Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Star Trek XII - Set phasers to beaming and embrace the franchise's new prime directive: Make it smart, keep it moving and don't sweat the past   (nydailynews.com ) divider line 146
    More: Spiffy, Star Trek, Make It, Zachary Quinto, Michael Giacchino, Uhura, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Dr. McCoy  
•       •       •

3530 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 May 2013 at 8:51 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 07:05:47 PM  

Egoy3k: Man I hate modern nerds.


This is almost exactly like saying "I hate the new Star Trek movies" to me.  I think the new ones capture a lot of what made the original great.  If you think they differ much, I suspect you either have nostalgia-glasses on when you think about the old ones, or that you weren't really paying attention.

Same with nerds.  You know what nerds were like before 2013?  They were argumentative, borderline-autistic sci-fi fanboys with a near-religious zeal for nitpicking at plot details or instigating Holy Wars over which show/movie/actor/episode/book/character/text editor/ship/whatever was better.  If you think this has changed, you either remember "old nerds" with your nostalgia glasses on, or you weren't really paying attention.
 
2013-05-14 07:08:11 PM  

Madbassist1: You're moving your goalposts. I am saying you're pulling this whole paragraph out of your ass.


No, I'm just providing MORE reasons why TOS isn't the insightful dissection of morality and the human condition people make it out to be. Prime Directive? The needs of the many? MOVE OVER E E CUMMINGS, RODDENBERRY IS THE LORD OF EXISTENTIAL STRUGGLE.
Come on now.

Here's some other idiotic things star trek is responsible for.

I bet 500 bucks your favorite show can't say that, asshole.


What does that have to do with anything? You're just getting MAD.
TOS was mediocre. You'll get over it.  Star Trek is still my favorite show overall, though, so you owe me 500 bucks.
 
2013-05-14 07:11:43 PM  

cptjeff: Seriously, Star Trek used to be something that at least tried to not be fluff. If you're going to make big, vapid, spacy movies, please don't pretend they're in any way Star Trek movies.


It says "Star Trek" right on the tin. What makes it not Star Trek? Not enough hand-to-hand fights with guys in dinosaur suits?
 
2013-05-14 07:19:51 PM  

cptjeff: Seriously, Star Trek used to be something that at least tried to not be fluff.


Are you from an alternate universe?

TOS is the fluffiest fluff that ever fluffed a fluff.  It was pure cheese, but I will concede it occasionally made overt, simplified analogies to current events.  Kirk was a charicature of manliness that verged on satire.  He was brilliant and awesome and hotheaded and a total retard with two awesome friends whose own awesomeness was nonthreatening and complementary to his awesomeness.  He did space-judo in a leotard to unwind.  He did battle with Space Hippies.  There was a cat that turned into a hot chick.  An army of nagging robot wives.  The inventor of warp drive gettin' it on with a sparkly haystack.  A gladiator battle with a lizard-man where his Manly Knowledge let him build a firearm out of Muscle and Brawn from local rocks.  He did every woman and woman-shaped alien in a volume of space too large to accurately describe.  It was awesome because of this.

If you were, say, eight when the originals aired... it's hard to overlook the nostalgia filter.  I remember GI Joe cartoons fondly, but after watching a few as an adult, sometimes it's best to leave nostalgia to your memories.  Still... Star Trek didn't really seem to try to be serious until after TOS.
 
2013-05-14 07:29:21 PM  

I Like Bread: TOS was mediocre.


HOLY WAR WITH EVERYONE!  I'm already arguing with the guy you're arguing with... but now I get to argue with you, too!

TOS was not deep or serious... but it was awesome.  No mediocrity.  They turned everything up to 11.  It knew what it was and it went right up to the limits of absurdity without crossing into satire.  It had hints of the same ideas that showed up later in Banks' Culture novels.  An optimistic, utopian future society that somehow still lurches around like a drunk best friend helping his buddy out in a barfight over a hot chick.
 
2013-05-14 07:32:04 PM  

raygundan: TOS is the fluffiest fluff that ever fluffed a fluff.


Some of it yes. But it also did address some of the same things most science fiction tries to do, which is the issues of our own time. Racism, politics, religion...etc. But that's pretty much been covered. So now it's just about some pissed off guy out for revenge and blowing shiat up, which have been most of the movies. DS9 and some of  TNG (the series) and Voyager were about more than that though.
 
2013-05-14 07:34:51 PM  

demonfaerie: .....

Would love a Star Trek miniseries staring Garak.


I would pay serious money to see that. The guy who played Garak wrote a book in-character; its actually pretty good.
 
2013-05-14 07:39:49 PM  

I Like Bread: Not enough hand-to-hand fights with guys in dinosaur suits?


That is one of my minor complaints about the new films, to be sure.  I grudgingly accept "a human body squirting around in engine coolant tubes for comic effect rather than the sheer horror of flash-boiling his flesh off" and "Sulu being upgraded to Extreme Sports Space Ninja" as substitute cheese while we wait for dinosaur suits and a movie-length version of Spock's Brain.
 
2013-05-14 07:40:21 PM  

I Like Bread: It says "Star Trek" right on the tin. What makes it not Star Trek? Not enough hand-to-hand fights with guys in dinosaur suits?


