If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Recast

[BillJ]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Same with the heartless action movie franchise that's using Trek's character and place names. Yeah, sorry, I'd rather have the heart and soul put back into the franchise and I'm more than willing for it to go back to its household name recognition "cult" status. Better that than another installment of the bratty pew-pew pack that can't even seem to get the basics of the universe or characters right.

Seems people like to misremember what actually went on with Trek. In the very first writer's bible, Roddenberry stresses that Star Trek is entertainment.

The two versions of Star Trek that I love and go back to most are TOS and the Abrams movies. The one's that seemed to remember that their job, first and foremost, was to entertain their audience. I simply can't remember the last time I watched the rest of it and I own it all in various formats.

 

[martok2112]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Yeah, Trek is for everyone.... not just the eggheads that somehow seem to associate even the slightest form of action/adventure with a lack of intellect. Pretentious pseudo-intellectuals annoy the fuck out of me about as much as the dumbass jocks, rednecks, preps, and girly girls who hated on sci-fi/space fantasy lovers back when sci-fi/space fantasy supposedly wasn't cool....largely because those pretentious pseudo-intellectuals don't seem to have learned a damn thing from those other folk. "Psst.... hey, how about we Star Trek eggheads take total possession of Trek, and make fun of anyone who likes Star Wars, or anything that puts action into Star Trek? Now we can act like we're superior, and bully everyone else!"

"Pew pew pew" = lack of intellect for both storytellers and those who enjoy the stories? "Fweeeee fweeeee" isn't much better.

Great lessons learned there, fanboys and fangirls. Keep it up!

Learn to share, or go back to your parents' basements.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Patrick Stewart was really angry with the fans when they criticized them and the movie Nemesis and stated he won't be doing any more TNG movies. So if there is any TNG set in the Abrams Universe, iti will have to be with different actors.

Which of course will be younger and edgier and more attractive and oversexed.

Which is not a Trek I want to watch.

I don't want a Star Trek 90219 metro sexual junk.

I agree. We get enough of that metro sexual stuff with Abrams Trek. I want the soldier/explorer type Starfleet officer back.

So you want older people who (most likely) won't be able to pull off any of the action-adventure that Star Trek really is on the screen, where they'll be reviled and made fun of just like the Original Series cast was in the movies they made (Star Trek: The Search For Depends was the joke made by Jay Leno)? Sometimes, fans never cease to surprise me with the unreality they espouse about the franchise.

BTW, most of the Star Trek movie cast are in their thirties-deferentially not young or 'metrosexual' (which is just a way to be homophobic without seeming to be, IMHO)-and they just look like they're teens. Not everybody that plays Captain Kirk & Co. has to be what you all think of as middle aged.

They should neither recast TOS nor reboot TNG. They should let the experiment die and return to the prime universe. There are all kinds of holes in the map of the Trek universe left to explore. The Earth-Romulan War, the Founding of the Federation, the long gap between ENT and TOS, the long gap between TOS and TNG (aka "The Lost Era"), then there's the odd man out and go with a non-reboot/relaunch set in established eras such as non-Enterprise ENT or non-Enterprise TOS or non-Enterprise TNG, or there's the perennially simple concept of jumping ahead another 100 years from TNG as TNG did from TOS and start fresh. No need for more "He's not Khan! Except he totally is" moments.

What film company, distributor, director, or writer is going to invest in these stories (Earth-Romulan War, the Founding of the Federation, the long gap between ENT and TOS, the long gap between TOS and TNG)? None, because that's just fan service (fanwankery) and it would only appeal to a limited audience. CBS. Paramount and a production company aren't going to spend millions of dollars doing that, especially to please an aging (and shrinking) fan base-they're going to appeal to younger fans and people who don't usually watch Star Trek (like they're doing so with the new movies.) And they sure as heck aren't going to cast older actor just to appeal to said fanbase, either.

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Seems people like to misremember what actually went on with Trek. In the very first writer's bible, Roddenberry stresses that Star Trek is entertainment.

The two versions of Star Trek that I love and go back to most are TOS and the Abrams movies. The one's that seemed to remember that their job, first and foremost, was to entertain their audience. I simply can't remember the last time I watched the rest of it and I own it all in various formats.

