[martok2112]

The difference between Kirk and Picard having their moments of "letting go" during TUC and FC is that their moments occurred at a point in the film where more exposition and story could be told to allow them to get all "care-bear" and reflect upon their imperfections.

Kirk's "Let them die!" moment occurred practically at the beginning of TUC, and there was plenty of story left to allow Kirk to see just how wrong he was.

Picard's "I will make them pay for what they've done!" moment occurs about 15-25 minutes before the (and I use this term loosely) "climax" of the film. So, with a few words, Lily is able to turn him around, and there's plenty of time for Picard to contemplate his near slip.


Spock's "Not really....not this time." moment occurs at the climax of the film....the coup de grace, putting the finishing touches on Nero. All this about 5 minutes before the movie ends. I doubt there was much need to add on any further story about how Spock would get all "care-bear" and introspective about his moment of "letting go". Spock allowed the death of Nero, which was to the benefit of not just the crew of the Enterprise, but of benefit to the Earth and the Federation.

And ten to one, I'll bet Spock Prime woulda done the same thing. (Besides, I am quite sure that if Leonard Nimoy woulda felt that it was out of Spock's character, he would've been quite vocal about it with JJ and company...to the point of "If this is how Spock's character is going to be handled, then consider me out of the project.") Monetary income notwithstanding, Nimoy practically gave his blessing.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

This is what happens when societies put it's more arbitrary rules and taboos in place. People secretly want to break them.

Sure, a taboo often solicits its very break, some implicit rules beg you to break the public rules.
If you take a look at adultery stats (I heard once that you are adult once you have learned to be adulterous ) this seems to be applicable to fidelity. But pulling out your joystick, and thanks to Riker I now understand why it is called like this, to bring some bad guys closer to oblivion simply lacks style.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I think it is a postmodern sin. You can't have simple good characters anymore, that's too simple, too black-and-white. You have to see how they tick, understand their faults and so on.

You can have them...............but whether you can make them seem plausible and not like characatures is another matter.

Jeri Taylor once said she though that Star Trek had created 'Gods' for viewers to look up to with TNG and it's presentation of the characters on the ship.

Which is fine.......but people are not Gods.

Old-school heroes have not been perfect but have nonetheless been an example in some way. I love Nolan's treatment of Batman but I have to ask the obvious question: does showing Batman's weaknesses make him more real and less of a comic-book figure? Absolutely not. Does showing the origins of James Bond's scars make him more real? On the contrary, at least for me and I hope that I am not an idiot in this case the old James Bond was more real precisely because he was so clearly unrealistic and fictional.

Back to Batman, if you compare him with let's say Spiderman it becomes clear that he lacks this larger than life aspect. So yeah, I'd say that modern Hollywood is becoming more and more afraid of this. In the old days they shot the bible, reworked Greek classics or had epic Westerns ... and now they are afraid to shoot a simple good guy vs. bad guy movie.

I think it entirely depends how it's done but yeah, I think simplicity is something that now shows itself up for what it sometimes is - simple. Too simple for everyone to now take seriously. It's a nice diversion to have as a retreat once in a while.

As was once written in almighty Buffy -

''A few nights later Buffy and Giles are waiting over Ford's fresh grave. Buffy is deep in thought and asks Giles if life ever gets easy. Just then Ford's vampire self emerges and Buffy wearily stakes her former friend. Giles asks Buffy what she wants him to say. She responds, "Lie to me." Giles replies:

Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true. The bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats and we always defeat them and save the day. Nobody ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.

Buffy retorts, "Liar." (from the second season episode 'Lie to Me')


You do still get simple good guys vs bad guy movies...........the problem is it's called The Expendables and it was utterly insulting garbage (apologies to anyone who loved it) in the extreme. It becomes cartoon if you don't get it right.

If you want to be semi-serious, you have to take a look at the shades of grey.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Sure, a taboo often solicits its very break, some implicit rules beg you to break the public rules.
If you take a look at adultery stats (I heard once that you are adult once you have learned to be adulterous ) this seems to be applicable to fidelity. But pulling out your joystick, and thanks to Riker I now understand why it is called like this, to bring some bad guys closer to oblivion simply lacks style.

But gets the job done anyway!

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

You can have them...............but whether you can make them seem plausible and not like characatures is another matter.

Jeri Taylor once said she though that Star Trek had created 'Gods' for viewers to look up to with TNG and it's presentation of the characters on the ship.

Which is fine.......but people are not Gods.

Are obnoxious Neelix or volatile Janeway a solution to this problem or do you not rather yearn for Picard after some hours with these anti-Gods?
Perhaps I am again the idiot but to me Picard is not perfect. Sure, he is educated, disciplined, without doubt an example but I doubt anybody envies him for his social or parental skills. And at the end he might very well become the senile man his old friends believe him to be in "All Good Things".
Then there is the robot who wants to be human, the lewd first officer who fears to take a command of his own, the fruit-juice drinking Klingon, the engineer who falls in love with holograms, the other engineer who spends too much time on the holodeck ... they appear, at least in my description, more like a club of freaks than a club of immortals.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Are obnoxious Neelix or volatile Janeway a solution to this problem or do you not rather yearn for Picard after some hours with these anti-Gods?

