phil-the-stone:
*sings* I’ve got nothing left to saaaayaaaaayaaaaay
thetrekkiehasthephonebox:
Here’s the thing about the Reboot that frustrates me to no end: the films want to pretend that they’re a gritty imagining of Trek but they’re afraid to actually GO THERE.
Let’s take Kirk for example… Make him a “womanizer”. Fine. Do it. Now take a giant goddamn magnifying glass and focus on that. Don’t play it for laughs, unless we’re laughing at him and how ridiculous his actions are… As in, Spying on a woman while she’s changing? Haha what a loser. Examine that flaw. Make the audience uncomfortable with it. Make Kirk uncomfortable with it.
Or blow up Vulcan. Do it. But show how utterly unstable the Federation has become. I’m not talking war-mongering generals, I’m talking appeasement to avoid a war. I’m talking unholy compromises, alliances with enemies. Take what DS9 had in the Maquis and do that exponentially. Show me people who genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and make me wonder if the protagonists are doing the right thing in stopping them.
Have corruption in Starfleet. Go ahead. The crazy admiral is an age-old tradition. Trot out Section 31, but have a damn good reason to do so. I want to see the reasons these people are corrupt and how they’re perpetrating their corruption. You want to government making questionable decisions? Then have them DO IT. Let’s see suppression of freedoms after the destruction of Vulcan being passed off as a necessity for security. Let’s see the press being censored. Let’s see that corruption in action.
You want a dark and gritty Star Trek? Then DO IT. Don’t give me a hearty speech at the end to make up for the onscreen massacre I just witnessed. Don’t try to make it optimistic at the end. If you want to go dark with Trek, and DS9 certainly proved you can, then DO IT.
Don’t half-ass it though. Don’t try to force a happy ending out of a tragedy. Don’t tack on a half-baked attempt at hope.
magnass:
Lying, thinking
Last night
How to find my soul a home
"The second one, where Benedict Cumberbatch played Khan, I thought was unfortunate. Benedict Cumberbatch is a wonderful actor. I love everything that he’s done, but if he was going to be playing that character, J.J. should have made him an original character that’s singular to him. Because the Khan character first appeared in our TV series, “Space Seed,” and Ricardo Montalban was sensational in our second movie – he was the title character, The Wrath of Khan, you know! The other thought that Gene Roddenberry always had in the back of his mind — and that was his philosophy — was to embrace the diversity of this planet. Khan was created as East Indian character. The name is East Indian. We needed a big-name star who was a wonderful actor as well. Ricardo is Latino, but he brought his spectacular charisma and made Khan a singular, iconic character. It’s really owned by Ricardo Montalban, and to cast a white, British, wonderful actor, and name that character Khan, is really not understanding Gene Roddenberry’s philosophy. But I enjoyed the action-adventure parts of the second movie, Into Darkness."
jayroys:
though far away
we’re still the same
