The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Differences between TOS and ST09
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-14-2011, 12:29 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

Probably because they're the next obvious thing besides Khan. I personally have always, always thought Klingons were overrated.

Granted, STVI had 'cool Klingons'. As did TNG in its middle years.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-14-2011, 05:32 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

I'd have to look at the cut-out scenes again. They did remind me of the Meyer Klingons, and perhaps something even more theatrically down to Earth that we haven't scene yet.

That would be my hope, since I suspect they almost certainly will make an appearance this time: Don't change the Klingons (back). Keep the masks.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-14-2011, 08:59 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

While the non-speaking Klingons in the background of TOS, TUC and ST09 were brutes the foreground Klingons in TOS were shrewd warriors, the interrogator in ST09 was equally cunning but Chang, Azetbur and Gorkon were more human. Sure, Chang is the typical shrewd Klingon but Gorkon looks like Lincoln, the make-up of all these three characters is moderate and above all they are a foil for Kirk. Chang reflects the warrior, Chang the dignified leader and Azetbur the flexible, willing-to-change young mind in Kirk.
To me the beauty of the Klingons in these two short cut-out scenes is that they follow the basic idea of TOS Klingons, i.e. cunning leaders command a brutal army. It's a variation of a theme instead of a literal repetition (like Spock repeating his Doyle line or Chekov doing his v-w thing) as e.g. the Mongolian aspect is missing (hopefully not out of political correctness but because it looked silly).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-15-2011, 12:21 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
At least in terms of goofiness the new movie seems to be very much like TOS, even more so than TFF. But there is something fishy about this idea.
I couldn't put my finger on it until now and I think that the concept of virtue might provide some insights.

Let's approach the issue first via the humour and then via the three main characters.

TOS is often funny and virtually all of the folks, except for perhaps Sulu and Uhura, frequently fool around. They enjoy their company, ease their daily troubles but basically they are all serious, hard-working folks.
In ST09 on the other hand you get more self-ridiculing humour. The postmodern kind of eternally self-reflexive, relativizing big puff. We don't just try to have a good time during our long days but it's all just a game.
That's an easy but not a virtuous way to deal with the troubles of life. Scotty's jokes are perhaps the best example of this kind of humour and it is worthwhile to point out that the old Scotty was usually involuntarily funny (except when he drank Scotch or got written and directed to bump into a bulkhead by Shatner) precisely when he was deadly serious.

McCoy is his cranky old self and due to Urban's brilliant performance there are no apparent differences. If you have just seen the movies and a few random TOS episodes you could easily get the impression that he is just an ill-tempered old guy. But from time to time we see how much he really cares about his patients and his friends. Beneath his bickering with Spock their deep friendship only appears a few times.
As McCoy's warm side has appeared so infrequently it's not a big deal that we haven't seen it in ST09. That's indeed true but NuMcCoy has gone through some trouble in his life which makes it seem as if he is cranky precisely because of that. The acting was top notch but the writing changes the temperamental but warm old country doctor into a cranky and cynical young man.

Kirk has experienced fascist horrors on Tarsus IV in his youth, bullying in the Academy and failure when he faced the vampire cloud on the Farragut as young ensign. Despite of that he turned into a thoughtful and self-doubting but at the same time playful and confident young captain.
NuKirk has gone through similar experiences. Too much and wrong order on Tarsus IV now became too much and wrong order at home, he got bullied by other Starfleet cadets even before he entered the Academy and he also faced failure when he cheated during the Kobayashi Maru test and was reprimanded for it. So like his first version he faces nasty order (Tarsus IV, evil stepfather) as well as nasty chaos (bullying, personal failure) but instead of balancing them wisely he just becomes the stereotypical adolescent who rejects order and enjoys chaos.

Spock who is even more so than Kirk in an eternal struggle between chaos and order chose his Vulcan side. The main theme in TOS is that his human side is lurking underneath the surface and that Spock is more human than he admits. This is most clearly visible in This Side of Paradise and Amok Time. His saga ends in TUC, Unification and ST09 with him accepting his human side openly.
While Spock joined Starfleet in order to secretly explore and embrace his human side (that's precisely why he is so uber-Vulcan in TOS) EmoSpock did it in order to flip off the racist Vulcan establishment. Mummy was insulted so he has to indirectly defend her. With mummy being the main reason he is in Starfleet he consequently goes nuts when she dies (which would also have impacted Spock but not so strongly) and he is later encouraged to continue along this path of being an unorthodox, more relaxed type of Vulcan by Sarek as well as his future self. The consequences of this ill advise to continue to be EmoSpock are clearly visible when he calmly tells Kirk that he yearns to avenge the death of mummy.
On the surface it appears that there is not much difference, after all the balanced old Spock gives his younger self the advise to be like him. Yet Spock's happy state is the result of a life-long struggle from discipline to slowly letting it go and realizing that it is possible. He can't reveal the end result to his younger self without telling him about the path that let to that goal.
Same with Sarek, he can't tell Spock to not suppress his emotions because his beautiful admission that he has loved Amanda (as if Spock hadn't known that) gets perverted into an injunction to let the inner Romulan out.
Spock slowly allowed himself to let his guard down and create some space for intuition, gut-feeling and love whereas EmoSpock allows himself quickly to do whatever the hell he wants to.


