The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-21-2008, 06:27 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
You're mistaken. Paramount only looked at the Okudas as archivists for all the Trek stuff they have on their studio lot. They have nothing to do with establishing canon. Indeed, pretty much most of their work (the Encyclopedia, the Chronology) has already been contradicted by onscreen material.
Such as? Please show your work.
__________________

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
  #62  
Old 11-21-2008, 07:22 PM
spaceship22 spaceship22 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH The KING View Post
Explanations

1- The car in "A Piece Of The Action" was an alien design

2- It had a manual transmission.



Pick one and be content.
Neither are satisfactory since they patterned their culture after the book left by earthlings chronicling life in 1930's Chicago. Plus in the scene Spocl mentions how the car is operated by stepping on the clutch.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-21-2008, 07:29 PM
spaceship22 spaceship22 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
Let's see...in "A Piece of the Action," an older Kirk couldn't drive a car very well. In Star Trek XI, a younger Kirk drives a car off a cliff...

Sounds pretty true to form to me, IMO. Kirk shouldn't be trusted behind the wheel of a car at any age...
Missing the point. In TOS he didn't know how to drive at all. Spock had to mention the clutch. One would not forget to drive a clutch that easily. Also as a kid he is shifting very well. Then years later he doesn't even recognize a clutch. Again just being picky.

Still not as bad as ship being built on the ground. That is just plain stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-21-2008, 07:54 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceship22 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore
Let's see...in "A Piece of the Action," an older Kirk couldn't drive a car very well. In Star Trek XI, a younger Kirk drives a car off a cliff...

Sounds pretty true to form to me, IMO. Kirk shouldn't be trusted behind the wheel of a car at any age...
Missing the point. In TOS he didn't know how to drive at all. Spock had to mention the clutch. One would not forget to drive a clutch that easily. Also as a kid he is shifting very well. Then years later he doesn't even recognize a clutch. Again just being picky.
No, I think you're missing the point. It's not so much whether or not he knows how to drive a car, but that he shouldn't be behind the wheel at all (one car he drives off a cliff, the other one he drives with jerks and stops). I'd trust him with a starship, but not anything with four wheels. The guy's dangerous to ride with no matter what he drives.
Quote:
Still not as bad as ship being built on the ground. That is just plain stupid.
Agreed. But there may be (hopefully) a reason why it was that relates to this story.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue

Last edited by Commodore : 11-21-2008 at 08:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-21-2008, 08:05 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore
You're mistaken. Paramount only looked at the Okudas as archivists for all the Trek stuff they have on their studio lot. They have nothing to do with establishing canon. Indeed, pretty much most of their work (the Encyclopedia, the Chronology) has already been contradicted by onscreen material.
Such as? Please show your work.
Show me your work that the Okudas are the masters of everything canon. Paramount didn't commission them to write the Encyclopedia and the Chronology, they were approached by Pocket Books to do them. The Okudas worked on Trek, true enough, and Mike Okuda was a technical consultant for many years, but ultimately whatever the Okudas laid down was always subject to being contradicted by later onscreen material and not the other way around (just off-hand I can think of the placement of Kirk's 5-year mission and the true origins of Starfleet).

EDIT: The Encyclopedia and the Chronology are good resource books for a lot of onscreen material, but much of it is also conjectural (as they frequently admitted) and should not be taken as official works. Even the long-believed launch date of the Enterprise in 2245 isn't official and can be re-established by any future production at any time. That's not canon, that's just something two long-time Trek fans wrote in a book with a lack of any evidence to the contrary...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue

Last edited by Commodore : 11-21-2008 at 08:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-21-2008, 08:49 PM
Palindari's Avatar
Palindari Palindari is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 93
Default

Funny - Kirk was to me what Roddenberry envisioned him as... the Horatio Hornblower of the stars.

A gutsy, take charge sort of commander - going where only bravado could only take you.

Kirk wasn't a risk taker - he was an opportunist in the purest sense of the word. But not for himself, but for the cause. Promoting Starfleet regulations.

Kirk was my idol (not Shatner). His ability to take control of the situation, adapt as needed and and do it with style, seems at odds with this new Kirk. Style, yes, bravado, no. Reckless, yes, commanding, no.

Going to be an interesting next 6 months until the film's release.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-22-2008, 08:23 AM
SenatorVreenak's Avatar
SenatorVreenak SenatorVreenak is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Default also the corvette rag top

is up in the first shot and then all of a sudden its down a split second later
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-22-2008, 10:49 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 Commodore View Post
Show me your work that the Okudas are the masters of everything canon.
Ah, so I ask you to back up your point, and you change the point. I never said the Okudas were "masters of everything canon" but they have done a lot of work on it based on the source material. If you don't have examples to show about contradictions, then just say so. I assumed you did have examples in mind when you made your post, my mistake.