Funny that you mention the TOS writer's guide, as the Abrams stuff fails the test on page one. To say nothing of contradicting the basic character sketches provided. I get that as a culture we've moved beyond the concept of hard work, but the puerile wish fulfillment fantasy of Kirk going from repeat offender to academy cadet to academic suspension to captain of the Federation flagship through the emotional manipulation of a genocide survivor is a bit much, and in just about every way imaginable, the antithesis of Trek.

 

[ichab]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Yeah, Trek is for everyone.... not just the eggheads that somehow seem to associate even the slightest form of action/adventure with a lack of intellect. Pretentious pseudo-intellectuals annoy the fuck out of me about as much as the dumbass jocks, rednecks, preps, and girly girls who hated on sci-fi/space fantasy lovers back when sci-fi/space fantasy supposedly wasn't cool....largely because those pretentious pseudo-intellectuals don't seem to have learned a damn thing from those other folk. "Psst.... hey, how about we Star Trek eggheads take total possession of Trek, and make fun of anyone who likes Star Wars, or anything that puts action into Star Trek? Now we can act like we're superior, and bully everyone else!"

"Pew pew pew" = lack of intellect for both storytellers and those who enjoy the stories? "Fweeeee fweeeee" isn't much better.

Great lessons learned there, fanboys and fangirls. Keep it up!

Learn to share, or go back to your parents' basements.

LOL!

Reminds me of a friend of mine that loves WWE and had the gall to make fun of my love for Star Trek. Seriously.

 

[BillJ]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Funny that you mention the TOS writer's guide, as the Abrams stuff fails the test on page one. To say nothing of contradicting the basic character sketches provided. I get that as a culture we've moved beyond the concept of hard work, but the puerile wish fulfillment fantasy of Kirk going from repeat offender to academy cadet to academic suspension to captain of the Federation flagship through the emotional manipulation of a genocide survivor is a bit much, and in just about every way imaginable, the antithesis of Trek.

Do you care to point where Abrams work violates the TOS writer's guide? I've read it numerous times over the years and Abrams seems to get the broad strokes completely right. Don't allow Roddenberry's (and fandom's) spinning of the events after the fact color your judgement of what was going on and what he was actually trying to accomplish in the 1960's.

And the hard work jab is just plain non-sense. Kirk is obviously a hard worker as he finished the Academy in three years and was graduating as a full Lieutenant. Plus, Kirk was never known to manipulate Spock in TOS.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

I mixed up nothing - hence why I mentioned 'critical'. Also note that (according to the polls on these board at least) a majority of long time Trek fans are perfectly fine with the NuMovies. And even if they didn't, why exactly should Paramount deny that happy non-Trekkie audience just to satisfy us? It's now just as much their Trek as it is ours.

And as I said before, how exactly will changing the setting bring back the 'soul of Trek' etc etc? Because slightly changing the setting is literally all that 'going back to Prime' is guaranteed achieve.

Ya know what could happen even if they 'go back to Prime' and jump ahead to the 25th century, or back to the Earth-Romulan war? They could still get JJ Abrams and his team back.

After all: he's only doing one Star Wars, from CBS/Paramounts POV he's still their golden goose, and he is still on as producer. You''d still be getting JJ style movies, but the series 'soul' would be back because the 'appeared maybe a dozen times in 50 years' planet Vulcan will still exist in that setting...more than likely off screen and barely mentioned.

Still think moving to Prime is the cure-all for what ails you?

EDIT: Pretty sure that even TOS broke that guide. I don't have it on me, but I can remember thinking of contradictions when I read it back before the NuMovies had even come out. It also doesn't matter, because the NuCharacters arent meant to be exactly the same. Unless it's bastardisation in 'Parallels' when all the alternate characters were genetically the same and had some broad similarities in personality, yet were still obviously different people?

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Yeah, Trek is for everyone...

No, it's not. It's for people who enjoy the basic premise of the show, ie the target audience. If you don't like the basic premise of the show, there are hundred of other shows to watch instead. Not everyone liked Buffy, or 90210, or Cops, or Pinky and the Brain. Those shows weren't made for "everyone" they were made for a particular audience, just as Trek was. If you're not part of the target audience, don't watch. It's really that simple. Trouble is, Abrams changed the target audience. There's some overlap between the original target audience and the new target audience, but don't kid yourself. There's no such thing as a show, franchise, movie, or novel that's "for everyone".

