Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Star Trek, 2009

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm grateful for the short fight scenes. I've suffered through enough of the 5+ minute fights that became popular after the Matrix sequels to come to dread fight scenes in movies. Fights don't last that long in real life, and they shouldn't in movies. Long fights bore me.

I'm with ya', but I didn't express myself correctly. I wasn't looking for long fight scenes, because, as I noted, the whole movie was pretty much one big long fight scene. What I meant to say was that the fight scenes didn't have a lot of depth. I don't want to give anything away, but the fight scenes were sort of like: Bad guy; good guy confronts bad guy; good guy wins. I would rather something like: Bad guy; good guy confronts bad guy's henchmen while bad guy does something truly dreadful; good guy beats bad guy's henchmen, but get terribly injured, making their likely success questionable; good guys move on to bad guy, but bad guy has done something good guys might not prevent; good guys fight bad guys; good guys beat bad guys; good guys still have to contend with what bad guy has done - odds of success slim.

The fight scenes seemed simply too one-dimensional and predictable.

I wanted to add one other thing about the movie, and really the reason I was so excited about the movie coming out. This is the first Star Trek, and the first Fantasy Sci-Fi movie I've seen, to bring the future to reality. The scene of building a starship (presumably The Enterprise) on Earth is simply awe-inspiring. It really brings the idea of building such a ship into the realm of possibility. In addition, I particularly enjoyed the scenes of the "guts" of a starship - the warehouse feel to the structure and mechanics of what it would probably take to create such a machine - were particularly cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with ya', but I didn't express myself correctly. I wasn't looking for long fight scenes, because, as I noted, the whole movie was pretty much one big long fight scene. What I meant to say was that the fight scenes didn't have a lot of depth. I don't want to give anything away, but the fight scenes were sort of like: Bad guy; good guy confronts bad guy; good guy wins. I would rather something like: Bad guy; good guy confronts bad guy's henchmen while bad guy does something truly dreadful; good guy beats bad guy's henchmen, but get terribly injured, making their likely success questionable; good guys move on to bad guy, but bad guy has done something good guys might not prevent; good guys fight bad guys; good guys beat bad guys; good guys still have to contend with what bad guy has done - odds of success slim.

The fight scenes seemed simply too one-dimensional and predictable.

I wanted to add one other thing about the movie, and really the reason I was so excited about the movie coming out. This is the first Star Trek, and the first Fantasy Sci-Fi movie I've seen, to bring the future to reality. The scene of building a starship (presumably The Enterprise) on Earth is simply awe-inspiring. It really brings the idea of building such a ship into the realm of possibility. In addition, I particularly enjoyed the scenes of the "guts" of a starship - the warehouse feel to the structure and mechanics of what it would probably take to create such a machine - were particularly cool.

I kinda have to wonder why a ship of that size would be built in on the ground? wouldn't it be built in orbit? or on the moon? I guess with the kind of energy output they are capable of it might not matter but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was extremely pleased with the film, and especially with the portrayal of Kirk.

The Kobayashi Maru test scene, with Kirk munching on an apple while destroying the enemy, was fantastic, and really captured the essence of Kirk's character in my opinion

. I am a fan of Star Trek in spite of the few irrational elements (such as the "Prime Directive", and the lack of money in their society), but these elements were largely ignored in the film. Also, it is very rare to see technology portrayed in such a positive light. In many scenes on Earth, we see glittering skyscrapers or giant industrial-looking structures in the background. The crucial scene in which Kirk decides to join Starfleet takes place while he is watching the construction of a starship at a huge shipyard. Scotty is portrayed as a hero who can solve any problem using technology. As others have observed, the "old" Spock casually flaunts the usual rules for time travel. Nowhere is there a mention of environmentalism, and the "red matter" is used by both good and evil characters to achieve their ends (in other words, it is not the technology which is to be evaluated morally, but the entity who wields it). There are no explicitly pro-technology statements in the film, but technology is consistently portrayed as glamorous; the idea that technology could be considered evil never seems to occur to any of the characters. The pro-technology attitude is typical of Star Trek in general, but I have never seen it quite so prevalent as in this film.

Edited by Tenzing_Shaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the way Rodenberry wrote them, Vulcans are Socialists: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is what Spock utters to Kirk as his reason for dying in The Wrath of Kahn.

In the Search for Spock, the sequel to TWoK, this statement is turned on its head, "The needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few, or the one."

Cliff Notes aren't enough, even in the ST universe.

<Φ>aj

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find personally annoying is the absurdly unrealistic postmodern "realism" of constantly subverting authority. ... with no real consequences for disobeying orders?

You're confusing Kirk with a Sasquatch.

Only a sasquatch would enjoy being beat up, knocked out, stuffed into a lifeboat, and dumped onto an ice planet.

