For people who don't like the reboots

[Shikarnov]

He did get a promotion. He also became captain of the ship he stole, and went from 'no-even-in-the-service anymore to captain' in less than a few years.

Fortune (meaning Starfleet) favors the rule-breakers, it seems. That would explain Picard's static streak.

I don't think it's about favoring rule-breakers, so much as a desire to have officers who don't blindly follow illegal or immoral orders, and a willingness to consider the circumstances of events rather than judging every violation of law to be criminal (something I wish our own justice system would do more).

Spock's effort in The Menagerie was an errand of mercy, to help a disabled friend and former commander to enjoy a higher quality of life for whatever time he had left. Rather than throw the book at him, once the full story had unfolded, I'm sure Starfleet probably considered themselves lucky to have an officer who was so loyal to his comrades, and so noble in his choices, that he would willingly risk the death penalty to make things right for Captain Pike.

 

[fireproof78]

I wouldn't say I don't like him so much as I don't like what the writers did with him. Kirk had a LOT of potential. And redemption stories often contain a lot of value in and of themselves. I really would have liked to see him overcome his disadvantages and grow as a man and as an officer. It would have made the prize of command all that much sweeter.

You also said you find him interesting as "contemporary social commentary." Would you please expand on this? I'm very interested in your thoughts on this...

One of my observations about contemporary society is a need for father figures. Regardless of political affiliation, there is plenty of psychological research, and government programs that work to advocate being a father (I hear at least one government sponsored radio ad a day) that indicate the positives benefits of a father or mentor.

ST 09 starts that off, recognizing George Kirk as a great leader, and showing his willingness to sacrifice, but it leaves a void in his son's life (given the number of military families currently this could be extended there). So, nuKirk grows up without a father and is rebellious, impulsive and reckless. He doesn't contribute to society, and isn't living up to his potential, which, if the audience knows about Star Trek at all, they know that Kirk could be great.

Pike steps in and his that father figure. He provides the direction and a challenge for Kirk's talent. Is it an easy journey? No, not at all. Kirk makes a lot of mistakes including dealing with the Romulans, listening to Marcus, and violating the Prime Directive. Kirk has to go through the challenge of growing up and take responsibility for other lives not just his own and it culminates in him deciding to sacrifice himself, like his dad did, for the sake of his crew.

And before I hear the "magic blood" argument, Kirk didn't know about that. He made the choice, with no expectation that he would survive. I also don't have a problem with the blood, so, to me, that is a non issue.

Now, do I think Kirk's promotion to Captain was too fast? Yeah, absolutely. He should have been first officer, sent on the survey mission without Pike due to Pike needing a medical check for the 5 year mission, gets back, attack happens and Pike is killed. Kirk has to step up, be the captain, but is still reckless and wants revenge. So, that is one way it could have been handled.

There is more commentary, with Spock and Sarek, and Sarek's very gentle wisdom working with Spock and the intensity of the emotions. Many of Sarek's comments are similar to ones that have been made throughout TOS regarding Vulcans and how they embrace logic. Sarek provides that guidance that Spock needs to become the man that he has the potential to be,

That's my take.

 

[Shikarnov]

One of my observations about contemporary society is a need for father figures. Regardless of political affiliation, there is plenty of psychological research, and government programs that work to advocate being a father (I hear at least one government sponsored radio ad a day) that indicate the positives benefits of a father or mentor.

ST 09 starts that off, recognizing George Kirk as a great leader, and showing his willingness to sacrifice, but it leaves a void in his son's life (given the number of military families currently this could be extended there). So, nuKirk grows up without a father and is rebellious, impulsive and reckless. He doesn't contribute to society, and isn't living up to his potential, which, if the audience knows about Star Trek at all, they know that Kirk could be great.

Pike steps in and his that father figure. He provides the direction and a challenge for Kirk's talent. Is it an easy journey? No, not at all. Kirk makes a lot of mistakes including dealing with the Romulans, listening to Marcus, and violating the Prime Directive. Kirk has to go through the challenge of growing up and take responsibility for other lives not just his own and it culminates in him deciding to sacrifice himself, like his dad did, for the sake of his crew.

