Star Trek Into Darkness Discussion

I'm still waiting for someone to make a 'Hitler sees' video on this, I bet it will sum up my thoughts exactly.

The Castellan wrote:

Rust, well...don't all the films have lingering shots?

No four minute fly arounds, no.

Quote :

And at least Robert Wise, whom I consider a REAL director, did not depend on an overuse of lens flares, which, to me, are highly overrated, they are about as annoying and overrated as the Wilhelm scream.

Ironically, I'm one of those individuals that doesn't focus on things like that. I honestly didn't even "see" the Lens Flares in Abrams work until they were pointed out to me. Even then, it's no more distracting then Spielberg's use of Spotlights, or the explosions in a Michael Bay film. Each director has a "signature". Big whoop.

I find it funny that you are so dismissive of the film Castellan, when the actual plot of the film is right up your alley. It's a discussion about the militarization of Starfleet and Section 31 are the unequivocal bad guys of the piece. This is literally the movie you've been asking for.

The Castellan wrote:

Also, as you said, most Trek films are just fighting villains, rather than seeing what's out there, TMP did, however. Plus I loved the beginning, where we just see stars and the Ilea theme plays for several minutes, reminding me of a time when music used to play in the theater before the film started.

Yep, it was really beautiful. In some ways, TMP was directed more like it was 2001 than Star Wars. And I like that about it. At the same time, I can understand that it didn't connect with general audiences and they went the route they did with Wrath of Khan. I only wish they'd been as brave in changing up the pace and content from movie to movie. The original movies did a pretty decent job of this, but too many of the movies that followed suffered from trying to out-Khan Khan. With the exception of the Borg Queen, I'm not sure they produced another memorable villain after that. Some come close, I suppose, and certainly have moments.

Quote :

Also, the Enterprise in the first film 'felt real', as if we were looking at an actual, large metal space vessel, and not a a toy. Plus the ship never looked better, classy.....the Sophia Loren of space ships if you will. JJ's Enterprise reminds me of those top heavy, silicon cow queens or media divas like your Kardassians or something.

The ship did feel real, and it never looked as good again. The delicate paint job was pretty much destroyed after 2. But I have to disagree with your assessment of the JJPrise. I actually think it's a really beautiful ship, and they totally sold me on the reality of it. Which was one of the things that surprised me so much about these movies. It's just a more modern design sense incorporating more curves along with the angles. I won't deny the the beauty of the refit, but it does sort of belong to a particular era, just as the D and E do.

[/quote]And at least Robert Wise, whom I consider a REAL director, did not depend on an overuse of lens flares, which, to me, are highly overrated, they are about as annoying and overrated as the Wilhelm scream.[/quote]

I really didn't notice the flares in the first movie until people brought them up. They aren't as present in the second movie, either.

Rust wrote:

I find it funny that you are so dismissive of the film Castellan, when the actual plot of the film is right up your alley. It's a discussion about the militarization of Starfleet and Section 31 are the unequivocal bad guys of the piece. This is literally the movie you've been asking for.

This is actually a good point. This was probably the most blatantly Star Trek-y message movie since Insurrection. Except it wasn't boring like that movie with so little stakes. I actually thought that aspect of the movie was truly brilliant and made me think Roddenberry would be truly proud of the movie and it's message. So much of the other stuff that people sometimes is too "Star Wars" is really just set dressing. The best part of this movie is that it retains the heart and soul of Star Trek even if it's action-heavy.

Again, I do think Trek belongs on TV. That's where it can truly be it's own thing. But I think they did a magnificent job on this movie in a lot of ways, plot holes and silly things aside.

I don't want to see a militarized Starfleet, the first film already felt like I was watching either the birth of the mirror universe terren empire....and at least the story of the Defiant in the mirror universe giving Starfleet that jump in technology would have made more sense than the Romulan equivalent of Red Dwarf.

And I want to see a story about venturing out into the great unknown of space, seeing amazing things....not yet another battle with another villain. Stories like Devil in the Dark, The Cage, Where No One has Gone Before (probably my favorite story), Home Soil, Where Darkness has Lease, Time Squared, Evolution, Galaxy's Child, Identity Crisis, Schisms, Genesis, Masks, and so on....stories without a villain of the week, and with solving solutions with ways other than battle, are going to be lost art. And as a life long fan, I am not going to support this remake crap, and I don't care of your "but it gave the series a new lease on life!", taking something and changing it so much that it's a shadow of its former self, just to appeal to the stupid average joe on the street, is not what I call an improvement, it just means, "NEW STAR TREK, LEAVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE AT THE DOOR.....ooooooo, explosions and lens flares!"

