5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[Rahul]

Was Marcus more believable than the Borg Queen?

Nope. Alice Krige did a damn fine job, and she was clearly supported by the better script. Only problem is for us nerds who think the Borg shouldn't have a queen.

Was Marcus more believable than Ruafo?

The better comparison for Insurrection would be to Admiral Dougherty, in which Dougherty kicks Marcus' ass in terms of believability, both in his actions and motivations. (Getting your head crushed in is more believable than getting it inflated though!)

Was Marcus more believable than Shinzon? (omg I can't even ask this one with a straight face)

Well, kinda'. Their roles are weirdly similar (head of state/military, wants to militarize own nation and start war with other species, builts giant black ship in secret to go on personal vendetta with). Shinzons' motivation is more personal though (the whole clone-thingy), while Marcus was played by Peter Weller (which gives an instant bonus boost). Being mostly better than Nemesis is not an achievement worth boasting about though...

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I just want to point out:

Admiral Marcus isn't a new type of military commander/villain that instills fear to justify his Black Ops group. The same type of character was in the game Wing Commander 4, where Malcolm McDowell (or is it MacDowell?) creates a similar group due to a war with aliens that has already happened and as a forced stoppage - for lack of a better term - to any future wars.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Was Marcus more believable than the Borg Queen?

Nope. Alice Krige did a damn fine job, and she was clearly supported by the better script.

I'm not asking about their relative performances, I'm asking about their characterizations. Does it actually MAKE SENSE for the Borg Queen to do any of the things she did in that movie? Do we understand why she's doing what she's doing and what she expects the outcome to be?

Because in maybe 20 viewings of that movie I can't seem to gleam anything from the character other than "Creepy alien bitch is creepy."

Was Marcus more believable than Ruafo?

The better comparison for Insurrection would be to Admiral Dougherty, in which Dougherty kicks Marcus' ass in terms of believability, both in his actions and motivations.

Actually Marcus and Dougherty are pretty much neck and neck. They're both generic old-guy Admirals who fail to see the perfectly obvious flaw in their nefarious plans and get murdered when said plan backfires. Aside from Marcus' far more focussed obsession with the Klingons, they're almost the same character.

But I asked about Ruafo, not Dagherty. He got kicked off his home planet for being a self important asshole, so his solution is to... glass the entire planet?

I'm not saying it's a stretch, per se. I'm saying that Insurrection didn't really cover the steps between "I got exiled" and "I'm going to nuke this fuckin place!" Like Marcus, it's probably a long story; UNLIKE Marcus, nobody wants to hear it.

Was Marcus more believable than Shinzon? (omg I can't even ask this one with a straight face)

Well, kinda'. Their roles are weirdly similar

Up to a point: Shinzon is a political usurper who gained power in a military coup triggered by an assassination; his personal goals include drinking Picard's blood, telepathically raping Troi and blowing up Earth for some reason. He's a one-man cancer in a big fucking ship, and killing him solves literally ALL of their problems.

Marcus is a militaristic whacko who earned his way through the ranks and has been pulling the strings for YEARS and is as much a symptom of the problem as he is the cause, and killing Marcus arguably doesn't solve the overall problem with Starfleet.

Being mostly better than Nemesis is not an achievement worth boasting about though...

Or better than "Insurrection" for that matter.

But as a fan, it is something I continue to be grateful for.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I just want to point out:

Admiral Marcus isn't a new type of military commander/villain that instills fear to justify his Black Ops group. The same type of character was in the game Wing Commander 4, where Malcolm McDowell (or is it MacDowell?) creates a similar group due to a war with aliens that has already happened and as a forced stoppage - for lack of a better term - to any future wars.

It's not really a fair comparison, actually, because Tolwyn spent the previous three games being a GOOD guy and his turning out to be the villain is a massive kick in the balls to everyone who knew anything about the franchise before hand.

To get the same effect, you'd have to have Captain Pike on the bridge of the Vengeance.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I just want to point out:

Admiral Marcus isn't a new type of military commander/villain that instills fear to justify his Black Ops group. The same type of character was in the game Wing Commander 4, where Malcolm McDowell (or is it MacDowell?) creates a similar group due to a war with aliens that has already happened and as a forced stoppage - for lack of a better term - to any future wars.

