This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
I look forward to seeing someone make this page slightly more balanced. —Document N
I look forward to seeing you be a little less passive-aggressive. — Jonn
...Okay? Feel free to do that. —Document N
I wholeheartly agree with Document N. — Barratsoss
ParadiscaCorbasi What trope would it fall under, the speculation for the inclusion of the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage" as a playful dig at Shatner's pronunciation of the word?
Document N: It might be Take That Me or Biting-the-Hand Humor in the form of a Musical Gag.
Since no one bothered to mention Cannon Fodder or Military Maverick, I went and put them up. Hope you guys don't mind. - Talancir
This troper wants to put in another bullet under Reverse Funny Aneurysm about engineering in the new Enterprise. In Space Mutiny, Mike and the bots make fun of the movie for taking place in a factory. Several scenes in the movie show engineering looking surprisingly similar to a brewery. — VF 1 S Valkyrie
- Which is what the Engineering spaces on a real (US Navy) ship look like, by the way. - Bob Saget YYZ
Crazyrabbits: I should put this here since it got pushed off the edit list. I re-edited the page yesterday. I condensed a few entries, renamed the Mauve Shirt entry as Schrodingers Cat, removed useless natter and removed a number of acronyms that were never properly explained. The page should read much better. (Also, please don't promote webcomics in the entries if they don't fit the criteria of the entry.) Thanks.
T Paradox: Olsen is Too Dumb to Live? Didn't he have a jammed chute he couldn't open until it was too late?
Arrow: No, that was Kirk or Sulu (can't remember which). Olsen was the thrill-seeker who was screaming the whole way down and purposely chose to open his chute too late to be of any use.
Shaoken: I removed the following bit of text from the Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale section;
- Scotty makes an elaborate speech about how the state of the art in teleportation is sending inanimate objects about a hundred miles. He tells a story about trying to teleport a small animal from one planet to the next one in the same system and failing. Then the heroes casually make a plan to beam two people from Saturn to Earth like it's no big deal. At some point one must conclude They Just Didn't Care.
The reason I removed it is because the part about Scotty screwing up trying to transport the dog is because just after that scene Spock Prime gave him the equation that made transpwarp transportation possible. So it's not a case of a fault on the creators, but rather the troper in question going to the bathroom at the wrong moment.
To sum it up; Scotty mentions how his first try to teleport a living thing from one planet to the other was a failure, then he gets the equation that he would eventually discover and beams onboard to the Enterprise, which is travelling at warp at the time. Compared to that beaming from a ship orbiting Saturn to a ship orbiting Earth is no big deal.
{Meagen}: Removed the following line:
- Lost Aesop: Everything Is Different Now, so Screw Destiny. But Kirk has to be in command, and he and Spock need to be friends. Why? Because Destiny Says So.
It wasn't Because Destiny Says So, it was because Spock Prime wants his younger self to experience The Power of Friendship just as he had. Also, the bit about everything being different was just the writers all but Breaking the Fourth Wall to say "this is an Alternate Universe", not an attempt at any sort of Aesop.
Paradisca Corbasi: The bit about Spock being deranged to the point of Character Derailment is inaccurate. The whole reason the entire Vulcan race has embraced logic as a lifestyle is because all of them suffer from extremely intense and volatile emotions, particularly when angered. So while Spock, being half-human might be at the "disadvantage" because his human side is more emotional than a pureblood Vulcan, every Vulcan is just as capable of a loss of temper equivalent to Spock's when sufficiently provoked.
gryffinp: I don't get the All There In The Manual entry. Wasn't all of that explained by Nimoy?
- Most of what's in the entry is explained by Spock Prime. However, the entry should stay because nobody explains in the movie what the heck Red Matter is, just what it does, and nobody explains why a mining ship has such colossal weapons (Borg tech). Am about to revise. T Paradox
- Magnificent Bastard: Kirk, James Tiberius; for sure. Drives a vintage roadster off a cliff just for kicks. Starts brawls just because. Gets his one-night stand to reprogram the Kobayashi Maru, then beats the simulation with a smug look on his face. Purposely angers Spock enough so that the Vulcan will be emotionally compromised, giving him free reign to become Captain. As Scotty would say, "I like this Kirk! He's exciting!" See also Cowboy Captain.
