Man, nobody reads Shakespeare anymore, do they? (sigh)
[Spoilers] Seriously flawed plotline
- Thread starter spocksbrain
- Start date
I have the complete works and I've read most of it. Forgive me for assuming you were serious given a lot of the stuff posted around here in the past two weeks or so.
I remember a joystick in TMP, when did it appear in TWOK?
It seems like the writers and director just don't seem to care about these nuggets of information about the characters before the series starts. We do know some good bits about them before the Enterprise, but it looks like most of it is being forgotten. The only thing that looks constant is the change we see in Spock from The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before. It would be much more interesting to see a story that explained the Kirk Marshall describes becoming the Kirk in the series.
Which if he was a duty bound Book Worm he would have never cheated on the Kobashi Maru cause that isn't a by the book solution.
It's time to forget the twisted canon of Star Trek so we can begin to tell exciting stories. Plus since everyone knew he cheated at the Kobiashi Maru wouldn't he have been EXPELLED From Starfleet.
Contradictions in the original source do not make for good canon. Period.
Not at all...
The line from Gary Mitchell was that Kirk was "positively grim" and a "stack of books with legs" and that Mitchell steered Kirk towards that "little blond lab tech" who Kirk almost married (the line that led to the creation of Carol Marcus) in order to get him to lighten up a little bit.
It never said that Kirk was a "by the book" sort of guy... that's not the same as being "grim and too serious."
In my experience, the people who are too grim, too serious... they're the ones who are MOST likely to cheat when they feel threatened. They'll cheat, backstab, bully... anything... in order to avoid whatever they fear. And they can justify it all to themselves.
It's the person who learns that there are more important things in life who finds it easier to accept misfortune (even perceived misfortune... like not being able to pass a test which, unbeknownst to himself, he wasn't supposed to be able to pass anyway!)
The two are totally unrelated ideas.
You can tell incredibly exciting stories in the unaltered, canonical Trek universe.
And you can just as easily tell abject CRAP stories while simultaneously flushing all canon.
If you find canon too restrictive... move into an as-yet-unexplored corner of the "Trek universe." There are infinite numbers of stories you can tell in our own real world, today... how many more should there be in an entire GALAXY, with "a thousand worlds and spreading out" to cover?
Nope. Remember, the Kobayashi Maru test was a "test of character," and there's no way to win. So, had he simply cheated... and remained defiant afterwards... sulking and being pouty... yeah, they'd have expelled him. If he'd failed and taken it personally but not done anything... but been sulky and whiney... that would have almost certainly precluded him from the "Command Track."
So, he cheated... something that is actually a DESIRABLE TRAIT for a military commander in a real-world situation. If the book says "do this" and you find another way to solve the problem, that's not bad, that's GOOD. It's called "outside of the box thinking" and as they said in TWOK, it got him a commendation for original thinking.
He still could have been cashiered out, though. The real issue is "how do you deal with the consequences of your choices." Had he whined and moaned and so forth... he'd have been out. But if he stood up, defended his actions, and made a compelling argument... that would be enough to move him to the front of the class.
True, but that, at least, is no contradiction. This new film, however, may introduce new contradictions, that in that regard I think your point is entirely valid.
I think ian_tee is referring to the people ready to jump to unsubstantiated negative conclusions about bits of information that could be easily misinterpreted when not in the proper context. They're taking what they've heard about these scenes and the shots from the trailer and passing judgment without understanding what is happening and why. Unfortunately, there's also a good possibility that some are so bound and determined to see nothing favorable about this film that they won't be convinced otherwise no matter what logic is put in their way. Those are the ones I feel the most pity for.
ANYWAY...
Here's a plot element I'm concerned about: the ending. Pardon me whilst I go into Doc Brown mode here:
Assuming that the attack on the Kelvin is the point where the timeline diverges, creating the alternate reality we're seeing in the movie, the only way I can see the timeline being restored is if the alternate Enterprise time-travels back to the point where the Kelvin is attacked and stops Nero before he attacks it. However, if the alternate Enterprise crew succeeds in stopping Nero from attacking the Kelvin, a paradox is created because they're in a past in which the circumstances of their presence no longer apply. Would they just vanish? Would reality alter around them?
Here is what I think should happen: either they defeat Nero after the attack has already happened, thereby keeping the altered timeline in place, or the timeline does not change despite their intervention. I don't want things to go back to the way they were. We've had a decade plus of the way things were, and the franchise became stagnant because of it.
So you are trying to say that Trek Canon isn't a mess of holes like a piece of alpine lase swiss cheese?
The fact that they use money and then don't use money and then use money again. Is just one example. I don't find it too restrictive I find it useless because no matter what story you write some Canonista is going to find a bit of Trek Canon that allows him to tell you you've done it wrong.
