Star Wars & Sc-Fi Talk

K

kyanges

Junior Member
I will give the JJ-verse credit for one other thing compared to the last few Next-Generation films.

The JJ films at least paid lip service to the idea of taking the moral high ground, even for the villain. Rather than simply killing them, or allowing them to die the typical action movie villain-death, the original films either showed the crew either trying to rescue the bad guy, or at least trying to understand them. That's something the original, and TNG series did, but the TNG films did not.

Similarly, in both JJ films, Kirk offered to rescue Nero, and the mission to kill Khan was presented as a mistake, a lesson to be learned from at the end.

In the TNG films, Picard either snapped the borg queen's spine, attempted to kill the Son'a commander in cold blood via phaser blast, or allowed the Picard clone to impale themselves on a metal spike, before dying horribly in an exploding ship. Compare that with Kirk trying to save that Klingon commander even after he just tried to choke him to death in the Search for Spock.

Even if the JJ films broke Star Trek down into a more basic action format, they were at least thematically closer to the original ideal of treating even enemies with mercy and respect.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Well kyanges I think you make a point, There is still a few issues that could be debated.

Spoilers!

Picard did snap the Queen's neck, but as we say in Voyager.. Long live the Queen. there were at least two more. one being Identical.

in The case of the Son'a Picard actually warned Ru'afo that he was going to do it, and it was a act that placed Jean Luc' in as much danger as Ru'afo. additionally the self destruct of the Son'a platform was a suicide mission for Picard had Big E not moved in just right Riker would have gotten his seat in the captains chair. Also in novel and early scripts of Insurrection Ru'afo lived he is protected from the blast and space because of a personal shield, only to die of Poetic Irony.

in Nemesis Picard was being attacked Having literally been pushed into a corner he grabbed a spike built into the wall hoping to warn Shinzon off, but Shinzon lunged forward.
 
K

kyanges

Junior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Well kyanges I think you make a point, There is still a few issues that could be debated.

Spoilers!

Picard did snap the Queen's neck, but as we say in Voyager.. Long live the Queen. there were at least two more. one being Identical.

in The case of the Son'a Picard actually warned Ru'afo that he was going to do it, and it was a act that placed Jean Luc' in as much danger as Ru'afo. additionally the self destruct of the Son'a platform was a suicide mission for Picard had Big E not moved in just right Riker would have gotten his seat in the captains chair. Also in novel and early scripts of Insurrection Ru'afo lived he is protected from the blast and space because of a personal shield, only to die of Poetic Irony.

in Nemesis Picard was being attacked Having literally been pushed into a corner he grabbed a spike built into the wall hoping to warn Shinzon off, but Shinzon lunged forward.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to the ultimate tone of the films when contrasted against the TV series, and "Classic" films, not the specific actions of the characters. It could definitely be argued that their actions may be justified in the context of the film, but in the wider ST universe, it's almost the polar opposite of their ideals reinforced to the audience over years of TV episodes and previous films.

Picard didn't act in the knowledge that the Queen would survive. The point isn't how many there are, or whether she ultimately survives in some other universe. It's that Picard goes out of character, and murders the villain, because that's what's supposed to happen at the end of the big action movie. I don't argue whether that's good or bad, just that Movie Picard is an action hero, and it runs counter to TV Picard and the previous films.

Saying "Fine, then I WILL!", then shooting at gas to blow it up in front of Ru'afo is not a warning. It's what the good-guy action hero says before "dealing a righteous blow" against the bad guy. And suicide mission or not, the entire arc where they fight on the Collector still fits my point. Picard brazenly shoots people, and the film lets Riker beam up only Picard, despite him not knowing one single thing that's going on or happened in the Collector. All he knows is that Picard "may need a lift in a minute or two." Picard doesn't even say, "Hey, Riker, beam up the other life sign into the brig. It's Ru'afo, and he needs to stand trial for his crimes." On the contrary, they just let him die horribly in an exploding space station because that's what's supposed to happen to the bad guy at the end of the action movie. Again, it could be argued that the action may be justified in the context of the film. It's still going against TV Picard's character, the one who would rather try to reason with a planetary scale life-eating crystal entity, and never had a impulse for vengeance against the Borg even after "best of both worlds" until First Contact comes along.

The producers just wanted a big fight at the end, and so they throw Captain Picard and Ru'afo alone on the station for no reason when both of them could've accomplished their respective missions faster with backup. It makes even less sense for Ru'afo to go alone when the Collector was viewed by the Son'a as the last hope of their race. You'd think at least a few would volunteer to help Ru'afo preserve their species.

I will concede that Nemesis played this out better. Picard did try on a few occasions to reason with Shinzon.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The problem with JJ Abrams comes down to he doesn't think about the big picture. Lost is the perfect example where he had all this weird stuff going on and the ending said he didn't have any idea what it was all about. It was purely a stunt to get people's attention and be the buzz of water cooler talk the next morning. People only buzzed about it because it's called anticipation of what it means or what's it about. When you write a story, you want people to get excited and try to figure out what's going to happen. Either the reader or viewer gets it right thinking they were smart enough and not just because it was predictable or they're happily wrong because they didn't see that coming. The way you accomplish this is through good storytelling that is planned out. Otherwise you're just dragging the reader or viewer along and that's boring. You want people running ahead of the story not being dragged behind it. JJ Abrams in the beginning got people fooled that there was going to be this big picture with Lost. That ending was a total cop-out. It didn't explain anything. It was another stunt on top a pile of stunts. A good murder mystery lays out all the clues during the story of who dunnit? Are you smart enough to catch all the clues to figure it out yourself? If all the arithmetic and not some simple math adds up when the detective in the end spells out what happened... that's what makes this murder mystery good. In a JJ Abrams murder mystery there would be no clues for the viewer to see and he would just pick the least conspicuous person out all of the characters who did it and then when the detective explains how it happens, it would be nothing depicted during watching the movie. It would be like watching deleted scenes from a DVD.

