Did JJ ruin Kirk?

[fireproof78]

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.

On this point, I agree. I hate the Kelvin phasers, but didn't mind their point defense systems. The terminology could have been better. But, that doesn't change how impactful the scene is overall.

Also, I'm not an expert, but the multiple insignia thing was actually a production error in TOS. There's a memo regarding that, but I would have to ask Harvey about it. Regardless, that's not as big of a deal as I think it's being made.

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.

New Spock feels more freedom to express aspects of his emotional side, though he still struggles with it. He isn't self-accepting-he is in the stages of acceptance. There are clearly psychological issues Spock is working through, especially as he tries not to feel due to the intense emotional weight of his world being lost and his mother dying.

As for Kirk, again, I can only reference based upon asking my wife. She has no problems seeing Kirk and his potential, even if he is a jerk. ST 09 makes enough references to Kirk's potential and the impact that his father had (Spock Prime notes this) and what he could become (Nero notes this).

As for the other characters, I wonder where in TOS we saw Sulu's backstory or Chekov's? The idea that they are different is surprising given the fact that Starfleet would have spent 20 years trying to figure out the Narada attack on the Kelvin and then began working towards being prepared to stop it. Given the fact that the Federation had just finished a war with the Romulans, the idea that they would double down on fears of another Romulan incursion is not only probable but likely.

I don't need the film to spell it out for me.

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).

Marcus makes perfect sense. He's a warhawk. He not only sees war coming but is actively trying to make it happen. The Federation wasn't prepared, but in the last year, Marcus stepped up his efforts to become ready. The Vengeance project, as well as using Khan were all part of Marcus building up the arsenal.

Marcus' idea is to provoke a war to demonstrate why the Federation needs him. He believes he is the only one capable of leading Starfleet through the crisis.

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.

Nero is an everyman who has to face down a tragedy. He starts out as a miner, who is trying to take care of his family. When something threatens his home, he hears a promise that someone would help. When his home is destroyed anyway, despite promises, he breaks. He lost his entire world and then seeks vengeance for the man who promised to help.

Nero isn't a supervillain, not a brilliant tactician or genius. He lost his entire world, and, in his grief, has gone mad. He can't rationalize that he is back in time, beyond the fact that he has the opportunity to destroy those who promised to help.

I don't approach Nero from a logical perspective because he isn't. He is irrational, psychotic and delusional. That's his tragedy.

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.

Any film could have been done better. I could certainly add stuff to these films to improve them or clear things up.
My larger point isn't that they are perfect, but that they are good films that are consistent with the work of Star Trek we have seen in the past in terms of what they are trying to do.

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

Dropped for Spock-not for Kirk. It is the driving force behind his character as he ends up being in a similar situation to his dad at the end of ST ID.

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.

Sure, and again, I could enjoy that. But, I still enjoy the film as it is.

I can't change how you feel about it. I think the conspiracy works very well, that Kirk is driven to the edge of making a very bad decision and following poor orders. It feels perfunctory to you, but it doesn't to me.

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).

Star Trek has action as a part of its roots. TOS was a Western in space. I can't emphasize this enough.

The thing about Abrams's films is that they are not on the nose and in your face, save for some speech moments. The films are layered in a way that if you want to enjoy the film as a fun film, you can. If you want to unpack the psychological impact of recovering from a tragedy (Spock and Nero) the absence of a father figure (Kirk) or the moral quandary of revenge then you can. The fact that there are action scenes doesn't negate the character moments of Kirk reflecting on what might have been with his dad, Spock coming to grips with his emotions, Marcus' war mongering speech on dealing with threats, etc.

I don't think of it as a spring board, any more than the Praxis explosion and the Excelsior was a spring board for TUC. The characters motivation frame the action.

Now, unfortunately, the films insist upon having a faster pace which means some of the character stuff can get glossed over. But, it's still layered within the film.

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

Probably could have been.

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.

Thank you. Pike and Robau are two of my favorite characters from the new films.

 

[Pauln6]

The thing about Abrams's films is that they are not on the nose and in your face, save for some speech moments. The films are layered in a way that if you want to enjoy the film as a fun film, you can. If you want to unpack the psychological impact of recovering from a tragedy (Spock and Nero) the absence of a father figure (Kirk) or the moral quandary of revenge then you can. The fact that there are action scenes doesn't negate the character moments of Kirk reflecting on what might have been with his dad, Spock coming to grips with his emotions, Marcus' war mongering speech on dealing with threats, etc.

Now, unfortunately, the films insist upon having a faster pace which means some of the character stuff can get glossed over. But, it's still layered within the film.

Thank you. Pike and Robau are two of my favorite characters from the new films.

I agree with these comments. Pike and Robau were awesome.

The overall issue for me though is that the fun schlocky action parts were pitched just at a level that was a bit too low brow and kids' movie for me. Essentially making a similar mistake to the Star Wars prequels. I understand that you may not want to confuse people with technobabble but real world science is NOT technobabble. Star Trek inspired many real world scientists to follow that path. At the very least respect that heritage enough to get your real world science correct. My friend's autistic 8 year old was rather scathing about the supernova in ST09 - AN 8-YEAR OLD. In Abrahms' defence, he did also ask when he was 10, why they just didn't build the Sentinels out of non-ferrous metals, which would be more durable.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with these comments. Pike and Robau were awesome.

The overall issue for me though is that the fun schlocky action parts were pitched just at a level that was a bit too low brow and kids' movie for me. Essentially making a similar mistake to the Star Wars prequels. I understand that you may not want to confuse people with technobabble but real world science is NOT technobabble. Star Trek inspired many real world scientists to follow that path. At the very least respect that heritage enough to get your real world science correct. My friend's autistic 8 year old was rather scathing about the supernova in ST09 - AN 8-YEAR OLD. In Abrahms' defence, he did also ask when he was 10, why they just didn't build the Sentinels out of non-ferrous metals, which would be more durable.

I agree that the science could have been done better. The supernova thing was odd to me, but not so much that it ruined the film. I just wonder if they could have given it another rewrite while filming those scenes they would have. The writer's strike leaves a lot of questions.

Also, now, I'm genuinely curious as to what Nimoy's comments when he read it would have been.

 

[WebLurker]

On this point, I agree. I hate the Kelvin phasers, but didn't mind their point defense systems. The terminology could have been better. But, that doesn't change how impactful the scene is overall.

Also, I'm not an expert, but the multiple insignia thing was actually a production error in TOS. There's a memo regarding that, but I would have to ask Harvey about it. Regardless, that's not as big of a deal as I think it's being made.

I've heard that too, and there is some evidence for that in "Court Martial" (TOS). But the different patches idea has been so used in canon material, I think that it overrides whatever intentions there were at the time. Yeah, I admit that it's nitpicking, but it's the attention to details like this that really made Abrams Star Wars movie so enjoyable.

New Spock feels more freedom to express aspects of his emotional side, though he still struggles with it. He isn't self-accepting-he is in the stages of acceptance. There are clearly psychological issues Spock is working through, especially as he tries not to feel due to the intense emotional weight of his world being lost and his mother dying.

Sure, that makes sense that he's still working through it. I do wish that they found better ways to explore that then using Uhura as a girlfriend character. Having Spock feeling willing to die in that volcano in Into Darkness as part of his grief at what happened in the first movie? Not a bad idea. Only exploring it with Uhura calling him out on it? Not so good, esp. since the romantic relationship isn't that well written in the first place (although considering it seems to be there to serve as a punchline to the running gag in the first movie of Kirk's futile attempts to get into Uhura's pants in the first movie and because everyone expects an action movie to have a love story somewhere, I guess I shouldn't have expected too much).

As for Kirk, again, I can only reference based upon asking my wife. She has no problems seeing Kirk and his potential, even if he is a jerk. ST 09 makes enough references to Kirk's potential and the impact that his father had (Spock Prime notes this) and what he could become (Nero notes this).

So Kirk is a jerk, huh? TAS spoke the truth! Seriously, though, I think there are moments that work. His quick thinking to stop Khan's attack on the committee in the second movie was good, and the scene where Marcus explains that he wasn't planning to spare the crew and Kirk apologizes for getting them into this mess was probably the most powerful moment this character was given in the series yet. But, I wish that they showed more and told less. We're heavily depended on people telling us that Kirk is going to be great, which usually means that we have to know what he was like in the original TV show to understand what they mean. (It also makes his screwups even more painful, since it bellies the intent for the character.)[/quote]

As for the other characters, I wonder where in TOS we saw Sulu's backstory or Chekov's? The idea that they are different is surprising given the fact that Starfleet would have spent 20 years trying to figure out the Narada attack on the Kelvin and then began working towards being prepared to stop it. Given the fact that the Federation had just finished a war with the Romulans, the idea that they would double down on fears of another Romulan incursion is not only probable but likely.

I don't need the film to spell it out for me.

Marcus makes perfect sense. He's a warhawk. He not only sees war coming but is actively trying to make it happen. The Federation wasn't prepared, but in the last year, Marcus stepped up his efforts to become ready. The Vengeance project, as well as using Khan were all part of Marcus building up the arsenal.

Good point, but there's only one Vengeance, Khan was already a liability he was trying to eliminate, and his plan to trigger the war involved destroying one of the best ships in the fleet that he would be needing for his war. (It makes sense that Marcus would give Kirk the mission, since Kirk appeared to be easily manipulated, but why give him the Enterprise?) From everything that was said, I got the impression that the Federation, even with Marcus's additional gear, wasn't in shape for a war, so I couldn't see why he thought it was a good idea, even if he was was a warhawk.

I also don't understand if Marcus knew that Khan had put his followers in the missiles or not. Everything about the behind-the-scenes stuff of Marcus and Khan's conspiracies never quite added up to me.

Marcus' idea is to provoke a war to demonstrate why the Federation needs him. He believes he is the only one capable of leading Starfleet through the crisis.

Nero is an everyman who has to face down a tragedy. He starts out as a miner, who is trying to take care of his family. When something threatens his home, he hears a promise that someone would help. When his home is destroyed anyway, despite promises, he breaks. He lost his entire world and then seeks vengeance for the man who promised to help.

Nero isn't a supervillain, not a brilliant tactician or genius. He lost his entire world, and, in his grief, has gone mad. He can't rationalize that he is back in time, beyond the fact that he has the opportunity to destroy those who promised to help.

I don't approach Nero from a logical perspective because he isn't. He is irrational, psychotic and delusional. That's his tragedy.

Fair enough. I can think of characters like this that I like better, but it's a fair argument.

There still just seems something off about him, though. I wonder if it's the performance? Many of the Marvel villains are not given a lot of character development, but even some of the weaker ones (like Whiplash from Iron Man 2 and Cross from Ant-Man) are still engaging enough because of how the actors portray them. Nero doesn't show that much variation in emotion.

Any film could have been done better. I could certainly add stuff to these films to improve them or clear things up.
My larger point isn't that they are perfect, but that they are good films that are consistent with the work of Star Trek we have seen in the past in terms of what they are trying to do.

I don't feel that the movies have anything to do with traditional Star Trek and are certainly very different in tone. It's really hard to describe, but one specific example I can think of is destiny. The new movies are built on it. Kirk was destined to captain the Enterprise. Spock has a destiny to serve on the ship, etc. Whereas the old shows where heavily built on the idea that destiny was something that the characters figured out for themselves. Heck, in "Rapture" (DS9), the characters even stopped the fulfillment of a Bajoran prophecy while it was still in progress.

Dropped for Spock-not for Kirk. It is the driving force behind his character as he ends up being in a similar situation to his dad at the end of ST ID.

Sure, and again, I could enjoy that. But, I still enjoy the film as it is.

I can't change how you feel about it. I think the conspiracy works very well, that Kirk is driven to the edge of making a very bad decision and following poor orders. It feels perfunctory to you, but it doesn't to me.

Fair enough.

Star Trek has action as a part of its roots. TOS was a Western in space. I can't emphasize this enough.

But even so, the action is of a different kind. For example, "The Corbomite Maneuver" (TOS) is an adventure, but has almost no action. All the drama is built around Kirk trying to outbluff Balok before time runs out. In "Arena" (TOS), there's a fight to the death, but the main focus in on outwitting the opponent and ends with Kirk refusing to "finish the game." "Spectre of the Gun" has a fight they win and "Day of the Dove" present the wining solution to the fight as not-fighting (with the later even focusing all the action on them trying to get out of the fight or find another way).

There's very few slugfests in TOS or even the original movies. Wrath of Khan has two fight scenes, the rest of the movie is explaining why and exploring the effects on the characters. So, even in TOS, I'd argue that the action is not the main course but a side dish. The reboot made it the reason for the franchise's existence.

The thing about Abrams's films is that they are not on the nose and in your face, save for some speech moments. The films are layered in a way that if you want to enjoy the film as a fun film, you can. If you want to unpack the psychological impact of recovering from a tragedy (Spock and Nero) the absence of a father figure (Kirk) or the moral quandary of revenge then you can. The fact that there are action scenes doesn't negate the character moments of Kirk reflecting on what might have been with his dad, Spock coming to grips with his emotions, Marcus' war mongering speech on dealing with threats, etc.

It still feels really shallow, IMHO. Not really sure how to explain why, either. It just feels off.

The thing about Abrams's films is that they are not on the nose I don't think of it as a spring board, any more than the Praxis explosion and the Excelsior was a spring board for TUC. The characters motivation frame the action.

Praxis wasn't the point of the movie. The point of the movie is the idea that these two enemies are considering peace and how the characters react to it. In the case of Into Darkness, the mission is the point of the movie, so I wish that it had been more than just an excuse for some fight scenes.

Now, unfortunately, the films insist upon having a faster pace which means some of the character stuff can get glossed over. But, it's still layered within the film.

I kind of agree. I don't think that the movies sold me on this Kirk and Spock being friends (which you need to buy in order for the climax of Into Darkness to work). I'm not sure if this's a problem with Abrams (since in Force Awakens, the friendship that develops between the lead characters clicks into place perfectly) or the script writers (those guys also wrote Amazing Spider-Man 2, and the relationship between it's lead characters is very badly botched).

