What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[fireproof78]

ST ID has moments of brilliance and then highly strange moments, like the Khan scream. I can't say I laughed but I prefer skipping it. Thankfully, it's only 2 seconds. So, a quick edit and I'm back at it.

I think that 09 and ID work together very well when taken as a whole, because the larger themes are really on display for Kirk and Spock. So, as much ID was not what I expected it works enough, largely because of Kirk's journey.

 

[cooleddie74]

Not having Cumberbatch be Khan would have been an enormous improvement storywise or at least have him be one of Khan's Augments frozen aboard the Botany Bay that Marcus released from hibernation without risking waking Khan himself, a notorious tyrant and war criminal. As it stands though the film just collapses under its own weight and ends up as a very inferior sequel to Trek 2009 and an extremely poor homage to TWOK.

 

[1001001]

It was also about 30 minutes too long.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Harrison as Harrison would have been a major improvement. That said, the TWOK stuff bothers me less than most. I think the space jump was more difficult to watch than that.

 

[MAGolding]

Thank you for the very long and technical explanation. I apologize for the mistaken statement of Scott's accomplishment.

Don't apologize. That inspired me to make my most complete list ever of starship capatins who might possibly have been the youngest ones in Starfleet history.

 

[kirk55555]

With Into Darkness, I kind of find it a "So Bad Its entertaining" movie. As someone who loathes ST09 and who considers TWOK to be their favorite movie (not just favorite ST movie, but favorite film, period) I should hate Into Darkness. But, honestly, its too inept for me to get angry at, I find it more unintentionally funny then anything. Its not a good film by any stretch, its sequel ST Beyond would be the only reboot film I consider to be actually good, but I can watch ID any day, which is something I can't say about ST09.

As for controversial ST opinions, I thought of another one. I think that City on the Edge of Forever and The Inner Light are not just overrated, they're outright terrible, especially The Inner Light which always puts me to sleep. Neither are the worst episodes of their respective shows, but I personally don't like them and always skip them when watching TOS and TNG.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek Into Darkness is a great movie. Trekkies are just too up themselves with continuity obsessions and headcanons to actually watch what's in front of them. Kirk's sacrifice is built to from the very start, unlike Spock's WoK one which is random and tacked on.

That "Khaaaaan!" scream from Spock never should have made it to screen, though.

 

[somebuddyX]

Is this parody? It's pretty good!

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Kirk's sacrifice is built to from the very start, unlike Spock's WoK one which is random and tacked on.

Kirk's 'sacrifice' (like Data's in Nemesis) was immediately rendered moot thanks to magic Khan blood which cures death. Also Spock's death was foreshadowed in the opening scene in the simulator room.

 

[Farscape One]

Exactly. Kirk and Spock even mirror each other's dialogue when they talk alone and at the end in Engineering. It was symmetrical and poetic and heartwrenching.

Now, Spock coming back in the next movie does take some of that impact away. But if you watch TWOK on its own without minding what happens later, that really is a powerful scene.

With INTO DARKNESS, I felt none of that impact. It just didn't feel genuine enough. (Granted, with TWOK, we had a series and a previous movie to feel at home and bond with these characters. INTO DARKNESS only had the previous film, so I may be somewhat harsh in my judgment.)

And DO NOT get me started on Data's death in NEMESIS. (THAT is an entire thread's worth of me venting about that travesty. Perhaps I am very biased because Data is my favorite character in... well, all scifi.)

 

[Nyotarules]

In the 'reboot' movies is way to much violence. Not what the Federation should do: exploration. I think it's better if the new Star Trek movies will be based on exploration instead of fighting.

The UFP in the TOS era was/is an allegory for the USA, the violence of the UFP is apt.

The idea of John Harrison, a human with advanced tech and a grudge against Starfleet was really interesting, when he announced “I am Khan” I audibly groaned in disgust in the cinema.

Me too, then I almost pissed myself laughing

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

And DO NOT get me started on Data's death in NEMESIS. (THAT is an entire thread's worth of me venting about that travesty. Perhaps I am very biased because Data is my favorite character in... well, all scifi.)

Part of me so wants to poke that bear

But I'll just leave it at: yes, yes it was an absolute travesty.

 

[Henoch]

The idea of John Harrison, a human with advanced tech and a grudge against Starfleet was really interesting, when he announced “I am Khan” I audibly groaned in disgust in the cinema.

Not having Cumberbatch be Khan would have been an enormous improvement storywise or at least have him be one of Khan's Augments frozen aboard the Botany Bay that Marcus released from hibernation without risking waking Khan himself, a notorious tyrant and war criminal. As it stands though the film just collapses under its own weight and ends up as a very inferior sequel to Trek 2009 and an extremely poor homage to TWOK.

I agree that either Cumberbatch was miscast as Khan, or he should have been another augment named Harrison. The movie could have used a flash back to a new Botany Bay encounter, reviving Khan, and eventually killing Khan. Then reviving Harrison, a top scientist devoted to his beloved leader, Khan, and have his story of retrieving his fellow augments plus the destruction of Starfleet as revenge over the death of Khan. Augments in torpedoes was just stupid. Keeping the rest of the augments in their original suspended animation beds on the now hidden Botany Bay could have been weaved into the story. Instead of torpedoes, have the Enterprise discover the Botany Bay's secret location and move the suspended augments into sickbay. At the end, when Harrison beams the augments to his ship, fake him out and have him beam over a photon torpedo or 78 (edit. 72 or actually 71 since Harrison was one of those) to destroy the Vengeance.

