Abrams Trek review thread *HEAVY SPOILERS*

[Asso]

I desire to explain my convictions.
AU are mere inventions, without substance. Or the real timeline exists (and in this case AU timeline doesn't exist), or it exists the AU timeline (and in this case, RU timeline doesn't exist, because the RU is the AU).
So, it isn't true that, somewhere, the various timelines exist : the one erases the other.
So, practically, the movie is a fantasy work. Or, if it isn't that, it is the Real Universe. And may the real (real?) Kirk and Spock and Chekov and etc etc rest in peace.
That has to be clear.
MU is different, it's what is usually called "Another Dimension". It exists, regardless of any other Universe.
But I think they are not really clever, the Authors who resort to such hackneyed artifices so as to attract people's attention.

[CX]

In TOS he was described as being a stack of books with legs. One can only guess why he got a commendation for original thinking for effectively cheating, but I'm going to guess that it could be no one ever thought to reprogram the test so it was possible to win, and thus technically he didn't break any rules.

As for the points you made:

1. What exactly about any of that earned him the right to command a ship, or gave him the experience necessary to be a good commanding officer? Plus, they tend to award people who do great things with medals, not commands. Sometimes they coincide, but those are with already commissioned officers and people who already have experience under their belt.

2. How? This kind of reminds me of the issue with Archer - they were just supposed to respect him so when he did some token thing they just respected him for it.

3. Which is stupid and a point against the movie, not for it. If Starfleet is supposedly more militaristic and building much larger ships with larger crews, why is there a shortage of officers to man ships they happen to have in orbit? The entire fleet is tied up somewhere? Wasn't that one of the bad cliches everyone hated to begin with? Was there no one on that huge station the ships were docked at?

[Asso]

1. This arrogant prick James Kirk had just saved the entire planet by being really smart and by refusing to take no for an answer.

For a change.

Besides, canon never did quite explain how he got past that stunt to make it to captain in the first place -- and Shatner's Kirk never struck me as lacking in arrogance. Kirk was far cockier than Archer. (But at least he was also smarter.)

Which Kirk?

[Alelou]

ISo, practically, the movie is a fantasy work. Or, if it isn't that, it is the Real Universe. And may the real (real?) Kirk and Spock and Chekov and etc etc rest in peace.
That has to be clear.
MU is different, it's what is usually called "Another Dimension". It exists, regardless of any other Universe.
But I think they are not really clever, the Authors who resort to such hackneyed artifices so as to attract people's attention.

The movie is a fantasy work? Yes, it is. All Star Trek is fantasy.

We're not talking about the Gospel of Christ here. It's a TV show and a bunch of movies. (And even the Gospel has four slightly different, somewhat contradictory versions.) If you don't like it, fine. You are entitled to that opinion. But it wasn't intended as a personal attack on you and everything you've ever loved about Star Trek and I don't understand why some are so intent on seeing it that way. I think Spock's Brain was one of the worst pieces of television ever created in the history of the medium, and I suppose I could have interpreted it as a personal attack on my intelligence, on the characters I normally liked and respected, on my existence as a female on the planet, and on my status as a fan of Star Trek, but I am glad that I was able to forgive Gene Roddenberry, laugh about it, and move on.

If you insist on bitterly looking at this as somehow maliciously wiping out the entire history of Trek as you've known and loved it, maybe you should think about finding a hobby that you can take little less seriously. Or try to do something positive, like KTR, and dive into TOS with renewed energy. Or just try to accept the bewildering reality that a bunch of us disagree with you and thought it was a good movie and you will never persuade us otherwise. Life will go on, and so will Star Trek in all its variations.

[Asso]

I understood , Alelou.
I understood very well.
Take care.

[Alelou]

In TOS he was described as being a stack of books with legs. One can only guess why he got a commendation for original thinking for effectively cheating, but I'm going to guess that it could be no one ever thought to reprogram the test so it was possible to win, and thus technically he didn't break any rules.

As for the points you made:

1. What exactly about any of that earned him the right to command a ship, or gave him the experience necessary to be a good commanding officer? Plus, they tend to award people who do great things with medals, not commands. Sometimes they coincide, but those are with already commissioned officers and people who already have experience under their belt.

2. How? This kind of reminds me of the issue with Archer - they were just supposed to respect him so when he did some token thing they just respected him for it.

3. Which is stupid and a point against the movie, not for it. If Starfleet is supposedly more militaristic and building much larger ships with larger crews, why is there a shortage of officers to man ships they happen to have in orbit? The entire fleet is tied up somewhere? Wasn't that one of the bad cliches everyone hated to begin with? Was there no one on that huge station the ships were docked at?

Eh, it's not very realistic, I'll give you that. 1 or 3 (definitely one of those bizarre situations, like the time the Xindi were approaching Earth with the weapon at the end of Season 3 and there wasn't a single ship to be seen). As for 2, Kirk earned Sulu's and Spock's and Pike's and presumably Scotty's loyalty by literally saving their lives, Uhura's by paying attention to her information and using it to good purpose, and the whole crew probably thought it was a good thing that he saved their planet from certain doom and also kept them from getting killed like the rest of their peers.

