Plus the “Star Trek: Titan” series has been proclaimed a “USA Today Bestselling Series”.

“Right. What I’m saying is your speculation that the filmmakers may have thought that and used the ‘You got it’ scene to rectify it doesn’t work for me, based on Kirk’s involvement with Nero’s downfall on screen.”

Fair enough. Also, in fairness I should point out that by that time I thought we had pretty much exhausted the possibilities of our actual discussion (about the relative morality of the ending) and I was just taking cheap pot-shots at the writers, complete with requisite Internet-style straw men, just because I think they earned it. And also because this thread is _maybe_ the fourth reasonable and reasoned conversation I’ve ever had on this forum so I’m loathe to let it go … sigh :( I love a civil disagreement when it has substance, and this one has.

“The clear implication on screen was that Kirk was involved in the plan.”

I agree, absolutely.

“He’s the impetus for everything that takes place”

I disagree with that.

“as everyone else was content to regroup with the fleet at the Laurentian System until Kirk wrestles command from Spock and informs everyone that they’re going to stop Nero at all costs. Even if Kirk only comes up with 20% of the actual logistics of the plan, it seems to me it’s still *his* plan, as he is the driving force for the entire confrontation. There is no plan without Kirk.”

I don’t disagree with any particular point in this line of reasoning, but I disagree with the conclusion. If we use that kind of logic, we can just as well say it’s Pike’s plan (we even have a line on-screen for that, when Kirk assures Pike he’s there because he’s just following orders). More to the point, we can say it’s Nero’s plan, since there would be no plan without Nero, either. Nearly every character does something that moves the plot along in a crucial way, but someone, offscreen, actually had the plan to ram the ship and create a singularity, and we don’t know who that is.

We do know that the actual, final defeat of the Narada is achieved by Spock. We see that happening, step-by-step (and, mercifully, without much technobabble).

“Or they simply changed the specifics of the plan at some point off screen.”

Indeed, that’s what I assume as well, but since we can’t know for sure I’m hesitant to base any conclusions on that assumption. I’m no canonista (I’d do away with “canon” and replace it with “dramatized history” if someone handed _me_ the keys to the franchise), but I do find it useful to stick to on-screen stuff when hashing out what “really” goes on.

“Kirk always seemed more skilled at improvisation than Spock,”

Well, we have less than two hours’ worth of “always” to work with at this point in the film :)

“… so if they did improvise that particular point, it seems likely it was Kirk that came up with it.”

I see no particularly likelihood either way. Both are motivated, both are self-starters, both are smart (indeed, both appear to be geniuses) and aware of the situation, one is presented as a gifted student and the other as a respected teacher. The only way to cast odds is to draw on inferences. Heck, they’re even both making out with cadets who were rooming together, both lost a parent to the threat of the week, etc. I think this version of Kirk & Spock are a lot more _similar_ to each other, really. I think that’s one of the key changes (intended or not); they’re less “complementary” and more “the same guy refracted through different cultural filters.”

“Actually, Rick Berman went on his traditional publicity tour prior to every film declaring it the greatest thing they’d ever done and that they were getting back to the heart of Star Trek and how they were going to avoid this pitfall or that pitfall. Sadly, I grew pretty numb to anything he said after a while, as experience told me he clearly did not have a perspective I could agree with.”

Well, if that’s the case then Orci & Kurtzman sound like the natural successors to the Berman run, with all the fanfare and joy that might deserve.

“Preach on, brother! I’ve often said nearly every Vulcan post-Spock was portrayed as being in a constant state of annoyance, and Tuvok is a perfect example.”

Yes, he did seem constantly peevish. It’s a darned shame, though, because I think the actor portraying him could be a damn fine Vulcan given good scripts. And he had the voice – that awesome voice. I like Quinto, I do, and I think he gave a fine performance … but if he’s Spock he’s Spock after sucking on some helium balloons (not his fault, of course … you can’t fake that kind of vocal gravitas).

“Only Robert Picardo & Jeri Ryan made that show watchable.”

I know basically nothing about Jeri Ryan apart from her obvious hottitude; I never saw enough Voyager to get a sense of her (I have, literally, ONLY watched Voyager when I was being paid to). Robert Picardo, though … I love the guy. I’ve never been a regular viewer of any of his programs, but everything I’ve seen of him (including an excellent panel he gave at a con here, recently) has been thoroughly enjoyable. I keep hoping he’ll some day wind up on a show I can love.

“No, my earlier argument was that the filmmakers may have been thinking along those lines. I’m fine with “Kirk” being ineffectual and had grown used to it by that point in the film.”

Right. What I’m saying is your speculation that the filmmakers may have thought that and used the ‘You got it’ scene to rectify it doesn’t work for me, based on Kirk’s involvement with Nero’s downfall on screen.

“Then you had a rather dramatic typo when you claimed earlier that it _was_ his plan, absolutely _Kirk’s_ plan (your words), when in fact, according to what we see on screen, we don’t even know if he played any part at all in that specific stage of it.”

Actually, what I said was “That completely discounts the fact that it’s Kirk’s plan to begin with, and that he saved Pike and wasted Ayel.” Then I said “I think the scene where Kirk is formulating a plan with Chekov, Scotty, Sulu & McCoy on the bridge gave me that impression, as well as his assurance to Spock on the Jellyfish that the plan would work.”

The clear implication on screen was that Kirk was involved in the plan. He’s the impetus for everything that takes place, as everyone else was content to regroup with the fleet at the Laurentian System until Kirk wrestles command from Spock and informs everyone that they’re going to stop Nero at all costs. Even if Kirk only comes up with 20% of the actual logistics of the plan, it seems to me it’s still *his* plan, as he is the driving force for the entire confrontation. There is no plan without Kirk.

“Furthermore, Kirk saving Pike was _contrary_ to the plan (the plan had been for Spock to do so – this was explicit on-screen), which again raises the question of how much of the “plan” was improvisation.”

Or they simply changed the specifics of the plan at some point off screen. Kirk always seemed more skilled at improvisation than Spock, so if they did improvise that particular point, it seems likely it was Kirk that came up with it.

“I apologize for all those times I suggested that you had an issue with it.”

I was simply contrasting our viewpoints, not implying any suggestions on your part :)

“Not just one. The entire film is a series of cut-and-paste conveniences lifted from the shoddiest vaults of the worst examples of Star Trek plotting past. In story terms, it’s like a grand tour of the lowest common Trek denominators. The film succeeds through its too-fast-to-think pacing, flash-bang nature of its visuals (blinding lense flares and all) and the strength of much of the acting … none of which can help the paucity of heroism, humanism, and character agency.”

Obviously I disagree, but there’s not much sense in going through all that again. I’ve never understood all this talk about the lens flares, and barely noticed any even after being made aware of how awful they were on this very site.

“I don’t recall the makers of that drek _bragging about how they weren’t going to do that.”

Actually, Rick Berman went on his traditional publicity tour prior to every film declaring it the greatest thing they’d ever done and that they were getting back to the heart of Star Trek and how they were going to avoid this pitfall or that pitfall. Sadly, I grew pretty numb to anything he said after a while, as experience told me he clearly did not have a perspective I could agree with.

“In the moments in-between, people look sour or mopey, or spout hollow truisms.”

Preach on, brother! I’ve often said nearly every Vulcan post-Spock was portrayed as being in a constant state of annoyance, and Tuvok is a perfect example. Everyone else on VOY was nearly as grim, and by the end even Tom Paris had turned into a grouch. Only Robert Picardo & Jeri Ryan made that show watchable.

To an extent unknown to us. The specific point I referred to (creating the singularity with the Red Matter) may have had nothing to do with Kirk. We simply have no way of knowing.

“Your earlier argument was that Kirk had to deliver the death blow to Nero as a dramatic necessity because his character hadn’t played any role in his defeat.”

No, my earlier argument was that the filmmakers may have been thinking along those lines. I’m fine with “Kirk” being ineffectual and had grown used to it by that point in the film.

“My point was that he had not only played an important role and saved Capt Pike, he helped come up with the plan.”

Then you had a rather dramatic typo when you claimed earlier that it _was_ his plan, absolutely _Kirk’s_ plan (your words), when in fact, according to what we see on screen, we don’t even know if he played any part at all in that specific stage of it.

Furthermore, Kirk saving Pike was _contrary_ to the plan (the plan had been for Spock to do so – this was explicit on-screen), which again raises the question of how much of the “plan” was improvisation.

“So the meta argument seems rather weak, to me.”

That was part of _my_ point. Don’t get us confused; I know we’re awfully similar :)

“As for the sci-fi crutch issue, I don’t really have an issue with it.”

I apologize for all those times I suggested that you had an issue with it.

“Red Matter is just another Genesis Device.”

An excellent comparison. But I don’t recall the makers of Star Treks II and III bragging to the contrary.

“I don’t remember what Orci said about it, but you may have caught him on that one.”

Not just one. The entire film is a series of cut-and-paste conveniences lifted from the shoddiest vaults of the worst examples of Star Trek plotting past. In story terms, it’s like a grand tour of the lowest common Trek denominators. The film succeeds through its too-fast-to-think pacing, flash-bang nature of its visuals (blinding lense flares and all) and the strength of much of the acting … none of which can help the paucity of heroism, humanism, and character agency.

“Though I don’t think this movie relied on that particular cruth in quite the same way as the last few TNG movies or series did.”

I wouldn’t know. Despite the cliches, some of us simply don’t go to the movies if the trailers look sucky enough; I’ve never seen the last two TNG films, not even on video. But again, even when I was forced to pay attention to some of the latter-day spinoff material for professional reasons, I don’t recall the makers of that drek _bragging about how they weren’t going to do that._

“For instance, they didn’t spend 10 minutes talking about how the Red Matter would expand, or how fast Spock had to ram the Narada, or if the Jellyfish had to collide with the primary fusion manifold on deck 67 because that would cause a plasma feedback in the secondary impulse reactor. I swear, VOY scripts were 3/4 technobabble and 1/4 story.”

I think you may be getting generous, there :) A generic Voyager episode (from my limited experience with the show, at least) seems to consist of a technobabble teaser followed by a technobabble threat, escalated in the middle act by a technobabble complication and then saved at the last minute by a sudden inspired burst of technobabble. In the moments in-between, people look sour or mopey, or spout hollow truisms.

Yes, but if it is ‘our’ plan then Kirk was involved in formulating it. Your earlier argument was that Kirk had to deliver the death blow to Nero as a dramatic necessity because his character hadn’t played any role in his defeat. My point was that he had not only played an important role and saved Capt Pike, he helped come up with the plan. So the meta argument seems rather weak, to me.

As for the sci-fi crutch issue, I don’t really have an issue with it. Red Matter is just another Genesis Device. I don’t remember what Orci said about it, but you may have caught him on that one. Though I don’t think this movie relied on that particular cruth in quite the same way as the last few TNG movies or series did. For instance, they didn’t spend 10 minutes talking about how the Red Matter would expand, or how fast Spock had to ram the Narada, or if the Jellyfish had to collide with the primary fusion manifold on deck 67 because that would cause a plasma feedback in the secondary impulse reactor. I swear, VOY scripts were 3/4 technobabble and 1/4 story.

I don’t recall the post where we discovered that it does (certainly, just reading the phrase “chronimetric particles” sends me wheezing with laughter, and I don’t have asthma). But I do recall Orci _bragging,_ very explicitly, that this movie would not be relying on the traditional “crutches of sci-fi.” And I’ve got a couple of hours’ worth of reasons why that is freaking high-larious (especially when most of his backpedaling on the necessity of the alternate universe is couched as an appeal to insuring that Star Trek cleaves to current scientific understanding). Have cake? Eat cake. Have cake? Eat cake.

“Just to be clear, ‘his own plan’ meaning if it was Spock’s plan it would seem strange for Kirk to reassure him it would work.”

But in that conversation the plan (and we don’t even know specifically which part of the plan they were discussing) was referred to explicitly on-screen as “our” plan, not Kirk’s plan. And, again, with nothing specific offered to suggest which character contributed which part (or even, which parts may have been improvised as things proceeded).

And I’m not suggesting the film _needed_ to specify such details (I’m a big fan of Less Exposition), and I’m not even suggesting you’re wrong. I’m just pointing out that we don’t actually _know_ … and given that, your earlier remark that my observations about specific on-screen events somehow “discounts” the “fact” that it’s Kirk’s plan didn’t make any sense to me, because there is no such fact. You inferred it, and your inferences – very reasonably, I think – play no part in my observations.

The same goes for other, upthread conversations where people’s responses to what we actually see in the movie seems at odds with things you accept as fact (like the mercy-killing).

Just to be clear, ‘his own plan’ meaning if it was Spock’s plan it would seem strange for Kirk to reassure him it would work. Makes much more sense that it’s Kirk’s plan and he’s reassuring Spock it’ll go well.

Honestly, I don’t know why Red Matter elicits any more giggles than dilithium crystals or Heisenberg Compensators or chronimetric particles. They’re all macguffins of one kind or another.

I think the scene where Kirk is formulating a plan with Chekov, Scotty, Sulu & McCoy on the bridge gave me that impression, as well as his assurance to Spock on the Jellyfish that the plan would work. It seems odd he’d comfort Spock that his own plan would work, but I suppose you could interpret it that way.

(sometimes I really do think we saw a different print of the movie) :)

In the version I saw, Spock laid out half a plan (based on suggestions and confirmations from Chekov and Scotty), and Kirk’s one and only contribution was insisting that he come along to help. Later on, Kirk & Spock behaved as if there was more of a plan than had been previously articulated, but we never actually saw who came up with which part … There was no scene where Kirk said anything like “Spock, you ram the Narada with the Jellyfish and it’ll make a singularity out of [giggle, pause to control laughter] …”

“JJ, can we cut? I … [giggle ... giggle]”

“[serious face, deep breath]”

“the Red Matter. [holds serious face for a long time, making sure the take is good]”

[someone yells cut]

“[busts a gut laughing]”

I don’t remember that scene, or a more serious version of it.

Red Matter. Remember kids: no crutches! That’s a promise.