Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

201
[quote=""Fingolfin""]BC, I must say that your problem with the term reboot is so confusing that I can't even counter-argue. :P The cast of TOS is, for the first time, being recast. That is a reboot, as far as I'm concerned. Quite frankly, I don't care what he calls it. I call it Star Trek. And I call it damned good. :coolsmile [/quote]

How is it that hard to understand, you don't reboot something by altering part of and established storyline. If the Joker went back in time in 1989 Batman by blowing up Gotham City and creating a timewarp and creating the events of Batman Begins with Christian Bale instead of Michael Keaton and with Heath Ledger instead of Jack Nicholson, it is not a true reboot in my opinion, since the two events have a "shared storyline"

Don't mess with one storyline to justify your reboot... just reboot it, simple, start over, don't blow up Romulus in the Prime Universe, don't steal Spock (Leonard Nimoy's character) out of the Prime Universe. If they make a Prime universe movie now, Spock, even tho he probably wouldn't have been in it in the first place, CANNOT be in it... he doesnt exist in that universe anymore.

WHAT IS HARD ABOUT THAT?

[quote=""Fingolfin""]
As for the ethnicity of Khan, well, I've never seen WOK so I didn't know the difference. And I'm guessing that about 60% of the people who went to see this movie didn't know it either. I guess I would've taken issue with it if Cumberbatch hadn't done such a great job with it. I don't really understand the whole "destined to meet" thing, I'm assuming those were comments made by Abrams e xp laining his reason for bringing back Khan? Once again, the casual movie goer doesn't really care. A lot of Trek fans I know (being the ones who convinced me to get into Trek) say that the movies aren't worth watching if there isn't a good villain, so seeing as Khan is pretty much the ultimate villain, it makes business sense for Abrams to kick off his series with strong villains.[/quote]

Destined to meet idea is common in a lot of parallel/alternate/mirror universe story lines. How else would these people keep meeting up no matter what universe they are in.

Abrams didn't kick off his series with Khan, he kicked off with that horrid Nero.
I will have to disagree with your friends, one of the best movies of Trek is IV, which really had no "bad guy" just more or less an angry probe thing.


[quote=""Fingolfin""]
My friend e xp lained to me the fate-swap with Kirk and Spock...I know I shed a tear for Kirk as I watched Into Darkness, so I don't know what there is to complain about. Someone who's just starting to watch Star Trek might think that Chris Pine is done with the character forever and that Kirk was really dead, same way people might have thought about Nimoy as Spock in WOK. It was very tear-jerking to watch their relationship finally come together and then Kirk seemingly bite the bullet while trying to save his crew, the same way his father died in Trek XI. Again, I think it just doesn't hit you as hard, BC, because you've seen it before. It's not your first time with this story line.[/quote]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, as I was a newborn during the time, but from what I read and from what I seem the DVD extras to have said was that Leonard Nimoy was DONE with the character of Spock during TWOK and it was known he was leaving. Chris Pine on the other hand has a multi movie deal and NO ONE should assume he was actually going to die. It wasn't as tear jerking, because I thought it was a ridiculous scene that felt forced, especially Spock's "Kahhhhhn" yell. Maybe I am biased, but the scene in TWOK is much more emotional... it was Spock's logic that required the saving of the Enterprise, which caused his "death", the needs of the many...


There were things about the movie that I liked, I am being super critical about it. JJ Abrams has some big shoes to fill, and he isn't going to fill them with an oversized Enterprise.

I liked the mention of section 31, the mention of the prime directive, even tho I think it was handled wrong. Spock would have been ultra hardcore in following the prime directive, his motives in this movie also violated the prime directive.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

202
[quote=""BladeCollector""]To me it is a reboot and I would have been fine with a reboot, but JJ Abrams had to go and jack around with the actual Prime Universe. Blowing up Romulus Prime, to me, is a much more interesting story than the alternate universe... taking Spock Prime from the Prime Universe is jacking around with the Prime Universe, Nero came from the Prime Universe. The new Star Trek reboot is inter-weaved with the Prime Universe, for me, too much.