Sorry, did the special effects didn't have enough lens flare for you?
 
2013-05-14 07:52:16 PM  
As a trek fak, and I even worked at Star Trek the Experience for a couple years... I had no problems with the new movie. Meh, so what? They wanna try something new? Ok. Wasnt bad. I just read all the spoilers for Into Darkness, and now i feel like how butthurt star wars fans mustve felt after seeing phantom menace... I dont like feeling this way, and i think its hypocritical of me to. But, man, I really hate the writers and Lindelof suddenly. And I havent even seen the movie yet. Maybe visual context will justify the rape, I dont know.

/ashamed I just used the word "rape"...
//about Star Trek..
 
2013-05-14 07:55:49 PM  

Mugato: But that's pretty much been covered. So now it's just about some pissed off guy out for revenge and blowing shiat up, which have been most of the movies.


I'm wondering now if people who watched TOS as it aired had as much trouble seeing the analogies.  Perhaps I had it easier, since the events were already history when I watched the show in syndication.

But it seems like the new movies are doing the same thing to me.  The first one tackles terrorism-- I didn't even think it was subtle.  The long-held grudge against another entire culture?  The devastating attack against innocents using improvised weapons?  The gung-ho leader whose father fought the same enemies that swings in to avenge?  None of these felt familiar to you?

"Some pissed off guy out for revenge blowing shiat up" is in fact a rather succinct summary of some recent-ish events in our history, and manages even in your sarcasm to imply the sort of continuous cycle of revenge that such things cause.

If Into Darkness doesn't do this, well... not every previous Trek was an allegory for current events.  Some of them were just about shooting a lizard-man in the junk with a gun you made with your bare hands.
 
2013-05-14 08:39:12 PM  

raygundan: They're not carbon-copy duplicates, because nobody can chew scenery like Shatner-- but his character has always been a brilliant, young, promoted-too-fast, loyal, shoot-from-the-hip womanizing douchebag who was inexplicably given command of a starship.


I'll have to take a slight issue with this because Old Kirk was never frantic.  That might be due to budgetary contraints or because it's Shatner, but it was also explicitly written into TOS episodes.  He fought a lizardman but stopped short of finishing him off.  An alien tries to tempt him and he meets his first pathetic try with a huff.  In numerous other episodes he approaches the situation with initial animosity, but often finds a less confrontational solution.  In fact, IIRC it was pressure from the network to keep Kirk in shirt-tearing melee and one-night-stands as much as possible.  How often was he shirtless once Star Trek hit the big screen?  He had swagger but the show repeatedly made a point that he wasn't smug to the core.  It felt more like an attempt to keep him superficially charismatic.  There was a LOT of apprehension with casting Patrick Stewart as the Captain in TNG because the networks felt no one would want to watch a show led by an old bald guy.  Yeah, that was a complete disaster.

But that quibble is really minor compared to Kirk's role within TOS itself.  As said before, he'll often be initially antagonistic but that frequently turns out to be the wrong solution to the problem, whether the threat du jour is an earth elemental or invisible trolls.  It's his cooler side that often proves invaluable.  I'll agree that, for the most part, Kirk is really just a Mary Sue character.  However, the world around him treats his impulsive qualities in a very different light.  People said I did a good job describing Kirk, but I wasn't describing Kirk at all.  I was describing how Kirk fits in the world he lives in -- he may be a shoot-from-the-hip douchenozzle to you, but how often did he kill when given the chance?  Was that ever celebrated, or followed up with a one-liner?  Not often, and when it was it usually felt awkward.  If anything, The Wrath of Khan roars right of the gate with Kirk not only getting everyone damn near killed for violating protocol, but owning up to it on the spot.  Holy shiat, I LOVED that scene.  When I first saw The Voyage Home and for the most part saw the same silly comedy everyone else did, I was floored that Kirk was actually demoted for his actions even while he's thanked for his heroism.  A dashing hero is actually reprimanded and thanked at the same time?  Good god, a movie that's actually capable of nuance?  That really doesn't happen that often, and it's those moments in what's otherwise a sea of melodramatic tripe that keep me coming back.  With that in mind:

flanker27del: I thought the series was created to get their message across. The setting was just a constraint and not a central point.


It's anything but a constraint; it's what makes the series go.  Good god, it's about the only thing it has going for it, and that's what most people fail to realize given the way everyone from NBC to Abrams couldn't stop shiatting on it.  The characters are one-dimensional, the morality plays are cliche, the (TOS) acting is bad, the special effects are worse and the dialogue is mediocre.  How did it get such a following?  Because when it comes to attitudes, it's the one work that flips everything around, and oh boy is that refreshing sometimes.  The world treats the same characters you see everywhere in other works differently, Kirk included.  The stoic one is encouraged to open up but he's often right.  The fiery doctor and impulsive Captain are often wrong.  It's a world where reason is an asset and impatience is a liability.  It's a world where the adversary could just as likely be a laughable pushover as basically omnipotent.  Compared to most stories, in fact, parity in the TV show was relatively rare and THAT's what created tension in this utopia.  Mind-blowing tension, at that.  The Klingons were frankly meh because they were beatable.  It's when the Enterprise encountered some giant space thingy and good god it just killed a redshirt with a thought, how are they going to get out of this one?  It was refreshing to watch a TV show where combat was sometimes simply not an option (as in, fuhgeddaboutit -- you're dealing with a god here), where conventional perceptions of good and bad were often misleading, and the cast as often had to think their way out of problems as fight.  If you hadn't watched the series before you just didn't know, so while you could count on the cast to survive you held your breath to find out how.

