Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

[TheDoctor]

Personal interpretation time:

Kirk and Spock. Completely messed with them.

Kirk. No longer someone who has earned the respect of his crew. He's a cocky dick who got it right once. In TOS he was the youngest captain in Starfleet and got there by being the best over an exemplary career. In JJ Trek he's a punk out of school and I still don't understand why anyone listens to him.

Spock. Him being in a romantic relationship ruins his character. In TOS he resisted relationships, now with Uhura it's Pon Farr everyday! And his reason for resisting in TOS makes itself perfectly clear because he allows her to affect his judgement.

Not to mention that the Enterprise is no longer a crew of professionals exploring space, it's a bunch of cadets... :thumbsdown

I agree completely. This could have all been solved so easily by simply having a "10 years later..." caption at the bottom of the screen when they jump into battle. Personally, I don't think the cadet story brought anything to the story, past the point of showing Kirk entering the shuttle to leave for the academy. They should have shown Kirk say "Four years? I'll do it in three." Pike smiles, the shuttle takes off, then we cut to the launch of Enterprise with the 10 years caption. Pike could even make a short speech: "I've had the honor of serving as your Captain for the past 6 years aboard the USS Mitch (or whatever) and I've watched you grow. Some more than others <sharp look at Kirk, indicating he's still cocky>. But now we embark... blah blah blah, welcome to the Enterprise."

Anyway, this has been the main sticking point for me. In the Original Series, people graduated from the Academy at different times - they weren't drinking buddies. By showing them attend the academy together, it creates a believability issue far larger than any of the sci-fi elements.

Don't get me wrong, JJ's Trek is still a fun ride, but I can't take it seriously - TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT I could take seriously.

 

[Apollo]

Well said!

JJ ruined those characters imo

Personal interpretation time:

Kirk and Spock. Completely messed with them.

Kirk. No longer someone who has earned the respect of his crew. He's a cocky dick who got it right once. In TOS he was the youngest captain in Starfleet and got there by being the best over an exemplary career. In JJ Trek he's a punk out of school and I still don't understand why anyone listens to him.

Spock. Him being in a romantic relationship ruins his character. In TOS he resisted relationships, now with Uhura it's Pon Farr everyday! And his reason for resisting in TOS makes itself perfectly clear because he allows her to affect his judgement.

Not to mention that the Enterprise is no longer a crew of professionals exploring space, it's a bunch of cadets... :thumbsdown

- - - Updated - - -

That is what I hope and pray everyday!!

Let the J'ster crap on the Star Wars franchise now!

LEAVE MY TREK ALONE!!!

Willing to bet after JJ leaves Trek to go screw up Star Wars even more than it already is -

 

[Jet Beetle]

Personal interpretation time:

Kirk and Spock. Completely messed with them.

Kirk. No longer someone who has earned the respect of his crew. He's a cocky dick who got it right once. In TOS he was the youngest captain in Starfleet and got there by being the best over an exemplary career. In JJ Trek he's a punk out of school and I still don't understand why anyone listens to him.

Spock. Him being in a romantic relationship ruins his character. In TOS he resisted relationships, now with Uhura it's Pon Farr everyday! And his reason for resisting in TOS makes itself perfectly clear because he allows her to affect his judgement.

Not to mention that the Enterprise is no longer a crew of professionals exploring space, it's a bunch of cadets... :thumbsdown

thumbsup:thumbsup

Well said my friend.

I said it before when the fist movie came out but the two Kirks remind me of the John F Kennedy legacy -- wait... JFK...JTK...hmmm...
Anyhow the TOS Kirk would be John F Kennedy because of challenges bested and accomplishment. JJ Kirk is JFK jr - inheriting the name without the ability to do anything with it.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

Careful how you bash nu-Kirk, some folks here seem to get very high-and-mighty, for some reason (or is that only when Jeyl does it?)
Still, glad I'm not the only one that feels JJ ruined Kirk by making him a whiny jumped-up, arrogant SOB. I mean: Spock: "We don't have a Captain" Kirk: (sits in chair) "Yeah we do" How the heck does that even work?
And now "Darkness"? it's like someone took a generic sci-fi cliché fest (explosions, babes, Batman rip-off) and slapped a vaguely enterprise-shaped ship and vaguely TOS shaped characters on it and called it done.

