Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

No,

I’m saying the moral behind ST:II (and Star Trek in general to me) is that we are supposed to be better than our primitive “me first” culture (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one). These people are better than who we are today. It is something we can strive for and hope to one day achieve.

What I took from ST ‘09 is that it is okay to cheat, skirt rules and regulations, and do whatever it takes regardless of cost and consequences so long as the job gets done (after which you will be rewarded). Oh and violence solves everything.

That is not an advanced culture. That is still our primitive “me first” generation in Starfleet uniforms.

I also believe that this is the reason behind the movie’s success: moviegoers of today can relate to these characters because they are regular Joes like you or I. They have similar problems (prejudice, being held down by "The Man" etc), and they solve those problems in ways we would probably do today.

Again to me this is not Star Trek. If I want to just watch space battles I’ll watch Flash Gordon.


Kevin


I tend to fall into the "It's not really Trek" camp, but I think your take on it is a bit unfair. I see where it comes from, but I think there's a little more going on than just "The ends justify the means." That's certainly part of the case at the beginning of the film. Kirk's recklessness ends up being rewarded. But I think towards the end, there's a sense that this COULD develop into something more, and that Kirk is starting to get a sense that life is bigger than just his personal baggage, and it's ultimately that higher duty -- beyond himself -- that starts to motivate him. We don't get a lot of time to reflect on it, but hopefully they'll show a Kirk who is less driven by his own demons, and more driven by a sense of service in future films. I think there's at least the potential for that.


Just because that's all you got from it doesn't mean that's all there is to it. :)

There is a massive moral to the JJTrek, and a completely appropriate one for an origin story for already beloved characters: "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."

I know!! It's so lame. It's like, ripping off Lucas wasn't enough. He had to go and rip off Metallica, too!!



th_TrollFace.png


Well... he had a different childhood and didn't have his father to idolize to keep him at the books to learn all that. Now in this one he has Pike, who seems to becoming the new father figure... so he may hit the books and gain what he should have been from the beginning of that movie... he has a lot of catching up now.

He was just a smart punk-ass kid who was wasting his brains and his life, until Pike gives him that challenge to do better than his dad, who saved countless lives. Kirk lacked any motivation until that point... so it can go either way... he can waste it... or he can take it and make himself better. That's the possibilities there is with his character... he IS Kirk, but he's also NOT Kirk that we knew. The effects of environment and upbringing... a rather interesting psychological prospect to explore.


I agree...but I think the next film needs to maybe pare back on the roller-coaster and be a bit more...I dunno...sedate? Sober? Something. That's the difference between Trek and other films. They have their reckless, action-packed moments, but the pacing is just...different. It's slower, yeah, but I think a better description is that it's a bit more deliberate. You get action sequences, but they seem to me to be more considered action sequences rather than something a five year old would tell you in a run-on sentence. "And then he ran away from the ice monster and fell into a cave and he talked to an old guy and he got zapped up to his ship and stuck in a tube and the badguy attacked and they ran away and..."

You see, I hated that element as well. Father this, father that. Where is his mother in all of this? She lived, didn't she? She was a star fleet officer as well. Wouldn't she be the one to tell Kirk these things about his own Dad since she practically knew the guy more than Pike did? But no, they decided to go with another gawddang father figure. And what that massive gathering to celebrate Kirk's promotion to captain?

Jeyl, you're female, right? I mean, I seem to recall that you've said that in previous posts. If I'm misremembering, then my apologies. But I think, if you're female, then you don't -- and can't -- quite "get" the importance of a man's relationship to his father. Not on an experiential or visceral level. This is the same way that I can't understand the female experience on that level, by the way. I don't claim anything to the contrary. Look, I get that this is a bugbear for you. But this is a film written by men, depicting men as the central characters.

A man's relationship -- for better or worse -- with his father is one of the defining relationships in his life. It's important. Bigtime. It defines him psychologically. It's his archetype for what it means to be a man, which, by the way, is no small issue in a man's life. Now, you take that away from him, remove this archetype, and you have fodder for major drama. This is not to say that a man's relationship with his mother is any LESS important, but it's important in different ways.

I can't fully get a read on your attitudes about this based on your posts on this subject, though. By that, I mean that I cannot tell if you're just sick of any and all father-son or missing-father-son stories, or if you're just annoyed by the notion that these films don't fully explore the psychological makeup of such characters because they ignore the mother-son relationship.

If your issue is that these characters aren't fully fleshed out, then I think that's a legitimate quibble, but there must still be some consideration for pacing and the ultimate point of the film. We're not doing a full psychological profile on James T. Kirk here. That said, I certainly wouldn't mind MORE exploration of what makes these characters tick -- including nods to their relationship with BOTH parents, even if it's just a small bit of dialogue here or there. So, if that's your gripe, then I'm with you. More of that would be nice, as long as it's paced properly.

If your issue is that you're sick of male central characters being defined by their relationships with their fathers in action-focused films...well, get used to it. As long as you have male central characters, especially in action films (be they sci-fi or fantasy or comic-book action), then the relationship with the father will be the defining relationship.

