‘Star Trek’: Abrams Makes Optimism Cool Again
by S.T. Karnick
Despite early polling data showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm toward the Star Trek movie reboot by J. J. Abrams (Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, Fringe, Felicity), the film had an excellent opening weekend at the U.S. movie box office.
The film took in an estimated $72.5 million over the weekend. Even when adjusted for inflation, that’s far more than any of the previous Star Trek movies took in.
This has cultural significance beyond the fortunes of the Star Trek franchise and its studio. As I noted in writing about an Abrams interview last fall, Abrams said “he was drawn to the idealism behind the franchise. He hopes to make a more optimistic point of view as popular as the somewhat bleak vision of The Dark Knight was.”
The story noted that Abrams explicitly intended to move the American culture in a different direction:
AP reports Abrams as saying, “In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as ‘The Dark Knight‘ is raking in gazillions of dollars, ‘Star Trek’ stands in stark contrast. It was important to me that optimism be cool again.”
He has achieved the crucial first part of that goal, making a film that expresses that vision and getting audiences to fill theaters to see it.
—S. T. Karnick, editor of The American Culture
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
140 Comments
A mediocre movie offering few surprises and waaaay too many turns of luck to be believed. So the planet Kirks exiled on just happens to be the same one Spock and Scotty are both on? What are the galactic odds hmm???
My optimism lies in the hope that the next director given a shot at making the next one doesn't screw the pooch so badly.
Optimism lies in blowing up two planets.
Didn't find it optimistic, or much of anything else. The movie disappeared from memory the moment I walked from the theater.
Those odds are all far better than the odds of finding numerous alternate earths, US Constitution and all, in the original series. It's a little late to start complaining about them taking liberties with the odds.
Um … That's like saying, "What were the odds that your parents met and had you?" Considering you are here, I'd say those odds are 1-1. Any actual outcome that is extrapolated backwards will be filled with all the necessary coincidences, however seemingly absurd.
*raises an eyebrow in Spockian style*
Few surprises and too many turns of luck have NEVER happened in the ST universe. Evah.
Right…
Are S.T. Karnick and J. J. Abrams brothers because they look like identical twins.
Lighten up, people. It's a MOVIE!! It's meant to be ENTERTAINMENT!! It is not meant to be anything else. Sheesh.
I remember reading an Entertainment Weekly article from last year about the new Trek saying that the optimism associated with the Star Trek movie also had something to do with the optimism seen in the (almost certain) election of Obama.
So Obama even helped Star Trek get rebooted. Riiiight. I think it's because after languishing for over a decade with movies like Insurrection and Nemesis and series like Enterprise, this movie is the jumpstart the franchise needed. And it was done very well, as far as I'm concerned. The President had nothing to do with it.
Considering the billions of worlds in one galaxy alone, the probability of three significant characters found on one sounds waay too convenient and writers too lazy to write. lol
I've actually watched Star Trek since it first came on TV. I loved it, and many (not all) of its later manifestations in the movies. I never became a Trekkie/Trekker, and I only half-paid attention to the mythos, so I guess I'm on the side of the "let's have some new blood, and reboot" crowd. Besides, as I've said before, I love movies with big explosions. I grew up as a big fan of "space opera," and when many of the new writers like Silverberg and the space-as-group-therapy gang came along, I lost a lot of interest. It's fine for people who want to think deeply about science fiction to look for flaws and inconsistencies, but I always preferred the fiction to the science and the fun to the mechanics. I get enough analytical writing in other areas. I think it's perfectly valid for others to find legitimate fault with the new Star Trek. it just isn't my thing. So I'll probably enjoy it. Or not.
I don't care what anybody says, I still want to see it. It looks like a good movie. I liked the previous movies and I think we need some new sci-fi. Loved Far Scape and Star Trek.
I rented two new release movies this weekend and found them both boring. I think Hollywood is definitely in a slump. They lack movies that are fun, interesting, action packed, and most of all they lack good American heroes. I guess I'll just read a book.
Considering that this is supposed to be an alternate timeline, the repeat of such coincidence stretching events undermines any serious attempts to reboot this series. The probability of your folks meeting again in this new universe would also be an unreasonable abuse of logic and the audiences' credulity.
