Why does Abrams keep playing it safe?

[horatio83]

Annorax is the only one. If you think otherwise feel free to point out which other Trek character besides Annorax is tragic ... and I hope you have read your Bard such that you actually know what tragic means.
I am all ears.

About the Khan stuff, you obviously missed this post.

 

[Dukhat]

For a planet that had no role to play in the original series (except for time travel), everyone seems to treat Earth like the center of the universe where if it goes, the whole existence of the Federation will go as well. I find that rather silly and counter-productive to a series who's focus has been on space exploration and unifying multiple races in the galaxy. You're not going to get a lot done if all we do is come back to the planet where we started. But now that we have no Vulcan, we have less alien worlds to explore and more predictable "Earth is in danger!" story lines that our brilliant writers have left future Star Trek writers with.

Whether all that is true or not, no one in their right mind who's in charge of Trek is going to destroy Earth, and it has nothing to do with taking risks. Trek isn't nuBSG. No matter how much or how little Earth's importance seems to be in Trek, it's destruction is always going to be a downer to the audience, and would have a negative impact on any film or television series. Vulcan's destruction was a downer too, but it was a downer that worked both in the structure of the film's story, and with the audience, as we definitely felt Vulcan's loss much more than, say, some Planet-Of-The-Week that we've never heard of and care less about...like, say, Veridian II...but not as much of a negative reaction as if Earth were destroyed.

Well they sure didn't seem bothered by it in the end. Of all the folks who I think would be most bothered by it would be Uhura. Her boyfriend just witnessed his his home world destroyed, his mother murdered and has now tasked himself to help the remaining Vulcans survive. I thought that if she was in any way that emotionally connected with him that she would want to lend her expertise to help out. But no. Instead she's on the bridge of the Enterprise with a big smile on her face gleefully calling Kirk Captain. And this was before Spock's surprise appearance.

In other words, she wasn't letting her emotions get in the way of performing her duties as a Starfleet officer? Sounds like she was acting correctly to me.

I don't think Vulcan or the remaining Vulcans are going to be missed.

I believe Nimoy himself was quoted as saying that the next movie would examine the implications of Vulcan's destruction. Of course, that could very well be just an internet rumor. But before you go damning this new Trek universe, perhaps you should wait and see what the next film has in store. Or is it too late? Do you already hate it before it's even come out?

 

[Sindatur]

So if, according to you, Star Trek isn't about Earth or Vulcan, then what does it matter which planet got destroyed? You make little sense.

Do I? Because if Earth was destroyed, we would no longer have any "Earth is in danger!" story lines that make up for almost half of the movies.

- Star Trek: The Motion Picture
V'Ger wants to destroy Earth.

- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
A probe is destroying Earth.

- Star Trek: First Contact
The Borg specifically target Earth to assimilate it.

- Star Trek Nemesis
Shinzon wants to destroy Earth.

- Star Trek 2009
Nero wants to destroy everything, but is stopped before he specifically destroys Earth.

For a planet that had no role to play in the original series (except for time travel), everyone seems to treat Earth like the center of the universe where if it goes, the whole existence of the Federation will go as well. I find that rather silly and counter-productive to a series who's focus has been on space exploration and unifying multiple races in the galaxy. You're not going to get a lot done if all we do is come back to the planet where we started. But now that we have no Vulcan, we have less alien worlds to explore and more predictable "Earth is in danger!" story lines that our brilliant writers have left future Star Trek writers with.

And I don't recall anyone being happy about Vulcan's destruction at the end of the movie.

Well they sure didn't seem bothered by it in the end. Of all the folks who I think would be most bothered by it would be Uhura. Her boyfriend just witnessed his his home world destroyed, his mother murdered and has now tasked himself to help the remaining Vulcans survive. I thought that if she was in any way that emotionally connected with him that she would want to lend her expertise to help out. But no. Instead she's on the bridge of the Enterprise with a big smile on her face gleefully calling Kirk Captain. And this was before Spock's surprise appearance.

I don't think Vulcan or the remaining Vulcans are going to be missed.

