Star Trek: Into Darkness
Lots of “original canon” fans don’t like reboots, adaptations, sequels, reinterpretations, prequels, et al of their canon. It’s understandable, but I’ve never really understood it when original!fans claim that the new!canon “ruined” their canon. I understand the disappointment, but not the way original!fans seem personally offended, as though their feelings have actually been hurt.
I understand it a little better now.
I’m not saying it’s logical. New!canon can’t change original!canon. I’ll always have original!canon. I’ll always be able to go back to it. Different people like different things. Not everyone has to like the thing I like; I don’t have to like the thing they like. These are just two different canons. I can play in my original!canon sandbox. No one’s telling me to get out.
So, it’s not rational to feel personally hurt right now; I just feel that way. I feel affronted and betrayed and resentful and bitter and angry and most of all just really sad. No one did that to me but me. But I’m still sad.
So, if you want to talk about Star Trek: Into Darkness like a rational person, I highly recommend going elsewhere. If you wanna get your rage on, welcome!
Why would Spock yell “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!”? Why would his reaction be exactly the same as fifty-year-old Kirk’s reaction to a completely different situation in another universe? The only reason this was here, the only reason, was to wink at fans. It’s a wink because “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” is the most heavily parodied moment in ST II, and it’s parodied because it’s ridiculous, because Shatner looks ridiculous doing it, because Ricardo Montalban looks kind of like he comes when it happens.
Yes, “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” is serious (though faked) diagetically within ST II, but you can’t take “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” and make it serious again. There’s just too much history and humor associated with it. This is in STID to make us laugh, and if it’s not, there’s a serious lack of understanding regarding associations with “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!”
So why then are they putting it at the end of this scene that’s supposed to be so emotional and heartbreaking, a scene that is beloved and famous and so slashy even the non-slashers agree it’s gay, a scene that is epically tragic? Oh right. Maybe because this scene isn’t sad at all, no matter how much Zachary Quinto cries.
Look, the reason this scene works in ST II is that it’s got history behind it. It has this incredible friendship that was already in place at the beginning of TOS, and in TOS we saw how it worked. How they complement each other, need each other, help each other, disagree, fight each other, forgive each other, respect each other. And you’ve got TMP, in which Spock basically straight out says that his relationship with Kirk is the most important thing he has, that touching his hand is the most important thing he has. And you have ST II itself, in which Kirk and Spock work together just as they always have.
Nu!Kirk and nu!Spock are different. They don’t have the same relationship. Let them have a different relationship. This scene in STID is using just so many things from the original scene that I don’t understand how they could possibly be going for a different emotion, and yet how could they be going for the same emotion, when these are not the same characters? When they don’t have the same relationship? When they don’t have the same history at all?
I can envision a scene in which nu!Kirk is dying and nu!Spock is realizing, “Hey, wait! I have feelings for this person, and those feelings are important, and this person is important to me, and why do I have to discover this in the moment in which I’m losing him!” And nu!Kirk is thinking, “Now you understand why I do the things I do; don’t forget that what you feel is important; remember that if you don’t remember me.”
I mean, that’s what this scene should have been. I’d say that’s what this scene was trying to do, but if that’s what it was trying to do, why on Earth would you so forcefully recall a scene in which the emotions are completely different? I mean, yes, both scenes have sadness and wistfulness, but the STID scene should be about a friendship that never really got started, about what could have been. In ST II it’s about what was; they’re not realizing anything new; they’re losing the most important things they have. They’re losing half of themselves. And to suggest that that is what is happening in STID is offensive to me, because you’re either suggesting that they’re soulmates in any universe, which is also offensive to me (and even if that’s what they’re trying to say, Kirk and Spock don’t know that), or you’re cashing in on another scene that earned its emotion, whereas this scene just has all the trappings of it.
The thing that offends me the most is that if you are going to cash in on the emotional impact of original Trek, act like original Trek.
This doesn’t usually make me all that upset, because different strokes and all that, but there’s this pop culture perception of Kirk that is actually not very much like the original Kirk. For one thing, Kirk isn’t always trying to sleep with anything that moves. Yes, there was totally misogyny on TOS, and Kirk was not always respectful of women. But diegetically, he was supposed to be. He was supposed to be this totally enlightened guy, and the show tried to be enlightened, and both did pretty well for the time in which TOS was made relative to other TV of the era.