We've accepted for a long time that Kirk's name is James Tiberius Kirk, yet in WNMHGB His middle initial is R on the gravestone, so which is right? Which one do we adopt, We adopted the Tiberius because it's been used more often, but is it any more correct, because that R came first and it was right there on film.
That's the major problem with delving into trek and keeping a running tab on what the "History" of trek is. It changes with each writer who comes in and gives his interpretation. Sometimes these things don't fit, sometimes they do, other times nerdy guys with nothing better to do shoehorn it to fit. It really isn't something that is going to matter as long as they keep the core of the character. Kirk is a genius captain who doesn't always follow the rules. HOW is it appearing that this movie is changing that? That is what and who Kirk is. A genius, rogue, with charisma and charm who when the need a rises or when he feels the need can use that charisma to get the women he desires. He also would put himself in danger along with any members of his crew. He takes the risks that need to be taken to get the job done. That's Kirk, not where he came from, who his father was, who his brother was. That's all filler that does nothing to pull his character together. It's fluff that was used to help tell the stories in a couple episodes. We didn't know Kirk had a brother until the episode where we meet him, and that's now supposed to be something sacred? He was a plot device, an expendable character the killed off to tell a story.
Kirk has always been a Genius. They are stating that he still is in this version of the movie, They aren't taking away that the man is smart, but most genius minds I've met can be a little rebellious, because they either get bored with what is place in front of them, or they are just egotistical fops.
^Shatterhand
Odds are, imho, that the timeline will not be "restored" in the 'this movie was all a dream' sort of way. It's the most sensible method of getting the Trek Fundies off their backs, for one thing;
"ZOMG!! Kirk's plant in his quarters had yellow flowers not red! JJ Hates Trek!"
"Alternate timeline, dude."
Odds are, imho, that the timeline will not be "restored" in the 'this movie was all a dream' sort of way. It's the most sensible method of getting the Trek Fundies off their backs, for one thing;
"ZOMG!! Kirk's plant in his quarters had yellow flowers not red! JJ Hates Trek!"
"Alternate timeline, dude."
How's that?
Actually... we had "the way things were" back in the 1960s and 1970s, and that was still accepted without debate through most of the 1980s. Then, it got twisted up with a few "redefinitions" in TNG (by Roddenberry, of course, who was more likely to change canon than anyone else in Trek history as far as I can tell!), and then we ended up with a new "TNG-era-canon" which paid lip-service to the original but otherwise ignored it.
THAT is what got "stagnant." And it wasn't due to "canon," it was due to FORMULA. It was due to every episode, without variation, having an "A-story" and a "B-story." Every episode, regardless of series, having the same sound effects and music... having the same WRITING STYLE...
It became predictable. The best-regarded episodes, its not coincidence, are the ones that were unpredictable... that surprised the audience and shook things up.
But those episodes didn't have to deviate from "canon" in order to do so. They were allowed to change things going forward, but not to redefine things which were already established. "The Best of Both Worlds" didn't have the Vulcans as the villains, after all... though I can easily imagine how, in a "reimagined" Trek universe, that would make for some exciting storytelling. Can't you?
This movie is breaking formula... and that's WONDERFUL. But it also seems to be breaking canon... which isn't. The canon isn't what forces formula on the production... formula is forced on a production by laziness and complacency. Rejection of canon isn't forced on a production by the desire to break formula... it's forced on a production by the desire to "put my own imprint on things." In other words, by egotism. It's really not hard to take any potential storyline (including every significant element of the script of this film) into a 100%-canon-compliant situation, and instead of having a less-exciting movie, actually end up with a MORE exciting one.
Most of the rewrites in the shooting script seem to have been in favor of eliminating "unnecessary characters" and replacing them with "the stars." But that gives us a SMALLER movie, not a larger one. And the film seems to have been harmed in the process. I'd have been much happier if it was still Carol, not Uhura, who Kirk met in the bar scene...
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you should just shut up. It totally doesn't matter that this isn't a discussion board or how legitimate someone's points might be, if you don't agree with them they should just shut up.
Yes, because the color of a plant is totally comparable to radically redesigning the ship and most everything else about the Trek universe and changing the background and personality of the characters. Yup, everyone who's against this movie is only worried about plant colors.
You're right.
For another thing, the idea that any viewer who likes the new version would become in any way invested in the "reset" at the end is nonsense. The reaction of most of the up-to-then-satisfied viewers (to the extent that any care) would be "WTF just happened to all the good stuff? They've got to be kidding."
I think the end will *have* to be "and the future is once again unknown" - what's the point otherwise?