(Actually, in thinking it over, most of my problems with the series seem to lie in the writing. While I'm never going to be wild about the creative liberties taken with the franchise, at least I could see myself enjoying a movie in it if the story was solid.)

Thank you. Pike and Robau are two of my favorite characters from the new films.

My favorite is the new Dr. McCoy. While it might just be because the TOS McCoy is my most favorite Star Trek character of all time, I think Karl Urban hits the sweet spot of bringing enough new to justify revisiting the character, but still being enough like the old that I can honestly say that it's the same character from the old TV show (in fact, he's the only character I can say this about).

 

[JKM]

Dropped for Spock-not for Kirk. It is the driving force behind his character as he ends up being in a similar situation to his dad at the end of ST ID.

Not only this, but I get the sense that Kirk sees Pike as his stand in dad/mentor. Pike was the first person and perhaps, McCoy aside, the only person who believed bad boy Kirk could be more. Then in ID Pike stood up for him to Marcus and kept him from being sent back to the Academy. Then directly after this Kirk watches him die. It knocks him adrift and sets the whole ill advised mission on its fated course. To me the Father figure topic is still strong and clear in ID.

 

[fireproof78]

I've heard that too, and there is some evidence for that in "Court Martial" (TOS). But the different patches idea has been so used in canon material, I think that it overrides whatever intentions there were at the time. Yeah, I admit that it's nitpicking, but it's the attention to details like this that really made Abrams Star Wars movie so enjoyable.

There are great details in Abrams Star Trek too that I have picked up on. Most of the senior officers at Kirk's review board are named after officers from TOS. As for the delta, we don't know the history of when that insignia was assigned to the Enterprise. For all we know, the Kelvin had it, and when that ship was retired the Enterprise got it.

I personally like to think that Starfleet adopted the delta as a memorial to the Kelvin's loss.

Sure, that makes sense that he's still working through it. I do wish that they found better ways to explore that then using Uhura as a girlfriend character. Having Spock feeling willing to die in that volcano in Into Darkness as part of his grief at what happened in the first movie? Not a bad idea. Only exploring it with Uhura calling him out on it? Not so good, esp. since the romantic relationship isn't that well written in the first place (although considering it seems to be there to serve as a punchline to the running gag in the first movie of Kirk's futile attempts to get into Uhura's pants in the first movie and because everyone expects an action movie to have a love story somewhere, I guess I shouldn't have expected too much).

But they are not only exploring it with Uhura. Uhura is just the only one close enough to actually call Spock out on his crap. Kirk kind of tries, but Uhura would still be the better one to identify the change in Spock's attitude.

Also, I love the romance so I don't see it as an issue.

So Kirk is a jerk, huh? TAS spoke the truth! Seriously, though, I think there are moments that work. His quick thinking to stop Khan's attack on the committee in the second movie was good, and the scene where Marcus explains that he wasn't planning to spare the crew and Kirk apologizes for getting them into this mess was probably the most powerful moment this character was given in the series yet. But, I wish that they showed more and told less. We're heavily depended on people telling us that Kirk is going to be great, which usually means that we have to know what he was like in the original TV show to understand what they mean. (It also makes his screwups even more painful, since it bellies the intent for the character.)

Well, Kirk was a jerk at times
I too wish they would have shown more and told less, as that is the art of film making. However, I think his screw ups serve as an important place to know where he has been and where he could go.
For me, the beauty of nu-Kirk's character arc is that he starts out so unremarkable, beyond Pike commenting on his test scores. I find him a lot more identifiable than Prime Kirk, who is less an everyman and more of an uber man.

Also, there are a number of moments that speak to Kirk's character as well. Kirk is fiercely loyal, and impulsive, as illustrated by the fact that he leaps off the platform to save Sulu or goes back to save Pike. That's why Spock's report in ST ID bothers him so much. He is loyal to Spock and expects it in return.

Good point, but there's only one Vengeance, Khan was already a liability he was trying to eliminate, and his plan to trigger the war involved destroying one of the best ships in the fleet that he would be needing for his war. (It makes sense that Marcus would give Kirk the mission, since Kirk appeared to be easily manipulated, but why give him the Enterprise?) From everything that was said, I got the impression that the Federation, even with Marcus's additional gear, wasn't in shape for a war, so I couldn't see why he thought it was a good idea, even if he was was a warhawk.

I think the Vengeance was more than enough for the Klingons, or would have been off putting enough to force the Klingons to pause. It certainly overwhelmed the Enterprise without difficulty.
The destruction of the Enterprise would have been a rallying point for the Federation to support the war against the Klingons. "They destroyed our flagship!" "Remember the Enterprise!"

I also don't understand if Marcus knew that Khan had put his followers in the missiles or not. Everything about the behind-the-scenes stuff of Marcus and Khan's conspiracies never quite added up to me.

Marcus knew, and that's why Khan fled. He figured that once Marcus had figured out his plan that Marcus would just kill the rest, and then kill Khan. That was the whole point of the Enterprise's mission. Use the missiles to kill Khan and destroy the evidence that Marcus had used the Augments at all.

Fair enough. I can think of characters like this that I like better, but it's a fair argument.

Thank you. I have no doubt that it's been done better, but it was done well enough for me to enjoy the character as a unique villain in the Star Trek world.

There still just seems something off about him, though. I wonder if it's the performance? Many of the Marvel villains are not given a lot of character development, but even some of the weaker ones (like Whiplash from Iron Man 2 and Cross from Ant-Man) are still engaging enough because of how the actors portray them. Nero doesn't show that much variation in emotion.

Nero is a man who saw his world destroyed. What variation would you like?

I'm so confused by this because the emotional turmoil must intense, especially for a Romulan, and yet it's treated as a non-event. I love the fact that Nero has this intensity to him, this drive to protect his home because no one else will.

I don't feel that the movies have anything to do with traditional Star Trek and are certainly very different in tone. It's really hard to describe, but one specific example I can think of is destiny. The new movies are built on it. Kirk was destined to captain the Enterprise. Spock has a destiny to serve on the ship, etc. Whereas the old shows where heavily built on the idea that destiny was something that the characters figured out for themselves. Heck, in "Rapture" (DS9), the characters even stopped the fulfillment of a Bajoran prophecy while it was still in progress.

Uh, sorry to burst a bubble, but Spock refers to destiny at least twice in the TOS films, and is part of Kirk's overall arc in his command. That he has to command a starship.

I think the films highlight the sense of adventure that TOS had. There are more action oriented, sure, but they also are working on presenting these familiar characters in a different light. But, destiny for Kirk has been there since at least the TOS films, possibly before.



Fair enough.

But even so, the action is of a different kind. For example, "The Corbomite Maneuver" (TOS) is an adventure, but has almost no action. All the drama is built around Kirk trying to outbluff Balok before time runs out. In "Arena" (TOS), there's a fight to the death, but the main focus in on outwitting the opponent and ends with Kirk refusing to "finish the game." "Spectre of the Gun" has a fight they win and "Day of the Dove" present the wining solution to the fight as not-fighting (with the later even focusing all the action on them trying to get out of the fight or find another way).

But, it is a different time now. The action is different because production values are different. Look at the two pilots of TOS and you'll see Pike getting very violent with the Talosians, and Kirk fighting with Mitchell.

The new films take a contemporary filmmaking style to them and have the adventure at a faster pace. That doesn't ignore "traditional Star Trek" but looks at it through a contemporary lens.

There's very few slugfests in TOS or even the original movies. Wrath of Khan has two fight scenes, the rest of the movie is explaining why and exploring the effects on the characters. So, even in TOS, I'd argue that the action is not the main course but a side dish. The reboot made it the reason for the franchise's existence.

Again, I disagree. I think it's a matter of style, not purpose or reason for existence. I think that the films have tried to be multi layered to be engaging on an intellectual level as well as an action level. I can appreciate both aspects of them.

As for slug fests, here's the ones I can think of off the top of my head in TOS:
-Khan and Kirk
-Kirk and the Capellans
-Kirk and the Gorn
-Kirk and Mitchell
-The bar brawl in Trouble with Tribbles
-Kirk and Finnegan in Shore Leave

It still feels really shallow, IMHO. Not really sure how to explain why, either. It just feels off.

This probably is a to each their own moment

Praxis wasn't the point of the movie. The point of the movie is the idea that these two enemies are considering peace and how the characters react to it. In the case of Into Darkness, the mission is the point of the movie, so I wish that it had been more than just an excuse for some fight scenes.

I don't see it as an excuse, so I guess it's just a matter of point of view.

I kind of agree. I don't think that the movies sold me on this Kirk and Spock being friends (which you need to buy in order for the climax of Into Darkness to work). I'm not sure if this's a problem with Abrams (since in Force Awakens, the friendship that develops between the lead characters clicks into place perfectly) or the script writers (those guys also wrote Amazing Spider-Man 2, and the relationship between it's lead characters is very badly botched).

Again, agree to disagree. I love the relationship of Kirk and Spock as their friendship develops and becomes more important to both of them. I don't buy that they are friends, but that they are becoming friends and that Kirk's death is the last straw for Spock in a long list of people dying on his watch.

I also love the relationship between Gwen and Peter in the Amazing Spider-Man 2 so again, agree to disagree.

(Actually, in thinking it over, most of my problems with the series seem to lie in the writing. While I'm never going to be wild about the creative liberties taken with the franchise, at least I could see myself enjoying a movie in it if the story was solid.)

That's a common complain so you're not alone in that. I just don't happen to share it.

My favorite is the new Dr. McCoy. While it might just be because the TOS McCoy is my most favorite Star Trek character of all time, I think Karl Urban hits the sweet spot of bringing enough new to justify revisiting the character, but still being enough like the old that I can honestly say that it's the same character from the old TV show (in fact, he's the only character I can say this about).

I love McCoy and think that Urban's acting is spot on.

Not only this, but I get the sense that Kirk sees Pike as his stand in dad/mentor. Pike was the first person and perhaps, McCoy aside, the only person who believed bad boy Kirk could be more. Then in ID Pike stood up for him to Marcus and kept him from being sent back to the Academy. Then directly after this Kirk watches him die. It knocks him adrift and sets the whole ill advised mission on its fated course. To me the Father figure topic is still strong and clear in ID.

I agree

 

[WebLurker]

There are great details in Abrams Star Trek too that I have picked up on. Most of the senior officers at Kirk's review board are named after officers from TOS. As for the delta, we don't know the history of when that insignia was assigned to the Enterprise. For all we know, the Kelvin had it, and when that ship was retired the Enterprise got it.

I personally like to think that Starfleet adopted the delta as a memorial to the Kelvin's loss.

I like that explanation.

But they are not only exploring it with Uhura. Uhura is just the only one close enough to actually call Spock out on his crap. Kirk kind of tries, but Uhura would still be the better one to identify the change in Spock's attitude.

Also, I love the romance so I don't see it as an issue.

It's probably a subjective thing on my part, since the relationship never felt that well developed to me in the first place and didn't make much sense to me in light of information from the TV show. Had they built it up over the course of the movies (since it's a new idea), I'd probably have bought the scenes with Uhura more.

Well, Kirk was a jerk at times
I too wish they would have shown more and told less, as that is the art of film making. However, I think his screw ups serve as an important place to know where he has been and where he could go.
For me, the beauty of nu-Kirk's character arc is that he starts out so unremarkable, beyond Pike commenting on his test scores. I find him a lot more identifiable than Prime Kirk, who is less an everyman and more of an uber man.

I think I like the more nuanced TV Kirk, who tended to have doubts, most often broke rules for the sake of conscience instead of just because he thought they didn't apply to him, and bluffed and outthought his opponents, instead of just flying by the seat of his pants.

Also, there are a number of moments that speak to Kirk's character as well. Kirk is fiercely loyal, and impulsive, as illustrated by the fact that he leaps off the platform to save Sulu or goes back to save Pike. That's why Spock's report in ST ID bothers him so much. He is loyal to Spock and expects it in return.

I'm not saying that Kirk is without his good points (you brought up some good ones), but I wouldn't trust his leadership, either.

I think the Vengeance was more than enough for the Klingons, or would have been off putting enough to force the Klingons to pause. It certainly overwhelmed the Enterprise without difficulty.
The destruction of the Enterprise would have been a rallying point for the Federation to support the war against the Klingons. "They destroyed our flagship!" "Remember the Enterprise!"

It was one ship against one ship. A fleet of Klingon ships would be a tough fight for a single ship (even a monster ship, esp. since it was invented by a man out of time, who though two-dimensionally). Maybe it would work as propaganda but since the Federation and Klingons are already enemies, I think having the ship and crew would be more useful.

Marcus knew, and that's why Khan fled. He figured that once Marcus had figured out his plan that Marcus would just kill the rest, and then kill Khan. That was the whole point of the Enterprise's mission. Use the missiles to kill Khan and destroy the evidence that Marcus had used the Augments at all.

I suppose. The movie got really wonky here, and I wish that someone had spelled it out, since not understanding the plan made the movie less enjoyable.

Nero is a man who saw his world destroyed. What variation would you like?

I'm so confused by this because the emotional turmoil must intense, especially for a Romulan, and yet it's treated as a non-event. I love the fact that Nero has this intensity to him, this drive to protect his home because no one else will.

I preferred the original Khan from Wrath of Khan, as a villain obsessed with revenge; he shows more emotional states, is smart enough to employ a strategy with some finesse, and forces the heroes to come up with a clever plan to beat him. He was a more entertaining character, which made for a more entertaining movie.

Nero just didn't stand out. I know that jokes that he was a second Shinzon aren't quite accurate, but they do have a point. At the end of the day, all they both wanted to do was use their monster ships' advanced weapon to destroy Earth/the Federation. I guess I wished that they gave him more character to make him stand out more.

Uh, sorry to burst a bubble, but Spock refers to destiny at least twice in the TOS films, and is part of Kirk's overall arc in his command. That he has to command a starship.

I think the films highlight the sense of adventure that TOS had. There are more action oriented, sure, but they also are working on presenting these familiar characters in a different light. But, destiny for Kirk has been there since at least the TOS films, possibly before.

