Star Trek's Troubling 50th Anniversary
- Thread starter MakeshiftPython
- Start date
I only count your books.
Friends,
There is a guy called Mike Jung. He said on Twitter: "So, since my brother's writing the script for STAR TREK 3, you're all gonna go see it, right? RIGHT? SUPPORT MY BROTHER'S CAREER, DAMMIT"
And more: "Amazing stuff, isn't it? And totally fun that he's asking for my thoughts on Star Trek in general".
who is he? He looked very sincere.
There is a guy called Mike Jung. He said on Twitter: "So, since my brother's writing the script for STAR TREK 3, you're all gonna go see it, right? RIGHT? SUPPORT MY BROTHER'S CAREER, DAMMIT"
And more: "Amazing stuff, isn't it? And totally fun that he's asking for my thoughts on Star Trek in general".
who is he? He looked very sincere.
Well, Doug Jung is a real script-writer and producer. No idea if he's attached to Trek or how that might have come about.
Life's far too short to be worried.
(I prefer to be excited)
Huzzah!
(I prefer to be excited)
Huzzah!
OMG I know that guy!!!
( ...then again there's probably more than one person with that name. )
I know the above is a wall of text and my response will probably just as much a wall, but I could not agree more. Some parts are bolded by me for extra emphasis the overall tone I agree with.
My biggest struggle with the argument that it isn't "My Star Trek" is that it never really was "mine" to begin with. I own my reactions to the different iterations, but other than that, my enjoyment of Star Trek is something that I share with, well, all of you, to one degree or another.
I don't enjoy every variation of Trek out there, and that is ok. I enjoy a good steak, but that doesn't mean that every steak I have is good, or that others don't enjoy it cooked differently.
The point is, Trek was supposed to be fun, and at its core, it really is fun. But I don't think Abrams somehow missed the boat, or that one Trek is more "Trek" than the other.
If the 50th anniversary does anything, it is to acknowledge the different ways that Trek explored the final frontier, and that is from the 60s' until present day.
As for the movie, it really should stand on its own. As the above poster said, the fan service caught to heavily pushed in to ID and didn't really feel necessary. Give them a chance to stand on their own.
Who is actually asking for Trek to be "not fun"? I think people take that satirical Onion video way too literally, as if there are actually fans out there that say "I hated nuTrek, it was too fun". 
I don't have an issue with the style Trek has adopted with the Abrams films. That's fine. I think it definitely needed that shot in the arm. I like the more jovial tone after NEMESIS felt like a funeral. I just wish the scripts weren't so terrible, which ruined whatever fun the films potentially had (IN MY OPINION, DON'T THROW TOMATOMETERS AT ME!
).
I don't have an issue with the style Trek has adopted with the Abrams films. That's fine. I think it definitely needed that shot in the arm. I like the more jovial tone after NEMESIS felt like a funeral. I just wish the scripts weren't so terrible, which ruined whatever fun the films potentially had (IN MY OPINION, DON'T THROW TOMATOMETERS AT ME!
).
Who is actually asking for Trek to be "not fun"? I think people take that satirical Onion video way too literally, as if there are actually fans out there that say "I hated nuTrek, it was too fun".
I don't have an issue with the style Trek has adopted with the Abrams films. That's fine. I think it definitely needed that shot in the arm. I like the more jovial tone after NEMESIS felt like a funeral. I just wish the scripts weren't so terrible, which ruined whatever fun the films potentially had (IN MY OPINION, DON'T THROW TOMATOMETERS AT ME!
Obviously, fun is about as nebulous a term as what makes a film entertaining-it will vary from person to person. Rather, it is the idea that Abrams somehow violated the Trek world by making more fast paced film than previous incarnations (excluding Nemesis).
I won't say that Abrams films and their stories have their issues, because they do. I just wonder at the attitude towards Abrams Trek being less "Star Trek."
Maybe "fun" isn't the right word (I have no need to reference the Onion piece) but I'm at a lost for the right descriptor. It will probably come to me in the middle of the night (as per usual)
^ Someone I know once described them as "Empty Headed Laser Zap". While I don't entirely agree with that description per se, I do understand what he meant, which was 'something angled towards style over substance'.
I like the Abrams movies, but I'd be lying if I said I don't somewhat agree with that sentiment.
But on the other hand, I don't agree that "style over substance" automatically means it isn't Star Trek... on the contrary, I believe the Abrams movies to be Star Trek at their very core. I think the films have got a lot of heart, which is really the essence of Star Trek. The characters, the universe they inhabit, it all rings true to me. 
I like the Abrams movies, but I'd be lying if I said I don't somewhat agree with that sentiment.
But on the other hand, I don't agree that "style over substance" automatically means it isn't Star Trek... on the contrary, I believe the Abrams movies to be Star Trek at their very core. I think the films have got a lot of heart, which is really the essence of Star Trek. The characters, the universe they inhabit, it all rings true to me.
I think when it comes to the nuTrek films feeling "less" Trek, it probably has to do with something as simple as Spock solving a problem by repeatedly punching Khan until he's unconscious. If it were Kirk doing that, it would have been more fitting (hey, maybe he could have pulled out a metal pipe too, another homage!!!). At least they didn't kill him!