Grimace: As much as I hate to be a joy-kill, Kirk really isn't a Magnificent Bastard. I get that "Magnficent Bastard" is fun to say, and Kirk does some pretty impressive things throughout the course of the film, but a real MB is a different kettle of fish. I moved the entry previously to "Cowboy Captain" cause it felt a bit rude to just chop the entry, but it's been moved back. I get that Kirk's awesome, but a character is actually allowed to be awesome and still not be a MB.
Peteman: Yeah, the only part that can demonstrates Kirk as a Magnificent Bastard was getting his temporary squeeze to reprogram the simulation. If he did a lot more things like that, then we've got a case.
Charred Knight: Did the guy even watch the film or just read a summary? He almost drives off a cliff, and the Bar Brawl ends up with him getting his ASS KICKED! The whole point of the thing is to show that Kirk has no goals in life, and his nothing more than a waste of potential.
Grimace: Took it out again. I'm suspecting the guy doesn't even read the edit history, just whacks it back in when it disappears. Crispy summed it up best - he was just a directionless waste until Starfleet/Nero.
The standards of M Bs have gotten incredibly lax over time.
- Hadri: Perhaps, but from reading the trope example I think there is a case for it. Besides, we do know that Kirk will eventually become one of these in the future. Perhaps the example could be re-written to
Grimace: I'd still say no. The Magnificent Bastard is a specific character type, often a villain, who wheels, deals, manipulates and generally acts like most politicians wish they could. Kirk, while very impressive and cowboy-ish even in his later years, was never a fully fledged Magnificent Bastard. He worked for Starfleet to uphold the common good, not to conquere the galaxy. Although I apologise for sounding like a parrot, I repeat this cause it's important and something everyone seems to forget: A character is capable of being awesome without being a Magnificent Bastard. What we had before (and, of course, are starting to have now) is any character who is moderately competent and charismatic being chalked up as a MB because the troper liked them.
Apologies for the rant, it all kind of just spilled out. But the tendency for people to label their favorite character a MB "just cause" irks me.
Hadri: I'm just going by the current definition of Magnificent Bastard. Kirk is well known for defeating enemies through sheer cleverness, and despite overriding authority on multiple occasions always got away with it, and audiences loved him for it. I agree he's not the best example of the trope, especially not what we saw of him in this movie, but he has the makings of it. Cowboy Captain would probably define him better, but that isn't a real trope. Perhaps it should be.
T-Max: I'm the idiot who keeps putting in the entry for Mag Bas Kirk. And let me say, I apologize.. It was a case of Did Not Do The Research, or more like Didn'tReadTheDiscussionPage.
I kept doing it because I figured somebody was just trying to be a Nazi and refused to allow any opinion to be reflected on the page other than their own. It didn't occur to me that they had a justified reason for doing so.
Having read the well-thought out, and well researched explanations of why Kirk does NOT fit the trope has caused this troper to swallow his ego and accept the truth. However, I would like to create an entry that reflects that while Kirk doesn't fit the mold, he does posess many of the tendencies.
Anyway, again, I am sorry. I realize that while there are Trope Nazis running amok (that seriously needs to be a trope) who try to enforce their own narrow view of every entry; this was not one of those cases, and again, I'm sorry.
Perhaps.....I can extend a hand in Trope Friendship and we call this a case of Defeat Means Friendship????
Grimace: Works for me! (And you are right - he does posess many of the qualities, just not enough though). ;) It's the tropes fault really - read the MB discussion page, I'm pretty sure no one agrees on anything over there. That and, I mean, "Magnificent Bastard" is just so darn fun to say...