All three main characters have one thing in common, they are virtuous people. Not necessarily heroes, in the case of McCoy not even special but precisely that, being just a good old country doctor, makes McCoy so grand.
The second versions of these characters which were truly fantastically played on the other hand all lack virtue. This doesn't mean that they are vicious or wicked, that they do bad work or that they aren't capable of heroic deeds. After all Spock and Kirk did gamble with their life when they went on the Narada. But all the big heroics can't substitute the emptiness in their hearts which are filled with cynicism and despair, adolescent arrogance, reveling in your own emotions ... but not virtues.

It's not easy to be a virtuous person, I personally don't think I am one so this is not meant to be some moral superiority game. It's perhaps not even a writing issue but indicative of these materialistic and cynical times that fictional characters adapt these qualities.
I am perhaps simple-minded and unhip but I mainly enjoy Trek because it features good people who do good things for good reasons.

So I hope that this doesn't get misread as a hateful bashing of a movie which I truly enjoyed but as a mourning of things that got lost.

I would say that instead they were hero's even if not necessarily.
Kirk was a defender. He sought equality and fairness for those that could not for themselves.

McCoy was a Doctor and unlike Dr. Gregory House whose attitude is in competition with God Leonard seems to be his advocate. Cranky but with very soft touch for his patients and a quite the professional if not consummate yet well grounded and practical. McCoy's first virtue was to heal it's almost all he thought about. "My God man...I tried to save him, I tried to save him." For him that meant everything.

Spock's interpretation of the "Needs of the Many out way the needs of the few." was not to order a subordinate into the Chamber Room it was to immediately take the action himself.

They all had a philosophy of Heroism but their sidekicks as it were were noless heroic.

Checkov valiantly allowed himself to get captured by the US Navy.
Sulu knew the diference between an order that should be obey and on to be ignored. I see Heros.

NuTrek...is...different.
I'm not sure that they are Heroes there is more self going on there.
NuSpock is vengeful
NuKirk is Cocky
NuUhura is trite and dismissive
NuScott is a one liner machine

I don't think we saw enough of their character to decided if many of them are Heroes...They might be...maybe in the future...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-15-2011, 09:22 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I don't think we saw enough of their character to decided if many of them are Heroes...They might be...maybe in the future...
I think there's an implicit sense in that. Heroes don't come into being fully formed. Not semi-plausible ones anyway. No, they get made, sometimes coming from the most unlikely places and are fashioned by the events that happen to them and their responses to those events.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:26 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I think there's an implicit sense in that. Heroes don't come into being fully formed. Not semi-plausible ones anyway. No, they get made, sometimes coming from the most unlikely places and are fashioned by the events that happen to them and their responses to those events.
I agree. The movie was about these characters finding their place in the world. I expect that in the next one we will see them all firmly established in their respective roles. Possibly some time has passed in their universe when next we see them. This was the "origin" story.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:51 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I think that there were great heroics in the movie. Robau, Kirk senior, Pike, Spock, Kirk junior, every commanding officer risked or sacrificed his life. But they were also "loud" and quick heroics that painted over some problems as opposed to more "quiet" heroics that didn't happen in a rush like for example Kirk giving up his private life in GEN.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-15-2011, 06:57 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I think there's an implicit sense in that. Heroes don't come into being fully formed. Not semi-plausible ones anyway. No, they get made, sometimes coming from the most unlikely places and are fashioned by the events that happen to them and their responses to those events.
I would agree with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I think that there were great heroics in the movie. Robau, Kirk senior, Pike, Spock, Kirk junior, every commanding officer risked or sacrificed his life. But they were also "loud" and quick heroics that painted over some problems as opposed to more "quiet" heroics that didn't happen in a rush like for example Kirk giving up his private life in GEN.
heroic or reckless?
Look at what that Redshirt that jumped with them did.
And then it's hard to escape the perception that Pikes and Robau's heroics were...senseless which lends to the recklessness. I try to look at what Kirk did as Heroic and not reckless for going after the Narada but it was all so brash and not very serious.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.