[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by Livingston

I gotta agree with this to an extent. Despite all the obvious differences, the spirit of TOS was there. Only thing that wasn't was a sense of exploration which there wasn't much room for in this story. Hopefully they'll get to that in the next one. They certainly seemed to be setting that up at the end.

Another thing that bugged me was the apparent lack of the "utopian" society that GR envisioned and that was prevalent throughout TOS as well as TNG and the rest. I know a lot of people think it's unrealistic to think that the Earth will be a perfect civilization by the 23rd century. And they're probably right. But this is fiction. And GR envisioned Earth as an almost perfect, clean, war/crime/disease/poverty free society. And I have absolutely no problem with that. That is what STXI apparently lacked. I haven't seen all the deleted scenes yet because I haven't been able to bring myself to spend the $20 bucks on the 2-disc DVD. But I did get a glimpse of a couple of them on youtube. One that struck me as particularly non-TOS like was the scene where little Jimmy Kirk's a$$ of a stepfather kicks his big brother Sam to the curb. He basically tells Sam to get out of his house. And even worse, his house is a crappy looking corrugated shack that looks like a tall barn in the middle of the desert. That's just wrong. In my opinion. Who kicks a little kid out onto the street in the enlightened utopia of the 23rd century? Apparently that kind of thing goes on in the Abramsverse. That's why I prefer "my" Star Trek. And that's another reason why AbramsTrek didn't feel like real Star Trek to me. I don't expect a lot of you to understand the way I feel about this particular aspect. And I also expect a lot of $hit over this. But that's the way I feel about it. I thoroughly enjoy GR's vision of Earth as a shining utopia where there is no hunger, homelessness, hopelessness, war, disease, or any of the maladies that plague modern 21st century Earth. I'm just optimistic like that I guess.

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

This make-up job looks about as good as in the movie!! That's another reason NuTrek sucks.... lame Orion woman. (The actresses are actually very pretty, but the Orions are depicted poorly)

Yeah. Gaila was pretty lame. Hot, sexy...okay, seriously hot and sexy, but lame. That was one "nod" to TOS that I could have done without. Orion women are not Starfleet material. They don't need to be there.

Commodore Mendes: "They're like animals, Jim. Viscious, seductive, they say no human male can resist them." ("The Menagerie" TOS)

That's just my reasoning. As a dedicated TOS fan, that is.

[horatio]

I agree and I cherish the utopian element in Trek very much. This doesn't imply that I don't like dark Trek stories, I am a big fan of FC, the two Meyer movies and all the grim DS9 stuff.
There is a difference between between playing with some contrasts, between portraying human beings that err yet strive to better themselves and the utter absence of any light.

McCoy is broke, seemingly because his ex-wife stole everything from him and now has to join Starfleet to make a living although he fears space? Kirk's mother, a Starfleet officer, lives together with a jerk who mistreats her children?
They thought that all the bling-bling would make up for that, à la the agenda of the NuEnterprise is "to get away from it all"?

About the Orions, it is certainly not impossible that a slave would be able to somehow leave the Syndicate resp. quit if one goes with the suggestion from ENT that the women run the Syndicate. But how a seductive woman with powerful pheromones is supposed to become a dumb, green frat girl is beyond my understanding.

Let's face it, there is just a green chick in it because someone believed that green chicks (and Klingons and Romulans) belong into Trek. Pretty superficial, nobody thought about what Orions are supposed to be. Every other Trek story about Orions or the Syndicate, be it in ENT or DS9, worked with the basic premises from the "The Cage".

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by horatio

I agree and I cherish the utopian element in Trek very much. This doesn't imply that I don't like dark Trek stories, I am a big fan of FC, the two Meyer movies and all the grim DS9 stuff.
There is a difference between between playing with some contrasts, between portraying human beings that err yet strive to better themselves and the utter absence of any light.

McCoy is broke, seemingly because his ex-wife stole everything from him and now has to join Starfleet to make a living although he fears space? Kirk's mother, a Starfleet officer, lives together with a jerk who mistreats her children?
The agenda of the NuEnterprise is "to get away from it all"? They thought that all the bling-bling would make up for that?

Thank you. That's exactly they way I feel about it. That whole aspect saddened me as I watched the movie and made me long even more for the utopian aspect of TOS.

[horatio]

They basically just portrayed Earth as the same sh*tty place as today.

Now let's take a look at some of the previous dark stories in Trek. In FC Earth was also a sh*tty place, yet we witnessed the beginning of a better future. In DS9 Sisko allows Garak to assassinate people and we see some operations of a secret intelligence agency, a good ol' morality tale which explored the familiar theme of the needs of the many and the needs of the few. In TUC we see a borderline racist protagonist, but we also see how Kirk changes.

I think we see a pattern now. Whenever Trek was a bit grimmer, it was about something, it explored the human condition.
ST09 on the other hand is just indifferent or even ignorant: Earth is full of jerks ... so what? Stepdaddy is cruel to Jimmyboy, Jimmyboy runs aways ... so what? Exwife took all I got, now I gotta work in space despite my phobia ... so what?

If you go down the dark road, it has to be about something. A movie has got to have a soul.

[starwarsrcks]

Well they will get into that in the next movie why are you so bloody annoyed by this movie and what they have done damn it I am going to boil over now.

[horatio]

Then boil over, I have some salt and pasta ready.

They get into what in the next movie, a meaningful and substantial story? Did they not also claim that they have not hold anything in reserve, that they have put all the got into this one movie?
Shall I say inconsistency, shall I say don't believe a word people say for marketing reasons?

[Pauln6]

I think Bones is running away. His ex took everything that mattered i.e. his daughter rather than all his worldly possessions. He's using humour to deflect Kirk's query but his explanation makes no sense unless NuTrek's Earth really abandoned its pre-existing principles due to the destruction of a single ship. Seems unlikely.

[horatio]

Precisely, it makes no sense. Unless you explore it, but obviously character origins were not high on their priority list.

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by horatio

They basically just portrayed Earth as the same sh*tty place as today.

Now let's take a look at some of the previous dark stories in Trek. In FC Earth was also a sh*tty place, yet we witnessed the beginning of a better future. In DS9 Sisko allows Garak to assassinate people and we see some operations of a secret intelligence agency, a good ol' morality tale which explored the familiar theme of the needs of the many and the needs of the few. In TUC we see a borderline racist protagonist, but we also see how Kirk changes.

I think we see a pattern now. Whenever Trek was a bit grimmer, it was about something, it explored the human condition.
ST09 on the other hand is just indifferent or even ignorant: Earth is full of jerks ... so what? Stepdaddy is cruel to Jimmyboy, Jimmyboy runs aways ... so what? Exwife took all I got, now I gotta work in space despite my phobia ... so what?

If you go down the dark road, it has to be about something. A movie has got to have a soul.

I'm hoping we'll see where it all led in the next one. As I've said before, I can take another action-oriented Trek movie from JJ & Co., but if they continue that aspect and don't do some exploring by the third one, I won't be too pleased.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Thank you. That's exactly they way I feel about it. That whole aspect saddened me as I watched the movie and made me long even more for the utopian aspect of TOS.

I didn't look at it that way.
He's right...