- Military Maverick was also what I was going for, forgot they called it that. Cowboy Cop should probably mention that somewhere.
- T-Max: Captain Grimace, as you haven't selected a First Officer, I'd like to submit my candidacy. I have trope references.Grimace: (shakes hands with T-Max) It would be my honor, Commander.
Grimace: Well, you're just being plain silly now. Haven't you heard TV Tropes is Serious Business? ;)
T-Max: Okay, was it really necessary to remove the updated entry on Magnificent Bastard?? I mean do you guys want a war where everyone decides to get anal and remove and edit every entry that doesn't come with reference footnotes?
Micah: It's still there as a comment. That's what it should be, since it's a note for editors, not readers.
T-Max: It worked as both.
KJMackley: I removed this part on the Hotter and Sexier example because it isn't talking about The Beautiful People or Fanservice. The Star Trek 90210 Fan Nickname is because this film has a main cast of mostly late 20's to early 30's and that is where the Hotter and Sexier trope comes into play. Every cast before focused more on older actors in their mid to late 30's and especially in the case of Patrick Stewart into their 40's and 50's. (Probably to account for people going through Starfleet and reaching their higher ranks)
- Debatable. Several cast members from TOS were considered very attractive in the 1960s (and still are, by many fans who watch the original series these days), including the unexpected sex symbol and the favourite of female fans, Leonard Nimoy's Spock; designated sex symbol, William Shatner's Kirk; designated teenage idol, Walter Koenig's Chekov (cast because he looked like Davy Jones of the popular 60s boy band The Monkees); and of course, Nichelle Nichols' Uhura.
- And don't forget the fanservicey aspects of Sulu running around shirtless and oiled-down in one of TOS' earliest episodes, "The Naked Time"!
- In that case, the above Fan Nickname is quite absurd, since 1) Beverly Hills 90210 is not known as a example of a show with a particularly young cast, but as an example of a show with teenage characters that were played by actors far too old for their roles; 2) there is an obvious and logical reason why the actors in Star Trek XI have to be younger than the actors in the original series: the characters in the film are shown at a younger stage of their lives; 3) some of the actors are actually a few years older than the characters they play (particularly 36-year old Cho, but it is also the case with Saldana, Quinto and Pine); and 3) the original cast were just a few years older in 1966 when the series started: only two cast members (Kelley and Doohan) were in their 40s, with everyone else being in their early to mid 30s, or even late 20s (Takei). In this film, only one main cast member is in his late 20s (Pine), two are around 30, three are in their mid-to-late 30s. The only exception is teenage actor Anton Yelchin, playing the teenager Chekov - the character who was supposed to be 22 in TOS, although he was played by 30-year old Walter Koenig (the Beverly Hills 90210 syndrome, anyone?). Patrick Stewart's age, as well as the age of the casts of the subsequent series, is here irrelevant, and any blame (or credit) for the age of the cast of this film has to go to the makers of the original series.
- I think you're thinking of Dawson Casting
- Debatable. Several cast members from TOS were considered very attractive in the 1960s (and still are, by many fans who watch the original series these days), including the unexpected sex symbol and the favourite of female fans, Leonard Nimoy's Spock; designated sex symbol, William Shatner's Kirk; designated teenage idol, Walter Koenig's Chekov (cast because he looked like Davy Jones of the popular 60s boy band The Monkees); and of course, Nichelle Nichols' Uhura.
- T-Max: I'd like to add a note about edits on this page, and several others. Instead of deleting entries, many folks could add a note stating something like "while X may fit many aspects of X trope, it's actually a better example of Y trope."
Preemptively deleting a trope causes a lot of unnecessary Wangst and for good reason. First, the troper who put it up starts to think, "Well, if they're going to be anal about my entry, I'm going to be anal about theirs". TV Tropes is specifically the anti-Wikipedia because this kind of nitpicking is avoided.
