Enterprise Ethics

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.