So you want older people who (most likely) won't be able to pull off any of the action-adventure that Star Trek really is on the screen, where they'll be reviled and made fun of just like the Original Series cast was in the movies they made (Star Trek: The Search For Depends was the joke made by Jay Leno)? Sometimes, fans never cease to surprise me with the unreality they espouse about the franchise.

BTW, most of the Star Trek movie cast are in their thirties-deferentially not young or 'metrosexual' (which is just a way to be homophobic without seeming to be, IMHO)-and they just look like they're teens. Not everybody that plays Captain Kirk & Co. has to be what you all think of as middle aged.

False dichotomy. The options aren't young, sexed up actors in a heartless action-adventure or geriatrics in space. They could just as easily have young action-adventure stars in a poignant and interesting science fiction film. The original stuff at least aimed for that last piece (poignant and interesting), the new stuff is content to flounder between heartless set piece battles.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Sadly, I can't see a return to the original continuity, and recasting the JJ crew would be hard to accept. Too many / too fast reboots gets you The Amazing Spider Man...

Considering that Tobey McGuire was getting too old to be playing a college student in the second and third movie, (and was already having back problems too) and that the third movie of the first trilogy was reviled soundly (I liked it, if only because Parker/Spidey wasn't fate's butt monkey like he was in Spider-Man II) I think that rebooting the movies was a wise decision, and some of the stuff was even better than the first trilogy (no stupid natural web-shooters, for instance.) Eventually, since they don't always want to be involved with Star Trek, they will be replaced (and the franchise might be rebooted-I myself also don't want to see a return to the prime universe, it's done.)

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Do you care to point where Abrams work violates the TOS writer's guide? I've read it numerous times over the years and Abrams seems to get the broad strokes completely right. Don't allow Roddenberry's (and fandom's) spinning of the events after the fact color your judgement of what was going on and what he was actually trying to accomplish in the 1960's.

Read it again. Page one. "Can you find the major Star Trek format error in the following 'Teaser' from a story outline?" The answer's on page two. Guess Abrams forgot to read that bit, too.

And the hard work jab is just plain non-sense. Kirk is obviously a hard worker as he finished the Academy in three years and was graduating as a full Lieutenant.

Really? What film was that in? In 2009 he was three years into the Academy and he was in the middle of an academic review that would have resulted in his being kicked out of the Academy altogether for cheating. Only there was a perfectly timed attack on Vulcan. Bones then injected Kirk and brought him on board the Enterprise. After the effects of the shot wore off, Kirk proceeded to insinuate himself into the situation. Pike decided to go to the Narada and made Kirk the first officer, despite Kirk being a cadet on academic suspension, and over the heads of every other cadet and actual graduated officer on the entire ship. After Vulcan was destroyed in front of Spock, the Vulcan officer Pike made acting captain, Kirk proceeded to emotionally manipulate Spock by taunting him with the death of his mother and flat out telling the man who just witnessed his homeworld's destruction that he never loved or cared for the mother he had just watched die in front of him. After a bit of screaming and yelling, Spock nearly kills Kirk and then recuses himself from command. Kirk takes over as captain (since he was acting first officer)... and now Kirk's the captain of the Federation flagship... despite being a third year cadet on academic suspension for cheating.

So where's the hard work that earned him that chair? Pike being an idiot isn't the same thing as Kirk working hard and earning command. Kirk earned every bit of academic standing he had before cheating on the Kobayashi Maru, sure. All he did to get into the captain's chair was have an idiot for a mentor and the emotional manipulation of a genocide survivor that had just watched his mother die. That's not something that should be rewarded, except maybe in the mirror universe. But hey, at least the 'splosions were pretty.

 

[martok2112]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Yeah, Trek is for everyone...

