5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[Joel_Kirk]

Name one movie that was about exploration, diplomacy, or science.

I'll name a few:

TMP is about diplomacy and exploration. Kirk trying to reason with a lifeform or destroy it if necessary. At the same time, the crew explores the inside of said lifeform.

TVH was about science. Getting to Earth 1986 and bringing back whales to the 23rd century in the nick of time.

TUC was definitely about diplomacy. Peace with the Klingons and certain diplomats who don't want that peace.

STID, while heavily flawed, had diplomacy (albeit, a failed attempt at diplomacy) at the start of the film.

 

[Paradise City]

Admiral Leighton in DS9 is a good characteristion for a maverick Admiral. It doesn't take much effort to write something decent; they didn't bother though.

True on both counts. Because "Homefront/Paradise Lost" was a brooding slow-paced drama that pit Sisko in a battle of wits and moral calculus directly against Leighton. Aside from the fact that STID isn't a Deep Space Nine movie, do I REALLY need to explain to you what would have happened if they tried to adapt "Paradise Lost" directly to the big screen?

Perhaps I do: it would have gone over EXACTLY like Insurrection or Nemesis: unremarkable, unmemorable, and unwatched.

A well-developed antagonist isn't neccesary to tell the kind of story STID is setting out to tell, not unless they want to extend the movie's run time by another forty five minutes to fit in all the extra dialog, exposition and character building that would take. I, for one, wouldn't have minded that, but YOU try convincing the theaters to screen a three hour movie that isn't Lord of the Rings.

So, your position basically is that there's garbage in some of the episodes and spin offs so it's cool that there's garbage in some of the films?

Well if you want to call TOS "Garbage" that's your call. I for one do not remember "Dynamic, well-developed antagonists" to be one of the show's strong points. I remember acid-spitting rock monsters, dicironium cloud creatures, salt vampires, stupid women who steal brains and smart women who steal hearts. I don't remember ANY of those antagonists being all that deep, and I don't remember it ever being a problem.

So I guess the question is, why is it a problem NOW? Especially in light of the laughable parade of "well developed" antagonists in the crapfest TNG films that preceded it?

Don't tell lies. I didn't call TOS garbage.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Name one movie that was about exploration, diplomacy, or science.

I'll name a few:

TMP is about diplomacy and exploration. Kirk trying to reason with a lifeform or destroy it if necessary. At the same time, the crew explores the inside of said lifeform

. Was that really what the film was about or just something that happen in the film? How much exploring did they do? Mostly they looked out the window and went "oooh!" "aaah!"

TVH was about science. Getting to Earth 1986 and bringing back whales to the 23rd century in the nick of time.

What science? Time travel? Some message about conservation? It was fish out of water hijinks and a heist caper film.

TUC was definitely about diplomacy. Peace with the Klingons and certain diplomats who don't want that peace.

Nah the focus was on finding a traitor and getting Kirk and McCoy out of prison. The diplomacy was mostly off screen.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Name one movie that was about exploration, diplomacy, or science.

I'll name a few:

TMP is about diplomacy and exploration. Kirk trying to reason with a lifeform or destroy it if necessary. At the same time, the crew explores the inside of said lifeform

. Was that really what the film was about or just something that happen in the film? How much exploring did they do? Mostly they looked out the window and went "oooh!" "aaah!"

TVH was about science. Getting to Earth 1986 and bringing back whales to the 23rd century in the nick of time.

What science? Time travel? Some message about conservation? It was fish out of water hijinks and a heist caper film.

TUC was definitely about diplomacy. Peace with the Klingons and certain diplomats who don't want that peace.

Nah the focus was on finding a traitor and getting Kirk and McCoy out of prison. The diplomacy was mostly off screen.

TMP - They still explored the area and didn't turn back. Spock was doing his calculations and theories and also explored, on his own, V'Ger before taking on too much 'brain stuff' via a mind meld.

TVH - Spock did his calculations (i.e. light science, we don't want to bore the movie crowd) in order to travel back in time. Scotty and McCoy used science in order to create a tank to hold the whales (i.e. transparent aluminum).

Yeah, it was more fish out of water and hijinks, but there was still science (and exploration to get said whales back to 1986) involved.

