William Shatner claims he will not be included in ST 3

[fireproof78]

Boy I am liking the idea more and more! FirsKirk knows the codes and Strategies and Ins and Outs of Star Fleet. At the beginning of the Theoretical Nefariousness (were he to be cast as the Bad Guy) he could enlist people and support based on who he is perceived to be - like in III - and gain purchase towards his Evil ends. There are any number of combinations and permutations of possible protagonists, plot lines, savior moments, new tek/old tek combinations, ships, etc., that could play very nicely. The "thing" would not only be about MultiKirk, but also allow for plenty of "multi-Trek". In my WarpField mind, I am even seeing a Dualogy or Trilogy. Just gotta keep Shatnorama alive. God, I love this shit!

"in every revolution, there's one man with a vision."

...I see ID reflecting far more optimism that it is ever given credit for. Maybe the means of conveying that message is lost in the style of the film...

The very title of the film itself - Into Darkness - admits or stipulates a message of optimism lost.

I very mush dislike the dystopian tendencies of "today's sensibilities" to deconstruct franchises and characters in the name of "gritty realism." Make Superman an alcoholic - why not. Today's sensibilities date a film. Everything modern becomes a humorous curiosity in retrospect. You used the term "modern sensibility," but I find the use of "modern" presumptuous. Microsoft calls it's Windows 8 UI "modern." Ugh. It's only modern because it's what we have now - not what we could do better in the future. 'Contemporary' might be better.

Then, please substitute contemporary where I used modern (mostly because I hate editing)

I don't read Into Darkness as a loss of optimism by the society as a whole, but by Marcus, and the temptation for Kirk to follow the same path. It isn't a loss of optimism, but the temptation to blindly follow orders and his need for revenge upon Harrison (read, not Khan, because he didn't know it was Khan).

It's one thing that I have discovered in my own life that optimistic beliefs are fine but they are quite difficult to maintain in the face of daily difficulties. Does that make my beliefs less optimistic? No, but it does mean I have to work harder to not allow them to be ignored in the face of difficulties.

I'm not saying this as well as I like. My final point being that there is still an optimistic future but one that has had to face challenges. Kirk's response demonstrates that hardship does have to mean pessimism is the result.

The title of the film, in my opinion, speaks of a challenge to the optimism, not the loss of it.

 

[JWPlatt]

I don't read Into Darkness as a loss of optimism by the society as a whole, but by Marcus, and the temptation for Kirk to follow the same path. It isn't a loss of optimism, but the temptation to blindly follow orders and his need for revenge upon Harrison (read, not Khan, because he didn't know it was Khan).

Then let's hope this was "The Empire Strikes Back" to the next film's "The Return of the ..." or even "The Final Cut" before "A Momentary Lapse of Reason."

It's one thing that I have discovered in my own life that optimistic beliefs are fine but they are quite difficult to maintain in the face of daily difficulties.

This is the reasoning behind so much deconstruction that has changed the fictional heroes of our cultural heritage that causes my complaint. The new artists imbue more real life - realism - into their work, making superheroes less super and more human, presumably so that we can better relate to them (or feel superior to them for our humanity). It comes at a certain loss of escapism when things are gray and answers are vague, as if that's a better thing than what I want to see when I go to a movie to escape from real life for some otherworldly entertainment. In a way, it's like how Star Trek inevitably humanizes their invincible foes.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't read Into Darkness as a loss of optimism by the society as a whole, but by Marcus, and the temptation for Kirk to follow the same path. It isn't a loss of optimism, but the temptation to blindly follow orders and his need for revenge upon Harrison (read, not Khan, because he didn't know it was Khan).

Then let's hope this was "The Empire Strikes Back" to the next film's "The Return of the ..." or even "The Final Cut" before "A Momentary Lapse of Reason."

It's one thing that I have discovered in my own life that optimistic beliefs are fine but they are quite difficult to maintain in the face of daily difficulties.

This is the reasoning behind so much deconstruction that has changed the fictional heroes of our cultural heritage that causes my complaint. The new artists imbue more real life - realism - into their work, making superheroes less super and more human, presumably so that we can better relate to them (or feel superior to them for our humanity). It comes at a certain loss of escapism when things are gray and answers are vague, as if that's a better thing than what I want to see when I go to a movie to escape from real life for some otherworldly entertainment. In a way, it's like how Star Trek inevitably humanizes their invincible foes.

Given Kirk's speech at the end, I can definitely get an "Empire" vibe from this middle chapter. If one wanted to make a Star Wars analogy (I will) the Kirk is now a Jedi

As for the sense of escapism, I agree to a certain point. I prefer the original Star Wars because it was very black and white, good guys and bad guys, with little mincing of terms.

TOS, as an interesting twist, could provide more variety, depending on the show. The Romulans were clearly the enemy in Balance of Terror, and yet we could sympathize with the Commander, at least, as he was made very "human" in his portrayal. As you said, it is the humanizing of foes, because often our enemies are more similar to us that we would ever care to admit.

However, it is a dual edged sword. If I want social commentary, I can hardly complain if issues come up that I deal with in my daily life. Similarly, if there is more escapism to the production, I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of issues being tackled by the film's theme. Star Trek walks a fine line because it is expected to provide social commentary (of some kind, in some way) and yet is held to task if it isn't escapist enough. And, unfortunately, it probably can't be everything to everyone.

Beyond that, Abrams Trek is more escapist for me, reminiscent of reading "Space Cadet" when I was younger, partially due to the fun and a bit of rediscovery of what I enjoy about TOS. The social commentary is there without being too sledgehammering (though there are moments) and the characters offer and interesting take on something well trodden in literature.

It clearly is not everyone's cup of tea, and certainly not perfect. But, it provides a good balance between escapist and commentary, in my opinion.