Anyway, it’s evident on TOS that Kirk has had relationships with several women in the past. He remembers them and appeared to care about each of them. When he meets new women, he doesn’t really make advances on them until they make advances on him. Most of the time, he’s just trying to deal with all of these women flinging themselves at him. I’m not saying this isn’t misogynist, I’m saying it’s the show, not the character. Lots of time he has to actively resist women coming onto him; he does not appear to try to pick up ladies wherever he goes.
So, seeing Kirk in bed with the two tail!ladies, at first I’m all—you’re perpetuating the pop culture stereotype. But then I realize nu!Kirk isn’t TOS!Kirk, and nu!Kirk can be the pop culture stereotype and perhaps even should be so that we can deconstruct it, so we can analyze why we have made Kirk into this character in the public’s consciousness, so we can comment on it. (And it’s not like TOS!Kirk wouldn’t go to bed with two tail!ladies, but I would assume, given his character, that they would have invited him up for a night of safe, casual, no-strings-attached sex, or that he has an on-going relationship or arrangement with them. What I mean is, he’s not cruising around every night looking for this. So STID could have gone that route, too.)
So, I’m fine with whore!Kirk! I’m totally willing to accept that nu!Kirk is not going to act like TOS!Kirk. Nu!Kirk had a completely different childhood and a completely different life. And I’m totally willing to accept that nu!Spock is not going to act like TOS!Spock. Nu!Spock’s whole planet is gone, not to mention that Nero’s actions have apparently had an impact on how Starfleet has evolved. But oh God, if you’re going to tell me over and over again that they are different people, make them different people. I’m totally not cool with this Kirk getting the same scene as TOS!Kirk, as though they are the same people.
More on the pop culture perception of Kirk: I have this shirt someone gave me that’s all about why Kirk is “better” than Picard, except none of the things it says about Kirk are actually true. Yes, Picard was set up as a counterpoint to Kirk, but it’s not as simple as Picard always thinks before he acts and Kirk never does. The point was supposed to be (and is, in early Next Gen) is that Picard sometimes doesn’t act when perhaps he should, whereas Kirk sometimes doesn’t think when perhaps he should.
But anyways, Kirk doesn’t act without thinking and listening. He talks to his team and gets their opinions and respects their viewpoints. Sometimes he disagrees and does what he thinks is best anyway. Sometimes he changes his mind. Sometimes he doesn’t have time to put it to the committee, but he’s not a thoughtless guy who kicks a lot of butt. He is thoughtful, considerate, respectful, honorable, and honest.
He wouldn’t lie on a report to Starfleet; nor would he expect his first officer to lie, and if he did, he’d have a damn good reason, and it would not be to save his own ass. He would, in fact, be proud of what he’d done, to the point of arrogance, because he totally did listen to people, but he was also convinced he was right a lot. He always believed he had the moral high ground, which is pretty wrong-headed, but that’s why he always stood by his own decisions.
So, when nu!Kirk lied on his report like a little weasel, I tried to console myself about this with the idea that nu!Kirk has a lot of the same impulses (save the people! save the Spock!) but then doesn't know how to deal with the aftermath. Like TOS!Kirk is more experienced with and better equipped to deal with consequences, whereas nu!Kirk is just a hot mess.
I was not consoled, though. What bothered me about it is if nu!Kirk can't own up to his actions, at least let him explain why he did what he did. If you're going to use the “worst stupid, lazy, racist fanon cliché” of the spearchuckers (this is![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
liviapenn’s description of them, which I find apt), let us at least discuss the moral dilemma involved. TOS would have been racist and offensive in regards to the spearchuckers (and was, often), but it would have also earnestly been trying to have a discussion about cultural interference and moral relativism. In STID it was played for laughs.
And this is the absolute crux of why this movie upsets me so much: for me, Star Trek is about ethics, morality, optimism, cultural understanding and acceptance. It’s an earnest wish for a better future. It’s about the joy of exploring new places and learning new things and meeting new people. Star Trek is not actually about Tribbles. Star Trek is not actually about Klingons; Klingons are about how to deal with a culture that is vastly different and people who may want to kill you. Star Trek isn’t about Khan; Khan is about the evils of racism and racial superiority; Khan is about the ethical treatment of criminals; Khan is about the mistakes of our past—both the distant past and the immediate past; Khan is about loyalty and friendship and revenge. Star Trek isn’t a piece of glass; that piece of glass is about years of friendship and trust and overcoming difference and learning to understand each other; it’s about sacrifice and loss and love.
You can’t just throw these objects into a blender and call it Star Trek because it has some of the trappings. That’s just so disrespectful to what Star Trek is, to what it means to me, to what I hope it can mean for others. Star Trek is a symbol; it’s not a bunch of names and props and costumes.
