There were no moral dilemmas in "Into Darkness"? Really? The movie was thick with them.
GR vs. JJ
- Thread starter Valenti
- Start date
- Status
The JJ writers did just fine with their Star Trek stories.
Name me one moral dilemma in ITD.
Here you go:
-- Whether or not to save the people from the volcano despite the prime directive.
-- Whether or not to save Spock.
-- Whether on not to make a deal with Khan in order to save a daughter.
-- Scotty's refusal to sign for the torpedoes and resignation on principle.
-- Whether or not to kill Khan or bring him in to face justice (disobey orders).
-- Whether or not to risk starting a war with the Klingons.
-- Scotty realizing he'd have to kill the crewman in order to open the airlock in time for Kirk and Khan.
-- Khan's position regarding his crew.
-- Whether or not to contact Spock Prime even though that's kind of messing in a gray area regarding his knowledge of history.
-- How should Carol feel about her dad after she finds out what kind of man he is?
-- The crew willing to go down with the ship rather than abandon it.
-- Kirk's choice to sacrifice himself for the ship.
-- Whether or not to use Khan's blood to try to revive Kirk (ethics of it).
-- What to do with the rest of Khan's crew.
-- What to do with Khan.
-- The entire idea of the morality of Section 31 and what it stands for.
There might be others, but I'm hungry and I've got a tuna salad sandwich waiting for me in the kitchen.
Last edited:
You forgot the most important dilemma in the entire story - Carol disabling the Enterprises warp drive so that it would be destroyed and the Federation would go to war with the Klingons. Now why would Admiral Marcus want to go to war with the Klingons and kill his daughter? That's another moral dilemma, isn't it?
So? Do you have some kind of point or are you just spouting nonsense for the hell of it?
Gene's shit did stink, and it smelled of fifth day under latex cosplayer con-sweat and desperation, with just a hint of lilacs. That's canon. Deal with it.
The real question is whether or not Gene's shit is a military and if it gets paid a salary. Also, where Gene's shit weighs in on the Tuvix conundrum.
There's lots of bad Star Trek littered throughout all fifty-two years of the franchise, and most people can't even agree on what it is. Heck, some people even enjoy Insurrection, Nemesis and The Final Frontier. Some of my favorite episodes are "The Omega Glory" and "The Royale".
You’re wrong. I know what bad Star Trek is. It’s anything I don’t like but other people do.
I don't see my best friend growing up very often now, but we would watch TOS in syndication together after school all through the early and mid 1970s and make obscure Trek references to each other for decades. He married someone who was more a TNG fan than TOS fan, but a fan none-the-less. They saw all the TOS and TNG movies (hell, I didn't even see NEM).
One of the last times we visited, I asked them if they enjoyed the new Abrams movies. They kind of looked at each other and there was a weird silence. "We haven't seen them," my friend told me, "we've no desire to." I kind of gave him a WTF look and in response he said, "We just can't think of them as 'Star Trek'." I said that's too bad because they're actually very good* and maybe they should give them a chance if any of the three show up on TV, but then I thought "whatever," and changed the subject. And I still picked up the bill for dinner, too. I'm not going to lose a friend of 52 years over what is or isn't Trek.
* Oh, and they are very good BECAUSE I SAY THEY ARE!
One of the last times we visited, I asked them if they enjoyed the new Abrams movies. They kind of looked at each other and there was a weird silence. "We haven't seen them," my friend told me, "we've no desire to." I kind of gave him a WTF look and in response he said, "We just can't think of them as 'Star Trek'." I said that's too bad because they're actually very good* and maybe they should give them a chance if any of the three show up on TV, but then I thought "whatever," and changed the subject. And I still picked up the bill for dinner, too. I'm not going to lose a friend of 52 years over what is or isn't Trek.
* Oh, and they are very good BECAUSE I SAY THEY ARE!
Well, that was easy.
Been there. My best friend of 46 years hates the Abrams films. Though unlike your's he seen them, in the theater no less. The friendship is more important than Trek.I don't see my best friend growing up very often now, but we would watch TOS in syndication together after school all through the early and mid 1970s and make obscure Trek references to each other for decades. He married someone who was more a TNG fan than TOS fan, but a fan none-the-less. They saw all the TOS and TNG movies (hell, I didn't even see NEM).
One of the last times we visited, I asked them if they enjoyed the new Abrams movies. They kind of looked at each other and there was a weird silence. "We haven't seen them," my friend told me, "we've no desire to." I kind of gave him a WTF look and in response he said, "We just can't think of them as 'Star Trek'." I said that's too bad because they're actually very good* and maybe they should give them a chance if any of the three show up on TV, but then I thought "whatever," and changed the subject. And I still picked up the bill for dinner, too. I'm not going to lose a friend of 52 years over what is or isn't Trek.
* Oh, and they are very good BECAUSE I SAY THEY ARE!
Last edited:
A commentary on the dangers of cult leadership.Yeah, let's get back to classic Roddenberry-inspired morality tales like this one:
- Status
Similar threads
