There’s a new Star Trek trailer and it looks terrible

It has a lot of punching, precious little "science fiction."


Read the whole story

 

[new2mac]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":19uwhmza]

new2mac[/url]":19uwhmza]The Klingon Honor Code...

...they're more what you call "guidelines".

No, Klingon honor is just more like "Honor Killing" rituals than more traditional concepts of Western Honor that we think of. This is why Worf was always an outcast among Klingons.

Someone in an earlier post said how DS9 skewed the Klingon honor code. I was poking fun at the idea...

 

[bb-15]

greatn[/url]":2ann3sgd]I actually like that emotion is more of a struggle for Spock in the reboot. He is half human after all.

He was half human in the prior franchise which was explored pretty well such as in "Journey to Babel".

It's not consistent with the earlier characterization, but it is interesting. If you consider them two different characters they are both good characters.

That's a matter of personal taste of course.
I can see some viewers liking a bit more of a Bruce Banner character (with a touch of Hulk). After all, the Marvel movies are very popular.
- But you bring up a way to accept "Into Darkness" and what will come after.
Forget how adult Vulcans / half Vulcans acted in the prior ST franchise.
I haven't gotten to that point.

Aside from the destruction of Vulcan and the loss of his mother, something else must have been different about his childhood due to the butterfly effect of the Kelvin being destroyed.

There are several adult Vulcans in the Star Trek franchise and without an external/biological factor, none of them act like Spock in "Into Darkness". So, going through a list of what ifs does not work for me.
The reboot "Star Trek (2009)" begins with Spock as an Academy instructor. He was not a renegade.
"Into Darkness" Spock is simply a break from what has happened before.

We can consider he's maybe 10 - 15 years younger during the events of Star Trek '09 than he was during the original series and was just heading on a training mission where everything went wrong, and would have had more time to mature before becoming the Spock we knew and loved in the original series.

Younger adult Vulcans? T'Pol seems younger than Spock and she doesn't go Rambo without a direct and immediate external/internal cause.
- Also, I have no hope that the studio will have Spock become more mature in later films.
The studio wants to make more money and I think that uncontrolled / violent Spock will remain.

Of course I'm a weirdo, my favorite Vulcan is actually Tuvok, who had similar problems controlling his anger from time to time(and I don't even like Voyager).

As a child Tuvok had problems controlling his anger. But as the security officer on Voyager, he acted within the bounds of how adult Vulcans behave.

People tend to write Vulcans as emotionless rather than as people who have strong emotions but suppress them.

What do these "people" have to do with me? I already mentioned an original series episode where Spock lost control and I listed things which could lead to Spock losing control of his emotions.

I think there is a confusion between Vulcans expressing emotion (explored in the ST franchise including in the Star Trek Enterprise series) and a Vulcan being violently out of control with no immediate external/biological cause.

edit; clarity

 

[joshuaheard]

Star Trek has gone from space exploration/military strategy/social commentary movie to action movie.

 

[potato44819]

What's funny is this would have been perfect if they had put this in the ST universe without using the enterprise or its crew. Make common movies on a sci-fi backdrop? Awesome. Recast historical crews into roles for the hell of it? Bah.

 

[Danrarbc]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":26xzmra3]What's funny is this would have been perfect if they had put this in the ST universe without using the enterprise or its crew. Make common movies on a sci-fi backdrop? Awesome. Recast historical crews into roles for the hell of it? Bah.

Correct. The Federation has been involved in multiple wars - if you wanted a good action setting you could always pick one of those wars. But the good old Enterprise sells in the movie theater. DS9 and Voyager never got movies after all.

 

[new2mac]

Everyone knows that Spock's anger management issues are because his mom was a renowned shoplifter.

 

[caldepen]

Hard to categorize my distaste for the new Spock, because I think the actor has done an admirable job. I just picture what went down at the boardroom table;


Hal - I dunno... this Spock guy, can we can get rid of him? Soooo boring....

