-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Star Trek *spoilers*
- Thread starter Bester
- Start date
B5_Obsessed
Regular
Hmmm, familiar.
Chilli
High Treason Prevention Officer
If I can go grumpypants on this movie ... 
I'm getting less interested in this movie with every new trailer that's released.
I was quite thrilled by the first trailer - the one that had nothing in it but Leonard Nimoy, and the Enterprise.
The second one made the movie look like a random generic action movie.
This one's making it look like the movie is, to a large degree, centered around the dramatic childhood of Captain Kirk, yadda yadda yadda.
And it's stupid.
Childhood tragedies and daddy issues made him choose a life in Starfleet.
Bullshit.
Kirk never was the kind of character that was driven by traumas. He wasn't even driven by any kind of sense of duty or obligation, or by morals, or anything like that. He was doing what he was doing because it was FUN.
I'm getting less interested in this movie with every new trailer that's released.
I was quite thrilled by the first trailer - the one that had nothing in it but Leonard Nimoy, and the Enterprise.
The second one made the movie look like a random generic action movie.
This one's making it look like the movie is, to a large degree, centered around the dramatic childhood of Captain Kirk, yadda yadda yadda.
And it's stupid.
Childhood tragedies and daddy issues made him choose a life in Starfleet.
Bullshit.
Kirk never was the kind of character that was driven by traumas. He wasn't even driven by any kind of sense of duty or obligation, or by morals, or anything like that. He was doing what he was doing because it was FUN.
hypatia
Regular
If I can go grumpypants on this movie ...
I'm getting less interested in this movie with every new trailer that's released.
I was quite thrilled by the first trailer - the one that had nothing in it but Leonard Nimoy, and the Enterprise.
The second one made the movie look like a random generic action movie.
This one's making it look like the movie is, to a large degree, centered around the dramatic childhood of Captain Kirk, yadda yadda yadda.
And it's stupid.
Childhood tragedies and daddy issues made him choose a life in Starfleet.
Bullshit.
Kirk never was the kind of character that was driven by traumas. He wasn't even driven by any kind of sense of duty or obligation, or by morals, or anything like that. He was doing what he was doing because it was FUN.
Grumpypants Chilli. Hmm. No comment.
You aren't taking into consideration how we have to over-analyze everything these days. You are speaking in some kind of alien tongue, or an ancient form of language here: 'just...for...fun..(?)' Yea, but what's his motivation?
Chilli
High Treason Prevention Officer
Grumpypants Chilli. Hmm. No comment.
You aren't taking into consideration how we have to over-analyze everything these days. You are speaking in some kind of alien tongue, or an ancient form of language here: 'just...for...fun..(?)' Yea, but what's his motivation?
Alien pussy.
On a more serious note, Kirk's in space for the same reason Kirk was on El Capitan in Star Trek V - because it's there.
vacantlook
Super Moderator
What're you trying to say, Chilli, that the original Trek was about exploration -- climbing to the top of the mountain just to see what was on the other side?
darth_librarian
Regular
Maybe this is about that realisation, that he needs a challange. He just needed to wake up to what it is.
Or maybe its just sucky. I'll be there and so will you Chili.
Or maybe its just sucky. I'll be there and so will you Chili.
Recoil
Regular
I'm not defending something I haven't seen, but some of the stunts you see Kirk pulling in the trailer seem to make you think he is always trying to pull off some new challenge. Who knows, they may take a direction I don't like, but I wont know till I see it, and I plan on seeing it to make a final decision.
hypatia
Regular
B5_Obsessed
Regular
I hate to quote Star Trek V, but in that movie Kirk refuses to be released from his pain by Sybok. He says, "I NEED MY PAIN". Kirk is definitely shaped by a life of experiences and time, and even Wrath of Khan shows Kirk as a man with a lifetime of regrets and missed opportunities.
Yes the trailers are generic action movie, but that's what sells tickets. Abrams is trying, and successfully so, to put mainstream audiences in the theatres May 8th. The trick to pleasing the Trekkies and all audiences really, is to string all that $150 million action together with a meaningful story. I'm hoping Orci and Kurtzman have done it, although their prior scripts fill me with worry.
SPOILER TERRITORY
You know that this film is not about the so-called "real" Captain Kirk; the events, and the discrepancies between what is known in Trek history are the results of a time travel incursion. Kirk does have the same childhood and path to the captaicy in this film as he once did. Events and dates have changed. This film is about attempts to get him back where he belongs, while at the same time stopping a villain with a major axe to grind. I'm fairly sure, there will be no reset button at the end of this, meaning the film series will stay in this alternate timeline and the past 40 years of Star Trek, while being officially acknowledged as having happened, do not have to happen the same way again. The future is a blank slate.
