Star Trek's New Coming-of-Age Saga for Generation O
The clever reboot of Star Trek sets up a coming-of-age saga for the Obama generation.
Let's get the straight-up politics out of the way up front.
Barack Obama, as he says himself, grew up on Star Trek. And both the new Spock, young Heroes TV star Zachary Quinto, and the classic Spock, Leonard Nimoy, each of whom star in the new movie, backed him for president, with Quinto campaigning around the country.
Obama even flashed the Vulcan hand sign -- not so easy to do the first few times you try -- at Nimoy at an Obama fundraiser in, for those of you who were johnnies-come-lately, January 2007.
Leonard Nimoy talks Star Trek, and Barack Obama.
Now for the part that's not quite so obvious. This Star Trek hinges on the original captain of the Enterprise. But not the one you're thinking of.
In rebooting the saga, the new stewards of Star Trek have neatly set up a classic coming-of-age journey for a new generation, the Obama generation.
J.J. Abrams and company go back to the original captain in this new, rebooted version of the Star Trek saga.
The original captain of the Enterprise in Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's series was not James T. Kirk, it was Christopher Pike. It's only because Roddenberry penned an overly cerebral pilot, which NBC rejected, back in 1964, that you ever heard of any Captain Kirk.
Played originally by Jeffrey Hunter, who had big roles in a lot of movies, most notably as one of the title characters (with John Wayne) in John Ford's classic The Searchers, Pike is a little older than the Kirk we met in the original TV series. And considerably older than the new Kirk.
The first time around, Pike, as penned by World War II bomber pilot Roddenberry, plays as a semi-burnt out World War II bomber pilot in outer space in a pilot called "The Cage." In an encounter with aliens who are powerful illusionists, he relearns that he needs to live life "as it happens to me, meet it head on and lick it." NBC liked the character but didn't like the pilot, wanting a more action-oriented take. Hunter decided he didn't want to shoot another pilot, and opted out of the project.
In the original '60s series, Spock explains to Kirk that he is immune to the effect of tribbles.
So the cast changed but for the Spock character, who was Pike's original protege. In came writer Samuel Peeples to pen a new pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," with a new captain, James T. Kirk. Peeples, who had been a writer on the TV Western series that launched Steve McQueen's career, Wanted: Dead or Alive, gave Kirk some of McQueen's swagger, along with the obvious JFK imagery. And the rest was history.
In the reboot, everything is changed by a major alteration in the timeline. And in this version, Christopher Pike -- played by Bruce Greenwood, JFK in the Cuban missile crisis thriller Thirteen Days -- is the captain. Instead of being a name fondly remembered by Kirk, he is Kirk's mentor. In fact, he personally recruits Kirk, an aimlessly talented young hothead, into Starfleet, helps him get through the academy, and makes him first officer of a starship called the Enterprise.
Without Pike giving him direction in life, Kirk is a boozily-brawling, skirt-chasing, motorcycle-riding young screw-up.
Time travel has been a regular plot device in Star Trek since the classic first season episode "City on the Edge of Forever," in which a trip to the past wiped out the crew's future. Kirk and Spock had to re-set the timeline to bring back their present.
This time there can be no re-set, though there is some timely manipulation to bring the original crew together, albeit much sooner than in the original series and in different ways.
It's really the only way that director Abrams, creator of Lost, Alias, and Fringe, and his TV colleagues and writers of this movie, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, can reboot the franchise. After ten feature films and five live action TV series, all of which I've seen, Star Trek was trapped in the entropy of its own continuity. By going back to the strongest iconic crew of the Star Trek universe, and liberating them from their past -- and the potential audience of the need to know all the ins and outs of Trekker canon -- Star Trek has the fresh start that a standard prequel can never have. All you have to do is think of George Lucas's Star Wars prequels grinding their way to the story we all know.
So how is the movie? Set phasers on stunning. Okay, enough of that. It's good, fast, funny, and has a lot of heart. But it's not Citizen Kane. Which is over-rated, but you get the gist.