 

[Riceball]

I agree completely. This could have all been solved so easily by simply having a "10 years later..." caption at the bottom of the screen when they jump into battle. Personally, I don't think the cadet story brought anything to the story, past the point of showing Kirk entering the shuttle to leave for the academy. They should have shown Kirk say "Four years? I'll do it in three." Pike smiles, the shuttle takes off, then we cut to the launch of Enterprise with the 10 years caption. Pike could even make a short speech: "I've had the honor of serving as your Captain for the past 6 years aboard the USS Mitch (or whatever) and I've watched you grow. Some more than others <sharp look at Kirk, indicating he's still cocky>. But now we embark... blah blah blah, welcome to the Enterprise."

That's essentially what I though that they should have done, to a degree, in the first movie. Everything would have gone as it did except that in the Kirk does not get the Enterprise, they would have graduated him early maybe and possibly a much smaller command but not the Enterprise. The movie would have ended with Kirk looking at the Enterprise and saying something to the effect of that he's going to make his way back into the Enterprise's center seat. This next movie could then show him taking command of the Enterprise and making a speech like you suggest. That would have made a much better and more believable movie to me.

Anyway, this has been the main sticking point for me. In the Original Series, people graduated from the Academy at different times - they weren't drinking buddies. By showing them attend the academy together, it creates a believability issue far larger than any of the sci-fi elements.

Don't get me wrong, JJ's Trek is still a fun ride, but I can't take it seriously - TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT I could take seriously.

This is something that CBS/Paramount has forgotten or never realized for a long time. I remember that there was a proposed Starfleet Academy show or movie years, and years ago which the premise was focusing on the big 3 while they were at the Academy together and I think there was also mention of the other bridge crew being there too as lower classmen or something to that effect and possibly having Scotty as instructor there or something. So JJ Trek having the big 3 in the Academy together at the same time is nothing new, it's just that JJ is the first to actually show it on screen.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Well, I DO like the uniforms and the metal badges are pretty sweet! So that's an upgrade I like.

JJ's Kirk is a reckless 'free spirit' who likes to put himself at risk just for the thrill of it. The only A level delinquent (Or however it was stated) as oposed to the TOS Kirk who was a "Walking encylopedia" He only cares about himself and what he wants. His crew does his bidding, as demonstrated in how he dealt with Nero.

TOS Kirk inspired confidence in his crew. He was not just a captain, but a leader that other chose to follow.

McCoy was already in the fleet before Kirk became captain, in fact.....he didn't come to the Enterprise until after Kirk took command.

Checkov was 22 when he made it to the bridge, not 17. And he wasn't a 'wiz kid!'

And...... If "Enterprise" took place 100 years BEFORE TOS, then how old was Captain Archer's dog when the transporter misshap happened? How old was Archer for that matter?

Spock served with Pike for 11 years aboard the Enterprise, but now the Enterprise is a new ship! For that matter a recently graduated cadet with a field commission to (captain!?!) gets the Federation's FLAGSHIP?

What I wonder is, if this timeline continues, just how big will the Enterprise D be when Picard gets it? What will it look like? Though with all of the lense flares that Starfleet has to deal with on their ships, I understand how Geordi went blind and needs a visor!

 

[Michael Bergeron]

What I wonder is, if this timeline continues, just how big will the Enterprise D be when Picard gets it?

Put nacelles on this:



:lol

 

[Riceball]

McCoy was already in the fleet before Kirk became captain, in fact.....he didn't come to the Enterprise until after Kirk took command.

Checkov was 22 when he made it to the bridge, not 17. And he wasn't a 'wiz kid!'

And...... If "Enterprise" took place 100 years BEFORE TOS, then how old was Captain Archer's dog when the transporter misshap happened? How old was Archer for that matter?

Spock served with Pike for 11 years aboard the Enterprise, but now the Enterprise is a new ship! For that matter a recently graduated cadet with a field commission to (captain!?!) gets the Federation's FLAGSHIP?

For some reason the powers that be over at CBS/Paramount have always been obsessed with the notion of Kirk, Spock, & McCoy having gone to the Academy together even when it's been clearly established in the canon that they never did. It seems that they can't grasp the idea that these 3 could be such good friends from just serving on the Enterprise together and the only way that they could be such good friends is if they went to the Academy together because we all know that you can't make good, lifelong friends unless you went to school with them.