Quote:
Paramount didn't commission them to write the Encyclopedia and the Chronology, they were approached by Pocket Books to do them. The Okudas worked on Trek, true enough, and Mike Okuda was a technical consultant for many years,
With the blessing of Paramount, otherwise the books wouldn't have happened.

Quote:
but ultimately whatever the Okudas laid down was always subject to being contradicted by later onscreen material and not the other way around (just off-hand I can think of the placement of Kirk's 5-year mission and the true origins of Starfleet).
Source please? I'd like to hear more about this.

Meanwhile, of course the Okuda books cannot include or account for information written AFTER their publication -- be realistic. Were the books updated, they would include this newer material, just as the last update included new onscreen material that was available at that time. But it seemed to me that your ORIGINAL assertion was that somehow the Okudas were proven 'wrong' about something in TNG let's say by TNG itself, which makes no sense since they derived material FROM the show itself.

Quote:
EDIT: The Encyclopedia and the Chronology are good resource books for a lot of onscreen material, but much of it is also conjectural (as they frequently admitted) and should not be taken as official works. Even the long-believed launch date of the Enterprise in 2245 isn't official and can be re-established by any future production at any time. That's not canon, that's just something two long-time Trek fans wrote in a book with a lack of any evidence to the contrary...
Of COURSE much of the material is conjectural -- and if you read it, they specifically say WHY it's conjecture and when they must resort to it: because there is NO onscreen material which supports a firm conclusion about such points to make it definite. They say 'this is conjecture' and so it must be regarded differently than accepted canon facts -- so there's little point in attempting to say their conjecture isn't 100% canon when they already warned readers it wasn't. That's what the word conjecture means, right?

The fact that contradictions and confusion on some points exist is because the onscreen material is imprecise -- which means NO one has the absolute right answer for it, because all interpreters are working off the same set of incomplete data. Not a hard concept to grasp.
__________________

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
  #69  
Old 11-22-2008, 12:34 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Obviously the Chronologies have been contradicted since they were last published. They predate the later years of VOY and all of ENT, a show which specifically dealt with many of the conjectural parts of their books. But at the time they (the Okudas) were making educated guesses based on the information they had. If a new edition was printed tomorrow it wouldn't resemble the last version because it would use subsequent material to update itself. And the writing and production staff on the shows used them as well. The Chronology constantly adapts to new writing. It's never absolute but as others have said, they always stated when they were filling in gaps by conjecturing.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-22-2008, 01:28 PM
pastor.dude pastor.dude is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 19
Default Mistakes? Are we sure?

Hi there everyone,
I am a big Trek fan. However, I want to just voice a couple little questions and comments that I really think needs to be answered by all the people picking apart the trailer.

First, do we know that these problems are really problems? For instance, the clutch deal...do we know this clutch performs in this movie like the clutch does in the 1920s?

The building the ship in Iowa deal...do we really know that it is Iowa? - No. Do we really know that the ship isn't completed in space? - No. Do we even know for sure it is the Enterprise? - No. And if it is the Enterprise, and it is in Iowa, and it isn't completed in space dock, do we really believe that the Star Trek encyclopedia trumps the rest of the entire cannon? No! Is there any mention in a show or movie on where the ship is built? The seeing Romulans before Balance of Terror deal...did you not get the gist of the story?

The Romulans travel back in time from old Spock's day to young Spock's day to screw up the timeline. So of course no one saw Romulans until the Balance of Terror...that changes as the timeline is screwed up by the time traveling Romulans. And BTW...time travel is one of the Backbones of Trek. Its used all the freakin' time!

Secondly, a trailer is simply...a trailer.
We don't know how much of the trailer will be in the final movie. We don't know if what we are seeing and assuming we are seeing are actually what it really is!

Thirdly, I think Trek films and Trek shows need to be thought of differently. The movies fit the chronology of the show...why? Because they always come after the show. This one is a re-boot of TOS era...before TMP. The movie series cannon I believe will be perfectly preserved even if the movie and show cannon isn't. So maybe this film breaks a few of the details of the show...it still is getting the important things right. And if you watch the movies back to back to back, it will work! Maybe a shift here, a wink there will not work with every statement ever made in TOS. But, did you see the trailer? Who cares! This movie is going to rock!

And Finally, what is more important, that Kirk doesn't use a clutch as a kid? Or that we actually get to see a Star Trek movie IN 6 MONTHS...after 6 YEARS!!!

Last edited by pastor.dude : 11-22-2008 at 01:33 PM.
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 08:29 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.