No, it's not. It's for people who enjoy the basic premise of the show, ie the target audience. If you don't like the basic premise of the show, there are hundred of other shows to watch instead. Not everyone liked Buffy, or 90210, or Cops, or Pinky and the Brain. Those shows weren't made for "everyone" they were made for a particular audience, just as Trek was. If you're not part of the target audience, don't watch. It's really that simple. Trouble is, Abrams changed the target audience. There's some overlap between the original target audience and the new target audience, but don't kid yourself. There's no such thing as a show, franchise, movie, or novel that's "for everyone".

If the general idea for Star Trek was "entertainment" as Gene Roddenberry put it, then yes, Star Trek is meant for everyone and anyone who will appreciate it. Not everyone will like it....but those who remain, well, Roddenberry caught quite a few fish in his net.

Same thing with Abrams' take on Star Trek. (And he caught a lot more fish in his net....including more than plenty of fish that would've been caught in Roddenberry's net.)

Any show, regardless of its "intended" or "target" audience is still going to try to go for the largest catch possible. And it's all thanks to that one all-encompassing word: "Entertainment."

Look, lots of folk love Star Trek for various reasons. Even in its original run, Star Trek had a bit of something for everyone.... action, adventure, social commentary, intellectual enticement, romance, comedy, tragedy, drama, curiosity, titilation, etc. Even with all of those factors going for it, no, you're not going to catch everyone....but even those who only grasped or embraced a couple of the many aspects of Trek can love it as much as someone who can appreciate everything that Trek encompasses. It makes them no more or no less a fan or admirer of Star Trek. When a certain group of folk start deciding that Trek is only meant for them (kinda like religious zealots and radicals), then they are the ones who do not get what Star Trek is about.

I love Star Trek for lots of reasons, especially those listed above. Action and adventure are the big hooks for me, but it doesn't mean that I also cannot appreciate stories like "Far Beyond the Stars" (DS9), or "City on the Edge of Forever" (TOS).

However, if either of those were made into "big screen" films, their appeal would be limited, and their box office would suffer. It's not a question of the audience's intellect. When folk spend their hard earned money for two hours at the movies, well, their gonna want a reason for seeing that film on the big screen...and that usually translates into "bang for the buck"... as long as there is also a good story behind it. I think it is a foregone conclusion that pretty much everyone knows that whiz bang visual effects alone do not tell a story.

Neither Trek 09 nor STID were lacking for story....and they went over like gangbusters. I'm not talking about box office. We all know that big box office still does not necessarily mean "good movie".... but if one enjoys a film, and many times many others agree that the film was enjoyable...well, the film must have been good on a general level.

But a good movie or show is also an individual taste. For all its many flaws (and indeed there are many), I loved Star Trek Nemesis...it is my favorite of all TNG films....with First Contact taking a close second...we're talking razor's edge, fell behind by a nose hair second. It (Nemesis) was not widely accepted by Trek fandom, or the general movie going public, but guess what, neither was Star Trek The Motion Picture. And yet, there are plenty of folk who love both movies.

Star Trek is as varied as the fanbase and casual movie goers/show watchers that follow it. Star Trek is as varied as life itself.

Respectfully,
Martok212

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

If the general idea for Star Trek was "entertainment" as Gene Roddenberry put it, then yes, Star Trek is meant for everyone and anyone who will appreciate it. Not everyone will like it....but those who remain, well, Roddenberry caught quite a few fish in his net.

Same thing with Abrams' take on Star Trek. (And he caught a lot more fish in his net....including more than plenty of fish that would've been caught Roddenberry's net.)

Any show, regardless of its "intended" or "target" audience is still going to try to go for the largest catch possible. And it's all thanks to that one all-encompassing word: "Entertainment."

Difference being is that I would rather the franchise retain those elements that made it unique, rather than throw them all away for the sake of ticket sales.

 

[martok2112]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

If the general idea for Star Trek was "entertainment" as Gene Roddenberry put it, then yes, Star Trek is meant for everyone and anyone who will appreciate it. Not everyone will like it....but those who remain, well, Roddenberry caught quite a few fish in his net.

Same thing with Abrams' take on Star Trek. (And he caught a lot more fish in his net....including more than plenty of fish that would've been caught Roddenberry's net.)

Any show, regardless of its "intended" or "target" audience is still going to try to go for the largest catch possible. And it's all thanks to that one all-encompassing word: "Entertainment."

