Enterprise Ethics

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: VII_Of_IX @ 05/10/2009 9:44:24 AM

    The movie is not true to Spock???s character, or the long established timelines of the Federation. There are so many flaws in these two areas of the movie.

    Okay ??? okay ??? bang bang shoot em up??? Kissy Kissy, what a hottie???

    You dedicate this move to Gene and Majel Rodenberry, but Gene would have kicked you your tiny bean bag for changing all of the history that he and his collaboration of writers/directors created. Shame on Lenard Nimoy for participating in the re-write of the character he help to create.

    You can never know how much I wanted to love this movie, and how sad I am to feel so strongly that I would want to write anybody about that disappointment. This is not Gene Rodenberry???s Star Trek ??? and I hope it bombs.

    • Posted By: SimonHawkin @ 05/10/2009 1:22:50 PM

      "Gene would have kicked you your tiny bean bag for changing all of the history that he and his collaboration of writers/directors created"

      History has not been changed. The movie is in an alternate timeline. It makes it obvious from the beginning.

  • Posted By: SimonHawkin @ 05/10/2009 1:20:08 PM

    Orci is right, Newsweek is wrong. What's new?

  • Posted By: VII_Of_IX @ 05/10/2009 9:44:02 AM

    The movie is not true to Spock???s character, or the long established timelines of the Federation. There are so many flaws in these two areas of the movie.

    Okay ??? okay ??? bang bang shoot em up??? Kissy Kissy, what a hottie???

    You dedicate this move to Gene and Majel Rodenberry, but Gene would have kicked you your tiny bean bag for changing all of the history that he and his collaboration of writers/directors created. Shame on Lenard Nimoy for participating in the re-write of the character he help to create.

    You can never know how much I wanted to love this movie, and how sad I am to feel so strongly that I would want to write anybody about that disappointment. This is not Gene Rodenberry???s Star Trek ??? and I hope it bombs.

  • Posted By: Qasim @ 05/07/2009 2:07:15 PM

    As te last poster points out, it is the first. Just as the original series didn't deal with these issues in EVERY episode, why should this one be forced to? Yes, at times the original was "Too Utopian", the Next Generation reversed that. Clearly Roddenberry thought his new series should add some more "Reality" to the mix and therefore the new show under his guidance and later Rick Berman touched on subjects that showed mankind was not perfect.

    We see this in DS9 and Voyager, the Maquis are rebels and terrorists, there is inequality in parts of Federation space. Dare I say it, there are even greedy humans with ill-intent.

    This new movie cannot be expected to handle all issues. Let us have some fun.

    • Posted By: Matthew in Chicago @ 05/07/2009 2:22:56 PM

      • Posted By: DemGirl1970 @ 05/10/2009 3:13:36 AM

        And it was SOOOO fun!! As a lifetime Star Trek fan (I started watching TOS when I was 7 and I am 39 now), I thought this movie was fantastic! It stood on its own merits, yet was true to the original intent of Roddenberry's vision. THe casting was amazing. TO me, no one could have EVER been Kirk except for William Shatner. By the end of 2 hours that had changed. I am re-living the series as an adult, and for that, I am grateful!!

      • Posted By: Tom Pokey @ 05/07/2009 2:50:47 PM

        Actually, when you look at some of the plots for ST motion pictures there's a huge inventory of violence, explosions, zip gun fights, and crashing spaceships. So this isn't the first - nor last - time we'll see action/'thriller themed Star Trek on the big screen.

        I don't think Paramount is going to contract out for King Lear in Space (tm) when put a couple hundred million behind a film. This is an age old problem with big investments. You want to earn it back. While I understand the argument presented by the reporter, it's not a fair comparision. And for every "City on the Edge of Forever" there was an abundent "nose holding" episodes like "The Way To Eden" - a immensely silly "space hippie" episode most fans have jettisoned from long term memory.

        I'm just happy to get Star Trek back. Hopefully now without Rick Berman and Crew to pervert their version of Trek into Technobabble incomprehensible Garbage served up on the "Main Deflector Dish" as evidenced in nearly all of "Enterprise", last season of TNG, and the Great Waste of Time, "Voyager".



