test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Who isn't going to see Star Trek Beyond?

1457910

Comments

  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    Dude, "Bush the Second" has been gone for almost eight years now, it's probably time to get over that bit of angst...,
    it's getting laughable at this point.
    And I'm sorry, but he was the LAST thing I would have thought of while watching Trek-09.

    Well it's not exactly a big secret that he meant these movies as a "see you're evil and go to war over nothing USA!" lecture. Especially the "Khan commits a terror attack, crazy white guy wants to start a war with Qo'noS and uses it as an excuse to try to launch weapons at Qo'noS, Kirk, the bumbling fool from Iowa goes along with the plan to start an unprovoked war with a "planet" (country) that had nothing to do with the terror attack in the first place."

    And then he dedicated the movie to "the troops..."

    Yes, the whole ST:ID is a lament for Saddam Hussein, tragically felled by a ruthless imperialist empire hellbent on mass terror across the galaxy with an incompetent frat boy lowlife running their flagship.

    For what it's worth, Robert Orci is(or at least was, at one time) a 9/11 "truther". He actually deleted his twitter account after making some comments that drew negative attention.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited January 2016
    angrytarg wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    It's not generous, it's accurate. It's on the title card and everything.

    I think what the meant is that "Star Trek" in itself is some kind of quality seal. Which is ironic since when I really think about it and although I'm into it and geeking out so much about it, I think the actual majority of screentime which was Star Trek over all shows and movies I actually don't like very much. Without making some sort of accurate calculation here I think I generally 'like' (not looking at exceptions and singular points but just on average) 3 out of six shows (might be four, I have to rewatch TAS 'seriously') and maybe five out of twelve movies. So I think I actually just like the minority of canonical Star Trek there is, making the assumption that "Star Trek" equals "good" a dubious assumption, form my point of view and if we'd go into that territory. Now, does this make me a bad Targ? pig-2.gif

    Bottom line: It's all subjective, people should get over it. You can argue and reason your opinion and you can exchange about it but if people start bitching and throwing stuff like "objectively right and wrong" around they should take a time out. A long one.

    I think I agree with most of this. With the exception of the majority of DS9 I'm picky about most of my Trek. TOS and VOY for instance, I'm not invested in the situation at all but certain episodes do stand out.
    Yes, the whole ST:ID is a lament for Saddam "send his chopped up body parts back to his wife and finish it off with chemical attacks on the Kurds" Hussein, tragically felled by a ruthless imperialist empire (you know: Starfleet) hellbent on mass terror across the galaxy with an incompetent frat boy lowlife running their flagship.

    No it's not.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    artan42 wrote: »
    Yes, the whole ST:ID is a lament for Saddam "send his chopped up body parts back to his wife and finish it off with chemical attacks on the Kurds" Hussein, tragically felled by a ruthless imperialist empire (you know: Starfleet) hellbent on mass terror across the galaxy with an incompetent frat boy lowlife running their flagship.

    No it's not.​​

    Yes, it is.

    "There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that's not who we are." - Captain James T. Dinozzo, Star Trek Into Darkness

    "THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO OUR POST-9/11 VETERANS
    WITH GRATITUDE FOR THEIR INSPIRED SERVICE ABROAD
    AND CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AT HOME."
    - Into Darkness final credits

    He even chose to cast Cumberbunch or whatever his name is as Kahn because "as we went through the casting process and we began honing in on the themes of the movie, it became uncomfortable for me to support demonizing anyone of color, particularly any one of Middle Eastern descent or anyone evoking that" (Roberto Orci quote). So the theme of the movie obviously has something to do with the Middle-East because terrorism certainly isn't limited to Middle-Easterners. There's Bolshevik terrorists, Maoist terrorists, White Nationalist terrorists, libertarian terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Irish terrorists, Jewish terrorists... But - because the film is about 9/11 and the Iraq war - it must specifically be Middle-Easterners who are not vilified (disregarding that Khan is of Sikh origin (Punjab specifically which is Asia) - probably not religious - and definitely NOT a Muslim). In fact, given the level of anti-Islamic hate among many Sikhs (like in the way Bajorans hate Cardassians [Sikhs carry the Kirpan as a religious ritual due to historical Islamic occupation of Sikh lands]), there'd probably be more than a few who would be angry at Orci for making Khan a white man in order that he may play the metaphorical role of an Islamic terrorist to say that vilifying Islamic terrorists is bad.

