Given the current society and lack of father figures and mentors ("daddy issues"
) I would say it is highly relevant, and perhaps more timely when looked back upon over time.
Is the 2009 movie a nostalgia film?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
) I would say it is highly relevant, and perhaps more timely when looked back upon over time.
I also thought Nero was a good villain who represents the average dude who once was a good guy, with a normal life and a job and who cared about his family and people..but then everything got destroyed and he felt betrayed by those in power he trusted when they failed to protect his family. He had trusted them, and they failed him. When he lost everything, he lost his mind too because he had nothing left but his desire to avenge his wife (and unborn baby) and the death of his home, a tragedy no one could quantify. His whole crew were, essentially, survivors who lost everything too (the comics did a good backstory for him. The tattoos they all have are a sign, in romulan culture, of their grief and those they have lost). Hard to say, for me, that it isn't contemporary... we sadly have a lot of 'Nero' in our world and you don't need to see them use the red matter to draw a parallel..
In general, I think this trek kept the utopian future ideals but also kept the characters real and contemporary to make them more relatable to nowadays audience. In a sense, even their Kirk is a tad more humanized in his failures.. and he's younger too and with a backstory that is no doubt influenced by its differences with tos (such as the fact he doesn't really have a father figure and nothing to truly believe into until Pike makes him see an alternative to the life he's living).
Spock himself is a social commentary. For one, he represents mixed kids and his portrayal is more contemporary to our time than tos Spock would be nowadays, and that's precisely because he's written as someone who kind of feels this repressed anger over the fact he's constantly assumed to have to choose between his two heritages in order to fit among vulcans when, really, who he is, his identity, is both human and vulcan. He just wants to be himself and have his mixed heritage get respected. This is something his father, who wrongly thinks it's a way to protect his kid, doesn't do but his mother actually does. When he tells her he's thinking about purging of all his feelings and he's worried she'd see it as something that goes against her humanity, she reassures him she accepts him and she's proud of him no matter what he decides to do. That scene is key because what Spock realizes when the vulcans insult his mother later, and they insult his human side in spite of acknowledging his remarkable results as a vulcan and accepting him at their academy, is that he just can't pretend to be who he isn't forever and that, in the end, is an useless attempt anyway and he doesn't WANT to.
In terms of his dynamic with Uhura, she essentially represents his evolution too. She is the only one he is truly able to fully be himself with.. the only one who knows about his feelings. When his planet gets destroyed and his father finally admits he has feelings too (thus spock's own feelings aren't invalid and they aren't JUST human), Spock is tired of 'hiding' and doesn't give a damn if people see him with her and know this aspect about him... but then the humans from the story - unlike, ironically, some fans - don't judge him bad for that (the same way, if you will, they didn't think he was a monster in the previous scene where he attacked Kirk and thus expressed violent, negative, feelings. They don't see him being 'less' just because of that moment, they all have sympathy for him).
In a way, even if some of you may not like to admit it, if it weren't for their relationship he probably wouldn't be able to be as open to friendships with Kirk&Co as he is in this trek because he'd probably be as closed off as tos Spock was (for all the complains about his relationship with her, if he truly were developed being completely devoid of emotions like some apparently expected him to be, that would put off ANY dynamic with him and thus including the bros stuff as well) - and he'd be less in touch with his feelings and their duality proving a lie to the vulcans telling him that they were only a human weakness.
to the last point, let's admit it Kirk was being insubordinate .. and really, he wasn't even supposed to be on that ship. Pike may have a preference for the boy, and McCoy sneaked his best friend on the ship with him just because, but that doesn't mean Spock has to placate Kirk and accept his behavior no matter what. And yes, the context of the situation was really stressful and Spock was already doing his best to not lose his mind thinking about what had happened.
As for Uhura, her beauty and sensuality was emphasized in tos even more than in these movies (you all forget that the show was made in the 60s and by Roddenberry, like really..), with the difference that here it has more context and she is allowed to be desiderable for the leads, and she is allowed to be in a relationship, while in tos the racism from the 60s wouldn't make it possible for them to acknowledge her sexuality in a positive way and outside of the exotic woman temptress stereotype.
In either case, her character in these movies isn't necessarily sexualized much, unless you want to fault Zoe for being beautiful and people in an out of the narrative notice it. In that case, she is no more sexualized than Kirk, Spock and the others...
There is a difference, anyway, with being a sexual object and being sexy and have a sexual dimension in context of human dynamics and the portrayal of adult people. A lot of people have an emotional reaction over her scene with Spock in the turbolift, for example, and they find it 'sexy' not because the characters necessarily are portrayad as sexual objects but because together they convey intimacy in such a way that you recognize the nature of their relationship even if they are only sharing chaste kisses and a hug.
