The Line Must Be Drawn Here!

[Mountie1988]

For all of you who anticipated the new movies with an open heart - and only you - what was the point that disappointed you most?

Me personally, I like the actors, the design work, but not all those 9/11 conspiracy secret Vengeance stuff

 

[M'Sharak]

... all those 9/11 conspiracy secret Vengeance stuff

That's a bit vague. Do you suppose you'd be able to elaborate - i.e., to which "secret Vengeance stuff," specifically, do you refer, and what, specifically, has that to do with 9/11 or 9/11 conspiracy theory?

If you're going to raise outside politics in this forum, you want to first be sure that you can present a case for doing so. To do that, you need to tie specific real-world events and details to specific elements of the Trek story as it was depicted on the screen. Without that connection, the topic of 9/11 anything is out of place here.

 

[Mountie1988]

Gladly. I'm reluctant though to start a political discussion.

All Star Trek stories, no matter how fantastic, are about characters whose behavior and motivation are grounded in the real world. Longing for revenge, seeking god, assassinating political leaders to sabotage peace talks, relocating native people to harvest their land's ressources, we find that all in history and today's society. Now, Marcus' plan to sabotage Enterprise and sacrifize her to justify a war, that's like a Navy admiral sinking his own aircraft carrier to provoke a war with China. He would need this vessel in said war, especially after recently losing a whole fleet of eight ships the previous year. Plus, I doubt that such a corrupt admiral can be found in any democratically legitimated military. These people feel responsible and care for their subordinates.

9/11 truthers - like STID's screenwriters - believe that Bush blew up the WTC to justify a war against terror. If he really wanted so he would have found a more appropriate way than killing 3000 innocents and crippling the economy - that's common sense. Even Hitler knew better. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
The premise of STID though is basically a nod to the 9/11 conspiracy. From unscrupulous leaders to collapsing skyscrapers.

The same escapism from reality can be seen in their interpretation of Section 31. In the original universe it was a powerful but secretive organisation. They knew how to efficiently achieve their goals by doing what was forbidden for all other Federation personnel while staying undetected.. Now they are... SHIELD from MARVEL. Limitless funds, better equipped than any other organization. Yet nobody is aware. What's the price tag for the latest Ford-class carrier? 13 billion? How to you get four times that amount passed in Congress for your flying carrier without letting them know?

And don't get me started on Vengeance. There have always been ambitious projects in Trek - Excelsior, Genesis for instance. And they failed, like in our world projects might hit a wall. But not our beloved 'three times the speed Dreadnought', built over night. Behind Jupiter. Where no one gonna find it.
NuTrek is not SciFi, it's comic book fantasy. Because it sells better they think. Here's where I draw the line.

 

[Relayer1]

I don't like the design, the cast (excepting Karl Urban) or the plots/writing.

I can watch the films (and have done) for superficial entertainment. They're fun while you're in the cinema, but they're just junk food.

I like Simon Pegg, even if he is a crap Scotty, and have hopes that the third movie will be better with him writing it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Gladly. I'm reluctant though to start a political discussion.

All Star Trek stories, no matter how fantastic, are about characters whose behavior and motivation are grounded in the real world. Longing for revenge, seeking god, assassinating political leaders to sabotage peace talks, relocating native people to harvest their land's ressources, we find that all in history and today's society. Now, Marcus' plan to sabotage Enterprise and sacrifize her to justify a war, that's like a Navy admiral sinking his own aircraft carrier to provoke a war with China. He would need this vessel in said war, especially after recently losing a whole fleet of eight ships the previous year. Plus, I doubt that such a corrupt admiral can be found in any democratically legitimated military. These people feel responsible and care for their subordinates.

9/11 truthers - like STID's screenwriters - believe that Bush blew up the WTC to justify a war against terror. If he really wanted so he would have found a more appropriate way than killing 3000 innocents and crippling the economy - that's common sense. Even Hitler knew better. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
The premise of STID though is basically a nod to the 9/11 conspiracy. From unscrupulous leaders to collapsing skyscrapers.