 

[HIjol]

Wow. Good thoughts and analysis!

And, I share fireproof and I am sure, other's challenges and laments of keeping optimistic beliefs in the face of daily difficulties (paraphrase).

Thank you, JW for your words regarding my thoughts above.

Finally, within the context of what is being discussed and compared above, I have to agree with Nerys that "modern" and " contemporary" could be used synonymously.

 

[JWPlatt]

However, it is a dual edged sword. If I want social commentary, I can hardly complain if issues come up that I deal with in my daily life. Similarly, if there is more escapism to the production, I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of issues being tackled by the film's theme. Star Trek walks a fine line because it is expected to provide social commentary (of some kind, in some way) and yet is held to task if it isn't escapist enough. And, unfortunately, it probably can't be everything to everyone.

Very nice paragraph. Quite true.

Finally, within the context of what is being discussed and compared above, I have to agree with Nerys that "modern" and " contemporary" could be used synonymously.

You should understand, however, that a futurist or even the simply insightful who can see beyond today's foibles, might doubt claims of "modern" as pretentious and silly whereas "contemporary" is a matter of fact which contains no connotation of a self-important or self-centric opinion or judgement.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I think you're confusing optimism with perfect and Utopian. Having bad guys in Starfleet doesn't make the show/movie less optimistic or some sort of Dystopia.

That is true. The Federation and Starfleet have overcome the bad apples to remain true to their mission (except for the cynical Section 31 which appears to always be a necessary aspect). But Star Trek - the TV show and movies - are commonly described, and sometimes self-described, as being set within a utopian society. It still surprises me to see fans deny such a common point of view that Star Trek is about optimism and the hope for a more perfect society. It's seems like a bit of pessimistic cognitive dissonance to me, or maybe just ironic.

Oops, sorry for the double post.

First of all, this is a rather long post, and it is not meant to be a personal attack in any way.

As others have pointed out, the idea of optimism does not preclude conflict among members, especially in TOS, which Abrams Trek is inspired by. Regardless of GR's view on the Federation later on in Trek's life, the early ideas of a peaceful Federation was not one of perfection but cooperation. Humanity had managed not to blow itself up, and had worked out space travel and cooperation with alien worlds.

Even in TOS, there is conflict among the crew members, among citizens of the Federation and between member worlds of the Federation. Spock talks about some citizens being discontented with the way life is planned out in the Federation. Sisko, rather famously, talks about the problem of Earth, versus living out on the frontier:

"On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints — just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!"

Yes, I understand that GR had his vision of the Federation, and humans specifically, evolving to a point that things like death and personal conflict did not occur. I understand that, and, while I do not agree, I can see why GR would come to that conclusion and want that to happen.

However, one aspect of science fiction (SF from here on) is to study humanity's reaction to new technology and to new events that occur in that world. A quick side note is that the show Deadwood, and even Dr. Quinn could be argued to be SF to some degree, due to this fact.

Abrams Trek shows us a different view, one that, in my opinion, has a more modern sensibility. It isn't less optimistic-I would argue that Kirk's arc is all about him reaching his full potential. But, that optimism is getting challenged by forces that Kirk's era never had to deal with. The constant threat of a Romulan attack, the rising hostilities with the Klingons, and the need to prepare for facing those attacks. The result is one of contrasts: you can become more like Marcus, who reflects the negative extreme, or become like Kirk, who decides to embrace an optimism that war is not inevitable, nor does it require resorting to extreme measures to combat it.

Sorry for the long post, but I see ID reflecting far more optimism that it is ever given credit for. Maybe the means of conveying that message is lost in the style of the film and that isn't for everyone. I'll grant that. But, that doesn't make it less Star Trek, just because it uses a different way of making its point.

THIS.

 

[urbandefault]

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x15/destiny_310.jpg

[Converted to link. Images posted inline should be hosted on web space belonging to you. - M']

SISKO: Bring us in closer. Closer ... closer ... there! Finally, I can pick up Hawk reruns!

 

[M'Sharak]

Please don't hotlink images from TrekCore. Instead, use an image-hosting service such as Photobucket or Imageshack.

 

[HIjol]

However, it is a dual edged sword. If I want social commentary, I can hardly complain if issues come up that I deal with in my daily life. Similarly, if there is more escapism to the production, I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of issues being tackled by the film's theme. Star Trek walks a fine line because it is expected to provide social commentary (of some kind, in some way) and yet is held to task if it isn't escapist enough. And, unfortunately, it probably can't be everything to everyone.

Very nice paragraph. Quite true.

Finally, within the context of what is being discussed and compared above, I have to agree with Nerys that "modern" and " contemporary" could be used synonymously.

You should understand, however, that a futurist or even the simply insightful who can see beyond today's foibles, might doubt claims of "modern" as pretentious and silly whereas "contemporary" is a matter of fact which contains no connotation of a self-important or self-centric opinion or judgement.

Oh, no argument there, and I could see many, many times when that would be true. In this relatively narrow instance of meaning and definition, however, I am inclined to agree with Neyrs.

Most often, I think of the word "contemporary" as having more to do with style or fashion, any more. "Modern?" Well, that is another kettle of Antedean Vermicula. Sometimes as an antonym to "Ancient", as in History? Sometimes as referring to time, more generally? Sometimes as a somewhat lame marketing reference. Ah, ya gotta love English!

 

[Nerys Myk]

English, it's like four different languages at once!

 

[urbandefault]

Please don't hotlink images from TrekCore. Instead, use an image-hosting service such as Photobucket or Imageshack.

Sorry, didn't mean to do that.

In fact, I don't know how that post got in this thread. I had quoted the original post here and just edited out all but that pic.

Won't happen again.