The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > 2 Reasons why Trekkers & Trekkies need to Relax
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-27-2008, 01:52 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radoskal View Post
Thats right, but we are talking about perceived reality, and perceived reality must be maintained in order for any fictional piece to function, that's one of the first things they teach you in writing and for that mater film classes. A character cannot be wearing a blue shirt in one frame and then suddenly be wearing a red one in the next unless some interceding event explains the sudden change in shirt color.


I was simply trying to point out that in the case of LOTR, one fictional interpretation has no direct bearing on the other. They are like two separate universes. The same can not be said for the new Trek film in relation to all the other Trek incarnations that have been.

Perhaps it would have been better if this was a complete reboot ala Quantum of Solace, then us sticklers could have our Trek and a new viewership could have a new Trek and all would be well in Trekdom.
So wait, who's saying this is not a reboot? Did I miss something? Did J. J. Abrams say "This is not a reboot"? Everywhere I look people are calling this a reboot, and Abrams is not denying it:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/050708_02.shtml

It's interesting that the article compares it to Batman Begins. A movie that made a HUGE change in canon ([spoiler]the Joker is not the one who killed Batman's parents[/spoiler]) and fans, even faithful Batman fans believe Batman Begins (and of course Dark Knight) to be the best version in the Batman franchise.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000

Last edited by MigueldaRican : 11-27-2008 at 02:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-28-2008, 08:06 AM
radoskal's Avatar
radoskal radoskal is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 952
Default

See the thing is, no one is sure of that because of all the conflicting reports, I've heard many reviewers say that this is a sequel/prequel not a reboot.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/24/mark...-trek-preview/
__________________
Mom, how many times do I have to tell you, Track is what athletes run on. Trek is what the Enterprise goes on.

-Free Enterprise
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-28-2008, 09:14 AM
TJJones's Avatar
TJJones TJJones is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
It's interesting that the article compares it to Batman Begins. A movie that made a HUGE change in canon ([spoiler]the Joker is not the one who killed Batman's parents[/spoiler]) and fans, even faithful Batman fans believe Batman Begins (and of course Dark Knight) to be the best version in the Batman franchise.
Ummm...Batman Begins actually "restores" the original origin of the Batman. It was Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie that violated "canon." The Joker didn't kill Bruce's parents, and has never been identified (outside the Burton film) as Dr. & Mrs. Wayne's assassin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#Golden_Age) The only change in his origin was an 11-year period (1994-2005) where the Waynes' killer was never caught/identified; other than that, it has always been the small-time hood Joe Cool who committed the catalytic crime.
__________________
Davy Jones
Your Friendly, Neighborhood, Navy Vet!

The United States Navy: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of all Who Threaten It!

"I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the United States Navy.'" -President John F. Kennedy


Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-28-2008, 10:58 AM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJJones View Post
Ummm...Batman Begins actually "restores" the original origin of the Batman. It was Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie that violated "canon." The Joker didn't kill Bruce's parents, and has never been identified (outside the Burton film) as Dr. & Mrs. Wayne's assassin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#Golden_Age) The only change in his origin was an 11-year period (1994-2005) where the Waynes' killer was never caught/identified; other than that, it has always been the small-time hood Joe Cool who committed the catalytic crime.
Err that's Joe Chill...

Joe Cool is one of Snoopy's aliases.
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-28-2008, 11:33 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
It seems like to many of you, Kirk's age during ship construction is more important than who the first president of the United States of America is! It's disturbing really!
Well, to me, it is! Not that Kirk's age is important, but I live in Scotland - and I don't need to know much about US presidents.

Jus' sayin'...
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-28-2008, 11:57 AM
TJJones's Avatar
TJJones TJJones is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagami Crewman View Post
Err that's Joe Chill...

Joe Cool is one of Snoopy's aliases.
Uhhh, yeah, that's what I meant....apparently, I have Peanuts on the brain...lol
__________________
Davy Jones
Your Friendly, Neighborhood, Navy Vet!

The United States Navy: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of all Who Threaten It!

"I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the United States Navy.'" -President John F. Kennedy


Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-28-2008, 12:53 PM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNA-1842 View Post
Well, to me, it is! Not that Kirk's age is important, but I live in Scotland - and I don't need to know much about US presidents.

Jus' sayin'...
Fear not; most Americans are still wondering how Idi Amin got to be King of Scotland.

My 2 reasons why people need to relax?

1. It is a movie.
2. That means it isn't real.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-28-2008, 01:43 PM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
And as a Star Trek fan, that's something you want to have happen? You're not pulling, instead, for a middle ground, or -- dare I hope -- for something that revitalizes Star Trek without throwing it all away and replacing it with dumbed down popcorn fare for the locker room crowd?
Okay so if I'm reading this right.

Replacing it with a dumbed down popcorn fare for the locker room crowd?

Dude, Star Trek has got to be the most hated and isolated TV series ever because it panders to geeks. I know that's harsh as hell but it's the truth. I know you probably like it this way because it makes you feel somehow superior to everyone else, but in the end dude Paramount and CBS are out to make money. That's the bottom line.

So you can piss and moan all day on an internet forum about how J.J. Abrams is pissing all over Roddenberry's grave...and because the warp nacelles don't look exactly the same as they did in 1968 you're going to boycott this movie because it somehow offends the fact that you're sick in the head and have made a TV show into a religion.

Frankly the more you talk Saint the more juvenile and shallow you appear.