The JFK era obsessions of the original ... the Peace Corps, Special Forces, and space exploration -- are intact, if recast. This Pike tells Kirk, as he recruits him into a life of service in Starfleet that "It's important, a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada." A very Obama-like way of putting it. (The movie was conceived a few years ago, but shot during the height of Obama's dramatic move during last year's presidential primaries.)
That's Chris Pine as James T. Kirk and Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard McCoy.
Incidentally, Chris Pine, never heard of him before, is very good as Kirk. He plays off of Harrison Ford in Star Wars and Indiana Jones, Tom Cruise in Top Gun. He doesn't copy William Shatner's classic embodiment -- or. that. interesting line. reading -- but he captures the arrogant confidence. If not the air of command. Of course, this Kirk is still a very young man in his twenties.
Speaking of kids, Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov -- as well as the iconic young Kyle Reese in this month's Terminator reboot -- is a brilliant teenager, a native Russian with a comic Russian accent. The rest of the rebooted young cast is also very good. Quinto as Spock, of course, Zoe Saldana as an Uhura with a lot more to do, John Cho as Sulu, a comic young Scottie played by Simon Pegg, and especially Karl Urban as a letter-perfect Dr. McCoy. All of them on bright sets recalling the 1960s original through the design aesthetic prism of the Apple Store.
A word about the very fine score, which is by Michael Giacchino, who has done very different and equally fine work for Lost and Alias. I collect film scores and this, while not quite Jerry Goldsmith, is very good. Strikingly, his theme for Kirk is not a young man's theme at all. It's aspirational, dark, and duty-oriented, more than hinting at the journey to come for the brash young man we see in this reboot.
The new Star Trek's teaser trailer invokes the idealism of the 1960s.
One of the most compelling things in this dark time about Star Trek is that it presents a positive future. All these things we worry about now -- and which are reflected in our super-mass scifi entertainment -- new world disorder, religious and ethnic differences, economic contradictions, environmental challenge, technological overreach -- are in fact managed and surmounted and we pursue the deepest and most positive of human instincts, curiosity, in a quest for exploration and understanding. The American spirit of Indiana Jones continues forward, adapting to new circumstances.
I think of all the popular potential futures, in which I'd rather not, as it happens, be a mutant or someone fighting a civilization of killer robots, being in Starfleet looks the best. Although, I certainly wouldn't mind being the Doctor in Doctor Who.
Star Trek's message, focusing on a future not one of dystopia but one that works -- of diversity, teamwork, and technology, appropriately used -- is especially attuned to the Obama era. But it's hardly just Democrats attracted to it. Republicans like former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Colin Powell and former John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger campaign director Steve Schmidt are big Star Trek fans, too. Though I don't think Rush Limbaugh's a fan.
The rebooted Star Trek looks like a hit to me, both for the old audience and a new and younger audience that doesn't know a tribble from a tricorder. As they follow along in this coming-of-age saga for Generation O, I hope they learn the moral lesson of the original Star Trek pilot. To beware the linked dangers of powerful illusion and living in one's head. Just one of a number of timely messages to be had.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I can't for the life of me understand why some hardcore fans are willing to overlook inconsistencies or confusing twists or AMAZING coincidences (City on the Edge of Forever? Hello? How fortunate that they were able to find McCoy and keep him from saving Ms. Keeler within the span of a week and keep the future from being altered). It seems to me that the nature of the show was 1) an outgrowth of the 60s (space exploration, civil rights, peace corps, peace and justice) 2) an entertaining vehicle set in the future to ask some profound and not so profound questions about our humanity and most important 3) a device to explore archetypal and interesting characters.
In other words, sit back, relax, and enjoy the damn movie. It's not the greatest movie ever made but the idealism and diversity of the cast of characters is similar in spirit to that of the original series. And anyway, Gene Roddenberry is dead so to say you know for a fact what he would have liked/not liked and that he would never change his mind about it is stupid.
can't for the life of me understand why some hardcore fans are willing to overlook inconsistencies or confusing twists or AMAZING coincidences*
( in the original series but not in the movie)
See William Bradley's Profile
Because the conditioning set in long ago, and new approaches are rejected by canalized thinking ...
