Did JJ ruin Kirk?

[WebLurker]

Personally, I have never argued that ST ID added a darker tone to Star Trek. I thought that the film took a lot of nods from DS9 in terms of concepts and then crafted them accordingly. Childish? Hardly, but I'll agree that it can't go in to the depths that a season long series arc can.

Sorry, that was a tangent. I honestly don't see any DS9-style stuff in the movie. All the moral quandaries are solved when they learn that they were being played by a corrupt admiral. They don't have to decide for themselves in a scenario where there's not clear-cut answer (or in the case of that specific DS9 show, we don't get to see them go into actual darkness because of the choices they made.)

Is the story perfect? No, but it works to show Kirk's continuing journey.

I don't think it's retroactive. I think Marcus gave him the Enterprise expecting Kirk to die. So, no, Kirk doesn't "get the chair" because Marcus thinks he has earned it. Kirk gets it because he's a pawn.

In my example, I was assuming a re-write. The whole first act was just too much like the previous movie for my tastes.

I think the first film is only the first step-that of Kirk learning his place in the Federation, his destiny, as Spock would put it. But, as much as I love ST 09, no, I don't think Kirk is ready to be Captain. And guess what? We see that consequence the next film.

Never thought of it that way. However, Into Darkness still doesn't feel different enough. The original Raimi trilogy, for example, pulled off having the first movie show the hero going through the finding their place story, and using the sequels to build on that with very different stories that organically grew out of it.

Yes, because Star Trek was never about making money...oh wait.

The other stuff usually had some reason for existing and well thought-out stories. This one I can't see being made for anything but profit. Are people really going to be watching this years down the road? There's no theme or message to it, it's just an adventure movie and those are a dime a dozen and better done (like most every Marvel movie ever made).

Because Star Trek, at its roots in TOS, is an action adventure series with social commentary woven in from time to time. I think that Abrams rebooted TOS style Trek with a lot more adventure and action that most series did afterwards.

It's really hard to compare a movie to a TV show. I'd say this. The legend goes that the first Trek pilot was rejected for being too "cerebrial." That's always been the undercurrent to the franchise. While there have been purely action stories, they weren't needed. Many of the classic episodes were just the characters trying to solve a puzzle. This movie series checks it brains in at the door.

It also explores the importance of father figures and the development of leaders. Kirk doesn't have one and goes on to become directionless, rebellious and reckless, contributing nothing to society. Similarly, we see the importance of Sarek in Spock's development, and his embracing of both halves of his heritage.

It's that mentorship that drives both Spock and Kirk to become more than they are. And that's part of Gene's eventual vision as well, that people work to better themselves.

That would be good stuff, but its all very perfunctory. It's spackled on here and there, but the movie's main focus is on the the action. That drives the story. Case in point, the most action packed old movies, Wrath of Khan and First Contact, had the characters drive the story as the action came from their motivations. In fact, Trek was always character-driven, something that Abrams knew to do with his Star Wars movies, but not with this Trek movie.

 

[SolarisOne]

Sorry, that was a tangent. I honestly don't see any DS9-style stuff in the movie. All the moral quandaries are solved when they learn that they were being played by a corrupt admiral. They don't have to decide for themselves in a scenario where there's not clear-cut answer (or in the case of that specific DS9 show, we don't get to see them go into actual darkness because of the choices they made.)

Seriously. "In the Pale Moonlight" was a masterpiece. Avery Brooks' and Andrew Robinson's deliveries were spot-on. The plot had actual consequences for both the Federation and the individuals involved.

it's just an adventure movie and those are a dime a dozen and better done (like most every Marvel movie ever made).

Especially when they're directed by Joss Whedon.

It's spackled on here and there, but the movie's main focus is on the the action. That drives the story. Case in point, the most action packed old movies, Wrath of Khan and First Contact, had the characters drive the story as the action came from their motivations. In fact, Trek was always character-driven, something that Abrams knew to do with his Star Wars movies, but not with this Trek movie.

I think that's the best explanation of why I don't care for these movies I've seen to date.

 

[Trekkin]

'In the Pale Moonlight...' didn't have consequences for the Federation. They stay totally ignorant of everything, and benefitted outrageously from the whole she-bang. Garek was the only other person involved, and it didn't even bother him enough to require a shrug off.

That the 'heroes' flat-out 'won' was...kind of the point.

Sure, there were consequences for all the Romulans who died after getting dragged into the war under false pretences (and for Sisko personally.) But the only vague consequence for the Feds, was that the Romulans might one day confirm they were tricked and get pissed. A threat that went nowhere, and it was implied a lot of Romulans already knew anyway.

 

[fireproof78]

Sorry, that was a tangent. I honestly don't see any DS9-style stuff in the movie. All the moral quandaries are solved when they learn that they were being played by a corrupt admiral. They don't have to decide for themselves in a scenario where there's not clear-cut answer (or in the case of that specific DS9 show, we don't get to see them go into actual darkness because of the choices they made.)

That is the nature of a film, though. I see plenty of DS9 style ideas (see the thread regarding Paradise Lost/Home Front and ST ID) but because it is a film, the time frame is truncated. It's really hard to compare both.

In my example, I was assuming a re-write. The whole first act was just too much like the previous movie for my tastes.

Fair enough. I felt like it was just different enough to address problems that Kirk has, while also focusing on new challenges.