I say, unless an example is completely and utterly bogus, I say add an addendum, don't delete it. Further if you feel most of the cases are more Not X Trope, It's Y Trope, then edit so that X Trope I suggest this example: Magnificent Bastard: While folks consider Kirk one, he's actually closer to a Jerkass. Then move the entry to the appropriate place and keep the original entry intact.
Harmony and accuracy are preserved.
Micah: No! That way lies massive floods of natter!
T-Max: That may well be, but I'd rather a page with a little bit of natter. Rather than a page where a few select self-appointed, self-righteous tropers have managed to impose their own standards. Or better yet, you get a war like the one with the Magnificent Bastard entry.
If Grimace hadn't mentioned the Discussions page, we'd still be posting and un-posting it. Now, the way it's listed, harmony is restored.
TV Tropes is about fun for all, not people's individual need to flex their standards.
Look, this page is amazingly hostile. Yes, a lot of people do like this movie, but that does not meant that people who dislike it are wrong...but this entire page seems to imply otherwise.
- I though I was the only one who noticed that.
Micah: If something is specifically intended to be read by people editing the page, and you have reason to believe that the people you're talking to aren't looking at the page history or the discussion, you should use comment formatting.
As for the hostility, I'm working on that...
T-Max-I'm simply saying that you can make multiple points of view co-exist without the Trope Nazism. If folks really want to get all pissy about formats, comments, and accuracy, then I say let's start with deleting the Crowning Music Of Awesome entry; there are a great many tropers who actually were not impressed with Michael Giacchino's score and wished desperately that James Horner, Joel Goldsmith, or Hans Zimmer had scored the movie.
Micah: Making multiple points of view co-exist? Awesome. Devolving into thread mode? Not so awesome. If something is wrong, fix it—don't argue with it. That just leads to a messy page where nobody is willing to murder anyone else's darlings, which is not at all wiki-like.
Also, the Crowning Music Of Awesome entry definitely needs deletion, or at the very least tweaking to be a bit less triumphal. I left it alone on my first pass through the page only because I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do with it.
T-Max Oh, so wait...are you the Troper in Charge of this page?? Is there a group of you? Can other people get Word of God status, or is limited to a few?
Micah: No, that would be the esteemed 71.54.112.245, as you'd know if you bothered to look at the history page. I only work here.
T-Max snappy witticisms aside, my statement remains. If you get to police the page and make edits and deletions, then I think I have equal right to do the same. And you can undo them, and I can redo them, ad infinitum.
Or........we can put aside this pissing contest and you can allow folks to have their fun while still maintaining a "rational" standard of correctness.
For instance, rather than get all Editor-In-Charge on the Crowning Music entry, I suggest a simple addendum saying, "Your Mileage May Vary". The folks who obviously consider it winning music have their say, the folks who don't get theirs, and you get the precious accuracy.
So instead of you and me (or the other tropers who've had it with the Wikipedia-style policing) trying to be the one winning voice, we get three winning voices. And there's no need for it to devolve into a thread.
I can live with that. Can you?
cg12345: Wait. You want an entry about good music to be ''less' upbeat? Right...
T-Max: I see that I'm becoming a little snappish about this, and that's not good since I'm usually the Forum Mediator.
Micah, I understand where you and Grimace are coming from. And yes, I've seen two folks start a Discussion War and I'm like, "Man, I just want to read the page."
However, there's something to be said for Tropers displaying different viewpoints. In restrained doses, it's entertaining, and it's actually educational. For instance, someone listed Colonel Harlan Sanders - The KFC guy on the Colonel Badass page. It obviously didn't belong there, but the idea of his inclusion was pretty funny and they Troper pointed out that it was a subversion. Another troper added another addendum about how the same Col. Sanders cursed a Japanese baseball team. These exchanges are what make TV Tropes worth reading.
That entry didn't cause the whole page to devolve. It didn't start a ton of arguments. It added a little entertainment and some knowledge no one would readily have found anywhere else.