Julius - No we need him, can't have a reboot without him.

Hal - Seriously!? Do people like him!? I never watched the show besides a few Youtube clips. He just seems so antiquated. We need to disrupt this story up!!

Julius - Well he has to stay. But ya know... he does come from a planet with higher gravity...

Hal - You mean like Superman!!? Now w'ere talkin'. And give him a sword!

Julius - Well no, but Sulu is Asian...

Hal - BOOOOOMMMM. We got ourselves something here, boys...

 

[LLQBTT]

At least there's Axanar to look forward to. It's really a shame that the latest movies are just action movies with a Star Trek logo thrown on top.

An admitted purist (I guess) since I'm still struggling to accept ST: Enterprise!

 

[heartburnkid]

bb-15[/url]":35ardhxk]

heartburnkid[/url]":35ardhxk]
Keep in mind, Spock in NuTrek is a very different character than Spock in TOS. His entire planet was destroyed, and he has been a refugee for as long as Kirk has been alive.

Vulcan was destroyed in the prior movie while Kirk was an adult.
Spock has been a refugee for at most a few months.

Could have sworn Vulcan was destroyed in the battle where Papa Kirk died. I might be wrong.

 

[potato44819]

heartburnkid[/url]":2w03ld8v]

bb-15[/url]":2w03ld8v]

heartburnkid[/url]":2w03ld8v]
Keep in mind, Spock in NuTrek is a very different character than Spock in TOS. His entire planet was destroyed, and he has been a refugee for as long as Kirk has been alive.

Vulcan was destroyed in the prior movie while Kirk was an adult.
Spock has been a refugee for at most a few months.

Could have sworn Vulcan was destroyed in the battle where Papa Kirk died. I might be wrong.

You are wrong. Vulcan was destroyed while Spock watched, and this happened shortly before kirk got ejected onto a planet from the enterprise.

 

[heartburnkid]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":1104ilyw]

heartburnkid[/url]":1104ilyw]

bb-15[/url]":1104ilyw]

heartburnkid[/url]":1104ilyw]
Keep in mind, Spock in NuTrek is a very different character than Spock in TOS. His entire planet was destroyed, and he has been a refugee for as long as Kirk has been alive.

Vulcan was destroyed in the prior movie while Kirk was an adult.
Spock has been a refugee for at most a few months.

Could have sworn Vulcan was destroyed in the battle where Papa Kirk died. I might be wrong.

You are wrong. Vulcan was destroyed while Spock watched, and this happened shortly before kirk got ejected onto a planet from the enterprise.

OK, fair enough, I was wrong. Even still, I imagine watching your home planet get blown up and billions of your people get snuffed out in the blink of an eye would change a person. You really can't say, "Well, Spock recovered without problems from this thing, so obviously he could handle planet-busting genocide without any further issues." I mean, it's planet-busting genocide.

 

[Statistical]

bb-15[/url]":3bmnw4gh]

heartburnkid[/url]":3bmnw4gh]
Keep in mind, Spock in NuTrek is a very different character than Spock in TOS. His entire planet was destroyed, and he has been a refugee for as long as Kirk has been alive.

Vulcan was destroyed in the prior movie while Kirk was an adult.
Spock has been a refugee for at most a few months.

Could have sworn Vulcan was destroyed in the battle where Papa Kirk died. I might be wrong.

Nope. Papa Kirk's killers wanted Old Spork to see Vulcan be destroyed so after sending Papa Kirk to his grave they waited around for a couple decades out of sight, wasting their lives until Old Spork showed up then destroyed his planet. You know the obvious choice when you are essentially invincible Gods due to technological disparity.

 

[caldepen]

OK, fair enough, I was wrong. Even still, I imagine watching your home planet get blown up and billions of your people get snuffed out in the blink of an eye would change a person. You really can't say, "Well, Spock recovered without problems from this thing, so obviously he could handle planet-busting genocide without any further issues." I mean, it's planet-busting genocide.