I think that was a different kind of destiny, referring to a lifestyle rather than God, fate, or whatever directing events. Spock's comment about Kirk's captaincy being his destiny in Wrath of Khan meant: "This is your purpose in life." When Kirk's destiny is described in the reboot, it feels more like: "This's what's going to happen to you in the future because of reasons." And while my religious beliefs do line up closer with the reboot's idea of destiny (to some extent), I think the original tends for better storytelling.

But, it is a different time now. The action is different because production values are different. Look at the two pilots of TOS and you'll see Pike getting very violent with the Talosians, and Kirk fighting with Mitchell.

In the former example, Pike did it since those actions prevented the Talosians from controlling him (and a peaceful solution was reached). In the latter, Kirk spends the entire episode trying to find another answer (even when it's obviously not the best choice). Also, my complaint is not that the style of action is different, but that it's taken over the franchise to become the only type of story the tell now (IMHO).

The new films take a contemporary filmmaking style to them and have the adventure at a faster pace. That doesn't ignore "traditional Star Trek" but looks at it through a contemporary lens.

I think the slightly slower pace works better for Star Trek movies; it allowed for more character development and setting the stage, meaning we were shown, not just told, what the stakes were when the fighting started. And if these movies are what Star Trek looks like modernized, then to quote Phil Coulson, we need a little more old-fashioned.

Again, I disagree. I think it's a matter of style, not purpose or reason for existence. I think that the films have tried to be multi layered to be engaging on an intellectual level as well as an action level. I can appreciate both aspects of them.

And I respect your reasoning, even if I disagree. You really seem to have thought this out critically.

As for slug fests, here's the ones I can think of off the top of my head in TOS:
-Khan and Kirk
-Kirk and the Capellans
-Kirk and the Gorn
-Kirk and Mitchell
-The bar brawl in Trouble with Tribbles
-Kirk and Finnegan in Shore Leave

Many of these were specific scenes in a larger narrative (that had a different theme or story in mind). Also, the old franchise told a variety of different types of stories. (Even the original movies switched it up with a comedy for the whale movie). New Trek only does action movies. It's not Star Trek's native form and it's getting old with three movies in a row.

Again, agree to disagree. I love the relationship of Kirk and Spock as their friendship develops and becomes more important to both of them. I don't buy that they are friends, but that they are becoming friends and that Kirk's death is the last straw for Spock in a long list of people dying on his watch.

Fair enough. I wish that there had been more material setting them up as such earlier (like seeing them off-job and not disagreeing) and I think that trying to copy the Wrath of Khan scene undermined the emotional punch they were going for, but still, that's a fair way to look at it.

I also love the relationship between Gwen and Peter in the Amazing Spider-Man 2 so again, agree to disagree.

For me, the big problems are that I never thought that the relationship grew much, Gwen Stacy was a flat character, and certainly by the second movie Peter came off really creepy (he outright admitted to stalking Gwen post-breakup on a regular basis). I'm really weird, since I think that the Peter and Mary Jane relationship in the original movies was better. The relationship developed over time, was less superficial (we see them connecting as people first and the problems are more realistic), and the characters are more rounded (Mary Jane, for one, has an identity outside being the girlfriend character). I do understand that I'm in a minority in this opinion, though.

 

[fireproof78]

I like that explanation.

Thank you. There are so many changes that unfold from the Narada's attack, that I see it as a turning point in Starfleet's role.

It's probably a subjective thing on my part, since the relationship never felt that well developed to me in the first place and didn't make much sense to me in light of information from the TV show. Had they built it up over the course of the movies (since it's a new idea), I'd probably have bought the scenes with Uhura more.

The funny thing is, there is a hint of romantic interest towards Spock from Uhura. I like the fact that these films explored it more.

I think I like the more nuanced TV Kirk, who tended to have doubts, most often broke rules for the sake of conscience instead of just because he thought they didn't apply to him, and bluffed and outthought his opponents, instead of just flying by the seat of his pants.

Well, it's part of the journey that he develops that discipline and experience. I think it's Kirk learning when to break the rules and when not to. Example: deciding not to kill Harrison but bring him back for trial, despite orders to the contrary.

I'm not saying that Kirk is without his good points (you brought up some good ones), but I wouldn't trust his leadership, either.

Neither would I, but I think he has potential.

It was one ship against one ship. A fleet of Klingon ships would be a tough fight for a single ship (even a monster ship, esp. since it was invented by a man out of time, who though two-dimensionally). Maybe it would work as propaganda but since the Federation and Klingons are already enemies, I think having the ship and crew would be more useful.

Propaganda is more powerful. Think about it: the Enterprise is the newest ship in the Fleet and it gets destroyed by the Klingons, seemingly apropos of nothing. Marcus goes out and makes a big speech about the need that they have for better weapons, and reveals the instrument of their victory. If I were writing it, I would rename it "Victory Class" to demonstrate Starfleet's resolve to defeat the Klingons once and for all.

Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

I suppose. The movie got really wonky here, and I wish that someone had spelled it out, since not understanding the plan made the movie less enjoyable.

It is a bit open-ended, and could stand a little more polish. I like the idea that Khan and Marcus are trying to out play each other, and Kirk is caught in the middle.

I preferred the original Khan from Wrath of Khan, as a villain obsessed with revenge; he shows more emotional states, is smart enough to employ a strategy with some finesse, and forces the heroes to come up with a clever plan to beat him. He was a more entertaining character, which made for a more entertaining movie.

See, I can't stand Khan in TWOK. He is too cruel for my liking.

Nero just didn't stand out. I know that jokes that he was a second Shinzon aren't quite accurate, but they do have a point. At the end of the day, all they both wanted to do was use their monster ships' advanced weapon to destroy Earth/the Federation. I guess I wished that they gave him more character to make him stand out more.

Sorry, this is definitely subjective. Nero stands out to me as such a tragic case of trying to save his world, even if it's in the most wrong way. The pain of losing his wife is a touchstone moment for me, and when Pike tries to reason with him, Nero snaps again and his rage consumes him.

I think that was a different kind of destiny, referring to a lifestyle rather than God, fate, or whatever directing events. Spock's comment about Kirk's captaincy being his destiny in Wrath of Khan meant: "This is your purpose in life." When Kirk's destiny is described in the reboot, it feels more like: "This's what's going to happen to you in the future because of reasons." And while my religious beliefs do line up closer with the reboot's idea of destiny (to some extent), I think the original tends for better storytelling.

I think it depends on the story. Personally, I really wish they had kept Spock Prime's comment about the time line trying to realign itself with Prime, and that would have hung a lantern on them all coming together.

In the former example, Pike did it since those actions prevented the Talosians from controlling him (and a peaceful solution was reached). In the latter, Kirk spends the entire episode trying to find another answer (even when it's obviously not the best choice). Also, my complaint is not that the style of action is different, but that it's taken over the franchise to become the only type of story the tell now (IMHO).

See, I just don't see it that way. I think the action derives from character choices, not as excuse to see explosions, which is my least favorite criticism of these films. They are not mindless in their action, but the action is a consequence of character choice.

I think the slightly slower pace works better for Star Trek movies; it allowed for more character development and setting the stage, meaning we were shown, not just told, what the stakes were when the fighting started. And if these movies are what Star Trek looks like modernized, then to quote Phil Coulson, we need a little more old-fashioned.

I tend to agree, though I think that a balance could be struck. I think that if Abrams had slowed down the films just a little bit, like he did in Star Wars, and had those moments for the characters to breathe and discuss things and reflect, then the Star Trek films would be stronger for it.

And I respect your reasoning, even if I disagree. You really seem to have thought this out critically.

I don't blindly like films. They have to speak to me in some way. Abrams Trek films speak to me in a way that a film hasn't since Lord of the Rings. Not comparing the to, but more my emotional reaction to them, which, obviously is subjective.

Many of these were specific scenes in a larger narrative (that had a different theme or story in mind). Also, the old franchise told a variety of different types of stories. (Even the original movies switched it up with a comedy for the whale movie). New Trek only does action movies. It's not Star Trek's native form and it's getting old with three movies in a row.

I see the larger narrative in these films too.

Fair enough. I wish that there had been more material setting them up as such earlier (like seeing them off-job and not disagreeing) and I think that trying to copy the Wrath of Khan scene undermined the emotional punch they were going for, but still, that's a fair way to look at it.

I partially do, but their interaction still stands out to me as very heartfelt and raw. I love it.

For me, the big problems are that I never thought that the relationship grew much, Gwen Stacy was a flat character, and certainly by the second movie Peter came off really creepy (he outright admitted to stalking Gwen post-breakup on a regular basis). I'm really weird, since I think that the Peter and Mary Jane relationship in the original movies was better. The relationship developed over time, was less superficial (we see them connecting as people first and the problems are more realistic), and the characters are more rounded (Mary Jane, for one, has an identity outside being the girlfriend character). I do understand that I'm in a minority in this opinion, though.

Ugh, I cannot stand Mary Jane in the Rami films, so, yeah, I can't agree there. I think that Peter and Gwen in Amazing Spiderman have a much different dynamic, one that they recognize as being messed up but still trying to work through it. I also feel like Gwen has more agency in the films, rather than constantly needing to be rescued like Mary Jane seems to need.

So, yeah, sorry, I can't agree and feel the opposite. I think the relationship is weird, and weird on purpose, but I got so invested in Peter and Gwen in Amazing Spiderman 2 that, even though I knew she was going to die, her death shocked me in the theater. So incredibly tragic.

I think the reason I like those moments is because they feel very raw. There isn't a polish to them like in TWOK or Spider-Man of this professionalism of the actors. The emotions are very palpable and real, possibly a little weird and creepy in places, but still real to me. I guess the point is that I buy in to the characters, their emotions and where they are at and that sells me.

And hey, I don't mind that you don't like either of those films. My only frustration comes from when Abrams Trek films get treated as "not real Trek." I mean, I don't like the Star Wars prequels, but I certainly don't call them "Not real Star Wars." I really don't like VOY or ENT or even some parts of TNG, but I still consider it a part of Trek lore. Abrams Trek gets the double whammy of "mindless action" and "not real Trek" in the criticism department and its very frustrating.

I do appreciate the back and forth though

 

[JKM]

Sorry, this is definitely subjective. Nero stands out to me as such a tragic case of trying to save his world, even if it's in the most wrong way. The pain of losing his wife is a touchstone moment for me, and when Pike tries to reason with him, Nero snaps again and his rage consumes him.

Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here but I've been enjoying the discussion. I have a nit picking comment on Nero. I agree with why his story is a good one but there was something about the way he was shown that bothered me too. More of an annoyance than anything. I'm still not sure whether it is because of how Eric Bana portrayed him or if he was directed to do so, but some of his scenes felt almost corny to me instead of menacing, which is what I think they were going for. The two scenes that come to mind is the opening scene with the Kelvin where Robau(sp) met Nero and he just stares at him when questioned. It was almost humorous. The next scene was where he was just lying there looking constipated when Ayel called him to the bridge. I think the mental instability he had could have been handled differently or shown differently, but it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film either way.

 

[WebLurker]

The funny thing is, there is a hint of romantic interest towards Spock from Uhura. I like the fact that these films explored it more.

I heard that before. I remember specific episodes were cited, but my opinion was: "I've seen those shows, I didn't see any hints. I think you're reading too much into it." However, it's been awhile and I've forgotten which examples were used, so I could very well have overlooked something.

(I will say that trying to find clues for this sort of thing gets really subjective, IMHO. I've commented or lurked on forums about movies where users try to analyze the films for these elements -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Zootopia most recently -- and I've seen some theories that depend on interpretations of the material I really don't think make sense.)

Well, it's part of the journey that he develops that discipline and experience. I think it's Kirk learning when to break the rules and when not to. Example: deciding not to kill Harrison but bring him back for trial, despite orders to the contrary.

I could see that, but I wish that that was made clearer, instead of putting his tendencies to break rules as him not wanting to be told what to do.

Propaganda is more powerful. Think about it: the Enterprise is the newest ship in the Fleet and it gets destroyed by the Klingons, seemingly apropos of nothing. Marcus goes out and makes a big speech about the need that they have for better weapons, and reveals the instrument of their victory. If I were writing it, I would rename it "Victory Class" to demonstrate Starfleet's resolve to defeat the Klingons once and for all.

Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

I guess, although it still seems like poor trade off, but then that might just be me.

It is a bit open-ended, and could stand a little more polish. I like the idea that Khan and Marcus are trying to out play each other, and Kirk is caught in the middle.

Yeah, I guess, but the confusion over who was tricking who was not helpful.

See, I can't stand Khan in TWOK. He is too cruel for my liking.

Fair enough.

Sorry, this is definitely subjective. Nero stands out to me as such a tragic case of trying to save his world, even if it's in the most wrong way. The pain of losing his wife is a touchstone moment for me, and when Pike tries to reason with him, Nero snaps again and his rage consumes him.

Sure it's subjective. I'm trying to explain why it doesn't quite work for me.

I'm not sure I really got the idea that Nero wants to save his world, since when he gets thrown into the alternate reality, Romulus is still around, but Horbus is still waiting around to go supernova and wipe it out again. Had the movie been about him trying to use the red matter to destroy Horbus in the alternate reality twenty-third century to prevent the nova in the future, and the heroes were trying to stop him (because there'd be loss of life, changing history, whatever), I could see him in the scenario you suggest.

But in the movie, the first thing he does is destroy Vulcan, making sure the Spock Prime, who he holds responsible for the loss of Romulus, see it, all for revenge. His next plan is to destroy every Federation world. Whether that is also for revenge or him simply wanting to see the Romulan Star Empire have a shot at being the Alpha and Beta Quadrant's top superpower, is unclear. So, I think Nero's only mission in the movie was revenge for the loss of his homeworld. Frankly, I think the idea of trying to save Romulus somehow would've been a better story.

I think it depends on the story. Personally, I really wish they had kept Spock Prime's comment about the time line trying to realign itself with Prime, and that would have hung a lantern on them all coming together.

I actually think it's just as well that they didn't. The idea of the timeline trying heal itself by causing similar things to happen doesn't really mesh with rules of time travel that the franchise had established. The movie (deliberately) used a model of time travel that doesn't work, either, but at least its vague enough that there are ways to reconcile it with the original rules.