And comparing JJ to Spielberg is like comparing Keanu Reeves to Clint Eastwood. The big difference between Spielberg and JJ is that one of made films and TV shows I liked, the other made nothing that I liked.

Sooooooo, just like how I am not going to watch or support the Robocop remake coming soon (which many, many people on facebook I've seen totally are going to not see it because they are sick of remakes and found the original to be fine as it is) and not going to give Hollywood my money just so they can continue their long trend in laziness, I am not going to support a remake on Star Trek.

Quote :

Yep, it was really beautiful. In some ways, TMP was directed more like it was 2001 than Star Wars. And I like that about it. At the same time, I can understand that it didn't connect with general audiences and they went the route they did with Wrath of Khan. I only wish they'd been as brave in changing up the pace and content from movie to movie. The original movies did a pretty decent job of this, but too many of the movies that followed suffered from trying to out-Khan Khan. With the exception of the Borg Queen, I'm not sure they produced another memorable villain after that. Some come close, I suppose, and certainly have moments.

Yes. That is the problem, for the past 30 years, nearly EVERY Trek film has tried to be the next Wrath of Khan, with exception to maybe the 4th and 5th. And I want Star Trek to be just that STAR TREK, and NOT Star Wars, if I want to see Star Wars, I'll go see Star Wars...and even THAT has become.....supersaturated in the past decade.

Quote :

The ship did feel real, and it never looked as good again. The delicate paint job was pretty much destroyed after 2. But I have to disagree with your assessment of the JJPrise. I actually think it's a really beautiful ship, and they totally sold me on the reality of it. Which was one of the things that surprised me so much about these movies. It's just a more modern design sense incorporating more curves along with the angles. I won't deny the the beauty of the refit, but it does sort of belong to a particular era, just as the D and E do.

And at least Robert Wise, whom I consider a REAL director, did not depend on an overuse of lens flares, which, to me, are highly overrated, they are about as annoying and overrated as the Wilhelm scream.[/quote]

I really didn't notice the flares in the first movie until people brou
ght them up. They aren't as present in the second movie, either.[/quote]

the ship was UGLY and i don't get 'the reality of it'. What do you mean by that? Outside looked more like something from Pimp My Ride, completely trashy, and the inside was even worse....not to mention no continuity......all shiny, white and silver all over....like being inside a golf ball or something....EXCEPT the brewery engineering....which JJ did NOTHING to hide the fact of it. Looked horrible when they did something like that in the original V show, and looked bad, here, too. Why they did not use the original art work I saw, at least it would have looked somewhat decent....JJ seems to think that all ships, even space ships, gotta look like 1950 navel vessels when it comes to engine rooms. I prefer the simpler ToS or the Picard era ones....where it looked like something from the future and alien, and not from the past. To me, the JJ-prise is the Kim Kardassian of space ships......nothing to see here, folks. Surprised JJ did not put flame decals or
fuzzy dice on the thing.

Quote :

This is actually a good point. This was probably the most blatantly Star Trek-y message movie since Insurrection. Except it wasn't boring like that movie with so little stakes. I actually thought that aspect of the movie was truly brilliant and made me think Roddenberry would be truly proud of the movie and it's message. So much of the other stuff that people sometimes is too "Star Wars" is really just set dressing. The best part of this movie is that it retains the heart and soul of Star Trek even if it's action-heavy.

Again, I do think Trek belongs on TV. That's where it can truly be it's own thing. But I think they did a magnificent job on this movie in a lot of ways, plot holes and silly things aside.

I want a Trek where we see humanity and the future being a great place to be, and I did not see that in the first JJ film. Felt more militaristic and not a future I'd want to be in, and I was looking everywhere to find a symbol of a dagger plunged into the Earth, since it felt like the Terran Empire Starfleet, and I have this bad feeling that all trek from now on is going to just like you said, action heavy, no more exploration, and I am sorry.....but James Kirk was that 'grim' guy in the academy who was a 'walking pile of books', and not some 'bad ass rebel from a broken house hold'. I want James T. Kirk, not James Dean Kirk, there's enough 'bad boys' out there in other franchises, I don't want to see one of my childhood heroes being reduced to a caricature. Also, nu Spock I do not care for at all, heck, my own mother saw the first film and said, "This new guy might look like Spock, but the old Spock had class and made the show fun, this new one is just plane nuts".


