What Amazes Me

[Jeyl]

What about Star Trek The Motion Picture? That's the slowest movie of them all and it turned out to be a box office hit, and that was not a TNG movie.

But not a critical hit by any means.

But good things did come from it. Compared to Trek09, I don't think anything better will come from it, because the writers behind it seem to only deliver more of the same. Take Transformers 2 for instance. Sure, you may say that's just a summer blockbuster flick, but that's what Star Trek is now. A "Summer Action Flick" and a lot of fans are saying that's what it needs. So why should they do things differently?

 

[RealTime]

The writers of this movie state again and again that Kirk is young and that there are no established events that they have to stick to in order to write a story about him. What they're pretty much saying is that they can put any stubborn, arrogant, unlikable character in the role as long as his name is Kirk and he ends up being Captain of the Enterprise. Since he's 'young', they can have him do all sorts of stuff that the classic Kirk wouldn't do. I guess that sort of logic can work, but what really annoys me is that they outright made him out to be a complete a**hole who does little to redeem himself to those he's openly insulted. .

This is no different than some of the depictions of young James T. Kirk in literature. 'Best Destiny' (Diane Carey) and 'Collision Course' (a certain William Shatner) both portray young Kirk as a brash, arrogant and even criminal character who, through the course of some conflict or tragedy, evolve into something closer to the Kirk we know in TOS. I would guess these choices are made to provide a clear and distinct arc to the character. A young Kirk who is smart, responsible and ideal in every way may be fine for a character's past history but not when you're trying to tell that story.

RT.

 

[Jeyl]

A young Kirk who is smart, responsible and ideal in every way may be fine for a character's past history but not when you're trying to tell that story.

Which is why I guess some origin stories are better left untold. At least with those books you mentioned, Kirk does become a better person. I don't see any certainty of that in this new take since nothing about NuKirk changed through the course of the movie and any future movies will probably be more geared towards action oriented story lines.

I mean, look at what's been being released so far. Star Trek DAC. Plot? What plot? Story? What story? Just blow each other up. Star Trek Online. Let's find new ways to get every one to fight each other and make that canon. Those four new Star Trek novels set in the NuUniverse? This is an action series. Nobody is going to read those. Pull them.

 

[Withers]

It may not have been a particularly helpful thing for him to have said there but I don't believe he has been lecturing you about trolling.

Yeah? Take a gander- it's the third time he's posted something related to my centering of posts, once going so far as to cite it as trolling, each time contributing absolutely nothing to the threads discussion. I can't PM anybody or I would (as per the rules) but so long as I can't I think the expectation of me to just roll over and take it is absurd.

What about Star Trek The Motion Picture? That's the slowest movie of them all and it turned out to be a box office hit, and that was not a TNG movie.

You really think they could make TMP today and have it be anything but another Gattaca? I mean c'mon, nobody would watch that movie if it were made today and put out in theaters (and by "nobody" I mean people out side those who would join a forum dedicated to Star Trek.)

And what about the Wrath of Khan? One of the film's central points was just what you were talking about. Kirk was going through hard times, copping with age, and coming to terms that he wasn't the Captain he once was. That sounds a lot like a "hard being Kirk" plot to me, and TWOK is regarded as the best Trek movie out there. How many action scenes did that film have? Two and a half.

That's a Kirk that has a series and one movie behind him. He's been tested by his experiences and seeing him come to terms with aging is considerably more interesting than, say, watching the nuKirk be all Emo over losing his dad and how hard it has made his life. That's what I meant when I said I wouldn't like a bunch of scenes about how hard it is to be James Kirk- the nuJames Kirk, not the old one.

Not to mention the fact that Khan had a lot of those 'boring talking' scenes here and there. But if you give your talking scenes substance that delves more into the characters rather than being exposition, you can get a lot more out of it than through a high paced action scene.

I don't mean to suggest that dialogue itself is boring. You'll get no argument from me that Khan is a way better villain than Nero ever had any potential of being (based on just their back stories) but at the same time, I don't think the void could have been filled with a bunch of talk about how tragic Nero's story was either.