    See... he had to change all the details of the characters around to fit his political narrative. Star Trek has political narratives, that's fine, but Orci felt the need to butcher Starfleet and known characters to achieve his political narrative - something that was never done in ST... always using the Enterprise's crew to show the better nature of humanity victorious over either "primitive humans" from the past or alien species engaging in things that parallel contemporary events.

    As far as I'm concerned Orci should just go back to his "non-corrupt" Mexican government and stay there.
    Post edited by penemue#7777 on
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • jodarkriderjodarkrider Member Posts: 2,097 Arc User
    Can we leave politics out of this, pretty please, with a cherry on the top?
    [10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.

    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
    "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
    "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9] 
    "Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy

    Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider

  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    A film dedication isn't a film's subject. It's nice you can see parallels it means your thinking about the film but as you just said terrorists and wrongfull invasions are a global and temporal thing. Not everything post 9/11 involving terrorism is a metaphor for Iraq or Afghanistan.

    You want ham-fisted politics in your ST films go watch The Undercovered Country. Incidentally the best ST film by a country kilometre.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    artan42 wrote: »
    A film dedication isn't a film's subject. It's nice you can see parallels it means your thinking about the film but as you just said terrorists and wrongfull invasions are a global and temporal thing. Not everything post 9/11 involving terrorism is a metaphor for Iraq or Afghanistan.

    You want ham-fisted politics in your ST films go watch The Undercovered Country. Incidentally the best ST film by a country kilometre.

    Unfortunately that simply isn't true. Orci's film is very much a conspiracy "thriller" about the Iraq war. It's forced, but it's there. There's literally no reason at all for Khan to "transwarp transport" to Qo'noS and send Kirk on a wild goose chase after a terrorist that just happens to be residing on an innocent planet to commit an act of war against them. It makes zero internal logic unless the logic is being crafted around a quasi-allegorical narrative. It's just not the kind of story that a story writer would create unless it were being adapted around some external narrative.

    "It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era." - Benedict Cumberbunch (or whatever his name is) on "ST:ID"

    The Undiscovered Country was very political. It was patriotic and honoring. It rightly criticized some aspects of Russian governance, especially by sending Kirk and McCoy to a gulag and displaying a completely phony and contrived trial. As well as implying the horrific and unrestrained barbarism of the Bolsheviks and their closed off nature behind the iron curtain.
    Can we leave politics out of this, pretty please, with a cherry on the top?

    I'm doing my best - otherwise trying to discuss the merits of the films as films. But one of the reasons the films were so poorly constructed was they were attempting to craft a political narrative into Starfleet as representative of the US Government so I don't know that it can be fully ignored. I do ask that it be noted that I am not discussing politics for politics sake, but in the context of the poor craftsmanship of ST:ID's plot along with its overall offensive narrative which seems to suggest that Islamic Terrorists were in some way justified in attacking the United States as you could easily argue the new Khan was justified in attacking Starfleet due to his belief that his crew had been callously murdered by Starfleet and Khan having been a direct operative of Starfleet to begin with.

    The point is the previous films never really decided to make Starfleet into the metaphor for modern political issues but showed a way that its authors wished or hoped problems could be better solved in the real world.
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    @thegrandnagus1:

    I believe there are a lot of art teachers and similar people that would very much like to dispute your claim that the quality of art is subjective, if they knew you were making such a claim.