I can’t even talk about the white-washing aspect. I don’t understand why this is breaking my heart.
I understand it a little better now.
I’m not saying it’s logical. New!canon can’t change original!canon. I’ll always have original!canon. I’ll always be able to go back to it. Different people like different things. Not everyone has to like the thing I like; I don’t have to like the thing they like. These are just two different canons. I can play in my original!canon sandbox. No one’s telling me to get out.
So, it’s not rational to feel personally hurt right now; I just feel that way. I feel affronted and betrayed and resentful and bitter and angry and most of all just really sad. No one did that to me but me. But I’m still sad.
So, if you want to talk about Star Trek: Into Darkness like a rational person, I highly recommend going elsewhere. If you wanna get your rage on, welcome!
Why would Spock yell “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!”? Why would his reaction be exactly the same as fifty-year-old Kirk’s reaction to a completely different situation in another universe? The only reason this was here, the only reason, was to wink at fans. It’s a wink because “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” is the most heavily parodied moment in ST II, and it’s parodied because it’s ridiculous, because Shatner looks ridiculous doing it, because Ricardo Montalban looks kind of like he comes when it happens.
Yes, “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” is serious (though faked) diagetically within ST II, but you can’t take “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!” and make it serious again. There’s just too much history and humor associated with it. This is in STID to make us laugh, and if it’s not, there’s a serious lack of understanding regarding associations with “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!”
So why then are they putting it at the end of this scene that’s supposed to be so emotional and heartbreaking, a scene that is beloved and famous and so slashy even the non-slashers agree it’s gay, a scene that is epically tragic? Oh right. Maybe because this scene isn’t sad at all, no matter how much Zachary Quinto cries.
Look, the reason this scene works in ST II is that it’s got history behind it. It has this incredible friendship that was already in place at the beginning of TOS, and in TOS we saw how it worked. How they complement each other, need each other, help each other, disagree, fight each other, forgive each other, respect each other. And you’ve got TMP, in which Spock basically straight out says that his relationship with Kirk is the most important thing he has, that touching his hand is the most important thing he has. And you have ST II itself, in which Kirk and Spock work together just as they always have.
Nu!Kirk and nu!Spock are different. They don’t have the same relationship. Let them have a different relationship. This scene in STID is using just so many things from the original scene that I don’t understand how they could possibly be going for a different emotion, and yet how could they be going for the same emotion, when these are not the same characters? When they don’t have the same relationship? When they don’t have the same history at all?
I can envision a scene in which nu!Kirk is dying and nu!Spock is realizing, “Hey, wait! I have feelings for this person, and those feelings are important, and this person is important to me, and why do I have to discover this in the moment in which I’m losing him!” And nu!Kirk is thinking, “Now you understand why I do the things I do; don’t forget that what you feel is important; remember that if you don’t remember me.”
I mean, that’s what this scene should have been. I’d say that’s what this scene was trying to do, but if that’s what it was trying to do, why on Earth would you so forcefully recall a scene in which the emotions are completely different? I mean, yes, both scenes have sadness and wistfulness, but the STID scene should be about a friendship that never really got started, about what could have been. In ST II it’s about what was; they’re not realizing anything new; they’re losing the most important things they have. They’re losing half of themselves. And to suggest that that is what is happening in STID is offensive to me, because you’re either suggesting that they’re soulmates in any universe, which is also offensive to me (and even if that’s what they’re trying to say, Kirk and Spock don’t know that), or you’re cashing in on another scene that earned its emotion, whereas this scene just has all the trappings of it.
The thing that offends me the most is that if you are going to cash in on the emotional impact of original Trek, act like original Trek.
This doesn’t usually make me all that upset, because different strokes and all that, but there’s this pop culture perception of Kirk that is actually not very much like the original Kirk. For one thing, Kirk isn’t always trying to sleep with anything that moves. Yes, there was totally misogyny on TOS, and Kirk was not always respectful of women. But diegetically, he was supposed to be. He was supposed to be this totally enlightened guy, and the show tried to be enlightened, and both did pretty well for the time in which TOS was made relative to other TV of the era.
Anyway, it’s evident on TOS that Kirk has had relationships with several women in the past. He remembers them and appeared to care about each of them. When he meets new women, he doesn’t really make advances on them until they make advances on him. Most of the time, he’s just trying to deal with all of these women flinging themselves at him. I’m not saying this isn’t misogynist, I’m saying it’s the show, not the character. Lots of time he has to actively resist women coming onto him; he does not appear to try to pick up ladies wherever he goes.
