Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 5

I had totally forgotten about the last compromised reboot Hollywood shat out for us a few years back. Superman Returns. Instead of really starting over, they continued from Superman 2, but not completely from Superman 2, allowing them the freedom to change things as they pleased, but still counting on the audience for people to understand 100% what was going on. Why not just do a full out reboot? With Superman this kind of stupid have your cake and eat it too philosophy = fail. 

I'm expecting this movie to suck in a general sense, but, at the same time, I'm curious why some people are talking as if Star Trek is going to be ruined. I'm sorry, but, for me, the series was a mixed bag from the beginning, it then became riddled with even more goofy and contradictory stuff, and it's already well past being ruined after we got Nemesis. From what I'm seeing in this new movie, it's looking to offer a better experience than the worst of what we've gotten in the past. :)

In my mind, all a good (or decent) Star Trek film needs to do is rise above the rest and make you forget about all the crap in the series. It's not like people are going to spend money on a Star Trek film and expect it to change their lives or anything. People know what they're spending their money on and if this movie can achieve only mediocrity, it will still be a good Star Trek film. (Wrath of Khan was the only movie that can truly be considered excellent if you ask me.) We shall see.

Tiptup said:

I'm expecting this movie to suck in a general sense, but, at the same time, I'm curious why some people are talking as if Star Trek is going to be ruined. I'm sorry, but, for me, the series was a mixed bag from the beginning, it then became riddled with even more goofy and contradictory stuff, and it's already well past being ruined after we got Nemesis. From what I'm seeing in this new movie, it's looking to offer a better experience than the worst of what we've gotten in the past. :)

Again, it has to do with whips and horses whose hearts have stopped beating. I know there is hope that they can capitalize on an old popular brand name, and I know some people think that it was crap already, and that the new movie doesn't have to reach too high to far exceed the previous movie. That may be true, but the fact of the matter is, much like everything else, popular franchise like this tend to follow the natural progression of things, going from order to chaos. What starts out good might stay good for a while, but sooner or later it is going to die. When that time comes, I think it is appropriate to let it die with dignity. Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Files, and a million other examples show this to be true, all series that went too far and too long for their own good.

Star Trek died. Why not let it rest in peace, and come up with something original. Now we're resurrecting it with a cast of "pretty boys" and "hotties" adding lots of explosions and some sex, and trying to reach out to your typical adolescent "OMG _fill in the blank_ is soooo hot! I watch that show every week just to stare at him/her!" TV audience.

Star Trek may have been a mixed bag, but it was a mixed bag I was rather fond of. I hate to see it sink to the level it very well seems to have sunk to. Kind of funny how it is all the non-ST fans, or those who claim to have liked it a bit who are saying, "Shut up and give this a chance". Kind of how many casual SW fans can say, "Jeez, so what? It is just a few added scenes and CGI added to your dumb movies, get over it already!"

I just hope the movie is better than the early screenshots and the trailer because i hate the trailer it is the worst trailer out of all the star trek films so far. 

I mean come on this movie looks to be so bad and watered down for the masses that Nemesis will be looked back on more postively by longtime Trek fans.

Personally i would have preferred another next generation film to get the bad memories of Nemesis washed away.  Or if no More next gen films, or old tos films then leap foward in time to far in the future and have the voyages of the enterpise F, or whatever letter straight onto Z.

The original series ended with The Undiscovered Country.  I would have liked to see at last one more adventure maybe something like Ashes of Eden where the enterpise A goes out in a blaze of glory rather than be decomissioned as a museum piece.  Still Paramount and Berman took their sweet time and in the years we lost both Deforrest Kelley and James Doohan, bones and scotty to those non trek fans.   It has been obvious since the days of Star Trek II that the cast was too old to be in any more movies to the point where age became a part of the story. 

They had to either recast the old actors roles or do a cgi movie with the actors voices.