So, I'll just stick to Phase 2, for now, thank you.

I ain't getting into any argument with anyone, but since The Voyage Home was the high earner for the original crews celluloid adventures and there were no phaser fights, and no one was killed by a 'bad guy' it would validate Castellans view of a less violent Trek being the one people want to see.

However, the new populist view is of a big action-packed-buried-under-CGI spectacle that audiences want to see today.

In a way Khan was a combination of the two. We had cadets learning how to deal with the dangers that are "out there" while also showing an attempt by the federation to find a way to make the world they live in better with Genesis. Although we find out in the next film that it was not as good as we thought since someone cheated by using proto-matter. In itself an ethical lesson to the audience about doing what is right or wrong and the consequences.

I didnt like Trek 2009 because of the "F'd in the Head" lazy science that made the basis of the maguffin that motivated the bad guy. Plus those darn lens flared bugged the p*ss out of me! As a photographer you avoid lens flares as it is a distraction to the image you are trying to capture, unless of course you are trying to be super artsy. But only a small amount of photos have lens flares as part of the composition.

I will probably see this one since it is an action film and from what I have read the plot is not based on a scientific principle but more of an ethical quandry.

Whoosier, JJ was never known for being artsy, he's just using something to make up for a lack of substance, sort of like how your typical dime a dozen actors on TV these days whisper their lines, talking in that quiet, gruff tone because they can't act for crap, and that supposed to somehow make up for it, which I never understood. In JJ's case, it's the lens flares, in the behind the scenes bits for the first film, he's putting in the lens flares each time he gets a chance, like it's some sort of fetish or something to him. I honestly don't know why some people say his work is pure gold.....fool's gold, perhaps, but not gold.

The Castellan wrote:

I don't want to see a militarized Starfleet

Neither does this movie. The Pro-Militarization Faction are the Bad Guys. They only rope Kirk into initially doing what they want because Kirk's operating off a desire for revenge a la Obsession.

The lesson of the movie is two fold: One is the militarization of Starfleet in order to face off against the Klingons, and Two is this universe's Kirk learning the importance of following rules, regulations, and directives despite his own disagreement with them...because he gets to see first hand what happens when others also disregard such things. And it dang well gets his ship blown up around him.

If you felt the first film was heading more in a Mirror Universe angle, then rejoice in the knowledge Into Darkness takes a sharp right turn away from that kind of thing.

Quote :

And I want to see a story about venturing out into the great unknown of space, seeing amazing things....not yet another battle with another villain.

Fun factoid - at the end of Into Darkness the Enterprise gets selected for her five year mission of exploration. The closing shot of the movie is them heading out.

Quote :

I don't care of your "but it gave the series a new lease on life!", taking something and changing it so much that it's a shadow of its former self, just to appeal to the stupid average joe on the street, is not what I call an improvement, it just means, "NEW STAR TREK, LEAVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE AT THE DOOR.....ooooooo, explosions and lens flares!"

Didn't Deep Space Nine do it first?

But I digress - you are so dang hostile to the film that you haven't seen. How many times am I going to have to say it? This is the movie you want. Heck, the Enterprise doesn't fire a shot the entire movie! Again - that's the point of the film - Aggressive and Militaristic vs Starfleet's mission of peace and exploration. Yes there is action in it and I'm sorry if you'd rather there not be, but the film needs action to punctuate the plot and overall message of the film.

You are free to not care for JJ Abrams or Trek '09 all you want. I'm not telling you what you can and cannot like. I'm simply telling you that Into Darkness is a Star Trek story that is a long time coming. As I myself said in my review, this is the first Star Trek film I feel we've gotten since The Undiscovered Country. It's by no means my favorite Trek film of all time, but after the disasters of the TNG films, I'd say this film is a great "return to form" in classic Trek fashion. I liked Trek '09, but that's because it "felt" like TOS to me. The story wasn't that great and Nero was a boring villain and Red Matter psuedo-science hurt to watch.

Into Darkness never feels stupid or tropey. All scenes are in there for a reason and Cumberbatch's Khan has a infinitely better motivation for his actions (and lack there of) then Nero ever did.