But he is not a person he is a Vulcan. The whole point is their ability to suppress emotions. When you deliberately change this (for whatever reason) it changes the rules. Why didn't they make him fall in love with a Ferengi while they were at it?

Too busy coming up with universal transporting and invincibility potions I suppose.

 

[Voldenuit]

Maury Markowitz[/url]":3pefrxfb]
Not me. Khan was a great movie, period, but it wasn't great *because* of the combat. Old enemies back for revenge? Mind stealing insects? Losing his own son in a battle with his greatest enemy? That's *story*, not action.

David was killed in III. By. A. Bastard. Klingon. Who. Killed. Kirk's. Son!

 

[Statistical]

Maury Markowitz[/url]":3kwb78t0]
Not me. Khan was a great movie, period, but it wasn't great *because* of the combat. Old enemies back for revenge? Mind stealing insects? Losing his own son in a battle with his greatest enemy? That's *story*, not action.

David was killed in III. By. A. Bastard. Klingon. Who. Killed. Kirk's. Son!

Exactly. It is why Kirk distrusts Klingons and they used that against him in his sham trial.

Kirk: I've never trusted Klingons and I never will. I've never been able to forgive them for the death of my boy.

I have a special love for Star Trek 6. There is some gravitas to the events happening. It is a moment in history not unlike the implosion of the Soviet Union; which could have gone towards increasing military tensions and/or nuclear war as opposed to more normalized relations with the West.

 

[heartburnkid]

caldepen[/url]":38fzid25]

OK, fair enough, I was wrong. Even still, I imagine watching your home planet get blown up and billions of your people get snuffed out in the blink of an eye would change a person. You really can't say, "Well, Spock recovered without problems from this thing, so obviously he could handle planet-busting genocide without any further issues." I mean, it's planet-busting genocide.

But he is not a person he is a Vulcan. The whole point is their ability to suppress emotions. When you deliberately change this (for whatever reason) it changes the rules. Why didn't they make him fall in love with a Ferengi while they were at it?

Too busy coming up with universal transporting and invincibility potions I suppose.

No, the whole point of Vulcans is not their ability to suppress emotions. Their whole society and religion is built around suppressing emotions, because when they don't, they are angry, evil little bastards. That doesn't give them some preternatural ability to suppress emotions. What we're seeing is that there are cracks appearing in Spock's conditioning due to the things he's been through; at least that's how I see it. He's a different character, with different experiences than his TOS counterpart. He will react differently.

 

[caldepen]

heartburnkid[/url]":21b0a3b5]

caldepen[/url]":21b0a3b5]

OK, fair enough, I was wrong. Even still, I imagine watching your home planet get blown up and billions of your people get snuffed out in the blink of an eye would change a person. You really can't say, "Well, Spock recovered without problems from this thing, so obviously he could handle planet-busting genocide without any further issues." I mean, it's planet-busting genocide.

But he is not a person he is a Vulcan. The whole point is their ability to suppress emotions. When you deliberately change this (for whatever reason) it changes the rules. Why didn't they make him fall in love with a Ferengi while they were at it?

Too busy coming up with universal transporting and invincibility potions I suppose.

No, the whole point of Vulcans is not their ability to suppress emotions. Their whole society and religion is built around suppressing emotions, because when they don't, they are angry, evil little bastards. That doesn't give them some preternatural ability to suppress emotions. What we're seeing is that there are cracks appearing in Spock's conditioning due to the things he's been through; at least that's how I see it. He's a different character, with different experiences than his TOS counterpart. He will react differently.

I think we are arguing the same thing only I find it too convenient, and happening to too much of a degree. He shouldn't be losing his shit, and freaking out like the Hulk all the time. It over-saturates the interesting plot device.

 

[xxgreg]

"Still, the new trailer looks long on punching, short on thinking."