The next generation took a different path than it was originally going to take.  Riker still married Troi but he became Captain of the Enterprise E instead of the Titan.  Picard would have become an admiral in Starfleet.

Though supposedly Picard never became an Admiral because James Kirk told him not to accept a promotion in Generations.  Funnily enough in the same movie Riker claims he wanted to Captain the enterpise D and picard says there will be another Enterprise and he may well yet get his chance in the future.

Not sure if this was in the novelization or the movie.

Both those bits were in the movie. Specifically, Kirk tells Picard never to let them take him out of that chair, and later Picard tells Riker that there are plenty more letters in the alphabet. I don't think Picard saying this to Riker has anything to do with his intentions of one day becoming an Admiral and leaving the Enterprise to his command, I think the point was to let the audience know that they could expect a few sequels.

Yeah, in Generations, Picard says that he doubts (Enterprise D) will be the last ship named Enterprise.

Ooops! You're right, the alphabet bit is from First Contact.

Yoda Is Your Father said:

Ricky Gervais sucks. The Office was okay, so was Extras, but now he's just annoying. In England if you say 'Ricky Gervais' people groan. It will be this way in America before long too.

 

Fixed. :P

C3PX said:

Star Trek died. Why not let it rest in peace, and come up with something original.

I can wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Star Trek should have had it's nice end a long time ago. You can argue, however, that it was Roddenberry that brought the show back to life and mixed everything up even more. But, I've noticed glaring inconsistencies and weird things I've had to overlook even from just the original series alone. There have always been things in the series for a serious mind to overlook, and while a new movie will probably heap more crap onto this pile, it's not as if Star Trek will really suffer that much more.

Otherwise, I would not call myself a "casual" fan of Star Trek. I'd say I'm about as obsessed with Star Trek as a person can be while still realizing the true quality of the series. ;)

I grew up on Star Trek, knew it well, and still regard it very fondly. That said, though, it wasn't exactly Shakespeare and I found the later seasons of TNG to be the best of the series. So, perhaps it's due to the fact that my favorite portion of Star Trek was a later incarnation (that had, by that point, moved beyond the direct control of Gene Roddenberry) that makes me more willing to have newer experiences with it. Now, maybe to counter my open-ness you'll then equate the quality of the latter TNG episodes with the quality of the Star Wars prequels, but on that point I'd have to heavily disagree. ;)

The fact that Simon Pegg is playing scotty pretty much says they are marketing this film to non star trek fans.  i don't think James Doohan and immediately see Simon Pegg playing Scotty.

Who the fuck is Simon Pegg anyways?  and what does he have to do with Star Trek.  James Doohan Scotty was a loved character on an old tv series i grew up with.

This other guy is from some crap horror comedy and is the new Jar Jar Binks in Trek 2009.

I'm sure all the kiddies Love Pegg but i could not give a fuck about the guy as he had not been in a single movie i have watched and enjoyed.  Wow he is some actor who is hip to the teen or twenty somethings crowd whatever not my generation, i could not give a fuck about it.

I am a fan of Alias and Lost but i don't think Abrams is the guy for this movie.  and Ryan Church's enterprise is an Obomination.  The dialogue is cringeworthy just Like these dudes work on transformers and is too much like episodes 1-3.  Also the cgi is way too over the top and just looks wrong to me.  I like the old ILM stuff all this computer stuff is wonky and rather silly and expensive looking.  Looks like a cartoon.

Read Abrams Script for Superman and then tell me he is the right guy to be doing star trek.

That shit was like a hundred times worse than Superman Returns.

When i think of movie Star Trek.  I think of Proberts Enterprise.  I think of Douglas Trumbell and John Dykstras work, and the later work of Ken Ralston at ILM. 

I don't think of the guys who worked on the prequels and would not know design if it bit them on the ass.   They design movies like videogames.

Cgi lacks realism and Believablility.  It is still in its infancy and does not yet even approximate reality.  CBS digitals enterprise Lacks the weight and scale the original physical model had.  The model was far more detailed.  Models look more real because they are a physical reality and the naked eye knows the difference.  Cgi is 1's and 0's in a computer. 

