen as a bad trait in the other.

Right. And what's the substantive difference between them? In Prime it was a throwaway line that hinted at and nicely fed into the whole death of Spock thing. In 2009 it was a plot point that took up 10-15 minutes of the film. It's one thing for someone to tell you they cheated 20 years ago, it's something different entirely to watch as someone cheats with an arrogant smirk on their face right in front of you. The first is barely a blip, the second make you want to flush the asshat out the nearest airlock.

Knowing with utter certainty that he was right and that everyone around him was wrong no matter what? The drive to prove that he was right no matter the cost?

Well now, that's a strategic selection of quoted material there. Here's the rest that you left off...

Knowing with utter certainty that he was right and that everyone around him was wrong no matter what? The drive to prove that he was right no matter the cost? Those last few aren't positive traits, I'm afraid. Perseverance and sticking to your guns (to a point) are positive traits, knowing with utter certainty that you're the only one who is right in the universe and being willing to risk the destruction of your home planet to prove it... not so much.

because it's relevant to...

Ever see Star Trek: The Motion Picture? The Search for Spock? Quite a few episodes of TOS? Kirk gambled many, many times that he was right. It was part of what made him a memorable character.

TMP. Kirk, a captain with years of experience, bullied his way back into the captain's chair and pushed aside a newly-minted captain with far less experience. TSFS. Kirk asked his friends to help search for their other dead friend and stole a ship. Not really on par with the Federation is in jeopardy so let's give the keys to the flagship to the single least qualified person on the entire ship.

Further, what's the difference between Kirk in TOS and the TOS movies compared to Kirk in Abrams' film? In TOS and those films the character has earned the trust of the crew and the audience, so when Kirk Prime makes similar decisions you know he probably knows what he's doing and the crew trusts his decision. In Abrams... not so much. If anything it's the opposite. His character at that point in the film was the least qualified to be in charge of anything, much less the flagship in a Federation-wide emergency... which brings it back to destiny. Which is the opposite of what Trek has always been about.

Look, I'm all for character arcs and development, my issue isn't with nuKirk as a more... eccentric version of the Prime version per se, rather, I take issue with the fact that it all comes down to destiny that puts a clearly inexperienced and apparently incompetent academically suspended third-year cadet in the role of First Officer, after which that character proceeded to emotionally manipulate a genocide survivor to seize control of the Federation flagship. That command structure is pure chaos. At least on Klingon ships you have to fight well enough to beat the person ahead of you on line. At least that would be somehow earning the post. Destiny... not so much.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I agree with BillJ. And calling your opinion "fact" seems a bit hyperbolic.

No, my opinion isn't a fact. But my opinion is based on facts. Characters behaved one way in TOS and they behaved the opposite in Abrams. Trek has always done largely positive messages, Abrams has put out explicitly opposing messages with his films. On and on. I see no point in making the case again as you seem to be past the point of actually reading or responding to anything you disagree with.

No its based on your interpretation of the characters not facts. My interpretation, equally backed up by material from TOS is my take on the characters. I even use quotes when ever I can and try to cite episodes and films to back up my opinions.

No idea what you mean by the last statement, as I have broken down your posts and responded point for point. And fully intended to do so with your previous post when I had more time.

What's this negative message?

 

[Tarek71]

Well ST09 showed Kirk as

1. A baby
2. Troublemaking kid
3. Ne'er do well bar fly
4. Cadet Kirk

Should have been one more...

5. Young Commander Kirk, 1st officer under Pike.

That puts Kirk right were his father was, Captain down and now take command against the Narada. And do what Pike dared. Do his father one better and take down the enemy.

It also preserves the years in between where, though still young, he had the hard experiences to make him a better Captain.

This was a man who thought he cost the lives of half the ships crew because he hesitated to fire once as a young officer. What did experiences like that do to shape him as a leader?

Tough to just take all that away but say he's still just as ready for the chair. Let alone that Pike can give or would give "his" ship to Kirk.

