The Line Must Be Drawn Here!

[Mudd]

Why would you assume that, of all things?

Harrison is out to punish Starfleet, including Marcus. We see exactly what happens, and why - in fact, Kirk figures it out before it happens.

There's nothing in the movie suggesting that Marcus is behind it.

You can make up a story that Marcus for some reason wants to off a bunch of high-ranking Starfleet officers in order to consolidate his power or something - but that doesn't make any logical sense, and there's nothing in the story to hang that on.

Further, there's no indication whatever that Marcus attempts to hide the communication later -

In fact he doesn't, Marcus tells everybody about the message during the briefing. In fact the message seems to fall into Khan's plan to get Marcus out into the relative open and kill him.

True.

 

[-Brett-]

Speaking of evil government conspiracies . . . didn't they do that same plot in Season Four of Enterprise? With the corrupt Vulcan prime minister faking a terrorist attack in order to justify a preemptive war against Andoria?

No one saw this. There was a reason the show was being cancelled, after all.

 

[Mudd]

DS9 had all that suck about Section 31 going on...

 

[fireproof78]

Not just Section 31, but the whole martial law thing with "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" two parter. Also, even TNG took it on with "The Pegasus."

 

[JWPlatt]

Again its the claim that TOS was create to "inspire" not that it has inspired.

I'm not a fan of the "Church of Roddenberry" segment of fandom and will take the wind out of their sails in any forum.

That's reasonable but it's definitely not the vibe I get. What I see here is anytime someone remarks that Star Trek is inspirational they get ripped apart. Including people saying things like "people shouldn't be inspired by fictional stories." I'll just have to disagree and I'm sure the writers and actors who worked on the shows would disagree with that. Including the people behind nuTrek, probably. I can't imagine they could operate so cynically.

Thanks. You're my first "+1."

However, and you might agree, what I wrote did not claim Star Trek was "created to inspire people." I only said that it did inspire people. And somehow, on this Star Trek fan site, that is looked down upon by the majority of vocal responses. If "created to inspire" was used in response to what I wrote, it was hyperbole and mistakenly used to discredit the point about people finding inspiration in Star Trek. Something can be inspirational even if it was not designed to be so, and it becomes meaningful. It is like so many heroic acts that are not designed or intended, but are inspirational when they happen. I don't understand why fans of Star Trek here want to knock down the stories of inspiration from other fans - like so much denial of the Apollo lunar landings; it was once true, but not now in the minds of some.

One part of cynicism is the distrust of human sincerity or integrity. Robbing fans with disbelief of what they find meaningful and inspirational by trivializing with flippant remarks what Star Trek has meant to so many productive members of our society who have contributed to the knowledge and success of our species, I think, is beyond the pale.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Again its the claim that TOS was create to "inspire" not that it has inspired.

I'm not a fan of the "Church of Roddenberry" segment of fandom and will take the wind out of their sails in any forum.

That's reasonable but it's definitely not the vibe I get. What I see here is anytime someone remarks that Star Trek is inspirational they get ripped apart. Including people saying things like "people shouldn't be inspired by fictional stories." I'll just have to disagree and I'm sure the writers and actors who worked on the shows would disagree with that. Including the people behind nuTrek, probably. I can't imagine they could operate so cynically.

Thanks. You're my first "+1."

However, and you might agree, what I wrote did not claim Star Trek was "created to inspire people." I only said that it did inspire people. And somehow, on this Star Trek fan site, that is looked down upon by the majority of vocal responses. If "created to inspire" was used in response to what I wrote, it was hyperbole and mistakenly used to discredit the point about people finding inspiration in Star Trek. Something can be inspirational even if it was not designed to be so, and it becomes meaningful. It is like so many heroic acts that are not designed or intended, but are inspirational when they happen. I don't understand why fans of Star Trek here want to knock down the stories of inspiration from other fans - like so much denial of the Apollo lunar landings; it was once true, but not now in the minds of some.

One part of cynicism is the distrust of human sincerity or integrity. Robbing fans with disbelief of what they find meaningful and inspirational by trivializing with flippant remarks what Star Trek has meant to so many productive members of our society who have contributed to the knowledge and success of our species, I think, is beyond the pale.

Since you aren't the one saying the show was created to inspire,my original comment wasn't directed at you. And I never disputed that the show has inspired people. Hey, even inspired me when I was young.

 

[fireproof78]

Again its the claim that TOS was create to "inspire" not that it has inspired.

I'm not a fan of the "Church of Roddenberry" segment of fandom and will take the wind out of their sails in any forum.

