JLCM - Star Trek

[Tom Brazelton]

I'm not using it as an excuse. I'm pointing it out as fact.

I've already said that I agreed with you - that Nero was an underdeveloped villain.

Unlike you, however, I do not believe the success (or my enjoyment of the film) hinges on how good the villain should be.

I found the aspects of the film that I enjoyed outweighed the fact that their main villain was a blue collar slob with a chip on his shoulder.

[joerules]

I'm not interested in starting this circle again. I understood what you said. I don't care that you agree with me on it- that's not the point I was making in either thread. What I'm saying is that being faithful to a bad characteristic is not a forgivable excuse. Your supposed to fix problems not honor them. It's like saying Punisher War Zone sucked because it was being faithful to the films that came before it.

[Tom Brazelton]

You're putting words in my mouth.

All I'm saying is the good outweighs the bad. I think you're focusing way too much on Nero's significance to the film. His actions stir the conflict and move the plot forward, but it's not the point of watching a movie about the crew of the Enterprise.

It's like when I was complaining about Deadpool in X-Men Origins. At the time, you basically said "Too bad it's called X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

[joerules]

The difference there is that I think they handled Deadpool really well where as neither of us thought Nero was handled well. I thought the villains complimented the hero in Wolverine. Not in Trek though.

It's not my intention to put words in your mouth.

Though I also don't think "the good out weighs the bad" is an excuse for bad character development either. I think Nero is significant. One could argue that a well developed enemy creates a better developed hero. At the end of the day there's no reason not to develop the character even if he's not the main focus.

[trevor]

The difference there is that I think they handled Deadpool really well where as neither of us thought Nero was handled well. I thought the villains complimented the hero in Wolverine. Not in Trek though.

It's not my intention to put words in your mouth.

Though I also don't think "the good out weighs the bad" is an excuse for bad character development either. I think Nero is significant. One could argue that a well developed enemy creates a better developed hero. At the end of the day there's no reason not to develop the character even if he's not the main focus.

Not to get into the middle of things, but I agree that Nero is both significant and under used in the movie. I blame this on the lack of screen time that he received, but the performance was powerful - you get that he's on a revenge mission and pissed. I think that a little more face time with the villain would have helped, and I'm told that the prequel comic does this.

However, cross-media storytelling doesn't help the movie any, especially for people who haven't read the comic. It's like in the Matrix sequels: I feel like I've missed out on a little something here.

That said, I thought the movie was refreshing since the cast is the opposite of what they've been in the movies: namely, young and inexperienced. The movies are always about how the crew are "getting too old for this $#!+," while this cast has never been in an armed conflict before. This makes their academy time more real, I think.

Which, I would have loved to see more of their academy years. There's 3 years of stories there I'm interested to see....

[Tom Brazelton]

I think there's going to be a prequel called Star Trek: First Class for those Starfleet years.

Or... not.

Not ever.

[joerules]

I wouldn't mind something covering that, but a show or series that doesn't go into space would be death.

[striogi]

In reference to the Uhura/Spock relationship:

This last week, I've gone back to The Original Series and watched them (via hulu). I had forgotten that Uhura tries REALLY hard to hit on Spock in the first few episodes of the first season...

So it seems to me that the relationship in the movie is actually a reference back to that, not something really new.

I suspect it didn't really play for TOS because of the time period (1968) and the racial tensions. Roddenberry was always one to push social buttons, so you could see that he wanted to make a statement on interracial relations at the time. I wouldn't be too surprised if the studio killed it before it really went anywhere.

---

as far as where they should go from here?
I'd actually like to see this reboot TOS: the current incarnation of the crew after the destruction of Vulcan and the brasher, more hot-headed Kirk would be a welcome take on the series. I'd like to see them take on modern social issues: Gay marriage, Religious zealotry, genocide, bio-weapons, etc.

JJ Abrams showed the studios a giant door that they could step through, to make Star Trek a viable property again: Use the original characters, change one major event at the beginning and then don't correct the timeline.

I don't know if anyone else sees it that way, but I see lots of potential there.

[trevor]

In reference to the Uhura/Spock relationship:

This last week, I've gone back to The Original Series and watched them (via hulu). I had forgotten that Uhura tries REALLY hard to hit on Spock in the first few episodes of the first season...

So it seems to me that the relationship in the movie is actually a reference back to that, not something really new.

I suspect it didn't really play for TOS because of the time period (1968) and the racial tensions. Roddenberry was always one to push social buttons, so you could see that he wanted to make a statement on interracial relations at the time. I wouldn't be too surprised if the studio killed it before it really went anywhere.