Do you honestly think that Paramount cares about what you think?

They will use this franchise up until they can't squeeze any more money out of it, and then they will shelve it until people forget about it.

And then they will pull it back off the shelf...dust it off...RE-WRITE the premise for a NEW AND YOUNG CROWD.....and then they will make MORE MONEY OFF OF IT.

I mean I'm shocked at you, you're supposedly a writer for hollywood right? And you don't understand this basic premise??

All they're doing is using the tools they have to make more money.

Simple. And I know you don't like it and it offends your Star Trek religion, and I'm sorry about that I really am, but you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

I mean for example, when I first saw Deep Space Nine and how fast the ships were in that show I was like OMG this is the death of Star Trek...because I loved how slow the ships were in Star Trek TNG and most importantly Star Trek TWOK...I mean it was like watching two battleships go at it. Slow and powerful.

But I grew to understand that they were trying to make Trek more exciting to younger people. All for a buck.

After that I laid off the Trek bible and stopped having Trek-gasms everytime someone changed something that went against canon.

Do you think any of these actors or writers care if someone changes something? NO they want MONEY that's IT.

Because....Star Trek....ain't real brother.

Last edited by WildGunsTomcat : 11-28-2008 at 01:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-28-2008, 02:14 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat View Post
Okay so if I'm reading this right.

Replacing it with a dumbed down popcorn fare for the locker room crowd?

Dude, Star Trek has got to be the most hated and isolated TV series ever because it panders to geeks. I know that's harsh as hell but it's the truth. I know you probably like it this way because it makes you feel somehow superior to everyone else, but in the end dude Paramount and CBS are out to make money. That's the bottom line.

So you can piss and moan all day on an internet forum about how J.J. Abrams is pissing all over Roddenberry's grave...and because the warp nacelles don't look exactly the same as they did in 1968 you're going to boycott this movie because it somehow offends the fact that you're sick in the head and have made a TV show into a religion.

Frankly the more you talk Saint the more juvenile and shallow you appear.

Do you honestly think that Paramount cares about what you think?

They will use this franchise up until they can't squeeze any more money out of it, and then they will shelve it until people forget about it.

And then they will pull it back off the shelf...dust it off...RE-WRITE the premise for a NEW AND YOUNG CROWD.....and then they will make MORE MONEY OFF OF IT.

I mean I'm shocked at you, you're supposedly a writer for hollywood right? And you don't understand this basic premise??

All they're doing is using the tools they have to make more money.

Simple. And I know you don't like it and it offends your Star Trek religion, and I'm sorry about that I really am, but you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

I mean for example, when I first saw Deep Space Nine and how fast the ships were in that show I was like OMG this is the death of Star Trek...because I loved how slow the ships were in Star Trek TNG and most importantly Star Trek TWOK...I mean it was like watching two battleships go at it. Slow and powerful.

But I grew to understand that they were trying to make Trek more exciting to younger people. All for a buck.

After that I laid off the Trek bible and stopped having Trek-gasms everytime someone changed something that went against canon.

Do you think any of these actors or writers care if someone changes something? NO they want MONEY that's IT.

Because....Star Trek....ain't real brother.
To start with, you're agreeing with me, granted in a pretty back-handed and personally insulting way. They're doing it for the money.

At the same time that there's nothing wrong with doing it for the money -- that's why any movie is made -- they're doing it, as far as I can tell, mostly if not only for the money. That's not only bad for the story, for the "vision" if you like... it's actually bad for their bottom line, too. Nemesis, for example, was made mostly if not only for the money. Problem was, so was Insurrection, and by the time Nemesis rolled around enough people had figured that out that they tossed Paramount the finger.

And kindly do not exaggerate my position on continuity. It has nothing to do with treating Star Trek like a damn religion, it has everything to do with a little something called artistic integrity. If all they're in the storytelling business for is a buck, then they should be putting girls on street corners, not films in theaters.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-28-2008, 02:21 PM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
To start with, you're agreeing with me, granted in a pretty back-handed and personally insulting way. They're doing it for the money.

At the same time that there's nothing wrong with doing it for the money -- that's why any movie is made -- they're doing it, as far as I can tell, mostly if not only for the money. That's not only bad for the story, for the "vision" if you like... it's actually bad for their bottom line, too. Nemesis, for example, was made mostly if not only for the money. Problem was, so was Insurrection, and by the time Nemesis rolled around enough people had figured that out that they tossed Paramount the finger.

And kindly do not exaggerate my position on continuity. It has nothing to do with treating Star Trek like a damn religion, it has everything to do with a little something called artistic integrity. If all they're in the storytelling business for is a buck, then they should be putting girls on street corners, not films in theaters.
I wasn't trying to be insulting, just irreverant and witty. That's how I get my point across, in the most crass and smartassed way.

In any case Saint yes I do agree that this is a bastardized version of Trek. Anyone can agree with that. This isn't TOS. This isn't even TNG. They're crossing "The Fast and the Furious" which is a retard-fest and "Star Trek"...and they've made something that dumbasses can digest.

What I take offense to is your attitude. "You don't care about canon so you're not a true trek fan." I find it off putting and divisive.

That being said...I don't personally mean to offend you. I totally agree that they went to J.J. Abrams and said, "We need to make this franchise more user friendly...you make TV shows that people with no brains watch and get into....help us do that with Star Trek."

Believe me I feel your pain. I just don't agree with the execution of your discourse.
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 01:54 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.