See, I just don't see it that way. I think the action derives from character choices, not as excuse to see explosions, which is my least favorite criticism of these films. They are not mindless in their action, but the action is a consequence of character choice.

Maybe a better way to explain it would be that I feel like they come up with the action scenes first and then try to fit them into the move rather than coming up with the story and then finding action that works in that context. The scenes are also very loud and high on spectacle, which is fine, but the emotions get lost (IMHO).

For example, I submit that the best battle in Star Trek to date is in "Balance of Terror" (TOS), which puts the two commanders front and center, their motivations for the conflict are shown, neither of them make stupid mistakes (except possibly when the Romulan commander listens to his impulsive crew member after they've seemingly crippled the Enterprise). It's a more interesting battle, and one that has more to it than just using superior firepower (which is the main feature of the Abrams battles).

I tend to agree, though I think that a balance could be struck. I think that if Abrams had slowed down the films just a little bit, like he did in Star Wars, and had those moments for the characters to breathe and discuss things and reflect, then the Star Trek films would be stronger for it.

Yeah, I think the character work in Force Awakens was a lot better. I felt more connected to them certainly then I did any of the Abramsverse characters and that their feelings came through better. Case in point, in Force Awakens, when Rey is begging Finn not to leave on Takodana, the idea that she didn't want to lose her new (and only) friend had more punch then Kirk's disappointment that Spock doesn't seem sad by the fact that they're going their separate ways in Into Darkness.

I see the larger narrative in these films too.

So far, the movies don't really feel that unified, but it might be easier to see a mega-story in them when the series is complete. The second trailer for Beyond opening with Kirk and McCoy discussing Kirk's motivations for joining Starfleet sound promising (albeit I'm not very hopeful, given that it seems to be more of the same, and I'm not a fan of this series' default setting). I think it would be in everyone's best interest to step away from recycling stuff from the old movies and actually try something different that old TOS Star Trek couldn't or wouldn't do.

I partially do, but their interaction still stands out to me as very heartfelt and raw. I love it.

I guess you either buy it or don't and this case I didn't. In all fairness, though, the original scene was so well done and had been built off of years of character development, that it's probably unfair to compare a movie that trying to capture the same emotions when building on only one movie (and any fondness the audience has for the characters from the previous iteration of the franchise). I also don't think the actors deserve any blame, given that I think all the problems are with the writing and the fact I think the idea would've played better a few movies down the road.

Ugh, I cannot stand Mary Jane in the Rami films, so, yeah, I can't agree there.

Fair enough. Like I said, my preference for that character over ASM movie Gwen is a unpopular opinion on my part.

I think that Peter and Gwen in Amazing Spiderman have a much different dynamic, one that they recognize as being messed up but still trying to work through it.

Maybe. The dynamic is certainly different (the movies also have very different tones, too), but I'm not sure I felt that them trying to work out the messed up part came across very well. The actors had chemistry (sometimes too much; there were several scenes in ASM2 where I had trouble buying them being at odds or felt like they were winking at the camera, like the "hiding in the Oscorp closet" scene). Granted, ASM2 was overstuffed with plots (far worse that SM3, IMHO), so there was limited time for the Peter/Gwen relationship as it was.

But I remember thinking that when Gwen leaves the message suggesting that maybe they needed to be done: "You know, I think you're right." Beyond the fact that Peter was stalking her (a revelation I was surprised she found cute, since I thought it was a really creepy moment), the multiple breakups were made by him only because he felt guilty about the promise he was breaking. (Actually, Peter seemed pretty selfish to me in regards to the relationship. He breaks up because of his guilt and reconciles because he doesn't like being alone. Gwen feelings or well-being never seemed to factor into his decision making in this regard.)

The really ironic thing is that the ASM movies version of Gwen actually has little to do with any prior version of Gwen Stacy, but is, in fact, an adaptation of Mary Jane from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics. There are differences: ASM movie Gwen didn't even know Peter's name until the first movie, while Ultimate Mary Jane and Peter were close friends their entire lives; Ultimate Mary Jane, while academically inclined, isn't a prodigy; and I think that the Ultimate Peter/Mary Jane relationship was given more depth than the ASM movie Peter/Gwen one was, but your mileage may vary.

However, being Peter's only high school sweetheart, authorial intent of the couple being in love for real and not just a temporary thing (regardless of how well you think that was presented), being the first person he told his superhero secret to (which also lead to the couple dating), them having a conversation in the football bleachers, running a supervillain over with a truck, those were "stolen" from Ultimate Mary Jane. (The even more ironic thing is that Ultimate Mary Jane is most like her Raimi movie counterpart.)

I also feel like Gwen has more agency in the films, rather than constantly needing to be rescued like Mary Jane seems to need.

Well, Gwen could've been kidnapped by the Lizard at the lab when he stole the lizard gas cure if he so wished (and Peter needed to rescue her from him at the school fight earlier), and the climax of ASM2 was Peter trying to rescue her from the Green Goblin, so Raimi movie Mary Jane doesn't have a total monopoly on being the damsel in distress. While Gwen may have chosen her risks, it also seemed like really stupid decisions to get involved, whereas when Mary Jane was caught, she'd never gone looking for trouble and was in places that would be reasonable to expect safety (her apartment, a cafe, etc.).

Mary Jane also gives a better showing when captured: In the first movie, she makes a point of warning Spider-Man of a Green Goblin attack (the first time when she's scared out of her wits). In the second one, when Spider-Man unexpectedly reveals himself to her while she's tied to Ock's wall, she controls whatever surprised reaction she would've had and just listens for his instructions. In the third movie, she saves Peter by dropping a cement block on Venom's head and does everything in her power to save herself from the falling trucks and snapping black webs. Gwen, does try to fight off the Lizard with an improvised flame thrower in ASM1, but acts completely helpless during the Goblin attack in ASM2.

I'd also counter argue that Mary Jane was shown to have more agency in her personal life. We see her working to find employment with advances and setbacks in her career throughout the trilogy. We see her struggling with the effects of her abusive childhood, esp. in regards to how she defines herself. She takes the initiative to tell Peter she loves him in SM1 and stands up for herself that she has a say in their relationship at the end of SM2. In SM3, their relationship troubles are affected by things both parties do, and both parties are showing making efforts to fix it. I mean, the series ends with Mary Jane deciding to forgive Peter and that they're staying together for the long haul. Gwen was defined by being Peter's girlfriend, and if you're like me and think that he was making all the decisions in it, then she doesn't seem to have that much agency.

So, yeah, sorry, I can't agree and feel the opposite. I think the relationship is weird, and weird on purpose, but I got so invested in Peter and Gwen in Amazing Spiderman 2 that, even though I knew she was going to die, her death shocked me in the theater. So incredibly tragic.

Okay. When I saw that, scene, I didn't really feel much of anything (albeit, by the time I saw it, I had had that part spoiled for me), but I think you hit the nail on the head. I couldn't get invested in the character's relationship like you and others did, so I felt indifferent. I think that my main problem is that I didn't really understand why they wanted to be together. Specifically, what attracted them to each other beyond physical appearance (a question I though the Raimi trilogy answered for its love birds)?

I think the reason I like those moments is because they feel very raw. There isn't a polish to them like in TWOK or Spider-Man of this professionalism of the actors.

Okay. I actually thought that several of the ASM movies scenes lacked the emotional honesty and sincerity that the Raimi movies had, but I will concede a great deal of subjectivity in this regard. Same for TWOK.

The emotions are very palpable and real, possibly a little weird and creepy in places, but still real to me. I guess the point is that I buy in to the characters, their emotions and where they are at and that sells me.

I can understand this. Apparently, different stuff speaks to us as being real.

And hey, I don't mind that you don't like either of those films.

Thanks. I'm returning the courtesy.

My only frustration comes from when Abrams Trek films get treated as "not real Trek." I mean, I don't like the Star Wars prequels, but I certainly don't call them "Not real Star Wars." I really don't like VOY or ENT or even some parts of TNG, but I still consider it a part of Trek lore. Abrams Trek gets the double whammy of "mindless action" and "not real Trek" in the criticism department and its very frustrating.

I'm a big Star Wars fan in addition to being a Trekkie and I'm actually a card-carrying prequel lover, so I can sympathize with liking a part of a franchise that the hardcore purists tend to label "fake Star Trek" (or "fake whatever"). I also liked VOY and ENT in general, so I'm used to being the unconventional.

I think that Abrams Trek has such a change in tone and characterization that for people like me, it's really hard to look at it and say: "This goes with the other stuff." That's were the "it's not 'real'" has its roots in (IMHO). And emotionally speaking, that's kind of how I feel.

On the other hand, it would be unfair to label people who like or prefer the Abrams stuff as not being real fans, or whatever. It's labeled as an element of the franchise. It's been a gateway for some people to get interested in the older movies and TV shows. It's not the first time the franchise has twisted the formula (e.g. DS9). But it's still hard.

I think it's safe to say that there's frustration on both sides for different reasons. The question is can the two coexist? I'd like to think so. After all, the Abrams movies aren't the only parts of the franchise with mixed opinions.

I do appreciate the back and forth though

Glad to hear that. I try to remain civil, but I can't always tell if I am or if the other posters are getting frustrated or not.

 

[fireproof78]

Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here but I've been enjoying the discussion. I have a nit picking comment on Nero. I agree with why his story is a good one but there was something about the way he was shown that bothered me too. More of an annoyance than anything. I'm still not sure whether it is because of how Eric Bana portrayed him or if he was directed to do so, but some of his scenes felt almost corny to me instead of menacing, which is what I think they were going for. The two scenes that come to mind is the opening scene with the Kelvin where Robau(sp) met Nero and he just stares at him when questioned. It was almost humorous. The next scene was where he was just lying there looking constipated when Ayel called him to the bridge. I think the mental instability he had could have been handled differently or shown differently, but it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film either way.

Don't mind at all.
I think that Bana had a certain unevenness to the his portrayal that doesn't always work. I don't find any humor in the Robau scene, but the scene of him on his bunk was definitely odd.

However, when he is with Pike and fighting Kirk, then the menace comes out, and I buy his insanity even more. So, yeah, early on, didn't quite work, probably due to editing, but later on, I'm all in with Nero.

I heard that before. I remember specific episodes were cited, but my opinion was: "I've seen those shows, I didn't see any hints. I think you're reading too much into it." However, it's been awhile and I've forgotten which examples were used, so I could very well have overlooked something.

(I will say that trying to find clues for this sort of thing gets really subjective, IMHO. I've commented or lurked on forums about movies where users try to analyze the films for these elements -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Zootopia most recently -- and I've seen some theories that depend on interpretations of the material I really don't think make sense.)

It does depend upon personal interpretation, but I think it's Charlie X or Paradise Lost were Uhura shows more of infatuation with Spock. However, I do agree that it can be subjective, and would have to review Nimoy's memoirs to get a better insight to the scenes.

I could see that, but I wish that that was made clearer, instead of putting his tendencies to break rules as him not wanting to be told what to do.

I disagree. He's a rebel by virtue of a lack of a father figure. He is smart but undisciplined.

I guess, although it still seems like poor trade off, but then that might just be me.

Of course it's a poor trade off. The audience is supposed to see that, but the characters are buying in to it. Marcus' plan is to justify his existence and the Vengeance existence by provoking the war that he fears is coming anyway.

Yeah, I guess, but the confusion over who was tricking who was not helpful.

It could have been a touch clearer, I agree.

Fair enough..

Thank you.

Sure it's subjective. I'm trying to explain why it doesn't quite work for me.

I'm not sure I really got the idea that Nero wants to save his world, since when he gets thrown into the alternate reality, Romulus is still around, but Horbus is still waiting around to go supernova and wipe it out again. Had the movie been about him trying to use the red matter to destroy Horbus in the alternate reality twenty-third century to prevent the nova in the future, and the heroes were trying to stop him (because there'd be loss of life, changing history, whatever), I could see him in the scenario you suggest.

But in the movie, the first thing he does is destroy Vulcan, making sure the Spock Prime, who he holds responsible for the loss of Romulus, see it, all for revenge. His next plan is to destroy every Federation world. Whether that is also for revenge or him simply wanting to see the Romulan Star Empire have a shot at being the Alpha and Beta Quadrant's top superpower, is unclear. So, I think Nero's only mission in the movie was revenge for the loss of his homeworld. Frankly, I think the idea of trying to save Romulus somehow would've been a better story.

But, in his mind, he is. He tells Pike that he is trying to create a world free of the Federation and then, only then, will Romulus be safe. Again, it's insane, but to him, it makes sense.

I actually think it's just as well that they didn't. The idea of the timeline trying heal itself by causing similar things to happen doesn't really mesh with rules of time travel that the franchise had established. The movie (deliberately) used a model of time travel that doesn't work, either, but at least its vague enough that there are ways to reconcile it with the original rules.

A model of time travel that doesn't work? How so? I mean, the writers take the cue from the multi-verse theory explored in "Parallels" where Worf is going across different quantum realities.

Star Trek has never had hard and fast rules about time travel, so I'm not sure what rules are to be applied here. The only way they could be more casual about time travel is if they had a TARDIS.

Maybe a better way to explain it would be that I feel like they come up with the action scenes first and then try to fit them into the move rather than coming up with the story and then finding action that works in that context. The scenes are also very loud and high on spectacle, which is fine, but the emotions get lost (IMHO).

I don't think they do, but that's an agree to disagree point. I think Kirk's emotions, in particular, carry through his actions, whether it's his protective instincts towards the ship at Vulcan, trying to save Sulu's life, the shared pain that he has with Spock at the loss of a parent, or the desire for revenge. I agree that it is very loud action, and that more pauses on the emotional beats would serve the story better, but I still find the emotions to be very much the through-line of the action.

For example, I submit that the best battle in Star Trek to date is in "Balance of Terror" (TOS), which puts the two commanders front and center, their motivations for the conflict are shown, neither of them make stupid mistakes (except possibly when the Romulan commander listens to his impulsive crew member after they've seemingly crippled the Enterprise). It's a more interesting battle, and one that has more to it than just using superior firepower (which is the main feature of the Abrams battles).

I would agree with that being the best battle, but I'm very biased in that "Balance of Terror" was my first Star Trek episode and remains my favorite to this day.

