View Single Post
Old 01-11-2009, 05:34 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432

Originally Posted by mjcrawford View Post
I get a bit tired of the nit-picky cannonites out there trying to get all worked up over something silly like Kirk driving a stick shift. Or that the bridge of the E is different looking. Yet these same people have no problem with ignoring the fact that in the movies from trek 2 to 6 the bridge was different in each film.

Once again, for the three millionth time, the bridge of the Enterprise in Star Trek TMP through ST-VI:TUC were different because those movies followed a FORWARD PROGRESSION OF TIME AND TECHNLOGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie takes place BEFORE TOS but apparently after Pike. So, from the episode "The Menagerie" we know what Pike's Enterprise and its bridge looked like. And from all 79 episodes of TOS, we know what Kirk's Enterprise and its bridge looked like. Therefore, it would be logical to expect that the Enterprise and its bridge in this new movie should at least bear some resemblance to what we know and have seen on screen. As for Kirk driving a car? Insignificant next to the radical changes to the bridge and the Big E.

Or that Troy said in trek 9 that she had never kissed Riker with a beard even though she had about 6 times in TNG.

Again, compared to biger issues, this is also insignificant.

To me the real spirit of trek was lost in the TNG cannon obsessed techno-babble world and I look forward to a renewing of the HUMAN adventure in Trek in which not everyone agrees all the time and to fix a problem you need to do more than run a level 3 diagnostic.

I do not give a rat’s A** about cannon, I care about the spirit of TOS coming back in a big way.
If they were not going to respect the history and continuity of TOS, why even revisit that era and those characters?

Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Somehow, I don't think anyone is ever going to mistake a toaster for a Mack truck. Something to do with wheels and size, I suspect.

As for being lackadaisical, that implies a lack of caring, which is certainly not the case. Perhaps I'm just a little more flexible in my views than some others.

The point I was trying to convey is that I tend to take a "Big Picture" view of continuity where Trek is concerned. I'm not going to get worked up about a tricorder having blue buttons instead of red, the warp nacelles being slightly tapered or Kirk either knowing or not knowing how to drive. The crew names are correct, the Ship looks about right, the technology is at the same level, and the history is mostly right. That's good enough for me.
Warp nacelles being slightly tapered? The original Jeffries design had slightly tapered nacelles. The Abramsprise has severely, grossly, freakishly tapered nacelles. They're huge at the front and pointy at the rear. And the ship does not look "about right". It looks totally wrong. The saucer is enormous, the secondary hull is tiny and looks like a squeezed tube of toothpaste, the dorsal connector is upside down and too far back on the secondary hull, and there are the afore mentioned freaky looking nacelles. The Abramsprise is a big, honkin', steaming pile of FUGLY!!!! And from what I've seen in the trailer and pictures, the technology looks quite a bit more advanced than anything we saw in TOS, movies, or even TNG. So the technology is definitely not on the same level as TOS, which it is supposed to represent. And, again, from what has been revealed thus far, the history is not mostly right either. Kirk, Pike, and the entire TOS crew on the bridge of the Enterprise at the same time????? Chekov an officer while Kirk, who is about 12 years his senior, is still a cadet????? Enterprise being built on earth?????? Starfleet encountering Romulans before "Balance of Terror"??? I could go on and on. But I digress..... It is pointless to argue about it now. The movie is done and there is nothing I can do about it. So I guess I'll just have to go see it and judge for myself if JJ actually "respected" canon or not. I am leaning toward "NOT". Apparently, only the names are the same. That's definitely not good enough for me.
Reply With Quote