What Amazes Me

[Withers]

I hated the characters and the story did nothing for me.

I didn't hate the characters... I was just never very happy that rather than create new ones, they went with TOS. I liked them alright, I guess, but I'd rather just have brand new Trek than relive a different version of the same thing I've already seen.

The story, however, I'm with you on- that was about as uninspired as time travel gets and it boils down to all being done for the sake of dodging cannon rather than actually telling a decent story.

The reason I like the movie (where as you don't) is that it gives me hope that new Trek is on its way with potential to be amazing Trek. I've never really had that much hope for the franchise ever since the cancellation of Enterprise so it's nice to have that again. That is XI's gift to me more than what it was about or what it looked like because even though I'll always be a fan of the elements of Trek I liked... I can only talk about it for so long before I just run out of fuel, you know what I mean?

-Withers-​

 

[RookieBatman]

I hated the characters and the story did nothing for me.

Aww, that's a shame. I've always liked those characters.

Always? Those characters have only been around since 2009. (Though they did share names and some physical characteristics with characters from an old TV show...)

The reason I like the movie (where as you don't) is that it gives me hope that new Trek is on its way with potential to be amazing Trek. I've never really had that much hope for the franchise ever since the cancellation of Enterprise so it's nice to have that again. That is XI's gift to me more than what it was about or what it looked like because even though I'll always be a fan of the elements of Trek I liked... I can only talk about it for so long before I just run out of fuel, you know what I mean?

Well, I do like the potential the movie engenders, but that in itself wasn't enough to make me actually like the movie. I still hold out hope for the next movie and the future of the franchise (here's hoping for another TV show), but if this is the pace-setter for what's to come, the franchise being continued probably won't be worth much to me.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I hated the characters and the story did nothing for me.

Aww, that's a shame. I've always liked those characters.

Whuh? These are new characters. Sure, they have the same names as the ones we knew. But they're not the same ones. Therefore, you could not have always liked the new ones. Personally, I've always liked the original characters. The new ones? Not so much. I don't hate them, I just don't like them very much.

He uses every little inconsistency, every little error and mistake in Star Trek to point out how stupid the Abrams and his team and that movie in general are.
That's why I pointed out his own stupid error.

Well, of course there will always be errors, mistakes and inconsistencies in Star Trek no matter what the medium is. It's not a matter of how many flaws or errors it has, it's what else you can look at that's either better than those details, or at least more tolerable.

I would give a lot of these flawed details of Trek09 a pass if I liked the fundamental qualities of the movie itself, which are the characters and the story. I didn't. I hated the characters and the story did nothing for me.

Makes sense to me.

I hated the characters and the story did nothing for me.

I didn't hate the characters... I was just never very happy that rather than create new ones, they went with TOS. I liked them alright, I guess, but I'd rather just have brand new Trek than relive a different version of the same thing I've already seen.

The story, however, I'm with you on- that was about as uninspired as time travel gets and it boils down to all being done for the sake of dodging cannon rather than actually telling a decent story.

Believe it or not, I totally agree with every bit of this. Very well said indeed.

The reason I like the movie (where as you don't) is that it gives me hope that new Trek is on its way with potential to be amazing Trek. I've never really had that much hope for the franchise ever since the cancellation of Enterprise so it's nice to have that again. That is XI's gift to me more than what it was about or what it looked like because even though I'll always be a fan of the elements of Trek I liked... I can only talk about it for so long before I just run out of fuel, you know what I mean?

-Withers-​

This makes sense too. I can't say I hated the movie itself. I didn't. It was actually a pretty good, fun, shoot-em-up action flick. But that's as far as it goes for me. This is NOT TOS. Not even close. The characters have the same names, but that's it. To me, this new franchise is unrelated to the Star Trek I know. And I treat it as such. It's nice that Star Trek has been given a new lease on life, but it saddens me that this Abramsverse version of Trek will be what any new Trek fans see for the first time.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Always? Those characters have only been around since 2009. (Though they did share names and some physical characteristics with characters from an old TV show...)