Considering that this is supposed to be an alternate timeline, the repeat of such coincidence stretching events undermines any serious attempts to reboot this series. The probability of your folks meeting again in this new universe would also be an unreasonable abuse of logic and the audiences' credulity.
But at what point do we enter Jump the Shark country with this neverending abuse of coincidence and luck? We're just supposed to passively swallow every technobabbled solution or fortunate/convenient turn of events? Please…
I watched the movie and thought it was great. The chances of Spoke and Kirk being on the same planet were 1:1 because the events put them both there because Bana's character put Spoke on the planet so he could witness Vulcan be destroyed, and Kirk was shot out of the Enterprise at the same location to get rid of him. Scotty being on the planet was the coincidence, but Star Trek is full of coincidences. And there is also the thought that events, even in alternate time lines, still head towards the same major events because of the momentum of time. How else would Kirk end up becoming the captain of the Enterprise?
I agree 100%. Yes, the movie was fun, but I don't get see all the special 'Optimism'.
Would we be having this conversation if the reboot came out when Bush was still in the Whitehouse?
Usually I'm opposed to time travel movies for the very reason that "luck always seems to bring key characters together against all possible odds. However, I think the random bringing together of main characters works in Star Trek primarily because Fate is a major theme of the series.
I just chalk it up to an act of God bringing the right people where He thinks is supposed to be. How do you think the Scooby-Doo series worked all these years?
Act of God in the secular universe of Trek? Damn, are we back to Star Trek V? If somehow we had found out that Spock Senior had engineered the events, that would be believable. After all, he's supposed to have the intellectual gift to arrange such events. So to me, it's a flaw in the story that won't go away. It's a cheat and dishonest as they all are.
Please not to use Star Trek V. It makes me cry.
I mean 
It's the only explanation I've got. I haven't seen the movie yet, and sometimes I come up with what I can.
The term "technobabble" was created specifically for Star Trek. The point at which the Shark was Jumped was some time in 1962.
But it is fun to hear people complain.
I think there is a big difference in arguing the storytelling (and some of the inherent and ridiculous coincidences in the new film) and arguing the science side for utter geekery.
The movie was entertaining enough, though flawed. Campy in a television type of way (and I love cheesy movies), with a decent cast, though one that makes you pine for the originals (no pun intended). Worth a view, but won't stay with you, not like Dark Knight or even Watchmen.
That said, I never thought I'd see the day where Star Trek would become sexier, more action-packed and cooler than George Lucas' Flash Gordon fantasy, but it's happened
I shudder to think what they have in store for the sequel. "Shock and awe" storytelling, like Battlestar Galactica, tends to pressure writers toward the ridiculous and many of the events of this film will be impossible to top. I'm all for a good movie franchise, but lets hope some writing help gets in there. Wouldn't mind a Shatner appearance for some gravitas.
I wonder if that's approval to be insulted with wildly implausible scripts. Because being sheep shouldn't be the goal of a discerning movie goer.
Why not. I'm sure Hugo Chavez, or how was it he referred to himself, Casear/God, when he began taking over oil companies last week, gets credit for the ratings success of Venezuela's top rated morning news show. Why not give due credit to Dear Leader. If there is anything our anti-religious media loves more than having a Dear Leader it is attaching him with all the god-like sensibilities and culture rhetoric one can muster.
I'll be going to this very entertaining movie again tomorrow. This Star Trek movie has recaptured the optimistic spirit of the original series better than any of the other Star Trek movies. It's a great escape from the horrific reality of the current political situation in this country.
Are we allowed to post spoilers?
I saw the movie with my family on Saturday (my youngest was 12 and we went for her birthday.) We all thought it was great. None of us are Trekkies but my husband and I are familiar enough with it to get all the "call back" references. (I'll admit, I missed what Sulu meant by "fencing" until he got the sword out.) As we were leaving the theater we passed a group of people arguing about the movie. I thought the argument was ridiculous and was about to say so but my husband said, "that's why Star Trek still exists." And he's right. The franchise, good, bad and ugly, keeps people talking.
I think I understand what people are talking about when they say "optimistic".
