What Amazes Me

[Jeyl]

A lack of an apology when NEITHER PARTY DEMANDED ONE, OR SAW IT NECESSARY, does not make him an A-hole.

As a general rule, I wholeheartedly disagree. Not all apologies that are meaningful and essential are the ones that are demanded. Sometimes it takes great will power to muster up the strength to admit a wrong doing by yourself, even if you think your actions were justified.

A pity really. There was a nice deleted scene that actually showed Kirk apologizing to an Orion girl he thought was Gaila for using her to cheat the Kobayashi Maru. And she didn't demand an apology either.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

A lack of an apology when NEITHER PARTY DEMANDED ONE, OR SAW IT NECESSARY, does not make him an A-hole.

As a general rule, I wholeheartedly disagree. Not all apologies that are meaningful and essential are the ones that are demanded. Sometimes it takes great will power to muster up the strength to admit a wrong doing by yourself, even if you think your actions were justified.

A pity really. There was a nice deleted scene that actually showed Kirk apologizing to an Orion girl he thought was Gaila for using her to cheat the Kobayashi Maru. And she didn't demand an apology either.

True, but it's clear by the time Spock was on the Bridge that no apology was needed by either side.

Dueing the events, I'm not sure there was time for an apology. They were in the middle of a few things.

I kinda liked that deleted scene myself, BTW.

But if Kirk is an a-hole for not apologizing, then Spock was probably just as much an a-hole, since he did not apologize for sending Kirk down to Delta Vega.

I simply took it to mean that they gained an understanding of each other through the events of the movie, and if either had retained a grudge, there may well have been an apology.

Besides, neither should really need to apologize for doing what they thought was right.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Kirk got thrown off the ship for trying to save his home planet, and vented when he was kicked off the ship.

That strikes me as an unusual view. Nero and his entire crew got attacked repeatedly for trying to save their home planet before being brutally murdered, much worse than being marooned.

In that case, I'd actually say that Spock, for understandable reasons, was actually beeing the A$$hole here.

As posted yesterday on StructuredDream, Spock's actions made no sense - it was another nonsensical plot trick (in a chain) to get Kirk and Spock together. "Under what possible conditions could disorderly conduct justify diverting an entire ship and crew from rescuing many billions of lives and entire planets for the purpose of stranding the ship's 2nd officer in a hostile environment because of disorderly conduct infraction?"

Would we say that Kirk is an even bigger asshole than Spock because he is shown to prefer violence even more than Nero?

 

[BurntSynapse]

First, you are talking about ONE action, not the SUM of his actions.

Second, by the end of the movie, he had led everyone on a successful mission. No respect there?

I am happy to look at the sum of his actions as portrayed in the film: young criminal, violent drunk, arrogant recruit, user of women, scholastic cheater, incoherent debater, stowaway, bad WWF-style brawler (on the drill), insubordinate crewman, abusive and violent bridge officer, whining castaway, borderline psychotic with tendency to act out internal fantasies... how many individual actions do we reasonably need before a pattern emerges?

I would argue that a series of cheap miracles led to a successful mission, unless we consider "being Kirk" is leadership, regardless of how stupid, criminal, or insane one's actions are.

 

[RookieBatman]

But if Kirk is an a-hole for not apologizing, then Spock was probably just as much an a-hole, since he did not apologize for sending Kirk down to Delta Vega.

I agree that Spock was an a-hole there; not for failing to apologize, but for sending him down in the first place. That was another thing that really killed the movie for me. As far as I'm concerned (without giving it as much thought as BurntSynapse might, I'll grant), I basically consider that to be Spock committing an act of attempted murder. Sure, you can say we'll come back later and pick you up, but Spock has to know that monsters that huge are hanging around there, and Kirk probably wouldn't have even been safe from that if he had stayed in the pod. So, instead of just throwing Kirk in the brig with a few armed guards, he shoots him down to a planet where he can reasonably be expected to die, but for the fact that he runs into Mr. Exposition.
So, yes, I agree that Spock was more of the a-hole in that situation, but two wrongs don't make a right. Now we have not one thoughtless jerk protagonist, but two.

 

[Jeyl]

Now we have not one thoughtless jerk protagonist, but two.

As the bum said, "It's like A**hole Trek! To boldly go where no a**hole has gone before!"