Never thought of it that way. However, Into Darkness still doesn't feel different enough. The original Raimi trilogy, for example, pulled off having the first movie show the hero going through the finding their place story, and using the sequels to build on that with very different stories that organically grew out of it.

I think that the Abrams film took a different route. I don't think it's a trilogy in the sense that Kirk finds his place, then faces a challenge in that place and grows. I think the films are about Kirk becoming Kirk, and the growing pains that it takes for him to become a leader and the man that the audience knows he can be.

Nu-Kirk faces more challenges than Prime Kirk in the sense that he didn't have a role model to demonstrate good decision making or responsibility. And, for some that I've read, that's irritating or uninteresting, immature or irrelevant. For me, Kirk's development is the key to my enjoyment of these films.

The other stuff usually had some reason for existing and well thought-out stories. This one I can't see being made for anything but profit. Are people really going to be watching this years down the road? There's no theme or message to it, it's just an adventure movie and those are a dime a dozen and better done (like most every Marvel movie ever made).

I don't know what people are going to be watching down the road. To me, that's irrelevant. I find the Abrams' films telling a good, intesting and timely story about the importance of father figures. If I'm writing a psychological paper, these films are my go to example of that impact.

It may be mindless to others, but to me it is a serious reflection on the nature of fathers and the nature of leadership.

It's really hard to compare a movie to a TV show. I'd say this. The legend goes that the first Trek pilot was rejected for being too "cerebrial." That's always been the undercurrent to the franchise. While there have been purely action stories, they weren't needed. Many of the classic episodes were just the characters trying to solve a puzzle. This movie series checks it brains in at the door.

No, it really doesn't. There is more to it, but I see it so often missed because the films get labeled "mindless action" and then people check their brains at the door.

"Too cerebral" has been bandied about for decades now. And I've always heard it interpreted as the studio execs felt that there were no relate-able characters in the pilot for the audience to connect with.

I agree that the there has always been an undercurrent of the show trying to do something, but it also was an action show. It was a billed as a "Wagon Train to the Stars" deliberately referencing Westerns of that era. Now, did GR and others use that setting for telling social commentary in some stories? Absolutely. But, you can also find Kirk being like a cowboy and having action scenes as well. It's a mix of the two, not devoid of one or the other.

That would be good stuff, but its all very perfunctory. It's spackled on here and there, but the movie's main focus is on the the action. That drives the story. Case in point, the most action packed old movies, Wrath of Khan and First Contact, had the characters drive the story as the action came from their motivations. In fact, Trek was always character-driven, something that Abrams knew to do with his Star Wars movies, but not with this Trek movie.

I disagree, as should be evident by now.

The first scene in ST 09 is character driven by Robau and Kirk Sr. making the decision for the ultimate sacrifice to save lives. That scene casts the theme of the film of one about leadership and sacrifice. Throughout the course of the films we see Kirk and Spock learning about the those attributes through experiences and mentors. We see Spock growing to accept his duel heritage with the encouragement of Sarek, and Kirk slowly learning to become a leader.

In all of this, we have dark reflections for both Kirk and Spock in Marcus and Nero, respectively. Marcus is in the extreme where the rules don't apply and he will do anything to win, including murder and cause a war. Nero represents the heart of Sarek's warning about the deep and powerful nature of Vulcan emotions, and why Spock must control them.

Now, one concession I'll make about the Abrams' films is the fact that they are too fast paced. The scenes that pack the most emotional punch often are not given enough time to breathe and let the audience reflect on the character's emotions. But, that doesn't mean those scenes are not there. They are, and some of my favorite, most memorable Star Trek scenes are in these films.

Obviously, mileage will vary, but far from thinking these are just "mindless action films" I think they are action films with a layer of social commentary, fitting with GR's original proposal of TOS, but given a contemporary filmmaking touch.

 

[WebLurker]

The first scene in ST 09 is character driven by Robau and Kirk Sr. making the decision for the ultimate sacrifice to save lives.

That prologue was a really great scene. There are some awful, easily corrected mistakes in it that either suggest that the people making the movie didn't due their research or didn't care (which is surprising, given that they took time to homage TAS later in the film, which is far more obscure material), but it's excellent filmmaking.

That scene casts the theme of the film of one about leadership and sacrifice. Throughout the course of the films we see Kirk and Spock learning about the those attributes through experiences and mentors. We see Spock growing to accept his duel heritage with the encouragement of Sarek, and Kirk slowly learning to become a leader.

Maybe, however those elements come and go when it's time for the shooting to start. I find it really interesting that most of the Spock material was stolen from the original shows; the school fight scene and subsequent talk with his father was a scene in "Yesteryear" (TAS), for example. His story depends on us remembering the original character. Whereas Kirk, as much as I dislike the interpretation, at least stands on his own as a character.

In all of this, we have dark reflections for both Kirk and Spock in Marcus and Nero, respectively. Marcus is in the extreme where the rules don't apply and he will do anything to win, including murder and cause a war. Nero represents the heart of Sarek's warning about the deep and powerful nature of Vulcan emotions, and why Spock must control them.

We never learn why Marcus did what he did, though. He's just the evil villain (and very entertaining when in full villain mode), but he's a plot device. I don't think Nero was more than anything of a plot device, either. Wanting revenge for dead family is an old idea. We also get very little about who he was before the tragedy, so it's hard to feel sorry for him in the present

A lot of the other villains in the Trek movies were given more character development. I mean, Soren from Generations was a better "rules don't apply" villain then Marcus, because we understood why he became the person he was (and Malcolm McDowell gave a more layered performance).