  • Posted By: Tacroy80 @ 05/08/2009 6:19:25 PM

    I posted this comment over at Salon already, but thought it worked here too: "Anyway, as far as the political commentary goes, I would actually argue that in Star Trek, we have our very first "Obama blockbuster." The biggest popcorn hits of the Bush age - The Dark Night, Spiderman, Iron Man - have tended to be fairly dark - or at the very, least highly cynical - and oriented toward the idea of the individual hero fighting a perpetually losing battle against a corrupt societal power structure. The sense within pop culture has been that we're on the brink of apocalypse, hanging on by a very, very thin thread. In the film Star Trek, we have joy, vision, optimism, and, significantly, cameraderie and teamwork. While obviously respecting the concepts of individual talent and independent thought, the movie is at its core about the importance of friendship, and our fundamental interconnectedness. The extreme individualism and self-absorption of the Bush era are gone. In their place are the Obama-age values of collaboration, service, and the recognition of the importance of respectful disageement, complementary perspectives, and the fact that nobody can do it all on their own - that we need each other. As a country, we're in the process of pulling ourselves back from the brink, a process whose fulfillment was brilliantly realized within the Trek universe. For the first time in a long time, we have a collective sense that things can change for the better.

    Kirk says several times in the movie that he "doesn't believe in no-win situations." For eight long years, we've collectively felt stuck in one no-win situation after another, and our pop culture has reflected that. Star Trek, and the age of Obama, are telling us that if we stop believing in no-win situations, and instead believe in ourselves and each other, we have the power to make miracles happen."

    • Posted By: Billybob2009 @ 05/09/2009 7:16:27 PM

      Filming for the new Star Trek film took place between November 2007 and March 2008, well before Obama was considered a serious presidential candidate, and even further from his actual nomination. We can all hope for a better future for our country and world. However, irrational hatred of a president and blind faith in his successor will not get us there. It is simply illogical.

    • Posted By: Billybob2009 @ 05/09/2009 7:13:30 PM

      Filming took place between November 2007 and March 2008, well before Obama was considered a serious presidential candidate. One can only hope that our country and world will get better. However, completely irrational hatred of one president and blind faith in his successor will not get us there. Your post is simply illogical.

    • Posted By: Billybob2009 @ 05/09/2009 7:12:51 PM

      Filming took place between November 2007 and March 2008, well before Obama was considered a serious presidential candidate. One can only hope that our country and world will get better. However, completely irrational hatred of one president and blind faith in his successor will not get us there. Your post is simply illogical.

  • Posted By: BevisBoy @ 05/09/2009 1:51:47 PM

    Well, I don't think this should 'stun' anyone -- that's all Hollywood does these days in action/adventure and in sci-fi films is blow up things....

    I haven't seen the new movie yet but I keep reading articles and comments all over that the moral nature of star trek is not in this film... so, I can't properly speak on this subject concerning the new star trek... but I can say that most all movies I see today only focus on blowing up something.

    (then we wonder why America is the way it is these days) -- Hollywood DOES influence that is truth.

  • Posted By: sxhunt @ 05/08/2009 7:48:07 PM

    Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Mr. Bain. I have been a Star Trek fan all my life and believe TOS influenced my belief in fairness, forgiveness, and equality.Sure it was/is just entertainment but this latsest incarnation is simply another action film and nothing more than hollow restructuring of characters many of us held dear.

    I am sure my comments will be made fun of as coming from of those "Trek geeks" but in the spirit of what the TOS stood for, I forgive them.



  • Posted By: blktiger60 @ 05/08/2009 5:01:35 PM

    One thing I know for sure about movies, everyone has an opinion. Mine forms after seeing the movie, not by reading someone elses opinion.
    If you people want to express your opinions that's fine but - do it in a manner that accepts other peoples opions as having just as much weight as your own.
    Back the narcism down a notch.

  • Posted By: sirbennet @ 05/08/2009 3:17:28 PM

    I appreciate your thoughts, Mr. Bain, but you do not give enough credit to the thoughtfulness of the subtext. You cite an episode of the original series in which they merely lecture on racial equality, and yet in this new film, in the relationship between Kirk and Spock you have a central ethical conflict that goes far beyond "to cheat or not to cheat". There is a logic vs feelings debate throughout, including spock becoming emotionally compromised and ultimately deciding to do what he feels. The scene you cite was ironic, because kirk was suggesting they be logical and offer peace despite the fact that nero killed his father and spock's mother. our criminal justice system is motivated, in part, by retribution, so to cite retribution as proof positive that star trek is amoral is fallacious reasoning. again, i appreciate your thoughtfulness on this issue, though.