Sure, much the same way as after listening to Lady Gaga and 'Edge of Glory' I'll want to listen to some Gram Parsons and Richmond Fontaine CD's. Then I'll get bored of that and go to some 'AC/DC' or CCR. If I'm really on the weird boat I'll go look out some Pizzicato Five.

Variety!! Variety!!

I wouldn't spend any time with Neelix though............unless we were proximate to an airlock.

Perhaps I am again the idiot but to me Picard is not perfect. Sure, he is educated, disciplined, without doubt an example but I doubt anybody envies him for his social or parental skills. And at the end he might very well become the senile man his old friends believe him to be in "All Good Things". And the other guys, the robot who wants to be human, the screwed up first officer, the fruit-juice drinking Klingon, the engineer who falls in love with holograms, the other engineer who spends too much time on the holodeck, well, they appear, at least in my description, more like a club of freaks than a club of immortal.s

And when you describe them that way................don't they seem a whole lot more fun and interesting!

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

I think it is a postmodern sin. You can't have simple good characters anymore, that's too simple, too black-and-white. You have to see how they tick, understand their faults and so on.

Old-school heroes have not been perfect but have nonetheless been an example in some way. I love Nolan's treatment of Batman but I have to ask the obvious question: does showing Batman's weaknesses make him more real and less of a comic-book figure? Absolutely not. Does showing the origins of James Bond's scars make him more real? On the contrary, at least for me and I hope that I am not an idiot in this case the old James Bond was more real precisely because he was so clearly unrealistic and fictional.

Back to Batman, if you compare him with let's say Spiderman it becomes clear that he lacks this larger than life aspect. So yeah, I'd say that modern Hollywood is becoming more and more afraid of this. In the old days they shot the bible, reworked Greek classics or had epic Westerns ... and now they are afraid to shoot a simple good guy vs. bad guy movie.

This I will heartily agree with.

It used to just be good guy good, bad guy bad. Their motivations were extreme. Good guy wanted to protect the maiden/town/city/country/world/galaxy/universe because it was his sworn duty. Bad guy wanted to kidnap/kill/conquer/destroy the maiden/town/city/country/world/galaxy/universe because he lusted after the maiden/the maiden knew too much about his horrific plans or he desired at one point to be the leader of town/city/country/world/galaxy/universe, and was stopped in his tracks, so his plans of conquest gave way to wanton destruction. (So one can see why it was obviously more fun for actors to want to play the bad guy in the old days....the bad guys at least had a little more dimension.)

But, today is not like it was in simpler times. Apparently, audiences don't like simple good guy/bad guy stories. Now, they apparently must know their motivations, what drove them to this point, and such. It's kinda like sitting around the campfire, telling ghost stories. You have the story teller. He/she is trying to tell the story. And then you have one or two jackasses sitting around the campfire questioning EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the story AS it is being told....with the pretense that they're wanting a fully fleshed out novel to be cited to them, as opposed to a simple ghost story.

STORYTELLER: Several years ago, right here in these very woods, there was a man with a hook for a hand.

JACKASS 1: What year?

STORYTELLER: What?

JACKASS 1: What year does this story take place?

STORYTELLER: I don't know it was several years ago.

JACKASS 2: And how does the man end up with a hook for a hand?

STORYTELLER: It'll be explained in the story. So, anyways, three campers decided to make camp here.

JACKASS 1: What did they do for a living?

STORYTELLER: (shaking his head in dismayed astonishment) WHAT?!

JACKASS 1: What did these people do for a living? I mean, these are humans you are talking about.

STORYTELLER: What the hell does it matter? Anyways, these three employees of a goddamn top-secret agency whose jobs cannot be disclosed to the frikkin' general public for NATIONAL F***KING SECURITY REASONS! decided to make their camp here.

JACKASS 2: Right here? As in "this very spot"?

STORYTELLER: (hangs his head in resignation...takes a deep breath....and then) Alright. Time for a different story.

JACKASS 1: 'Bout time. First story was boring.

(At this point, everyone around the campfire are really shooting Jackass 1 and Jackass 2 the evil eye.)

STORYTELLER: This story takes place in the not too distant future, as in about three minutes from now.

JACKASS 2: Finally, some specifics we can relate to!

STORYTELLER: (tells this story with an ever widening evil grin) A group of campers, on the order of eight, who worked for a multinational corporation decided to have a camp-out, yes, RIGHT HERE on this very spot where we are sitting now. Legend has it that the disembodied souls of two of these campers will walk these grounds in eternal misery, because of their tendencies to annoy those around them who are simply trying to have a good time. Because these two men were so intractable in their ways, and ignorant to just having a simple good time with a simple horror story, the rest of the campers rose up like flesh-craving undead....