The new trek wanted to be a successful action film. It accomplished that task by losing some of the attention to character detail that was prevalent in past films at the expense of being successful action films.

-Withers-​

 

[M'Sharak]

It may not have been a particularly helpful thing for him to have said there but I don't believe he has been lecturing you about trolling.

Yeah? Take a gander- it's the third time he's posted something related to my centering of posts, once going so far as to cite it as trolling, each time contributing absolutely nothing to the threads discussion. I can't PM anybody or I would (as per the rules) but so long as I can't I think the expectation of me to just roll over and take it is absurd.

I'll confess I find the center-justification of posts a bit of a distraction myself and don't really see the reason for it, but I don't see where Therin had mentioned it previously in this thread. The bit about drooling was introduced by you, so far as I can tell; I'm not sure why. Regardless, it's not kosher to call someone out on it in-thread. If there are specific posts to which you wish to direct attention, use the

at the lower left of each post and I or another mod will take a look.

Meanwhile, dial it back just a bit; stop looking so hard to take offense and stop taking pokes at others; the confrontational tone was set with your opening post and I don't think it's been either necessary or particularly helpful thus far.

 

[Withers]

If there are specific posts to which you wish to direct attention, use the

at the lower left of each post and I or another mod will take a look.

Meanwhile, dial it back just a bit; stop looking so hard to take offense and stop taking pokes at others; the confrontational tone was set with your opening post and I don't think it's been either necessary or particularly helpful thus far.

When some one goats you three separate times in various forums about the way you post and you respond and then are told to stop looking so hard to take offense and taking pokes at others... well, you can imagine where that might be frustrating I'm imagining. The fact is I'm not offended and I don't care about it all that much...until a moderator comes in and tells me to knock it off. All I said to him I think he understood. It wasn't confrontational until you made it that way. If I had been bothered by the posts he made I'd have clicked your little icon thing (I'm familiar with how forums work, thanks.) My opening post has spawned 6 pages of what I think has been pretty civil discussion up to this point. If you think it was unnecessarily hostile I apologize, I guess. My sentiments are best expressed by something Kira said;

"If you don't like my attitude you're welcome to try to change it."

-Withers-​

 

[M'Sharak]

If there are specific posts to which you wish to direct attention, use the

at the lower left of each post and I or another mod will take a look.

Meanwhile, dial it back just a bit; stop looking so hard to take offense and stop taking pokes at others; the confrontational tone was set with your opening post and I don't think it's been either necessary or particularly helpful thus far.

When some one goats you three separate times in various forums about the way you post and you respond and then are told to stop looking so hard to take offense and taking pokes at others... well, you can imagine where that might be frustrating I'm imagining. The fact is I'm not offended and I don't care about it all that much...until a moderator comes in and tells me to knock it off. All I said to him I think he understood. It wasn't confrontational until you made it that way. If I had been bothered by the posts he made I'd have clicked your little icon thing (I'm familiar with how forums work, thanks.) My opening post has spawned 6 pages of what I think has been pretty civil discussion up to this point. If you think it was unnecessarily hostile I apologize, I guess. My sentiments are best expressed by something Kira said;

"If you don't like my attitude you're welcome to try to change it."

-Withers-

Putting a bigger chip on your shoulder really isn't the way to go about it.

A little digging turns up a thread in the Voyager forum, about which I wouldn't be expected to know under ordinary circumstances, but in which you admitted, after several people commented that the center-justification made your posts more difficult to read, that you were continuing to do so out of spite. At this point it was observed that such could constitute trolling, and I believe a moderator confirmed this but opted not to issue a warning (this, after you had previously been asked in the same thread not to take personal jabs at other posters.). What I would suggest is that you go with the default left-justification of text and I'll suggest further that Therin leave off giving you stick about it, effective immediately.

And then, maybe we can get back to the topic of discussion and away from talking about other posters. And in the future, please don't drag gripes in from other forums; it's not good form and most mods don't appreciate it very much at all.

