Hated it
- Thread starter KSoldier
- Start date
Yeah, FC wasn;t that bad, it did provide nice resolution for the Pcirad/Borg arc.
But in general I dislike ST as movies, it's better as a TV show. The only movie I liked was the Undiscovered Country and I think that has more to do with my interest in the historical context.
It did take me a long time to get into it. But it actually make me like the Andorians and the first contact with the Ferengi was rather well done. Also it showed the Vulcans for what they are....
It was in some ways almost a mixture between the better elements of TOS and TNG.
But I think what I really liked about it was that it finally had the special effects to show a more alien universe (Just look at the Xindi or the planet with the bio-luminescent lifeforms). It still was pretty focused on exploration rather than on shooting things and the captain banging a funny looking "space babe".
Now I don't like Vulcans, but I found T'Pol more tolerable and interesting than Spock. I especially like when she and Tucker started their relationship. Let alone that all the ENT characters had first and last names and some even had family. In TOS you could be excused to think that people are grown in vats.
The thing I didn't think was done well in ENT was the exploration.
It seemed to me that the universe had already been discovered in ENT. In TOS in some episodes you got the impression that Kirk and his crew were the first beings from the Federation out there.
In ENT while the overall mission was one of discovery I don't recall a time when they were discovering anything new. I think Mayweather's Mum had beat the NX to many places. And of course the Vulcans and Andorians were always there before them.
In regards to Kirk in TOS, this has been proven wrong a hundred times over.
Stop that, now. My 'boyhood' brain is still telling me that Kirk was the greatest lover as well as the greatest leader, greatest fighter, greatest friend, greatest starship Captain........
Redemption does not equate to suicide. I'll argue that suicide is the exact opposite of redemption as once you're dead you're free from any further responsibilities for the ship and crew. Especially since killing himself to rescue the ship may have gotten the Enterprise out of the frying pan but the ship was still in danger from other immediate threats. At least to me, if Kirk wanted redemption he should have taken responsibility by commanding the until the ship and crew is safe, or till the ship's destroyed.
Just look at what his father, George Kirk did on the USS Kelvin. Even though George was just acting Captain, he bought enough time for his entire crew had time to get off the ship before crashing it into the Narada. Captain going down with the ship and all that. Now that's what a Captain and a hero would do.
That whole conversation was an act, including that shout at the end. It was all meant to fool Khan into doing what Kirk wanted. Kirk knew that by volunteering to beam himself up, Khan would do the exact opposite just to spite Kirk.
Last edited:
That is your interpretation. I believe Kirk would've given himself up if it meant no more Enterprise lives were lost. He also surrenders the Enterprise and himself during The Undiscovered Country to stop a potential conflict. Kirk was also willing to sacrifice the Enterprise during "Balance of Terror" in an attempt to stop a wider conflict from breaking out.
I never saw it that way. If Kirk didn't have the prefix code up his sleeve he would have been forced to beam himself aboard, along with the the Genesis data. He only had a few phaser shots at his disposal, Reliant's shields were up. Khan had him by the balls. Also - why would he do the opposite? He wanted Kirk very badly.
He was still a redneck. And I still don't find any interest in the dynamic between him Spock and McCoy.
Edit: Wait...perhaps Redneck is a bit harsh..... he was a typical man of the 1960s.... all three of them were.
Since the show was made in the 1960's, this would make a huge amount of sense. Much like Picard and company were typical people of the 1980's.
Indeed, I find this to be one of Kirk's greater personality traits, one that nuKirk is still learning. Kirk is fiercely loyal and sacrificial- we see that in Where No Man has Gone Before, where he is willing to come up against Mitchell man-to-man rather than risk anyone else dying. Similar thing happened in Trek 09 where he jumps after Sulu. Kirk is willing to put himself in harms way to save his friends. The problem in ID is that he never feels like he is wrong and that it will always work. The situation with Marcus proves him wrong, and he has to figure out a way to save his crew. But, to do so he has to do something he hates-sacrifice someone. So, he decides to sacrifice himself (good night, Scotty).
I don't think it is redemptive so much as it is humbling and Kirk recognizing the nature of sacrifice.
Redneck????
Maybe those funny looking Space-Babes hold on really tight
Just ask Darth Vader.
And Janeway and her crew where people of the 1990s
Still the 1960s....are less easy to stomach (at least to me) from a modern perspective than the 1980s or 1990s.
I know the show was fair for its day with having people like Uhura, Zulu and Chekov there at all, but it was still (from my perspective) about three male middle aged military officers. Not interested. I don't even like Riker in TNG for similar reasons that I dislike Kirk.
My favourite characers in TNG are Worf, Beverly, Troi, Guinan and Data, I don't think they would have fitted into TOS.
And Janeway and her crew where people of the 1990s
Still the 1960s....are less easy to stomach (at least to me) from a modern perspective than the 1980s or 1990s.
I know the show was fair for its day with having people like Uhura, Zulu and Chekov there at all, but it was still (from my perspective) about three male middle aged military officers. Not interested. I don't even like Riker in TNG for similar reasons that I dislike Kirk.
My favourite characers in TNG are Worf, Beverly, Troi, Guinan and Data, I don't think they would have fitted into TOS.
I think Data would have, but I understand the perspective on the three main characters. I think Worf could have too, but not as a Klingon, but a warrior-code security officer.
Middle aged ? By what definition ? They were in their thirties.
Just Googling it.
Apparently "Middle Age" is defined by various sources as starting at either 35, 40 or 45 and lasting till 55, 60 or 65.
To me it always meant 40-65.
DeForest Kelley was 46.
Nimoy and Shatner only were 35 but to me they always looked older, might be the make-up effects of the time (though I also suspect a bit of the lifestyle of the time, people back then were not very healthy in general)
Unhealthy skin can make a person appear much older than they really are.
Just Googling it.
Apparently "Middle Age" is defined by various sources as starting at either 35, 40 or 45 and lasting till 55, 60 or 65.
To me it always meant 40-65. And I never meant the latter part of middle aged in regards to Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but the time between 40-50, still in their prime, but already "finished" in their development and somewhat seasoned.
DeForest Kelley was 46.
Nimoy and Shatner only were 35 but to me they always looked older, might be the make-up effects of the time (though I also suspect a bit of the lifestyle of the time, people back then were not very healthy in general)
Unhealthy skin can make a person appear much older than they really are.
Thanks for understanding. I'm not trying to badmouth anybody's favorite characters or show, just explain why I personally didn't like them.
Data in TOS.... I can't imagine someone as sweet natured as Data in TOS.
Same with Worf, we would have gotten Season 1 Worf, some stoic guy 100% defined by his culture standing in the background a lot.
But later Worf? Who tries to console a grieving child, struggles with being a father and had the first believable long-term relationship in Star Trek? I have difficulty seeing that in TOS.
Last edited:
Similar threads