The Reason it would be catastrophic to Starfleet/The Federation if Earth was destroyed, is because the Federation Headquarters, Starfleet Academy and the Federation Leaders are all there. And then of course, Star Trek is a Fictional story about the future of Earth's people, so, naturally, it's going to be the center of the Universe, that's how the audience relates to the Series/Movies

 

[BillJ]

Annorax is the only one. If you think otherwise feel free to point out which other Trek character besides Annorax is tragic ... and I hope you have read your Bard such that you actually know what tragic means.
I am all ears.

About the Khan stuff, you obviously missed this post.

I think the other question is more interesting. If Star Trek is trashy sci-fi, why are you watching?

 

[horatio83]

Why do people always rip stuff out of context?
Compared to the Bard at least TOS is nothing but a stupid and trashy sci-fi show whereas compared to other stuff on TV it is pretty decent.

 

[BillJ]

Why do people always rip stuff out of context?
Compared to the Bard at least TOS is nothing but a stupid and trashy sci-fi show whereas compared to other stuff on TV it is pretty decent.

Awesome back-peddle!

 

[horatio83]

I did not peddle back on anything, I merely pointed out that my statement was made in a discussion where the ridiculous claim was made that Khan is a tragic character with literary qualities. Obviously TOS is nothing but utter trash from a literary perspective.
I do not wanna get philosophical but behind the scenes the difference among us is that for you truth is an absolute whereas for me it is more dialectical, always made in the tension of a discussion.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

but the point is, however petty they may be, they ARE being debated and discussed when they shouldn't have had to be debated or discussed in the first place.

They don't have to be.

They never had to be.

They're debated because a small group of people insist on covering the same trivial ground over and over again ad nauseam.

It's not required. It's not necessary. It's a pointless waste of life that means nothing and accomplishes nothing.

So, you really don't have a point there.

Thank you.

 

[horatio83]

You miss Homm's point which is not that these totally natural changes suck but that the lack of a clear-cut reboot which provokes these question among some fans sucks. If you your write the reboot so deeply into your story which is totally unnecessary it is pretty natural that people ask such questions (which are, as you rightly point out, stupid).

So yeah, the argument is not that natural changes or the movie itself are the problem but that the writers lacked the guts to tell a story with new characters without rationalizing the reboot inside of their story. This is not whining about the good ol' times but the very opposite, an argument for a more radical cut.

 

[CoveTom]

Annorax is the only one. If you think otherwise feel free to point out which other Trek character besides Annorax is tragic ... and I hope you have read your Bard such that you actually know what tragic means.
I am all ears.

About the Khan stuff, you obviously missed this post.

Since you set up your question with the idea that any character I name you're going to refute with the idea that I don't understand tragedy, and peppered your post with a healthy dose of smarmy condescension, I think I'll bow out of the thread at this point.

 

[horatio83]

I love to get ripped apart in a discussion but when you bitch about a claim of somebody else without actually making any argument you can hardly expect a friendly response.
As I expected you have no point to make and no name in mind.

 

[BillJ]

I'd say both Alidar Jarok and Jetrel are tragic characters. Funny, they're both played by James Sloyan. I'd also say Apollo from Who Mourns for Adonais? is a tragic character.

But I'm an uneducated rube, so what do I know?

EDIT: I'd also add Kodos/Anton Karidian from The Conscience of the King.

 

[Jeyl]

In other words, she wasn't letting her emotions get in the way of performing her duties as a Starfleet officer? Sounds like she was acting correctly to me.

Too bad she didn't act that way when there was a crises at hand. How many times did she leave her station because something was going on with Spock? I counted four times. Did she really need to be in the transporter room when Spock was leaving and coming back? Heck, giving Chekov her communication assignments makes more sense because in that very scene when Kirk tells Chekov to hail the Narada, you can see Uhura making a dash back towards her station. That kind of work behavior is not only unprofessional, but it also showcases that Uhura doesn't really have a place on the bridge if she won't perform simple tasks that her position calls for.

In a nutshell, you seem to be very happy with Uhura neglecting her duties during a crises as long as she is professional when there isn't one.

 

[Jeyl]

And then of course, Star Trek is a Fictional story about the future of Earth's people, so, naturally, it's going to be the center of the Universe, that's how the audience relates to the Series/Movies

And thus you've made an example on JJ Abrams playing it safe with Star Trek. Relating to the familiar is easy. Relating to the unfamiliar is hard. JJ played it safe by not only having humanity be the saviors of the galaxy, but also taking it's only alien crew member and making his human side become the part that saves the day as well. I do find it silly when the first clear sign of Spock's growth occurs when all he wants to do is murder the helpless Romulans who were being devoured by a Black Hole.