Is the New Kirk the same as the Old Kirk?  If you say so.  What galls me isn't the douchenozzle side of him, per se.  It's that the douchenozzle side is rewarded with near-parity and a victory against all odds, justifying the douchenozzle to continue being a douchenozzle because it pays to be a douchenozzle.  That happened in Star Trek sometimes, especially in TNG movies which I will hereby brainwash myself into believing were never made.  That said, I find it telling that most people say The Wrath of Khan was the best Star Trek movie.  I liked it, but it's the closest TOS got to Generic Space Adventure Movie.  Compare it to the episode Space Seed, where after subduing Khan, Kirk gives him an effin' planetThe Voyage Home was dismissed as a silly comedy, but the nature of the weird spaceship that triggered the whole Save Teh Whales nonsense was classic Star Trek.  First Contact was considered the best TNG movie and The Best of Both Worlds the best episodes, but Picard first encountered the Borg because Q wanted him to beg for help -- and Picard did just that.
 
2013-05-14 09:07:08 PM  

mongbiohazard: flanker27del: Never liked the Federation for that exact reason. Too much is right with the world. No money, no vices, nothing. Everyone else is warmongering and petty but Federation? nah! That's one thing I liked about DS9: the federation got some character with Section 39 and all the underhanded shiat they do. They seemed more human

Like them or not, that was the whole purpose of creating the Star Trek series in the first place. It was a post-scarcity, utopian society. It's a theoretical human ideal which can only be realized in the distant future - or fiction set in the distant future.

A future where humanity has largely wised up enough to learn how to control the worst aspects of our nature. Also where technological breakthroughs have made many human concerns moot. When your civilization has both effectively unlimited energy AND the ability to freely transpose matter and energy into whatever forms they want then no one will go hungry any more and even greed will be affected.


It bears mentioning that, since Star Trek's universe is post scarcity, the crews we see literally are 'the best humanity has to offer' in so many ways. They're the ones who were purely motivated, skilled, talented, and driven enough to actually make the cut and get a position, without any monetary, etc. motivation.
 
2013-05-14 09:13:13 PM  

kroonermanblack: It bears mentioning that, since Star Trek's universe is post scarcity, the crews we see literally are 'the best humanity has to offer' in so many ways. They're the ones who were purely motivated, skilled, talented, and driven enough to actually make the cut and get a position, without any monetary, etc. motivation.


Well actually, the first mention of them not using money was in Trek 4. And that was just to serve the plot. They used money all the time, before and since. The first use of the replicator was in TNG. And all of that was pretty much negated in DS9 so Trek philosophy is fairly random.
 
2013-05-14 09:16:29 PM  

flanker27del: I Like Bread: It says "Star Trek" right on the tin. What makes it not Star Trek? Not enough hand-to-hand fights with guys in dinosaur suits?

Sorry, did the special effects didn't have enough lens flare for you?


Tell you what - I'll try to recreate lens flare in real life, while you try to recreate the Vulcan Nerve Pinch. We'll decide which is more realistic.

raygundan:An optimistic, utopian future society

IS BORING. Metropolis had more intrigue.
 
2013-05-14 09:24:02 PM  

dragonchild: He had swagger but the show repeatedly made a point that he wasn't smug to the core.


Agreed.  But this is a younger Kirk-- what kind of man grows into a man whose first instincts are antagonism, bluster, and swagger, but often thinks better of it?  The sort who is all bluster and swagger as a young man, and gets his hand burned on the stove of life a few times.

I dunno-- I'll happily agree to disagree, but I think that New Kirk really feels like a faithful portrayal of what Old Kirk would have been like ten years before the events of TOS.  His swagger is going to have to pay off a few times for it to become a lifelong trait.  He'll do something that backfires later, and that will be the thing that makes him think twice.  If that happens too early in his life, you get a normal man, not one with Kirk's swagger.

I also think I erred in assuming you were comparing the movie to the original show.  I much preferred the feel of TOS, and I think the new movies feel more like TOS to me than the original movies did.
 
2013-05-14 09:24:26 PM  

I Like Bread: Tell you what - I'll try to recreate lens flare in real life, while you try to recreate the Vulcan Nerve Pinch. We'll decide which is more realistic.


That makes no sense at all.
 
2013-05-14 09:31:05 PM  

I Like Bread: raygundan:An optimistic, utopian future society

IS BORING. Metropolis had more intrigue.


That's my point.  I mean, it's cool if you think Star Trek is boring.  But I liked the idea that you have a Utopian society, and it's STILL a mess of headstrong, overreacting human hilarity.  All the same messes happen to them despite their near-miraculous tech.  Roddenberry may not have meant it to come out that way, but I thought it was great, and was what kept it from being a boring Utopia to me.  It wasn't really a utopia-- it was a bunch of well-meaning kids playing dress-up in utopia's clothes, and occasionally finding utopia's loaded pistol in the pocket.
 