Kirk has red blood in his veins, not antifreeze.

<Φ>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda have to wonder why a ship of that size would be built in on the ground? wouldn't it be built in orbit? or on the moon? I guess with the kind of energy output they are capable of it might not matter but still.

Whoah! I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't have the context--but I thought it was pretty clear in the past that the spacecraft were built in orbit. Trek inconsistency?

Scotty is portrayed as a hero who can solve any problem using technology.

That reminds me of something that annoyed me about the later movies, Scotty portrayed as deliberately inflating his repair time estimates so he can take credit for being a miracle worker, and teaching others to behave in the same weasely way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoah! I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't have the context--but I thought it was pretty clear in the past that the spacecraft were built in orbit. Trek inconsistency?

This isn't your father's Star Trek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was uttered by Kirk to Spock.

Spock: "My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me."

Kirk: "You would have done the same for me."

Spock:"Why would you do this?"

Kirk:"Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many."

It doesn't mean that Vulcan civilization is any different than what I have stated. In fact, if you pick up "The Way Of Kolinahr" sourcebook, the society is described as aiming towards selflessness and service to the community. Whereas Spock may have become more individualistic towards the end of his life (as he is when he meets his younger self), the philosophy of the culture itself remains one of selflesness for the greater good of the whole.

No cliff notes here.

In the Search for Spock, the sequel to TWoK, this statement is turned on its head, "The needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few, or the one."

<Φ>aj

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Star Trek last night and thought it was excellent. I am a long time Star Trek fan, in fact Captain Kirk was one of my earliest childhood heroes. It was great to see the essence of Kirk captured by a new actor. Intelligent, heroic and intransigent. The movie has a great sense of life. Seeing the starships being built on the Iowa plain lent an awesome grandeur to the film and to Kirk's character development, the majesty of that scene gives credence to Kirk's decision to straighten out his life and join Starfleet.

I also liked Spock's response when he faced the admissions board of the Vulcan Science Academy. They had accepted him "in spite of his disadvantage" of having a human mother. He promptly declined their invitation and walked out, heading off to join Starfleet intead. Bravo!

No environmentalism, no politically correct moral relativism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also liked Spock's response when he faced the admissions board of the Vulcan Science Academy. They had accepted him "in spite of his disadvantage" of having a human mother. He promptly declined their invitation and walked out, heading off to join Starfleet intead. Bravo!

I thought that was one of the best moments in the movie. Zachary Quinto really outdid himself in this role, and I look forward to seeing more of him as Spock if there should be more movies. I never really enjoyed Siler, but I'm not a fan of Heroes anyway.

I wasn't as impressed with Chris Pine as Kirk, but I think that's because Kirk's motivations weren't well-portrayed in the movie. His characterization, particularly early in the movie, is shallow and surface-level. (Compare his characterization with, say, Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting.) Granted, the characterization of Spock isn't much better, but Quinto *makes* it better with a fantastic acting job.

Overall, I think it was fun but not great, which still makes it better than many of the Star Trek movies. I'm glad they made a clean break with the canon, too, even though it was a bit surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean that Vulcan civilization is any different than what I have stated. In fact, if you pick up "The Way Of Kolinahr" sourcebook, the society is described as aiming towards selflessness and service to the community. Whereas Spock may have become more individualistic towards the end of his life (as he is when he meets his younger self), the philosophy of the culture itself remains one of selflesness for the greater good of the whole.

No cliff notes here.

I accept your elucidation. I was unaware of this wider context because all I know about the Vulcan culture is what I've gleaned from the movies and the regular series, not from spinoff novels, handbooks, or Gencon symposia.

And one shouldn't expect philosophical consistency from a franchise run by committees.

<Φ>aj

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don't know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations. Also, are Vulcans objectivists? Their motto is: live long and prosper.

They don't get the money. Star Trek has stated many times that money was abolished a long time ago. This is mainly said by Picard in The Next Generation, but I am sure he gave a timeline for the abolishment of money that predates The Original Series.

As for Vulcans, they are socialists as has already been stated. And the Federation are communists. Although in saying that the new movie does have some Nokia product placement, and one reason the Federation seemed communists before hand was the way the government seemed to provide and control everything with no private companies. Nokia product placement seems to change that.

The fact that the ship is called the enterprise shows that the writers didn't understand politics and history.

Do you mean the writers of the original canon or the new movie? Because the latter had to stick with the name Enterprise; they couldn't go and change the name of the ship.

I could not see Shatner's Kirk in the Kirk actor. He wasn't necessarily bad, but he didn't capture me the way Shatner does.

Thatis because the actor intentionally went away from Shatner's Kirk and tried to bring a bit of Han Solo into Kirk.