 

[BurntSynapse]

But if Kirk is an a-hole for not apologizing, then Spock was probably just as much an a-hole, since he did not apologize for sending Kirk down to Delta Vega.

I agree that Spock was an a-hole there; not for failing to apologize, but for sending him down in the first place. That was another thing that really killed the movie for me. As far as I'm concerned (without giving it as much thought as BurntSynapse might, I'll grant), I basically consider that to be Spock committing an act of attempted murder.
...
So, yes, I agree that Spock was more of the a-hole in that situation, but two wrongs don't make a right. Now we have not one thoughtless jerk protagonist, but two.

At least 2.5 jerks, as McCoy insanely describes marooning Kirk as probably "the logical thing to do" but on the other hand, he did advocate (also nonsensically) for keeping Kirk aboard.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

So, do we want a movie full of apologies?

 

[Withers]

Do the examples of the original crew being jerks to one another need to be trotted out? I'm not even the biggest fan of TOS (now having watched 80% of it) but I can think of a bunch of examples off the top of my head that match or out shine what was shown in the movie. I mean McCoy was practically a racist with some of the comments he was so found of making (funny as they were.)

Granted, extended conflict between the crew was a no-no in their day, it was still there.

-Withers-​

 

[Jeyl]

So, do we want a movie full of apologies?

I'd rather have a movie full of characters that I can care about. They don't have to be apologetic or even full blown selfless. I just want to care. If these characters died, I wouldn't miss any of them.

 

[Jeyl]

I'm not even the biggest fan of TOS (now having watched 80% of it) but I can think of a bunch of examples off the top of my head that match or out shine what was shown in the movie.

Sure! Give me an example of classic Kirk giving an order to destroy an enemy ship that's no longer a threat and is already in the process of being destroyed anyways.

 

[RookieBatman]

Do the examples of the original crew being jerks to one another need to be trotted out?

I'm pretty sure someone asked for examples a little while back.

I'm not even the biggest fan of TOS (now having watched 80% of it) but I can think of a bunch of examples off the top of my head that match or out shine what was shown in the movie.

Fair's fair. We gave our examples, it wouldn't be even if you didn't get to rebut. I must say, though, I can't think of any, and I've watched the whole series.

 

[startrekrcks]

Look what's all the fuss about a movie that was out last year and you still are going on about how bad you thought it was and the characters were not what you wanted them to be

 

[BillJ]

Look what's all the fuss about a movie that was out last year and you still are going on about how bad you thought it was and the characters were not what you wanted them to be

You have to chalk that up as a positive. As much as some people (including me) disliked this film... they definitely see a glimmer of hope. A glimmer that the next film will be better or else most wouldn't waste their time talking about it.

 

[Devon]

I'm not even the biggest fan of TOS (now having watched 80% of it) but I can think of a bunch of examples off the top of my head that match or out shine what was shown in the movie.

Sure! Give me an example of classic Kirk giving an order to destroy an enemy ship that's no longer a threat and is already in the process of being destroyed anyways.

The Klingon BOP at the end of Star Trek 6.

Next?

Look what's all the fuss about a movie that was out last year and you still are going on about how bad you thought it was and the characters were not what you wanted them to be

You have to chalk that up as a positive. As much as some people (including me) disliked this film... they definitely see a glimmer of hope. A glimmer that the next film will be better or else most wouldn't waste their time talking about it.

With all due respect, there is hardly any positivity coming from the most vocal four or five people who dislike the film here. Just seemingly a lot of bitterness (which one person admitted to) and over the top negativity. Seemingly trying to ruin it for everyone else basically. That's why some members are fed up and created the two threads that cropped up in the past week or so.

 

[Jeyl]

The Klingon BOP at the end of Star Trek 6.

Admittedly, not the most heroic moment of Kirk's career. Still, it was by chance however that the one shot they needed that was their only way to fight back at the Bird of Prey was the one that hit the front part of their ship that killed the entire bridge crew. And you know how fragile BOPs are when they're hit with Torpedoes while cloaked.

I just wish there was more honesty in NuKirk's actions. I always liked Kirk when he just flat out gave mercy instead of demanding one's surrender. He didn't ask the Gorn to surrender in Arena, he didn't ask the Klingons to surrender in Elaan of Troyius, he treated the Klingons well in "Day of the Apple" when he thought they destroyed an entire federation colony, he didn't ask Khan to surrender in The Wrath of Khan, and he didn't tell Kruge to surrender or give up before offering his hand to him. And here NuKirk decides to destroy an enemy ship that was already dying. That's not heroic, and it's not why I liked classic Kirk in the first place.