I think it's a different of film making style, with TOS being on a shoe-string budget (that couldn't afford the aglets) and the Abrams' films having ILM at their disposal.

Yeah, I think the character work in Force Awakens was a lot better. I felt more connected to them certainly then I did any of the Abramsverse characters and that their feelings came through better. Case in point, in Force Awakens, when Rey is begging Finn not to leave on Takodana, the idea that she didn't want to lose her new (and only) friend had more punch then Kirk's disappointment that Spock doesn't seem sad by the fact that they're going their separate ways in Into Darkness.

I disagree, but that's ok. I take more away from Kirk and Spock than Rey and Finn, and I like those characters.

So far, the movies don't really feel that unified, but it might be easier to see a mega-story in them when the series is complete. The second trailer for Beyond opening with Kirk and McCoy discussing Kirk's motivations for joining Starfleet sound promising (albeit I'm not very hopeful, given that it seems to be more of the same, and I'm not a fan of this series' default setting). I think it would be in everyone's best interest to step away from recycling stuff from the old movies and actually try something different that old TOS Star Trek couldn't or wouldn't do.

That's a wait and see moment. If they capitalize on Kirk's feelings towards his father and his motivation, I think Beyond will end the trilogy very strongly.

I guess you either buy it or don't and this case I didn't. In all fairness, though, the original scene was so well done and had been built off of years of character development, that it's probably unfair to compare a movie that trying to capture the same emotions when building on only one movie (and any fondness the audience has for the characters from the previous iteration of the franchise). I also don't think the actors deserve any blame, given that I think all the problems are with the writing and the fact I think the idea would've played better a few movies down the road.

Maybe. Personally, I thought it played well enough for the scene. I'm more annoyed that Star Trek film writers feel the need to repeat Trek's greatest hits and that no one can move past TWOK. TWOK was a well put together film, despite my discomfiture with it, but it certainly was a marked tonal change from TOS or TMP.

Fair enough. Like I said, my preference for that character over ASM movie Gwen is a unpopular opinion on my part.

I should clarify. I could buy MJ in the first film, but after that, I just couldn't.

Maybe. The dynamic is certainly different (the movies also have very different tones, too), but I'm not sure I felt that them trying to work out the messed up part came across very well. The actors had chemistry (sometimes too much; there were several scenes in ASM2 where I had trouble buying them being at odds or felt like they were winking at the camera, like the "hiding in the Oscorp closet" scene). Granted, ASM2 was overstuffed with plots (far worse that SM3, IMHO), so there was limited time for the Peter/Gwen relationship as it was.

Again, agree to disagree. Personally, I think the actors had better chemistry than McGuire and Dunst ever had. Garfield has a lovable goofiness that comes across as awkward and earnest as he stumbles over himself. Sorry, I can still remember being that awkward, so maybe I just identify with it better.

But I remember thinking that when Gwen leaves the message suggesting that maybe they needed to be done: "You know, I think you're right." Beyond the fact that Peter was stalking her (a revelation I was surprised she found cute, since I thought it was a really creepy moment), the multiple breakups were made by him only because he felt guilty about the promise he was breaking. (Actually, Peter seemed pretty selfish to me in regards to the relationship. He breaks up because of his guilt and reconciles because he doesn't like being alone. Gwen feelings or well-being never seemed to factor into his decision making in this regard.)

The really ironic thing is that the ASM movies version of Gwen actually has little to do with any prior version of Gwen Stacy, but is, in fact, an adaptation of Mary Jane from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics. There are differences: ASM movie Gwen didn't even know Peter's name until the first movie, while Ultimate Mary Jane and Peter were close friends their entire lives; Ultimate Mary Jane, while academically inclined, isn't a prodigy; and I think that the Ultimate Peter/Mary Jane relationship was given more depth than the ASM movie Peter/Gwen one was, but your mileage may vary.

However, being Peter's only high school sweetheart, authorial intent of the couple being in love for real and not just a temporary thing (regardless of how well you think that was presented), being the first person he told his superhero secret to (which also lead to the couple dating), them having a conversation in the football bleachers, running a supervillain over with a truck, those were "stolen" from Ultimate Mary Jane. (The even more ironic thing is that Ultimate Mary Jane is most like her Raimi movie counterpart.)

See, I think I buy in to it because it is a high school romance. And, I'm sorry, in high school, I was stupid, awkward and all in when it came to romances. I fell in love hard and fast and could be heart broken by next week.

Also, I have no conditioning towards Gwen or MJ due to comics. I personally have always liked MJ from the cartoon, but I never got the same vibe as in the Rami films. Gwen, to me at least, felt like a person acting her age. Peter and MJ from Rami's films feel just like bad luck magnets.

Well, Gwen could've been kidnapped by the Lizard at the lab when he stole the lizard gas cure if he so wished (and Peter needed to rescue her from him at the school fight earlier), and the climax of ASM2 was Peter trying to rescue her from the Green Goblin, so Raimi movie Mary Jane doesn't have a total monopoly on being the damsel in distress. While Gwen may have chosen her risks, it also seemed like really stupid decisions to get involved, whereas when Mary Jane was caught, she'd never gone looking for trouble and was in places that would be reasonable to expect safety (her apartment, a cafe, etc.).

Mary Jane also gives a better showing when captured: In the first movie, she makes a point of warning Spider-Man of a Green Goblin attack (the first time when she's scared out of her wits). In the second one, when Spider-Man unexpectedly reveals himself to her while she's tied to Ock's wall, she controls whatever surprised reaction she would've had and just listens for his instructions. In the third movie, she saves Peter by dropping a cement block on Venom's head and does everything in her power to save herself from the falling trucks and snapping black webs. Gwen, does try to fight off the Lizard with an improvised flame thrower in ASM1, but acts completely helpless during the Goblin attack in ASM2.

I'd also counter argue that Mary Jane was shown to have more agency in her personal life. We see her working to find employment with advances and setbacks in her career throughout the trilogy. We see her struggling with the effects of her abusive childhood, esp. in regards to how she defines herself. She takes the initiative to tell Peter she loves him in SM1 and stands up for herself that she has a say in their relationship at the end of SM2. In SM3, their relationship troubles are affected by things both parties do, and both parties are showing making efforts to fix it. I mean, the series ends with Mary Jane deciding to forgive Peter and that they're staying together for the long haul. Gwen was defined by being Peter's girlfriend, and if you're like me and think that he was making all the decisions in it, then she doesn't seem to have that much agency.

Gwen also figures out how to stop Electro and is taken off guard during the Goblin's attack.

I think the difference between the two is the sense of vulnerability. MJ just doesn't feel like she could step in and take charge unless she is inspired by Spider-man, versus Gwen who feels a little bit more independently defined from her relationship with Peter.

I don't know. It's hard to explain why I buy in to it more, but probably because, aside from the super hero aspect, I've seen relationships like Peter and Gwens in real life so I identify with them easier.

Okay. When I saw that, scene, I didn't really feel much of anything (albeit, by the time I saw it, I had had that part spoiled for me), but I think you hit the nail on the head. I couldn't get invested in the character's relationship like you and others did, so I felt indifferent. I think that my main problem is that I didn't really understand why they wanted to be together. Specifically, what attracted them to each other beyond physical appearance (a question I though the Raimi trilogy answered for its love birds)?

Maybe it was only physical appearance. It's high school and it's stupid. I still buy it more.

Okay. I actually thought that several of the ASM movies scenes lacked the emotional honesty and sincerity that the Raimi movies had, but I will concede a great deal of subjectivity in this regard. Same for TWOK.

I feel like the Rami films were very on-the-nose in terms of their emotional presentation and it's easier to identify their emotions. I think that ASM has more subtlety and subtext, and feels more real.

I can understand this. Apparently, different stuff speaks to us as being real.

See, above, but yeah, it's different for everyone. And that's ok

Thanks. I'm returning the courtesy.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

I'm a big Star Wars fan in addition to being a Trekkie and I'm actually a card-carrying prequel lover, so I can sympathize with liking a part of a franchise that the hardcore purists tend to label "fake Star Trek" (or "fake whatever"). I also liked VOY and ENT in general, so I'm used to being the unconventional.

I think that Abrams Trek has such a change in tone and characterization that for people like me, it's really hard to look at it and say: "This goes with the other stuff." That's were the "it's not 'real'" has its roots in (IMHO). And emotionally speaking, that's kind of how I feel.

On the other hand, it would be unfair to label people who like or prefer the Abrams stuff as not being real fans, or whatever. It's labeled as an element of the franchise. It's been a gateway for some people to get interested in the older movies and TV shows. It's not the first time the franchise has twisted the formula (e.g. DS9). But it's still hard.

I think it's safe to say that there's frustration on both sides for different reasons. The question is can the two coexist? I'd like to think so. After all, the Abrams movies aren't the only parts of the franchise with mixed opinions.

Exactly. In fact, my dad was a TOS fan from first run, and has never seen a frame of TNG. It's not his kind of Star Trek.
To me, it's strange that Abrams' film is treated as such a sharp, dynamic, shift, when TMP and TNG and then TWOK were all substantial shifts for their time. TWOK, in particular, was a marked difference from TMP, and Meyer's was known for not being a "Star Trek" fan, famously never having scene a frame before being hired on.
So, for me, it feels like Abrams shifted the tone (which had been tone before) had more action (done before) and recast classic characters (not been done before). I think taken all together it is some times tough to swallow, but my larger point is the fact that it has been done before, for the most part. So, I guess I'm still baffled by the hate for Abrams.

Glad to hear that. I try to remain civil, but I can't always tell if I am or if the other posters are getting frustrated or not.

Not yet

 

[Nerys Myk]

t does depend upon personal interpretation, but I think it's Charlie X or Paradise Lost were Uhura shows more of infatuation with Spock. However, I do agree that it can be subjective, and would have to review Nimoy's memoirs to get a better insight to the scenes

Go to 6:26 for some Spock/Uhura flirting..

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 disagree. He's a rebel by virtue of a lack of a father figure. He is smart but undisciplined.

They pretty much spell that out in the "genius level repeat offender" scene.

 

[fireproof78]

Hey, thanks

 

[JKM]

Don't mind at all.
I think that Bana had a certain unevenness to the his portrayal that doesn't always work. I don't find any humor in the Robau scene, but the scene of him on his bunk was definitely odd.

However, when he is with Pike and fighting Kirk, then the menace comes out, and I buy his insanity even more. So, yeah, early on, didn't quite work, probably due to editing, but later on, I'm all in with Nero.

Yes maybe it was the unevenness. The opening scene was only humorous to me because I had recently seen the movie Wild Hogs where John Travolta's character was sitting there all silent in the bar and it was a very funny scene that was unfortunately brought to mind by Nero's actions.

I disagree, but that's ok. I take more away from Kirk and Spock than Rey and Finn, and I like those characters.

So agree with you. Though I'm probably bias. I love Kirk and Spock. I came away from watching SWFA feeling like I had just seen a remake. I overall came out feeling disappointed with it because the whole movie I kept waiting for it to start telling its own story and not be a repeat of A New Hope with different characters.

 

[WebLurker]

Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here but I've been enjoying the discussion.

Course not! Jump in as much as you want.

Go to 6:26 for some Spock/Uhura flirting..

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

Oh, yeah, "Charlie X" (TOS). I don't think that it's good evidence though. First of all, it looks like Rand gets Uhura to do it in the first place, suggesting a joke more than anything else. Also, Uhura pulls the same routine on Charlie himself in the exact same scene, so she didn't seem to have any special interest in Spock himself. Also, Spock seems to be putting up with it more than anything else.

At least that's how I read it all. Thanks for finding that though.

Don't mind at all.
I think that Bana had a certain unevenness to the his portrayal that doesn't always work. I don't find any humor in the Robau scene, but the scene of him on his bunk was definitely odd.

However, when he is with Pike and fighting Kirk, then the menace comes out, and I buy his insanity even more. So, yeah, early on, didn't quite work, probably due to editing, but later on, I'm all in with Nero.

I could understand this. The moments with the character I like best (when he confronts Kirk commenting that he's read about him, and his last stand as his ship is being torn apart by the red matter) were later in the movie than earlier.

It does depend upon personal interpretation, but I think it's Charlie X or Paradise Lost were Uhura shows more of infatuation with Spock. However, I do agree that it can be subjective, and would have to review Nimoy's memoirs to get a better insight to the scenes.

Yeah, without any follow through on the actual show, I think it just a matter of opinion. I mean, today there are some fans who think that the Abramsverse Uhura and Spock relationship was a clever build on stuff from the TV show and others (like me) who think it came out of nowhere. Me personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea, even though it "works," since it's just one difference in the new timeline from the old one.

Of course it's a poor trade off. The audience is supposed to see that, but the characters are buying in to it. Marcus' plan is to justify his existence and the Vengeance existence by provoking the war that he fears is coming anyway.

Okay. I'd still prefer a story with a smart villain who's plan makes perfect sense and is well thought out. It makes the heroes victory more satisfying.

But, in his mind, he is. He tells Pike that he is trying to create a world free of the Federation and then, only then, will Romulus be safe. Again, it's insane, but to him, it makes sense.

Okay, I forgot about that (I only saw the movie once in theaters, so my recollections are a little fuzzy, even if I've read at lot of trivia and info about it since).

A model of time travel that doesn't work? How so? I mean, the writers take the cue from the multi-verse theory explored in "Parallels" where Worf is going across different quantum realities.

Star Trek has never had hard and fast rules about time travel, so I'm not sure what rules are to be applied here. The only way they could be more casual about time travel is if they had a TARDIS.

The general rule seems to be that time travel doesn't create a parallel universe. Specifically, "Past Tense, Parts I and II" (DS9) proves that. Reality changes around the protected Defiant in the future when Sisko accidentally changes the past. If the Abrams model was correct, then nothing would change for the Defiant and they could't find Sisko, since he wasn't in their reality's past.

The "Parallels" quantum realities have never been tied to Star Trek time travel. Now, if the Narada and the Jellyfish getting sucked into the black hole was the point where quantum realities diverged, then in one universe, it was thrown back in time, creating the Abramsverse, while in the other, something else happened, so the original timeline carried on. A little tricky, but it works (and so far as I know, I'm the only one who invented this theory, so remember who to credit if you want to borrow it .)