I'm simply saying that one approach starts the slippery slope of just who gets to determine what is and isn't wrong and accurate. The other approach allows for more inclusion AND can maintain accuracy.
And I think that's something we can all get on board with.
Micah: I certainly don't have anything against joke entries, or with the representation of different opinions. The problematic situations are:
- Entries which are intended seriously and which might, maybe, be examples if you squint hard enough, but not otherwise—if not curtailed, they lead to expanding definitions in a way that snowballs until people's impression of the trope is so general as to be practically useless. (See I Am Not Making This Up, Nightmare Fuel, and, yes, Magnificent Bastard for the end stages of this phenomenon.)
- Anything which is written anecdotally or in the first person—if you didn't write it, the only honest way to edit it is to depersonalize it anyway, so it sticks around unless people make a specific effort to remove it.
I'm firmly of the opinion that "be bold until someone reverts your edit, and then take it up with them in discussion if you still think they're wrong" is a much more productive method of wiki-editing than "be cautious" (which leads to people tiptoeing around edit wars that might or might not ever actually happen).
Also, I'd suggest that this kind of general discussion of wiki-philosophy is probably better suited for the forums than for the discussion page of a random movie...
T-Max: Wiki-philosophy is a topic best left for forums and not for the discussion page of a random movie. But that's not an option when certain tropers make their own wiki-philosophy wiki-law. In that case, they'll be called on it on the page their trying to police, as is happening now.
Your reasoning is valid, as I've agreed to before. However, I think what's happening here is that entries are being policed on the basis of what ''might' get out of hand. I think you should let an entry be and then apply revision if and when it actually does get of hand. If fifty Take Thats pop up or someone labels Uhura a Magnificent Bastard, by all means, remove it. But if someone edits an entry saying "Kirk is a Magnificent Bastard, but not really, he just has some of the same tendencies" then I think you need to leave it be.
By the way, the only reason I'm discussing this here is because, like you, I believe this page should be handled a certain way, and my reasoning is just as valid as yours. We could go back to an Edit War, but I believe that being the rational and intelligent troper you are, you'll see the logic (no pun intended) in adjusting your oversight in such a way as can accomodate the both of us, and all our fellow tropers.
Are you with me?
Micah: I have this sense that we've been talking past each other, as this:
If you feel most of the cases are more Not X Trope, It's Y Trope, then edit so that X Trope I suggest this example: Magnificent Bastard: While folks consider Kirk one, he's actually closer to a Jerkass. Then move the entry to the appropriate place and keep the original entry intact.
reads to me like much more of an attempt to lay down wiki-law than any of my intentions with respect to this page. Indeed, that—rather than anything in particular you've done to the page—is what I've been trying to convey my objections to all along.
My intent is in no way to get in an edit war; if you check the edit history you'll see that there were at least three separate editors deleting your original Magnificent Bastard entry, and none of them was me. I will seriously not be at all insulted if you decide to revert any or all of the changes I make. (Well, I might be if you actually combed through the history, found every single thing that I'd written, and systematically removed all of it—assuming that I noticed that that was what you were doing—but only because that's an inherently dickish move.)
I do, however, firmly believe that it's better to have no entry for a trope than a wishy-washy one. Tropes don't balloon beyond all recognition because of blatantly wrong entries—those get removed without making an impression. They balloon because of subtlely wrong entries, or because people read an entry which itself has enough qualifiers that it's not saying anything false, and then remember the existence of the entry but not its qualifiers...
T-Max: If three different folks had a problem with it, then my original reasoning is rendered TOTALLY null and void. As I said, it's about everyone getting a say, and apparently. So once again, I find myself having to apologize, and I do.
I'll be a little more circumspect if someone edits an entry. Although, I usually don't mind editing, it's the outright deletion I dislike. And rest assured, I only argued this much because I felt I was right, I would NEVER comb through and undo your edits just to be a dick, I do have a life (even if this back-and-forth suggests otherwise)
- Micah: No worries. I didn't mean to suggest that you might do that (though now that I reread my comment, it kind of comes across that way)—just that that's where I think the ego-boundary ought to lie. (While I see what you're saying about deletion—and edits to salvage content are preferable when possible—I really am kind of averse to any suggestions that would increase people's sense of individual authorship over stuff, as I think it tends to be too high already. Given the way this page's edit history looks, I can certainly see why you might disagree, though.)