Difference being is that I would rather the franchise retain those elements that made it unique, rather than throw them all away for the sake of ticket sales.

But Star Trek is not unique anymore.
There are/were plenty of other shows or movies that are just as entertaining and challenging as Trek.

The most stand out ones, to me, are/were StarGate SG-1, StarGate Atlantis, and Interstellar, but I know other folk can name some others.

Neither Star Trek 09, nor STID threw anything away. That would be like saying that one episode of TOS (say "Balance of Terror") threw away elements that didn't appear in an episode like, say "City on the Edge of Forever"....because the reverse can be said. That City on the Edge of Forever threw away elements of Trek that weren't in Balance of Terror.

The door swings both ways.

Bottom line is: You love Trek for certain reasons. I love Trek for certain reasons. Neither of us is "more fan" or "more appreciative" than the other. Different does not mean "more" or "less" appreciative.

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

But Star Trek is not unique anymore.

There are/were plenty of other shows or movies that are just as entertaining and challenging as Trek.

The most stand out ones, to me, are/were StarGate SG-1, StarGate Atlantis, and Interstellar, but I know other folk can name some others.

And yet, none of them are Trek. It's not that it's "entertaining" nor that it's "challenging" that makes Trek unique.

Neither Star Trek 09, nor STID threw anything away...

I'm sorry, but did you actually watch either film? 2009 threw away the entire prime universe, Abrams Trek is taking place in an alternate reality to all the other Trek series and movies. Not to mention destroying Vulcan. Undermining the credibility of the command structure of Starfleet. Making the de facto good guys of the universe (Starfleet) the bad guys. Making the one of the most iconic Trek characters (Kirk) into a petulant, manipulative asshat. Taking once scene in one episode of TOS, Sulu with the epee, and blowing that up into the folding katana ninja that is nuSulu. On and on and on.

That would be like saying that one episode of TOS (say "Balance of Terror") threw away elements that didn't appear in an episode like, say "City on the Edge of Forever"....because the reverse can be said. That City on the Edge of Forever threw away elements of Trek that weren't in Balance of Terror.

I chose my words carefully. I said "threw away" because I meant "threw away", I did not use "threw away" to mean "did not use". I know there is a difference, which is why I specifically used the words I did. See my paragraph above for some examples of what was thrown away.

Bottom line is: You love Trek for certain reasons. I love Trek for certain reasons. Neither of us is "more fan" or "more appreciative" than the other. Different does not mean "more" or "less" appreciative.

You seem to love Trek because it's just another action-adventure science fiction show and have said a few times now that you cannot distinguish it from any other. That's great, for you. But that's not why I love Trek.

I love Trek for what is unique about Trek. The optimism, the humanism, the largely black and white morality, the virtuousness (or attempt at same) of the main crew, the occasional moral dilemmas, the naive idea that our species not only survives but approaches utopia, the removal of bigotry, life in a post-scarcity society, that paradise has a cost (ie that it takes work), the good of the many, IDIC... on and on and on. Whilst some other shows may draw on one or two of those elements, only Trek draws on them all. And no, of course not every episode of every season of every series does so, but they're there. In the universe. And in just two feature films, Abrams has already managed to directly piss on about half of those.

So you can't tell the difference between Star Trek and Stargate? Your loss, pal. But that doesn't mean they're interchangeable or that the unique bits that make Trek Trek for the rest of us should be torn out for the sake of more tickets or your further enjoyment. I like Trek because it's Trek, not because it's one more indistinguishable science fiction action-adventure show. Christ, how boring that would be.

 

[martok2112]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Tell ya what. How about--

Actually, you know what.... never mind.

There's no reasoning with you.

I've met plenty of high horse riders like you, and you only serve to paint a less than flattering picture of fandom. Thank you for proving why.

Moving on.

 

[BillJ]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

I'm sorry, but did you actually watch either film? 2009 threw away the entire prime universe, Abrams Trek is taking place in an alternate reality to all the other Trek series and movies. Not to mention destroying Vulcan. Undermining the credibility of the command structure of Starfleet. Making the de facto good guys of the universe (Starfleet) the bad guys.

What Star Trek have you been watching?

