Nah. The stupid moment award goes to Can't-Read-A-Star-Chart Tarrell.
Public perception of Star Trek?
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Kirk isn't an engineer, but he's a capable technician and knowledgable about the ship's systems. But he doesn't have to be an engineer to be active in the climax. As the lead character, he needs to be a leader, who pushes his crew for solutions or makes the decisive decision that saves the ship.
When the Enterprise was spiraling downward on PSI-2000, he ran to engineering and pushed Scotty. He actively looked for solutions to restart the engines.
In TWOK's climax, he does nothing. He isn't active in looking for solutions, to "change the conditions of the test." It was out of character. Kirk would've gone down there, told Scotty to send cadet after cadet into the reactor room until it was fixed. He would've asked Scotty if there were alternatives. He would've asked Spock the same.
Hell, the better way to get Spock into the reactor is to have Kirk with no other alternative realize that his Vulcan first officer is the only one who can stand the radiation. Then order him in there. That would make the death more tragic and teach Kirk that you can't always beat the No Win Scenario. Then he'd really "have faced death."
As for Kirk's not raising the shields, that's fine. It was part of Kirk's arc — showing that he was stale and a bit too trusting of a fellow ship. That he made a mistake and must spend the entire movie correcting it is very much TOS.
Others have said, and I agree, that it does actually fit with Kirk's arc in STID. Or what we glimpse of the arc. A character arc of learning about responsibility is set up quite obviously at the beginning, but then it kind of gets crowded out by other stuff. I think this is part of what Abrams meant was wrong with the film.
It's Admiral Kirk not Captain Kirk. It's barely his ship; it's Spock's ship. Kirk isn't an engineer and his shortcomings on this was exposed in TMP. Time is too short, Scott knows the terrain, leave your crack engineering team to do it. Kirk the techie chargin' in there for a "brain stormin'" session is only going to waste time whilst the clock is tickin'.
Spock is a smart guy, he's stronger, his alien physique helps him with the radiation, he knows the ship and has hit upon inspiration. He doesn't want to waste time with the inevitable human handwringing about him sacrificing himself so he does his solo run.
I never detected any problem with these scenes and I still don't.
As for not putting up the shields, that's just dumb. This is supposedly Kirk's terrain, command. And there maybe dumb stuff in TOS but that doesn't mean you carry that same dumb stuff onto future projects. It's nice to think there's a process of refinement as time progresses and a weeding out of the dumb stuff although I'm probably naive for thinking so.
[Quotes aren't working for me again.]
All of that is immaterial.
As far as pop culture is concerned, James T. Kirk (Captain, Admiral, green-gilled cadet, or otherwise)is the commander of the U.S.S Enterprise. That has never changed. That's the whole point of the scene in Spock's quarters. Practically speaking, a flag officer wouldn't just take command of a ship at the first drop of trouble. Story wise, Kirk was made Admiral to show the progress of time. But no one wants to watch a Captain Spock movie.
More importantly, though, this whole thing is a straw man. The argument was TWOK works better with Kirk sacrificing himself instead of Spock. No one even suggested the sacrifice had to be written exactly the same. There are a nearly infinite different ways they could have gone.
From the moment "In the 23rd Century" pops up on the screen to the time Spock gets up out of his seat, the movie is framed as Kirk v Khan. Spock is essentially a tertiary character--in fact, one could argue Saavik plays more important role (both in terms of plot and theme) than Spock. So from a structure standpoint, the tag team ending doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
All the major thematic notes and allusions in the film are direct the audience towards a Kirk sacrifice. Meyer did try to pigeonhole them into Kirk facing the death of his friend, but they would work so much better the other way.
Most importantly, however, the entire plot of the film goes out of the way to put Kirk's actual family on the Enterprise for the climax. Really, outside of the novelty of "Hey, look, Kirk has a son!" The Marcuses being "The Marcuses" doesn't really add anything to the film. They could have just as easily been anybody. However, by having them on the ship at the end, Kirk sacrificing himself is no longer just about saving his surrogate family.
All of that is immaterial.
As far as pop culture is concerned, James T. Kirk (Captain, Admiral, green-gilled cadet, or otherwise)is the commander of the U.S.S Enterprise. That has never changed. That's the whole point of the scene in Spock's quarters. Practically speaking, a flag officer wouldn't just take command of a ship at the first drop of trouble. Story wise, Kirk was made Admiral to show the progress of time. But no one wants to watch a Captain Spock movie.
