Of Canon, intellectualism and Morality

[Butters]

I'm here because I'm a trekky and I liked the film. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, and liking the film is certainly optional. There was much to hate about it, but I've started a thread to plonk down my soap box and pick apart some of the unjust and blanket criticisms. I am aiming this most at the its not trek because... crowd:

First of all, Star Trek and Canon are an oxymoron. It is unfair to apply this criteria against a film which specificly sets out to distance itself from a particular sequence of events to make the future fun again.

Morality plays/social commentary. Star Trek did morality plays in the 1960s, using allegory to break some taboo, I wasn't there at the time but I'm told it was important, ground breaking even. Not every episode, by any stretch of the imagination, carried some message or social commentary. Its a cliche now, but the TNG era message of tolerance has worn a little thin and modern shows like Scrubs, The Simpsons and South Park carry more meaning/commentary than trek ever did. What exactly is left for a new trek to do? Gays? Been done? What taboo can Trek break now, what social injustice needs addressing that the other shows haven't already done better?

Intellectualism and the whole cerebral thing. So some exec in the 60s thought the first pilot was a bit out there for its audience and ever since anyone that likes trek is intellectual somehow. I don't watch much TV so I'm not in the best place to judge, but what is trek more intellectual than? Power Rangers? America's Got Talent? It probably is, but that alone does not merit the pedestal on which it sits. Calling the new film dumb in comparison to the rest of trek is many things, not least ignorant and hypocritical.

Utopian - I don't think we ever saw enough of Federation society to ever form this opinion for ourselves. I know Gene Roddenberry talked about his utopian vision of the future, but all we actually saw was a largely inconsistent portrayal of life on a military vessel, an elite military vessel at that. Brand names violate nothing either, I always thought the future looked brand without any kind of posters or advertising anywhere.

I'm happy to debate opinions, everyone can hate the film for their reasons, but to hate the film on the grounds that it doesn't live up to a standard that nothing else ever produced ever did either is, well, beyond me.

I would love to see some counter arguments.

Forgot to add:

Actions and explosions are somehow bad now? A summer blockbuster without action and explosions is called a chick flick, and how many trekkies would go for that.

and

Popular is bad too? Because the new film has mass appeal automatically makes it bad. Is this because the masses are too stupid to appreciate greatness therefore this film must suck. Since when was being popular a disadvantage?

 

[Watch Commander]

SPOILERS_______










I am one of the old and original viewers of TOS. I liked the film overall but did not like certain aspects of it. For a commercial venture, and knowing that in the real world I got what I expected, not all I wanted, I am pleased and basically am happy to know that since it did so well so far, that increases the likelihood that more Trek will be made for either the big screen or small. This film increased the chances of either. I liked the feel of the film, the new actors did a great job, it filled in some holes in canon that were present and totally changed others. Am I happy they blew up Vulcan, killed Spocks mom and billions of other Vulcans, NO, nor am I happy with the Apple-ized Enterprise interiors and some of the sound fx, BUT overall, things could have been much worse, it could have been a box office flop from the get go. The new actors could have been bad, and so much more also. With what we got, we have a good chance for having more Trek in our lives which in the end, is what counts to me, YMMV. Things they could fix in the next round is...more time travel to fix the planet eradication, the timeline overall, and of course...The Search For Kirk, before any more of the original actors are unable to do that, I feel that I am owed that much for 40 yrs of fandom....like I said JMHO...you have the right to yours..

 

[CommanderRaytas]

The "it's popular so it's washed down for the masses, who are dumb" is what gets me the most. What's so bad about something we love becoming loved by more people? It's a good thing, guys.

 

[maryh]

Actually I agree with most what you have said. The only thing you left out though is longevity. Did everything they did in this movie work toward promoting the longevity of the franchise or did they do somethings just to make a fast, easy buck, but will have a negative effect on the Franchise further down the road?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Oh, come on, folks. An academy graduate is given command of a starship. That alone (and there's plenty more dumb where that came from) is pretty moronic, even by "The Way to Eden" and "And the Children Shall Lead" standards. It's practically braindead by the standards of Trek's best.

