The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > This is Not a True Star Trek Movie
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 05-06-2009, 11:53 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

While you present a well thought out case, mynameisme, remember, First Contact did the exact same thing.... highlighted the action, the booms, the visual effects, the space battles....and it turned out being a damn good movie that actually had a story beyond the things that went boom. So did Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Respectfully,
Martok2112
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-07-2009, 12:08 AM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

mynameisme, you do bring up a believable case for why you SHOULDN'T have to see a movie you don't want to see. If you don't want to see it dude, don't see it.

However, you falls flat on your face when you presume to know EXACTLY what the movie is about and what the movie is like without even seeing it.

I guess it's a double edged sword for people who don't want to see the movie.

The only way they can justify not seeing it is by thinking they know what the entire movie is about and what it will be like without even seeing it. And in doing so they sound presumtuous and pretentious.

If you're gonna bash a movie and not watch it, then I'm sorry, but your opinions are worth a lot less than the people who bash the movie and have seen it.

And out of the many thousands of people registered on this forum, we only have ONE person so far who has seen the movie who doesn't like it. Just one. ONNNNNNNNNNE.

Even the skeptical forum members that have seen the movie say it's good afterward. I actually trust their opinions more than the people who were optimistic about the movie from the beginning, to be honest.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-07-2009, 12:27 AM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisme View Post
If you think you will like this movie then go and see it and enjoy. I for one don’t think this movie will entertain me so I am going to do other things I enjoy.
As you should. Do what you enjoy. No movie is going to appeal to %100 of the people or what they want. And thats ok because they're not supposed to. But DVD rentals are literally dirt cheap. So in a few months I hope you would spend the buck to rent it. It's the same price as a can of coke from a vending machine. Surely you have a few quarters laying around to take the chance on this movie when its available. If you still think it sucks then you havent lost much of anything.

In the end, if you spend that buck then you are simply like millions of other people who do not go to the theater (or very little), often because of the expense. $1 for 3 people instead of $30. That is a very legitimate argument for anyone. But if you arent going to spend it... well I dont know. I hear the remake of the 'day the earth stood still' is atrocious. But I will still spend that buck so I can watch the visuals once, which are stunning.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-07-2009, 07:45 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
So can a lot of things in this movie. From driving cars, to early meetings. Why does the buck stop here?
There are some things in this movie that simply can't be explained away using established Star Trek canon. Hence the "alternate universe/timeline/reality" plot device. By setting the movie in an alternate timeline, the writers have side-stepped canon and are free to do whatever they want without having to worry about whether or not they are conforming to what has come before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Once again, I know all about the "forward progression" rule and it's a superficial remark. Up until now, we the Trekkies have been using "Trekky fandom explanations" to explain to cynics and skeptics why this has happened, why that has happened. Suddenly this movie comes around that all stops, and the Trekkies are now becoming the skeptics. Suddenly the buck stops here. Because of "forward progression"? I don't buy that. I'm sorry. Seemingly there was no limit to "fandom explanations". Until now.
It's not superficial. Every incarnation of Star Trek, from TOS through all the movies, all the way to TNG, DS9, and VOY have followed a forward progressing timeline from the 23rd to the 24th centuries. ENT was the exception. Sure, there have been inconsistencies. That's inevitable within a franchise that has lasted 43 years, 10 movies, and 6 TV series. Nobody's perfect. But, overall, the Trek universe has been pretty consistent with the exeption of a few minor exceptions that can be explained...usually.

However, with this movie, the changes, especially one enormous change, just can't be explained within established canon. That's why the alternate timeline plot device was introduced. That way they can get around canon by saying that the original, or "prime" timeline continues unaltered by the events of this movie. Thereby, technically, preserving the original Star Trek universe intact.