But I can't explain it without spoilers. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
When we were at the movie I kept expecting the bad things to get undone again… partly it was because I'd seen someone say something about "time travel" but mostly it was because that's a really common thing to do in sci-fi movies when very bad things have happened. The *solution* is to go back and make everything right again. Well, this time that didn't happen. And I was glad.
And that's actually where optimism comes into play. It starts out with a very bad thing happening… sure, Kirk's father is heroic and saves a whole lot of people, but he dies and his young wife really isn't able to raise their son without him. Kirk get's all the way to adulthood without looking forward. Pike shakes him out of that. Later when Vulcan is destroyed and Spock's mother dies I couldn't help but think that somehow it could be undone… that they'd figure out how to stop or reverse the destruction of the planet, that somehow his mother would be there again… but it didn't happen. Because that would be looking *back*. Ultimately time goes forward and the movie was about looking forward. The villain was consumed by the tragedy in his past. The vulcans are nearly extinct but are moving forward to rebuild.
The over-all theme is, do you live in the past, or the future?
That's optimistic.
I think that tells me everything I need to know about the current Star Trek movie!
OK guys, lighten up. Star Trek has never been anything more than good stories. It is fiction, but until the "Reboot" it had been so heavily burdened with all the supposed canon as to make any new Star Trek Stories all but impossible. I enjoyed the movie but as all "Origin Stoies" it is over burdened with charector introduction and shy on a good plot. It is almost impossible to have the two together and not make the story/movie too long and too boring. This movie did what it neede to do, it Re-Booted the franchise. I for one would like to see the movie again. The real test is yet to come and that would be the next movie. Personnaly I wish it would be possible for the TV Series to be re-booted with the new Actors. That would be nice but cannot happen today, too bad. It is possible to love the original and still love the new otherwise Dr. Who would not have survived all the years it has on the BBC. I am not comparing Dr. Who to Star Trek as they are miles apart but the concept of allowing the New Cast to find thier footing and develope.
By the Way Urbanes McCoy was dead on, and a bit scary, was he channeling DeForrest Kelly or what?
Great movie that caused me to leave the theater in a great mood for the first time since last summer. It's an optimistic movie because the crew succeeds because they were behaving as mankind at it's best. The first 5 minutes of the movie were simply outstanding in every way imaginable. It was the Trek philosophy at it's finest.
Well, not only was it a wild coincidence that Kirk ends up on a planet with future Spock and Scotty both on it, but why did Spock make Kirk "walk the plank" so to speak. What, the Enterprise didn't have a brig? Kirk's civil rights were violated in a most onerous way. Also, if Spock was so damn close to a Federation outpost, why didn't he just go over and introduce himself to Scotty and that green creature and share some sandwiches. I noticed there were no creatures when they left the cave for the outpost. That said, I enjoyed the movie. but why did the young Kirk answer the cop and give his name as James Siberius Kirk?
The idea that this franchise needed a reboot to a parallel universe where Spock plays kissy face on the transporter deck and Vulcan is annihilated is absurd. This movie could have been done without Abrams trying to erase the past but I guess the opportunity to plaster your name on someone else's creation was just too good to pass up.
I really enjoyed Star Trek, and although time travel is a little lame and seems to be JJ Abrams' contrivance du jour — he's done it this season on "Lost", I was more offended by my cineplex's new so-called IMAX screen which I paid $14 and will never make that mistake again. Big screen my back end.
There is a theme in the Star Trek series that started in the TV show "Enterprise" regarding Vulcans and their choice to adapt "Logic" over emotionality. It seems the people making the movies are trying to show the Vulcans as worse than emotional humans which I think was not the original intent ffrom the first serires. In Enterprise being "Logocal" somehow meant that one could not be "Creative" as Vulcan scientists could not envision time travel being possible. Being logical also meant being unethical as the inability to feel for others plights made one cynical and undiplomatic unlike those emotional humans who had the ability to get along with the other races. In this movie the whole "Logic" thing is just a mask and well we have to get rid of their planet anyways. I note that Enterprise was very PC and in this area the reboot is PC as well. I find it ironic and humorous that liberals seem to have a problem with people using logic over their emotions.