    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Of course there are, dalolorn. However, if their contention of some sort of objective standard of Art were correct, there wouldn't have been so many schools of painting alone over the centuries (what the hell is even up with cubism, anyway??), and the works of Jimi Hendrix would sound a lot more like the works of Johann Bach. Steven King, Robert Heinlein, and Charles Dickens would sound a lot more alike, and the novel as an art form would have been created shortly after the invention of writing, not in the 17th century. And we sure as hell wouldn't have to feel excluded from mainstream entertainment for liking Star Trek; I cannot conceive of any objective standard of Art that would encompass both Deep Space Nine and General Hospital.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    A film dedication isn't a film's subject. It's nice you can see parallels it means your thinking about the film but as you just said terrorists and wrongfull invasions are a global and temporal thing. Not everything post 9/11 involving terrorism is a metaphor for Iraq or Afghanistan.

    You want ham-fisted politics in your ST films go watch The Undercovered Country. Incidentally the best ST film by a country kilometre.

    Unfortunately that simply isn't true. Orci's film is very much a conspiracy "thriller" about the Iraq war. It's forced, but it's there. There's literally no reason at all for Khan to "transwarp transport" to Qo'noS and send Kirk on a wild goose chase after a terrorist that just happens to be residing on an innocent planet to commit an act of war against them. It makes zero internal logic unless the logic is being crafted around a quasi-allegorical narrative. It's just not the kind of story that a story writer would create unless it were being adapted around some external narrative.

    "It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era." - Benedict Cumberbunch (or whatever his name is) on "ST:ID"

    The Undiscovered Country was very political. It was patriotic and honoring. It rightly criticized some aspects of Russian governance, especially by sending Kirk and McCoy to a gulag and displaying a completely phony and contrived trial. As well as implying the horrific and unrestrained barbarism of the Bolsheviks and their closed off nature behind the iron curtain.
    Can we leave politics out of this, pretty please, with a cherry on the top?

    I'm doing my best - otherwise trying to discuss the merits of the films as films. But one of the reasons the films were so poorly constructed was they were attempting to craft a political narrative into Starfleet as representative of the US Government so I don't know that it can be fully ignored. I do ask that it be noted that I am not discussing politics for politics sake, but in the context of the poor craftsmanship of ST:ID's plot along with its overall offensive narrative which seems to suggest that Islamic Terrorists were in some way justified in attacking the United States as you could easily argue the new Khan was justified in attacking Starfleet due to his belief that his crew had been callously murdered by Starfleet and Khan having been a direct operative of Starfleet to begin with.

    The point is the previous films never really decided to make Starfleet into the metaphor for modern political issues but showed a way that its authors wished or hoped problems could be better solved in the real world.



    1. You are reading WAAAAAYYYY too much into this.

    2. For the last part, that is incorrect. The Undiscovered Country was very much a metaphor for contemporary events and politics. Namely, the end of the Cold War that was going on at the time.
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Of course there are, dalolorn. However, if their contention of some sort of objective standard of Art were correct, there wouldn't have been so many schools of painting alone over the centuries (what the hell is even up with cubism, anyway??), and the works of Jimi Hendrix would sound a lot more like the works of Johann Bach. Steven King, Robert Heinlein, and Charles Dickens would sound a lot more alike, and the novel as an art form would have been created shortly after the invention of writing, not in the 17th century. And we sure as hell wouldn't have to feel excluded from mainstream entertainment for liking Star Trek; I cannot conceive of any objective standard of Art that would encompass both Deep Space Nine and General Hospital.

    Fair point. Still, there are certain things that can be (semi-?)objectively measured and compared to other works. Sticking with Star Trek, one more obvious example would be the ease with which a ridiculous attempt at technobabble is detected. (I think supercooling 'cold fusion' still manages to trump punching a hole through an event horizon in that regard, what with cold fusion being more commonly portrayed in sci-fi than a scientifically accurate description of what an event horizon is.)