More importantly, though, this whole thing is a straw man. The argument was TWOK works better with Kirk sacrificing himself instead of Spock. No one even suggested the sacrifice had to be written exactly the same. There are a nearly infinite different ways they could have gone.
From the moment "In the 23rd Century" pops up on the screen to the time Spock gets up out of his seat, the movie is framed as Kirk v Khan. Spock is essentially a tertiary character--in fact, one could argue Saavik plays more important role (both in terms of plot and theme) than Spock. So from a structure standpoint, the tag team ending doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
All the major thematic notes and allusions in the film are direct the audience towards a Kirk sacrifice. Meyer did try to pigeonhole them into Kirk facing the death of his friend, but they would work so much better the other way.
Most importantly, however, the entire plot of the film goes out of the way to put Kirk's actual family on the Enterprise for the climax. Really, outside of the novelty of "Hey, look, Kirk has a son!" The Marcuses being "The Marcuses" doesn't really add anything to the film. They could have just as easily been anybody. However, by having them on the ship at the end, Kirk sacrificing himself is no longer just about saving his surrogate family.
I believe the climax of TWOK to be Spock's death - not the Enterprise being saved (as if she wasn't going to be). Kirk was a big participant in the death scene.
I never thought the script was leading up to Kirk's death. It was all "Is Spock going to be killed?" in all the newspapers and reviews for the film. I remember at the time.
I think the 4 year gap between movies and the last movie being meh has a lot to answer for. When I saw Star Trek 2009 I liked it. I wasn't jumping up and down proclaiming it the best movie ever or better than your dad's Star Trek but I enjoyed the story, the CGI, the acting (apart from Pegg's awful Scotty) and the chance to start over with a clean slate while still keeping one foot in the Prime Universe. I was expecting brand new aliens never seen before and storylines that hadn't been done in Star Trek yet in future movies and possible tv shows. 4 years later I just didn't care about my previous expectations anymore. I went to see Into Darkness fully expecting what we all expected - Cumberbatch as Khan - and with no other expectations beyond that I found the film poor. I can't fault the acting or the CGI but I will fault the fact they procrastinated on this project far too long and it was not worth the wait even for someone who had lost interest in the new universe and was expecting nothing but the obvious - Kirk, Spock, the rest of the crew, Enterprise and the glaringly predictable Khan reveal.
The new trailer on top of the disappointment many fans felt for Into Darkness has undone all the effort that went into establishing the new start for Trek in 2009. That movie had a lot of good will even if it had its detractors. Although Into Darkness was undoubtedly enjoyed by many it can't be denied that it alienated quite a lot of people too. Beyond sounds, from Pegg's interviews, to be more in line with what I was expecting of this new universe - new aliens, new conflicts, a chance to delve into the characters more and the ability to see that anything truly can happen in this new universe. A rehash of Space Seed, The Wrath Of Khan or Khan himself could have happened much later on if it truly needed to happen at all. At this early stage they should be showing us what they've got to offer instead of relying on tried and tested successes. I've nothing against the odd cameo or crossover but Khan and Section 31 are concepts the other shows came up with. Where are the new concepts specific to the new universe?
I think, and hope, Beyond is the first step in that direction. Once this universe is well established they can bring in whatever old concepts or characters they like but I'd prefer not to have any remakes of old material even if it is dressed up in a new way.
The new trailer on top of the disappointment many fans felt for Into Darkness has undone all the effort that went into establishing the new start for Trek in 2009. That movie had a lot of good will even if it had its detractors. Although Into Darkness was undoubtedly enjoyed by many it can't be denied that it alienated quite a lot of people too. Beyond sounds, from Pegg's interviews, to be more in line with what I was expecting of this new universe - new aliens, new conflicts, a chance to delve into the characters more and the ability to see that anything truly can happen in this new universe. A rehash of Space Seed, The Wrath Of Khan or Khan himself could have happened much later on if it truly needed to happen at all. At this early stage they should be showing us what they've got to offer instead of relying on tried and tested successes. I've nothing against the odd cameo or crossover but Khan and Section 31 are concepts the other shows came up with. Where are the new concepts specific to the new universe?
I think, and hope, Beyond is the first step in that direction. Once this universe is well established they can bring in whatever old concepts or characters they like but I'd prefer not to have any remakes of old material even if it is dressed up in a new way.
