Spock and Kirk are the archetypes of shipping, aren't they? Tell her not to feel bad about it! It's a rather ... how do you say "retro" in English? Vintage? ...

It's a rather vintage thing to do!

I have now read the critique of the film on that blog. Firstly, the female character, Carol Marcus (yes, she had a name) was far, far removed from being a damsel in distress. Without even referring to the 'canon' of her single-handedly bringing up her child (Kirk's child too) how in heaven's name can she be seen as merely passive 'eye-candy' in this film? She is highly intelligent, she saves Bones, she uses weapons, she chastises Kirk for not showing her courtesy, she rejects her father's actions utterly and completely etc. Frankly, the list could go on.

Yes, in the scene of Star Fleet Command there are no women and do you know what...I didn't even notice because... I was actually WATCHING THE FILM! The fact that women may wear clothing that some may see as 'skimpy' does not preclude their independence, their intelligence, their strength. Seeing the clothes, the body rather than the person is objectifying them. (Oh! A bit like the photo for this person's blog really). 

Now I feel guilty about objectifying at least one, actually more than one, of the men in the film. 

And while we are at it...what on earth is she on about the lack of women in roles in films? Helen Mirren, Dame Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave, Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Anne Hathaway, Jennifer Lawrence, Carey Mulligan, Rooney Mara, Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Kerry Washington...you get the idea

I've just added to my rant above! 

Neither did I. What does this say about me? 

Mary Me wrote:

Um, sorry, but were they even other men except Benedict in the film as well? I can't quite remember... 

roflmao. I remember one with a weird haircut and pointy ears, I think. I had the same problem the whole time. I did notice BAM Uhura, though, that was pretty awesome. Still...

Thanks for the share Davina, that was a fun read!

-m0r

Uh well... the movie is not supposed to be logic when it comes to the details. It's just about entertainment. It's a bad idea to pull the film apart.

Some parts were quite funny, though. However, it basically says that the movie is a progression of unlogic events and silly decisions. 

Sherli Bakerst wrote:

While I enjoyed ST:ID quite a bit when I saw it on Sunday, there were numerous scenes that just made no sense to me, from the standpoint of Star Trek canon.

What JJ Abrams did in the first ST was free us from the Canon to a great extent, which was incredibly wonderful, he gave us back Star Trek. 

* Spock and Uhura in a romantic relationship--I still HATE that!  It is so against everything (real) Spock stands for.  But having Spock in a relationship with a human is one way to highlight his non-human characteristics.

We never saw Spock and Kirk so young in the Canon.  By the time we meet them in the original, Spock has become quite set in his ways.  This leaves a lot of room for the young Spock to be exploring his human/Vulcan dichotomy.  In the first ST he eschews the Vulcan Science Academy for Star Fleet because they insult his mom.  This time, Khan points out his limitations: if you can't break a rule, how will you break bone?  It's a new universe for these guys, including Spock, and he might choose a more human existence in this one.

* Spelling the Klingon Homeworld Kronos.  That's how it's pronounced but it's usually spelled Qo'noS (though I did just look it up and it was ST: VI that spelled it the other way; certainly on later series it was spelled Qo'noS). But it really bugged me that they didn't use the Klingon spelling of the planet.

But why would they?  No one speaks Klingon on Earth.  We speak English here, so if we talk about a specific Russian composer, we spell it "Shostakovich" not "Wocktakobny" which would approximate the Russian spelling.   They just encountered the Klingions recently, so they will spell it phonetically.

* The (un-Vatican) cameo by Leonard Nimoy as Spock, thought I don't quite understand how he could actually appear as Spock in the movie.

Because he came back through time in the first JJ Abrams Star Trek, which is how the timeline in the Universe got reset.  He stays in the past to help preserve and rebuild the Vulcan culture after the planet is destroyed, along with Spock's mom, who was frequently seen in the Canon. In the new timeline, she is dead.

I don't have any problems at all with any changes, in fact, as someone who was 15 when Star Trek premiered and who saw every episode of that and Next Generation and most of the others and movies, I think Abrams has done a fantastic job with everything.  Like Roddenberry's original concept, there is an adventure and a morality tale in each episode.

Luckily, we have arguably the greatest actor on earth portraying Khan, who is a hugely tragic figure of great complexity.  Having watched the performance 5 times at this point, the more I study it, the more I see the depth of pain and despair Cumberbatch shows us while never ameliorating Khan 's frightening savagery.

Star Fleet created Khan and his family, they essentially bred them and enslaved them.  They were created from fear and a desire for power.  Khan is recreated/awakened by the same kind of fear and desire for power.  In the end - who answers for the horrendous crime against them?  No one, they are sent back to stasis until ... what?  Star Fleet needs more supermen?  Dying children need more blood?

I think this is a much better movie than most give it credit for  - possibly because the special effects and the productions values are so much the stars, or possibly because you have to be an old person like myself to recall what Star Trek originally was: Roddenberry had a hell of a lot more to do with kicking off the counter-culture than that idiot Abbie Hoffman.

There were no super heroes in this film - and only the power-crazed Admiral was a true villain. Cumberbatch had it exactly right when he spoke of the Junguan shadow selves between Harrison and Kirk. To me, this is real Star Trek at it's best.

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (May 22, 2013 5:59 am)

MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:

What JJ Abrams did in the first ST was free us from the Canon to a great extent, which was incredibly wonderful, he gave us back Star Trek.

And there is the crux of it all!  I guess I don't want to be free of the canon--I like it fine the way it was and see no need to change anything.    Your explanations make a lot of sense, though, especially if one likes what Abrams did.  I don't remember his first Star Trek movie--I was too annoyed almost from the get-go that the plot was, in my mind anyway, a ripoff of the fourth season Voyager episodes Year of Hell, Parts 1 and II, to give that film much due.

And thanks, Wholocked, for your explanation about Spock, another thing I hadn't remembered from Abrams' reboot.

I find it, er, interesting (dare I say fascinating?), that I have no objections whatsoever to watching Moftiss reboot Sherlock Holmes into modern-day London.  But when Abrams moves Star Trek into an alternative timeline, I do.  Perhaps it's because I never watched earlier incarnations of Sherlock Holmes, nor had I previously read the canon, but I am very familiar with all Star Trek shows and movies and have read loads of the books along with some series encyclopedias, plus subscribed to ST magazines, and have gone to cons as well.  I mention all these things just to point out how used I am to thinking about Star Trek in a certain way but have never had any prior conceptions about Sherlock Holmes.  Maybe that is why I have a hard time accepting what Abrams has done with Star Trek.

The reboot is not going to stop me from watching any future Star Trek movies--epecially if Benedict appears again!--but it might take me a long time to get used to the new order in the universe. 

Last edited by Sherli Bakerst (May 22, 2013 6:22 pm)