Star Trek- there be spoilers

[violiav]

So I went ahead and brought this here because Star Trek could quite easily turn very contentious.

Some b/g: I've enjoyed Star Trek very much since I was a kid, so over half my life at this point. I've seen all but two of the movies (Nemesis and Insurrection), all of TOS, TNG, a chunk of DS9, some of VOY, and very little of ENT. I've tried to watch TAS, but it's just not very good. Even taking into account it was the 70's, it's a terrible cartoon.
I used to read the Star Trek novels, but stopped in the late 90's.
I consider myself fairly well versed in Trek (alas I never got to go to Vegas for The Experience).
I've seen the new movie, twice, and enjoyed it very much each time. I think it felt very much how a Star Trek movie is supposed to feel, and if you say otherwise then you haven't seen any of them since ST:The Motion Picture came out (it's interesting).

One of the things I've noticed people saying about the new movies is that they lack philosophy, that what sets Star Trek apart from Star Wars is that it has deep philosophic thought and Star Trek has action. I disagree. I've always seen Star Wars (seen all of them, read some of the books) as more philosophic and spiritual than Star Trek. It's got grandiose questions about the nature of good and evil. Star trek doesn't really. It's more topical, and sometimes deals with issues in the forefront of social thought, but not always.

Star Trek was always intended to be about exploration and adventure, "A Wagon Train to the Stars", which Roddenberry used and a tool to push the television envelope. The franchise got more thoughtful as time went on, but stopped really pushing the envelope.

Some people say these new ones have far too much action. That Star Trek doesn't have action. I say, really? Star Trek has space battles. And I'm pretty sure I remember a time or two when Kirk and co got into fisticuffs.
And with the exception of TNG movies, the TOS crew movies were nothing like the show.
The only that's ever really bugged me about the new movies was the Spock/Uhura thing. But whatev. I got over that.

Some people have been saying the Kirk is too much of a horn dog in this movie. That he would never sleep with two women, and even if he did it shouldn't be shown. And he would -never- turn around and look at a woman changing clothes behind him. Oh noes!

People complaining about the lack of women in the main cast. I guess because they've never seen the show or movies? It was really just Uhura, Rand, and Chapel, and then just Uhura after a certain point.
------------------------------------

spoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilerssp oilersspoilersspoilersvspoilersspoilersspoilersspo ilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoil ersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoiler sspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilerss poilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspoilersspo ilersspoilersspoilersspoilers seriously if you haven't seen new movie don't go further.

But what I've seen one review in particular get pissed about is the change to Khan. How Khan is played by an English man(rather well I thought) when the original actor was Mexican.
It didn't bother me. I guess because somethings don't.

[Ginger Tea]

spoiler free section at the top.

Not seen into darkness yet, but I read your spoiler even though it had a spoilerific padding, I guess white text grey isn't an option here?
Not that that would have stopped me.

I never got into TOS, I saw the movies when they came out, least up until a point, watched a lot of TNG when it first aired (iir we were 3 years behind but I may be wrong) and bbc2 had one a day m-f split between the runs, I think we got 2 different TNG seasons something like Monday was repeat, Thursday was new and voyager and ds9 filled in the blanks, hmm maybe it was m w f cos they didn't do enterprise then nor TOS.

I can't get into TOS due to the cardboard sets and polystyrene compared to the movies, just like I can not bring myself to re watch classic who.
I might be wrong, the use of stardates obfuscates the time, but there is less than 100 years between kirk and picard as Bones was a really, really old man in one episode, Vulcans age slower and scotty was caught in a transporter buffer for however long.
but the updated TV technology really dated the original, just like the prequels to A New Hope, it's hard to be set in the future when 30 year old tech is way better than now, people could argue that the emerging empire confiscated high tech and left the world with 286's building the death star out of shiny i7's, I accept that it was a technology barrier and the death star trench animation could have been better if more time and money were to be sunk into it, but for the time it was enough and old sci fi always looks dated the following decade, more so when they try to envision the near future and get it so wrong.

Trek vs Wars, as one was an episodic TV show and another a 2 hour aprox movie later a trilogy, im not sure it's fair to compare.
I don't think TOS had an on going story arc, it was an alien of the week affair, if the original movie panned, Star wars survives as a stand alone story, it had a rough idea of an over all arc, but after god knows how many re writes, I am not sure what of the original trilogy remained.