 

[Withers]

And then, maybe we can get back to the topic of discussion and away from talking about other posters. And in the future, please don't drag gripes in from other forums; it's not good form and most mods don't appreciate it very much at all.

Just as soon as I can PM somebody (I think I've got like 5 days) I will. Let's just leave it at that so these rebukes on my horrendous behavior can stop deterring from this thread started by a caustic, argumentative, hostile newbie.

-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not a jock douchebag who's riding on my ex-father's reputation, I'm someone who has an interest in exploring the unknown.

You're right, maybe I'm no longer the target audience.

Not sure that is accurate representation of Kirk in this movie. The archetype would seem to be the "rebel" and not the "jock". Nor does he seem to be riding on his father's (whats an ex-father???) reputation. Pike saw potential in Kirk and threw down a gauntlet. He knewthe roght buttons to push to grt Kirk in Starfleet.

Douchebag? I dunno. Cocky and borderline arrogance, sure. But that's part of who Kirk is. More so in the movies than the series, but its there.

 

[The Borg Queen]

[whats an ex-father???

It's like an ex-parrot, it's a father who has ceased to be.

 

[Nerys Myk]

[whats an ex-father???

It's like an ex-parrot, it's a father who has ceased to be.

Ah, more of an ex-human though. Since he remains Kirk's father even though 'E's passed on! Is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! ! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile.

 

[Jeyl]

That's a Kirk that has a series and one movie behind him.

And the best part is that you don't have to know the series or the previous movie to understand where his character is coming from. Cause dealing with age and his philosophy regarding the 'no-win' scenario was never even brought up in the original series or the last movie. So everything about Kirk in the Wrath of Khan is as new to long time fans who have seen the series as it is with new comers who haven't.

I don't mean to suggest that dialogue itself is boring. You'll get no argument from me that Khan is a way better villain than Nero ever had any potential of being (based on just their back stories) but at the same time, I don't think the void could have been filled with a bunch of talk about how tragic Nero's story was either.

I don't think anything would have come from knowing more about Nero either. The scenes I'm talking about are with our main characters who the story revolves around. The only interaction I get between Kirk and Spock is nothing but mean-spirited conflict. That's all it is. And faster than you can say warp speed, they're absolutely fine with each other. No further reasoning, no resolve, no apologies, nothing. Just a mocking slap on the shoulder.

 

[Devon]

The only interaction I get between Kirk and Spock is nothing but mean-spirited conflict. That's all it is.

If you're only discussing the parts before the Pike rescue attempt. After that, you really can't say that fairly.

And faster than you can say warp speed, they're absolutely fine with each other.

Not exactly.

No further reasoning, no resolve, no apologies, nothing. Just a mocking slap on the shoulder.

Which wasn't done as if it was "nothing."

 

[BurntSynapse]

One doesn't have to take "reasonable care" when sharing an opinion in order for it to be valid or considered.

One doesn't have to be sane, polite, etc. to have an opinion considered, but without reasonable care, I doubt we can consider an inter-subjective opinion "valid", even if it is accurate. Random throws a the dart board will occasionally hit a bullseye, but does that make it a "good" throwing style we should consider or emulate? Probably not, IMO.

Clearly even the opinions of raving lunatics CAN be taken seriously, however my question was not requesting descriptive information on whether such consideration occurs, but rather raised a normative issue, i.e.: whether those of us interested in reasonable discussion OUGHT to devote our time to considering the merits of statements made without thought or consideration behind them and if so, why.

As a measure of popularity, the unconsidered opinion can be of value - but doesn't really provide much in the way of opportunity for good thought and conversation, IMO.

 

[Jeyl]

If you're only discussing the parts before the Pike rescue attempt. After that, you really can't say that fairly.

Which is why I say "And faster than you can say warp speed, they're absolutely fine with each other."

 

[RookieBatman]

It seems I've fallen way behind on this thread, but I had to quote this, as it's the most accurate representation of one of the core things I also disliked about the movie:

Maybe it's because I'm a Trek nerd that everything I watched pretty much reminded me of what I didn't enjoy about previous Treks. Non-stop action with shallow characters and a 24/7 convenient plot.

