I don't understand what the Prime Directive has to do with the movie in question. Nor how it relates to even the question I posed?
BTW, The Prime Directive *only* applies to civilizations that have not yet developed faster-than-light space travel.
Moderator: maddog986
I don't understand what the Prime Directive has to do with the movie in question. Nor how it relates to even the question I posed?
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
1) The slaughter of six billion sentients without an attempt to fix the timeline. In all other time-travel episodes of Star Trek, no effort is spared to restore things to the way they were or should be.
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
2) The re-invention of Kirk as a punk with no discipline. (e.g. He did NOT have the right to destroy a classic Corvette.)
Not entirely correct. Go back and review "The Search For Spock". Reasons are given. ("The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many".)He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either.
That was emotion/loyalty, not a valid reason. Had it been a valid reason, he wouldn't have been rifted in IV (and of course the reason that is all that happened to him is because he saved the whales, I mean the Earth before facing the whalesong, I mean music *grin*).ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Not entirely correct. Go back and review "The Search For Spock". Reasons are given. ("The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many".)He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either.
ORIGINAL: ShadowB
I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.
Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:
- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.
- Phasers look more like energy bolts than beams: small shock, bolts are neither better nor worse.
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view. Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).
- The destruction of Vulcan and Kirk's new past: the former might've been going overboard a bit, but honestly I know little about their original backgrounds.
Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.
You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise). My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.
That's exactly what I thought!! Completely pointless and would be considered bad taste irl.ORIGINAL: Joram
Spoilers - blah blah blah - if you've read this far without reading the spoilers already, I'd be amazed!
...I especially disliked the whole Uhuru and Spock thing. It was just way too, i don't know the exact word, contrived maybe. It's like she thought, hey your planet just blew up, let's kiss!! [8|]
ORIGINAL: Mobius
Spoilers!
Speaking of contrived.
What about the whole - "Spock you are too emotionally compromised to command as Nemo killed your mother. You want to cooly follow the orders of rejoining the fleet."
Kirk on the other hand just wants to go against those orders and get Nemo, the #$@! that killed his father.

Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.
"Close enough"? Consider, among many points, this one: the TOS episode "Journey to Babel" now cannot happen.