Since the JJ Trek is in its own, separate timeline I'm ok with the big 3 at the Academy together, what I really can't stand is the idea of Kirk getting command of the Enterprise at the end of the first movie. What idiot puts Starfleet's newest and biggest ship in the hands of a newly minted captain who never even went to the Academy for the entire length required for graduation? A captain that, prior to assuming command, never actually served a day in any capacity on Starfleet starship, nor served as a dept, head, or XO, much less the captain of a starship of any size.

 

[DuneMuadDib]

And...... If "Enterprise" took place 100 years BEFORE TOS, then how old was Captain Archer's dog when the transporter misshap happened? How old was Archer for that matter?

Who said that "Admiral Archer" is Jonathan, and that the dog is Porthos? Clearly scripted as a shout-out to Enterprise, but I wouldn't take it as evidence that Archer is alive at 150 and still an Admiral with a 100+ year old dog. He resigned from Starfleet prior to 2169, and by 2192 he'd stepped down as Federation President. Looking a little more, the writer of "In a Mirror, Darkly" from which the dates were taken from, had written more text on his file on the Defiant that he'd died in 2245 the day after the TOS Enterprise was commissioned, but this information didn't appear on screen and isn't necessarily canon. He would have been 133-134 at the time. It wouldn't be accurate to JJTrek anyway because that E wasn't commissioned until 2258.

I'm such a nerd.

What I'd like to know, is with transwarp beaming now possible thanks to Prime Spock giving Scotty the formula why do they need starships at all? Just beam people across the galaxy and be done with it.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

Clearly scripted as a shout-out ...

Yeah, but like all the other "shout-outs", the centauran eels (or whatever they were, that were clearly meant to be ceti-alpha V eels), Delta Vega... they just seemed forced, like JJ was beating us over the head and saying "look! continuity!"

 

[Bryancd]

Guy's, look, this isn't TOS Star Trek, this is a new franchise. I appreciate what you are all saying but to continually compare it to TOS and the original series films is pointless. This is a new Kirk, a new Spock, a new crew. Judge them based on that in the film that we have seen. This is why I have always said it was a mistake to even try and tie the '09 film to the previous continuity. It's a reboot and we should lok at it as such or we can just complain about the past which seems foolish.

 

[nickytea]

Just to restate my supporting position in the avalanche of negativity:

Many of the fan complaints, here and elsewhere, regarding the difference in Kirk's backstory (vs. TOS) pertain to his rapid promotion, brashness, delinquency, etc. To my eyes, this is the purposeful thematic backbone of the film. Trek '09's temporal setup allows the character of Kirk to explore both contemporary and timeless "coming-of-age" themes, specifically in regard to his relationship with his father. The internal conflict of the absent parent fuels Kirk, and is the ultimate thematic hurdle he must reconcile by the film's end.

Can he reclaim an abandoned destiny? Or a destiny that was taken from him as his father was? When Kirk meets Spock Prime, his first question is about his father. In crisis, he offers pertinent information gleaned only from his obsession with his father's disappearance. ("Lightning storm in space.") Led to isolating, rebellious behavior by his perceived slight, his experience with is future crew allows him to transcend his own inner demons and become the man he was meant to be.

Does the film leave him as that man? No. It was a first step. A glimpse. I loved the glimpse, and I love the dramatic structure from which it was experienced. Kirk's journey is an inverse parallel to Spock's and it is only together they can reconcile their individual internal struggles.

Why didn't this land with many Trek fans? Aside from the obvious, it came to me when I was analyzing The Original Series: Trek fans seem to be used to perceiving the stories of Trek in a dialogue-based fashion. Their pallet has been taught, over decades of series, to derive thematic content through almost exclusively textual means. Clearly there are diversions, but on the whole, most Trek installments expound on the theme in some form of dialogue acknowledgment.

Trek '09 simply doesn't deal with thematic issues in the way fans are accustomed. There's very little (read: almost none) recap or blatant explanation of theme in the movie. It is a purely cinematic experience. It is visual storytelling. The character's arcs, while not mentioned outright, are implied through the actions of the characters in the face of the opposition depicted. It is the choices made by the filmmakers out of which a theme can be derived, not dialogue.

This fundamental storytelling difference is alienating certain viewers, and delighting others. It doesn't boil down to the presence of action, or the recasting of actors, because beyond all that, the "drama-and-character-that-converge-to-imply-theme" of Trek is still there.