The movies however were patchy, not exactly every alternate movie was good/bad, but I didn't feel anything for the first one, second I had no idea who Khan was till I saw a re run, even then the gaps between acting/film making then and 'now' were apparent so I remember so little. Search was OK in parts but I could do without Voyage home and I think that was when I was less inclined to see them at the cinema (think I saw most on the big screen) and the whole 'god' one, that one was mostly blanked, until the umpteenth video review of it, I could not even quote you the "what does god need with a space ship?" line, it was more "Oh god I watched this movie)

TNG continued in the monster a week theme but with a better budget for sets and SFX, I didn't mind this after all it was just a show and most shows were baddy a week, be it cops medical (although the medical was Casualty on BBC, which was guess which actor is going to be hospitalised out of these three in this scene and then one from these other 5 groups) or what not.
The movies were basically 2 parters with a bigger budget, the overall acting and sets etc had evolved over the run that by the time they got to a movie (save for the first and borg on earth time travel one) it could seamlessly add itself into a season, least I don't remember any that were too off kilter.

What got me thinking more of the monotony of monster of the week was the ever present but behind the scenes story arc that Babylon 5 worked with, yes a lot of it was stand alone, but some of the scenes did require prior knowledge, but these were sometimes just 5 minute scenes planned by JMS but iir, a lot of the show was written by others with him only writing key focal episodes. So if those scenes were cut, the story presented would not suffer.

DS9 tried and in a way failed to emulate this with the on going dominion wars, a show (all franchises) that was disposable where you could shuffle the episodes and even mix whole seasons now tried to shoe horn a plot, looking back I cannot remember if it was a case of not being able to go an episode without bringing it up then dropping the odd episode, or the opposite where it seemed they could not shut up about it.

Voyager was tolerable.

The cannon breaking first new movie, bold move.
Yes it split the fandom, but also it didn't burden new viewers with decades of future back story, they were free to boldly go where no man had gone before etc.

Which brings me to














Spoiler territory
Having only seen the trailer, if he is who you said, it makes me think "why?" he is seen as a threat, that much you can gleam from the trailer, but in the movie he had a reason to hate kirk and the federation, iir he was a 21st century explorer frozen in suspended animation and found by the enterprise by chance, the episode I've long since forgotten, but shit went down and that is why he was stranded on the planet later named Genesis.

It's as if they have this new start, but they want to name drop every damn character that mattered "because fuck you that's why", the first villain was some nameless miner who resented Vulcan for whatever it was, I forget, space is huge, there are numerous villains to encounter, what's next q and the borg cos picard is not going to be the same picard in the future, a post Vulcan federation would not be the same as TNG's universe.

[violiav]

Well that's part of the spoiler.
My boyfriend made a good point earlier. Star trek normally has an entire season at their disposal for the audience to get to know the characters and their motivations. A two hour movie, not so much.

[Ginger Tea]

I watched the midnight screening vlog by Brad Jones, they did give him enough of a backstory to explain how and why he was, but none of the history with kirk from TOS to make him hate him like he did in Khan.

I knew watching the review it would be spoiler heavy, they said it would be, most times I watch these with no intention of watching the movie in the first place.
But to remake key scenes and reverse the kirk/spock death ...

It seems they just wanted to shoehorn in Khan and the "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN" yell because "because fuck you that's why" whereas they could have had him be generic baddy #316, or have this be the genesis of Khan in the AU and make it forshadow a WOK remake a few movies later.

Brad or one of the others summed it up, "in the third one they go looking for Kirk*, the 4th it's wales and I can't wait for the 5th"

Kirk may not be dead by the end of this movie, not seen it yet, he may be a final scene reveal or a post credit stinger
But I've lost what little faith I had in the AU upon hearing this, as they could have made any movie they wanted, revisit classic stories and flesh them out in the AU as a movie, they said tribbles got mentioned and Admiral Robocop (as they referred to Weller) was called something X, possibly just a joke from them, or he really was this TOS character.

[Ladeeda]

What the new Star Trek movies lack is good writing, plot, and character development.

They try to transfer the pathos of the Original Series despite this being a totally different universe. They give Uhura bullshit throwaway traits with no bearing on the story in scenes that serve no purpose in attempt to make a "Strong Female Character" [TM]. Kirk's promiscuity was more fan-implied, but this Kirk has had more sex in 2 movies with more aliens than TOS Kirk ever touched. They've abandoned McCoy entirely. I don't even know WHAT they're trying to do with Spock. And Cumberbatch makes a shitty Khan.