And before I hear the "magic blood" argument, Kirk didn't know about that. He made the choice, with no expectation that he would survive. I also don't have a problem with the blood, so, to me, that is a non issue.

Now, do I think Kirk's promotion to Captain was too fast? Yeah, absolutely. He should have been first officer, sent on the survey mission without Pike due to Pike needing a medical check for the 5 year mission, gets back, attack happens and Pike is killed. Kirk has to step up, be the captain, but is still reckless and wants revenge. So, that is one way it could have been handled.

There is more commentary, with Spock and Sarek, and Sarek's very gentle wisdom working with Spock and the intensity of the emotions. Many of Sarek's comments are similar to ones that have been made throughout TOS regarding Vulcans and how they embrace logic. Sarek provides that guidance that Spock needs to become the man that he has the potential to be,

That's my take.

First, thank you for taking the time to describe your thinking. I appreciate that.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I grew up without a father myself, and had to face a large number of my own challenges as a result. That experience is also why, although my wife and I are probably heading for divorce, I intend to follow a very different path than my own father chose by remaining close to and close with my own sons.

And perhaps that's just another missed opportunity... The writers were so hellbent on introducing Captain Kirk of the Enterprise, that they were unable to tell the story of James Kirk until they'd contrived a way to give him the center seat where almost nothing of his personal growth and development would make any sense at all.

But I want to add also that I, too, see a social commentary. And I don't see it as being in conflict with what you see, but rather the other side of the same coin.

I don't know what your experience has been, but I see a lot of people -- particularly young people -- who very much mirror James Kirk in their arrogance and sense of entitlement. They think they deserve a seat in the executive boardroom when they haven't the knowledge or experience to work a mailroom efficiently. Perhaps, for them, Kirk really is a hero because he shows the way things are supposed to be: his "special nature" was recognized early and he was advanced to his proper position. I've never asked, but I wonder how many of these young people I see come from broken homes. I'll bet the number is quite large...

Very interesting.

 

[Nyotarules]

There is more commentary, with Spock and Sarek, and Sarek's very gentle wisdom working with Spock and the intensity of the emotions. Many of Sarek's comments are similar to ones that have been made throughout TOS regarding Vulcans and how they embrace logic. Sarek provides that guidance that Spock needs to become the man that he has the potential to be,

That's my take.

I find your view of Sarek interesting. I have not read the movie novelisation so it might provide background, but I do not get the impression that reboot Sarek was an autocratic, stubborn father like his Prime version.

 

[fireproof78]

First of all, sorry to hear about your possible divorce. If you need someone to talk to, please feel free to use the PM.

I appreciate your point of view. I agree that it is a missed opportunity. I think that James Kirk rushed promotion was a little bit too much, and that they focused on the "Captain" part perhaps too much, and banked heavily on the nostalgia.

I can see the commentary you're relating, and if ST09 was it, then that might bold true. However, we see the consequences of those actions and Kirk actually facing down a situation where he cannot win. As odd as it sounds, STID reflects the Kobyashi Maru scenario quite well from ST09 and there is no cheating this time.

The pacing certainly leaves somewhat to be desired, but it still constructs a narrative that Kirk has to grow up and earn his rank and become a leader. Could it have been done better? Yeah, probably, but that doesn't negate what is there.

I find your view of Sarek interesting. I have not read the movie novelisation so it might provide background, but I do not get the impression that reboot Sarek was an autocratic, stubborn father like his Prime version.

I think you might be misreading what I meant. I'm not saying Sarek is like his Prime counterpart, though there are parallels. I'm saying that several of the lines from Sarek can be found in TOS by various characters talking about Vulcans.

 

[Leee79]

Sorry if this was mentioned already, I didn't read all the posts in this thread.
I'm a big fan of Star Trek, I remember watching TOS when it first aired when I was only 5 years old. And watching the horribly mutilated film stock that was shown over and over again on WPIX-TV Channel 11 in New York, every day at 6:00pm.
I still have burned in my memory where each skip (because of damaged film) would be in each episode. Like during Charlie X when the crew was going around the bridge, "turning everything on", the film would jump to Spock, McCoy, Scotty and Uhura, all frantically pushing buttons and then suddenly jump cut to them facing the camera.