    Then there's character development or maintaining a semi-consistent universe, which is something I must agree on with penemue; after all the things he's done, Kirk shouldn't be trusted with command of a garbage scow, let alone the Federation flagship. Sure, he manages to fix most of the problems he causes - except the fact that the Nibirans now worship the Enterprise, the considerable amount of repairs that the Enterprise now needs (and will need again, apparently), and the collateral damage (not to mention likely civilian fatalities) incurred by the battle over and on Earth. Blind luck and sudden flashes of inspiration do not excuse constant errors in judgment, and barring extreme overuse of mind tricks, there is no way he could have not only retained his rank, but rocketed through from 'about to be expelled from the Academy' to 'in command of the flagship' throughout the two movies.

    Barring offscreen ulterior motives, idiocy can be objectively measured, and there's apparently enough of it going around at Starfleet Command to export to the entire galaxy.

    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Oh, no argument on Kirk - I think I still have eyestrain from the rolling they did when he got bumped from "cadet" to O-6 in one jump for doing his job right once in ST09. There was a little bit of character development in STID when he finally got around to questioning Marcus' incredibly stupid and illegal orders, although that was thoroughly hidden behind the pointless Khan "reveal" (like getting excited because your current prisoner has just claimed to be a war leader of the Yamasee, leaders of a coalition of Native tribes that very nearly succeeded in driving European colonists from what is now South Carolina, some 300 years ago) and the aggravation over locating Qo'noS so very near Earth yet again. However, placing him in command of a starship, let alone one of the brand-new Constitution-class ships, just because Pike took a liking to him, is more than a little dumb.

    On the other tentacle, it could be easily argued that this is dramatically necessary for the story, given that the previous story in the series had failed to end with a montage of Kirk rocketing up the ranks while reporting to various ships, until finally being appointed Captain and given command of the Enterprise as Pike moves on to a groundside admiral's assignment (or even using Enterprise as a proper flagship, commanding a battle group from a flag bridge while Capt. Kirk maintains operational command of the ship herself). Sometimes one is limited by errors made previously, and must work within them.

    My own objection in the previous discussion was the dismissal of the kid's music in that one TNG episode as "objectively bad", a statement with which I must disagree. Sure, it might sound like cacophony to you - but imagine what a devoted fan of Chopin, or even the Four Seasons, would make of, say, Avenged Sevenfold's "Critical Acclaim".​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    dalolorn wrote: »
    @thegrandnagus1:

    I believe there are a lot of art teachers and similar people that would very much like to dispute your claim that the quality of art is subjective, if they knew you were making such a claim.

    Absolutely. There are definitely some who would disagree with me. And there are definitely some who WOULD agree with me. And there are still others who say that some art is objective, while other art is subjective. And out of that group, there are some who say it is the intent of the artist that determines whether it is objective or subjective, while others would say it is each individual viewer who determines whether it is objective or subjective to them. And all of that disagreement proves my point. This is not math or science. There is no equation you can work out to "prove" your answer. There is no test you can run to get a definitive result. You have a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions about a movie, and none of them are wrong.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    [Deleted--posted in the wrong thread.]
    Post edited by gulberat on

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    gulberat wrote: »
    I don't think picking up Axanar would be the right move for CBS IF the allegations of fraud and violating the agreement are true. That sends a message that you can lie, cheat, and you will still be rewarded with all the fame and glory and this time with an official stamp of approval on it. If Peters did something wrong, I say squash Axanar and make sure it never sees the light of day so that no one else gets that kind of idea.

    Whoopsie :p

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    Whoopsie indeed. No idea how that post got in here. Will delete and move to the proper thread.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • zedbrightlander1zedbrightlander1 Member Posts: 14,762 Arc User
    hravik wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Try judging it on its content not by crying about it from one trailer.​​

    I judge it by not liking the first two.
    Clicks the thumbs up button?

    f5cc65bc8f3b91f963e328314df7c48d.jpg
    Sig? What sig? I don't see any sig.
  • zedbrightlander1zedbrightlander1 Member Posts: 14,762 Arc User
    WHO ISN'T GOING TO SEE STAR TREK BEYOND?