If after the Kelvin blew up is where their stories diverge from "history" then why is the back stories of characters different.[/quote]

I suppose it's all subjective but to me, the fact that Abrams transplanted some characters from the Prime Universe into the new one does not keep it from being a reboot. Nero is dead. Sure, people have been dead in Star Trek before, but lousy villains stay dead. Cool villains like Khan and the Borg Queen come back. As for Spock Prime, I hope he stays out of it now. If you keep bringing him back, it's like admitting your new crew can't stand on its own feet. And while Vulcans can't lie, Leonard Nimoy did. He said he was not in this movie. Perhaps he was added very late in the game, after he gave the comment. Who knows?

As for characters' back stories being different prior to the destruction of the Kelvin, who are you referring to? We know next to nothing from prior canon about anyone's backstories. I don't see a conflict here.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Batman Begins had nothing to do with Michael Keaton's Batman movie.[/quote]

Thank God for that!

[quote=""Fingolfin""]As for the ethnicity of Khan, well, I've never seen WOK so I didn't know the difference. And I'm guessing that about 60% of the people who went to see this movie didn't know it either. [/quote]

You know, there's this little thing called "home video" that comes in various formats, currently DVD and BluRay. ;) Go rent TWOK and watch it. I know you're wanting to watch all the episodes first, but I'm granting you special dispensation to watch this one movie out of sequence. You might even be able to find Space Seed, the TOS ep that spawned Khan, available to rent somewhere. Anyway, if you watch those, you'll be in a better position to understand people's reactions to reusing the character, mirroring the climax, etc.

As for the ethnicity, that's not even dealt with in TWOK. In Space Seed, it's established that Khan was genetically engineered, probably from northern Indian stock. When TOS was made in the late 60s, no one thought much about casting true to a role's ethnicity. Hence, an ostensibly Indian character was played by a Mexican actor.

Nowadays, it's considered a big no-no to cast using surrogate ethnicities. It's like saying "all you brown people look alike to us." So, it would have been embarrassing to cast the role with a Hispanic. But they went it one better and cast a very white Brit. Tremendous actor, no argument there, but come on....


[quote=""Fingolfin""]I don't really understand the whole "destined to meet" thing, I'm assuming those were comments made by Abrams e xp laining his reason for bringing back Khan? Once again, the casual movie goer doesn't really care. A lot of Trek fans I know (being the ones who convinced me to get into Trek) say that the movies aren't worth watching if there isn't a good villain, so seeing as Khan is pretty much the ultimate villain, it makes business sense for Abrams to kick off his series with strong villains. [/quote]

AFAIK, neither Abrams nor any of his minions used the "destined to meet" theory. They are probably not that well versed in sci fi to be aware of it and use it as a justification.

Basically, the idea is that if something happens to disrupt the course of how events are "meant" to play out, the timeline will try to heal itself and converge back toward what it would have been, had the disruption not occurred. An analogy that's sometimes used is water flowing around a rock in a stream. The rock is sitting in the stream bed and the water can't flow through it, so it's forced to flow around either side. However, once around the rock, the water comes back together and resumes more or less what its course would have been. In science fiction, we see this in STID: things are different, but there's still an encounter with Khan that results in the death of a crew member and the near-destruction of the Enterprise. In the Terminator franchise, Judgment Day is not averted, only delayed.

As for your friend's theory that if there is not a good villain, the movie is not worth watching, I don't know that I agree with that. ST IV is my favorite ST movie. It does not have a villain in the conventional sense. There is an entity that drives the plot but it is not evil or malign. It is probably not even aware of the devastation caused by its actions. So it's not the typical ST or Bond villain...it's not some egomaniacal individual. So I don't know if it counts as a villain. But it was a great movie!

This ties back to one of my points, though, and that's about the dumbing down of Star Trek. The movies are typically dumber than the TV episodes. Almost all the movies basically boil down to a good guy vs bad guy plot, with a big shoot-em-up at the end to resolve things. It's a far cry from Roddenberry's original "Bible" treatment that called for no space battles, no mad scientists, etc.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

204
There is some amount of drive to bring Trek back to TV. It was going to be part of the Abrams/Trek King of All Media deal that fell apart. Bryan Singer and Bryan Fuller have wanted to bring it back. And Michael Dorn has what I consider a pipe dream that they will do a TV show based on the ongoing adventures of Worf.

