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
  #42  
Old 01-16-2009, 10:04 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Some of the points are fair enough - the Admiral is not specified (but seriously, ask fans and who do the majority accept it to be based on the evidence? C'mon, give the cameo a break!), the removal of Roddenberry from the films and many of those facts are not wrong.

But it doesn't make TNG a reboot because he couldn't get TOS back anyway, they were never going to do another TV series with that cast. A new crew of characters were a bare minimum for a return to TV even if he had stayed as more than a 'consultant' on the films, so may as well advance the whole thing and give yourself a clean canvas to work on. Then begin to merge the two back into one.

Although I'm not entirely sure what the 'fans' corrected. What demands did they lay at the feet of the showrunners that were caved into? hit-rate wise seasons 1 and 2 have a higher percentage of enjoyable episodes than 6 and 7 do IMO, despite the bedding in issues the show did (admittedly) suffer from.

Last edited by kevin : 01-16-2009 at 10:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-16-2009, 10:55 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*Do you honestly think that Orci and Lindelof, the Trekkers in the production team do anything which intends to make you believe that TOS never existed?
Sorry, sir, but you gotta found your assumptions on let's say more evidence*

If this is to me instead of someone else (I assume), I never said the new movie was attempting to erase TOS. I've made my views (and understanding) on what that is all about very clear. I was referring to Roddenberry and TNG.
Please don't put inferences where they are not warranted. And please found your accusations on facts, not misreadings.

*C'mon, give the cameo a break!*
I do. It's why Kelley was there, as personal favor to Roddenberry. That also is documented. I said he was not mentioned by name. That was disputed. He was there to lend "legitimacy" to this new generation to TOS fans but denied the direct connection to TOS by sly omission of name.

*Although I'm not entirely sure what the 'fans' corrected*
The internet was not until years later.
Ask those who were at conventions during Q&A sessions why TOS was being given short-shrift on TNG. Also, do not forget the loyalty TOS fans (and fans of TOS cast members) had against TNG.
I recall vividly witnessing uncomfortable situations (and harsh words) between TOS uniform wearing fans and TNG uniform wearing fans.
Those were... interesting times.

*But it doesn't make TNG a reboot because he couldn't get TOS back anyway*
Read back. I said "failed" reboot. I am perfectly aware TOS had moved beyond his control, which is precisely why it was hand-waved away as much as possible and ignored like a sack-cloth and ashes red-headed step-child.

That didn't last (fan demands), but was minimized as an influence as much as possible. Only when TNG had gone beyond Roddenberry's immediate control was TOS again recognized as part of the "family".
__________________
"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
  #45  
Old 01-16-2009, 11:01 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4 View Post
*Do you honestly think that Orci and Lindelof, the Trekkers in the production team do anything which intends to make you believe that TOS never existed?
Sorry, sir, but you gotta found your assumptions on let's say more evidence*

If this is to me instead of someone else (I assume), I never said the new movie was attempting to erase TOS. I've made my views (and understanding) on what that is all about very clear. I was referring to Roddenberry and TNG.
Please don't put inferences where they are not warranted. And please found your accusations on facts, not misreadings.
Unless I use the quote function, what I write is usually in response to the previous poster.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-16-2009, 11:15 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
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.
I'd ask you to prove that, but you can't because we have no existing fact which says this -- however Orci and everyone else involved does acknowledge changes from the TOS we know, but that in know way assures that this film disregards TOS entirely. An event alters some of thei history we know from TOS, but there is also no indication that must be a permanent change either.

Assumptions based on incomplete data can argue it, but they cannot yet prove it -- and a couple simple facts from the final film could easily dissolve those assumptions as incorrect... as assumptions based on incomplete data often are.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-16-2009, 11:18 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*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.*
We've gone over this before. Yes, it is a re-boot without trying to be an openly done re-boot. Remember I did say pay close attention.

