Of all the various people who I've heard from who dislike the film, I have to say you're among the most level-headed.
I really appreciate you saying so. Though I do get frustrated sometimes myself, and can get defensive, I'm trying to foster the mentality that there can be intelligent, thought-provoking discussions with people who didn't like the movie. If I may say so, it seems to me that a lot of proponents of the movie act like anytime someone makes a statement against the movie (no matter how intelligent or polite), that it's just a troll. I'm trying to show that having people on both sides of the issue can actually be beneficial to the overall discourse of this board, as long as people on both side can be polite.
That said, it's more of a distant dream, as I usually get caught up in the petty bickering myself. It makes me happy that you feel I've somewhat achieved my objective in this case.
That someone doesn't like the film is fine with me, but I get bothered when they express their opinion venomously, or come across as judgmental of those who liked the film, or just can't seem to stop talking about their dislike. We get it, move on, y'know?
Yeah, I know what you mean. I get bothered by those people, too, because they poison the well for people like me (and, I would say,
kkozoriz1), who want to discuss the pros and cons of the movie in a civilized, intellectual way.
I've had the same problem with a few Janeway fans who, even when I grant that they may have the right idea and I may be wrong, won't grant me the same concession. One claimed that they've come to feel so persecuted that they're unwilling to yield at this point...but to me that just damages their credibility.
I must say, I know how they feel about persecution. There are people who definitely think that anyone who doesn't like the movie only feels that way because they made a deliberate choice to hate it before ever seeing a moment of footage (which is, of course, not true). But still, if I can't learn anything from these discussions myself, then they're not worth the time. And I have learned a lot already, and have conceded points along the way.
Frankly I'm sorry you didn't like the film more.
Me too. My life as a Trek fan would be more enjoyable if I'd been able to like the film.
I hope you're at least open to the possibility that the sequel may be more to your tastes.
I certainly am. I'm trying not to get extremely hopeful, to hedge against disappointment, but if they make Kirk's attitude a little more toward what I consider heroic, there's a very good chance that I'll be able to enjoy it.
I'll freely admit that for the bulk of the film Kirk comes across as a belligerent ass, though not completely without reason. Happily I find it amusingly snarky rather than utterly annoying and irredeemable.
I'm kinda sensitive about my heroes acting heroic (especially one as big for me as Kirk), so for me it was more depressing than amusing.
I thought the changes they made to Sherlock Holmes were amusing (of course, they were supposed to be), but I'm afraid I couldn't see this that way.
If the consensus is that PrimeKirk's resolution of the KM scenario was non-violent...I'm not sure I would concur...
Well, what I meant by "consensus," is that the depiction of the KM (where Kirk changes the simulator to have the Klingons respect and fear him) was put forth in Julia Ecklar's novel,
The Kobayashi Maru, and then echoed in an issue of the DC Star Trek comic, and the Starfleet Academy computer game. So, it's the consensus in that it's the one that's been most often used in official (but non-canon) materials.
I doubt the average viewer (or me, really) thought too much about NuKirk's blowing up of the ships, because in the end they are just simulations, Kirk's contempt of the entire situation is obvious, and...his actions just don't seem meant to be taken very seriously here, or be indicative of how he'd act if the scenario was real. Remember at the time under ordinary circumstances he'd still be years away from sitting in that chair.
True, they were only simulations. But I think that if the instructors couldn't give the cadets an appreciation for treating the simulations like real life, they probably wouldn't bother putting that cadet in the simulator. That's purely my opinion, but I think that logically, it wouldn't make much sense to have such elaborate simulations for people who weren't gonna take them seriously.
Anywho, you're not being a downer and I greatly appreciate your curiosity. It's a hell of a lot better than some of the single-minded negativity and apparent unwillingness to moderate their opinions that some users have exhibited.
Well, thanks again, but can I offer one more negative opinion? This is purely subjective, of course, but I thought that the Ecklar version was simply more creative. It gave Kirk a certain panache that nuKirk just hasn't exhibited. I do hold out hope that that can be developed in later films, but it was one more thing that I miss from Prime Kirk. (YMMV, of course.)