Here's what's wrong with JJ Abrams' Star Trek. When I saw the first trailer to Into Darkness, I pointed out how Kirk violated the Prime Directive by interfering in trying to save those primitive aliens because the volcano was going to explode. I thought it was typical JJ Abrams rewriting Star Trek and the Prime Directive without thinking about the canon. But I watched the movie and they addressed how he violated the Prime Directive and he was punished with losing command of the Enterprise. That was good. But here's where it goes wrong. That was just a plot turn device to create formula drama of him losing command of the Enterprise just to regain it again after Khan's attack so that he can take the Enterprise and crew onto the rest of the movie. A real Star Trek story would've had the repercussions of Kirk violating the Prime Directive serve in the main story. But instead JJ Abrams basically established that Kirk is above the most sacred law of the Federation and his punishment for it only lasted a few minutes. Now what's possibly good for JJ Abrams' Star Trek universe is that the Prime Directive was basically born from the Vulcans. JJ Abrams wiped out the Vulcans in his universe. A lot of chaos can now ensue from the universe that Star Trek fans know from the original timeline. There's potentially a lot of good story telling there and not just rehashing history. But is JJ Abrams capable of that kind of big picture thinking. I doubt it. The good news is he's not directing the next Star Trek movie and a creative director might upright this starship. But the bad news is JJ Abrams is still producing.
 
Last edited:
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
AssassinsMace said:
The problem with JJ Abrams comes down to he doesn't think about the big picture. Lost is the perfect example where he had all this weird stuff going on and the ending said he didn't have any idea what it was all about. It was purely a stunt to get people's attention and be the buzz of water cooler talk the next morning. People only buzzed about it because it's called anticipation of what it means or what's it about. When you write a story, you want people to get excited and try to figure out what's going to happen. Either the reader or viewer gets it right thinking they were smart enough and not just because it was predictable or they're happily wrong because they didn't see that coming. The way you accomplish this is through good storytelling that is planned out. Otherwise you're just dragging the reader or viewer along and that's boring. You want people running ahead of the story not being dragged behind it. JJ Abrams in the beginning got people fooled that there was going to be this big picture with Lost. That ending was a total cop-out. It didn't explain anything. It was another stunt on top a pile of stunts. A good murder mystery lays out all the clues during the story of who dunnit? Are you smart enough to catch all the clues to figure it out yourself? If all the arithmetic and not some simple math adds up when the detective in the end spells out what happened... that's what makes this murder mystery good. In a JJ Abrams murder mystery there would be no clues for the viewer to see and he would just pick the least conspicuous person out all of the characters who did it and then when the detective explains how it happens, it would be nothing depicted during watching the movie. It would be like watching deleted scenes from a DVD.

Here's what's wrong with JJ Abrams' Star Trek. When I saw the first trailer to Into Darkness, I pointed out how Kirk violated the Prime Directive by interfering in trying to save those primitive aliens because the volcano was going to explode. I thought it was typical JJ Abrams rewriting Star Trek and the Prime Directive without thinking about the canon. But I watched the movie and they addressed how he violated the Prime Directive and he was punished with losing command of the Enterprise. That was good. But here's where it goes wrong. That was just a plot turn device to create formula drama of him losing command of the Enterprise just to regain it again after Khan's attack so that he can take the Enterprise and crew onto the rest of the movie. A real Star Trek story would've had the repercussions of Kirk violating the Prime Directive serve in the main story. But instead JJ Abrams basically established that Kirk is above the most sacred law of the Federation and his punishment for it only lasted a few minutes. Now what's possibly good for JJ Abrams' Star Trek universe is that the Prime Directive was basically born from the Vulcans. JJ Abrams wiped out the Vulcans in his universe. A lot of chaos can now ensue from the universe that Star Trek fans know from the original timeline. There's potentially a lot of good story telling there and not just rehashing history. But is JJ Abrams capable of that kind of big picture thinking. I doubt it. The good news is he's not directing the next Star Trek movie and a creative director might upright this starship. But the bad news is JJ Abrams is still producing.
Click to expand...


True I agreed with you there. But JJ Abrams did one thing that I like from Star Trek int Darkness is that when Khan and Spock fought each other he showed us how genetically engineered wonder of a specie he is by surviving not once but twice when Spock gave him the Vulcan nerve pinch!
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Kirk in the TOS often tossed the Prime directive out the window. it was later treks that took the Prime Directive as a absolute. Kirk took it on a case by case. that being said I found it questionable to land and submerge the Enterprise
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
TerraN_EmpirE said:
that being said I found it questionable to land and submerge the Enterprise
Click to expand...

Actually it can be done, although they don't say how, but my guess is that they can manipulate the atomic and molecular density of the hull just enough to submerge into the water without the need for a ballast tank. Heck if they teleport humans they can definitely do this as a SOP for all ships within the Federation.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Equation said:
Actually it can be done, although they don't say how, but my guess is that they can manipulate the atomic and molecular density of the hull just enough to submerge into the water without the need for a ballast tank. Heck if they teleport humans they can definitely do this as a SOP for all ships within the Federation.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't question that. Star Trek: Voyager episode Thirty Days had the Flyer play Submarine and in Dialog one of the Officers offers to rig Voyager to act as a sub. I question The reason not the method.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Oh I don't question that. Star Trek: Voyager episode Thirty Days had the Flyer play Submarine and in Dialog one of the Officers offers to rig Voyager to act as a sub. I question The reason not the method.
Click to expand...

I think Kirk was doing it to hide from the prying eyes of the Prime Directive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top