If they do a TV show, I think they simply must e xp lore the post-TNG/post-Romulus events. There is SO much potential there.

I also think the best way to do it is short seasons of 10 episodes, like Game of Thrones. They can focus on making them as good as possible instead of grinding them out like sausages every week.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

205
I didn't get back to this thread before the server outage. Where were we? :huh:

I suppose I understand the destined to meet theory better now. It's not something I'm used to dealing with...I only do Tolkien and the 6 SW movies within the realm of scifi/fantasy, so I'm not used to dealing with alternate timelines and all this. Never seen Terminator, so I don't follow the Judgement Day thing. :|

I decided after seeing STID that I'd watch the first four Trek movies after I got halfway through season one of TOS. I just finished both parts of The Menagerie, so I've only got two more episodes I think. I did run across Space Seed the other day in the episode listings on Netflix, and I want to watch it.

I never really thought of movies as "dumbing down" the series, just a different way of telling the story. It's like the difference between a book and a movie, or the difference between listening to a record and watching the song being performed live. There's nothing wrong with preferring one over the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the other way is "bad", so to speak.

Personally, I didn't like TNG very much. Granted I've only watched about two hours worth of it, but it just doesn't feel like Star Trek to me...at least not in the same way that Kirk and Spock feel. I guess that's why I like the movies so much...I'm not looking to see what could happen in the universe, I really just want another 10 seasons of TOS, if you catch my drift. That's Trek to me;that could change when I've seen the other series and movies, but where I'm at right now is fully engrossed in the crew of Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu and company.
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

207
[quote=""Olorin""]But once it hit its stride in the 3rd season, from then on it was every bit the equal of TOS.[/quote]

If not the greater of the two.

Look; if we had to pick one of the five shows that was "closest" to AbramsTrek, it would probably be TOS. Instead of the intellectual, thought-provoking episodes of late TNG and early VOY (I didn't particularly care for DS9... I thought it got a bit stale in the first half or so), we have pistol-packing Kirk who personally beams down on dangerous away missions. Picard or Janeway rarely, if ever do that (Janeway more than Picard), so honestly, this is fairly close to TOS in terms of feel.

As for liking Trek IV - whew, I always thought that was the worst of the bunch. Different tastes, I guess.

My feelings on the new film are that Abrams is just parroting the greatest of the original Trek films (I think most people agree TWOK is the strongest Star Trek film, alongside maybe First Contact). He's not even doing it particularly well; the "KHAAN" yell was ridiculously bad, a lot like the Vader "Noooooooooo" in ROTS. It was a stupid addition to what was intended to be an emotional scene, but it was just riding on TWOK's coattails.

While we're discussing borrowing influence from TWOK, let's discuss Kirk's demise. Honestly - it was unbelievable for two reasons, to two different viewing groups. Trek fans who were familiar with TWOK knew Kirk wasn't dead, because they didn't kill Spock. Non-Trek fans who are familiar with Hollywood (and Chris Pine's commitments) knew he wasn't dead because there are still more movies coming. The only reason it could have worked is because of TWOK's existence - it was clearly homaging Spock's death, and it was trying to play on that thirty-year-old emotion.

I actually didn't mind Cummerbatch as Khan. He played the character with the same ice and steel that Montalban did, IMO, and since he's such a gifted actor, I could buy that he was Khan. I didn't particularly appreciate that JJ can't come up with anything on his own, since he had to essentially steal and corrupt the plot of TWOK for his own inferior film, but once I moved past that, he was enjoyable enough as Khan.