2013-05-14 10:01:49 PM  

raygundan: I'll happily agree to disagree, but I think that New Kirk really feels like a faithful portrayal of what Old Kirk would have been like ten years before the events of TOS. His swagger is going to have to pay off a few times for it to become a lifelong trait. He'll do something that backfires later, and that will be the thing that makes him think twice. If that happens too early in his life, you get a normal man, not one with Kirk's swagger.


Fair enough and that all makes sense, but that misses my point.  This isn't about how the hubris leads to comeuppance; it's that in the Star Trek utopia, cockiness is discouraged from the get-go.  The military parity New Kirk enjoys is an opulent luxury compared to what Old Kirk had to deal with.  I feel that Star Trek is less about the characters than most fans, which is why your argument that New Kirk is a faithful adaptation doesn't convince me.  I really don't care.  Old Kirk's limited ability to consider non-violent situations makes him 1000x more badass than New Kirk to me, but forget my opinion -- it was required by his job commanding an exploratory vessel; cockiness was fatal.  If New Kirk encountered the typical Star Trek Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy, he wouldn't live long enough to learn a lesson about "burned fingers", especially when often times Old Kirk would be explicitly put in traps designed to get impulsive douchebags to destroy themselves.  99% of pop culture action protagonists including New Kirk would've perished in Day of the Dove, and that was only one episode!  For that matter, I'd wager 95% of Americans, if put in the same hypothetical situation, would also die.  There's a reason why TOS began with an established, seasoned crew backed by an enlightened utopia -- it took no less to encounter the weird, bizarre things they found and get out alive.  A confrontational douchebag had no place in a setting where the enemy might be a caveman, a god, or a god posing as a caveman.  The Enterprise needed a commander that could toss the book out the window on occasion (because WTF is protocol going to do against Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy), but stopped short of being a complete douchebag (because WTF is a dick-waving contest going to do against Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy).  New Kirk doesn't suck because he's a 10-years-younger version of old Kirk; he sucks because he's 50% short of what's required to be commander of the Enterprise.
 
2013-05-14 10:26:44 PM  

Mugato: yves0010: Generation's ending seems to fit in perfectly when you think about it. Picard going back to where he first meets the bad guy would of altered to much and seemed out of place if he just imprisoned him right then and there. Knowing that he is the reason but can not prove it makes Picard look bad and wrongfully imprisoning an innocent

Picard watched Soren destroy another star already. All he had to do was throw Soren in the brig, go to that star he watched explode and gather the evidence. Face it, it's a huge farking plot hole. Not to mention the gas powered rocket that blew up a star in less than a minute but that's not even that important.


yves0010: How about the fact that in Insurrection, the "asshole" race banned the antigonist from their planet and he wanted revenge on them and stealing their life giving radiation was his way of getting back at them

Yes but it was established that the radiation could be shared, the Bakuu or however you spelled it, would still benefit from it. But they said "fark off", even though it would have meant helping billions of people. And it wasn't even their native planet, they were squatters. And in a planet of immortals, what's a 12 year old doing there?

 yves0010: Picard has broken Starfleet orders on more then one occasion including the Prime Directive

Never for something as trivial as finding yet another ridiculously convenient other Data. And he would never fire on a primitive species and he would never ride around in a farking dune buggy unless there was a sponsorship from Argo involved.

Dude, I'm not happy about it but the TNG movies were shiat. I defy anyone to tear apart the TOS movies as easily.


As a whole, the TOS films were better, yes. But I'd dissagree that the TNG ones were that bad. Nemesis is rubbish, but it's no worse than The Final Frontier. you could really look at the movies like scores in the Olympics: throw out the highs (TWoK and FC) and the lows(V and Nemesis) and what are you left with? Are The Motion Picture, Search for Spock, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country better than Generations and Insurrection?

Well, yeah. Yeah, they are.
Star Trek V and Nemesis are actually the only two Trek movies I can't watch. Generations has massive plot holes, but I still enjoyed it. Insurrection was a letdown from First Contact, but I like it more as time goes on. It could have been the best one of all, the potential was there.
Aside from The Final Frontier, none of the TOS movies are crap, so they win.

Mugato: OnlyM3: I like the film as well -overall-, but the loss of the Enterprise was a huge misstep. It was done to casually, with no respect or weight

I disagree with that, the whole crew looking on as the ship burned in the atmosphere and the score. Kirk was almost shaken by that as with his son's death.  I don't see how it could have been done better,


The only thing that bummed me out when I first saw that movie was thinking that blowing up the ship was overkill on Kirk's part, especially when Sulu told him how small the Bird of Prey's crew was. Hey, I was 14 when that movie came out and I grew up with Kirk taking on three Trills at once, surley he and Chekov could have ambushed a half dozen Klingons on their own ship and taken them out, right?
Also, Christopher Loyd's Kurge was one of the few people Kirk could not bluff.

raygundan: cptjeff: Seriously, Star Trek used to be something that at least tried to not be fluff.

Are you from an alternate universe?