TUC - Kirk had a diplomatic dinner with the Klingon Chancellor that failed, a dinner that took place onscreen. After the goings on in the film, Kirk gave a diplomatic speech at the end after the conspirators were taken care of...also taken place onscreen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'll name a few:

TMP is about diplomacy and exploration. Kirk trying to reason with a lifeform or destroy it if necessary. At the same time, the crew explores the inside of said lifeform

. Was that really what the film was about or just something that happen in the film? How much exploring did they do? Mostly they looked out the window and went "oooh!" "aaah!"

What science? Time travel? Some message about conservation? It was fish out of water hijinks and a heist caper film.

TUC was definitely about diplomacy. Peace with the Klingons and certain diplomats who don't want that peace.

Nah the focus was on finding a traitor and getting Kirk and McCoy out of prison. The diplomacy was mostly off screen.

TMP - They still explored the area and didn't turn back. Spock was doing his calculations and theories and also explored, on his own, V'Ger before taking on too much via a mind meld.

But that's not really what the film is about. Spock making calculations doesn't make the film about science or exploration. The movie is a "bottle show" for the most part. It happens on the ship not outside. Spock little space-walkabout doesn't do much outside of making him cry. One of the movies faults is it tells rather than shows.

TVH - Spock did his calculations (i.e. light science, we don't want to bore the movie crowd) in order to travel back in time. Scotty and McCoy used science in order to create a tank to hold the whales.
Yeah, it was more fish out of water and hijinks, but there was still science (and exploration to get said whales back to 1986) involved.

More calculations and this time for faux science. Its not light, its non existent! Not sure building a tank qualifies as science, since we hear next to nothing about the science it takes to build it. The exploration is mostly bus trips around San Francisco and asking directions to Alameda.

TUC - Kirk had a diplomatic dinner with the Klingon Chancellor that failed, a dinner that took place onscreen. After the goings on in the film, Kirk gave a diplomatic speech at the end after the conspirators were taken care of...also taken place onscreen.

Those bookend the actual story ( Assassination! Trial! Prison! Escape! Pew Pew!) The film isn't about the negotiations, compromises and development of the treaty. The "diplomacy" is just a set up for the meat of the film.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

^^

I disagree. But it shows there are different things (or viewpoints) seen in the films.

 

[Overgeeked]

Name one movie that was about exploration, diplomacy, or science.

I'll name a few:

TMP is about diplomacy and exploration. Kirk trying to reason with a lifeform or destroy it if necessary. At the same time, the crew explores the inside of said lifeform.

TVH was about science. Getting to Earth 1986 and bringing back whales to the 23rd century in the nick of time.

TUC was definitely about diplomacy. Peace with the Klingons and certain diplomats who don't want that peace.

STID, while heavily flawed, had diplomacy (albeit, a failed attempt at diplomacy) at the start of the film.

TMP is definitely about exploration and science. Facing the unknown and seeing what's out there. Or, rather, what's coming here. The similarities to Rendezvous with Rama and Ringworld have been mentioned more than a few times. Both are all about exploration, and thereby science (ie discovery). TMP is certainly flawed, but it's clearly about exploration and science.

TWOK is a revenge story, pure and simple. Though there's a bit of nonsensical "science" about orbits and climate change and a bit more nonsense "science" about the Genesis Device.

TSFS is arguably about the breakdown of diplomacy (getting the ship) and the science of the Genesis Device and exploring the Genesis planet.

TVH is about the inability of humankind to communicate with the whale probe (complete failure of diplomacy to even start) and Cetology (aka Whalelore or whale science).

TFF begins on a planet that's a failed diplomatic experiment and is about self-exploration and what lies at the center of the galaxy, again science as discovery.

TUC is about diplomacy. It's fairly obvious so I won't bother belaboring the point.

GEN is worth ignoring for a lot of reasons.

FC is just a time travel action flick.

INS is vaguely about diplomacy and the need to move the immortal people out of the briar patch so the space plastic surgery nightmares can take it over.

NEM is mostly about diplomacy gone wrong. A little bit of self-exploration and exploration of the Romulan Empire, but not in the "space, the final frontier" sense.

 

[Overgeeked]

Don't tell lies. I didn't call TOS garbage.

You should. It mostly is.

The TOS movies are far better, mostly.

 

[Rahul]

@Overgeeked: How DARE you????