There is a theme in the Star Trek series that started in the TV show "Enterprise" regarding Vulcans and their choice to adapt "Logic" over emotionality. It seems the people making the movies are trying to show the Vulcans as worse than emotional humans which I think was not the original intent ffrom the first serires. In Enterprise being "Logocal" somehow meant that one could not be "Creative" as Vulcan scientists could not envision time travel being possible. Being logical also meant being unethical as the inability to feel for others plights made one cynical and undiplomatic unlike those emotional humans who had the ability to get along with the other races. In this movie the whole "Logic" thing is just a mask and well we have to get rid of their planet anyways. I note that Enterprise was very PC and in this area the reboot is PC as well. I find it ironic and humorous that liberals seem to have a problem with people using logic over their emotions.
The one thing they did well in this movie that they took away starting with NExt Generation was that they actually understood Star fleet was a military organization instead of some quasigovernmental get to know you organization that would talk to pirates firing on civilian ships to understand them first.
The ensigns did not salute but they did come to attention when officers came aboard. People asked permission to come aboard ship of the captain. It seemed to be understood that when your commanding officer suggested you do something that this had the weight of a direct order. They even had the enlisted jarheads get into a knockdown drunken brawl with a civvy and when the CO showed up everyone stood at attention. This I did find refreshing.
[...] ‘Star Trek’: Abrams Makes Optimism Cool Again by S.T. Karnick [...]
Only became a general Star Trek fan when The Next Generation came out. I was not in existence when the original came out and Star Wars was (and is) my first love since it was the first movie I ever saw in a movie theater with my dad (now deceased).
I saw the other Star Trek movies as well, of course. I enjoyed them for the most part. But I'm not one of those fans who thinks you can't do a reboot of some sort.
Just a little background. Anyway . . .
I just watched the Star Trek reboot this weekend and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was fun, thrilling, funny and I had no problem suspending my disbelief and getting into the "new timeline" idea. Although, yeah, the Uhura and Spock thing was a little weird.
Anyway, it was great entertainment and I left satisfied. That is usually all I ever ask for in a movie and I got my money's worth out of this one.
Lawhawk: I too, like movies with big explosions. That said, I have to admit I was sucked in to the latest incarnation. The opening sequence was intense and awsome.
I took my 9 yo niece to see the movie. She was on the edge of her seat the entire time. She hasn't seen any of the previous movies or series'. So, I've created a new fan.
I think you'll like it.
I'm guessing you're right. I've already bought the popcorn.
My optimism(yes,I'm a core trekker)is that we get the NEW SERIES please!Post Voyager and the Elite Forces pc game.The McCoy character was just awesome,scary and everything else.I can't wait until a free energy paradigm is established and we begin the colonization of space,it IS destiny.
I read that also. That the election of Obama would now equate to more optimistic movies from Hollywood. Thus all the dark movies for the past years were Bush's fault.
I just was force marched to see the film with a companion and I can tell you that with the above in my mind as the reason for this movie being made, I was so disheartened. They've taken a movie franchise that ended well and did a magic time line change to 129 years before the original – thus (in theory) ending up in a different universe, whereby the past was wiped clean for the future.
These days, you just can't enjoy a movie when the director or the screenwriters or the actors/actresses take their politics into the theater, because it then becomes skewed as to only 50% of the population that voted for that mindset.
I never knew William Shatner's politics until well after the series had ended and the first few movies were in the can. At that point, I didn't care.
We're in a new world now where everything has become polarized and that, sadly, has now included me. My tolerance for the other side is zero and so is my wanting to support hollywood with any of my money.
There is no such thing as a 'discerning movie goer' – or Hollywood would only make GOOD movies.
ditto this – don't see it if it bothers you so much! Americans prefer a happy ending… tyvm
Just for the record, the opposite of "emotional" is not "logical," but "unemotional." Very different things. Logic works on mathematical concepts, but when you apply it to living, breathing creatures, it doesn't necessarily work as intended.
I thought the movie was awesome. Abrams realized that a prequel had the danger of being weighed down by the "facts" that every serious trekker knows, so he wisely changed history. That gives him some room in his stories to innovate. Not a bad thing.
The casting was nearly flawless–each actor (and actress) gave homage to the original Trek cast and yet carved out some space for their own interpretations. I was so enthralled by the movie that I ran home and watched a few episodes of the original series, and it still didn't lessen my appreciation of the movie.