So, seeing Kirk in bed with the two tail!ladies, at first I’m all—you’re perpetuating the pop culture stereotype. But then I realize nu!Kirk isn’t TOS!Kirk, and nu!Kirk can be the pop culture stereotype and perhaps even should be so that we can deconstruct it, so we can analyze why we have made Kirk into this character in the public’s consciousness, so we can comment on it. (And it’s not like TOS!Kirk wouldn’t go to bed with two tail!ladies, but I would assume, given his character, that they would have invited him up for a night of safe, casual, no-strings-attached sex, or that he has an on-going relationship or arrangement with them. What I mean is, he’s not cruising around every night looking for this. So STID could have gone that route, too.)
So, I’m fine with whore!Kirk! I’m totally willing to accept that nu!Kirk is not going to act like TOS!Kirk. Nu!Kirk had a completely different childhood and a completely different life. And I’m totally willing to accept that nu!Spock is not going to act like TOS!Spock. Nu!Spock’s whole planet is gone, not to mention that Nero’s actions have apparently had an impact on how Starfleet has evolved. But oh God, if you’re going to tell me over and over again that they are different people, make them different people. I’m totally not cool with this Kirk getting the same scene as TOS!Kirk, as though they are the same people.
More on the pop culture perception of Kirk: I have this shirt someone gave me that’s all about why Kirk is “better” than Picard, except none of the things it says about Kirk are actually true. Yes, Picard was set up as a counterpoint to Kirk, but it’s not as simple as Picard always thinks before he acts and Kirk never does. The point was supposed to be (and is, in early Next Gen) is that Picard sometimes doesn’t act when perhaps he should, whereas Kirk sometimes doesn’t think when perhaps he should.
But anyways, Kirk doesn’t act without thinking and listening. He talks to his team and gets their opinions and respects their viewpoints. Sometimes he disagrees and does what he thinks is best anyway. Sometimes he changes his mind. Sometimes he doesn’t have time to put it to the committee, but he’s not a thoughtless guy who kicks a lot of butt. He is thoughtful, considerate, respectful, honorable, and honest.
He wouldn’t lie on a report to Starfleet; nor would he expect his first officer to lie, and if he did, he’d have a damn good reason, and it would not be to save his own ass. He would, in fact, be proud of what he’d done, to the point of arrogance, because he totally did listen to people, but he was also convinced he was right a lot. He always believed he had the moral high ground, which is pretty wrong-headed, but that’s why he always stood by his own decisions.
So, when nu!Kirk lied on his report like a little weasel, I tried to console myself about this with the idea that nu!Kirk has a lot of the same impulses (save the people! save the Spock!) but then doesn't know how to deal with the aftermath. Like TOS!Kirk is more experienced with and better equipped to deal with consequences, whereas nu!Kirk is just a hot mess.
I was not consoled, though. What bothered me about it is if nu!Kirk can't own up to his actions, at least let him explain why he did what he did. If you're going to use the “worst stupid, lazy, racist fanon cliché” of the spearchuckers (this is
liviapenn’s description of them, which I find apt), let us at least discuss the moral dilemma involved. TOS would have been racist and offensive in regards to the spearchuckers (and was, often), but it would have also earnestly been trying to have a discussion about cultural interference and moral relativism. In STID it was played for laughs.And this is the absolute crux of why this movie upsets me so much: for me, Star Trek is about ethics, morality, optimism, cultural understanding and acceptance. It’s an earnest wish for a better future. It’s about the joy of exploring new places and learning new things and meeting new people. Star Trek is not actually about Tribbles. Star Trek is not actually about Klingons; Klingons are about how to deal with a culture that is vastly different and people who may want to kill you. Star Trek isn’t about Khan; Khan is about the evils of racism and racial superiority; Khan is about the ethical treatment of criminals; Khan is about the mistakes of our past—both the distant past and the immediate past; Khan is about loyalty and friendship and revenge. Star Trek isn’t a piece of glass; that piece of glass is about years of friendship and trust and overcoming difference and learning to understand each other; it’s about sacrifice and loss and love.
You can’t just throw these objects into a blender and call it Star Trek because it has some of the trappings. That’s just so disrespectful to what Star Trek is, to what it means to me, to what I hope it can mean for others. Star Trek is a symbol; it’s not a bunch of names and props and costumes.
I can’t even talk about the white-washing aspect. I don’t understand why this is breaking my heart.
no subject
no subject
And one day, I shall finish SoS.