The prevailing theory about the Guardian Of Forever is that it's time "streams" are like streams, currents and eddies of a river.
The same "current" that swept McCoy to the past swept Kirk & Spock to the same place. And, since the Guardian is all-knowing (Kinda goes with the job description) it knew what Kirk & Spock needed to do so it placed them in the best position to do it.
As for not knowing what Gene Roddenberry would and would not have liked, there is plenty of unequivocal and empirical evidence that he would have hated this alternate Star Trek and, had he been in control, it would not have been released.
See William Bradley's Profile
1. Your faith in that Guardian of Forever scenario is touching in its naivete.
2. Gene Roddenberrgy was replaced as honcho of the movie franchise, for extremely good reasons, 29 years ago. It doesn't really matter what he would think of this movie.
um, i meant cringing
No question its very different in some important ways, and also no question it was a fun action-packed summer movie (especially after crining through Wolverine "origins"). I really wonder what Roddenberry would have said. . .
See William Bradley's Profile
Perhaps a better question is what Harve Bennett would say.
He took over the movie franchise from Gene Roddenberry after the first movie and produced the most popular movies with the original cast -- Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: Search for Spock, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
I would imagine he wouldn't have many nice things to say about it..
http://trekmovie.com/2007/02/26/bennett-may-contest-star-trek-xi-script/
I Googled this Bennett guy.
It says that he came up with the "Star Fleet Academy" idea.
I guess he'd like this new movie just fine.
If Roddenberry was still in control, this would never have been released.
Sure, in the early days, Gene was all about commercialism and making the almighty buck. If this had been made in the late 80s or 90s, he would have been all over it..
But as a person gets older, their priorities change. It's not so much about the here and now, but rather about what they leave behind when they go..
I can say this with complete and utter conviction that Gene would NOT want this Star Trek as his legacy.
See William Bradley's Profile
The reality is that the studio took the Star Trek movie franchise out of Gene Roddenberry's hands after the first movie. Why? Because the movie was boring and WILDLY over-budget.
The Trek movies everybody loves -- ST II thru ST IV -- were produced and written/co-written by a guy named Harve Bennett. He's the one who made Leonard Nimoy the director, after Nicholas Meyers did such a great job on Wrath of Khan but didn't want to repeat.
Mr Bradley,
Second part of my response.
Suffice it to say that what I DON'T know about Star Trek would hardly fit in a thimble..
My point is still valid. A point which you yourself and many others in this thread have acknowledged.
This is NOT Star Trek. This is an Alternate Star Trek.. It's a low brow version for the fast food, instant thrills that don't require any thinking types...
I mean no disrespect.. Many people go to movies to escape and to not have to THINK about things but rather just go with the flow.. Those kinds of people don't like Star Trek because Star Trek is thinking person's Sci Fi...
There is no shame in enjoying cheap thrills... Just don't try to pass those cheap thrills off as something noble and cerebral...
See William Bradley's Profile
You obviously don't like any change in a franchise which had to undergo radical change in order to regain any new viability. You also didn't pay very good attention to what happened in this movie. Don't try again to say that only five Vulcans were saved.
Incidentally, my column is not about the canon or non-canon of Star Trek. It just happens that I've seen every episode of all the live actions series, and know some things about it that you don't seem to know.
I am not saying that only 5 Vulcans were saved.
I am saying that Spock only saved 5 Vulcans.
I am also saying that a colony of 10,000 Vulcans will have NIL effect on the "future" of Starfleet and the Federation. This is directly contradictory to the timeline of the REAL Star Trek. A point you always seem to ignore.
I tried to stay away from Canon myself, as it is no argument. This movie is as far from Canon as can possibly be and not be in the Delta quadrant.. And, since we both know how strict Roddenberry was about Canon, I think it's safe to say that he is in my corner regarding this discussion.
I am sure you know things that I don't know. Just as I am sure I know things that you don't know. That is irrelevant..