I'm unsure, also, why a woman must be a sexual object just because she is showed being in a relationship, especially when it's made pretty obvious that she isn't just a woman Spock is f*ck*ng but she is his girlfriend and someone he is in love with and admires intellectually too, and he can trust letting her see his more emotional and vulnerable side.
And even in the scene with Kirk, she isn't a sexual object the way Carol maybe was in stid (or a lot of tos female characters are) because Uhura still had agency and she honestly made kirk feel more embarrassed for his undressed state than she was (not to mention that he still pays attention to what she was saying and is interested about that and it's key later, they save the ship). Their dynamic subverts the trope that the hero gets the girl, in this case kirk, and this alone contradicts the idea she is only a sexual object because, if anything, she's more set up as someone kirk needs to earn respect from as friends and co-workers. He can't get her because she already made her choice, but he still needs to earn her respect.
Also, whiny? When, exactly? When she isn't happy about a drunk dude making a move on her in a bar even after she said she wasn't interested? When said guy spies on her undressing in her own room? Or when her vulcan boyfriend is so concerned about favoritism that he very illogically overcompensates by interfering with her ship assignment almost making her lose the ship she had hard worked for? She isn't any more 'whining' than the guys are for every single scene where they aren't happy about the outcome of a situation and express that feeling. (in that case, you have McCoy who is essentially introduced through whining - about starfleet, his wife, the shuttle - LOL )
My honest impression seeing some complains is that some fans are not able to reconcile with the idea that the characters are adult people and not asexuate beings. I dunno how they even expect the writers to show certain aspects since even the most chaste kiss is perceived as too sexual to some. The request to keep relationships out of the narrative seems to come across as a request, rather, to keep the characters as kids or asexual (*fyi, having asexual characters isn't bad, however it becomes forced when it's always black women, or aliens, introverts and nerdy men like Spock that people want to see asexual, not to mention some seem to mistake asexuality with people being unable to love and have relationships.. which is false).
It seems like some people have more issues accepting the idea of two characters finding love in each other, than seeing stuff like entire planets getting destroyed. Violence is more acceptable or taken for granted by some than more positive feelings like love. Why?
You can 100% like or dislike the relationships, of any nature really, as it's a matter of taste and whether they resonate for you (something we have no control over).. but there is nothing inherently offensive or insulting here.. or no more than you having relationships or seeing your friends having one. You fault writers for representing the characters as humans, and in this case (ironically) because a franchise like trek wants to explore the concept of a human/alien relationship and use it to show sides of the characters that weren't showed before. It really, honestly, isn't off topic or any more 'unnecessary' than the interpersonal relationships you have in tos.
Last edited:
I agree. Explosions. Loud noises. Everything's a little more sexed up. The characters aren't developed because that would take time from lens flares and The Beastie Boys. I don't hate the movies. I just don't think they're Star Trek.
I would recommend reading @Malaika's post right above yours for reasons that they are Star Trek.
ST 09 is very much Star Trek, due in no small part to the fact that TOS was "action/adventure" with social commentary woven in. Kirk's character is well developed and showcases a journey across all three films, and within each film as well. Very dynamic and enjoyable as a film, much less a "Star Trek" film.
^^This
It's shallow and throws out empty fan-pleasing bones, relying on faded nostalgia-driven memories more than anything else (the lovely transporter sound effect, McCoy says snarky one-liners, Spock says "fascinating" like a broken record, Kirk screws anyone female but somehow never knocks anyone up or passes along STDs (condoms don't stop the spreading or acquisition of everything, cuz' science and research stuff), someone read Roddenberry's original shtick about Uhura and Spock being an item but Uhura was replaced by Chapel instead, taking bits from TOS/TNG/VOY/etc Trek stories the way the 1990s Brady Bunch movies had for nostalgiawank, and so on and so on and so on).
Into Darkness came about to keep cashing in and was better, though still superficial. The wave had passed but "Beyond" is the introduced and is easily the most sincere of the Kelvin movies to really add to the franchise instead of continuing the same bland trend.
Roddenberry had to do something to keep getting his girlfriend screen time.
I understand it may not fit to some people's narrative to remember that, but the main reason why they couldn't have spock/uhura in the 60s was RACISM plus sexism (hence, expecting modern trek to be still limited by those things - or worse pretend that it was more 'progressive' that a character of color was kept single for such reasons versus the reboot allowing her to have a life outside of her job, may not be the most compelling argument one can read in trek fanboards...)