Just let's wait what the next trailer is going to show.
It would take up too much space to quote the lines from both death scenes, but their similarities in a couple of areas would make sense. For example, the first thing Spock and Kirk would want to know is if the ship was safe.
I really don't know how Spock's sacrifice was "earned" in TWOK. It seemed as if his decision was based less on building up to it than a spur of the moment realization that he knew what had to be done, and since it was suicidal, had to do it himself. I don't think the story was building to that snap decision.
Kirk earned the moment as the entire story is teaching him how unprepared he really was to captain the Enterprise. The tragedy at the end was that Kirk learned his lesson only in time to die.
Spock's death was noble and almost sterile compared to Kirk's. Kirk was afraid and showed it. In TWOK, Spock was trying to comfort Kirk (don't mourn; it was logical). In STID, it was Kirk wanting Spock to comfort him by telling him how "not to feel." Neither character was noble. Neither could comfort the other. Both characters were emotional wrecks. It was hard to watch. It was almost too realistic.
That was number 1A.
That was number 1.
You did a really good job describing the Into Darkness death scene. I wish I could feel that when I watched it. It does give me something to consider about Kirk and the tragedy of him learning all too late, even if I felt that his learning arc was too similar to Trek '09 and his death was reversed before the end of the film.
To be clear about what I meant by Spock's death being earned in TWOK is not that Spock deserved to die, but that for the audience the emotional impact, the weight of it hitting Kirk was earned because the audience had seen that friendship develop basically over decades, or at least could fill in the blanks between watching TOS and then The Motion Picture and then TWOK.
With the Abrams films they are pretty much at the beginning of their friendship, one far more tension filled and shaky than what we had seen of Kirk and Spock in the prime universe. And Into Darkness spent way too much time IMO with Kirk whining about whether Spock liked him or not beforehand. It was too immature.
And for them to emulate the gripping, heart rending death scene from TWOK in Into Darkness, a film without the emotional weight of TWOK or history of TOS behind it, it felt like a cheap rip off. Even having Spock roar Khan's name felt off. The new movies seem determined to have Spock more emotional and unbalanced than TOS for some reason. I guess it heightens the emotionalism and drama in their eyes.
To be clear about what I meant by Spock's death being earned in TWOK is not that Spock deserved to die, but that for the audience the emotional impact, the weight of it hitting Kirk was earned because the audience had seen that friendship develop basically over decades, or at least could fill in the blanks between watching TOS and then The Motion Picture and then TWOK.
With the Abrams films they are pretty much at the beginning of their friendship, one far more tension filled and shaky than what we had seen of Kirk and Spock in the prime universe. And Into Darkness spent way too much time IMO with Kirk whining about whether Spock liked him or not beforehand. It was too immature.
And for them to emulate the gripping, heart rending death scene from TWOK in Into Darkness, a film without the emotional weight of TWOK or history of TOS behind it, it felt like a cheap rip off. Even having Spock roar Khan's name felt off. The new movies seem determined to have Spock more emotional and unbalanced than TOS for some reason. I guess it heightens the emotionalism and drama in their eyes.
It also serves to illustrate the very different paths each one has traveled. The original Spock did not suffer nearly as many traumatic experiences in quick succession, and at so young an age. It is therefore quite plausible he would exhibit his human half more prominently owing to these events. I can understand where some don't like that prominence and would prefer hewing closer to the original. I cannot understand how anyone could refuse to acknowledge the plausibility of a half human character (whose other half is an even more intensely emotional species), upon being buffeted by severe emotionally charged events, exhibiting a less than masterful control of his emotions.
Nimoy's Spock is one of the most iconic figures in TV in history. His strict logic and discipline stands in contrast to how humans typically behave. He's a unique figure and people are attached to that.
These films come around and Spock's human traits come to the fore. But then when he behaves alot more like the other humans in crisis scenes then most of his uniqueness drains away. And a character that behaves alot like the other humans do, that's easier to write for.
It's not a question of plausibility. People are simply attached to traditional Spock and a 'new' Spock who blends in with the humans in how they behave in critical scenarios can make people feel shortchanged, asking "where has Spock gone?"
These films come around and Spock's human traits come to the fore. But then when he behaves alot more like the other humans in crisis scenes then most of his uniqueness drains away. And a character that behaves alot like the other humans do, that's easier to write for.