    A better question is, why do you care so much whether other people see the movie or not? I'm going to see the movie...because I want to. If I enjoy it, great. If I don't, no big deal. Either way, people shouldn't be so insecure that they need other people to validate or "side with them" about their choices of entertainment or how they feel about a certain movie.
    Have you not met us, GN? We're Trekies. We're Sci-fi nyrds. Auguring/discussing what we love/hate about ST/SW/etc is what we do. :p

    f5cc65bc8f3b91f963e328314df7c48d.jpg
    Sig? What sig? I don't see any sig.
  • trillbuffettrillbuffet Member Posts: 861 Arc User
    I might still go see it but that is if they back off of axanar. I think the plot of the movie is a play on how they started out into the Into Darkness trying to explain the prime directive but all kirk heard was blah blah blah and now his mentor is dead. So this one will be most likely since it looks like its dealing with that same culture at beginning of the last movie. So what to expect is and this is just what it is like the first one it starts out looking trek then you go and get the beastie boys sabotage song and a bunch of lens flare and shooting action and then your little one liners that had their meaning and purpose in their original context but are out of place because of how they are just a copied event.

    I can't say I hate them but its like when I watch one of them its just I am watching an updated movie with todays graphics but the same old movie. I guess that is the part of it that gets most people is its like watching star wars episode 3 you went and watched it but it wasn't that great because you knew for 20+ years he was gonna turn into darth vader if the movie ever came out so then its like blah that sucked.
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    2. For the last part, that is incorrect. The Undiscovered Country was very much a metaphor for contemporary events and politics. Namely, the end of the Cold War that was going on at the time.

    Sorry, I meant they didn't turn Starfleet into the "rotten from the top down to the incompetent frat boy running the flagship who's only there because of nepotism" organization we have in the new Star Treks to make a political point. Orci let his hatred for the American government poison The Federation into an organization I don't respect (in the way I don't respect the US Government). Sure there's a corrupt admiral here and again - but you never get the impression this organization has so many stupid and dangerous people they're going to accidentally commit an unprovoked act of war against the Klingons without approval from the President of the Federation as the Enterprise crew almost does.

    If you're going to make your Star Trek into a complete mirror of the 21st century, down to the rock-music-loving, motorcycle-jumping, 20th-century-hot-rod-driving, my-vulcan-boyfriend-doesn't-show-his-emotions-enough-who-could-have-seen-that-coming-better-nag-him-about-it characters, just call it "21st Century Douchebags in Space" and leave Star Trek alone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr82dZpCr48

    Boycott this movie... Simon Pegg said Parmount found the script HE produced was too "Star Trek-y." Paramount isn't counting on your money and if you liked Star Trek before the latest incarnation, they don't deserve your money. Buy yourself 2000 Zen instead of shelling out to Paramount for a ticket, soda, and popcorn.

    Let the new people watch it then some will go back and watch the old stuff on their Netflix subscriptions and come to understand why Paramount has gotten flak from long-time fans of the franchise.
    Post edited by penemue#7777 on
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    2. For the last part, that is incorrect. The Undiscovered Country was very much a metaphor for contemporary events and politics. Namely, the end of the Cold War that was going on at the time.

