Spoilers Starfleet Academy General Discussion Thread

[cooleddie74]

I like two of the three Kelvin Timeline films and The Force Awakens, but yeah, it's a complete crapshoot if his projects will be good.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Samuel Cockings doesn't have the upper body strength to swat a fly. Who gives a shit what he thinks.

Direct hit!

 

[BillJ]

Now, having a character flip flop on morals & ethics is not new to Trek either. Take Spock in S1. He is all about terminating with extreme prejudice at some points (the salt vampre in Man Trap and Mitchell in WNMHGB), but has done a 180 by Gallileo Seven. Kirk offers help to disabled enemies (Corbomite Manuever, Ballance of Terror, Arena) and even lets Khan go in Space Seed. But threatens to have Scotty destroy the whole planet in Taste of Armageddon. Maybe a bluff, though.

Because different situations have differing answers. Just watched "The Man Trap" a couple of hours ago. Nancy Crater took the best Spock could give and then attacked Kirk, after killing four Enterprise crewmembers. McCoy did the right thing destroying it.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

lol lol today on abc the view mentioned star trek starfleet acaedmy and how elon musk and steven miller tweeted about the show being woke

 

[cooleddie74]

Because different situations have differing answers. Just watched "The Man Trap" a couple of hours ago. Nancy Crater took the best Spock could give and then attacked Kirk, after killing four Enterprise crewmembers. McCoy did the right thing destroying it.

The M-113 creature's destruction was entirely justified. Even Kirk earlier in the episode tells Crater that he "bleeds" too much and is too soft about the creature's survival, and while that can be chalked up to it being only the sixth episode of Star Trek ever filmed and the very first ever aired (Kirk's character has yet to become the master of both fisticuffs and peaceful negotiation that he will one day attain) it still works in-story. Kirk's ship and crew are being threatened by a shapeshifting alien that will kill anyone it can to sustain its own life.

McCoy was right to fire and Kirk wasn't wrong about Professor Crater being a soft touch in the face of life-threatening dangers.

 

[I am not Spock]

Fucks given = 0

ETA: in fact, in honor of Samuel Cockings, I will add Section 31 to that list of stuff I'd rather watch before Voyager.

trekyards actually seem pretty positive about SFA so far, though, surprisingly

 

[thribs]

Do you think we will see the ECH on the show?

 

[thribs]

trekyards actually seem pretty positive about SFA so far, though, surprisingly

They have never been that negative to nuTrek, compared to other sites

 

[Turtletrekker]

lol lol today on abc the view mentioned star trek starfleet acaedmy and how elon musk and steven miller tweeted about the show being woke

So, it's Star Trek?

 

[Farscape One]

I was not saying it was unprecedented. I am just saying it isn't terribly consistent or well written aspect to the character. And the plot generally.

1) This is a character who resigned from Starfleet because they seperated a child from her criminal mom and is held up as an example to rerurning SFA to it's pre-Burn roots, and then you have her openly lamenting not being able to beam the intruders into space (despite the fact they could have destroyed her ship but didn't) and then blows them away without hesitation. You'd think she'd have either gone for targeting their weapons or power first.

But if they are so dangerous they merit a "terminate with prejudice" route, then why let Nus Braka just float away? It does not make any sense in either direction.

Now, having a character flip flop on morals & ethics is not new to Trek either. Take Spock in S1. He is all about terminating with extreme prejudice at some points (the salt vampre in Man Trap and Mitchell in WNMHGB), but has done a 180 by Gallileo Seven. Kirk offers help to disabled enemies (Corbomite Manuever, Ballance of Terror, Arena) and even lets Khan go in Space Seed. But threatens to have Scotty destroy the whole planet in Taste of Armageddon. Maybe a bluff, though.

I am not critical here because it is unprecedented, but because I didn't like it. Especially in situations where it does not appear absolutely necessary (Man Trap, SFA). Did not like it then, do not like it now. And in this case, appears contradictory to the character.

Now, in Gallileo Seven, Spock should have protected the crew first.

It does not mean the show is doomed or anything. But it was not a particularly good start IMHO.

I thought the 2nd ep was better and had less cringe.

How was it unjustified to kill the Salt Vampire?