  • Posted By: CastroJ @ 05/08/2009 12:59:16 PM

    How long did it take Christopher Nolan to tackle ethic in Batman? Or are you suggesting that Batman Begins is replete with moral allegory and ethical quandaries? Remind me, how did Star Trek: The Motion Picture shape your outlook or influence your ethics? As a Star Wars fan I appreciate the pain of seeing your franchise and childhood love sullied which is why I can tell you you're damn lucky to have Abrams and this new movie. All the Trek fans out there complaining (a minority btw) that this "isn't Trek": at least Rodenberry didn't come in and introduce insulting, bordering-on-racist useless side-characters into your movie and reduce the story to parody. I'm a casual Trek fan and this movie makes me want to go back and rewatch the original series. That's why this movie was made and that's what it does best, it reintroduces these characters and their stories to a general public that stopped caring about Trek a long time ago. Be grateful Trek fans, you got an amazing new film and a chance to rediscover your beloved characters with brand new fans.

    • Posted By: Schizophaith @ 05/08/2009 2:45:02 PM

      The Movie Is popcorn, Plain and Simple. It looks like substance but is really crust and Air. Yea we're really lucky that J.J. has come in with his mission impossible team of hollywood hacks to rewrite trek history and cater to the lowest common denominator and "Britney Spears it up" for all of the Joe the plumbers out there.. It's true that Trek fans are in the minority, It's also true that smart people are in the minority. So Castro, please take your propaganda, and go watch a tom cruise movie and leave the trekking to the fans that actually kept the "franchise" alive for 40 years. This movie goes beyond trek and represents everything that is wrong with the crap they are putting out these days.NO NEW IDEAS Eventually we will be making remakes of remakes of remakes. Dumb yourself down a little more, keep eating and forget about anything thought provoking, FIRE EVERYTHING! Blow your load. This is what its about. Honestly, If they wanted a cool space battle movie, they should have given me a new ship and a new set of people to try to like. rewriting the canon and trashing everything I love about about a fictional world is upsetting.

    • Posted By: Schizophaith @ 05/08/2009 2:44:41 PM

      The Movie Is popcorn, Plain and Simple. It looks like substance but is really crust and Air. Yea we're really lucky that J.J. has come in with his mission impossible team of hollywood hacks to rewrite trek history and cater to the lowest common denominator and "Britney Spears it up" for all of the Joe the plumbers out there.. It's true that Trek fans are in the minority, It's also true that smart people are in the minority. So Castro, please take your propaganda, and go watch a tom cruise movie and leave the trekking to the fans that actually kept the "franchise" alive for 40 years. This movie goes beyond trek and represents everything that is wrong with the crap they are putting out these days.NO NEW IDEAS Eventually we will be making remakes of remakes of remakes. Dumb yourself down a little more, keep eating and forget about anything thought provoking, FIRE EVERYTHING! Blow your load. This is what its about. Honestly, If they wanted a cool space battle movie, they should have given me a new ship and a new set of people to try to like. rewriting the canon and trashing everything I love about about a fictional world is upsetting.

  • Posted By: cbddanger @ 05/08/2009 12:05:05 PM

    This guy is forgetting that this is a prequel and a 2 hour stand alone film, not a whole tv series. In the film they have to devote most of the time reintroducing all of the characters. Its about how everything got its beginning. In the TV series you already had all the characters established so they could spend more time revolving plots around ethics and morals and turning them into episodes. Its a different thing.

  • Posted By: cbddanger @ 05/08/2009 11:58:40 AM

    You have forgotten that this is a prequel and a stand alone 2 hour film, not a whole tv series. This movie has to spend most of its time reintroducing all the characters. It's about how everything began. In the TV series you had the characters all established so you could devote more time on deep ethical questions and develop plots around them for different episodes. Its a different thing.

  • Posted By: Otis my man @ 05/08/2009 11:40:04 AM

    You guys are trying to parody The Onion parody, right? Right??

  • Posted By: Deepshark @ 05/08/2009 12:04:49 AM

    The Article is foolishness - if you must name the Absolute (e.g. Space, itself), give it its proper name - Temporary. Nothing remains constant, but a good story hardly suffers in being retold to an audience who has had so far exposure to it. A lovely case in point is seeing Christian Bale retelling Star Wars to awe-inspired children, telling it as a play. Or else, all the re-imaginings of Shakespeare. Is Sir Ken Branagh the high arch enemy for re-doing Hamlet as he did ? surely not. And the die-hard Tolkienites all concede that the depth of the tale is incredibly difficult to tell in 3 x 3 hour films, but Peter Jackson did a fine job, and living in NZ I agree with the choice of country.

    So lay off - I will see the film with joy in my heart, for this is the way Star Trek should be - exciting, interesting, and most of all - stimulating.