Now, one concession I'll make about the Abrams' films is the fact that they are too fast paced. The scenes that pack the most emotional punch often are not given enough time to breathe and let the audience reflect on the character's emotions. But, that doesn't mean those scenes are not there. They are, and some of my favorite, most memorable Star Trek scenes are in these films.

But do any of them stack up to the great character scenes from the old movies? Spock figuring out himself in The Motion Picture? Most of the material Kirk was given reflecting on the missed life opportunities and the fact that he'd been cheating his way through life in Wrath of Khan? His grappling with his hatred towards Klingons in Undiscovered Country? Picard's breakdown about his hatred for the Borg in First Contact?

Obviously, mileage will vary, but far from thinking these are just "mindless action films" I think they are action films with a layer of social commentary, fitting with GR's original proposal of TOS, but given a contemporary filmmaking touch.

I don't think there much of any commentary in the '09 movie, since it was mostly interested in setting up this new version of the characters and if done well, that can be okay. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't have as much depth as the other Marvel movies, but the characters make it worthwhile.

Into Darkness had potential, with the torpedoes and manhunt paralleling drone warfare and some US military assassination missions, but it was all to set up the battle scenes. Good characters oppose it, bad guys want it, there's no depth to it.

Case in point, most of the previous movies had depth, since there's underlying themes that weave through them.

Motion Picture: Not only deals with AI, but on human nature. It's basically about a being trying to find it's version of God and how we as people do similar things. ("Each of us... at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a god... and asks..."Why am I here? What was I meant to be?" - Spock). We also get to see Spock make peace with himself, something that never happened in the TV show.

Wrath of Khan: A lot of stuff here, like Kirk's past decisions having consequences in the present (Khan's return, his decision to put a career ahead of the possibility of a family, his lifetime of cheating not preparing him of real loss), not to mention revenge and sacrifice. (Also, Montalbán's performance as Khan's was superior to Cumberbatch's.)

Search For Spock: Self-sacrifice and loyalty

Voyage Home: We see Spock putting himself back together and rediscovering the peace with himself he had gotten in the first movie.

Final Frontier: Once again, we're dealing with people seeing God (would you find that in a blockbuster today?).

Undiscovered Country: Racism and learning to let go of it.

Generations: The passage of time and death and how one deals with it (do they try to cheat it, or knowing that life doesn't last forever, make sure to make the most of the time you do have in this world?).

First Contact: Revenge and letting go of hatred in the Borg story, and commentary on human nature in the Cochrane one (the characters learn that the man they so idolize was in fact a very flawed man, but also imply that his experiences could bring him closer to the one history remembers).

Insurrection: The crew have a crises in morality, do they follow unethical orders or do the right thing and disobey?

Nemesis: This one is a stretch, but there is some discussion on how people are defined by what they chose to do, not by circumstances.

The reboot movies may have some attempts at putting themes in them, but it's not as well done as the previous movies, or even as other contemporary blockbusters have (like Winter Soldier and Civil War for the MCU). Heck, even the recent Disney and Pixar movies have more depth.

 

[Tom Servo]

Seriously. "In the Pale Moonlight" was a masterpiece. Avery Brooks' and Andrew Robinson's deliveries were spot-on. The plot had actual consequences for both the Federation and the individuals involved.



Especially when they're directed by Joss Whedon.



I think that's the best explanation of why I don't care for these movies I've seen to date.

Ya, sorry, I don't think we should be using the Marvel films on the whole as the benchmark of quality blockbuster filmmaking. I will agree that Guardians, Winter Soldier, Civil War, and the first Avengers and Iron Man were good films. And I would hold ST and STID up to the same quality level as those movies. Everything else from Marvel has been mediocre to just meh to be honest.

I see a lot of genuine talk about the themes of other good summer blockbusters in this thread, but when it comes to ST and STID, those discussions are just glossed over with "well it's not as good as these other movies", which is nonsense. Those two films have just as much in depth character work and moral questioning in them as the best of the Marvel films. I feel like those points are just pushed aside because people didn't like the film. As a director, I think Abrams is a better filmmaker then Whedon. Again, as a director. Whedon is a better writer.

Also, what depth did Abrams miss in The Force Awakens? He nailed that film. NAILED IT. The whole idea that he only gets Star Wars ona surface level is laughable. That film was the best one could possibly hope for as a modern interpretation of that universe. I'm sorry, but those talking about how much depth there is to the originals that he missed, are looking for something that isn't there.

 

[WebLurker]

Ya, sorry, I don't think we should be using the Marvel films on the whole as the benchmark of quality blockbuster filmmaking. I will agree that Guardians, Winter Soldier, Civil War, and the first Avengers and Iron Man were good films. And I would hold ST and STID up to the same quality level as those movies. Everything else from Marvel has been mediocre to just meh to be honest.

I think my point was missed. I was saying that they're just as forgettable as most of the most of the modern-day blockbusters. Agreed that the Captain America sequels and Guardians were really good. But the Abramsverse moveis being as good as those? Um, I don't really see how.

I see a lot of genuine talk about the themes of other good summer blockbusters in this thread, but when it comes to ST and STID, those discussions are just glossed over with "well it's not as good as these other movies", which is nonsense.