Plenty of thoughtless punching in the original series...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_Sf1uZng8

 

[pluckedkiwi]

Redmess[/url]":2qlfeo70]The trailer looks like a generic action flick with some Star Trek paint applied. It felt distinctly not-Trek.

This may be how you market to a general audience, but I don't see how this will pull in Trekkies.

Trekkies will go see the movie and probably still buy all the merchandise no matter what, so why do anything whatsoever to please them? Their money is already taken - stick the Trek name on the worst garbage in the world, and most of them will still go see it (if nothing else for the perverse pleasure of complaining about how awful it is). Many of them will even hold out unwarranted hope that the trailer is just misleading and they line up to see it opening night before even finding out just how terrible and non-Trek it actually is.

If you can throw any random mass-market lowest-common-denominator garbage to try attract any mouth-breathers who just want big explosions and lots of moving shiny things (with little to no consideration for coherence of plot or decent writing), that is all bonus money on top of the Trekkies who will see it regardless. So where is the motivation to take the risk of attempting to produce something of actual quality, which takes actual skill and effort and might only appeal to a very narrow segment of the worldwide public, rather than the big explosions and shiny things of modern vapid generic movies?

So long as slapping the Trek name on any random crap get the same audience of random crap plus those who might be interested in something Trek, that is what you are going to get. Until the boost of throwing the name Trek on garbage is worth less than the cost of the rights (already paid for by that point so it is a sunk cost and not worth considering), such that just calling garbage garbage is more profitable than calling garbage Trek, you're going to get garbage movies which call themselves Trek. Unless owned by someone who truly values the long-term reputation of the brand, any valuable brand name like that is just going to be driven into the ground in the pursuit of exploiting the short-term profit opportunities at the expense of the brand.

 

[heartburnkid]

caldepen[/url]":2w454wi5]

heartburnkid[/url]":2w454wi5]

caldepen[/url]":2w454wi5]

OK, fair enough, I was wrong. Even still, I imagine watching your home planet get blown up and billions of your people get snuffed out in the blink of an eye would change a person. You really can't say, "Well, Spock recovered without problems from this thing, so obviously he could handle planet-busting genocide without any further issues." I mean, it's planet-busting genocide.

But he is not a person he is a Vulcan. The whole point is their ability to suppress emotions. When you deliberately change this (for whatever reason) it changes the rules. Why didn't they make him fall in love with a Ferengi while they were at it?

Too busy coming up with universal transporting and invincibility potions I suppose.

No, the whole point of Vulcans is not their ability to suppress emotions. Their whole society and religion is built around suppressing emotions, because when they don't, they are angry, evil little bastards. That doesn't give them some preternatural ability to suppress emotions. What we're seeing is that there are cracks appearing in Spock's conditioning due to the things he's been through; at least that's how I see it. He's a different character, with different experiences than his TOS counterpart. He will react differently.

I think we are arguing the same thing only I find it too convenient, and happening to too much of a degree. He shouldn't be losing his shit, and freaking out like the Hulk all the time. It over-saturates the interesting plot device.

I can see your argument about it happening too much, but I'm just saying it doesn't strike me as terribly out of character. Dude's been through some shit; a little PTSD that expresses itself through anger is a very believable part of that package. When you draw comparisons to how TOS Spock behaves, you're comparing to a character that not only has a few years on NuTrek Spock, but also hasn't suffered through what NuTrek Spock has suffered through. The existence of his violent outbursts isn't, in and of itself, a sign of bad writing (though overreliance on them might be).

 

[mvmiller12]

caldepen[/url]":fc1sfxon]

Aside from being an entertaining big spectacle dumb action flick? Spock is a standout. Spock was awesome in that film.

Really? I thought they made his character silly and totally unlike the Spock we have come to know. Since when did he turn into a super-strong action fighter dude capable of taking on Khan? Suddenly he is duking it out on the back of a hover-ship thing with a genetically altered super-human?