The only relevant point here is, is this movie Star Trek.
The answer is no. It's an alternate Star Trek.
These are the facts. And they are indisputable.
Will it do better? Maybe. Probably. With the way this country is heading, it probably will do fine...
Will it span 11 movies, thousands of book titles and 5 TV series?? I doubt it..
Because the cheap thrills, fast food wham bam thank you ma'am approach that this movie has is short-lived. It never lasts...
As I said. Time will tell.
Mr Bradley,
First part of my response.
I had to move the comments to the root, as it is impossible for me to make a point while I am posting in an area the width of a postage stamp...
You seem to want to re-enforce the false statement that this new Trek movie is doing better than any Trek movie prior.
This is simply not a factual statement. It will not be a factual statement unless and until the final grosses are in...
Now, if you want to claim that this Trek movie has done better in 3 days than other Trek movies have done in 3 days, then that may be a factual statement.
But to claim to know the future is not logical.
As I said, I really don't look at "majority rule" as a sign of value. Remember, "majority rule" gave us 8 years of Bush... I also don't care a whit about popularity.. Anyone who argues the value of something SOLELY based on popularity doesn't really have much of any argument... Wouldn't you agree??
You asked what I know of Star Trek. I have penned several episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. One of which was good enought to actually be ripped off by Paramount. Since you hobnob with with stars and principles of Trek, look up Rene Echevarria and ask him about how he came up with the TNG episode, SHIP IN A BOTTLE. His answer should prove most interesting.
See William Bradley's Profile
Perhaps you are not understanding the language.
Do you know what "doing better" means?
If so, you know that new Star Trek is doing much better than previous Star Trek films. Which you keep on denying.
I'll repeat myself, again, in telling you the incontrovertible fact that the new Star Trek has just had a much bigger opening weekend than any previous Star Trek picture.
>You seem to want to re-enforce the false statement that this new Trek movie is doing better than any Trek movie prior.
This is simply not a factual statement. It will not be a factual statement unless and until the final grosses are in...
What's kinda funny here is how some die-hard haters of the new movie get their "facts" all wrong. Not seeing what happened in the movie, not knowing the financial facts of this and the past movies, yada yada. They're so angry at any change that they just miss the whole thing.
No, what's really "funny" is that you label anyone who disagrees with you a "hater"..
Which indicates that you haven't a clue what Star Trek is all about..
To lay out a bit of symbolism;
In the beginning of the movie, the Corvette represents all the greatness of Star Trek that came before.
And it’s driven off a cliff by a little snot that has no concept of values or value, who just wants to take it out for a spin.
I'll try again. The same old "Star Trek" stories don't make it any more. That's why the last two movies bombed. That's why they cancelled "Enterprise."
They wouldn't even make another movie without some big changes to the formula.
This movie is doing much better than any other "Star Trek" movie. You should pay attention to what Leonard Nimoy says about ultra-purists.
I will try again as well..
Enterprise bombed because Beavis & Butthead (AKA Berman & Braga) tried to do to Trek TV what this movie did to Trek movies. They tried to divorce everything that made Trek what it is and replace it with a low-brow glitzy 90210. Beavis & Butthead even went so far as to take out "Star Trek" from Enterprise.
As for your claim that this movie is doing better than any other Star Trek movie, you are quite wrong.
When adjusted for current dollars, this movie has yet to even come CLOSE to even the first 4 ST Movies.
But that's beside the point.
The point is not popularity or grosses.
The only point is that this movie is not Star Trek. It's an alternate reality Star Trek. It's a low-brow version for those who don't have the intelligence, empathy or imagination to handle the real Star Trek.
It's for those who think meaningful dialog is all tongue and testosterone.
This movie is to Star Trek what War & Peace is to the Archie Comics.
I can accept the many multitude of changes in this alternate reality Star Trek.
Spock & Uhura getting it on in the turbo lift. Oookkaayyy
An Enterprise with large water pipes running throughout the ship. Gotcha
Hand phasers that look nearly identical to the original hand phasers, but function COMPLETELY different. Right
A cadet made a first officer and then given command of a starship after a heroic act. Check
I can accept all of that and so much more.