Just like if you took a picture of a real object like the whitehouse for instance it looks more real because it is real.  Unlike an image faked in a computer.

Yes movies are a fictional Universe of fictional characters and places and objects that don't really exist.  But traditional efects at this point still look more real.  Maybe within the next ten years digital chracters will look more lifelike, digital objects and similated reality and enviroments.  Right now they have hit a ceiling on what they are able to do. 

I have seen 3-D animated movies and the art is still not there yet.

It really comes down to what you prefer.  I prefer hand drawn animation as an art over computer animation.  I am still a fan of computer animation and cgi to a lesser extent than the traditional way of doing things.  A compromise of the 2 is the best at this point.  Eventually they will no longer need to go shoot anywhere and no longer need actors except for performance or voice over as 100% of a movie could be made on a computer.  They would only need to capture an actors likeness digitally, and get elements photographicaly that they then would manipulate in the computer. 

They tried shooting digital background Plates for Indiana Jones IV for instance instead of Going on Location to shoot it with the actors and it looked awfully fake.

Why do miniatures Bluescreen, glass mattes, and hand built models look less fake than green screen and live action composite i don't know.  Someone just feels wrong when i was watching the movie.  You could see and tell the artists manipulation pulling you out of the movie.  The real art is to not show the work to call attention to itself and augment the story.  It is almost as if you could personify the special effect it is jumping up and down and yelling "Look at me! Look at Me! I'm A Special Effect!".  At what point in the history of making movies did the movie become a showcase for Special effects, and the story and characters were forgotten.

Movies are like a competition between the effects houses to see who will get the Academy Award, and how they can one up each other.  Just Like each Star Wars film had to outdo the last in terms of Special effects.  There is a danger in the focus being shifted to the effects and the story being forgotten.  Yes the artists deserve recognition but their job is to make the story work not to draw attention to themselves.

It would be like a magician getting on stage and showing the audience how all the sleight of hand was done.  and so the magic dies.    The audience has to be made to believe it is real in the context of the movie and its story for 2 hours or the art is ruined.

The Prequels did not lack stunning Effects what they lacked was subtlety in terms of using the effects to further the story.  But it is not the digital Artists fault that the scripts were technically brillliant but lacked a good story.

A good movie always depends on starting with a good screenplay.  Then you get a good director and good actors to follow.  Good actors cannot salvage a terrible script and an incompetant director who is poor at dealing with actors and getting a performance.

skyjedi2005 said:

he fact that Simon Pegg is playing scotty pretty much says they are marketing this film to non star trek fans.  i don't think James Doohan and immediately see Simon Pegg playing Scotty.

Who the fuck is Simon Pegg anyways?  and what does he have to do with Star Trek.  James Doohan Scotty was a loved character on an old tv series i grew up with.

And before that, it looks like he was quite an accomplished actor.  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001150/  To bad nobody, including you, knew him for anything else.

This other guy is from some crap horror comedy and is the new Jar Jar Binks in Trek 2009.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0670408/

Looks like Pegg is an accomplished actor as well.  He was even in Band of Brothers.  He probably played such a different role that it's no wonder I don't remember seeing him.

I am a fan of Alias and Lost but i don't think Abrams is the guy for this movie.

Yes, we all know this by now.  You manage to repeat it in every post.

Also the cgi is way too over the top and just looks wrong to me.  I like the old ILM stuff all this computer stuff is wonky and rather silly and expensive looking.  Looks like a cartoon.

Old ILM stuff?  When was the last Star Trek they did that didn't have any CG?

I don't think of the guys who worked on the prequels and would not know design if it bit them on the ass.   They design movies like videogames.