---

as far as where they should go from here?
I'd actually like to see this reboot TOS: the current incarnation of the crew after the destruction of Vulcan and the brasher, more hot-headed Kirk would be a welcome take on the series. I'd like to see them take on modern social issues: Gay marriage, Religious zealotry, genocide, bio-weapons, etc.

JJ Abrams showed the studios a giant door that they could step through, to make Star Trek a viable property again: Use the original characters, change one major event at the beginning and then don't correct the timeline.

I don't know if anyone else sees it that way, but I see lots of potential there.

Well, essentially what this movie is a modernization so that the Star Trek universe is caught up to the "modern world." The destruction of Vulcan is like 9-11. A horrible event that changes the world forever. Now we (an audience) can relate to the Star Trek universe and the horrible things that have happened to it.

[striogi]

Well, essentially what this movie is a modernization so that the Star Trek universe is caught up to the "modern world." The destruction of Vulcan is like 9-11. A horrible event that changes the world forever. Now we (an audience) can relate to the Star Trek universe and the horrible things that have happened to it.

very true. Star Trek has always been a reflection of our own society. I think that's part of why ST:E was such a flop. They didn't really try to tackle a lot of social issues, and that they really started to deviate from cannon. The first issue means it didn't stay true to the original vision and intent of the series. The second issue means it pissed off all the die-hard fans.

Abram's version says from the get-go: We're deviating from cannon. Get over it. The best part was that they didn't go back and rectify the time-line like they have so many other times. Then he went a step further, reflecting so much of ourselves in this vision of the future: Destruction of Vulcan, Kirk's initial rejection of duty and service, the fact that he was from a broken home and his rebellion against that, Bones also coming from a failed marriage, Uhura's demand for professional respect and her conflict with wanting to be a woman. Then finally, they wrap it all up with them focusing on the positive qualities and high-minded ideals of Star Fleet. (Side note: I found one of the best exchanges to be between Pike and Kirk... "That depends on how you define winning. You're here, aren't you?")

It makes me sad that the studios really only seem to take these daring leaps in films, that TV shows are so much less edgy... even though daring, edgy TV is so much more successful and memorable.

[trevor]

I wouldn't mind something covering that, but a show or series that doesn't go into space would be death.

Why wouldn't they go into space? They just couldn't have space adventures together as a group, since this movie was their "first meeting." But you could do it like Heroes where there are several storylines going that very occasionally intertwine.

I'm not saying that it would be a great series, but it's be nice to see some more of their academy days.

[Tom Brazelton]

I suspect it didn't really play for TOS because of the time period (1968) and the racial tensions. Roddenberry was always one to push social buttons, so you could see that he wanted to make a statement on interracial relations at the time. I wouldn't be too surprised if the studio killed it before it really went anywhere.

Nichelle Nichols and William Shatner shared the first inter-racial kiss in broadcast television history.

Unfortunately, Uhura and Kirk were under the influence of mind control at the time...

[striogi]

I suspect it didn't really play for TOS because of the time period (1968) and the racial tensions. Roddenberry was always one to push social buttons, so you could see that he wanted to make a statement on interracial relations at the time. I wouldn't be too surprised if the studio killed it before it really went anywhere.

Nichelle Nichols and William Shatner shared the first inter-racial kiss in broadcast television history.

Unfortunately, Uhura and Kirk were under the influence of mind control at the time...

oh, I know. I remember that episode. but IIRC, that wasn't season 1. also that they were being controlled by some Grecian gods indicates that it wasn't a relationship.

(also, according to Memory Alpha -the star trek wiki, that wasn't actually the first interracial kiss. nor was it the first black-white kiss on American network TV)

I'm still watching some of the old star trek episodes, I don't know if I'll find more uhura/spock flirting/romance. I wouldn't be surprised if I do. my point remains the same. People are surprised by the relationship in the Abrams movie because they forgot it's there, or at least hinted at, in TOS.

[cooljammer00]

Uh, Enterprise was all about contemporary issues. It was too much so, in fact. Example: We go into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, Archer and his crew start fighting Suliban.

They just didn't do it very well.

[striogi]

Uh, Enterprise was all about contemporary issues. It was too much so, in fact. Example: We go into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, Archer and his crew start fighting Suliban.

They just didn't do it very well.

Fair enough. Maybe I didn't stick with it long enough. I'll go borrow the disks and take a second look.