View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,905
# 15
05-19-2013, 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshicus View Post
I think if you're reading Section 31 as "unsung heroes" then you really didn't pay attention to their portrayal in DS9 or Enterprise.


EDIT: I love the nerd-rage some of you show toward the newer Trek movies. And even better that you're completely ignoring what the OP wrote in order to get a snide remark in, aimed at? Nobody in particular?
It's funny to me because I'm pointing out a list of things the JJverse did this time that reinforced classic Trek points and there are people attacking the idea of a Federation that avoids lethal force or pursues a scientific mandate because the JJverse did it. That is, if they read the post and didn't just come out swinging at the mention of JJ Abrams.

I'd think if somebody DIDN'T like Into Darkness, they might be more upset that STO has less in common with the Prime Universe than Into Darkness does in some ways.

This isn't a total dumping on STO (or Abrams) thread for me. Both did a lot right and a few things wrong. But I think as much as STO could initially stand behind the 2009 reboot as "this is how new audiences see Star Trek and how we have to do it" at one point, Into Darkness reverses a lot of that.

It's still joke-y and action-y but the funny thing for me is that as much as it is that, the Into Darkness Kirk would be considerably more serious about a lot of things that the game has never taken seriously under the pretense of being an action game... And still wind up in a more exciting action sequence while standing against senseless violence/killing.

I feel like Into Darkness could be a very good template for STO in terms of looking at how to do action without making your heroes overly militaristic or butchers, which we sometimes feel a bit like.