It's not really a fair comparison, actually, because Tolwyn spent the previous three games being a GOOD guy and his turning out to be the villain is a massive kick in the balls to everyone who knew anything about the franchise before hand.

To get the same effect, you'd have to have Captain Pike on the bridge of the Vengeance.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I do recall animated Tolwyn was a lot nicer than the McDowall version. (I admit I only played bits of the animated version - I forget which - of the franchise). As someone who played only the 3rd and 4th games, I felt that it wasn't that much of a surprise Tolwyn had something going on behind-the-scenes. It was a good reveal, but I felt there was something more going on with that character since McDowall/Tolwyn came off like a guy who was double-faced.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I just want to point out:

Admiral Marcus isn't a new type of military commander/villain that instills fear to justify his Black Ops group. The same type of character was in the game Wing Commander 4, where Malcolm McDowell (or is it MacDowell?) creates a similar group due to a war with aliens that has already happened and as a forced stoppage - for lack of a better term - to any future wars.

It's not really a fair comparison, actually, because Tolwyn spent the previous three games being a GOOD guy and his turning out to be the villain is a massive kick in the balls to everyone who knew anything about the franchise before hand.

To get the same effect, you'd have to have Captain Pike on the bridge of the Vengeance.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I do recall animated Tolwyn was a lot nicer than the McDowall version. (I admit I only played bits of the animated version - I forget which - of the franchise). As someone who played only the 3rd and 4th games, I felt that it wasn't that much of a surprise Tolwyn had something going on behind-the-scenes. It was a good reveal, but I felt there was something more going on with that character since McDowall/Tolwyn came off like a guy who was double-faced.

He was, but his speech on the Senate floor was pretty awesome in WC4:

Mankind was at its zenith when fighting the Kilrathi. Now our society is crumbing. We have no goals and no focus, we've grown complacent and confused. Who will protect us when the next race tries to dominate us? Who can tell where that threat will come from and when? No, we must be prepared. Progress only comes through struggle. Fighting keeps us fit. Conflict ensures our readiness and our survival. The Kilrathi understood this. They endured for millions of years and so shall we if we continue fighting. If we continue to perfect our methods of killing...

Tolwyn has the same basic motivation of Marcus, but has the benefit of being able to articulate that motivation in a cutscene in a game that is already heavy on the melodrama.

 

[Paradise City]

Actually some of those TOS characters are fleshed out to my satisfaction in the way that Marcus isn't. A catalyst is depicted that drives Garth insane. That's I'll I'm asking for.

Depicted? They give this nonsense explanation about how the Antosians taught him shapeshifting abilities and that somehow made him loose his mind. That's backstory, not "depiction." And that for a story where curing Garth's madness is the whole reason why they beamed down to this planet in the first place.

Marcus on the other hand is a one dimensional figure and there's no explanation for his roaring insanity.

Really? I thought he explained it pretty clearly:

"War with the Klingons is inevitable. Since initial contact they've conquered and enslaved two planets that we know of, they've fired on our ships half a dozen times... they are coming our way."

And later:

"War is coming and who is gonna lead us? You?! If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"

I didn't think he was being subtle. He's a fanatic, obsessed with the Klingons, obsessed with "security," drunk with power and Hubris. You could write a NOVEL about how he got to be that way, but the short version is right there on the tin.

But even allowing your point on TOS's villains why do you use TOS as some kind of metric for quality in contemporary cinema?

Because there's nothing wrong with TOS, and it doesn't phase me that the reboot films use TOS' simplistic approach to villains.

This entire conversation feels like debating "The Wizard of Oz" with you complaining "The dialog in this film is so unrealistic! All I'm asking for is some explanation for why they suddenly start discussing their problems through song! Did a wizard do it? Is it a spell? This is absurd!"

I didn't give Joel Schumacher's dud Batman movie a pass because there was zany stuff in Adam West's Batman.

That's only because Schumacher's "batman" was marketed as a sequel to two respectable Tim Burton films, in addition to not being funny. People actually LIKED the previous installments and responded to what followed with "What the FUCK am I watching?"