    Sorry, I meant they didn't turn Starfleet into the "rotten from the top down to the incompetent frat boy running the flagship who's only there because of nepotism" organization we have in the new Star Treks to make a political point.
    That's because we hadn't had an incompetent frat boy running our government with his corrupt pals yet. You can't have a metaphor until you have the condition you need the metaphor for.
    Sure there's a corrupt admiral here and again - but you never get the impression this organization has so many stupid and dangerous people they're going to accidentally commit an unprovoked act of war against the Klingons without approval from the President of the Federation as the Enterprise crew almost does.
    I refer you to the actions of Commissioner Fox in the TOS episode "The Deadly Years" - who very nearly provokes war with the Romulan Star Empire after assuming command of the ship (even though he wasn't technically in the line of command), then refusing to listen to any of the ship's crew as regards his plan of action. The only reason he wasn't clapped in irons at that point was because most of the Enterprise's senior personnel were, well, senior (having been subjected to a disease that caused them to age at a ludicrous rate - fortunately, they eventually found a cure in Chekov's blood). Apparently, judging by Spock's reaction, and Kirk's after the cure is applied (and he very quickly invents the Corbomite maneuver), everything Fox did was within Starfleet guidelines, including the part where he tried to cut through the Romulan Neutral Zone after being reminded of the consequences of doing so. So there you go, so many stupid and dangerous people they write regulations permitting the accidental commission of unprovoked acts of war, right there in the official Trek background.​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
    will see how this one pans out, as long as abrams isnt the one in charge on the bridge, there wont be a troi moment for a third time... will see how it goes.
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    That's because we hadn't had an incompetent frat boy running our government with his corrupt pals yet. You can't have a metaphor until you have the condition you need the metaphor for.
    ​​

    Once again, The Federation isn't the US Government and never was. They apparently shun execution except for that one planet (after which it was never spoken of again because they probably realized it was completely stupid to make a death penalty for that one thing) - despise 20th century mental health treatments - shun materialism - etc.. The Federation operates as an example of how the government generally should be, according to Roddenberry and later Berman, and not how it is.

    And what makes you think that Captain Kirk is a good character to turn into a metaphor for President Bush? What would make anyone think this is a good direction for the franchise? Kirk is not remotely my favorite captain - Picard and Sisko taking that place (Sisko actually being more of a loose cannon than old Kirk is) - but old Kirk was someone I would follow. New Kirk is Orci's personal sermon about how he doesn't think President Bush was competent.

    For example, the "Prime Directive" was invented as a kind of protectionist protest against Vietnam intervention. The Federation was used as a metaphor for how a government should operate in the view of the creators, not how the modern government does.

    Sorry, I don't like Bush, but I like Kirk because he's generally honorable, intelligent, peaceable, and wise for most of the series and the movies - far from the loose cannon idiot he's portrayed in these new films. The new creators apparently hate Kirk and they can go TRIBBLE themselves as nobody should be writing a movie if they hate their protagonist unless he's meant to be an antihero.
    Post edited by penemue#7777 on
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Pen, are you somehow continuing to miss the fact that the James Tiberius Kirk in TOS is not (except in fictional genetics) the James Tiberius Kirk in the last two movies? The PrimeKirk was raised on Earth and at least one colony world by George and Winona Kirk; George was a Starfleet security officer, while Winona would appear to have been a homemaker. They raised their son to be adventurous (as befit his basic nature), studious, and dutiful. He served in multiple positions aboard various starships as he rose in rank; the one we're most familiar with was his time as a young lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Farragut. He was slower than he liked in responding to an order to fire phasers at a strange gaseous creature, and blamed himself for the creature invading the ship and killing most of the crew; it wasn't until the same creature attacked the Enterprise years later that he realized the phasers didn't make any difference anyway, and came to terms with his unearned guilt.

    NuKirk, on the other hand, never knew his father, as George died while Winona was giving birth. In that universe, George Kirk had been first officer of the USS Kelvin, and died saving his family (and the other survivors of the ship). Winona went to Earth and remarried, but apparently became employed in something that frequently took her offplanet. Jim grew up rebelling against his overly strict (some say abusive) stepfather, acting out in ways that quickly took a turn to the criminal (including stealing his stepfather's car, a reproduction of an ancient automobile, then crashing it into a quarry). He was persuaded to enter Starfleet Academy by Capt. Pike, who thought Jim had promise that he'd never shown; he was proved sort of right, as Cadet Kirk was ready for the Kobayashi Maru exam in only three years. He is brash, headstrong, sometimes inattentive, and far luckier than he has any right to be - your sigline is apt in comparing him to DiNozzo. On the other hand, like DiNozzo, he has the potential to grow into a far greater character than the movies have shown so far. (On NCIS, when Gibbs has been absent DiNozzo has taken charge of the squad with a level of professionalism and expertise that belies the whole "Very Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo" routine.)

