• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why "Star Trek" is not right...

For me, the characters that totally worked were:
McCoy
Uhura
Sulu

Those that were close but still "off"
Spock
Chekov

And those that made me say WTF?
Kirk
Scotty

Kirk needs to learn to lead rather than simply being right while everyone else is wrong. Kirk made mistakes before. He should have been shown as making one or two since it was the very beginning of his career. Leading by coincidence doesn't make one a leader.

Scotty needs to calm down.

Groovy - this is my assessment too, although I am perhaps more charitable when it comes to Kirk. Pine's performance was creditable but the way the script portrayed Kirk let him down in a few places and I didn't really like the fact that bookworm Kirk had to be replaced with infallible badboy Kirk in order to be cool to a modern audience. I also didn't like Uhura snogging Spock on the transporter pad while on duty.
 
Aren't Mirror Universe people supposed to be slightly, or even radically different from their Prime Universe counterparts?

Yes.
 
From my POV, they accomplished both. The Character differences are completely in Canon and entertaining.
 
I don't think anyone can deny that the characters aren't quite right (varying by character, with Quinto's Spock being pretty damn weird).

The characters were just fine, thanks. It's true that Urban was the only actor to attempt to impersonate the previous actor in his role rather than play the character as written, which was mildly distracting rather than impressive. He was all right, though.

Thats the strangest stance I've encountered. So you're fine with Spock being as emotional as a middle-school girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend, Kirk being a jerk who picks fights in bars, and Uhura being a party-chick who wants to boff Spock?
Not a fan of the TOS novels are we?

But you don't like Urban staying true to the character.
True to the character is one thing. Imitating Deforest Kelly's inflections is quite another.

You do realize that these are actual characters from the show?
They sure are, and recognizably so. The differences you seem to be noting are primarily differences in the actors. Trekkies aren't as used to this in Trek as we are in other franchises because nobody but Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner ever played Kirk and Spock. Whenever you change actors you get a slightly difference balance of style and chemistry; short of cloning the original actors and re-casting them, there's nothing much you can do about that except take it for what it is, and enjoy the ride.
 
For me, the characters that totally worked were:
McCoy
Uhura
Sulu

Those that were close but still "off"
Spock
Chekov

And those that made me say WTF?
Kirk
Scotty

Kirk needs to learn to lead rather than simply being right while everyone else is wrong. Kirk made mistakes before. He should have been shown as making one or two since it was the very beginning of his career. Leading by coincidence doesn't make one a leader.

Scotty needs to calm down.

Groovy - this is my assessment too, although I am perhaps more charitable when it comes to Kirk. Pine's performance was creditable but the way the script portrayed Kirk let him down in a few places and I didn't really like the fact that bookworm Kirk had to be replaced with infallible badboy Kirk in order to be cool to a modern audience. I also didn't like Uhura snogging Spock on the transporter pad while on duty.
As far as Kirk, I don't think coolness factors into it. It's a generational thing: the general "Have alot of potential but flushed it down the toilet because I'm pissed off about something" trend has haunted ALOT of young kids since about the 1980s. Original Kirk was a driven workaholic and dedicated professional frustrated by the fact that he could never have the sort of life he wanted because he was too enamored by duty and responsibility, both to his ship and to his crew. Compare with New Kirk, a rudderless underachiever pissing his life away in a bar in Iowa, never to make anything of himself until he suddenly hits rock bottom and decides to commit himself to something better.

Of all characters in the Trek franchise, Kirk's change was the most radical. The original conception was an adventurer who had sacrificed his entire life for his career. The new conception is an adventurer who salvages his decomposing life by FINDING a career.

If you think about it, it's comparable to the difference between Young Picard and Old Picard. The former is a cocky puerile brat who flirts with anything that moves and picks fights with Nausicans, the latter is a cautious, disciplined, studious diplomat who occasionally moonlights as an archeologist. In between is some four decades of GROWING UP, and that's one thing we got to see Kirk do.
 
Where exactly did we see Kirk grow up? He didn't learn about leadership. He didn't learn the value of other people's abilities. He basically drove through the whole movie without changing. He's still the same "go it alone" type as he was at the beginning. He should have made a mistake or two. Learned a lesson along the way. Everyone else made a mistake of some sort, why shouldn't he? We got a Kirk that's based on a flawed perception that he was nothing but a hot head who didn't follow orders and bedded every woman he could.
 
TOS doesn't tell us much interesting, in dramatic terms, about Kirk as a young person. There's a plethora of throw-away detail about events that happened to him - like the Kodos business - but what's said about him is stuff like "a stack of books with legs." Oh, and he blamed himself for what happened to Garrovick. While those two or three events might function as parts of the armature of a story it's not one that anyone would try to build a big-budget tentpole feature around, and those events give us nothing in terms of a dramatic arc and in no way illuminate his conflicts and idiosyncracies. Such things had to be made up entirely for this movie.

The exception there, of course, is the Kobyashi Maru cheating incident - and the movie used it in a far more effective way than any of the fannish speculation or previous attempts to dramatize it in narrative have.
 