TOS is the fluffiest fluff that ever fluffed a fluff.  It was pure cheese, but I will concede it occasionally made overt, simplified analogies to current events.  Kirk was a charicature of manliness that verged on satire.  He was brilliant and awesome and hotheaded and a total retard with two awesome friends whose own awesomeness was nonthreatening and complementary to his awesomeness.  He did space-judo in a leotard to unwind.  He did battle with Space Hippies.  There was a cat that turned into a hot chick.  An army of nagging robot wives.  The inventor of warp drive gettin' it on with a sparkly haystack.  A gladiator battle with a lizard-man where his Manly Knowledge let him build a firearm out of Muscle and Brawn from local rocks.  He did every woman and woman-shaped alien in a volume of space too large to accurately describe.  It was awesome because of this.

If you were, say, eight when the originals aired... it's hard to overlook the nostalgia filter.  I remember GI Joe cartoons fondly, but after watching a few as an adult, sometimes it's best to leave nostalgia to your memories.  Still... Star Trek didn't really seem to try to be serious until after TOS.


I've watched all the series over the last year or so on Netflix. Yes, TOS has aged. But it's still fun to watch.

There's a line in the episode Elaan of Troyius where Kirk tells the warmonging biatch that he'd turn tail and run if it accomplished his mission.  No "Either he goes down, or we do" there. If he could run and win, he ran. If he had to throw down, he kicked your ass. But he was never a flippant jerk about it.
Oh, well, opinions vary.
 
2013-05-14 10:32:07 PM  
The new Star Trek was a lot of fun.  I don't need or even want the new Trek to be a carbon copy of the old.  Frankly, the franchise was getting stale and needed a big kick in the ass.  The characters are close enough to the originals for me.
 
2013-05-14 10:57:07 PM  

flanker27del: Representative of the unwashed masses: ....

It's section 31 and my name is Sloan...

[rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com image 768x576]

Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak


Is it bad that the first thing that came to mind when viewing that picture was Danny Glover in Predator 2 saying "OK, pussyface. Your move."
 
2013-05-14 11:04:27 PM  

dragonchild: raygundan: I'll happily agree to disagree, but I think that New Kirk really feels like a faithful portrayal of what Old Kirk would have been like ten years before the events of TOS. His swagger is going to have to pay off a few times for it to become a lifelong trait. He'll do something that backfires later, and that will be the thing that makes him think twice. If that happens too early in his life, you get a normal man, not one with Kirk's swagger.

Fair enough and that all makes sense, but that misses my point.  This isn't about how the hubris leads to comeuppance; it's that in the Star Trek utopia, cockiness is discouraged from the get-go.  The military parity New Kirk enjoys is an opulent luxury compared to what Old Kirk had to deal with.  I feel that Star Trek is less about the characters than most fans, which is why your argument that New Kirk is a faithful adaptation doesn't convince me.  I really don't care.  Old Kirk's limited ability to consider non-violent situations makes him 1000x more badass than New Kirk to me, but forget my opinion -- it was required by his job commanding an exploratory vessel; cockiness was fatal.  If New Kirk encountered the typical Star Trek Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy, he wouldn't live long enough to learn a lesson about "burned fingers", especially when often times Old Kirk would be explicitly put in traps designed to get impulsive douchebags to destroy themselves.  99% of pop culture action protagonists including New Kirk would've perished in Day of the Dove, and that was only one episode!  For that matter, I'd wager 95% of Americans, if put in the same hypothetical situation, would also die.  There's a reason why TOS began with an established, seasoned crew backed by an enlightened utopia -- it took no less to encounter the weird, bizarre things they found and get out alive.  A confrontational douchebag had no place in a setting where the enemy might be a caveman, a god, or a god posing as a caveman.  The Enterprise needed a commander that could toss the book out the window on occasion (because WTF is protocol going to do against Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy), but stopped short of being a complete douchebag (because WTF is a dick-waving contest going to do against Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy).  New Kirk doesn't suck because he's a 10-years-younger version of old Kirk; he sucks because he's 50% short of what's required to be commander of the Enterprise.


Indeed.
 
2013-05-14 11:15:23 PM  

Mugato: I Like Bread: Tell you what - I'll try to recreate lens flare in real life, while you try to recreate the Vulcan Nerve Pinch. We'll decide which is more realistic.

That makes no sense at all.


I can see how it might not if you haven't been paying attention to the discussion, and only wandered in to shiatpost.
 
2013-05-15 12:02:44 AM  

dragonchild: it's that in the Star Trek utopia, cockiness is discouraged from the get-go.


I think again, we might be discussing different parts of Star Trek.  TOS never discouraged cockiness-- it put its cockiest bastards on humanity's most challenging frontiers over and over.  The movies painted a different picture, though, as did later series.  I think this is why I like the new movies.  TOS was always my favorite, and they feel more like TOS to me than even the movies with the TOS characters.

No "Either he goes down, or we do" there.

If that's a quote from the new movie, that's a better reason than I've heard from anybody else to dislike New Kirk.  If it's your attempt to paraphrase what I think of the original Kirk, I've done a terrible job explaining myself.  He's a cocky, swaggering, brilliant, womanizing, loyal and occasionally really stupid guy-- but I didn't mean to imply he was a violent take-no-prisoners type.  Hell, he was so cocky and overconfident that there were times I felt like he SHOULD have gone in guns-blazing but didn't.  You don't come by that kind of overconfidence naturally after the age of about 23.  It has to be reinforced.  And while you're right that it could get him killed, it's the unlikely "he farks up but lives" error that you need to turn Mr. All-Swagger into Mr. Introspective Swagger.
 
2013-05-15 12:11:05 AM  

dragonchild: cockiness was fatal.


This may be the core of our difference.  Old Kirk was really, REALLY cocky.  I think we have different definitions of the word in our heads.  To you, it implies that he would be confrontational and violent.  To me, it takes a hell of a cocky bastard to attempt a non-violent solution at great risk to his own person and crew from the command chair on a gigantic armed-and-armored ship.  Every time they dropped shields to talk it out with an adversary face-to-face or beamed their best officers to the surface of some unknown mystery it was Kirk's cockiness that made him confident enough he was willing to roll the dice and risk literally the entire ship's safety to do so.
 
2013-05-15 12:57:51 AM  

kroonermanblack: It bears mentioning that, since Star Trek's universe is post scarcity, the crews we see literally are 'the best humanity has to offer' in so many ways. They're the ones who were purely motivated, skilled, talented, and driven enough to actually make the cut and get a position, without any monetary, etc. motivation.


They are still the selfish, egoist people that nearly killed each other right before first contact. One of the better episodes of DS9 in season 7 was Siege of AR558. The message was spelled out very clearly: take away all the creature comforts and technological advancements and people will react with the same ferocity and bloodthirstiness as any other race.

It is easy to be an angel in paradise. Look up the stanford prison experiment; the circumstances and your biology determine what you do to a sickening degree.

dragonchild:
tl;dr
 
2013-05-15 01:47:25 AM  

flanker27del: demonfaerie: .....

Would love a Star Trek miniseries staring Garak.

I would pay serious money to see that. The guy who played Garak wrote a book in-character; its actually pretty good.


I keep trying to find this book online for under 10 bucks, but it seem to run around 30. I wonder if any local used book stores has it. I hope so, because I really want to read it.

Garak is a complex character that knows that life isn't always fair, and to always play by the rules won't let you survive. Also I know people expected him to hook up with Bashir after Ziyal died, but I always though Bashir was going to hook up with O'Brien. That is sadly how I know a lot of people that view Garak that way, and not how much of a badass he was by making usually crappy characters shine.
 
2013-05-15 01:52:22 AM  

Mugato: demonfaerie: Garek was badass. Although I think Int the Pale Moonlight would have been even better if Sisko were the one to plant the bomb on the Romulan senator's ship, impressing Garek with how far Sisko turned to the dark side.

Maybe, but Sisko never even thought about going that way until is happened. Garak slowly showing him that war makes a person do horrible things for a better outcome. Garak even sided with the Federation to help his people, and at the same time help kill them. I wish there was more episodes of Garak, and they didn't try to hook him with a Dukat's daughter

Yeah but Sisko having ethical issues with all the things they were doing to make the operation happen, arguing with Garek about what they should and should not do  and then at the end being the one who actually did something that Garek didn't even do, I think would have been even more dramatic but the episode was awesome either way.


Oh I agree with you, and it would show the flaws in the Federation is that no matter how hopeful you are, you need to get dirty once and awhile. That being said, I think the reason why he put Garak in charge of all this, because he knew himself he couldn't do it. As much as I like Sisko he doesn't really have the balls do it, because hes in Starfleet. Hell he didn't listen to the prophets, and Dax died. Sisko knew Garak could do what he couldn't, and basically enforced that Garak knows the grey areas of life. He isn't afraid to or accepts the idea that bad shiat needs to happen, and sometimes you have to do it.
 
2013-05-15 03:44:10 AM  

dragonchild: raygundan: They're not carbon-copy duplicates, because nobody can chew scenery like Shatner-- but his character has always been a brilliant, young, promoted-too-fast, loyal, shoot-from-the-hip womanizing douchebag who was inexplicably given command of a starship.

I'll have to take a slight issue with this because Old Kirk was never frantic.  That might be due to budgetary contraints or because it's Shatner, but it was also explicitly written into TOS episodes.  He fought a lizardman but stopped short of finishing him off.  An alien tries to tempt him and he meets his first pathetic try with a huff.  In numerous other episodes he approaches the situation with initial animosity, but often finds a less confrontational solution.  In fact, IIRC it was pressure from the network to keep Kirk in shirt-tearing melee and one-night-stands as much as possible.  How often was he shirtless once Star Trek hit the big screen?  He had swagger but the show repeatedly made a point that he wasn't smug to the core.  It felt more like an attempt to keep him superficially charismatic.  There was a LOT of apprehension with casting Patrick Stewart as the Captain in TNG because the networks felt no one would want to watch a show led by an old bald guy.  Yeah, that was a complete disaster.

But that quibble is really minor compared to Kirk's role within TOS itself.  As said before, he'll often be initially antagonistic but that frequently turns out to be the wrong solution to the problem, whether the threat du jour is an earth elemental or invisible trolls.  It's his cooler side that often proves invaluable.  I'll agree that, for the most part, Kirk is really just a Mary Sue character.  However, the world around him treats his impulsive qualities in a very different light.  People said I did a good job describing Kirk, but I wasn't describing Kirk at all.  I was describing how Kirk fits in the world he lives in -- he may be a shoot-from-the-hip douchenozzle to you, but how often did he kill ...


The hilarious part about all this: You've written a page long diatribe complaining about how the writers seemed to reward/encourage Kirk's behavior in the 2009 movie -  something which, by all accounts, they immediately deal with in ST: Into Darkness. Whoops.
 
2013-05-15 05:58:12 AM  
I'm curious to see if this is the one that goes Michael Bay splodey, or The Dark Knight "heavy, man," or both. No nerd poutrage from me, but both those schticks are boring.
 
2013-05-15 06:37:25 AM  

FiendishFellow05: The hilarious part about all this: You've written a page long diatribe complaining about how the writers seemed to reward/encourage Kirk's behavior in the 2009 movie - something which, by all accounts, they immediately deal with in ST: Into Darkness. Whoops.


What's "whoops" about it?  That's awesome news to hear, and may make it worth watching.  I don't get the impression this will be about Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy and will rather be yet another Generic Space Action Movie, because that's what Star Trek's been for a while, but that didn't ruin Wrath of Khan.

raygundan: I think we have different definitions of the word in our heads. To you, it implies that he would be confrontational and violent. To me, it takes a hell of a cocky bastard to attempt a non-violent solution at great risk to his own person and crew from the command chair on a gigantic armed-and-armored ship.


More or less, and I see what you're getting at.  Old Kirk oozes confidence, but I don't have a problem with it because he kind of has to.  On occasion he bluffed with Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy or called the bluff of an adversary posing as Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy, which is mind-bogglingly audacious.  In a more forgiving mood I'd say it's supposed to mean Old Kirk has excellent instincts in situations where winning has jack-all to do with tactics, but it really comes down to how the show builds tension, with a lot of it blatantly shoehorned in by the network.  It's not what makes the show good and I believe I've made that abundantly clear; though at least characters like Spock exist as voices of reason that are actually listened to on occasion whereas in most action they'd be crusty old farts that need to be shown by yung'uns how it's done these days.

Again, note when they started making movies, they had to abandon Giant Omnipotent Space Thingy (after the disaster that was TMP) but started putting Kirk on a VERY short leash.
 
2013-05-15 09:22:21 AM  

I Like Bread: TOS was mediocre. You'll get over it. Star Trek is still my favorite show overall, though, so you owe me 500 bucks.


You're just trolling then, becauwse by definition you cant believe what you're saying, asshole.
 
2013-05-15 09:44:56 AM  
Mugato [TotalFark]
2013-05-14 06:08:37 PM


OnlyM3: I like the film as well -overall-, but the loss of the Enterprise was a huge misstep. It was done to casually, with no respect or weight

I disagree with that, the whole crew looking on as the ship burned in the atmosphere and the score. Kirk was almost shaken by that as with his son's death. I don't see how it could have been done better,

You're free to disagree. But both events were a waste. Neither event was mentioned again and other than having to hijack the Klingon ship, neither event shaped or changed the story.

I will grant you Shatner did something w/ the death of his son, but it was so brief (fault of writers, not Shat) that it didn't carry the weight it should have. Kirk had just begun to know and reconcile w/ his son and all we get is 4 seconds. The Enterprise many fans followed for decades (that NDT calls the most influential space ship ever) and yes we do get a few seconds of the big three looking at it, but again.... no real impact on the story.

This guy goes into more detail that what I offer here, check it out and see if you don't think he makes some good points.

Again, I think this film is better than what it is generally given credit for being, but those two events could have been used to far better affect.
 
2013-05-15 10:15:34 AM  

dragonchild: yves0010: Kirk always broke Starfleet rules, first known offense was the Kobayashi Maru (seen in Wrath of Kahn) which he was rewarded a medal for Original Thinking. He also broke it when stealing the Enterprise in Search for Spock.

He broke the rules but the story didn't glorify it.  The sole purpose of the dialogue about the Kobayashi Maru Test was to later contrast with Spock's sacrifice given that Kirk had no answers to a problem he couldn't cheat out of.  It wasn't some defining Kirk kick-ass moment; it was his past coming back to bite him and leading directly to Spock's death.  Sacrificing Spock might have been the only solution, but it was a character flaw in that it never occurred to Kirk to give the order (or ANY order for that matter) because he never took in good faith the one test in the Academy that was intended to teach cadets how to make difficult decisions.

As for stealing the Enterprise, it led to the flagship's destruction and his demotion in spite of saving the world.  As it is it's apparent he clung to his command post by Saving the Whales.

The huge difference between Kirk and most renegade sci-fi protagonists is that Kirk lives in a world where his impulsive decisions have consequences, and despite his outward cockiness he's well aware of when he crosses the line.  His decisions to go rogue, while often right, don't automatically result in happy endings and comeuppance to his doubters.  It's his way of getting out of impossible situations where he basically picks his poison, which is why he's considered an excellent commander.  He doesn't break the rules just to be some sort of smug asshole, which is more than can be said for a lot of protagonists in pop culture these days.


Sometimes I'm gone too long and forget why I have people favorited. You've well reminded me.
 
2013-05-15 12:33:28 PM  

Madbassist1: I Like Bread: TOS was mediocre. You'll get over it. Star Trek is still my favorite show overall, though, so you owe me 500 bucks.

You're just trolling then, becauwse by definition you cant believe what you're saying, asshole.


Why not? My favorite series is DS9. That still qualifies as Star Trek.
If Star Wars fans can hate Ewoks and Jar Jar, I can have my opinion about TOS.
 
2013-05-15 12:59:44 PM  

raygundan: No "Either he goes down, or we do" there.

If that's a quote from the new movie, that's a better reason than I've heard from anybody else to dislike New Kirk.


It was from the 2009 movie, and it's actually "Either we're going down, or they are".  I groaned out loud in the theater when he said that it was so awful.
 
2013-05-15 03:25:53 PM  

Bacontastesgood: raygundan: No "Either he goes down, or we do" there.

If that's a quote from the new movie, that's a better reason than I've heard from anybody else to dislike New Kirk.

It was from the 2009 movie, and it's actually "Either we're going down, or they are".  I groaned out loud in the theater when he said that it was so awful.


It made sense in the 2009 movie-- that was a unique situation, where a kid has a chance to take out the thing that his father literally died trying to take out.  If he keeps on doing it without learning any lessons about the futility of revenge or the consequences of bold, risky endeavours that fail occasionally even for the brilliant... then I'll be fully on-board with your complaint.
 
2013-05-15 03:56:47 PM  

I Like Bread: Madbassist1: I Like Bread: TOS was mediocre. You'll get over it. Star Trek is still my favorite show overall, though, so you owe me 500 bucks.

You're just trolling then, becauwse by definition you cant believe what you're saying, asshole.

Why not? My favorite series is DS9. That still qualifies as Star Trek.
If Star Wars fans can hate Ewoks and Jar Jar, I can have my opinion about TOS.


moving the goalposts again. Saying on ething, then when called on it, coming back with "well I meant this, not that, and you should have known it" you keep doing that. fark off, troll.
 
2013-05-15 04:59:50 PM  

Bacontastesgood: It was from the 2009 movie, and it's actually "Either we're going down, or they are".  I groaned out loud in the theater when he said that it was so awful.


That line was shown in the trailer. I doubt you even saw the film.

/hope someone kicked the back of your seat for making annoying noises
 
2013-05-15 05:12:13 PM  

Bslim: "screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Roberto Orci"

aka the same ass-crew responsible for Transformers.

Star Trek is dead to me.


theelephantgun.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-15 05:18:40 PM  

peterthx: Bslim: "screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Roberto Orci"

aka the same ass-crew responsible for Transformers.

Star Trek is dead to me.

[theelephantgun.files.wordpress.com image 299x156]



He's not wrong. Those guys are farking hacks who still get all the cool gigs. If JJ gives them the Star Wars gig, even my fanboy ass will wait for the Redbox.
 
2013-05-15 05:36:51 PM  

Madbassist1: I Like Bread: Madbassist1: I Like Bread: TOS was mediocre. You'll get over it. Star Trek is still my favorite show overall, though, so you owe me 500 bucks.

You're just trolling then, becauwse by definition you cant believe what you're saying, asshole.

Why not? My favorite series is DS9. That still qualifies as Star Trek.
If Star Wars fans can hate Ewoks and Jar Jar, I can have my opinion about TOS.

moving the goalposts again. Saying on ething, then when called on it, coming back with "well I meant this, not that, and you should have known it" you keep doing that. fark off, troll.


You say I'm moving the goalposts, I say you're a presumptuous farkstain who makes sweeping generalizations and then gets mad when they're wrong.
 
2013-05-15 05:37:01 PM  

Mugato: He's not wrong. Those guys are farking hacks who still get all the cool gigs. If JJ gives them the Star Wars gig, even my fanboy ass will wait for the Redbox.


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-05-15 05:48:22 PM  

I Like Bread: Madbassist1: I Like Bread: Madbassist1: I Like Bread: TOS was mediocre. You'll get over it. Star Trek is still my favorite show overall, though, so you owe me 500 bucks.

You're just trolling then, becauwse by definition you cant believe what you're saying, asshole.

Why not? My favorite series is DS9. That still qualifies as Star Trek.
If Star Wars fans can hate Ewoks and Jar Jar, I can have my opinion about TOS.

moving the goalposts again. Saying on ething, then when called on it, coming back with "well I meant this, not that, and you should have known it" you keep doing that. fark off, troll.

You say I'm moving the goalposts, I say you're a presumptuous farkstain who makes sweeping generalizations and then gets mad when they're wrong.


You should have noted that TOS was the only show that got *worse* as it went on.

/Voyager was pretty much "meh" its entire run with occasional high points in every season
 
2013-05-15 05:51:11 PM  

peterthx: Mugato: He's not wrong. Those guys are farking hacks who still get all the cool gigs. If JJ gives them the Star Wars gig, even my fanboy ass will wait for the Redbox.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x253]


Hey, it's no sweat off my sack, I'm not a writer. I work in the technical shiat. The more nonsensical CGI scenes they write the more I work. I do feel bad for real writers though, who didn't sell their souls to Satan.
 
Displayed 46 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report