Kirk threatened to annihilate the entire habitable surface of Eminiar VII in "A Taste of Armageddon" and is also part of military espionage in "The Enterprise Incident". Sisko was an accessory to murder in "In the Pale Moonlight" and poisoned the surface of a planet in "For the Uniform". Admiral Leyton attempted to overthrow the duly elected government of the Federation in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost". Archer steals warp coils in "Damage" and I can go on and on and on and on and on...

As far as Kirk undermining the command structure of Starfleet, I'm guessing you forgot about him stealing the Enterprise, going to a restricted sector and then destroying the Enterprise? Kirk also violated orders in "Amok Time" and regularly pushed his orders to the limits of what he could get away with (See: "The Galileo Seven"/"The Trouble with Tribbles"). That also doesn't count his unique interpretations of the Prime Directive.

For someone who claims that Abrams got it wrong, you sure have missed much of the last 50 years.

 

[Overgeeked]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

I'm sorry, but did you actually watch either film? 2009 threw away the entire prime universe, Abrams Trek is taking place in an alternate reality to all the other Trek series and movies. Not to mention destroying Vulcan. Undermining the credibility of the command structure of Starfleet. Making the de facto good guys of the universe (Starfleet) the bad guys.

What Star Trek have you been watching?

Kirk threatened to annihilate the entire habitable surface of Eminiar VII in "A Taste of Armageddon" and is also part of military espionage in "The Enterprise Incident". Sisko was an accessory to murder in "In the Pale Moonlight" and poisoned the surface of a planet in "For the Uniform". Admiral Leyton attempted to overthrow the duly elected government of the Federation in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost". Archer steals warp coils in "Damage" and I can go on and on and on and on and on...

As far as Kirk undermining the command structure of Starfleet, I'm guessing you forgot about him stealing the Enterprise, going to a restricted sector and then destroying the Enterprise? Kirk also violated orders in "Amok Time" and regularly pushed his orders to the limits of what he could get away with (See: "The Galileo Seven"/"The Trouble with Tribbles"). That also doesn't count his unique interpretations of the Prime Directive.

For someone who claims that Abrams got it wrong, you sure have missed much of the last 50 years.

The line you're "attacking" is a reference to Abrams-Kirk being promoted without merit to the captaincy of the Federation flagship, thus undermining the command structure. If you know anyone onboard can be made the captain of the ship at the whim of the current captain, for no discernible reason, and the only thing preventing senior officers from undermining those above them simple to gain position... how is that functionally different than the mirror universe? The officers are trained better? They know not to do that kind of thing? Guess everyone but Kirk was paying attention in those ethics classes.

And it's cute that you're ignoring the context of these events. In 2009 this is the first and only encounter we have had with this version of Kirk in that universe. And in that first encounter he's an utter asshat with an idiot for a mentor who emotionally manipulates his superior officer (in every possible sense of the word) to satisfy his own ego and gain the captain's chair. And this is how we're introduced to this version of the character. Basically the opposite of a good Starfleet officer, to say nothing of a good captain. But whatever. I guess character and integrity and the needs of the many are irrelevant in the New Order.

Let's play a game. I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me the substantive difference between how your examples treated their moral dilemmas compared to how Abrams-Kirk treated his. The easiest will probably be "Pale Moon Light" compared to "2009".

 

[Trekkin]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

I think you have very selective memory of TOS. Which is odd, because TWOK was all about ripping apart Kirk's captaining style from the series. Star Trek II: 'Khan's Gonna Jam that Hubris Straight Up the Captains Ass'.

Also, older and (supposedly) wiser Kirk was willing to just sit back and watch the Klingons go extinct. If Spock hadn't forced him to act, that's exactly what he would have done too. All because he held a grudge against one Klingon, that he himself kicked into a fiery pit of death.

That's not even touching the TNG crew. The list of their idiot balls would use up the rest of this months bandwidth.

Here at least, navy officers do get a lot of 'on the job' experience whilst they attend the Acadamy. They alternate between actually serving and studying. So depending on what 'weird disaster magnet Kirk' got up to during that three years, he could have proved himself in any number of ways. We don't know, because we don't see it. We do know that he must do well to some degree, because he's already a lieutenant and well on his way to graduating early. Graduate entries with some sort of useful experience, also ascend even faster.