For me, the characters that totally worked were:
McCoy
Uhura
Sulu

Those that were close but still "off"
Spock
Chekov

And those that made me say WTF?
Kirk
Scotty
Personally, I would say most characters totally worked, as a modern interpretation of the original templates. Slightly different, but true to the characters. The only one that was "off" to me was Scotty, but he was never really central to the show, and Pegg is hilarious, so it worked for me.
 
The exception there, of course, is the Kobyashi Maru cheating incident - and the movie used it in a far more effective way than any of the fannish speculation or previous attempts to dramatize it in narrative have.

That's funny, "fannish" is exactly how I would describe their use of it.
 
Not a fan of the TOS novels are we?

Depends on the novel. I've seen really bad ones and really good ones. Arguably my favorite is 'How Much for Just the Planet?'

I have yet to encounter a novel anything like the movie as I described it.

I'm not going to discount any sequels. If they have better writing and pacing (and more depth to characters) it could be fine.
 
TOS doesn't tell us much interesting, in dramatic terms, about Kirk as a young person. There's a plethora of throw-away detail about events that happened to him - like the Kodos business - but what's said about him is stuff like "a stack of books with legs." Oh, and he blamed himself for what happened to Garrovick. While those two or three events might function as parts of the armature of a story it's not one that anyone would try to build a big-budget tentpole feature around, and those events give us nothing in terms of a dramatic arc and in no way illuminate his conflicts and idiosyncracies. Such things had to be made up entirely for this movie.

The exception there, of course, is the Kobyashi Maru cheating incident - and the movie used it in a far more effective way than any of the fannish speculation or previous attempts to dramatize it in narrative have.

I don't mind that they referenced so little of Kirk's prior life. He's essentially a new person. Things should be different. I don't like that he was, to me, an unlikeable and unsympathetic charcter.
 
The exception there, of course, is the Kobyashi Maru cheating incident - and the movie used it in a far more effective way than any of the fannish speculation or previous attempts to dramatize it in narrative have.

That's funny, "fannish" is exactly how I would describe their use of it.

And, not surprisingly, you would be wrong.

Not at all.

It was only put in there just because of fanboyism... no other reason. At least in Wrath of Khan it served somewhat of a purpose to convey a theme. Here it was basically a fan service plot mover with no real relevance. Something put in just to be cool or appeal to people's familiarity with it. It doesn't get a lot more fannish than that.
 
It was put in to give Kirk the first of his victories over Spock. To show the superiority of breaking the rules rather than following them.
 
It was put in to give Kirk the first of his victories over Spock. To show the superiority of breaking the rules rather than following them.

Anything could've done that though. Specifically making it the Kobayashi Maru and not something else is what makes it fannish.
 
It's difference from human norms that make ANY character iconic, whether or not they are actually human. But "cool, he's an alien!" simply doesn't cover it.

So you're not interested in Spock anymore because you think he's too human? Fine. Since you prefer a character whose memorable trait is "Being Vulcan," you can always watch Voyager.

Maybe I haven't explained my position adequately. Since most good SF explores how different technology or situations effect who we are and how we behave, my main interest in Spock is not about him being an alien or Vulcan. It’s that his character highlights and examines certain qualities that are generally undervalued. But never mind about that. If people want him turned back into little more than a human (with pointed ears), make it so.

Which doesn't change the fact that he is still GENETICALLY half human …

Sure, but if the 50% that is human isn’t being used in any particular trait, it might as well not be there. I guess you’re talking about an intangible emotional quality, not a practical one.

Only insofar as general predispositions. The vast majority of human behaviors, however, are learned behaviors.

Quite possibly though I've seen docos on twins where likenesses can be surprisingly specific.

But it's not.

I’ll bow to your superior clairvoyance. ;)

So go watch Voyager then. Don't complain just because the writers aren't writing Spock to your specific tastes.

You’re sure I’m not allowed to do both?

All you're really saying is that Spock doesn't have to be Spock. And you're right, he doesn't. But I'm just a tad dubious to what extent his morphing into White Tuvok will really engage the audiences in future productions.

He seemed to engage them fine in TOS. All I’m suggesting his he shouldn't change much from that. Perhaps you could find some other way to evolve his character if you think its necessary?
 
It was put in to give Kirk the first of his victories over Spock. To show the superiority of breaking the rules rather than following them.

Anything could've done that though. Specifically making it the Kobayashi Maru and not something else is what makes it fannish.

How is using Kirk's Kobayashi Maru, a known part of the character's backstory, in this reboot any more "fannish" than having young Bruce Wayne's parents killed in the newest version of Batman?
 
How is using Kirk's Kobayashi Maru, a known part of the character's backstory, in this reboot any more "fannish" than having young Bruce Wayne's parents killed in the newest version of Batman?

Those are two totally different things.

Batman's parents being killed was an idea that was around very close to Batman's inception. It's fundamental to his character since it defines who he is and why he is Batman. You couldn't have an origin story on Batman without it happening.

Kirk's character isn't reliant on the Kobayashi Maru, especially since it wasn't devised until long after Kirk was. It is not integral to his character, didn't really motivate him to do anything, and really only had any bearing on the events surrounding Spock's "death" because it was a parallel to the no-win scenario. It's a mere footnote in his history that suited the story. But since it's from one of the most popular Star Trek movies, and because Kirk happened to be in the academy, it just had to be in there, despite there not really being any point or theme. That's what makes it fannish.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top