 

[Overgeeked]

I just watched 2009 again today. There's a lot of great stuff going on with this film. I still say it has 12 of the best minutes of Trek ever put to film with the opening Kelvin sequence.

Some of the complaints I've made in this thread didn't seem to bother my whilst I was watching the thing, but some of them were still huge problems. The only two that really seem to matter to me are: destiny and the promotion. Really, that's what it comes down to, for me.

Destiny is an issue because it takes away personal responsibility and choice and accountability for our actions. Literally the opposite of what Trek has been about for quite a long time.

The promotion will always bother me. I can deal with an arrogant asshat young punk Kirk till the cows come home, but a third-year cadet on academic suspension being promoted over everyone else on the ship to First Officer, then taunting Spock into relinquishing command... just to fulfill his destiny is just shit writing and anti-Trek as you can get.

If they'd just not done anything about "It's your destiny" it would have been fine. If they'd just had the senior staff killed off and so Kirk assumes command, I'd have been fine with that. At least that makes sense after a fashion. But going from suspended cadet to captain in a day is just fucking dumb.

Well ST09 showed Kirk as

1. A baby
2. Troublemaking kid
3. Ne'er do well bar fly
4. Cadet Kirk

Should have been one more...

5. Young Commander Kirk, 1st officer under Pike.

Exactly. Or even any other bridge officer position would have been fine, to me. Put him as having earned the right to be on the bridge and in the chain of command, but "bad shit happens" so he has to take command, just like his old man. Would have been a great callback. Nice and neat.

This was a man who thought he cost the lives of half the ships crew because he hesitated to fire once as a young officer. What did experiences like that do to shape him as a leader?

Tough to just take all that away but say he's still just as ready for the chair. Let alone that Pike can give or would give "his" ship to Kirk.

Exactly. It's the sum of our experiences that make us who we are, good and bad. Without those same experiences we are not the same people. If they want us to watch as Kirk becomes the great captain fine. But part of that is earning it. Not having it handed to him. Kind of undermines and defeats the point.

 

[BillJ]

I just watched 2009 again today. There's a lot of great stuff going on with this film.

I find there's lots of great stuff going on with both of Abrams films. While I'm watching them, I am totally engaged with what is going on, on the screen. Which means, in my opinion, that Abrams did his job well.

Can I hack these films to bits with a blunt object if I wanted to? Absolutely. But I can do that with pretty much any episode or movie with or without the Star Trek label.

When I watch the Abrams films, I feel like a kid again experiencing Star Trek for the first time all over. I can't think of a greater gift.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

BillJ,



That is all. (I completely agree with you, man.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm never going to be an advocate of cadet to captain. I can understand why, but it will never make sense to me. So it remains my number one complaint about the film.

Destiny. I don't take that literally. Spock Prime and Pike want Kirk to full fill his potential and "nudged" him in the direction needed. Kirk has the skill set and got the training. Nothing really metaphysical about it.

 

[BillJ]

BillJ,



That is all. (I completely agree with you, man.)

I'll definitely be there opening night for Star Trek Beyond!

I'm never going to be an advocate of cadet to captain. I can understand why, but it will never make sense to me. So it remains my number one complaint about the film.

Destiny. I don't take that literally. Spock Prime and Pike want Kirk to full fill his potential and "nudged" him in the direction needed. Kirk has the skill set and got the training. Nothing really metaphysical about it.

If they had more time, they may have remedied the cadet to captain stuff, but they ran out due to the writers' strike. So it's something that couldn't be fixed (if they wanted to, it almost feels like the beginning of Into Darkness was an attempt to remedy it to a degree).

The thing that always got me about the first film was sending Spock Prime with a beach ball sized container of Red Matter. He literally had enough to rearrange the universe.

But visually, it was a compelling set piece and played a big part of the demise of Nero.

 

[Trekkin]

I'd take that much. I'm one of those 'better to have too much...' people. You should see the shit I pack when I'm going to be driving cross country.