Yes, I said it. Cumberbatch is great at being the loopy genius. But a ruthless warrior? You've gotta be kidding me.

It's pretty, I'll give you that. It's pretty, and most of the special effects don't suck. That's about it. There's no emotion, no buildup. It's 2 hours of nerds who know the references but never saw the original content trying to please all the fans.

The Federation is full of morons. Kirk is a crap leader. Everyone is so snarky there is exactly NO tension, and the attempt to retcon Spock's death lacked any impact because Kirk and Spock have no friendship at all, and you KNOW they aren't going to kill off Kirk. Nevermind that bullshit foreshadowing with the Tribble.

And why did they even bother with the Klingons? That whole scene did nothing to move the plot but add some action. And the action was boring. Dead time with too much noise.

Maybe if they got some folks in who actually SAW the Wrath of Khan and had an ounce of imagination who could make it a NEW story, it would have been fine. But what we got is a giant nerd circle-jerk.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

But what I've seen one review in particular get pissed about is the change to Khan. How Khan is played by an English man(rather well I thought) when the original actor was Mexican.
It didn't bother me. I guess because somethings don't.

Well that's not quite why the kerfuffle. Khan the character (which would have been created prior to the events of Star Trek 2009) was created as the result of genetic engineering from a large number of ethnic groups. The original Khan was unique, in that Roddenbury took the concept of the Superman and made him... well, not white.

So as Ladeeda suggests, it comes across as someone not understanding the source material or even why it existed the way it did. Hell, Montalban was technically playing a character regarded as a Sikh so the fact that he was played by Montalban at all was really a stretch. Cumberbatch? I only buy that if we're absolutely saying that anything goes.

I don't think it says anything about anyone if it bothers them or not really. It's just what tends to flip your switch. It bugs me, because there was absolutely intention in why Star Trek created the characters it did, why they were in the positions they were in, and what that was supposed to say. Flipping Khan's race isn't any different than casting Taylor Swift as Uhura. You are fundamentally changing what a character is because you have no idea what that character meant. That's why it angers me.

As for the rest of the movie, I can see turning off one's brain and not hating it. But like you, I'm a veteran of just about every Star Trek property. I miss Star Trek. For the first movie I could park my brain and just enjoy it. Seriously, I had fun. But early in this one, I just found my brain unable to disengage and it kept screaming "I miss Star Trek." There was too much stupid (my list would be long and make me sad) and while I don't demand perfection from my movies, I do ask for basic plotting competency.

I'll just wait for Mr. Plinkett to getting around to reviewing it and that's when I'll have my cathartic moment of closure.

[violiav]

Writer Carey Wilber first proposed the story of what became "Space Seed" in September 1966, early in Star Trek's history. In the proposal, the villain was Harold Erickson, an ordinary criminal exiled into space in suspended animation. He sought to free his gang from the Botany Bay, seize the Enterprise, and become pirates. Gene L. Coon proposed that Erickson should be a true rival to Kirk, a genetic superman who had once ruled part of Earth. After Ricardo Montalbán was cast, the character was changed from the blond Nordic Erickson to the dark Khan Noonien. ("Noonien" came from Gene Roddenberry, who had an old Chinese friend named Noonien Wang that he had lost touch with. Roddenberry hoped that perhaps Wang would see the episode and contact him.)[1]

It was only after the casting that the race was changed, sort of a "Hey, he's pretty good, let's go with that." So not really the high-brow progressive train of though that it's made out to be sometimes.

Kirk's promiscuity was more fan-implied, but this Kirk has had more sex in 2 movies with more aliens than TOS Kirk ever touched

His flirtations with women in TOS are well documented in TOS (sex is implied and off screen- make out sessions are not). In the movies sex is even more greatly implied (only maybe 2 scenes, vs TOS 3 seasons), but still not on screen, just the morning after. Shatner more than did his part to sell the idea of TOS Kirk as a ladies man (he based his portrayal on himself).

[Kheldarson]

I said this over on CS, but it bears repeating here:

Old Trek fans, sorry, you're not the target audience.

They'd like to keep the franchise alive. And, frankly, TOS (I assume that stands for original series?) is, well, for lack of a better term, dated and lame. I enjoy Next Gen every once in a while, but mostly because I like Patrick Stewart. But TOS just...it bored. The stories seemed off, the characters are dated, and, you know, I don't watch it because it wasn't my thing.

But this new Trek, I can relate to. I like the characters and how they're portrayed. I enjoy the fact that it's not all good; the characters get into some legitimate trouble and take full consequences. It feels far more real to me than any of the prior incarnations.