No, Lucas designs movies like video games.  Why do you keep blaming all these guys for the failings of one director?  Yeah, the movie might not turn out that good.  I don't really have high hopes for it, but that's because of its targeted audience, not because some guys who worked on the Star Wars prequels are working on this.  The prequels are bad because Lucas has lost whatever magic he once had.  Stop tearing apart the entire industry because of one bad director.  Were they suppose to do the exact opposite of what Lucas wanted?  They'd have gotten fired in that case.

Yes movies are a fictional Universe of fictional characters and places and objects that don't really exist.  But traditional efects at this point still look more real.  Maybe within the next ten years digital chracters will look more lifelike, digital objects and similated reality and enviroments.  Right now they have hit a ceiling on what they are able to do. 

And 10 years from now, people like you will still be complaining about CG, whether you know it's there or not.  I'm sure you were making the same complaints 10 years ago.  Why don't you point out the scenes in the trailer that look incredibly fake to you so we can all take a look at them?  From what I've seen, from a visual effects perspective, the trailer looks great.

It really comes down to what you prefer.  I prefer hand drawn animation as an art over computer animation.  I am still a fan of computer animation and cgi to a lesser extent than the traditional way of doing things.  A compromise of the 2 is the best at this point.

And here's the crux of the argument.  You prefer the traditional way, so you automatically see CG as bad.  This isn't going to change in 10 years.  You're still going to prefer the traditional way.

  Eventually they will no longer need to go shoot anywhere and no longer need actors except for performance or voice over as 100% of a movie could be made on a computer.  They would only need to capture an actors likeness digitally, and get elements photographicaly that they then would manipulate in the computer. 

And I would hope that everyone here completely disagrees with this.  I would much rather see real outdoor locations than to have them totally generated in the computer.

They tried shooting digital background Plates for Indiana Jones IV for instance instead of Going on Location to shoot it with the actors and it looked awfully fake.

Again you keep bringing Lucas into the discussion.  Can you name any other movies that had bad, heavy CGI that didn't have Lucas' involvment?

At what point in the history of making movies did the movie become a showcase for Special effects, and the story and characters were forgotten.

May 19th, 1999.

And the rest is just a rant on how the effects in the prequels are horrible, so all CG is horrible.  Give it a rest sky.

Every overladen Cgi blockbuster can be tied back to Lucas in some way so i don't understand your question.  JJ is taking inspiration from the prequels and is using the same ILM crew that wroked on the prequels you don't see a connection.  He met with Spielberg and Lucas and nobody that had anything to do with Trek. 

If you can watch that trailer and not see that they are going for the same feel as the star wars prequels then you must be blind.  Even the Kirk as a rebel james dean type character is a throwback to Hayden as Anakin.

Has nothing to do with the real canon history of the character as i have read the novels and seen the films Roddenberry sanctioned as canon.

Robert April was Captain of The USS constitution and George Kirk was his first officer.  He did not serve under some no name Cuban captain on some Stupid ship called the Kelvan.    That is JJ idea.  Kirk and Pike were not on the enterprise as the same time try decades seperate.

This movie is a joke to those who loved the old series and the old movies 1-6.  It can in no way be a prequel since nothing matches up.  Unless they use some lame time travel excuse which would be totally orci by the way.  These guys wrote the horrible dialogue for Transformers.  They wrote and directed MI3 which felt like a tv episode and not a movie.  JJ is a tv director not a movie director.  The studio was not at all happy with MI3 but blamed Cruise instead of JJ.  They also blamed Cruise for the failure of War of the Worlds and not Spielberg.  Paramount is a very bizarre studio.  They allowed Spielberg to Direct Indiana Jones IV after the debacle that was War of the Worlds and knowing what Lucas did to the prequels they allowed him to produce and write the story.

Now they made up with Cruise and want a blockbuster MI4 in the vein of MI2 to star Cruise and possibly be directed by him.  If he does not direct he will be the producer.