TL;DR : Not all Trek fans hate the new movie. And that doesn't make them mindless sheep.

 

[seelsa73]

Very well stated, nicky, I couldn't have said it better myself...at least not without working on it for 5 or so hours.

 

[Zuiun]

TL;DR : Not all Trek fans hate the new movie. And that doesn't make them mindless sheep.

I 100% agree.

There *are* things about the new Trek that annoy me, but the more and more I look at it, the less sense it makes to me to continually bash it for failing to adhere to the original series. The entire POINT of this new franchise was to re-create Trek with a different set of rules. No one is obligated to like the new take on it, but it really isn't fair to bash it for failing to be something it was never intended to be.

 

[JD]

Personal interpretation time:

Kirk and Spock. Completely messed with them.

Kirk. No longer someone who has earned the respect of his crew. He's a cocky dick who got it right once. In TOS he was the youngest captain in Starfleet and got there by being the best over an exemplary career. In JJ Trek he's a punk out of school and I still don't understand why anyone listens to him.

Spock. Him being in a romantic relationship ruins his character. In TOS he resisted relationships, now with Uhura it's Pon Farr everyday! And his reason for resisting in TOS makes itself perfectly clear because he allows her to affect his judgement.

Not to mention that the Enterprise is no longer a crew of professionals exploring space, it's a bunch of cadets... :thumbsdown

Again, it's about personal opinion and interpretations. I think the core is still there, the essence. Of course, in TOS and the movies we never saw a young Kirk & crew - we're going on bits and pieces of information that came after the series and to me, it's a lot like Star Wars EU stuff - it's there if you want it, but it's not written in stone.

The filmmakers have also written in their 'out' - the new timeline; thing's have changed due to these events and so have the characters. Yeah, it's a cop out - but, one that works for me.

I had written elsewhere that I'm not sure why the new, changed Trek appeals to me while the new Superman reboot just looks like an abomination that totally misses the mark.

 

[Jeyl]

I guess one area that doesn't make much sense in this film is how it presents Kirk's awesomeness through dialogue. Take this bit from Pike.

PIKE: You know, that instinct to leap without looking, that was his nature too, and in my opinion, it's something Starfleet's lost.

So leaping into situations without looking is something Starfleet has lost, huh? Than how would you describe Starfleet's reaction to Vulcan's distress signal? They fill eight starships full of cadets and without so much as scanning or contacting other sources to figure out what is going on at Vulcan they lose seven ships as a result. Maybe this is why Starfleet has lost it's "leap without looking" nature. Anyone who has it pretty much dies. Heck, Pike promoted Kirk to first officer for doing the exact opposite. He actually figured out what they were leaping into and managed to convince Pike that they should be more careful.

 

[SSgt Burton]

Not all Trek fans hate the new movie. And that doesn't make them mindless sheep.

Kevin

 

[Bryancd]

Yeah, a lot of royal WE being thrown about fans not liking Trek '09 around here that the films box office results would belie. I thought it was great fun and even reading the spoilers here am looking forward to Into Darkness.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Not all Trek fans hate the new movie. And that doesn't make them mindless sheep.[/B]

Totally agree. :thumbsup

That's why I had to put my "personal interpretation" in there.

NuTrek is fun, for sure. Just TO ME it misses the mark as to what Trek is. That's all.

 

[Apollo]

Sorry but it will ALWAYS be compared to the Original, how can it not, it is after all Star Trek.

Now take the name off the first movie and I would still say it was a horrible waste of film.

As a veteran of oh, at least 200 Trek cons, and that is a very conservative number, the various Series and Movies of the franchise will always be compared with each other amongst the fans as JJ's films will be.

I used to hear all the arguments of how Next Gen was a pale succesor to TOS, how DS-9 was not even in the same Galaxy that the Great Bird intended, how Voyager was a cheap unimagintive re-hash of TNG, etc as finitum.

As long as it has Star Trek in the title it will always be compared to previous incarnations and rightly so

Guy's, look, this isn't TOS Star Trek, this is a new franchise. I appreciate what you are all saying but to continually compare it to TOS and the original series films is pointless. This is a new Kirk, a new Spock, a new crew. Judge them based on that in the film that we have seen. This is why I have always said it was a mistake to even try and tie the '09 film to the previous continuity. It's a reboot and we should lok at it as such or we can just complain about the past which seems foolish.