That's reasonable but it's definitely not the vibe I get. What I see here is anytime someone remarks that Star Trek is inspirational they get ripped apart. Including people saying things like "people shouldn't be inspired by fictional stories." I'll just have to disagree and I'm sure the writers and actors who worked on the shows would disagree with that. Including the people behind nuTrek, probably. I can't imagine they could operate so cynically.

Thanks. You're my first "+1."

However, and you might agree, what I wrote did not claim Star Trek was "created to inspire people." I only said that it did inspire people. And somehow, on this Star Trek fan site, that is looked down upon by the majority of vocal responses. If "created to inspire" was used in response to what I wrote, it was hyperbole and mistakenly used to discredit the point about people finding inspiration in Star Trek. Something can be inspirational even if it was not designed to be so, and it becomes meaningful. It is like so many heroic acts that are not designed or intended, but are inspirational when they happen. I don't understand why fans of Star Trek here want to knock down the stories of inspiration from other fans - like so much denial of the Apollo lunar landings; it was once true, but not now in the minds of some.

One part of cynicism is the distrust of human sincerity or integrity. Robbing fans with disbelief of what they find meaningful and inspirational by trivializing with flippant remarks what Star Trek has meant to so many productive members of our society who have contributed to the knowledge and success of our species, I think, is beyond the pale.

For my part, I don't knock any one's inspiration. My question is, why does Abrams Trek get removed from the discussion as being inspirational?

I'll never deny that Star Trek inspires-far from it. It was my start in to science fiction. However, as far as Abrams Trek is concerned, when inspiration is discussed, it is removed from the discussion, as if it is not worthy to be mentioned as inspirational.

That argument does not set well with me. If Star Trek can be all inspirational, than Abrams Trek can be just as inspirational as the rest.

 

[JWPlatt]

For my part, I don't knock any one's inspiration. My question is, why does Abrams Trek get removed from the discussion as being inspirational?

I'll never deny that Star Trek inspires-far from it. It was my start in to science fiction. However, as far as Abrams Trek is concerned, when inspiration is discussed, it is removed from the discussion, as if it is not worthy to be mentioned as inspirational.

That argument does not set well with me. If Star Trek can be all inspirational, than Abrams Trek can be just as inspirational as the rest.

I've tended to discount the Abramsverse for not having as much meaning to me as the Prime Universe; the one we live in, as I claim for myself.

But I have to agree with your point here. And others have said the same thing as you. If others find benevolent inspiration in what they enjoy, I should find the joy with them. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Ryan8bit]

For me, the best kind of art is the kind that inspires. The kind that motivates me myself to create something. It doesn't have to be a cure for cancer, it could just be making a little sketch. It's not something objective either. And I think it would be the hope of some artists to inspire, not to just create mindless entertainment. Entertainment can't just be reduced to seeing pretty pictures and action (despite that this is what some movies are).

In some ways to me, Abrams' Trek is inspirational, but in different ways than some of the TV shows were.

And yeah, I don't see the 9-11 truther aspect either. If anything, it was about the motivations of the higher-ups in the American government post 9-11, which isn't really much of a conspiracy.

 

[fireproof78]

For my part, I don't knock any one's inspiration. My question is, why does Abrams Trek get removed from the discussion as being inspirational?

I'll never deny that Star Trek inspires-far from it. It was my start in to science fiction. However, as far as Abrams Trek is concerned, when inspiration is discussed, it is removed from the discussion, as if it is not worthy to be mentioned as inspirational.

That argument does not set well with me. If Star Trek can be all inspirational, than Abrams Trek can be just as inspirational as the rest.

I've tended to discount the Abramsverse for not having as much meaning to me as the Prime Universe; the one we live in, as I claim for myself.

But I have to agree with your point here. And others have said the same thing as you. If others find benevolent inspiration in what they enjoy, I should find the joy with them. Thanks for reminding me.

No trouble

 

[Greg Cox]

The problem with internet debates is that they tend to push people to stake out extreme, one-way-or-another positions in response to previous posts, with each side digging in and refusing to budge. (Lord knows I've fallen victim to this myself on occasion.) So you get arguments like:

"It's all about the inspiration!"

"Nah, it's just a TV show!"

"It's all about the message!"

"Nah, it's all about the money!"

"I don't care about any of that! I just wanted to be entertained!"

"No, Star Trek is not about mere entertainment! It's a utopian blueprint for the future!"

"Well, let's not get carried away now . . . ."

Exaggerated positions provoke an exaggerated backlash, and so on. Whereas, in reality, and to varying degrees, Star Trek can be entertaining and inspirational and a business venture and a floor wax and a dessert topping all at the same time.

