It's new. That is about as positive as I can be. It will probably be a good movie for non Trek fans. I feel it is going to be a disaster for Star Trek fans.
I remember being impressed with some of the things Abrams did, esp. in the 2009 movie, that were nice nods to fans of TOS. For instance, when Kirk beats the Kobayashi Maru simulation in the movie, he comes into the simulator non-chalantly eating an apple. I'm pretty sure that's no accident, since in Wrath of Khan he is eating some crunchy native fruit from the planet on which they're marooned and talking about him beating the test. And if course, the fact that Simon Pegg's Scotty is always hungryor snacking is pretty brillian, given what James Doohan's Scotty looked like in the late films and in his TNG cameo. I give him credit for bothering with the details, many of which I didn't catch the first time through (in fact, I didn't notice the apple thing until we re-watched the Wrath of Khan a couple years after seeing the Abrams movie. Of course, I noticed Scotty's food fixation instantly.
You do understand that Academy is just college, right? No one goes directly from "some college, did not complete a degree" to permanent command of hundreds of people, control of a super powerful piece of technology, and being intergalactic emissary to a federation of worlds. It's frankly irresponsible for Starfleet to give him a ship. He lacks knowledge. He lacks experience. He hasn't even finished his education. No one on the ship has finished their education. There is a hierarchy involved here - "captain" is more than a job title. Or something you can major in in university. How could that possibly happen? Starfleet had no other officers that could take control of a ship after the first movie? How can Kirk even be the highest ranking cadet on the ship? Weren't there any fourth years? Aren't Uhura and Chekov and Sulu the same age? Certainly Spock had some kind of seniority. Remember, Kirk didn't even earn the right to be on the Enterprise in the first place! And by the way, it's unfathomable that Spock relinquish command to Kirk and yet still remain on the ship - doing that would be dereliction and an admission of being unfit for duty. If you did that kind of thing in any job you'd be put somewhere where you couldn't hurt anything, maybe even dismissed outright. That gets you a medal, not responsibility. Bravado and wit are fine but you need to display so much more to be worthy of the position. More than an hour of which is New Kirk's pre-captain history. Shatner Kirk didn't have a single minute. You don't need a lot. Shatner Kirk's Starfleet history was essentially two lines from two different episodes - that he was the youngest captain in the fleet (while in his mid-thirties) and that he served as a lieutenant on the USS Farragut. That's all you need to fully imply a history - one of Kirk accomplishing tasks given him, of rising through the ranks, of being groomed for command. When higher-ups notice ability they put you on a fast track, they don't jump you to the head of the line. If that happens no one below you respects you. The problem with New Kirk is that he's 20ish. You simply cannot create a story where he is in permanent command at that age and have it make sense.
Director of Star Trek Beyond will ignore Star Trek Into Darkness because it was too stupid. http://www.polygon.com/2015/12/16/1...ything-that-happened-in-into-darkness?ref=yfp
So it's not that the events of Into Darkness never happened, it's just that they won't be touched upon in this film, which is made easier considering that this film takes place about 2 1/2 years later with the Enterprise crew already halfway into its first five-year mission. -G
Desperate times require desperate measures… I understand your criticism of New Kirk being too young and too inexperienced, and under normal circumstances I might agree…but the new timeline is not normal circumstances…Many of the Federation’s experienced Captains and up and coming Officers rushed blindly and headlong to their demise at the hand of Nero…I assume the “battle” over Vulcan more a devastating blow then a minor blip in the road…and speaking of Vulcan, the entire planet, culture and power of the Vulcans was destroyed in the blink of an eye; a founding and cornerstone member for the Federation….hard times for Starfleet by any stretch… Just that alone might mean a few command positions opening up…but New Kirk isn’t just any newly minted Starfleet Officer…he’s the freakin’ hero who saved Earth from the same fate as Vulcan…the practical PR benefit of awarding him command of his own ship would be huge, and not all that unbelievable in my opinion…far more movie believable, then giving him a medal and shipping him back to “college” to take his finals… Yes, I am sure there would be peers and contemporaries who will resented New Kirk’s quick rise to Captain and command… but that occupational jealousy happens regardless of the path…but I don’t think New Kirk would have any problem gaining and holding the respect of his crew, many of whom are just as young and fast tracked as he is…and if they do have a problem with his experience and promotion, he can always ask them how many time they personally saved Earth from becoming a gaping black hole… I already know Kirk is a brash, cocky, smart and able leader of men, in any timeline, whether aged 26 or 62…I just don’t require all the rather needless backfill you apparently need…
How could anyone in Starfleet respect the organization after that? How can any student the (depopulated) Academy follow any regulation when the rewarded hero of the Federation didn't? The whole organization is made up of people who believe in, well, organization. They should, as a class, be more offended at Kirk getting a ship than I am. Do you not see how the universe bent itself backwards to get New Kirk and New Spock and New McCoy and New Uhura and New Sulu and New Checkov and New Scotty onto a ship named Enterprise and then stay there? It is appalling storytelling. Kirk did not succeed in becoming captain, instead he could not avoid being captain no matter how hard he tried.
