A young woman, uses her prior sexual relationship and familiarity with a superior
to get herself transferred to the prestigious new flagship.
Yeah, there your utopian future.
I guess this is sarcasm?
Is the utopistic Trek gone with this movie?
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
I guess this is sarcasm?
A young woman, uses her prior sexual relationship and familiarity with a superior
to get herself transferred to the prestigious new flagship.
Yeah, there your utopian future.
Don't hate on a player...
A young woman, uses her prior sexual relationship and familiarity with a superior
to get herself transferred to the prestigious new flagship.
Yeah, there your utopian future.
It's Utopia from Spock's perspective. Can I get an amen!
A young woman, uses her prior sexual relationship and familiarity with a superior
to get herself transferred to the prestigious new flagship.
Yeah, there your utopian future.
She corrected Spock's mistake. She was qualified and went through the reasons. Her ear is what got her on the bridge of the Enterprise.
I would argue that this utopian society never existed in the ST universe. The Federation seemed to always be at war with the Klingons or the Romulans or whatever alien race they came across that week...Captain Kirk was more likely to shoot first and ask questions later than discuss any great utopian ideas.
Oh crap! I thought the remastering only changed the graphics!
Sure, I agree that Star Trek is not a traditional utopia. In fact I think it worth redefining "utopian" in the context of Star Trek to mean a marked social improvement compared to the period in which the series was produced, or in some ways today for that matter, not as an indication of perfection since we know that wasn’t the case. In that way "utopian" is not about lack of conflict, but how Star Fleet or the Federation reacts in those situations. At least most of the time.
It seems to me there is obviously a reason so many people feel it is "utopian". A number of actions, inferences and actual statements, such as those in the example below.
Further, Kirk obviously was not the kind of Captain to "shoot first and ask questions later". In fact that is a complaint I have against NuKirk, who does seem a little trigger happy. Maybe that's the source of confusion? Actually, on one notable occasion I recall Kirk Prime being encouraged to do what you suggest by some young hothead and his response was to point out that the Enterprise was not a democracy. Ring a bell?
Actually, Kirk did discuss great utopian ideas. Please see "Dagger of the Mind" for starters. The Federation’s penal institutions are so enlightened they put us to shame now (not hard to do), let-a-lone in the 60’s. You would almost think they were run by Vulcans.
I didn’t see it. If fact we didn’t get to see much of Federation society except the confirmation that child raising is no better in this future that it is now.
Don’t recall too many of those either. Spock’s young tormentors are hardly good guys and then we see young Kirk converting and destroying a classic car while disobeying the police. Older Kirk is an "improvement", but far worse are the undisciplined thugs he meets in the bar who have unaccountably managed to steal Star Fleet uniforms.
Even after the academy Kirk’s still treating women badly and cheating on a test! Ironically, the only time the authorities make an issue out of someone’s bad behaviour in the movie and I don’t think it’s ever actually resolved, unless you count offically giving Kirk the Enterprise!Then Spock is shown to have a relationship involving an obvious potential conflict of interest. Its debatable whether a conflict actually occured. Regardless I really can’t imagine how that got into the film. I’ll give you the Delta Vega scene but the first thing Kirk does when he gets back to the Enterprise (after saving Scotty from the plumbing) is undermine his captain so he can grab the big seat for himself. We never got to find out if that was a necessary evil because he didn’t bother trying to convince Spock that his new intel gave them an edge (or at least a chance). Finally, the behaviour of both Kirk and Spock after Nero’s defeat is well known and not "normal" for TOS (TV or movies).
As far as Uhura is concerned, I have to agree with those who are not that impressed by seeing a portrayal which seems like standard procedure these days. Obviously there will be some exceptions in the less "civilised" parts of the world.
Overall I get the feeling the movie is just "now" (or even in one case, the 1960's) with spaceships.
Last edited:
Tapping that booty of one (or more?) of his ambitious students was the only logical thing to do.
TOS Kirk is shown several time being magnanimous and showing mercy to his opponents.
In Balance of Terror, after Kirk disabled the Romulan ship --------he ceases fire and offered assistance.
In Elaan of Troyius, after he partially disabled the Klingon ship -- he ceases fire and allowed it to withdraw.
In Journey To Babel, after he disabled the Orion ship ------------- he ceases fire and offered surrender.
In The Wraith of Khan, after he disabled the Reliant ---------------he ceases fire and told Khan his ship was to be boarded.
In none of the above cases did Kirk fire first.
In Arena, Kirk at the end could have easily killed the Gorn, he didn't because it was at his mercy and James Kirk possesses mercy.
The same story with the Horta, he initially ordered it shot on sight believing it to be basically wildlife, later believing it to be intelligent he was willing to fire upon it only while it was in a aggressive posture, once wounded he held his fire.