As I said, it's one of THE most defining relationships, and especially when you start getting into male archetypal figures or male caricatures (and, let's be honest, most action film heroes are basically that), the relationship between the character and his father is likely to be of far more consequence FOR PURPOSES OF THE FILM'S STORY than the relationship between the character and his mother. To expect these types of films -- especially when written by and focusing on men themselves -- to do differently is just banging your head against a brick wall. Seriously, spare yourself the irritation.
 
There is a massive moral to the JJTrek, and a completely appropriate one for an origin story for already beloved characters: "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."

Okay, that's something for me to ponder. :)


when Kirk assumes command of the ship, there's a scene referencing the Kobiashi Maru scenario.
Uhura says "I sure hope you know what you're doing..."Captain".

Kirk replies "So do I"

Instead of replying with a sarcastic and arrogant remark, for the first time in the film Kirk responds with an non arrogant answer, revealing that he isn't the "know it all" that he always thought he was.


This is something too. :)


You see, I hated that element as well. Father this, father that. Where is his mother in all of this...

Pike: Your father would be proud.

What the #&!) is his Mom?? Why isn't she at this ceremony telling Kirk this?


Jeyl- I too found myself thinking "where is Kirk's Mother?" in the course of this thread. In fact I can't really recall any reference to Kirk's Mother in any of the TOS (though I might be missing an obscure reference that one of the more learned collegues here might reveal ;) ).

Bottom line (I believe) is that this element is directed at the male viewing audience which, face it, is in the majority.

Men want their Fathers to be proud of them. Every man can relate to this. Fathers are traditionally the stoic disciplinarian, while Mothers tend to show "unconditional love."


I haven't watched this film since the one time in the theater. The bits I remember hating with a passion were not the design of the ship, lens flare, or trinkets-

What I rememeber hating are plot points that are contrived.

Young Spock beams Kirk down to a planet that just so happens to have Old Spock there to produce the "Yoda" moment.

Scotty describes how beaming aboard a ship travelling at warp is nigh impossible... and Spock hands Scotty the formula for attempting this. :rolleyes

You might bring up the scene in ST:IV where Scotty essentially does the same thing with Dr Nichols and transparent aluminum (the scene with Spock in ST '09 may have been a clumsy homage to this)... however that was solved with a single line in which Scotty says that Nichols may have been the inventor all along. Transparent aluminum then becomes an ontological paradox in which the item has no origin- it always existed. This does not occur with Spock's warp beaming formula; there is no resolution to the "formula from the future."


Spock/Uhura...

This was easily the most embarrassing moment in Trek history for me. This was bad. Worse than "Insurrection" bad. ;)

Nowhere in the TOS was there ever any instance of Uhura being attracted to Spock. If anything what might have made a tad more sense, is having Nurse Chapel in the "comforting Spock" sequence (however Chapel didn't exactly get a lot of screen time with this picture).

This scene was directed at the female audience- the "unobtainable man" who must not show deep emotion, finally breaks down. Aside from the fact that Spock struggled with suppressing his human side throughout the TOS, how do you explain the blatantly open relationship between a superior officer and a subordinate? I don't recall Riker ever getting kissed goodbye on the transporter by Troi (which is probably the closest there was of an actual relationship between bridge officers).

All this is explained away as "acting differently in the alternate timeline." I call it lazy writing in order to pander to the mass audience.

Getting back to Chapel- I consider this a missed opportunity for if they had gone with a similar Spock/Chapel relationship as what we saw with Spock/Uhura, they could then have had a scene in which Spock sets things straight by telling Chapel they could never be together- which would tie-in all the sexual tension between the two in the TOS. (Go ahead and accuse me of "fanwanking" all you like :lol).

Besides wasn't Spock to have an arranged marriage from birth? Oh yeah, I guess his "wife" died too when they wiped out Vulcan. :rolleyes


There were other elements (such as Spock's "flipping off The Man" scene on Vulcan) that I though were written for no other reason than to have "today's" audience identify with the characters. It annoyed the daylights out of me.


Larry, NickyTea and Darth Saber, I don't know if I'll revisit this film (quite frankly I think I'd only be reminded of what I didn't like about it), but you all raise some interesting and valid points. :thumbsup

EDIT- Well it looks like Solo4114 types faster than me and beat me to the Kirk's Mother thing. :lol

And you bring up some good points as well Dan. :thumbsup


Kevin
 
Last edited:
This was easily the most embarrassing moment in Trek history for me.

Even as a kid, I could take McCoy getting The Matrix and taking out Spock's brain and making it run a city; I could take him bashing up some doo-dad to zombie-walk his buddy around; I could even take him unhooking the thing and putting it back in to the Vulcan brain pan.

But I absolutely could not understand how they could do all that and have Nimoy's bangs stay so perfectly shellacked. Even as a little boy, I could see microscopically repairing axons and dendrites and whatnot, because, hey! it's the future. But making sure his hairstyle remains unaffected? Vulcan, please.

Larry, NickyTea and Darth Saber, I don't know if I'll revisit this film (quite frankly I think I'd only be reminded of what I didn't like about it), but you all raise some interesting and valid points. :thumbsup

Thanks, Kevin! I wish everyone talked about films like you. :thumbsup
 
..."And then he ran away from the ice monster and fell into a cave and he talked to an old guy and he got zapped up to his ship and stuck in a tube and the badguy attacked and they ran away and..."

Yeah, that's pretty much how it played for me :lol
 
I'd like to see them do V'Ger again.

Boy would the fanboys squirm.

Please let it be V'Ger.

ALL CGI. No practical sets at all. GREEEEEN SCREEENNNN!!!
 
Why would I squirm over V'Ger? :lol


No really, why would would squirm over V'Ger? :confused


They could do V'Ger (or any "non villain" phenomenon this time) if they wanted; it would be a refreshing change considering it's been villains since 1986.

And unless they plan on doing a revamp of Space Seed, I see little point in having Khan back. It certainly wouldn't be Star Trek II v2.0.

Meaning you can't really have a remake of ST:II as the whole point was the main character and villain have had 15 years pass... Kirk thinks he's over the hill, and Khan has been driven mad with revenge. The new Kirk is too young and hasn't encountered Khan yet.


Kevin
 
Last edited:
Jeyl, you're female, right? I mean, I seem to recall that you've said that in previous posts. If I'm misremembering, then my apologies. But I think, if you're female, then you don't -- and can't -- quite "get" the importance of a man's relationship to his father. Not on an experiential or visceral level.

I did? Hehe. You guys think I'm female. While I have no doubt that would make a lot of folks here happy, I regret to inform everyone that I am infact a bona fide male member of the human species. I honestly don't recall ever stating I was a female, but given my femenist track record, it's not surprising that many would jump to that assumption. I also have a mother AND a father and love them both immensely. They are still super awesome parents who I share time with (not living in their house of course). We're huge movie buffs. They let me watch ALIENS when I was just five, and Predator when I was eight. One of the proudest experiences I can remember was convincing them to see Battlefield Earth on opening day simply because of the reviews. We had a blast on experiencing how awful that movie was.

So, yeah. I think being male, having a father and a mother, I think I would understand the importance of a man's relationship to his father. I've had arguments, I've had fights, I've even shouted at him over an online arena tournements (We so rocked those games).

And yes, while my mother does love me with the utmost unconditional love that many Hollywood folks would believe, it never is that simple. We loved and supported each other. My parents would help me in bad times, and I would help them in bad times. I had to earn her respect in many different ways than I had to earn my Dad's, and her's was important to me because she was the one who inspires me to be a good person. There was not a thing I did that was huge I didn't want her to be a part of. She helped me make movies, work with me on my homework, helped me learn how to drive a car and most importantly, show me how to be a good person. My Dad did a lot of other great things to and never distanced himself. I just had great parents.

So when I see Star Trek and I start to have issues with the absence of Kirk's mother, it's not because it's all about the Dad, it's that the mother is not a factor in Kirk's life at all outside of giving birth to Kirk. JJ, Bob and Alex always say that this Kirk is different because he doesn't have his Dad, but they seem to have completely forgotten that he didn't have his mother around either. His character almost made it feel like he intentionally wanted nothing to do with his mother at all. Last March, I flew down to see my mother accept an award from Pisgah for all the hard work she's done, and I wasn't in NC for more than 24 hours. Yet when there's a huge ceremony for Kirk after he SAVED THE PLANET EARTH, got PROMOTED TO CAPTAIN and defeated the man WHO KILLED HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER'S HUSBAND, she's no where to be found, and he doesn't give a crap. He's completely satisfied knowing that his dead father would be proud of him rather than having his still living mother be there with him and see all of his accomplishments.

I would never exclude my mother like that, dead, alive or absent.
 
You're assuming an awful lot, there. Kirk's mother could be dead by the time he gets command of the Enterprise. If she is a Starfleet officer, which I'm not sure they actually came out and said, she could be stationed or on patrol across the galaxy, making return to Earth for whatever reason impractical. She could be a meek and abused woman, cowering in fear of Kirk's stepfather and not allowed to leave Iowa. She could be in jail. She could have a crippling disease. Could be anything.
 
You're assuming an awful lot, there.

When a movie doesn't explain it, what are you left with?

She could be a meek and abused woman, cowering in fear of Kirk's stepfather and not allowed to leave Iowa. She could be in jail. She could have a crippling disease. Could be anything.

Larry, it's none of those things. The makers of the Trek09 just didn't care. I'm not going to give this movie credit for something that's not even in the movie, which Trek09 begs you to do a lot.
 
Not worrying about it? It doesn't matter to the story?

I think it does. Was Kirk's mother not a victim of Nero as well? Wouldn't Kirk want to tell his mother that the person responsible for the attack on the Kelvin and her husbands death might bring closure for both of them? She was there.

And are you really going to give the writers credit for hoping that the audience shouldn't care about certain details when they leave the playing field so wide open for the audience to care about it? If we're not supposed to care about it, why is it even in the movie?
 
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top