Hadri: On that note, I'm not sure how to handle the new entry for You Are in Command Now. I can see the reasoning for putting it back, I just thought the original was fine and the new one is unnecessarily mean to the movie, especially since the same editor made the same point in a different example in the same edit. In particular, I think Deus ex Machina does not really apply. I think the example for You Are in Command Now should indicate that it was a recurring theme of the movie, not just an excuse to get Kirk in command of the Enterprise.
Arrow: I've removed the following instance of You Should Know This Already:
- If you happened to watch the Late Night With Jimmy Fallon for May 8th, 2009, you might've found out that Leonard Nimoy appears in the movie as Spock. Surprise! He even showed an image of Old Spock in cold weather-gear, but not a clip, because of, y'know, spoilers.
YSKTA is when later works in a series (or commercials/promotional material) spoil a major plot point in the first work, because the spoiler is central to the premise of the work on the whole. EG: the twist in the first season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer that Angel is a vampire. A random talk show spoiling plot from a new movie for the hell of it is not really this trope.
T-Max: I get the idea for removing Cowboy Cop when Military Maverick covers the same thing. Except, pop-culturally speaking, when you say "Cowboy Cop" will click with anyone familiar with trek faster than Military Maverick, because it's a more widely occuring character-type.
Additionally, if you want to be technical, Starfleet is not a Military organization, so both entries are valid and there's no need to remove one for the other.
As an aside, there really needs to be some restraint given to making edits and deletions.
Hadri: Sorry, I re-removed it before you posted this. I agree that the editing on this page is out of control, but I strongly disagree about this particular entry. People will not associate Kirk with a "cop" or "police officer." Though Starfleet is not technically a military, it is portrayed in varying degrees as the federation equivalent, and swings much more to the military side in this universe. I think it's redundant and unnecessary to post what is essentially the same trope twice for the same character, and Military Maverick more closely approximates both the current Kirk and his historical character. And with that, I have lost what life I had left. But please take that into consideration. Kirk is not Dirty Harry.
T-Max: Wait a minute.....Hadri??? I'm actually a fan of yours. And no that's not Sarcasm Mode, since discovering the Discuss tab courtesy of Grimace I've seen your judicious editing and I'm quite impressed.
However, dude(ette), see where I'm coming from. Neither Cowboy Cop nor Military Maverick really apply since Starfleet is neither. People don't think of Starfleet as a police or detective forcer, but c'mon how many times have we seen Starfleet officers acting as investigators and enforcing law??
Further, in later series, the 'cowboy' metaphor is used several times in Trek, specifically when discussing Kirk. Remember Picard and Spock's conversation on "Cowboy Diplomacy" in "Unification"?? Or what about Janeway talking about the "Cowboy Captains" back on Star Trek Voyager.
Kirk isn't Dirty Harry but in a lot of ways, he does, says, and even rationalizes many of his actions the same way.
But.....as I've said before. I'm all about peace. And given your rationale, I'm willing to let go (even though I really liked it myself...)
Hadri: It's not a big deal. I understand what you mean and how the trope applies (the extension of Cowboy Cop to characters who are not cops sounds like a problem with that page rather than the trope itself). Now that we understand each other, I'll also let it go- I don't think it's worth arguing the differences between starfleet and a military or cowboy and maverick. I only took it off in the interest of brevity, since this page has gotten so crazy. I'll leave it in for now though.
T-Max: Check out the last edit. I think it's a pretty cool compromise. Let me know what you think.
- Hadri: Ahh...that works! Good thinking.
T-Max: No worries! I hope that more disagreements about the page's presentation can be resolved with compromise; instead of Edit Wars.