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Or, as I would put it, He liked to strut his stuff!
I agree Kirk wasn't driven by trauma.
B5_Obsessed
Regular
One can argue that due to his youthful exuberism, Kirk did enjoy what he did. At 34 he was one of a mere 12 starship captains - the finest Earth had to offer, and was captain of the Federation's flagship, no less. But there was always a hint of the enormous pressure involved in the job. In one of the earliest filmed scenes in Star Trek, Captain Pike laments the pressures of command and considers retiring. In the first completed series episode,"The Corbomite Maneuver", the job pressure causes Leiutenant Bailey to crack after Kirk pushes him to hard. In another very early episode, "The Naked Time", when Kirk is infected with a disease that releases suppressed feelings, he laments not being allowed to even look at Yoeman Rand (similarly, the first thing "Evil Kirk" or "Id Kirk" did in "The Enemy Within" was to get a bottle of brandy and assault her), and "having no beach to walk on". He describes his relationship with the Enterprise as, "I give, she takes." So the dude is under immense pressure which he keeps submerged under the guise of confident authority and is balanced by his true joy of exploration. As for the sex aspect, he kept it out of the workplace - aliens and planetary natives were fair game. Much like James Bond, the attitude was grab it while you can because you might be dead tomorrow.
But what drove Kirk to his singular accomplishment? What made him "positively grim" as a Starfleet midshipman? Even in his "real" life (a.k.a not this upcoming movie) he had witnessed trauma at a very early age by surviving the famine on Tarsus IV under the provisional government of Kodos, whose Solomon-like judgment to kill half the colonists so that the other half could live would earn him the title "The Executioner". Not counting the speculative fiction, including Shatner's take on this issue, what effect did that have? Does it make him seek a position of authority and nearly ultimate power to become a policeman of the universe? Was Kirk's main desire to explore? To protect? Or both?
Surprising, depsite the apparent lack of intensive back story, there really are some precious gems of info out there in the canonized Trek universe to allow for at least some exploration of Kirk's character, which is why I really was kind of saddened to see this new movie taking place in an altered timeline.
I'm out.
But what drove Kirk to his singular accomplishment? What made him "positively grim" as a Starfleet midshipman? Even in his "real" life (a.k.a not this upcoming movie) he had witnessed trauma at a very early age by surviving the famine on Tarsus IV under the provisional government of Kodos, whose Solomon-like judgment to kill half the colonists so that the other half could live would earn him the title "The Executioner". Not counting the speculative fiction, including Shatner's take on this issue, what effect did that have? Does it make him seek a position of authority and nearly ultimate power to become a policeman of the universe? Was Kirk's main desire to explore? To protect? Or both?
Surprising, depsite the apparent lack of intensive back story, there really are some precious gems of info out there in the canonized Trek universe to allow for at least some exploration of Kirk's character, which is why I really was kind of saddened to see this new movie taking place in an altered timeline.
I'm out.
Last edited:
darth_librarian
Regular
And constant violation of green ladies.
B5_Obsessed
Regular
Actually, Kirk gets a bad rap on that count and most of his "offenses" were in order to correct previous cultural alterations and infections (i.e. course correction), or resulted from cases where cultures' evolution was stagnant.
Recorded Violations (none prosecuted):
On stardate 3156.2, Captain Kirk caused the Landru computer to self-destruct by convincing it that it was harming the society that it was designed to protect. Kirk justified himself by claiming that Landru was preventing the society from showing any form of creativity or passion.
In the same year, Eminiar VII's warring computer was destroyed to prevent Captain Kirk from having to execute General Order 24, thus ending a 500 year war of self-inlicted genocide.
On stardate 3715.3, Kirk ordered the Enterprise to destroy the Vaal computer that was caring for the inhabitants of Gamma Trianguli VI, justifying his action on the grounds that the computer was denying them any chance to grow and evolve and fulfill their potential, either individually or culturally.
On stardate 3156.2, Captain Kirk prevents Maab from killing Eleen, thereby allowing her unborn son to become Teer of the tribes.