It's not a question of plausibility. People are simply attached to traditional Spock and a 'new' Spock who blends in with the humans in how they behave in critical scenarios can make people feel shortchanged, asking "where has Spock gone?"
That's a good point, but on the opposite side Quinto's Spock could perhaps also seek more solace in Vulcan stoicism and logic to embrace his lost world and decimated people. I do think Quinto's Spock is a bit too emotional, even before the destruction of Vulcan. You could chalk it up to youth and now after the destruction of Vulcan, to the emotional trauma of that but still I think the emotionalism is a hallmark of the Abrams Trek films. Almost everything is cranked up.
It's interesting to compare the two scenes directly (as we can do on youtube):
In terms of writing and directing/edit, the JJ scene feels dragged out, whereas with TWOK every beat is strong.
Another reason the TWOK death scene has more effect is the dramatic dynamic: Kirk is broken up but Spock is stoic, and this contrast affects us emotionally. In STID, both characters are stoic at the start. As the scene progresses, Spock becomes emotional (arguably more than is believable), but Kirk remains calm; the dynamic is all wrong.
Apart from NuSpock yelling 'Khan', there is also the moment where Kirk makes the LLAP sign with his hand against the glass. I would argue that that is actually more problematic as far as the drama is concerned, because it's both cheesy and unnecessary.
I saw Daisy Ridley and John Boyega get interviewed on a Brit talk show the other day. Ridley said that after her dad found out about her getting a role in Star Wars he told her "I was always more of a Trek fan." The live audience reacted by belching out this loud bewildered "ahhhhhhhhhhhh!" sound, as if the idea that someone could like ST more than SW is unthinkable. Then the host chimed in and said "That's a bad father!"
Kind of gives you an idea of the general public's perception of Star Trek.
Kind of gives you an idea of the general public's perception of Star Trek.
It gives me an idea of how British presenters like to poke fun at their guests.
Sounds more like a bad host for making a comment like that. I'm sure Daisy's father is thrilled his daughter is in essence the lead role in a SW film. What difference does it make if he prefers ST to SW.
But whilst people flock to see Sci-Fi films at the box office there can still be a stigma applied to people who like Sci-Fi. Bit of a double standard if you ask me. Yes I'll happily go see a Sci-Fi flick at the cinema wait you watch what(Sci-Fi) on TV.
But whilst people flock to see Sci-Fi films at the box office there can still be a stigma applied to people who like Sci-Fi. Bit of a double standard if you ask me. Yes I'll happily go see a Sci-Fi flick at the cinema wait you watch what(Sci-Fi) on TV.
It was a joke. I can't believe I have to explain this but he's "a bad father" because he's taking the piss out of his daughter, not because he likes Star Trek...
How on earth could anyone interpret that as dissing ST is beyond me...
Last edited:
Spock as a character of strict logic and discipline is a stereotype. In terms of popular perception of his character, I'd bet a lot of people believe Vulcans to be emotionless as a trait, not a philosophy. His emotions were always under the surface, showing in anything from a raised eyebrow, to a scowl, to a self-satisfied look, to true outbursts. I think if TOS has stayed on the air a few more seasons, the story arc of Spock would've followed the TOS films. Just as McCoy (sometimes) represented the fault of leading too much with emotions ("You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing."), Spock represented the fault of pure stoicism. That's what I enjoyed about Spock in the movies. In TMP, he discovered the "fault" of being emotionless, and as the movies progressed, he found a way to stay true to the Vulcan philosophy and also deal with being of a race that found emotions generally healthy and useful.
Quinto's Spock did at least try to seek solace in Vulcan stoicism. He actually told that to Kirk and Uhura in STID. He chose not to feel as a way of dealing with the loss of his homeworld and six billion of his people. However, as he found out, that didn't always work. After all, Vulcans only repress feelings. They still have them. If this Spock is a little more "touchy," well, as others have said, he took a lot of gut punches, so to speak.
I can't believe that you, and a few other posters, actually think I was implying that the host was being serious. Of course it was a joke. I thought everyone knew that. How dense could you be?
Her father is obviously busting her chops by saying he likes Trek more (which may or may not be true).
But the fact that someone could like ST more than SW is also and underlying part of the choke and the crowds reaction. That's the way I perceived it in the moment anyways. Although I may be overly sensitive because of how I feel about Trek.
Last edited:
