Solo4114
Master Member
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!!
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.