On the planet Ekos. the crew discovers that historian John Gill deliberately committed a flagrant violation of the Prime Directive when he attempted to reorder the planet's society into a benign version of Nazi Germany, with himself as Fuhrer. Furthermore, the intervention proved a total disaster with a subordinate, Melakon, quietly seizing power and adopting the same murderous racial supremacist ideologies as the original. With the cooperation of the local resistance, Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock, arrange for the government to be overthrown.
The following year on stardate 4211.4, Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise provide weapons for the Hill People of the planet Neural after the Klingons had already provided a rival group with weapons. Kirk felt that it was justified to even the odds in this instance. It should be noted that the weaponry given to the Hill People was equivalent but not superior to that owned by the rival group, however the Hill People were pacifists prior to the Federation's arrival.
GKarsEye
Regular
The key thing there is that Kirk justified his own actions. Well of course! It's all about him judging what should be fixed- which is pretty much what the whole Prime Directive was supposed to be against.
The franchise didn't take the Directive seriously until TNG. Kirk's actions are much more fun to watch than Picard's moralizing about it.
The franchise didn't take the Directive seriously until TNG. Kirk's actions are much more fun to watch than Picard's moralizing about it.
hypatia
Regular
Could this be a bit more about the attitudes of the eras involved than specific character backgrounds? The original Trek was made at a time where defying authority was considered by some to be proper, even desperately needed in order to right an "establishment's" wrongs.
By the time TNG came around, attitudes had very much changed. Thus breaking the Prime Directive was seen in one series as being "cool" and admirable, but in the other series as being tempting, but fraught with complications and unintended effects. It was something you could sympathize with, but not entirely justify.
By the time TNG came around, attitudes had very much changed. Thus breaking the Prime Directive was seen in one series as being "cool" and admirable, but in the other series as being tempting, but fraught with complications and unintended effects. It was something you could sympathize with, but not entirely justify.
B5_Obsessed
Regular
No, Hyp, not in this case. If anything, those space hippies in the awful episode The Apple, used the 23rd centruty derogatory term "Herbert", which in essence was calling him a tight-ass.
Two things about Kirk: First, his authority on the bridge was absolute and unquestioned, with the exception of McCoy who ALWAYS seemed to disagree with Kirk or Spock out of force of habit.
Second: Because the starship captains were often too far away from Earth for direct communication, Starfleet granted them the authority to wield the power entrusted to them at their own disgression. Sometimes Kirk's actions rubbed the Prime Directive the wrong way, but his justification would go in his logs and eventually be reviewed by Starfleet. There was never any indication that Kirk had been punished for any of his decisions.
The two times he directly violated stated Starfleet orders (and not the Prime Directive, mind you) were in Amok Time and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. In both of these cases he was acting rashly to save his friend. He escaped punishment the first time when T'Pau of Vulcan intervened on his behalf, but was punished (in theory) for his offenses in STIII by being reduced in rank back from Admiral to Captain and placed in command of the new Enterprise A.
So, no, I wouldn't say there was ever an anti-authoritarian tone to Star Trek - Roddenberry was former military and a traffic cop, after all. His more liberal views expressed on the show included ethnic and racial harmony, a distaste for monogamy and a predisposition against religion (much more so in the early days of TNG). He did believe in the chain of command, but probably knew from experience that commanders back at HQ frequently knew less than soldiers on the ground.
Two things about Kirk: First, his authority on the bridge was absolute and unquestioned, with the exception of McCoy who ALWAYS seemed to disagree with Kirk or Spock out of force of habit.
Second: Because the starship captains were often too far away from Earth for direct communication, Starfleet granted them the authority to wield the power entrusted to them at their own disgression. Sometimes Kirk's actions rubbed the Prime Directive the wrong way, but his justification would go in his logs and eventually be reviewed by Starfleet. There was never any indication that Kirk had been punished for any of his decisions.
The two times he directly violated stated Starfleet orders (and not the Prime Directive, mind you) were in Amok Time and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. In both of these cases he was acting rashly to save his friend. He escaped punishment the first time when T'Pau of Vulcan intervened on his behalf, but was punished (in theory) for his offenses in STIII by being reduced in rank back from Admiral to Captain and placed in command of the new Enterprise A.
So, no, I wouldn't say there was ever an anti-authoritarian tone to Star Trek - Roddenberry was former military and a traffic cop, after all. His more liberal views expressed on the show included ethnic and racial harmony, a distaste for monogamy and a predisposition against religion (much more so in the early days of TNG). He did believe in the chain of command, but probably knew from experience that commanders back at HQ frequently knew less than soldiers on the ground.