If there's a moment that feels "less Trek" for me, it's probably the ending to ST09 where after Nero is utterly defeated, they decided to just kill him anyway, which Spock approves. Not only do they do that, but they do it with a smug satisfaction on their faces as if they're happy to perform the execution. It just comes off wrong for me for Trek. It's as wrong as when Picard decided to kill the utterly defeated Borg queen.
If there's a moment that feels "less Trek" for me, it's probably the ending to ST09 where after Nero is utterly defeated, they decided to just kill him anyway, which Spock approves. Not only do they do that, but they do it with a smug satisfaction on their faces as if they're happy to perform the execution. It just comes off wrong for me for Trek. It's as wrong as when Picard decided to kill the utterly defeated Borg queen.
Funny, I chalk that up as one of the most Star Trek scenes in the movie. Sure, Spock is (arguably) out-of-character in saying he disapproves of Kirk's notion to offer Nero surrender terms and not just blow Nero's ship out of the sky, but the point of the scene is that it's the moment where James T. Kirk matures, from a wild yob, to a serious-minded starship commander who knows what the Federation is and acts peaceably in accordance with Federation values. He offers Nero the hand of friendship despite everything Nero has done, including destroying Vulcan and killing Kirk's own father. It's Nero himself who throws Kirk's offer back in his face, and by so doing he basically signs his own death warrant.
Compare with the way Kirk handles Khan in the second movie: likewise, he doesn't simply take his orders for granted and use Khan as a pawn, but actually goes down to talk to his prisoner and makes up his own mind about what's really going on. Again, Kirk shows the maturity of a command officer, as some others around him act like warmongers.
Both scenes are, to me, the very opitome of 'Star Trek'.
I liked that Kirk tries to offer Nero help, but that's ruined with the way he goes about killing Nero, "You got it!" It's how flippant it's played out. It suggests he didn't believe in Federation values, it was only for show. When Nero denied help, Kirk showed no hesitation to blow him up. It's a mess.
Compare with the way Kirk handles Khan in the second movie: likewise, he doesn't simply take his orders for granted and use Khan as a pawn, but actually goes down to talk to his prisoner and makes up his own mind about what's really going on. Again, Kirk shows the maturity of a command officer, as some others around him act like warmongers.
Both scenes are, to me, the very opitome of 'Star Trek'.
I like the idea of Kirk deciding to capture Khan instead of killing him as he was ordered. However, I didn't find it dramatically satisfying when he came to that conclusion when having literally gone to warp. I think it would have been more interesting to have him face Khan originally intending to kill him with a phaser in his hand, but then puts it down and decides to do the right thing by capturing him instead of executing him.
But like I said on the previous post, at least they didn't kill Khan! Come to think of it, STID is the first film to NOT have the villain killed at the end.
There is something jarring in that, as well as how dismissive he was revealing the Enterprise from it's underwater hideout at the beginning of STID. One could imagine Picard circa TNG S3-S7 would have ripped the living bejezzus out of Kirk after such an incident. Of course TOP GEAR... (errr... ST: Nemesis) Picard might have been more lenient and given a sly smile and wink to the young captain.
Funny, I chalk that up as one of the most Star Trek scenes in the movie. Sure, Spock is (arguably) out-of-character in saying he disapproves of Kirk's notion to offer Nero surrender terms and not just blow Nero's ship out of the sky, but the point of the scene is that it's the moment where James T. Kirk matures, from a wild yob, to a serious-minded starship commander who knows what the Federation is and acts peaceably in accordance with Federation values. He offers Nero the hand of friendship despite everything Nero has done, including destroying Vulcan and killing Kirk's own father. It's Nero himself who throws Kirk's offer back in his face, and by so doing he basically signs his own death warrant.
Compare with the way Kirk handles Khan in the second movie: likewise, he doesn't simply take his orders for granted and use Khan as a pawn, but actually goes down to talk to his prisoner and makes up his own mind about what's really going on. Again, Kirk shows the maturity of a command officer, as some others around him act like warmongers.
Both scenes are, to me, the very opitome of 'Star Trek'.
I agree.
And I've never seen a convincing argument for why Kirk should do anything but explicitly destroy the Narada after Nero refuses to surrender. It's been proven an extraordinarily dangerous ship, sections of which might survive the black hole—as Kirk knows, based on what he learned from Spock's mind meld, on anything he saw in the Jellyfish, and on what he's known about his father's death since whenever, that's how it time travels in the first place, through red matter activated black holes that look like lightning storms in space.
Last edited:
It has to be at least 500. And with new ones still coming out monthly, it won't be long before the novels eclipse the episode count.
Add to that X-hundred number of comic books... dozens of videogames... thousands of fanfics...
I was fine with that opening in STID because that was at least followed up with Kirk having to face the consequences and I liked that they questioned his sudden promotion to captain, even though they ended up rushing through that whole aspect with Kirk being a cadet/XO/captain within ten minutes. The ultimate goal of that story was to have Kirk grow up, presumably into the refined character we're familiar with in TOS. I don't think they did well on that, but I hope by TREK XIII we're well past all of Kirk's growing pains and closer to the more experienced Kirk of TOS. I'm no longer interested in the "Kirk Begins" arc.
Similar threads