The same escapism from reality can be seen in their interpretation of Section 31. In the original universe it was a powerful but secretive organisation. They knew how to efficiently achieve their goals by doing what was forbidden for all other Federation personnel while staying undetected.. Now they are... SHIELD from MARVEL. Limitless funds, better equipped than any other organization. Yet nobody is aware. What's the price tag for the latest Ford-class carrier? 13 billion? How to you get four times that amount passed in Congress for your flying carrier without letting them know?

And don't get me started on Vengeance. There have always been ambitious projects in Trek - Excelsior, Genesis for instance. And they failed, like in our world projects might hit a wall. But not our beloved 'three times the speed Dreadnought', built over night. Behind Jupiter. Where no one gonna find it.
NuTrek is not SciFi, it's comic book fantasy. Because it sells better they think. Here's where I draw the line.

Since Khan was rogue, and the Vengeance crash was in no way planned by Admiral Marcus, I fail to see how the movie works as a "truther" allegory at all.

 

[Mountie1988]

^ sabotaging Enterprise and sacrifizing its crew of 1100 is the allegory to the 9/11 conspiracy. Flying starships into skyscrapers is just a broad hint for everyone who hasn't got yet what this movie is about.

I'd like to emphasize it again: I don't hate JJ, NuSpock, nor the 2009 movie or the size of the new ship. It's only the out-of-common-sense-storytelling that disappoints me.

 

[Mudd]

Star Trek is "escapism from reality."

Nothing in the new movies disappointed me. I like them.

STID isn't a 9/11 conspiracy movie. It is, in the best Trek tradition, a comment on how badly the American government has behaved since 9/11.

 

[BillJ]

They're fun while you're in the cinema...

Isn't that the whole point of going?

Star Trek is "escapism from reality."

Nothing in the new movies disappointed me. I like them.

STID isn't a 9/11 conspiracy movie. It is, in the best Trek tradition, a comment on how badly the American government has behaved since 9/11.

+1

 

[fonzob1]

NuKhan

 

[NewHorizon]

I fully embraced the new movies when I heard about that, despite my dislike of the Enterprise design.

Trek 2009 was a fun movie, it had heart. I looked beyond some of the weaknesses, assuming they were due to the writers strike not allowing some final tweaks here and there.

The writers of the last two movies have ideas that are good on paper, but I find everything from the execution to the words coming out of the characters mouths below average. I can tell that they are trying to write good dialogue in Trek 2009 and STID but I don't think it's a strength these guys really have. The come up with some gorgeous set pieces, but in the end I don't come out of the movie feeling satisfied.

Anyway, Trek 2009 gave me hope that the next movie would be better but Trek 2013 did none of the things for me that 2009 did.

 

[Dukhat]

For all of you who anticipated the new movies with an open heart - and only you - what was the point that disappointed you most?

I love the new movies and think that they've completely reinvigorated something that was pretty much dead after the turn of the century.

But if I had to choose one thing that disappointed me the most, it would have to be the design of the new Enterprise. I absolutely freaking hate it. It looks incredibly disproportional to me, with the unnecessarily huge nacelles, slanted back neck, a saucer design straight out of TMP, and a secondary hull that's too big in the front and too small at the rear. I know this isn't the case, but it almost looks like each part of the ship was designed by a different person with no knowledge of how the other parts were going to look, and then was just haphazardly thrown together.

 

[JWPlatt]

The 9/11 truther debate's relevance, in relation to the story of STID, is dependent upon whether Orci, according only to rumor so far as I've read, is sympathetic enough to the theory to promote its inclusion in a serious way without sarcasm or satire. I remain skeptical because I have not been shown a primary source on that particular and pernicious rumor. Got one? And such rumors sound to me an awful lot like, "Are you now or have you ever been a Truther?" and motivated simply out of dislike for the story.

 

[Franklin]

They're fun while you're in the cinema...

Isn't that the whole point of going?

+1

Star Trek is "escapism from reality."