I've seen them, though, and I don't think they're very well constructed. So, yeah, I'm going to say that they're not as good as the others.

Those two films have just as much in depth character work and moral questioning in them as the best of the Marvel films. I feel like those points are just pushed aside because people didn't like the film. As a director, I think Abrams is a better filmmaker then Whedon. Again, as a director. Whedon is a better writer.

What depth? It was very patchy and took the backseat to the action. Civil War had depth and was completely character-driven.

Also, what depth did Abrams miss in The Force Awakens? He nailed that film. NAILED IT. The whole idea that he only gets Star Wars ona surface level is laughable. That film was the best one could possibly hope for as a modern interpretation of that universe. I'm sorry, but those talking about how much depth there is to the originals that he missed, are looking for something that isn't there.

I actually have no complaints about his Star Wars work. My wish is that the same level of attention to detail, quality of writing, and fidelity to the source material had been brought to his Trek movies.

 

[Pauln6]

Also, what depth did Abrams miss in The Force Awakens? He nailed that film. NAILED IT. The whole idea that he only gets Star Wars ona surface level is laughable. That film was the best one could possibly hope for as a modern interpretation of that universe. I'm sorry, but those talking about how much depth there is to the originals that he missed, are looking for something that isn't there.

I actually think that there is quite a lot of nuanced characterisation in the NuTrek movies but it is often drowned out by hamfisted schlockiness and special effects to look cooool.

I think he nailed it with Star Wars because that's what he can more easily relate to and it's what he wanted to be doing all along. Let's make Star Trek more like Star Wars was probably an ill-judged mission statement.

Having said that, for my part, the films would be awesome with only relatively minor tweaks amounting to about 5% of the whole. I like the energy of the new movies, I would just tone town some of the silliness, the leaps in technology across the board, and triple the number of women featured. Biggest thing I'd change is using Garth instead of Khan.

 

[Vance]

While I do think that JJ screwed up Kirk's character pretty badly, the question of 'did he RUIN Kirk' is a different beast. No matter what you think of these movies, they're already fading from public consciousness - a third one will give a short boost - but we're seeing movies with no staying power, similar to a lot of other current 'blockbusters'. In five years, few people will remember this Kirk.

But Shatner is forever...

 

[fireproof78]

That prologue was a really great scene. There are some awful, easily corrected mistakes in it that either suggest that the people making the movie didn't due their research or didn't care (which is surprising, given that they took time to homage TAS later in the film, which is far more obscure material), but it's excellent filmmaking.

Or, they were not able to correct them due to a writer's strike.

Maybe, however those elements come and go when it's time for the shooting to start. I find it really interesting that most of the Spock material was stolen from the original shows; the school fight scene and subsequent talk with his father was a scene in "Yesteryear" (TAS), for example. His story depends on us remembering the original character. Whereas Kirk, as much as I dislike the interpretation, at least stands on his own as a character.

Respectfully, I disagree. The elements remain with the characters, with Kirk being a rebel without a cause due to his lack of a father figure and Spock attempting to find his way among Starfleet personnel, and, in so doing, find himself.

I don't believe I need to know anything from past material to enjoy it-certainly my wife did not. And, to add to it, the fact that I do know what Kirk and Spock can become in Prime makes their development all the more interesting to me.

We never learn why Marcus did what he did, though. He's just the evil villain (and very entertaining when in full villain mode), but he's a plot device. I don't think Nero was more than anything of a plot device, either. Wanting revenge for dead family is an old idea. We also get very little about who he was before the tragedy, so it's hard to feel sorry for him in the present

A lot of the other villains in the Trek movies were given more character development. I mean, Soren from Generations was a better "rules don't apply" villain then Marcus, because we understood why he became the person he was (and Malcolm McDowell gave a more layered performance).

Again, respectfully, disagree. We know why Marcus did it (Starfleet is unprepared to face off the threats that are out there against the Klingons, the Romulans and who else) and Nero is average joe who saw his entire world destroyed and had a psychotic break with reality.

That's a quick sketch. If you truly want me to add to it, I'll feel free to do so. I love Nero, though, and think he is one of the more interesting and tortured villains in Trek, and works very well in this film. However, I'm also trying not to do the comparison game of villain against villain. That's not interesting or fair.

But do any of them stack up to the great character scenes from the old movies? Spock figuring out himself in The Motion Picture? Most of the material Kirk was given reflecting on the missed life opportunities and the fact that he'd been cheating his way through life in Wrath of Khan? His grappling with his hatred towards Klingons in Undiscovered Country? Picard's breakdown about his hatred for the Borg in First Contact?

Don't care. This isn't a comparison or a competition to see which film has "THE BEST" (trademark pending). I'm watching these two films and seeing the contiguous whole that they make, as well as the dynamics of the characters and their growth.

I don't think there much of any commentary in the '09 movie, since it was mostly interested in setting up this new version of the characters and if done well, that can be okay. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't have as much depth as the other Marvel movies, but the characters make it worthwhile.

I've already hashed the commentary but will again, in brief. The commentary is about what it takes to be a great leader, and the value of father figures in that process. The importance of fatherhood is grossly understated in contemporary society but I think the films are a way to illustrate it without putting to fine a point on it.