Note I called him Cumberbatch's Khan. This isn't Ricardo Montiban's Khan and that is to the movie - and franchise's - credit. This is the most Un-Khan like adversary (I wouldn't call him a villain - he's as much a victim as Kirk and company in the film) we've had in the films.

If you miss intelligent Trek, then Into Darkness is a welcome return. Don't trust what the advertisements say about the film - they're advertising a completely different film. It's not a perfect film by any means (I could list the problems if you'd like to see the other side of the coin), but it's a better film that we haven't seen since Star Trek VI. Insurrection's message gets tainted by the fact Picard's choosing the lives of 300 people (Who banished their own kin who disagreed with their Space Amish ways) vs the billions that could be helped.

Also doesn't help when the TNG show had Picard coming down on the other side of the argument every time in regards to the Maquis, but in Insurrection he's suddenly about face all about breaking the regulations and shooting the fools.

The acting for the TMP was horrible for the minor actors.....the first human we see at Epsilon 9....I just cringe when they talk. The movie starts out that bad, it is hard to recover. The Vejur flyover is just a long musical with special effects and more bad reaction shots from the bridge crew. It can loose a lot of that running time. Even the wormhole is way too long and drawn out. So much money was spent to get the effects correct, and wasted with a failed effects company, it seams like they wanted it all on screen to show what the $44 million paid for. Which was, at that time, the most ever spent. TWOK only cost $12 million and was far, a much more enjoyable movie.

I don't like a milatarized Starfleet either. Scotty even says in this movie about remembering when we were explorers. But, exploration will never happen until we get a TV show again. And with the Paramount/CBS split on the rights, I doubt that will happen an time soon.

I really liked that the movie rejected the militarization of Starfleet, which really happened during DS9/Voyager/post First Contact too much. The Enterprise-E, as cool as it looked, was really more of a vessel for war than exploration.

So, I thought this movie was actually a pretty good rejection of those ideals, and the fact that at the end they headed into their 5-year mission left me hopeful that the next movie might have more exploration, even if it's never the focus.

Ronpur wrote:

I don't like a milatarized Starfleet either. Scotty even says in this movie about remembering when we were explorers. But, exploration will never happen until we get a TV show again. And with the Paramount/CBS split on the rights, I doubt that will happen an time soon.

I'm finally watching Voyager for the first time now and was just thinking "What's the chance of a return to TV for Trek's 50th birthday?" No series for several years now, seems like someone would want a series between movies to keep the franchise in the public view.

Maybe they could do a Star Trek miniseries with the movie cast for a dozen episodes or so?

squishy wrote:

Ronpur wrote:

I don't like a milatarized Starfleet either. Scotty even says in this movie about remembering when we were explorers. But, exploration will never happen until we get a TV show again. And with the Paramount/CBS split on the rights, I doubt that will happen an time soon.

I'm finally watching Voyager for the first time now and was just thinking "What's the chance of a return to TV for Trek's 50th birthday?" No series for several years now, seems like someone would want a series between movies to keep the franchise in the public view.

Personally, I think too many Series killed the Franshise in the public's eye. When the Next Generation came on, people were oohing and aweing. Then when DS9 came out, there was still interest.

When Voyager came out, interest started to wane. Enterprise, and this is just my opinion, was the nail in the coffin for Tv Series in the Trek franchise.

I would love for it to return, but only if they had new and well written stories to tell.

bret_owen99 wrote:

Personally, I think too many Series killed the Franshise in the public's eye. When the Next Generation came on, people were oohing and aweing. Then when DS9 came out, there was still interest.

When Voyager came out, interest started to wane. Enterprise, and this is just my opinion, was the nail in the coffin for Tv Series in the Trek franchise.

As someone who in 1988 helped to form and then ran a Star Trek Fan Club here, membership followed along exactly like this until it folded during the late Voyager years, or was it early Enterprise? Either way, it was Trek overkill by that time.

So I agree. My own interest waned too. And I ran a Star Trek club.....!

...but back to topic on Into Darkness and even the 2009 film, all the friends and former members from this club that I still have contact with are overjoyed with the "new" Trek movies.

jaredofmo wrote:

Maybe they could do a Star Trek miniseries with the movie cast for a dozen episodes or so?

I think this would be a smashing idea, but unlikely considering the busy schedules of the stars.