 

[martok2112]

The problem with internet debates is that they tend to push people to stake out extreme, one-way-or-another positions in response to previous posts, with each side digging in and refusing to budge. (Lord knows I've fallen victim to this myself on occasion.) So you get arguments like:

"It's all about the inspiration!"

"Nah, it's just a TV show!"

"It's all about the message!"

"Nah, it's all about the money!"

"I don't care about any of that! I just wanted to be entertained!"

"No, Star Trek is not about mere entertainment! It's a utopian blueprint for the future!"

"Well, let's not get carried away now . . . ."

Exaggerated positions provoke an exaggerated backlash, and so on. Whereas, in reality, and to varying degrees, Star Trek can be entertaining and inspirational and a business venture and a floor wax and a dessert topping all at the same time.

Gandhi could not have said it better.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Reverse reactor death scene. It wasn't bad because Pine was great in it, but I wish they would have done something different. It was just the biggest in your face fanservice scene in STID.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The problem with internet debates is that they tend to push people to stake out extreme, one-way-or-another positions in response to previous posts, with each side digging in and refusing to budge. (Lord knows I've fallen victim to this myself on occasion.) So you get arguments like:

"It's all about the inspiration!"

"Nah, it's just a TV show!"

"It's all about the message!"

"Nah, it's all about the money!"

"I don't care about any of that! I just wanted to be entertained!"

"No, Star Trek is not about mere entertainment! It's a utopian blueprint for the future!"

"Well, let's not get carried away now . . . ."

Exaggerated positions provoke an exaggerated backlash, and so on. Whereas, in reality, and to varying degrees, Star Trek can be entertaining and inspirational and a business venture and a floor wax and a dessert topping all at the same time.

But wait... there's more!™

 

[IrishNero]

First, I have loved the new movies for the most part. The actors are overall excellent in their portrayals; particularly Karl Urban and Zack Quinto. I don't even mind the Abramesque lens flares as long as I'm not looking for them. However, I don't feel these the movies advance the genre as a whole. So far, the storyline seems to be secondary to the numerous action sequences and effects. There is no character development. To me, it seems they are just mimicking the original series in terms of who the characters are. I guess you get a little hamstrung when you marry to the original series' characters. But I'm sure they knew that going in. They haven't helped that any by drawing upon previous movies for inspiration. I'm glad to learn that they are finally going on the 5-year mission in the next installment because they seem to be tethered to Earth so far. I'd be interested in knowing how long the current set of actors are planning to stay involved though. It seems that I the current Hollywood environment, actors get restless after about 3 movies. It will be interesting to see how long this group will want to continue Trekking...

Anyway, for some reason, I've not been able to get into these movies as I have with previous Trek iterations. Because of the lack of character development, the whole crew seems paper-thin.

 

[IrishNero]

The problem with internet debates is that they tend to push people to stake out extreme, one-way-or-another positions in response to previous posts, with each side digging in and refusing to budge. (Lord knows I've fallen victim to this myself on occasion.) So you get arguments like:

"It's all about the inspiration!"

"Nah, it's just a TV show!"

"It's all about the message!"

"Nah, it's all about the money!"

"I don't care about any of that! I just wanted to be entertained!"

"No, Star Trek is not about mere entertainment! It's a utopian blueprint for the future!"

"Well, let's not get carried away now . . . ."

Exaggerated positions provoke an exaggerated backlash, and so on. Whereas, in reality, and to varying degrees, Star Trek can be entertaining and inspirational and a business venture and a floor wax and a dessert topping all at the same time.

 

[Horizons96]

Not just Section 31, but the whole martial law thing with "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" two parter.

Homefront & Paradise Lost is an almost synchronistic and premonitory commentary on a revisionist's 9/11: a rogue element within Starfleet organizes a false-flag attack in order to force the hand of policy makers and frighten the population, ensuring changes to policy both on the domestic and interstellar fronts / affecting both civil liberties, and also increased military readiness (along with expenditure) with a more offensive strategy.

Worf's spoken timecode when reviewing the security camera footage from the Antwerp Conference, at the beginning of Homefront, is the icing on the synchronicity cake.

I'm sure it will be argued that Admiral Lleyton and his cohorts were acting independently for the greater good...

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

^I think it's a bit far fetched.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I don't think Leyton was Section 31. He was too blatant about his plans for taking over the Federation. Not even S31 would be that sloppy.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

^ I don't think Leyton was Section 31. He was too blatant about his plans for taking over the Federation. Not even S31 would be that sloppy.

Section 31 had been one hundred percent successful at hiding itself from the public for more than two hundred years.