Star Trek has the exact opposite problem: the previous three films bent over backwards, forwards and sideways to give the villains (even the Borg... Jesus, the FUCKING BORG!) plausible villainy motivations around which they could twirl their mustaches and hatch their insidious evil plot. I again note the complete lack of comparison to any of those films, and I ask this very frank question:

Was Marcus more believable than the Borg Queen?
Was Marcus more believable than Ruafo?
Was Marcus more believable than Shinzon? (omg I can't even ask this one with a straight face)

There's something to be said for erring on the side of simplicity, IMO.

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.

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? Gotcha.

 

[Rahul]

Being mostly better than Nemesis is not an achievement worth boasting about though...

Or better than "Insurrection" for that matter.

I wouldn't necessarily call "Into Darkness" better than "Insurrection". More appealing for mass audiences, for sure. With more action, fewer characters and plotlines, more one-liners, quips and visual effects. All of which are purely a result of a blockbuster budget though (I don't want to know how many screenwriters did an uncredited "polish" of the "Into Darkness" script to make it "more funny" and "more accessible", while "Insurrection" was completely written by one(!) man (Michael Piller), with additional notes from Rick Berman).

But as a fan, it is something I continue to be grateful for.

But why? Star Trek was once more science fiction than summer blockbuster (which has nothing to do with "being entertaining" btw). Today, wide accessibal science fiction is made by other properties (The Martian, Avatar, Interstellar, Prometheus, Inception, Ex Machina, Moon, ...), while nu-Star Trek is in the "scifi-action"-genre stilll overshadowed by way better and more entertaining blockbusters (Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars, ..., not to talk about all those superhero movies...)

I mean, yeah. It's still better than nothing. But being generic is nothing I would be grateful for.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I wouldn't necessarily call "Into Darkness" better than "Insurrection". More appealing for mass audiences, for sure. With more action, fewer characters and plotlines, more one-liners, quips and visual effects. All of which are purely a result of a blockbuster budget though (I don't want to know how many screenwriters did an uncredited "polish" of the "Into Darkness" script to make it "more funny" and "more accessible", while "Insurrection" was completely written by one(!) man (Michael Piller), with additional notes from Rick Berman).

Let me get this straight: the reason STID wasn't "better" than Insurrection is because it wasn't written by Michael Piller?

But why? Star Trek was once more science fiction than summer blockbuster

It certainly was.

But then they made Wrath of Khan, and that was the end of that.

For the record, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is still my all-time favorite Star Trek movie. ST09 is a very close second.

I mean, yeah. It's still better than nothing.

And Nemesis.
And Insurrection.
And The Final Frontier, to be brutally honest.

Nor do I consider the lack of TNG+'s innate pretentiousness to be "generic." Even TMP, for all its slow-paced glittery space opera, still managed to be less preachy than "Generations."

Now, do I think they could actually make a modern-styled hard science space opera for Star Trek? HELL YES they could. With films like "Interstellar" and "The Martian" hitting theaters, the market could MORE than sustain such an effort. But it's risky to do that with a major film franchise with studio executives and focus groupsters breathing down your neck, and there's a very good chance that such an attempt would fly off the rails and become a cinematic abomination. But IF and WHEN they manage to produce that oh-so-perfect, TMP-styled modern glittery space adventure story we've all been jonesing for, that movie will ascend to my new number one spot.

Until then, I'm happy with ST09, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock and STID (and Voyage Home when I'm feeling whimsical... and maybe Generations when I'm really really bored).

 

[Rahul]

So you think TOS is "Garbage", all of the old movies except TMP (which is "slow-paced glittery space opera") "not science fiction", TNG is "unremarkable, unmemorable, and unwatched" and "innate pretentious" and "preachy". The TNG movies a "crapfest", and "Dynamic, well-developed antagonists" is suddenly a bad thing?

And then you get angry if someone points out flaws in Into Darkness?

I mean, I suddenly see where you are coming from. But maybe, just maybe Star Trek may not be exactly the right franchise for you...?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So you think TOS is "Garbage"

No, Paradise City thinks TOS is "garbage." I post under the name of "Crazy Eddie."

all of the old movies except TMP (which is "slow-paced glittery space opera") "not science fiction"

Of course they were science fiction. It's just that all of them but Voyage Home were the same "summer blockbuster" format as Wrath of Khan.

TNG is "unremarkable, unmemorable, and unwatched

No, Insurrection and Nemesis were unremarkable, unmemorable, and unwatched (does anyone seriously dispute this?)