To me, I'd be more interested in the Section 31 issue if it were done in the original universe. After all the havoc they did, it's too little too late, and they did a lot more worse in the original universe and preferring to see them get butt f*cked then and there. Also, I was very interested in the Romulan relations after Nemesis, but having it get wiped out in JJ Trek, pretty much scragged the possible ideas that could come of it.

Also, none of the characters in the first JJ film got my liking. Kirk was nothing but some James Dean wannabe, Mr. Bad Ass "Look at me, I'm soooo kewl!" Rebel, I'm expecting Spock to be wearing black, and listening to The Cure, while cutting himself in his quarters, Uhura's just gonna be Spock's booty call, Scotty was totally useless, making me wonder if his first name's Jar Jar as opposed to Montgomery; Sulu was worthless, cheesy fencing joke and all, and it looks like Chekov's on his way to be the new Wesley Crusher. Soooooo, I'll sit the reboots out, thank you. Give me something, you know, original, not another Hollywood remake.

Luckily, I picked up a gigantic stack of old ToS and a few TNG novels to read through, should keep me good for the summer. And hopefully, by the end of the summer, I can start working on my Trek CGI comics, still debating weather to go the TMP or TNG eras.

bret_owen99 wrote:

Personally, I think too many Series killed the Franshise in the public's eye. When the Next Generation came on, people were oohing and aweing. Then when DS9 came out, there was still interest.

When Voyager came out, interest started to wane. Enterprise, and this is just my opinion, was the nail in the coffin for Tv Series in the Trek franchise.

I would love for it to return, but only if they had new and well written stories to tell.

Completely agreed on all counts here. It also helped TNG and DS9 had writers that cared for the story and setting. Voyager and Enterprise had writers that, bluntly, were doing it for the paycheck. When you put love into something, it shows. When you put the minimum amount of effort into it, that also shows.

The Castellan wrote:

To me, I'd be more interested in the Section 31 issue if it were done in the original universe. After all the havoc they did, it's too little too late, and they did a lot more worse in the original universe and preferring to see them get butt f*cked then and there. Also, I was very interested in the Romulan relations after Nemesis, but having it get wiped out in JJ Trek, pretty much scragged the possible ideas that could come of it.

Star Trek Online? The Pocket Books Universe?

The Prime Timeline is still alive and well.

Quote :

Also, none of the characters in the first JJ film got my liking. Kirk was nothing but some James Dean wannabe, Mr. Bad Ass "Look at me, I'm soooo kewl!" Rebel

Which is understandable, when you factor in this is a James Kirk that grew up without the influence of his father. I've been over this before. Kirk's still got some of that bravado in Into Darkness (Some of it's fun, some of it is irksome), but he's mellowed out a lot and by the end of the film he's learned one heck of a lesson that seems to a finally straightened him out...at least in regards to command.

I don't think Chris Pine's performance should be understated in this film. He sold Kirk as a conflicted man, struggling against the system while coming to grips with the fact he believes in the fundamental values of said system. The man "tones it down" with the smug arrogance (And he really has to, given what happens very early in the film) so this movie, Kirk is a lot easier to take.

Quote :

I'm expecting Spock to be wearing black, and listening to The Cure, while cutting himself in his quarters,

Spock's emotional journey has been fascinating to experience, especially when you consider in TMP, he was essentially Data in that he'd purged the vast majority of his emotions. Not only is Spock dealing with the ramifications of being half-Human and dealing with that, he now has the baggage of losing his homeworld - the place he grew up - on top of that.

Spock "advances" several steps in this movie, with one major development that may have interesting ramifications later on (Specifically, when early in the film Khan goads Spock with the fact while he has the strength, he would never willingly use it to break another persons bones...and then in the climax fight, Spock breaks Khan's arm).

Quote :

Uhura's just gonna be Spock's booty call

Fair criticism, but its worth noting Uhura is a difficult character to work with to begin with, since she's just the Communications Officer. Adding the relationship with Spock was a means to keep her involved in the film. Into Darkness gives her more stuff to do, and even showcases her linguistic skills.

Quote :

Scotty was totally useless, making me wonder if his first name's Jar Jar as opposed to Montgomery

Another fair criticism, and while Scotty does have some relevance to the plot this movie, he's still absent for a good chunk of it.

Quote :

Sulu was worthless, cheesy fencing joke and all,

Again - fair point. Thankfully Into Darkness gives Sulu a lot of valuable face time.