Into Darkness had potential, with the torpedoes and manhunt paralleling drone warfare and some US military assassination missions, but it was all to set up the battle scenes. Good characters oppose it, bad guys want it, there's no depth to it.

Again, that's glossing over details, such as the principles of the Federation being at risk as Marcus breaks the rules in the name of defending those same rules. It's the outcome of the desperation in the face of war.

Case in point, most of the previous movies had depth, since there's underlying themes that weave through them.

Motion Picture: Not only deals with AI, but on human nature. It's basically about a being trying to find it's version of God and how we as people do similar things. ("Each of us... at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a god... and asks..."Why am I here? What was I meant to be?" - Spock). We also get to see Spock make peace with himself, something that never happened in the TV show.

Wrath of Khan: A lot of stuff here, like Kirk's past decisions having consequences in the present (Khan's return, his decision to put a career ahead of the possibility of a family, his lifetime of cheating not preparing him of real loss), not to mention revenge and sacrifice. (Also, Montalbán's performance as Khan's was superior to Cumberbatch's.)

Search For Spock: Self-sacrifice and loyalty

Voyage Home: We see Spock putting himself back together and rediscovering the peace with himself he had gotten in the first movie.

Final Frontier: Once again, we're dealing with people seeing God (would you find that in a blockbuster today?).

Undiscovered Country: Racism and learning to let go of it.

Generations: The passage of time and death and how one deals with it (do they try to cheat it, or knowing that life doesn't last forever, make sure to make the most of the time you do have in this world?).

First Contact: Revenge and letting go of hatred in the Borg story, and commentary on human nature in the Cochrane one (the characters learn that the man they so idolize was in fact a very flawed man, but also imply that his experiences could bring him closer to the one history remembers).

Insurrection: The crew have a crises in morality, do they follow unethical orders or do the right thing and disobey?

Nemesis: This one is a stretch, but there is some discussion on how people are defined by what they chose to do, not by circumstances.

The reboot movies may have some attempts at putting themes in them, but it's not as well done as the previous movies, or even as other contemporary blockbusters have (like Winter Soldier and Civil War for the MCU). Heck, even the recent Disney and Pixar movies have more depth.

Again, respectfully, disagree. For so many reasons. Mainly, the new films have themes, and characters who are not only dynamic, but growing through some massive changes. The commentary is wove throughout as a comment on the need for fathers to give the mentorship to leaders like Kirk and Spock.

Finally, again, no I am not comparing that great scene in STID against TUC or a Picard speech vs. a Pike speech. I'm watching a film for a good story and maybe some commentary. It's not a competition to me. I can enjoy all of them on their own merits.

I actually think that there is quite a lot of nuanced characterisation in the NuTrek movies but it is often drowned out by hamfisted schlockiness and special effects to look cooool.

I think he nailed it with Star Wars because that's what he can more easily relate to and it's what he wanted to be doing all along. Let's make Star Trek more like Star Wars was probably an ill-judged mission statement.

Having said that, for my part, the films would be awesome with only relatively minor tweaks amounting to about 5% of the whole. I like the energy of the new movies, I would just tone town some of the silliness, the leaps in technology across the board, and triple the number of women featured. Biggest thing I'd change is using Garth instead of Khan.

I disagree with using Garth. John Harrison could have worked well as a rogue S31 agent who was augmented, a'la Khan, but then escaped to form his own plan. Garth just feels like a ridiculous name drop, just like Khan.

While I do think that JJ screwed up Kirk's character pretty badly, the question of 'did he RUIN Kirk' is a different beast. No matter what you think of these movies, they're already fading from public consciousness - a third one will give a short boost - but we're seeing movies with no staying power, similar to a lot of other current 'blockbusters'. In five years, few people will remember this Kirk.

But Shatner is forever...

Who's your favorite Bond? Doctor? Hamelt?

You have choices in that regard. Why is Kirk different? I'm glad people have choices.

Also, the certainty of what people will and will not remember is amusing to me, since the evolution of pop culture is hard to judge and it's impact on individuals varies. I find more value in ST 09 and ST ID than I do in the TNG films put together. Others, will not. That's the beauty of entertainment.

 

[Trekkin]

In five years, few people will remember this Kirk. But Shatner is forever...

In spite of what even participating in this forum would have you believe, I really don't care if other people like the things I like. And honestly, neither do you.

Know how I know? Because if the opinions of your peers were so important, then you wouldn't be much of a Star Trek fan in the first place. Because the public (and critical) consensus is that, with a few major exceptions, the majority of the Star Trek franchise ranges from 'forgettable' to 'utter shit.'

So, keeping that sense of individualism and lack-of-fucks in mind...why the hell should anyone let the hypothetical opinions of hypothetical future strangers affect their judgement? Did 60's viewers of a struggling TOS decide that they considered the show and characters to be 'good', because they somehow knew it would eventually become a pop culture touchstone?