Although I do have to agree the Spock/Uhuru weirded me out because it seemed contradictory to Spock's character.
Who cares? It's a movie… Movies don't have to be believable to be enjoyable… unless you are the type that is just a stick in the mud….
lol, fair point fair point
The best movies are believable in some way. Only the mind numbed sheep find silly movies with no credible stories any good. But if you want to be lead around with special effects candy…
Holy Christ man. It's entertainment. Suspend belief and enjoy. I did, and I'm an original Trek fan. I liked the clever way they rewrote history and can't wait for more.
Wow, of all the new characters, it was McCoy is had the hardest time relating to. I just couldn't wrap my head around this McCoy versus the one I grew up with, while I had no similar problem with any of the others. It was weird.
I look forward to seeing Spock and Kirk fighting over Uhuru in a Kal-if-fee in the next movie.
SPOILERS
I enjoyed the movie – I think without the reboot the Star Trek franchise would have died a slow death. If it wasn't dead already. I have enjoyed the series since it was on NBC – do not know every nuance and "fact", and am not disappointed that Vulcan and Romulus are now gone. It's just a movie as others have said ….Wish the young impudent Kirk had gotten a better beating in the bar
Perhaps Pike trying to recruit him while in traction at the hospital would have been better. Getting promoted to 2nd in command from cadet was a bit unbelievable – but it is just a movie – just a movie…just a movie
When the new McCoy said "Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a physicist – I cracked up – perfect DeForrest Kelly
Big Trek Fan here. Seen every episode of every series, except Enterprise. When my girlfriend agreed to see Star Trek with me, I also made her agree to listen to me bitch and moan for an hour and a half about how terrible it was and all the things they got wrong. Well, that turned into an hour and half of us gushing about the movie at dinner afterwards. We both loved it, and she'snot a Star Trek fan, science fiction fan, nor action movie fan. She likes indie arthouse movie and chick flicks. She can't wait to go see Star Trek again. Neither can I.
For me Star Trek has always been about the characters, and most importantly diverse characters, something that really only the original series had. And I thought they nailed the characters. They got them perfectly, and actually improved on a few of them. I particularly liked the reimagining of Uhura as a expert linguist, rather than just someone to repeat what captains who already spoke english say. Kirk's reimagining, I thought would bother me. But it didn't, and here's why. First he was considerably less emo and whiny than I thought he'd be. He was more chip on his shoulder young punk. Second, that kind of behavior is viewed as a bad thing. In fact, much of the movie revolves around Kirk's transformation from selfish, irresponsible punk to responsible, duty bound Captain, willing to make any sacrifice of himself to save his crew friends, and his world. Sure he's still got a bit of swagger, but that's part of why we like Kirk in the first place.
As for the story, I loved it. Particularly blowing up Vulcan. My jaw dropped when that happened. It was a ballsy move, and I applaud them for it. Not only did establish this Star Trek universe as being independent, but it really established an element of danger to the movie. After they did that, both my girlfriend and I agreed that we wouldn't have been shocked by anything. We really thought they might've killed off Spock, or Kirk before the end (well probably no Kirk, but maybe Spock). It had the same effect of "killing" Jim Gordon in Dark Knight. Were there a few coincidences, yeah, but there always are in a Star Trek movie. As for Kirk being promoted willy-nilly by Pike, I really didn't have a problem with it. I kind of assumed that Pike had been watching Kirk's record the entire time at the Academy and knew that he had what it took to be a captain. Plus, he did have minor first-hand knowledge of the threat at hand.
All in all, my girlfriend and I thought it was a great flick. I think it's a really good base to rebuild the franchise on. I can see why Nimoy chose to come out of retirement for this. I'm glad they went back to the original crew. They're really the only Star Trek characters that the general public knows, and really, the most iconic. Nobody points to Jean-Luc Picard as the typical starship captain, they point to Jim Kirk. Personally I can't wait for the next one. I hope they take in a really new direction. Skip the Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians. Have the Enterprise go out explore strange new worlds, have them find a new life or new civilization. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Gotta join the negative chorus here. It was a bad movie. A preposterously bad movie that gets worse the more you think about it.