And that's kind of the point. Story telling changes over time to reflect different attitudes and believes and styles. For a franchise to survive, it must update to the times. This is the current adaptation.

And it's doing well.

Which means for all of the old guard's shouts, it's doing it's job: bringing new fans to the franchise.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

His flirtations with women in TOS are well documented in TOS (sex is implied and off screen- make out sessions are not). In the movies sex is even more greatly implied (only maybe 2 scenes, vs TOS 3 seasons), but still not on screen, just the morning after. Shatner more than did his part to sell the idea of TOS Kirk as a ladies man (he based his portrayal on himself).

The issue is how greatly. I've actually seen breakdowns on the number of women (I wouldn't bother) but in most it breaks down to around 30 possibles, but around 10 definites. Using the higher number, that's still around one every three episodes/hours. This version of Trek, Kirk is either succeeding or failing multiple times per film. So in the movies it works out to about a woman per hour. That would be Uhura/Orion lady in the first and the two women he does sleep with at the opening, "hello ladies" on the campus grounds, and Carol Marcus. So the trait is absolutely exaggerated in the films to the point of parody. I'd also make the point that TOS series Kirk for better or worse isn't unwanted whereas reboot Kirk absolutely comes off as a pick up artist type rather than a Don Juan (in the way people use that phrase.)

As for the writers original conception of Khan, that's pretty much breaking down the writers process too far. By that logic, Buffy's Xander could also be alternately gay, they could have added Number 2 back to the reboot, and any number of things are fair game. The problem is, according to the rules THESE writers set up (the timeline changes occur at the events of the 2009 movie, the change makes no sense. It doesn't have to bug you, but it bugs plenty of people if various Sci Fi blogs are any indication.

And it's doing well.

Which means for all of the old guard's shouts, it's doing it's job: bringing new fans to the franchise.

Actually, it's doing less than expected numbers. That's not shocking either. 2009 occurred after a large portion of audience found it novel and was a better film. For the sequel, that novelty is somewhat gone so you get diminishing numbers and yes, it's going to be new and old fans that drive it.

As I said before, I was ok with 2009 although I thought it was stupid action schlock which it absolutely was. I found it enjoyable and so I watched the second movie. But I would have a legitimate disagreement with someone who found this version more relatable. Relatable how? I don't know real people who snark through actively dangerous situations regularly. Was the Admiral really that relatable? Was Khan? Was Starfleet? Hell, they took the reason most people thought it was ridiculous Kirk got a ship in the first movie and MADE it the arc of the second one. Just how stupid is Starfleet for a large peacekeeping and exploration armada? If we give in to the conceit that the humans of Star Trek are entirely more dysfunctional than we are, I posit the entire premise goes from unlikely to impossible.

That's the problem, it looks like the source material but it doesn't understand why that material was cohesive. This really isn't unless you put zero thought into it afterwards. So yea, I get a bit ranty about things like absolutely no tractor beams to stop runaway space debris on earth, magical warp drives that make the trip to Kronos to the moon something that happens in about 20 seconds and getting hit with weaponry in warp takes you to Earth, and military professionals who bicker about a personal relationship in the midst of important missions. I don't think it's deep, I think it's Transformers with slightly better writing.

And all that said, you wouldn't have heard nary a peep from me after the first one. My angst is entirely based on this version's conceits wearing thin.

[violiav]

Uhura/Orion lady

Now, he didn't sleep with Uhura. He oggled, but never did sleep with her. And surely the Carol Marcus bit can be forgiven, after all they do go on to have a kid together, and we don't really know anything about their early relationship. One night stand? Maybe? (script listed Kirk as 49, Shatner wanted it "ambiguous", kid in movie was at least 25, so Kirk impregnated Carol when he was around 24, and who knows how old she was).

Kirk absolutely comes off as a pick up artist type rather than a Don Juan

Which is a valid interpretation of the character. Because it's a different actor, the role can't be played the same. Since the events take place (I'm guessing) a few years before the events of the the first 5 year mission Kirk should be less mature.

Just how stupid is Starfleet for a large peacekeeping and exploration armada?

About as much as in the other films really. If you go be what is shown in TOS crew movies (and the series) you'd think that Starfleet only had a few ships at their disposal. The only ship they could send after Kirk in ST: III was the Excelsior? Really? They even knew where he was going. If that sector was so off limits why didn't they have patrols?

That's the problem, it looks like the source material but it doesn't understand why that material was cohesive.

