Aw, can't I just throw a small one? I got here late.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Coming from a guy whose favorite sci-fi series are Firefly and Stargate SG-1, not a Star Trek incarnation, I thought the '09 film was a good sci-fi action flick and an okay Star Trek film, but the contrived coincidences really start to grate after a while (came to a head when Spock just happened to maroon Kirk on the same planet Starfleet Command had banished Scotty to).
Still, believe it or not, it, First Contact, and Nemesis are in a rare category in the Star Trek franchise: They're the only parts of the live-action canon where Starfleet has got some inkling of how to most effectively use their available firepower and maneuvers in space.
-- FC, at least once Picard comes roaring in, provides actual concentration of fire instead of going at the Borg in ones and twos like in DS9: "Emissary" and getting summarily ripped to shreds.
-- Nemesis has Picard spamming the vicinity with phaser blasts to locate the Scimitar and targeting torpedoes when he finds it, and rolling his ship to present undamaged shields (the first hint we get that shields are not a one-piece bubble, which Cryptic took and ran with). It's also one of the best-choreographed space battles in the canon: multiple ships flying over and under each other firing at crazy angles, etc.
-- Abrams appears to actually understand this little concept called point-defense, a.k.a. it's better to shoot down the enemy's ordnance before it reaches you than let it hit. Also, more 3D maneuvering.
As for my list? From best to worst of the ones I've seen:
Series:
-- DS9: Self-aware enough to admit that the Federation is not perfect because it's made up of people, just like every other government. Lots of political intrigue. Also, much higher average of writing quality and consistency (though it has weak spots like every other series; "Fascination", anyone?). And Sisko's the only captain who Does. Not. Put. Up. With. Q. Decking him in "Q-Less" cemented him in my mind as a better captain than Picard. And I haven't even finished watching season 4 yet.
-- TNG: The Federation at its height. Exploration, good morality tales, diplomacy and intrigue, and some good battles here and there.
-- ENT: Usually okay writing, but they worked too hard to convince us that it was still Star Trek without the Federation. "Hull plating is offline!" Lol. I'm told it started to improve right before it was cancelled but I haven't watched that far.
-- VOY: In some ways I consider inconsistent writing a worse sin than consistently bad writing. Taking the series as a whole, Janeway comes off as a violent, hypocritical, psychopathic imbecile who should have been relieved of command the first time Starfleet got back in touch with Voyager and court-martialed upon return to Earth, not promoted. Starfleet Headquarters must be cursed, because nearly every flag officer is either incompetent (Nechayev and whichever idiot decided to promote Janeway), possessed (Keel), evil (Leyton), or abominably unlucky (Hanson). And Neelix? If Janeway was half as good a captain as her defenders make her out to be, she would have thrown him out the airlock for nearly blowing up the ship with his cooking in "Learning Curve". Sisko would've beaten the TRIBBLE out of him, then spaced him. At best he's an annoying ****head, at worst he's gotten multiple crew members killed.
TOS is not sorted because I haven't watched enough of it to form an opinion, but the hammy acting in the snippets I've seen turned me off.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
last bit is related to Kirks death in the engine core with Spock breaking down in tears then vengeful then mentions the iconic khan quote, Vulcans never let their emotions get the better of them no matter what.). more TRIBBLE.
Passing over the chance to list every unrealistic element in Star Trek since I'd be here for months, I'll instead refute the one thing that can be disproved under a minute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5pocMUIWwU
Still, believe it or not, it, First Contact, and Nemesis are in a rare category in the Star Trek franchise: They're the only parts of the live-action canon where Starfleet has got some inkling of how to most effectively use their available firepower and maneuvers in space.
-- FC, at least once Picard comes roaring in, provides actual concentration of fire instead of going at the Borg in ones and twos like in DS9: "Emissary" and getting summarily ripped to shreds.
-- Nemesis has Picard spamming the vicinity with phaser blasts to locate the Scimitar and targeting torpedoes when he finds it, and rolling his ship to present undamaged shields (the first hint we get that shields are not a one-piece bubble, which Cryptic took and ran with). It's also one of the best-choreographed space battles in the canon: multiple ships flying over and under each other firing at crazy angles, etc.
-- Abrams appears to actually understand this little concept called point-defense, a.k.a. it's better to shoot down the enemy's ordnance before it reaches you than let it hit. Also, more 3D maneuvering.