If you take Orci's word for it, any amount of Red Matter has the potential to rearrange the universe - that's exactly what Spock and Nero do at the beginning of 2009.

 

[T'Girl]

Finishing the Academy in three years would seem to be indicative of a hard worker. But what do I know?

In a course of study you take one class that prepares you for the next class, that prepares you for the one after that. If you're in the first semester how can you attend a lecture that given in the third semester?

Even if you're a "hard worker" you can't take the classes simultaneously. Likely you wouldn't even have access to the follow on class prior to finishing the lead in classes.

It would be like trying to learning basic math and calculus at the same time.

If it's a four year program, it would take Kirk four years.

")

 

[TheSubCommander]

He didn't finish the academy in three years. He bragged that he would, jump cut to "three years later" and a few scenes in he's about to be kicked out for dishonesty. No evidence of him successfully completing a four-year program in three years.

The evidence is his battlefield promotion to captain of the Enterprise.

I just watched 2009 again today. There's a lot of great stuff going on with this film. I still say it has 12 of the best minutes of Trek ever put to film with the opening Kelvin sequence.

Chris Hemsworth was the better Kirk of that film. Chris Pine is a fine actor and I'm not saying this as an insult, but I wish Hemsworth had been cast as James Kirk, not Papa Kirk.

 

[Trekkin]

Finishing the Academy in three years would seem to be indicative of a hard worker. But what do I know?

In a course of study you take one class that prepares you for the next class, that prepares you for the one after that. If you're in the first semester how can you attend a lecture that given in the third semester?

Even if you're a "hard worker" you can't take the classes simultaneously. Likely you wouldn't even have access to the follow on class prior to finishing the lead in classes.

It would be like trying to learning basic math and calculus at the same time.

If it's a four year program, it would take Kirk four years.

")

Um, yes you can. There are some cases where you need to do Class A in order to reach Class B, but that's not all classes for all degrees.

Let me put it this way- I completed my 3 year Communications degree in 2 because I did holiday 'speed' courses, placement before the year actually started, and extra units (than the typical 40) during the semester. The order I did them in was also completely borked, and 1000 level subjects were being done after 3000 levels.

On the other hand, I'm going to be finishing a 5 year Law degree in 7 because I decided to put off a diploma and do it part time at the end (as well as flunking and having to redo 20 units.) Again the order of classes was all over the place, but there were some prerequisites that time.

The prerequisites probably vary where you go to school, whether you take masters, if you take a major and what it is, whether you add on a simultaneous diploma etc etc. Throw in Starfleet Acadamy not being real, and we have no idea what's possible. The novelisation of 09 has Chekhov graduating early, for the incredibly low amount that's worth.

 

[BillJ]

The novelisation of 09 has Chekhov graduating early, for the incredibly low amount that's worth.

Logic would tell us that he did graduate early. He was an officer, starship navigator and was only seventeen.

 

[Overgeeked]

He didn't finish the academy in three years. He bragged that he would, jump cut to "three years later" and a few scenes in he's about to be kicked out for dishonesty. No evidence of him successfully completing a four-year program in three years.

The evidence is his battlefield promotion to captain of the Enterprise.

There's "hard worker who successfully completed four years of classes in three years" and there's "bad writing ass-pull". Kirk's was definitely the latter. Besides, if his promotion somehow means he actually did the coursework in three years, there's the problem of all this classmates who kept their commissions too. Did Bones and Uhura and Cupcake all also complete all the coursework in three years? It's Ockham's Razor.

Logic would tell us that he did graduate early. He was an officer, starship navigator and was only seventeen.

Or that people can enter the Academy when they're ready. Bones entered as an adult, no reason to assume a super-genius kid couldn't.

 

[BillJ]

Or that people can enter the Academy when they're ready. Bones entered as an adult, no reason to assume a super-genius kid couldn't.

McCoy was already a trained MD, so his Academy training would more closely mirror what happens in the real world.

Genius or not, I doubt they hand an officer's rank and navigator of the flagship post to someone who hadn't went to the Academy.

YMMV.