The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I come as an Emissary to canonistas and revisionists...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-02-2008, 02:38 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 omegaman View Post
This movie will use familiar names of people, places and items from the Star Trek universe and that's all.

The characters lives and their associations will most likely be based on entirely new personal histories and definitely not take place in a parallel universe.

I believe we are seeing the rebirth of Star Trek with its own unique spin.
Which is good. Canonites can eat it imho. The world does not revolve around them.

Last edited by WildGunsTomcat : 12-02-2008 at 04:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-02-2008, 04:58 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thascales View Post
Nero arrives in the past some twenty, twenty-five years before the Enterprise is launched, presumably still the second Constitution-class ship. Allowing five years as a conservative estimate to build a Connie, that still leaves a comfortable ten to fifteen years after Nero's incursion to design it. I suspect that with 23rd-century CAD, that would be more than long enough for any technology - obtained from future-debris, or given to us discreetly by future-Spock, or any other explanation - to be toyed with and incorporated into the design. No wonder the Constitution-class looks so much more advanced than we're used to, it's the first class of Starfleet ship that incorporates 25th century technology into its design.
This had occurred to me -- the theory that most easily explains why the Organiprize looks so much like the TMP Enterprise (nav deflector, saucer and torpedo launcher placement-wise, at least) is because future Spock provided design input and technical consultation. Now y'might say, why would Starfleet listen to some guy from the future?

Easy -- Spock explained himself to Vulcan, not to Starfleet, gave the Vulcans proof, and they created an alias for him and put him in a position to do all that.

There are still things, though, that that doesn't explain. Windshields with HUDs instead of a completely closed bridge superstructure as a theme running not only on the Organiprize but on the Kelvin as well. We also don't know how far back Spock went (i.e., how much time he spent in the past) or how many times.

There are some things an altered timeline just won't explain away. Some things it might. For the most part, though, I agree with those who say don't bother trying. It won't fit completely, it can't be made to fit completely and for the most part making it fit doesn't look -- from the perspective of December 2008 -- like it was ever anyone's intention.

Yeah, throw rotten eggs if you want, hell, make 'em molotov cocktails since it's chilly outside, but all of this tells me that the only resemblance this bears to the Star Trek fans like me knew is in the names and the most elementary basic components of the setting. Other than that, it's something completely different. (Is "something completely different" an acceptable way of saying, "not Star Trek"?)
__________________
"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
  #23  
Old 12-02-2008, 06:36 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagami Crewman View Post
So the discussion of opinion about people's personal preferences has come down to "Enlightened forward thinking rational minds" versus "Dogmatic irrational zealots."

Regrettable I think.
It's been down on that level awhile, Yag. And yes, it is sad.
__________________
"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
  #24  
Old 12-02-2008, 06:38 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
Which is good. Canonites can eat it imho.
I wouldn't eat that thing with sour cream and chives.

Quote:
The world does not revolve around them.
No, but for 40 years, Star Trek's financial success and therefore continued survival has rested on their backs. Gratitude is best when it's reciprocated, and Paramount's falling a little short in many eyes. You don't have to agree with that, but you might at least respect and try to understand it.
__________________
"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
  #25  
Old 12-02-2008, 06:58 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
I wouldn't eat that thing with sour cream and chives.



No, but for 40 years, Star Trek's financial success and therefore continued survival has rested on their backs. Gratitude is best when it's reciprocated, and Paramount's falling a little short in many eyes. You don't have to agree with that, but you might at least respect and try to understand it.
I guess catering to you guys for 40 straight years just isn't enough.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:03 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

You know.....a Wife that makes a commitment to her husband for 40 years year and then says'

"I don't feel like making you happy any more" is a pretty awful person. Marriage is forever...and that's what you buy into. If Paramount wants it's fan base to stick around how bout a little reciprical appreciation?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:25 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Look put it this way, movie makers have been trying to do something that please fans of their respective franchise. Every single time (be it Matrix trilogy, Indiana Jones 4, the Star Wars prequels, the Dark Tower books) the fans of those franchises respond with utter hatred and anger about how horrible they think the movie (or book) was and how it does not live up to its name. I was starting to at least understand the complaints that they used too much mainstream hocuspocus like more action, cgi, thin dialogue, etc.

And then "X-Files: I Want to Believe" happened.

A movie that had very little action, next to no CGI (if there even was any), stellar acting, high quality dialogue, character driven story, very true to its name. AND THE FANS HATED IT!!! It earns an unbelievably low score at rottentomatoes.com (something that was like in the teens percentage). And people on all the forums bashed it to smitherines.