Just those little things, but I wanted to lay the foundation that I was raised on TOS, and yet, like listening to The Beatles played endlessly on the radio, some newer music is always refreshing. I love TNG, and don't compare it to TOS. It's apples and oranges. TNG was able to produce the type and quality of shows that TOS only could dream of. And I know the TOS Purists out there will endlessly debate on how Capt. Kirk was such a better captain than Picard, but on their own, the actors chosen to play in the ensemble cast (another thing TOS strived for but failed) are remarkably talented and had just the right chemistry together. I will also acknowledge that there are a lot of Berman/Braga bashers out there that felt they ruined Star Trek. But I'm a huge fan of Brannon Braga, and his episodes in TNG were among my favorites.

So if I had to list my favorite Star Trek shows in order of how much I liked them: TOS and TNG would tie for first, then Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise my least favorite. (The animated series is in there towards the lower end of the scale)

But getting back to the original topic of this thread.... No, I do not like the rebooted Star Trek movies. I don't like Abrams style and I don't like the actors who portray the original characters with Quinto as Spock being my least favorite. It seems like he wasn't serious enough about the role. It's Spock played by a typical younger generation smart-ass kid, who shows little respect for anything.

And FINALLY, the REAL reason I do not like these movies is them messing with the canon of Star Trek. For one simple reason: So many people, writers, producers, actors have put SO much into the creation of the Star Trek canon, over decades it was slowly built and cultivated on through the various series and movies, but along comes Abrams and (again just like a punk-ass kid with no respect for anything) changes everything, wiping away the years of hard work that went into maintaining this canon. And yes, I know it's an alternate timeline, the "other", original Trek Universe still exists out there.
But that still doesn't explain how through various sets of circumstances that changed history was ALSO able to change each of the characters' core personalities. Losing one's entire home planet and most of his people would probably cause Spock to become even more serious and reserved, not this care free, joking, Uhura dating, smartass. No matter how much history has changed, the REAL Spock would never have done or said half the things he does in these new movies. And I'm honestly surprised Leonard Nimoy had anything to do with them, because he DID take his role and character so seriously.
Nimoy was famous for his protests on the set of TOS, for writers creating "UnSpock-like" lines or situations. It seems Nimoy drank the Abrams Kool-Aid as well.

Mock me if you will, it is after all ONLY my opinion, but I think Rick Berman should have been left to care for Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry passed the torch to him for a good reason....he GOT what Star Trek was all about. Not only does Abrams not get it, but he doesn't even care that he doesn't get it. I honestly believe that Roddenberry would not have approved of the direction these reboot movies have taken. And for that reason alone is enough to dislike them.

Admittedly, I have watched these movies several times and enjoy them as stand-alone entertainment. By themselves, they are a romping good time and offer quality sci-fi special effects. But are they Star Trek? No.

"The story you are about to see is false, only the names have remained the same to confuse the innocent" ---- Lee S.

 

[BillJ]

And FINALLY, the REAL reason I do not like these movies is them messing with the canon of Star Trek. For one simple reason: So many people, writers, producers, actors have put SO much into the creation of the Star Trek canon, over decades it was slowly built and cultivated on through the various series and movies, but along comes Abrams and (again just like a punk-ass kid with no respect for anything) changes everything, wiping away the years of hard work that went into maintaining this canon. And yes, I know it's an alternate timeline, the "other", original Trek Universe still exists out there.

Huge fan here, that started watching when I was four. I think Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman got TOS better than any one from the modern shows. It doesn't make the modern shows bad, but if I had to chose between them and the Abrams films, I'd take the Abrams films.

Also, the Prime timeline continues on in books published by Simon and Shuster. You should check out the Trek Literature subforum.

Mock me if you will, it is after all ONLY my opinion, but I think Rick Berman should have been left to care for Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry passed the torch to him for a good reason....he GOT what Star Trek was all about.

He might have gotten what TNG was about, but he had no clue about TOS.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Huge fan here, that started watching when I was four. I think Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman got TOS better than any one from the modern shows. It doesn't make the modern shows bad, but if I had to chose between them and the Abrams films, I'd take the Abrams films.