Nothing in the new movies disappointed me. I like them.

STID isn't a 9/11 conspiracy movie. It is, in the best Trek tradition, a comment on how badly the American government has behaved since 9/11.

Again, +1

STID has nothing to do with 9/11. If anything the "9/11 event" in the two movies was the destruction of Vulcan, and that's a stretched comparison. STID shows Marcus's response to that event.

If anything, Marcus's plan to start a war with the Klingons by "sacrificing" the Enterprise is directly comparable to the sinking of the Maine as an excuse to go to war with Spain, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led to Congress giving President Johnson pretty much a free hand in Vietnam. It gives him the last piece of the puzzle, an incident around which to arouse public opinion in favor of war. "Remember the Enterprise!"

 

[bbailey861]

They're fun while you're in the cinema...

Isn't that the whole point of going?

Star Trek is "escapism from reality."

Nothing in the new movies disappointed me. I like them.

STID isn't a 9/11 conspiracy movie. It is, in the best Trek tradition, a comment on how badly the American government has behaved since 9/11.

+1

+2.

To answer the question, no, the movie was not a disappointment at all and we just finished watching it again last night. The one thing I would have done differently, though, would be to have Spock, through gritted teeth and seething anger, growl "Khan" instead of yelling it. That's it, that's all. Oh, and maybe a longer bar scene with Scotty and Keenser. I loved that scene!!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If there are any political messages in these films, I can let it go, because I still think they're fun to watch. Even if I disagree with a message, I can still like the film or show that promotes said message.

(If I didn't, that would imply that I expected Trek material to agree with my politics. On the contrary, I usually expect Trek to disagree with my beliefs; so I'm not surprised when it does so.)

As for Orci's personal beliefs: Meh. If he is not a truther, then the rumors are wrong; if he is, he's irrelevant.

 

[Mountie1988]

The 9/11 truther debate's relevance, in relation to the story of STID, is dependent upon whether Orci, according only to rumor so far as I've read, is sympathetic enough to the theory to promote its inclusion in a serious way without sarcasm or satire. I remain skeptical because I have not been shown a primary source on that particular and pernicious rumor. Got one? And such rumors sound to me an awful lot like, "Are you now or have you ever been a Truther?" and motivated simply out of dislike for the story.

you were able to find his conspiracy posts on his twitter account which he deleted after he got angry with a fan. Yet I've just stumbled upon a new post promoting a book about the governmental conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and to stop him from bringing peace to the world. Oliver Stone is very fond of it, too.

and star trek is not escapism from reality. It's social criticism and an inspiration to work in social services or to go into science. To engineer a future worthwhile living.

 

[Nerys Myk]

and star trek is not escapism from reality. It's social criticism and an inspiration to work in social services or to go into science. To engineer a future worthwhile living.

It's a TV show/movie. It wasn't conceived to "inspire".

 

[Relayer1]

They're fun while you're in the cinema...

Isn't that the whole point of going?

Yes and no.

They certainly work as entertainment - I've paid to see both at the cinema. I'll go and see the next one too.

Will I watch them again ? Maybe before the next one comes out, but probably not.

Would I go and see them if they didn't have the 'Trek' brand ? No.

Do I like them enough for them to be an ongoing part of my life like 'classic' Trek ? No.

They're just 'fluff'.

 

[Mudd]

and star trek is not escapism from reality. It's social criticism and an inspiration to work in social services or to go into science. To engineer a future worthwhile living.

I'm glad people can find meaning in the show, seriously...but it's about a fantasy world of FTL spaceships and rayguns and teleporters where human beings conceive children with aliens who are virtually indistinguishable from human and fight 19th century naval battles in deep space.

Oh, but there are those flip-phones. Yeah.

 

[JWPlatt]

There it is again, dismissing those who did find meaning and inspiration to change their lives and determine their career paths, especially in the fields of scientific exploration of inner and outer space. How anyone can be glad yet cynically dismissive with such flippant remarks I suppose is beyond my comprehension.