Seriously - and this is from a 21 year old kid - if you haven't seen TWOK, go rent it. I'd not seen Space Seed when I first saw TWOK - still haven't, actually - but I don't think it's necessary. TWOK is old-school suspense, action, and thriller, and it's IMO far superior to the recycled JJ crap we got. The reason that STID is semi-enjoyable is because of it's recycled plot. Go watch any three episodes from Season 6 of TNG, - or, you know, the original TWOK - then watch STID again. Trek has fallen a long way.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

209
For the record, I have no idea of Chris Pine's commitments. I didn't even know that his name was Chris Pine. I just pay to go sit and watch. :P Actually, I didn't even pay...I used a free movie voucher. I even got a free small popcorn, AND a medium beverage. Diet Mountain Dew if you please, I do like to treat myself with a soda every now and then. ;)
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

210
[quote=""Valkrist""]Nicely said, Jm. I'm glad there are still some people out there that are not so enamoured with Abrams and his lofty pedestal that they can provide some honest, no-bs criticism.[/quote]

To be perfectly honest, JJ's 2009 Trek got me into Star Trek in general. My folks had always had some of TOS around the house because they watched it when they were younger, so I picked that up and started watching that. Once I'd burned through Season 2 and 3, I found TNG and watched it in its entirety, and once I hit about Season 3 of TNG, where it really found its feet, I finally understood the "Trekkies," and why they said JJ Trek was so bad.

Star Trek used to be an intellectual puzzle every week, talking about ethics, morality, or sometimes, e xp loring the nature of evil. Remember "Measure of a Man?" Or "The Inner Light?" Or "All Good Things?" These were episodes that actually made you think, and by the end of the show, you didn't know which side of the story was real, and which was imagined.

I'm working my way through Voyager right now, so let me give you an example from that show. The first few seasons of Voyager are probably equal to the last few from TNG - high praise, as far as I'm concerned - and there was an interesting episode in Season 1 or 2 that dealt with existence. I'll put it in black text, so it's not spoiled for anyone who wants to watch, but I think you really ought to read it to better understand my point. The Ship's Doctor on Voyager is the Emergency Medical Hologram, which gradually grows more self-aware as he's left on far more often than he was supposed to be. In one episode, he goes to the holodeck where the ship suffers some power failure, or something. When he gets back to sickbay, he starts to see these other holographic characters that the viewer doesn't recognize, and neither does the Doctor. One of these characters tries to convince the Doctor that he's not actually aboard a starship, nor even a hologram, but rather a real man trying an immersion e xp eriment on a space station. The man, when the power failed, lost his bearings, and, the other character e xp lained, now couldn't remember that he was in a long-duration holodeck e xp eriment. Then, Voyager's first officer showed up and tells the Doctor that they're working to resolve the problem, and just hang in there. The first officer and the other character then accuse each other of lying, and it's done so well that you don't actually know which way is right. It's amazing - you're actually sitting there, going, "Well, who's right?" End spoilers.

Now, that's not a major character. He's not a captain, first officer, or even bridge officer. TNG, DS9, and VOY always had good episodes for the minor characters as well - the non-protagonists. In TOS, Kirk always did everything, all the time. But in TNG, sometimes Deanna Troi's mother would come aboard and harass Picard. Sometimes, an Admiral would come aboard and harass Picard. Sometimes, Q would come aboard and harass Picard. Seriously though, it wasn't all about the Captain. Did we ever get a Chekov episode? Nope. While some of the minor storylines were less interesting than others - nobody cared about Miles O'Brien's family, or the antics of Wesley Crusher or Worf's kid - man, that kid was bad - but it was refreshing to see Beverly Crusher take command of the Enterprise in a crisis when neither Picard nor Riker was aboard, or to watch Tom Paris try and break the Warp Barrier. That stuff was interesting, and it wasn't all about the captain. It was a nice change, and almost every episode, regardless of which character it focused on, provided an interesting problem to solve.

That's what I feel JJ Trek has lost. It's the thought-provoking episodes, that really make you think about what's right, or ethically acceptable, or that sort of thing. While DS9 seemed to deal less with that than did the e xp loration shows, it had its own appeal, even if the show did seem static from time to time. TNG has action, TNG has sex - Rysa, anyone? - TNG has plenty of shooting at bad guys, but it also has the intelligent, difficult ethical dilemmas that JJ Trek doesn't.