 

[BurntSynapse]

With all due respect, there is hardly any positivity coming from the most vocal four or five people who dislike the film here.

"Non-positive" analysis tends to be the bulk of my content, because the parts I like are so subjective, like casting and sets. While I agree the bridge is atrocious technically and ergonomically for actually doing work, I understand and appreciate what the designers were trying to do, and the success they had. It isn't particularly interesting to me considering the disaster of a story and plot in which it is used, so that great set dressing's importance doesn't get much play from me.

Just seemingly a lot of bitterness (which one person admitted to) and over the top negativity. Seemingly trying to ruin it for everyone else basically. That's why some members are fed up and created the two threads that cropped up in the past week or so.

If someone wants to rely on unsupported name calling rather than reasoned criticism of an opinion, and they have no interest in learning to understand differing viewpoints because it might "lessen enjoyment", they'll probably be happier not reading my posts, since my goals in participating are at odds with theirs.

I enjoy learning and having my mind changed, but rational debate is not a skill everyone has, and it can be humiliating to be shown up in any public venue if we have alot of emotional attachment to a position.

 

[RookieBatman]

With all due respect, there is hardly any positivity coming from the most vocal four or five people who dislike the film here. Just seemingly a lot of bitterness (which one person admitted to) and over the top negativity. Seemingly trying to ruin it for everyone else basically. That's why some members are fed up and created the two threads that cropped up in the past week or so.

I can't remember whether I was the one person, but I'll be more than happy to say that I feel a lot of bitterness about the movie. I'm bitter that, in all likelihood, there will never be any new material that remotely resembles the characters or settings that I have grown to love so much. I'm bitter that this is what Abrams thinks is "good Star Trek." I can accept that it may be a good movie, as far as escapist summer blockbusters go, but I cannot accept that it has the slightest similarity to what Star Trek was ever intended to be. Andromeda is truer to the essential concepts of Star Trek than this movie is. And for that, I am bitter.

I'm not bitter that other people enjoyed the movie; to be honest, I wish that I could enjoy it, because then there would be a big, brand-shiny-new Star Trek movie for me to watch over and over again. I think I've said earlier in this thread, there may be some people who prefer to hate a movie, for the sake of wallowing in self-pity, I guess, but I'm not one of them. And I'm probably gonna see the next movie in the theater, despite how disappointed I was with this one, in the hope that it might be more entertaining.
So, no; I, for one am not trying to ruin it for everyone else. If you enjoyed the movie, I'm baffled but happy for you. I wish I could see it the way you do. But I do like intellectual discourse, and honestly, it's cathartic to type out some of the things that were so (subjectively) wrong with the movie. So call me crazy, I don't care, but I'm a Star Trek fan, and if I observe a part of the Star Trek universe that I don't find to be of good quality, it does bother me. It even upsets me (so maybe that makes me crazy, whatever). Writing about some of the particular things that upset me does help to relieve the frustration. But I like to think I'm doing it in a polite, non-inflammatory way, that's in keeping with the flow of the discussion. (The reason that we began pointing out examples of Kirk being a jerk is that someone asked for them.) This all started with a person saying that his hypotheses was that some people make a concerted effort not to suspend their disbelief and enjoy the movie. Myself and some others stated it wasn't true in our cases, and from there, the thread became a discussion of the particular nuances of our perceptions of the movie, that is, whether it was our predispositions or elements of what we saw onscreen that caused us to dislike it. So, ultimately, it is in keeping with the essential subject matter, and it need not be seen as an attempt to poison the well.

If not by discussing what elements of the movie caused us to change our minds about it (since I and at least one other have said that we went in with the intention of enjoying ourselves), then how else would you suggest we move the discussion forward?

 

[thumbtack]

Look what's all the fuss about a movie that was out last year

While it is definitely repetitive and redundant, it also keeps things lively in a forum that otherwise might not be. We still have at least a year to kill before we can begin pre-complaining about images and plot elements leaked from the set of the sequel. And so, the hilarious polemics on "character motivation" will have to suffice for now.

By the way, startrekrcks, do you use voice recognition software to do your typing? Just curious.

 

[startrekrcks]

No I don't use voice recognition software to do my typing, why are you asking?