Nimoy would have questioned that logic...

Vulcans being much stronger than humans was established in TOS, during the Pon'Far episode, I believe.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

Demani[/url]":1g5ysfoc]"Beastie Boys apparently?"
It could be argued that the Beastie Boys were the catalyst for bringing hiphop culture into the mainstream by virtue of it's quite white members. And given the effect that hiphop has had on modern pop culture, that is no insignificant feat.

No insignificant feat: Agreed; and that argument, (as an argument), does have merit.

And given the effect that hiphop has had on modern pop culture...: Exceedingly Regrettable!!!

(Oh, and of course ... Get off my lawn!)

 

[caldepen]

mvmiller12[/url]":2wnnbj6w]

caldepen[/url]":2wnnbj6w]

Aside from being an entertaining big spectacle dumb action flick? Spock is a standout. Spock was awesome in that film.

Really? I thought they made his character silly and totally unlike the Spock we have come to know. Since when did he turn into a super-strong action fighter dude capable of taking on Khan? Suddenly he is duking it out on the back of a hover-ship thing with a genetically altered super-human?

Nimoy would have questioned that logic...

Vulcans being much stronger than humans was established in TOS, during the Pon'Far episode, I believe.

As already mentioned many times, the strong part is only one aspect of the "super-strong action fighter dude" I alluded to. Taken as a whole is what I was hoping people would do, and did not.

I was suggesting that the writers lazily changed his character too much, almost as if in a panic, because they thought modern day, 21st century audiences would not understand a cerebral Spock. Sadly, maybe they were correct.

Further to that I posted a dramatic recreation of the boardroom discussion that turned this complex character into a slavering idiot willing to let his fists do the talking.

Hal - I dunno... this Spock guy, can we can get rid of him? Soooo boring....

Julius - No we need him, can't have a reboot without him.

Hal - Seriously!? Do people like him!? I never watched the show besides a few Youtube clips. He just seems so antiquated. We need to disrupt this story up!!

Julius - Well he has to stay. But ya know... he does come from a planet with higher gravity...

Hal - You mean like Superman!!? Now w'ere talkin'. And give him a sword!

Julius - Well no, but Sulu is Asian...

Hal - BOOOOOMMMM. We got ourselves something here, boys...

Whether he is strong or not is really inconsequential.

 

[jimtceo]

I am really getting tired of shoddy 'click-bait' headlines. There is not one actual punch in the trailer, and the amount of fighting is minimal. There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[All Hail Windows]

Can I just say that, if you really want to be taken seriously both as a writer and a journalist, the thing not to do is to write, and publish, a detailed review of a movie trailer.

... Twice!

 

[Solomon Black]

caldepen[/url]":23ihvutk]Hard to categorize my distaste for the new Spock, because I think the actor has done an admirable job. I just picture what went down at the boardroom table;


Hal - I dunno... this Spock guy, can we can get rid of him? Soooo boring....

Julius - No we need him, can't have a reboot without him.

Hal - Seriously!? Do people like him!? I never watched the show besides a few Youtube clips. He just seems so antiquated. We need to disrupt this story up!!

Julius - Well he has to stay. But ya know... he does come from a planet with higher gravity...

Hal - You mean like Superman!!? Now w'ere talkin'. And give him a sword!

Julius - Well no, but Sulu is Asian...

Hal - BOOOOOMMMM. We got ourselves something here, boys...

I'm not sure who these people are supposed to be exactly but I find it highly unlikely there is anyone on this planet or any other that could simultaneously invoke such a relatively obscure piece of Superman lore and yet NOT appreciate the value of Spock.

 

[MattGertz]

Peter's review got me concerned, thinking "Oh no, not again..." but I looked at the trailer afterwards and it seemed fine to me. I didn't see all the punching, etc, though at least I did agree that the Beastie Boysmusic was out of place. (But then again, "Dragon Age: Origins" was originally advertised using Marilyn Manson music, which didn't lead to it being in the product, for example.)