Starfleet/Academy is not in the business of creating mindless drones, especially ones they send into uncharted space for 5 years…yes, discipline and following orders are important, but so too is initiative and judgment…no organization is as one dimensional as you would suggest… And the ship sank and everyone died at the end of Titanic… Once again, if you embrace the premise of the reboot and accept Star Terk never has nor will be Shakespeare, then having New Kirk and New Spock and New McCoy and New Uhura and New Sulu and New Checkov and New Scotty on a ship named Enterprise is something you wouldn’t have any other way…were you expecting Luke Skywalker to become Captain of the Enterprise?
You understand this is the structure of a fantasy movie, not a science fiction one? Destinies and heirs to the throne and saviors of the kingdom?
This isn’t James T. Kirk IV following in his grandfather’s footsteps or avenging some family wrong…that’s might be more fantasy-like…but this is the same James T. Kirk just in a slightly different timeline; sounds pretty freakin’ science fiction-y to me… Besides, since when has science fiction ever been so specifically or narrowly defined…
No, he is as different as can be. It's a person who created a multi-million dollar company versus a person who won a multi-million dollar lottery. I'm not the only one who defines things like this. For example, many people define Star Wars as "science fantasy". Look, I like fantasy sometimes too. But it's a different kind of story, one where the main character is not the motive force. For example, in The Matrix Neo is cool and all, but his only accomplishment is accepting his role. The interesting bits are how he was created, how his role serves to manipulate events. He only becomes a free agent once he confronts the architect behind his prophesy. In the Star Wars prequels, the motive force is The Force itself, which thoroughly manipulates characters through all the movies to create Darth Vader. Every character is a pawn.
Your Lottery winner analogy suggests New Kirk has done nothing and brings nothing to the table to justify his situation and position…a gain of truth doesn’t a mountain make…yes, things are clearly different, and not for the better, in new Kirk’s timeline…unfortunately, new Kirk doesn’t have the luxury of a stable and a generally peaceful Federation to be groomed and seasoned under….old Kirk had it so easy… Of course, there are sub-genres of science fiction…which should be done to define or refine, not exclude or diminish…just as Jazz Fusion is no more or less Jazz, then Ragtime…but that seems exactly what you are trying to do…diminish this new Star Trek by claiming it’s not real or pure science fiction, even though the label you use is just a sub-genre of the overall genre… Ironically, many people have been doing that to Star Trek since its inception…calling it science fantasy in order to diminish it… Q, Sisko and the Prophets, Spock’s death and resurrection…no fantasy here, move along, nothing to see… Whereas I am certainly not going to defend the prequels as great movies, but neither do I accept that the Force, regardless of how presented, invalidates the concept of free will… Every character is just a pawn is just too simplistic….to me, the Force, whatever it is, is rather benign, indifferent…it is the people that choose to be good or evil, to go light or dark, to be Jedi or Sith…fate or destiny is just the result of many conscious choices along the way…
Star Trek Celebrates 50th Anniversary With New Stamps - Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/star-trek-celebrates-50th-anniversary-with-new-stamps-20160101
Which is what you might expect when you hire the "Fast and Furious" director to direct a "Star Trek" film. I'm perhaps more disappointed in Simon Pegg, who wrote this stuff and claims to be a life-long "Star Trek" fan.
Oh my. This film comes out this month. In two weeks, in fact. I am a huge Star Trek fan. And I am not excited for this movie, at all.
Not because of the presence of a gay character, but because this twists Roddenberry's original vision of Sulu. Fair enough, I suppose.