I don't think they do, but that's an agree to disagree point. I think Kirk's emotions, in particular, carry through his actions, whether it's his protective instincts towards the ship at Vulcan, trying to save Sulu's life, the shared pain that he has with Spock at the loss of a parent, or the desire for revenge. I agree that it is very loud action, and that more pauses on the emotional beats would serve the story better, but I still find the emotions to be very much the through-line of the action.

There are some there, like Kirk's futile attempt to punch Khan on Q'onoS (a really good scene, actually) where the emotions come through. In a lot of cases though, I don't feel it. Conversely, I think Abrams really let the emotions come through the fighting in Force Awakens, so he can do it. But, it could be a subjective thing, or I'm just used to more character focus in stuff like this.

I would agree with that being the best battle, but I'm very biased in that "Balance of Terror" was my first Star Trek episode and remains my favorite to this day.

Cool. While I remember watching bits and pieces of DS9 and whole episodes of VGR with my dad as a kid back in the '90s, my first episode when I started watching Star Trek when I was old enough to have a better grasp on it was "The Trouble With Tribbles." Coincidentally, that's also my favorite Star Trek episode/movie.

I think it's a different of film making style, with TOS being on a shoe-string budget (that couldn't afford the aglets) and the Abrams' films having ILM at their disposal.

Well, I think that it depends on how they use what they've got. I've seen ILM movies that have very detailed battles that are very emotion-driven and well done, and others that are empty.

I disagree, but that's ok. I take more away from Kirk and Spock than Rey and Finn, and I like those characters.

Fair enough. I was expecting the new Kirk and Spock to resemble the old ones more, while with Finn and Rey, I was only looking forward to seeing them onscreen, so I had different expectations.

That's a wait and see moment. If they capitalize on Kirk's feelings towards his father and his motivation, I think Beyond will end the trilogy very strongly.

Could be. So they aren't planning more movies in the series, then?

Maybe. Personally, I thought it played well enough for the scene. I'm more annoyed that Star Trek film writers feel the need to repeat Trek's greatest hits and that no one can move past TWOK. TWOK was a well put together film, despite my discomfiture with it, but it certainly was a marked tonal change from TOS or TMP.

Since TWOK is often considered the best Trek movie of all time (which I believe too), I suspect that a lot of people think all Trek movies should be like it. While I do think that it's character focus was part of what made it so great and that the other movies should try and emulate it, I don't want a string to TWOK clones either. I mean, The Voyage Home, First Contact, and Undiscovered Country are among my favorites, and they have different tones and settings, but still have strong character work.

I should clarify. I could buy MJ in the first film, but after that, I just couldn't.

Out of curiosity, why was that?

I have noticed that reception of the Mary Jane character across the movies is all over the map, although I have seen more contention on her depiction in SM3 then the others (usually disagreeing if she was just a selfish jerk or a decent person who sometimes had poor reactions). Overall, I liked this version of the character a lot, but your mileage will vary.

Again, agree to disagree. Personally, I think the actors had better chemistry than McGuire and Dunst ever had. Garfield has a lovable goofiness that comes across as awkward and earnest as he stumbles over himself. Sorry, I can still remember being that awkward, so maybe I just identify with it better.

For me, I never had a real problem with the chemistry in either couple (although, as I've mentioned before, I think that there were a few moments in the ASM movies where that was at the expense of the acting beats). I also thought that the casting was good in each series, so for me, it comes down to which had the better written characters, and I feel that the Raimi ones were given more character development and had a better written-relationship.

It doesn't help that I wasn't a big fan of Garfield's take on Peter. But, if you liked it, then I can get why you might not have the same problems I had with the ASM movies.

See, I think I buy in to it because it is a high school romance. And, I'm sorry, in high school, I was stupid, awkward and all in when it came to romances. I fell in love hard and fast and could be heart broken by next week.

That's a way at looking at it that I haven't heard before. All the same though, I wish that it had been explored more. Have them do more than just make silly small talk and break up. That would've gone a long way in making Gwen's death pack a bigger punch.

Also, I have no conditioning towards Gwen or MJ due to comics.

My mentioning the comics was more of a "Here's some cool trivia," than anything else (although I find it really funny that Mary Jane and Gwen tend to mix and match character traits in the really big adaptations). I was also admitting my bias, since my first Spider-Man stuff was the original movies and Ultimate Spider-Man comics. Those had Peter's love life center on Mary Jane, so me, that's an essential part of the franchise and I'm not very interested in other girlfriend scenarios (although I think that having Gwen in the ASM movies was a good call, since it was a way to make them distinct from the Raimi ones, but still taking stuff from some of the source materials).

I personally have always liked MJ from the cartoon, but I never got the same vibe as in the Rami films. Gwen, to me at least, felt like a person acting her age. Peter and MJ from Rami's films feel just like bad luck magnets.

You mean the one from the '90s? I think I saw an episode of that once. Hydro-Man was the villain and stalking Mary Jane, if I recall correctly. As far as their Mary Jane went, I think I prefer the girl next door version, but I did like their take, at least as far as that one episode was concerned.

I'd like to see more that show sometime. (The only Spider-Man shows I've seem much of where a few odd episodes from the MTV series, which was okay, and Spectacular Spider-Man, which was really great).

I don't know if I saw the Raimi characters as complete bad luck magnets, largely because we're shown both ups and downs in their lives, but I will agree that the movies did focus more on the dramatic stuff and some less drama in the sequels would've been welcome (although if the characters were all happy, then the movie would be boring).

Good point though, that Gwen is still a high schooler in her movies, while Mary Jane spends most of her series in her early twenties (or at least in the point of transitioning into full adulthood). That would mean different levels of emotional maturity and different kinds of relationships with friends, loved ones, etc.

Gwen also figures out how to stop Electro and is taken off guard during the Goblin's attack.

True. In the case of the former, though, I would've preferred if Peter had been the one to figure out how to protect his web shooters from Electro, since we saw him tinkering with them before. I would've found it more satisfying than having Gwen come it at the last minute and basically say: "Do this, even a kid would know the science behind the answer."

In regards to the latter, I don't have a big problem with the idea of the Green Goblin killing her, except that it felt rushed, like the movie ended and they wanted to squeeze this in at the last minute. I wish, they had set it up, so that it happened earlier, so we could see more of Peter's reaction, and have him not get a chance to beat the Goblin until after Gwen is dead.

I think the difference between the two is the sense of vulnerability. MJ just doesn't feel like she could step in and take charge unless she is inspired by Spider-man, versus Gwen who feels a little bit more independently defined from her relationship with Peter.

So, we both think the other person's preferred character is the less independent one? Funny! Esp. since my big complaint about Gwen is I think she's not independent from her relationship with Peter!

Okay, the reason I think that Mary Jane was more independent was we got to see more aspects of her life that Peter wasn't involved in or didn't have a great impact on. Her career for one thing. She may have gotten encouragement from him, but she was the one going out and trying to break into acting. Her loosing that job and getting another at a club was her own thing, too.

Her struggles with her self-esteem. Even though Peter being supportive was a factor, it was presented as something that happened because of her own life experiences outside of the other people in her life. Heck, we even learn that she liked spiders because of how disgusting they were. Not a major part of her character (although ironic foreshadowing that she develops a crush on Spider-Man and then falls in love with the guy wearing the suit).

Her father's death has minimal impact on her (Perter seems more affected!). With Gwen, everything always came back to her being Peter's girlfriend. For example, when she gets the Oxford scholarship, we never learn what she wants to study or what she wants to do for a living. The only importance to this is that it'll take her away from Peter. Her father's death has minimal impact on her (Perter seems more affected!). The only way its used is to drive a wedge between her and Peter, since he flip-flops on dating her because of Capt. Stacy's last words. We hardly see her with her family or interacting with friends.

Does it make any sense why I think this character isn't independent from Peter? If you have some explanations for you position, I would be sincerely curious in hearing them. (I'm a big Spider-Man fan and love discussing it.)

I don't know. It's hard to explain why I buy in to it more, but probably because, aside from the super hero aspect, I've seen relationships like Peter and Gwens in real life so I identify with them easier.

Okay, fair enough.

Maybe it was only physical appearance. It's high school and it's stupid. I still buy it more.

My thing is that I felt like the movie was telling me: "This is important. It's not just a stupid high school crush." So, I wish it either delivered on that, or let us know that it was just a crush that Peter and Gwen are over-angsting about, but it feels real to them, so be sorry for them. And once again, I wanted it to not remain static. I wanted change (something the Raimi movies did, which added to the believability).

I feel like the Rami films were very on-the-nose in terms of their emotional presentation and it's easier to identify their emotions. I think that ASM has more subtlety and subtext, and feels more real.

I could see that as a fair point. One's more cheesy than the other. On the other hand, despite the cheese, the Raimi movies felt more sincere to me, so even when there was cheese, I bought the emotions in it. On the other hand, the ASM movies felt more, well, slick. I didn't have the same level of trust in what they said or did. But, this does get into subjectivity.

Exactly. In fact, my dad was a TOS fan from first run, and has never seen a frame of TNG. It's not his kind of Star Trek.
To me, it's strange that Abrams' film is treated as such a sharp, dynamic, shift, when TMP and TNG and then TWOK were all substantial shifts for their time. TWOK, in particular, was a marked difference from TMP, and Meyer's was known for not being a "Star Trek" fan, famously never having scene a frame before being hired on.
So, for me, it feels like Abrams shifted the tone (which had been tone before) had more action (done before) and recast classic characters (not been done before). I think taken all together it is some times tough to swallow, but my larger point is the fact that it has been done before, for the most part.
So, I guess I'm still baffled by the hate for Abrams.

I think the question is, how much can you tweak the formula before it becomes something different, and we all draw the lines at different places. For some of us, Abrams stayed within boundaries, and for others, he crossed that line.

I'll also concede that the reboot nature of the series doesn't help, since one of the things I loved about pre-Abrams Star Trek is the world building, the general visual and "factual" consistency, and way it all felt like it was part of the same thing. The reboot doesn't have that, so it feels like an imposter of sorts. Like it knows what the different ingredients in the Taco Bell kitchen are, but doesn't or can't use them to make the same kinds of food on the menu, which is hard if you're like me and want to always have one specific taco with the rest of your order.

So agree with you. Though I'm probably bias. I love Kirk and Spock. I came away from watching SWFA feeling like I had just seen a remake. I overall came out feeling disappointed with it because the whole movie I kept waiting for it to start telling its own story and not be a repeat of A New Hope with different characters.

That's an interesting point. I wasn't as bothered by the parallels with A New Hope and really loved the new characters (my favorite batch of Star Wars leads so far), so I seem to have had a different experience. But we all went in with different expectations, so that does shape our responses.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes maybe it was the unevenness. The opening scene was only humorous to me because I had recently seen the movie Wild Hogs where John Travolta's character was sitting there all silent in the bar and it was a very funny scene that was unfortunately brought to mind by Nero's actions.

Yeah, I didn't find it funny so I'm not sure.

So agree with you. Though I'm probably bias. I love Kirk and Spock. I came away from watching SWFA feeling like I had just seen a remake. I overall came out feeling disappointed with it because the whole movie I kept waiting for it to start telling its own story and not be a repeat of A New Hope with different characters.

To be clear, while I like Kirk and Spock more in terms of characters, I absolutely love the new characters in TFA. While there are some beats in the film that are reminiscent of a New Hope, I think that the characters growth and reaction to the events are novel enough to drive the story in an interesting way.

I also think that it ended in a way very different from most of the SW films, with a cliff hanger that left major questions unanswered. As much s I like A New Hope, it is a very self-contained story. TFA leaves me wanting to know more.

Course not! Jump in as much as you want.



Oh, yeah, "Charlie X" (TOS). I don't think that it's good evidence though. First of all, it looks like Rand gets Uhura to do it in the first place, suggesting a joke more than anything else. Also, Uhura pulls the same routine on Charlie himself in the exact same scene, so she didn't seem to have any special interest in Spock himself. Also, Spock seems to be putting up with it more than anything else.

At least that's how I read it all. Thanks for finding that though.

I think it's very subjective, and I know there were other hints. I would be curious to read Nimoy's and Nichol's thoughts on the matter.

I could understand this. The moments with the character I like best (when he confronts Kirk commenting that he's read about him, and his last stand as his ship is being torn apart by the red matter) were later in the movie than earlier.

I personally love his interactions with Pike. He goes from casual and conversational to angry and defensive so quickly. Just a interesting character as a villain that we rarely see in Trek. And no, I'm not referring to the whole be driven by revenge thing. I'm talking about who Nero was before, a simple miner, who ends up being among the lone survivors of his race.

Yeah, without any follow through on the actual show, I think it just a matter of opinion. I mean, today there are some fans who think that the Abramsverse Uhura and Spock relationship was a clever build on stuff from the TV show and others (like me) who think it came out of nowhere. Me personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea, even though it "works," since it's just one difference in the new timeline from the old one.

As much as I like TOS, there were a lot of things that were left without follow through. The episodic format lent itself to selling it to the network, but some dynamics were simply not explored. As you say, it's subjective, but I think that it was presenting alternatives to what was scene, and exploring smaller hints to craft a larger narrative.

Obviously, YMMV.

Okay. I'd still prefer a story with a smart villain who's plan makes perfect sense and is well thought out. It makes the heroes victory more satisfying.

While I think the plan could have been better articulated in the film, I still find Marcus' plan smart and the victory over him and Khan bittersweet.

Okay, I forgot about that (I only saw the movie once in theaters, so my recollections are a little fuzzy, even if I've read at lot of trivia and info about it since).

It's funny because that line stands out to me so sharply, yet it gets lost. Nero articulates what he's doing to Pike but gets treated like he's just a generic bad guy with no drive or purpose.

The general rule seems to be that time travel doesn't create a parallel universe. Specifically, "Past Tense, Parts I and II" (DS9) proves that. Reality changes around the protected Defiant in the future when Sisko accidentally changes the past. If the Abrams model was correct, then nothing would change for the Defiant and they could't find Sisko, since he wasn't in their reality's past.