Was it realistic? No. Was it fun and exciting and acceptably Star Trek? Yes. To me. Different strokes.

[CX]

Yep, different strokes. I don't seem much of anything to like about any of the characters. They actually tended to play most of them for laughs from what I understand, especially Scotty. And Sulu apparently couldn't even get the parking brake (bwah?) off on the ship despite being some hot-shot pilot. For me this is like what *the_abomination* did to the ENT characters, or say the way they treated Trip in S2 of ENT. There's nothing really fun for me about seeing these characters or the franchise treated this way. Not my cup of tea, or KTR's, or plenty of others - we just tend to be maligned and ignored.

I'm going to make a prediction though, and much like the reboot, the ship, the characters, and Kirk being a bad boy cliche and going right from cadet to captain, I'm not going to be surprised if this turns out to be true. Anyway, much like with the Star Wars prequels, I predict that once the novelty of this being the first new Star Trek in a few years wears off, people are going to start revising how they feel about it, as in they'll start to see how much it sucks. I can still remember how critics of the prequels were treated, only to have the vast majority of the fanboys that treated them like shit start to echo them a year or so down the road. Not that they ever apologized for treating them like shit, mind.

[Alelou]

Yes, it will be interesting to see how that turns out. Right now I just hope the sequel to this one holds up.

[JadziaKathryn]

Instead, Kirk i an arrogant prick of a cadet, and they reward his arrogance by doing the most absurd ting possible - slapping captain's stripes on a cadet and giving a man with zero experience command of the Federation flagship.

This could explain his ego problem. I do agree that vaulting him up to captain was premature. He's obviously got talent, but I don't think any hierarchical organization would do something like that. They do have other officers in that other sector, remember.

Also agree that the parking brake joke wasn't especially great but I don't mind it that much because we do all make mistakes, especially when nervous. I did very much enjoy how they worked in Sulu's fencing, turning a gag into a Romulan-butt-kicking skill.

I have mixed feelings on the KM 'cheating.' Spock, after all, had a valid point in that Kirk entirely failed to learn the lesson. And while I appreciate the insight into Kirk's character, what would he do in a real no-win scenario? "Excuse me, angry Klingons, would you kindly lower your shields so we can blow you to smithereens?"

[thecursor]

To be fair, Wrath of Kahn presents Kirk with the "no win" of losing Spock and his reaction is appropriate.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Anyway, much like with the Star Wars prequels, I predict that once the novelty of this being the first new Star Trek in a few years wears off, people are going to start revising how they feel about it, as in they'll start to see how much it sucks.

That's funny because this actually happened to me. I was rather excited when the prequels came and just to see Artoo, Threepio and a young Obi-Wan was a big treat for me. But then I started to think about it more and now I'm not that fond of the prequels.

As for all the supposed new fans that flocked to Abrams Trek, I predict that they'll be a fickle and easily distracted bunch once other blockbusters shows up. Most of these "new fans" are probably just regular movie-going types that bought the media hype and will like the next Transformers flick just as much. Most of them won't become Trek fans as we've come to know them.

Maybe that's snobbish and exclusive of me, but I don't care.

[evcake]

Confrontation of the impossible situation is the the keystone of Kirk's character.

"My God, what have I done?" -- Kirk
"What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live." -- McCoy (Star Trek III)

[JadziaKathryn]

Maybe that's snobbish and exclusive of me, but I don't care.

For a great many I suppose this will be true.

[Alelou]

I was really disappointed with the Star Wars prequels, so much so that I don't think I ever bothered to see the last one. Certainly I would never have considered seeing them more than once. To me it looked like a bunch of special effects and action scenes interspersed with soap opera. By the second movie the whole Anakin/Padme thing made want to gag. I remember wondering if maybe hardcore Star Wars fans who'd been reading the novels were being treated to a sort of commercialized fanfic on screen and would therefore be enjoying it more than me.

But then I wasn't a huge fan of the two original sequels, either. Hated the Ewoks. Wasn't too keen on the whole Luke and Leia being brother and sister thing. Not particularly charmed by Yoda. I eagerly saw all three, but I guess I'm just much, much more a Trekkie than SW fan.

I did love the first movie, though, and saw it repeatedly. That one had the quality of a primal myth.

[justTripn]

I predict that this movie will be one of the great movies. If you watch a movie, have a blast, and immediately want to watch it again as soon as possible, and then after the second time, you want to see it again. Well, that's the definition of a great movie. I just discovered a coworker here who has seen it four times already and has memorized the lines. No one wanted to see the Star Wars prequels more than once. I think the relevant comparison is the first three Star Wars movies. My kids watched those over and over and over.

Here's another test: If you refer to the day after you see the movie as "the morning after" lol . . . that's a great movie. LOL. Wasn't me! It was the guy playing the theme song in the YouTube who said it. But that about sums it up. My facebook status the week after was "I'm still on a Star Trek high." That's a good movie.