But why, oh why, did J J have to murder 30 billion Vulcans and destroy the planet Vulcan?? There was absolutely NO reason to do this.
What J J has given everyone is a Star Trek, a Starfleet and a Federation without Vulcan.... That's like re-writing the history of Planet Earth and taking England out of the equation.
The movie was exciting and action-packed and will probably do well enough to produce a spawn of sequels. But it will never be Star Trek.
Abrams would have been better off creating a new Starfleet ship and a new crew and a different planet to destroy.. Had he gone this route, he would have had the whole new market he obviously craves plus would have had a good percentage of the TRUE Trekkers on board as well.
For anyone that can accept the idea that Star Trek, Starfleet and the UFP doesn't need Vulcan has no right to call themselves a Trekker.
If you're paying so close attention, it's 6 billion Vulcans wiped out, not 30 billion.
You can't just watch the same story over and over again. That movie's a bomb if it even gets made.
My bad about the number error.. That, in itself, is illogical...
Regardless, the point still stands...
As for not being able the same story over and over again.
What do you think you just watched?
Moby Dick
Star Wars
The old "coming of age" bad boy turns hero has been done, re done and done to death over and over and over ad nasuem.
My point is that the movie would not have suffered ONE IOTA if it was Rigel IV or Alpha Centauri VI or even Andoria Prime had been destroyed...
But to destroy Vulcan??? It's as if Abrams *wanted* to piss off the loyal Trekkers.
Which is probably not far off the mark...
See William Bradley's Profile
A few things about mistakes and "mistakes" in the new Star Trek movie.
I see there's a fair amount of back-and-forth on these things.
There are a few real mistakes in this movie. For example, a supernova could not threaten the galaxy. A black hole doesn't work anything like that.
There are mistakes by design. The filmmakers moved the planet Delta Vega from the edge of the galaxy to somewhere closer to Vulcan, changing things from the pilot episode but offering an arguably amusing homage as they set up some improbable/impossible coincidences. They also make the arid robotically-mined planet into an ice planet. Kinda like Hoth, actually, in Star Wars ...
There are mistakes by choice. Spock and Uhura. Consider that this Uhura is a brilliant scientist, highly assertive, something that the '60s era audience would have had trouble accepting in a black woman (that Uhura was a groundbreaking role on network TV). Given that she's a scientist, like Spock, (his former student!) and more than simply the operator of the ship's comms, there's a very different context.
But the key thing to remember is ... It's a movie!
Spoilers...
Scotty wasn't banished to the moon near Vulcan... he was waiting on his replacement at some sort of lunar science station (like we have on Antarctica). He thought Spock and Kirk were his replacements that never showed.
Nah, he thought Spock and Kirk were bringing supplies, not replacing him.
Wasn't he in trouble because of the dog?
See William Bradley's Profile
Yes, Scotty was in trouble because he performed a beaming experiment with "Admiral Archer's beagle."
Archer, of course, was captain of the first Enterprise in the last Star Trek TV series. His beagle was a little character in its own right.
It's not a moon.
See William Bradley's Profile
In Star Trek, Delta Vega isn't a moon. It's a well-known planet from the pilot episode that sold the series to NBC, on which Kirk has to maroon his increasingly threatening old friend Gary Mitchell.
It's also, since it's at the edge of the galaxy, nowhere near Vulcan.
The filmmakers have acknowledged taking huge liberties on this, placing the planet closer to Vulcan.
But they haven't acknowledge, so far as I know, the obvious scientifici problem.
Even if the planet is right next to Vulcan, which it isn't, Spock wouldn't have any view of Vulcan's destruction at all like what he has in the new movie.
Our own moon, a mere quarter of a million miles away, is much smaller in the sky.
All of you screaming trekkies are convincing me to watch this movie. The last time I paid to see a Star Trek movie in theaters was when Kirk was killed, which was a total let-down. This sounds like a good show, even if all the details you are mentioning will go over my head. : )
They probably should go over your head.