That's one reason I dislike JJ Trek - because it means that this is the new Star Trek, and we're not going to get another TNG. Like I said, Trek has fallen a long way.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]For the record, I have no idea of Chris Pine's commitments. I didn't even know that his name was Chris Pine. I just pay to go sit and watch. :P Actually, I didn't even pay...I used a free movie voucher. I even got a free small popcorn, AND a medium beverage. Diet Mountain Dew if you please, I do like to treat myself with a soda every now and then. ;) [/quote]

Well, if it was free, I can't really fault you. :D My girlfriend asked me when we left the theater, "So, what did you think?" My answer: "Good movie, bad Star Trek." Nothing wrong with watching a good old fashioned shoot-em-up-and-watch-em-e xp lode movie, as long as it isn't called "Star Trek." :)
Last edited by Jm419 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

211
JM... one of my favorite characters was O'Brien, he gets a transfer and is a major character on DS9, lots of backstory and development to him.

Star Trek was very thought provoking I agree with you... I think you will see a lot more of that when/if you get to DS9, being stationed on an outpost at the edge of e xp lored space next to a wormhole, a multi-season arc of the Dominion, the struggle between what some people consider "aliens" while some other people call those same aliens, the prophets and base their religion off of them.

My heart belongs to TNG, but when I think objectively, I would say that DS9 was superior series.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

212
Jm, you cut right through to the heart and soul of what Star Trek is. Abram's Trek, if we can call it that, is soulless and will remain so as long as these movies are nothing but flash-whiz-bang action and rehashed plots. Because this is Hollywood and driven by the almighty $dollar$ and funded and fuelled by the A.D.D. generation, this is all we will ever get.

Olorin has said it a billion times and I will echo it here: Trek was, and always shall be, at its best on TV, where the essence of what Star Trek truly is has a chance to shine, not on a theatre screen every two-three years, with younger, unproven clones of the classic TOS crew, who have zero chance to establish an emotional connection with the viewers. For this, and a few other reasons (cited by Jm,) Pine's death as Kirk was utterly meaningless and nothing more than a blatant ripoff milked for dramatic effect and cries of "wow... that JJ sure is daring, killing off Kirk like that!", as if anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together or any true fan of Trek would ever be fooled. :rolleye:

BC, I agree 100% with you. The difference between those shows boils down to one key element: episodic vs. serial. TOS and TNG are the former, while DS9, VOY, and ENT are the latter.

TOS and much of TNG are disconnected from one episode to the next. We see the same crew and ship week after week, but the events and consequences of previous episodes are never present or so much as discussed the next time around. This lends a very static feel to the show, and little sense of progress. TNG started to connect things a bit more here and there: Wesley's tenure on the ship, Worf and the Duraas feud, Data and Lore, to mention a few, but by and large the majority of episodes stood on their own.

When DS9 started out, it was much the same way, but somewhere along the way the writers must have realized that if we are going to spend this long with these characters, we are going to want to see personal growth, as well as storylines that can take many episodes, or even seasons, to resolve. This was the formula around which VOY, and later ENT, were built. I think it was a much better approach. Sadly, a few of the storylines and many of the standalone episodes of these later series lacked the quality and thought-provoking themes of the best of TOS and TNG.

Truly, all of it together collectively is what makes the Star Trek universe so rich and interesting. It's a crying shame that these Abrams' movies are a huge step backwards in substance and intellect, and that he feels the need to cannibalize a great piece of Trek history, twist it around a bit, and call it a blockbuster. Where these silly critics see tributes and homages, I see only a sad lack of originality.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

213
[quote=""BladeCollector""]JM... one of my favorite characters was O'Brien, he gets a transfer and is a major character on DS9, lots of backstory and development to him.

Star Trek was very thought provoking I agree with you... I think you will see a lot more of that when/if you get to DS9, being stationed on an outpost at the edge of e xp lored space next to a wormhole, a multi-season arc of the Dominion, the struggle between what some people consider "aliens" while some other people call those same aliens, the prophets and base their religion off of them.