 

[Cadet49]

Missed this companion video to the "Did JJ's writers understand Trek video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I really enjoyed the new Star Trek movies and the performances of the actors, but the new version of Kirk has been the one elements that has pulled me out of the stories. He doesn't remind me at all of Shatner's captain. Kirk in TOS had the presence of a Shakespearean actor, and would quote literature - he was a man of action, but he was also an intellectual, and Shatner brought this presence, and we were impressed when he would outmanuever an enemy, as he did several times in Wrath of Khan. The new Kirk is an interesting character, but I don't find he has the command presence - all Pike's talk about his 'greatness" doesn't seem warranted. In the first film, Kirk may have come up with the plan for Spock to steal Spock Prime's timeship, knowing that Nero's thirst for revenge would draw the Narada away from Earth, where Enterprise could ambush it and activate the Red Matter, but that didn't seem to warrant a promotion from a cadet on probation to captain of a flagship! Then, in Into Darkness, every plan he comes up with backfires - his mission to the Klingon homeworld goes terribly wrong, his solution to escape the Vengence when Marcus shows up is essentially very simplistic, to "activate warp engines and run for Earth, and let's just hope Marcus doesn't catch up!", and his plan to take the Vengeance ultimately frees Khan and allows him to gain control of a superweapon, which has disasterous consequences to a whole lot of people, but those facts are never dealt with in any meaningful way at the end of the film - a lot of people died as the result of Khan's release by Kirk. Where is the clever tactician and philosopher we saw in Shatner's Kirk? Even though this Kirk is young and inexperienced, those were elements I felt were a core part of the Kirk character...

 

[SolarisOne]

But Shatner is forever...

Which is why Nimoy's gone and he's still around.

 

[JKM]

Or, they were not able to correct them due to a writer's strike.


Respectfully, I disagree. The elements remain with the characters, with Kirk being a rebel without a cause due to his lack of a father figure and Spock attempting to find his way among Starfleet personnel, and, in so doing, find himself.

I don't believe I need to know anything from past material to enjoy it-certainly my wife did not. And, to add to it, the fact that I do know what Kirk and Spock can become in Prime makes their development all the more interesting to me.


Again, respectfully, disagree. We know why Marcus did it (Starfleet is unprepared to face off the threats that are out there against the Klingons, the Romulans and who else) and Nero is average joe who saw his entire world destroyed and had a psychotic break with reality.

That's a quick sketch. If you truly want me to add to it, I'll feel free to do so. I love Nero, though, and think he is one of the more interesting and tortured villains in Trek, and works very well in this film. However, I'm also trying not to do the comparison game of villain against villain. That's not interesting or fair.




Don't care. This isn't a comparison or a competition to see which film has "THE BEST" (trademark pending). I'm watching these two films and seeing the contiguous whole that they make, as well as the dynamics of the characters and their growth.




I've already hashed the commentary but will again, in brief. The commentary is about what it takes to be a great leader, and the value of father figures in that process. The importance of fatherhood is grossly understated in contemporary society but I think the films are a way to illustrate it without putting to fine a point on it.

Again, that's glossing over details, such as the principles of the Federation being at risk as Marcus breaks the rules in the name of defending those same rules. It's the outcome of the desperation in the face of war.


Again, respectfully, disagree. For so many reasons. Mainly, the new films have themes, and characters who are not only dynamic, but growing through some massive changes. The commentary is wove throughout as a comment on the need for fathers to give the mentorship to leaders like Kirk and Spock.

Finally, again, no I am not comparing that great scene in STID against TUC or a Picard speech vs. a Pike speech. I'm watching a film for a good story and maybe some commentary. It's not a competition to me. I can enjoy all of them on their own merits.


I disagree with using Garth. John Harrison could have worked well as a rogue S31 agent who was augmented, a'la Khan, but then escaped to form his own plan. Garth just feels like a ridiculous name drop, just like Khan.


Who's your favorite Bond? Doctor? Hamelt?

You have choices in that regard. Why is Kirk different? I'm glad people have choices.

Also, the certainty of what people will and will not remember is amusing to me, since the evolution of pop culture is hard to judge and it's impact on individuals varies. I find more value in ST 09 and ST ID than I do in the TNG films put together. Others, will not. That's the beauty of entertainment.

If I could like this post more than once I would!

I really enjoyed the new Star Trek movies and the performances of the actors, but the new version of Kirk has been the one elements that has pulled me out of the stories. He doesn't remind me at all of Shatner's captain.

He's not supposed to. This is an alternate reality. They play heavily on the 'what-if' by taking away the man who inspired Kirk to be the man he was in TOS, his father.

The new Kirk is an interesting character, but I don't find he has the command presence - all Pike's talk about his 'greatness" doesn't seem warranted. In the first film, Kirk may have come up with the plan for Spock to steal Spock Prime's timeship, knowing that Nero's thirst for revenge would draw the Narada away from Earth, where Enterprise could ambush it and activate the Red Matter, but that didn't seem to warrant a promotion from a cadet on probation to captain of a flagship!

Pike said he saw greatness in him, not that he already was great. Think about it, if McCoy hadn't sneaked Kirk aboard the ship, Enterprise would have been destroyed immediately on arrival by running into all the debris with their shields down, not to mention the Narada. Kirk was the only one who's mind put all the clues together and he was half out of it when he first heard Chekov talking about it. Then he came up with the daring rescue plan he then proceeded to pull off. A more careful man would have let Earth be destroyed. Granted this didn't warrant promotion, and was not a good idea, but that is what the next film shows.

Then, in Into Darkness, every plan he comes up with backfires - his mission to the Klingon homeworld goes terribly wrong, his solution to escape the Vengence when Marcus shows up is essentially very simplistic, to "activate warp engines and run for Earth, and let's just hope Marcus doesn't catch up!", and his plan to take the Vengeance ultimately frees Khan and allows him to gain control of a superweapon, which has disasterous consequences to a whole lot of people, but those facts are never dealt with in any meaningful way at the end of the film - a lot of people died as the result of Khan's release by Kirk. Where is the clever tactician and philosopher we saw in Shatner's Kirk? Even though this Kirk is young and inexperienced, those were elements I felt were a core part of the Kirk character...