    My basic point here is that these are two totally different characters, from totally different backgrounds - if NuKirk acted like PrimeKirk, that would be bad writing. The fact that NuKirk has been given command of a major starship while still green is just something we're asked to swallow for the sake of the plot, no more improbable really than warp drive or sensors that can detect things happening lightyears away in real time. The fact that it snaps your Suspenders of Disbelief doesn't make it "objectively bad".​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    Pen, are you somehow continuing to miss the fact that the James Tiberius Kirk in TOS is not (except in fictional genetics) the James Tiberius Kirk in the last two movies?​​

    Not remotely - Nu Kirk is someone a professional organization would never put in a professional position in the first place.

    Except maybe as a Hollywood writer/director where standards and maturity don't matter anymore - because, tragically, people keep feeding this beast of childish and spoiled nepotists.
    jonsills wrote: »
    if NuKirk acted like PrimeKirk, that would be bad writing.

    I don't think this is the primary reason I said it was bad writing other than to point out that we see in NuKirk no heroic qualities, he has not been represented as a good hero of a story. What I called bad writing was poor characterization, attention to detail, plot holes, and an unbelievable Starfleet. Nowhere has NuKirk given me the slightest indication that he is either wise nor intelligent - such that he should be commanding a Starship - I'm just told he is (this is bad writing). The same is true with Khan who never is really shown to be smart or cunning - we're just told he is. He's shown to be strong (whoopy - he's not immune to phasers).

    An extravagant example of showing Kirk is wise is found in Star Trek VI where he orders the Enterprise to surrender to the Klingons. I'll never forget Uhura's "I'm utterly shocked" reaction to this - and yet Kirk is making the absolute correct decision for the Federation which he recognizes as bigger than his crew.

    In NuKirk we see someone who specifically shows he is unwise (such as firing Scotty over the torpedoes) and so it's still a mystery as to why he's even on the bridge of a Starship and not polishing the EPS conduits.

    I suppose he has "heroic qualities" like sacrificing himself for the ship. But by this point in the movie I was so unhappy with NuKirk that I would be happy to see him dead - since it was his stupidity and foolishness that got them into the situation in the first place.
    jonsills wrote: »
    On NCIS, when Gibbs has been absent DiNozzo has taken charge of the squad with a level of professionalism and expertise that belies the whole "Very Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo" routine

    I don't watch the show much - I've seen a dozen episodes or so many years ago. My impression of Dinozzo at the time was that he's a great character as long as Gibbs is there smacking him on the back of the head and I wouldn't trust him with my cat much less to run an NCIS squad. He's an immature and stupid buffoon - much like NuKirk.
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    Pen, are you somehow continuing to miss the fact that the James Tiberius Kirk in TOS is not (except in fictional genetics) the James Tiberius Kirk in the last two movies?

    I guess what I'm saying is...

    Would you trust NuKirk in a confrontation with the Dominion? Or real Romulans (not Nemesis or 2009 Trek Romulans)? Or the Borg?

    I wouldn't. So we'll get dumbed down villains to face our dumb and childish Captains.

    They're putting one of the new Trek's writers, Alex Kurtzman - Orci's partner, in charge of the new Star Trek Series.

    I won't hold my breath for it to be anything decent - and I don't mean that remotely in the way that people complained about DS9. It will be safe, and formulaic, like 99% of TV these days. Boldly going nowhere except where every other prime time drama has gone before...