Spock/Chapel has very little to do with S/U in either version, those dynamics can't be interchangeable. For one, the tos dynamic with Chapel was an idea strongly linked to the creation of a character that didn't exist originally, and who needed to have reasons to interact with the main characters in spite of not being a bridge crew member like the actress' original role (number one) was. The purpose of S/C was different from Roddenberry's abandoned idea with S/U (and Kirk/Rand) too, not to even mention how different it's with the reboot's relationship where Spock does love the woman back, and the purpose of their dynamic IS showing him into a relationship and that he's capable of love and expressing it, rather than tos Spock/Chapel being about unrequited love and emphasizing his alieness in the most clichè way for the time (*that they contradicted anyway when they showed him being more than willing to romance other female characters in the show. Not to mention Nimoy saying that Roddenberry's own backstory for Spock was that he basically had more flings at the academy than Kirk had in the whole show. Many of their abandoned stories/ideas for Spock were essentially supposed to contradict a lot of our impressions and expectations about him and show that he wasn't - and the vulcans too - so 'obvious' )
Of course sexism 100% affected the Spock/Chapel dynamic too because even if she was white, thus unlike Uhura she was a bit more allowed to get showed in a romance (remember that the kirk/uhura kiss HAD to be forced and it still almost didn't air), her character - and by consequence her dynamics - still suffered the undercurrent of 'women aint sh*t' tos inevitably had. Simply put, the friendships between the boys were everything you were allowed to get and the only dynamics that could be important to the narrative because only the male characters were supposed to get more screentime and importance, women could only be eye candy or temporary love interests of one episode. One way or another, the context of the time wouldn't really allow Kirk and Spock to ever have stable relationships with women, even if TPTB originally wanted to and saw the potential in that.
The question really isn't why you don't like x thing. The question rather is why we should pretend that the reboot being still limited by what they could and couldn't do in the 60s would inherently be a good thing. Why can't they finally allow things that weren't allowed in the 60s, in spite of Roddenberry himself being more than open about the possibility of exploring them but they didn't let him?
Making simplicistic equivalencies between different things as a means to dismiss the reboot's creative team's ideas as being of little importance and shallow isn't a fair argument to make, IMO. If anything, even without doing your 'homework' about tos canon, and thus using it as inspiration for a reboot (which the writers probably did), they put a lot of thought in their decisions and the way they handled the dynamics in the context of their own trek and its own purposes. Reasons that they explained too and that, honestly, find their evidence in canon for those of us who reacted positively to it.
Spock/Chapel has very little to do with S/U in either version, those dynamics can't be interchangeable. For one, the tos dynamic with Chapel was an idea strongly linked to the creation of a character that didn't exist originally, and who needed to have reasons to interact with the main characters in spite of not being a bridge crew member like the actress' original role (number one) was. The purpose of S/C was different from Roddenberry's abandoned idea with S/U (and Kirk/Rand) too, not to even mention how different it's with the reboot's relationship where Spock does love the woman back, and the purpose of their dynamic IS showing him into a relationship and that he's capable of love and expressing it, rather than tos Spock/Chapel being about unrequited love and emphasizing his alieness in the most clichè way for the time (*that they contradicted anyway when they showed him being more than willing to romance other female characters in the show. Not to mention Nimoy saying that Roddenberry's own backstory for Spock was that he basically had more flings at the academy than Kirk had in the whole show. Many of their abandoned stories/ideas for Spock were essentially supposed to contradict a lot of our impressions and expectations about him and show that he wasn't - and the vulcans too - so 'obvious' )
Of course sexism 100% affected the Spock/Chapel dynamic too because even if she was white, thus unlike Uhura she was a bit more allowed to get showed in a romance (remember that the kirk/uhura kiss HAD to be forced and it still almost didn't air), her character - and by consequence her dynamics - still suffered the undercurrent of 'women aint sh*t' tos inevitably had. Simply put, the friendships between the boys were everything you were allowed to get and the only dynamics that could be important to the narrative because only the male characters were supposed to get more screentime and importance, women could only be eye candy or temporary love interests of one episode. One way or another, the context of the time wouldn't really allow Kirk and Spock to ever have stable relationships with women, even if TPTB originally wanted to and saw the potential in that.
The question really isn't why you don't like x thing. The question rather is why we should pretend that the reboot being still limited by what they could and couldn't do in the 60s would inherently be a good thing. Why can't they finally allow things that weren't allowed in the 60s, in spite of Roddenberry himself being more than open about the possibility of exploring them but they didn't let him?
Making simplicistic equivalencies between different things as a means to dismiss the reboot's creative team's ideas as being of little importance and shallow isn't a fair argument to make, IMO. If anything, even without doing your 'homework' about tos canon, and thus using it as inspiration for a reboot (which the writers probably did), they put a lot of thought in their decisions and the way they handled the dynamics in the context of their own trek and its own purposes. Reasons that they explained too and that, honestly, find their evidence in canon for those of us who reacted positively to it.
Last edited:
Didn't seem to stop other TV shows of the exact same time period, shows that sometimes had Black leads too.
Stop them? No, but it was still a risk, and one that the studio wasn't willing to take at the time. I'll have to reread "Star Trek Memories" by William Shatner to recall the full details.
You know what was great about Star Trek '09?
Everything. I love that movie so much.
Everything. I love that movie so much.
Similar threads