 

[Will_Nonya]

It is refreshing to see someone who understands what is wrong with the trek reboots.

I like Pegg but so far all he has done is mock my favorite character from the original series. The basis for the reboot, the temporal incursion which altered the lives of the original cast was a brilliant stroke but everything that followed was a wasted opportunity. There are so many better ways they could have told this story and brought this crew together. The idea that they're all at the academy together and most go from recruits to leadership positions in 3 years is just absurd.

I've seen a lot of press hoping that Zoe Saldana gets more time for her character but frankly I'm hoping for the opposite. Her portrayal of Uhura and the romance arc are as poorly executed as Checkov.

Darkness is a painful experience. It takes a great character and reduces him to a parody. Cumberbatch had none of the subtlety, cunning or passion of Montalban. A character you should fear became an angry child. That's just the most evident of my issues with darkness.

This trailer looks like the realizations of my fears and another step on the path of star wars becoming just another second rate action franchise.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

All Hail Windows[/url]":1rc6nr7s]Can I just say that, if you really want to be taken seriously both as a writer and a journalist, the thing not to do is to write, and publish, a detailed review of a movie trailer.

... Twice!

TLDR: appears & is tagged later in comment

Movie trailers "taken collectively" present a fairly rich resource for gaining insights on a host of elements that really are quite worthy of analysis. Those recognizing this value include many who work within the film industry; academics within the discipline of film & cinema arts; sociologists of all stripe who track various cultural trends; etc.

In these industrial & academic venues, reviews of individual trailers serve as case study-like representations of broader industry trends; examples of the how the craft of trailer development changes over time in response to technology, market demands, etc. And make no mistake here: Studios shell out BIG Money on trailer development.

While perhaps not carrying the same high level of industry & academic significance in all instances, individual trailer reviews also hold merit & value to consumers; especially to those who identify as particularly loyal & dedicated fans of certain genres (SciFi, murder mystery, western, etc.) specific serials (Star Trek, Star Wars, Avengers, etc.) or even individual actors/actresses (with "actress" seemingly headed toward obsolescence, for whatever reason).

Given the preceding:

TLDR: Not all published works of "serious writers & journalists" need to meet some threshold of "appropriate seriousness" (a rather arbitrary & quick moving target if ever there was one). And it's tough to make the case that topics not infused with an irreducible gravitas somehow do not deserve skillful, professional journalistic treatment.

Peter consistently demonstrates his quite considerable "serious writing & journalism" chops & does so with great aplomb; at Ars & in other venues as well. I (for one) have no wish to deny Peter the opportunity to "loosen the necktie" a bit & opine over an interest; something not necessarily within the confines of his strictly defined beat.

(Though Peter likely has worn a tie at some point in his life, that allusion should be considered strictly allegorical; poetic license if you will.)

 

[Ars of Ares]

That's a substantial TLDR. Just sayin'.

 

[ardent]

Coworkers and I discussed this earlier, one lamented that the movies have gone away from moral dilemmas. I noted this isn't really new for science fiction movies as a whole, and the Star Trek movies that tried to focus on moral dilemmas did exceedingly poorly at the box office.

If you want to write excellent stories about moral dilemmas, there's television. Or books.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

Ars of Ares[/url]":f4oy60at]That's a substantial TLDR. Just sayin'.

Thanks for sayin'; I agree!

It's pretty much the central point I came to make, but I thought "reviews as a worthy thing" deserved a little unpacking also. The ordering of the 2 seemed appropriate.

As to the TLDR length; I'm one (seriously) who struggles just trying to say "Hello" in fewer than 4 to 7 words. I really hate having to contend with that "personal default setting because; editing takes time; I dislike imprecision; excessive verbosity drives people nuts (just ask my kids).

