The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Inconsistencies
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-15-2009, 10:26 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Well, seems to me it's possible that even if Kirk didn't drive in the original timeline, due to circumstances changing in the alternate, something changed and he did learn to drive.

Allowing both to be true.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-16-2009, 04:29 AM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,112
Default

Kirk didn't exactly drive well in the trailer. He crashed through a fence and nearly died in a ravine. His driving in A Piece of the Action is less spectacular, but no less inept.

Also, people can forget skills they had as teenagers. I'm a smart fellow, and I was reasonably good at calculus and trigonometry as a teenager. These days, though, I only remember the basics. It's about losing what you're not using.

If we're gonna talk about inconsistencies... how come Kirk's Enterprise (from the Original Series and movies) can travel at about a million and a half times the speed of light, while Picard's vessel (a hundred years more advanced, and "the most powerful ship in the Federation fleet" according to the Borg) struggles to reach 3000 for even a short time?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-16-2009, 05:47 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

Much of that nonsense is attributed to Gerrold and his "suggestions".
Of course Roddenberry had his own drug-induced ideas and implemented them as well.
Decker/Riker
Ilia/Troi
Spock/Data
Wesley
and the antithesis of Kirk - Picard.

All in a touchy-feely, politically correct, grab-***, stick rammed up the anus manner of human "enlightenment" he was envisioning in his mind.

And generally, any manner of distancing TNG from TOS as much as possible; even to the extent of having Kelley come on for the pilot without actually mentioning the name of the character deliberately (basically having one's cake and eating it too).

Of course, that didn't sit too well with the fans... and eventually more TOS elements crept back in to keep the fans from abandoning the mish-mash of the first couple of seasons which just made things even more confused.

If anyone thinks TNG was not an actively attempted (and failed) reboot of Star Trek they are gravely mistaken.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-16-2009, 07:38 AM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335
Default

Um - what?

I'm pretty sure they mentioned it was Admiral McCoy...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:24 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Not to mention the fact that it wasn't a re-boot simply due to the fact that it took place AFTER the original series in the 24th century, not the 23rd. TNG was simply a continuation of the franchise.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:33 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

TNG used the Trek template but it was also affected in some ways by the conventions of the decade it was made in, as was TOS. Troi would never be in TNG if it were created today. But psychotherapy was big in the 80s and her presence reflected the times. Her role dates TNG more than anything else, which is not a slight against Sirtis, she played what she was given. Apart from that, I don't see it as a reboot, but the next series in a continuing universe that we rejoined.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:36 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,207
Default

And TNG was extremely successful, I read.
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:57 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Yeah, I heard it lasted seven years! What a failure!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-16-2009, 09:26 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*Um - what?
I'm pretty sure they mentioned it was Admiral McCoy.*
And... you'd be pretty wrong.
But feel free to go back and check. I won't feel offended.

The novelization does mention him by name (IIRC), but not the episode. He's just called "Admiral". Novelizations are famous for additional details (many made up wholesale) not included in screen presentations.

*TNG was simply a continuation of the franchise*
And you'd be wrong as well. That was not the intent at first.
It was to re-make Trek with the "new aesthetic" using [ominous sound] what has come before [/ominous sound] as the springboard without trying to acknowledge it openly which would enrage the fans (say.... that sounds really familiar and currently topical - pay close attention). Even then it wasn't as successful in preventing fan backlash as planned; much as this one from JJ is experiencing, but not to the same extreme TNG had.

Try to remember your Trek history here and without the rose-colored glasses.

Roddenberry had finished TMP with Wise, and got really mixed reviews, most on the oh-so-not-good side.

Trek II was given over to someone else and Roddenberry was relegated to what amounts to as window dressing "executive consultant" with input that was shunned on a movie taken in a direction he didn't like.
He didn't take that well, especially when it happened again on the next movie and the one after that.

Along comes an opportunity to take Trek back to TV, with him in control (due to popularity from the Trek movies he was window dressing on). So he goes in the complete opposite direction of [ominous sound]
what has come before [/ominous sound]. But he needed to utilize the Star Trek name to have Trek fans tune in, so he simply jumped it in time ahead to "explain" all of his "new aesthetic" choices and tried to pretend Trek TOS (and the movies) didn't exist out of personal spite. The fans rectified that for him... eventually. Luckily, JJ has no personal spite factor in his enterprise. Gerrold was brought on board with his "suggestions" many of which were previously published and of course where Roddenberry goes Fontana is not far behind.
Also enter Sternbach and Probert, to design a funky-as-hell Enterprise (
and other necessary items) to show this is indeed not tied to [ominous sound] what has come before[/ominous sound] except in the most vague sense of basic shapes.

Speaking of Fontana, I'm still amused thinking back to Ellison's book describing his shock when he discovered Fontana is the one who did the major re-write on his "City" script; information which was never given to him until decades later. Roddenberry, per usual, took that draft, changed a few words and slapped on his name for writing credit and pay earning Ellison's wrath.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-16-2009, 09:39 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

All that may be true. But TNG was still set in the 24th century and after the events of TOS and the movies. Therefore, not a re-boot in the sense that JJ Abrams is doing with the new movie. The D was the 5th "Federation" starship (not counting the NX-01, which was not Federation) to bear the name Enterprise, not the first. Therefore, not a re-boot. The previous exploits of other ships named Enterprise were mentioned (Yesterday's Enterprise, Relics, among others). Therefore, not a re-boot. Time and technology had progressed forward justifying the changes. Therefore, not a re-boot. The new movie is literally starting over before TOS and changing things from the very beginning and trying to make us believe that the events of TOS and everything that came after never happened - Re-Boot.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.