[starwarsrcks]

why all the hate towards the film

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by kevin

I'm always amazed that people seem to think Kirk had tactical brilliance when half the time the writers had Spock make the breakthrough, or Kirk used a fairly simple advantage (bluffing, being up against an enemy unfamiliar with fighting in Space or using his fists).

Kirk was rarely a brilliant tactitian and it's perfectly clear that his Kobayashi Maru win would be nothing else than the simplest route to victory. Because that was Kirk.

I have to disagree with you there. Kirk was indeed a brilliant tactician in the sense that he was very unorthodox and came up with unconventional means to outsmart his opponents. Kirk had a tendency, however, of picking up occasional ideas from his crew--namely Spock, of course--and then devising a strategy from that on his own, but that's just making use of a good resource. Just two examples from TOS of his battle skills--Kirk earned the respect of the Romulan commander in "Balance of Terror" for his tactics and then lured an enemy ship into striking range by playing possum in "Journey to Babel." In TWOK, it was Kirk who quickly came up with the idea of using Reliant's prefix code to lower its shields and later tricked Khan into thinking Enterprise was a lot more damaged than she actually was.

A good commander uses what he has to his advantage in any given situation, and yes that sometimes means bluffing and being up against an enemy unfamiliar with fighting in space (every great military leader from Alexander to Patton has used the tactic of exploting their opponent's weaknesses). Not doing that generally causes one to lose battles, IMO...

[TheTrekkie]

I think some people have different ideas of what a tactician is like.

As said Kirk was unorthodox in his actions and managed to use the surrounding to come up with an advantage. He didn't always play fair, only winning counts for him, no matter how he won. (that's also what Kobayashi Maru stands for)
He maybe wasn't the most intelligent Captain we ever saw, but he had great instincts.


However many people have an other image of what a tactician is like. When they hear tactician they think of a strategic mastermind, someone who could beat even Data when playing chess.
Someone more like Picard, a thinker, a brainiac, not someone as physical as Kirk.


But you mustn't forget: Kirk never controlled more than one ship, he always was the guy at the front. Real strategic masterminds on the other hand usually are used tp come up with tactics for whole fleets and how to organize and position several fleets to get an advantage towards the fleets of the Klingons, Romulans or later the Dominion. They usually stay in the background.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I think the "shackles of continuity" ARE Trek... for the most part. Every movie and series has flubbed some details here and there, no big deal. Saying you can't do a movie in a known universe because there are too many knowns sounds like a good argument for NOT making a movie in that universe... period, NOT give a lame a$$ connection excuse you think will satisfy the "nerd" crowd. (I say "nerd" and I am referring to myself!)

I was all for a little bending of "canon". I really wanted to see how Kirk became a Captain. I wanted to see how the "real" crew of the 1701 (prime) came to be together. I didn't mind the redesign (although a bit ugly) of the 1701, the Apple store bridge, or the 90210 cast (I like T&A just as much as anyone), but the rest of the Trek universe was also thrown out. That is why it is Trek only in name. Prior to the movie being released I knew the movie was to take place in an alternate reality, but I figured that would be corrected somehow and we would see an actual origins story. Sadly that did not happen.

But this film is a "restart orgins" film, it had it's shortcomings. But it did what Paramount wanted, and made money, it did what the fans wanted and saved the franchise from disappearing forever.

I expect that 12 will be alot more story oriented since (Like X men 2) they don't have to spend most of the film explaining the charaters, ect.

The general TOS layout was a natural choice to redo, it's known by everyone in the world, even if they have never watched a TOS episode.

I repectfully disagree, we did see an orgins movie, just not a predictable one. The end was sure to irritate some fans, and delight others.

Alot of the "negative" thigns people said about the film, they said about TWOK when it came out, TNG when it came out.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by TheTrekkie

He maybe wasn't the most intelligent Captain we ever saw, but he had great instincts.


However many people have an other image of what a tactician is like. When they hear tactician they think of a strategic mastermind, someone who could beat even Data when playing chess.
Someone more like Picard, a thinker, a brainiac, not someone as physical as Kirk.

To be fair, Kirk was depicted as being an intellectual very early on in TOS--Gary Mitchell described him once as being "a stack of book with legs" and "in Lieutenant Kirk's class, you either think or sink." Kirk was also apparently well read and familiar with the works of Shakespeare, Milton, and Masefield. And he did beat Spock at 3D chess in "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Kirk was just as much a thinker and a brainiac as Picard was, but this was usually overshadowed by his more physical pursuits (bad guys and women).