Which is exactly why it was a quick (and fading hit) – it was Star Trek as a summer blockbuster, sacrificing everything that didn't fit the jump-cut, flashy-edit, rapid-pacing, big-explosion formula. Good summer blockbuster. Really, really bad movie. And a poor omen for the future of the series.
*Spoiler*
|
|
|
/
Point of "fact". In the time line where this movie ends only Vulcan is gone. Romulas' destruction is still in the future. So Kirk and the gang still get to thwart the Romulans' attempts to play havoc. I have to give a tip of the cap to the writers as they have in fact completely rebooted the story with the destruction of Vulcan and now can go in almost any direction they wish and not be called on "the carpet" by the Trekkers. Or they can revive the original stories from the TV series if they wish. The Doomsday Machine anyone?
I liked the movie, but keep in mind that part of Roddenberry's hope for the future was that there'd be no religion to warp people's minds. To the degree that that is part of the optimism at play here, I'd be wary.
I thought that the vulcan back-ground of having chosen to suppress emotionality in favor of reason was established in TOS, no? The whatzit-thingy where vulcans had a sort of fever-time was from TOS. Spock was trying so hard to be vulcan that he was more vulcan than the full-vulcans were.
I DO think, and very much agree that when TOS was written that public sentiment was more pro-science and pro-reason than it is today. (This is my "Scooby-doo Theory of Social Progression" where, at one time, all the ghosts were fake and the "gang" was opposing the superstition of their elders.) Because public sentiment was more pro-science, TOS could be a cautionary tale not to lose sight of our more touchy-feelie sentimental and intuitive sides without suggesting that there was anything wrong with cold logic… not really.
Times have changed. It may well be that today we need a more emotional Spock… one who snoggs in the lift with Uhura and becomes profoundly angry at the notion that he has a "disadvantage"… so that the virtue of reason can be better explored…. since it is no longer assumed.
Consider the end where Kirk offers aid to the enemy with an eye to future relations… "mercy" is not the "feeling" response, it is the response born of reason. In that moment roles are reversed and in a way that illustrate something real about the world today… people tend to feel that *feeling* is more important than reason in arriving at the correct decisions. Yet Kirk is the one using cold-reason and Spock is the one deciding according to his feelings. Spock did the same when he assigned Uhura to the "Farragut" in order to show that he was not favoring her, because he *was*. If the writers continue to have him struggle to find the place where he is ruled by reason rather than ruled by the need to behave in a way that appears that he's ruled by reason… it could be very interesting. Even… fascinating.
I hope they keep the Romulans and Klingons for the do-over. The need to create yet another alien race to keep it interesting always annoyed me. Some of the stuff in the books was really good… like the Romulans creating cloaking devices because (gosh… was it Kirk's *father*?) faked them into believing he had an entire cloaked Star Fleet fleet… so they figured that since they knew it could be done, they'd do it. And did.
I am a trek geek. A real big trek geek. I've done fandom, I've hosted cons. Hells, I'm going to a con this weekend. Geek. I say trekkie because it doesn't matter, 'trekkie', 'trekker'–they still think you live, virginally, in your parents basement–neither term is 'cooler'.
I accepted that a long time ago. I wear the rubber head.
The movie is good. The 'reboot' works. And it gives those of us who prefer the swashbuckling of the original Trek something new to watch.
Now let's hope the sequel has some klingons
Romulus is, sadly, not gone. The Romulus(with those ridiculous 'remans') of Nemisis is gone. The old-school Romulus(populated by emotional Vulcans) is still there.
This movie was nothing more than Star Trek Nemesis with younger characters and the time element thrown into it. Like the Star Wars franchise I am done with this franchise due to the poor story, unlikeable characters and sloppy writing. Not to mention the improbable coincidences and just plain stupid premise for the whole movie.
George Lucas destroyed his own legacy in the hearts and minds of most of his most die hard fans, at least Gene Rodenberry wasn't alive to see the bastardazation of his creation.
There aren't any Klingons in the movie? WTF?
I will not apologize for being addicted to this movie!
It was fun, and I enjoyed nearly every moment of it! I wished it was longer!
In Star Trek the adherance to "Logic" is the repression of emotional thinking and emotional outbursts in favor of reason. In the original series the Vulcans were perceived by the writers as superior to humans for their ability to do this. Thus the show breaks out ths dichotomy. Logic is not just limited to mathematical concept it is also very much a philosophical construct. Personally I liked the way in which the original series showed the competition between the two via Spock and McCoy. The new shows seem to be deperately trying to show the Vulcans as less which I find funny.