Except it wasn't always cohesive, in large part due to whoever is directing the movie at the time (note the massive changes from TMP to WoK, which pissed Roddenberry off, but it made Star Trek more accessible to mainstream audiences).
Even in the original series there is a lack of cohesion, dropped storylines (I understand, TV shows were more episodic back then) for example. Like The Enterprise Indecent. What the heck did Starfleet ever do with the cloaking device? Surely that would have started a war. That one's just my most vivid recollection, but I'm sure if I sat down I could find other Starfleet misdeeds.

In Wrath of Khan the scientists were actively concerned that Starfleet might come along and take over.
At best you could say Starfleet in a parallel of how America views itself at times- Galactic Policemen. Like I said, more shades of grey to the Star Wars black and white.
----------------------------
Note: Meyer, the director of Wrath of Khan, never had seen an episode of Star Trek before he was told he had to direct it. I guess that was less egregious back then?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

At best you could say Starfleet in a parallel of how America views itself at times- Galactic Policemen. Like I said, more shades of grey to the Star Wars black and white.

Well at least we've found the parallel between Star Trek Into Darkness and Team America World Police. Although I suppose the marionettes managed to get to that topic six years earlier.

Needless to say, there are reasons we disagree which I'm fine with. But we're already knee deep in misunderstanding each other so, when you wrote your prompt and got this response were you really that shocked? Obviously as you said, people disagreed with you.

Double check what I wrote preceeding Uhura/Orion lady especially considering it sets up why I'm counting it. The point was, it was how many times Kirk's libido was a plot point, not what his actual count of sexual partners was. He absolutely did make a pass and fail at Uhura which is why she's in that list. Similarly, TOS frequently includes undertones that are never paid off even with kisses. Those events are paid off in my list of 30 events from TOS.

And yes, this interpretation of Kirk is valid given the setup. However, does that follow someone has to enjoy it? I don't like cartoons in live action drama. I find him too comic to take seriously just like Shia LaBouf in Transformers. I think that's my right. Can I find that overly sexualizing Kirk detracts from the story? Of course. The film nerd part of me would simply suggest that my film criticism is coming from a standpoint of inconsistent tone. I think Starfleet would have censured him honestly. That's a professional organization and he's treating it like college. There are very few workplaces where that's appreciated. I can also guarantee you that after the backlash against the writers, if this is the same crew writing and directing the next film, we might get whiplash for how differently Kirk's libido gets treated in the next film.

And yes, Star Trek films are not always logically consistent. Generations tended to be pretty poor at this as well. But I'll be honest, THIS film wasn't set up well enough for my brain to not sit there and just offer a running commentary which is a personal thing. To me this movie was, Action, set up, banter/gag, joke, action, banter, drama, plot hole... It couldn't suck me in as I found it too cynically constructed. That was not a criticism I levied about 2009.

Star Trek Prime had several hundred episodes to keep straight, 9 films, and multiple centuries. I only hold Abrams accountable for two films and canon prior to the split timeline which he set up. My argument is not Star Trek Prime is without flaws, behind the scenes disagreements about directions didn't occur, or bad hours of entertainment. My argument is simply: this film was something I actively disliked and caused me to miss its more cerebral (or at least less gag based) incarnations. He can't even stay consistent with the minuscule amount of canon he's actually tied himself to.

There is no idea bigger than people's emotional states and it mistakes a psychopath bent on forcing war in the Admiral as a morally grey quagmire of morality vs. pragmatism. The metaphor is Attack of the Clones level storytelling. No, it really was two fairly black and white villians. Every villain has reasons. That doesn't make them good. What might have made it grey would have been a deeper political look in the film at the Klingon-Federation situation but all the Klingons were used for in the film was as disposable baddies intent on killing people who were actually violating their homeworld. It's just not deep no matter how I wank it. If I seem to be abusing the Transformers/Star Trek comparison its intentional. I see them as largely the same intellectual level in the Abrams universe.

[crashhelmet]

I saw Into Darkness on Monday and I saw it as more of the TOS episode "Space Seed" than the movie "Wrath of Khan." Add in the changes due to the alternate Universe and it was perfectly fine with me.

And that's what people need to get through their stubborn heads. Spock's death wasn't retconned. This is an alternate universe. Yes, similar actions still occurred because fate is fate, but that's for a philosophical conversation. This new "reboot" is essentially doing what just about every time travel movie has ever warned against. Changing the future by altering the past.