I'm convinced that if he could have captured the Salt Vampire live too, he would have.
Spock stationed Uhura down in the bowels of the ship, not the bridge.
Actually there really is no reason for a unmatched xenolinguist to be aboard the Enterprise. Despite being "the newest flagship," there's no clear indication that the Enterprise is in command of the fleet sent to Vulcan. Pike would appear to be in command of just his one ship.
Last edited:
Yes, but we see Sarek tell Spock that he must choose his own path and that is an improvement from his disappointment in the Original Series.
He's acting out. Where is Star Trek does it say we don't have petty crime? We talk often about our mischievious days (Picard, Kirk) in Trek. We just get to see it this time. Meanwhile, Pike makes it a point to show that he's a "the only genius, low-level offender in the midwest."
Older Kirk is an "improvement", but far worse are the undisciplined thugs he meets in the bar who have unaccountably managed to steal Star Fleet uniforms.
Captain Picard was stabbed through the heart and laughed as he fell to the ground. His friend was hustling Nausicans which led to the fatal wound. AND the officers, in XI, were coming to defend Uhura's honor as the motivation for the attack.
McCoy: "Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Cadet who beat the no-win scenario."
Saavik: "How?"
Kirk: "I re-programmed the simuation so it was possible to rescue the ship."
Saavik: "You what?"
David: "He cheated."
Kirk: "I changed the conditions of the test. I got an accomodation for 'original thinking.' I don't like to lose."
Saavik: "Then you never face that situation? Face Death?"
Kirk: "I don't believe in a no-win scenario."
This is moments after meeting his son for the first time (as an adult) because of a woman he slept with at the Academy. Take it up with Star Trek II.
It got into the film because they were showing Spock indulging his human half. It got into the film because it's good to show the compassion as addressed in an earlier post on this topic. It's hardly the first time that conflict has been there (Riker, Troi--Worf, Dax, etc), it just happens to be the first time Star Trek doesn't overlook the obvious.
I won't defend that. From "get him off this ship" to "Yeah, we do," it is the weakest part of the plot. It relies heavily on destiny and circumstances. I usually skip it on my DVD. The moral of the story: like most Trek, it's not perfect.
That shows how far we have come. You need a stark contrast between today and the future for it to even look like Utopia. Something has to be wrong and corrected. I am impressed because she's a strong woman character. I was just pointing out it was an interracial couple.
Sorry to seem hard hearted but anything that waters down Spock hurts Star Trek in my view. Time enough for him to mellow later on if need be. Besides, I would rather have some thoughtful character development out of those sorts of issues than portray it through cliques and gratuitous violence. Except for Tribble bar fights of course (ie comedy).
A Little more serious than "acting out" I would say. Good to know that there are fewer evil geniuses in NuTrek however!
Actually Picard's friend wasn't really "hustling" the Nausicans. He was trying to rig a dom-jot table in order to get even with them for cheating him earlier. And wasn't the laughing due to an appreciation of the situation by Picard's older self, not a devil may care attitude? By contrast Uhura didn't need help and said as much. We get the impression the SF officers in STXI were just looking for an excuse to fight. More significantly when considering the two incidents is that Picard and Co took on superior opponents at equal numbers, not a drunken townie at four to one (whatever Kirk said). They could have just thrown him out of the bar. Instead they beat him after he stopped resisting and might have killed him but for Pike's intervention. So the two scenes are only superficially similar at best.
(A) Two "wrongs" don't usually make a right, though I accept its not the end of the world.
(B) In NuKirk's case, it wasn't just "possilbe to rescue the ship", it was a cakewalk. Perhaps the difference between "original thinking" and "cheating" in the minds of his instructors? At no point did I get the impression NuKirk's "trial" was going to give him a commendation whatever the outcome.
You don't think in the instructor/student relationship, the power imbalance is a bit more of a problem?
Accepted, but in this case it didn't reflect TOS values for me. I appreciate your candour however.
He laughed when Q showed it originally. He was laughing for a different reason at the end of the episode, but he was laughing both times.
Fair enough.
I would say the reboot is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, and it isn't as preachy about how enlightened humans and the federation races are. But it's good nonetheless.
There was a sense of optimism in the film, a feeling that Star Fleet is a "peace keeping" force as I think Captain Pike called it. The plot was basically a "let's get the terrorist" story that wasn't very thoughtful. But by establishing that Star Fleet is a group of 'good cops' in a universe with both good and hostile aliens you have the basic ingredients of what made Star Trek work.
There was a sense of optimism in the film, a feeling that Star Fleet is a "peace keeping" force as I think Captain Pike called it. The plot was basically a "let's get the terrorist" story that wasn't very thoughtful. But by establishing that Star Fleet is a group of 'good cops' in a universe with both good and hostile aliens you have the basic ingredients of what made Star Trek work.