(And at this point, the rest of the campers do indeed start to slowly get to their feet....their eyes all locked sharply on the two jackasses)

STORYTELLER:..... and decided to pummel, and bludgeon, and stab, and eviscerate, and maim, and dismember the two JACKHOLES! Blood was flying everywhere....and...

(As the annoyed, bloodthirsty campers close in on the two Jackasses...fear suddenly crosses the Jackasses faces)

JACKASS 1: Ok....fine...alright....you win! Jeez!
JACKASS 2: Yeah. We'll shut up. Jesus Christ.

STORYTELLER: Thank you!

(The rest of the campers sit down, relieved that they did not have to actually go through the new narrative. Smiles once more cross their faces as the story teller sets about to his original tale.)

STORYTELLER: Now, several years ago, in these woods, there was a man with a hook for a hand. He got this hook as the result of a prank gone wrong that was pulled on him by some of his co-workers at a logging yard. The prank went wrong in that this guy lost his hand in a dangerous cutting machine. No one ever spoke of it, but this guy certainly did not forget the cruelty of his peers....and he has had a very dim view of humanity in general ever since. Legend has it that he killed all of his co-workers in a fit of rage and revenge, using his hand-hook as the murder weapon. The blood of many was caked on that hook...many of them innocent, some of them, the very ones who pulled the cruel prank. He buried the bodies of his co-workers deep underground. In fact, right under the ground we sit upon.

JACKASS 1: Which hospital did this guy get his hand from?

STORYTELLER: That tears it!

(The group of campers rises up and commences to beating the Jackasses to a pulp!)

JACKASS 2: You just couldn't keep your mouth shut, couldja?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

The difference between Kirk and Picard having their moments of "letting go" during TUC and FC is that their moments occurred at a point in the film where more exposition and story could be told to allow them to get all "care-bear" and reflect upon their imperfections.

Kirk's "Let them die!" moment occurred practically at the beginning of TUC, and there was plenty of story left to allow Kirk to see just how wrong he was.

That's a fair point. In TUC Kirk may have learned a lesson but that was seven years and three movies after he chucked the guy who killed his son off a cliff................and blew the rest of them up.

And ten to one, I'll bet Spock Prime woulda done the same thing. (Besides, I am quite sure that if Leonard Nimoy woulda felt that it was out of Spock's character, he would've been quite vocal about it with JJ and company...to the point of "If this is how Spock's character is going to be handled, then consider me out of the project.") Monetary income notwithstanding, Nimoy practically gave his blessing.

And I doubt he needed the money to that degree. But it's something I keep in the back of my mind as well. Nimoy is always pretty vocal if he's not happy with how things go and he's too old to sugarcoat now.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by horatio

Great points.
I totally agree with you about Kirk's post-pubescent testosterone-explosion that would have nearly destroyed the Enterprise and his lack of sincerity. One or two lines about having to ensure that the Narada does not survive the singularity would have totally changed the vibe of the scene from "shoot the dead man" to "do what has to be done".

Thanks, as well as your point of making those changes to the dialogue is valid...
Could have had Scotty, Sulu, or Checkov shouting in the background something about the ship was about to be pulled into the singularity if we don't leave NOW...!!! Then Kirk could have said those lines, you suggest, about insuring that the Narada...and Nero...do not survive another transit through to another universe or time, even if it meant their own lives: Probably that last point a bit dramatic, but a command decision Kirk, as Captain would need to understand if he were to BE(come) a REAL Captain, Finishing the Narada and then telling Scotty to "get us the Hell out of here...!"
Those lines to destroy the Narada could have just as easily come from Spock...just as suggested in a different reply..."Destroy the Narada (Mitchell) while you still have the chance." Give Kirk the expression of that acceptance and then making the command to "fire on the Narada!"

[horatio]

About the good guys, bad guys issue, of course the simple-minded entertainment you mentioned is worthless crap. I am a lefty so my natural impulse is to look for systemic issues, a nice example being that crime like theft or drug trade is also result of social factors and not merely a matter of personal wickedness.
But entertainment can and should be different than the real world. Just take the whole superhero genre, it is utterly unrealistic but it is not worthless because if this. Somebody has to say it, American pop culture, at least this part of it, can easily compete with stuff that superficially seems less trashy.

What I wanted to say is that Trek is not on the very opposite of this. It's not a show life Firefly with sympathetic folks who gotta muddle through somehow, it's a show which features "the best of the best of the best".
They can and should mess up, face dilemmas but they should never ever be wicked.

By the way, I'd be interested in a non-Starfleet setting like a colony or a trade ship precisely because the characters would not be subject to Starfleet principles.