I'm not sure why his plans backfiring should be held against him, now if he went ahead and fired on the Klingons, then yes I would have a problem, but technically he was only following orders. Not to mention almost every TOS show was about backfiring plans.

Also, as far as Kirk knew, Enterprise was their flagship and that most likely means the best of her class. Why would he assume that Marcus had this never heard of advanced warp capability? As far as freeing Khan that wasn't his end game or he wouldn't have had Scotty stun Kahn. He just didn't know what he was dealing with. Not to mention in order to save his crew he had to work with him temporarily.

Having said all that, I do hope with Beyond we see the gap beginning to close between the two Kirks, as though this is an alternate reality they are the same person at the core.

 

[Pauln6]

The commentary is about what it takes to be a great leader, and the value of father figures in that process. The importance of fatherhood is grossly understated in contemporary society but I think the films are a way to illustrate it without putting to fine a point on it.

I disagree with using Garth. John Harrison could have worked well as a rogue S31 agent who was augmented, a'la Khan, but then escaped to form his own plan. Garth just feels like a ridiculous name drop, just like Khan.

I do think the first movie (for Kirk and Spock) and second movie (for Kirk) do play heavily on the role of the father figure to good effect. The unfortunate side-effect is that the importance of the role of the mother figure in men's lives is largely swept aside. To be fair, Amanda's dual role as the author of Spock's emotional side is played upon but largely through interactions with his father. Conversely, Kirk works through his daddy issues with Pike and his mother is entirely absent. This means that the male members of the already male-heavy cast get a lot more meat than the women.

I mention Garth because I felt that his inclusion could be implemented without too many changes to the plot:
1) Already in Starfleet.
2) Known tactical genius.
3) Superhuman due to genetic changes by aliens (including blood that could effect healing - it was why he was altered in the first place).
4) He's nuts.
5) His shape-shifting abilities could have been useful in infiltration
6) The prisoners could have been Antosians being kept on ice for genetic testing to produce more Starfleet supermen
7) More interesting side effects and long term consequences from the blood - is Kirk now enhanced like Captain America but could he end up crazy too?

 

[TwoJakes]

Be interesting to see what (if any) references there are to Kirk in the new series, and which to the two different Kirk's that would be.

TNG, DS9 and VOY all made some call out of Kirk.

 

[fireproof78]

If I could like this post more than once I would!

Hey, thanks

He's not supposed to. This is an alternate reality. They play heavily on the 'what-if' by taking away the man who inspired Kirk to be the man he was in TOS, his father.


Pike said he saw greatness in him, not that he already was great. Think about it, if McCoy hadn't sneaked Kirk aboard the ship, Enterprise would have been destroyed immediately on arrival by running into all the debris with their shields down, not to mention the Narada. Kirk was the only one who's mind put all the clues together and he was half out of it when he first heard Chekov talking about it. Then he came up with the daring rescue plan he then proceeded to pull off. A more careful man would have let Earth be destroyed. Granted this didn't warrant promotion, and was not a good idea, but that is what the next film shows.



I'm not sure why his plans backfiring should be held against him, now if he went ahead and fired on the Klingons, then yes I would have a problem, but technically he was only following orders. Not to mention almost every TOS show was about backfiring plans.

Also, as far as Kirk knew, Enterprise was their flagship and that most likely means the best of her class. Why would he assume that Marcus had this never heard of advanced warp capability? As far as freeing Khan that wasn't his end game or he wouldn't have had Scotty stun Kahn. He just didn't know what he was dealing with. Not to mention in order to save his crew he had to work with him temporarily.

Having said all that, I do hope with Beyond we see the gap beginning to close between the two Kirks, as though this is an alternate reality they are the same person at the core.

Also, well put.

I do think the first movie (for Kirk and Spock) and second movie (for Kirk) do play heavily on the role of the father figure to good effect. The unfortunate side-effect is that the importance of the role of the mother figure in men's lives is largely swept aside. To be fair, Amanda's dual role as the author of Spock's emotional side is played upon but largely through interactions with his father. Conversely, Kirk works through his daddy issues with Pike and his mother is entirely absent. This means that the male members of the already male-heavy cast get a lot more meat than the women.

Yeah, even as I wrote my treatise on the theme, it frustrated me at the lack of female role models in Kirk's life. Amanda at least presented something for Spock, and still has a major influence on him that I like.
But, another argument could be made that this is about absentee parents in general with Kirk. But, I wouldn't mind seeing more female influences and role models.

I mention Garth because I felt that his inclusion could be implemented without too many changes to the plot:
1) Already in Starfleet.
2) Known tactical genius.
3) Superhuman due to genetic changes by aliens (including blood that could effect healing - it was why he was altered in the first place).
4) He's nuts.
5) His shape-shifting abilities could have been useful in infiltration
6) The prisoners could have been Antosians being kept on ice for genetic testing to produce more Starfleet supermen
7) More interesting side effects and long term consequences from the blood - is Kirk now enhanced like Captain America but could he end up crazy too?