We also don't know that he would have been kicked out after that hearing. More than likely, PrimeKirk had to face the same thing. The only difference (maybe) was that Spock wouldn't have been there. For all we know, nuKirk may have eventually talked his way into a commendation, just like his counterpart did (Bones seemed to think that was what would happen). We don't know, because it was suspended and never resumed on screen.


How does 'telling Pike that the current situation is identical to a prior disaster in every possible way' count as emotional manipulation? Pike didn't even trust Kirk's word on its own, Kirk had to get Uhura and Spock to give some supporting evidence to back him up.

And I'm not responding to you anymore either. You're running dangerously close to pulling the 'true fan' and 'unwashed masses' cards. Those conversations never end well.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

The line you're "attacking" is a reference to Abrams-Kirk being promoted without merit to the captaincy of the Federation flagship, thus undermining the command structure. If you know anyone onboard can be made the captain of the ship at the whim of the current captain, for no discernible reason, and the only thing preventing senior officers from undermining those above them simple to gain position... how is that functionally different than the mirror universe? The officers are trained better? They know not to do that kind of thing? Guess everyone but Kirk was paying attention in those ethics classes.

Kirk was made First Officer by Pike. Pike made Spock the Captain.

PIKE: Without transporters, we can't beam off the ship, we can't assist Vulcan, we can't do our job. Mister Kirk, Mister Sulu, Engineer Olson, will space-jump from the shuttle. You will land on that machine they lowered into the atmosphere that's scrambling our gear. You'll get inside. You'll disable it, then you'll beam back to the ship. Mister Spock, I'm leaving you in command of the Enterprise. Once we have transport capabilities, communications back up, you'll contact Starfleet, report what the hell's going on here. And if all else fails, fall back, rendezvous with the fleet in the Laurentian system. Kirk, I'm promoting you to first officer.
KIRK: What?
SPOCK: Captain, please, I apologize. The complexities of Human pranks escape me.
PIKE: It's not a prank, Spock. And I'm not the Captain, you are. Let's go.

When Spock becomes compromised, Kirk assumes command. And it's Spock Prime who comes up with the idea

SPOCK PRIME: Jim, this is one rule you cannot break. To stop Nero, you alone must take command of your ship.
KIRK: How? Over your dead body?
SPOCK PRIME: Preferably not. However, there is Starfleet regulation six-one-nine. Six-one-nine states that any command officer who's emotionally compromised by the mission at hand, must resign said command.
KIRK: So, so you're saying that I have to emotionally compromise you guys?
SPOCK PRIME: Jim, I just lost my planet. I can tell you, I am emotionally compromised. What you must do is get me to show it.

After a Kirk/Spock fight ( a TOS tradition as seen in This Side of Paradise and Amok Time) Spock is convinced.

SPOCK: I am no longer fit for duty. I hereby relinquish my command, based on the fact that I have been emotionally compromised. Please note the time and date in the ship's log.
(Spock leaves the bridge, followed by Sarek)
SCOTT: I like this ship! You know, it's exciting.
MCCOY: Well, congratulations, Jim. Now we've got no Captain and no goddamn first officer to replace him.
KIRK: Yeah we do.
(Kirk takes the Captain's chair)
MCCOY: What?
SULU: Pike made him first officer.
MCCOY: You've got to be kidding me.
KIRK: Thanks for the support.
UHURA: I sure hope you know what you're doing, Captain.
KIRK: So do I. (to communicator) Attention crew of the Enterprise, this is James Kirk. Mister Spock has resigned commission and advanced me to Acting Captain. I know you were all expecting to regroup with fleet, but I'm ordering a pursuit course of the enemy ship to Earth. I want all departments at battle stations and ready in ten minutes.

Seems legit to me. At least as far as movie logic goes. ( And Star Trek is not immune from movie logic)

 

[CorporalClegg]

Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re

Let's play a game. I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me the substantive difference between how your examples treated their moral dilemmas compared to how Abrams-Kirk treated his. The easiest will probably be "Pale Moon Light" compared to "2009".

Kirk saved the planet. Sisko hit the sauce.

I like oatmeal-raisin. With walnuts.