My heart belongs to TNG, but when I think objectively, I would say that DS9 was superior series.[/quote]

I like O'Brien very much - as an engineering student, I find the engineers to be fun characters, and the technobabble is semi-understandable - but every now and then, we get a real winner of a term, like, "flux capacitor" from BTTF. I was just saying that I didn't care about Molly O'Brien, for example; while I liked Miles, I thought his family was poorly written and did little for me.

I have seen every episode of DS9. I thought Sisko was harder to relate to than Picard, because he had that hard edge. I liked Jadzia Dax very much, and Odo was a fascinating character. Ultimately, though, I thought Star Trek should have, well, Trek - the static life aboard a space station wasn't interesting, nor were the ins and outs of Bajoran election procedures. Dukat was very, very interesting - I was surprised his arc ended the way it did. While I enjoyed the Dominion War seasons, DS9 seasons 1 - 4, or so, were much harder to watch than the late part of TNG, which they ran concurrently with. I liked the adventures every week better than "Who's Sisko not going to get along with this week?"

While I liked DS9, I thought TNG and the first part of VOY feel more like Star Trek to me.

[quote=""Valkrist""]
BC, I agree 100% with you. The difference between those shows boils down to one key element: episodic vs. serial. TOS and TNG are the former, while DS9, VOY, and ENT are the latter.

TOS and much of TNG are disconnected from one episode to the next. We see the same crew and ship week after week, but the events and consequences of previous episodes are never present or so much as discussed the next time around. This lends a very static feel to the show, and little sense of progress. TNG started to connect things a bit more here and there: Wesley's tenure on the ship, Worf and the Duraas feud, Data and Lore, to mention a few, but by and large the majority of episodes stood on their own.

When DS9 started out, it was much the same way, but somewhere along the way the writers must have realized that if we are going to spend this long with these characters, we are going to want to see personal growth, as well as storylines that can take many episodes, or even seasons, to resolve. This was the formula around which VOY, and later ENT, were built. I think it was a much better approach. Sadly, a few of the storylines and many of the standalone episodes of these later series lacked the quality and thought-provoking themes of the best of TOS and TNG.

Truly, all of it together collectively is what makes the Star Trek universe so rich and interesting. It's a crying shame that these Abrams' movies are a huge step backwards in substance and intellect, and that he feels the need to cannibalize a great piece of Trek history, twist it around a bit, and call it a blockbuster. Where these silly critics see tributes and homages, I see only a sad lack of originality.[/quote]

I'll agree with the episodic vs serial looks on the shows; that's an excellent way of putting it. Still, on DS9, at least, I found the characters much harder to relate to than I did with TNG. While I ended up liking everyone on both crews, I think I preferred TNG overall just because the sense of adventure was there, and, well, Picard is more likable than Sisko.

I'm currently in Season 2 of VOY. I think it's some of the best Trek I've seen; the combination of the style of TNG with the story arcs of DS9 really combine to make an exciting show where literally every episode has an interesting and original plotline. I'm really enjoying it, and I always will - the old shows will always be around for us to watch.

Is ENT worth watching? I've heard it both ways.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

214
[quote=""Valkrist""]TOS and much of TNG are disconnected from one episode to the next. ... When DS9 started out, it was much the same way, but somewhere along the way the writers must have realized that if we are going to spend this long with these characters, we are going to want to see personal growth, as well as storylines that can take many episodes, or even seasons, to resolve.[/quote]

The underlying cause of this evolution in Star Trek storytelling was the departure of Gene Roddenberry. He wanted stand-alone episodes that didn't connect to each other. Hell, he didn't want TNG to reference TOS, if you can imagine such a thing! (That comes from the supplements of the TNG Season 3 BD.) Once Roddenberry died, the writers started doing what they wanted to do, which was have continuity...and some conflict.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Truly, all of it together collectively is what makes the Star Trek universe so rich and interesting.[/quote]

Rich, interesting, and always and forever superior to Star Wars, for all these reasons. But that's a different debate! :evil:

[quote=""Jm419""]I have seen every episode of DS9. I thought Sisko was harder to relate to than Picard, because he had that hard edge.[/quote]

I thought Sisko and Picard were each at least somewhat difficult to relate to, for different reasons. Picard was played by an Englishman portraying a (very anglicized) Frenchman of the 24th Century. That's bound to cause a little empathetic disconnect. Also, Stewart gave the character a coolly authoritarian air, though that softened was time went one. Kirk might bawl you out, but Picard would destroy you with a withering glare or at most a few terse words.