Sure you can hide behind "Star Trek is a human adventure!", but not all Star Trek stories revolve around the human crew. Worf has had a lot of episodes dedicated to him, his species and his culture. Episodes from Deep Space Nine contain a lot of episodes that focus solely on it's alien characters.

If you're going to depict humanity as the only essential race, you'll be in serious danger of depicting us as self-glorifying and pompous a**holes. Because at the end of Trek09, the story pretty much tells you it's ok to cheat, it's ok to not involve your crew in any strategic discussion, it's ok to disobey orders, it's ok to assault on-duty officers and it's ok to verbally assault your commanding officer. In the end, people will get over it and you'll get everything you want with no consequence.

 

[Therin of Andor]

You miss Homm's point which is not that these totally natural changes suck but that the lack of a clear-cut reboot which provokes these question among some fans sucks.

But... for every fan who hates the direction taken by the writers - embracing the old continuity and yet allowing their movies to branch off - there are lots of us who love that this happened. For us, it doesn't suck.

I'd probably have watched a total reboot, too, but to have a not-quite-reboot, that involved Leonard Nimoy in a role much bigger than the brief cameo that publicity had seemingly suggested, and was supported by several comic mini-series by IDW that connected the movie even closer to the 24th century stories we'd been immersed in for 18 or so years.

 

[nightwind1]

And thus you've made an example on JJ Abrams playing it safe with Star Trek. Relating to the familiar is easy. Relating to the unfamiliar is hard. JJ played it safe by not only having humanity be the saviors of the galaxy, but also taking it's only alien crew member and making his human side become the part that saves the day as well.

Almost like...

It'll come to me...

...Some... TV show?...

...I think it was from....

...around 1966 or so...

..."Space Travels"?..."Star Tours"?...

...It'll come to me.

 

[Ubik]

Annorax is the only one. If you think otherwise feel free to point out which other Trek character besides Annorax is tragic ... and I hope you have read your Bard such that you actually know what tragic means.
I am all ears.

About the Khan stuff, you obviously missed this post.

Is this off-topic? Maybe. But I need to reply. As a literature professor, I am in fact very versed with the notion of tragedy, and I can state quite blankly that your claim is incorrect. In fact, Deep Space Nine is full of genuinely tragic characters, all of them far more interesting and "literary" than any character who ever appeared on Voyager.

Off the top of my head, any number of the main Cardassian characters would qualify, including the guy from Duet whose name escapes me at the moment. His success and happiness are flustered by tragic flaws within himself.

In terms of your other claim, that everything in Star Trek is trash compared to Shakespeare, I'm afraid that's baseless adoration. Shakespeare has, in fact, written some pretty crumby plays, and both Star Trek: TNG and DS9 have a few episodes I would consider quite superior to some of Shakespeare's weaker efforts. He was only human, after all, and he was writing at an average pace of two plays a year. He absolutely had some off-years.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You miss Homm's point which is not that these totally natural changes suck but that the lack of a clear-cut reboot which provokes these question among some fans sucks.

Nope. Got that. Try again.

 

[Gojira]

And thus you've made an example on JJ Abrams playing it safe with Star Trek. Relating to the familiar is easy. Relating to the unfamiliar is hard. JJ played it safe by not only having humanity be the saviors of the galaxy, but also taking it's only alien crew member and making his human side become the part that saves the day as well.

Almost like...

It'll come to me...

...Some... TV show?...

...I think it was from....

...around 1966 or so...

..."Space Travels"?..."Star Tours"?...

...It'll come to me.

Thanks! That gave me a good laugh!

 

[horatio83]

Off the top of my head, any number of the main Cardassian characters would qualify, including the guy from Duet whose name escapes me at the moment. His success and happiness are flustered by tragic flaws within himself.

What personal flaws? They guy was ashamed of the crimes he witnessed in the camps so he posed as a war criminal. He did something heroic and paid for it with his life. No tragic fall-down, no tragic flaws.