As for my list? From best to worst of the ones I've seen:
Series:
-- DS9: Self-aware enough to admit that the Federation is not perfect because it's made up of people, just like every other government. Lots of political intrigue. Also, much higher average of writing quality and consistency (though it has weak spots like every other series; "Fascination", anyone?). And Sisko's the only captain who Does. Not. Put. Up. With. Q. Decking him in "Q-Less" cemented him in my mind as a better captain than Picard. And I haven't even finished watching season 4 yet.
-- TNG: The Federation at its height. Exploration, good morality tales, diplomacy and intrigue, and some good battles here and there.
-- ENT: Usually okay writing, but they worked too hard to convince us that it was still Star Trek without the Federation. "Hull plating is offline!" Lol. I'm told it started to improve right before it was cancelled but I haven't watched that far.
-- VOY: In some ways I consider inconsistent writing a worse sin than consistently bad writing. Taking the series as a whole, Janeway comes off as a violent, hypocritical, psychopathic imbecile who should have been relieved of command the first time Starfleet got back in touch with Voyager and court-martialed upon return to Earth, not promoted. Starfleet Headquarters must be cursed, because nearly every flag officer is either incompetent (Nechayev and whichever idiot decided to promote Janeway), possessed (Keel), evil (Leyton), or abominably unlucky (Hanson). And Neelix? If Janeway was half as good a captain as her defenders make her out to be, she would have thrown him out the airlock for nearly blowing up the ship with his cooking in "Learning Curve". Sisko would've beaten the TRIBBLE out of him, then spaced him. At best he's an annoying ****head, at worst he's gotten multiple crew members killed.
TOS is not sorted because I haven't watched enough of it to form an opinion, but the hammy acting in the snippets I've seen turned me off.
An interesting assessment of the tactics in the films. TWOK was essentially a submarine movie set in space though. At least the nebula scene was.
I agree with your assessment of the tv series. Enterprise is under appreciated. I personally really like Capt Archer, his flaws are to be expected considering he is a pioneer and he was an underdog. I also liked that the magic technology, that got so tiring in Voyager especially, was scaled back.
It is too bad that we may never see another Trek series like DS9 again. It took aliens of the week and made us live with them for 7 seasons really fleshing out the worlds and characters.
I wish the JJ films had better stories it would have been cool to see Trek become the new Star Wars since everyone hated the prequels so much.
A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
Coming from a guy whose favorite sci-fi series are Firefly and Stargate SG-1, not a Star Trek incarnation, I thought the '09 film was a good sci-fi action flick and an okay Star Trek film, but the contrived coincidences really start to grate after a while (came to a head when Spock just happened to maroon Kirk on the same planet Starfleet Command had banished Scotty to).
Still, believe it or not, it, First Contact, and Nemesis are in a rare category in the Star Trek franchise: They're the only parts of the live-action canon where Starfleet has got some inkling of how to most effectively use their available firepower and maneuvers in space.
-- FC, at least once Picard comes roaring in, provides actual concentration of fire instead of going at the Borg in ones and twos like in DS9: "Emissary" and getting summarily ripped to shreds.
-- Nemesis has Picard spamming the vicinity with phaser blasts to locate the Scimitar and targeting torpedoes when he finds it, and rolling his ship to present undamaged shields (the first hint we get that shields are not a one-piece bubble, which Cryptic took and ran with). It's also one of the best-choreographed space battles in the canon: multiple ships flying over and under each other firing at crazy angles, etc.
-- Abrams appears to actually understand this little concept called point-defense, a.k.a. it's better to shoot down the enemy's ordnance before it reaches you than let it hit. Also, more 3D maneuvering.
As for my list? From best to worst of the ones I've seen:
Series:
-- DS9: Self-aware enough to admit that the Federation is not perfect because it's made up of people, just like every other government. Lots of political intrigue. Also, much higher average of writing quality and consistency (though it has weak spots like every other series; "Fascination", anyone?). And Sisko's the only captain who Does. Not. Put. Up. With. Q. Decking him in "Q-Less" cemented him in my mind as a better captain than Picard. And I haven't even finished watching season 4 yet.
Althrough i like most if its characters, i don't like DS9 for the following reasons:
Humanity which was almost a utopia was reduced to a standard sc if humanity, nothing special anymore.
That took away much of the "magic" Trek had before IMO.
...and the defiant which reversed anything about Star Trek ships...