    They'll never dare have our rough and tumble action hero captain defeat the villain of the week like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbLGNDqUxA
    Post edited by penemue#7777 on
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Pen, are you somehow continuing to miss the fact that the James Tiberius Kirk in TOS is not (except in fictional genetics) the James Tiberius Kirk in the last two movies?​​

    Not remotely - Nu Kirk is someone a professional organization would never put in a professional position in the first place.

    Except maybe as a Hollywood writer/director where standards and maturity don't matter anymore - because, tragically, people keep feeding this beast of childish and spoiled nepotists.
    jonsills wrote: »
    if NuKirk acted like PrimeKirk, that would be bad writing.

    I don't think this is the primary reason I said it was bad writing other than to point out that we see in NuKirk no heroic qualities, he has not been represented as a good hero of a story. What I called bad writing was poor characterization, attention to detail, plot holes, and an unbelievable Starfleet. Nowhere has NuKirk given me the slightest indication that he is either wise nor intelligent - such that he should be commanding a Starship - I'm just told he is (this is bad writing). The same is true with Khan who never is really shown to be smart or cunning - we're just told he is. He's shown to be strong (whoopy - he's not immune to phasers).

    An extravagant example of showing Kirk is wise is found in Star Trek VI where he orders the Enterprise to surrender to the Klingons. I'll never forget Uhura's "I'm utterly shocked" reaction to this - and yet Kirk is making the absolute correct decision for the Federation which he recognizes as bigger than his crew.

    In NuKirk we see someone who specifically shows he is unwise (such as firing Scotty over the torpedoes) and so it's still a mystery as to why he's even on the bridge of a Starship and not polishing the EPS conduits.

    I suppose he has "heroic qualities" like sacrificing himself for the ship. But by this point in the movie I was so unhappy with NuKirk that I would be happy to see him dead - since it was his stupidity and foolishness that got them into the situation in the first place.
    jonsills wrote: »
    On NCIS, when Gibbs has been absent DiNozzo has taken charge of the squad with a level of professionalism and expertise that belies the whole "Very Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo" routine

    I don't watch the show much - I've seen a dozen episodes or so many years ago. My impression of Dinozzo at the time was that he's a great character as long as Gibbs is there smacking him on the back of the head and I wouldn't trust him with my cat much less to run an NCIS squad. He's an immature and stupid buffoon - much like NuKirk.

    He didn't fire Scotty...Scotty quit
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    So, you don't watch a given show, but feel comfortable in assuming the characters in it have in no way grown or changed in over a decade. And you believe the character development given to another character in two movies should be at least equivalent to the development given another over the course of three seasons of television, another two seasons of an animated revival of that show, seven movies, and untold novels, because again of course characters never grow, never change, and never learn anything from their experiences.

    You were a big fan of VOY, weren't you?
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    The Federation has been the stand in for the US a few times in the TOS.
    "A Private Little War", which was Roddenberry's allegory for the Vietnam war....saw the Klingons arming one side of a planet's population against another...so Kirk and the Federation armed the other side.

    "The Enterprise Incident" is loosely based on the Pueblo Incident, in which a United States Navy ship and its crew were captured and held on charges of espionage for a period of almost one year after they allegedly strayed into North Korean waters.
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    So, you don't watch a given show, but feel comfortable in assuming the characters in it have in no way grown or changed in over a decade. And you believe the character development given to another character in two movies should be at least equivalent to the development given another over the course of three seasons of television, another two seasons of an animated revival of that show, seven movies, and untold novels, because again of course characters never grow, never change, and never learn anything from their experiences.

    You were a big fan of VOY, weren't you?

    On the other hand, if (I haven't watched any NCIS in a while, and what I have watched wasn't always in the correct order, what with the tendency of TV networks to suddenly go back a few seasons mid-series) DiNozzo did get bumped up in the hierarchy, odds are it was after he'd evolved to a point where he wasn't 'an immature and stupid buffoon'. Kirk can't say the same, which is one of his biggest problems.

    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
This discussion has been closed.