The paramount suits don't care if this new movie is garbage and not real Star Trek as they never cared for Gene's creation anyway, they only care if it makes money and can be sold to the lowest common demoninator and the teen audience.  So they tell JJ to put in a bunch of sex and explosions and Throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this piece of trash that will be all cgi and rubbish and not true at all to Roddenberrys vision.

Does not surprise me back in the day they dumpstered all the original effects elements of the original series so when they wanted an HD version of the show the effects had to be recreated.  They even sold the props and physical ship models Like the beautiful model that was used on the motion picture.  So they could create an abomination inside a computer by Ryan Church.

When the story should be Science Based Science Fiction that makes you wonder Trek at its best was cerebral not lowbrow action.  It should go forward in time Later than Nemesis not backwards the same stupidity of the star wars prequels.  It should be about contempory issues like the new Galactica addressed and be about Going Boldly where no one has gone before.  It should be darker and more serious in tone to reflect current post 911 world we live in.  The original series and next generation have been done to death already.

Why not the 27th century adventures of an entirely new Enterprise , where the federation is nearing collapse and there are dark forces out there they have to fight.   Too Militaristic and far from Roddenberry's vision but at least you could have some unpredictable ness that would lead to drama.

I guess at Least in spirit JJ's trek is true to Roddenberrys Hopeful Future.  I not sure that is the trek people want right now they tried that already with enterprise.

Are positive hopeful stories even wanted anymore.  The dark Knight was so huge because it was dark and in vogue with our times.

So the casting is all wrong and so is the look of the enterprise.  But this film is clearly not being made for me or my generation.  It is being made for the young people who loved the prequels of star wars and hated the originals.  Still Star Trek is science fiction and star wars is not science fiction.  It is space fantasy they have nothing to do with one another and JJ mixing the universes is like comparing apples to oranges or mixing oil with water.

I am a huge fan of real models, and am often pretty harsh on CG. However, I really think complaining about the CG is missing the point. Not too long ago my wife and I watched our way through the entire series of Firefly for the second time. I couldn't help but notice how dated and crappy the CG models look, I don't remember noticing that the first time I saw the show, which was only a couple of years ago, so the CG was still quite dated at that time as well. Even though I noticed the crappy CG and how bad it looked by today's standards, it never took me out of the story. Why not? Because it is just a special effect that is assisting in telling a story. As long as the story is good who cares, old stop motion effects in movies don't bother me, and old CG doesn't either. But when the story sucks or is poorly delivered and the CG is the only leg it has to stand on... well, ouch!

There are examples though where it feels like CG is used just for the sake of using CG, or almost out of laziness, the clone pilots in Ep.3 come to mind, why would you use CG for a person? You'd never get away with showing a shot of a CG Anakin in the cockpit of his figther, that would be insane. Why is it so forgiveable when it comes to the clone troopers? Because they didn't want to bother getting the actor who played Jango back to film a couple more scenes? The infected in I Am Legend are another good example, we had the potential for a pretty interesting movie, but I feel that the over use of unnecessary CG knocked the quality of that movie down considerably.

If the new Trek bombs, or if it is successful but bombs in the eyes of fans, I am certain it won't be because of the CG. I wouldn't care if this has the worst CG models in the world in it, if it is good in all other regards. Using ILM for the CG is not a bad thing, they are awesome at CG. You can't say the CG models in episode 1,2 or 3 look bad, because they don't, they look great. Even Jar Jar looked pretty amazing, Jar Jar's problem was not that he was CG, if he'd been played by a guy in the costume, he would have been just as bad, and probably quite worse. Same can be said for Grevious and other all CG characters.

"You can't say the CG models in episode 1,2 or 3 look bad"

I do all the time they look nothing like the hand built motion control models in the originals.   And being Earlier types in the evolution of star wars ship techology they should look like the originals from an earlier point in time.

They looked all too fake and overly bright and did not have the used universe look to them.

The prequels should look more primitive than the originals not more advanced.  But that is what you get when you make the backstory for a film series 26 years after the fact. 