(i hate that ship for its meaning for Trek, really)
My conclusion, DS9 is a total deconstruction of roddenberrys ideals, just because of some producers not spirited enough to create a good sci fi universe on their own.
-- TNG: The Federation at its height. Exploration, good morality tales, diplomacy and intrigue, and some good battles here and there.
I have good momories of that series, but after rewatching it i found it quite boring to be honest.
It's premise is great but they (the producers) should have waited for a couple of years to have the tech nedded to show a bit more action and they should have had a general concept for a big story arc IMO. (btw. some more action taltented actors wouldn't have been a bad idea IMO)
Today, this series wouldn't have a chance to get a second season, not with the internet community we have.
-- ENT: Usually okay writing, but they worked too hard to convince us that it was still Star Trek without the Federation. "Hull plating is offline!" Lol. I'm told it started to improve right before it was cancelled but I haven't watched that far.
In my opinion, the producers when't consequent enough. Too many future looking tech (like tricorders and so on) among other things.
What irks me about it is that if that series where made before the internet communities had a chanche to tear it apart it actually had a chance to become good. I think too many ppl just wanted to kill that series, not understanding that they (the Crew) actually HAD to make some mistakes in order to learn from it. Unlike Picard, Kirk or Sisko, Archer had no basis and no experience of how it is going to be "out there". I think that apect often goes by the board.
Of course that series had it's obvious faults maybe more that the others but they also wheren't perfect IMO.
I think there is one thing that this seres misses or is unable to translate: sense of wonder.
Maybe it's the writers fault, but i think todays audience is just too deaden (i hope that's the right word).
-- VOY: In some ways I consider inconsistent writing a worse sin than consistently bad writing. Taking the series as a whole, Janeway comes off as a violent, hypocritical, psychopathic imbecile who should have been relieved of command the first time Starfleet got back in touch with Voyager and court-martialed upon return to Earth, not promoted. Starfleet Headquarters must be cursed, because nearly every flag officer is either incompetent (Nechayev and whichever idiot decided to promote Janeway), possessed (Keel), evil (Leyton), or abominably unlucky (Hanson). And Neelix? If Janeway was half as good a captain as her defenders make her out to be, she would have thrown him out the airlock for nearly blowing up the ship with his cooking in "Learning Curve". Sisko would've beaten the TRIBBLE out of him, then spaced him. At best he's an annoying ****head, at worst he's gotten multiple crew members killed.
I don't know where to start at this one.
I think the most important thing is the crew itself. At i don't at least like 80% of it. The only ppl i like is Tuvok and the Doctor (which is much more like a human than anyone lese, lol).
Second there is (almost) no continuity, at the end of every episode the Voyager is a small step closer to earth but nothing else has changed. Everytime i see Voager, i ask myself what's the point of making a series about a ship which is lost if nothing has any impact.
They (the producers) could have skipped the whole "let's go home" part and set the series in Federation space, little would have changed IMO.
TOS is not sorted because I haven't watched enough of it to form an opinion, but the hammy acting in the snippets I've seen turned me off.
Different times IMO.
It's fascinating how much things have changes in (roughly) 25 between TOS and TNG. Much more than between TNG and now imo.
What keeps me from liking TOS is kirk himself (well rather his actor).
People behaving like idiots and almost seem to want to get into trouble, it more like a 60's western than anything else IMO.
And there where too many god-like aliens and too many earth replicas, really.
And still even if there are so many things we like to dislike about Star Trek we love it regardless.
I think the new movies should be seen as a new beginnning, things work differntly and it shouldn't be taken too serious.
Compared to the TNG movies where almost everyone behaved completely different from the series and some of the cast where put into the action hero role (totally misplaced IMO).
You always had to switch off your brains in order to have fun watching Trek (or any other movie/series IMO), the new movies aren't different in that aspect. But in my opinion they are much more fun to watch, most ppl are better characterized than some characters in 7 seasons in a other series. I really would LOVE to see their 5 year mission.
(Btw. i like Chris Pines Kirk much more than Shatners, but that's just me)
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
(Btw. i like Chris Pines Kirk much more than Shatners, but that's just me)
*shrug* I think Chuck Sonnenberg summed up the difference between them very well in his review of ST 2009. Shatner!Kirk, while still the youngest man to ever reach the rank of captain, had already been a Starfleet officer for sixteen years by the time he took command of the Ent-Nil. Pine!Kirk was a third-year cadet who received a field commission.* They're the same guy with the same immense confidence in themselves, but where Shatner!Kirk's self-confidence has been tempered by nearly two decades of experience, Pine!Kirk is completely raw and turns into full-blown arrogance. I'll bet you zen that when Shatner!Kirk was green he was just as arrogant as Pine!Kirk.