"hi kids, I'm William Shatner, if you enjoyed this film, then make sure to check out the TOS boxsets in the foyer on the way home - they show the REAL history"
Trek is at its best when it uses its continuity. Look at DS9 using the rich universe that Trek had created to weave the best series that Trek had seen. Then there is the the las season of ENT that used the continuity to show us how things became what we knew. It was interesting and good because it was working inside the canon and also expanding our knowledge all at the same time. You do not have to reinvent the wheel with Trek, if done well, the tapestry is fertile enough for great storytelling.
Yeah that formula that had Scotty hoping Kirk would bring the Enterprise to come save him iin TNG when They killed Kirk off in Generations (You see the problem we have here with Canon. That little incongruity is what I'm talking about they wrote a movie zephyring Kirk away into a Crisis of the movie plot device forgetting they had an episode with Scotty hoping Kirk would come save him and having Scotty THERE WHEN HE DISAPPEARED. Where were the outcries then. I didn't see one single "You can't have Scotty on the Ent-B if didn't he disappear and reappear in TNG?
There is NO Coherant Canon in Star Trek. The writers have never cared. WHY Do the fans throw a shit fit? The writers only use CANON when they feel like it, but yet people still waddle around sites like Ex Astris Scientia, and Memory Alpha which are FAN SITES. THe Fans keep the canon, and are the ones who abuse it most to be belligerant bullies when they see something that just doesn't jibe with how THEY feel TREK SHOULD BE.
Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you should just shut up. It totally doesn't matter that this isn't a discussion board or how legitimate someone's points might be, if you don't agree with them they should just shut up.
Yes, because the color of a plant is totally comparable to radically redesigning the ship and most everything else about the Trek universe and changing the background and personality of the characters. Yup, everyone who's against this movie is only worried about plant colors.
You know, I'm not sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe you're employing sarcasm! Ahh, yes, I see what you're doing! You're lampooning our alleged prejudice of your opinions by showing prejudice against ours! Well done!
See that forest? It's nothing but trees.
Has it crossed your mind what the circumstances behind the differences are? Have you, for an instant, considered the possibility that Abrams saw a chance to breathe new life into a dead (or, at least, comatose) franchise? Or are you dismissing the changes out of hand as blatant violations of what you and a certain segment of Trek fandom consider sacred and, supposedly, untouchable?
They did, until the movies or so, particularly until TNG. That's because there was a common set of canon--the show bible and its defenders.
Violating canon to make things "exciting" is generally a result of laziness on the writer's part, not a necessity.
In fact, I regard the chains of canon to be lots of fun. It's a challenge. Sort of how I respect a writer who can make real science fiction exciting rather than having to take Star Wars whiz-bang short cuts.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Thank you stereotypical foreign guy who explains why jokes are funny.
Yeah, the circumstances are that a Star Wars fan wants to make Trek "kewl".
No, not really. I'm pretty sure he wanted to do a sci fi, and since George Lucas won't let anyone else do Star Wars he decided to go for the next obvious sci fi franchise with a built-in fanbase. But it's not like the claim hasn't been made before, I mean, B&B thought they were breathing new life into Star Trek by making ENT.
I'm not even a particularly big fan of TOS, but at the same time I think you should respect what came before, and that it's lame to be jumping on the reboot bandwagon with a 40 year franchise. You don't need to reboot the franchise or ditch things that have been established to make new and interesting stories, you just need to make new and interesting stories that don't fall into the boring formulaic technobabble crap that have defined the last two series and the TNG era movies. I'd even bet from what I heard that none of that aspect will be any different in this movie, and it will be just as corny and lame as Abrams was griping about TOS being, he'll just fuck up the characters and everything that's been established in the series in the process.
This thread has gone so far afield from the original point I was trying to make. It deviated (like the timeline, ba dum bum) almost instantly. Original point: the plotline is that Kirk is just a cadet and then becomes first officer, then captain, all because of an emergency and because Pike has faith in him, completely going against all logic, any chain of command structure in any military/organization ever, and just being generally unfair (to all the other officers) and unwise. So, in other words, unbelievable and an example of lazy writing, and with all the money thrown at this and all the time they've had to come up with a good story to re-boot things, it should simply be a better plot. That was my point.
Since everyone went the other way, about how the timeline shift is the cause for the canon issues, I have another thought: why couldn't they get William Shatner into this movie? If everything changed, then events might not have played out the same way with Sorin. Just a thought.
Since everyone went the other way, about how the timeline shift is the cause for the canon issues, I have another thought: why couldn't they get William Shatner into this movie? If everything changed, then events might not have played out the same way with Sorin. Just a thought.
I don't want lazu writing, but the current Trek canon is so full of holes that it needs to be fixed. It's something I'm hoping Abrams will do if he can't well then we wait and we get another attempt maybe 5 - 10 yrs down the road.
But we haven't even seen the movie yet to see whether it's going to be good or not. Unless Cary has a copy from THE FUTURE!!!....
Similar threads