  • Posted By: Schizophaith @ 05/07/2009 3:09:26 PM

    I can't make any statements about the movie because I haven't seen it. I take issue with Orson Scott Card's opinion that Roddenberry was incompetent because those moral stories were to much on the surface. Mr.Card may be to smart for his own good and forgets that sometimes (especially in the 60's) people needed to be hit over the head with some of these moral issues, such as civil rights. It was a time when that voice needed to be loud. Most writers don't realize their precious nuance is better translated when dealing with novels, not TV shows. We also have to consider this bluntness helped reach first time sci fi fans who were later ready for the nuance Mr. Card apparently writes with. Roddenberry had a vision and was able to communicate that to a large audience during a time of social uncertainty. Incompetence indeed.

    • Posted By: boom shaka @ 05/07/2009 10:24:18 PM

      Great points, Schizo, and to them i would add the reminder that this was a weekly TV series, not a novel or a major motion picture where you had the time to work out all the plot points and the subtleties of the images. And it was only an hour long show... not much time for subtelty.

      For me, the attraction of Star Trek has always been the very "human" elements expressed in the interactions of the three main characters. The morality tales were secondary...a nice touch in an era where tough questions were rarely asked.

      BS

    • Posted By: Rocinante @ 05/07/2009 4:07:57 PM

      S'Phaith has nailed it. Great comments. Conversely, I think Lex is in a galaxy far, far away.

  • Posted By: goldwave @ 05/07/2009 3:44:53 PM

    I have never understood why people who are not involved in a creative project - whether the work of a single artist, or a group producing a film - believe they are entitled to dictate the concept, goals, purpose, or expression of that creative work. Many people view films as public property in a way, and seem to really believe that their opinions regarding what is or isn't done in a film should matter. However, look at it this way - if you were writing a novel, song, or painting a picture, would you agree to let everyone else interject their own opinions into your work? No, of course not - you'd tell them to go make their own creative work the way they think it should be done. No matter what you think of the film industry and what it is doing (art, business, or a mixture of both), it still essentially is the creative work based upon the ideas of the creator(s). If you dislike this, then go experience someone else's creative work, or make your own.

  • Posted By: fantasmic7 @ 05/07/2009 3:44:45 PM

    Obviously have not seen the film yet, but I always felt that humans went through a dark time before finding the enlightenment we are used to seeing in the Trek world. Sure, Enterprise steps on that a bit, but Capt. Picard was always telling other species how humans used to be and how they are not that way anymore. Even in First Contact, as we are on the brink of light speed space travel, the world is in turmoil and it was the realization that we were not alone that started bringing people together, but I seriously doubt that would have been an overnight change and conflict would have persisted. So I will see the movie and make my own judgment as will every other Trek fan

  • Posted By: goldwave @ 05/07/2009 3:44:25 PM

    I have never understood why people who are not involved in a creative project - whether the work of a single artist, or a group producing a film - believe they are entitled to dictate the concept, goals, purpose, or expression of that creative work. Many people view films as public property in a way, and seem to really believe that their opinions regarding what is or isn't done in a film should matter. However, look at it this way - if you were writing a novel, song, or painting a picture, would you agree to let everyone else interject their own opinions into your work? No, of course not - you'd tell them to go make their own creative work the way they think it should be done. No matter what you think of the film industry and what it is doing (art, business, or a mixture of both), it still essentially is the creative work based upon the ideas of the creator(s). If you dislike this, then go experience someone else's creative work, or make your own.

  • Posted By: goldwave @ 05/07/2009 3:44:08 PM

    I have never understood why people who are not involved in a creative project - whether the work of a single artist, or a group producing a film - believe they are entitled to dictate the concept, goals, purpose, or expression of that creative work. Many people view films as public property in a way, and seem to really believe that their opinions regarding what is or isn't done in a film should matter. However, look at it this way - if you were writing a novel, song, or painting a picture, would you agree to let everyone else interject their own opinions into your work? No, of course not - you'd tell them to go make their own creative work the way they think it should be done. No matter what you think of the film industry and what it is doing (art, business, or a mixture of both), it still essentially is the creative work based upon the ideas of the creator(s). If you dislike this, then go experience someone else's creative work, or make your own.

  • Posted By: Terrils @ 05/07/2009 3:38:45 PM

    Card (not surprisingly given his ... er ... extreme views on some things), is clearly happy to spout off about Star Trek despite being ignorant of it. Roddenberry offered a PREMISE. He didn't write all the scripts. And television in those days was all but actively prevented from being subtle or deep by the people with the money. If a subtler script had been offered, it would have been dumbed down anyway.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse