Same canon?
- Thread starter Captrek
- Start date
A lot of GREAT stories do. But not all.
One interpretation, and a pretty good one at that.
Now what, is there a message or not?
A story usually has a beginning, middle and end. Usually something will happen or be discovered.
A Murder Mystery, for instance, is not a story with a message.
Someone telling you about a pleasent walk they had has no message or moral to it.
Someone telling you about a customer with a funny hat entering a store has no moral or ethical point beyond the amusement of the events.
I WILL say what the movie is about from my perspective:
Family. Conflict, love between brothers, fate, overcomming impossible odds, and living up to ones fate are themes I can pick up.
And maybe, how tragedy can challenge you, and how adversity can make you stronger.
But these are themes, not messages.
A Murder Mystery, for instance, is not a story with a message.
Someone telling you about a pleasent walk they had has no message or moral to it.
Someone telling you about a customer with a funny hat entering a store has no moral or ethical point beyond the amusement of the events.
I WILL say what the movie is about from my perspective:
Family. Conflict, love between brothers, fate, overcomming impossible odds, and living up to ones fate are themes I can pick up.
And maybe, how tragedy can challenge you, and how adversity can make you stronger.
But these are themes, not messages.
There's a message, but it has to do with friendship and loyalty. Not if its bad to kill - neutralize a guy who has made it apparent he wants nothing more to wipe and your friends off the face of creation.
OneBuckFilms, yes theme is a better word.
Yes, they put aside their conflicts by.... just putting aside their conflicts. No reason they do it, they just do.
I'm actually surprised that with all the emphasis on getting these two characters to become comrades that they didn't do more with it. I mean, Kirk doesn't seemed phased or disappointed at all that Spock isn't onboard the Enterprise when Kirk gets his command. If this film really wanted to convey the message that these two icons have now begun their friendship, they should have at least had Kirk try to convince Spock to stay onboard the Enterprise. But since they didn't do that, Kirk just acts like nothing is missing and acts no different when Spock returns.
Friendships have been done way better than this.
I used to feel that way, but have since come around. The 1978 Cylons made an appearance in the RDM series, but that doesn’t mean the 1978 canon held anywhere in the RDM universe. Similarly, the appearance of Spock Prime in the Abrams reboot doesn’t necessarily mean the Prime universe has to be identical to the universe of the original canon.
Last edited:
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
If you don't follow the rules you get to be in charge of those that do.
Spock set aside his conflicts with Kirk. Kirk didn't as he didn't have to. He was the Captain..
Jeyl, that's a pretty good point about the Friendship.
However, that has basically been handled in a way throughout the rest of the movie.
Certainly, at the end, Spock and Kirk have gone from butting heads to Kirk accepting him as First Officer and Spock's request.
However, that has basically been handled in a way throughout the rest of the movie.
Certainly, at the end, Spock and Kirk have gone from butting heads to Kirk accepting him as First Officer and Spock's request.
Kirk did evolve from "Who is thay pointy-eared bastard?" to "You see? We are getting to know each other !", and in that final scene, Kirk taking Spock's approach, and Spock seeing Kirk's as being better in that case.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Kirk didn't change though the film. Other people changed to accept him. He didn't have to do anything. That's the biggest flaw in the movie. Most of the others could be changed with the stroke of a pen or a change of a word. Kirk doesn't grow into command. He doesn't learn. He is given everything. Entrance to the Academy on a days notice. Snuck onto the ship when he's not supposed to go. He takes advantage of the destruction of Vulcan to take command from Spock. He's given command of the ship over all the other senior officers in the fleet. He doesn't lose anything. He doesn't learn anything.
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
Kirk learns he's capable of more than bumming around bars in Iowa chatting up hot cadets and picking fights. He gains direction in his life and discovers that he's good at something that makes a difference. He finds out he really can live up to Pike's expectations when he meets Spock Prime. He learns the meaning of his father's sacrifice and he learns the value of teamwork.
Kirk learns he's capable of more than bumming around bars in Iowa chatting up hot cadets and picking fights. He gains direction in his life and discovers that he's good at something that makes a difference. He finds out he really can live up to Pike's expectations when he meets Spock Prime. He learns the meaning of his father's sacrifice and he learns the value of teamwork.
That is also incorrect. Certainly proven in stories like "Tribbles," or "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Best of Both Worlds" (unless someone wants to bend straws and claim that the conflict between Riker and Shelby meant anything, which it didn't) etc.
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
Nope.
Movie: 1
Jeyl: 0
Nope.
Movie: 1
Jeyl: 0
I think I understand your problem, here. You seem to think that Kirk is the protagonist of the movie, when in actuality, Spock is. I will grant you that Kirk is heroic, but "hero" and "protagonist" are not necessarily interchangeable. The whole movie is about the lesson of the Kobayshi Maru, and the fact that although Spock has programmed the test scenario for four years, he himself has never had to learn its lesson. And until he loses almost everything: his planet, his mother, his control, his captaincy, and until he can embrace all of who he is, he is not ready to take the "REAL" Kobayashi Maru: facing death to protect everything he has left. It's a classic hero's journey.
I think the confusion comes in because they cut Spock's birth scene. . . the movie starts with Kirk, so people believe that he is the protagonist, but his is just the character whose point of view we share. . . I'm not saying that he isn't heroic. . . he does go on a hero's journey too, but ultimately the goal of his journey is to bring about a change in Spock, so that they can work together to stop Nero. . .
~FS
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
I agree that Spock has much more of a character arc than Kirk does which is part of the problem. We start with Kirk's birth. We see his childhood. We see him before he enters the Academy. THEN we meet Spock. Then we're nack to Kirk getting smuggled onto the ship. Kirk getting thrown off the ship on Delta Vega XII 
Kirk taking command of the Enterprise from Spock. Kirk getting promoted. Spock grows more than Kirk does but the focus is on Kirk. It's almost slight of hand. Look at what we're doing with this hand while the bunny appears over here.
Kirk taking command of the Enterprise from Spock. Kirk getting promoted. Spock grows more than Kirk does but the focus is on Kirk. It's almost slight of hand. Look at what we're doing with this hand while the bunny appears over here.
I agree that Spock has much more of a character arc than Kirk does which is part of the problem. We start with Kirk's birth. We see his childhood. We see him before he enters the Academy. THEN we meet Spock. Then we're nack to Kirk getting smuggled onto the ship. Kirk getting thrown off the ship on Delta Vega XII
Unlike the secondary characters, we also see Spock's childhood and we see him rejecting the Vulcan Science Academy before we see him at StarFleet, we just don't see his birth scene. . .we know it was filmed, and we know that they cut it for pacing reasons. . .we also know that it was supposed to be the first scene in the movie. Like I said, hero and protagonist are not necessarily interchangeable, and the POV character and the protagonist don't necessarily have to be the same character.
~FS
Because there's like, a really fixed way that screenwriters think that's totally different from producers - everyone approaches things the same way based on their job, always have and there's nothing ambiguous or individual about it. Never the twain shall meet.
Did Roddenberry "follow the mindset" of a producer or a writer? Or either/neither/both?
These guys are good movie writers, and good producers.