Nobody still got the point i was trying to make that cgi is just another tool the filmakers can use it should not drive the movie the story and characters should.  Cgi is an often inferior tool to traditional effects because it looks phony and is still not where it has to go to be believable if at any time simultated reality can replace real physical objects you can see and touch.

You could make an arguement that the average filmgoer cannot notice the difference, but i can.  A trained eye can pull out every mistake and flaw they make in a film to the point of movies no longer being enjoyable.

People who only grew up with cgi films and they are just the norm will Not skip a beat. 

All the best films i love and have seen in my life were all shot mostly traditionally.  They were made in the 70s and 80's and nobody cares for that style of filmaking anymore.  There are few exceptions Batman Begins and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, those are cgi films i like.

I no longer go to the cinema as it is mostly mindless bubblegum crap for the teeny bopper scene.  If anything is even worth a single watch i watch it on dvd. 

They don't make em like they used to and that is a crying shame.

skyjedi2005 said:

Every overladen Cgi blockbuster can be tied back to Lucas in some way so i don't understand your question.  JJ is taking inspiration from the prequels and is using the same ILM crew that wroked on the prequels you don't see a connection.  He met with Spielberg and Lucas and nobody that had anything to do with Trek. 

If you can watch that trailer and not see that they are going for the same feel as the star wars prequels then you must be blind.  Even the Kirk as a rebel james dean type character is a throwback to Hayden as Anakin.

HAHAHAHA!  Yeah, because Kirk isn't at all the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.  That's exactly who Kirk is.  That's what made him such a great starship captain.  Diplomacy was out the door almost instantly with Kirk.  There's nothing new here.

Has nothing to do with the real canon history of the character as i have read the novels and seen the films Roddenberry sanctioned as canon.

I've seen all the movies too.  And several tv episodes.  Nothing about Kirk being a rebel is out of character.  Star Trek 3 anyone?  Completely disobeys a direct order.  By the end of IV, he's been demoted from Admiral back down to Captain.  So how is this new movie not in character?

This movie is a joke to those who loved the old series and the old movies 1-6.  It can in no way be a prequel since nothing matches up.  Unless they use some lame time travel excuse which would be totally orci by the way.

We are in agreement on this.

The studio was not at all happy with MI3 but blamed Cruise instead of JJ.  They also blamed Cruise for the failure of War of the Worlds and not Spielberg.

In both cases, it's because people saw such a whack job that Cruise was in public.  It has a lot to do with his publicity of Scientology.  Hell, he recently said he was acting crazy on Oprah, with jumping on the couch and all that.  It looks like he's finally starting to chill out about everything, which is exactly what he needs to do.

Paramount is a very bizarre studio.  They allowed Spielberg to Direct Indiana Jones IV after the debacle that was War of the Worlds and knowing what Lucas did to the prequels they allowed him to produce and write the story.

Uh, yeah, because Lucas and Spielberg can pull no weight of their own.  Seriously, Paramount knows how much of a money maker the Indy franchise is.  As many interviews showed, it was either now or never, so of course they allowed it to go forward.  If Spielberg says he's going to do another one, then Paramount will let him do it.

Now they made up with Cruise and want a blockbuster MI4 in the vein of MI2 to star Cruise and possibly be directed by him.  If he does not direct he will be the producer.

So?  What's the problem with that?

The paramount suits don't care if this new movie is garbage and not real Star Trek as they never cared for Gene's creation anyway, they only care if it makes money and can be sold to the lowest common demoninator and the teen audience.  So they tell JJ to put in a bunch of sex and explosions and Throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this piece of trash that will be all cgi and rubbish and not true at all to Roddenberrys vision.