This is nonsense. What you're doing here is just trying to find a way to reconcile your hatred of the new movie with your appreciation for the original material. I can assure you that denying reality is absolutely not necessary to achieve that.

Not only do the 2009 iteration of these characters have the same names as the 1966 version, they also have the same jobs, the same personality traits, the same quirks, the same language patterns, they look the same, and the people writing them and playing them say they're the same characters. Those are the things that define a fictional character, those things, and nothing else. Kirk and Spock don't really exist, so there's no objective reality to refer to, except for those elements. They are the same characters.

Hate the movie all you want, but what you're doing here makes no sense. If you can't see that the 2009 characters are the same as the 1966 characters, there's no reason to think that the characters are the same from one episode to the next, or from one scene to the next. If any deviation from the norm creates a new norm, critical thinking is impossible.

 

[Pauln6]

I can't say I hated the movie itself. I didn't. It was actually a pretty good, fun, shoot-em-up action flick. But that's as far as it goes for me. This is NOT TOS. Not even close. The characters have the same names, but that's it. To me, this new franchise is unrelated to the Star Trek I know. And I treat it as such. It's nice that Star Trek has been given a new lease on life, but it saddens me that this Abramsverse version of Trek will be what any new Trek fans see for the first time.

I didn't dislike the notion of rebooting the franchise in this way. It was possibly partly fuelled by the successful BSG reboot while not wanting to completely imitate their decision to carry out a radical reboot. They were indeed constrained by their decision to feature all the main 7 characters (which I think was a bit foolish but I understand their reasons). The movie has proved so successful that there is more to come. I think that action is assured - we must just hope that this goes in hand with a more sensible story next time.

Different actors playing the same character is nothing new - each of the James Bonds has been very different but they have always been the same character.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Whuh? These are new characters. Sure, they have the same names as the ones we knew. But they're not the same ones. Therefore, you could not have always liked the new ones.

Again, that's absurd. What you're saying here in a very literal sense is that no comparison will ever reveal sameness. You can't bathe in the same river twice. While amusing as a zen paradox, that doesn't make much sense as an argument in a rational debate.

If Kirk 2009 is not the same as Kirk 1966, neither is Kirk 1979, neither is comic book Kirk, neither is novel Kirk. If that's true, every time we try a new approach with an existing character, we create a new character. The first time Kirk was used in a comedy episode, comedy Kirk was born. The first time we saw him fight, action Kirk was born. Fortunately for our fragile minds, that's not how fiction works.

I like these characters. I have always liked them.

 

[Withers]

Hate the movie all you want, but what you're doing here makes no sense. If you can't see that the 2009 characters are the same as the 1966 characters, there's no reason to think that the characters are the same from one episode to the next, or from one scene to the next. If any deviation from the norm creates a new norm, critical thinking is impossible.

While, ultimately, I think you and I probably agree on more than we disagree on in regard to this movie I don't think this is really a fair assertion to make. What you're saying is basically, if I use the right colors, the right brush strokes, the right kind of paint, and the right canvas I can recreate a Van Gogh by simply painting the same subjects like a starry night or a French cafe.

Casual observers might be fooled by my recreation but are aficionados (for the sake of this metaphor those would be the people who loved TOS) aren't going to be fooled. They'll note the similarities and will have differing thoughts as to the quality but they won't mistake it for the original by any stretch of the imagination.

It's also fair to note that a lot of what was done to change these characters was done with the knowledge that they needed an update in order to have mass appeal. Kirk and Uhuru; they knew they needed a romance. Scotty as comic relief. They knew they needed something funny. Chekov as a "wonder kid." They knew they needed some genius. They're maybe just exaggerated or underplayed versions of their originals but they're still different and for people who really like TOS the differences are perhaps more obvious than for someone who is indifferent or doesn't like it.

-Withers-​

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

What you're saying is basically, if I use the right colors, the right brush strokes, the right kind of paint, and the right canvas I can recreate a Van Gogh by simply painting the same subjects like a starry night or a French cafe.