"Why was Scotty exiled to a planet/moon within visual range of Vulcan?"
Why not?
"Why was Uhura with Spock even though Spock is already engaged?"
Spock's arranged marriage to T'Pring was in Star Trek's Prime Universe. There's no guarentee it also happened in the new Alternate Universe.
"Why is Spock kissing face with ANY woman? "
Because Vulcans are not celibate, and besides, Spock is half Human.
"Nero changed Kirk's personality by killing his father -- he didn't change Spock, who should be busy suppressing his human side"
Nero didn't change Kirk's personality by killing his father, and Spock refused to surpress his Human side after facing prejudice against his mother, who was Human.
Nero DID change Kirk's personality by depriving him of a father.
I may be of some assistance:
"Why did Nero spend 25 years waiting for Spock instead of trying to save Romulus?"
Because Nero's version of Romulus was from Star Trek's Prime Universe (the one where Picard, Sisko, La Forge, Odo etc...live) and it had already been destroyed.
"And after 25 years, he wore the same clothes? Hadn't changed decor? Hadn't gained or lost weight? Hadn't gotten crazier or calmer or changed his personality at all?"
Romulans live longer than Humans. 25 years is nothing to them.
"The Federation never bothered to monitor the region of space where they had already lost one ship? Or was Nero's mining ship equiped with Romulan military cloaking technology?"
Probably yes, since Romulans do possess cloaking technology.
"Why did young Spock eject Kirk rather than send him to the brig?"
Because Kirk is way too smart to be imprisoned for very long without escaping.
"Why did Kirk's land a few minutes from old Spock's location?"
Because Delta Vega is in the Vulcan star system, and Spock is Vulcan.
See William Bradley's Profile
Actually, the new producers moved Delta Vega.
In the pilot that sold the series to begin with, Delta Vega is a planet at the far edge of the galaxy. That's where Kirk tries to maroon his old friend Gary Mitchell, after his mental powers become too threatening.
It's nowhere near Vulcan. It's also not an ice planet.
>"Why did Kirk's land a few minutes from old Spock's location?"
Because Delta Vega is in the Vulcan star system, and Spock is Vulcan.
I THOUGHT that station looked familiar!
Sacrilege!!
Mr.Pres: Again, Kirk had a WHOLE PLANET to land on and ended up landing a mile from Spock. Hitting a hole in one while being struck by lightning is much more probable.
You are going to put your cloaking tech on a MINING ship?!? To hide it from what? Floating space hortas?
It has never been established that changing the past creates new, separate timelines (as opposed to changing) , but even if it did, wouldn't Nero want to save the Romulus in his NEW timeline?
And -- human, Vulcan or Romulan -- nursing a grudge for 25 years is gonna twist ya. (See Capt Ahab, Capt. Nemo, etc.). Example: Khan in "Space Seed" vs. Kahn in "Wrath" ...very different.
And just because Nero changed one thing doesn't change Spock's entire childhood.
And Kirk prime wasn't some bar brawler -- New Kirk he was a rebel because he lost his father. Kirk Prime "got a commendation original thinking" while New Kirk was headed for expulsion for THE SAME stunt until Vulcan called 9-1-1. That's 'cuz new Kirk had a bad attitude,
That's because his father got ... killed when he was born.
Kirk wasn't going to get expelled. Pike had his back all the way. He made him first officer of the Enterprise a few hours after you thought Kirk was getting expelled. lol
>>>>And Kirk prime wasn't some bar brawler -- New Kirk he was a rebel because he lost his father. Kirk Prime "got a commendation original thinking" while New Kirk was headed for expulsion for THE SAME stunt until Vulcan called 9-1-1. That's 'cuz new Kirk had a bad attitude,
Both Nero and Spock sent Old Spock and Kirk (respectively) to locations near the Federation outpost.
Kirk so he would survive, and Old Spock so he could survive to suffer grief.
It's called subtext.
While I love JJ's work, and Orci and Kurtzman can write, the plot had so MANY holes that it was hard for me to concentrate on the many fine attributes you mention.