Again, we're in agreement.

sky, the only thing we disagree on is that you seem to think that anything that has a lot of CG can't possibly be good.  I have four words for you "Lord of the Rings".  Here's two more "The Matrix".  All three LOTR movies had very heavy CG, but the story is what was important and the CG didn't get in the way.  Sames goes for the Matrix.  The problem isn't CG, the problem is the story.  If a story is great, the CG can look like hell and it won't get in the way.  But if the story is bad, no amount of CG will save it.  If the story is bad, the movie is going to be bad, period.  This is exactly why I can't even watch Transformers again.  Aside from a couple of battle scenes, the entire movie is just bad.

lordjedi said:

HAHAHAHA!  Yeah, because Kirk isn't at all the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.  That's exactly who Kirk is.  That's what made him such a great starship captain.  Diplomacy was out the door almost instantly with Kirk.  There's nothing new here.

Hmm, I have seen all the episodes and all the movies, though not for quite a while, but I would have never considered Kirk a shoot first, act later kind of guy. He is usually quite cautious and thoughtful before acting, but more than willing to raise hell in order to protect those under his command.

In ST 3, his best friend had died, and he saw hope that Genesis would bring him back, so he hijacked the Enterprise, disobeying a direct order. I'd say disobeying direct orders wasn't something Kirk did a whole lot of, and definitely not just for the hell of it to feed his rebelous nature. Picard is probably more of a rebel, both First Contact and Insurrection have him disobeying orders big time.

I have to agree with lordjedi.  Kirk disobeys orders all the time in the original series:  in particular, he constantly breaks the prime directive.  Any time a society acted in a way he disapproved, he got in the way.  Spock would mention the Prime Directive or the Non-Interference Clause, and Kirk would pretty much say, "Screw that.  This way of life sucks.  I'm changing it!"  Examples of this are "A Taste of Armageddon" and "The Apple."  In "Amok Time," he disobeys a direct order to get Spock to Vulcan.  Had T'Pau not pulled some strings, Kirk probably would have lost his command entirely.  How convenient.  In addition, he constantly lashed out and threatened with force as the very first option and even admitted that he was no diplomat on several occasions.

LOL, I didn't take into consideration the whole Prime Directive thing, if Kirk, Picard, and Janeway are anything to go by, then it seems a large quantity of Starfleet Captians don't care much for the Prime Directive, and that Star Fleet doesn't seem to mind it too much.

Really?  I haven't really followed much of the series beyond TOS, so I don't know.  But I could've sworn I read that some original fans were displeased with TNG because Picard so closely adhered to the Prime Directive that a lot of the times they never really did anything.

C3PX said:

lordjedi said:

HAHAHAHA!  Yeah, because Kirk isn't at all the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.  That's exactly who Kirk is.  That's what made him such a great starship captain.  Diplomacy was out the door almost instantly with Kirk.  There's nothing new here.

 

Hmm, I have seen all the episodes and all the movies, though not for quite a while, but I would have never considered Kirk a shoot first, act later kind of guy. He is usually quite cautious and thoughtful before acting, but more than willing to raise hell in order to protect those under his command.

In ST 3, his best friend had died, and he saw hope that Genesis would bring him back, so he hijacked the Enterprise, disobeying a direct order. I'd say disobeying direct orders wasn't something Kirk did a whole lot of, and definitely not just for the hell of it to feed his rebelous nature. Picard is probably more of a rebel, both First Contact and Insurrection have him disobeying orders big time.

He also cheated on the Kobashi Maru, changing the program so he could win because he "doesn't like to lose".  Supposedly that's shown in the new movie.

One of the things I liked most about Kirk, and to a lesser extent Picard, is that they were willing to break the rules in order to protect their crew.  That's something Janeway didn't seem willing to do and it was obvious from the start.  She had a chance to get everyone back home in the first episode of Voyager and turned it down.  I can't remember the exact reasons, but all I could think was "Your crew comes first!"  Obviously that would've ended the series, which is why they needed better writers from the start.

lordjedi said:

He also cheated on the Kobashi Maru, changing the program so he could win because he "doesn't like to lose".  Supposedly that's shown in the new movie.

 

Kobayashi.  Sorry, just had to nitpick.  ^_~