@Topic:
Star Trek, at least TOS, has always been an action-adventure! That's right. And that's why it's entertaining, and why we love it.

But one thing most people don't aknowledge is how talk-y it is. Even (especially!) TOS. Because our heroes get in action, excitement and adventure. Yes. But they always try to find the most humanistic solution first! Every battle Kirk fights, he tries to solve through diplomacy. If that doesn't work, he tries to minimize the number of casualties (stun setting). If he wins, he will naturally help his defeated enemy.

Kirk faces the man that was responsible for a massacre he witnessed as a child ("conscience of the king"). What did he do? He tried to arrest him. Kirk was a human being. He had emotions. He was eager for revenge. But in the end, he always did the morally right thing.

NuKirk/NuSpock slaughter their way through any battle scene, wether their enemies are truly evil Romulans, or simply low ranking klingon officers on patrol, kick and mutilate people on the ground repeatedly, and for them it's an achievement not to kill the bad guy if "this time, it's personal".

So yes. In terms of action/adventure-y tone, the new movies are closer to TOS than a lot of later Trek. And that's what redeems them somewhat for me. It doesn't change the fact that the new incarnations of Kirk and Spock are immoral assholes, that frankly deserved to be trialed.

Just to be clear: It's not the violence that turns me away from the JJverse. I love me some mature movies. It's the violence inflicted by our heroes that turns me away. In a Tarantino movie their actions would be totally justified (although portrayed more graphical). In a "fun, entertaining" movie for kids, whose heroes are supposed to be role models, it's quite disturbing.



Edit: And I'm not talking about anti-heroes like Han Solo or James Bond. These movies are the equivalent of "LUKE shot first!"

 

[BillJ]

NuKirk/NuSpock slaughter their way through any battle scene, wether their enemies are truly evil Romulans, or simply low ranking klingon officers on patrol, kick and mutilate people on the ground repeatedly, and for them it's an achievement not to kill the bad guy if "this time, it's personal".

I'm sure if they had asked the Klingons to let them go and added "pretty please with sugar on top", they would have been sent on their way with a stern lecture.

Where did they kick and mutilate Klingons that were on the ground? Khan sliced through them like warm butter. Kirk and Company essentially watched the slaughter.

 

[Nerys Myk]

@Overgeeked: How DARE you????

@Topic:
Star Trek, at least TOS, has always been an action-adventure! That's right. And that's why it's entertaining, and why we love it.

But one thing most people don't aknowledge is how talk-y it is. Even (especially!) TOS. Because our heroes get in action, excitement and adventure. Yes. But they always try to find the most humanistic solution first! Every battle Kirk fights, he tries to solve through diplomacy. If that doesn't work, he tries to minimize the number of casualties (stun setting). If he wins, he will naturally help his defeated enemy.

I don't recall him going all humanistic in Errand of Mercy. He and Spock waged a two man sabotage campaign against the Klingon, even though the Organians asked him not to. Do you think he waited for the ammo dump to be unmanned before he blew it up? I don't recall him entering negotiation with the Gorn

GORN [OC]: This is your opponent, Earthling. I have heard every word you have said.
KIRK [on viewscreen]: All right. What do you want?
GORN [on viewscreen]: I'm weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick.
KIRK [on viewscreen]: Like you were at Cestus Three?
GORN [OC]: You were intruding! You established an outpost in our space.
KIRK [on viewscreen]: You butchered helpless human beings
GORN [OC]: We destroyed invaders, as I shall destroy you!

But yes he does refuse to kill the Gorn and after the fight he hopes to discuss a settlement for the dispute. But again that's after close to an episode long series of fights.

No diplomacy in Balance of Terror either. It's another episode long battle, with the two commanders only communication at the end. With the Romulans preferring suicide to rescue.

Kirk faces the man that was responsible for a massacre he witnessed as a child ("conscience of the king"). What did he do? He tried to arrest him. Kirk was a human being. He had emotions. He was eager for revenge. But in the end, he always did the morally right thing

.

Maybe

KARIDIAN: Blood thins. The body fails. One is finally grateful for a failing memory. I no longer treasure life, not even my own. I am tired! And the past is a blank. Did you get everything you, wanted, Captain Kirk?
KIRK: If I had gotten everything I wanted, you might not walk out of this room alive.