Quote :

and it looks like Chekov's on his way to be the new Wesley Crusher.

...I can't really refute that, since Chekov takes up Scotty's position for most of the movie. He definitely is still the weakest link in the new cast.

Quote :

Soooooo, I'll sit the reboots out, thank you.

*Shrugs* Your choice. I'm just saying you're missing out on a wonderful Star Trek film - one I think you, of all people, would really appreciate.

Chekov has a bit of a fan following on Tumblr now.

SeaDevil wrote:

jaredofmo wrote:

Maybe they could do a Star Trek miniseries with the movie cast for a dozen episodes or so?

I think this would be a smashing idea, but unlikely considering the busy schedules of the stars.

Another problem is after Viacom split off CBS and Paramount....Paramount retains the right to everything created in the Star Trek movies. CBS has the TV show rights. And they do not agree. JJ wanted CBS to stop merchandise for the original Star trek to avoid confusion with his version. Obviously, that did not happen. CBS refused to give up the huge amount of cash the shows still generate. So, I doubt we will see a tv show based on the new films for a long time.

Oh well. It seems that a 5 year series that popped up with a few years break in between should be sustainable. There was once a time with 2 or 3 series running all on UPN or WB networks that I couldn't get on my local rabbit ears. Lots of stuff went on and I just fell way behind and gave up until recently when I got my hands on some DVDs for cheap. I could see how following multiple series for several years wear the viewer down.

Getting the mvoie cast to do a TV miniseries? Heck yes, I'd watch that if it were on network TV! They could give Checkov something to do. McCoy is good, but hasn't really been able to shine as the star of a "Dr McCoy" episode with only two films. Classic McCoy seemed to suffer a similar fate in the 6 original movies. The "big three" was slimmed down to the "big two" for the movies with Kirk and Spock getting all the scenes. It's tough to give the supporting cast much of a role without a TV series where they can spotlite an actor each week.

Rewatched Generations and First Contact and these films are strictly Picard and Data vehicles. Everyone else is lucky to get a few lines in a scene or two.

From what I read from the post first weekend reaction to box office numbers... the big hit was that it was way low in the young 25 and under demo.

When I read that, I thought of what has already been pointed out... there is not a draw to the films/ franchise anymore to build on. I hardly ever see TOS reruns in my area, TNG is on BBCA (niche channel), and that's it.


I didn't like the Picard/ Data shows either. Hate it when it comes down to money. Well, the people you have to pay the most, need to justify it by more screen time. Is why I didn't like the X Men movies. Xavier and Mags have to get all their time, then Wolvie, because they feel hes the main star of the team for some reason (no, I never saw the rabid appeal of the character)... so all the rest get relegated to 2nd and 3rd fiddle.

Uh, its a team/ensemble. Not Wolvie and his co stars The X Men.

Quote :

Star Trek Online? The Pocket Books Universe?

The Prime Timeline is still alive and well.

Until I see the original universe back on tv, it won't really count, won't it? At least officially.


And with Kirk fighting the system, it seems to me that the system in JJ Trek is soooo messed up, a mere shadow of what we saw in ToS and TNG....while having some issues, at least the original timeline Federations seemed to be a pleasant place to live, whereas JJ Federation seems to be rather militant, and a, dare I say, post 9-11 Federation, since it seems EVERYTHING in the galaxy was sooooo suddenly transformed with the loss of the Kelvin.....which makes no sense to me, since the loss of starships is on of those risks one has to accept if joining Starfleet, and yet it seems like the loss of the Kelvin was such a huge thing, for some reason. This is why I feel JJ Trek would be more appropriate for the Mirror Universe, though I would change the trigger of it from the Romulan equivalent of Red Dwarf on steroids causing the technological boom, to the ToS Defiant being captured and back engineered, which would explain the advancement more better than the former.

Eh. I'd disagree that Abrams Federation feels more militant. More..."real" I suppose would be a better word. It's a better world, but there's still hardship (There are still Children's Hospitals as medical conditions that cannot be cured by 23rd Century Science). It's not Roddenberry's Utopia, but it's still about striving to be better then we were.

We've clashed over the Utopia ideal before, and I've butted heads with others about it. I still maintain our recorded history marks out as a rowdy lot, unlikely to simply abandon everything that makes us the Human Species in three centuries. Others disagree.

To me, Abrams Trek is a nice compromise between the two groups. It's a better place to live, but it's not paradise. You still need cops, you still need to arm ships for potential hostilities, and you still have those that fail to rise up to the ideals of the Federation.