* Incidentally this is one of the places where ST 2009 falls down: They would've done better to show a career montage spanning several years at the end of the film, culminating in an older, wiser Kirk reaching at least commander and taking command of the Enterprise, rather than having him get advanced straight from cadet to captain.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Am I the only one that likes Star Trek as a whole? So many specific fanboiz running around claiming either TOS/TNG/JJ is true and superior and others shouldn't exist. Are you kidding me? It's behavior like this that makes me despise "Trekkies."
but the contrived coincidences really start to grate after a while (came to a head when Spock just happened to maroon Kirk on the same planet Starfleet Command had banished Scotty to).
Word of God stated that stuff like that was the timeline trying to repair itself.
Definitely agree with you on the Doctor. Robert Picardo stole literally every scene they put him in. Best damn actor on the entire show IMHO.
*shrug* I think Chuck Sonnenberg summed up the difference between them very well in his review of ST 2009. Shatner!Kirk, while still the youngest man to ever reach the rank of captain, had already been a Starfleet officer for sixteen years by the time he took command of the Ent-Nil. Pine!Kirk was a third-year cadet who received a field commission.* They're the same guy with the same immense confidence in themselves, but where Shatner!Kirk's self-confidence has been tempered by nearly two decades of experience, Pine!Kirk is completely raw and turns into full-blown arrogance. I'll bet you zen that when Shatner!Kirk was green he was just as arrogant as Pine!Kirk.
* Incidentally this is one of the places where ST 2009 falls down: They would've done better to show a career montage spanning several years at the end of the film, culminating in an older, wiser Kirk reaching at least commander and taking command of the Enterprise, rather than having him get advanced straight from cadet to captain.
I was just talking about the actors, i just can't stand Shatner. That's all.
EDIT:
Just one more thing, i think the lesson that a lucky ending and not playing by the rules isn't a justification for sucess, althrough being wrong, is a lesson prime universe kirk never really understood/learned.
(refereing the Kirk/Pike conversation in "into darkness")
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Word of God stated that stuff like that was the timeline trying to repair itself.
You don't get credit for the creator saying "A Wizard Did It" any more than you get credit for stuff that got left on the cutting room floor. (e.g. Where was Nero for 25 years? Got explained in a deleted scene. Why was Kirk stealing the car? Deleted scene.)
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Am I the only one that likes Star Trek as a whole?
*snip*
I felt JJ's films only suffered from poor writing and directing that favored action over story (and lenses flares). Third time's the charm, right? :P Despite these flaws, they were still enjoyable films. There's room for these films and the prime universe to co-exist.
As a whole, very much so. Some parts of of that whole are just much better than others.
The first two seasons of TNG are on par with Into Darkness and The Final Frontier (Horrible). And those are subpar to Voyager's worst seasons. On the other hand, Voyager's best seasons are subpar compared to first season TOS and TWOK (perfection). However, Insurrection made a better TV episode than the first three seasons of Enterprise.
And you touch upon the main problem I have when it comes to JJ Trek: The writing is horrible and most of the appeal came from the shock & awe style of movie making. I don't watch movies in the theatre simply because I don't want to be overwhelmed by the crashbangboom. I want to judge them on their merits as a film rather than the volume of the sound system.
You don't get credit for the creator saying "A Wizard Did It" any more than you get credit for stuff that got left on the cutting room floor. (e.g. Where was Nero for 25 years? Got explained in a deleted scene. Why was Kirk stealing the car? Deleted scene.)
It's rather sad how many things wind up on the cutting room floor in movies. Just because of some arbitrary "time limit" which is an explanation that never makes sense to me since movies can range anywhere from one hour to four. This practice has the hideous habit of producing what you just described where some things that were left in don't make any sense until you do view the deleted scenes.
Comments
Aw, can't I just throw a small one? I got here late.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Ok, but just one pebble. Preferably porous volcanic rock.
Still, believe it or not, it, First Contact, and Nemesis are in a rare category in the Star Trek franchise: They're the only parts of the live-action canon where Starfleet has got some inkling of how to most effectively use their available firepower and maneuvers in space.