No, what I'm saying is that if you paint the same French cafe Van Gogh painted, it doesn't become a different French cafe just because Van Gogh isn't holding the brush.

If we think there is such a thing as a fictional character, we must be able to identify its constitutive elements, and how sometimes, unlike real people, fictional characters are shaped by circumstances and the needs of the plot.

 

[Withers]

No, what I'm saying is that if you paint the same French cafe Van Gogh painted, it doesn't become a different French cafe just because Van Gogh isn't holding the brush.

The argument isn't about who is doing the rendering. The argument is about what is being rendered. But I fear that whole metaphor might be lost if I take it any further... so I'm just gonna leave it alone for now.

If we think there is such a thing as a fictional character, we must be able to identify its constitutive elements, and how sometimes, unlike real people, fictional characters are shaped by circumstances and the needs of the plot.

In my head these characters are as similar to the TOS characters as Adam West and his Batman/Bruce Wayne are to Christian Bayle and his Batman/Bruce Wayne. The elements are all there; Batmobile, Joker, Gotham City, Alfred, but you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that the two were similar enough to be called essentially the same thing. They share a few surface level characteristics but that's about all.

(How did I end up on this side of the fence?)

-Withers-​

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The elements are all there; Batmobile, Joker, Gotham City, Alfred, but you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that the two were similar enough to be called essentially the same thing.

I'm sorry to point that out, because it sounds like a cheap shot, but they ARE called the same thing. And with good reason. When you put the elements you've mentioned together, you get Batman. That's it. That's a fictional character. Otherwise, where should we draw the line?

 

[Jeyl]

Not only do the 2009 iteration of these characters have the same names as the 1966 version, they also have the same jobs, the same personality traits, the same quirks, the same language patterns, they look the same, and the people writing them and playing them say they're the same characters. Those are the things that define a fictional character, those things, and nothing else.

Nothing else? That seems to be a very vague and empty way to declare that this is what defines a character and nothing else.

Honestly, saying that these are the exact same characters is like saying that Adam West's Batman is the exact same character as Michael Keaton's Batman or even Christian Bale's Batman. They're not. I could look at classic Kirk and really get the sense that this man really has a desire to go out into space. He was a romantic who really understood his mission and totally fits into the "Space, the final frontier" monologue he gives during the opening credits. Here? If NuKirk gave that monologue, it would be completely out of character. No where in the new film does he even reflect any of what that monologue stands for, and whatever desire to go into space was more because he was 'dared' to do it and not because he had any ambition or intuition. That's a key difference between these two Kirks where I will state they're different, and I like classic Kirk a lot better.

*EDIT: Sorry Withers. You beat me on the Batman comparison.

 

[Withers]

When you put the elements you've mentioned together, you get Batman. That's it. That's a fictional character. Otherwise, where should we draw the line?

Well, I personally draw the line when the intent of the creators and their reason for using characters changes. If we go with the Batman line of dialogue the intent of West and his Batman was to be campy, maybe even humorous, to tell a story of obvious fiction (no one could be a vigilante the way that Batman was a vigilante and even back then I imagine people thought as much.) The intent of Bale and his Batman was to tell a realistic, very serious and dark toned story, of a vigilante that could potentially exist.

They're using these two characters with completely different goals in mind. By virtue of being created in the 60's Kirk and company were created to be "flawless" heroes with no other drive or motive other than they were kick ass. They were re-envisioned for this move to have more of a 21st century appeal; we don't necessarily buy the idea of someone being a hero without a strong motive anymore.

But before I get too far off base (and draw critiques from people who feel strongly about the intent of 60's Kirk versus the intent of nuKirk), that is where I draw the line between characters that have the same name and draw from the same well of "canon;" the intent behind them. I think the intent between these two TOS era stories is very different.

-Withers-​

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Honestly, saying that these are the exact same characters is like saying that Adam West's Batman is the exact same character as Michael Keaton's Batman or even Christian Bale's Batman. They're not.