I still loved the movie, don't get me wrong, but it was dumb as a brick.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I still loved the movie, don't get me wrong, but it was dumb as a brick.

Ditto.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

The point is, loving it doesn't make you dumb.

 

[Icarus]

I completely agree with the OP. Those who think TOS was some deep intellectual show about morality, etc. are somehow getting something that I am not. Roddenberry may have had a great idea for a show, but he was god-awful at good writing and visual screenplay. The old Treks basically spoon-fed you the moral message of the day.

 

[Tarek71]

Oh, come on, folks. An academy graduate is given command of a starship. That alone (and there's plenty more dumb where that came from) is pretty moronic, even by "The Way to Eden" and "And the Children Shall Lead" standards. It's practically braindead by the standards of Trek's best.

I still loved the movie, don't get me wrong, but it was dumb as a brick.

I agree, they tried to go from Kirks childhood to him being Captain of the ENterprise in one film. Not impossible, but the ending was just shoe-horned in. He's not even graduated, and hes the Captain of the flagship of the Federation? I have heard attempts at rationalizing this, but it just doesnt wash. Its completely ridiculous.

I thought him being Captain as young as he was in the original timeline was pushing it a bit, this was beyond silly.

Batman Begins doesnt need Time Traveling Michael Keaton or George Clooney. Just tell the story of the origin of these characters, without Leonard Nimoy, or changed timelines. It was never needed.

Its a reboot now anyway with the changed timeline, so just retell the tale. You dont have work out how the timeline changed so that Lex Luthor now grew up in Smallville. Just tell the story, and dont bother making it fit with the older versions. Your going to change the timeline in any case, so it wont fit with events now anyway.

No Red Matter, no blown up Vulcan, no 3rd year Cadets becoming Captain.

But I still liked the movie, and Im glad Trek is back, for now. But it coud have been alot smarter, done better, and still be cool. I dont think its a choice between one and the other.

 

[Jamie H]

Oh, come on, folks. An academy graduate is given command of a starship. That alone (and there's plenty more dumb where that came from) is pretty moronic, even by "The Way to Eden" and "And the Children Shall Lead" standards. It's practically braindead by the standards of Trek's best.

I still loved the movie, don't get me wrong, but it was dumb as a brick.

I thought him being Captain as young as he was in the original timeline was pushing it a bit, this was beyond silly.

But I still liked the movie, and Im glad Trek is back, for now. But it coud have been alot smarter, done better, and still be cool. I dont think its a choice between one and the other.

Exactly. It didn't have to be dumb to be exciting and cool. As it is, it is a dumb movie that strains any sense of credibility in ANY universe.

If you are going to have an origin movie, how about spending time making the origin actually make sense? Instead, we get, "Congratulations stowaway, let me make you first officer of the ship because I liked your dad and you are pretty good in a fistfight." Utterly ridiculous, by any standards.

 

[Flamegrape]

The "it's popular so it's washed down for the masses, who are dumb" is what gets me the most. What's so bad about something we love becoming loved by more people? It's a good thing, guys.

It's good that they blew up Vulcan?

 

[Thrawn]

Oh, come on, folks. An academy graduate is given command of a starship. That alone (and there's plenty more dumb where that came from) is pretty moronic, even by "The Way to Eden" and "And the Children Shall Lead" standards. It's practically braindead by the standards of Trek's best.

I still loved the movie, don't get me wrong, but it was dumb as a brick.

I thought him being Captain as young as he was in the original timeline was pushing it a bit, this was beyond silly.

But I still liked the movie, and Im glad Trek is back, for now. But it coud have been alot smarter, done better, and still be cool. I dont think its a choice between one and the other.