-- FC, at least once Picard comes roaring in, provides actual concentration of fire instead of going at the Borg in ones and twos like in DS9: "Emissary" and getting summarily ripped to shreds.
-- Nemesis has Picard spamming the vicinity with phaser blasts to locate the Scimitar and targeting torpedoes when he finds it, and rolling his ship to present undamaged shields (the first hint we get that shields are not a one-piece bubble, which Cryptic took and ran with). It's also one of the best-choreographed space battles in the canon: multiple ships flying over and under each other firing at crazy angles, etc.
-- Abrams appears to actually understand this little concept called point-defense, a.k.a. it's better to shoot down the enemy's ordnance before it reaches you than let it hit. Also, more 3D maneuvering.
As for my list? From best to worst of the ones I've seen:
Series:
-- DS9: Self-aware enough to admit that the Federation is not perfect because it's made up of people, just like every other government. Lots of political intrigue. Also, much higher average of writing quality and consistency (though it has weak spots like every other series; "Fascination", anyone?). And Sisko's the only captain who Does. Not. Put. Up. With. Q. Decking him in "Q-Less" cemented him in my mind as a better captain than Picard. And I haven't even finished watching season 4 yet.
-- TNG: The Federation at its height. Exploration, good morality tales, diplomacy and intrigue, and some good battles here and there.
-- ENT: Usually okay writing, but they worked too hard to convince us that it was still Star Trek without the Federation. "Hull plating is offline!" Lol. I'm told it started to improve right before it was cancelled but I haven't watched that far.
-- VOY: In some ways I consider inconsistent writing a worse sin than consistently bad writing. Taking the series as a whole, Janeway comes off as a violent, hypocritical, psychopathic imbecile who should have been relieved of command the first time Starfleet got back in touch with Voyager and court-martialed upon return to Earth, not promoted. Starfleet Headquarters must be cursed, because nearly every flag officer is either incompetent (Nechayev and whichever idiot decided to promote Janeway), possessed (Keel), evil (Leyton), or abominably unlucky (Hanson). And Neelix? If Janeway was half as good a captain as her defenders make her out to be, she would have thrown him out the airlock for nearly blowing up the ship with his cooking in "Learning Curve". Sisko would've beaten the TRIBBLE out of him, then spaced him. At best he's an annoying ****head, at worst he's gotten multiple crew members killed.
TOS is not sorted because I haven't watched enough of it to form an opinion, but the hammy acting in the snippets I've seen turned me off.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Passing over the chance to list every unrealistic element in Star Trek since I'd be here for months, I'll instead refute the one thing that can be disproved under a minute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5pocMUIWwU
An interesting assessment of the tactics in the films. TWOK was essentially a submarine movie set in space though. At least the nebula scene was.
I agree with your assessment of the tv series. Enterprise is under appreciated. I personally really like Capt Archer, his flaws are to be expected considering he is a pioneer and he was an underdog. I also liked that the magic technology, that got so tiring in Voyager especially, was scaled back.
It is too bad that we may never see another Trek series like DS9 again. It took aliens of the week and made us live with them for 7 seasons really fleshing out the worlds and characters.
I wish the JJ films had better stories it would have been cool to see Trek become the new Star Wars since everyone hated the prequels so much.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
Althrough i like most if its characters, i don't like DS9 for the following reasons:
Humanity which was almost a utopia was reduced to a standard sc if humanity, nothing special anymore.
That took away much of the "magic" Trek had before IMO.
...and the defiant which reversed anything about Star Trek ships...
(i hate that ship for its meaning for Trek, really)
My conclusion, DS9 is a total deconstruction of roddenberrys ideals, just because of some producers not spirited enough to create a good sci fi universe on their own.
I have good momories of that series, but after rewatching it i found it quite boring to be honest.
It's premise is great but they (the producers) should have waited for a couple of years to have the tech nedded to show a bit more action and they should have had a general concept for a big story arc IMO. (btw. some more action taltented actors wouldn't have been a bad idea IMO)
Today, this series wouldn't have a chance to get a second season, not with the internet community we have.
In my opinion, the producers when't consequent enough. Too many future looking tech (like tricorders and so on) among other things.