Of course in the end, Lenore saves him and the Federation the trouble.

NuKirk/NuSpock slaughter their way through any battle scene, wether their enemies are truly evil Romulans, or simply low ranking klingon officers on patrol, kick and mutilate people on the ground repeatedly, and for them it's an achievement not to kill the bad guy if "this time, it's personal".

How many battles have they been in? They fought Nero and offered him rescue, which refused. They fought the Klingons on Qo'Nos, but I don't remember any slaughter or mutilation. Kirk chose to arrest Khan rather than execute him with out due process or trial. Spock did fight him but in the end chose not to kill him. Both in keeping with the characters in TOS.

The whole point in all of this is the characters ( no matter what version) saying "We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes." Jame Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon

So yes. In terms of action/adventure-y tone, the new movies are closer to TOS than a lot of later Trek. And that's what redeems them somewhat for me. It doesn't change the fact that the new incarnations of Kirk and Spock are immoral assholes, that frankly deserved to be trialed.

Just to be clear: It's not the violence that turns me away from the JJverse. I love me some mature movies. It's the violence inflicted by our heroes that turns me away. In a Tarantino movie their actions would be totally justified (although portrayed more graphical). In a "fun, entertaining" movie for kids, whose heroes are supposed to be role models, it's quite disturbing.

Star Trek is for kids??? When did that happen?

Did you miss the knock down drag out fight between Kirk and Finnegan in Shore Leave? Kirk kicking Kruge off a cliff in STIII? ( after a knockdown drag out fight) Kirk blowing up a ship filled with Klingons in the aforementioned STIII? Kirk fights a lot of people in TOS, inflicting a fair amount of violence on his foes. So why draw the line at the new films?

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek is for kids??? When did that happen?

No shit.

Uhura almost gets raped by Lars in "The Gamesters of Triskelion". Chekov nearly rapes Mara in "Day of the Dove". We have rock eating monsters turning crew into smoking embers in "The Devil in the Dark". Captain Tracy fries a red shirt in "The Omega Glory" and on and on.

Star Trek was never for kids.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek is for kids??? When did that happen?

No shit.

Uhura almost gets raped by Lars in "The Gamesters of Triskelion". Chekov nearly rapes Mara in "Day of the Dove". We have rock eating monsters turning crew into smoking embers in "The Devil in the Dark". Captain Tracy fries a red shirt in "The Omega Glory" and on and on.

Star Trek was never for kids.

What show were these people watching?

 

[Rahul]

1) Star Trek is for kids. Like Superman. Like Batman. Like Star Wars. And like the clone wars cartoon. I don't know from where you have the notion that a show for kids isn't allowed to handle serious issues. But it does so in a light-hearted, non threatening way. Battlestar Galactica is not for kids. Daredevil/Jessica Jones is not for kids. But Star Trek? Hell yes. That doesn't mean grown-up kids (adults) couldn't/shouldn't enjoy it. Like a lot of better Disney films Star Trek works on several levels - kid friendly entertainment, with serious subtext for adult and more grown-up viewers. (Note: kids in the range 8 ~ 18, I'm not talking about little children)
2) nuKirk und nuSpock could have used phasers with a "stun" setting - as classic Kirk did
3) classic Kirk killed Kruge - AFTER trying to help him (even though this man destroyed his ship and killed his SON!), which was used by Kruge to try to grab Kirk and take him with him into the abyss. Yeah, he blew up the Enterprise with the klingon crew on board. But that was the only option during a combat situation. The surviving member was taken as prisoner. He had no other option to survive (unlike, say, nuKirk).
4) Of course classic Kirk killed people - AFTER trying everything not to do it! In Balance of Terror/Errand of Mercy, the Federation is basically at war - a case where casualties on the antagonists side are pretty much a given, and still, all of Kirk/Spocks action are meant to save lifes (saving their own first, e.g. resulting in death of antagonists if inevitable - as any sane being would do, but --after-- the situation is difused, they go back to their Modus Operandi of any lifeform deserving to be treated humane). Hell, when they blow up the klingon ammo, they stun the guards! (unlike nuKirk did with klingon guards whom they WEREN'T at war with!).
5) nuKirk and nuSpock don't kick/mutilate klingons on the ground. They mistreat Khan, first when Khan surrenders himself to Kirk, afterwards when nuSpock breaks the arm of a helpless man on the ground (and is just inches away from killing him - only barely stopped by both Bones trying to talk him out of it to save Kirk and Uhura having to watch in shock).
Also, when the Romulans in ST09 refuse help, Kirk fires at them. You know, like he did in "Balance of Terror" after the Enterprise had won...