Exactly. It didn't have to be dumb to be exciting and cool. As it is, it is a dumb movie that strains any sense of credibility in ANY universe.

If you are going to have an origin movie, how about spending time making the origin actually make sense? Instead, we get, "Congratulations stowaway, let me make you first officer of the ship because I liked your dad and you are pretty good in a fistfight." Utterly ridiculous, by any standards.

He didn't make him first officer because he was good in a fistfight. He made him first officer because he intuitively put together several separate events to figure out what was going on before anyone else on the ship.

Sure, Pike was predisposed to like him or be interested in him, but it's not at all implausible to me that on a ship crewed entirely by cadets he'd make the one first officer that demonstrated the clearest ability to command.

Letting Kirk keep the command at the end is another thing, I'll agree, but once the Enterprise was launched I honestly don't see anything implausible about our heroes getting promoted into their usual positions until the end.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Eh? How did you get from my post to that question?

I said popularity was good and you equal that to Vulcan's demise? The mind boggles.

For the record, I thought the destruction of Vulcan was a good thing as it conveyed a sense of finality that Trek has lacked for the most part (see reset buttons and deus ex machina a la Prophets).... but that has nothing at all to do with my previous post.

 

[JTK2099]

I've noticed that the PC line to add before you are allowed to criticize this movie is "don't get me wrong, I did like it."

 

[Amaris]

I've noticed that the PC line to add before you are allowed to criticize this movie is "don't get me wrong, I did like it."

Link to any poster or Moderator stating that you must say you like the movie before criticizing it?

J.

 

[Flamegrape]

I've noticed that the PC line to add before you are allowed to criticize this movie is "don't get me wrong, I did like it."

I've noticed that, too.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The point is, loving it doesn't make you dumb.

We reach!

(Alternately, though, not loving it doesn't make one a rigid tight-ass.)

 

[Jamie H]

He didn't make him first officer because he was good in a fistfight. He made him first officer because he intuitively put together several separate events to figure out what was going on before anyone else on the ship.

Sure, Pike was predisposed to like him or be interested in him, but it's not at all implausible to me that on a ship crewed entirely by cadets he'd make the one first officer that demonstrated the clearest ability to command.

And it doesn't seem to you that it's a bit odd that the flagship of the Federation is crewed ENTIRELY BY 17-23 year old CADETS? I understand it is an emergency and all, but was every experienced officer in Starfleet except for Pike and Spock away on business or something? Yet another absolutely silly plot contrivance. Even in TWoK, when the Enterprise was on a training mission specifically desined for cadets, there were still a full staff of adults around to take charge when things went haywire.

Intuitively putting together a bunch of events to figure out what was going on would probably have been enough to save his butt from the brig for stowing away and keep him on the ship as an Ensign. But enough to make him first officer? Ridiculous in ANY movie, Star Trek or not. Military people are not promoted up 10 ranks instantaneously because they happen to make one great observation.

The movie is full of this stuff that people just accept because they knew Kirk had to be captain in the end anyway. That doesn't make it a good origin story. Origin stories are supposed to work because they make sense and show you the growth and struggle of the character as they made their way towards the final destinly you already know for them. If you accept them only because you know what will eventually happen anyway, then the origin story falied to do its job.

 

[Kelso]

The movie makes more sense if we assume that Starfleet "cadets" are actually commissioned officers.

 

[Gepard]

The "it's popular so it's washed down for the masses, who are dumb" is what gets me the most. What's so bad about something we love becoming loved by more people? It's a good thing, guys.

What bothers me is the implication that, back in the day, Star trek was some amazing type of intellectual story-telling beyond the ken of mere mortals. It was a TV show. And not even that groundbreaking a TV show, judging by the internal NBC memos that show they were the ones pushing for diversity and a lot of the stuff that people attribute solely to Roddenberry's influence. Methinks some folks around here bought into GR's self-hype a little too fully.