Yep.
Captain Pike actual said that the Federation (not Starfleet) is a peacekeeping armada.
Perhaps meaning that Starfleet is now the military dictatorship government of the Federation. Owing to Nero's incursion a quarter century before.
There's your utopian future.
If the Terran Empire had disposed of a Nero-like "terrorist", would that make them "good cops"? Surely optimism has to be based on more than a cast of likeable (to most) characters and an impressive case of nostalgic dysentery?
Captain Pike actual said that the Federation (not Starfleet) is a peacekeeping armada.
Perhaps meaning that Starfleet is now the military dictatorship government of the Federation. Owing to Nero's incursion a quarter century before.
There's your utopian future.
Hmmm, so the rest of Star Fleet were off "peace keeping" the hell out of the Laurentian system?
Aside from the mad scientists brainwashing people with neural neutralizers, that is.
I mean, seriously, how do you cite "Dagger of the Mind" as proof of TOS's utopian ideals while missing the fact that it's actually a somewhat cynical horror story about a sadistic "saint" abusing mental patients?
It's funny. I've been watching TOS again and I've noticed that pretty much every time that Kirk looks forward to meeting some legendary hero or humanitarian, they almost always turn out to be the bad guys. Roger Korby, John Gill, Dr. Tristam Adams, Richard Daystrom, Garth of Izar . . .
For a utopia, they've got an awful lot of crazy admirals and scientists!
In fact, a certain healthy skepticism towards "utopias" runs all through TOS. How many "perfect," peaceful societies does Kirk overthrow over the course of the series? The moral of TOS often seems to be that progress is good, but be careful: if something seems too good to be true, there's probably an evil computer or mind-altering spore behind it . . . .
Last edited:
Nero would probably be admired by the Terran Empire. But if two bad guys have conflicting interests and want to kill each other, I think that is venturing into film noir, which states "there are no heroes." Star Trek is almost the opposite of film noir. It would be a pretty dark movie.
How much force is appropriate in apprehending certain criminals?
A police force in any society is authorized to sometimes kill. The question of when, why, and how often lethal force should be used is a serious debate. What do you do when the criminal's actions are mass killings? Politically motivated? Would you offer to help them if their ship was blowing up?
The movie spends about five seconds on this. It is a bit unexpected for a Star Trek movie, but I think to a large extant, what people wanted to see where the "good cops" back in fighting form again.
Ultimately, any fiction (including science fiction) is drama about the times we are actually living in. Stories about utopias have to show that utopias are never one hundred percent perfect. Someone has to behave badly or the utopia has to start showing cracks.
In Gene Roddenberry's version, the story might have begun with Nero being captured. Kirk might have had to fly Nero to a starbase for trial and someone would try to kill him. Or Kirk might be directed to take him to a Romulan prison camp where terrorists are never put on trial and indefinitely tortured. (In Gene's version, it would never be Star Fleet.)
Anyway, I think the heroes of the new film exhibit enough positive qualities to fall safely into the 'good cop' category. Speaking as an audience member, I was hoping to see the good guys win.
When I feel like questioning the gung-ho "let's go kill them" attitude, I watch Starship Troopers....or the more thoughtful episodes of Star Trek. It all depends on the story, and what kind of story the audience is in the mood for.
It's kind of nice that people are thinking about it though. The new film may not be as thoughtful as the previous Star Trek, but it is only one movie compared to a whole bunch of TV shows and previous movies. I'm willing to see what happens next.
I can't even begin to imagine what a family who has lost someone to war would say to that.
But speaking as someone who grew up in poverty and needed it about as much as I needed to have my hands chopped off, I would like to say something on behalf of the world's poor:
Fuck you.
Well, that's pretty much consistent with all of STAR TREK. With the possible exception of the Siskos, pretty much every family in Star Trek is dysfunctional to some degree. Spock was estranged from his father, and so was Riker, and Paris, and Picard, and Janeway. And let's not even talk about Worf and B'Elanna. And then there's Lwaxana Troi, who drives Deanna crazy on a regular basis, and never even told her she had a dead sister, not to mention various long-lost siblings bearing bitter grudges . . . .
Clearly, the moral here is that conquering poverty, war, and racisim is child's play compared to getting along with our families--even in "utopia."
Seriously, anyone who thinks that the nuTrek isn't as "utopian" as TOS isn't remembering the same show I watched back in the sixties. TOS was hardly a weekly symposium on Gene's utopian "vision." It was a rollicking space opera adventure full of fistfights, barroom brawls, space monsters, and scantily-clad alien babes, set in a future one would actually want to live in.
Just like the new movie.
Similar threads