To state that it does not work when applying to living breathing creatures is to be anthropomorphic. There is no reason to assume that a creature developed on another planet would have similar emotions to us or even enotions as we would know them. A sentient species for instance that did not develop cognitive abilities until after molting as an insect and layed thousands of eggs for instance would have no reason whatsoever to care for their young at all. So parenta bonds would never develop.
Does anybody really like have their intelligence insulted? I suppose Democrats do but the average viewer should try harder to look beneath the surface of writers too contemptous of their audience.
I get what you're saying, and you're right about beings who do not develop as humans did (or I guess you're right–we won't know for sure till we meet some non-humanoid life forms).
I think you're also right that the new movie takes it for granted that emotions are better than reason. (I think the original series did that as well, but at least they argued it and worked for their conclusions).
My point is this–the only way logic succeeds is when absolutely true corollaries are used (If a is true and b is true, then c is true). But when you deal with humans, there are unseen corollaries and biases that humans apply that corrupt the corollaries. So two people can reasonably look at the same set of facts and come up with two different conclusions. That doesn't mean one is more emotional than the other (although it might), it means that different experiences bring different viewpoints that affect or add corollaries to our arguments.
"I particularly liked the reimagining of Uhura as a expert linguist, rather than just someone to repeat what captains who already spoke english say"
You are aware that even in this timeline Trek has the Universal Translator? Being a 'linguist' now is useless. The point about Uhura knowing the 'three Romulan dialects(rihannsu, havrannsu….and?) was possibly only put in to let book fans know that these would be more complex Romulans that we're used to.
The Communications Officer doesn't just 'repeat' things. They moniter comm channels. They're the ones that hear distress calls, emergency beacons and first contacts. Galaxy Quest was good, but that 'repeating' thing was a joke.
Well yes you are right about corollaries. I guess I was trying to point out the way Logic and Emotion were shown as opposites by the original series which I was not sure if you had seen. Many 20 something's today only know of the original Star Trek (OST) through the movies. The idea come from the fact that Space Aliens would be "logical" boring nerds and it turned the classic cool kid argument for that on its head.
Of course if we continue this debate farther it will take us back into "Fuzzy" math again.
What and dump the green chick …..
Never ……
Once you go SheHulk you never go back.
I just saw it tonight, and loved it! I came out of the theater w/ a smile that wouldn't go away. I thought all the actors did great, and Karl Urban esp. captured the essence of Bones. Just loved the "I'm a doctor, not a damned physicist" comment! I have fond memories of watching Star Trek episodes during dinner/ my family in '76.
As for all the criticism I read leveled at Chris Pine for his take on Kirk, I think he did an excellent job, really captured the devil-may-care recklessness that you can imagine the grown Kirk had when he was younger. Easy on the eyes, too, which doesn't hurt. Ditto on the strangeness of the Spock/Uhuru romance, although it does set it up for Kirk to win her over in future sequels (I hope). All in all, I'm happy I plunked down $9.75 to see it.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » ‘Star Trek’: Abrams Makes Optimism Cool Again bighollywood.breitbart.com/stkarnick/2009/05/17/star-trek-abrams-make-optimism-cool-again – view page – cached Despite early polling data showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm toward the Star Trek movie reboot by J. J. Abrams (Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, Fringe, Felicity), the film had an excellent opening weekend at the U.S. movie box — From the page [...]
Great Site……
[...]check this out as this contains important information about[...]…
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although sites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they’re basically worth a go by way of, so have a look[...]……
Sexcam…
[...]Sexcam mit gratis Testzugang[...]…
Websites you should visit…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
Awesome website…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
[...]How to secure a 1 hr cash advance loan. Todaya€™s payday loans are simple and quick[...]…
90-Day Payday Loans…
[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
Related……
[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……
Cooler sites…
[...]we came across a cool website that you could appreciate. Take a look when you want[...]……
Websites you should visit…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Related……
[...]just beneath, are numerous completely not related websites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
Recent Blogroll Additions……
[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you are new to this site[...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
Superb website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.