Also, the Prime timeline continues on in books published by Simon and Shuster. You should check out the Trek Literature subforum.



He might have gotten what TNG was about, but he had no clue about TOS.

TNG was a creature of the Detente Era and playing in a world where the Federation was just one among uneasy superpowers and the folks were more busy getting in touch with their feelings than exploration. TOS was Cold War cowboys in space. There are bad guys out there and Starfleet has got a job to do. In some ways our War on Terror era easily hearkens back to that us vs them narrative of the TOS era. So, a movie series with heroes kicking butt and overcoming crisis inside and out has done pretty well.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Anyway, I would say that Trek is not about exploring space

If it's just an essay but doesn't entertain, then what's the point?

Kor

For some reason, there is a small number of ST fans--largely after the stale, unadventurous TNG's influence--that wanted to reject the true structure of ST from the start, instead wanting some far future version of the PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, forgetting what placed ST on the map. It explains why a TOS-movie series anomaly like TMP is listed as their favorite, while they usually criticize TWOK, etc.

 

[Shikarnov]

First of all, sorry to hear about your possible divorce. If you need someone to talk to, please feel free to use the PM.

Thanks. Your kindness is very much appreciated. And I may yet take you up on the offer.

For some reason, there is a small number of ST fans--largely after the stale, unadventurous TNG's influence--that wanted to reject the true structure of ST from the start, instead wanting some far future version of the PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, forgetting what placed ST on the map. It explains why a TOS-movie series anomaly like TMP is listed as their favorite, while they usually criticize TWOK, etc.

Well, I consider TOS to be my favorite of all Trek series, but I'm still not a fan of the reboots... And TNG doesn't really become stale until Season Four, if you ask me. Earlier seasons have a lot of fun mixed in with some serious episodes (like Measure of a Man and Who Watches the Watchers) that could easily have been TOS episodes if the campy style of 1960s television wasn't so prominent and also if Trek's writers were able to tell stories more freely without figuring out ways to circumnavigate the censors of that era.

 

[Shikarnov]

TNG was a creature of the Detente Era and playing in a world where the Federation was just one among uneasy superpowers and the folks were more busy getting in touch with their feelings than exploration. TOS was Cold War cowboys in space. There are bad guys out there and Starfleet has got a job to do. In some ways our War on Terror era easily hearkens back to that us vs them narrative of the TOS era. So, a movie series with heroes kicking butt and overcoming crisis inside and out has done pretty well.

I half agree. It's true that TOS is more black and white in its portrayal of interstellar politics, while TNG deals more in shades of gray. But I also think TOS was aspiring to be more like TNG in that regard... It attempted to provoke the audience -- over and over again -- to think about various issues in greater contexts than simple good/evil. They just hid it well, which was an unfortunate necessity.

 

[fireproof78]

I find your view of Sarek interesting. I have not read the movie novelisation so it might provide background, but I do not get the impression that reboot Sarek was an autocratic, stubborn father like his Prime version.

I did reply to this in one post, but I'll reiterate my comments here. I don't think Sarek is like his prime counterpart. What I meant was much of Sarek's discussion points on logic and Vulcans could be found in TOS dialog. Even young Spock's encounter with his classmates and Sarek's discussion afterwards very much mirrors the TAS episode "Yesteryear."

We can definitely see the roots of why Spock and Sarek might not speak to each other for years, if circumstances had not been different.

Thanks. Your kindness is very much appreciated. And I may yet take you up on the offer.

No problem

Well, I consider TOS to be my favorite of all Trek series, but I'm still not a fan of the reboots... And TNG doesn't really become stale until Season Four, if you ask me. Earlier seasons have a lot of fun mixed in with some serious episodes (like Measure of a Man and Who Watches the Watchers) that could easily have been TOS episodes if the campy style of 1960s television wasn't so prominent and also if Trek's writers were able to tell stories more freely without figuring out ways to circumnavigate the censors of that era.

I too consider TOS my favorite series, but I understand why people don't like the reboots, for the most part. So, i appreciate you offering your reasons why so I can understand even better.