It had:

Killed 4 crewmen
Impersonated multiple officers (Green, McCoy, imagined crewman for Uhura)
Killed Crater
Took a beating from Spock but was unaffected
Nearly killed Kirk

And killing it took more than one phaser hit. It was a clear danger to everyone.

 

[Starflight]

FWIW, the original draft of the script apparently placed a lot more moral weight on the creature and the act of taking its life; Roddenberry did a rewrite to make it a more straight-up monster movie type thing.

In Johnson and Black's script version of 13 June 1966, the moral dilemma of killing 'the last of its kind' had been more pronounced, with the creature, disguised as McCoy, trying to reason with the crew. Also in that version, Professor Crater lives in the end, mourning the loss of the creature. Gene Roddenberry's rewrite for the final draft toned down the emotional aspects of the McCoy relationship in favor of a more straightforward plot: as a cornered animal, the salt creature panics and actually kills its longtime companion, Professor Crater. (These Are the Voyages: TOS Season One, 1st. ed., pp. 169-170)

 

[Nerys Myk]

lol lol today on abc the view mentioned star trek starfleet acaedmy and how elon musk and steven miller tweeted about the show being woke

I for one am shocked to find woke in Star Trek! SHOCKED!

 

[Farscape One]

We can only go by what was actually shown on screen. Not an original draft version of a script that was never filmed.

 

[cooleddie74]

Trek is more woke than a late night gamer on their sixth cup of coffee.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Trek is more woke than a late night gamer on their sixth cup of coffee.

I thought you guys were all about the energy drinks?

 

[Starflight]

We can only go by what was actually shown on screen. Not an original draft version of a script that was never filmed.

True, though the part that always stands out as odd to me is that Roddenberry actually left the scene of the vampire trying to reason with them in:

VAMPIRE (as McCoy): Well, we could offer it salt without tricks. There's no reason for it to attack us.
SPOCK: Your attitude is laudable, Doctor, but your reasoning is reckless.
CRATER: The creature is not dangerous when fed.
VAMPIRE (as McCoy): No, it's simply trying to survive by using its natural ability to take other forms.
CRATER: The way the chameleon uses its protective colouring, an ability retained no doubt from its primitive state, the way we have retained our incisor teeth. They were once fangs. Certain of our muscles were designed for chase. It uses its ability the way we would use our muscles and teeth if necessary, to stay alive.
VAMPIRE (as McCoy): And like us, it's an intelligent animal. There's no need to hunt it down.

Dunno if it was a hasty half-arsed rewrite or if Kirk's unsympathetic reply was meant to show him as a tough guy, but either way, I'm guessing that's why some might describe the killing of the vampire as not strictly necessary - it offered them a way to help it (though, due to plot convolutions, it then forces them to kill it anyway by just dropping its disguise, murdering Crater, and attacking Kirk in plain sight for no real reason).

Though it did give us the scene in which Spock decides the best way to demonstrate that it's not Nancy is to start repeatedly battering it in the face, which is one of the funniest scenes in Star Trek, so it all works out.

 

[cooleddie74]

I thought you guys were all about the energy drinks?

They need me to do ads for them and I don't even drink them. You don't reach my post count in this dump unless you know how to stay awake after Midnight.

 

[StarTrek1701]

And really, if they had followed Abrams's wishes, it would have meant effectively erasing 1966-2005 Star Trek altogether and focusing exclusively on his own productions.

That was the first plan. To rejuvinate Star Trek and make it more accessible to new fans whilst satisfying classic fans in a respectable way.
They could have done a whole-ass reboot like BSG and not a legacy reboot by respecting what came before.
Classic Trek wouldn't go anywhere because nobody can actually erase it. It'd still be there.

If Kurtzman suggested such a thing, everyone would riot in protest. Indeed, the Abrams Grand Plan means such a thing as Picard S3 could never happen, because it's attached to Star Trek which is no longer being acknowledged. Is this really the direction you wanted the franchise to take? I mean, really?.

Picard S3 was a complete reset and why /how they did it I have no clue.
Paramount balked at the new plan and here we are arguing about our favorite franchise while it's on it's last breath.

 

[BillJ]

…and here we are arguing about our favorite franchise while it's on it's last breath.

I’ve been on multiple “last breaths” over 54 years. I seriously doubt it is going anywhere.

 

[cooleddie74]

ENT and NEM were supposed to be the death knells.

Surprise.