Sisko, at least initially, is driven by totally different motivations...trying to come to terms with the loss of his wife, raising a son alone on the frontier, and trying to forge a cohesive crew and a functional station at the same time. It's a tough situation to be in. And then on top of that, the Bajorans hail him as some sort of demi-god (which he turns out, in fact, to be).

One thing I liked very much about Sisko's character is that the writers made him American. This is not a national pride issue but instead relates to race. Up to that point, there had been two other black main characters in Star Trek, Uhura and LaForge. Their backstories are that they are both supposed to be from Africa. Probably it was felt that it was good to imply that Africa pulled itself together and overcame the poverty, starvation, and tyranny that has plagued it. But at the same time, it almost implies that American blacks never pulled themselves together and carved their niche in the society of the future. Finally, along comes Sisko. He's American, he's from New Orleans, his family cooks Creole cuisine, and he loves jazz.

Does this matter? Probably not so much, any more. We have a black president. When TOS aired, a black American president would have been inconceivable. When DS9 aired, a black American president was nearly as inconceivable. Now, it's just matter of fact. But I still like to think that the message of characters like Uhura or Sisko, or our real-life president, is that if you apply yourself, you will get where you want to go. I will always remember the day after election day, 2008. I caught a little bit of one of those women's talk shows, The View or The Talk. One of the women, a black woman, told the story of having been able to tell her young son that morning that there was no limit on what he could do with his life. She was crying as she told the story and I teared up, just hearing it.

[quote=""Jm419""]Dukat was very, very interesting....[/quote]

IMHO, Dukat is the best villain in the history of Star Trek. Even when he's being a villain, you can't help but like him. And he even redeemed himself and became a hero, for a while.

[quote=""Jm419""]I'm currently in Season 2 of VOY. I think it's some of the best Trek I've seen; the combination of the style of TNG with the story arcs of DS9 really combine to make an exciting show where literally every episode has an interesting and original plotline. I'm really enjoying it, and I always will - the old shows will always be around for us to watch.

Is ENT worth watching? I've heard it both ways.[/quote]

I'm sure the producers would be pleased to hear that somebody liked VOY so much. I liked it well enough to stick with it but found a lot of it to be dreadfully tough trudging. Anything to do with the Kazon was abominable...worst villain species in Star Trek history. I liked Janeway, although the writers occasionally made some blunders with her. In her own way, she could give a misbehaving crew member a dressing-down that was every bit as killer as anything Kirk or Picard ever delivered. That scene where she bawls out Tuvok in, I think, the first season, was a classic.

Enterprise was a good show, probably better than VOY on the whole. The first two seasons were ok, the third season was better, and the fourth season was fantastic. And then the accursed UPN canceled it.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

215
Well folks, I finally caved last night and watched Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. I couldn't wait any longer. Aside from the discussion going on in this thread (you still can't pay me to hate Abrams...perhaps if you paid me in SSW Polystone ;) ), I'll just give some feedback.

Honestly, I preferred the new Khan to the old. Montalban's Khan was dangerous and angry, but Cumberbatch's Khan just an absolute sociopath. He's a one man army, doesn't even have his crew, and one can only speculate at how menacing an entire crew like him would be. He was so much more destructive and terrifying. So ST:ID wins on that field for me...I enjoyed the villain better.