 

[Mad Man]

Will_Nonya[/url]":yv3ygd2l]It is refreshing to see someone who understands what is wrong with the trek reboots.

I agree with almost everything you wrote, except this

The basis for the reboot, the temporal incursion which altered the lives of the original cast was a brilliant stroke

In my opinion, which is worth what you're paying for it, the "temporal incursion which altered the lives of the original cast" is one of the problems with the new movies. Instead of a reboot, the JJverse franchise is a time travel sequel, with all of the baggage that comes with being a sequel and a bad time travel story. Star Trek rarely did time travel well. And from I understand of Lost (which I didn't watch), J.J. Abrams didn't do time travel stories well, either.

There are too many elements in the JJverse that are not explained by Nero's arrival from the future; e.g. the Spock-Uhura romance, or why the Klingons look different. And Khan's backstory, since there was no one named Khan Noonien Sing who ruled 1/4 of the Earth from 1992 - 1996, during the Eugenics Wars. Probably because the Eugenics Wars didn't actually happen, either.

Abrams should have just made a clean reboot, which could have solved a lot of the inconsistency problems that exist with Trek canon. But I suspect that he thought the time-travel twist was somehow clever, while allowing him to shoe-horn Leonard Nimoy into the movie that did not need Leonard Nimoy. Why would an elderly Ambassador Spock be the one sent on the mission, in a one-man ship, to save the Romunan sun, except to force a need for Nimoy into the sophmoric time-travel twist?

 

[Statistical]

There are too many elements in the JJverse that are not explained by Nero's arrival from the future; e.g. the Spock-Uhura romance, or why the Klingons look different. And Khan's backstory, since there was no one named Khan Noonien Sing who ruled 1/4 of the Earth from 1992 - 1996, during the Eugenics Wars. Probably because the Eugenics Wars didn't actually happen, either.

Huh? Why would a ship traveling from the 26th century back to 2233 prevent the Eugenics Wars from happening two centuries prior? Wouldn't it only have changed events from 2333 onwards?

I give JJ a lot of shit for the reboot but like the other poster I also thought the time travel was a good way to handle the reboot without having an army of trek nerds crying "that isn't canon", "kirk didn't do that", "technically the blah blah didn't happen until after the blah blah". If there is one thing Trek fans love it is millions upon millions of lines of "canon".

It is just from that blank page caused by the change in timeline from 2333 onward he pretty much took a continual dump on the series in everything he did.

 

[Mad Man]

Statistical[/url]":3vljsv60]Huh? Why would a ship traveling from the 26th century back to 2233 prevent the Eugenics Wars from happening two centuries prior? Wouldn't it only have changed events from 2333 onwards?

It wasn't Nero's arrival that prevented the Eugenics Wars from happening. It was reality.

When "Space Seed" aired in 1967, the 1990s were a quarter-of-a-century into the (then) future. Even though the Eugenics Wars (1992-1996) didn't actually happen, they were part of Trek canon that became dated.

There was absolutely no need for a Trek reboot made in 2009 to keep that part of the canon.

 

[Solomon Black]

Mad Man[/url]":1md61z5l]
In my opinion, which is worth what you're paying for it, the "temporal incursion which altered the lives of the original cast" is one of the problems with the new movies. Instead of a reboot, the JJverse franchise is a time travel sequel, with all of the baggage that comes with being a sequel and a bad time travel story. Star Trek rarely did time travel well. And from I understand of Lost (which I didn't watch), J.J. Abrams didn't do time travel stories well, either.

I vaguely recall some statements by JJ back in the day to the effect that it was not that simple. Possibly I imagined them. It always seemed to me that all the fans assumed it was that simpe to keep the old stuff "canon" or whatever.

And it never made sense.

Like nobody seems to appreciate that the Trek laws of physics were outright altered as Warp Drive now works like a hyperdrive where you fly blind until you come out. None of the stately space cruising of old. Or how even the USS Kelvin certainly doesn't look much like a Constitution-class which would have been in the planning stages at the least.