Maybe it's the idea that when I watch the original series that the characters I'm watching have this kind of history that a lot of the show's stories built on. It wasn't hard to get into the idea that Kirk got to where he was because he really thrived to get there, not because he was dared to. He was depicted as a romantic who loved literature, history and always tried to keep his status quo in check. Does NuKirk give the impression that he knows literature, history or anything at all that would reflect an explorer's personality? No, he's just some jerk who gets made Captain because.....he's Kirk.

The writers of this movie state again and again that Kirk is young and that there are no established events that they have to stick to in order to write a story about him. What they're pretty much saying is that they can put any stubborn, arrogant, unlikable character in the role as long as his name is Kirk and he ends up being Captain of the Enterprise. Since he's 'young', they can have him do all sorts of stuff that the classic Kirk wouldn't do. I guess that sort of logic can work, but what really annoys me is that they outright made him out to be a complete a**hole who does little to redeem himself to those he's openly insulted. At least TOS Kirk apologized every once in a while and felt bad about what he did. In here they don't think Kirk needs to show any compassion or good character. He's just Kirk.

I would say quoted for truth, but as we've discussed, it's still all just opinion (though I happen to very strongly agree with it. "Quoted for agreement" just doesn't sound as snappy.

 

[RealTime]

my question was not requesting descriptive information on whether such consideration occurs, but rather raised a normative issue, i.e.: whether those of us interested in reasonable discussion OUGHT to devote our time to considering the merits of statements made without thought or consideration behind them and if so, why.

This decision is up to the individual, of course, but I would think that the majority of people here are interested in reasonable and considered discussion. There is also room for "it was just damn fun!" statements as well. This is, after all, entertainment first and science fiction, second.

RT.

 

[startrekrcks]

how did Kirk Chris Pine's not show any compassion in what way did he not care

 

[Jeyl]

how did Kirk Chris Pine's not show any compassion in what way did he not care

Well, after the destruction of Vulcan, Kirk showed little to no sympathy or compassion towards Spock. Bob Orci actually said that the reason Kirk doesn't do that is because he knows Spock has no emotions..

Really? You call that shocked look and aimless wandering on the Transporter pad after Spock witnessed his mother die isn't a sign of emotion? Especially when the father, who is standing right there looking like a statue in comparison? I do love writers who give characters excuses to be jerks.

And it's made only worse when Kirk later yells at Spock in front of the entire crew and starts a fight everyone around him with the intent of taking Spock down.

And of course we have Kirk doing it yet again in order to take command away from Spock. And even after Spock decides to work with Kirk, Kirk doesn't offer any sort of apology or explanation behind his actions. He just mockingly smacks him on the shoulder as if to say the jokes on him (why else do you think the audience laughs?). Way to treat the guy who just lost his mother, his home planet and pretty much his entire race a**hole.

 

[BurntSynapse]

my question was not requesting descriptive information on whether such consideration occurs, but rather raised a normative issue, i.e.: whether those of us interested in reasonable discussion OUGHT to devote our time to considering the merits of statements made without thought or consideration behind them and if so, why.

This decision is up to the individual, of course, but I would think that the majority of people here are interested in reasonable and considered discussion. There is also room for "it was just damn fun!" statements as well. This is, after all, entertainment first and science fiction, second.
RT.

Although I want to agree with everything you say, my sense of fair play suggests that I should be just as tolerant of "It was just horrible!" as I would be of "It was just damn fun!" and while both seem lacking any depth, I suspect broad criticism like "It sucked!"would be frowned upon, which does not seem especially ethical.

Naturally, someone will point out that they don't care whether they are ethical, they just want to make their comments, positive or negative.

Because of my strong feelings about the film both good and bad, superficial discussion seems pretty worthless, as well as badly written, disrespectful to readers, and betraying either ignorance, laziness, or apathy.

Realtime, I suppose I'm not as generous with such posts as you.