You know what? When you put it that way, it changes my mind. I actually like that a whole lot more. Well said

Also, I bolded number 4 because you put it so succinctly.

Would you want to keep Cumberbatch as the actor?

 

[Pauln6]

Would you want to keep Cumberbatch as the actor?

Absolutely! In fact if we just ask him to re-dub any reference to Khan in the movie, I'm sure he'd be up for it.... as long as Quinto is willing to shout, "GAAAARRRTH!!!". Then just edit out any reference in dialogue about Khan's background and wait for some kind fan to edit us a new movie. You hardly need to miss a beat. ;-p

 

[fireproof78]

Absolutely! In fact if we just ask him to re-dub any reference to Khan in the movie, I'm sure he'd be up for it.... as long as Quinto is willing to shout, "GAAAARRRTH!!!". Then just edit out any reference in dialogue about Khan's background and wait for some kind fan to edit us a new movie. You hardly need to miss a beat. ;-p

Might have to edit out Garth getting misty-eyed over the frozen people though

I like this.

 

[WebLurker]

Or, they were not able to correct them due to a writer's strike.

The Enterprise insignias were used despite this being a time when every ship received its own patch. The Kelvin is armed with phasers despite this being a time when it would've had either phase weapons or lasers. The impulse engine is on the back of the warp nacelle. I think it's more of a design problem than a writing one. (Nitpicking, I'm sure, but since this's the exact ripple point, I would've preferred more of the changes happen after the Kelvin survivors get back, when the changes would then start piling up.

Respectfully, I disagree. The elements remain with the characters, with Kirk being a rebel without a cause due to his lack of a father figure and Spock attempting to find his way among Starfleet personnel, and, in so doing, find himself.

I don't believe I need to know anything from past material to enjoy it-certainly my wife did not. And, to add to it, the fact that I do know what Kirk and Spock can become in Prime makes their development all the more interesting to me.

Based on their trajectory, they're becoming very different characters. New Spock is far more emotional than the original one was even after coming to self-acceptance, for example. Also, Kirk's story about him not having a father messing him up only works it you've seen the TV shows and know how he turned out with a father. I will concede though, that the new Kirk otherwise does stand alone, but only since he was the only character we've seen the genesis of. Everyone else has no backstory or only the barebones of one, making it random guesswork why they're different from the original versions.

Again, respectfully, disagree. We know why Marcus did it (Starfleet is unprepared to face off the threats that are out there against the Klingons, the Romulans and who else) and Nero is average joe who saw his entire world destroyed and had a psychotic break with reality.

So, Marcus knows that the Federation isn't ready for war, thanks to the Nero incident, and his idea to solve that is to provoke a war (that the Federation isn't ready for)? Into Darkness really fouled up. Marcus's plan (and Khan's counter-plans, for that matter) make no sense and each piece of new info on further confuses the issue. By extension, the Marcus character made no sense, since we don't understand how his plan is supposed to make sense to him (and he seems to only be a sociopath, not insane).

That's a quick sketch. If you truly want me to add to it, I'll feel free to do so. I love Nero, though, and think he is one of the more interesting and tortured villains in Trek, and works very well in this film. However, I'm also trying not to do the comparison game of villain against villain. That's not interesting or fair.

Sure, since I found Nero to be the least interesting villain in the movie series, I'd be up for hearing a case in his favor.

Don't care. This isn't a comparison or a competition to see which film has "THE BEST" (trademark pending). I'm watching these two films and seeing the contiguous whole that they make, as well as the dynamics of the characters and their growth.

I'll concede to a point, but to a certain extent, I'm venturing the opinion that the movies botch a lot of this stuff up, and pointing to the old ones is an example of how these elements can be done well.

I've already hashed the commentary but will again, in brief. The commentary is about what it takes to be a great leader, and the value of father figures in that process. The importance of fatherhood is grossly understated in contemporary society but I think the films are a way to illustrate it without putting to fine a point on it.

However, the idea of fathers is dropped in the second movie (Spock certainly has nothing to do with it).

Again, that's glossing over details, such as the principles of the Federation being at risk as Marcus breaks the rules in the name of defending those same rules. It's the outcome of the desperation in the face of war.

It still feels very perfunctory. Once the ball gets rolling, the question doesn't become what's the right thing to do, but how can we stop the plot. If there had been no conspiracy, and the main focus was on the crew trying to determine if they could in in good conscience carry out their orders from beginning to end, it would've been a more mature movie.

In many ways, that's how I feel about the development and themes of the new movies. It has some good ideas, but rather than exploring them (like Star Trek does at its best), they either suspend them for much of the movie (most of the stuff about Kirk's past) or only use them as a springboard for for action scenes that feel nothing like a Star Trek movie (the ethics of Marcus).

Again, respectfully, disagree. For so many reasons. Mainly, the new films have themes, and characters who are not only dynamic, but growing through some massive changes. The commentary is wove throughout as a comment on the need for fathers to give the mentorship to leaders like Kirk and Spock.

Once again, I fell that this point could've been handled far better.

Finally, again, no I am not comparing that great scene in STID against TUC or a Picard speech vs. a Pike speech. I'm watching a film for a good story and maybe some commentary. It's not a competition to me. I can enjoy all of them on their own merits.

Well, that's a healthy way to look at it. I actually think that Pike was a well-done character in the new movies and his scenes hold up well with the best of the older films.