It was clear from the beginning that no way was this just a time travel episode.

 

[Voldenuit]

caldepen[/url]":2hnmkycp]

mvmiller12[/url]":2hnmkycp]

caldepen[/url]":2hnmkycp]

Aside from being an entertaining big spectacle dumb action flick? Spock is a standout. Spock was awesome in that film.

Really? I thought they made his character silly and totally unlike the Spock we have come to know. Since when did he turn into a super-strong action fighter dude capable of taking on Khan? Suddenly he is duking it out on the back of a hover-ship thing with a genetically altered super-human?

Nimoy would have questioned that logic...

Vulcans being much stronger than humans was established in TOS, during the Pon'Far episode, I believe.

As already mentioned many times, the strong part is only one aspect of the "super-strong action fighter dude" I alluded to. Taken as a whole is what I was hoping people would do, and did not.

I was suggesting that the writers lazily changed his character too much, almost as if in a panic, because they thought modern day, 21st century audiences would not understand a cerebral Spock. Sadly, maybe they were correct.

Further to that I posted a dramatic recreation of the boardroom discussion that turned this complex character into a slavering idiot willing to let his fists do the talking.

Maybe it was Venusian Aikido?

Wait, wrong show...

 

[noveltycrosses]

> Star Trek is a science fiction series. It is at its best when it is exploring the implications of its science.

Wrong. Star Trek is best when it's using scifi as a backdrop for social commentary. The villain's motivation in this movie is that he doesn't agree with the Federation's ideology. Sounds like vintage Trek to me.

 

[SPCagigas]

Operative Me[/url]":2eaml2u3]
/BIG SNIP FOR BREVITY
A person being the best at their job, however, is.

At the core of it, that was a key to Star Trek up until Trek '09 -- especially in TOS. Kirk was the youngest captain in the fleet because he was the best at it, not because his daddy was the second officer on another spaceship twenty-odd years ago.

TOS in particular treated the whole concept as if the Enterprise was just one of many starships out there doing their job.

 

[SPCagigas]

Danrarbc[/url]":27hv96a0]

bb-15[/url]":27hv96a0]

greatn[/url]":27hv96a0]

caldepen[/url]":27hv96a0]

Aside from being an entertaining big spectacle dumb action flick? Spock is a standout. Spock was awesome in that film.

Really? I thought they made his character silly and totally unlike the Spock we have come to know. Since when did he turn into a super-strong action fighter dude capable of taking on Khan? Suddenly he is duking it out on the back of a hover-ship thing with a genetically altered super-human?

Nimoy would have questioned that logic...

Vulcans are super strong, actually, always have been. Their planet has higher gravity. As strong or stronger than Klingons. He should have taken Khan out a lot easier than he did, because in the original Kirk managed to defeat him hand-to-hand by himself. Well, hand to metal pipe to hand. There's many instances throughout the series of Vulcans exhibiting superhuman strength.

Of course, everyone who is familair with the Star Trek franchise knows that Vulcans are very strong. The problem with "Into Darkness" is that Spock loses control in his fight with Khan. Uhura has to stop Spock from killing Khan with his fists.
- Spock becoming uncontrollably violent (or just losing control of his emotions) prior to "Into Darkness" only happened when there was some external upset / factor or biological element (Pon Farr, spores, death of lots of Vulcans, going back in time tens of thousands of years).

In "Into Darkness" Spock has out of control anger because of the threat to Kirk. In the prior franchise threats to Kirk's life happened multiple times and Spock didn't start yelling and acting like Rambo.

I also don't like the change to Spock's ability to suppress emotion - but remember, this Spock must deal with the loss of all of Vulcan. He would have a considerably larger amount of anger to suppress.

Well, Spock Prime had to deal with that as well, and seemed to handle it without beating the crap out of anyone.