Dynamic, well-developed antagonists" is suddenly a bad thing?

In an action-movie, pretty much. Just ask Tom Hardy.

No, seriously. ASK HIM. He had the honor of playing a really well-developed character in a shitty movie and ten years later playing a poorly-developed character in an awesome movie.

Which is kind of the point: ultimately, the audience doesn't really know why Joker or Bane do what they do, cannot sympathize with either of them, and definitely don't understand them. Psychoanalyzing your antagonist is something you have the luxury of doing in a soft drama where most of the story is progressed through dialog and exposition; science fiction movies have NEVER had that luxury.

You fault me for considering Generations to be "preachy" and evidently forgot that Jean Luc Picard's entire strategy for dealing with Soren was to beam down to the planet and appeal to his sense of decency. Which worked about as well as you would expect AND resulted in the deaths of 250 million people, only to be reversed moments later by a negative space wedgie.

Tell me again about how deep and well-developed Doctor Soren was!

And then you get angry if someone points out flaws in Into Darkness?

I'm not angry at all. Again, it's puzzling that you are choosing to take issues with the creative choices of the film as if they were ACCIDENTS by careless writers.

That makes no sense to me; complaining that Marcus isn't a fully actualized character sounds a lot like complaining that no one ever explains why how the warp drive works. Especially in light of the fact that this "flaw" was completely avoided by the two previous films which, frankly, sucked.

I mean, I suddenly see where you are coming from.

I find that hard to believe since you're not even sure which posts are mine.

 

[Rahul]

Paradise City said there was "garbage in some episodes" (With which he, frankly, is completely right), but that this doesn't excuse the garbage of Into Darkness.
It was you who turned that into "all of TOS is garbage" and "everything about Star Trek except JJ suuucks. buhuuu."

PS: Sorry for not completely assign all your insults to the correct properties. But I am correct that you covered pretty much all of traditional Trek with some sort of trashtalk, right?

Edit:
And somehow I find the argument that well rounded characters are a bad thing for movies kind of bizarre. It is as if you gained all your eperience solely out of blockbuster-action movies...?

 

[M'Sharak]

So you think TOS is "Garbage"

No, Paradise City thinks TOS is "garbage." I post under the name of "Crazy Eddie."

Perhaps you ought to make an effort to confine yourself to addressing things Paradise City has actually said, rather than putting words in his mouth.

Just a thought...

 

[martok2112]

Nemesis is my favorite TNG era film....just above First Contact.
The Undiscovered Country is my favorite TOS era film, just above TWOK.

The new Trek movies are my favorite... period... outstripping the past film's.

But I suppose someone's still going to take time out to tell me I don't know a damned thing about "True Star Trek", right?

Well, I'll tell such folk a thing about "True Star Trek" and "Real Star Trek".... no such animals.

 

[Brie]

Alright so I spent over an hour researching and writing a good debate for this topic only for my thread to be removed and have myself redirected to this thread. My post doesn't quite fit this topic 100% so I'm a little confused as to its removal but my post was all about an article I came across which will be referenced below. Again my post isn't 100% the same argument as is being debated on here but I guess it was enough that it was repetitive. So anywhere here's my 2 cents (based on this article)


I know I have talked about my disapproval of the new rebooted Trek movies before but I found an article recently that accurately explained how I feel towards the subject. here's the link http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-star...ing-star-trek/ Now while I might not agree with EVERYTHING said in this article, most are dead ringers of my opinion on the subject so lets get to it...

#5. "The Franchise Was Already In Bad Shape"

-Okay this is one of the only ones that I disagree with. While I agree that the franchise was dying, they made the mistake of grouping DS9 in with the "failing" franchises. I would disagree, while it was different than prior series' it was still a very well done series. I'm not a big fan of voyager but I still wouldn't say it was dead yet. I don't think the death happened until Enterprise. Though I will admit I agree it was starting to die, and the reboots brought hope, they just didn't fulfill that hope I had.