Why did Nero spend 25 years waiting for Spock instead of trying to save Romulus?
And after 25 years, he wore the same clothes? Hadn't changed decor? Hadn't gained or lost weight? Hadn't gotten crazier or calmer or changed his personality at all?
The Federation never bothered to monitor the region of space where they had already lost one ship? Or was Nero's mining ship equiped with Romulan military cloaking technology?
(The answer is: Orci and Kurtzman needed Nero to kill father Kirk, but not do ANYTHING else until Kirk was old enough for revenge.)
Why did young Spock eject Kirk rather than send him to the brig?
Why did Kirk's land a few minutes from old Spock's location?
Why was Scotty exiled to a planet/moon within visual range of Vulcan?
(The answer is: Orci and Kurtzman needed Kirk to meet old Spock and Scotty)
Why was Uhura with Spock even though Spock is already engaged?
Why is Spock kissing face with ANY woman? Nero changed Kirk's personality by killing his father -- he didn't change Spock, who should be busy suppressing his human side.
(The answer is: Orci and Kurtzman needed SOMEONE to make out -- female audiences demand it. And a Vulcan romance is almost as good as a vampire, right?)
I guess you need to see it again. Everything was explained bit by bit in the movie.
I'll help you a bit:
Why did Nero spend 25 years waiting for Spock instead of trying to save Romulus?
-He couldn't save Romulus. The event that destroyed Romulus would not happen for another 128 years or so. Spock said it. Also, he didn't wait 25 years for Spock doing nothing. He was running around taking potshots at things and altering the timeline.
And after 25 years, he wore the same clothes? Hadn't changed decor? Hadn't gained or lost weight? Hadn't gotten crazier or calmer or changed his personality at all?
- They were running around looking for revenge. Once they stepped back into the past, they altered the future. He almost got kirk before he was born.
-He hasn't changed or aged because he was a Romulan. Romulans lived close to 200 years in the original tv show.
Why did young Spock eject Kirk rather than send him to the brig?
- Because he could.
Why did Kirk's land a few minutes from old Spock's location?
-Because it is a planet close to Vulcan.
Why was Scotty exiled to a planet/moon within visual range of Vulcan?
- For testing out his theories of interplanetary transportation using Admiral Archer's Beagle.
Why was Uhura with Spock even though Spock is already engaged?
-Who was he engaged to?
I'm glad u liked the movie. I liked parts of it too. The dialogue was good. The acting was good. But the explanations you came up with to answer the plot holes i mentioned are silly.
Having a 128-year headstart makes saving things REALLY easy. Nero should have contacted Romulan HIgh Command, given them a century-plus head start on technology so the Romulans wouldn't just avoid planetary destruction 128 years later, but could take over the galaxy in the meantime. If he spent the time "taking potshots" he would be the Osama bin Ladin of the Federation, hunted down continuously -- OR he could be the hero of Romulus: Which is the logical/likely choice?
Like Romulans, Vulcans live a long time. But TOS Spock and Wrath of Khan Spock were visably different. Old and young Spocks in this movie were different. Long-lived does not equal immortal; Nero should have changed.
Even if u buy that he and his shipmates and ship remained physically static for 25 years, that much revenge takes it's toll on the psyche. Nero should be LOONEYTUNES by now..
Why did young Spock eject Kirk rather than send him to the brig?
- Because he could.
*Vulcans NEVER do anything just because they can. It was completely illogical.
Why did Kirk's land a few minutes from old Spock's location?
-Because it is a planet close to Vulcan.
*If old Spock was in Fort Worth, what are the odds Kirk would land in Dallas? I'm on the same planet with Angelina Jolie, but we don't cross paths very often.
Yes, we know WHY Scotty was EXILED, but WHY was it to NEAR Vulcan (which would be a pretty GOOD post for an enginneer).
"Zoe was in the first Pirates movie. I'm sure you remember her.
She wasn't in the second and third installment, however"
She was in POTC but didn't play Calypso/Tia Dalma
She played Anamaria.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