The "Parallels" quantum realities have never been tied to Star Trek time travel. Now, if the Narada and the Jellyfish getting sucked into the black hole was the point where quantum realities diverged, then in one universe, it was thrown back in time, creating the Abramsverse, while in the other, something else happened, so the original timeline carried on. A little tricky, but it works (and so far as I know, I'm the only one who invented this theory, so remember who to credit if you want to borrow it .)

Hmm, pretty sure I read that somewhere else but I'll give you some credit

Red Matter introduces a kind to time travel that I think was absent from other methods of time travel. I don't think it's a matter of a single model being correct, but that of a new variable being introduced, resulting in both time travel and a new quantum reality. Since a singularity is involved, it is not unreasonable as gravitational effects would impact the movement through space and time.
Also, I mention "Parallels" but TOS also had the Mirror Universe and the episode, "The Alternative Factor" where alternate universes, or quantum realities, existed. Also, I'll note that in many of the quantum realities a lot of the crewmembers were the same. Weird...

There are some there, like Kirk's futile attempt to punch Khan on Q'onoS (a really good scene, actually) where the emotions come through. In a lot of cases though, I don't feel it. Conversely, I think Abrams really let the emotions come through the fighting in Force Awakens, so he can do it. But, it could be a subjective thing, or I'm just used to more character focus in stuff like this.

Ah, the Q'onoS scene is so good. It gives Uhura a moment to shine, as well as showing Kirk's instinctual drive to protect his crew. Plus, as you stated, Kirk's futile punching of Khan perfectly mirrors the two men in that moment-Kirk's frustration at his inability to act to prevent Pike's death, and Khan's superiority in the face of adversity.

There are so many moments like that in the Abrams' films that I wish I could articulate them all. I love the interaction between in Spock and Sarek in ST 09, or Kirk and Spock Prime in the cave in the same film. I thoroughly enjoy the back and forth between Spock and Kirk regarding John Harrison, as well as the three fold interchange between Kirk, Spock and Uhura. But, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many little moments that inform the characters and their motivations that I just gravitate towards them.

Also, I think the fighting in The Force Awakens is perfectly done in terms of tone and following the motivation of the characters. The fights are actually among the least polished moments of the film, and I love them for their rawness.

Cool. While I remember watching bits and pieces of DS9 and whole episodes of VGR with my dad as a kid back in the '90s, my first episode when I started watching Star Trek when I was old enough to have a better grasp on it was "The Trouble With Tribbles." Coincidentally, that's also my favorite Star Trek episode/movie.

Funny enough, I didn't get in to DS9 until "Trials and Tribble-ations."

Well, I think that it depends on how they use what they've got. I've seen ILM movies that have very detailed battles that are very emotion-driven and well done, and others that are empty.

Of course it does, otherwise Michael Bay would be celebrated as the newest Cecil B. DeMille.

I just think that the Abrams' films have that emotion to them as well. Again, YMMV.

Fair enough. I was expecting the new Kirk and Spock to resemble the old ones more, while with Finn and Rey, I was only looking forward to seeing them onscreen, so I had different expectations.

A lot has to be said about expectations. I honestly wasn't expecting the same dynamic, because I honestly didn't think the actors could handle the roles, especially when they cast Urban as McCoy or Pegg as Scotty (I'm still not sold on Pegg's Scotty). But, they brought a certain newness and freshness to the roles that I find very enjoyable, and also an opportunity to to learn more about the characters.

As much as I love the TOS characters, I find the opportunity to see them connecting and building their relationships. A friend of mine once put it about filmmaking "Becoming is more interesting than being." Now, before that quote gets dissected in to its parts of speech, let me be clear. I like TOS and seeing those relationships already established. But, I also like seeing Kirk become Kirk. It makes him more real for me, that there was something he had, or didn't have, that I can identify with.

Could be. So they aren't planning more movies in the series, then?

Pine and Quinto have signed on for a fourth, but given the capricious nature of Hollywood, we'll have to wait until Beyond.

Since TWOK is often considered the best Trek movie of all time (which I believe too), I suspect that a lot of people think all Trek movies should be like it. While I do think that it's character focus was part of what made it so great and that the other movies should try and emulate it, I don't want a string to TWOK clones either. I mean, The Voyage Home, First Contact, and Undiscovered Country are among my favorites, and they have different tones and settings, but still have strong character work.

While I would agree on The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country, I think that First Contact draws far more on the tone of TWOK than it is often given credit for. It utilizes themes of revenge and obsession, including Moby Dick, to build Picard's narrative. Now, is that film successful in doing so? I think so, and think it's the best of the TNG films. However, I also find it frustrating that TWOK is the gold standard so that even the basic elements feel necessary to be recreated, rather than focusing on what made TWOK successful-strong theme, strong writing, stronger characters, and tight editing.
I think that Abrams' films are good in their execution and characters, but stumble in the editing and pacing. However, I don't think that should exclude them from the discussion of being good Star Trek.

I think the question is, how much can you tweak the formula before it becomes something different, and we all draw the lines at different places. For some of us, Abrams stayed within boundaries, and for others, he crossed that line.

I guess I'm trying to figure out that line. The pacing is a concession I'll make, but the it just feels like the changes made have been made in similar ways before. As I mentioned, TMP featured a marked tonal shift from TOS, and TWOK and even greater shift. The only consistency was the cast.

I'll also concede that the reboot nature of the series doesn't help, since one of the things I loved about pre-Abrams Star Trek is the world building, the general visual and "factual" consistency, and way it all felt like it was part of the same thing...

I guess I am the kind of person who wants to see variation. I love studying concept art from series and seeing different possibilities. One of my favorite Deviant Art contributors is Adam Kop as he does concepts of Star Wars vehicles from a different point of view.

The reboot is just familiar enough (the bright colors and uniforms) to be enjoyable, but different enough to be visually engaging. But, that's me.

 

[WebLurker]

I think it's very subjective, and I know there were other hints. I would be curious to read Nimoy's and Nichol's thoughts on the matter.

Since this was the 1960s, would this have even been accepted? (I recall that they basically had to fight the censors to get have Kirk and Uhura kiss in a select scene for "Plato's Stepchildren," so you'd think that the networks would go off the rails at the idea of stuff along this spectrum being a regular element.

I personally love his interactions with Pike. He goes from casual and conversational to angry and defensive so quickly. Just a interesting character as a villain that we rarely see in Trek. And no, I'm not referring to the whole be driven by revenge thing. I'm talking about who Nero was before, a simple miner, who ends up being among the lone survivors of his race.

Okay. I guess for me, Nero just has a lack of charisma that other villains have (not everyone needs it, but a charismatic villain tends to be more fun to root against). Nero doesn't doesn't stand out that much, which is okay in the sense that the movie is focusing on introducing the TOS characters again, but makes him feel a little lackluster.

While I think the plan could have been better articulated in the film, I still find Marcus' plan smart and the victory over him and Khan bittersweet.

Maybe for me, the biggest problem was that Marcus plan seems stupid from the get go. Why use Khan? The guy is a man out of time, was into politics, not engineering. What qualifications does he have to be designing modern day weapons?

It's funny because that line stands out to me so sharply, yet it gets lost. Nero articulates what he's doing to Pike but gets treated like he's just a generic bad guy with no drive or purpose.

I did remember that line, but I think the problem is is that if you cut that out, the movie doesn't really change that much. I never really felt like I got to know Nero the way I did both Khans, the Borg, V'Ger, even Shinzon, etc.

Hmm, pretty sure I read that somewhere else but I'll give you some credit

Yeah, I'm sure every theory has been thought up before. I've just never encountered mine suggested before.

Red Matter introduces a kind to time travel that I think was absent from other methods of time travel. I don't think it's a matter of a single model being correct, but that of a new variable being introduced, resulting in both time travel and a new quantum reality. Since a singularity is involved, it is not unreasonable as gravitational effects would impact the movement through space and time.
Also, I mention "Parallels" but TOS also had the Mirror Universe and the episode, "The Alternative Factor" where alternate universes, or quantum realities, existed. Also, I'll note that in many of the quantum realities a lot of the crewmembers were the same. Weird...

The idea that the red matter created a special exception to some of the rules is an idea I like. I just wish that the "official" explanation fit the canon better.

Yeah, "Parallels" wasn't the first parallel universe story, just the first to establish that some parallel universes are quantum realities that branch of pre-exisiting universes/timelines at different points (some so subtle that's why many of the ones Worf visited were essentially the same as his home quantum reality).

Ah, the Q'onoS scene is so good. It gives Uhura a moment to shine, as well as showing Kirk's instinctual drive to protect his crew. Plus, as you stated, Kirk's futile punching of Khan perfectly mirrors the two men in that moment-Kirk's frustration at his inability to act to prevent Pike's death, and Khan's superiority in the face of adversity.

The Uhura scene is a mixed bag for me. I am not a big fan of this version of the character (while original Uhura was less developed as a character, her more professional confidence fit her job better), but it was good to give her something to do other than be Spock's girlfriend. However, I really hate the new Klingon makeup, so I have trouble appreciating anything about the Klingon scenes.

There are so many moments like that in the Abrams' films that I wish I could articulate them all. I love the interaction between in Spock and Sarek in ST 09, or Kirk and Spock Prime in the cave in the same film. I thoroughly enjoy the back and forth between Spock and Kirk regarding John Harrison, as well as the three fold interchange between Kirk, Spock and Uhura. But, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many little moments that inform the characters and their motivations that I just gravitate towards them.

Spock Prime was great. Everything in his scenes hit the mark exactly. The other character moments didn't really work that well for me (although Karl Urban was McCoy elevated a lot of them).

Also, I think the fighting in The Force Awakens is perfectly done in terms of tone and following the motivation of the characters. The fights are actually among the least polished moments of the film, and I love them for their rawness.

Agreed.

Funny enough, I didn't get in to DS9 until "Trials and Tribble-ations."

I think I had seen a rerun as a kid once that I kind of remembered. So, when I was first shown the original Tribbles, I was really confused why they weren't looking for a bomb.

I just think that the Abrams' films have that emotion to them as well. Again, YMMV.

Okay.

A lot has to be said about expectations. I honestly wasn't expecting the same dynamic, because I honestly didn't think the actors could handle the roles, especially when they cast Urban as McCoy or Pegg as Scotty (I'm still not sold on Pegg's Scotty). But, they brought a certain newness and freshness to the roles that I find very enjoyable, and also an opportunity to to learn more about the characters.

I actually like the new Scotty, even if he seems a little off. I still have trouble with "we're learning more about the characters," since these versions are so different from the originals, that for me, the idea that we're seeing the geneisis of the original Kirk, the original Spock, etc. is lost. We're just seeing the genesis of random characters called Kirk, Spock, and all that. I would've rather focused on a bach of completely new characters, since there would be more surprises along the way (the fact that Into Darkness didn't kill Kirk when he briefly died tells me that the movies want to follow the rough setup of the original ones rather than going a new course and seeing how things could be different).

As much as I love the TOS characters, I find the opportunity to see them connecting and building their relationships. A friend of mine once put it about filmmaking "Becoming is more interesting than being." Now, before that quote gets dissected in to its parts of speech, let me be clear. I like TOS and seeing those relationships already established. But, I also like seeing Kirk become Kirk. It makes him more real for me, that there was something he had, or didn't have, that I can identify with.

Well, as I said before, I don't feel like these are the same characters I've watched on TV over the years, so I find it hard appreciating all the development, since I'm not sold on these ones. But I can understand what you're saying. (I also think that both origin and post-origin stories work, but it depends on how well the story is told.)

Pine and Quinto have signed on for a fourth, but given the capricious nature of Hollywood, we'll have to wait until Beyond.

Okay. It'll be very interesting to see what happens when this series has run its course. Will they try to do the Abramsverse version of TNG or one of the other series? Go back to the prime universe? Make another reboot?

While I would agree on The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country, I think that First Contact draws far more on the tone of TWOK than it is often given credit for. It utilizes themes of revenge and obsession, including Moby Dick, to build Picard's narrative. Now, is that film successful in doing so? I think so, and think it's the best of the TNG films. However, I also find it frustrating that TWOK is the gold standard so that even the basic elements feel necessary to be recreated, rather than focusing on what made TWOK successful-strong theme, strong writing, stronger characters, and tight editing.

So, I guess we agree on this. (I suppose you're right about First Contact, but TWOK filtered it's revenge story with the villain as the one wanting revenge and emulated a naval story -- emphaisis on the two commanders trying to outthink each other. First Contact had the hero as the one wanting revenge and filtered the story through a horror movie setting -- with the Borg like zombies slowly overtaking the last pockets of resistance.)

I think that Abrams' films are good in their execution and characters, but stumble in the editing and pacing. However, I don't think that should exclude them from the discussion of being good Star Trek.

Agreed (although the question are they good Star Trek may be harder to agree on).

I guess I'm trying to figure out that line. The pacing is a concession I'll make, but the it just feels like the changes made have been made in similar ways before. As I mentioned, TMP featured a marked tonal shift from TOS, and TWOK and even greater shift. The only consistency was the cast.

The cast tied it all together and made it more believable that it was the same world. Having a new cast, new takes on the characters, new set designs, new tones, that's not a lot of links to past (esp. since they missed a lot of opportunities to bridge the gap between ENT and TOS, which might've made it more acceptable that we're seeing a version of TOS).

I guess I am the kind of person who wants to see variation. I love studying concept art from series and seeing different possibilities. One of my favorite Deviant Art contributors is Adam Kop as he does concepts of Star Wars vehicles from a different point of view.

Concept art is awesome, no doubt. Had the reboot movies been a clean reboot with no ties to the original continuity, that would've been one thing, but once they said that they exist in an alternate timeline of the original franchise, then I come in expecting some level of consistency, and they don't have that.

The reboot is just familiar enough (the bright colors and uniforms) to be enjoyable, but different enough to be visually engaging. But, that's me.

I'm not a big fan of the Apple store Enterprise to be honest, so that doesn't help. The new uniforms aren't that bad.