If they're not, then there's no such thing as a character named "Batman", and that's a paradox, because there quite obviously is a character named "Batman". In fact that character inspired all those movies and series you're talking about. I'm not saying that Bale's Batman and West's Batman are carbon copies of each other. I'm saying Bale and West are both playing the same character.

Well, I personally draw the line when the intent of the creators and their reason for using characters changes. If we go with the Batman line of dialogue the intent of West and his Batman was to be campy, maybe even humorous, to tell a story of obvious fiction (no one could be a vigilante the way that Batman was a vigilante and even back then I imagine people thought as much.) The intent of Bale and his Batman was to tell a realistic, very serious and dark toned story, of a vigilante that could potentially exist.

That makes a lot of sense, and it certainly feels less arbitrary than my anything goes solution. But it doesn't really work, does it? If authorial intent were the criteria we used to tell one character from another, we'd end up with a definition of "character" that would sound radically different from the one most people would recognize.

Of course the intent of the creators changes from one episode to the next. The Kirk from "Balance of Terror" is not the same as the Kirk from "A Piece of the Action" nor the Kirk from "The Paradise Syndrome". They don't act the same way, they don't feel the same way, they don't serve the same dramatic purpose. Yet everyone would recognize them as the same character.

The same goes for Prince Hal in William Shakespeare's "Henry IV" I and II and "Henry V" plays, a character which is used in radically different ways from one play to the next, yet is still recognizable as the same character.

Hell, the authorial intent can even change from one scene to the next. Tim Burton's "Batman" movies have the main character portrayed as a very serious vigilante one moment, and as a larger-than-life caricature in the next scene. Burton wants us to take him seriously one moment, and to look at him with irony and detachment the next. Yet we never question that we're basically dealing with the same character in every scene.

I get what you mean, Withers, and I can't say that I'm entirely comfortable with my definition either, but I'm quite convinced that it's the only definition that works, and that it's the one writers actually use, whether they realize it or not.

 

[RookieBatman]

It's nice that Star Trek has been given a new lease on life, but it saddens me that this Abramsverse version of Trek will be what any new Trek fans see for the first time.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

This is nonsense. What you're doing here is just trying to find a way to reconcile your hatred of the new movie with your appreciation for the original material. I can assure you that denying reality is absolutely not necessary to achieve that.

Okay, first of all, I was being just a teeny bit sarcastic. I am not in denial of the fact that this are different representations of the same fictional characters. But they are not, ultimately, the same.

Furthermore, I don't need to try to find a way to reconcile my hatred of the new movie with my appreciation for the old. I understand quite well how they can be reconciled, and these characters are right at the heart of that.

So, the only thing I can agree with there is that denying reality is not necessary to achieve that, because at no time have I ever done so.

Not only do the 2009 iteration of these characters have the same names as the 1966 version, they also have the same jobs, the same personality traits, the same quirks, the same language patterns, they look the same...

But what you seem to fail to consider is that other than having the same names and jobs (and shirt colors), everything else you mention is a purely subjective judgment. My perception as I watched the movie was that they had different personality traits, different quirks, different language patterns, and they looked different. Therefore, though their purpose is to represent parallels of the characters in TOS, they are still different.

Hate the movie all you want, but what you're doing here makes no sense. If you can't see that the 2009 characters are the same as the 1966 characters, there's no reason to think that the characters are the same from one episode to the next, or from one scene to the next. If any deviation from the norm creates a new norm, critical thinking is impossible.

There's a difference between the slight deviations between episodes or scenes, and the writers specifically and intentionally working to put different traits into the characters. They didn't want them to be the same as the 1966 characters. I think Kurtzman and Orci would even disagree with you here. Shatner and Pine both played James T. Kirk, captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise, but they are fundamentally not the same character.

The elements are all there; Batmobile, Joker, Gotham City, Alfred, but you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that the two were similar enough to be called essentially the same thing.