I'm saying it's not that different than what happened with TNG.
TNG had ulterior motives and bad-blood between creator and studio.
This new movie has bad-blood between studios themselves.
Both move forward "technically" in time, which is why the TNG movie connection (Nemesis I presume) is being utilized as the springboard to go back and start anew. Following that logic, to get to the new movie you can view the previous history as "set-up". The difference is what is available to use visualization-wise. This is your main point of repeatedly stressed contention. We get your point. I'm not sure why you don't understand the reality of the situation.
Fan demands ****will not change this**** no matter how much is said over and over and over and over (and over).

*
Unless I use the quote function, what I write is usually in response to the previous poster.*

Good to know. Thank you for the clarification.
__________________
"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
  #48  
Old 01-16-2009, 12:04 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4 View Post
*C'mon, give the cameo a break!*
I do. It's why Kelley was there, as personal favor to Roddenberry. That also is documented. I said he was not mentioned by name. That was disputed. He was there to lend "legitimacy" to this new generation to TOS fans but denied the direct connection to TOS by sly omission of name.

*Although I'm not entirely sure what the 'fans' corrected*
The internet was not until years later.
Ask those who were at conventions during Q&A sessions why TOS was being given short-shrift on TNG. Also, do not forget the loyalty TOS fans (and fans of TOS cast members) had against TNG.
I recall vividly witnessing uncomfortable situations (and harsh words) between TOS uniform wearing fans and TNG uniform wearing fans.
Those were... interesting times.
Unfortunately I never was able to attend such events, so never witnessed such ridiculous behaviour and while on one hand I can see why TOS fans unwilling to embrace the new wanted the familiar back, I'm afraid I'm still no clearer as to what exactly they sought. But whether they should ever have gotten it is debatable.

Quote:
*But it doesn't make TNG a reboot because he couldn't get TOS back anyway*
Quote:
Read back. I said "failed" reboot. I am perfectly aware TOS had moved beyond his control, which is precisely why it was hand-waved away as much as possible and ignored like a sack-cloth and ashes red-headed step-child.

That didn't last (fan demands), but was minimized as an influence as much as possible. Only when TNG had gone beyond Roddenberry's immediate control was TOS again recognized as part of the "family".
Personally I think they were right to avoid direct linkage until the show had begun to stand on it's own feet. It had to be able to do without constantly referring to the nostaglic past of TOS because that was looking backwards. For me the first rule would be 'can the show work on it's own?'. Once you've done that, you can start to revisit and reference the past. It had achieved that before 'Sarek', which I think was the first major (apart from the Kirk reference in 'The Naked Now) TOS reference.

Whether that coincidence was specifically due to Roddenberry's reduced role by that time is possible, but I think TNG had already established itself as it's own series by the time they did it.

Last edited by kevin : 01-16-2009 at 12:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-19-2009, 09:53 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkerBob View Post
The Trek Universe was full of seeming contridictions and inconsistencies, most of which stemmed from TOS not expecting to make such an impact.

They weren't terribly careful about every little detail, but since then, people have come up with explanations for just about everything including smooth foreheads on Klingons in the 23rd century.

Right out of the box, I notice what I thought was a glaring inconsistency in the Trek world when in the trailer, in the first scene, The young Kirk is driving a sportscar like a pro. Undoubtably due to his love for antiques. That much makes sense, but this was not an automatic transmission. It was a standard.

Now fast forward to TOS episode "A Piece of the Action". Kirk liberates a car and drives Spock a few blocks down the street almost giving them both whiplash. Spock commends Kirk on being an excellent Starship captain, but a lousy cab driver or something to that effect. Kirk didn't understand the concept of gears at all, noting that he had heard about or read about them someplace.

I know it was a decade or so later in his life, but how will they explain his total loss of memory regarding driving a standard.

Anybody else notice anything that doesn't seem to add up?
Inconsitances are rampant in all series of Trek. I allways figured that Klingons had interbred with conquered races, which would easily explain diffrence in looks. But Enterpsie gave the "offical" explaination that it was a gentic disease.

Driving cars, why not? I would assume many people would have "historic vehicles" in private collections they have restored to operating condition in the far future. Kids do not truely understand the rarity of things. Maybe this helped form Kirk's love of antquies?
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
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 03:40 PM.


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.