As for the Kelvin and Timeline changes - they go back earlier then that. Abrams Trek's origin point is First Contact and from there Enterprise. So not only did the TNG misfits manage to damage everything with their bungling, you have the Temporal Cold War affecting the outcomes as well.

Plus there's the fact TOS never addressed the Romulan-Human War. I adore Gene for the universe he crafted, but he showed remarkably little sense when it came to his society and its relation to history. Conflict is not unknown in the Trek world, yet Federation worlds are supposed to be iutopias. Heck, the original pilot undermined this entirely when Pike considered leaving Starfleet...to become an Orion Slave Trader.

I mean...dang.

Seeing as how Picard and everyone came back to their own time, apparently unaffected, I don't agree with the First Contact being what changed everything. And temporal mechanics and all that is very complex, it's one of the things I study as a hobby and it's definitely not Back to the Future nonsense.


And to me, humanity, or any species can change in a few centuries.....I mean look at our own recent history:

Women can vote in America,
We got a black guy in the Whitehouse,
Monsanto, a major biotech corporation is getting into more and more trouble with countries in Europe and South America due to its questionable behavior and its lack of concern for anything except its profit margins.....America's probably going to be it's last battle field,
People all around the world are asking questions regarding alien life (despite ridicule), so much that the Disclosure Conference, which just ended, took place, putting government in the hot seat and telling it they want answers;
The Egyptians actually revolted against their governments....something no one expected to see happen.

And that's just a SMALL sample.

Also, when things get really, really bad, people have to either face things and change their selfish ways or end up like the Dodo.

The Castellan wrote:

Seeing as how Picard and everyone came back to their own time, apparently unaffected, I don't agree with the First Contact being what changed everything. And temporal mechanics and all that is very complex, it's one of the things I study as a hobby and it's definitely not Back to the Future nonsense.

Picard completely contradicts his stances seen in TNG in regards to Maquis and the population of the colony that caused Wesley's break from Starfleet in Insurrection and we see the rise of yet another Soong android and Picard has suddenly gone bald in his academy days in Nemesis.

Yes these are movie failings, not universe shifts. The gist of Star Trek Time Travel (The mess that it is) is best seen in Yesterday's Enterprise, when the C came forward in time and created a branch timeline that needed to be corrected. Basically this means any alteration to the time lines creates an alternate version. The E and company got back to their primary time line, but the "damage" was such that the time line they left spun out a different path then the Prime Universe. (See TNG's Parallels)

It also means Nero and Spock didn't fall through time - they simply traveled to an alternate time line. Probably one whose Quantum Signature (Again to use Parallels) resonates much slower then others, hence both the fact it is "the past" and how Nero and Spock can be swallowed up near instantly but emerge 20 years apart.

As for First Contact being the origin point - Enterprise has pretty much been confirmed as part of the Abrams time line (A model of the NX-01 is seen in Admiral Marcus' office), and Enterprise had a Borg episode - Borg that were a result of the Sphere's destruction in First Contact. Hence that rationalization.

Quote :

And to me, humanity, or any species can change in a few centuries.....I mean look at our own recent history:

We still work for profit...as we always have.
We still do harm against each other...as we always have.

These are fundamental shapers of us as a society. Look up the Graffiti in Pompeii and see just how little we have changed. That's not something to be ashamed of, it's simply who we are as a species. To take that away from us I feel would diminish us, not enhance us.

A society where all needs are met and there is no strife? I remember reading several Sci-Fi stories from the 50s and 60s that dealt with such a premise...all save Star Trek regarded it as a kind of heck. There would literally be nothing to do or strive for. Sure you could go explore the stars or invent something new...who would care? They've got their Holodecks and their Replicators and are distinctly disinterested in anything but their own hedonistic pursuits.

Brings to mind John Ringo's Council Wars series. Where people who actually knew how to farm, woodwork, knew plumbing, etc were akin to the Civil War Reinactors of today.


EDIT: As a total aside, Star Trek Online actually revisits the Yesterday's Enterprise time line, thus establishing it still exists. In it, the Federation loses the war with the Klingons, and when the Bajorans discover the Wormhole the Dominion invades and quickly conquers the Klingons and Romulans with the aid of Cardassians, Breen, and Tholians. The Breen destroy Earth in this time line.