In this movie the moral is, it doesn't matter if you work hard and bring people together as a team. The only one that matters is James T. Kirk. He who doesn't have to follow any rules at all.
I have to agree with this. It did seem like the movie was making the statement that "James T. Kirk is always right, period." To me, that makes it too easy for him.
And Kirk pushed the situation to his advantage. He deliberately provoked the commanding officer of his vessel. Kirk should have had McCoy declare Spock unfit for duty under 619 if he felt he was unable to command. No hearing necessary at that time. That would come later.
Well, if it works the same way is it did in "The Doomsday Machine," McCoy would've had to produce medical records proving his claim (which would require an actual psychological evaluation).
Putting Kirk off the ship in an escape pod onto a planet with a hostile environment and dangerous animals isn't acting stupid? Why did he do it? Because that's there Spock Prime and Scotty were and Kirk had to meet them. Spock was apparently just hanging out in a cave until Kirk showed up for some reason. He knew about the Starfleet base. he just waited until Kirk showed up to go there.
I must say, I felt that this was the weakest part of the movie. I believe in the novelization, Alan Dean Foster excuses it by saying the timeline was trying to right itself, but that doesn't work for me. If the timeline was trying to right itself, it should be doing stuff a lot more drastic than having Old Spock in a cave where Kirk's gonna end up.
However, I do understand why Spock Prime didn't go to the star base right away. If he had, then Scotty would have thought that Spock was his relief. Pay careful attention on his reaction the next time you see the movie again.
But would Spock have known that?
I've said before I don't have any trouble suspending my disbelief and accepting the coincidences. To me it's just the same as the TOS, DS9 and ENT mirror crews all getting together somehow or any other Trek silliness. We obviously disagree there.
But I bet if they tried to dramatize
how those mirror crews got together, it would end up looking pretty ridiculous. Some things are better left to the imagination (things that take massive shoehorning and coincidences to explain).
A character acting weak to make Kirk look good? Harriman in Generations.
Good point, but don't most people offer that as one of many reasons that GEN wasn't a good movie?
I just did, twice. I'm not trying to be snarky by saying that, but I did greatly appreciate it, so I might be a bit impassioned about my remarks...
Kirk's a selfish jerk in that,
I don't think that's quite fair. He is selfish, in that he wants to be back in command of a ship, but it's also true that he's the man best equipped for the job. (It's interesting that in the original draft, Admiral Nogura convinces
him to come away from the desk. However, that wouldn't have fit with the theme of the various people getting that one thing they're desperately seeking.) Even though he makes some foul-ups not knowing the refit, he's still ultimately known for being able to think on his feet, and adapt to situations. Which is what he did with V'Ger and the Ilia-Probe, and something Decker, a green Captain, probably wouldn't have been able to do.
...with far less immediate danger driving his actions.
I don't understand. Nero was gonna destroy Earth, V'ger was gonna wipe out all life on Earth. True, V'ger took slightly longer, but I think it was still rather imminent.
He gets his ship back, demoting her captain because he can (despite his massive unfamiliarity with the rebuild), he gets McCoy forcably re-enlisted because he can when Dr. Chapel could do everything Bones does in that movie...
I disagree. He needed McCoy there as a counselor, not as a doctor. And McCoy served the function invaluably, helping to figure out the psychology of V'ger (as well as keeping Jim in check as he began to drift toward obsession with command).
And I know this is a deleted scene, but it was in the DE, so I think it counts. When Kirk tells McCoy that he was the one that drafted him, and then says "I need you," and offers his hand, I interpret that as a tacit
request for McCoy to come back. If McCoy hadn't taken it, my opinion is that Kirk would've let him go back to his little mountain retreat. McCoy came willingly, because he saw that he was needed.
Chekov operated the transporter because he was better at it than anyone else. What more reason do you need??
I'd like a reason why transporter operators weren't better at operating a transporter than a navigator was. True, supplemental materials say he cross-trained, but somebody who's actually worked in the field should still be better, especially at something so non-standard. To me, it makes the transporter operators look completely worthless.
TOS, ENT and Voyager sent their senior staff on away missions all the time. It doesn't make sense, but it's true to Star Trek.
Agreed.
.