At some point, someone's going to come along and go, "Okay, we're not going win with them. The fans are going to hate us no matter WHAT we do. Time to go a different route. And if some of the fans who have anything resembling an open mind want to follow us, good for them."

Voila: Star Trek XI

Maybe it's more to it than that. But all I've seen here is nag, nag, nag. And I expect that once the movie comes out it won't be any better. Much worse actually. So, yeah, I hope Abrams does rope in a whole new fanbase. And those of us Trekkies who are of the liberal frame of mind may see some major quality in this new reboot.

Again, it might suck. Wait and see.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:32 PM
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 MigueldaRican View Post
Look put it this way, movie makers have been trying to do something that please fans of their respective franchise. Every single time (be it Matrix trilogy, Indiana Jones 4, the Star Wars prequels, the Dark Tower books) the fans of those franchises respond with utter hatred and anger about how horrible they think the movie (or book) was and how it does not live up to its name. I was starting to at least understand the complaints that they used too much mainstream hocuspocus like more action, cgi, thin dialogue, etc.

And then "X-Files: I Want to Believe" happened.

A movie that had very little action, next to no CGI (if there even was any), stellar acting, high quality dialogue, character driven story, very true to its name. AND THE FANS HATED IT!!! It earns an unbelievably low score at rottentomatoes.com (something that was like in the teens percentage). And people on all the forums bashed it to smitherines.

At some point, someone's going to come along and go, "Okay, we're not going win with them. The fans are going to hate us no matter WHAT we do. Time to go a different route. And if some of the fans who have anything resembling an open mind want to follow us, good for them."

Voila: Star Trek XI

Maybe it's more to it than that. But all I've seen here is nag, nag, nag. And I expect that once the movie comes out it won't be any better. Much worse actually. So, yeah, I hope Abrams does rope in a whole new fanbase. And those of us Trekkies who are of the liberal frame of mind may see some major quality in this new reboot.

Again, it might suck. Wait and see.
I'm conservatively optimistic that a liberal and tolerant acceptance of BOTH old and new fans thus upholding the Democratic principles of Republicanism may be a successful strategy and lead to moderate success.

But I admit I'm of two minds about the whole thing...
__________________
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
  #29  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:44 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 MigueldaRican View Post
Look put it this way, movie makers have been trying to do something that please fans of their respective franchise. Every single time (be it Matrix trilogy, Indiana Jones 4, the Star Wars prequels, the Dark Tower books) the fans of those franchises respond with utter hatred and anger about how horrible they think the movie (or book) was and how it does not live up to its name. I was starting to at least understand the complaints that they used too much mainstream hocuspocus like more action, cgi, thin dialogue, etc.

And then "X-Files: I Want to Believe" happened.

A movie that had very little action, next to no CGI (if there even was any), stellar acting, high quality dialogue, character driven story, very true to its name. AND THE FANS HATED IT!!! It earns an unbelievably low score at rottentomatoes.com (something that was like in the teens percentage). And people on all the forums bashed it to smitherines.

At some point, someone's going to come along and go, "Okay, we're not going win with them. The fans are going to hate us no matter WHAT we do. Time to go a different route. And if some of the fans who have anything resembling an open mind want to follow us, good for them."

Voila: Star Trek XI

Maybe it's more to it than that. But all I've seen here is nag, nag, nag. And I expect that once the movie comes out it won't be any better. Much worse actually. So, yeah, I hope Abrams does rope in a whole new fanbase. And those of us Trekkies who are of the liberal frame of mind may see some major quality in this new reboot.

Again, it might suck. Wait and see.
Dude I am totally 100 percent with you.

The X-Files: I want to believe was a masterpiece in my opinion.

Just because it wasn't about Aliens and Conspiracies everyone hated it.

At some point the studio has to step back and say to themselves...do we really want to cater to a bunch of nerds and psychos that take this stuff way too seriously? Or do we want to tell a good story the way WE want to tell it without being bullied into a position we don't want to go by a fan base that can't seem to get a grip and wants to see the same thing over and over and over?

Change is hard. Deal with it or die....that's a pretty slimmed down way of quoting Darwin's law.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:47 PM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

250 million years ago Dinosaurs were the "NEW" thing and Sharks old hat.

Which are still here?

Darwin doesn't always back the newcomer.
__________________
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
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 06:17 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.