[Ginger Tea]

I've only read this and the CS thread (or up to a point) and seen the brad jones and spoony videos on the subject.

I would be more happy if it was space seed the movie, but there were too many nods to WOK that in the end it might end up like a nodding dog in the back of a car, it just hit the right level of momentum to not stop, so they just said "fuck it let's do the warp core scene."

Khan era Kirk and Spock knew each other for decades and their friendship was forged over many a butt head, into darkness, how long had they known each other?
He seemed from my memory at least, more pally with bones in the first movie, Spock he was at odds with, but there was a grudging mutual respect by the end.

I have yet to see it, but im not feeling compelled to watch it to see how good they treated the source in the AU, i'm not a TOS fan and although I do like WOK for the most part, being exposed to Startrek via the first two movies rather than the TV show, I felt less invested with them and their nods to history, as I did not have a clue, for all I knew at the time Khan had a beef with him, but it took me along time to see the episode explaining why, and I recall very little of it too.

I don't begrudge them nodding to the original, but I would have preferred it as an establishing of Khan for a later date, instead it's like comic book movie villains, they get established and killed in one movie even though their comic counterparts have been going on for years.

I just got off watching the more recent Total Recall and liked it, not going to do a vs in this thread, might bring it up in a dedicated old vs new one later.
I liked that it was not set on Mars, but there was a call back by an extra saying he'd love to go to Mars.
I didn't like the 3 breasted lady, wait let me rephrase that, I DID like the three breasted lady, but she was out of context on earth with no mutations, this was just a boob job for freak show reasons.
I did smirk when the woman dressed like Arnolds disguise was at the checkpoint and said two weeks, but I had seen the science of sci fi featurette before hand so knew the face mask gizmo was not going to be her, which was good as that would be taking the piss.

The thing is, these were subtle nods to the original not forshadowing of the events, yes his wife tries to kill him and he kills his friend trying to convince him he was still in the chair, those scenes worked but the movie would not be less without the 2nd, it just helped play up the "will we have doubts by the end of the movie?" which I didn't care for with the original, but it has been theorised for quite some time within the fandom.

Both being an adaptation of a P K Dick novel means if the first was so far off the page in comparison (not that ive read it) it means the other version could try to remain faithful to the source or throw it's own spin on it.

But into darkness seems like a mash up of the episode and the movie but with none of the character development of the main characters.
if it was not the 2nd movie but perhaps 3rd or 4th giving them time to bond, a remake of the death speech could have worked, if it was word for word in this one, well what I remember of it, it's a fan wank cop out.

edit:

And I like to think that since Nimoy was involved he was on board with the whole thing.

One more thing. Has anyone ever complained about ST:GEN re-using the torpedo scene from VI? Ever? I wasn't on the internet back then, but I don't remember people complaining.
-------------------

Re Nimoy, pay cheque?, not all actors have a stash of cash, the guy did voice Galvatron after all, the movie Orson Wells said was just a pay cheque, granted Wells did other movies to help fund his own.
American Pie's dad calls the sequels mortgage payments, he seemed to not care that much about those that came after the initial movie, it's nice though to think that Nimoy did green light his character into the new AU continuity, but if he said "Fuck this noise." we probably would have some other character or another spock made up of prosthetic's or CGI Ala Salvations Arnie terminator.
Edit: as the Nimoy paragraph had a lot of the first movie snipped off I assume it was meant to mean the first, but re reading it by itself, it does read more about into darkness, if he was not sold on this, they could have just shown young spock's side and leave us to assume what he divulged.
or cut the scene altogether just have him state hes going to call himself up and leave it at that, just a convo between a guy and himself.


The torpedo scene, I took it as an analogy to the burial at sea, not necessarily for every Starfleet person killed in space, but for those of note or rank

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Has anyone ever complained about ST:GEN re-using the torpedo scene from VI? Ever? I wasn't on the internet back then, but I don't remember people complaining.

Oddly enough, yes. It's the in the very first Plinkett review before he had the character figured out and no one had heard of his Phantom Menace review.

[Ladeeda]

My last thought on the matter:

If this wasn't for the TOS fans, they shouldn't have used the characters.

If they want something completely different and new, let them make up original characters, like every other spinoff did.

They are trying to use the characters and pathos of the original series because their own versions aren't strong enough on their own. If this was the Academy of Space Travel with Captain Jones and a Plethon science officer with Doctor James, no one would care about it.

They are trying to springboard off a nostalgic show because they can't make it good enough on its own.