I'm sorry to point that out, because it sounds like a cheap shot, but they ARE called the same thing. And with good reason. When you put the elements you've mentioned together, you get Batman. That's it. That's a fictional character. Otherwise, where should we draw the line?

So, to follow your analogy, if I were in a discussion of Batman Begins/Dark Knight, and I said that I didn't like the character (which isn't the case, just for the record), would you then take that to mean that I also disliked the characters portrayed by Lewis Wilson, Robert Lowery, Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney? I don't see any reason you should, because those are fundamentally different conceptions of a character named Batman. If I watched Quantum of Solace and said I didn't like the character, would you take that to mean that I also disliked the portrayals of Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, and Pierce Brosnan? I hope you can see my point. When Roger Moore became James Bond, fundamental things about the character changed to tailor it to his particular style. It was still James Bond, 007, but for the sake of artistic judgments of like or dislike, he was not portraying exactly the same character. And that's one example where the creative team largely tried to keep the flavor of the previous iteration. In most of these other examples I've listed (including the focal one), neither the writers nor directors were even so much as attempting to preserve exactly the same character that had been previously portrayed. It was their intent, as I've said, to create a different version of the character. And a different version of the character is simply not the same.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It was still James Bond, 007

And ultimately, that's what it boils down to.

 

[RookieBatman]

It was still James Bond, 007

And ultimately, that's what it boils down to.

Maybe to you. But if I say "I like James Bond," does that automatically mean that I like every portrayal and incarnation of the character? (Which would have to include David "Sir James" Niven and Barry "Jimmy Bond" Nelson in the rogue versions of Casino Royale.)

Clearly, you're only using the word "same" in the broadest possible sense. Like saying that chihuahuas and rottweilers are the same because, ultimately, they're both dogs.

 

[Withers]

You'll get no argument from me that this is a complicated question. (While I should be working) I've been sitting here pondering an example that could clarify it more simply than what we've already tried. Here's what I came up with;

Take a gun. In one scenario this gun is the weapon that saves the woman from being murdered by some villainous predator. In another scenario this same gun misfires as it is being handled by a child causing his death. One might say of the first scenario that the depiction of the gun was to further a "Pro-gun" agenda. One might say of the second that the depiction of the gun was to further an "Anti-gun" agenda. Yes, we're still talking about a gun, but the gun is portrayed and used by the creator in a completely separate way from one another. If you ignore the differences in the portrayal by saying "Both scenarios are about a gun and thus the same thing" you might just as well say "All movies that involve humans are about the same thing by virtue of having humans in them." It's just too...absolutist a statement to make and it ignores both the attempt to characterize and the intent to define by the authors of said character.

As it relates to 1966 to 2009... yes, they're both Kirk, and yes they're both Enterprise; but they can't be same thing based on those superficial sorts of acknowledgments. One has to take more than that into account when accessing the characters.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

At the time the decision to destroy Nero is taken, he isn't a threat.

---

Unbel1ever: Why does he fire on the Narada after Nero refuses his help and risks his ship and crew by remaining there ?

BobOrci: He can’t risk Nero traveling through time again.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

At the time the decision to destroy Nero is taken, he isn't a threat.

---

Unbel1ever: Why does he fire on the Narada after Nero refuses his help and risks his ship and crew by remaining there ?

BobOrci: He can’t risk Nero traveling through time again.

The problem there is that Nero won't be traveling through time because the Narada, Nero, and all his crew are being torn to shreds by the black hole thingy that has opened inside the ship. If you watch that scene, you can clearly see that the black hole is tearing the Narada apart. If it did actually travel through time, it would emerge in little bite size morsels wherever/whenever it emerged. In essence, there was no threat. Kirk could have moved the Abramsprise away from the event horizon and just watched the Narada crumble into little tiny pieces. Instead, he decided it would be more fun to fire uselessly upon it as it desintregated in front of him.

 

[Set Harth]

In essence, there was no threat.

Kirk is not an expert on the capabilities of the Narada ( as they relate to black holes, wormholes and time travel ). This is a ship that's been counted out before.