 

[fireproof78]

Since this was the 1960s, would this have even been accepted? (I recall that they basically had to fight the censors to get have Kirk and Uhura kiss in a select scene for "Plato's Stepchildren," so you'd think that the networks would go off the rails at the idea of stuff along this spectrum being a regular element.

Not whether or not the networks would approve, but what subtext that the actors were trying to convey Was Spock annoyed? Was Uhura just flirting? and on and on. Authorial intent as it were.
Also, the TOS writers were quite clever at slipping things by the networks, such as in "Wink of an Eye" when Kirk and the lady of the week end up together, and all they do is cut from the two of them having a discussion, and then Kirk is sitting on a bed pulling on his boots and she is coming her hair. What happened between takes?

Okay. I guess for me, Nero just has a lack of charisma that other villains have (not everyone needs it, but a charismatic villain tends to be more fun to root against). Nero doesn't doesn't stand out that much, which is okay in the sense that the movie is focusing on introducing the TOS characters again, but makes him feel a little lackluster.

Agree to disagree then. I find Nero wonderfully compelling, charismatic, insane and engaging.
Also, while I wasn't actively rooting against Nero, so much as wanting the heroes to win, I think there was certain aura of tragedy to his story that had a hubris quality to it.

Maybe for me, the biggest problem was that Marcus plan seems stupid from the get go. Why use Khan? The guy is a man out of time, was into politics, not engineering. What qualifications does he have to be designing modern day weapons?

I'd explain it, but I think the film did it just fine:
James T. Kirk: Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a three-hundred-year-old frozen man for help?

Khan: Because I am better.

James T. Kirk: At what?

Khan: Everything. Alexander Marcus needed to respond to an uncivilized threat in a civilized time, and for that, he needed a warrior's mind - my mind - to design weapons and warships.

Spock: You are suggesting the Admiral violated every regulation he vowed to uphold, simply because he wanted to exploit your intellect...

Khan: He wanted to exploit my savagery! Intellect alone is useless in a fight, Mr. Spock. You, you can't even break a rule - how can you be expected to break bone? Marcus used me to design weapons. I helped him realize his vision of a militarized Starfleet. He sent you to use those weapons, to fire my torpedoes on an unsuspecting planet, and then he purposely crippled your ship in enemy space, leading to one inevitable outcome: the Klingons would come searching for whoever was responsible, and you would have no chance of escape. Marcus would finally have the war he talked about, the war he always wanted.

I did remember that line, but I think the problem is is that if you cut that out, the movie doesn't really change that much. I never really felt like I got to know Nero the way I did both Khans, the Borg, V'Ger, even Shinzon, etc.

I have a question and then I will comment. Does knowing that Lt. Daniel Kaffey was known for negotiating plea deals and and lives in the shadow of his father impact how the final scene of "A Few Good Men" plays out?

Yeah, I'm sure every theory has been thought up before. I've just never encountered mine suggested before.

No, it definitely has a different twist. But, I've heard enough theories that they all bleed together too

The idea that the red matter created a special exception to some of the rules is an idea I like. I just wish that the "official" explanation fit the canon better.

Yeah, "Parallels" wasn't the first parallel universe story, just the first to establish that some parallel universes are quantum realities that branch of pre-exisiting universes/timelines at different points (some so subtle that's why many of the ones Worf visited were essentially the same as his home quantum reality).

I'm still not sure what the canon explanation is, other than that they are in an alternate reality.

The Uhura scene is a mixed bag for me. I am not a big fan of this version of the character (while original Uhura was less developed as a character, her more professional confidence fit her job better), but it was good to give her something to do other than be Spock's girlfriend. However, I really hate the new Klingon makeup, so I have trouble appreciating anything about the Klingon scenes.

Again, agree to disagree. I love the new Klingon makeup, and the fact that they don't all look like Worf it a nice change. Same thing with Uhura. I don't expect the polish of professionalism but she is still very good at what she does.

Spock Prime was great. Everything in his scenes hit the mark exactly. The other character moments didn't really work that well for me (although Karl Urban was McCoy elevated a lot of them).

Again, agree to disagree. They work well for me, especially being informed about their Prime counterparts actually gives them more depth than just for the casual viewer.

Agreed.

Thanks

I think I had seen a rerun as a kid once that I kind of remembered. So, when I was first shown the original Tribbles, I was really confused why they weren't looking for a bomb.

I have the novel. Such a fun episode.

Okay.

I actually like the new Scotty, even if he seems a little off. I still have trouble with "we're learning more about the characters," since these versions are so different from the originals, that for me, the idea that we're seeing the geneisis of the original Kirk, the original Spock, etc. is lost. We're just seeing the genesis of random characters called Kirk, Spock, and all that. I would've rather focused on a bach of completely new characters, since there would be more surprises along the way (the fact that Into Darkness didn't kill Kirk when he briefly died tells me that the movies want to follow the rough setup of the original ones rather than going a new course and seeing how things could be different).

Given the fact that we are seeing what changes are there, I think it sheds more insight in to our Prime heroes. We learn what it took for Prime Kirk to become Prime Kirk. Maybe we don't learn everything, but where's the fun in that.

Now, I tend to agree on going with a completely new batch of characters, but since these are the films we have, I work with what we've got.

Well, as I said before, I don't feel like these are the same characters I've watched on TV over the years, so I find it hard appreciating all the development, since I'm not sold on these ones. But I can understand what you're saying. (I also think that both origin and post-origin stories work, but it depends on how well the story is told.)

Fair enough. I don't expect everyone to respond the same way, but I feel like the fact that I know Prime Kirk and Prime Spock, that I get the chance to learn more from these films.

Okay. It'll be very interesting to see what happens when this series has run its course. Will they try to do the Abramsverse version of TNG or one of the other series? Go back to the prime universe? Make another reboot?

Me too, but there's a whole subforum for that

So, I guess we agree on this. (I suppose you're right about First Contact, but TWOK filtered it's revenge story with the villain as the one wanting revenge and emulated a naval story -- emphaisis on the two commanders trying to outthink each other. First Contact had the hero as the one wanting revenge and filtered the story through a horror movie setting -- with the Borg like zombies slowly overtaking the last pockets of resistance.)

Sure, but it they still took the base elements and wove the narrative around it. Which is why I don't have a problem with Abrams' films. They have taken elements from TOS and put a more contemporary lens on it. Now, obviously, that isn't for everyone, but, I guess my point is that there are elements I still recognize and appreciate as "Star Trek."

Agreed (although the question are they good Star Trek may be harder to agree on).

True, but it's still Star Trek, at least to me. It's like saying that pepperoni pizza is good pizza but cheese pizza really isn't. They're still pizza.

The cast tied it all together and made it more believable that it was the same world. Having a new cast, new takes on the characters, new set designs, new tones, that's not a lot of links to past (esp. since they missed a lot of opportunities to bridge the gap between ENT and TOS, which might've made it more acceptable that we're seeing a version of TOS).

I thought the Kelvin was a great tie in, aside from some minor nitpicks, covered before. The uniforms and feel of the ship really helped me in that regard.

Concept art is awesome, no doubt. Had the reboot movies been a clean reboot with no ties to the original continuity, that would've been one thing, but once they said that they exist in an alternate timeline of the original franchise, then I come in expecting some level of consistency, and they don't have that.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't need them to look the same to imagine what variations would be inspired from the Narada's attack.

I'm not a big fan of the Apple store Enterprise to be honest, so that doesn't help. The new uniforms aren't that bad.

Apple store. I'll never understand that, but then, I'm not a fan of Apple, but I like the nu-Enterprise

 

[WebLurker]

Not whether or not the networks would approve, but what subtext that the actors were trying to convey Was Spock annoyed? Was Uhura just flirting? and on and on. Authorial intent as it were.
Also, the TOS writers were quite clever at slipping things by the networks, such as in "Wink of an Eye" when Kirk and the lady of the week end up together, and all they do is cut from the two of them having a discussion, and then Kirk is sitting on a bed pulling on his boots and she is coming her hair. What happened between takes?

I suppose.

Agree to disagree then. I find Nero wonderfully compelling, charismatic, insane and engaging.
Also, while I wasn't actively rooting against Nero, so much as wanting the heroes to win, I think there was certain aura of tragedy to his story that had a hubris quality to it.

Fair enough.

I'd explain it, but I think the film did it just fine:
James T. Kirk: Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a three-hundred-year-old frozen man for help?

Khan: Because I am better.

James T. Kirk: At what?

Khan: Everything. Alexander Marcus needed to respond to an uncivilized threat in a civilized time, and for that, he needed a warrior's mind - my mind - to design weapons and warships.

Spock: You are suggesting the Admiral violated every regulation he vowed to uphold, simply because he wanted to exploit your intellect...

Khan: He wanted to exploit my savagery! Intellect alone is useless in a fight, Mr. Spock. You, you can't even break a rule - how can you be expected to break bone? Marcus used me to design weapons. I helped him realize his vision of a militarized Starfleet. He sent you to use those weapons, to fire my torpedoes on an unsuspecting planet, and then he purposely crippled your ship in enemy space, leading to one inevitable outcome: the Klingons would come searching for whoever was responsible, and you would have no chance of escape. Marcus would finally have the war he talked about, the war he always wanted.

But Khan would still need to learn everything from scratch. Also, how does savagery help with designing ships and ship's weapons? The point is, Khan is a man out of time, and even if he could be taught the stuff, it'd be more efficient to have modern inventors working on the new tech. Also, if Marcus had to use Khan, make him a field agent (maybe with an explosive charge implanted in his head for insurance.

I have a question and then I will comment. Does knowing that Lt. Daniel Kaffey was known for negotiating plea deals and and lives in the shadow of his father impact how the final scene of "A Few Good Men" plays out?

I actually haven't seen this movie. Sorry.

No, it definitely has a different twist. But, I've heard enough theories that they all bleed together too

Thanks.

I'm still not sure what the canon explanation is, other than that they are in an alternate reality.

This article has some insight into what the people making the reboot movies had in mind (since Trek '09 itself doesn't really explain much, or even confirm that the original continuity survived). This fan website has an interesting collection of time travel essays, including one that examines different models of time travel in relation to the franchise (plus the authors commentary series by series of the way time travel has been used in Star Trek). Finally (while not canon), novelist Christopher L. Bennett created a time travel model that tried to reconcile everything in his novel Department of Temporal Investigations: Watching the Clock. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but it is a well-thought out theory. I like this article's summary of the theory. Here Bennett himself posted some annotations to the novel, including some of his reasoning behind the sci-fi science of his model.

Again, agree to disagree. I love the new Klingon makeup, and the fact that they don't all look like Worf it a nice change. Same thing with Uhura. I don't expect the polish of professionalism but she is still very good at what she does.

The new Klingons look like Orcs that got lost from filming Lord of the Rings. It smacked of trying to change something for no good reason. Also, the TOS movie and TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT Klingon designs all looked like they could be part of the same species. This one looked like it could be a different one.

I guess that, despite the movies trying to make Uhura the third most important character in the movies (replacing Dr. McCoy), she still isn't that interesting. She's got some nerve and she's Spock's girlfriend, but that seems to be about it.

Again, agree to disagree. They work well for me, especially being informed about their Prime counterparts actually gives them more depth than just for the casual viewer.

But how many details are still relevant? TOS Chekov wasn't a prodigy like the new one is, TOS Kirk got credit for the Kobayashi Maru scenario, the new one almost got expelled over it (the details of the test are inconsistent between the movies, too), TOS Spock is very different in personality traits.

I have the novel. Such a fun episode.

Do you mean the behind the scenes book David Gerrold wrote or the "Trials and Tribble-lations" novelization, which included 99% of the original Tribbles episode, too?

Given the fact that we are seeing what changes are there, I think it sheds more insight in to our Prime heroes. We learn what it took for Prime Kirk to become Prime Kirk. Maybe we don't learn everything, but where's the fun in that.

See above for my thoughts on this.

Now, I tend to agree on going with a completely new batch of characters, but since these are the films we have, I work with what we've got.

Okay. That's probably one reason I think the new TV show looks more interesting.

Fair enough. I don't expect everyone to respond the same way, but I feel like the fact that I know Prime Kirk and Prime Spock, that I get the chance to learn more from these films.

See above.

Sure, but it they still took the base elements and wove the narrative around it. Which is why I don't have a problem with Abrams' films. They have taken elements from TOS and put a more contemporary lens on it. Now, obviously, that isn't for everyone, but, I guess my point is that there are elements I still recognize and appreciate as "Star Trek."

True, but it's still Star Trek, at least to me. It's like saying that pepperoni pizza is good pizza but cheese pizza really isn't. They're still pizza.

I get the analogy, but if some one but sauce and cheese on a bagel and put it the toaster over, could be considered pizza? It may taste good, but is it truly pizza. That's kind of my thing. They changed enough things that it doesn't feel like a pizza anymore, but a bagel.

I thought the Kelvin was a great tie in, aside from some minor nitpicks, covered before. The uniforms and feel of the ship really helped me in that regard.

I did like the uniforms, but the ship, while cool, looked too much like the altered timeline ships. I would've liked them to remove things like the window with all the graphics and just use a real viewscreen, have more ENT-style designs outside, made it a lot smaller than it was, etc.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't need them to look the same to imagine what variations would be inspired from the Narada's attack.

We don't need to be told everything, but some stuff just doesn't make sense. Suddenly, warp drives are so much faster, Q'onoS is on the edge of the Klingon Neutral Zone. It feels like they wanted a total reboot, but left the time travel tie as if to claim legitimacy to the original franchise, even when the two models are at odds with each other.

Apple store. I'll never understand that, but then, I'm not a fan of Apple, but I like the nu-Enterprise

Apple stores tend to have a plain, white motif to them. The Enterprise bridge is very white with lots of flashing displays. I don't like that bridge very much. The outside is okay, but the more rounded and soft-lined warp nacelles are bad fit with the more angular and straight-edged parts of the rest of the ship. (In a deleted scene for Into Darkness, they actually showed a wonderful hologram of an authentic TOS TV-era Constitution-class ship. In all honesty, I wish they had done that.

 

[Pauln6]

Updating the Constitution class would have been preferable to a completely new design IMO but then I don't subscribe to the notion that bigger and flashier is better. I absolutely loved the look and feel of the tech in the Expanse.