What irks me about it is that if that series where made before the internet communities had a chanche to tear it apart it actually had a chance to become good. I think too many ppl just wanted to kill that series, not understanding that they (the Crew) actually HAD to make some mistakes in order to learn from it. Unlike Picard, Kirk or Sisko, Archer had no basis and no experience of how it is going to be "out there". I think that apect often goes by the board.
Of course that series had it's obvious faults maybe more that the others but they also wheren't perfect IMO.
I think there is one thing that this seres misses or is unable to translate: sense of wonder.
Maybe it's the writers fault, but i think todays audience is just too deaden (i hope that's the right word).
I don't know where to start at this one.
I think the most important thing is the crew itself. At i don't at least like 80% of it. The only ppl i like is Tuvok and the Doctor (which is much more like a human than anyone lese, lol).
Second there is (almost) no continuity, at the end of every episode the Voyager is a small step closer to earth but nothing else has changed. Everytime i see Voager, i ask myself what's the point of making a series about a ship which is lost if nothing has any impact.
They (the producers) could have skipped the whole "let's go home" part and set the series in Federation space, little would have changed IMO.
Different times IMO.
It's fascinating how much things have changes in (roughly) 25 between TOS and TNG. Much more than between TNG and now imo.
What keeps me from liking TOS is kirk himself (well rather his actor).
People behaving like idiots and almost seem to want to get into trouble, it more like a 60's western than anything else IMO.
And there where too many god-like aliens and too many earth replicas, really.
And still even if there are so many things we like to dislike about Star Trek we love it regardless.
I think the new movies should be seen as a new beginnning, things work differntly and it shouldn't be taken too serious.
Compared to the TNG movies where almost everyone behaved completely different from the series and some of the cast where put into the action hero role (totally misplaced IMO).
You always had to switch off your brains in order to have fun watching Trek (or any other movie/series IMO), the new movies aren't different in that aspect. But in my opinion they are much more fun to watch, most ppl are better characterized than some characters in 7 seasons in a other series. I really would LOVE to see their 5 year mission.
(Btw. i like Chris Pines Kirk much more than Shatners, but that's just me)
*shrug* I think Chuck Sonnenberg summed up the difference between them very well in his review of ST 2009. Shatner!Kirk, while still the youngest man to ever reach the rank of captain, had already been a Starfleet officer for sixteen years by the time he took command of the Ent-Nil. Pine!Kirk was a third-year cadet who received a field commission.* They're the same guy with the same immense confidence in themselves, but where Shatner!Kirk's self-confidence has been tempered by nearly two decades of experience, Pine!Kirk is completely raw and turns into full-blown arrogance. I'll bet you zen that when Shatner!Kirk was green he was just as arrogant as Pine!Kirk.
* Incidentally this is one of the places where ST 2009 falls down: They would've done better to show a career montage spanning several years at the end of the film, culminating in an older, wiser Kirk reaching at least commander and taking command of the Enterprise, rather than having him get advanced straight from cadet to captain.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Word of God stated that stuff like that was the timeline trying to repair itself.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
EDIT:
Just one more thing, i think the lesson that a lucky ending and not playing by the rules isn't a justification for sucess, althrough being wrong, is a lesson prime universe kirk never really understood/learned.
(refereing the Kirk/Pike conversation in "into darkness")
You don't get credit for the creator saying "A Wizard Did It" any more than you get credit for stuff that got left on the cutting room floor. (e.g. Where was Nero for 25 years? Got explained in a deleted scene. Why was Kirk stealing the car? Deleted scene.)
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
As a whole, very much so. Some parts of of that whole are just much better than others.
The first two seasons of TNG are on par with Into Darkness and The Final Frontier (Horrible). And those are subpar to Voyager's worst seasons. On the other hand, Voyager's best seasons are subpar compared to first season TOS and TWOK (perfection). However, Insurrection made a better TV episode than the first three seasons of Enterprise.
And you touch upon the main problem I have when it comes to JJ Trek: The writing is horrible and most of the appeal came from the shock & awe style of movie making. I don't watch movies in the theatre simply because I don't want to be overwhelmed by the crashbangboom. I want to judge them on their merits as a film rather than the volume of the sound system.
It's rather sad how many things wind up on the cutting room floor in movies. Just because of some arbitrary "time limit" which is an explanation that never makes sense to me since movies can range anywhere from one hour to four. This practice has the hideous habit of producing what you just described where some things that were left in don't make any sense until you do view the deleted scenes.
but then again, I'm not a hardcore Trekkie either.