I don't know who re-edited the Hey Its That Guy entry, but I like the fact that they reformatted it. They didn't just pull a "Oh no, that's not accurate" and just start deleting things wholesale.
Plot Holes: For the record, could someone point out a few rather than just saying "lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them"?
Arrow: For that matter, some note needs to be included that most of the plotholes are only such without deleted scenes as context
.
Dragon Quest Z: This section is a bit of a mess, and after the likely split from Klingon Promotion, it would belong there better. Plus this forgets that Kirk wasn't exploiting a loophole. He was actually told by Spock's older self to get Spock upset.
- Mildly Military: Disgraced cadet to starship captain over the course of one battle? Ooookay, then.
- Well, he and Spock did sort of save most of the Federation. One could imagine Spock refusing his own commission because he was considering leaving Starfleet altogether to help rebuild his race. If it wasn't for Kirk (and, ironically, Bones, for smuggling him onto the Enterprise), the Enterprise would have run straight into the same trap as the rest of the fleet and been blowed up by Nero, too.
- Let's see... Kirk takes over the Enterprise by exploiting a loophole in the regulations, then proceeds to rescue Captain Pike, stop Nero and save the world. He's also the son of a great hero, and Starfleet most likely needed a boost in morale after everything that happened with Vulcan, so Kirk's promotion was most likely a political move.
- Honestly, this is something of a Reconstruction of Starfleet's tendency to be only kinda military. Kirk abused the rules like a cheap whore to get the job in the first place, after all, and there's a lot of promoted cadets running around Starfleet in the wake of the Narada event.
KJMackley: I removed this because some tropes can be easily twisted into a method of getting past the complaining rule by attaching a known trope to it. Informed Ability is when someoneis praised for having some sort of superior trait. And from there that character is shown to not actually have any sort of advantage with that trait. If that trait is manifested in any way, it isn't an Informed Ability... it is a Shown Ability. His description of Uhura's job in the bar, the Kobyashi Maru, using regulation to get command of the Enterprise, really the entire movie is about showing Kirk going from Brilliant, but Lazy to eliminating the lazy part. If you weren't completely convinced, that's besides the point. The movie did its job.
- Informed Ability: Kirk is supposed to be a genius... but really, we never really see it in action. Sure, there's the Kobayashi Maru, but how do we know Kirk didn't bribe someone else to hack it for him? After the scene with 12-year-old Kirk nearly throwing himself off a cliff he should have known about, This Troper is convinced he isn't that bright after all.
- It's implied in the novelization that little!Kirk harbored some suicidal tendencies at that particular point. Fortunately, he got over them pretty fast.
- Well, it's not like he was particularly bright in The Original Series either, aside from the flashes of brilliance needed to conclude the week's plot. He mostly got by by being gutsy, inspiring and just plain lucky.
- As for the hacking, Word of God explains that Galia works in the computer lab, and Kirk was sleeping with her so that he could get access. A deleted scene has him telling her to open an E-mail he sends her during the test; opening it launches a virus which installs his hack. So it was Kirk's doing.
- It's implied in the novelization that little!Kirk harbored some suicidal tendencies at that particular point. Fortunately, he got over them pretty fast.
- Doom Tay: You guys agree that my additions of Nightmare Fuel fit, right?
- Doom Tay: huh. either people agree that all-in-all, the scene with Young Kirk was a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment, or no one noticed that entry was there.
KJMackley: Considering that the DVD description describes Nero as being from the future, I figured that any attempt to hide (read... spoiler) that Time Travel is a part of the movie is being overly finicky. It doesn't really spoiler any specific plot details and the spoilering wasn't done consistently throughout the page anyway.
- As well, I Knew It! is when a fan guesses the plot element or plot twist before it happens, not when an element of Fanon is promoted to Canon.
Mac Phisto: was anyone else really, really hoping that Leonard Nimoy would get nominated for Best Supporting Actor?