I'll admit that my perception is absolutely skewed because of having seen Into Darkness first, and having participated in this discussion. If I had spent a decade watching reruns of TOS, watching the relationship between Kirk and Spock build up, the Wrath of Khan would have hit me a lot harder than it did. But that relationship was built up very heavily in the first two hours of STID, and so when Kirk actually bit the bullet, his death hit me a lot harder than Spock's death in WoK. That, and I know that Trek III was on it's way, bringing Spock back to life. I really wish I would've watched Wrath of Khan and more of TOS before having seen STID, but I wanted to catch it in a theater setting so I did what I had to do. That being said, I still really enjoyed Wrath of Khan. But it didn't move me the way that STID did...blasphemy, I know. I love old Trek for it's classic elements, but even this down to earth member of the ADD Generation can't help but love the larger-than-life atmosphere of Abrams' Trek. My most sincere apologies if that upsets anyone.

Val, is your icon picture Kirk's scream from Wrath of Khan? I thought I recognized the face last night as I watched the movie! :D
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

217
[quote=""Fingolfin""]Well folks, I finally caved last night and watched Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. I couldn't wait any longer. Aside from the discussion going on in this thread (you still can't pay me to hate Abrams...perhaps if you paid me in SSW Polystone ;) ), I'll just give some feedback.

Honestly, I preferred the new Khan to the old. Montalban's Khan was dangerous and angry, but Cumberbatch's Khan just an absolute sociopath. He's a one man army, doesn't even have his crew, and one can only speculate at how menacing an entire crew like him would be. He was so much more destructive and terrifying. So ST:ID wins on that field for me...I enjoyed the villain better.

I'll admit that my perception is absolutely skewed because of having seen Into Darkness first, and having participated in this discussion. If I had spent a decade watching reruns of TOS, watching the relationship between Kirk and Spock build up, the Wrath of Khan would have hit me a lot harder than it did. .....That being said, I still really enjoyed Wrath of Khan. But it didn't move me the way that STID did...blasphemy, I know. I love old Trek for it's classic elements, but even this down to earth member of the ADD Generation can't help but love the larger-than-life atmosphere of Abrams' Trek. My most sincere apologies if that upsets anyone. :D [/quote]

Fin, that is an excellent defense of your position.

I have not seen any of the Abrams movies (and I have no intention of seeing them as I agree with Val) and only two of the original cast movies ("the one where they bug in the guy's ear" and "the one with the whales" --polite nod to BC).

But you gave sound reasons for your preferences. And finally it IS a matter of preference. Movies, like books and music and food is a matter of opinion.

"De gustibus non disputandum est." ...[Where is Legion when you need him???] "About taste, it cannot be argued."

But what i find so ironically amusing is that for all the vitriol you have hurled at movie critics, you just provided a lucid, measured, and compelling critique comparing movies to movies and movies to TV, quite civilly.

Fin, m'boy, like it or not, you are a born movie critic! :D

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

219
Well, here's a little tidbit to point out just how crappy Paramount treats ST fans, esp. compared to the generous feasts of goodness that CBS is laying out w/the Trek TV series BD sets.

Paramount created a lot of extras for the STID home video release...but scattered them over half a dozen retailer-exclusive and download partners.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/star ... arkness-bd

If I cared as much about special features as I used to, this would have me POed about crazy. As it is, I just think it's about the crassest thing I've ever heard of a studio doing with a home video release.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

220
I kind of understand exclusives, to an extent. Since movies and games are basically the same price across the board (sometimes Target/Walmart are cheaper than BestBuy) these retailers need some sort of incentive to make you want to buy from them. I think it works better when it doesnt effect the e xp erience... maybe a free gift or different box cover.

As with games you may get an extra costume or weapon, etc... but the playable game is the same. I dont think that special features for movie releases should be used for retailer exclusives

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

221
Paramount is going to release a 2-movie boxset of the JJ movies, called Star Trek: The Compendium. Notably, it will include ALL the bonus content previously created for STID but scattered across retailer-exclusives, together now for the first time, PLUS some extra new content.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/m ... 62314_0600

I wish they hadn't bundled the first movie in with this, but that notwithstanding, count me in.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

222
Why are they doing this with a third movie just beyond the horizon? Seems like shameless double and triple dipping when you consider they will almost assuredly do a box set that contains all three eventual JJverse movies. It really should just be a more comprehensive release of the STID, to be honest (and like you said.)
This Space for Rent
Post Reply

Return to “Star Trek & Star Wars”

cron