The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Do you think the writers should have studied Trek more
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2009, 12:06 PM
starwarsrcks's Avatar
starwarsrcks starwarsrcks is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 3,062
Default Do you think the writers should have studied Trek more

any thoughts

Space is disease and dangerous wrapped in darkness and silence-Leonard Bones McCoy
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 12:35 PM
chator's Avatar
chator chator is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,261

I think you correct in your observation that Orci-Kurtzman-Abrams trio were not on the whole good students of Trek.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 12:50 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078

I respectfully disagree - you simply can't go around changing things in the manner in which they did and drop in the many, many major and minor references that they did while retaining many core elements of the series without understanding the subject in the first place.

Of course their screenplay is not perfect in and of itself - but that's another matter entirely.
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'

courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 01:08 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883

Never underestimate the power of a dark clown!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 01:10 PM
Dr. Lazarus's Avatar
Dr. Lazarus Dr. Lazarus is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 17

I agree with kevin. Even so-called canon Star Trek contradicts itself in many places. To satisfy canon completely is impossible and should not be attempted. In many ways the writers were respectful to the original feel of the series, without being too stressed about it. After all, the most important thing is that it's entertaining.

I must say though, the writers disappointed me in one sense. I actually think they should have learned some basic physics. Not complicated physics, because like I said it's only entertainment, just basic physics. A supernova cannot 'threaten the whole galaxy'. Why not simply write the story so that it was the Romulan sun which went supernova? After all, that is what the special effects shot in the mind meld seemed to show. Such disastrously wrong understanding of physics risks alienating even non experts, because you don't have to be a physicist to know that a supernova is a little blip of light in an entire galaxy.

I actually loved the movie, which must say a lot about its quality. There are a few irritating things, such as the spock/uhura thing, enterprise built on the ground, uniforms which look like pyjamas, klingon "warbirds" etc, but the acting was very good, the story was reasonable, the musical score was better than most are suggesting, and the special effects were spectacular.
Spock: Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.
Kirk: I prefer to call it inspired.
Spock: As you wish.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 01:54 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432

I do think that they should have studied TOS a bit more. If they had, then the movie might have felt more like Star Trek and not just a generic action/adventure/sci-fi summer popcorn flick that was called "Star Trek". That's how it felt to me, of course. I know there are others who seem to think it was pure "Trek". I'm not one of them. I definitely agree with Dr. Lazarus about the supernova thing. That was pure sillyness and written with complete lack of understanding of physics at all. The one other technical thing that irritated me was the "transwarp transporter". That was simply rediculous and made no sense. If they can do that, why would they need starships? Anyway, it wasn't "My" Star Trek, and never will be. It's Star Trek for the popcorn crowd. Simple as that.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 02:06 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511

For all the silly feuding between "canonites" and "revisionites," the one thing about Star Trek XI was that the writers (or at least Orci) did study Trek lore--and then some. The establishment of Kirk being born in 2333 was from extrapolating his age from TOS; Kirk being born in Iowa from Star Trek IV; Spock's parents came from TOS, the TOS movies, and TNG; Kirk beating the Kobyashi Maru test from Star Trek II; the idea that Spock was bullied as a child was from TOS; Christoher Pike as Kirk's predecessor on the Enterprise, etc. The idea that Kirk's father was also a Starfleet officer came from a novel, not from from any onscreen reference.

They did their homework all right.

Changes from established lore were mostly intentional for the most part to establish how different this alternate universe was to the prime universe, IMO...
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 02:08 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282

Cardassian Sunrise, Porthos, Rura Penthe, Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Orions ... it sometimes felt like a poor copy-and-paste job or shall I say cherry-picking?
Never been a fan of cherries, never picked any on the fields during summer as a kid. I prefer a real meal.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 02:28 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,229

You know the answers.

"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
Old 11-21-2009, 02:48 PM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,112

I feel that a sound job was done overall. Minor discrepancies - Klingon warbirds, for instance - are fairly insignificant overall, and can be explained away by simple conjecture. In the case of 'warbirds', we can just assume that this is what those ships were called in that day.

The supernova plot device works fine if you assume it's just a supernova unlike anything ever seen. A logical assumption, since it works unlike any supernova ever seen. In a sci-fi universe wherein an over-mined moon can blow up, destroying a planet's ecosystem and having effects felt light-years away. The film's use of a supernova that becomes more powerful as it expands is not too outlandish by sci-fi standards; it's not like it'd need to actually consume the entire galaxy in order to destroy it, either: removing enough mass from one portion of the galaxy could destabalise it in the long term, or the rise in radiation could threaten life over a large area.

It could've been easily dealt with by a simple throwaway line in the film, of course; but my point is that the lack of an on-screen explanation doesn't mean it's a mere error. After all, the known supernovae most definitely don't threaten galaxies; the film's deviation from this is clearly intentional because it runs against conventional knowledge. The logical conclusion? The film's supernova is something unique.
The one other technical thing that irritated me was the "transwarp transporter". That was simply rediculous and made no sense. If they can do that, why would they need starships?
This one makes sense if you follow the dialogue: transporting that way is limited, inaccurate, and rather dangerous. There's a lot that can go wrong, especially "without a proper receiving pad" as Scotty notes. Pretty useless for interstellar travel as the range and precision are so clearly limited, and because it seems to be a one-way process.

Reply With Quote

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 07:29 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.