I don't expect everyone to like the reboots, but I do think Abrams got more right than he got wrong. I also think that if my wife, who really doesn't enjoy Star Trek and my dad, who grew up with TOS, both enjoy the films that Abrams did something right.

Also, as I previously mentioned, I don't think Abrams' films are perfect by any stretch of the imagination or measure. I just think they are closer to TOS' spirit than is initially realized.

 

[Shikarnov]

^ I agree... There is a LOT to love about the Abrams films. My beef principally is with the writers -- Kurtzman and Orci (and Lindelof) -- and what they did with Kirk particularly. Everybody else was pretty much on their A-Game -- from the costume department, art department, to the special effects team, to casting and the actors, and everybody in between. All are top notch. I even have to credit Abrams himself for directing the movies well (and I even like the lens flares). I'm not especially thrilled about the Enterprise's design, but that's a nitpick as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Pauln6]

I pretty much agree. I love all the performances except Scotty, who is too much of a buffoon. It's poor and childish choices by the writers that rankle even though I do enjoy the movies overall. If they had kept the original Enterprise design or TMP design, I'd have been happier.

I don't view Kirk's decision in STiD to be like the Kobayashi Maru at all though - that was a test of command under impossible circumstances. STiD is more like Troi's command test. He's reluctant to sacrifice someone qualified to do the job and so he goes into harm's way with no inkling of what needs to be done and ends up kicking the engines back to life. That is a BAD command decision. He only succeeds through sheer luck. It's childish writing - our heroic captain can't be seen ordering Ensign Chekov to his death because pew pew Kirk is AWESOME and has to do everything himself. It was a missed opportunity for the franchise to grow up.

At least in TWoK Spock knew he was qualified to fix the engines and knew his Vulcan physiology would enable him to keep going for longer than the humans. His sacrifice was logical.

 

[BillJ]

At least in TWoK Spock knew he was qualified to fix the engines and knew his Vulcan physiology would enable him to keep going for longer than the humans. His sacrifice was logical.

More qualified than the engineers manning the Engineering deck in suits designed for the area?

TWoK has Spock go down there because it is his sacrifice. But it doesn't really make any sense when there are officers down there who should be far more qualified.

 

[Pauln6]

Well Scotty was passing out due to the radiation and most of the engineers were trainees who had probably already had a fair bit of exposure too so on balance I'd say yes. Although I take your point that it is annoying how Spock is good at everything, even warp engineering. That's a bee in my bonnet about limiting the growth of the supporting cast.

 

[BillJ]

Well Scotty was passing out due to the radiation and most of the engineers were trainees who had probably already had a fair bit of exposure too so on balance I'd say yes. Although I take your point that it is annoying how Spock is good at everything, even warp engineering. That's a bee in my bonnet about limiting the growth of the supporting cast.

If a starship is going into battle and your in a potential radiation area, shouldn't you have dressed appropriately for it at some point? I can't believe they wouldn't have gear for it handy.

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah that's one of those oddities. They wear radiation suits without helmets? And why don't they have drones or equipment to effect those kinds of repairs while keeping the people safe? Of course those kinds of points apply equally to both franchises. NuKirk didn't pause to put on a radiation suit and there were no engineers in the vicinity wearing radiation suits - shouldn't there be about 50 on duty during red alert? Why did none of them know they could kick the engines back to life? At least TWoK has the plausible excuse that most of the engineers are trainees.

 

[eyeresist]

But I also think TOS was aspiring to be more like TNG in that regard... It attempted to provoke the audience -- over and over again -- to think about various issues in greater contexts than simple good/evil. They just hid it well, which was an unfortunate necessity.

I'd say it was fortunate. Less lecturing, more fun. A spoonful of sugar...

 

[suarezguy]

For some reason, there is a small number of ST fans--largely after the stale, unadventurous TNG's influence--that wanted to reject the true structure of ST from the start, instead wanting some far future version of the PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, forgetting what placed ST on the map.

How is there a single true structure of Star Trek when the original series had fairly diverse kinds of episodes?
For myself I generally like the styles of both the original and TNG (and don't seem them as, overall, enormously different).