#4. "The Reboots Have About As Much Understanding And Respect For Its Fans As The Star Wars Prequels"

-Now I'll be honest I have seen all of the Star Wars movies (except the new one) but am not a fan, so I will talk only about the Trek side of this argument. My biggest complaint and the one I am most vocal about is THE COMPLETE LACK OF BONES IN THE MOVIES! This was when I knew I wouldn't like the new movies. McCoy was my favorite character in TOS and in the reboots they used him for maybe 2 one liners that a TOS fan would recognize, beyond that he was just a name. That rubbed me the wrong way more than any other mistake. He was a main character, one of THE main characters. It was Spock, Kirk and McCoy, they WERE the series, the fact that they completely forgot that fact ruined it for me. Additionally, while I understand that this was supposed to be an "alternate universe" (which allowed them to change it how ever they want) they either should have owned that or not don't it at all. the "alternate reality" was just a cop-out for them to change anything they want. Throwing Khan in and using that felt like a remake of the greatest star trek film ever (Wrath of Khan) but they remade it in a way that completely stripped Khan of everything that made the character who he is. Not to mention the Kirk, Spock, Uhura love triangle. I know in TOS they made slight referances to the fact that Spock and Uhura had some small hint of a possible romance but in the movies they took it to an extreme and made Spock an emotional mess, which is the polar opposite of what made Spock who he was, so that's 2 main characters they botched (in my opinion)

#3. "Fans Tolerate It Because It's Better Than Nothing"

- I wanted to like the movies, I really did but there was just so much about the movies that I just couldn't ignore it. I like that it gave the franchise the new boost it needed to this new generation, but it was done so incorrectly that anyone who claims to like these new movies are likely those who weren't large fans of the original series.

#2. "The Studio Made Star Trek Mainstream To Appeal To Everyone"

- This is another one that irked me, and it doesn't apply just to the rebooted Trek movies. Money seems to outweigh the accuracy of a movie. I can understand wanting to make money off of a movie, but sacrificing the basics of what made a show great, just to bring in money is so wrong in my book. All of these factors lead me to the final part of the article...

#1. "By Making Star Trek "For Everyone," They Alienate The People Who Love It"

-As I mentioned before I understand that by rebooting Star Trek they wanted to bring in a new audience, but in the process they gave up everything that made the original series so great, they sacrificed the high brow scientific portions of Trek (whether possible or not) and replaced them with explosions, unlikely romance, and nonstop action, which while that all makes for a great block buster movie, it counters everything the federation stands for. The Trek universe is all about exploration, diplomacy and science, and this movie throws all of that out of the window. What really hits the nail on the head for me was the quote stated in the article from one of the writers, he said "They had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y" If that doesn't make your heart hurt I don't know what could.

Again this is all opinion, I don't hate on anyone who does like the new reboots, but I personally think that they were done poorly and ignored all of the amazing factors that made Star Trek great.

 

[Kemaiku]

They did not "give up everything that made the original series so great" in fact, it was the only production since 1969 to embrace it again and evoke the original in any true sense.

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.

 

[Amasov]

I recently wrote a piece about Into Darkness.

Initially I dismissed the movie, because after looking at the recent vitriol surrounding the first trailer for Beyond, I decided to go back and take a look at Into Darkness.

Let me just say this, it's just my opinion and how I see the film now. The true villain of the piece, Admiral Marcus, to me, sounds a lot like current-day politicians who try to use fear in order to get the general public to support them.

"War is coming and who is going to lead us? You?! If I'm not in charge, our entire way of life is decimated!"

In the beginning, I was too caught up with the notion of Khan being used that I couldn't see anything else in it. I like the movie a lot. And for what I see Star Trek as, I think it works.

For me, that moment was the defining one for Marcus. He's the hero, the savior, and he's going to drag everyone into a war that has to be fought hard and won. At least, that's how he sees it in his mind. He's the hero.

I love that kind of thing!

Yeah, exactly.

That's why my friends and I were angry at the start. We were too obsessed over the use of Khan. Khan has that baggage. He's been a villain in the past, but in this movie, I don't really see it that way anymore.

Yes, he's a bad dude who wants to kill, but the REAL bad guy of the movie is Marcus. He and Khan at least admit they have motivation for what they're doing and in their minds, it seems right. Hell, Khan broke down in tears when explaining why he did what he did.

It's such a good movie and I really think it's true Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

#2. "The Studio Made Star Trek Mainstream To Appeal To Everyone"

- This is another one that irked me, and it doesn't apply just to the rebooted Trek movies. Money seems to outweigh the accuracy of a movie. I can understand wanting to make money off of a movie, but sacrificing the basics of what made a show great, just to bring in money is so wrong in my book. All of these factors lead me to the final part of the article...