That's why "the buck stops here", so to speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Getting back to Star Trek, there's a lot of Star Trek history that I don't want to see done away with, and I highly doubt that Abrams and Co. are actually seeking to destroy Trek canon (despite what you and others might say). It's simply here's the plan: "we want a story that revisits the original characters, we also want a bit of a "pass the baton story" element so we have Leonard Nimoy from the original cast, how do we pull this off? Time travel. Why does it happen? Something devestating is threatening. Now we have a villain. Does this villain care about history? No. Do the we the writers care? Irrelevant. We have a villain that negates that.".
Which, again, is why the buck stops here. The minor continuity errors within the last 43 years of Star Trek can usually be pretty easily explained with "fandom" explanations. Most of the changes in the new movie can only be explained by the alternate timeline. The destruction of Vulcan, for instance, can't be explained away be anything within established continuity. The alternate timeline is the only way. The look of the Abramsprise and the iBridge can only be explained by the alternate timeline. Nothing within established continuity can explain the radical redesign within the existing original Trek timeline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
So now, back to Star Trek, you've given the writers this rule: write whatever you want, but no event too devestating. Nevermind that such a rule takes away the reality: it's space, there are countless possibilities that are on different levels of devestation. Never mind allowing the story to flow realistically, you want the writers to never allow Trek to meet certain things in space.
In my opinion, there is plenty of room within established "canon" to write a compelling, exciting, and interesting story about the adventures of the Enterprise crew prior to TOS. The writers of the new movie elected to disregard established Star Trek continuity for whatever reason. The alternate timeline explanation gave them the freedom to change whatever they wanted without consequences, other than upsetting a few "trekkies" out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Fine, I was actually looking for some confirmation to this. Thanks for the confirmation. My point is even after that, why does "Trekky fandom explanations" suddenly stop at this movie?
I was actually mistaken on that one. It was Pike who asked Uhura if she could speak Romulan. She said she could speak all three dialects. It was on one of the "Who's Who On The Crew" TV spots on Nickelodon. And I think there was another Romulan reference but I can't remember where or who said it. Either way, they know they are dealing with Romulans before "Balance of Terror". And "Trekkie fandom explanations" suddenly stop with this movie because, as I stated above, some things just can't be explained away using what we know as established Star Trek history. The alternate timeline is the only way to explain them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Good so I'm right. They met before Menagerie, and as I said before in my original response, circumstances with Nero may have changed that.
True. Aparently Nero's appearance changed things. Pike meets Kirk long before he is promoted to fleet captain and Kirk takes over the Enterprise from him after progressing normally through ranks and serving on other ships. Again, an event that can't be explained away using established Star Trek history. Only the alternate timeline offers a valid explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
I know all this. The point is that the movies make the military aspect more apparent. This much we have to admit to, otherwise why would Roddenberry react so negatively to the movies?
Starfleet, in my opinion, has always been military at its core. But in GR's utopian view of the future, the exploration and scientific aspects overshadowed the military aspects due to the overall peaceful nature of the Federation.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-07-2009, 07:47 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,225
Default

I've seen it and it IS Star Trek. True Star Trek.
How Kirk faces Nero in the end is the best example!
__________________


"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
  #76  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:18 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

This sucks. I'm not going to be able to see it until Saturday! Aaarrrgghhh!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:21 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
This sucks. I'm not going to be able to see it until Saturday! Aaarrrgghhh!
Hang in there Zim...saturday will be here before you know it.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:36 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisme View Post
For the people that say I should watch the movie then say something I have the following to say.
Previews are there to make you to go and watch a movie. If they do not convince you to watch a movie then why should one go and see it. Why should one go and waste money on something they don’t think will entertain them. And the bottom line is that this so called Trek movie doesn’t seem like it will entertain me.
This trailer just seems that they are playing on what is easily so many other movie themes. Tons of explosions, a bit of sex, lots of fights, and lots of effects however they generally have little story to them. I am just tired of the cookie cutter movie market. There are tons of movies with this type of plot out there so why should I waste my time on this one. Like some friends and I discussed at numerous times there is very little if not no original thought coming out of Hollywood these days. They recycle movies or make movies from series that they already have a fan base so they are safe to put out there.
I wish I had a holodeck so I could really have fun making my own holonovel and truly not have to wait till Hollywood produces something interesting.

I just think the original spirit of Trek has died off years ago when even some of the later series has gone to a bit of a darker side in their storylines. All be it that some of them were interesting but the fact is that the original Trek concept died off many years ago.
You can call it new trek but the fact is the original spirit is gone. Hollywood is just betting on your loyalty as a fan base to line their wallets with cash.
I really don’t care about who produced or wrote or even acted in any movie. I doubt I ever saw anything that has these actors in it or even produced by the person that produced this movie.
If you think you will like this movie then go and see it and enjoy. I for one don’t think this movie will entertain me so I am going to do other things I enjoy.
For the umpteenth time, you like others are accusing this trailer of... being a trailer. All, ALL, ALL...

*ahem*

ALL

movie trailers, even Star Trek trailers, showcase the entertainment value of the movie they are previewing. That means we'll get a trailer with tons of explosions, some sex, lots of fights, and lots of effects. Every review I've seen shows that there is way more to this movie than that. Even a negative review that says the movie is slow in spots and hard to understand.

Name me one, ONE Star Treck trailer that doesn't showcase the film's entertainment value. One.

I'm waiting.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:39 AM
NCC_1701A's Avatar
NCC_1701A NCC_1701A is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Listening to talk about the destruction of Vulcan and how it cant be expained is interesting but did anyone ever expain why Quo'nos was supposed to become uninhabitable after TUC yet in TNG they are still living there?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:59 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC_1701A View Post
Listening to talk about the destruction of Vulcan and how it cant be expained is interesting but did anyone ever expain why Quo'nos was supposed to become uninhabitable after TUC yet in TNG they are still living there?
Three words: James. Tiberius. Kirk.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
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 10:27 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.