The real difference between Kirk and Picard, however, was that Picard delegated authority to others while Kirk was more of a "hands-on" commander. Picard controlled things from the bridge while Kirk lead every major landing party mission. By the time of the TNG movies, though, the difference between Kirk and Picard was essentially moot...

[horatio]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I think the "shackles of continuity" ARE Trek... for the most part. Every movie and series has flubbed some details here and there, no big deal. Saying you can't do a movie in a known universe because there are too many knowns sounds like a good argument for NOT making a movie in that universe... period, NOT give a lame a$$ connection excuse you think will satisfy the "nerd" crowd. (I say "nerd" and I am referring to myself!)

I was all for a little bending of "canon". I really wanted to see how Kirk became a Captain. I wanted to see how the "real" crew of the 1701 (prime) came to be together. I didn't mind the redesign (although a bit ugly) of the 1701, the Apple store bridge, or the 90210 cast (I like T&A just as much as anyone), but the rest of the Trek universe was also thrown out. That is why it is Trek only in name. Prior to the movie being released I knew the movie was to take place in an alternate reality, but I figured that would be corrected somehow and we would see an actual origins story. Sadly that did not happen.

If they had gone down the 'prequel sans reboot' road, it would have ended in one 'academy years' movie. Any further movies would have been a connect-the-dots (between the first prequel and TOS) game which would have severly limited creativity.
You might argue that ENT was also a prequel, yet not one set just a few years but rather about a hundred years before events we already know.

In fact, I think that there is too much continuity in form of bones for the oldschoolers in there. TOS bridge sounds and the typical TOS face-lightning for Pike were fine, Cardassian Sunrise, Archer's prize beagle, Rura Penthe, Delta Vega ... that was a bit too much and felt quite artifical to me.*

The problem are not details IMO but rather the larger picture. Kirk and his abusive stepfather is a detail, Picard also had trouble with his older brother, cadets who look for a fight is a detail, Kirk also had trouble with Finnegan, McCoy's decision to join Starfleet after he is broke although he hates space and flying is a detail ... but the resulting picture is not a nice one.
Even the Meyer movies, even dark episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight" had more to do with Roddenberry's vision than this movie.

* - Someone like Meyer had the balls to do what he wants and whether it was intentional or not, both his movies ended brightly. JJA and his crew seem to be guided by PR folks who want to sell the movie to the largest possible audience.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by horatio

If they had gone down the 'prequel sans reboot' road, it would have ended in one 'academy years' movie. Any further movies would have been a connect-the-dots (between the first prequel and TOS) game which would have severly limited creativity.
You might argue that ENT was also a prequel, yet not one set just a few years but rather about a hundred years before events we already know.

In fact, I think that there is too much continuity in form of bones for the oldschoolers in there. TOS bridge sounds and the typical TOS face-lightning for Pike were fine, Cardassian Sunrise, Archer's prize beagle, Rura Penthe, Delta Vega ... that was a bit too much and felt quite artifical to me.*

The problem are not details IMO but rather the larger picture. Kirk and his abusive stepfather is a detail, Picard also had trouble with his older brother, cadets who look for a fight is a detail, Kirk also had trouble with Finnegan, McCoy's decision to join Starfleet after he is broke although he hates space and flying is a detail ... but the resulting picture is not a nice one.
Even the Meyer movies, even dark episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight" had more to do with Roddenberry's vision than this movie.

* - Someone like Meyer had the balls to do what he wants and whether it was intentional or not, both his movies ended brightly. JJA and his crew seem to be guided by PR folks who want to sell the movie to the largest possible audience.

I agree, but Paramount was out to make money, not make an epic Star Trek film.

[horatio]

Of course they want to make money and they have succeeded, this is not the point. The point is whether it is a good or bad (Trek) movie. IMO it is epic and big and emotional ... but pop crap and not decent sci-fi. A mediocre movie with merits and shortcomings.

[starwarsrcks]

what do you call your Star Trek then

[horatio]

I guess there are hundreds of different conceptions about what sci-fi is, so here are my two cents:

Science-fiction is either about the science element, exploration, discovery, the implications of technology or it is about the fiction element, about exploring ourselves with the help of sci-fi gadgets like time travel (and everything in between those poles).
One could say that the first Western sci-fi writers, Verne and and Wells, fit those rough categories. Verne is about the discovery of the world, Wells is about the discovery of ourselves.

That's why a movie like "Independence Day" which is usually labeled sci-fi is not sci-fi to me. It just tells an ordinary invasion story, aliens or spaceships do not make it sci-fi.
Same with ST09 (and quite some other Trek stories!), it is a coming of age story set partly in space. There is your answer.