What do you mean by "accuracy"?

Star Trek was always meant to be mainstream. You don't get on Network TV without being mainstream. You don't make popular movies without mainstream appeal. Star Trek has always tried to be mainstream popular entertainment. It was broadcast on commercial TV not PBS. It's not an episode of Nova or Cosmos.

#1. "By Making Star Trek "For Everyone," They Alienate The People Who Love It"

-As I mentioned before I understand that by rebooting Star Trek they wanted to bring in a new audience, but in the process they gave up everything that made the original series so great, they sacrificed the high brow scientific portions of Trek (whether possible or not) and replaced them with explosions, unlikely romance, and nonstop action, which while that all makes for a great block buster movie, it counters everything the federation stands for.

Star Trek (the original series) is an action adventure show, the "science" is incidental. Its something that serves the plot but is rarely the plot. There was very little "high brow" science in TOS. There were however: explosions, action and unlikely romance. As I said it's an action adventure show. Don't believe me? Read thisStar Trek Writers Guide:

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure framework. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anesthetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and discusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it.

III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate field of literature with rules of its own, but,indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story-- including a jeopardy of some type to someone we learn to care about, climactic build, sound motivitation, you know the list.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, interweave in it any statement to be made about man,society and so on. Yes, we want you to have something to say, but say it entertainingly as you do on any other show. We don't need essays, however brilliant.

This is Star Trek in a nut shell and I think the new films hit those points. At the same time it had its "science quotient" as well in using The Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as a plot motivator. The second film has commentary on current geopoliticall issues ( covered by Crazy Eddie in his post)

I take it, the unlikely romance is Spock and Uhura. Not so unlikely to those who watched TOS. Spock and Uhura were a little flirty in early season one. Most romances in Trek are "unlikely". Spock's had some with a Romulan Commander, a time lost prisoner, a botanist and and literal woman from High Society. he also seemed a bit close to two of his protegees.

The Federation isn't real. But there's nothing in it's portrayal in Star Trek that makes it opposed to action, explosions and romance. So that's an odd claim to make.

The Trek universe is all about exploration, diplomacy and science, and this movie throws all of that out of the window.

No, those are just springboards to tell stories. Stories that contain action, often in the form of weapons fire, fisticuffs and the occasional explosion.

What really hits the nail on the head for me was the quote stated in the article from one of the writers, he said "They had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y" If that doesn't make your heart hurt I don't know what could

. Source and context would be helpful. The only time I recall "StarTreky" being used was in an interview with Pegg. And that has been said to be a misattribution.

 

[Squiggy]

The Trek universe is all about exploration, diplomacy and science, and this movie throws all of that out of the window.

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

TMP: Bad thing wants to talk to dad. Will kill everyone on Earth if it can't. Spock says dad is dead. Roll credits.

TWOK: Bad guy wants to kill Kirk because of what happened in episode 22. Steals something that will create life from nothing. They shoot at each other. Kirk wins. Spock dies. Roll credits.

TSFS: They steal the Enterprise. Spock lives! They blow up the Enterprise. Roll credits.

TVH: Bad thing wants to talk to whales. Will kill everyone on Earth if it can't. Time travel to the late 80s to get whales, find whales, Michelob, and Al-a-me-da. Go back to future to swim. Roll credits.

TFF: Spocks brother starts a fan film. It's bad. For some reasons Klingons too. Roll credits.

TUC: IT'S THE COLD WAR. GET IT? Roll credits.

GEN: Worf gets promoted and a chair. Another Enterprise blows up. Troi learns to drive - fails miserably. We learn Picard is a secret Englishman. Kirk dies...OR DOES HE? He does. Forever. Roll credits.

FC: Time travelin' Borg! Drunk Troi! New Enterprise! Data gets his skin melted off. They go home. Roll credits.

INS: Worf zit. Shaven Riker. Nothing else of note. Roll credits.

NEM: Please.

The only diplomacy was in TUC when the Klingons crawled to the Fed because they were all going to die. There hasn't been any exploration and whenever science gets in the way of the story they invent something to get around it.