The fight scenes seemed simply too one-dimensional and predictable.

I don't think they were all that predictable. I saw none of the unarmed combat prowess I have come to expect from Kirk.

I kinda have to wonder why a ship of that size would be built in on the ground? wouldn't it be built in orbit? or on the moon? I guess with the kind of energy output they are capable of it might not matter but still.

They were conastructed in massive spacestations orbiting Earth in other series and movies. Even the Enterprise NX-01 was built in such a station, though one much smaller than seen in other Star Treks. Because of this I was surprised to see the Enterprise being built on Earth.

In the Search for Spock, the sequel to TWoK, this statement is turned on its head, "The needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few, or the one."

Yes, but that was kirk not Spock and he said only "sometimes."

Whereas Spock may have become more individualistic towards the end of his life (as he is when he meets his younger self), the philosophy of the culture itself remains one of selflesness for the greater good of the whole.

Voyager's Tuvok certainly suggests that the culture hasn't changed in that regard by then even if Spock has.

Personally I loved this new film and the way it changed Star Trek while staying true to what made Star trek so great, ie, its theme of hope and optimism towards the future and techology. Star Trek has always had technology improving people's life as a main part of it.

That is not to say I liked every change they made. However, the changes I disliked were small enough not to change my overall opinion of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just saw the movie yesterday and really enjoyed it

Regarding disliking Kirk's behavior I saw it as an origin story. Kirk becoming who he will later be so I was able to get past that. Yes, he rubbed me the wrong way, but he seemed to rub everyone in the movie the wrong way. I'm sure there will be greater development and maturity in the character in the next movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole money thing is very inconsistent. If you recall TNG's pilot episode, Encounter at Farpoint, you see Beverly Crusher purchasing a bolt of cloth at the Farpoint market and she clearly tells the vendor "Charge it to my account at the Enterprise." So if there is no money, what exactly is she being charged? Puppies?

I never understood that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole money thing is very inconsistent. If you recall TNG's pilot episode, Encounter at Farpoint, you see Beverly Crusher purchasing a bolt of cloth at the Farpoint market and she clearly tells the vendor "Charge it to my account at the Enterprise." So if there is no money, what exactly is she being charged? Puppies?

I never understood that.

That is covered in a TNG episode. It is "Federation credits," which apparently are not money, which is a load of BS of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole money thing is very inconsistent.

Yes. They could get away with it with TNG because they hardly ever would use money either onbaord the Enterprise or in the missions they carried out. But when DS9 came along all hell should ahve broken loose, especially given the Ferengi.

As I know Roddenberry intended that his ideal society didn't use money. In an early TNG ep, when Roddenberry was still alive and involved in production, Capt. Picard even says "There is no money." But no one ever says how transactions are handled. Nor, BTW, is there much mention of business within the Federation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one sense it isn't money. I am sure "Federation Credits" are fiat, not backed by something like gold. Of course with replicators, precious metal backing would not be a good idea.

Well, they mean "money" in the way most people today do, which includes paper "money". Actually, a lot of today's "money" is purely digital, as I am sure you know. "Federation Credits" are no less (or more) "money" than today's "money" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello all, I just joined the forum, but I wanted to contribute here.

You have to realize that Star Trek is a 40+ year long franchise that has seen contributions from literally millions of people, and at least 100s if not 1000s of writers. It's hard to keep anything completely consistent across that much time and that many people, so you must factor that in when considering anything like Star Trek. It is not a totalistic whole conceived by one person (Gene Roddenberry). Even he knew when to turn over control to all the talented people around him.

Anyway, it is known that Roddenberry read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged several times. Yeoman Janice Rand, from The Original Series, is most likely named after Rand, although there is no information on this anywhere. Also, the Vulcans have several other traits that mark them as at least somewhat Objectivist. These are direct quotes from shows:

The Vulcan Dictates of Poetics states: "A character's actions must flow inexorably from his or her established traits."

Kiri-kin-tha was a Vulcan scholar and follower of Surak's teachings. Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics is "Nothing unreal exists."

I should also note that in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the following is exchanged between Kirk and Spock - an intentional reversal of what was said in Wrath of Khan when Spock was dying.

"My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me."

"You would have done the same for me."

"Why would you do this?"

"Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many."

To top it all off, the Vulcan greeting and salute is "Live long and prosper."

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the money, it was indeed a dictate from Roddenberry that there be no money in the Federation. Many writers on TNG, Ronald Moore specifically, thought that was a bunch of nonsense. So, when DS9 came around, they gave the Ferengi a larger role and on many occasions defended their philosophy. One episode in particular has Nog questioning the soundness of the human's philosophy that needs no money.

"It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."

"Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."

"What does that mean exactly?"

"It means... it means we don't need money!"

- Nog and Jake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...