 

[Amasov]

I agree that either Cumberbatch was miscast as Khan, or he should have been another augment named Harrison. The movie could have used a flash back to a new Botany Bay encounter, reviving Khan, and eventually killing Khan. Then reviving Harrison, a top scientist devoted to his beloved leader, Khan, and have his story of retrieving his fellow augments plus the destruction of Starfleet as revenge over the death of Khan. Augments in torpedoes was just stupid. Keeping the rest of the augments in their original suspended animation beds on the now hidden Botany Bay could have been weaved into the story. Instead of torpedoes, have the Enterprise discover the Botany Bay's secret location and move the suspended augments into sickbay. At the end, when Harrison beams the augments to his ship, fake him out and have him beam over a photon torpedo or 78 to destroy the Vengeance.

I remember hoping that Into Darkness would take advantage of it being an alternate reality and wake up a different augment than Khan. I liked the idea of the Kelvin timeline taking stories we saw on the original series and toying with them by having events play out in a similar, but, mostly different way.

Even when Into Darkness was coming out and not too much was known, I remember reading an article someplace that Orci and Kurtzman were using Where No Man Has Gone Before as a source of inspiration. Plus, people on here at the time, I recall, were theorizing that Cumberbatch was actually playing Gary Mitchell. This was furthered by us thinking Alice Eve bore a striking resemblance to Dr. Dehner. In the end, I still wish they went in this direction.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

^ Harrison wouldn't even need to be an augment. They could've created a complex and even sympathetic villain from the 23rd century, someone with very personal motivations for getting back at Starfleet, something that might not even paint him as being "evil" but rather someone hurting and/or desperate and taking actions he believes are needed to make them listen or exact some revenge for whatever issue in the past has turned him against the UFP.

 

[Nyotarules]

^ Harrison wouldn't even need to be an augment. They could've created a complex and even sympathetic villain from the 23rd century, someone with very personal motivations for getting back at Starfleet, something that might not even paint him as being "evil" but rather someone hurting and/or desperate and taking actions he believes are needed to make them listen or exact some revenge for whatever issue in the past has turned him against the UFP.

They did this in Beyond, another 'The Feds/Starfleet did me wrong' movie.
They should have just called the movies The Starfleet blues trilogy

 

[fireproof78]

Kirk's 'sacrifice' (like Data's in Nemesis) was immediately rendered moot thanks to magic Khan blood which cures death. Also Spock's death was foreshadowed in the opening scene in the simulator room.

Honestly I never understood how the death being undone nullifies it.

And the blood based therapy makes sense.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Honestly I never understood how the death being undone nullifies it.

Because its not really a sacrifice, it's a minor delay or inconvenience for the character. Rather than giving their life for the mission/ship/crew and being remembered for that, their death is just a plot device that is then expunged with some deus ex machina, making it not something that doesn't have any impact--they might as well have chopped off a hand or leg for all the difference it makes to the characters or story.

It applies to Spock's revitalisation on Genesis, Data's data transfer to B-4 emerging, and Kirk being injected with augment blood, since the consequences don't stick then the growth that the character who "died" and those around them might've had stops dead. At the end of TWOK you see how they all mourn Spock (because Leonard Nimoy was finished with Trek at this point), you see how Kirk then remembers the lesson Spock tried to teach him at the beginning of the film and how it's changed his outlook on things. This then transfers to the beginning of TSFS with Kirk still reeling from his friends loss and struggling with it. Then comes Vulcan mysticism and protomatter to change all that. Later on the death of David has a prolonged impact on Kirk that stays with him through to TUC, where he learns a valuable lesson and is finally able to move beyond his hatred of Klingons.

 

[fireproof78]

Because its not really a sacrifice, it's a minor delay or inconvenience for the character. Rather than giving their life for the mission/ship/crew and being remembered for that, their death is just a plot device that is then expunged with some deus ex machina, making it not something that doesn't have any impact--they might as well have chopped off a hand or leg for all the difference it makes to the characters or story.

For my part, no. The character chose death in that moment.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The idea of John Harrison, a human with advanced tech and a grudge against Starfleet was really interesting, when he announced “I am Khan” I audibly groaned in disgust in the cinema.

For me, that moment happened as soon as Khan asked Kirk how many torpedoes the Enterprise was carrying and Kirk said they had 72. I'd seen "Space Seed" enough times to know the significance of that number and as soon as I heard "72" I thought, "Aw, shit. They're doing Khan."

Now, Spock coming back in the next movie does take some of that impact away. But if you watch TWOK on its own without minding what happens later, that really is a powerful scene.

Exactly. I first saw TWOK after TSFS, and the Spock death scene still works like gangbusters.

With INTO DARKNESS, I felt none of that impact. It just didn't feel genuine enough. (Granted, with TWOK, we had a series and a previous movie to feel at home and bond with these characters. INTO DARKNESS only had the previous film, so I may be somewhat harsh in my judgment.)

Agreed. The difference is that when they killed off a major character in TWOK, they meant it. They didn't cynically build in an automatic trap door to bring the character back minutes later. (Yeah, they did the "Remember" thing, but at that time there was no expectation of getting Nimoy back. It could've meant anything.)

And our four hours of time getting to know the Kelvin Kirk and Spock didn't match the 16 years we'd spent getting to know the original Kirk and Spock. We didn't have anything like the same attachment to the new versions, so it didn't have anything like the same impact.

Because its not really a sacrifice, it's a minor delay or inconvenience for the character. Rather than giving their life for the mission/ship/crew and being remembered for that, their death is just a plot device that is then expunged with some deus ex machina, making it not something that doesn't have any impact--they might as well have chopped off a hand or leg for all the difference it makes to the characters or story.

Exactly. Death doesn't mean anything if it's reversed minutes later. Especially if they're brought back in a totally stupid way. At least in TSFS, they paid a heavy price for bringing Spock back - the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of David, and the Enterprise crew becoming fugitives. They still had stakes.