Edit:
It's a bit of the Man of Steel-problem. How do you feel about Superman killing a guy? I can see why many adult viewers have no problem with it. Personally, I'm not okay with it, since it's FREAKIN' SUPERMAN. The role model for a hero. I'm not against adult themes in superhero movies - a perfect example would be The Dark Knight. That was a violent movie. It was even rated the equivalent of "R" in Germany. Would I show it to my kids? Probably yes. Because Batman stays a hero. He stays in character. He takes blame for himself to serve the public. He never kills (except for Two-face in the end, which was more accidental to save a kid). He is shaken by the horrible events. But he stays a morally upright character.
It's a personal thing. I like heroes. And I like anti-heroes. I have no problem with James Bond being a dick. But I think it's quite a problem if our intended heroes do things that would basically fulfill the criterias for felony...

 

[suarezguy]

Most fans acknowledge the series was in big trouble/decline financially and creatively prior to the reboot.

I think the writer is very correct that the differences between Spock and McCoy and Kirk's closeness to both was pretty much the core of the original series; action is a part of the show but not a big or constant part.

I think it's a false dilemma that if a movie tries to have more mainstream appeal it has to abandon what the fans love but it can indeed be difficult to have a lot of both.

 

[BillJ]

1) Star Trek is for kids. Like Superman. Like Batman. Like Star Wars. And like the clone wars cartoon. I don't know from where you have the notion that a show for kids isn't allowed to handle serious issues. But it does so in a light-hearted, non threatening way.

Have you watched the original Star Trek? In the two attempted rape scenes, there is nothing about them that are light-hearted or non-threatening.

 

[Nerys Myk]

1) Star Trek is for kids. Like Superman. Like Batman. Like Star Wars. And like the clone wars cartoon. I don't know from where you have the notion that a show for kids isn't allowed to handle serious issues. But it does so in a light-hearted, non threatening way.

Do you know nothing about the development of Star Trek? It was conceived as an adult Science Fiction show, it's inspirations were Adult Westerns like Gunsmoke and Bonanza, not Roy Rogers and the Lone Ranger. Or do you think Gunsmoke was a kid show too? It was meant to tackle current issues in a mature adult manner in the form of Science Fiction.

No, I don't have notion that a show for kids isn't allowed to handle serious issues. And nowhere did I say that. What I did say is Star Trek was a show for adults. It's not a light-hearted, non threatening kids show.

 

[Ovation]

1) Star Trek is for kids. Like Superman. Like Batman. Like Star Wars. And like the clone wars cartoon. I don't know from where you have the notion that a show for kids isn't allowed to handle serious issues. But it does so in a light-hearted, non threatening way.

Do you know nothing about the development of Star Trek? It was conceived as an adult Science Fiction show, it's inspirations were Adult Westerns like Gunsmoke and Bonanza, not Roy Rogers and the Lone Ranger. Or do you think Gunsmoke was a kid show too? It was meant to tackle current issues in a mature adult manner in the form of Science Fiction.

No, I don't have notion that a show for kids isn't allowed to handle serious issues. And nowhere did I say that. What I did say is Star Trek was a show for adults. It's not a light-hearted, non threatening kids show.

Exactly so. People are confusing a show many kids watched with a show made for kids. In conversations about TV programming from 40+ years ago, I find it especially common that people make that leap simply because there wasn't the same degree of distance between the most adult and most kid friendly/aimed shows as today. I hope no one let their kid watch Dexter, while The Fugitive would not have traumatized an 8 year old, despite clearly NOT being a show for kids. Same goes for Star Trek back in the day. We shouldn't be fooled by the rerun time slots into thinking the show was originally intended for kids.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why would show aimed at children be scheduled in an 8:30-9:30 pm time slot, as Star Trek originally was? Or in a 10 pm slot, as was the case for Season 3?

 

[ToddPence]

And the vast majority of Trek fans, a lot of them TOS fans (myself included) love both. As has been attested here, on this very site, again and again for 7 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum