Post-STID interviews with Kurtzman and Abrams | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Post-STID interviews with Kurtzman and Abrams September 30, 2013

by Matt Wright , Filed under: Abrams,Interview,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

With the recent release of Star Trek Into Darkness on home video, members of the production team have been out doing interviews. While we hear from J.J. Abrams and Roberto Orci quite a bit, Orci’s writing partner Alex Kurtzman tends to be quieter, so in a bit of a rarity, Blastr has some interesting remarks from Kurtzman on the writing of Into Darkness. J.J. Abrams was also out for interviews recently, talking to Comic Book Resources about Khan’s blood and his mystery box paradigm.

Kurtzman on writing Into Darkness and the future

abrams_kurtzman_stid_set

Kurtzman on the Kirk/Spock death scene:

It’s one of, if not the most iconic scenes ever in Trek canon, knowing that we were going to be heading to that place but for totally different reasons and having the roles be completely reversed was this weird magnet we were drawn toward as we were writing. We knew we had to make that moment credible and believable. What made it work for us conceptually was the idea that Spock was unable to understand for the whole movie Kirk’s definition of friendship. He didn’t know what it meant. What Kirk was saying was ‘The reason that I risked my life for you is because you’re my friend, and that’s what you do for each other.’ Spock’s Vulcan mind just wasn’t able to process that, and it wasn’t until he experienced the loss of his friend that he finally came to understand what friendship meant as Kirk was defining it.

Kurtzman on what’s next for the crew of the Enterprise:

It’s overwhelming and daunting, because every time we think we’ve narrowed down a passageway, we come out the other side and realize there are two trillion more out there. You want to choose the right ones. But we always imagined that we were creating an alternate timeline so we could play in harmony with canon. We can see things that were familiar, but also the events themselves might have minor differences, and sometimes major differences. I think that leaves us room to go either way and be unpredictable, which is the whole point of creating an alternate timeline. At the end of the day, because we give so much thought to what the stories are going to be and how to tell them, it’s ultimately about what feels right. Certainly our ears are open to what fans are saying about the show, the movies and our movies, so that all goes into the stew.

Read the full interview over at Blastr

 

Abrams on Khan’s magic blood and his mystery box

Star-Trek-2-JJ-Abrams

On Khan as the villain:

I think the thing was that Khan really is the most iconic villain of the series, and it felt like an opportunity to see another side of Khan and to something that, like the first film did, use elements that people were familiar with but in a new. It’s a valid argument that it’s about time for them to go off and discover and see things that have nothing to do with what we’ve seen before, and I think we’ll always have some overlap. But I’m excited about the next chapter.

On Khan’s blood saving Kirk:

Well, it’s funny – we had this idea in the beginning of the film of this girl who is sort of being brought back into good health as a means of coercing her father to do something horrific, and it was sitting there. And we knew we wanted to do something that was going to kind of push Kirk to a limit where he was tested in a way he never had been before where he really had to appreciate the kind of chair that he was sitting in. And it ended up just coming out of realizing that we had this thing that was sitting there that was already set up in the movie.

On “The Mystery Box”:

…the mystery box thing for me is less of an approach to storytelling than it’s something I just feel [which is] you don’t want to ruin things. So it wasn’t like, “Hey, let’s make it a big mystery!” We just didn’t want to tell everyone what they were going to see before they saw it. It was simpler. So if people wish they had known beforehand, OK, I totally get it. But we just were trying to preserve the experience. But it’s not like we saved it until the end of the movie where there was a big, final, shocking reveal. This was something that was revealed by the middle of the movie to the audience.

Read the rest of the interview at Comic Book Resources

Comments

1. david oakes - September 30, 2013

So that Karl, Pegg and now Kurtzman and Abrams that have all mentioned seeing something totally new for Trek 3. Interesting to see how it pans out.

2. MattM - September 30, 2013

Khan is the most “iconic” villain, so let’s completely change the way he looks, sounds, and acts as to render him unrecognizeable.

3. samrock83 - September 30, 2013

Second

4. samrock83 - September 30, 2013

dang

5. Xplodin_Nacelle - September 30, 2013

I really hope they don’t overuse plot elements of the original timeline again in the third movie. I think it was overkill in STID. As soon as Spock yelled, “KHHHHAAAANNNNNN!!!”, it took me right out of the story, w/ a groan.

6. david oakes - September 30, 2013

” John Harrison was a fiction *CREATED THE MOMENT I WAS AWOKEN*….

” A SMOKESCREEN TO **CONCEAL** MY TRUE IDENTITY”

Dunno why nobody mentions this bit of dialogue more often…

It can be implied from this that his entire identity was changed to keep him a secret.

7. Simon - September 30, 2013

@2 – Yes, they should have dug up Montalbán and reanimated him.

After all they’ve done that in other films. Cesar Romero and Heath Ledger are so much alike.

8. The Keeper - September 30, 2013

No doubt we will once again “Go Boldly Where We Need Not Go”
I would assume Orci is lurching about here and other website’s gaining insight on what “We” the Fan would like to see…and some how he’ll extrapolate that we the “Fans” want the Khan vs. the Klingons vs. the Federation or some combination of said again.

Forget about seeking out “new life forms” or “new civilizations’, they will with out fail choose exactly the opposite of what we the FANS have been bantering about for months and even years prior to the joke Into Darkness.

I am sure we will get a healthy amount of lies promises and explanations with a good amount of Orci telling us fans to “F” off.
Another shining and telling moment of the current total disregard of a most beloved franchise….but I assume Paramount is most proud of that a long as there’s a cash flow.

You guys do realize that these movies are still reliant on a huge fan following to keep them in the green?

9. Harry Ballz - September 30, 2013

After seeing Star Trek 2009 I came to trust Orci and Kurtzman in how they were writing for the franchise.

I was so deeply disappointed by the storyline of Star Trek Into Darkness.

I suspect it was because Damon Lindelof stuck his nose into the writing of the screenplay.

The story is so muddled, convoluted and just plain stupid….it has Lindelof’s fingerprints all over it!

Please dump him from any further “assistance” when writing the third installment.

10. Platitude - September 30, 2013

Loved both movies, but looking forward to something fresh and different. I’d like to see something completely new with only minor references to established canon.

11. Vultan - September 30, 2013

#9

Harry, I’m no fan of STID either, but I don’t think you can blame it all on Lindelof. The 2009 movie had its share of convoluted and stupid bits as well. But look on the bright side, man. At least we didn’t have to see swollen Kirk hands again!

12. Marja - September 30, 2013

5 Explodin’, Yeah, the KHAAANN! shout was unnecessary. Yelling “NOOOooo!” (the same way Spock shouted it in ST09 before he tried to kill Kirk) would have made a perfect “circle” in the story arcs of Spock and Kirk.

13. Marja - September 30, 2013

9, Harry, I keep wondering if Orci was “taking the hit” for Lindelof when he said “don’t blame the big, bad studios, blame us writers” … but then, Lindelof was one of the writers … and I suspect Lindelof was the one who suggested “OOOH! I know! Have Spock yell ‘KHAAAN!’ just like Kirk did in TWOK! Neat parallel, amirite?”

10 Platitude, I SECOND THAT. A whole lot.

14. P Technobabble - September 30, 2013

Perhaps (and I’m willing to be trampled) the next film needs to take a cue from TMP. While that movie had its own set of problems it was attempting to take us on that “sci-fi mystery” that Orci is suggesting. And if you want to go one step deeper, TMP was taking its cue from 2001. Now there’s a movie to aspire to. I think 2001 is still the greatest, ACTUAL sci-fi movie ever made. The next Trek movie would do well to emulate (not copy or rip-off or steal from) 2001. IMO if you want to make a real adventure into the unknowns of space, 2001 is the model. IMO, of course…

15. Eprom - September 30, 2013

#7

You surely cannot be comparing casting for the original Sat Trek with the original Batman series………really?
You missed out the missing link there………Jack Nicholson?

Anyway, if am not mistaken Benicio Del Toro was first chosen for the role? He was nearer Montalban? I don’t know why he was dropped, but as much as I am a fan of Cumberbatch, I think Del Toro would have fit the link better, neither being Asian, but neither obvious caucasion.

16. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 30, 2013

” 5. Xplodin_Nacelle – September 30, 2013
I really hope they don’t overuse plot elements of the original timeline again in the third movie. I think it was overkill in STID. As soon as Spock yelled, “KHHHHAAAANNNNNN!!!”, it took me right out of the story, w/ a groan.”

Same here. That scene killed the rest of the movie to me, and it’s not like I was thoroughly enjoying myself up to that point. I had to stop myself from being like “WTF?” out loud.
——————-

I have no idea what they plan on doing with the story or what they’ll do with the team, but please (if you all are reading) get Spock/Uhura right, both as a couple and individually. I really do think their characters (and the actor/actress) deserve it after STID…

17. Gary 8.5 - September 30, 2013

2.
Khan is the most iconic villain in Trek,
So lets get the best actor possible.
And they did.

18. BRF - September 30, 2013

“But we always imagined that we were creating an alternate timeline so we could play in harmony with canon. We can see things that were familiar, but also the events themselves might have minor differences, and sometimes major differences.”

Reminds me of a Mad Men episode where Don Draper critiques an ad idea: “Derivative, but with a twist. Just what we were looking for.”

19. TreK_Fan - September 30, 2013

According to Abrams he wants to make a Star Wars movie that one has to take into account what has preceded it, what worked, what didn’t. He is also quoted as stating, with Star Trek it was harder because I wasn’t a Star Trek fan; I didn’t have the same emotional feeling, and I didn’t have Gene Roddenberry to go to.

However Abrams could have asked what fans felt. The majority of fans did not want a Khan villain, thats what all poles indicated on this site. Instead we got really bad remake of Wrath of Khan. I doubt my comments will pas the ‘moderator’ but I do hope for the powers in charge to take into account what the majority fans want to see. A story Roddenberry would appreciate, an optimistic future view and strong interaction between the 3 principal characters, Kirk, Spock and McCoy!

20. Gary 8.5 - September 30, 2013

19
Abrams might not have asked us directly,
But Bob Orci did andhas been doing so for years .
About two weeks ago, Bob asked us what we wanted to see in the next Trek film.
True, it is not Abrams , But Bob has been writing these films with Alex.
It is not enough that he comes here all of the time ?

21. Damian - September 30, 2013

There were things I liked about STID. And I give the team kudos for cleaning some things up that some fans complained about Star Trek (2009) for (i.e. the engine room, the window/viewscreen on the bridge, Scotty as a serious character, etc.). But the magic blood, I just kept get on that. No mention of it ever before with Khan. And I agree, Spock screaming Khan took me out of the moment. I was almost buying the scene and they did that. They had to take the extra step and ruin everything. I swear, even Abrams thought it was over the top, because there was a very quick cutaway to the next scene.

For the next film, lets see something completely original. A species with no Star Trek history. It seems like they were setting up a Klingon war. Please, no. If the team feels the need to do a Klingon war, save that for a 4th film.

I keep plugging Gene DeWeese’s 1987 Chain of Attack novel as a great basis for a movie (no I am not related to DeWeese). That was the one novel that always stood out for me, the one novel that I always thought more than any other would make a fantastic movie. And the best part, most of it occurs after the Enterprise is flung to a faraway galaxy, so Earth is not involved. (If you haven’t read it, read it, I guarantee you’ll enjoy it).

22. The Keeper - September 30, 2013

Well this pretty much says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXU8w336oGs

23. Marja - September 30, 2013

15 eprom, “neither being Asian, but neither obvious caucasion.”

I still find it hilarious that they wanted to cast another Hispanic as Khan Noonien Singh.

24. Marja - September 30, 2013

20, Gary, Nahh, it’s not enough, some folks apparently want story approval before the writers go to script ;)

25. Marja - September 30, 2013

18 BRF, a brilliant DDraper quote … I think it applies to aspects of both films. But not the entirety of either.

26. That One Guy - September 30, 2013

Really… you gave thought to the stories? Why do I find that difficult to believe….

27. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - September 30, 2013

If we agree with the position that the Spock death scene from Wrath of Khan is possibly the most iconic scene in the history of Trek (I hate the word “canon” as it applies to Trek), then its corollary in Star Wars would probably be the Vader “I am your father” scene from Empire Strikes Back.

Ask yourself this: Would JJ ever dare put a rewritten version of that scene into his new SW movie? Flip it around? Play with it at all? I highly doubt it.

I understand that SW is simply continuing on into the future, and not doing contortions to “reboot” itself, but it seems to me that there would be pitchforks and torches broken out if that moment was messed with.

That Trek doesn’t get the same respect for its own history is bothersome. I also have read that Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford (who should be making Indy 5 first anyway) and even Carrie Fisher are being told to hit the gym and get ready to be in the next SW. But we can’t get a Shatner cameo. I’d even take Koenig, Nichols, and Takei.

28. Sebastian - September 30, 2013

“I think that leaves us room to go either way and be unpredictable, which is the whole point of creating an alternate timeline.”

**************************************************

Funny.
I thought the point of an alternate timeline was to create all-new adventures using the same beloved characters; to give them a 2nd lease on life. Not to simply revisit and remake iconic moments from better ST movies and episodes. Such a waste.

It’s as though Khan and Klingons are the limits of the writer’s collective imaginations. You’d think they were just reading and copying the Star Trek Encyclopedia and got stuck in the ‘K’ section.

29. Sebastian - September 30, 2013

MattM~

“Khan is the most “iconic” villain, so let’s completely change the way he looks, sounds, and acts as to render him unrecognizeable.”

**********************************************

Exactly!
They didn’t even make his abilities (let alone appearance) remotely consistent with anything we knew of the character (he’s somehow even stronger and now has ‘super blood’ as well… WTF??). And rather than being the swaggering, egotistical despot we saw in both TOS and TWOK, he is now just Jason Bourne on steroids.

I love Cumberbatch and his Sherlock is one of my favorite shows, but they really handicapped him casting him in a role he was so ill-cast in (reminded me of Tom Cruise as Lestat in “Interview With The Vampire”; a good actor in the wrong role). Cumberbatch gave it his all, but the character (on the page at least) is just not Khan Noonian Singh at ALL.

They can keep calling him that, but it doesn’t make it so.

30. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - September 30, 2013

Star Trek Into darkness was and is the only Star Trek Movie did not see at the theater more then once. Heck i even saw Star Trek 5 3 times. Still as they say. Even Bad Trek is good Trek.

31. Ahmed - September 30, 2013

@ 9. Harry Ballz – September 30, 2013

“I suspect it was because Damon Lindelof stuck his nose into the writing of the screenplay.

The story is so muddled, convoluted and just plain stupid….it has Lindelof’s fingerprints all over it!

Please dump him from any further “assistance” when writing the third installment.”

Totally agree with you there. I liked ST09, it was fresh & fun to watch, sure it has some issues but I enjoyed it & watch it couple times a year.

STID, not so & Damon Lindelof is the one that I blame for that. I’m glad that he is not coming back for the 3rd movie & I hope he will stay as far away as possible from Star Trek.

32. Crewman Darnell - September 30, 2013

With much regret, I can relate the same as #30 (Emperor Mike) above.
STID is the only Trek film I’ve ever seen just once in the theaters. Also, I have no desire to own the DVD. I do honestly hope to feel differently about the 3rd movie but at this point, I’m compelled to keep my expectations in check.

33. Basement Blogger - September 30, 2013

@ 9

Harry, I don’t agree with your assessment of Star Trek Into Darkness. Complaints I had about Star Trek 2009 were addressed. Primarily that the 2009 movie was Star Trek lite. STID had ideas something that Gene Roddenberry wanted for in Star Trek. Ideas like the Prime Directive, war, the war on terror, death and friendship. STID was riveting. I gave the movie an A grade.

As for Damon Lindelof, I’m with you. I’m not a fan. The big reason. Lost;, Season Six. Lindelof was show runner and writer. You want plot holes? The castaways detonate a nuclear bomb point blank and survive. The castaways create a contrived sideways world where they can find each other. Huh? This was done to extend the series one more year. And the show was no longer science fiction but new age religion. Okay. But have some ballz. You got characters saying “nameste.” If the show had hints of Indian religions then do a show that strongly reflects that religion Don’t end it with some sappy ending that looks like something from Sunday school that won’t offend the Christians. . Oh and the show invited you to think about the mysteries but didn’t answer many of them.

At the end of the Lindelof’s movie Prometheus, when it ends without a freaking ending. I yelled this. ‘Daaaaaaaaamon!!!” Okay, some blame has to go to director Ridley Scott. But what if there is no sequel? You have questions and they didn’t answer them. I gave Prometheus a B grade. If there’s no sequel then it has deep flaws.

34. Anton - September 30, 2013

Loved the lens flares. Cumberbatch was excellent as Khan. Khan is a product of a labaratory. He could be any race and still be named Khan. He was just as cunning, egotistical, and despotic as the original. I like the Kirk, Spock, Uhura relationship. Movies at the end of the day are about making money. The problem with the past movies is that only they only brought in the fans and that led to empty theaters unfortunately. I feel changing the storyline but still sticking to certain aspects of the basic idea of Star Trek brought in plenty of new fans and helped a ressurect a franchise that was dead to the big screen. I like the idea of reimagining the old episodes but hopefully the next movie will be something more original.

35. MattM - September 30, 2013

@17:

lol, okay, keep drinking the Kool-Aid

36. Charla - September 30, 2013

# 10 Platitude – agree, loved both movies, 1st more than 2nd, but do hope something more original.

I felt in STID it was difficult to get close to any characters for all the action in the movie.

I do love the fact that casual viewers of Trek that I know said they were really surprised to see Kirk die. I loved it when my brother in law was saying “Does he (Kirk) really die? He can’t die, this is a prequel right?” He kept trying to get more info a couple of more times but I wouldn’t give him any clues of course. lol

All in all it was a very good stand alone movie and I think I need to watch it again. :)

37. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

I liked STiD! I liked it a lot. More than 2009 (for which I still have major issues)!

That is not to say there were elements/flaws I did not like (the submarine Enterprise, for example, or a transporter that can beam someone safely from Earth to Qo’noS. Where is the need for starships then?).

Other quibbles: Shuttlecrafts that cannot resist the heat from a volcano? Hmmmm… the heat from re-entry surely is no less. Illogical!

What did I like? Just about everything else. Does it bother me that Khan looked and sounded British? Not really? I don’t believe it was said anywhere that Khan was from Asia (and think about it, does Montalban sound even vaguely Asian? No. No, he does not–I have served in Kuwait and in Afghanistan and there is no one there I met that sounded remotely like the Khan we grew up with).

For those who insist that Khan was Asian, I believe, are relying more on non-canon stories than what was firmly established in “Space Seed” or “THoK.”

Personally, I think this film was exciting. The friendship dynamics between Spock, McCoy and Kirk seems to be coalescing nicely (though I still am not a fan of putting Uhura’s character more front and center… at least not until after the K-S-M triad more firmly solidifies).

I was very moved when Kirk faced his “father figure’s death. And when Spock felt the pain of Kirk’s death.

Is the film perfect? Hardly. Show me a TREK film that is. What’s next? Hopefully, they will take the lead of the final words in the film… space the final frontier… to explore strange new worlds… yes, I want a thought provoking adventure.

Can’t wait till 2016 for the next adventure and the 50th anniversary! Keep on trekkin!’

38. devonp - September 30, 2013

I agree @ #6!!! They could have altered him completely to be unrecognizable! makes complete sense with 23rd century medical procedures. If you can alter a Human to appear Klingon, Suliban, Romulan, etc. then why not make a Sikh Indian appear Caucasian to hide his true identity? Khan lives in another form!!!

39. Chain of Command - September 30, 2013

I have watched STID on Blu Ray several times since it came out and I do enjoy it. But, yes, “Star Trek” really needs to get back to being more than just an “event movie”.

40. Commodore Adams - September 30, 2013

@20. Gary 8.5 Hear hear!

We are extremely fortunate to have Bob Orci converse with us on Trekmovie. Just 10 years ago it would not have been fathomable, hollywood have contact with Star Trek fans via blog site, ha.

Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Just be grateful that Star Trek is still around. These new movies are not what we are used to but it will ensure Star Trek’s continuation, that’s enough to make me smile.
——————-
It’s going to be a toss up for the next movie, either a continuation of the larger Klingon conflict talked about or move beyond that (it was only a minor skirmish) to the Enterprise crew doing some real exploring. Lets see what these 23rd century Neil Armstrong, Jacques Cartier, and William Clarks’ can do!

41. Flim Flam - September 30, 2013

Bring n the Klingons, brother!

42. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 30, 2013

#36 MC1Doug

“though I still am not a fan of putting Uhura’s character more front and center… “

Well then you got exactly what you wanted with STID then. She was hardly featured at all, and in my view a definite downgrade from ST09 (and it’s not like she’s heavily featured in that one at all). I read a number of reviews from respected critics to casual viewers that thought she (and S/U) should have been treated better. And I do hope that’s what happens in the next film…

43. Avenger 45 - September 30, 2013

#8 The Keeper must be having a bad life.

44. Sebastian - September 30, 2013

MC1Doug~

“I don’t believe it was said anywhere that Khan was from Asia”

********************************************

In TOS’ “Space Seed” it was established that Khan Noonien Singh was from “the Northern India area” according to ship’s historian (and future Mrs. Khan) Marla McGivers. Northern India is heavily Sikh (and Khan is a common surname there as well). My Indian friend I saw the movie with was a bit confused by the name Khan Noonian Singh; she told me the mixing of those names (Hindu & Muslim) would be as geographically confusing as Bubba Ho-Tep.

Khan’s turban (in Marla’s painting) and clothes were also suggestive (if not accurate) of a Sikh (except for his lack of beard; most Sikh males don’t shave).

Granted, Montalban doesn’t sound very Indian (at all, in fact), but that was a handicap of ’60s television; when you had Italian actors playing Native Americans or caucasians in swarthy makeup playing Middle Easterners. And since Montalban was so memorable, his return in TWOK was a given really…

But I was a bit surprised to see such blatant white-wash casting in the 21st century feature film such as STID. In the ’60s it was the norm, but today it’s not quite so common. Especially when there is a HUGE talent pool in the Bollywood movie industry.

45. Dswynne - September 30, 2013

I am record by saying that I liked both ST’09 and STiD, and have seen those films repeatedly. My problem is that the writers and producers are playing it safe, particularly when white-washing Khan…or even have Khan in the film. However, in though I have plenty of ideas of how the last two films should have gone, what’s done is done. Time to move forward for the 50th anniversary, third film.

And what should be done for that third film? Personally, I don’t mind the Klingon War concept per se, but it should serve as a background to the main story. Maybe, the first act starts with a scene similar to the TOS episode ‘The Enterprise Incident’, where Kirk and crew come away with stealing a secret weapon from the Klingons. And then, we get to the main story. I would work in Prime Kirk in the midst. Maybe, we see an older Kirk being interviewed about an incident during his first 5-Year mission for his memoir, told in a manner similar to what was done in the DS9 episode ‘The Visitor’, but without the need to have a time teavel element included. The movie would end with a semi-reunion with the TOS cast, and a toast. By no mean would this mean no more new NuTrek movies, but this be in keeping with celebrating 50 years of Star Trek. A bonus would be having cameos of previous actors appear, though not necessarily in their previous roles, but it would be a wink towards the fandom. Heck, maybe have one of these actors play a villain for good measure, but I digress (can’t a fan-bio dream?).

Regardless, I am looking forward to more ‘Trek from Bad Robot. :-)

46. Li'l Shat - September 30, 2013

I have liked both films. I liked Star Trek 09 immediately due to its being fresh and new. STID took more time to grow on me and although it has many flaws, it’s still a fun and thoughtful movie to enjoy.

However, I wish the writers had planned out a three movie story arc from the beginning which would have led Kirk from cadet to captain in a natural, believable way. Perhaps the first movie could have shown his rise from the academy to an ensign, the second his rise to first officer, and the third his taking the captain’s chair. Simultaneously, all the other characters fall into their relative and familiar roles. The third movie ends with the start of the five year mission, Kirk confidently and cockily in command, and then a new TV series showing a new, modern take on the five year mission. Hopefully actually lasting five years.

Hey, I can dream can’t I?

47. Trekboi - September 30, 2013

We need something Original- they have ended the last 2 movies promising;

“to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before”

They had better deliver unless they defer it to a series & deliver that after the 3rd film.

The comics seem to be covering a Klingon/Romulan war so maybe that’s not what the 3rd film will be about?

48. BatlethInTheGroin - September 30, 2013

#7: That was an entirely invalid comparison. Ledger and Romero didn’t play the same guy–there’s no connection between the old TV show and the new movies. Montalban and Cumberbatch, however, DID play the same guy.

49. BatlethInTheGroin - September 30, 2013

#17: Khan is definitely NOT the most iconic villain in Star Trek. That’s a fiction created by the Abrams team.

50. BatlethInTheGroin - September 30, 2013

#37: You need to re-watch “Space Seed.” He was identified as being from northern India.

Hence, he was from Asia.

51. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

Yes, I mis-spoke about nothing being mentioned about Asia, BUT here is the exact line from the episode:

Referring to #43:

McGivers: “From the northern India area, I guess. Probably a Sikh.”

Emphasis on I GUESS. This assumption is never confirmed later on. The turban in McGiver’s painting (as you mentioned) is pure conjecture on McGiver’s part.

BUT….

Spock: “His age would be correct. In 1993, a group of these young superman did seize power simultaneously in over 40 nations.”

We “enjoy” a diverse a population in today’s world, Khan’s ethnic heritage could just as easily have been America or Europe.

And yes, Spock also said from 1992 through 1996 he ruled a quarter of our world from Asia through the Middle East, but that still does not (to me) guarantee that was his original home.

So it still remains to be determined 100% that Khan was Asian. Perhaps he led a movement in the western world before heading to the regions mentioned?

My point? I just do not have a problem with nu-Khan not appearing to be a mirror image of the Khan prime.

Of course, if we want to really argue the point, we did not experience a Eugenic’s War in the 1990s as the episode proclaims.

Referring to #42:

In both films Uhura receives more than or equal to the screen time to Dr. McCoy. For some reason, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof have elevated her stature over McCoy, something to which I take exception. BUT I will say that McCoy’s presence was much more greatly felt in STiD than in the first go around.

52. Smike - September 30, 2013

@14: I’m with you! 2001 and TMP are two of the greatest SciFi movies ever made. Along with a healthy dosage of Avataresque strange new worlds emulating these two classic (with a big more of action and fast pace) could make the best Trek movie ever!

53. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

Referring to #52:

I sooooo agree!

54. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

Referring to #50: I am watching “Space Seed” this very instant. ;)

55. Basement Blogger - September 30, 2013

@ 49

BatlethinTheGroin,

Please follow your own advice. You conclude that Space Seed mandates that Khan is from Northern India. Nope. The exact line is this.

Lt. McGivers: ““From the northern India area, I GUESS… PROBABLY a Sikh.”

McGivers is not certain that he’s from northern India. She’s not even sure he’s a Sikh.

56. ME!! - September 30, 2013

@7 Poor comparison since the Batman projects you reference aren’t related in any way, shape or form other than they both contain the same characters. They’re different in every other way. Just as Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns is different from The Killing Joke and both are very different from the periods of Neal Adams, Dick Sprang, & Bob Kane.

The Abrams Trek universe is supposed to be an alternate timeline of the “Prime” universe we’re all familiar with and with changes brought on by the arrival of Nero at the moment of Kirk’s birth. Khan Noonian Singh was frozen in cryogenic sleep LONG before that event and therefore he should not have been affected by those changes. He should have looked, acted & talked EXACTLY like he would have in the “Prime” universe. That’s not to say it MUST be Ricardo Montalban, but for believability’s sake it should have been someone who was a little closer & should have been written like it. Instead of the global conquering warlord we should have gotten, we got a terrorist.

Benedict Cumberbatch did a fantastic job with what he had to work with, as he always does, but he wasn’t the ideal candidate for the role and the role was NOT written to BE Khan Noonian Singh beyond the name & the physicality.

57. Glenn - September 30, 2013

Just restore the time line and lets put a NEW cast together set int he 24th century. 50 years from Voyager.

Get some writers. STID was just horrible. With the same writers are we going to see them go back in time for whales? the search for Sybok? I mean really. The writing on the last 2 films has been amateurish and completely done by people who don’t have a clue what Star Trek is.

58. ME!! - September 30, 2013

Their original choice of Benicio Del Toro would have been VERY interesting to see. The dialog for the character was different (we know because the writers stated they changed it for Benedict) and the backlash from fans would likely have been toned down a notch or two had it happened that way instead. Again, it’s nothing at all against Benedict. He’s a marvelous actor and a joy to watch in whatever role he takes on. This whole debacle can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the writers and whoever’s idea it was to do what they did with that character from dialog to casting.

59. Marja - September 30, 2013

46 Li’l Shat, I like your dream one heckuva lot more than I like dswynne’s at 45 …

51 Doug, “In both films Uhura receives more than or equal to the screen time to Dr. McCoy. For some reason, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof have elevated her stature over McCoy….”

Women are a larger part of Star Trek’s audience than ever. I think [I have not done a minute-by-minute count] that Uhura receives equal screen time with McCoy. They have simply elevated AU Uhura over the original and limited role of TOS Uhura.

I’ve said many times Trek should move from an all-male “trio” model to a male and female “quartet”. The three other members of the team give advice and Kirk decides what to do. TOS was made in the 1960s; we can move on to 21st century models now.

This does not mean I think we should “take time away from McCoy to give to Uhura.” I’m not sure why so many men seem to think this is happening. I think we should see more of both of them, with Kirk and Spock in conference with Scotty, or McCoy working to decipher old records of a plague that’s now infesting a world [with Uhura helping him by translating].

You say ‘We “enjoy” a diverse a population in today’s world’ … Yes, and over 50% of these are women. So even today’s Trek is not representative of the world population.

Re: SUA at 42, Yes, Uhura deserves to continue to be seen in other aspects of her professional role – as she was in speaking to the Klingons – and worthy of respect. I think critics objected to her being “only a girlfriend,” which is patently untrue; she is more than that. There are ways to portray her and Spock in relation to one another that are not so public [I do like their shared glances on the Bridge, though].

60. ME!! - September 30, 2013

@57 Agree to disagree. They clearly DO know Star Trek. The problem is what they were attempting didn’t come across as obvious to a LOT of people. And Orci is probably a bigger fan than even you are.

This new Trek is the CLOSEST to the tone of the Original Series we’ve EVER gotten.

“Amateurish”? Let’s see your script, hoss.

My problem with those movies has nothing to do with their take on Trek lore and everything to do with logic & common sense. Example: Jettisoning Kirk off the Enterprise rather than place him in the brig? A brig that clearly was able to hold Khan? Or hiding the ship within walking distance of the very people you’re hiding it from?

61. ME!! - September 30, 2013

@55 YOU need to rewatch Space Seed. She’s a HISTORIAN. It’s her area of expertise. And she began painting a portrait of Khan wearing a turban which he, after seeing it, smiled and said, “I am honored.” He didn’t correct her “error” so obviously she was either very close or right on the money on her assessment.

62. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

Referring to #60:

That is exactly one of my criticisms of the last film. Why jettison Kirk? The illogical answer is: so that Kirk could meet Spock prime.

Referring to #59:

I do not per se have a problem with elevating Uhura’s importance, but my criticism is this: Spend the time building the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad first. THAT is where the success from where TREK first succeeded best…. then take the time to build the other characters up.

I will say that the new TREK, for the most part, did the ensemble cast better than TOS did in its original days.

63. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

Referring to # 61:

“I am honored.”

Khan could have just as easily been “honored” because the face in the portrait, turban or not, is obviously his.

64. Crewman Darnell - September 30, 2013

Kurtzman on the Kirk/Spock death scene:
“What made it work for us conceptually was the idea that Spock was unable to understand for the whole movie Kirk’s definition of friendship. He didn’t know what it meant.”

So there’s that. One could imagine a younger Spock having issues processing the emotionally based concept of friendship.

Nonetheless, the writers went ahead and gifted nuSpock with the apparent comprehension of a nuanced, intimate, relationship, complete with the exchange of deep kisses and fiery lover’s spats. For all of the supposed thought the writers claim to have put into this film, they seem to have come up short on actual thinking.

65. Buzz Cagney - September 30, 2013

#17 good actor but certainly not the best for Khan. No way. Javier Bardem would have rocked the show. Plenty suggested him very early on. Oh well, Star Trek’s loss was Skyfall’s gain.
If only they hadn’t gone backwards and forwards about Khan/Not Khan and committed to it early on then perhaps it could have worked out better.

66. MC1 Doug - September 30, 2013

LoL!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/jj-abrams-apologises-for-star-treks-distracting-lens-flares/

67. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@MCDoug
“Referring to #42:

In both films Uhura receives more than or equal to the screen time to Dr. McCoy. For some reason, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof have elevated her stature over McCoy, something to which I take exception. BUT I will say that McCoy’s presence was much more greatly felt in STiD than in the first go around.”

This is absolutely not true. In ST09 Uhura and McCoy had about equal screen time. In STID he appeared to get more than her which may or may not be equal to the screen time he got in ST09 considering the fact that she got less. Scotty, however, got more screen time in STID than any other main crew members aside from Kirk and Spock. I don’t see you saying anything about that, or is it okay if it’s Scotty getting a lot of focus but Uhura has to stay in the back and hail frequencies?? Well she deserves better than that.

Personally, I don’t think that’s right. I don’t mind Scotty getting focus, but that movie was very imbalanced with how it handled the main crew members and their focus/screen time. I get that you liked that, but I don’t. I know some people want these films to only be the Kirk/Spock/McCoy show, but that’s not what I think many other Trek fans and general audiences want and it’s not fair to the other actor/characters.

I think the original crew is important, all of the them, and not just 2 or 3. I’d like to see each character get a little focus as well as their budding relationships (and the S/U relationship should get its fair due of course). But, you may be getting the TOS blast from the past that you want anyway, Doug. I thought they’d make STID at least as balanced as they did ST09, and I was wrong. You liked it; I didn’t care for that. Maybe they’ll continue along that vein, but hopefully they won’t…

I mean, there are all kinds of friendship angles they could pursue, including K/S/M, but certainly not limited to them. Even just simple stuff, like Chekov and Sulu having a bit of dialog for a minute. They sit right next to each other on the bridge(!). How do you have a pilot and a navigator that never speak?… If Chekov is shadowing Scotty, then can we see them interact a bit. I’ve always thought of Uhura and McCoy as at least friendly to one another, but I don’t think I’ve actually seem them even acknowledge each other. And anyway, Uhura seems like the kind of person that’s friends with everybody. She strikes me as the likeable social type..

It doesn’t just have to be Spock and Kirk and everything centered around them all the time. I understand that they’ll get a lot of focus, and I’m not against that and learning their stories (especially Spock’s and how PTSD affects him and following up on the destruction of Vulcan, etc.). The one thing I really liked about STID was Kirk and Uhura’s turbolift scene because it showed some growth for them as friends and the actors did a great job. It was brief, but it was also very nice and it made sense.

In doing something new, I think the writers have an opportunity to show the team interacting in ways that show they are becoming friends and a family, and I hope they take advantage of that. A little Kirk and Spock and McCoy can be a nice part of that, but they shouldn’t be the whole film.

Yeah, there’s a lot I can still say about this…

68. Phil123 - October 1, 2013

The problem is the villain didn’t need to be Kahn. With no prior knowledge of who Kahn is the reveal is meaningless.

Therefor within the universe of the movie, it’s pointless. Well, unless the crew had heard of him, (as they no doubt would have a 300 year old warlord that ruled half the Earth) but they seemed not to have.

Cumberbatch was a great villain, but it wasn’t really Kahn. It’s a film that could so easily have been great, if the moral conflict around the potential militarisation of Starfleet had remained the central story, rather than becoming a rehash.

In TWOK the crew uses Kahn’s weaknesses to defeat him, his 2 dimensional thinking and his twisted need for revenge. So twisted that he in the end destroys himself. In ID he just gets run down and punched a lot by Spock.

I see what they are saying about the Kirk death scene, but it would have been better if done in a more original way. No KAAHHHN scream and no magic blood.

69. Buzz Cagney - October 1, 2013

#66 Obviously thats his way of saying he won’t be lens flaring Star Wars!
Its not like he didn’t know he overdid it in ’09. Enough people said he did!
I agree with JJ that some flaring adds life and depth to a movie, but its good to see he thinks he is overdoing it.

70. James - October 1, 2013

Only Star Trek fans could be so unhappy about the franchise they profess to love receiving such critical and commercial success.

Hey TrekMovie, why no posts on the amazing business the DVD and blu-rays are doing?

71. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@#59 Marja

”I’ve said many times Trek should move from an all-male “trio” model to a male and female “quartet”. The three other members of the team give advice and Kirk decides what to do. TOS was made in the 1960s; we can move on to 21st century models now.”

Yes, that would be great. I really liked how in ST09 you had a little bit of that and it was nice. You could see Spock and Kirk at odds with Uhura kind of on Spock’s side and McCoy kind of on Kirk’s… Now that some time has passed and they’ve all worked together for a while, I’d expect that these 4 individuals sometimes have little pow-wows over things.

Some people describe K/S/M is “action,” “logic,” and “passion,” then why can’t Uhura be added to that as the “rational grace.” I think that would be very nice. Another way to put it is if these 3 guys are the heart (Bones), mind (Spock), and body (Kirk) so to speak, then she (Uhura) would be the soul in my view. That provides for a good balance. If they are going to do something new and updated, then this would be a great place to start.

”This does not mean I think we should “take time away from McCoy to give to Uhura.” I’m not sure why so many men seem to think this is happening. I think we should see more of both of them, with Kirk and Spock in conference with Scotty, or McCoy working to decipher old records of a plague that’s now infesting a world [with Uhura helping him by translating].
You say ‘We “enjoy” a diverse a population in today’s world’ … Yes, and over 50% of these are women. So even today’s Trek is not representative of the world population.”

Exactly.

”Re: SUA at 42, Yes, Uhura deserves to continue to be seen in other aspects of her professional role – as she was in speaking to the Klingons – and worthy of respect. I think critics objected to her being “only a girlfriend,” which is patently untrue; she is more than that. There are ways to portray her and Spock in relation to one another that are not so public [I do like their shared glances on the Bridge, though].”

Yes, she is more than a girlfriend. You are absolutely right, but I think the problem many people had (and that I had) was the fact that her professional side didn’t get to really add anything much to the film. Sure, she got to speak Klingon, but what came of it? Nothing, really.

Then she’s shown being somewhat unprofessional (which I think is out of character, but I’ve said before that it made sense for the plot…), and the big thing for me was her change from a loving and understanding girlfriend/fiancée in the last film to to a somewhat b*tchy nag in this film. And Spock was off too…

I agree that they should be working on their issues in private. I think he should get help with his PTSD and that it should be acknowledged and addressed in the film (maybe she comforts him after he has nightmares in the middle of the night and convinces him to get treatment), and then they should be supportive of one another because that’s the logical and loving thing to do… And I still want a wedding and a love scene. I mean, Kirk’s had a few love scenes now, it would be nice to see them in love off duty.

72. Marja - October 1, 2013

SUA, “the big thing for me was her change from a loving and understanding girlfriend/fiancée in the last film to to a somewhat b*tchy nag in this film. And Spock was off too… ”

So are you saying Uhura can be a nice girlfriend and be supportive, but she shouldn’t speak to him about his “death wish”? Grant you, I’d have written it differently, but I’d be “bitchy” too if my man was off risking his life and insisting he had to die for the sake of the Prime Directive, when the captain wants to save his life. It would seem an unnecessary death to me, and would indicate that living seemed less important to him than surviving. Especially if my man had not gotten help for his PTSD.

I did feel uncomfortable seeing Uhura be passive-agressive with Spock while Kirk heard her ["...unless they don't care about dying" "Oh, I didn't say anything" and "I'd be happy to speak if you're willing to listen...."]. I didn’t care for their talking about this personal subject in the presence of others. But I have come to accept the idea of the “public” discussion because of Spock’s words before and including ” … I assure you the truth was exactly the opposite” Sort of a public declaration by Spock of his love for Uhura. In abstruse Vulcan fashion.

I’d like a “waking up together with a kiss” scene, or waking together to respond to a Red Alert and kissing human or Vulcan style, sharing one of their “deep looks” before they get to the Bridge.

A wedding, I dunno. Maybe a very brief “Kirk marries them as captain of the ship” thing, but I pretty much think it should be saved for fan fiction. I would not mind seeing some indication that they had bonded or been married, but I don’t think a scene in a two-hour movie is appropriate.

I wouldn’t say Kirk’s had “love” scenes. They’re more like ” ‘friendly sex’ scenes.”

73. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@Marja 72
”So are you saying Uhura can be a nice girlfriend and be supportive, but she shouldn’t speak to him about his “death wish”? Grant you, I’d have written it differently, but I’d be “bitchy” too if my man was off risking his life and insisting he had to die for the sake of the Prime Directive, when the captain wants to save his life. It would seem an unnecessary death to me, and would indicate that living seemed less important to him than surviving. Especially if my man had not gotten help for his PTSD.”

Oh, I’m absolutely not saying that. Two things: 1) There’s a time and a place for everything. 2) If you’re going to have change then show the change. I’ll elaborate.

I can understand her being upset that she might have unnecessarily lost him, but that opens up questions for me. Why did he have to go down there in the first place? The whole mission was against the Prime Directive, so his being willing to die for it made no sense. Back to the time and the place. If she’s upset, then I could understand her wanting to talk to him in private. It was explained in the film during their argument that he kept finding ways out of having that conversation. So, I get that frustration. He keeps brushing her off.

Once again, I have to sidetrack here by saying why does he keep brushing her off? How did it get to that? And I don’t think he has a “death wish,” but I do think he’s suffering with guilt. He reached out to grab his mother, to save her, and he didn’t. That’s got to be hard. I can imagine him blaming himself. I’d guess Uhura could imagine that too. Do we know if she at least tried in the past to get him to seek out help? This is a part of #2, show the change. If we actually saw her trying to get him to get him and him just brushing her off, then her frustration is more understandable and I don’t have to “assume” that she’s tried and failed to get him to get help in the past.

This leads to another question. Why didn’t his captain order him to get help? Speaking of time and place, that should have happened long ago, or him at least asking Bones about Spock’s behavior, based off of what I recall from the film. If he’s acting like he has a “death wish” as you say, and this, as well as other behavior has happened repeatedly (enough for Uhura to be angry and Kirk wanting to “rip his bangs off”), then either Bones as the ship’s doctor (I think I read that the original was also skilled in psychology, but don’t quote me on that, plus I don’t know if this one is) should have done something or Kirk should have. So, it really shouldn’t have even gotten to this point. And if there’s a reason why Kirk and Bones let Spock go so far down, then show that.

I keep trying to only stick to my 2 points, but more and more questions keep sidetracking me, and it’s well time to go to bed, so I’ll leave it at this:

What it really comes down to is what I initially said about that scene months ago: It made sense for the plot, but not the characters. Had they stayed true to what these characters should have been doing – and we don’t even have to talk about caring, just regulations I’d guess – then Spock shouldn’t have been in a position where he was needlessly sacrificing himself because of PTSD and grief mixed with guilt. I hope I answered this for you. If not, then let me know, and I’ll give it another go.

”I did feel uncomfortable seeing Uhura be passive-agressive with Spock while Kirk heard her ["...unless they don't care about dying" "Oh, I didn't say anything" and "I'd be happy to speak if you're willing to listen...."]. I didn’t care for their talking about this personal subject in the presence of others. But I have come to accept the idea of the “public” discussion because of Spock’s words before and including ” … I assure you the truth was exactly the opposite” Sort of a public declaration by Spock of his love for Uhura. In abstruse Vulcan fashion.”

Right, and that passive-aggressiveness is something that comes from a bitterness developed over time. And it’s the “over time” part that I have a problem with. First, I don’t understand why Spock wouldn’t want help. Maybe he feels like he doesn’t deserve it, but we don’t know that. Logically, he’s more use alive than dead.

If PTSD has pushed him into being illogical in his actions, then that’s where his doctor in particular needs to show up and say “I’m taking you off active duty until you get the help that you need.” Why didn’t that happen? And how was he cleared for duty in the first place if he wasn’t ready?

About Spock’s words. They were nice, and maybe Uhura needed to hear that, but she and Kirk already knew it based off of what happened in ST09.

”I’d like a “waking up together with a kiss” scene, or waking together to respond to a Red Alert and kissing human or Vulcan style, sharing one of their “deep looks” before they get to the Bridge.
A wedding, I dunno. Maybe a very brief “Kirk marries them as captain of the ship” thing, but I pretty much think it should be saved for fan fiction. I would not mind seeing some indication that they had bonded or been married, but I don’t think a scene in a two-hour movie is appropriate.
I wouldn’t say Kirk’s had “love” scenes. They’re more like ” ‘friendly sex’ scenes.””

Waking up together and sharing a kiss sounds fine to me. I do think there needs to be something that shows that they are bond-mates. To me, that only makes sense. Vulcans naturally have mates, and it’s obvious that Uhura is his choice. So making it official is the next step. That should be shown. I’m not asking for a 10 minute wedding scene, but a real or make-shift Vulcan wedding with some happiness for these 2 would be nice.

I remember mentioning to someone else here, can’t remember who, have they ever gotten to be “happy” yet? Sure, they are in love, but it would be nice to see some joy for the 2 of them. Of course Spock’s not going to be jumping up and down, but you know what I mean.

Something about as long as the wedding in the last Lord of the Rings movie would make sense to me. And I do think it’s appropriate. If they do a make-shift human wedding on the ship, I could imagine Kirk joining them together with Bones walking Uhura down the “aisle.” The crew would be able to celebrate something together for once. Makes sense to me.

And well, no Kirk wasn’t in love, so I guess we can say he’s had sex scenes. Gaila did tell him she was in love with him, though, so he had half a love scene I guess. ;-)

74. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

Oh wow look at this sentence: “If we actually saw her trying to get him to get him and him..”

What I meant was “if we actually saw her trying to get him to get help instead of just brushing her off…”

Nighty-night.

75. Disinvited - October 1, 2013

#70. James – October 1, 2013

You mean like this?:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/world-war-z-debuts-at-636609

No matter how some may regard Damon: his double bill partner with STID just nudged it aside.

But it is puzzling why the WalMart STID double is considered something special to track separate (at #3) from total blu-ray sales when various retailers are selling theirs with different extras which aren’t being likewise cleaved from the overall blu-ray tracking?

76. Rod of Rassilon - October 1, 2013

I believe I stated here often, before this movies release

Khan died.

The “creative team” were rather insistent that Kirk had died, but can’t stick to their own “logic”

You knew the thing was in trouble right from that point.

–some thoughts

My observation about what is “wrong” is that JJ et al have forgotten who the star of the show is, its Kirk.
Shatner had to fight for more dialogue and more screen time and it has become fashionable to deride him for this, however it IS an intrinsic part of what made TOS so loved.
My observation is that the team instead made a common mistake in believing that Spock is the star. It’s a mistake that your mother would make, ask “who’s in Star Trek?” And most come up with Mr/Dr Spock this is the cultural perception, the mass hypnosis if you will. But don’t be fooled by it.

Kirk is top billing, that’s where the focus needs to lie, yet I perceive the team has lost sight of this. Evidenced in the 09 film giving Spock a big love interest, but nothing for Kirk except the “comedy horn dog” routine (another cultural perception.
In a way I don’t blame them, they might not even be aware they are doing this, its so ingrained, easy to dismiss etc. but given a little thought its obvious.

And yet I hear in my head the screaming about the trio of “Kirk, Spock & McCoy are what made Star Trek” and I believe it is, but yet again is a perception. This was not easily arrived at by the original writers. It is something that was gradually arrived at.

Kirk is the focus, Kirk as the character of captain can pretty much pilot the ship on his own, he knows the engines almost as well as Scotty the computer system almost as well as Spock, can manage a triage in a tight spot, can be a diplomat and a trooper. He is the consummate all rounder.
And is cocky due to all this self knowledge and his youth.

The drama of TOS came in part from his having to rely on his crew to do their jobs, most notably Scott when the ship was surrounded/damaged/about to blow.
And Spock to provide the rules, logic and reason the audience could see.
And McCoy keeping a realistic check on everything “we are humans in space, how can we think we are right?”

JJ and the team are humans making mistakes and no, they don’t have Roddenberry to go and draw wisdom from, but then Gene didnt get everything right either.

It was the studios that originally wanted more action scenes and Gene fought that, yet it was this aspect that, if a lot of us were more truthful about ourselves drew the show to our attention as kids.
Easily recognisable baddies.
There’s a lot to be said for them.

Which is an interesting parallel with the anger levelled against JJ and team, once upon a time it was the evil studios that made bad Trek, now its the evil JJ VERSE..

Perhaps if, as is often stated, the “best” trek is allegorical then the mass of unstoppable mauling fans intent on bringing down “The Powers That Be” and adapting to each choice the team make, and screaming negativity towards it, until all joy has been sapped from any notion of creativity then

We SHOULD get the Borg in the next film.

Resistance to change, IS futile.

For my own voice amongst the screaming I say this.

Don’t change “To Boldly Go”

77. Jack - October 1, 2013

I don’t think it’s fair to bash Lindelof without knowing what he’s actually responsible for. The guy saved World War Z — the ending’s a little hokey, but it works. The thing is, it sounds like, from these interviews, that they were all so involved in writing this and trying to fit various ideas together like puzzle pieces that they lost the ability to see it from the outside, and to see what might not work. And you end up with a patchwork of scenes — and logical contortions to make certain elements work.

78. Jack - October 1, 2013

“What Kirk was saying was ‘The reason that I risked my life for you is because you’re my friend, and that’s what you do for each other.’ Spock’s Vulcan mind just wasn’t able to process that, and it wasn’t until he experienced the loss of his friend that he finally came to understand what friendship meant as Kirk was defining it.”

This. This doesn’t really work as the crux of the movie. “Friendship is great, kids!”

And, what, so Kirk would have abandoned anyone else? Maybe.

79. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - October 1, 2013

@78. Jack – October 1, 2013

“And, what, so Kirk would have abandoned anyone else? Maybe.”

Perhaps the question should not be ‘would Kirk have abandoned anyone else?’ but ‘would Kirk have broken the Prime Directive for anyone else?’

The answer is still ‘maybe’, as Kirk still hasn’t really learned the lesson regarding actions and consequences by this stage.

“… is there anything you would not do for your family?”

In TOS Menagerie, Spock broke General Order 7 to attempt to give Pike a better quality of life. General Order 7 is the only Starfleet regulation which carries the threat of the death penalty for breaking it. The Spock in Menagerie may not have necessarily called it ‘friendship’, but he certainly understood it.

80. Dom - October 1, 2013

There are various things STID opens up for the next film.

1: Roll with the transwarp beaming. If you can travel vast distances, then whole starships can theoretically be beamed across the galaxy before building ‘staging posts’ where they build more starship transporters. The Federation of this reality now should be able to travel across the entire galaxy. That opens a lot of possibilities.

2: Khan’s magic blood. People are now much harder to kill. That has an interesting impact on the attitude of humans who can effectively be rendered immortal, barring major accidents. If a redshirt gets zapped, he gets treated with the Khan serum.

I disagree with Mr Kurtzman that the al-universe should be about retelling stories through a different lens. The reality they’ve created has diverged sufficiently from the original now that it should be all about new stories as far away from Earth and the Federation as possible. Hell, follow the Enterprise for its first mission to the Magellanic Clouds or the Andromeda Galaxy next time, as far as I’m concerned (after all, the novelisation of The Wrath of Khan had Galaxy Class starships in Andromeda!)

Whatever, I’m looking forward to Star Trek 3.

81. Damian - October 1, 2013

I find it hilarious that some are arguing the ethnicity of Khan, primarily because McGivers is initially not 100% that he is a Sikh from Northern Indian (don’t forget, she also told Khan she knew EXACTLY who he was–it would be funny if she knew that yet did not know where he was from) . Khan was an egomaniac in Space Seed and TWOK. When he saw her picture, if it was at all incorrect, he would have corrected her.

They set it up that he was a Sikh in Space Seed. If you don’t accept that based on Space Seed, then there’s nothing that will convince you. To me, the evidence is inarguable. No one’s pointed out that even his name is consistent with that region of the world. Not too many British citizens are named Khan, I’m afraid.

Face it, they whitewashed the character. After Benicio didn’t pan out, they wanted Cumberbatch as the villain, and they wanted Khan as the villain. As a result, they re-wrote the character. If they wanted Khan, they should have hired either an Indian character to get the character right, or even a Hispanic actor to be consistent from the actor standpoint (I think most fans would have accepted that). But a white actor, no. That is not at all consistent with canon (and Khan is a canon character).

They could have addressed this with a very small line of dialogue that Section 31 altered his appearance, or even genetics, for their own nefarious purposes.

82. Jack - October 1, 2013

79. “Perhaps the question should not be ‘would Kirk have abandoned anyone else?’ but ‘would Kirk have broken the Prime Directive for anyone else?’”

You’re absolutely right.

The lesson seems a little simplistic. The one where Spock learns friendship. I could believe that Spock understands friendship but doesn’t understand why Kirk feels that way about him. Hmmm, although maybe he’s never had a real friendship in this timeline. Although he has no problem scoring a girlfriend. And this Spock is more like Sheldon from Big Bang Theory than TOS Nimoy. It’s a case where I see what they’re trying to do, but don’t think it all gelled.

I’m hoping the next one acknowledges that these are grown-ups (the bulk of the cast is already in their mid-30s and early-40s).

83. Vultan - October 1, 2013

McGivers “guess” was correct. When Khan sees the painting of him in a turban, he says he’s honored. Perfect opportunity for him to correct her. “Hey, you silly broad, didn’t you know I’m really British! That was a tanning booth I was in!”

84. Spock's Bangs - October 1, 2013

Too bad a few…and in the total scheme of things, I do mean a VERY few, trek fans can’t seem to hang in the new alternate Trek universe. Their loss, don’t let the turbo lift doors hit you on the way out…to paraphrase Rick Berman’s woefully incorrect description of Enterprise….this ain’t your daddy Berman’s Trek anymore!

85. Dr. Image - October 1, 2013

I wouldn’t blame the producers- or studio- fo making all the nitpicky, cluless fanboys out there wait at least FIVE years for the next installment, because there is obviously no appreciation out there for what is in reality a critically successful and entertaining film.
Go ahead, keep biting the hand that feeds you and see where it gets you.

86. Crewman Darnell - October 1, 2013

@85 Dr. Image
I’d say that your cautionary analogy of “biting the hand that feeds you,” could just as easily be applied to clueless producers and lazy writers, milking the Star Trek franchise. The fickle popcorn audience isn’t what has sustained Star Trek over these years.

87. Damian - October 1, 2013

83–LOL. To me it’s a no brainer as to where Khan comes from. I’m surprised it’s even an issue, but I guess Trekkies love to have something to argue about.

I liked STID overall, but it could have been better. Cumberbatch was a great villain, but they should have left Khan out of it. And there were too many nods to TWOK. Finally, I really hope the next film leaves the villain of the week home. We’ve had 3 straight movies ripping off TWOK and the whole villain out to destroy Earth thing. I wouldn’t even have Earth in the next movie.

88. TUP - October 1, 2013

If one more person makes the comparison between Khan and the Joker I’m going to lose it. If you dont know the difference, stop.

Batman and The Dark Knight were two different universes. Abrams’ Star Trek is the same characters as TOS.

Batman has been reimagined many times since the 1930′s.

When Ledger was announced, there was a lot of objections but his performance made people forget Nicholson. Ledger’s performance was iconic.

As good as BC was, he did not out-do Montalban.

The Joker was a crazy white guy dressed as a clown in every incarnation. If they had cast Denzel, people would have objected more because it fundementally changed an established part of the character.

This is obvious

89. Ash - October 1, 2013

“I doubt my comments will pas the ‘moderator’ but I do hope for the powers in charge to take into account what the majority fans want to see. A story Roddenberry would appreciate, an optimistic future view and strong interaction between the 3 principal characters, Kirk, Spock and McCoy!”

Absolutely. The majority of fans would be thrilled to finally see that happen.

@62 MC1 Doug

Agree 100% Uhura having more screen time is great, but solidifying the iconic trio needs to happen soon. It’s the one thing fans have been asking the most for. Simon Pegg gave an interview not too long ago talking about the k/s/m trio and how important it is and that he wants to see more of it explored which was great. Then again he is a die hard Trek fan and he knows what’s up. And I kinda feel bad for Karl Urban, he is such a HUGE fan and was probably stoked to be part of this franchise (and you can tell how much he admires Deforest Kelly) and then to be, like the rest of the fans, upset to not see Bones used as he properly should..it’s gotta blow. You can try to shake things up, but there are some things that just can not be messed with. The Kirk, Spock and Uhura team was a nice try to change things, and I surprisingly enjoying the Kirk and Uhura friendship a lot, but it doesn’t have near the same impact as the original real team.
The Spock and Uhura thing was a disaster to begin with (one I hope is rectified soon. END IT!) and being a woman myself I’ve enjoyed seeing Uhura and Carol get good screen time, but I’m not obligated to be happy that McCoy is pushed aside for a female character. I see a few people saying that it makes sense to get rid of Bones in the trio to attract women in audiences, but that’s BS. It’s not pleasing all women to move Bones, especially when he’s played by the fantastic Karl Urban. While I had a few issues with STID, I enjoyed it overall, as did most critics, going by the rave reviews it was the best reviewed blockbuster of the year, and I know there are a few people (3 maybe that I know of lol) that don’t consider the trio to be the heart of the series after Kirk and Spock, but it IS. Trek fans can be very hard to please its true, some will be upset no matter what, but one thing is a near constant with them…don’t try to change something as beloved and important as that team.
I SO MUCH want to see Uhura and Carol interact together on the Enterprise that for once doesn’t involve them being stereotypical female roles. Let Carol keep her clothes on and let Uhura stop crying/nagging over Spock. It gets old. You have a freaking Doctor of advanced weapons who is by all means a genius, and a great linguist that can speak pretty much any language, I’m sure they can find things to do with them besides having most of their storyline revolve around guys.

90. TUP - October 1, 2013

Urban was the best thing about Trek 09 and nailed his character better than the other actors (Pine at the end of 09 nailed Shatner).

But in STID, the material he was given was bad and his performance was more a parody than a homage.

They really need to backburner Uhura/Spock (the romance was interesting in 09 and played out by STID) and get back to the Trinity.

One of the issues is Spock and Kirk in these movies are both very emotional and thus Bones isnt needed. That needs to change.

91. Sebastian - October 1, 2013

Vultan~

McGivers “guess” was correct. When Khan sees the painting of him in a turban, he says he’s honored. Perfect opportunity for him to correct her. “Hey, you silly broad, didn’t you know I’m really British! That was a tanning booth I was in!”

****************************

OMG, I almost spit up my coffee reading that one! LOL!!

And why would the dialogue of McGivers ‘guess’ be left in the show if it was wrong? It would’ve been rendered irrelevant if it had been. And if she were wrong, it would serve the teleplay to illustrate why and how she was wrong.

Remember that in “Space Seed” the library computer picture of Khan also showed him posing in front of a vaguely exotic looking background (not exactly a Holiday Inn, right?). They wouldn’t go through the trouble of all of the accoutrements (especially on a tight TV budget) if they weren’t clues to the character’s true identity.

http://americanturban.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/khannooniensinghpainting.jpg?w=800&h=599

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080316205927/memoryalpha/en/images/3/32/Khan_Noonien_Singh,_1996.jpg

“Let’s just call him ‘uncle Bob’, shall we?” ;-P

It’s clear that the character of Khan Noonien Singh is supposed to be a North Indian Sikh. McGiver’s also mentioned that Sikhs are “the most fantastic warriors” (not exactly true, but oh well…). The warrior bit was clearly a tipoff for things-to-come in the episode.

92. Mad Mann - October 1, 2013

I’m still holding out hope that the Cumberbatch-Khan character will be revealed to NOT be Khan, but one of the genetically enhanced crew of the Botany Bay. This was done to hide the “real” Khan.

Maybe the real Khan is kept under stasis somewhere.

Anyway, I agree with Harry from post 9: Lindelof was a cancer to Star Trek. Orci already stated that it was Lindelof that pushed for Khan and the whole “magic blood” thing. I’m glad he is gone, he is a POS writer that may write dialogue well, but cannot create a good story to save his life.

93. Rick - October 1, 2013

“Waking up together and sharing a kiss sounds fine to me. I do think there needs to be something that shows that they are bond-mates. To me, that only makes sense. Vulcans naturally have mates, and it’s obvious that Uhura is his choice. So making it official is the next step. That should be shown. I’m not asking for a 10 minute wedding scene, but a real or make-shift Vulcan wedding with some happiness for these 2 would be nice.

I remember mentioning to someone else here, can’t remember who, have they ever gotten to be “happy” yet? Sure, they are in love, but it would be nice to see some joy for the 2 of them. Of course Spock’s not going to be jumping up and down, but you know what I mean.

Something about as long as the wedding in the last Lord of the Rings movie would make sense to me. And I do think it’s appropriate. If they do a make-shift human wedding on the ship, I could imagine Kirk joining them together with Bones walking Uhura down the “aisle.” The crew would be able to celebrate something together for once.”

LOL! Yea…no.

Actually sorry, I meant HELL NO!!

Look we get it, Spock and Uhura is your thing, the end all be all of Star Trek, but lets not get carried away here. I’ve seen you mention before that they are bonded, you make that up in your head or something? That aren’t, nor should we have to have a freaking married Spock in the timeline. It’s bad enough that we have to endure the romance as it is. Let’s avoid making it worse if at all possible. Oh and I’m sure you’d love it if they had little babies running around the Enterprise too…

“Makes sense to me”

I’m sure it does. Good thing I have faith in the writers not to screw it up like that. Not to mention Zoe herself was adamant about Uhura not being married and had the same “WTF” look on her face at the mention of babies on the Enterprise. Smart woman!

94. Jeyl - October 1, 2013

What’s wrong with marriage?

95. TUP - October 1, 2013

I would love for BobOrci to answer this question: Why have Chekov in 09 at all? The age was wrong and the character meant nothing to the script.

It would have been far more logical to simply not include him until the third movie (would have been a nice touch to have him come aboard in the third movie as close to the Prime timeline as possible).

96. gingerly - October 1, 2013

Hollywood see what happens when you go backwards instead of forwards?

I guarantee that in 20 years looking back at a pale white Englishman playing Khan will be just as cringeworthy as Mickey Rooney’s yellowface in Breakfast in Tiffany’s.

But even if you ignore that antiquated practice it is such a damn shame to a franchise built on the exceptional forward-thinking of one man reduced to whitewashing and recycling plots and themes.

I hope the next film actually continues Roddenberry’s legacy regardless of any clueless fanboys.

97. Simon - October 1, 2013

@91 – your internet hate for Lindelof is ridiculous.

The man co-created LOST with Abrams. Talk about a story.
His successes far outnumber his failures.

And before you say it PROMETHEUS failed because of Ridley Scott.

This is precisely why studios don’t listen to “fans”. They rarely know what they’re talking about and just repeat what they’ve read on the internet from other fans. The “I hate Damon Lindelof” is the latest internet fan meme.

98. ME!! - October 1, 2013

Personally, I’d liked to have seen an actual Indian actor play the Indian character of Khan rather than either an English actor or another Latin one (though Ricardo was awesome, God rest his soul…it just wouldn’t have been the same without him).

But then again, it really shouldn’t matter where someone is from as far as actors go…whoever can play the part well is what matters. It’s why they’re called “actors”. Suggesting that anyone other than someone who fits the character in question, physically speaking, doesn’t make a good fit for the character makes about as much sense as someone suggesting Data should have been cast with an actual android or animatronics.

99. TUP - October 1, 2013

Let’s not pretend Lost was great. It was an awesome premise, a great first season (even first three seasons) and fell apart under the weight of it’s own hubrus. The producers admitted they had no clue where they were going with the many things they set up and the show fell apart and never lived up to it’s promise. It was incredible convoluted.

Speaking of Data, Tom Hiddleston would make a fantastic Data if re-booted.

100. TUP - October 1, 2013

Quality actor is more important than quality resemblance. Ben Kingsley played Gandhi. But he was made to look like Gandhi.

People have to realise, STID was not a re-boot. 09 was not a reboot. This Khan was the same Khan played by Montalban. Appearances MUST be taken into account.

Appearances were important when casting every other character. These producers were arrogant enough to assume the story would outweight the poor casting.

101. Danpaine - October 1, 2013

99. TUP – October 1, 2013

….and the story, was not.

102. dswynne1 - October 1, 2013

@96 (Simon): The problem with Lindelof’s writing is that it tends to have a decidedly unsatisfying ending, coupled with twists that are only clever by half. And if you have a problem with fan reaction, remember this: it is the writers who sell the story to the audience, whose only responsibility is to enjoy or not enjoy the final product.

103. Martin - October 1, 2013

So here is something that I have wondered (boborci, are you reading?) -
Because of the meld with Spock prime – does Kirk have a sense of what passed in the prime universe? Did have have fragments of memory of prime-Khan?

104. Disinvited - October 1, 2013

#95. gingerly – October 1, 2013

TIFFANY’S? Hmmm…didn’t Hollywood keep that up with Charlie Chan even after that?

105. LogicalLeopard - October 1, 2013

102. Martin

I’m not Bob Orci, but I would say no, in my opinion. It looks like Prime-Spock didn’t just do a “no limit” meld, he sort of melded and directed Kirk to see only what he wanted. He got Spock’s emotional transfer along with it, but it kind of looks like he just got what Spock gave him, judging by the scene. I would think that Spock is a seasoned enough mind-melder to not let things slip, as much as he could. And off the top of my head, I can’t recall any other quick melds in which people retained a great deal of memory of the other person.

That’s in contrast to Sarek’s meld with Picard, who got a great deal of information and emotion regarding Sarek, where he appeared to almost think he WAS Sarek, from my memory of the episode. But he was more pouring himself into Picard so that he could be stable enough to function, as I remember.

Besides, that’s a pretty bad concept to explore in a future movie, especially if it’s used as a save. For all the compaints they got about Khan’s magic blood, Kirk’s bleedover memories from Spock Prime would cause problems too. For starters, everyone would wonder why he didn’t know about Khan.

106. Markus McLaughlin (@MarkusMcLaughln) - October 1, 2013

‘The City on the Edge of Forever” with Harlan Ellison involved in a film treatment, would be WORTH watching in the next Trek film! Chris Pine’s Kirk and Scarlet Johanneson’s Edith Keeler, a Klingon Agent disrupts the timeline, instead of a drugged out McCoy…. Would be cool… :D

107. LogicalLeopard - October 1, 2013

72. Marja – October 1, 2013

A wedding, I dunno. Maybe a very brief “Kirk marries them as captain of the ship” thing, but I pretty much think it should be saved for fan fiction. I would not mind seeing some indication that they had bonded or been married, but I don’t think a scene in a two-hour movie is appropriate.

____________________________

I’m not a supporter of a Uhura/Spock marriage while they are still active characters. If at some point they determine a movie to be the last forseeable movie, close with a sunset bonding on New Vulcan or something, but while they’re still making movies, it just makes things more awkward, I think. I’m not a critic of the Uhura/Spock relationship, but I do have to say that I’m really not looking forward to another movie with it featured as prominently as the last one. I think it was treated well in the first two movies – you have the surprise of the first movie, and the turbulence of the second movie, but where does that lead to? A marriage in the third, trouble in paradise in the 4th? It threatens to take too much of the development from other characters. Now, let me clarify, I’m not a “Uhura is getting too much exposure” person, but after three movies, can we see a bit more Chekov, maybe? I dunno.

I was always hoping for a T’pring showdown, but now even that seems to be sort of too much attention on Spock’s lovelife. We may get more Kirk/Carol. But I’m not necessarily cheering for that either. I say reassign her, and do the long distance thing. All of these romantic plots would be nice for a “final movie” Spock bonds with Uhura on New Vulcan, and then a second ceremony is held in Kenya where Kirk does the honors, Kirk announces a leave of absense to spend time with Carol, Scotty takes a reassignment to Utopia Planetia with Keenser, Sulu meets Demora’s mother at the ceremony, Chekov crashlands on the Gamesters of Triskelon’s planet and falls in love with the drill thrall, and Bones wonders why everyone abandoned him to serve in space when he never liked space in the first place.

108. LogicalLeopard - October 1, 2013

106. Markus McLaughlin (@MarkusMcLaughln) – October 1, 2013

I think that would be a great television episode, but not a great movie. I think you need more of a sci fi plot than what would work out to be a contemporary love story, or love story set in a time familiar to most of us. When people go to the theatre, they want to see futuristic action with Star Trek, not present day history…..

Annnnnnnd…..I just realized that I totally forgot about Star Trek 4 *LOL* Maybe you’re right. People might like it. *LOL*

109. Sebastian - October 1, 2013

# 106 Markus~

” ‘The City on the Edge of Forever” with Harlan Ellison involved in a film treatment, would be WORTH watching in the next Trek film! Chris Pine’s Kirk and Scarlet Johanneson’s Edith Keeler, a Klingon Agent disrupts the timeline, instead of a drugged out McCoy…. Would be cool… :D ”

**********************************

No offense, but that is precisely what is WRONG with NuTrek. A reshuffling of iconic moments, quotes, etc. Ellison would NEVER work on a new version of his story either. He’s pretty much written off the whole ST experience. Besides, it doesn’t matter; we should be seeing all-new adventures with this rebooted crew. Not expensive remakes of classics or constant references to the past. Changing a drug-crazed McCoy to Klingons would be not much different than the elongated mix of “Space Seed/TWOK” and ST09 we got in the latest movie. It’s a shell game, not a new story….

TNG and even TAS wisely avoided remakes for most of their run (TNG had a bit of a problem with that in the beginning, but smartly overcame it). Star Trek would not have lived this long or prospered if every TOS movie had been just a remake or reshuffling of a popular TOS episode.

110. Martin - October 1, 2013

The next film should have a st enterprise ‘expanse’ or a Prometheus vibe, scary and mysterious.
there in deep space half way through there 5 year mission exploring strange new worlds.

111. Dave R - October 1, 2013

STITD was a better movie than the Hard Core Trekkies deserved. There was brilliance in that movie – and some missteps but it was soooo much better than the majority of those over 40 gave it credit for. I’m 49 and Loved It. My kids all under 15 Loved It. I’m proud to be of the few ‘Trekkies’ who are flexible enough to see it for what it is and not what it was ‘Supposed to be”.

Bob & Alex do yourself a favor and don’t worry about what the slavish fans will think of your next Star Trek movie and just write one as good as the last 2!

112. Elias Javalis - October 1, 2013

Considering..

– The Pressure they were under…
– The Amount of money spent…
– The need to please any fan…

I d say they did a pretty good Job.!

113. JRP - October 1, 2013

I feel the same way about Into Darkness that I felt about Nemesis. I like the film more than most, but I get why people would hate it. Too many contrivances and rehashes of things we’ve already seen. And once again the Enterprise is fighting against a big super ship that outguns it (Scimitar, Vengeance, Nero’s ship). The thing that made TWOK work for me is that the two ships were on equal footing. Therefore it was a game of cunning between the two men.

I think Into Darkness fares better than Nemesis because it can hide some of its flaws behind the bigger budget. But they’re still there.

That said, like Nemesis, I still like the film more than most. There are elements I really like. But the dodgy character motivations in both films and the “been there, done that” feeling leaves it feeling like ‘empty calories’.

114. JRP - October 1, 2013

I think I speak for the majority when I say that if Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams want to know what the fanbase wants is this:

We want you to go boldly, where no Star Trek story has gone before.

115. Marshall - October 1, 2013

@ Marja

“A wedding, I dunno. Maybe a very brief “Kirk marries them as captain of the ship” thing, but I pretty much think it should be saved for fan fiction. I would not mind seeing some indication that they had bonded or been married, but I don’t think a scene in a two-hour movie is appropriate.”

Exactly. We really don’t need a married Spock and Uhura on the Enterprise. As mentioned before, you can stow that away for fanfiction.

I’m not worried though, it’s not gonna happen. The writers know better than that, and there was the article on TrekMovie with Ms. Saldana saying how she was against marriage for Uhura. She said possibly way down the road, but I’m not even 100% sure they are still gonna be together in future films (fingers crossed it bites the dust) but who knows.

I will say if they do get married, and that’s a BIG if, I want it super short and not distracting from the film and the important things in the plot. If that’s possible. The mere thought is turning me off just considering it…

116. Ash - October 1, 2013

People need to relax. Spock and Uhura are not getting married. I would be incredibly surprised if the writers did that thinking it was a good idea. But I’m pretty sure they’re smarter than that.

Someone mentioned these ideas sounding like fanfiction?? Yea, that about sums it up.

117. Damian - October 1, 2013

113–I agree. I too, actually thought Nemesis was a decent film. Not the best, but still, I had no problem buying the Special Edition DVD and I watch it along with the other 12 films.

I thought STID was a good film. I actually liked it a bit better than Star Trek (2009) because I have to give credit to the team for fixing some of the things that bothered fans, such as the engine room. They also nailed down Section 31 perfectly. I was impressed that Section 31 was instrumental in this film. But I also agree there were some cringeworthy moments (Spock screaming Khan really had be rolling my eyes).

One of the best things I did was to read a few spoilers before I went to see it. I was prepared for Cumberbatch as Khan. If I saw that unspoiled I would have been “Are you freakin kidding me.” As it was, I had that out of my system a few days before, so when I went to see it, it wasn’t shocking, and I was actually able to enjoy the film more as a result.

I also agree with your 114. I’d like something completely new. A non-revenge story that does not involve the big, black ship of the week. I’d place the movie 1 to 2 years into the 5 year mission so the crew is experienced. They improved Scotty’s character to where he needs to be, now it’s time to get Urban in the mix as a key part of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy family/friendship. This may be their last foray into Star Trek (based on their own comments in the past). Wow the fans and non-fans alike.

118. Damian - October 1, 2013

117–edit, the other 11 films. I forgot how to subtract :(

119. Nony - October 1, 2013

An aside for McCoy fans (i.e. everybody)… Karl Urban talked a bit about the movie when he was in Edmonton this past weekend. Somebody voiced the opinion that Karl still did not get his due in STID, the hall erupted into applause, and he tried to play it off with humour (he’s happy with the screen time he has because if he were in the movies more, he’d have to work more days, etc.). He was gracious about it and said he was very happy with the film, but admitted that he would love to see McCoy’s character develop more, particularly in the area of his friendship with Kirk. When asked how fans could let The Powers That Be know how they felt, he said maybe they could e-mail Bob and Alex and tell them. Alas, as Bob and Alex have no public e-mail addresses (oh, naive Karl, it’s probably for the best; I imagine their inboxes would be a mess), I will post those sentiments here on behalf of that audience, and hope that boborci is reading. :)

120. Basement Blogger - October 1, 2013

@ 81

Damian,

The question is and has always been, “Is there a mandate that Khan be Indian?” You admit that McGivers is not sure. So how do we answer this question? We go to canon and the facts we know. .

1. McGivers in Space Seed is not sure he’s Indian.

Lt. McGivers: ““From the northern India area, I GUESS… PROBABLY a Sikh.”

2. Ricardo Montalban plays Khan with his Hispanic accent intact. By the way, you make the argument that they could have used a Hispanic actor to play Khan to be consistent. Huh? That completely goes against your whtiewashing complaint. It’s like when those bigots got mad at our Indian Miss America and started to call her an Arab terrorist. Indians are Asians. Hispanics like Montalban are from the Latin American countries.

3. Khan is a test tube creation. Remember that canon is filmed Star Trek. For that we look to the genesis of Khan’s superman.

In Star Trek into Darkness, Khan says he’s genetically engineered. In Star Trek: Enterprise, episodes Borderland, Cold Station 12, The Augments; season 4. we find out that Khan’s people are test tube creations.

So, it’s possible Khan could be to be engineered to be any race or skin color his creator wants.

4. We don’t know Khan’s parents. If we knew that Khan’s parents were Indian and they used their DNA to create him then you would be correct Khan must be Indian. But we don’t know that is true.

Look, I’m willing to say you and others make a good argument that Khan is an Indian. I can’t say those who disagree with me are even willing to see my points. But the question that I asked, “Is there a mandate that Khan be Indian?” Based on the evidence, the answer to the question is no.

On whitewashing. Why is it so important to have megalomaniac tyrant be associated to your race? (I’m talking to the Indians who are upset that Khan is played by Benedict Cumberbatch.) I’m racially Chinese. If Hollywood made a movie about true life Chinese mass murderer and whitewashed him, I’m not going to be upset.

Whitewashing becomes pernicious when Hollywood takes a positive non-white character and replaces him with a white person. And that is coming. It’s being reported that the Japanese anime Akira will feature a white actor Garrett Hedlund. Yet in the anime, it’s clear he’s Japanese. If they do that, I will be with you in protesting.

121. Ash - October 1, 2013

Thanks for the info Nony!

I’m so happy to have Karl in the cast, more than any of the other actors (who I all like) but really, for being the third most important and iconic character, not to mention the third point in the legendary triumvirate, he really hasn’t had his due. It must be so frustrating for Mr. Urban, being the huge Trekkie he is. Karl Urban may not be the most famous of the actors in the cast by Hollywood standards, but when it comes to the audience and fans, he is clearly the favorite.

122. Fast Attax - October 1, 2013

And we wonder why it takes so long or is such a challenge to make movies faster or bring Trek to the small screen.

I for one have snply enjoyed the JJ Trek movies and their twists on a story already told over 49 years.

123. Sebastian - October 1, 2013

#120

Basement Blogger~

“In Star Trek into Darkness, Khan says he’s genetically engineered. In Star Trek: Enterprise, episodes Borderland, Cold Station 12, The Augments; season 4. we find out that Khan’s people are test tube creations.”

______________________________________________

In TOS Khan was said to be a product of ‘selective breeding’ , not a test tube baby or an in-vitro experiment. Though I grant that his superior abilities were doubtless some as-yet-unknown product of genetic tampering (like gene therapy, only with a different purpose). Still does’t change his ethnicity. But no matter; I do agree with you that the ethnic casting of Khan was bungled with Montalban (and his very Spanish accent), but casting a white Brit only compounds the problem IMO.

What troubled me most was this quote:

“If Hollywood made a movie about true life Chinese mass murderer and whitewashed him, I’m not going to be upset.

Whitewashing becomes pernicious when Hollywood takes a positive non-white character and replaces him with a white person. ”

_______________________________

What you’re advocating is essentially a double standard.
You’re saying that you have no issues with Genghis Khan being played by Brad Pitt as long as Mulan is not played by Scarlett Johanssen?

It doesn’t really work that way. Whitewash casting is whitewash casting. Period. In either case, you’re depriving an actor of that part (good or bad) to have a voice and a high-profile role in a Hollywood movie. I’m still surprised that STID actually did this in this decade. Almost feels like some kind of throwback to Boris Karloff playing Fu Manchu….

124. Carl LaFong - October 1, 2013

Yes, recycling the death scene was a “weird magnet”, but I only wish the polarity was reversed and repelled Kurtzman & Co. from treading that territory again.

I have said it before, with some minor tweaking, Into Darkness could have been a crackerjack flick that satisfied newbies, the fan-service crowd, and Paramount by choosing another superhuman Starfleet personnel to saddle the conspiracy on – namely Garth of Izar. He could have still be highly protective of his asylum “family”, demonstrably a tactical genius (more in line with Section 31 objectives), and ethnically more logical for Cumberbatch to portray than a Sikh warlord.

Years ago, when Mel Brooks was producing Cronenberg’s THE FLY, he reportedly said that you shouldn’t remake good films, re-do the bad ones that had interesting elements. Whom Gods Destroy is a mediocre Trek episode, but the concept of Capt. Garth would have been more challenging risk as an INTO DARKNESS antagonist than the marketing safety of recycling Khan again.

If Kurtzman and the other writers lack originality, then be courageous enough to draw on the more obscure elements of Trek to find inspiration. I, for one, look forward to a Colonel Green movie! Lieutenant Commander Giotto – Horta Hunter! Ron Tracey vs. R.M. Merik, featuring special guest star Arnold Schwarzenegger as Cloud William!

125. Baby - October 1, 2013

Honestly I wish the Spock/Uhura fans would just shut up about the relationship.

They seem to came more about the relationship than the core of Trek which is science fiction.

126. JRP - October 1, 2013

No. No Garth of Izar. No Khan. No borg. No remake of a previous episode or movie. Just give us something new. The whole point of rebooting the original series should be to take it new places and tell new stories. Instead we’ve retreated into playing it safe. I realize there must have been massive studio pressure to use Khan in the last movie. I get it. But look at Star Trek IV. They told an original story, took chances, and it worked out gangbusters both critically and at the box office. It can be done. It has been done. I’ll say it again and again:

Go boldy where no Star Trek story has gone before.

127. Sebastian - October 1, 2013

# 124 Carl LaFong~

That’s a better idea Khan.

While I’m not a fan of recycling TOS villains I agree that the sloppy STID screenplay was a better fit for Captain Garth (maybe he was genetically engineered ala Dr. Bashir in DS9; resulting in his later insanity) than it was for Khan Noonian Singh. Garth was far more ripe for exploration. He is called “Garth of Izar”; is he an alien? Was he born on a planet that was OK with genetic engineering? This could’ve been a whole new area of exploration; turning a somewhat minor TOS villain into a much more interesting character.

And while “Whom Gods Destroy” was not a particularly memorable episode, I agree that it might have been seen as an acorn that grew a mighty oak if the STID villain had been Garth trying to rescue his ‘followers’ who would later be inmates at the asylum we see at Elba 2.

But, the powers that be probably would balk at the idea of a $200 million plus movie based on an unmemorable third season villain. But the upside is that you could just downplay the TOS connection and it still works; it’s a new villain for the casual fan, and yet it retains resonance for the hardcore Trekkies (who will think of “Whom Gods Destroy” as a what-if sequel to the movie….).

I like it! ;-)

128. Sebastian - October 1, 2013

Edit: 126

A better idea THAN Khan. My foul.

129. Danpaine - October 1, 2013

127. Sebastian – October 1, 2013

Agreed. Garth would have worked well. The casual moviegoer would have had no idea who he was = FRESH IDEA, but we fans would have appreciated an expanded take on him. It could have been fresh, unique and with the proper writing/casting he could be menacing as hell.

Again, it all goes back to the quality of the writing. I don’t care how pretty you make a movie, if the story is thin, it’s forgettable.

130. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

The Spock and Uhura thing was a disaster to begin with (one I hope is rectified soon. END IT!) and being a woman myself I’ve enjoyed seeing Uhura and Carol get good screen time, but I’m not obligated to be happy that McCoy is pushed aside for a female character. I see a few people saying that it makes sense to get rid of Bones in the trio to attract women in audiences, but that’s BS.

It was not a disaster to begin with and it wouldn’t make sense to “end it.” It would actually make no sense to end it. McCoy was never pushed aside for anyone (except for maybe Scotty, but you don’t seem to care about that).

Where are these people that said it made sense to get rid of Bones to attract more women? Now you appear to just be making stuff up. I know you like your trio but making things up doesn’t really help or support your opinions…

”They really need to backburner Uhura/Spock (the romance was interesting in 09 and played out by STID) and get back to the Trinity.”

I agree that it was good in ST09 and not very good in STID, but that’s because of how it was backburnered to make TOS fans happy. The trio was featured, maybe not as much as you wanted, but they were there. I think they need to give S/U more screen time to rectify what happened in STID. And I know I’ve read that a lot from various sources. Even reviewers that liked the movie thought they weren’t handled well. Them not being handled well was a part of TOS fan service, and that’s what needs to be backburnered.

@Rick
”Look we get it, Spock and Uhura is your thing, the end all be all of Star Trek, but lets not get carried away here. I’ve seen you mention before that they are bonded, you make that up in your head or something?”

Hi, Rick. No I didn’t make it up or say that was the case. If you’ve read my posts I’ve said they should be bonded at this point. And it does only make sense. I understand that you want to see things a certain way, but what’s interesting is for TOS fans to ignore the fact that it is natural for Vulcans to have bond-mates. You act like that’s something that is completely out of left field. It isn’t. So I say Lol—Hell no to that notion.

”That aren’t, nor should we have to have a freaking married Spock in the timeline. It’s bad enough that we have to endure the romance as it is. Let’s avoid making it worse if at all possible. Oh and I’m sure you’d love it if they had little babies running around the Enterprise too…”

They should be bonded. A stable long-term relationship grounded in Vulcan bonding isn’t worse, it’s better. And no, I don’t think that children make sense at this point for them. Marriage/bonding doesn’t equal children right off the bat and it doesn’t have to.

”I’m sure it does. Good thing I have faith in the writers not to screw it up like that. Not to mention Zoe herself was adamant about Uhura not being married and had the same “WTF” look on her face at the mention of babies on the Enterprise. Smart woman!”

And she was doing an interview for TrekMovie when she said that. Smart indeed. She probably read a number of the hateful comments that were directed at her and her character for simply acting out the wonderful ST09 script she was given and for being candid in interviews.

I also read in a different interview where she had to ask that they write something for S/U because the writers pretty much were abandoning them. So, I guess they were going to do something worse than what we got in STID by ignoring they were together at all, kind of like how following up to the destruction of Vulcan and much of Spock’s PTSD issues got ignored…

@94 Jeyl
”What’s wrong with marriage?”

Nothing. And what’s interesting is that the handful of loud people against it here can’t really back up their claims that it is bad or that it doesn’t make sense. It’s very clear within TOS canon (since that’s what they usually bring up or reference) that it does make sense and it’s very natural and a very common thing for Vulcans.

No one ever has an answer for the fact that Spock wouldn’t even exist in canon if his father had not “married/bonded to” a human woman… But that doesn’t stop some from raving…

131. Damian - October 1, 2013

120–The only reason a Hispanic might have been acceptable here is to match the character to the actor. Montalban was Hispanic, therefore a HIspanic actor would have been given a pass in that situation.

The fact remains, Cumberbatch looks nothing like Montalban or like Khan as presented in the past, nothing. Khan was there before the new timeline diverged.

Re; Khan being a Sikh, I’ve long ago accepted that (long before we ever heard of Abrams in fact). Yes, she was making an educated guess at first, but the confirmation was there soon after, first, the picture of course, and second, her statement to Khan that she knew exactly who he was. End of story, where I sit anyway.

132. Mike_709 - October 1, 2013

People who wondered why there wasn’t a scene showing Khans’ features being surgically altered from a CGI version of young Ricardo Montalban into Benedict Cumberbatch so that he could pass unrecognised by historians – 50%.

People who were just happy to see Benedict Cumberbatch because they are fans of Sherlock – 50%.

People who kept getting distracted by the unfathomable hotness of unnamed bridge officer with the blonde pixie cut every time she appeared – THREE HUNDRED PERCENT OF PEOPLE.

133. Jon - October 1, 2013

Not much to add to the debate that hasn’t already been said. But I do want to point out to those who think it’s only a small minority of the “hardcore” Trek fans who did not like this film that I think you are wrong. I’d put the ratio more in the 50/50 range as almost every friend I have who I consider to be a Trek fan did not like this movie, and in fact many have revised their initial opinions downward as time has distanced them from their initial giddiness on just having new Trek to digest…

Only the ones I consider to be “casual” fans liked it and continue to do so…by my definition, these would be those folks who do enjoy seeing the Trek movies and maybe caught some episodes on TV through the years, but I would not consider them to be among those who truly understand what Trek is supposed to be (stories on the human condition, moral conundrums, strong character moments, moving scenes), none of which was present to any effective extent in STID, IMHO.

And the above is not in any way meant to denigrate the casual fans…they can enjoy this type of movie all they like and I have no problem with that, but for me, this movie was Star Trek in name only.

And yes, I realize that this is the kind of movie that perhaps has to be made in order for the franchise to remain financially viable, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still give my opinion on the matter :) …

Bring Trek back to TV…that’s where it really excels! :) :)

134. Disinvited - October 1, 2013

#109. Sebastian – October 1, 2013

Wait a minute, you reminded me of TAS and its YESTERYEAR where The Guardian was put into play again and Ellison didn’t do anything about that.

Not to mention, I doubt Ellison would have much objection as this being an alternate universe should allow using his original unredacted script. However, time travel supposedly works different there so this may preclude doing a “fix the timeline” story.

Not to mention, I think the current writing crew seem to still want another turn with a pure SF bat this time around.

135. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@Nony 119
…”he would love to see McCoy’s character develop more, particularly in the area of his friendship with Kirk.”

That I would like. I’ve said before that I liked it better when he and Kirk were depicted as best friends in ST09 because they hit it off from the start and they’re kind of fun together. I do hope everyone gets fair screen time. I think what he got in STID seemed like less or maybe even was less because of all of the new characters introduced and the heavy Kirk and Kirk/Spock coverage. However, I think Uhura suffered the most in terms of screen time in STID and she deserves better and more. Spock got good screen time; he just got poor focus in my view, so that should improve too…

Ash 116
”People need to relax. Spock and Uhura are not getting married. I would be incredibly surprised if the writers did that thinking it was a good idea. But I’m pretty sure they’re smarter than that.
Someone mentioned these ideas sounding like fanfiction?? Yea, that about sums it up”

Bonding is a good idea for any Vulcan. That’s not fan fiction, it’s canon.

After STID, I don’t know what they’ll do. I just know a lot of people, even people that liked the film over all, didn’t like the way S/U were treated. You can try to change that or downplay that if you want, but it’s true. They deserve better than they got in STID.

@107 LL
”I’m not a supporter of a Uhura/Spock marriage while they are still active characters. If at some point they determine a movie to be the last forseeable movie, close with a sunset bonding on New Vulcan or something, but while they’re still making movies, it just makes things more awkward, I think.”

Well, I’ve always considered the third film to be the last, and so that’s why I think they should be married/bonded in that one. TPTB haven’t really answered as to whether this is a trilogy or not, but if it is, then a sunset bonding on New Vulcan would be nice. I just think they deserve a happy ending; that’s all.

But, if they are making, I don’t know, 5 or 6 movies, then I still don’t think them getting bonded in the 3rd is bad or awkward. How they were treated in STID was kind of bad and awkward. I personally don’t think the soap opera antics are necessary. They should be portrayed as a nice, professional, couple. The fact that they weren’t portrayed this was one of the biggest complaints about STID, with people taking issue with how Uhura was written in particular.

”I’m not a critic of the Uhura/Spock relationship, but I do have to say that I’m really not looking forward to another movie with it featured as prominently as the last one. I think it was treated well in the first two movies – you have the surprise of the first movie, and the turbulence of the second movie, but where does that lead to? A marriage in the third, trouble in paradise in the 4th? It threatens to take too much of the development from other characters. Now, let me clarify, I’m not a “Uhura is getting too much exposure” person, but after three movies, can we see a bit more Chekov, maybe? I dunno.”

Well, I don’t think it was featured prominently at all in the last film. They got less screen time in STID than they did in ST09 to me. Bonding in the third makes sense, and then stability from there. We don’t need “trouble in paradise,” and I actually think that’s something everyone can agree on.

If it’s handled well, then it won’t take anything away from anyone. It will just enhance the story in small ways. That’s part of the balance I was mentioning before. In ST09, there was balance, but in STID there was not. And I don’t think the answer to that is making the next film(s) the Kirk/Spock/McCoy show because I think that would be mistake. They can have a little bit of screen time, sure, but like you’ve said, there are other characters and other relationships to think of, develop, and display…
I asked Orci what he thought of Uhura’s character, and he didn’t answer. So, at this point, your guess is as good as mine as to how the character and her relationships are treated in the next film…

”I was always hoping for a T’pring showdown, but now even that seems to be sort of too much attention on Spock’s lovelife. We may get more Kirk/Carol. But I’m not necessarily cheering for that either. I say reassign her, and do the long distance thing.”

Yeah, I don’t want a T’Pring showdown. Not only is it too much attention on Spock’s love life, but it’s pitting two women against each other for a catfight. That’s not good. S/U just needs to be written as a stable couple, and that’s all.

I don’t mind Carol/Kirk, but I like the idea of her with Bones better. A reassignment with a long distance relationship would work out well, so I can agree with that.

”All of these romantic plots would be nice for a “final movie” Spock bonds with Uhura on New Vulcan, and then a second ceremony is held in Kenya where Kirk does the honors, Kirk announces a leave of absense to spend time with Carol, Scotty takes a reassignment to Utopia Planetia with Keenser, Sulu meets Demora’s mother at the ceremony, Chekov crashlands on the Gamesters of Triskelon’s planet and falls in love with the drill thrall, and Bones wonders why everyone abandoned him to serve in space when he never liked space in the first place.”

You never know. That might happen. ;-)

136. Keachick - October 1, 2013

#49 – No, that’s a fiction created by a lot of Khan-obsessed fans and no doubt the name that kept coming up more than any other name when it came to JJ and co. thinking and discussing Star Trek. Hell, I never gave this Khan guy (Space Seed/TWOK) a single thought, let alone, a second one, until I came onto the internet and started reading Star Trek related stuff…

I kept reading garbage about Khan being Kirk’s nemesis. No, he wasn’t. The Klingons were and continued to be so, long after Khan got done in by the Genesis device he stole. It was a (rogue) Klingon who was responsible for the murder of Kirk’s son, David.

Even these present day writers have been sucked by this 30+ years of Khan fanwank by having prime Spock say that Khan Noonien Singh was their greatest adversary – bullshit!

Star Trek fans are not on the same page when it comes to what they want to see in any of these movies. They never have been and yet, boy, don’t they moan when they are being given exactly what they want. Some say they want exploration of strange new worlds… while others want to see more Klingons and war with the Klingons and no doubt have little trouble seeing the Romulans be involved as well – with epic battle scenes in space and planetside blah, blah, blah…

People scream that they want originality and yet write an idea that deals with known races and scenarios… yet when Star Trek writers do so, boy, have they been bludgeoned at times by various armchair critics.

Frankly, most, if not all, of joe public (Trek fans) are just full of it and whatever “it” is, a lot of the time it has proven to be not that pleasant, at least, not to me. Who would be a Star Trek fan? UGH!

137. Keachick - October 1, 2013

Without relationship, there can be little else, even science fiction.

138. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

125. Baby – October 1, 2013

” Honestly I wish the Spock/Uhura fans would just shut up about the relationship.

They seem to came more about the relationship than the core of Trek which is science fiction.”

And Baby, somebody needs to put you in a corner for that. ;-)

Last time I checked, the core of many Science Fiction stories was characters and their relationships. Some are fully or partially aliens, like Spock, or androids, like Data… Nothing’s wrong with being interested in a relationship or various relationships in this series of films.

139. Simon - October 1, 2013

@102 – dswynne1 – problem is that fans like us here on TREKMOVIE represent only a tiny percentage of the movie going public. When a studio is making a big budget tentpole their duty to the shareholders is to make it as appealing as possible to the widest audience as possible. Catering to people like us is a recipe for failure. Look at the grosses for SERENITY, SCOTT PILGRIM, and other well-received fan films – they lost money.

Like it or not, the majority of the movie-going public liked INTO DARKNESS. It got good reviews and currently holds a 91% “liked” audience rating. I enjoyed it a lot, and I’m an old-school fan.

140. James McFadden - October 1, 2013

As I said in a previous message, we could see a 5-season Star Trek show being aired in 2017, with a movie being released between each season. We could also see a 5-season Next Generation show being aired in 2022, with a movie being released between each season. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman certainly know what they are doing.

141. Basement Blogger - October 1, 2013

@ 123

Sebastian says,

“What you’re advocating is essentially a double standard.
You’re saying that you have no issues with Genghis Khan being played by Brad Pitt as long as Mulan is not played by Scarlett Johanssen?”

That’s not my point at all. Some of our Indian friends were upset with not having khan played by an Indian and remind you, Khan’s a megalomaniac tyrant. But why would that support one’s ethnic pride? There are many Indians we can look up to. Governor Nikki Haley. Miss America Nina Davuluri, and a Khan that I hope dominates the world, educator Salmon Khan.

It’s more pernicious when Hollywood whitewashes a positive Asian role. Take for example, the movie 21. (2008) The smart kids who brought down the house were Asians. But if you watched the movie you would have thought in real life, a bunch of WASPs did it. The smart Asian kids don’t exist in the film or the real life situation that inspired the movie. Try to put yourself as an Asian and try to feel what it would feel like if Hollywood whitewashed the positive truth.

Let me clarify about white people playing real life Asian villains. It would not upset me as much as the above example BUT it would upset me as a matter of historical accuracy. If Brad Pitt played Genghis Khan, I would find that ludicious. HOLD ON. Something like this actually happened. John Wayne played Genghis Khan in The Conqueror. (1956) And if I recall, he looked ludicrous. What the hell was WASPish red headed Susan Hayward doing in this movie? But I digress. By the way, I was mildly uncomfortable having a Japanese actor play Genghis Khan in the spectacular Mongol. (2007) . So you see I’m not happy when Asian villains are whitewashed. . .

And one more thing. Asians can be as evil as anybody else. So don’t think I’ve got this political correctness double standard.

Finally, you bring up the line from Space Seed where I believe Spock talks about selective breeding therefore you conclude that Khan is not a product of invitro fertilization or non-breeding process. But that conclusion is without merit. Look,, Space Seed’s writers may not have known about advanced techniques of genetic manipulation that would arise in the late twentieth century.

But let’s look at canon and logic to refute your conclusion. Again, the Enterprise episodes I cited indicate that Khan’s people were grown out of test tubes. But let’s take a look at The Wrath of Khan shall we? Eighteen minutes into the movie, Commander Chekov says that Khan was the ” product of late twentieth century genetic engineering. ” Not selective breeding. And Khan in STID says the same thing.

However, we can also apply logic here. Think what it would take to selectively breed a superhuman. And I’m talking about years. Such a project would have to be taken perhaps thousands of years in the past to the twentieth century. And while the Trek universe is fiction, they didn’t propose early cave man could undertake such a task. The faster and logical route is genetic engineering.

While I will say you can make a good argument that Khan is a Sikh Indian, nothing in the canon mandates this.

142. Baby - October 1, 2013

138. Spock/Uhura Admirer – October 1, 2013
125. Baby – October 1, 2013

” Honestly I wish the Spock/Uhura fans would just shut up about the relationship.

They seem to came more about the relationship than the core of Trek which is science fiction.”

And Baby, somebody needs to put you in a corner for that. ;-)

Last time I checked, the core of many Science Fiction stories was characters and their relationships. Some are fully or partially aliens, like Spock, or androids, like Data… Nothing’s wrong with being interested in a relationship or various relationships in this series of films.
———————————————————————————————-

You only like trek because of the romance. This is what is annoying. You hardly ever talk about the science of trek. You only talk of the romance which is a mini subplot.

That is wrong.

If S/U broke you will not even visit the site or watch any Trek stuff again. You care about Trek for the wrong reasons.

143. Xplodin_Nacelle - October 1, 2013

My favorite part of the movie was actually the beginning sequence on Niburu. It was spectacular, funny, thrilling, stuff. It definately got me excited about seeing strange new worlds, & new civilizations, etc………….

I wish that the next movie focuses more on places like that!!!

144. Vultan - October 1, 2013

#141

Whether it’s positive or negative, Hollywood shouldn’t whitewash characters at all. Make it consistent. Or make it more authentic.

I think the real shame is they had a great opportunity in casting an actual Indian actor this time around, plus the very Trek exploration of the misunderstood Sikh culture through the character of Khan. Imagine if Kirk or Spock had pointed out to Khan how revenge and murder is against his cultural ideals. And imagine if Khan had eventually been the one who gave his life to save the Enterprise.

Now that would’ve been doing something NEW with the character.

145. bardicjim - October 1, 2013

People are still going on about Khan not being of Asian decent? Calm down dahlings. It is a movie! Did everyone go apeshit when Guinevere was cast as a black girl in the BBC’s Merlin TV series? NO!

What some folks need to do is accept that you need to suspend a bit of your belief when viewing a piece of FICTION.

146. Jack - October 1, 2013

I like that Space Seed made it clear that Khan and his supermen/women were from pretty much everywhere. I’m assuming an Anglo-Saxon or two was included in the bunch.

In other words, superior genetics are not necessarily white genetics. And believing oneself or one’s group to be superior has often lead to tyranny, regardless of culture or race.

Unless your saying that Caucasians like Cumberbatch are genetically superior?

147. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

139. Simon – October 1, 2013

@102 – dswynne1 – problem is that fans like us here on TREKMOVIE represent only a tiny percentage of the movie going public. When a studio is making a big budget tentpole their duty to the shareholders is to make it as appealing as possible to the widest audience as possible. Catering to people like us is a recipe for failure. Look at the grosses for SERENITY, SCOTT PILGRIM, and other well-received fan films – they lost money.

Like it or not, the majority of the movie-going public liked INTO DARKNESS. It got good reviews and currently holds a 91% “liked” audience rating. I enjoyed it a lot, and I’m an old-school fan.

You bring up some interesting points, Simon. I think the TOS fan service really did hurt STID. There’s a hollywood screen writer that wrote about mistakes in writing that cost your film money at the box office. I haven’t read it in a while, but I have it saved somewhere… He said that this didn’t only apply to films that flopped, but also to films that did okay. Based off of what the studio appears to have expected from STID, it only did okay.

The added action sequences and the marketing campaign overseas seemed to do the trick in bringing in more of an audience there. I also think the success of the last film had something to do with that too… But there’s not denying that the audience in America decreased. It skewed older and more male.

The changes they made for that to be the case, I think, hurt the film. It was very unbalanced and they forced things that didn’t quite make sense. Force a friendship for K/S that hasn’t been developed yet. Force a conflict for S/U that doesn’t make sense… Force John Harrison (who is actually more interesting in his own right in this film) into being Khan without really building up anything about Khan in this timeline at all. It seemed to me just to be a name grab. And it doesn’t stop there…

Even at Rottentomatoes, you have 91% liking STID over 89% liking ST09. That might make it seem like it’s slightly more liked, but in actual numbers it’s not. More people actually “liked” ST09 because 89% of 727,369 people “liked” ST09 versus 91% of 244,437 people liking STID. So, looking at the actual numbers, and not percentages, shows that more people actually reviewed and liked ST09. It also has a better critical rating at 95% of 297 reviews from critics liking ST09 versus 87% of 244 reviews of critics liking STID. That’s actually more of more critics preferring ST09. Maybe that touches on why more people in America actually went to the theater to watch ST09. In my view, it’s just a better movie with well-thought out characters and much better balance in the writing for those characters.

Some of this could also have something do with the fact that you could say that ST09 had 4 years to get those numbers. That might be true for the audience reviews, but not for the critics. They tend to review films as soon as they come out. It’s their job. We’ll have to wait and see how the RT audience ratings look in 4 years for a better comparison.

Enough about RT and back to the film. I can understand why you enjoyed STID as an “old school fan,” because it was made for you. I’m disappointed for what I wanted to see and didn’t get, but I’m glad that you got to enjoy yourself. I just hope that can return to more balanced writing for the characters and actually working with having a “new” timeline.

I do wish Orci would answer my question about Uhura. Zoe’s going to be in 3 more Avatar movies and Guardians of the Galaxy. It’d be nice if they would write for her like she’s actually deserving of a real role in the next film. Uhura speaks lots of languages, yes, but she should also be very technically savvy. I’d like to see that side of her too, as well as her friendships and S/U. STID doesn’t give me, and it didn’t give a lot of people, a good feeling about how they view the character. And I’m wondering if how she turned out in STID is really what they intended and if that’s what they are going to continue with. I think it would be sad if they did.

148. Carl LaFong - October 1, 2013

#126 @ JRP -

I’m in complete agreement with you; in fact, I would completely prefer a story that moves away from a mustache-twirling meglamaniacle antagonist and tries something a little more challenging. For example one of the strengths of Trek IV was the lack of a central villain; the obstacle was the situation rather a character. The special guest villain really has grown tiresome.

I was merely pointing out that if Paramount lacks creative vision, and insists on dipping into the pre-established well (in a futile attempt to satisfy fan-wank and newbies alike), then pick somebody less obvious. Khan was just so easy a choice; they didn’t even try. I was using Capt. Garth only as an example of an alternate TOS character who fit into the Into Darkness scenario just as easily (and arguably more appropriately) as Khan. If I thought about it, there are probably others who could have worked just as well.

But you are right – the Harrison character would have sufficed on his own. there was no need to drag in the Khan business to begin with. The failure of Kurtzman and his cohorts is that they lack the courage of their story convictions without resorting to fan-service to satisfy an ends. Orci claimed in the recent podcast interview that there was no pressure from Paramount to shoe-horn in Khan, but I don’t believe a word of it. The film would have been better served within the fan community by omitting that angle.

Then again, I think a story about exploring for new life and new civilizations would have been far preferable.

149. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@#142

“You only like trek because of the romance. This is what is annoying. You hardly ever talk about the science of trek. You only talk of the romance which is a mini subplot.

That is wrong.

If S/U broke you will not even visit the site or watch any Trek stuff again. You care about Trek for the wrong reasons.”

And now you need to stay in the corner for that.

Please do not try to tell me what I think or why I “only like” something. You are wrong. I’m not a romance person; I like love stories and there is a difference. I saw Oblivion over the weekend, and there’s a really beautiful love story involved and no romance to be found. That was nice.

If S/U broke up, I wouldn’t watch any “Trek stuff” again? Lol. I’d still have the ’09 movie and DS9. I think that counts as “Trek stuff.”

As to the science of Trek, what do you want to talk about, Baby?

(btw, on another thread, I think I and a few other people spent a good bit of time talking about Uhura’s professional capabilities and what they should be. That involved science and tech.)

150. Thomas - October 1, 2013

#6 and #38

Unfortunately that would require logic and it’s pretty clear there is a lack of logic on the internet. I mean seriously, did anyone actually watch Space Seed? It didn’t take very long for the crew to look up Khan in the database, find a picture of him from the 90′s and then compare to an image of him taken in their sickbay. Instantly recognizable. Marla McGivers even figured it out before they did, so obviously if Section 31 is going to use Khan they are going to have to make him a little more inconspicuous.

151. Rick - October 1, 2013

@ s/u admirer

All this BS talk of bonding is just something you are hoping plays out. Yea Vulcans bonding is canon, but you keep talking like Spock already is. He’s not. And god willing will never be in these films. You keep calling the people who dislike Spock and Uhura romance and want more McCoy the “a loud minority”, sorry but YOU and the other 2 people who are obsessed with your romance are the minority. You can keep calling us that in hopes that Orci will see your essay long posts and what, see the light and put them front and center like you want (and don’t lie and say it’s not true, it’s all you ask about). Sorry it’s still a crappy subplot.
It would be nice for Spock to be with Uhura for a while and when they break up and he becomes more Vulcan as he should (so sick of emo Spock) and he still has a good friendship with Uhura to keep some of his humanity in check. A married Spock is a terrible idea.

You keep talking about all the critics and fans who were oh so devastated by the horrid treatment of poor Spock and Uhura, but that’s not true. Your “shipper” community aside, people don’t really care too much about the romance that I’ve seen. I don’t recall any major critics saying “you know what bummed me out? Not enough googly eyes from Spock and Uhura!” Because it’s not that important.

Its not wrong to say that all you care about is the romance, you yourself have even said you would stop watching just if they break up. That’s stupid, there is so much more to love about this newTrek but you let your obsession take
over.

And please stop trying to save your argument by saying Zoe was just making stuff in her interview with TrekMovie. Yea, sure she comes on here ALL time time and reads comments and didn’t want to make people angry so she totally made stuff up. You are going to disrespect her opinion by saying she was afraid to tell her “real” feelings? Don’t try to disregard her thoughts because they differ from your fantasy. We can see right through it. She doesn’t want to see Uhura get married or have kids, deal with it. Like we said, you still have fanfiction ;)

152. Marja - October 1, 2013

93 Rick As a fan of the relationship, I want to make clear to you that Spock/Uhura is NOT – to me – the be-all and end-all of Star Trek. I don’t know if it is for other people who like the couple. I simply make a case for showing them as a solid couple, in a brief scene.

I get that you don’t like it.

153. Rick - October 1, 2013

@marja 152

I know. My comment was not directed at you. If that wasn’t clear, I’m sorry.

154. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

Wow, Rick.

If one of us is taking things a bit too seriously here, then it appears to be you.

“All this BS talk of bonding is just something you are hoping plays out. Yea Vulcans bonding is canon, but you keep talking like Spock already is. He’s not. And god willing will never be in these films. You keep calling the people who dislike Spock and Uhura romance and want more McCoy the “a loud minority”, sorry but YOU and the other 2 people who are obsessed with your romance are the minority. You can keep calling us that in hopes that Orci will see your essay long posts and what, see the light and put them front and center like you want (and don’t lie and say it’s not true, it’s all you ask about). Sorry it’s still a crappy subplot.”

Bonding is not BS. It’s canon in your beloved TOS-verse and this timeline as well. I’m not talking like Spock already is, I’m talking like Spock already should be. We don’t know either way if he and Uhura are bonded or not.

As to loud minorities, you can say what you want and twist what you want, but the people at TrekMovie are not the world. Treating TOS fan opinion here like it should be their guiding “light” is what I think (and check around, I’m not alone) hurt their film.

S/U is not a “crappy” subplot, not at all. And what I expect is non-existent at this point, and I’ve pretty much said as much. I had expectations going into STID. After watching that film, they were dashed.

What I would like is an answer to my direct question(s) about how they view Uhura, and I’d like for them to be up front about what they are doing/going to do. And I’m not just saying that now, I’ve said that since May. You check for yourself if you’d like.

“It would be nice for Spock to be with Uhura for a while and when they break up and he becomes more Vulcan as he should (so sick of emo Spock) and he still has a good friendship with Uhura to keep some of his humanity in check. A married Spock is a terrible idea. “

This is all just your opinion and preference. It’s interesting that you attack me for having an opinion and preference when you seem to be doing the same. I don’t think they should break up at all.

Someone over at the bbs linked to, I think it was, a notable Star Trek writer and his feelings about S/U. I can’t remember if I saved it or not, but with some time I could find it. He said that if you understand these characters, it wouldn’t make sense for them to break up, simply because of the amount of forethought it would take for them to get together in the first place. Being a couple is not a decision either of them would make lightly, especially a public couple…

A bonded Spock is a wonderful idea, especially after him losing so much…

“You keep talking about all the critics and fans who were oh so devastated by the horrid treatment of poor Spock and Uhura, but that’s not true. Your “shipper” community aside, people don’t really care too much about the romance that I’ve seen. I don’t recall any major critics saying “you know what bummed me out? Not enough googly eyes from Spock and Uhura!” Because it’s not that important.”

Then you need to read more. No one said anything about “googly eyes,” and that alone coming from you says that you the deep connection that can be had through bonding seriously. What people did say and have said is that they weren’t treated well, and there’s been a lot of criticism about how Uhura was written as the “nagging” or “whiney” girlfriend. That’s happened within the S/U fan community and outside of it.

“Its not wrong to say that all you care about is the romance, you yourself have even said you would stop watching just if they break up. That’s stupid, there is so much more to love about this newTrek but you let your obsession take over. “

I’m not obsessed, Rick. I just know what I like and what I’ll believe. I won’t stoop to calling it “stupid,” but I think there’s a lot more to be interested in than just the “trinity” or “K/S” but there are a people here that have said that’s what they like most. I don’t see you trying to shout any of them down…

What I think is necessary is balance. That doesn’t mean excluding S/U just because or hyper-focusing on another or other pairings like I think STID did. I’ve said repeatedly that I have not clue as to what they’ll decide. On another thread, I think I saw Orci suggest that they’ll do more with your trio, so you’ll be getting what you want. Now I just need to know what’s happening with Uhura and her relationships.

“And please stop trying to save your argument by saying Zoe was just making stuff in her interview with TrekMovie. Yea, sure she comes on here ALL time time and reads comments and didn’t want to make people angry so she totally made stuff up. You are going to disrespect her opinion by saying she was afraid to tell her “real” feelings? Don’t try to disregard her thoughts because they differ from your fantasy. We can see right through it. She doesn’t want to see Uhura get married or have kids, deal with it. Like we said, you still have fanfiction ;)”

Well, this is interesting, because I recall in the interview that she said she saw that happening down the line, like in the 4th film or something. So, she didn’t say she didn’t want it to happen at all. You need to check your facts before you try to tell me that. I remember that very well because I didn’t think there would be a 4th film after the 3rd. It sounds like you are the one who’s living in fantasy if you’re trying to twist what she said to fit your agenda.

If you want to argue it more, I’m sure I could find the link. She didn’t say what you think she said. So, you can “deal with it.” Perhaps you should take up fan fiction if you want to rewrite what someone said. ;)

155. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@ Marja


93 Rick As a fan of the relationship, I want to make clear to you that Spock/Uhura is NOT – to me – the be-all and end-all of Star Trek. I don’t know if it is for other people who like the couple. I simply make a case for showing them as a solid couple, in a brief scene.

I get that you don’t like it.”

It’s not. I was “told” what I wouldn’t watch because I like them, which really wasn’t the case. I find the accusations interesting…

156. Red Dead Ryan - October 1, 2013

I believe that Spock/Uhura Admirer once admitted that he/she isn’t a fan of TOS. Which clearly explains why he/she is so willing to toss out the trio in favor of a Spock-Uhura romance/marriage.

I’m sorry, but Spock and Uhura aren’t going to get married, nor will they be having babies. This is pure fanfiction nonsensical crap that real writers would stay away from.

157. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

^Ryan, what’s this “toss” something out in favor of something else? This “one or the other” thing is ridiculous. I love the “real writers” touch. If people are being manipulative, that takes the case.

There’s nothing to admit; it’s just a fact. My mother is the TOS fan. I don’t mind it, but no, I’m not into it. I like DS9. There you go.

158. Ahmed - October 1, 2013

@ 156. Red Dead Ryan – October 1, 2013

“I’m sorry, but Spock and Uhura aren’t going to get married, nor will they be having babies. This is pure fanfiction nonsensical crap that real writers would stay away from.”

Totally agree with you there. Bob & Alex should get rid of this whole annoying Spock/Uhura relationship & focus on the original trio, Kirk-Spock-Bones.

Frankly I’m getting tired of seeing an emotional & crying Spock in every movie now, it is time to see the logical Spock who uses his mind rather than his fists to deal with issues.

159. MattM - October 1, 2013

#85: Dr. Image:

I’d rather have no new Star Trek and simply rewatch what has come before than to have to sit at the altar watching an abomination like STID designed for you “attention deficit”, or as J.J. once said, “incapable of cerebral thinking” types. Mind you, I do enjoy laughing at all of you “NuTrek”/J.J. is God’s-gift-to-celluloid fanboys while you so desperately pull at strings trying to justify such a brainless whitewashing of an established character, courtesy of your worshipped Bad Robot demigods, when even according to their explicitly stated line of reasoning, everything established prior to ST XI is immutable. Glad I didn’t spend my money consuming this crap. Farewell J.J., better luck with your golden goose, Star Wars! #mostoverrateddirectorever

160. Red Dead Ryan - October 1, 2013

I don’t mind Uhura being part of a group that includes Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but the romance needs to go. I’d prefer if Spock and Uhura remain as good friends, and nothing more.

On another note, I really liked the scene where Sulu took command of the Enterprise for a brief scene. That was well done. I wouldn’t mind seeing a John Cho-Sulu tv spin-off.

161. Keachick - October 1, 2013

Jeepers – so is STID “fanfiction” because at least one of the writers is a fan of Star Trek.

What is nonsensical about these characters getting married? Who are you to say what “real writers” may include in a story or how they may develop a character?

What I really want to see is James Kirk get a fair go when it comes to love and romance. So far, it’s been pathetic – first, the roommate returns early, next the phone rings – cut to next scene; then we get the Pike cock-block. The writers and, it seems, most of the audience have really no respect for Kirk or any of (potential) ladies friends/lovers. The cat-ladies never even got names. Kirk is not the jerk, only the writers/producers (in this instance) and audience.

However, the Spock/Uhura relationship seems to be continuing on nicely, and still, she complains…

162. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

#160

“I don’t mind Uhura being part of a group that includes Kirk, Spock, and McCoy”

At least I can agree with you on that.

And it shouldn’t be an S/U romance; it should be a love story…

163. JRP - October 1, 2013

Admiral Marcus was a real lost opportunity. In the end he’s another in a long line of moronic Starfleet personnel rendered idiotic by virtue of the fact they’re not serving on the Enterprise (like many Starfleet admirals/captains before him not named Kirk or Picard). Moustache twirly and easily dispatched by Khan. Existing merely as a plot device to show how fierce Khan is. In possession of a super ship, but killed in an instant by Khan. He’s basically a non-character. A cypher. One of the many plot contrivances in the film. Existing only to get killed to move the plot forward.

164. Keachick - October 1, 2013

#159 – I have above average IQ and do not suffer from ADD. Keep your inaccurate and odious diagnoses directed at other audience members who happen to enjoy STID.

So glad to read that you did not spend any money consuming “this crap”. However, it does raise questions – First, if you did not spend any money, I would have to infer that you did not see the movie, rendering your opinion invalid

or you managed to sneak into a cinema without paying or have illegally downloaded it in order to see the movie, rendering you a f*cking thief.

Which is it? Never mind… Just be gone…Off you go now!

165. Vultan - October 1, 2013

Is STID fan fiction? Oh yes, definitely.
As were the 2009 movie and Nemesis.

166. Allen Williams - October 1, 2013

Well since this movie worked so well (sarcasm) maybe we should do another movie with khan and once again rip off the ending of Star Trek 2. This time kill off bones and bring him back to life. UGGG Or maybe you should STAY AWAY FROM STAR TREK!!!!!!!

167. Thomas - October 1, 2013

I’m a TOS fan. I grew up with it on VHS and now I have them on Blu-ray. I actually just finished re-watching all of TOS and the movies, Motion Picture through Undiscovered Country. That being said, I love Into Darkness.

It’s extremely annoying when people come in here and say people who like Into Darkness aren’t TOS fans because that’s total crap. Get the hell off your high horse and realize that people will have different opinions than your own. Yes you can hate Into Darkness if that’s your opinion but please do not insult those who do and try to say they are not real Star Trek Fans.

168. Sebastian - October 1, 2013

Keachick~

“Even these present day writers have been sucked by this 30+ years of Khan fanwank by having prime Spock say that Khan Noonien Singh was their greatest adversary – bullshit!”
_________________________

Well said. I agree 100%. ;-)

As I’ve said on these boards before (and was nearly burned at the stake for it) was that Khan was NOT a big fan favorite before “Wrath of Khan” came out in 1982. There was no fan pressure to put Khan in a movie prior to 1982. All the fanwank over Khan came AFTER the TWOK’s success; not before. If you asked any post TMP fan back in 1981 who they wanted to see as the villain in the next ST movie? I guarantee you most would’ve said Klingons or Romulans. Not Khan. Harve Bennett screened all the TOS episodes and liked Khan’s story as it deliberately lent itself to a sequel.

I also remember (pre-1982) that “Space Seed” rarely if ever broke any published “Top Ten ST” lists. All the “Space Seed” hype came AFTER the movie, not before….

I almost cringe with embarrassment when Prime Spock refers to Khan as the most ‘dangerous’ enemy they’ve ever faced. That is utter nonsense. What about Charlie Evans? Or Gary Mitchell? Or Apollo? Or even V’ger?

Any of those adversaries could’ve wished Khan and his 72 shipmates into the cornfield on a whim…

169. Becca - October 1, 2013

“And it shouldn’t be an S/U romance; it should be a love story…”

Lol! some of the things I read on this board crack me up..omg

Most people don’t give a Sh!t about Spock and Uhura and that stupid romance. And get real. It’s not a “love story”, Titanic was a love story. Spock and Uhura are a mistake that would best be ended and forgotten.

Think of all the great things she could have done during the scenes she was crying and nagging at Spock. Not to mention emo Spock is so weird it doesn’t feel right.

170. Crewman Darnell - October 1, 2013

167. Sebastian:
“Any of those adversaries could’ve wished Khan and his 72 shipmates into the cornfield on a whim…”

Priceless.

171. MattM - October 1, 2013

#163 Keachick:
Here I stay…

Wow, such a binary scenario! What about watching a movie someone else has bought? Furthermore, even if I had “ripped” the movie, it’s hard to pirate that which is artless, kind of like trying to morally castigate someone who rips a copy of “Girls Gone Wild”. Finally, I would hardly call my comments odious; abominable, hateful, etc….#dysphemism..as I am only repeating that which has been stated in concurrence by contemporary sociologists, and by J.J. Abrams himself.

;-)

172. Lemingsworth Bint - October 1, 2013

This report mysteriously omits Abrams’ comment that CBS still has no interest in putting Trek on tv.

Undoubtedly due to the fact that it has the most obnoxious and childlike fanbase in the galaxy.

173. Thomas Schmidt - October 1, 2013

I’m truly disappointed with what Abrams, Orci, et al. have done to Star Trek with the 2009 installment and the monstrosity known as Into Darkness. Even were I not a fan of TOS, I would consider Orci’s some of the worst writing since Tarzan and the Leopard Woman. Their plots are childish, and their grasp of science is negligible. I think that the Bad Robot team should be ashamed of themselves for this schlock, and I can only hope that my ticket purchase goes toward remedial film education for all involved. Jar Jar Abrams needs to find a different line of work, perhaps selling used cars in Van Nuys.

174. Maoman - October 1, 2013

Is there NOTHING else going in the world of STAR TREK, besides countless articles rehashing ST:ID?

Some people liked it. Others didn’t. Each has their reasons. Got it.

Is Star Trek so tired that we cannot find anything other small scrap of Trek news to debate or talk about?

Are there no fan films? Toys? Conventions? Replica Bridges? Comic Books? Board Games? Books? Videos?

If we can’t find ANYTHING else to post and discuss, maybe Trek really is dead.

175. Keachick - October 1, 2013

#169 – Sorry. I had not considered that you may have borrowed it from someone else. However the rest of your post fails to realize that stealing is stealing whether the stolen item is deemed artless by some or not.

Star Trek 2009 was heavily pirated by people who may have never even bother to see the film but were keen to steal it, ie download/burn copies and sell them onto people who were quite happy to get it cheap. Such people are not concerned about the artistic merits of any of these films.

176. Red Dead Ryan - October 1, 2013

@MattM.,

“I’d rather have no new Star Trek and simply rewatch what has come before than to have to sit at the altar watching an abomination like STID designed for you “attention deficit”, or as J.J. once said, “incapable of cerebral thinking” types. Mind you, I do enjoy laughing at all of you “NuTrek”/J.J. is God’s-gift-to-celluloid fanboys while you so desperately pull at strings trying to justify such a brainless whitewashing of an established character, courtesy of your worshipped Bad Robot demigods, when even according to their explicitly stated line of reasoning, everything established prior to ST XI is immutable. Glad I didn’t spend my money consuming this crap. Farewell J.J., better luck with your golden goose, Star Wars! #mostoverrateddirectorever”

Dude, I suggest you find another hobby. You seem to be quite bitter and angry, and folks like you aren’t wanted nor needed here. Piss off.

177. dswynne - October 1, 2013

Funny how some of you think that in order to have the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic, Spock and McCoy has to be “sexless”, even as Kirk continues to be a ladies’ man. News flash: in the real world, you can have best friends/ close confidants, even as said best friends and close confidants have girlfriends and/or wives (or whatever). I support the S/U simply because is has happened, and brings up new things to the storytelling process. In fact, why can’t McCoy get into a relationship with Carol Marcus? I’m surprise that they didn’t show Kirk dating Christine Chapel or Janice Rand, for that matter…

178. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@#174 dswynne

Thank you. Perfect post.

179. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

Okay, not it says your post is #177.

180. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

@#169

Oh, hi, Becca. Funny, most of the reviews I read about ST09 had really positive things to say about S/U. Even Leonard Nimoy liked the idea of them, and iirc, Majel Barret gave the movie her blessing before it was released.

I know you don’t like them together, but you don’t have to resort to what you are doing…

I do agree with you that Uhura could have done a lot better in STID than what we saw, but I agree with that wanting to see her as the professional genius that she is and with Spock. And yes, S/U did have a love story in ST09. That changed in STID though…

181. Spock/Uhura Admirer - October 1, 2013

I wonder if anybody’s read this:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/layoffs-hit-paramount-110-positions-639943

It’s very interesting. I guess they really needed the filmed content to do better…

182. Jack - October 1, 2013

174. The site is called Trekmovie.com, and the story’s about STID. So talking about a movie that just left theatres and is new to DVD means Trek is dead?

183. MattM - October 2, 2013

#176: Read Dead Ryan

lol

“There is a danger in exposing yourself to too much vapid art. It can weaken your judgment and erode your sensibilities, until the time comes when you see things that are merely passable, and somehow think that they’re good.”
― David Farland

184. MattM - October 2, 2013

#176

P.S. Not bitter, amused ;-)

185. Boy - October 2, 2013

@169. Becca – October 1, 2013
“And it shouldn’t be an S/U romance; it should be a love story…”

Lol! some of the things I read on this board crack me up..omg

Most people don’t give a Sh!t about Spock and Uhura and that stupid romance. And get real. It’s not a “love story”, Titanic was a love story. Spock and Uhura are a mistake that would best be ended and forgotten.

Think of all the great things she could have done during the scenes she was crying and nagging at Spock. Not to mention emo Spock is so weird it doesn’t feel right.
—————————————————————————————————-

WAIT, Is this the same Becca, who months ago was trying to imply that the Kirk and Spock dynamic should be romantic . LMAO.

Hey, I have an idea lets put Kirk and Spock in a gay relationship despite the fact that neither characters has ever shown homosexual tendencies so that the horny slash fan girls would be happy and lets see how mainstream audience will react.

From a film’s expert and critical point ,the S/U relationship had potential. The dynamic was done well in the first film but it was obvious that it was badly done in the second film. If the writers can’t write a good love story then yes they need to end it for the sake of the overall plot of the film.

I am also so sick of the Mccoy complaints. Uhura did not take his place. she is a woman, McCoy is a man. If anything took McCoy’s place it is the Kirk and Spock and more Kirk and Spock.

Trek is an all boys club and Kirk and Spock are the boss of the fraternity. They are the ones that did not invite Mccoy to join their little male club. You guys should stop blaming the girl as the girl is automatically disqualified from joining the club because she is female.

Saying Uhura took McCoy’s place is like saying Ewoyn or Arwen replaced a member of the fellowship of the ring just because both females had their own story that was tied to one of the male members of the fellowship.

Its is not Uhura’s fault. It is the writers fault for not knowing how to write a female lead and still keep the core male leads that was Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Its senseless and sexist to keep blaming the woman.

Trek fans are still in the stone age, its embarrassing. PLEASE BRING ON STAR WARS EPISODE 7. Just another reason why Star Wars will once again prove its superiority to TOS Trek without even trying.

Diversity and equal treatments of the male and female gender is a good start for Star Wars.

186. Sirok - October 2, 2013

#176

Speak for yourself.
I’m a fan, but happen to enjoy posts by critical fans (like this one by MattM) as well.
More substance, less censorship.

187. Boy - October 2, 2013

169. Becca – October 1, 2013
“And it shouldn’t be an S/U romance; it should be a love story…”

Lol! some of the things I read on this board crack me up..omg

Most people don’t give a Sh!t about Spock and Uhura and that stupid romance. And get real. It’s not a “love story”, Titanic was a love story. Spock and Uhura are a mistake that would best be ended and forgotten.

Think of all the great things she could have done during the scenes she was crying and nagging at Spock. Not to mention emo Spock is so weird it doesn’t feel right.
—————————————————————————————————-

WAIT, Is this the same Becca, who months ago was trying to imply that the Kirk and Spock dynamic should be romantic . LMAO.

Hey, I have an idea lets put Kirk and Spock in a gay relationship despite the fact that neither characters has ever shown homosexual tendencies so that the sleezy slash fan girls would be happy and lets see how mainstream audience will react.

From a film’s expert and critical point ,the S/U relationship had potential. The dynamic was done well in the first film but it was obvious that it was badly done in the second film. If the writers can’t write a good love story then yes they need to end it for the sake of the overall plot of the film.

I am also so sick of the Mccoy complaints. Uhura did not take his place. she is a woman, McCoy is a man. If anything took McCoy’s place it is the Kirk and Spock and more Kirk and Spock.

Trek is an all boys club and Kirk and Spock are the boss of the fraternity. They are the ones that did not invite Mccoy to join their little male club. You guys should stop blaming the girl as the girl is automatically disqualified from joining the club because she is female.

Saying Uhura took McCoy’s place is like saying Ewoyn or Arwen replaced a member of the fellowship of the ring just because both females had their own story that was tied to one of the male members of the fellowship.

Its is not Uhura’s fault. It is the writers fault for not knowing how to write a female lead and still keep the core male leads that was Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Its senseless and sexist to keep blaming the woman.

Trek fans are still in the stone age, its embarrassing. PLEASE BRING ON STAR WARS EPISODE 7. Just another reason why Star Wars will once again prove its superiority to TOS Trek without even trying.

188. Boy - October 2, 2013

169. Becca – October 1, 2013
“And it shouldn’t be an S/U romance; it should be a love story…”

Lol! some of the things I read on this board crack me up..omg

Most people don’t give a Sh!t about Spock and Uhura and that stupid romance. And get real. It’s not a “love story”, Titanic was a love story. Spock and Uhura are a mistake that would best be ended and forgotten.

Think of all the great things she could have done during the scenes she was crying and nagging at Spock. Not to mention emo Spock is so weird it doesn’t feel right.
—————————————————————————————————-

WAIT, Is this the same Becca, who months ago was trying to imply that the Kirk and Spock dynamic should be romantic . LMAO. Yeah right.

From a film’s expert and critical point ,the S/U relationship had potential. The dynamic was done well in the first film but it was obvious that it was badly done in the second film. If the writers can’t write a good love story then yes they need to end it for the sake of the overall plot of the film.

I am also so sick of the Mccoy complaints. Uhura did not take his place. she is a woman, McCoy is a man. If anything took McCoy’s place it is the Kirk and Spock and more Kirk and Spock.

Trek is an all boys club and Kirk and Spock are the boss of the fraternity. They are the ones that did not invite Mccoy to join their little male club. You guys should stop blaming the girl as the girl is automatically disqualified from joining the club because she is female.

Saying Uhura took McCoy’s place is like saying Ewoyn or Arwen replaced a member of the fellowship of the ring just because both females had their own story that was tied to one of the male members of the fellowship.

Its is not Uhura’s fault. It is the writers fault for not knowing how to write a female lead and still keep the core male leads that was Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Its senseless and sexist to keep blaming the woman.

Trek fans are still in the stone age, its embarrassing. PLEASE BRING ON STAR WARS EPISODE 7. Just another reason why Star Wars will once again prove its superiority to TOS Trek without even trying.

Diversity and equal treatments of the male and female gender is a good start for Star Wars.

189. Jemini - October 2, 2013

177. dswynne – October 1, 2013

Funny how some of you think that in order to have the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic, Spock and McCoy has to be “sexless”, even as Kirk continues to be a ladies’ man. News flash: in the real world, you can have best friends/ close confidants, even as said best friends and close confidants have girlfriends and/or wives (or whatever). I support the S/U simply because is has happened, and brings up new things to the storytelling process. In fact, why can’t McCoy get into a relationship with Carol Marcus? I’m surprise that they didn’t show Kirk dating Christine Chapel or Janice Rand, for that matter…

——————-

I know, right?
for some reason Spock and McCoy must only be his friends. Oh and Kirk is married to the enterprise let’s not forget it LOL
Mind you, I understand why some fans might feel like that since, well, the old trek truly was the Shatner’s show where everyone was just his supporting system and a tool to let him shine. Some fans must still think it has to be like that in the 2013 too.
Nimoy himself wasn’t always so ok about that.. but you can’t change the past and how tv-shows were made in the 60s-70s but one supposes that reboots are made to improve some things a bit..
In many ways, I saw an attempt, though not fully developed to its complete potential in the sequel, to make the story a more ensemble show rather than the Kirk show. In that, Spock shouldn’t be too defined by his friendship with Kirk because he now is the protagonist too with a personal life, just like Kirk, outside of that friendship. Some people have a hard time accepting that because it clashes with their idea of who these characters should be.
The friendship may still be the main thing of this franchise because it’s iconic and all but it shouldn’t become somehow a hindrance for both characters and something that prevents them from having other things outside of that.

Giving the romance subplot to Spock and Uhura specifically is simply genius because they truly are the least characters you’d expect to provide the main romantic subplot for these movies. And no, not because it’s OOC but because behind the scenes stuff, so to speak, would always prevent the nerdy alien guy and the black girl to be the first choices for this kind of subplot.
In fact, most of the people took it for granted that Kirk would be the one getting the girl: because it’s always like that.
In most of the movies the romance is always given to the cis male white hero paired with the usual cis white female character, it’s the way it is.

190. Damian - October 2, 2013

174–Star Trek fans love to debate, sometimes even attack each other about Star Trek. It’s difficult to discuss the future. We only know that Paramount wants a 3rd film, I believe 2016 to coincide with the 50th anniversary, and Abrams will not be directing. The rest is pure speculation.

I do agree, though, that there is plenty of Star Trek being published, between the novels and comic books. There have been a lack of articles in those areas recently. I’m currently reading “The Crimson Shadow” which centers around Cardassia Prime and Garak. Any fan of Garak or Cardassians would probably love this book (Una McCormack has written some good Cardassian based stories).

191. Crewman Darnell - October 2, 2013

168. Sebastian inspired me to create this response from “Charlie X” :

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/Crewman_Darnell/poster2_zps4fb77157.jpg

192. I am not Herbert - October 2, 2013

blah, blah, blah… what a load of crap… =(

…let’s just throw a bunch of sh*t up, and see what sticks together… =(

JJ&Co. SUCK. =(

no-talent HACKS =(

REBOOT NOW!!!

193. Sebastian - October 2, 2013

#183
MattM~

Love the Dave McFarland quote. Well said.

I agree with you too.
Although I thought ST09 was a fun adventure story (and I genuinely liked it), I thought that STID dropped the ball big time with a lazy, patchwork script that leaked like the Titanic wearing a saggy diaper. The whole Khan-In-Name-Only character was just indicative of the lack of creativity in that movie. Not to mention the repeats of both dialogue & scenes from both TWOK and ST09. The producers are more content to reference other iconic moments/characters rather than creating any of their own.

I am genuinely saddened by the prospect of the Bad Robot movie factory having another chance to ruin the next ST movie. I imagine we’ll get another wannabe revenge epic. That seems to be their default story, based on their other movies.

Who’s up next, is it Kor this time? Maybe “The Wrath of Cyrano Jones” (starring Jack Black), maybe with facial tattoos or a nose ring this time?

194. Sebastian - October 2, 2013

# 188 Crewman Darnell~

I’m flattered! That was hilarious! ;-D

But now you’ve probably given the Bad Robot team their next movie. With Justin Bieber in the lead…

195. TUP - October 2, 2013

- This Khan debate annoys me. The defenders bring up that any actor can play any character (not true) or that he could have been genetically altered (a stretch assuming facts not in evidence). At the time the casting was announced the stories were Del Toro was the guy, dropped out close to filming time and that BC blew everyone away with his reading…they cast him because of his acting ability and assumed that would satisfy people who objected to the fact he was not the right enthicity.

I am fully in the camp that BC was a great choice for a villain but the wrong choice for Khan. The writers have said they wrote a movie with a villain and then decided after to make it Khan. That was their most fatal mistake…Khan could not be “anyone”. And if he could have been a generic villain named John Harrison, they were barking up the wrong tree from the beginning. They did nothing new with the character even though they claim they did. The crying scene did not make him sympathetic. Marcus was far more sympathetic and I would have loved to have seen his character explored more fully.

- Spock/Uhura. Nice surprise in 09, done like dinner in STID. It takes away from what should be a Kirk romance (not with uhura but with someone) and artificially pushes Uhura ahead of Bones in the Trinity. It also leads to some brutally unrealistic scenes played for comic relief. eg. Spock changing her Starship assignment because she demands it, Spock admitting the realtionship might cause issues on the away mission, Uhura’s actions during the Volcano scene, their tiff on the shuttle to Kronos. All bad. All things that would get them both booted out of Starfleet if it was real. Romance would be better if it was more subtle but the writers use it to explore Spock’s humanity and emotions when that should be explored through his relationship with Kirk and McKoy.

- Bones. The emotional “fire” to Spock’s “ice”. Bones and Spock are both ends of the emotional spectrum that Kirk uses to ultimately become the Captain we all know. But at this point (either because they are young or because the writers deem it), Spock and Kirk are both emotional and thus Bones’ is less important. His role in STID was laughable (in a bad way). We needed one, just ONE, quiet scene between McKoy and Kirk and everything else could have got a pass.

The next film must have a moment where Kirk must make a decision and Spock and Bones provide both sides of the argument.

The writers created a problem for themselves but it came from their desire to truly service the fans. Rather than do a reboot, they decided to play in the same universe with the same characters (and honestly, it was a brilliant decision to make us “care” about these characters since they are the same as the ones we all love, just with different influences). The problem is, they want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be freed from canon but use canon at the same time. They accepted that the “universe is trying to repair itself” or whatever the line was to show things that were “destined” to happen end up happening and thus explaining away some big coincedences (which I am happy to accept) but they really need to decide what this Star Trek is going to be.

I see the writers and producers in not so many words accepting the criticism of SITD by going on about how the next film must be original. In a way, that saddens me (and I might be a minority on that) because I want to see a conclusion to the Abrams-verse characters (and who knows if this team will make the 4th movie). I wish STID had been fully original so they could have come back to some familar themes with the 3rd one and conclude the universe arc (ie. SHATNER). I guarantee that when Shatner passes, the talk will be all about how much he wanted to play Kirk one last time and these creative geniuses couldnt make it happen…and that will be sad.

196. Jemini - October 2, 2013

192. TUP -
” I guarantee that when Shatner passes, the talk will be all about how much he wanted to play Kirk one last time and these creative geniuses couldnt make it happen…and that will be sad.”
————-

I, for one, I’m glad they cut that cheesy cameo they wrote for him in the 2009 movie but anyway he was the one who didn’t want to participate anyway and won’t participate unless they make him the star (again) and feed his ego that is the size of kansas.
Truth is, Nimoy making a cameo in both movies is enough and more than any other writer/director would have done to pay homage to the old actors. He made some appearances even in the comics, he’s firmly established as a character of this reboot too even when we don’t see him because he lives in this reality too now. In short, he’s a cameo but at least he still makes sense here.
Now let these characters be themselves and live their own lives and stories.

You have a new critically acclaimed tv-show about Sherlock Holmes where dr Watson is a woman played by Lucy Liu, and here people still complain because the star trek reboot isn’t a carbon copy of the old thing. Bless you.
If this has to be like TOS with the same actors, the same stories, the same dynamics what’s even the purpose of having a reboot and alternate reality.

“Romance would be better if it was more subtle but the writers use it to explore Spock’s humanity and emotions when that should be explored through his relationship with Kirk and McKoy.”

This romance is the definition of subtle. You cannot get more subtle than that.
Frankly, it’s not the be all and end all of these movies anyway but if the few minutes they give to the romance make people talk so much about it, one way or another, then it means that the writers did their job well. ;)

[LOL the guys here that literally panicked because someone mentioned a S/U wedding. Relax.]

” that should be explored through his relationship with Kirk and McKoy”

Boring. Been there, done that.
Unless you are a shipper and you see those friendships in a non-platonic way, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why what they explore with a S/U romance is not something you can get from the friendships, alone. We never saw the character getting tested beyond the confines of a platonic friendship and that kind of feeling, before.
Different relationships are not mutually exclusive especially if their nature and the needs that they convey are so very different.
Why some of you seem to think that a man cannot have friends and a significant other is beyond my understanding. I dunno, is it really so difficult for you all to relate to that? … :/ really?

197. crazydaystrom - October 2, 2013

@195. TUP
Not much I can disagree with there. Very well said! I particularly agree that the next film shouldn’t be drastically different that the last two. I want a ‘trilogy’ that’s somewhat ‘all of a piece’, as it were. Yes I want the next one to be the best of the three and one that will invoke less ire between the fans, I just wouldn’t want it so different that it seems like, say TMP compared to TWOK ( which btw are both films that I like).

198. Tom - October 2, 2013

195 TUP

While i dont think there will be a huge lament if they miss out on Sahtner playing Kirk again, I do think it would be cool to see something with him in a movie coming out while celebrating 50 years of Star Trek. Bob and Alex are very creative and there just HAS to be a way that would work well.

199. TUP - October 2, 2013

@196 you think Spock./Uhura is subtle?? Fighting like teenagers in a shuttle on the way to a life & death mission is subtle? Kissing on the transporter pad in front of other officers is subtle? Its awful.

We need Kirk/Carol romance next movie which ultimately leads to her leaving Starfleet and seeking peaceful scientific development.

Id love to see a 3rd film that deals directly with the “new universe” and “righting it”. I dont know why it would need “righting” but thats up to the writers to figure out. Quite frankly, the biggest “anvil” in the new Universe is that Spock isn’t being hunted down for his knowledge or that he isnt detailing all future events.

Spock is logical enough to know that giving up his knowledge to save lives makes sense and the aged Spock is also wise enough to break the rules. We know this. It’s fact. In STID he says to Quinto’s Spock “I promised I’d never devulge anything…but heck since you asked, here’s how to beat Khan…” I mean come on…

So something tieing in Spock Prime, Kirk Prime etc.

200. Becca - October 2, 2013

@188 boy

WHAT?! H3LL NO I never said Kirk and Spock should be gay! What are you smoking? I hate the thought of Kirk and Spock being in a relationship as much as I hate the Spock and Uhura crap. Idk if there are other Beccas on the site, but I’ve not seen anyone ask for a gay Kirk and Spock here, certainly not me.

Also, did you mean to spam your comment as you did?? 3 times is overkill. Or were you just REALLY trying to get your point across?

201. Becca - October 2, 2013

@195 TUP

Awesome post. Agree 100%

I think the next film is gonna get it right the next time around. As far as McCoy and the trio goes, Bob seems to be listening and I think he’s really gonna try to finally get big three back on course.

202. TUP - October 2, 2013

To het the big three back on course, they need an unemotional Spock and Im not sure they want to do that. Spock must not tell jokes (he can be sarcastic when dealing with people who’s opinions he deems inferior such as Bones, but he is not comic relief). He must give advice that disregards the human element, much to Bones’ consternation.

I would highly suspect (and hope) that Kirk/Carol will be a key issue. She’s in Starfleet, a weapons expert and the daughter of a career military officer who went rogue. We know who she becomes so seeing her crises of conscious in leaving Starfleet would allow Kirk (who often flirted with the idea of leaving Starfleet for the family life but always came back to the realization that, as Spock said, being a Starfleet Captain was his first, best destiny – in fact I want to hear that line) to explore that in himself for the first time. Is this the life Kirk really wants? What makes him realise that rather than follow Carol? We dont need to see the conversation where she asks him to stay away from David (in fact, that always sat unwell with me) but ending the relationship and then she learns she’s pregnant would be fine…even ending the movie with her calling Kirk for a conversation we never see. Bones should ideally be the one giving Kirk life advice.

We need to see Scotty in command of the ship on the bridge too.

203. chris charlton - October 2, 2013

Thought STID was brilliantly done and cannot understand the negative backlash. Really people—Get a Life! The paraell timeline between STID and WOK was extremely clever and well performed. I love JJ’s new universe and the stories.

Keep it going!

204. Marshall - October 2, 2013

@202 tup

Do we really need to have a David in this timeline at all??

205. TUP - October 2, 2013

Good question. Ofcourse the different influences on the timeline could cause Kirk and Carol to never have a relationship at all. But since it’s established that destiny is always at work, I would like to think David would exist in this time line.

Maybe Im in the minority but what I like about “going back” is seeing things we never got to see. Kirk and Carol intrigues me a lot. And thats why Canon is so important. Khan was chosen BECAUSE of what we know of Prime Khan. Carol matters in STID because of what we know she becomes. I want the writers to embrace canon rather than trying to run from it. There are plenty of stories hinted at that we never saw. There is no need to take the things we did see and change them just because you can ie. Khan.

206. crazydaystrom - October 2, 2013

Hey! Who is this TUP person and why is he or she so Trek-insightful? LOL My thoughts concur with yours nearly 100% TUP.

I’d thought before STID was released that Carol Marcus would find out by the end of film that she was pregnant. But K/O and the rest (are here on Gilligan’s…sorry ’bout that)…*ahem* the writers decided on a ‘slow burn’ for the Kirk/Marcus relationship. I’m fine with that.

And I know many, and probably MOST, would go ballistic at the thought, but the more I think about it the more I think I’d like to see Spock and Uhura have a child. The universe needs more Vulcans, even quarter-blood ones. Never happen, I know, and probably shouldn’t. Maybe in some time-jumping nuTrek novel one day.

But anyway great posts TUP.

207. Jemini - October 2, 2013

199. TUP – October 2, 2013

@196 you think Spock./Uhura is subtle?? Fighting like teenagers in a shuttle on the way to a life & death mission is subtle? Kissing on the transporter pad in front of other officers is subtle? Its awful.

—-

lol you mean opposite to how they develop any other relationship in the movies?
e.g., Kirk/Spock friendship and them arguing.. all the time? in front of their commanding officer even with Kirk constantly making derogatory almost xenophobic remarks about Spock’s race in front of other crew members (“pointy” “robot” “never trust a vulcan” “i want to rip the bangs off your boyfriend’s forehead”)
Kirk asking Spock to go against his nature and essentially act unprofessional by not filling a truthful report of the nibiru mission expecting him to give him a free pass and lie only because they’re ~friends~
Spock crying and screaming and leaving the ship ( while he’s the acting acting) because he needs to go batshit insane and kill Khan to avenge his friend, regardless protocol, rules and his control?
The Kirk/Bones relationship isn’t that different. My favorite moment between them is when in the first movie Bones sneaked Kirk aboard the enterprise mindful of the fact that he had no right to be there and only because he couldn’t just leave his friend there. It was incredibly unprofessional by him (especially infecting him with virus that could have killed Kirk or infected other crew members) and in no way an action he would have done for anyone but a friend… so what?
How many times can McCoy get called unprofessional for the tone he uses when he talks with Spock, even when he’s the acting captain? (“are you out of your vulcan mind?” “don’t agree with me it makes me uncomfortable”) but I guess in the Kirk/Spock/Spock’s case all the arguments, soap opera and drama are part of the character development, right?

what’s the difference between a romance and a bromance that make the latter acceptable character development and the first not? It this because of some gender issues here? Probably. Correction: most definitely. It is all the more hilarious when the writers are the ones called sexist because of a stupid underwear scene or because Uhura worried about her boyfriend. Irony.

tl dr; I’m not surprised that you and some people here think that the romance is not subtle LOL but it actually is. All their scenes combined and the ones that make the romance explicit take only 5-6 minutes of screentime but they apparently hit a nerve or something.

Who knows maybe you think a writer should “develop” a romance with “subtitles”.
It could be fun! You just have a scene with Spock and Uhura working together all professional and cold and then suddenly a subtitle appears on the screen saying: “public service announcement: see these guys? just letting you know that they’re a couple off screen. bye ”
they could do that with anything! why not?

208. TUP - October 2, 2013

@206 thank you! If @boborci agrees, I’m available *wink wink*.

209. TUP - October 2, 2013

@207 just because these writers have many characters acting unprofessional does not make it right. I’m not against the romance at all. It was hinted at in TOS. It would make sense for Spock to be interested in a human woman like his mother. I just dont find it particularly interesting and I think whatever purpose it serves the story takes away from what could be a more interesting dynamic between Spock/Kirk/Bones.

What made Bones so interesting in TOS was that he could say anything he wanted to both the Captain and Commander without fear of reprisal in a way that the other characters couldn’t (and shouldn’t). Bones was friend first, officer second. He was serving in Starfleet the same way he’d serve in provate practice. He didnt care about military duty. Thats what made him so interesting and important. He was just a country doctor. He needs to be brought to the forefront. he’s Kirk’s moral center whereas Spock is Kirk’s logic center.

I think Uhura takes away from that to a degree. The relationship between Spock/Uhura and Kirk/Spock/Bones doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

210. Curious Cadet - October 2, 2013

@51. MC1 Doug,
“Referring to #43: McGivers: “From the northern India area, I guess. Probably a Sikh.” Emphasis on I GUESS. This assumption is never confirmed later on. The turban in McGiver’s painting (as you mentioned) is pure conjecture on McGiver’s part.”

This might all be a good point to argue if McGivers were a living, breathing, flesh and blood sentient woman, whose words and thoughts were her own, formed through actual observation, especially is she were a complete idiot with sham ‘historian’ credentials.

But she’s NOT. She’s a FICTIONAL character created by writers and tempered by producers, and played by an actor instructed by a director (and probably groped by Roddenberry).

Quoting from the Hunt For Red October — “Son, Russian’s don’t take a dump without a plan”. Well, neither do writers include dialogue without a reason. There’s not enough time in television to simply include a lot of non-essential material (witness STID). Virtually every line in a script is debated before it makes it into the final shooting script.

The character of McGivers specifically says “From the Northern India area, I guess [the emphasis is yours]. Probably a Sikh”, not because the writers want the audience at home to wonder about Khan’s ethnic origin, and whether McGivers knew what she was doing, but because they wanted to identify the character for the audience, to explain him, to give him a past — a background to make make him more three dimensional, perhaps even to explain the actor’s appearance for a 1960′s audience. Neither did the writer’s intend to give future filmmakers a loophole to exploit and recast the character of a different ethnicity. It’s a turn of phrase, a way to include specific dialogue in a natural, conversational manner, nothing more.

The producer’s and writer’s intent is further clarified by the brown makeup that significantly darkens the skin of an essentially white actor, in that Montalban is of Euopean, Spanish descent. His dress, his manner, his NAME, all go out of their way to evoke the area of Northern India. If it was the writers, producers, stylists and director’s intent that Khan be a white man, then they really missed the mark.

Now, if you want to rely solely on canon, and question McGiver’s remarks, go right ahead. However, since canon is what we see on film, and Montalban was intentionally made to look several shades darker than he really was, then whether or not Khan was from Northern India, or a Sikh, is no longer important — he was definitely NOT a white man, and therefore Cumberbatch was sorely miscast to play such a character based on canon alone.

211. Keachick - October 2, 2013

#177 – Absolutely. I’ve been saying this from the beginning, ever since I first started posting here.

212. Keachick - October 2, 2013

#180 et al – Huh? Even lovers can have disagreements or become subject to fear, even paranoia. Genuine relationships require continual sorting out, defining, maintenance. That is what was going on between Spock and Uhura in this film. Spock’s behaviour/attitudes had not only become a concern to Uhura, but also to Kirk, for more professional reasons, hence the discussion on the shuttlecraft, which Kirk allowed, because he realized it was necessary.

“for some reason Spock and McCoy must only be his friends. Oh and Kirk is married to the enterprise let’s not forget it LOL”
That bit about Kirk being married to the Enterprise – as in HER being his mistress is something I always found pukeworthy. I don’t know why Roddenberry et al didn’t just make Kirk a eunuch…maybe that’s what all Starfleet personnel should be in order to have “No sex please. We’re American”.

213. TUP - October 2, 2013

Kirk never had sex with women? Oh Puh-leeze.

214. Boy - October 2, 2013

200. Becca – October 2, 2013
@188 boy

WHAT?! H3LL NO I never said Kirk and Spock should be gay! What are you smoking? I hate the thought of Kirk and Spock being in a relationship as much as I hate the Spock and Uhura crap. Idk if there are other Beccas on the site, but I’ve not seen anyone ask for a gay Kirk and Spock here, certainly not me.

Also, did you mean to spam your comment as you did?? 3 times is overkill. Or were you just REALLY trying to get your point across?
———————————————————————————————–

I did not spam 3 comments on purpose. My comments kept on getting deleted so I had to keep re posting it. The site was perhaps crashing a bit because of all the new comments coming in.

Look it is clear that STiD has not been the critical and commercial success we were hoping for. The whole plot of the film including the S/U romance was far from genius.

Trek 2009 was bliss

STID OKAY.

215. Keachick - October 2, 2013

#199 – “We need Kirk/Carol romance next movie which ultimately leads to her leaving Starfleet and seeking peaceful scientific development.”

And boy, wouldn’t that be so truly crappy, predictable and sexist. Carol, in spite of her skills, can be so easily got rid of simply because she hooks up with Kirk (or Dr McCoy, as some have suggested). It really doesn’t matter which…:(

Of course, (in many of your minds) we couldn’t possibly have a scenario where she AND Kirk leave to seek a place where they could both do work other than be on a starship – Kirk being the administrator of a planetary research facility and Carol being one of the researchers – all this as they await the birth of David, or could it be Davina?, this time round. What’s more *shocking*, neither Carol or the baby die. Their story gets told, being part of a larger story.

Or then again, Kirk and Carol could remain exactly where they are and continue to have a relationship, going wherever it takes them, while they are off duty, on board the Enterprise where they perform, when on duty, their assigned Starfleet duties. Gosh, now there’s an idea – who would have thought that such a situation could be possible, even workable, in a 23rd century Star Trek universe?

#207 – Bingo, Gemini. You know why – because it is only OK for the wonderful “triumvirate” to have tiffs with one another, to seem to behave so stupidly and unprofessionally at times. I *love* how different how many folks all too happily apply different rules as to how Kirk/Spock/McCoy may behave towards one another, whether in public or otherwise, but a completely different of rules, ones that are more rigid and repressive, apply to how other crew member may relate to these characters and how they may relate to that crew member, especially if the crew member happens to be female.

If this hypocritical and sexist shit weren’t so endemic, it would almost be laughable.

What the writers are trying to show is how these people see and understand each other through their ways of communicating. The scenes, that seem to cause so many viewers so much anguish, are actually conversations held out of the “public light” ie not within sight or knowledge of a large number of Enterprise crew (in the entire two movies – *four people out of hundreds saw and/or heard what might have been deemed private). The scenes are for our benefit, to give us a glimpse into who these people are and what concerns them.

How is that so difficult to comprehend? Then again, I don’t think some viewers here want to know anything, because these characters may appear a little too, well, real, HUMAN, coming with knowledge and idiosyncrasies and god forbid, emotion and/or possible, even likely, desire for sexual intimacy and relationship, especially given the youth of these characters.

Some of you guys are *freaky*.

* Five, if you include Kirk seeing Spock and Uhura give each other a goodbye kiss while Spock was on the transporter pad (ST09).

216. Keachick - October 2, 2013

Who wrote that Kirk never had sex with women?

Not me. If you are referring to my post #212, then you need to re-read it…

217. Marshall - October 2, 2013

“Of course, (in many of your minds) we couldn’t possibly have a scenario where she AND Kirk leave to seek a place where they could both do work other than be on a starship – Kirk being the administrator of a planetary research facility and Carol being one of the researchers – all this as they await the birth of David, or could it be Davina?, this time round. What’s more *shocking*, neither Carol or the baby die. Their story gets told, being part of a larger story.”

WTF are you talking about? Leave the Enterprise and find somewhere else to work so they can have a baby? Yes, that IS stupid. We could not have that scenario because then it’s not Star Trek anymore! God things on this board are so ridiculous sometimes. Sounds like some dumb fanfiction BS right there.

I’m not for Carol leaving the Enterprise, and I was PISSED at how they just wrote off Chapel, played by Roddenberrys wife and the First Lady of Sci Fi Majel Barrett. Shameful. I enjoyed Carol and and while I’m not looking forward to more romance, at least she and Kirk would make sense. When you start talking about leaving the Enterprise however, is the moment I stop taking you seriously. I’m sure Bob knows better though, he’s never go for that crap I’m sure of it.

Leave the Enterprise…smh

218. Keachick - October 2, 2013

“He didnt care about military duty. Thats what made him so interesting and important. He was just a country doctor. He needs to be brought to the forefront. he’s Kirk’s moral center whereas Spock is Kirk’s logic center.”

Here is where I also have a problem. It is like saying that Kirk cannot act morally or logically without him having McCoy or Spock around. Good grief.

As a matter of fact, Bones was clearly the voice of morality in this movie and he had little time for rules for the sake of rules (even prime directive ones), especially when it came to whether to save a life or not. See bridge scene at the beginning of the movie. It is more than likely that McCoy’s impassioned plea to Spock did influence Kirk in his final decision to do everything in his power to rescue Spock, even if it meant (seriously) violating some prime directive. (In reality, little of the prime directive was violated.) It is also noteworthy that Uhura would have been of one accord with McCoy and NOT just because it was her lover down there.

219. crazydaystrom - October 2, 2013

@214. Keachick
“And boy, wouldn’t that be so truly crappy, predictable and sexist. Carol, in spite of her skills, can be so easily got rid of simply because she hooks up…”

Keachick it could be it could be all of those things AND the universe trying to set itself aright as boborci has given as a reason for so many things happening in nuTrek in ways that are similar to how they happened in the Prime U

“Of course, (in many of your minds) we couldn’t possibly have a scenario where she AND Kirk leave to seek a place where they could both do work other than be on a starship – Kirk being the administrator of a planetary research facility and Carol being one of the researchers – all this as they await the birth of David, or could it be Davina?, this time round. What’s more *shocking*, neither Carol or the baby die. Their story gets told, being part of a larger story.”

I for one think that kind of radical variance on what has happened would be pretty exciting if handled well. Just as I basically like the idea of Spock/Uhura. I just don’t think THAT has been handled particularly well.

220. Boy - October 2, 2013

213. TUP – October 2, 2013
Kirk never had sex with women? Oh Puh-leeze.
—————————————————————————————————-

Kirk has obviously had sex with lots of women but the three way thing with the female human cats was degusting.

I am not sure Shatner would even applaud that.

221. Jemini - October 2, 2013

209. TUP – October 2, 2013
“just because these writers have many characters acting unprofessional does not make it right. “

and yet, I don’t see people here complaining about the other characters and how the other relationships are developed

“What made Bones so interesting in TOS was that he could say anything he wanted to both the Captain and Commander without fear of reprisal in a way that the other characters couldn’t (and shouldn’t). Bones was friend first, officer second.”

which is more or less admitting that your previous argument (about Uhura-S/U) is double standard and biased.

because anyone could say that about their favorite character (that him/her acting unprofessional makes him/her more interesting) guess why. I’d think that most of us will prefer flawed but realistic people over mary sue/gary stu characters.
But complaining about character A doing something all the while giving a free pass to your favorite character “because of reasons” is the definition of double standard.

“I think Uhura takes away from that to a degree. The relationship between Spock/Uhura and Kirk/Spock/Bones doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.”


You’re the one who is making the relationships mutually exclusive. Not the writers.
There are scenes in the these movies that helped to flesh out Spock’s emotional development that would make absolutely no sense with Kirk or McCoy and the relationship that this Spock has with them so far. Besides, Uhura isn’t taking someone else place here: she’s having a role in his life and in the life of THIS Spock that friends cannot have.
e.g., the scene from the last movie where they were arguing: from a narrative standpoint that scene is very important to understand this Spock more and put some things in context. It was important for BOTH Kirk and Uhura to hear what Spock said (and for us the audience too) but it’s undeniable that he would have never talked about his feelings like that to anyone but the person he’s in love with and whom he felt the need to explain himself and make her understand. He was personally motivated to make her understand his side more, even to the expense of his vulcan stoicism, in a way he couldn’t be with other people, not even if he was already best friends with them.
If even we people in real life have many different kind of relationships there must be a reason.

The fact that neither Spock, Kirk or McCoy were ever allowed to truly get a life outside of their friendship because of the sexism and bigotries of the 60s doesn’t make it right to expect to see the same identical dynamics in another reality and another story too.
and frankly I find the idea of destiny a tad too connected to the word “doomed”. The idea that things never change because no matter what people do they would always stay the same with the same mistakes, flaws and qualities in every different reality and dimension is hella depressing to me. It takes away the whole appeal from the alternate realities and parallel universes theory :/

222. Keachick - October 2, 2013

#216 – This is an alternate timeline/universe. It is no more BS than people moaning about a romance or even the likelihood of some romance that might occur.

It was a particular scenario presented. Did you not read the bit where I wrote “or…”? Carol and Jim could easily have little Davina on the Enterprise, with Dr McCoy delivering their baby, just as he had done in the prime universe.

Yes, this “first, best destiny” stuff…I guess that may be why we saw an older prime Kirk end up a lonely miserable old bastard, forever pining for the “glory days”. Being captain of a starship was clearly where he shone, but therein lies the problem with how this character was developed – that is all Kirk was shown to be – to the point of (near) obsession with being captain of the Enterprise (see TMP). As he grew older, his inability or whatever to step away from the idea that all he could and should do was be part of Starfleet in a limited way (ie living on and captaining a starship) became more problematical. He could not let go and live…

Do we really need to see this scenario repeated yet again?

Just because I present a scenario where this character gets assigned (temporarily?) as administrator of an off-earth research facility, along with his girlfriend Carol, does not mean that he still cannot be captain of the Enterprise (he wouldn’t lose his rank) at some later stage. Maybe Carol becomes pregnant while on the planet, maybe not. Maybe Jim and Carol realize that their relationship would not work longterm and so agree to separate, prior to any pregnancy occurring. Kirk may then meet another woman and this time, a pregnancy does happen…

This is still Star Trek, because the Enterprise and crew would still exist. Spock, McCoy et al are still about and Spock and McCoy (in particular) are quite likely there for Jim, no matter where he might be, when and if necessary, as would Jim be for either or both of them. This time round, Kirk needs to get a life that is not so centered on his being just the captain of the Enterprise. This applies to others as well. Spock has met Uhura…

#206 – TUP is no more Trek-insightful than anyone else posting here. Indeed, I would say a little less so, in some respects.

223. Keachick - October 2, 2013

What human cats? According to the writers, the females were Caitians. Just because these women had tails does not make them disgusting nor any intimacy that may be shared with them.

Gaila was green and so are many frogs, lizards, gecko, even sloth can get a green hue to their coats. A sort of green moss can grow on the fur because the animals move so slowly…

224. TUP - October 2, 2013

@214 you don’t get it at all I’m afraid. We could explore a story where Kirk admits he’s gay and has a sex change. There are many stories that are very different than the Prime universe. But you’re ignoring the premise that destiny wants to happen.

There is nothing wrong with Carol choosing a different course in life. Why is that a problem for you? Why is it sexist? Makes no sense.

@219 I afree. The threesome scene was very juvenile. One could argue Kirk was always a “ladies man” and perhaps more so as a young man. But canon also tells us he was a “stack of books with legs” in the Academy. That doesnt preclude him dating but does seem a little too much in my mind, the changes to the timelime notwithstanding. I always took Kirk’s manner with women to be an example of a deep-seeded fear of intimacy coupled with the fact that no matter how much he loved women, he loved being a Captain more. Plus his obvious and unquenchable thirst for exploration and knowledge made new and alien women very attractive to him. I put forth the theory that Kirk actually fell in “love” with most of the women he met, the type of love he was capable of feeling. he was always searching for that possible perfect love that would make him leave Starfleet because deep down inside he thought thats what he should want …but in reality, his true destiny always won out.

@220 for argument sake let me say that you can’t have multiple characters breaking rank. It’s not interesting and would show a disrespect for command and for Kirk. Canon has established that Uhura was tough, strong but NOT insubordinate. She was professional, always. She was fun and maybe even flirty when off duty but especially when she was young she abided by the chain of command. Bones is different because of who he is and the position he holds. He’s the only person on the ship that has power over the Captain and he uses that power, coupled with his friendship, to make his opinion known. In almost every case where Kirk has had enough and orders him to stop, he does so, out of respect for the Captain moreso than respect for his rank.

I understand the desire to show changes and differences in this time-line altered universe but I respectfully disagree. If the writers wanted to make these characters different, make different characters. They tried to make Khan different and it failed. Paramount chose to ‘re-boot” the TOS characters because thats what people want to see. The promise of these characters in their youth is showing us how they came together and evolved into the characters we know, not showing us different people with the same names.

The changes in the timeline impact their environment to a degree but I’d argue that the reason the writers chose the idea that destiny will always try to assert itself is for this very reason – these are the characters we know and love.

225. Rick - October 2, 2013

#206 – TUP is no more Trek-insightful than anyone else posting here. Indeed,

You just don’t agree with TUP because it goes against your own ideas.

“I would say a little less so, in some respects”

Lol well I think many could say that about you as well. Are you so threatened by their comments you felt the need to single TUP out and try to discredit him/her? Nice try.

226. TUP - October 2, 2013

Keychick, you have a valid opinion. It just happens to be wrong. You’re wanting something different from these characters and you’re missing the obvious.

James Kirk did not become a miserable old man pining away for the glory days. He became lonely as society, Starfleet convention and his own heroics pushed him to things that laid outside his “first, best destiny”. He was a great Captain so ofcourse he’d be Admiral when in reality his abilities as Captain were exactly why he should never have been promoted.

In a way Kirk is a tragic figure. He was so good at being Captain, so valuable to the universe, so important to history, that he was forced by his own abilities and successes to sacrifice a “normal” life for the good everyone else. That Kirk died alone, exactly what he knew (feared) would happen was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He couldn’t be James T Kirk unless the course he took led to him dying alone.

He “pined” away for a different life because deep down inside he knew it wasn’t his destiny. He was created to be sacrificed for the greater good of humanity. One could even say that his destiny was written at birth, and always pulled him along to an inevitability. His arrogance was fed by this unconscious knowledge that he would always do what needed to be done. Violate orders? No problem because James T Kirk needed to do so.

In the end, Kirk gave up the “dream” of another life (quite literally in the Nexus) to save the world one more time, a sacrifice he made over and over and over because it was his destiny to do so.

Maybe Abrams Kirk will be different but thats not a story I want to see. This Kirk is still the same person as Prime Kirk, albeit influenced by different outward events. None of that changes his destiny. And thats what the writers have shown us quite clearly.

227. TUP - October 2, 2013

And let me add, when Kirk was on his death bed, he wasn’t thinking about Carol or David or the life he could have had. He was thinking about the life he DID have and summed it up with satisfaction “It was fun”. In that moment, his “pining” evaporated with the realization and embracing of his destiny.

His life and death was exactly as it was always meant to be.

228. crazydaystrom - October 2, 2013

@222. Keachick
“#206 – TUP is no more Trek-insightful than anyone else posting here. Indeed, I would say a little less so, in some respects.”

My tongue was somewhat in my cheek posting that. The bit of a joke being that so many of his opinions concur with mine he therefore must have incredible ‘Trek-insight’. And the subtle joke was meant to be more at my expense than anything else.

229. TUP - October 2, 2013

Of course. Many insightful opinions on here. Not all the same either.

230. Disinvited - October 2, 2013

#196. Jemini – October 2, 2013

You are mistaken. Shatner didn’t turn down any Bad Robot offers. They never made one. In fact, quite to the contrary, he lobbied heavily for a role in their Trek.

#210. Curious Cadet – October 2, 2013

No unnecessary dialogue? Are you talking about STAR TREK in general? Because, I can think of reams and reams of technobabble that served no purpose and should have been dropped in favor of what you advocate. Most of the time in TNG forward it was Trek’s version of “errr….” and “ummmm……” fillers.

231. Disinvited - October 2, 2013

#226. TUP – October 2, 2013

I’d have to quibble with your metaphor as the closest thing to a bed in his GENERATIONS’ death scene rubble was a roadbed, as in an accident. But your rich interpretation of “It was…fun. Oh my!” was fascinating.

But you bring up a good point: in ST III we get a Kirk dealt a serious blow by his son’s murder, but in Kirk’s GENERATIONS Nexus he’s nowhere to be found. Nor even a whiff of that love he fantasized about in SHORE LEAVE?

232. MattM - October 2, 2013

“How It Should Have Ended”
LoL, golden!!

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/cool-videos-how-star-trek-into-darkness-should-have-ended

233. Curious Cadet - October 2, 2013

@230. Disinvited,
“No unnecessary dialogue? Are you talking about STAR TREK in general?”

No I’m talking about TV and film in general. It’s the same with respect to the Berman era in that they deluded themselves into believing that the technobabble was essential. More essential then story development in some cases. Perhaps they thought it was essential for the fans.

But that is not what was going on in Space Seed. That was good old fashioned character development using the little time they had. And make no mistake, they shot more story than they had time for in most cases, and many decisions about what to keep were made in the editing room. They CHOSE to keep McGivers line about being an Indian Sikh — they didn’t have to. So too with TNG, they CHOSE to keep that technobabble over something else every time.

234. Colin - October 2, 2013

I don’t think the third movie will address some of the concerns raised by the “haters”. I think the movie will be tailor made for a foreign consumption.

WhatCulture, “Star Trek 3: 10 Reasons Why We Already Know it Will Suck”, Reason 4 International Markets & Focus Groups

“Into Darkness was the first Star Trek movie that was constructed specifically for the international audience. Studios have realised that the domestic market can make you a few hundred million dollars, but when you open a film in places like South America, China and Russia, that can bring you billions in box office receipts. It can make the difference between having a flop on your hands or a mega success.

“The problem with the international markets is that they have never been too keen on sci-fi or Star Trek. That is why anything that can be seen as Star Trek was toned down in the trailers and the posters.

“Paramount conducted focus groups across the globe to see what they wanted from a Nu-Star Trek movie and the results were less Trek and more action. They took that data and constructed a film to fit the results. You have to ask, is that good film making?

“It makes sense for the studio because they make lots of money but it also sucks the soul out of the films. You watch the collection of scenes and you know that it has been put together like a ready meal in a supermarket.

“Star Trek 3 will go down the same route because all blockbusters focus on the emerging markets. And that is also why you leave the cinema feeling less satisfied. All movies that are a certain type have to fit a set mould, so they don’t risk alienating anyone.

“Putting Star Trek through the same process means that Star trek will change and not for the better. And just like Into Darkness had very little to do with what Star Trek is really about, neither will Star Trek 3.”

Read more at http://whatculture.com/film/star-trek-3-10-reasons-why-we-already-know-it-will-suck.php/8#w8Zr8Bfuj4OXLOY3.99

235. Marja - October 2, 2013

230 Disinvited, Technobabble and Techno-mysteries and Techno-crises are why I quit watching “Voyager.”

And if I hear “Captain, it’s ‘some sort of’ ‘spatial anomaly’ or ‘some sort of fill in the blank’ one more time I think I’ll scream. TNG and Voyager were both pretty guilty, at least TNG in later seasons.

236. Marja - October 2, 2013

234 Colin,

HOW DEPRESSING.

It’s what I’ve feared since the buzz about STiD started, and all the “relentless action” proved in the final product.

May Paramount find a way to please both.

Is it possible, cinema mavens, to edit two versions of a longer film? One dumbed-down and action-amped for the audiences who don’t like Trek and one with about half an hour of science fiction Trek?

Just a thought : p

237. Marja - October 2, 2013

183 Matt M,
193 Sebastian,

Dave McFarland’s quote applies to American pop culture.

Guess into which ‘culture’ Star Trek – in any iteration – falls.

Crack out your literature, opera, and stage plays for entertainment, guys.

238. Keachick - October 2, 2013

“@214 you don’t get it at all I’m afraid. We could explore a story where Kirk admits he’s gay and has a sex change. There are many stories that are very different than the Prime universe. But you’re ignoring the premise that destiny wants to happen.”

No, I am afraid you don’t get it. I am not ignoring the premise about destiny, whatever that means. Being homosexual and to desire a sex change do not necessarily go hand in hand. You are being facetious and ignorant.

At the time of Kirk’s death, we have no idea what flashed through his mind. Obviously, what had just taken place would be uppermost in his mind, as in “Was Soren stopped from destroying the sun and the planets saved?” After that, well, many who have gone through near death experiences, report that their whole life will flash before them, so it is quite likely that Carol and David will have been there…Also, Kirk had been wrong. He did not die alone. It is just that neither Spock nor Bones, his two life long friends, were there.

239. Ash - October 2, 2013

@234 Colin

Those are a few interesting points, and some good ones (loved the bit about Spock and Uhura lol) but I actually think changing directors could be a good thing, but that’s just me. Nothing against JJ, who I think is great, but he himself even said he isn’t a Star Trek fan. You kind of get the feeling like maybe his heart wasn’t really in it. I’m still looking forward to the third film though.

240. Keachick - October 2, 2013

#227 – You have no idea how anything is “meant to be”. In the prime universe, it was “meant to be” because that is how things played out. However, in this alternate universe, we have no knowledge of how anything is “meant to be”. All that is known is that there are a lot different choices and roads that may or may not get taken, walked along, nor where they may lead.

My *scenario about Kirk being given an administrative posting on a planetside research facility may well be a road that prime Kirk chose not to go on or was not there for him. That road could to lead this nuKirk to again being captain of the Enterprise, but possibly have (slightly) different knowledge, interests, and perspective…

*This is just an idea – why are some of you so closed minded to the possibility of this Captain James Kirk of the starship Enterprise going on a slightly different life path. Why does this Kirk have to be the “tragic figure” that he seemed to become in the prime universe? Destiny – my arse!

241. Keachick - October 2, 2013

Do you really think that some of the TOS episode writers gave that much thought to the dialogue they wrote? Seriously? They put the bit about Khan possibly being Sikh because it sounded good, exotic sort of, for the 60′s American audiences of the day. I doubt they ever believed that it would become the subject of such debate almost 50 years later. I can’t believe it either.

Holy moly.

242. Keachick - October 2, 2013

#234 – “And just like Into Darkness had very little to do with what Star Trek is really about, neither will Star Trek 3.”

Of course, that depends on whether the writer of this article knows what Star Trek is really about in the first place…

It seems that many audiences, including larger international ones, seem to lust after noise, cruelty and violence, so the studios acquiesce to the demands of young testosterone driven males, many of whom have little, if any, hope of exercising their hormonal exuberance in a more connected way with another human being, namely a female (ref. China).

Things are getting seriously distorted and unfortunately the film industry is reflecting that and, to a certain extent, fueling it as well. What to do?

243. Colin - October 2, 2013

Paramount is faced with shrinking profits from the domestic audience. There are many reasons why a domestic audience in the United States is becoming less of a “cash cow”. So, Paramount and other studios look overseas for profits. The most successful films have a ratio of 1/3 domestic and 2/3 foreign. Star Trek: Into Darkness got close; however, it fell short. I think that Paramount is going to press harder on the people involved in this film to make a product that meets that ratio. This is for me why I think the next film will be a little farther away from Trek (which is a niche product in the domestic market) and closer to the standard action/adventure film.

244. Curious Cadet - October 2, 2013

Gene wrote the teleplay for Space Seed. Often referred to as ‘the forgotten Gene’ (a reference to Gene Roddenberry), Gene Lee Coon was one of the most important creative minds behind “Star Trek”. In addition to Khan Noonien Singh (in “Space Seed”), his credited creations for Star Trek include the Klingons and the Organian Peace Treaty (in “Errand of Mercy”), Zefram Cochrane (in “Metamorphosis”), and the Prime Directive. Since he also had the position of doing rewrites for scripts, his work touches many more episodes. He also mentored the young David Gerrold and helped him polish the script for the episode “The Trouble With Tribbles.” Other popular “Star Trek” episodes that he wrote include “The Devil in the Dark”, “Arena”, and “A Taste of Armageddon”. He is credited with much of the character development of Star Trek’s characters, much of the humor of Star Trek, and the disagreements between Spock and McCoy.

This is the hallmark of a PROFESSIONAL writer. They actually care about every word that went into their scripts. Terms like “polish” demonstrate the seriousness with which professional writers take their craft. The fact that rewrites are routinely made to scripts up to and including filming of the scenes demonstrates a level of meticulousness found in few other disciplines. To dismiss anything they contribute to a script as trivial, especially a respected and accomplished professional like Gene Coon, and without any proof, does a great disservice to their abilities and achievements.

If Gene Coon had a character say that she guessed Khan was from Northern India and probably a Sikh, you can be sure there was a reason.

245. Ash - October 2, 2013

Anybody see the ‘How it should have ended’ for Star Trek into Darkness yet?

Funny stuff.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4N15J4ibej8

246. Li'l Shat - October 2, 2013

For better or for worse, Star Trek seems committed to the big screen for now.

What I don’t understand is why they’re jumping into the five year mission at the end of the second movie. Isn’t that sort of confusing? It makes no sense for them to embark on that mission after the second film in what is purported to be a trilogy. To me, it suggests that things are literally being made up as the people involved go along. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just that it seems to defy the well executed trilogy-based story arcs of other movie franchises.

I know there will be a third movie but I can’t imagine how, with Bad Robot and these writers, it could be anything but a scenario either placed after the five year mission, or a situation in which the Enterprise is called back to Earth during its mission. Either way the five year mission–which is the setting of (and provides so much of the meaning for) Star Trek–gets glossed over. I can’t imagine these people coming up with something that doesn’t involve a super-villain bent on revenge, a big black threatening ship, and direct peril to Earth. In fact, I challenge them to do better.

IMHO the five year mission should have started only after a three movie story arc.

247. dswynne - October 2, 2013

@178 (Spock/Uhura Admirer): And thing is, I’m not for or against S/U shipping; I simply want to see it play out, no matter where it ultimately ends. After all, rarely have I seen either the Spock or the Uhura (or characters other than Kirk) have had on-screen romances. That’s all I’m saying.

And one more thing: at first glance, the scene where Uhura calls Spock out during the mission to Q’onos seems inappropriate. Having thought about it more, how events led to that scene seems logical. You have a relationship in crisis where one partner is unable to express himself to another who is trying to understand him (a scene where Uhura and Spock are “fighting” should have been included). And while Spock should have pulled rank on Uhura, the fact that he allowed her to talk to openly to him, in the most inappropriate manner, means to me that Spock did care for Uhura. No professional would put up with such a thing, unless there is a genuine affection going on. Spock handled the situation because he loves Uhura, albeit in a Vulcan sort of way. In fact, I could say that this goes back to the talk Spock had with Sarek, in ST’09, shortly after Amanda died, speaking the truth that he married Amanda because he loved her, not because it was the “logical thing to do”.

I still have my own criticisms of STiD, but the S/U thing isn’t one of them.

248. Marja - October 2, 2013

Interesting article from The New Yorker from a few months back [haven't seen the link posted in TrekMovie]:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/is-star-trek-into-darkness-a-drone-allegory.html

249. Marja - October 2, 2013

224 TUP, “you can’t have multiple characters breaking rank. It’s not interesting and would show a disrespect for command and for Kirk. Canon has established that Uhura was tough, strong but NOT insubordinate. She was professional, always. She was fun and maybe even flirty when off duty but especially when she was young she abided by the chain of command.”

In TOS “The Man Trap” Uhura is shown, on duty, flirting with Spock. So “when off duty” does not apply.

As for breaking rank, how about Captain-soon-to-be Academy guy Kirk yelling in Admiral Pike’s face? How about Scotty yelling at Kirk?

Why is it okay for the men to “break rank” when it’s not okay for Uhura?

250. Marja - October 2, 2013

dswynne, “Having thought about it more, how events led to that scene seems logical. You have a relationship in crisis where one partner is unable to express himself to another who is trying to understand him (a scene where Uhura and Spock are “fighting” should have been included). And while Spock should have pulled rank on Uhura, the fact that he allowed her to talk to openly to him, in the most inappropriate manner, means to me that Spock did care for Uhura. No professional would put up with such a thing, unless there is a genuine affection going on.”

First, I agree with most of what you say here.

However, many people have faulted Uhura for holding up her hand and saying “Two seconds, Captain” then going on with what she was saying to Spock; these people think Uhura’s being super-unprofessional. While I might agree [I thought the scene was badly placed but have reconciled myself to it - somewhat] it was up to Kirk, not Spock, to call Uhura to order [after “Two seconds, Captain”. Spock had already told her he’d prefer to discuss it in private without ordering her to silence, as you point out.

If Kirk minded the impending discussion, he could have said irt Uhura’s bid for time, “Lieutenant – AS YOU WERE” and had done with it. Kirk was interested to hear the discussion. Perhaps he wanted to hear more about Spock’s psychological health, or perhaps he was acting as friend or brother to both Spock and Uhura. So there was also genuine affection from Kirk there.

251. Marja - October 2, 2013

224 Curious, I’d bet one of my favorite exchanges in ‘Tribbles’ is thanks to Gene L. Coon.

Kirk: How close will we be to Klingon space?
Chekov: Close enough to smell dem, Keptin.
Spock: That is incorrect, Ensign. Odors do not travel through the vacuum of space.
Chekov: I was making a little joke, Sir.
Spock: Extremely little, Ensign.

A bit of military humor there. Though I don’t know if Gerrold served or was the relative of a military person.

Gene was masterful in his handling of Trek, but we must never forget Dorothy C. Fontana, either. She contributed a goodly amount of background for the Vulcans and Spock in “Journey to Babel” and some excellent episodes [like the one featuring crazydaystrom, I mean crazy Richard Daystrom] and also did a lot of general rewriting of scripts.

252. Marja - October 2, 2013

195 TUP, “- Spock/Uhura. Nice surprise in 09, done like dinner in STID. It takes away from what should be a Kirk romance (not with uhura but with someone) and artificially pushes Uhura ahead of Bones in the Trinity. It also leads to some brutally unrealistic scenes played for comic relief. eg. Spock changing her Starship assignment because she demands it, Spock admitting the realtionship might cause issues on the away mission, Uhura’s actions during the Volcano scene, their tiff on the shuttle to Kronos. All bad. All things that would get them both booted out of Starfleet if it was real. Romance would be better if it was more subtle but the writers use it to explore Spock’s humanity and emotions when that should be explored through his relationship with Kirk and McKoy.”

Oh, pooh. First of all, the scene in which Spock changes Uhura’s starship assignment is in ST09, about which you said Spock and Uhura’s romance was a “nice surprise.” Right up there in the same paragraph : )

The tiff and so on would not get them ‘booted out of Starfleet.’ They would [in TODAY's military service] first be counseled about having a relationship in the chain of command; quite possibly one of them would be transferred or relegated to another department on the ship. If the captain showed poor judgement in having them on the same mission they would be counseled [if they did go on such a mission, despite Spock's doubts] and began a quarrel] about their poor discipline. Kirk would have admonished them in the “shuttle.”

Fact is, this movie is set 200+ years in the future, some of us are dubious about just how military Starfleet is, and we do not know what the regulations in Starfleet are regarding romance between officers. Until I see them, I reserve judgement. Starfleet is not today’s military service.

There seem to be a lot of people here – on this board – who want the three leads to be Kirk, Spock and McCoy, forsaking all others, till death do them part. They may never have any serious relationships except their friendships for each other.

The Trio should become a Quartet, and please cease complaining about Uhura. She has not in any wise taken screen time away from McCoy [as someone pointed out, the "guilty" party in STiD was probably Scotty, but why indeed should we blame ANY character for the use the screenwriters make of them?].

The majority of the world’s population is female [also Chinese and South Asian]. The moviegoing audience is at least half female [though I don't have statistics, god help me - just the observation of a constant movie-goer]. Uhura needs to be strongly featured for the sake of the female and African-American population. [And before people bite my hiney for saying Saldana is black, she is a Hispanic OF AFRICAN DESCENT and claims both "identities."]

253. Marja - October 3, 2013

215 Keachick, “Of course, (in many of your minds) we couldn’t possibly have a scenario where she AND Kirk leave to seek a place where they could both do work other than be on a starship – Kirk being the administrator of a planetary research facility and Carol being one of the researchers – all this as they await the birth of David, or could it be Davina?, this time round. What’s more *shocking*, neither Carol or the baby die. Their story gets told, being part of a larger story. ”

I agree with nearly everything else you said in your post, but disagree that Kirk, Action Hero in AUTrek and pretty much the same in TOS, could *ever* be happy “driving a desk” as an administrator.

I can see them [with the precedent of S/U] being together on the Enterprise, and I particularly appreciate your “Gosh, now there’s an idea – who would have thought that such a situation could be possible, even workable, in a 23rd century Star Trek universe?”

Bob Orci, if you’re reading this, I hope you will continue to feature the women, and have C Marcus and Uhura work together on a project, so they can be real women independent of men – and talk about science or stress in Starfleet while meeting some urgent mission requirement. For the record, I hope the Spock/Uhura relationship continues and solidifies, being a background feature for the most part.

254. Marshall - October 3, 2013

@252 marja

I could handle Uhura joining the trio to make it a quartet, if they can pull it off believably and not make it seemed forced like “Oh yea hey, here is Uhura! She’s not really needed in the scene but we didn’t forget about her!”. Actually give her things to do. Do I think Bones is a much more important character? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about Uhura and her characterization.

Giving Uhura a larger role isn’t the problem to most I think, it’s the romance. And YES, I am aware some people are obsessed and seemingly only watch for that, but I really don’t see how it’s been doing her character any favors. Or Spock. I was weary right away when it popped up in ST09, and thoroughly annoyed and over it in STID. The article in the link Colin posted summed it up nicely. I want more Uhura being useful and active, I want whiney, girlfriend Uhura gone. She’s better than that.

255. Boy - October 3, 2013

223. Keachick – October 2, 2013
What human cats? According to the writers, the females were Caitians. Just because these women had tails does not make them disgusting nor any intimacy that may be shared with them.

Gaila was green and so are many frogs, lizards, gecko, even sloth can get a green hue to their coats. A sort of green moss can grow on the fur because the animals move so slowly…
———————————————————————————————-

the 3 way sex was digesting not the felines.

256. Jemini - October 3, 2013

254. Marshall – October 3, 2013

@252 marja

I could handle Uhura joining the trio to make it a quartet, if they can pull it off believably and not make it seemed forced like “Oh yea hey, here is Uhura! She’s not really needed in the scene but we didn’t forget about her!”.

————

you mean what people precisely ask the writers to do in order to give to the “holy trinity” and Bones more moments? ;D

like, DOCTOR McCoy was always soooo needed in some of the scenes on the bridge ^

“Giving Uhura a larger role isn’t the problem to most I think, it’s the romance. And YES, I am aware some people are obsessed and seemingly only watch for that”

the haters on this board are no less “obsessed” about the pair than the fans* are, though.
[[*whom for the most part either don't participate in online discussions or if they do they don't post in this site for sure - like 97% of the star trek fans, wasn't Orci the one who said that only 3% of the fans post?]]

Come on, you just can’t let it go.
I have noticed a curious pattern in behavior here in that some people seem to get almost defensive when people state that they like the pair.
Even in this page some people panicked only because a S/U fan mentioned the word “wedding”, as if that person could have the power to make it happen ^^”
Someone here even said that the S/U fans should “shut up” lol!

Also, should I remind you what happened when the webmaster of this site thought it could have been fun to have a poll where to ask people what was the biggest issue with the first movie? Some very dedicated S/U haters got so obsessed about skewing the results of every stupid poll here that if you google them you can still find the hilarious “internet campaigns” they did to “convince the writers” to break them up. [[ As matter of fact, most of the vocal S/U haters are in fact shippers ;)]]

The romantic subplot isn’t the be all and end all of these movies so they shouldn’t be the sole reason someone watches them as they shouldn’t be the sole reason why someone might not want to watch them. Yet, it seems to be everything some people, one way or another, constantly talk about here.
So yeah, maybe this means that the writers did their job well ;)

257. Disinvited - October 3, 2013

#235. Marja – October 2, 2013

You’re telling me? I loved the actors and their performances in VOY but the writing eventually got so horrid I couldn’t stand to hear their tortured lips try to evoke something meaningful from it. In its later seasons, my sister (a HUGE VOY fan) would be driven to apoplexy wondering, when visiting, why the sound was off and the closed captions on, when Voyager was playing. I had to explain “Because I can just barely tolerate reading it better than having to listen to it.”

#236. Marja – October 2, 2013

I draw your attention to the link in message 181 (by Spock/Uhura Admirer – October 1, 2013 ) in this very thread. If Paramount’s worldwide strategy was so successful in regards to Trek and its other film properties’ profits, then why are they firing personnel worldwide, instead of hiring more to help roll in their wheelbarrows of dough?

Now Collin (243. Colin – October 2, 2013) I think reflects that reasoning too, but I somehow expect that Paramount will take a somewhat more conservative measured response to all of this (As the previous Paramount did.) such as firing people. Oh, I expect they’ll have their focus groups and definitely push for some one nonsensical thing, but my point is: I doubt it will be as radical as you fear. I have to believe that. Otherwise, I’m looking at a Paramount pushed ham-handed retooling of OMEGA GLORY (The only one of the original episodes caught on Viewmaster’s real 3D cameras.) and as much as I enjoyed that the first time around (And the irony of a Canadian convincingly espousing the United States’ patriotic and political values.) I just can’t stomach another lecture on how the Federation has learned that obsessive pursuit of immortality, no matter how well Khan’s blood dovetails into it, is ultimately chased at too corrosive a cost.

258. Marja - October 3, 2013

257 Disinvited,

I admire your loyalty in even watching Voyager on mute : )

I just hope Paramount Pictures doesn’t bite the big one before they get Trek3 out the door ;)

I don’t think I could even use the words “enjoy” and “Omega Glory” in the same sentence … oh wait, I did like the part where Captain Tracey convinces them Spock is the Evil One, and then they find a picture of “Satan” in their holy book [I'm laughing just thinking about it] … god the wigs in that episode! Topped only by the ones in “A Private Little War” :p

259. Marja - October 3, 2013

Oh yeah, besides, Omega Glory would NEVER pass the Chinese censors.

I live in hope.

260. Marja - October 3, 2013

“Paramount has laid off 110 employees from a broad swath of the studio including its marketing and legal ranks.”

Heh, I’ve been saying they should have fired those marketing people since about April of this year …

261. Marja - October 3, 2013

256, jemini,

As someone who’s watched the better TOS eps dozens of times, I can tell you that if McCoy hadn’t been in such a hurry to see what was happening on the Bridge in “Doomsday Machine” there would never have been a confrontation between Decker and Spock over command of the Enterprise. McCoy would have taken Decker to Sickbay and no doubt found him unfit for duty. But other than that hiccup of illogic/ “dereliction of duty” on McCoy’s part, it was a really good episode. The scene with Decker and Spock’s confrontation is one of the best in Trek; it was simply arrived at in an illogical way, probably b/c of episode time constraints.

Everyone who speaks of the great Triumvirate, Triad, Trio, Trinity &c. with such reverence should remember that it is no more or less logical than including Uhura in a Quartet.

254 Marshall, “Giving Uhura a larger role isn’t the problem to most I think, it’s the romance. And YES, I am aware some people are obsessed and seemingly only watch for that, but I really don’t see how it’s been doing her character any favors. Or Spock.”

“Giving Uhura a larger role isn’t a problem. To most.” Golly gee, thanks, that’s mighty nice, to give a larger role to a woman and person of color! Glad it’s not a problem!

Yeah, I’ve seen several posters on this board who make out as if the Spock/Uhura romance is the end of Star Trek, and seem equally obsessed with it because of their dislike of it. They’re the ones blowing it out of proportion.

I’ve even seen a poster say how much they disliked Spock and Uhura, but it was fine to have Carol Marcus and Kirk in a relationship. Whut.

So the S/U romance is “a problem” ["to most," your words imply]. No, I think the romance is “a problem” to some.

Not to most.

To you, it’s a disservice to have Spock and Uhura romantically linked.

To one group, it’s a fun way of saying, “We always knew that Spock, brilliant Spock, was also a Sex Bomb” or “What a man, to ‘rate’ having such an intelligent, attractive girlfriend,” or “what a brilliant woman Uhura must be, to ‘rate’ having the brightest guy on the Enterprise as her boyfriend.” Nerd love at its finest.

To another group, it’s a view of how an “interspecies” romance would work, how the characters deal with their differences, and it deepens the appreciation of cultural mixtures on the Enterprise.

To yet another group, it’s a nice background of two grown-ups loving and caring for each other, representing the “married” pair in the “family.”

So you’re “sick of” the Spock/Uhura romance in Trek. Just like I’m sick of all the violence and destruction, maybe. Perhaps both of us are “doomed.”

262. Disinvited - October 3, 2013

#258. Marja – October 3, 2013

Hmm…I think my first loyalty was to Bujold but then they chose, “Mrs. Columbo”, who I thought was unfairly raked over the coals for factors outside her mien in that Falk kerfuffle so I was open to her. In all honesty, while I absolutely loved Peter Falk, I enjoyed Kate’s turn at bat and that’s what led to me getting hooked on VOY, its actors and their characterizations. That and the development of the (What was it called?) Chaotica(?) holoadventures that threwback to my ZOMBIES OF THE STRATOSPHERE suckling in the 50s.

#259. Marja – October 3, 2013

That’s to what I was referring in using the word “retooling”, i.e. in the Paramount focus-grouped altversion the Coms repel/best/defeat the the Yang, “Monguls”, build the Great Wall, yadda-yadda and McCoy figures out that the reason everyone there lives so long is that one of Khan’s, forward of his ship’s arrival, augment virus contaminated probes (The Botany Bay had to be heading somewhere? No?) somehow (wormhole?) made its way there 300 years ago…

#260. Marja – October 3, 2013

I can definitely understand your sentiment in regards to the domestic marketing personnel, but worldwide marketing? Not so much.

263. dswynne - October 3, 2013

Just a thought: what was the reaction to Riker and Troi getting back together in ‘Insurrection’, and then married in ‘Nemesis’? Did that relationship take away anything from the films?

264. Gary 8.5 - October 3, 2013

After they were married in Nemesis ,
The TNG films stopped.
So , there is no way to really tell.

265. Gary 8.5 - October 3, 2013

263.my own thoughts in response to your query.
In Insurrection , they used the planets “youth effect” as a partial explanation as to why they got back together .
But in the end
They said the planets effects just exposed feelings that were always there and BANGO! the movies over .
In Nemesis , we had a wedding a scene or two with them in bed together
and that was about it .
I wanted more.
The good thing about The Titan Novels is that it not only continued the relationship, but it expanded itin Surprising and Exciting ways.
No spoilers in case you have not read the books.

266. Gary 8.5 - October 3, 2013

Congrats to Bob and Alex for the Renewal of Sleepy Hollow!
There will another 13 episode season next fall.
I bet that is going to be one heck of a season finale!

267. TUP - October 3, 2013

Where to begin.

Firstly there is a basic general premise to Trek and that does not include Kirk going to live on a research station.

I have no issue with Uhura. On the contrary there are far too few strong women characters, possibly due to so many writers being men. But Uhura is mostly defined by her relationship with Spock. She was a bit supporting player in TOS and I certainly have no problem with her being fleshed out and strong in the movies but not because she’s Spock’s girlfriend.

Carol has potential to be a very strong female character also. The one woman that seemed to make a lasting impact on Kirk, was able to walk away from kirk’s life (and now seemingly her fathers too) and command a scientific research station where she was clearly confident and strong enough to hold her own with star fleet). I’d rather see carol developed strongly in the next movie than a few bit scenes with characters like Chekhov who shouldn’t have even been in the films yet.

268. Tom - October 3, 2013

#230 Disinvited

Perhaps Mr Shatner will get a call from Bad Robot this time.

269. Keachick - October 3, 2013

So there is no way that Kirk could possibly be temporarily reassigned somewhere or go on a kind of sabbatical, because that is not what happened in TOS and because that is so not Kirk? Well, yes, to the first bit – that did not happen in TOS, however, as to the second part – so not Kirk, really?

Sure – the obvious place for this character is to be captain of the Enterprise but to expect, even demand, that to be the end-all of who Kirk is or could be is actually quite lazy on people’s part.

Kirk got the boot in the beginning of STID and only because of happenstance did he end up being on the Enterprise again and being in command, even though, at one point, he admitted he did not know what he was supposed to do, only what he knew he could do…being captain was not one of those things.

Kirk is a complex character who is no doubt happiest when in that chair, but that is not all this person is…

270. Jemini - October 3, 2013

267. TUP – October 3, 2013

” But Uhura is mostly defined by her relationship with Spock. ”

uhm… defined defined.. let’s talk about “defined”

I could not deprive you of the revelation of all that you could accomplish together, of a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize.

no, that wasn’t said about Uhura. That was said about Spock and Kirk. They’re the ones whose relationship is based on the word “defined”.
Pretty ironic that people transform something that is glorified in the K/S relationship into a bad thing when it comes to Uhura loving Spock. I wonder why. ( someone from the distance suggests me: bromance is ok romance is notttt )
Men getting defined by their relationships with other men are fine. Men getting influenced by friendship even in their job are fine. Men doing stupid things because of friendships are fine. Men acting out of character because of said friendships are fine. Men having co-dependent relationships with other men are also fine and widely accepted.. BUT God forbid a female character showing her feelings for a significant other and suddenly people will say that she’s only that and she does nothing but that. All her other scenes, actions cease to matter.

and yet, this is such a big cast. What do we know of Sulu? Chekov? Scotty?
It’s only natural that both Uhura AND McCoy get more scenes than the others because they are somehow more connected to the two male protagonists and I cannot see what makes Uhura more “defined” by her relationship with Spock than McCoy is “defined” by his relationship with Kirk.
Yet, I don’t see people complaining that McCoy is reduced to Kirk’s best friend only. and yet, like Uhura, most of his scenes and actions relate to his friendship with Kirk.

A lot of people seem to forget that Spock himself (and McCoy) had always been a more prominent character compared to the others because he was the nerdy best friend of hero.
For the sake of some “trivia” stuff here I might, for example, accidentally mention some letters between Roddenberry and a friend where it was essentially said that Spock was made Kirk’s best friend as an attempt to not make people prefer him over Kirk. Their idea was to make them inseparable so that people would love Kirk because they loved Spock and they would think about Kirk when they thought about Spock.
(http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/06/getting-star-trek-on-air-was-impossible.html)

271. TUP - October 3, 2013

You fail to see the issue with what you’re suggesting. Who cares? The film narrative requires the story to keep moving forward. Kirk going off to live with carol would be a side journey. We know Kirk left star fleet before so could he again? Sure. Maybe someone will explore that in a book. But the film? Who cares.

272. Red Dead Ryan - October 3, 2013

#215.

“Of course, (in many of your minds) we couldn’t possibly have a scenario where she AND Kirk leave to seek a place where they could both do work other than be on a starship – Kirk being the administrator of a planetary research facility and Carol being one of the researchers – all this as they await the birth of David, or could it be Davina?, this time round. What’s more *shocking*, neither Carol or the baby die. Their story gets told, being part of a larger story.”

With all due respect, this scenario you present is akin to the show “Cheers” taking place in a rec room, or an episode of “L.A. Law” dealing with someone charged with allowing an old cat to starve to death. :-)

You’re taking characters away from the core location, and jumping the shark at the same time.

#220.

“Kirk has obviously had sex with lots of women but the three way thing with the female human cats was degusting.

I am not sure Shatner would even applaud that.”

You forget that Shatner directed “The Final Frontier”, and in it, he was fighting with a three-breasted cat lady whom he threw face first into a tub.

So I could see Shatner easily applauding the Kirk-Catladies pourn scene, unfortunately.

273. Keachick - October 3, 2013

No, TUP, it is you who fails. You say, “who cares”. In other words, you do not care about character development or an original scenario that might take a character in uncharted waters (even temporarily) because it is a big film. I was right – that IS lazy and stupid. So Star Trek movies end up being something akin to “Groundhog Day”, especially when it comes to how the main characters are written and what happens to them…

#255 – I had not heard that having sexual relationships with two females in the same bed at the same time could be DIGESTING. I know, that some sex play can take the form biting, but I doubt that Kirk was that hungry. In fact, what the tiniest bit we saw on screen, it appeared that the two females still seemed hungry and were keen to keep digesting…Damn phones in any century!

Of course, it is possible that in order for the two cat-ladies to share the same man at the same time, they may have to put aside emotions like sexual jealousy and envy (if these people had such emotions to the extent that humans do), so they could enjoy what was on offer. Gosh, wouldn’t that be so *shocking*?!

274. Keachick - October 3, 2013

“With all due respect, this scenario you present is akin to the show “Cheers” taking place in a rec room, or an episode of “L.A. Law” dealing with someone charged with allowing an old cat to starve to death. :-)”

Huh? WTF? DUH!

275. Red Dead Ryan - October 3, 2013

#274.

It was a “Seinfeld” reference.

276. TUP - October 3, 2013

No I’m fine with the idea. Just not in a movie. How much of the two hours will be spent showing a brooding Kirk on a sparse scientific space station regretting his decision? I can see it being an idea…and then rejected. If you like the idea so much write some fan fiction. It doesn’t work for a movie.

277. crazydaystrom - October 3, 2013

As I said before I like the idea of seeing Kirk, or any of the Enterprise 7 for that matter, functioning in places and assignments other than those that are typical and traditional for them. I just don’t ever expect to see that in any of the movies. And even with any tv show with those characters.

Inherent in the concept of Star Trek TOS and nuTrek is the voyages of the starship Enterprise and her stalwort crew. Anytime we see any of them moved or thrown out of place, that displacement is ONLY a plot contrivance to produce a feeling of satisfaction once they’re back where ‘should be’. First best destinies and all that.

So as Keachick said, yes it was happenstance that Kirk regained the chair after loosing it, ‘in universe’. But ‘in reality’ he lost it so that he could regain it. And there was no question that regain that chair he would. Just as there was no question that when Kirk died he would one way or other be back with us again. And for me and many others it was a certainty that he’d be back by end of movie. That took away any emotional weight to the scene. That and Spock’s Khan scream.

And THAT is one of the many issues I had with the film – the many ‘in your face’ contrivances. Fiction by definition is contrivance, of course. But the better the fiction the less obvious the contrivance. And there less chance of the contrivance deteriorating to gimmickry.

But I digress. Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise, TOS or nuTrek, is an inherent given of the premise. He will never stray far from that. Certainly not for very long. Even when he was an Admiral he was, and became again, Captain.

278. crazydaystrom - October 3, 2013

*stalwart* crew

279. Ahmed - October 3, 2013

@ 276. TUP – October 3, 2013

“No I’m fine with the idea. Just not in a movie. How much of the two hours will be spent showing a brooding Kirk on a sparse scientific space station regretting his decision? I can see it being an idea…and then rejected. If you like the idea so much write some fan fiction. It doesn’t work for a movie.”

Agreed, specially with the type of movies that we see these days. You can’t have a scene like that ever.

@ 275. Red Dead Ryan – October 3, 2013

“#274.

It was a “Seinfeld” reference.”

I don’t think she is familiar with Seinfeld :)

280. Keachick - October 3, 2013

What brooding Kirk?

God, ye of such limited vision or imagination!

281. crazydaystrom - October 3, 2013

@270. Jemini
“Pretty ironic that people transform something that is glorified in the K/S relationship into a bad thing when it comes to Uhura loving Spock. I wonder why.”

I think that it’s just that for a lot of people Uhura/Spock needs some getting used to. We’ve only had about four or five hours of them as a couple and four years real time. And this after many hours (DECADES of real time) with them not relating to each other romantically at all.

For me it was a huge WTF? at first but still I warmed to the idea of S/U pretty quickly. I’m just not extremely happy with how they’ve been depicted as a couple. My opinion.

IDIC

282. Rick - October 3, 2013

@281
“And this after many hours (decades in real time) with them not relating to each other romantically at all”

Some people will grasp desperately at the one scene in TOS where Uhura tried to flirt with Spock and say “well there you go! It all makes sense”. Or that Nichelle Nichols claims that Gene supposedly wanted a Spock/Uhura romance. All due respect to the great Ms.Nichols, but I can’t see how that was any scenario Roddenberry would seriously consider. Even in all the films there was not a hint of anything more.Probably one of many ideas just tossed around.
To be fair, no one will really know. Sadly we only had 3 seasons of TOS, if only we could have more. I just know I would have found the romance just as cringeworthy in TOS as it is in the reboot. Its not romance for Uhura that I’m against, it’s boyfriend Spock. I’m sorry, I know women flirted with him in TOS, but a Spock with a girlfriend and relationship issues is just too awkward for a lot of people.
Women (Uhura) want feelings and emotions from their BF, and Spock giving into that seems to go against everything that made him interesting as a Vulcan in the first place. I’m aware Vulcans feel love, and human/Vulcan relationships are possible (sarek and amanda), thing is though, we didn’t have to see Sarek and Amanda and all their relationship issues. We have to sit through and watch Spock and Uhura argue or watch Spock do the “uh oh” face and everyone is supposed to laugh like “oh Spock is so confused! Spock has women problems! Uhura is mad and he doesn’t know why! Hahaha how cute!”
I was waiting for Uhura to have romance in TOS. I think TOS Kirk and Sulu were always very…appreciative of her looks and personality. I could have seen something going on. Uhura was easily prettier and more interesting than most of the women Kirk hooked up with. I Especially liked in Star Trek V when Uhura and Scotty had their shore leave plans together. They were very cute. I could have seen that happening more.

283. Colin - October 3, 2013

I have been reading the comics. My impression from the comics is that the people involved with NuTrek find it difficult to craft a story about exploration. For reasons not fully explained, but hinted at, in the latest comic, the Enterprise’s five year mission was delayed until the late spring of 2261. Apparently, there were issues with the warp core as Kirk is asking Scotty about the condition of the new warp core. Before they begin their mission, they receive a distress call from Khitomer. Well, events spiral out of control, and that is how we get the Khitomer Conflict.

I think the next film will give lip service to the idea of a five year mission, but I doubt we will see them doing exploration, ex. Prometheus.

284. TUP - October 3, 2013

@280 if Kirk leaves star fleet to hang out with carol and then returns to star fleet is assume he’d be brooding a bit. I suppose he could be happy and leave his family for fun.

Can we agree to drop it? No one else seems any interest in James Kirk: Family Man story. Go wrote an alt universe story if you love it so much but that’s not James Kirk in any of the universes we’ve seen thus far. Mary.Nicholson@mtsallstream.com

285. TUP - October 3, 2013

@280 if Kirk leaves star fleet to hang out with carol and then returns to star fleet is assume he’d be brooding a bit. I suppose he could be happy and leave his family for fun.

Can we agree to drop it? No one else seems any interest in James Kirk: Family Man story. Go wrote an alt universe story if you love it so much but that’s not James Kirk in any of the universes we’ve seen thus far.

286. TUP - October 3, 2013

@282 – I agree 100%. I found it interesting in 09 and was fine with it.

But these writers seem determined to make things different or have different takes on the characters… I just dont see the romance serving the story very well at this point.

287. Baby - October 3, 2013

@jermini

Gene made Kirk and Spock best friends because he wanted to stop the rivalry between Nimoy and Shatner.

Apparently when the show was on air, Spock became the break out character, I guess Shatner was kind of intimated by that.

This is the main reason why Gene made both characters best friends forever so that people would not have to take sides.

That was why its Kirk and Spock and not Kirk vs Spock

I remember watching the documentary on YouTube months back.

288. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - October 3, 2013

@270. Jemini – October 3, 2013

Thanks, Jemini – I think you stated your points well.

As far as having Spock and Kirk inseparable so that people who loved Spock would automatically love Kirk as well – that didn’t really work for me at the time. In the mid to late ’60s Hollywood seemed to have a penchant for a male lead stereotype that pushed all my adolescent female buttons – and not in a good way. I found the characters quite acceptable in most scenes, but put them in a ‘romantic’ scene with a woman and my skin crawled.

I offer my apologies Keachick, but, from my then 12-14 year old perspective, I found TOS Kirk to be rather sleazy (although I did like his portrayal in The Paradise Syndrome). My attitude to him mellowed in the movies. Both he and I were more mature by then ;-)

Even now, my husband and sons are quite amused, and a bit bemused, by my visceral reaction to male characters being sleazy (from my perspective) on TV or at the movies.

Funnily enough, nuKirk doesn’t cause the same visceral reaction from me that TOS Kirk did/does. I think it’s because his ‘antics’ are played with humour.

289. Colin - October 3, 2013

I once thought that the films could have gone a differen direction. Instead of having a man driven by ambition and by his principles for his career and his ship and in the process lost the opporutunity to have a family, I could see a man who finds that he needs a family and in a trilogy of films we see him taking the road to leaving Starfleet and forging a new life with a family. I would think this would be a radical departure from the Kirk we know. We already have a radical departure with him losing his father, with him having a distant relationship with his mother, and with him having a mercurial relationship with his uncle.

290. DJ Emma470 - October 3, 2013

@282 rick

Great post. I agree completely. Although it would be interesting to have a female character who isn’t the leading mans girlfriend for once, Uhura in a romance isn’t a problem to me. Spock is a different story. Quinto plays a great Spock, but the way they have him written in these new films as a boyfriend who needs to answer to a girlfriend, one who asks him to talk about his feelings on a mission, is awful I think. Spock is half human, but he chose to follow the Vulcan way. If Uhura is as needy for emotional connection and feeling from Spock as she seemed in the film, I’m not sure she will get what she needs from him in the long run.
I’m guessing they put her in the relationship as a way of elevating her character, but they could have done that many other ways. Ones that showcase her talent and linguistic skills and make her a more valuable member of the team.
Why they feel the need to have romance in every movie these days is beyond me. It draws women some say? Maybe, but not all of us are looking for that. Personally I’d rather my Trek concentrate more on the exploration and such as opposed to who amongst the crew are dating.
However since you mentioned it I did always think that Scotty and Uhura were quite cute in Star Trek V. Although they only acted on those secret feelings because of Sybok, they were two people who were lively and fun and would probably get on very well. It’s not something that will or should happen in reboot Trek, just something I always thought was cute too.

291. Gary 8.5 - October 3, 2013

287.What documentary ?

292. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - October 4, 2013

@290. DJ Emma470 – October 3, 2013

At the time, I neither liked nor disliked the Scotty/Uhura thing in ST:V. I just thought it came out of left field and totally due to Sybok’s interference with their minds. I found it similarly jarring to have Kirk insisting to Sybok that he needed his pain while we saw Spock take his pain, or at least his painful memories, a number of times in TOS. These days I admit my view of the Scotty/Uhura thing in ST:V is coloured somewhat by the fact that I’ve discovered that I like Spock and Uhura together in the alternate universe movies.

I enjoyed some parts of ST:V – mostly humorous parts: Kirk & Spock and ‘the gravity of the situation’; Chekov & Sulu ‘we’re lost, but we’re making good time’; and (not humorous) Spock to Koord ‘Damn you, sir! You will try.’, but overall I have a very poor opinion of the movie. It vies with Nemesis for my ‘worst Star Trek movie’.

293. bassmaster22 - October 4, 2013

The third installment should open with Daniels(Star Trek Enterprise)arriving on the Kelvin to help avert changes to the timeline.

With everything back to normal. how about a great mixed-cast movie with TNG, DS9 and VOY characters in the 24th century.

The biggest mistake that could be made is another story in which it is riddled with tidbits from other existing stories. There’s plenty of room for something entirely new…but the writers seem so interested in baiting long-time fans in that they actually end up pushing them away with all the dumb references.

294. Keachick - October 4, 2013

#282 – “All due respect to the great Ms.Nichols, but I can’t see how that was any scenario Roddenberry would seriously consider.”

“All due respect” – really? Rick – Did you know Gene Roddenberry? One thing that we do know is that Nichelle Nichols DID know Gene Roddenberry and so therefore I am much more inclined to take her word over yours. I would say your statement is rather presumptuous. You say that we won’t really know, except that someone who was there, is saying certain things.

The biggest problem the producers would have had with showing Uhura being in a relationship with either Kirk or Spock would be because of the racist backlash they feared at the time. There was no way they could have either white male leads be romantically involved with a black woman, irrespective of whether she was a member of the crew or not. Forty or so years on, they gave the idea a go, because there is a bit more tolerance of mixed race relationships.

Gosh – the very notion that Kirk might extend himself, temporarily, beyond the confines of the Enterprise, seems to create a veritable “storm in a teacup” for some of you guys.

Well, newsflash, Kirk was the father to David in the prime universe, thereby making him a family man anyway, but I guess that’s OK that he was not allowed to be part of David’s upbringing at all, that it is OK for both he and David to be denied time together as father and child. It has been pretty obvious from way back that some people can’t cope with the idea that this individual may have other priorities and needs, other than just being some bloody captain of some bloody ship. Of course, Kirk is captain of the Enterprise but that is not all he is. He (this nuKirk) needs to know that and so do we.

Besides, Kirk, like Spock, Uhura, Scotty et al need to get lives that don’t just revolve around Starfleet and the Enterprise, no matter how important and satisfying living and working on the Enterprise in Starfleet might be.

295. Keachick - October 4, 2013

I think that it was in the movie Generations where Kirk was the sleaziest. When he talked to Picard as he was making breakfast for Antonia, about he was going to tell Antonia that he was leaving her to join Starfleet (the guy was just so restless and fixated) were cringeworthy to listen to. The way he talked in that scene always makes my skin crawl. God, if there was ever a person who needed to “get a life”, it was the old fart, James T Kirk.

Fortunately, William Shatner has done that. I am not so sure about Leonard Nimoy at times…

296. TUP - October 4, 2013

Not sure how wanting to leave Starfleet for Antonia was “sleezy”. It was definitely poorly written since it was supposed to be this great emotional pull on Kirk and yet we knew nothing about this. it was difficult for us to be emotionally invested in Kirk’s internal struggle or accept what he was giving up. With Picard, they showed us his struggle and we felt it.

What Generations did was show Kirk’s struggle (which i’ve detailed here already) and how he *wanted* to love someone so much he gave up Starfleet but never could. And it showed him accepting that and not only accepting it but giving Picard the advice he needed – that just because you devoted your life to service doesnt mean you somehow failed. Its okay to devote your life to being a Starship Captain. That was Kirk’s message to Picard.

But a better scenario would have been Kirk leaving Starfleet for Carol and David… That would have been far more emotional and tied into what we saw on screen in the TOS movies (but Berman didnt care). Or if Kirk’s nexus fantasy was him on the bridge of the original Enterprise (imagine that visual)…and his having to leave behind an eternity with his crew to help Picard. The Antonia scenario just rang so hollow.

Trek V is vastly under-rated. Much blame falls to Shatner, but he had a great concept and a decent story. The studio didnt get behind it, the effects were awful (I believe ILM was busy). But that film has some of the best character moments in the series and truly puts the Kirk/Spock/Bones triad front and centre.

That Kirk realises then that he needs his pain makes sense. In TOS he was young, brash, cocky. He hadn’t experienced loss. He hadn’t experienced defeat. He hadn’t been “kicked upstairs”. He hadn’t risked everything to save Spock or go back in time to save the world. He had struggled with growing old and accepted his place was on the bridge. AS an older, wiser Captain, he also realised he needed his pain (which could easily be guilt, lonliness, regret).

I would love an epic adventure that concludes the new movie trilogy and sets the universe right (I know that doesnt jive with the new interpretation of space-time) involving Spock Prime, Kirk Prime and anyone/everyone else you can use.

297. Keachick - October 4, 2013

This alternate universe could/should be about setting to rights what was *wrong* with the prime universe, as in these characters do get to be seen experiencing genuine relationships, eg Spock and Uhura.

The failure lies in the notion of not realizing that there is a time and a place for everything and of impermanence. Kirk was quite old by the time of Generations but who was still clinging on to being a captain/Starfleet officer because he had not taken the time or patience to be engaged in anything other than being a captain. It is tragic and sad and the very reason why this “devotion to duty” fixation needs to be challenged and this nuKirk be given slightly different opportunities and experiences.

298. TUP - October 4, 2013

God that’s just so stupid. Im sorry. I dont meant to be a dick about it. Go write fan fiction if you want to see bizzarro world Kirk & Spock.

There was (is?) a Marvel Comics series called “What If…” for exploring strange, different and/or crazy ‘what if’ scenarios with Marvel characters. Thats what you’re proposing. A ‘what if…” scenario, not a legitimate idea for a big budget Star Trek film.

You want these movies to appeal to Trek fans and the public at large and yet you want to drastically change the characters. There is no merit to doing that in these films. I realise you love the idea. You’re in the minority. Let’s move on.

299. Jemini - October 4, 2013

282. Rick – October 3, 2013

Some people will grasp desperately at the one scene in TOS where Uhura tried to flirt with Spock and say “well there you go! It all makes sense”. Or that Nichelle Nichols claims that Gene supposedly wanted a Spock/Uhura romance. All due respect to the great Ms.Nichols, but I can’t see how that was any scenario Roddenberry would seriously consider. Even in all the films there was not a hint of anything more.Probably one of many ideas just tossed around.”

“I Especially liked in Star Trek V when Uhura and Scotty had their shore leave plans together. They were very cute. I could have seen that happening more.
——————

^
lol you’re claiming that people “will grasp desperately at things” because they think Spock/Uhura is not baseless for the reasons you have listed (e.g., flirting in tos, the actress saying it was the original plan ..) in the same comment where:
- you’re stating that the actress that originally played Uhura and who actually knew Roddenberry&co “lied” (why she should do that is a mystery I’m afraid we will never get resolved here ..)
- you claim there is more basis for other non canon romances, including a Scotty/Uhura thing even though they’re even more baseless than Spock/Uhura. The latter have some flirting in the series at least. Why not pair her with McCoy then?
Talk about “grasp desperately at the one scene” ….didn’t Uhura and Chekov spend shore leave together in TOS?

I hate to use the word hypocritical here but you make it really hard to not do that.

Above all, though, it is really illuminating and it speaks volumes that some fans would rather see a gorgeous and brilliant female character like Uhura getting manipulated by Sybok into making a pseudo seductive move on an unwilling and uncomfortable old Scotty, than see her young self her in an actual relationship with someone that she loves on her free will and who loves her back and who had always respected her. Someone with whom she might actually have some things in common.
I’m not even commenting the fact that Scotty, just for pure coincidence, happens to be the more secondary and least attractive man here. I wouldn’t want to hurt, with my personal shallow opinion, the feelings of the ones that think he truly is more interesting, charming, brilliant and handsome than Spock, Kirk, Sulu, McCoy and Chekov.

according to some of you Spock too should be allowed to get some action in the romance department only if he’s mentally compromised by something or someone. After all, it’s canon that he’s asexual, right?
this fanvideo is still funny though ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5Wezhzf9s

300. Jemini - October 4, 2013

*more secondary character

301. Ash - October 4, 2013

@298 TUP

Well that summed it up nicely lol.

You can not have a Star Trek movie that has the crew or Kirk or Spock leaving Starfleet OR the Enterprise so they can go play house somewhere else. Not because it’s an impossible idea but because it’s a BAD one. It’s no longer Star Trek then. The whole freaking point of the series is to explore and search for new planets and civilizations. Kirk can’t do that sitting on earth with a wife and kid. Sorry if I’m bursting someone’s bubble. It’s never gonna happen. Luckily Mr.Orci is a Trek fan who knows this, so I’m not worried.

302. Boy - October 4, 2013

I have to laugh at all the foolish Trek fan boys here. They claim Trek is about humanity and realism and star wars is just fantasy. Yet they insist Kirk must be married to the enterprise and to star fleet. To Trek fans he should not have a life. A realistic life like a wife and a kid after the 5 years space madness is over.

LISTEN UP.

Anakin Skywalker was a bad ass Jedi devoted to the force (religion) and the republic and yet he tried so desperately to have a normal life with his loving wife and future kids.

But to trek male fans Jim Kirk and Spock cant have that , all they must have is their epic friendship with a little bit of Bones on the sides and Trek is supposed to realer than Star Wars right?

LMAO.

WTF?????

GOSH BRING ON EPISODE 7.

The more I see the constant nagging and hate from Trek fans the more I fall more in love with Star Wars. I am glad JJ is now the man in charge.

What are the chances that the female lead in episode 7 will look like George Lucas’s wife and she wont get any hate.

Chances are pretty high.

303. Rick - October 4, 2013

299
Oh Jemini, again you zero in on only a certain part of a comment and take it out of context. I DID say that I could see Uhura with other men in the crew besides Scotty.

“I think TOS Kirk and Sulu were always very…appreciative of her looks and personality. I could have seen something going on. Uhura was easily prettier and more interesting than most of the women Kirk hooked up with.”

Funny how you gloss right over that part. I only mentioned Uhura and Scotty briefly at the end of my comment. You’re the one who seemingly took offense to it. Now that you mention it though, who are you to say that Scotty and Uhura wouldn’t have anything in common either? In TOS they were much more compatible than she and Spock would be. As someone else mentioned, they were easy to smile and fun loving. They both have interests in engineering. I’m not closing off romance for Uhura to others (although I don’t see why it’s needed in the first place) but the one with Spock I find to be increasingly annoying and unbelievable.

304. Marshall - October 4, 2013

“Anakin Skywalker was a bad ass Jedi devoted to the force (religion) and the republic and yet he tried so desperately to have a normal life with his loving wife and future kids.”

Ha! Great example, because we all know that story had SUCH a happy ending.

A for effort though ;)

305. Jemini - October 4, 2013

303. Rick – October 4, 2013

299
Oh Jemini, again you zero in on only a certain part of a comment and take it out of context. I DID say that I could see Uhura with other men in the crew besides Scotty.
Funny how you gloss right over that part.
—-

except I didn’t? I called you out for stating that – quoting myself – “there is more basis for OTHER non canon romanceS, *including* a Scotty/Uhura thing even though they’re even more baseless than Spock/Uhura”

“Now that you mention it though, who are you to say that Scotty and Uhura wouldn’t have anything in common either? In TOS they were much more compatible than she and Spock would be.”

you say that, I guess it must be the truth ; )
However, Nichelle Nichols (that you consider not a reliable source here but let’s now gloss over that..) stated that her Uhura was created as a female version of Spock. And back in 2007, before the reboot came out and the awesomeness that is reboot Spock/Uhura could “taint” her forever making her say silly things about the pair having canon basis, she said that the character Uhura was the most close to on the ship was Spock because they were friends, they shared the same interest in music and she was the only one to whom he would teach how to play his vulcan lyre.
After all, he’s just the only character Uhura ever showed some attraction for (and without someone playing mind games with her) and he’s just the one who smiled at her, showed concern for her in more than one occasion, seemed attracted by her… and even recited Byron to her !
[ to be fair, someone could logically assume that alien Kollos was familiar with ancient earth poetry and not only he'd be able to use that to make a pun about Uhura's exotic beauty, he'd even know where she came from and that her name meant, in a rare earth language called swahili, "freedom". It also was Kollos' invention that Spock considered Kirk and McCoy his friends. This is all more plausible than thinking that he described the characters the way Spock saw them]

I guess also that Uhura being a xenolinguist who therefore studied alien languages and their culture (including vulcan), would make her the least compatible for a vulcan.

If you think that Scotty and Uhura are much more compatible simply because they were easy to smile and both wear a red shirt (communications =/= engineering and security, btw, even if they’re both part of the same division and wear red) , who I’m to judge such a solid argument? ;)

306. Keachick - October 4, 2013

Well then, TUP, stop being a dick.

Bob Orci is a fan of Star Trek, esp. TNG. He writes fictional Star Trek stories, ie he writes fanfiction, except that he gets paid for doing so, because the franchise owners know that he (and his writing partner) have certain skills that most people like me do not have.

However, I might still have ideas and I have a right to present them.

I am thinking about the Kirk I have come to know through watching the TOS TV series and the movies. What’s more, I have read very few Star Trek novels etc about the TOS characters and when I did, that occurred some time ago.

Bizarro Kirk and Spock – only to you, TUP et al…if you say so…sigh…

307. Boy - October 4, 2013

304. Marshall – October 4, 2013
“Anakin Skywalker was a bad ass Jedi devoted to the force (religion) and the republic and yet he tried so desperately to have a normal life with his loving wife and future kids.”

Ha! Great example, because
—————————————————————————————–

DUH,

Its not about Anakin’s ending, its about how he never shied away from it. he never shied away from a normal life.

In the expanded universe, Luke is still a devoted Jedi and he has a life outside the Jedi madness so does Leia. She is the leader of a nation, she has more reasonability than commanding a ship and she still has balance in her life. Han Solo (her hubby) was like Jim and even he could settle down so why cant Jim?

Should I go on about how Star Wars is better than Trek.

What other example do you want.

Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, King Aragorn from Lord of the rings.

All this heroic men still went home to their loving wives and kids at the end of their epic story but Jim Kirk can’t.

Old Spock indirectly said it himself that he wished he had not been all so logical in his earlier life. That was why he told NU-Spock to do what feels right and put aside logic.

Old Spock is now leaving a miserable life in an alternate reality with all his friends dead . Why should this Spock suffer the same fate?

Trek fan boys also wants Jim to die alone on the enterprise.

PATHETIC.

308. Keachick - October 4, 2013

I initially propose an idea that Kirk could get temporarily reassigned to a planetside research facility, with or without gf Carol. Perhaps Carol goes with him and she is pregnant or not or maybe he goes alone…At no point in my initial proposition did I say that Kirk leaves Starfleet. He is given the temporary reassignment by Starfleet.

On further reflection, this could segue into Kirk, at least, going where no one had gone before…

“Ha! Great example, because we all know that story had SUCH a happy ending.
A for effort though ;)”

That is beside the point and not relevant. Nobody can predict outcomes. At least, they had a go…

309. Marshall - October 4, 2013

@boy

“Old Spock is now leaving a miserable life in an alternate reality with all his friends dead . Why should this Spock suffer the same fate?”

That makes no sense. Whether or not he had settled down and had a family when he was younger would not change any of that. All his friends are dead because Spock has a lifespan much longer than theirs. He is stuck in an AU because he was sucked into a black hole during a freak accident trying to help someone. Even if this Spock did settle down, he would still spend much of his life alone with his friends dead. Sad truth of it.

310. Boy - October 4, 2013

309. Marshall – October 4, 2013
@boy

“Old Spock is now leaving a miserable life in an alternate reality with all his friends dead . Why should this Spock suffer the same fate?”

That makes no sense. Whether or not he had settled down and had a family when he was younger would not change any of that. All his friends are dead because Spock has a lifespan much longer than theirs. He is stuck in an AU because he was sucked into a black hole during a freak accident trying to help someone. Even if this Spock did settle down, he would still spend much of his life alone with his friends dead. Sad truth of it.
———————————————————————————————

Still doesn’t change the fact that old Spock wished he had followed his heart earlier in his life. Maybe him and that Leia chick could have worked.

What is old Spock doing now? Can he still have sex and help repopulate the dying Vulcan race?

Old Spock looked really miserable in STiD.

Look I am not even saying Kirk, Bones and Spock must settle down and be a family men. I AM NOT EVEN SAYING THAT.

I just wished people especially the male fans would stop ruling it out as a possibility and keep saying they are married to the enterprise and Starfleet blah, blah. blah.

Sarek who is a full blooded Vulcan married a girl for LOVE and not LOGIC.Why cant Spock?

311. TUP - October 4, 2013

The more you justify a stupid idea the more obvious the stupidity is. Sorry but it’s just a bad idea (as someone else said).

If you think what Bob writes is fan fiction so be it. But I suggested you go write fan fiction because bob isn’t going to.

312. IDIC Lives! - October 4, 2013

Keachick, you just don’t get it, do you? Incidentally, I am not a male fan. Kirk is what he is; it is that mystique which makes us follow his adventures for almost 50 years. In the old fanfic days, your idea would be called a Mary Sue story. You have every right to envision Kirk settling on a research station with Carol “n” David but that Kirk is not the Kirk which the rest of us know. In TWOK, he told Carol he would have known David better if Carol had let him but he never offered to get a home for the 3 of them in a research suburb. He had already made his choice which is why Carol bitterly did not let Kirk have anything to do with David.

Shatner was very good at injecting a bit of darkness and aloneness into Kirk. I hope they give Pine a chance to do that and that he can do it. The Star Fleet guys in “Court Martial” didn’t like Kirk in the first place and the fact they thought he killed Finney only added to their rudeness to him. In “Ultimate Computer,” the fleet brass chose Kirk to be humiliated with the computer take-over and even though Kirk bargained on “Bob’s humanity,” Bob was rude and flippant to Kirk when Bob first came aboard the Enterprise to tell of the computer hook-up.

Kirk is as alone as Spock is. He would not be part of the gang in any context and perhaps he likes the captaincy partially because he must keep a certain distance. This slight distance from others is natural for Kirk. For one thing, the guy has a genius IQ as well as being better looking than most people, and so since early in life, he has had traits which other people are simply jealous of, do not understand. It might be easier to be a less good looking genius :-)

I have always identified with Kirk (we all identify with someone in the crew), and although I have had some great romances in my life, I never set out to try to make a nest, didn’t seem to need anyone in that sense, and I seem to be a complete person as-is. Yes, maybe that is arrogant but not intended as such. Not everyone wants to play house or has to. Kirk loves to fall in love but actually makes no practical plans regarding his current woman. What would he do with Rayna, really? Same goes for his other main loves. No wonder Spock told him to “Forget.”

Kirk’s first best destiny is as a starship captain. It is what he was born for and frankly, I don’t think he’d be a good husband. TUP, you have said all this better than I am, I like your posts a lot most of the time. You have good insight into Kirk’s character.

Look, Keachick, you can imagine Kirk n Carol n Little Dave on a research station but fact is, Kirk ain’t gonna go. I second or third the motion, let’s move on!

313. Red Dead Ryan - October 4, 2013

Kirk belongs on the bridge of the Enterprise. Alongside his friends Spock, McCoy, Uhura, et al.

We have seen in the past that Kirk is very unhappy when he’s taken away from the Enterprise, and absent from his friends.

To suggest that Kirk and Carol Marcus settle down somewhere on some nondescript planet to raise Davina (what the hell kind of name is that anyway?) would make for a boring “Star Trek” movie. It goes against the character of Kirk, and gets away from the premise. This idea is just utter ridiculous, just like someone else’s idea of Spock and Uhura getting married and having babies.

Kirk wasn’t mean’t to have a “normal” life. His life is one of sacrificing his own personal desires to uphold Federation values, defending Earth, saving his friends, and charting new territory in deep space. His home was the Enterprise.

314. Sebastian - October 4, 2013

#237

Marja~

Um….. thanks, but I got that without assistance. I’m also a fan of opera, stage plays and classical music too. Grew up with all of them. ST isn’t the only entertainment in my life.

;-)

315. Ash - October 4, 2013

@312 and 313

*wild applause*

Very well said. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of Kirk and Spock taking the road of being family men with no adventure or Enterprise, but it’s a fantasy. One that will never happen in these films.

316. Sebastian - October 4, 2013

# 315

Or any films, really.
It wouldn’t be Star Trek if it was about a fairly young Kirk settling down. He’s only about 26 or so in the new movies, right? NuKirk seems a bit young at this stage to plant such roots.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against the idea completely.
It might make a nice coda at the END of the nuST movie cycle (like the aged Harry Potter & friends in “Deathly Hollows part 2″), but not right now.

And I agree that there is nothing wrong with a life of a family man; and it would be a place where ST has rarely gone before (DS9 went there first, however).

But as an idea for the box office? I don’t see it compelling any hyperactive 15 yr. old boys (the audience most blockbusters seem to aim for) to buy a ticket….

317. Keachick - October 4, 2013

JFC! Why don’t you people actually read ALL of my possible scenarios?

Other posters have written fictional scenarios that might be used as a possible storyline for the next Star Trek movie, which involve war with Klingons, and other races like the Tholians and posters here don’t tell them to go off and write “fanfiction”. Never mind that their ideas are as much “fanfiction” as anything I might write and never mind that Star Trek has already shown the Enterprise do battle with the Klingons (in the prime universe), never mind that the Andorians have already done their thing in various Star Trek TV series, not to mention the Romulans etc etc.

Actually Bob Orci did say he wrote fan fiction, as in a fan of Star Trek who writes fictional stories about the show. Everything you see that is Bob Orci’s is FAN FICTION. Why don’t you people actually think through what you write before you go to your keyboards, otherwise you won’t come off as hypocritical idiots?

So I guess there are two kinds of “fanfiction” – the real and the other kind, however you define it.

As for being alone – we are all alone, whether we have significant others or not. Dealing with life’s big issues, like mortality and death, our place in the scheme of things, our intrinsic worth as human beings etc are not just things that lone hero martyrs have to grapple with. Good grief, how shallow some of you are.

318. Keachick - October 4, 2013

Here is what I actually wrote at post #215 –
“Of course, (in many of your minds) we couldn’t possibly have a scenario where she AND Kirk leave to seek a place where they could both do work other than be on a starship – Kirk being the administrator of a planetary research facility and Carol being one of the researchers – all this as they await the birth of David, or could it be Davina?, this time round. What’s more *shocking*, neither Carol or the baby die. Their story gets told, being part of a larger story.

Or then again, Kirk and Carol could remain exactly where they are and continue to have a relationship, going wherever it takes them, while they are off duty, on board the Enterprise where they perform, when on duty, their assigned Starfleet duties. Gosh, now there’s an idea – who would have thought that such a situation could be possible, even workable, in a 23rd century Star Trek universe?”

It is this second paragraph which all of you have chosen to ignore.

Shame on you!

319. Red Dead Ryan - October 4, 2013

Actually, Keachick, if you have been reading posts lately, you’ll realize that the VAST majority of us DON’T want the third movie to involve a war with the Klingons.

320. Keachick - October 4, 2013

I have variations on a theme for a story – one of which is what I suggested above.

When I consider my first scenario, I was not so sure that it would work, as I had written it, which is why I varied things. These variations were ignored because none of you could get yourselves unknotted long enough to read what I had actually written.

However, a situation could arise where the command skills of Kirk are required temporarily. This would be how he (and we, the audience) finds out how he does away from the Enterprise in a slightly different, but equally demanding environment.

In my own story, initially the new space station being completed on the edge of what will later become known as menosian space (though the menosians have made no actual claim) has Admiral Pike overseeing the completion and the station going fully operational. But the mean writers have killed Pike off, so another commander is put in charge. Something happens to this commander (maybe it is important to the overall plot, maybe not) and Kirk is asked to step in temporarily while a permanent replacement is found. The Enterprise is providing supplies and equipment to the station anyway, so the arrival is expected and opportune.

Kirk takes charge and is shown getting on with it.
The Enterprise leaves with Spock in command (again). Maybe Carol joins Kirk…or not, or possibly Scotty. This is all dependent on what happened and why…

Then Kirk meets an old nuli lady…

The Enterprise resumes its course in star charting and investigating the *spacial anomaly* that has brought them to this part of new space.

*Marja – you need to get used to the term “spacial anomaly” because when exploring that is which new and unexplained, does not fit into already known, prescribed patterns, is often described as anomalous…:)

I just like throwing ideas about in the hopes that writer Bob Orci may be able to use an idea or two…not that he has so far…

I guess my ideas don’t include battles, guns, explosions, known adversaries, or certain individuals (namely Jim Kirk actually) being routinely kicked and punched, so whatever I do write just gets labeled “mary sue fanfiction”. I have a very definite impression that in order for a story to be accepted as “real fiction” as opposed to mere “fan fiction”, it has to include obvious, uninhibited, in your face villainy and violence.

Perhaps this explains why so many of these movies have so much sickening levels of violence, because that constitutes “real” fiction written by “real” writers.

321. Keachick - October 4, 2013

#319 – Yes, I know that most people don’t want a movie about a war with Klingons, but that was NOT my point. When other people do post their ideas/scenarios which can include ideas like having a war with the Klingons, they are not summarily told to go away and write “mary sue fanfiction” elsewhere.

What they write is as much fanfiction as anything I might write, however their ideas are treated with less disdain and more respect, even if their ideas speak of no new race or beings being discovered or reveal a different side to a known character that had not been shown before.

“to seek out new life and new civilizations…” – *funny* that I have (virtually) been the only one who has done just that…

322. Red Dead Ryan - October 4, 2013

Hey, I’ve criticised fanfiction by others here a few times. Some guy a few weeks ago posted his story of a ship forced to turn on its side to leave Spacedock because the doors had jammed.

There are also those who want to cram the remaining TOS cast into the next movie and have the film return to the prime universe. They want a remake of “The Deadly Years” and somehow believe it’ll bring in the masses.

Quite simply, 99.99% of fanfiction posted here by ordinary fans have no chance of being adapted for the big screen due to being blatant fan appeasement material. Most fans here don’t know the first thing about writing a script that appeals to more than just a small demographic (Trekkies).

323. Colin - October 5, 2013

Script writing is difficult. Not only do you need to be able to write a convincing story about believable characters, but you have to sell that story. Then, when you have sold the story, you have to watch your story be altered by others. I have read and heard that the process can be brutal, especially for new writers.

For me, the latest film doesn’t feel right for me. That is, maybe because, I watch crime documentaries and news stories, and I come into the film shaped by what I have heard. I will always have trouble with the Harewood story arc. I think it is because the character and his family are treated less like people and more like plot devices designed to move the story forward.

The writing nowadays doesn’t seem to be on the same level of writing as in some earlier films and tvs. I think that is because the writers have to spend less time on dialog and more time on action. Through dialog, the audience learns about the characters. Yet, we live in a time when audiences don’t want dialog in their films. So, dialog between characters becomes like cut scenes in video games = it keeps the story’s momentum going, but we don’t have the time to “enjoy the scenery” before we are into the next action set. This works okay in video games, for I am there to play the game and, frankly, I don’t care about the characters. They aren’t real to me. Movies make characters real. Or they used to.

324. IDIC Lives! - October 5, 2013

Keachick – Very few people want Trek to be about a Klingon war (or any war), violence, or Kirk constantly being over-powered in fist fights. Have you assimilated all the criticism of this and JJ’s approach to Trek? This is certainly my main criticism of nuTrek although paradoxically, I love STID though it has flaws.

In the SAME way, most people also do not want Trek to be about Kirk n Carol organizing a research station with a baby on the way.

Most people do indeed want Trek to be about exploring new worlds, new civilizations, and boldly going. The research station is not most people’s idea of this but it can be yours.

As for nesting on the Enterprise with Carol, I sure hope not. By TNG, there were families and what not, but nuTrek is in the TOS paradigm and it was clear that the captain was not to have a “steady.” I assume it was considered very dangerous to be “out there” and Star Fleet figured a “steady” would influence the captain’s actions and judgment, potentially. When Kirk bedded a woman, it was either time travel (he wasn’t on the Enterprise), shore leave, or there was a female alien who was part of a threat to the ship.

I personally hope Kirk n Carol are a fleeting twosome in the next film. Hell, maybe they even used contraception and there is no David/Davina in this universe. JJ has veered away from TOS before to this degree and after all, David didn’t live that long in TOS’ universe.

325. Jemini - October 5, 2013

While I don’t think that it would be practical for Spock/Uhura or any other pair to have kids in the movies (unless it’s hinted only in the very end) I honestly think that from a creative standpoint it would be the best idea for the franchise and its future, especially if the writers don’t want to rule out the possibility of a new television series with the next generation and a whole new set of characters. The idea that somewhere there will be a new character that is the son or daughter of one of these iconic characters is a great inspiration to make new stories, movies and tv-series. It gives to writers the hope that the franchise still has a future EVEN if they can’t use the characters from the original series forever.

In that case, you could make a series or new trilogy of movies with totally new characters but you’d still have that needed connection with the old trek and that would the son/daughter of Spock who now is an adult and the captain/first officer/whatever of the current starship.

as for people who claim that families aboard spaceships are against what Roddenberry&Co envisioned: sorry to disagree but I remember reading somewhere that, actually, their original plan had always been to depict the spaceships as “worlds” where people could marry, have kids and the whole package basically. In short spaceships were supposed to be the surrogate of their home planet where life kept going normally, as normal as it could be in the space.
In the same way, it was never stated that officers couldn’t have relationships. In fact, the opposite is true and there are examples in canon that confirm they didn’t have any rule against that.
These people spend five years in space away from their worlds and families, to think that they will never have relationships is not realistic and frankly you should rule out the possibility of them making friends too if your issue is whatever the characters will get influenced in their job by interpersonal relationships.
Probably, the needs of a couple of officers must be different from the needs of a couple of humans from our world and society. The whole concept of “normal” itself would be quite different.

326. Jack - October 5, 2013

324. No offence meant, but speak for yourself, as we all need to do on here. How do we know that ‘most people’ here want the next Trek movie to be about peaceful exploration?

There was always conflict and danger in TOS. People died. Shots were fired in most episodes. Don’t confuse the actual content of the show with Kirk’s ‘captain’s oath’ at the beginning.

327. Jack - October 5, 2013

109. Sebastian: “No offense, but that is precisely what is WRONG with NuTrek. A reshuffling of iconic moments, quotes, etc. Ellison would NEVER work on a new version of his story either. He’s pretty much written off the whole ST experience. Besides, it doesn’t matter; we should be seeing all-new adventures with this rebooted crew. Not expensive remakes of classics or constant references to the past.”

Exactly.

The problem with STID was that it was dangerously close, in my opinion, to fan fiction. The makers should avoid lurking at sites like this at all costs. Fan ideas = Phase II (which I enjoy — but a lot of folks here complain how awful it is).

328. Barney - October 5, 2013

General Question for everyone on this board.

After the 5 years of space exploring what do you want for all of this characters.

Spock

Kirk

Uhura

Sulu

Chekhov

McCoy

Carol

Scotty.

After 5 years in space what is next for them?

Realistic wise will any of this characters want another 5, 10, 15. 20 year mission?

I agree a bit with Boy. Trek is suppose to be about humanity and we all as humans want to retire one day, relax and enjoy life with our loved ones and get our pensions.

It is highly unrealistic and VAIN for all this characters to die on the enterprise. Look how awful Kirk’s death in generation was.

Future/TOS Spock is an ambassador so he is still serving but he is no solider like he was when he was young and on the enterprise with Kirk and friends.

After the 5 years mission, I will like to see NuKirk in his late 30′s or early 40′s leave on earth and be the president of Star Fleet Academy or The Federation, helping and mentoring young cadets just like Pike helped and mentored him.

That will show real maturity for his character. He does not need to marry but it will be best to for him to drop his womanising ways.

It is useless for people to say Kirk is married to the enterprise. That is vain and shallow.

329. Curious Cadet - October 5, 2013

@326. Jack,
“Don’t confuse the actual content of the show with Kirk’s ‘captain’s oath’ at the beginning.”

When did the opening Mission Statement become the ‘captain’s oath’? There’s no ‘oath’ about it.

It was a narrative device to quickly introduce viewers to the concept of the TV show they were about to watch. Calling it a mission statement in-universe is generous, calling it a captain’ oath is just dumb.

330. Curious Cadet - October 5, 2013

@328 Barney,
“After the 5 years of space exploring what do you want for all of this characters. After 5 years in space what is next for them? Realistic wise will any of this characters want another 5, 10, 15. 20 year mission?”

People forget that Star Trek mirrors Roddenberry’s own military experience. If you translate the story to that of a military aircraft carrier, or submarine, you get a better idea. Captains generally have had a minimum of 21 years in service before attaining that rank. In TOS Kirk only had about 13 years, which is why he was the youngest captain in the fleet. Rear admirals command groups of ships and may only remain in service at that rank for 35 years maximum. This gives Kirk 22 years of field service eligibility before he must retire or be promoted, and another 10 years before he must retire. It is not unrealistic for a field commander to serve multiple 4 year tours, 3 or four is not uncommon. Perhaps when Kirk hits his late 50s he will turn to Starfleet academy, but he is a career man plain and simple. So is Spock, so is Scotty. McCoy I see settling down sooner as he dislikes having his atoms scattered, especially if he meets the right woman. Chekov will will take an intelligence job somewhere and settle down with some cute girl. Sulu and a uhura might continue to climb the ranks and definitely move off the Enterprise if so. But even this won’t be an impediment to an ongoing shipboard relationship thanks to transwarp beaming. So, Kirk, Spock and Scotty are in it for the duration (min. 15 years). Bones, Chekov and Uhura (depending on what happens with Spock) will likely settle down earlier (5-10), and Sulu could go either way depending on if meets the right man.

331. Marja - October 5, 2013

314 Sebastian, I just found it hilarious that you used the quote to justify liking one Trek over another. Sorry, man. It’s still funny.

Back to my Chopin : )

332. Marja - October 5, 2013

270 Jemini, “Pretty ironic that people transform something that is glorified in the K/S relationship into a bad thing when it comes to Uhura loving Spock. I wonder why. ( someone from the distance suggests me: bromance is ok romance is notttt )

“Men getting defined by their relationships with other men are fine. Men getting influenced by friendship even in their job are fine. Men doing stupid things because of friendships are fine. Men acting out of character because of said friendships are fine. Men having co-dependent relationships with other men are also fine and widely accepted.. BUT God forbid a female character showing her feelings for a significant other and suddenly people will say that she’s only that and she does nothing but that. All her other scenes, actions cease to matter.”

Jemini, I really support you in this. I am glad you said it. I think it bears repeating : )

323 Colin, While you and I often disagree, I’m with you on this. Characters are more important than action. Characters take actions, actions shouldn’t “take” characters!

333. Marja - October 5, 2013

290 djemma, “… it would be interesting to have a female character who isn’t the leading mans girlfriend for once, Uhura in a romance isn’t a problem to me.”

Okay, Uhura in a romance “isn’t a problem to you.” Your subtext being, “with anybody but Spock” or the other leading man, Kirk?

“Spock is a different story. Quinto plays a great Spock, but the way they have him written in these new films as a boyfriend who needs to answer to a girlfriend, one who asks him to talk about his feelings on a mission, is awful I think.”

Agreed! Quinto plays a great Spock! However, your use of “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” trivializes Spock’s and Uhura’s consideration for each other. Do you think the idea of one partner challenging the other concerning important life decisions is so juvenile and stupid? OMG Spock isn’t masculine enough b/c he exchanges a farewell look with Uhura before he goes after a killer! OMG Spock has to answer his lover’s question about whether he felt anything before dying!

God forbid we take even a moment to consider feelings or consequences to relationships when “everyone is supposed to be beyond all that – after all, they’re supposed to be fixated on beating the bad guy.” And I literally mean “a moment.” Yes, the scene as written was close to cringe-worthy b/c I couldn’t see Uhura asking those questions of Spock outside a private setting. But if the filmmakers had set aside another 30 seconds to show that, people would hit the ceiling b/c “it took valuable time” away from … what, exactly? The scene was very nearly “filler” to indicate the passage of time. Spock’s lines were excellent, though.

“Spock is half human, but he chose to follow the Vulcan way. If Uhura is as needy for emotional connection and feeling from Spock as she seemed in the film, I’m not sure she will get what she needs from him in the long run.”

His father was fully Vulcan and married a human “because [he] loved her.” Uhura’s done remarkably well so far with Spock. It was only his nearly dying that brought this issue and her fears to the fore.

I don’t think Uhura was “so needy for emotional connection” – I think she was afraid for Spock because he would have died if Kirk hadn’t saved him. The real-world problem with the dialogue as I see it is her words to the effect of “you didn’t care about what I’d feel” … it would seem to me Spock and Uhura would have discussed such things already, both being members of Starfleet, a risky profession.

“I’m guessing they put her in the relationship as a way of elevating her character, but they could have done that many other ways. Ones that showcase her talent and linguistic skills and make her a more valuable member of the team.”

Umm, they did showcase her talent in linguistic skills, not to mention her bravery, when she confronted the Klingons. And her bravery toward the end, although a lot of folks pooh-pooh that.

“Why they feel the need to have romance in every movie these days is beyond me. It draws women some say? Maybe, but not all of us are looking for that. Personally I’d rather my Trek concentrate more on the exploration and such as opposed to who amongst the crew are dating.”

Goodness, the way some people go on and on about the S/U romance “problem,” you’d think it took a half an hour of the movie. About three minutes, maybe, over the course of the film? Oh my GOD! We can’t explore! Spock and Uhura are having a moment!

“I did always think that Scotty and Uhura were quite cute in Star Trek V.”

Ugh, “quite cute.” The word “cute” is rather demeaning to both. To think that Uhura/Scotty pairing up is a better choice for either one, to me, is silly. If people are basing it on the “Vulcans have no feelings” argument, they should remember, there was nothing Scotty liked better than anything in the world than engineering the Enterprise, except maybe a bottle of venerable Scotch. Talk about Uhura feeling needy.

334. Marja - October 5, 2013

TUP, “Trek V is vastly under-rated. Much blame falls to Shatner, but he had a great concept and a decent story. The studio didnt get behind it, the effects were awful (I believe ILM was busy). But that film has some of the best character moments in the series and truly puts the Kirk/Spock/Bones triad front and centre.”

A decent story, maybe. But Lawrence Luckinbill as Sybok? Jaysis on a popsicle stick! [There were many better casting choices, perhaps none of them wanted to do it. Luckinbill was mainly a comic or character actor. When I saw him I was simply amazed at the casting, and not in a good way.] As for the “best character moments,” there *were* a few, and then there were the hardy-har-har character moments like the super anti-grav jet boots. [Though I did like McCoy looking on in frustration as Kirk risked his life for adventure.] Then there was the awful, cringe-worthy, supposed to be touching, “Row, row, row your boat” by the campfire. And let’s not forget Spock’s special space-age Marshmallow Dispenser!

297 Keachick, “This alternate universe could/should be about setting to rights what was *wrong* with the prime universe, as in these characters do get to be seen experiencing genuine relationships, eg Spock and Uhura.” Agreed. I recall Elder Spock telling AUSpock “Put aside logic. Do what feels right.” And young Spock continued his relationship with Uhura while he remained on the Enterprise, instead of dashing off to repopulate the Vulcan race. It is to be hoped that Kirk can “do right by” Carol Marcus in this AU, instead of having a short affair and leaving her a single mother. I think *this* Kirk will take family very seriously.

335. Red Dead Ryan - October 5, 2013

#330.

“So, Kirk, Spock and Scotty are in it for the duration (min. 15 years). Bones, Chekov and Uhura (depending on what happens with Spock) will likely settle down earlier (5-10), and Sulu could go either way depending on if meets the right man.”

What evidence is there to suggest Sulu is gay? I think you’re confusing actor Takei with character Sulu. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that Sulu was gay apart from confusing an actor with a character he played.

336. Red Dead Ryan - October 5, 2013

#296.

“Trek V is vastly under-rated. Much blame falls to Shatner, but he had a great concept and a decent story. The studio didnt get behind it, the effects were awful (I believe ILM was busy). But that film has some of the best character moments in the series and truly puts the Kirk/Spock/Bones triad front and centre.”

Apart from the Kirk, Spock, McCoy moments, Trek V is far from under-rated. It is perfectly rated as being a terrible, terrible movie alongside “Insurrection” and “Nemesis” at the bottom. Shatner should not have directed that movie.

337. IDIC Lives! - October 5, 2013

Dead Red: Agreed, Trek V has some great moments which I always enjoy watching.

C. Cadet, I am well aware of the difference between the mission statement (Space” the final frontier…” which is not the Captain’s Oath), and the phaser and fist battles TOS often had, partly because “the suits” wanted a space western, lots of shoot ‘em up.

However, how many times have you read on this website that fans simply want to go into deep space next time and explore strange new worlds – begging the writers to create something far-out, unique and fresh, yet with the spirit of the best of the TOS episodes? MANY TIMES.

It has also been said often, and I will say it again, sure, have a Klingon interrupt things and satisfy the studio with a battle of some sort or a localized fight. But, an all-out war with the Klingons is not a popular preference for the next film and it was not a part of TOS.

That is what I alluded to, of course you know already this, you’re just being picky.

I repeat: Few of us want the next film to be an all out war with the Klingons or anyone, that is, if you go by opinions on this site over these many months.

338. Colin - October 5, 2013

For me, I found Trek V disappointing. When I first heard of the film, I thought it would be about Kirk and the Klingons. In Trek IV, the Klingon ambassador stated that there would be no peace as long as Kirk was alive. I go into the theater and I see a lackluster film about an alien prisoner masquerading as God and a smiling snake oil selling Vulcan who relieves people of their deepest pain.

339. Keachick - October 5, 2013

The problem writers have with Star Trek exploring the far reaches of space and discovering new life and new civilizations is that it is possible that as much as can be done here has already been done.

In the real world – no life, in terms that we can know and identify with, has been even hinted at. Maybe Mars might have supported some form of life a few million years ago and there is an earth life planet out there, that who knows, could. There is evidence of microbial life existing…

All of us, including writers, come from a point of what we know, or what we may know to be theorized, in order to make sense of our world and to write fictional stories that people can identify with and appreciate. Sure, fictional writers will embellish certain aspects, even be quite outlandish at times, but it is always grounded to some degree.

People say that Star Trek has stagnated. Unfortunately, that is because genuine discovery of anything “out there” has not happened. There is nothing more from the real world, or in this case, out there, that can inspire. What has been imagined has already been done, either in Star Trek or in other science-fiction shows.

Therefore, we have a recycling and reworking of themes, ideas, fictional races and species. That’s OK. That can work too. It did in STID…

Onto Menosia and the nulis – not sure they have been *discovered* yet…

340. IDIC Lives! - October 5, 2013

Keachick, You are not current on your science news, Goldilocks planets are being found around so many “reasonable” stars – a huge new planet discovered just the other day which probably can support life not that many light years away (and yes, warping space is being worked on and NASA already has ion power).

Then there is theoretical quantum physics opening real doors to other dimensions, quantum entanglement, time reassignment, and so much more! I happen to be a professional science speculation writer (some call us “futurists”). I have made my living at this for over 30 years, I know whereof I speak, I have a new book on these subjects on Kindle. And incidentally, Star Trek was/is my inspiration for my writing; however, I deal in actual possibilities, not fantasy. I cannot begin to detail here all that is happening in “space: the final frontier,” or in the realm of human consciousness/perception, morphic resonance, morphic fields (look up Rupert Sheldrake). Buy New Dawn magazine out of Australia; you will see my articles in some of the issues, my current New Dawn article is on possible dark plasma biospheres. Now there is a brane – yes “brane” – for nuTrek to explore!). New Dawn is available in “e” form too.

All that can be imagined has been done? Holy mackerel, NO!!

341. Trek Lady - October 5, 2013

“To Trek fans he should not have a life.”

You know, comments like this are incredibly insulting to those of us who aren’t married and have no children, nor have any intention of having children. I am single and happy and living a very real “life” thank you. If I meet the right person, fine, but I certainly do not consider myself as not having a “life” just because I am not married with children!

342. crazydaystrom - October 5, 2013

@339. Keachick
Your post brings to mind the apocryphal story of the fellow a hundred years ago who seriously suggested the U.S. Patent Office should be permanently closed because “everything that can be invented, had.”

There are always possibilities.

IDIC

343. IDIC Lives! - October 5, 2013

Trek Lady, Amen! Same here. I dare say my life is and has been more exciting than—– no, that would be unfair on my part. I shall rise above.

344. Keachick - October 5, 2013

Trek Lady – I think this discussion has been derailed somewhat. I was commenting on how Kirk has been defined in Star Trek – as a person who is married to the Enterprise and Starfleet, someone who is rarely, if ever, shown to have interests, hobbies, friends, girlfriends, wives, whoever outside the narrow confines of the Enterprise and Starfleet.

TWOK, however, did give him a son but the mother told Kirk to stay away and then lies to her own about who his father is…

#324 – “and after all, David didn’t live that long in TOS’ universe.”
David lived until he was about 20 years old. I would suggest that possibly the last three or four years of that young life, was given to study and research that he was doing alongside his mother. So, I guess, you are saying that a life and those experiences only have any real significance one a person is an adult, which David has only just become, according to some state laws. Okaaaayyyy…..

It is my criticism of how this Kirk has been written and continues to be written that has bothered me. Perhaps this nuKirk never marries and/or never fathers any children but he surely must other passions/interests that involve him outside of the Enterprise and Starfleet. OK, we did glimpse that he liked riding horses and seemed to like animals later in his life, but that’s it. Nowhere did we see Kirk go to his quarters and turn on his favourite *music, paint a picture or flick through art via a computer, or play or watch sports – you know what I mean surely…

At least, with Picard, we found out that he figured himself to be an amateur archeologist, liked reading the classics in book form, enjoyed listening to classical music (not always though) and liked riding horses.

With Riker – well, he played the trumpet and liked jazz music. He liked spending his holidays on Riza and enjoyed the company of women, in all ways that a man could (not unlike Kirk, in this respect).

I realize that writers can’t give a personnel dossier on each character, however, giving a background to one or two of the lead characters is something that could and should have been. Kirk comes off as a blank sheet, other than being a captain. Surely, someone with his high degree of intelligence, energy, good humour and imagination could have been better written. I find it hard to believe that such a person could be so fixated on one pursuit in life…but I guess that, too, is possible…oh dear…:(

*at least, in STID, we did get an all of 5 second glimpse of Kirk’s musical tastes – play retro vinyl on a retro record player of an old Beastie Boys song. Well, that’s something.

#340 – Interesting. I do get what you are saying. The problem is that when Star Trek does try relating these kind of topics, people stonewall the series/episode. It’s too “dumb”, too boring, too metaphysical, “we don’t want no religion in our Star Trek” type of thing, because when you do discuss some of these ideas, some of them do appear to have an almost religious/faith feel about them. Many don’t like references to notions of telepathy and/or highly developed empathic abilities (one of the reasons why many dislike Deanna Troi).

So what are we left with…yet another blast up with the Klingons, or Borg, or whoever. Frankly, if that is not both obscene and BORING, I don’t know what is.

345. Keachick - October 5, 2013

#343 – Yes, indeed…good choice.

346. Curious Cadet - October 5, 2013

@337. IDIC Lives!,
“I am well aware of the difference between the mission statement (Space” the final frontier…” which is not the Captain’s Oath) … of course you know already this, you’re just being picky.”

I’m not being picky, I’m being critical. Go over to Memory-Alpha and look up “Captain’s Oath”.

These guys are creating canon, for better or worse, and this is worse. Abrams might just as well have called the Vulcan hand salute the ‘Vulcan High 5′ for all the sense in calling the Mission Statement the Captain’s Oath. This is what I object to and I think it’s wrong.

347. Keachick - October 5, 2013

The five year mission statement is NOT the Captain’s Oath. In fact, the Captain’s Oath was deleted in the DVD/Blu-ray versions. This is where the confusion lies.

In the cinematic version, (Pine)Kirk did repeat what he called the Captain’s Oath and then followed it with the mission statement which begins, “Space, the final frontier…”

I saw the movie four times at the cinema and when I watched the DVD version, I was surprised at how short the speech was and I kept wondering where the words like “curiosity”, “imagination”, “striving…” and “family” were. I cannot remember how the words went exactly, but believe me when I say that we are not hearing everything that was in the cinematic version and I have no idea why. However, IT IS NOT GOOD!

If Bad Robot had bangs, I would dearly like to rip them out…:( !
It is a serious WTF. Good grief, if you are going to delete, retconn, do it properly, damn it!

348. Keachick - October 5, 2013

The mission statement cannot be considered an oath, irrespective of what wiki or Bad Robot may think. The mission statement represents a desire, a hope, a plan, which may not necessarily come to pass always. As we have seen even in the TV TOS series, the Enterprise often did not go where none have gone before, but simply caught up with what had already been discovered. So many episodes dealt with just that scenario.

However, a Captain’s Oath would surely apply to that particular person and be about how he conducts himself as captain/leader of a team, crew, ship and anyone else who might be aboard that ship at any given time and what he promises to uphold in terms of Starfleet regulations. It also may take the form of what he, as an individual, sees as important VALUES for himself to abide by and strive to live up to, irrespective of what others may think.

On memory, I also remember the word “values” being part of the speech that has been deleted from our DVD/Blu-ray copies.

349. Marja - October 5, 2013

344 Keachick, My sense of AUKirk’s “personal life,” such as is shown, is that:

He has a good friendship with McCoy and they surely like to raise a glass from time to time …

He loves antiques – the car he wrecked to keep from “Uncle Frank” – the motorcycle he drove to the Starfleet departure point

He loves beautiful things – think back to that lo-o-ong look he gave the Enterprise under construction – and adventure

He’s a genius [so one can imagine all sorts of things he'd read and review, I can imagine him going over the Enterprise specs and engineering with the same loving detail as Scotty].

He loves people. He is a friend you can trust.

That says a lot about the man, as for interests and hobbies one could project from there.

350. Marja - October 5, 2013

346 Curious, I assume you’re saying that Bad Robot, et. al. have contributed to the hash I found at “Captain’s Oath” ….

Memory Alpha has the Mission Statement and lists no captain’s oath, except to say that the mission statement IS the captain’s oath o_O

WTF?

351. Red Dead Ryan - October 5, 2013

I suppose a Klingon-heavy story could work, Quentin Tarantino or Steven Seagal-style:

“His wife and brother were brutalized, tortured and left for dead….his crewmates and friends slaughtered in an ambush….

Justice was denied by a corrupt Starfleet….

Stripped of his command and rank, he goes rogue and wages a one man war against the Klingon thugs who raped and tortured his family and murdered his best friends….

With no back-up plan, no friends, and only his martial arts training and wits to guide him…..

……James Tiberius Kirk is….

‘OUT FOR FINAL FRONTIER JUSTICE’

The Klingons have started a war with the wrong man…and will soon feel it in their bones…”

352. Red Dead Ryan - October 5, 2013

BTW, that was some dark satire there. I don’t expect a Trek movie to be made using that plotline. I wrote it to drive Keachick crazy. :-)

353. Keachick - October 5, 2013

Marja – So true. I do think that these two movies have managed to give us more of Kirk, the person, than it took all of TOS and its movies altogether to do.

I would guess that Jim Kirk’s interest in antiques is something he probably inherited from his father, given that George had an antique Corvette which he meant his sons to have. Also check out the antique record player with black vinyl playing on it playing early 21st century Beastie Boys in the scene with cat-women. Of course, it is possible that it could be a 23rd century record player, same with the records, music is the only bit that is *old*. Many people are going back to vinyl…supposed to give a better sound. Oh yes, the bike, but I do not think it was necessarily an antique. It is just that some styles and designs simply work the best and are kept on for that reason.

I agree that Kirk could quite happily look over Scotty’s engineering specs (not necessarily understanding every little detail, but getting the hang of what he needed to) and the same would go for other subjects like xenolinguistics, which is how he (a non-Starfleet cadet, just a farmboy/townie) understood Uhura’s “focus”, as he described it. I can see Kirk cruising online and reading about xenolinguistics just for the hell of it, because he was bored, no doubt sipping on a cold one at the same time, then go outside to gather corn cobs in order to ensure that there will be plenty of “corn-fed minds”.

I refer to Bones McCoy, “Are you out of your corn-fed minds?” LOL

I always thought that Jim Kirk could be a lot of fun and genuinely nice with it as well. However, he would take some keeping up with, both physically and intellectually.

354. Red Dead Ryan - October 5, 2013

On a serious note, I would really like to see Kirk kicking someone else’s ass in the next movie instead of the other way around. With martial arts instead of the cheesy (though still entertaining) Kirk-fu.

355. Marja - October 5, 2013

RDR, It’d be fun to see him do a Kirk-fu move and employ it successfully! I think right now the Kirk Superpower we see too much of is Durability: “Takes a licking and keeps on ticking!!!”

Apparently we can never see too much of Kirk Kling-ing-on to whatever’s overhead either

351, “……James Tiberius Kirk is…. ‘OUT FOR FINAL FRONTIER JUSTICE’

The Klingons have started a war with the wrong man…and will soon feel it in their bones…”

Hee-hee … I keep hearing “In A Worrllld …”

356. JRP - October 5, 2013

The next film will have a large cloud approach the alpha quadrant. But on closer inspection it turns out to be a probe. A probe looking for whales. But not just any whales. Klingon whales!! So the probe makes its way to Kronos and causes its moon Praxis to be decimated. However, turns out the probe made a wrong turn at Alpha Centauri and actually blew up the Romulan sister planet Remus. This angers the inhabitants of Remus who felt that Spock would rescue them just in time so they send a clone of Jean Luc Picard to kill him. However, during the ensuing battle both ships get sucked into an energy ribbon known as the Nexus. There, over tea and eggs they discuss an end to hostilities and the dismantling of all starbases along the neutral zone. However not far from the cabin where they are having breakfast they discover the fountain of youth. However it turns out that the children of the Nexus people called the Ba’ku have come to try and steal it. However, the deaging goes too far and Spock transgresses back to being a teenager and endures a painful bout of PonFarr. Eventually they all escape the Nexus after it crosses the Galactic Barrier where they all learn that god really digs starships and has found one it wants to take a ride on. However, god accidentally wakes up the crew of the ship from cryogenic freeze and they end up killing god and hijacking another federation vessel and nearly destroy the Enterprise.

It’ll make BILLIONS at the box office, I promise.

357. IDIC Lives! - October 6, 2013

“……go outside to gather corn cobs in order to ensure that there will be plenty of “corn-fed minds”.”

Keachick, Wrong again. I am from Iowa and corn cobs are never gathered by hand, they never were. I doubt they will be in Kirk’s future. I also resent the fact that, duh, it is really stupid in Iowa but dear Jim Kirk will just be “reading about xenolinguistics just for the hell of it, because he was bored” in Iowa.

Hey, come wander through the corn fields before you run down Iowa. Duh, and go visit University of Iowa while you are here. Iowa is one of the better rated states in education.

Seriously, corn cobs– GATHER corn cobs? Incidentally, the majority of corn grown in the fields is not for human consumption on a cob. Sweet corn is grown for that and—oh, never mind!

I also think once again your rambling fantasy of what dear young Jimmy is like, is — rather like his nest building with Carol n Davina. For instance, in “The Naked Time, ” Kirk was making calculations for the implosion of the engines while Spock was still crying about his mother. A starship captain is not in charge of engineering specifics as well as being captain, and no doubt Spock and Scotty are the most qualified, but of course Kirk HAS to understand engineering specs or he could not have become captain.

I disagree once again that the 2 JJ movies have given us more of Kirk the person. I don’t think you can grok Shatner’s Kirk as well as Pine’s. JJ’s movies have shown a very flawed young Kirk and tried to verify his legitimacy as Kirk by giving fans personal glimpses which Roddenberry’s Kirk had too much dignity to do (and it was a 45 minutes weekly tv series). I am ok with JJ/Pine’s Kirk but Shatner’s Kirk is the basis for the character and has nuances and depth you might be overlooking because, let’s face it, you are a big Pine fan. Good for you but–a few of JJ/Pine’s Kirk stuff is just too broad a slap in the face and rather un-Kirkian. But, too each his or her own.

You have a right to your view of Kirk but please—PLEASE– oh, never mind! I do believe this is a lost cause.

358. IDIC Lives! - October 6, 2013

Keachick, In what way is the Kirk you envision a genius? Seriously! He doesn’t understand physics much, he might nest soon, and he gathers corn cobs (yes, I am summarizing). Oh, he likes his daddy’s old car at the bottom of the quarry.

We are told in TOS and nuTrek that Kirk is or becomes, a great man. Like John Kennedy? Roddenberry stated he had Kennedy in mind when he first created Kirk.

Geniuses and individuals who become great are driven, usually to the detriment of their families, and often are both light and dark within. This was established early in TOS in “The Enemy Within.”

I do miss this depth in Pine but of course, we have not seen his wolf yet, so I will just say, we do know Kirk is half wolf. His wolf makes him a great captain (yeah, so does his whatever it is – intelligent sheep).

Kennedy, Clinton, not great nesters. Just had to throw that in.

I guess the reason I protest your ongoing portrait of Kirk is that you keep making him the boy next door who “yup, is sure a genius,” and apparently Trek is to be about his hobbies, and what not. I think you want Pine’s Kirk to be less and less about the Kirk whom Shatner created and more and more about a nice pop corn movie young guy who was oh so bored in Iowa on so went on a 3 hour tour and married Mary Ann and settled down on the island.

NuTrek is already too shallow and full of pop corn (not corn cobs but close). Maybe if you read up on Pine’s latest activities, it would help you leave the Kirk mystique and dark/light greatness alone for a second. I guess you already keep advised on Pine so–maybe there is no hope.

359. IDIC Lives! - October 6, 2013

Not only Kirk is from Iowa, so is The Enterprise, per JJ’s universe. I hope they got the corn cobs out before she went to warp.

360. Curious Cadet - October 6, 2013

@358 IDIC Lives!
” I hope they got the corn cobs out before she went to warp.”

Ha!

I believe the alt Enterprise antimatter fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol.

361. Trek Lady - October 6, 2013

@Keachick “I do think that these two movies have managed to give us more of Kirk, the person, than it took all of TOS and its movies altogether to do”

My impression is more that these two movies have given us caricatures of the TOS characters. It is as though the writers took the obvious surface characteristics of the characters and build characters around that. Kirk’s womanizing is a good example. To me, the movie Kirk is a surface character without real depth. What we see is what we get. I hope the movie arc will eventually let us get beneath the surface, but so far I really have not seen any real growth in NuKirk. The TOS characters (at least the main characters) were much more complex and layered than anything we have seen in these two films. This is somewhat understandable, as movies allow for a much shorter time frame, and you must build characters quickly – whereas a weekly TV show gives you time to peel back the layers.

TOS Kirk takes longer to get to know. He is not a surface character. I know TOS Kirk was sometimes lonely, and longed for a settled life. This comes through in several episodes. However, what also comes through is that such a life would likely end up being boring and constraining for him. He loves the stars. He loves space. He LOVES Enterprise! And what is wrong with that? Enterprise *is* his nest. It *is* his family! (Even the new films brought in that parallel.) Why do people assume that his emotional attachment to his crew and his life aboard Enterprise is somehow inferior to a life with one woman and a possible child? People are different! Not everyone wants to *nest* with one significant other. Some seek to make a difference in a larger way, to paint on a larger canvas. James Kirks’ hobbies ARE the myriad of tasks he does aboard Enterprise. Maybe tinkering in Engineering is a *hobby*. Maybe strategic military planning is a *hobby*. Maybe exploring new worlds is a *hobby*. Maybe encountering new civilizations is a *hobby*. Not all hobbies are limited to collecting stamps or painting. We do know he likes to work out. We do know he enjoys reading antique classics in old-fashioned hard copy format. We know he has studied famous military leaders and their strategies. We know he has esthetic appreciation for beauty in art, nature and yes, his ship. Unlike the NuKirk, he does not wear his emotions on his sleeve, but that does not mean they are not there. I find TOS Kirk much more fascinating precisely because he takes time to figure out, and because in many ways, how one sees him can depend a lot upon one’s personal POV. Is he charming, or is he a womanizer? Is he reckless or is he brave? Is he arrogant, or is he confident? He is NOT a simplistic character.

Overall, TOS James T. Kirk is a risk taker. He is driven to go new places, try new things, meet new people, and solve problems. He is NOT the settle down and make babies type of person. I wish people would stop trying to impose their ideas of what makes a person’s life meaningful upon others. We are not all the same and people have a right to determine their own path.

362. Sebastian - October 6, 2013

Marja

“I just found it hilarious that you used the quote to justify liking one Trek over another. Sorry, man. It’s still funny.

Back to my Chopin : ) ”

********************

Wow. Pompous much?

I was merely affirming someone else’s post that used the quote (didn’t you read that far up?), and I agreed with it. And it was used to illustrate how some people seem to accept bottom feeder entertainment rather than wish for something more. I thought ST09 (for all its flaws) was a better movie than STID (which was lazy and poorly constructed by comparison).

Oh, excuse me… I have Johann Strauss on the line. Gotta go.

363. Keachick - October 6, 2013

IDIC – Did you actually read my post? What the hell has Chris Pine got to do with this? I was talking about the character, not the actors who have played this character.

What are you on about? Did I say that Iowa could not have these places that you refer to? I am basing my post off what was shown in Star Trek 09 and what was shown there were long, long rows of (presumably) corn fields with a large bar in a very rural location.

The young Jim Kirk (in both universes) comes from Iowa. In the TOS universe his family were Iowa farmers. In this alt. universe, it seemed that he lived with his maternal uncle who was also a farmer. Corn is one of the crops cultivated in Iowa now and quite possibly in the future as well. Did I say he hand picked? I wrote gathered. Perhaps the better word should be harvested, but whatever. Besides, why couldn’t he have hand picked some corn – nothing like freshly picked corn on the cob…my mouth is watering at the thought of it.

In fact, it is your ignorant presumption that has you spewing at me about how I appeared to have slurred Iowa in some way.

I live in Auckland, NZ. It is a city built on peninsulas where there is only a couple of kilometres of land separating two oceans. Yet, we have NZ largest university, the one my son attends right now, several technical institutes, more libraries than you can imagine, four hospitals, medical school attached to NZ largest hospital, businesses, schools, international and domestic airport and farms. Most of the climbable dormant volcanoes have sheep and/or cattle grazing on them. Up the road from where I live is a large high school, which backs onto another small sheep/cattle farm. Down the road, there are vegetable gardens and corn fields – all within walking distance. Less than five kms in the other direction is Auckland’s second largest (reference) library, not to mention our smaller local suburban library. There are the retail complexes, small manufacturing plants like Nestle and beyond them in the other direction, a ten minute drive takes you to spectacular rural/coastal scenes.

This is by way of helping you understand my frame of reference. This is probably different from many other parts of the world, but when I think of, for instance, a corn-field it is hard for me not to imagine that a few kms up the road, there might not be a university, library, whatever and vice versa.

BTW – People can become bored anywhere anytime.

I never wrote that Jim Kirk was a simplistic person. In fact, anything but.

Gosh, IDIC and Trek Lady, I sure as hell have pressed your buttons and it is more than a little curious as to what and why. I had not intended to press anyone’s buttons but it seems that I have. Your posts have nothing to do with what I have been writing and you presume way too much about me.

Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.

364. Keachick - October 6, 2013

Nobody is imposing any of their ideas on the character of Jim Kirk. Kirk is of course, the captain and enjoys that position. He is committed to the Enterprise, the crew and strives to live up to the ideals of Starfleet and to his own values. I have not said that that was wrong. It is just that he has come across as capable of being more than or other than being a captain on a ship.

In TOS episodes, we saw how Kirk related to children, in the few episodes which involved children. He liked their company. In one episode, Kirk did not even need to be with the children, because they were already well taken care of by other crew, but he chose to spend time with them, because he LIKED being around them. It is possibly those very episodes are what inspired the writing of Carol, Kirk and their son, David, in TWOK.

I am basing my notion that maybe he could be in a relationship, father a child, from what I had watched in those original Star Trek (TOS) episodes. This just does not come out of the blue, not from my wishful fantasies, but is based on what is observable behaviour of the actual character from the TV series.

Yes, you are right. Jim Kirk is not a simplistic person in either universe.

365. Keachick - October 6, 2013

I *love* how some people are completely redefining the word “family” as to exclude children altogether.

Actually, family, until recently, has been made up of people of both sexes of all ages, from the very old to the newly born. Indeed, in some cultures, a family may not only consist of those biologically related or related by marriage, but close friends as well.

The nuclear family just consisting of mum, dad and their offspring is a fairly recent social convention.

366. Invited - October 6, 2013

341. Trek Lady – October 5, 2013
“To Trek fans he should not have a life.”

You know, comments like this are incredibly insulting to those of us who aren’t married and have no children, nor have any intention of having children. I am single and happy and living a very real “life” thank you. If I meet the right person, fine, but I certainly do not consider myself as not having a “life” just because I am not married with children!
===========================================

Treklady aka trekgal 63 has said on countless occasion that she was married with a kid daughter and is of Hispanic decent

367. Keachick - October 6, 2013

#366 – What makes you think that Trek Lady and trekkiegal63 are the same person?

368. Matthias - October 6, 2013

its time for a movie in which the crew shows courage and tolerance as much as the curiosity to explore strange, new worlds. please no new “old” stories. the new crew has earned some original own episodes to be proud of. less action, more philosophy.

369. Trek Lady - October 6, 2013

@Invited

I am NOT the same person as trekgal…and I have never said I am married or have a daughter. This is the second time recently that you have erroneously claimed I have said something I did not post. Trekgal and I are two separate entities, okay?

@Keachick “Gosh, IDIC and Trek Lady, I sure as hell have pressed your buttons and it is more than a little curious as to what and why.”

The only part of my reply that was meant to be directed at your statement personally was the bit concerning your quote about knowing more about AU Kirk as a person. The rest is more of a general observation involving numerous posters recently.

“Nobody is imposing any of their ideas on the character of Jim Kirk.”

I would argue that some fans are doing just that. Saying that fans who do not agree that Kirk needs to get married and have children to be a fully developed character are guilty of trying to keep him from having a real life certainly sounds like imposing ones views on what Kirk should be.

“Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Okay, that did push some buttons, but do not worry. I will explain why quite clearly. Here’s why… Defensive about what? Defensive about thoughtless comments that suggest people who never had children are not living a “real life” and are living a basically meaningless existence? Yeah, I admit I might get a bit defensive when people make comments like that. I suppose you can just chalk me up to further “evidence” that childless women are overall more “defensive” because I dare to protest when someone suggests my life is not as fulfilling as that of my neighbor, with her four bundles of joy. Most people tend to get “defensive” when insulted. It is a facet of human nature.

Besides, I am not sure how you would make an accurate observation concerning intangible characteristics like “contentment” anyway, especially based upon things you cannot easily “observe” like job status, pay levels and childbearing history… Besides, mixing two very different pieces of data, such as personal pay and childbearing status is problematic in itself.

“I *love* how some people are completely redefining the word “family” as to exclude children altogether.”

If you are referring to me, I have not defined a family at all – other than to say Enterprise *is* TOS Kirk’s family. Family certainly can include children but it does not HAVE to. Some are childless by circumstances. Some are childless by choice. Some are childless due to events beyond their control. I do not see those people as any less valuable or their lives any less real than those who do have children. Mother Teresa never had children or a husband, yet I doubt anyone would say she lead a meaningless life.
In my mind, neither Kirk nor anyone else NEEDS a wife and children to be fully content or fulfilled. According to others, he can never be fully realized without those relationships. It seems that some people define themselves in terms of others. They do not feel full self-actualized unless they are defined by their relationships to someone else – girlfriend, boyfriend, mother, sister, father, etc. These are the people who seem to NEED to be in a intimate relationship in order to feel complete. They need to see themselves reflected in others in order to establish a sense of their self worth. For others, the definition of self exists outside of their relationship status. I enjoy children a lot, but I have none of my own. I am at peace with that, and have chosen to put my energy and passion into other areas. I live a very fulfilling life and derive a great deal of contentment from what I do. Certainly, my life would have been different if I had had children, but so what? Different does not mean better or worse! If *I* am content with my life as it is, what gives other people the right to try and define MY life or anyone else’s as not being fully realized because we not have children?

Enough about me…back on topic.

370. Keachick - October 6, 2013

“Maybe if you read up on Pine’s latest activities, it would help you leave the Kirk mystique and dark/light greatness alone for a second. I guess you already keep advised on Pine so–maybe there is no hope.”

What an ignorant and sarcastic comment.

Chris Pine’s latest activities have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this discussion of a character who I first saw on television in 1968.

Kirk a risk taker? Yes and No.

Becoming a parent also constitutes a level of risk taking, a major leap of faith… Surviving 4 months of 24/7 pregnancy nausea and 26 hours of labour tends to ground a person somewhat – then again, those who have not been through similar, either by choice or circumstance, don’t have such experience/knowledge, ie all men and some women.

“I think you want Pine’s Kirk to be less and less about the Kirk whom Shatner created and more and more about a nice pop corn movie young guy who was oh so bored in Iowa on so went on a 3 hour tour and married Mary Ann and settled down on the island.”

WTF? Duh!

371. IDIC Lives! - October 6, 2013

Keachick, FYI, an ear of corn is what has yellow kernels. A corn cob is that rust colored rough part inside which is only good for a corn cob stove or for Frosty the Snowman’s pipe. I knew your science knowledge was a bit behind but at least learn what an ear of corn is.

372. Invited - October 6, 2013

@ Trek lady, Trekgal 63 and Marja,

Trek lady and Trekgal 63 are one and the same person. Your explanations of Trek are the same in the sense that you both ALWAYS claim to have had some sort of uncanny experience to every Trek conversation.

Like how you have been a writer, a born and raised military officer, a workforce person with a professional background in sexism, a medical assistant, a professional job in customer’s servicing, a married woman with a little girl , A minority of Hispanic decent and now an unmarried woman.

Trekgal 63 left this site immediately Trek lady showed up. Which means in theory you are one and the same. You just changed your name. I don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.

373. Keachick - October 6, 2013

Trek Lady – It does seem that you have not been following the discussion properly. I have not said that one had lead a meaningless life if they haven’t had children.

This entire discussion started with me presenting a possible scenario, one of a number, that had Jim Kirk reassigned temporarily to a research station on a planet (not Earth), with possibly Carol accompanying him. Perhaps she is pregnant, perhaps not. Other possibilities is that the pair remain on the Enterprise performing their duties as normal but also having a full on relationship off duty where a pregnancy may occur.

People quickly got themselves knotted up with this suggestion, including you. What I did point out is that Kirk, as portrayed in the movies when he was older, seemed bitter and lonely a lot of the time and appeared not to have anything to focus on, to love, outside of being a captain of a starship. He was completely defined (and had defined himself) by who he was within Starfleet and even when he grew older, he could not let it go and move on… even when it was time. This was so obvious in the movie Generations. He had no one and was nowhere.

I want to see a slightly different life for this nuKirk, where, perhaps he is shown having an opportunity to have time to parent any children he may have and enjoy the company of their *mother and not have what happened to him re David. Is that so bad?

Maybe she and the children live on a planet somewhere, perhaps her homeworld. Who knows – in this alternate universe, they have already built the Captain’s Yacht (ref. TNG).

Kirk is not a simplistic person. He is a person of intelligence, capable of great love and friendship. He does bore easily, so any female would need to cope with the fact that he will want to go off into space for long periods doing what starship captains do. He may not always be sexually faithful, but she knows that is also who is (not naturally or easily monogamous) and knows that some sexual flirtation cannot break the bond of parenthood and the love they share with each other and/or for their children.

I am sorry if this read like some Mary Sue stuff to some of you… if so, the problem is all yours.

*Mother – not necessarily Carol Marcus.

374. Keachick - October 6, 2013

Why are you so fixated about my lack of knowledge about corn? Grief. I was just trying to make a bit of a joke (albeit a bad one – obviously)… I just wanted an opportunity to quote Dr McCoy’s, “Are you out of your corn-fed minds?”

Pick pick ooops sorry – would that it be harvest?…sigh…/: ?

375. Keachick - October 6, 2013

No, Trek Lady, I was not referring to you in particular when I made the comment how the word “family” is being redefined.

It appears that the word “family” is being redefined by the writers and by other posters (and much of society) who are happy with the crew of the Enterprise being called a “family” but unhappy at any hint of a child resulting from any relationship that may occur aboard the same ship, especially if such children happen for any of the main characters.

In all likelihood, most of the crew will decide not start any family whilst on a five year mission or whatever, but what happened to David’s upbringing should not be sanctioned either. That child had right to know and spend time with both parents, even if one was a captain of a starship. David was also “family”.

376. Trek Lady - October 6, 2013

Keachick “Trek Lady – It does seem that you have not been following the discussion properly. I have not said that one had lead a meaningless life if they haven’t had children.”

I have been following the conversation just fine; however, it is a conversation involving many posters, and you are not the only one expressing your thoughts.

“People quickly got themselves knotted up with this suggestion, including you.”

Can you please point out where I got “knotted up” about any suggestion involving Carol and Jim and a child? Honestly, I do NOT want to see that in a Trek movie, but I don’t believe I have even addressed that at all. My complaint was with the idea that Kirk won’t be able to be a fully developed individual WITHOUT tossing in the mother and child bit.

“What I did point out is that Kirk, as portrayed in the movies when he was older, seemed bitter and lonely a lot of the time and appeared not to have anything to focus on, to love, outside of being a captain of a starship.”

Yes, it is insightful of you to note that. But where you see it as something to be “fixed” I see it as an opportunity to explore the human condition. TOS Kirk was lonely in the end because he was never able to move on from his “best destiny”, but that is not unrealistic. It is a very identifiable experience for many, many people – retirement from a career you love can be emotionally devastating. I think it is a shared experience worth exploring and I suspect many people could identify with Kirk’s feelings. Having a wife and children does not necessarily protect you from those feelings. I find weaknesses and flaws like this make the characters more identifiable, more human, and more complex.

As I see it, the films hardly have enough time to build characters without adding more into the mix. I do not go to a Trek movie to see mom, dad, and the little sprite playing baseball in the park. I go to see action and adventure and strange new worlds. I dislike things being shoehorned into action/adventure films – like girlfriends or boyfriends and babies, which do nothing to further the plot and end up doing the women and children a disservice. They become accessories… window dressing to be paraded in front of the audience long enough to establish that the character is a “family” person, and then they get tossed aside.

“Becoming a parent also constitutes a level of risk taking, a major leap of faith… “

Certainly, that is true… but I hope you are not suggesting that somehow “giving birth” gives you some magical insight and grounding that others who do not give birth can never truly know…. Those who do not go through childbirth will never have that experience itself, but “grounding” can come from many experiences and in many forms. Some people are “grounded” in temperament from the beginning. Some give birth, and are never any more “grounded” than others are. I really REALLY dislike the whole, “I was never fully REALIZED until I had a child, and therefore anyone who has not had a child is missing out on the greatest thing in the world” meme. It is really very hurtful to people who do not have children and cannot have children. Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no need for it other than to make those people who have kids feel they are somehow superior, wiser, and more important than others are. I mean, why does it matter to someone whether someone else chooses to have a child or not? Not having a child *is* a legitimate life choice!

377. TUP - October 6, 2013

Some people just won’t quit. Warping anything to support their stupid opinion

Is there a way to lock threads? This one is done like dinner.

378. Keachick - October 6, 2013

Actually Trek Lady, you and everybody has managed to warp my original premise. I just wrote it as one possible story line.

And please do not repeat back to me what I had already written in a previous post as if it were your own idea.

It is you who doesn’t want to see this or that. It is you who would have the stories and characters restricted as to what experiences they may have or share with others. It is not me. Re-read all of my posts.

Anyway, Trek Lady et al – I don’t think you need fear that any of these writers will ever have anybody with child because that does not constitute enough “action”. As well, it seems that the only people who are of any value are adults – mostly males with one or two females, all sexless and sterile.

Kirk and ? also having a child *is* also a legitimate life choice! Same goes for Spock and Uhura….but, as I said, no need to fear.

In reality, most of the western world now sees having children as wasteful of earth resources, too costly, only adding more people to an already overpopulated world, leading to more pollution etc and basically stupid and unwise. The parents and their children are mostly seen as burdens on society, institutions, welfare agencies etc. This is why there are so many one-child families (and I am not talking about China either) or people with no children.

“Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no need for it other than to make those people who have kids feel they are somehow superior, wiser, and more important than others are.”

No, it is actually more like the other way round. It is more often those people who don’t have kids who feel they are somehow superior, wiser, and more important than others are. What’s more, they often have more power because they usually have more disposable income, because, as we know, money is power.

This is the reality!

379. Disinvited - October 7, 2013

#334. Marja – October 5, 2013

Hmm…my first introduction to him was as the serious lead as the eidetic empowered/slightly nerdish secret agent in THE DELPHI BUREAU with the delightful Anne Jeffries as his boss, and from that, introduced to him as a humorist akin to Mort Sahl, so my measure of him as a credible Vulcan differs from yours. Although, I admit playing an emo-Vulcan is not something I’d wish on any actor not thoroughly familiar with the Vulcan template.

380. IDIC Lives! - October 7, 2013

“Some people just won’t quit. Warping anything to support their stupid opinion

Is there a way to lock threads? This one is done like dinner.”

TUP, If there was a way to lock threads, I would’ve found it. :-) However, we must believe there is always that one in ten thousand chance….

381. TUP - October 7, 2013

Listen Keachick, no one is crapping on the idea of children. Im sure many people here have children. Its the idea of a movie about Kirk becoming a father/husband versus his devotion to Starfleet.

Are those two things mutually exclusive? Probably not. We know Commadore Decker had a son while being a Captain. But part of Kirk’s make-up is his sacrifice of “home life”. We can debate forever whether that needs to be true in this universe or if Kirk’s sacrifice made him a better Captain.

But what doesnt seem to be in debate is no one wants to see your idea on screen. So let’s move on…

382. Marja - October 7, 2013

379 Disinvited, I see your point. Sorry to “dis” an actor without knowing more about him; I still think he was miscast.

I’m not sure how to put it, Luckinbill certainly got Sybock’s joie de vivre across, but I felt there should be a deep melancholy to the character in the background, one that perhaps may have come across with another actor with a background of complex stage roles in his background … that is my feeling, and perhaps not one Shatner considered for the character.

… It may have been such a bad script that many actors turned it down. Luckinbill may have wanted some funding to produce a project that meant a great deal to him ….

I hope he was very well paid : }

383. I, Morrissey - October 7, 2013

“I think that leaves us room to go either way and be unpredictable, which is the whole point of creating an alternate timeline.”

THAT would make a refreshing CHANGE for film 3…….

Hint: Check out some old sci-fi artwork from the book covers of any 50s-70s novel by any established proper writer of sci-fi writer, and take some of the more outlandish ones as a starting point for something ‘boldly out there’ ideas?

We’ve NEVER FULLY EXPLORED in depth a strange new world properly before, either on TV or film, and with today’s tech we CAN do that. So after all this effort to ‘reboot’ Trek, why not make something that would do Gene Roddenberry truly proud – Spend a while on an alien planet and get to know it, and the dangers.

Spend some time with the crew as they have to think ‘on their toes’ and away from the Enterprise. Diplomacy, logic and brains, over guns this time would be a nice change too ;)

Something Devil in the Dark-ish in tone with that delightful & heart rending, then warming ‘twist’.

Old-school Trek values, nu-Trek effects…..

384. crazydaystrom - October 7, 2013

382. Marja
“… another actor with a background of complex stage roles in his background…”

Marja when STV came out I knew of Luckinbill primarily as a ‘serious actor’.

And checking his IMDB page you’ll find Luckinbill-

-Was nominated for Broadway’s 1977 Tony Award as Best Actor (Featured Role – Play) for “The Shadow Box.

-Worked for the State Department for two years as a theater director, writer and lecturer in both Italy and Africa.

-Received his Master’s degree in Playwriting from Catholic University in Washington, D.C.

among other things. I believe he did an outstanding job with the Sybok role and certainly had the professional weight to do so. The movie was just not a winner.

385. Keachick - October 7, 2013

#381 – “But part of Kirk’s make-up is his sacrifice of “home life”.”

Where do you get that idea and how do you define “sacrifice”?

Part of where people get this erroneous idea of Kirk “sacrificing home-life” is because he apparently left Carol and baby, David. Well, he did not! How many times do I need to repeat Kirk’s sad lines from TWOK (coincidentally the same movie that so many people fawn over and claim they have seen so many umpteen times…) – Kirk to Carol Marcus, “I did what YOU ASKED! I stayed away.” It was Carol who did not want Kirk in the picture – she didn’t like the idea of her son (sometimes) “galavanting around the galaxy with his father”. It was made abundantly clear that Carol wanted the child all to herself, irrespective of anyone else’s needs or wishes, especially those of her son’s – Carol told David that his father was dead! What kind of mother does that?

In order for a true sacrifice to happen, it has to be (pretty much) voluntary in nature. It was not in Kirk’s case. The truth is – her actions and attitude broke his heart (ref. TWOK – Kirk/McCoy in lift) – that was part of the “deep pain” *Sybok could sense. It is also something Kirk never got over and it influenced him (both consciously and unconsciously) in most of what he did, especially in relation to women…

Sacrifice – No, not really. Fear of being hurt again – Yes, quite possibly.

Yes, we need to move on. I have said all I can say. Besides, it is pointless…
Yes, IDIC, I can see why you might to lock a thread, given one of your posts that was dripping with flippant, smart-ass, sarcasm…:(

It’s not up to any of us anyway, but hopefully, Bob Orci is still reading this site/thread and will consider my ideas (though they be going “against the grain”) and not dismiss them out of hand.
“There is an easy way, and then there is a right way”. Think about Kirk as a person, a whole person, (from what is known of and about him in the prime universe, who this nuKirk is based on).

386. Disinvited - October 7, 2013

I saw an interview with these authors:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/scifimediazone/news/?a=87784

It may well be the Access Hollywood interview referenced there; I haven’t had time to check. But they confirm a relationship that I always suspected twixt Paramount and Roddenberry on TMP was in effect between him and NBC. To whit: they uncovered facts/evidence that NBC of then knew the ratings for the 1st season of STAR TREK meant it was a hit but they didn’t like Gene and wanted to not have to pay him and any one else involved, any more than was absolutely necessary. So they purposely orchestrated releasing information in such a manner as to not indicate that in any way that it was “successful”.

387. Disinvited - October 7, 2013

#385. Disinvited – October 7, 2013

Whoops (woops? 8-) ), wrong “wit”.

388. IDIC Lives! - October 7, 2013

Keachick, Here’s the thing: James Kirk is an individual who places himself protectively in front of his crew members time and time again as they encounter alien life on its own turf – it’s home planet where they are the aliens. Do you think this is something just anyone could do? I find it more amazing than the fact he might like vinyl records (who cares?)

Kirk stands in the center of the bridge and is the one out of 429 individuals who tries to communicate peaceful intentions to an alien consciousness which is so much more powerful than the Enterprise’s mere humans – and which/whom knows it can crush them on whim. James Kirk is the one who offers himself as sacrifice if a sacrifice is demanded. That willingness and experience, time and again, creates a great man but it also creates a man who is not warm and fuzzy.

Have you ever considered the real magnitude of meeting an extraterrestrial face to face? It is something we humans have trouble imagining because we have always been the most intelligent on our planet (animals are under-rated in intelligence but theirs is different from ours).I am not arguing IF ETs visit Earth, IF there are UFOs, or even IF there is life in the galaxy.

I am saying, in the Trek universes there is life in the galaxy, there are smarter-than-human ETs, there are pure energy forms, and more than the crew could have possibly imagined when they left on their 5 year mission. Do you really comprehend the balls it takes to head into deep space? And to be the leader of 430 individuals, to be responsible for their lives, and encounter bewildering, bizarre, amazing, frightening, wondrous aliens on so many planets in the cold darkness of space? Really think about it, feel it.

Maybe you have forgotten the emphasis on this theme in TOS because it is not very evident in JJ’s films, but it is the core of what Trek is about and why we love it. That is us out there! Kirk is every man but a man who rises to greatness time and time again, faces the “evil” alien toe to toe, shows his intelligence, integrity and decency, and just hopes the alien respects it. If not, he is willing to fight, to trick, to lie, to kill. Kill. He is all that is good and bad about humankind; we are nothing is not resourceful.

JJ’s Trek has not yet touched this beautiful core of Trek, really. There was not an alien in STID but Spock and a few extras on the bridge. However, TOS was primarily about humankind reaching out into the galaxy, demanding to be equals in terms of value of human life, but admitting that we are not the smartest kid on the block -far from it.

People in my line of work love to theorize about UFO disclosure and how it will rock the foundations of religion, government, and all forms of establishment power. I am sure many people on this site do not even believe in the existence of actual UFOs and again, I am not debating that one way or the other. But I am saying, disclosure of “exo-life” would be the greatest change-point humankind has ever known. The odds are very high that we will face this epiphany as a species and nothing would ever be the same again.

So that gives you a hint of how much we who love James Kirk as Enterprise captain–know he would stay aboard the Enterprise come hell or high water. His life is not about a wife and babies, he actually has a purpose, a calling, mission, which is beyond the common paradigm.

If I am sarcastic with you it is because I think you have a bit yet to comprehend about Star Trek. I really don’t like you hitting us over the head continually with your bright ideas for Kirk’s personal life. I suppose you have the right to do so, but I don’t have to like it. Kirk and Trek face enough of a re-shaping from JJ and company–a bit of a downgrade in, well, intelligence. We have enjoyable popcorn movies, though.

We all see Trek differently, I am sure it is a soap opera to some and a Super-man type pop franchise to others, but I do believe Gene Roddenberry, and yes, Shatner, Nimoy, Gene Coon and the “old gang” gave us something so precious, so unique, and so much FOR THE FUTURE OF HUMANKIND, that some of us do decry efforts to give James Kirk a hobby and a baby.

He is not an ordinary guy. He is not the icon he is because he has a hobby and, oh, we must know what his favorite color is and his astrology sign.

Also, if you are going to have it “all about Jim,” there will be less time for Spock’s characterization, and (even) less time for Sulu, Uhura (sans Spock, standing alone as Uhura), Scotty and the rest. They should not just orbit around James T. Perfect Hair. We should see their quarters (yes, a tad of the personal)! I’d rather see if nuSulu still loves botany than have it all about Kirk flirting with Carol.

They accuse Shatner of being egocentric but you are making Kirk downright obnoxious in his cute personal life. Kirk is not the be all and end all of Star Trek. This is a crew of (mostly) humans, headed where no man has gone before! Brave people, great people.

Incidentally, do you realize JJ has never shown us one individual’s living quarters? Not Kirk’s, not not-ones. For shame!

Anyway, your version(s) of Carol, baby and Kirk, where-ever they nest (on the ship or on research station), takes that precious core (yikes, ” the core”), of Trek and demolishes it more than JJ has.

Kirk is the one who says, “I am captain of this human landing party. Kill me if you must kill someone.” And when that alien’s ship is in trouble, Kirk says without hesitation, “Let’s go save the crew.”

I echo Pine’s Kirk when I say, “Hey, this is deep space, Spock, a 5 year mission!”

I saw “Gravity” yesterday and IMO it is a brilliant film. Oh, if only the 50th Trek could be that brilliant and dazzling science fiction!

Star Trek shows us ourselves. Our future. Kirk must be who and what he is, Keachick. It would be a crime to settle for a more common man who collects antiques, plays vinyl records and we know all about his home life and— NO! ( And who really cares about any of that??) Kirk is only fascinating because he is Kirk as he is, with his pain, his warts, his light, his dark, his mystique, and his greatness.

You accuse me of sarcasm,. I accuse you of insisting on making James T. Kirk what he is not. What he IS – is what inspires us.

389. Red Dead Ryan - October 7, 2013

Kirk had a choice — either to stay with Carol and raise David with her, or to remain a starship Captain. He obviously chose to remain in Starfleet, forgoing any life outside of Starfleet. Carol Marcus gave him an ultimatum, and Kirk decided that the Enterprise was his real home.

So, no, it wasn’t simply a matter of Marcus of having the only say in the matter.

Kirk wasn’t pushed out of David’s life, he elected to choose Starfleet.

390. Trek Lady - October 7, 2013

@Keachik,

“Actually Trek Lady, you and everybody has managed to warp my original premise. I just wrote it as one possible story line.”

I am not sure what you are talking about? First, you say I got “knotted up” over your storyline, and now you say I “warped” your story line, but I am not sure I even ADDRESSED your story line. How did I “warp” your original premise?

“And please do not repeat back to me what I had already written in a previous post as if it were your own idea.”

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please, enlighten me.

“It is you who doesn’t want to see this or that.”

What is “this or that”? How am I to know if I am seeing it or not, when I do not even know what it is?

“…well, it seems that the only people who are of any value are adults – mostly males with one or two females, all sexless and sterile.”
I don’t recall anyone suggesting Kirk and co. be sexless and sterile. You do realize your comments equate not having children with being “sexless and sterile”… Some might find that rather insulting.

“….also having a child *is* also a legitimate life choice! Same goes for Spock and Uhura….”

I NEVER said it wasn’t. In fact, several times I said having children in ONE choice, but it is not the ONLY choice, and I do not believe it is the RIGHT choice for Kirk, for reasons I pointed out. Reasons you do not actually address, choosing instead to make this a personal attack. We are talking about KIRK as a character, and what is right for him.

“In reality, most of the western world now sees having children as wasteful of earth resources, too costly, only adding more people to an already overpopulated world, leading to more pollution etc and basically stupid and unwise. The parents and their children are mostly seen as burdens on society, institutions, welfare agencies etc. This is why there are so many one-child families (and I am not talking about China either) or people with no children.”

There is likely some truth to this. There are studies that suggest the world is overpopulated. We know certain recourses are limited. Therefore, some people may choose not to have children as a result, or to limit the number of children they have. SO WHAT? If someone chooses NOT to have children, what business is it of anyone else’s? I am against pressuring people NOT to have children, but if people make personal choices based upon their worldview that is their right.

I said: “I really REALLY dislike the whole, “I was never fully REALIZED until I had a child, and therefore anyone who has not had a child is missing out on the greatest thing in the world” meme. …. Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no need for it other than to make those people who have kids feel they are somehow superior, wiser, and more important than others are. I mean, why does it matter to someone whether someone else chooses to have a child or not? ”

You said: “No, it is actually more like the other way round. It is more often those people who don’t have kids who feel they are somehow superior, wiser, and more important than others are…”

Any yet you do not provide any LEGITIMATE REASON that anyone needs to tell others how fantastic having a child is and how other without children are missing out on the greatest thing in the world. I have a friends who have struggled for years to have a child. Too many times the wife has called me in tears because some well-meaning acquaintance has once again noted she is getting a bit long in the tooth, and wondered why she does not have kids. As if that wasn’t enough, they then feel emboldened to follow up with the whole spiel about the “transformative brilliance” of having a child. Again, I ask, what does it matter whether someone else has a child or not? Why do people think that is automatically their business? And in what way do people without children feel they are superior or more important? I certainly have no presented myself that way…

“What’s more, they often have more power because they usually have more disposable income, because, as we know, money is power.”

Yes, children cost money, so those that do not have them might have more money; however, that overlooks the ones who choose not to have children precisely because they do not have the disposable income necessary to raise children. And not all people without children are interested in power.

“Think about Kirk as a person, a whole person, (from what is known of and about him in the prime universe, who this nuKirk is based on).”

And how exactly do YOU define a “whole person” …? From your previous posts I wonder if it is not someone with children, but maybe I am wrong and your definition is broader than that.

391. TUP - October 7, 2013

Sorry Keachick, you’re an idiot and I figured that from reading only part of your post.

You say Kirk didn’t make a sacrifice because he says in wok that Carole wanted him to stay away. No. She didn’t want Kirk to stay away. She didn’t want Kirk taking David with him.

Wok shows us carol defending Starfleet and Kirk. But it makes it obvious that carol has spoken of Kirk and defends Starfleet to a degree. STID shows us that carol was in Starfleet. That explains why she has a soft spot but also why she doesn’t want David choosing that life.

Generations clearly shows us that Kirk wished he had chosen a family life over Starfleet. He refers to the day he told Antonia he was returning to Starfleet. He clearly implies the choice was her or Starfleet but not both.

You can soon nonsense anyway you want to pathetically cling to a poor creative suggestion you have but it is FACT that Kirk has been portrayed as a character who devoted himself to Starfleet at the expense of a family life. Hence, sacrifice.

Now please, go away.

392. crazydaystrom - October 7, 2013

@388. IDIC Lives!
“I saw “Gravity” yesterday and IMO it is a brilliant film. Oh, if only the 50th Trek could be that brilliant and dazzling science fiction!”

Indeed, Gravity is truly brilliant! For the Trek 50th to be comparable would require essentially a miracle of a change of perspective for Bad Robot. Their approach and intent obviously is to make popcorn blockbusters. The idea of raising Star Trek to another level and producing an astounding film that will truly show the science fiction potential inherent of the concept is something BR shows no evidence of desiring to do. And in truth there’s little if any evidence it is even capable of achieving such a thing.

The Star Trek concept has all the ingredients for great science fiction. All that’s required is a visionary holding the reins to take it where no Trek has gone before. One day that will happen. I just hope it happens in my lifetime. It no doubt will take enough other quality science fiction to be produced and be box office successes for TPTB to say “Hey! The critics AND audiences both like this ‘smart’ sci fi stuff! Let’s boldly follow and take Star Trek in that direction!”

393. crazydaystrom - October 7, 2013

And folks why can’t we stop with the name calling? When did that get to be fun?

IDIC

394. crazydaystrom - October 7, 2013

And folks why can’t we stop with the name calling? When did that get to be fun?

IDIC

395. crazydaystrom - October 7, 2013

Don’t know how that last post got doubled :-(

But I did want to add that I was not sure it I was going to see Ender’s Game. But the trailer in IMAX convinced me it’s going to be a visual treat not to miss. Hopefully the film will do the novel justice. And if it does that might be an indication K/O should choose a great Trek novel to adapt to screen. They exist.

396. Gary 8.5 - October 7, 2013

I am curious about Enders Game as well.

397. I am to Smurfy - October 7, 2013

I say Paramount should dump JJ and crew and hire Alfosno Curan and his son to write and direct the next Trek film.

Gravity puts Into Darkness to shame.

Not only is it the best Science fiction movie of the year, its the best movie so far this decade.

Matt I am curious why no coverage of the new Jack Ryan Trailer?
Chris looks great in the trailer.

398. crazydaystrom - October 7, 2013

Cuaron said he won’t do another ‘space movie’. Perhaps he could be convinced.

399. Marja - October 8, 2013

362 Sebastian, “Wow. Pompous much? I was merely affirming someone else’s post that used the quote (didn’t you read that far up?), and I agreed with it. And it was used to illustrate how some people seem to accept bottom feeder entertainment rather than wish for something more. I thought ST09 (for all its flaws) was a better movie than STID (which was lazy and poorly constructed by comparison). ”

YES I read that far up, and SORRY I got the your names mixed up. I have my “pompous” head too full of high culture.

I still think it’s hilarious that OP used that quote to defend one Trek over another. if you’ve clearly absorbed the quote, it’s addressing the difference between Pop Culture and what the author of the quote [no, sorry, not reading back 200 posts] considers more legitimate culture. I don’t think that includes TV or movies outside the arthouse genre. So I really doubt the author considers Trek “legitimate culture.” What you term “bottom-feeder entertainment” [STID vs. ST09] may be a perfectly valid POV, but nothing will ever make Trek “High Culture.” It’s inspiring, yes, has inspired generations of scientists and other professionals, but it’s not “High Culture.”

So we have a different POV. Live with it, but don’t call me pompous. WTF would I be doing with other pop culture fans if I was?

400. Marja - October 8, 2013

358 IDIC Lives, “We are told in TOS and nuTrek that Kirk is or becomes, a great man. Like John Kennedy? Roddenberry stated he had Kennedy in mind when he first created Kirk.” I think he also had Horatio Hornblower. I don’t actually remember seeing his referring to Kennedy.

401. Marja - October 8, 2013

I wish all the posters who keep comparing AU Trek characters with the TOS characters would realize these characters are baout 10 years younger. In my life I made many mistakes in my 20s. Didn’t you? I wised up by my 30s. Didn’t you?

372 Invited, Disinvited? “@ Trek lady, Trekgal 63 and Marja,

“Trek lady and Trekgal 63 are one and the same person. Your explanations of Trek are the same in the sense that you both ALWAYS claim to have had some sort of uncanny experience to every Trek conversation.

“Like how you have been a writer, a born and raised military officer, a workforce person with a professional background in sexism, a medical assistant, a professional job in customer’s servicing, a married woman with a little girl , A minority of Hispanic decent and now an unmarried woman.”

Well, sorry to disabuse you of your fantasy, but I am not the same person as TrekLady and/or TrekkieGal63. In fact I’ve had a few major disputations with TrekkieGal63, over Spock/Uhura and TG63′s take on feminism, which involved long discourses on the Bechdel Theory, to which I don’t subscribe. Yes, I write long posts, posts I’d like to consider erudite, but I certainly don’t work in the sexism-ridden field of science research, or whatever she said, and don’t quote chapter and verse from feminist websites.

I live alone, am divorced, have four cats, have never had children and don’t particularly feel comfortable with them. You might know some of this if my responses to some of Keachick’s assertions about people who’ve never had children had been printed, but they haven’t, for some mysterious reason. I’ve never had my comments screened before. I posted two last night and neither has appeared. Keachick’s charges have been ably answered by others [including Trek Lady] however.

I served in the U.S. Coast Guard and retired in 1996. I was not “born and raised a military officer.” I enlisted in the Coast Guard and served as a petty officer, advancing to the rank of Yeoman First Class, and worked in four large metropolitan areas as a staffer ["desk driver"]. I have been a fan of Star Trek since 1967 and was born in the mid-1950s. Let’s see, what else can I do to prove my bona fides without giving you my email address and RL identity? Hmmm.

I worked as one of a small percentage [9%] of females in a quite sexist atmosphere from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s. The CG has made improvements since, but in my day I had to deal with quite a bit of sexism and sexual harrassment. I’ve been a feminist longer than I was in the CG. However, I have a different view on feminism and life than does TG63. I feel that a professional feminist woman can still be involved in a caring relationship. TG63 and I differed sharply on this idea, and I don’t know about TrekLady’s views on same.

I don’t know if TrekLady and TrekkieGal63 are the same person. I’ve been here, as Marja, through the appearance of the other personalities, at least since early 2012. I did really serve in the CG. I’d furnish my real name so you could look me up in the Records Center at St. Louis MO, but to heck with it, I doubt all this recitation of my biography will change your mind. I’m having a feeling of “how dare you!” and have responded to your insulting assertion only because I feel you have tried to invalidate my true personality and personal career.

I think you need to step back a bit from levelling charges at people. I feel rather insulted, but I’ll get over it … perhaps I need to consider a source’s “thorough” research before I get “het up.”

In short I’m not a “sock puppet” and resent your implication of me. I usually try to be diplomatic with the occasional sprinkle of asperity, but when it comes to my identity, not matters of Trek and others of a less personal nature, by god I’m pretty demmed sensitive!

402. Marja - October 8, 2013

363 Keachick, “Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Since my other posts replying to a similar charge have apparently been screened out, and they were quite diplomatic, I am replying now: I have observed mothers with careers to be frantic, without much time for themselves. They are defensive about their choice to have children.

I, who have never had them, don’t relate well to them, knew I shouldn’t have them based on my family of origin and depression issues, am a bit defensive about it, because it was my personal choice in order to avoid abusing a child with a bad temper, inattention due to depression, and to avoid more depression via postpartum depression. I have often felt as if those who were mothers were trying to convert me to their “religion” and found it pushy and intrusive.

I am very glad you are contented, and it sounds like your children are doing well; I’d be interested to know if you’ve worked outside the home since your children were born; and I conclude by asking you please not to make assumptions about the childless or women who have children.

403. Marja - October 8, 2013

383 I, Morrissey, “Hint: Check out some old sci-fi artwork from the book covers of any 50s-70s novel by any established proper writer of sci-fi writer, and take some of the more outlandish ones as a starting point for something ‘boldly out there’ ideas? We’ve NEVER FULLY EXPLORED in depth a strange new world properly before, either on TV or film, and with today’s tech we CAN do that. So after all this effort to ‘reboot’ Trek, why not make something that would do Gene Roddenberry truly proud – Spend a while on an alien planet and get to know it, and the dangers. Spend some time with the crew as they have to think ‘on their toes’ and away from the Enterprise. Diplomacy, logic and brains, over guns this time would be a nice change too ;)”

I agree with everything here …

… but I do hope we can be spared the 1950s-1970s cover art convention of having slavering hungry alien ‘monsters’ holding scantily dressed females in their tentacles or other appendages so the big brave mens can rescue them!

404. Marja - October 8, 2013

372 “Invited” … no, but you might need to hire a Sherlock Holmes type to help you research.

Still burning.

Gently and Nicely Yours,
Marja, the one and only.

405. Marja - October 8, 2013

397 Smurfy, “Jack Ryan” looks to be action-packed, not necessarily my favorite thing, but Pine will bring lots of feeling to it, not to mention co-starring with Kenneth Branagh and Kevin Costner … wow : ) … so I may just go see it. I loved Pine in “Unstoppable.” In which he costarred with powerhouse Denzel Washington. GOD I’D LOVE TO SEE DENZEL WASHINGTON IN TREK3 as the new Chief of Starfleet or as Chief of Operations [?] Pike’s old position

I HATE THAT THEY KILLED PIKE :_( [I know I'm repeating myself]

406. Marja - October 8, 2013

re my #401, okay, correction, I do subscribe pretty much to the Bechdel Theory, but I hate it’s being used to say Uhura and Spock can’t have a relationship because “that defines her as a girlfriend.” Hooey.

407. Marja - October 8, 2013

393 daystrom, name-calling has been quite the “sport” on TrekMovie, and we finally got beyond it for awhile, only to have it recur. Accusations, too. Feh!

408. IDIC Lives! - October 8, 2013

crazydaystrom and I am too smurfy: Glad you agree with me about “Gravity,” and I agree with you. TUP, I hope you enjoy “Gravity,” I think you will.

Marja, Treklady and other brave women: I raised a brilliant daughter as a single parent. I love her so much BUT that being said, to quote Old Spock, if I had it to do again, as a life experience FOR ME, I would NOT.

Granted, my daughter is paranoid-schizophrenic, mostly through over 25 years of her selfish obsession with street drugs. Was I too tolerant a parent, too enlightened, too loving, too giving, too sacrificing? I guess. I did try so hard.

No one needs educate me on paranoid-schizophrenia, so save your typing fingers.

What I am saying here is that “family life” is not for everyone but if it happens, good people try so hard to make a good home for the child. When young, I did not fully comprehend what raising a child meant. The parent’s worth as an individual and the potential of the individual who is parent, is sacrificed automatically. Yeah, all the advice about going back to
college and continuing my dream – well, I already had my Master’s – but I couldn’t pay the rent, so no time to specialize and – life happened in the meantime. It was difficult, but my daughter was clothed, fed well, given opportunities for which I paved the way.

My point: I did have a child and I do see Marja’s, Treklady’s and whoever else’s point of view. No, not point of view, CHOICE OF LIVING, WAY OF BEING.

I have managed to have a fascinating life by taking risks (for instance, I moved to Ireland for 5 years with NO money to do so, and my daughter was there – an adult by then – part time as she wished to be), and also by having a somewhat crazy writing career for over 30 years and an animal sanctuary these days.

My daughter and I are very close and I help her a lot. I have no retirement money stashed but I do help her A LOT. A LOT.

But my statement for myself at the beginning of this, stands. If I had made another choice back then– If I had it to do again–

Keachick, if you dare say this colors what I want for Kirk, as nuSulu said, you will be obliterated :-)

Kirk is already created as a science fiction character, I had nothing to do with it.

Your apparent love of your nuclear family life, Keachick, seems to motivate what you try to do to Kirk. I suggest you enjoy your children while they are young (if they are still young), and compartmentalize your interest in Trek AWAY from your personal philosophy of what makes a person whole. People on this site have had life experience, too, very diverse and in some cases, LONG life experience; fact is, your truth is for you, it is not absolute for all of us.
We know whereof we speak.

Back to Kirk and Trek, perhaps here is the basis of your problem: Star Trek is science fiction. Go see “Gravity” and it will tell you exactly what science fiction is.

Kirk and Trek are not fiction. They are science fiction. You approach Kirk as a fiction character, a soap opera approach, and then impose your absolute “truth” on him.

Get off his back and let him run the Enterprise.

409. IDIC Lives! - October 8, 2013

363 Keachick, “Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Keachick, your powers of observation leave something to be desired.

410. Disinvited - October 8, 2013

#401. Marja – October 8, 2013

I assume the “?” means you were wondering if I had a connection to Invited? Nope.

My monicker is something I adopted when the zeitgeist of this site didn’t feel very welcoming to people, such as myself, who questioned the prevailing Paramount hype on what exactly the 2009 movie had accomplished with regards to previous Trek movies, specifically TMP.

411. Curious Cadet - October 8, 2013

@408 IDIC Lives!,
” Go see “Gravity” and it will tell you exactly what science fiction is”

Evidently more than we realize. Scientists are already picking the science apart.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

But, $55 million opening weekend in October, breaking records in the process. That’s only $15 million shy of STID — Paramount and the producers should really take note. Especially with it’s $100 million budget. Gravity is the highest rated scifi film of the year on Rotten Tomatoes (both critics and users) and will likely be one of the highest rated major films of the year (currently #6). STID retains its title as the highest rated “Summer Blockbuster”, and I think that says it all.

412. Gary 8.5 - October 8, 2013

I had a chance to see “Gravity” over the weekend ,
I chose “Rush” instead.
No Science Fiction of course, but still one of the best films of the year.

413. Ash - October 8, 2013

363 Keachick, “Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Rotfl oh wow! THANK YOU so much for your brilliant insight Dr.Phil! If only we could all be so enlightened as you. Please, tell us more! *eyeroll*

414. Keachick - October 8, 2013

Wow. I knew I would get pilloried for my comment, merely an observation, about childless/childfree women being defensive… but really, honestly, look at how much has been written here by people who seem to do just that, be very defensive, sarcastic and angry.

I will agree that you probably have every right to be a bit pissed off with my *observation*, but to call the life that I think Kirk (as well as the person himself) MIGHT also be allowed to include as part of his life as “obnoxious”, well I guess, that could say it all, IDIC. IDIC? – not!

Actually, IDIC, I wrote my observation because I was really pissed off with your sarcasm and inappropriate comments that brought an actor into the fray, who had never been the subject of the discussion.

Obviously, your own life experiences have impacted on you, however I might also point out that your anger and sarcasm towards me does tell me that your own anger and disappointment is quite likely preventing you from seeing my proposition in a more balanced way. As a matter of fact, we all have regrets and misgivings, IDIC…that is all I am saying.

No, I am NOT trying to make Kirk into someone he is or could not be.

RDR – Yes, you are probably right. Carol Marcus no doubt did give an ultimatum, either her and David or the Enterprise. My point is and has always been – she had NO RIGHT to make such an ultimatum. Kirk was young, scared, unsure of himself in everything, except that he wanted to captain a starship so he acquiesced to her selfish demands. The point is he should not been put in a position to say later, “I did as you asked. I stayed away”. Carol Marcus’s actions represents the worst kind of *feminism” but when the TWOK story was written, these notions were all the rage. It stunk then and it stinks now.

I make a mere observation. I did not say that I could back it up with any valid data, although, perhaps there might be someone out there who might be able to…who knew?, not me and then someone describes me as “so enlightened”. Why, thank you. I have been known to have my moments… *eyeroll*.

“Get off his back and let him run the Enterprise.”

I would need to get ON his back first. Perhaps it is you who needs to get off his back about who he should be and not do. Please do not shovel labels like soap opera at my proposition. It is just sooo dumb.

Did you not read where I discussed the meaning of “family” and the fact that the notion of the nuclear family is a recent social convention. Did I actually say that I loved that particular social convention over any other way? No, I did not. In fact, the nuclear family model can lead to a lonely life for many, especially mothers. Clearly, it would not be one that would occur easily within the confines of an Enterprise.

I apologize if I have upset some people here, but clearly the revelation is that this is indeed a rather sensitive subject, for EVERYONE here.

415. IDIC Lives! - October 8, 2013

“Obviously, your own life experiences have impacted on you, however I might also point out that your anger and sarcasm towards me does tell me that your own anger and disappointment is quite likely preventing you from seeing my proposition in a more balanced way. As a matter of fact, we all have regrets and misgivings, IDIC…that is all I am saying.”

Yeah, I knew you would go into this condescending, holier than thou direction. I suppose Trek Lady, Marja, Ash, and all, are also victims of their own disappointment and unhappiness while you remain the epitome of how to think, feel, act and be happy (really?).

FYI, I have a happy life. My daughter just left for return to her home in San Francisco and we had a great time during her visit. I am not an angry person or a disappointed person. You of course misunderstood what I said. My daughter and I traveled Europe together, faced the bigotry against us in a number of places there and in the U.S. (she is of mixed race), and I love her dearly.

The statements I made about choosing to remain single (not a parent) are the truth but only a self righteous, self important fool would then leap to your answer here. I gave it as ONE point of view from an individual who becomes a parent. Of course there are many feelings in all of us simultaneously including unconditional love for one’s child. I gave an honest opinion which many honest parents have thought of – not to be shared with the child – but merely an individual’s thought.

Oddly, your pov seems to be in a minority here, and you are avoiding now the premise you put forth re Kirk n Carol n Little David and are preferring to play Dr. Phil. Why not face the original subject? You are welcome to it in your fantasies but it is not Star Trek.

And pack up your psychology book, you don’t know IDIC from a hole in the ground.

416. Gary 8.5 - October 8, 2013

So any good news out there in theTrekverse?
Something Trekmovie has not covered yet ?

417. IDIC Lives! - October 8, 2013

Just to be clear, and then, Gary 8.5, let the good times roll:

Keachick, No, I was not annoyed at you because I am a disappointed angry person. I was annoyed at you because of the intolerant, narrow, stupid opinions you projected.

418. Red Dead Ryan - October 8, 2013

#414.

“RDR – Yes, you are probably right. Carol Marcus no doubt did give an ultimatum, either her and David or the Enterprise. My point is and has always been – she had NO RIGHT to make such an ultimatum. Kirk was young, scared, unsure of himself in everything, except that he wanted to captain a starship so he acquiesced to her selfish demands. The point is he should not been put in a position to say later, “I did as you asked. I stayed away”. Carol Marcus’s actions represents the worst kind of *feminism” but when the TWOK story was written, these notions were all the rage. It stunk then and it stinks now.”

Well, obviously Carol Marcus (might have) had the legal right to issue the ultimatum. And we know that either Kirk didn’t try to take her to court to argue his rights as a father, or that he just decided to leave her and David and continue on with his life seperate from the both of them. Knowing Kirk (as a well-established and flesh-out character), I would think he contested Marcus’ decision in court and lost.

Most jurisdictions give the mother more rights than the father. Which IS fair. Women give birth, and so in divorce proceedings, it is RIGHT and ETHICAL that she be given full custody of the child(ren) unless she is unfit as a parent. Also, women are generally better parents than men are, so there is that as well.

419. Red Dead Ryan - October 8, 2013

Whoops, I mean’t:

“And we know Kirk either DID take her to court to argue for his joint custody rights as a father and lost his case, or that he just decided to leave her and David and continue on with his life seperate from the both of them.”

420. Keachick - October 8, 2013

No, the only people who are projecting intolerant, narrow, stupid opinions are your good selves. You don’t want to even consider the possibility of Kirk fathering and parenting a child, even though he is a healthy, fit human male of the right age. And I am being intolerant, narrow and stupid?

Not true at all!

You have no better idea of what Star Trek is than anyone else, including me.

Oh yes, and damn that Nicholas Meyer person for fantasizing about a Carol who had a relationship with that James T Kirk and had a baby son to him. Of course, the writers/producers sure fixed that little “faux pas” by getting the son, David, killed off. So I guess it is not just a few women who get conveniently killed off, but characters’ children as well, in these movies.

Frankly, you disgust me with your narrow minded, flippant attitudes.

Holier than thou – you all might say. Well, I guess it takes one to know one…:(

421. Keachick - October 8, 2013

Even when women are given full custody, the father still has visitation rights… Carol cut Jim out completely and then lied to her son about his father. That goes beyond what is ethical and right.

422. Keachick - October 8, 2013

Wow, now you are segueing into comparing me with Dr Phil. I don’t even watch that programme. First, it is a cheap shot re Chris Pine and now it’s Dr Phil. Cut the crap, lady!

423. crazydaystrom - October 8, 2013

Hahaha! This thread is a hoot! And it’s literally made me LOL. I imagine you guys in a tv studio having a round table discussion/debate/argument. THAT would be “Must See TV”!

Thanks guys and gals!

424. Marshall - October 8, 2013

Lol Keachick obviously has some issues of her own, and is still desperately holding on to the idea of a Kirk that will leave his career to have kids. *Insert sarcasm* Since, you know, no life is truly fulfilled unless you have kids. Don’t kid yourself people, if you don’t want/have kids you are obviously depressed. JFC some people…

I vote that it’s time to ignore all the BS she sprouts. This thread has already wasted too much time having to listen to her lecture. It was humorous to watch her go off before, now it’s just annoying.

425. IDIC Lives! - October 9, 2013

Marshall, agreed!

I do however, have a bit of Trek news! A new tv series, “As the World Orbits,” in this week’s episode, James T. Kirk says good-bye to Carol Marcus on their tastily appointed research station, once a lover’s nest, but now the scene of their angry, disappointed arguments. He vows to go to court to fight for Baby David but Carol blocks the airlock suddenly and tries to seduce our Jim again. That Carol is a real vixen. He succumbs but an hour later, he is on his way again.

In next week’s episode, Kirk is getting ready for court, his naked chest rippling, but there is an unexpected knock at the door. It is his old girl friend Ariel Shaw! She is very pregnant. Stay tuned next week, same time, same *yawn* station.

That’s it. I will not visit this thread again so as I can resist. Sorry to all for the dominating back and forth. My love of Star Trek motivated me but enough is enough.

426. Marja [not to be confused with other posters of any stripe] - October 9, 2013

408 IDIC, Although we differ on some POVs regarding Trek, your struggles and achievements in parenthood are worthy. Sometimes there is nothing loving family can do for their siblings/children but be there. I salute you.

427. Marja [yes, a real, actual person] - October 9, 2013

410 Disinvited, I do not recall ever seeing “invited” here before the other day, do you?

[Not an accusation of "sock puppetry" by you! Because I've seen you around, you write more clearly than "Invited," and we have often agreed. And I don't recall you accusing people of being "sock puppets" either.] Just wondering if you remember ever seeing this individual before – my memory is not the greatest – except when it comes to my life, of course!] : )

I suspect “Invited” has suddenly materialized out of nowhere, and perhaps is a bit sensitive about the subject of “sock puppetry”?

428. Marja [yes, a real, actual military retiree] - October 9, 2013

Keachick,
Did you not read where I discussed the meaning of “family” and the fact that the notion of the nuclear family is a recent social convention. Did I actually say that I loved that particular social convention over any other way? No, I did not. In fact, the nuclear family model can lead to a lonely life for many, especially mothers. Clearly, it would not be one that would occur easily within the confines of an Enterprise.

In some senses, with older children, who can understand limits and off-limits areas, want to learn Sciences or Engineering, Communications, and other functions carried out on the Enterprise, I could see such children attending classes, occasionally led by Enterprise officers on a volunteer basis. I could see this, perhaps, for a period of a month or two, when no defense actions are expected [of course they do crop up], perhaps on a “training cruise” for cadets, on which family members might be invited. I can see, with strict limitations, but not in a 2-hour movie. A strong candidate for fanfic, though.

Rose, you know I am not one of the people who normally raises Cain with you.

Here are some things you have said about motherhood:

“Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Well, here’s one reason [in addition to those I listed above, which noone outside myself has ANY business challenging, or making me feel "less than" because I chose to go with my non-parenting instincts] I might be “defensive” – there were many times the single / childless in my various units were asked to work overtime or stand duty because some mother had to go get her child, who was sick, or couldn’t stay at daycare if the military unit had some sort of emergency or deadline. This also happened to “singlets” / childless folk if the parent stayed home with the kid: daycare closed / kid sick / &c.

As I did not consider others’ choices to be [or birth control accidents which led to their becoming] parents my responsibility, and got screwed out of my personal time for their convenience/needs, yes, such things do incur resentment.

The parents and their children are mostly seen as burdens on society, institutions, welfare agencies etc. This is why there are so many one-child families (and I am not talking about China either) or people with no children.”

Yep. A distinct lack in US culture, I agree, but see my remark about responsibility below.

The fact that childcare is not available 24/7 for parents is a distinct lack in our culture, but in a non-child-parent-supportive culture, it should by God influence a responsible person’s decision about having children.

“No, it is actually more like the other way round. It is more often those people who don’t have kids who feel they are somehow superior, wiser, and more important than others are…” Yup. Because some of us take other people in our workplace, or the needs of potential children for good childcare and nurturing at home which we might not be able to give, quite seriously.

Please don’t act smug about your decision. I applaud you for getting your child to college, no mean feat, but don’t disrespect those of us who have made the choice, for whatever reason, not to have kids.

By the way, an apology that contains the words “IF I offended…” is not as good as one that contains the words, “THAT I offended…” Because in fact you did offend some of us.

429. Marja [yes, a real, actual military retiree] - October 9, 2013

And, dear Rose, please forgive us for our “observations” of your insensitivity.

430. IDIC Lives! - October 9, 2013

If you prefer, replace “one hour” with “eight minutes,” and “Ariel Shaw” with “Christine Chapel.”

431. TUP - October 9, 2013

The creation of “David” and “Carol” in WOK added a ton of depth to Kirk’s character. It’s easy to say whatever happened that separated them wasn’t right. Kirk says he did what she asked and stayed away. She angrily retorts that she didnt want her son following his father all over the galaxy.

All we can do is guess at a few things.

- Carol has a soft spot for Starfleet. We see that in WOK. She “trusts” Starfleet and defends Starfleet to David. STID shows us that she was in Starfleet. Now we cant be sure if Nero’s arrival changed her future. ie. was she in Starfleet in the Prime universe but in both universes, her father was in Starfleet. Nero likely impacted Admiral Marcus’ views which likely impacted Carol’s. But to what extent we dont know. Her research into advanced weapons systems could organically lead to Genesis or her father’s influence could have pushed her down a slightly different path.

- Bones refers to opening old wounds. He knows of Carol. I cant recall if there was dilogue showing McCoy and Carol greeting each other in WoK that indicated they knew each other.

- Clearly, Carol/Kirk was an emotional relationship for both. And Carol felt perfectly justified in her decision to ask Kirk to stay away. Why Kirk agreed, we have never been shown that.

- In Generations, Kirk expresses surprise that Sulu had a daughter. Chekov explains that Kirk had met her before and Kirk laments the quick passing of time. He asks “when did Sulu have time for a family” and Scotty replies “like you always say, if something is important, you make the time”. This is an important exchange because it indicates that Kirk never took his own advice. It shows us that it is clearly possible to have a family and be a legendary Starfleet officer. Kirk chose not to. The line is meant to show Kirk in the Nexus choosing to take advantage of all the time in the world to make different decisions…and yet makes the same deicison he always did – Starfleet first, saving the Galaxy first.

- The movies also showed us that Kirk considered his crew, mainly Spock & Bones, to be his family. They vacation together. As much as he was never willing to leave Starfleet for a family, notably Carol & David, he WAS willing to throw away his career and risk imprisonment for Spock & Bones. ie. Starfleet = more important than nuclear family. Crew “family” more important than Starfleet. That’s a very important insight into his character.

My opinion is that Kirk would never have left Starfleet for Carol. Carol either didnt want to be around Starfleet or, depending on the events prior to STID she left Starfleet. Being asked to stay away may have been just what Kirk needed to hear to maintain his sometimes reckless Captain’s life. The seeming lack of responsibility that drove him to make the difficult decisions without regret. A wife & son would always give him pause about the decisions he made.

Sulu shows us having a family didn’t impact HIM. But what we know of Kirk, it surely would.

432. Basement Blogger - October 9, 2013

@ 372, 428

Invited aka “Sherlock”

Your skills at deduction are lacking. Because if you read the threads on other stories, you would have evidence before you make a conclusion..

You are so wrong about Marja being TrekkieGal63. . If you had observed the evidence, you would have seen this.

1. TrekkieGal63 really hates me. I mean she really, really hates me. Apologies to Sally Field.

2. Marja engages with me civilly. She’s friendly to me. She agrees with me on certain topics which is more than what I can say about TrekkieGal63. I don’t think she ever agreed with me on anything. According to TrekkiGal63, I’m not one of the good ones so I’m evil. Marja has not accused me of being evil, at least not yet. :-) Did I mention TrekkieGal 63 hates me?

3. The writing styles are different. All due respect to TrekkieGal63, she’s basically interested in one topic. See her blog. Whereas Marja shows interest in many topics.

Hey, Marja we know who you are. Well, we really don’t. :-) But you are not TrekkieGal63. Feel free to use your old moniker without the adjectives.

433. IDIC Lives! - October 9, 2013

#426, Marja–Thank you! My daughter and I are actually quite an amazing (if crazy) pair. Sadly, paranoid schizophrenia usually strikes only very smart people. She was/is this (still is), and also tall and extremely beautiful (not just my opinion). She wanted to explore alternate realities…not a good idea if drugs involved. I never did them even though I am of the hippy era. They were never in the home which was very sedate and secure, I was a school teacher for 11 years of her young life. Anyway, thanks.

TUP – Thanks for #431!

434. Marja, a real live Coastie - October 9, 2013

432, Ah, Bernie, ye’ve warmed the cockles of me heart. I raise a glass to ye, sir.

Curious that “Invited” has uninvited him/herself … fine by me though :-)

435. Keachick - October 9, 2013

I NEVER wrote that Kirk should leave his career in Starfleet in order to have children. NEVER NEVER.

All I have ever written is that the writers might like to write a story where Kirk is given the opportunity to be a father and that has NEVER meant he has to leave Starfleet or not be Captain of the Enterprise.

You all misrepresent and lie!

Not good. As for insensitivity, well, touche. I would consider deliberately misrepresenting what a poster has actually written is both disreputable, insensitive as well as incredulously STUPID.

It appears that there are LOT OF PEOPLE with ISSUES on this board.

How about you lose your ignorance and sarcasm as well.

436. IDIC Lives! - October 10, 2013

Just a thought for all to ponder: How long does it take to raise a child? If one leaves one’s best calling to raise a child, one cannot go back to one’s best calling in 3 months, 3 years, 10 years, 13 years or 17 years. Better not to begin if one is to rip oneself from said child before adulthood. By that time, one cannot just slide back into one’s best calling, either.

437. IDIC Lives! - October 10, 2013

I quote Kirk, “I lied.”

I said I wouldn’t visit this thread again. I did not intend to at the time I said it. Maybe when Kirk said he would kill Maltz the Klingon later, he really meant it too, but–he lied.

It would be nothing but egotistical and heartless for a father to spend 3 months or 6 months with his son and then take off for a 5 year very dangerous mission. Yeah yeah, shut up IDIC Lives, enough is enough on this!! But it was a deeply flawed premise from the get-go, let alone not being Star Trek. It caused the problem it did because for all our diverse POVs, we all love Star Trek – adamantly, logically, and passionately.

Carry on Trekkers!

438. Marja - October 10, 2013

I think we should feel free to carry on, but perhaps with less sarcasm.

Specificity is also good.

People saying things like “you all lie” is neither welcome nor true. It’s an opinion, but I don’t lie, so nuts to that!

————————————————————————————————–

Anyways, IMHO, it might not hurt to have Kirk take a few years at a “shore station” [as TOS Kirk did, BETWEEN MOVIES, before the events of TWOK]. He could be there with a wife and kids, then have the agonizing choice of going back into deep space on the Enterprise – agonizing only b/c he’d have to separate himself from the family he loves, and has family issues from his childhood – and deal with that inner conflict. This would also be a good way to show the passage of time, so the real ages of our actors can be approached in the film universe …

It would reflect the choices contemporary naval officers and crew face with their families now. Because children really don’t belong on ships which could become involved in war or other dangerous situations.

There’s always shore leave and temporary assigned duty, but it’s definitely not the same as being there for your child all the time.

Just sayin.’

439. IDIC Lives! - October 10, 2013

#438 Marja,
Agreed, this scenario you present could be a Trek scenario. Personally, it is not for me (for my version of Trek and Kirk), but it could be. It is also perhaps an argument for not having a child if one is in the military and has to then leave him or her to do dangerous things. It must be heartbreaking to child and parent alike to know mother or father for say 3 years of the child’s life, and then leave the child to go to war or at least dangerous situations. If I were in the military, I would guard not to have children, just my personal opinion.

On another subject, humans tend to have children when they are simply not prepared to emotionally or financially, and meanwhile our poor old planet has passed the 7 billion mark a long time ago. We are over-populated and it seems those who do not think or plan, contribute the most to that over-population. Over all, not a promising situation for Earth or humans or all the other life on Earth, either. Trees, elephants, tigers, and so forth.

As for sarcasm, I looked back to see how this Kirk and Carol thing built (to see how I built it as well as Keachick and to a lesser degree, other people), and Keachick uses sarcasm a lot in posts – older ones too which were not yet about Kirk and Carol. She tends to put other people’s opinions down with a sarcastic expression or exaggerated sentence. So I’m not taking a guilt trip but I do agree, sarcasm perhaps gets no one anywhere. Parody can be used to bring home a point clearly, and I did that too.

I do believe another hint might be that if someone has an outside the paradigm idea, that he or she express it and other people should be anticipated to say, “No…” and debate it. Then perhaps the original person could say something like, “Well, I still think it works and it is a good idea but I’ll not continue it on this forum since it has had a poor reception.”

I don’t mean those exact words but–an unusual idea should have its moment and then if rejected, not keep hitting us over the head in hopes we submit and embrace it, if you see what I mean. Not good for the originator of said idea to go on and on, post after post, it builds up frustration in others who are only human (or probably human). It becomes a challenge to squash it and this is the wrong attitude, of course, but I/we are not the only ones who used sarcasm and exaggerated A LOT, as in “you all lie.” That was not the only sarcasm from Keachick, there are many quotes similar, perhaps only to me or to another person.

To rudely, cruelly say that I am angry and disappointed with my daughter and so this is why I reject Keachick’s research station idea, IMO is really egomaniacal on Keachick’s part and a bit–out of kilter.

If you look back at my posts, I call her PROJECTED IDEAS intolerant, narrow and (in frustration I said–) stupid. I never called HER stupid. Maybe that is a small difference but many of her arrows of disdain read like, “YOU ARE angry and disappointed…” Rudely, meanly diagnosing what the other person IS.

Also, Keachick’s rehash of her innocence above is not at all accurate on what she actually said, post after post after post. “All I did was…” yeah, right.

I will try to be less sarcastic. I had not been on this forum for months; I was before briefly when STID came out. If I had any sense I’d know I am way too busy to be on this forum, but I love Star Trek. I have been a Trekker since the 1970s, I was too busy making out with my boyfriend in the 1960s when Trek came out, to watch it. But I campaigned to name the first space shuttle Enterprise along with other Trekkers, campaigned for ST:TMP, wrote fan fiction when it was rather amazing (my best friend of over 30 years is a fellow old time fanfic writer), became a professional writer because of Trek, and more.

I have decent, intelligent opinions to offer. If I must guard TOO closely not to offend someone who is at the same time rude and sarcastic herself fairly often, then it’s not worth posting.

Your input on the military is interesting; the military is far from my own life experience.

440. IDIC Lives! - October 10, 2013

My first posts to Keachick were mannerly. I spoke to her logically and kindly. She continued rather aggressively with her great idea of The Nesting (sarcasm? What am I supposed to call it???? OK, Kirk and Carol and David/Davina).

Then at one point she told us that there is no more to learn in science, that we seem to have learned all that is learnable, thus Kirk should raise David – it is, she said, a great idea. (Ok, raise him “for a while”??)

I (and probably others) held our sarcasm and I went through a long explanation of what is happening on the scientific forefront – so many incredible things and exciting! Trek could use any one of a number of new scientific forefronts as a premise for their next film. I write this cutting edge science news and theory for a living, it is what I write professionally, so I know a bit about things like the possible dark plasma biosphere and more. Keachick made no reference to this post of mine. When she is proven wrong, she makes no reference–this is true in another instance too. And I am not sure why mention of Chris Pine’s activities made her so angry.
I was not malicious in mentioning Chris, it seemed her love of nuKirk also involved Chris, it makes sense.

It was TUP who called her an idiot, not me. I held my tongue, believe it or not.

I’m not sure that my more rude posts by the end of the debacle (not sure “sarcasm” even describes them accurately), were worse than….

Well, let me it this way: Our society coddles mediocrity and stupidity. We dare not speak the truth because it is not politically correct. If someone says what others are truthfully thinking, he or she is told not to be sarcastic; what that really means is, “Don’t speak the truth.” The true dumbed down society.

Dumbed down forum too it seems. Star Trek is already dumbed down enough.

441. Keachick - October 10, 2013

#436 – “Better not to begin if one is to rip oneself from said child before adulthood. By that time, one cannot just slide back into one’s best calling, either.”

I never wrote that though. Stop misrepresenting what I actually wrote.
Perhaps, the problem lies in people’s inability to be in this alternate universe and continue on proposing possible storylines from where the movie left off. That is all I have ever been doing and pointing certain precedents from past TOS TV and movie canon.

When does imagination begin and fantasy stop or is it, when does fantasy begin and imagination stop?

442. Keachick - October 10, 2013

#440 – “I write this cutting edge science news and theory for a living, it is what I write professionally, so I know a bit about things like the possible dark plasma biosphere and more. Keachick made no reference to this post of mine. When she is proven wrong, she makes no reference–this is true in another instance too. And I am not sure why mention of Chris Pine’s activities made her so angry.”

Actually I did acknowledge your post which talked about cutting edge science news in my post #344, 2nd to last paragraph.

I guess I come across as a bit angry re your mention of Chris Pine, because first you mention that I am a Pine fan and then later mention his present activities (where he is playing Prince Charming for the movie Into the Woods). In my discussion of the Kirk character, I made no mention of either actors who have played this character, so it was irrelevant to the discussion. I also wrote in one of my posts on this thread that I first saw the character of Captain Kirk on television in 1968, something you seemed to have overlooked. You mention my affection for the actor playing nuKirk in an effort to discredit my viewpoint. Non-sequitur.

I am also afraid that you, IDIC Lives, is yet another person to try to discredit and make fun of my affection for this human being, as well as for one of the characters he plays, a character already in existence 12 years before he was born.

Looking back at some of my posts here, I do acknowledge that I have been a bit too sarcastic on occasion.

“To rudely, cruelly say that I am angry and disappointed with my daughter and so this is why I reject Keachick’s research station idea, IMO is really egomaniacal on Keachick’s part and a bit–out of kilter.”

Your posts, including the one at #408, lead me to believe that you have a more negative outlook toward the having of children than a positive and that is clearly influencing your attitudes toward allowing a character the opportunity to become a parent.

The fact is – this discussion was never about whether any of us here should or shouldn’t have children, but whether such a condition as parenthood, among other things, might not ALSO be a feasible option.

“Our society coddles mediocrity and stupidity. We dare not speak the truth because it is not politically correct. If someone says what others are truthfully thinking, he or she is told not to be sarcastic; what that really means is, “Don’t speak the truth.” The true dumbed down society.”

And yet that is EXACTLY what many of you have done to me. I gave an impression of things as I have seen them, an observation, my truth and I have been pilloried for it. The reality is that what I wrote is certainly not considered “politically correct” today either, anything but. I have been called insensitive and stupid and yet I doubt that any one of you could disprove what I wrote anymore than I can prove it categorically.

“Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Actually, two posters, Trek Lady and IDIC, seemed already disparaging, even angry, at my suggestion about Kirk becoming a parent and sharing in the parenting process, while still being part of Starfleet, before I even wrote the comment quoted above. This is what I actually wrote – yet some people have interpreted this to mean that I think that women without children lead meaningless existences. That is simply not true and the bias/fear is all yours.

The two words I used was “defensive” – well, you have all done a remarkably good job at defending your positions. The other was “contented”. Just because someone may not be contented as they might otherwise like to be does not make their lives meaningless. What an idiotic interpretation and assertion. I might even called it “dumbed down and mediocre”.

Quotes like this confuse me – “I have a friend who has struggled for years to have a child.” This was from a post by Trek Lady. If your friend does not yearn to have a child, hence the struggle, why should be so upset? It would suggest that she is feeling not quite so content as she feels she would be if she had been able to conceive that child that she continues to struggle to achieve.

Then I read about women being upset with my comment because they have not been able to have children (and apparently have wanted to) because I said that I observed that some childless/childfree women do not appear to be as content… In many ways, your posts are oddly proving my point more or less correct. Doh

443. Ash - October 11, 2013

Oh wow Keachick is still trying to go at it.

*grabs a seat and some popcorn*

Let’s see what crap she comes up with next ;)

444. IDIC Lives! - October 11, 2013

Ash, #443, Sorry Ash, but not me. It’s a waste of my time to read her posts and an even bigger waste of my time to try to answer them. Am doing neither. Sorry ’bout your wasted (the operative word here) – popcorn.

445. Keachick - October 11, 2013

Ash – You are the one who totally misrepresents what I have written, which means that not only what you say is crap but a dumbass misrepresentation of what I did suggest among various scenarios.

#301 Ash – “You can not have a Star Trek movie that has the crew or Kirk or Spock leaving Starfleet OR the Enterprise so they can go play house somewhere else. Not because it’s an impossible idea but because it’s a BAD one. It’s no longer Star Trek then. The whole freaking point of the series is to explore and search for new planets and civilizations. Kirk can’t do that sitting on earth with a wife and kid. Sorry if I’m bursting someone’s bubble. It’s never gonna happen. Luckily Mr.Orci is a Trek fan who knows this, so I’m not worried.”

I never suggested such a scenario. I never suggested that Kirk or Spock should leave Starfleet, that Kirk could not/should not be Captain of the Enterprise or that he couldn’t explore new planets and civilizations…God, if only the writers would have these characters actually do that.

I find your posts offensive.

446. Keachick - October 11, 2013

IDIC does not live!

*Funny* how people decide that they won’t read a person’s posts when they disagree with their own viewpoint. This is not an original comment either.

As for me, I read everyone’s posts…even when I probably shouldn’t.

447. Keachick - October 11, 2013

For anyone who is open minded and careful enough to read this -

I am one of three sisters, the middle one. My older half-sister had her deformed uterus removed so that she wouldn’t bleed to death when she was 28 years old. My younger sister (by two years) has not been married nor had any children. She stopped menstruating (naturally) about 18 months ago. I am older and but I still menstruate every two to three months (naturally). I have had three children, the only sister to have done so.

Both sisters have certainly not lead meaningless lives and I have certainly never considered that they have, in the same way that I have never considered that of two of my sister’s female friends who are also childless. I find it utterly unbelievable (and indeed, offensive) that my comment could be interpreted as it has been.

My younger sister did admit a little while ago that she did regret/was upset that life had not worked out in a way that would have allowed her to have children. She was quite tearful and honestly I was really quite shocked. This does now explain what had been a kind of inexplicable sadness that my sister has shown so often at times. She had always appeared not to be bothered much by her childless state. She has a good, well paid job, been able to travel, own her own property freehold and friends, both single and married. She has always been the more outgoing and capable of the two of us.

On the few occasions my older sister and I have met, she has not been able to hide her jealousy and resentment that I have children and she does not. She has never acknowledged her two nephews and niece. Before I had my children, this sister went on how easy it was for “sluts” etc to have babies and get to keep them and generally criticized the parenting skills of women with children in general. Her anger and resentment has hurt me…

Yes, I have so-called “issues” that go back to how I was raised. Indeed, I believe that I am in a position to present a certain perspective on these issues. I am more sensitized to particular types of thinking that I know (QBE) are not healthy or good in the longterm for individuals or for society at large.

I doubt that any of you had a father say in front of his 10 year old and 8 year old that all children should be sterilized at birth, that women who had children were pathetic and stupid, had the mentality of a cabbage or have a TV programme showing the very first pictures of a developing feotus in the womb punctuated by a man saying how all children should be aborted. My mother just sat there…

This is what I heard for much of my young life. Hard to believe but all true. Later, after I had spent two years overseas, he says that he hopes to God that I never children, that I would regret it etc.

When I read some of this stuff here and how my comment has been so hideously misinterpreted, along with what is so often said about having children in general, I fear that my father’s way of thinking has all but become mainstream thinking, even if it is not quite as overtly obvious and blunt as were my father’s attitudes. He would have been proud of my two sisters…

I understand that not everybody is the same and that people find fulfillment and contentment in a great many different ways.

Everything I have written does not negate my viewpoint on who and what this Captain Kirk could be and do in this alternate universe. My viewpoint is as valid as anybody else’s, especially as I am basing some of my ideas on precedent found in TOS/movie canon. I repeat – I have NEVER said that Kirk should have a family instead of being in Starfleet. I have ALWAYS said he could have a family as well as. The key words here are AS WELL AS.

Whether it can work or not comes down to the writers’ imaginations and willingness to take a risk, because as Kirk once said, “Risk is our business”.

448. crazydaystrom - October 11, 2013

@Keachick

Peace and love to you

Sincerely

:-)

449. crazydaystrom - October 11, 2013

And

Peace and love to everyone on this board

I know it’s impossible but I’d love for us to all to be one big happy fanfleet here. As fans we are quite passionate, to state the obvious, but showing more consideration to one another won’t hurt at all. In fact it WILL help.

I know, I know. I tend toward a hippy-dippy “love, peace and Jimi Hendrix” sort of world view but it’s been my way for decades and it’s worked out pretty well for me. I don’t claim to’ve found the secret of perfect serenity, by any means, but I know “with” and not “against” is the way to go.
Call me crazy…

IDIC

450. Ash - October 11, 2013

@445 Keachick

“I find your posts offensive”

Like I care. Mostly because the only one that has really gone off and made wildly inappropriate and generalizing comments about people is you. If anyone thought my previous post about sitting down and watching your display was in all seriousness, they missed the sarcasm. I usually just skim past anything you post (I learned better) but when I realized just how many people were upset by your comments, I had to jump back and read. It wasn’t pretty..

I’m heard people making the “oh people are SO much happier with kids. Those poor, childless women/men are so unhappy” comment before, and it get old FAST.

*sigh* If only TrekMovie had an ignore bottom.

@444 IDIC lives!
I was joking. 100%. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

451. Marja - October 11, 2013

442 Keachick, Holy cow. ‘Quotes like this confuse me – “I have a friend who has struggled for years to have a child.” This was from a post by Trek Lady. If your friend does not yearn to have a child, hence the struggle, why should be so upset? It would suggest that she is feeling not quite so content as she feels she would be if she had been able to conceive that child that she continues to struggle to achieve.’

Trek Lady mentioned her childless friend who WANTED to have children and is UNABLE TO HAVE THEM. She would call TL, her friend, in tears because of the INSENSITIVITY of others, who made observations like, “aren’t you gettin’ a little long in the tooth? When are you going to start a family?’

So I’m thinking you didn’t read TrekLady’s post very thoroughly.

And holy cow! Again. I’m going to parse here.

“Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs tend to be less defensive and more contented overall than those who have never had children… just an observation.”

Well, let me see. If you had only said “seem to be” instead of “tend to be”. The first would be from an observational standpoint. The second sounds as if you are citing factual evidence. therefore it is not an observation, but a statement of opinion masquerading as fact.

So it ticked me off.

I have many times agreed with you, I have many times appreciated your somewhat unusual but socially panoramic views, but this one really galled me.

What if one of us had said, ““Women who have had children, as well as a career or at least reasonably well paid jobs are defensive of their choice and are discontented overall with having to pursue a career and parenthood simultaneously. They are also frustrated because they are the primary caregivers. … just an observation.”

I don’t think you would have easily accepted that statement from me or anyone else. It is a point of view, and in some cases quite factual concerning some women but it is not true of all mothers in all cases.

Nor was your above statement in my case. I sometimes regret the choice, but I think it was better in the long run than inflicting my crazy on a child. And my crazy military career. However, what angered me often was the insensitivity of others who did not know why I made my choice, to whom I did not feel I should have to justify my choice, telling me what choice I should make.

Do you see? My choice had been made, but these people were “preaching” their ‘marriage-and-children-naturally-follow “religion” at me. Some would make fun of me, or of me and my husband. Some would shake their heads pityingly [which is how your words may have come across to some of us]. All these transactions had the underlying message [it felt to me] that, “you’re not a grownup woman, you don’t have a real marriage, unless you have a child.” It angered me, and it has angered many married women.

Specificity is your friend.

452. IDIC Lives! - October 11, 2013

@#450 Ash,
I know you were joking.
I also have, am, and will skip her posts now, if I am on the site at all. Watching the Victim Card be played while others sing Kum-by-yah, isn’t really my thing, either. But I realize that objecting to a manipulative dumbing down of Star Trek and in the process, dumbing down this site, is the politically correct thing to do. Peace and love are easily bandied about to shut up intelligent, truthful people and “of course” the people trying to make intelligent, truthful comments therefore are assumed not to be for peace and love. We are very bad people, yes we are.

You know, if Kirk had decided to dutifully, guiltily spend time with his new-found son David , Kirk would have been off playing miniature golf with David at the beginning of TSFS, then he would not have known that Sarek arrived wondering who had Spock’s katra, and McCoy would have been put in the galactic loony bin, and Kirk would never have stolen the Enterprise to go get Spock’s body on the Genesis Planet (thanks to that little punk David’s use of protoplasm, the damn planet was falling apart), and Spock would have remained dead, the whales would never have been saved, and the rest of the theatrical releases’ CANON would not have manifested, not to mention that Old Spock (if dead) could not have made the split in the timeline. Of course preventing the nu-universe might have not been all bad, but still…

My point is, this is science fiction, not the “how to raise your babies” or “childless women” hotline or the Kirk soap opera (fiction). The writers, the creators, wrote Trek so that Kirk does not see David at all in TSFS but rather is instantly involved in Sareks’ query of where Spock’s katra went, figures it out, kidnaps McCoy, steals the Enterprise, and so forth. David blessedly dies because the writers and whoevers, knew he was a problem in the Trek Universe, not to mention the fact the Klingon had a big knife.

TUP’s post which patiently explained that Spock, McCoy and the crew are Kirk’s family was correct. Kirk put them ahead of Carol and David, period. (Did Carol trick poor Jim because he does know about condoms, I think? Yes, yes, David has worth anyway, ah, the soap opera goes on).

I do still care about – love – Star Trek. I do hate to see it manipulated, whined over, dumbed down, and made to lose any of its edge and mystique, the victim of—-what also ails society today. But, Ash, this is just one stupid thread, and now I have your wisdom, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore.

453. IDIC Lives! - October 11, 2013

Should read:
“But I realize that objecting to a manipulative dumbing down of Star Trek and in the process, dumbing down this site, is NOT the politically correct thing to do.”

454. Marja - October 11, 2013

That said, Keachick, I read your words about your father and family of origin with regret. You learned at an early age how hurtful words can be, and I am sorry that it was your own father saying them in your presence. Parents can be terribly hurtful and destructive. Some have deep resentments, some are unbalanced, some are just plain mean.

Again, I think that [from other posts you have made] that you are an open-minded mother to your children and that nurturance is very high in your system of priorities. To this I say BRAVO, and to you.

Just please, please, try to temper your words to those who are not like you.

I know you’ve read a lot of sarcasm and some nasty remarks directed at you, I’ve seen it over the year-plus that I’ve been here, and in many cases I thought it neither warranted nor fair.

Your opinion of Kirk, the character, is fine with me. It’s your opinion. Some have called it ridiculous, and I guess that’s OK. It’s when they call YOU ridiculous that they’re crossing the line. I have tried never to do this to anyone, so please know it is YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE CHILDLESS that I am disputing here, and what I perceive as a lack of sensitivity on your part.

I now have a better understanding of you, from your last post; please look at those of us who have posted in return to your earlier posts with a more compassionate eye, if you can. When any of us on this board feel challenged by someone on a PERSONAL basis ["you're an idiot" or whatever] we tend to be very defensive. I have seen people get defensive about opinions as well.

Problems occur when opinions are stated as fact, and are addressed in a way that can be taken personally, e.g., “Black / Asian / European women like x because of y” – a woman in one of those categories who disagrees with the premise might not only take it personally, but will feel defensive because she defies that stereotype and lives in another way.

I hope this helps, and like Daystrom I wish you peace, and love.

455. Keachick - October 11, 2013

Why did I think that you, IDIC Lives and Ash, would do just as you have done?

Talk about my insensitivity? I could start with the post with the horrid sarcasm towards the prime Star Trek characters and what might not have been if Kirk had spent time with his son instead of meeting with Sarek. That was disgusting. Well, actually, there was no reason why Kirk could not have been with David, a son he had just become reacquainted with. Sarek would have been able to track Kirk down, wherever he was. Something to do with having 23rd century technology, something not unlike the cellphone we have today in the 21st century…unbelievably stupid and mean.

Marja – Thank you. The only rational person here, it seems. Yes, I agree, on reflection, that it would have been better if I had written “seem” instead of “tend”. It would have read better and more in line with my actual intent and may not have been as inflammatory as it has been.

You, IDIC Lives, are the one who is dumbing down everything. You use cliche words like “dumbing down” and soap opera for starters. It seems that you are using my views as yet another excuse to not only have a go at people like me but also towards the makers of this so-called “dumbed down” Star Trek film series.

Another observation of mine – lots of people have talked about how they or others seemed to be victimized by people like me, something I have not done, and yet when I tell my story, I am the one using the “victim card” to garner sympathy and dumb down this site. No, you don’t want to read about another reality – the fact that some people unable to have children of their own can be cruel and resentful of and to those who can. This does not fit your own worldview. That is not something you want to know about, but believe me it goes on, so you refer to me “manipulative dumbing down of Star Trek…”

Your hypocrisy and malevolence really is making me sick.

456. IDIC Lives! - October 11, 2013

#454 Marja,
Keachick’s opinion of people who don’t want kids is what bothers you.
Keachick’s version of Trek is what bothers me. Trek is not a wide-open book, there is canon, there is character development established over nearly 50 years.

Yes, Trek isn’t real so maybe it is ok to let it be dumbed down, its edge and mystique eliminated for the proper mores of the day (raising children with 2 parents and so forth), but Trek is as real in my life as is my view of people choosing not to have kids, single parents, same sex couples raising kids and all the diversity which is blessedly out there. And this is a Trek website, so Trek counts.

I’m saying, it hurts me to have Trek rattled on about as much as it hurts you (or annoys you, whatever emotion to insert here), to hear intolerant views about people who choose not to have kids.

I don’t feel receptive and loving to ideas that are intolerant regarding having kids OR which fracture a longstanding science fiction universe either. My objection on an emotional level is about Trek, yours is regarding childless people, but we are both rubbed the wrong way in a rather basic way.

Don’t just dismiss how much Trek means to people who care in their way — as you do in your way.

We all have sad or dramatic life stories here or there. Anyone want to hear about my alcoholic father and my bipolar mother?? No, I didn’t think so. We all live in the Eternal Now and should take that responsibility.

457. Keachick - October 11, 2013

As for me “projecting” – I do not think that is my general tendency. I am more likely to “mirror”. The words are not the same nor do they mean the same thing.

“Kirk put them ahead of Carol and David, period. (Did Carol trick poor Jim because he does *not know about condoms, I think? Yes, yes, David has worth anyway, ah, the soap opera goes on).”

What the hell are you saying here? To consider someone life’s worthwhile, even though they may be only 20 years old when they die, is NOT a soap opera. David was no worse than Harrison/Khan and his crew, not by a long shot, yet Trek writers chose to allow Khan and his crew to remain in cryostasis. The Genesis machine had been destroyed and eventually the highly unstable world that it created. There was no reason for David to die, other than to copy the trend of killing off anyone significant in Kirk’s life (such cliched soap opera that was).

Once again, you have outdone yourself…:(

458. Keachick - October 11, 2013

IDIC Lives – So I don’t care about Star Trek because of the possible scenarios I present here? So, for a captain of a starship to also be a father suddenly makes this Star Trek series and the character, dumbdowned? Now that is offensive…
Ye of limited imaginations and perspective!

Star Trek Groundhog Day – bring it on…:(

“We all have sad or dramatic life stories here or there. Anyone want to hear about my alcoholic father and my bipolar mother?? No, I didn’t think so.”

But you have talked about your paranoid-schizophrenic daughter and the difficulties you have had. BTW, I do not doubt that you have had your share of problems and that you also love your daughter very much. I have never intimated otherwise. It seems that I may have misinterpreted your earlier comments, as you and others have done to mine and persist in doing so. It is you, IDIC, who gives a certain impression in your attitudes toward having children and showing them within the context of a futuristic television/movie series which are not particularly nice nor necessarily realistic. Star Trek tells the stories of the lives of the people, not about the futuristic science-fiction technology…

Just because a person tells something not so pleasant about their (past) life does not mean they are playing a “victim card”. This term gets used far too loosely and has the effect of denigrating and denying a person’s feelings and experiences. That is what people have done to me here now on this thread, however, this is not the first time. What is it with some of you?

As I said – I am more a mirror than anything else, for better and/or worse…

459. Keachick - October 11, 2013

Thank you, Marja again and Crazydaystrom. I am speaking to Marja, someone who I have become to respect…

Anyone can become a bit defensive at times over various issues. It is about understanding what triggers those defensive mechanisms and not allowing the issues get in the way of a reasonable debate/discussion.

One of my sister’s friends, a lovely person who has always seemed to be the happy-go-lucky type, was also there on the same evening that my own sister admitted tearfully to her major regret/grief. This friend said that the fact that she had not found anyone she wanted to marry and/or that she had not had any children never really bothered her. This was part of a conversation between four women having “a night out with the girls”. My sister and she are still the best of friends and I am more than pleased.

460. Marja - October 11, 2013

456 IDICLives!, Keachick’s opinion of people who don’t want kids is what bothers you. Keachick’s version of Trek is what bothers me. Trek is not a wide-open book, there is canon, there is character development established over nearly 50 years.

Yes, her opinion on the childless bothered me, particularly because she stated an opinion as fact,and her “version of Trek” bothers you. I get that. But it is not the same. When she cites real-life examples concerning real-life people and dismisses the choices of real-life people, it’s insulting – to real people.

While I disagree with her possible version of Trek, which, as you know, she is postulating as a story possibllity for a fictional universe, I don’t take personal offense. I may think a certain idea is silly, but I will present my arguments against it without saying “It’s stupid.”

“There is canon, and character development … over nearly 50 years.” Yes, there is. But there is new canon now, established in 2009, an alternate Trekverse, and I have been amazed at how some folks condemn events and personalities in the new timeline because they don’t fit in with previous canon.

For example, have been called a “shipper” and worse because I like the inclusion of a love relationship between Spock and Uhura. I don’t expect it to take up a whole movie, I don’t expect “lover of Spock” to be Uhura’s entire role in any movie, I don’t expect Star Trek to turn into “The Spock and Uhura Romance Show,” but I have sometimes been shouted down merely for my support and liking of what is now a canon relationship. I’ve been offended, mainly by people who post their views as if they are the sole truth and call me stupid or lovelorn [fill in the disparaging words] because I don’t agree with what they see as the “truth” of Star Trek.

Yes, Trek isn’t real so maybe it is ok to let it be dumbed down, its edge and mystique eliminated for the proper mores of the day (raising children with 2 parents and so forth), but Trek is as real in my life as is my view of people choosing not to have kids, single parents, same sex couples raising kids and all the diversity which is blessedly out there. And this is a Trek website, so Trek counts.

I do not think, and have not said, that it’s ok to dumb down Trek. But if your view of Spock and Uhura differs from mine you might think and say that I want it to be dumbed down or turned into a soap opera. I hope you would not say that, but I’ve seen others say similar things.

I’m saying, it hurts me to have Trek rattled on about as much as it hurts you (or annoys you, whatever emotion to insert here), to hear intolerant views about people who choose not to have kids.

It annoys me to hear intolerant views of feminism, parenting and my views on either.

And frankly, I’ve been annoyed by others’ perceptions of what the relationships in NuTrek “should be,” but I defend my views while trying not to insult others. I do feel hurt when people insult me or say I’m not a feminist because I like a personal love relationship between two professionals, or want Uhura to join the “quartet” instead of having Trek center on the “triad”.

I don’t feel receptive and loving to ideas that are intolerant regarding having kids OR which fracture a longstanding science fiction universe either. My objection on an emotional level is about Trek, yours is regarding childless people, but we are both rubbed the wrong way in a rather basic way.

I think that what often happens on this board, and a major cause of discord, is that people have different views and feel – and say – that theirs is the only valid view, forgetting that each individual on this board has a right to his/her own opinion. Often these assertions of “mine is the only truth” become personal battles, with insults and charges of bullying and so on exchanged in volleys that last far too long.

This is what I don’t like on this board. I try to express my opinion and defend my points of view without resorting to personal attacks. I am not saying you, IDIC, have or have not done so, because cannot recall every one of your posts in detail except those on this page. But the exchanges between Wm. Bradley and others a month or two ago rubbed me the wrong way because they are cross-accusations, not debate, not discussion. They become sarcastic and nasty. And we can also recall the Orci/Ahmed brouhaha.

My “truth” is mine. Opinions on what can and can’t happen in science fiction franchise we all love differ. We all know of plot holes and silly science in our favorite show/movie. Does that make us stop loving it? No. We criticise the silly science and sometimes debate about it ad infinitum, but we don’t [most of us, anyway] insult Star Trek.

As far as fairness, or sexual politics, I have very strong views, and feel society should run a certain way. Yet there is a preacher at Westboro Baptist Church who would condemn me personally on every one of my beliefs. He is not someone I would like to run into, because he’s not interested in debating views. He knows The Truth and believes everyone should accept his Truth. Because otherwise, in his view, I and people like me are goin’ to the place where no snowball can survive.

My point is that this is a venue where I believe the First Amendment should apply, that we each have the right to say what we want. But when we defend our points of view, we should be able to hope that the other party is listening [reading]. If they hate what we’re saying they should be able to debate us without insults or sarcasm. Or “skip on down” so as to be spared our pain-inducing opinion. Parody is different if it’s not personally directed, IMHO.

Why should we take offense to someone’s opinion about something we love? About someone’s ideas about the thing we love, no matter how cockamamie they seem to us? It is only when it becomes personal, i.e., relates to me or you in our personal lives, or our personal mentality, intelligence or beliefs, that it is insulting, or when the opinions expressed become personal attacks against us because we differ on our points of view.

I am not perfect, I make no claims to be perfect, and I love Star Trek in many incarnations. I take it very personally for myself, but in a forum, I try to keep my opinions in the form of debate, polite, fairly rational, expressing my POV as clearly as I can.

You and I have had differences and have also held similar opinions in various matters.

Differences do not make someone my enemy unless the the “someone” personally ridicules or atttacks me. Even then it does not make the individual my “enemy,” IMO, it makes him/her a person with whom I can’t have a polite – or even rational – discussion.

The fact that I have a mild liking for “Kumbayah” does not make me stupid. “Intelligent” and “Truthful” are pretty flexible words, depending upon who’s saying them.

Keachick thought her statement about childless folk was the truth. Didn’t make it true.

“And if I say the Enterprise is a garbage scow, well, that’s my opinion too.” – a Klingon in “The Trouble with Tribbles”

“Opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one.” – a Recruit Company Commander in CG boot camp, 1978.

461. Marja - October 11, 2013

Amendments to my above [and dammit, I proofread it too - I thought]
“My point is that this is a venue where I believe the First Amendment should apply, that we each have the right to say what we want.” to say what we want to in a civil manner.

I also “get” that you may find others’ ideas of Trek insulting. I believe you have the right to say that, yes, but to insult them personally for outlining them is a bit different, and IMHO, not productive.

462. Keachick - October 11, 2013

I just proferred a range of scenarios for the nuKirk character. I never insulted anyone. However, I have seen what I did write completely ignored and replaced by a scenario that I never wrote (Ash). It appears that how Ash interpreted incorrectly my scenarios is how others have done as well. It upsets and mystifies me as to why.

#460 – Marja – which post of yours are you referring to, because I cannot recall reading that and when I looked back (quickly, admittedly) I could not find this quote of yours anywhere in your previous posts?

Perhaps it is still awaiting *moderation*? Then again, I am not sure why it would, to be honest…

463. Marja - October 11, 2013

461 Rose, my #460 is referring to my #459.

464. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 11, 2013

I am not reading Keachick’s posts anymore, dagnamit, however this tag end sentence from just this afternoon tends to stick out, she is speaking to me when she announces,

“Your hypocrisy and malevolence really is making me sick.”

I had not addressed a post to her at all. And if anyone wants to read what I did write – to Ash and Marja – feel free.

But this is typical, I could create a whole list of what I have been called. I have not used words like this back to Keachick. Why have I been called such? I guess because I assume Star Trek has a canon to it and accepted characterization. You can’t go to a Buddhist site and re-write it as Christianity folks. :-) Not without a big hassle which unfolds as we speak.

Yeah, I am real malevolent. Really, folks, we have bent over backwards here, not just me but a number of us. I am considering changing my name to “The Malevolent One.”

465. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 11, 2013

#460 Marja,
Let me explain to you, as Khan might intone: Trek IS REAL in my life. I mentioned yesterday, my best friend of over 30 years was a well known fan fic writer. Yes, I know we Trek fans are crazy but when ST:TMP first came out, I dressed in my gold tunic, she in her blue, and we stood in line with the other lunatics. We communicated via letters for a while, I lived in Florida, she in California, and Trek helped us immeasurably in spiritual and emotional ways–understand each other, love each other, and survive the world. I moved to Southern California to be closer to her. Oh yeah, I took my daughter to CA too, and she loves California, still lives there. Did ya think I left her behind because Kirk didn’t play father to David? (That’s a joke).

My best friend now has a serious heart condition and I dread each day’s email, but so far, she is still fighting. She will always seem like Spock to me. Crazy? But real. I love her.

I went into my professional career of writing science speculation thanks to Trek and it was/is my inspiration to explore the unknown. In this way, Trek has provided my income (what I make from writing).

My daughter, my best friend, another friend, and I, went to early Trek conventions together, shared hotel rooms, sang filksongs, made fools of ourselves. Never did I feel so at home. I can hear, “Banned in Argo” by Leslie Fish as I write. The captain was beamed up without his pants, you know. Hey, that’s in the lyrics. :-)

Yeah, I know Trek is not real. I think it might be a valid window to our future if we humans could get our act together. It is that special, that’s how I look at Trek. It helped me think in terms of the human species, human consciousness, and how we fit into a vast galaxy and universe.

Don’t tell me that your right not to have kids is more real than Trek has been in my life. I have only given you a few examples, there are more but many are more personal and this is, after all, a science fiction website, not a true confessions hot line. Sorry, that was sarcastic, but then I AM–
THE MALEVOLENT ONE.

466. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 11, 2013

Marja,
Kurtzman and Orci, yes, they create nuTrek, that is their job and some of us like what they create, some of us don’t. They are acknowledged professional writers and still we are not all pleased.

It is naïve for the rest of us peons to individually “offer a range of scenarios” between nu-films and then be unprepared/unhappy when these scenarios are not meant with wild applause. If STID is not loved by all, why would an amateur’s bright ideas be embraced by all, especially if they are off the beaten track of the main character?

So, sure, if one is an American, the First Amendment applies, you can talk all day about your nuTrek scenarios. Sure, we can apply the First Amendment to the world too. But to be upset when there is criticism? That criticism is also under the First Amendment. But then I AM–
THE MALEVOLENT ONE

467. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 12, 2013

@460 Marja,
“For example, have been called a “shipper” and worse because I like the inclusion of a love relationship between Spock and Uhura. I don’t expect it to take up a whole movie, I don’t expect “lover of Spock” to be Uhura’s entire role in any movie, I don’t expect Star Trek to turn into “The Spock and Uhura Romance Show,” but I have sometimes been shouted down merely for my support and liking of what is now a canon relationship. I’ve been offended, mainly by people who post their views as if they are the sole truth and call me stupid or lovelorn [fill in the disparaging words] because I don’t agree with what they see as the “truth” of Star Trek.”

Right, I agree with you. S/U is fine with me as long as both are actualized as individuals too. The threat there is more to Uhura than Spock – that she will become only his girl friend or even ex-girl friend. S/U is now canon so –no problem! Not sure of your point here. Kirk’s characterization is canon too.

For me, Kirk has always interested me most just as you probably favor Spock and S/U. Therefore, when it is suggested in numerous posts that Kirk should veer from his canonized path and characterization, I offer debate/protest/whatever to call it. I thought that’s what this forum was about. My logical posts which contained great SPECIFITY were ignored (never responded to specifically) by Keachick and the increasingly nasty demand on her part that this is not only the way it should be, but that her way is the only moral thing for Kirk to do, really grated on me.

What seems to happen to Keachick over and over – and it is no mystery why – is that she puts forth an opinion which is, to say the least, unique. Someone disagrees. In my case, I was mannerly and specific at first. I always use humor and possibly Keachick doesn’t recognize humor when her view point is involved, she thinks it is crass or malevolent. She has a tendency like the Westboro Baptist Church (may they – not she – rot in hell), to say, “Me good, you bad. Me right, you wrong.”

Anyway, after a while, frustration grows. I was told to “Cut the crap, Lady,” after a specific, reasonable, logical post. And as I said in another post, if you want me to COPY other off the wall Keachickisms which have been hurled at me after I attempted a logical, perhaps sharp (intelligent?), humorous (yes, probably some humor), and nice enough post, then–
the list could easily be made from this thread. Do we have to indulge her in insulting us because, well, we are nice people?

Also, “sarcasm” is a negative word. When I made a sharp, probably intelligent point, she labeled it “sarcasm.” It is a bit like calling a gay person something rude or an Afro-American – whoever. “You are not gay, you are a _____” “You are not an African-American, you are a ___” You are not a complete woman, you are a childless ____”
I was not making a sharp, intelligent points? No, I was SARCASTIC. It labels, tags a person, and it is often unfair. Keachick called me this over and over, I am bad, bad, bad, downright malevolent.

Truth is, she will continue to have troubles on this site from a number of people unless she learns to play well with the other children. I will not continue to try to communicate with her, I’m done. And I notice most people just don’t bother, either. I commend you for trying and perhaps you understand her better than the rest of us – good for you.

Commendations for your attempt to mediate. At this point, I’m not interested in further mediation on this subject.

468. Marja - October 12, 2013

465 IDIC, I’m sticking with your original moniker, b/c you don’t seem Malevolent to me. I am happy to hear you’ve had a lifelong friendship founded in Trek. And I hope your friend does well meeting her health challenges and continues to do well.

I don’t think I’ve been active in fandom as long as you have; I didn’t discover its crazy fun until after TWOK.

“And we’re banned from Argo every onnnnne / Banned from Argo just for having a little fun / We spent a jolly shoreleave there for just three days or four / But Argo doesn’t want us anymore …”

Ahhh, memories, of a table during the banquet at the 1983 Boston Bash, all of us drunk and singing lustily. I think we got the room to sing along : )

One of the things that impressed me with fandom in the early days was the true spirit of camraderie and tolerance. The divisions didn’t start until a while later, when some complained of the military tone of TWOK, and the bad divisions didn’t start until ST:TNG and the “Kirk or Picard?” debate. In the early days the sides used to holler in a good-natured way, sort of like us drunks at the Boston Bash, but then it devolved into fighting, and now it seems to resemble a really nasty bar fight, with people breaking bottles and deploying pool cues.

I just want that spirit of tolerance for the wacky among us, a spirit of tolerance in the way of the Vulcan concept of IDIC.

Also, I “defended” my position on childlessness with what I thought was diplomatic language.

I do try to keep my Trek reality separate from my personal reality, b/c otherwise, I can toss and turn all night over hurtful comments, framing responses to them, discarding my first angry impulses.

Trek has had great meaning in my life – it helped me form much of my personal philosophy and led me to a career in the USCG [closest contemporary to Starfleet IMO].

I differ from other fans in the respect that personally, I’ve had to step back from total fandom for the sake of my financial and emotional health. I don’t like to stir the fires of resentment, hatred, attack or hurt, and I’m sorry that my personal coloring of fandom and “reality” struck you the wrong way. I was speaking for myself and should have made that clearer.
—————————————————————-
Re your 464, IDIC I am not sure her comment was directed at you in particular, I think maybe more toward Ash, who tends to sarcasm in a big way. Which Kea may consider malevolent. Sometimes she does feel ‘attacked’ and says so, a fillip of sarcasm of her own. While this is taking it a little too personally in my opinion, I feel we should not give others a justification for feeling attacked … by not using certain ways of expressing ourselves. ["What Would Sarek Do"] I’m not always successful at this. As for hypocrisy, IDK who she’s referring to. Maybe all of us, at one time or another.

One of the reasons I use numbers AND names in my responses is to prevent “mis-addressing” my responses.
—————————————————————-
466 IDIC,it is naïve for the rest of us peons to individually “offer a range of scenarios” between nu-films and then be unprepared/unhappy when these scenarios are not meant with wild applause. If STID is not loved by all, why would an amateur’s bright ideas be embraced by all, especially if they are off the beaten track of the main character? Well, sure, but I’ve noticed over the last year or so that one of the delightful things about Keachick is her thinking way outside the box : )

That she may have been unprepared for the backlash is a bit surprising, but I was myself kind of taken aback by its vehemence.

So, sure, if one is an American, the First Amendment applies, you can talk all day about your nuTrek scenarios. Sure, we can apply the First Amendment to the world too. But to be upset when there is criticism? That criticism is also under the First Amendment.

Yep, let’s say what we want. All I ask is that people be more diplomatic and less sarcastic or even nasty [And it is SOOOOO tempting at times]. Not saying you’ve done these to an extent worse than anyone else, but negativity in tone drives some people off, and if we want our opinions to find an audience, don’t we want to prioritize the latter over the former?

JMHO.

469. crazydaystrom - October 12, 2013

@452. IDIC Lives!
“Peace and love are easily bandied about to shut up intelligent, truthful people and “of course” the people trying to make intelligent, truthful comments therefore are assumed not to be for peace and love. We are very bad people, yes we are.”

IDIC Lives! I know your post wasn’t directed at me but of course it’s reasonable for me to assume it refered to me and my posts. IF that is the case and you think I’M trying to shut ANYBODY up, you couldn’t be more wrong. And I certainly do not infer a lack of desire and appreciation of peace and love from intelligence and truth. And I do recognize the sarcasm of the “very bad people” statement.

BTW you obviously ARE bad people. Oh yes, very very bad people!
;-)

470. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 12, 2013

Marja,
I posted an earlier comment which got sent to the censor, probably because I said something unprintable about the Westboro folk. Not unprintable but–that was the gist of it. Maybe it will show up later. If it does, remember that this one comes after that one.

I made the comment in it that accusing another of “sarcasm” is sometimes a way of tagging, just like tagging a gay person with a negative term or any minority. I honestly think 98% of what I said to Keachick was sharp intelligence, not sarcasm. Tagging me with “sarcastic” was the way she could ignore/delete my response and thus she did not have to give a worthy reply, IMO. Maybe I am biased :-) So then everyone says, “Oh, IDIC LIVES is a bit sarcastic.” I disagree. But I am not going to re-create my posts to prove it, and who wants to go back and read them all? Suffice to say that when I was told to “Cut the crap, Lady,” after a logical, reasonable post, I did get a bit annoyed and the next post might have been the soap opera parody. But who cares anymore?

I don’t think the malevolent comment was directed at Ash but if it was, I dare say he or she is not malevolent, either. I guess we are to indulge Keachick as she insults us because we are such nice people. I’m not that passive. Maybe I’m not that good. I am good enough to have taken in 65 cats on my ten acres who otherwise had no home. I am good enough to—–never mind.

If the responses were vehement (not sure they were), it is because Kirk goes into the galaxy for the rest of us. The rest of us – well, me –is a good mama on Earth. I wrote a long, fairly intelligent post on Kirk being able to stand toe to toe with aliens and declare to them that humans are peaceful, then he is able to think clearly, to trick, lie and kill if necessary to protect his people, if there is no other choice. But he is the first to go back and save an alien crew as their ship breaks up. Again, this is SCIENCE FICTION, not raising baby. Heck, I can’t recreate all my posts. Since it is an issue (because I state I was NOT a malevolent crappy lady), go back and read some of my posts so you will know – or maybe you have.

I am not so measured or controlled in my life’s impulses (maybe I should have been more thought-out) as you, and so I did not hesitate to make Trek a part of my personal life. I have no regrets, far from it, as I am sure you do not regret either. Life is what it is. We are what we are.

As for the “Banned from Argo” good old days (weren’t they GREAT?!), fan fiction split over K/S or not K/S. Yes, I know it is bad to even put the initials “K/S” in print, shame on me.

I was not around for the Kirk-Picard or later battles (too militaristic and so forth). I still watched TOS videos and went to the theater for the theatrical releases, but I was busy writing science speculation and, surprisingly also writing spiritual/environmental things like loving Mother Earth before we destroy her. I moved to Holland and then to Ireland with my daughter and–all I had of Trek for years was communication from afar with my best friend and the videos of TOS, so I missed the conflicts you speak of.

I was on this site briefly when STID was first coming out but then I had not been back until I ran into Keachick’s ideas in this thread, so I was unaware of previous water under the bridge.

In my post which is being held at this moment, I say I don’t really want anymore attempt to mediate between myself and Keachick. I don’t mean that in a bad way to you. I am happy to know you from afar and value your opinions. I do get the idea of your criticisms or possible criticism of my part in this, I mostly disagree with you but–c’est la vie.

To you, Marja, well, my best hopes, as Uhura once said–

471. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 12, 2013

Marja, My post #467 was the one which got held by the censor. It is now up.

@crazydaystrom, Peace, Brother.

472. crazydaystrom - October 12, 2013

@460. Marja
““Intelligent” and “Truthful” are pretty flexible words, depending upon who’s saying them.”

So true Marja, so true. And intelligent as well.
But that’s just my humble assho…um…opinion.
:-)

IDIC

473. Formerly IDIC Lives, Now The Malevolent One - October 12, 2013

Man, how relative can ya get? Yeah, sure, intelligent and truthful, there is no such thing and/or it is all intelligent and truthful. The Westboro Baptist Church is just full of intelligence and truth – and that IS sarcasm.

Let’s give all the children a trophy for being in the game for 2 minutes, no trophy for the actual winners because the losers will feel bad. Let’s not read Steinbeck because we can just read about the Kardashians – what is informed and intelligent anyway?

I am usually a very liberal relativist but this is ridiculous.

I watched the 2nd pilot of TOS, “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” last night on DVD. That’s enough Trek for me, I do give up on this forum. Keachick probably has a new scenario for you to contemplate anyway.

474. Curious Cadet - October 12, 2013

IDW Khan Comic coming out next week!!

This interview says they are going to explain everything, including why Khan looks different, including Khan’s birth and youth. And this will be canon folks, as per Orci.

It also suggests that the timeline might be splitting for some reason in the 20th century (prior to Nero’s intervention). Whatever the case, on Wednesday, we’ll know if John Harrison ever looked like Ricardo Montalban prior to being awakened by Marcus in STID.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/10/12/exclusive-interview-idws-new-khan-comic/

475. Keachick - October 12, 2013

#471 – Yes, I am always thinking of new scenarios and possibilities for these nuTrek characters, especially my favourite one. It might also be good if people did contemplate…

The real issue is, given your own choice of phrasing, “dumbed down” – How is it “dumbed down” to follow a precedent already set in the prime Trek universe and have this alt. Kirk actually be part of any child’s upbringing as that person’s father, to the extent that he can be, instead of being denied that chance as he was in the prime universe? It really is a simple question. For my part, the answer is No! It is not “dumbed down” to allow such a scenario to happen. The story would simply allow the character an opportunity that was denied to him in the other universe. How is that bad?

People speak about Destiny (referring to TOS/movie canon) as in it is James T Kirk’s destiny to be Captain of the Enterprise and go on the Five Year Mission. Have I ever disputed that? Never. In fact, I have been one of those people on this site who has, from the start, YES, now get on with the discovery of new places etc, Just get on with the mission, damn it! I have been saying that since June 2010.

The other Destiny aspect is that, according to the very same canon, this same James T Kirk, did father a child, a son called David. The destiny of this child was to reach adulthood.

I find it *interesting* that people will quote canon, “destiny” when it comes to making this Kirk fit neatly into a box, and yet dismiss other canon, “destiny” relating to this very same character, when it suits them.

I guess one can only hope that if Carol and Jim do get on and create mini-earthquakes in either of their quarters in this alt. universe – if the condoms do bust because of the sheer intensity of their bodily energies, at least she, in this alt. universe, will have the *sensibility* to not forget to take her RU-486…(That must have been what happened in the prime universe – “stupid woman!”) One can only hope…(read sarcasm).

“Let’s give all the children a trophy for being in the game for 2 minutes, no trophy for the actual winners because the losers will feel bad. Let’s not read Steinbeck because we can just read about the Kardashians – what is informed and intelligent anyway?”

What? Who, among us here, is saying that?

To Marja and others – If I have appeared dismissive about people’s decisions about whether they should marry and/or have children, then I am sorry. That has never been my intent. I do understand that people’s needs and reasons are many and varied and I have never said otherwise.

I also realize that what I have just written re RU-486 will get people angry. However, my comments are not about denying choice, but more about allowing for choice…

476. Keachick - October 12, 2013

#474 – Interesting. It’s just that I seem to have a devil of a job getting hold of these comics, even via Amazon.com. Perhaps I am not doing something right?…Argh!!!

477. Marja - October 12, 2013

IDIC, First! I commend you on giving so many cats a safe place to live and be!

Second: “Kirk goes into the galaxy for the rest of us. The rest of us – well, me –is a good mama on Earth. I wrote a long, fairly intelligent post on Kirk being able to stand toe to toe with aliens and declare to them that humans are peaceful, then he is able to think clearly, to trick, lie and kill if necessary to protect his people, if there is no other choice. But he is the first to go back and save an alien crew as their ship breaks up.”

I remember this post of yours in the course of the too-long thread – one I agree with so much. This is the best of Kirk.

“I am not so measured or controlled in my life’s impulses (maybe I should have been more thought-out) as you, and so I did not hesitate to make Trek a part of my personal life. I have no regrets, far from it, as I am sure you do not regret either.”

I have had to step back a bit sometimes because of “lessons learned’ – depending on fans whom I thought were good friends almost left me on the street in NYC in 1984 : ( … believe me, it is only lately that I’ve become more measured and controlled. I struggle : )

My four cats and I salute you!

478. Marja - October 12, 2013

476 Keachick, see if you can Google “IDW Comics” and order from their website. Not sure it can happen in NZ but I can’t really imagine why not! Also, a friend in Oz tells me she can pick the IDW comics up in Sydney, so a comics shop in a nearby NZ city may be able to help too.

Good luck!

Most of the artists do a great job drawing Pine/Kirk btw.

479. Trek Lady - October 12, 2013

#372 Invited “Trekgal 63 left this site immediately Trek lady showed up. Which means in theory you are one and the same. You just changed your name. I don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.”

Well, all I can say is, you’re no Sherlock…. I have never posted as Trek Gal. I have never changed my name. I have never posted as a sock puppet. I am myself alone. Capisce? Unlike some, I don’t play games with my identify on line. I present myself as who I am… period.

Keachick “Actually, two posters, Trek Lady and IDIC, seemed already disparaging, even angry, at my suggestion about Kirk becoming a parent and sharing in the parenting process, while still being part of Starfleet, before I even wrote the comment quoted above.”

First, I do apologize for not replying sooner. Work has been a nightmare this week. I was concerned you would think I was deliberately ignoring you, however, it does not appear you responded to my questions anyway.

I have several times asked for clarification concerning the accusations you have made about my supposed reactions to your ideas concerning Kirk and the “parenting process” – requests you have not addressed. Perhaps if you had replied to those request we could have cleared this up. In an effort to determine what you have taken issue with, I have done back to see. My first post on this topic occurred at 341, and had NOTHING to do with your proposed scenario. My reply at 361 again, did not address your Kirk/Carol/David story directly at all. I only pointed out why I felt Kirk would not be suited for a “nesting” type life. I pointed out MY personal views on what makes Kirk tick and why a settled life was not for him. I also addressed your comments about hobbies by pointing out that hobbies could be broader than what usually comes to mind when one mentions the term. My comments were not aimed at your scenario. Frankly, I had not even READ your scenario. I saw you posting something about Carol and a child and skipped over it, because it was not something that particularly interested me, and because I doubted the writers would take that path. However, others apparently picked up the idea you posted and ran with it, generating an entire further discussion of Kirk’s personality and motivations which DID interest me. THAT was the ongoing conversation I was referring in my post. Perhaps the confusion arose because I began my post with a quote from you, which was the first thing I addressed. However, I did not intend for the entire post to be seen as directed at you personally. It was more a reaction to the general course of the discussion of which you were just one of many contributors.

You yourself even pointed out “Your posts have nothing to do with what I have been writing and you presume way too much about me.”

Well, my post had nothing to do with what you were writing, because it was not meant to. I wasn’t discussing that. Then you wrote the comment that, if you did not intend to be insulting, certainly was perceived as such by several posters.

I am not going to address this any further. I have explained myself as fully as I am able.

480. chrisfawkes.com - October 18, 2013

I enjoyed the film but I don’t know if it will hold up over time as well as the first outing.

There were some bad moments though.

1. The reveal. Really? as if some dynamo moment had just occurred.

2. Spock yelling out “Khaaaaaan”, that was painfully bad.

3. Spock saying that Khan was the most dangerous adversary the enterprise had ever faced. Along with point 2 this was really bad fanboy pandering but only to the small die hard Khan fans.

The rest of us liked TWOK but never equated Khan as being the greatest threat.

If Khan is Trek’s most Iconic villain then why change his race and why change his accent. Can Cumberbach not do anything but a british accent?

I remember going to see Valkyrie where Tom Cruise played a German but with his normal accent. Before the film a trailer came on for the film Defiance with Daniel Craig acting with an accent.

It just made the film with Cruise come across as lame after seeing that trailer.

As I say I did enjoy Into Darkness but the weaknesses I think are worth identifying.

481. Keachick - October 29, 2013

That seems to be all that most people keep doing here – identifying *weaknesses* and turning their mole hills into mountains…

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.