ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

When I watch TOS should I think about what happens

RikersMailbox

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 1:55 pm

in Star Trek XI?

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 2:04 pm

as Nero says...but that was another life. But I do think about how Kirk will die and how Spock will end up in an altered timeline of their past.

Commander_Zelkar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7252

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 2:05 pm

I would say no.

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 2:23 pm

Since this movie completely invalidates TOS, I wouldn't think about how it connects to the movie.

RikersMailbox

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 2:27 pm

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 2:04 pm)
as Nero says...but that was another life. But I do think about how Kirk will die and how Spock will end up in an altered timeline of their past.

I guess this is the best way to look at it...

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 2:49 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ July 14 2009, 3:45 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 15 2009, 2:23 pm)
Since this movie completely invalidates TOS, I wouldn't think about how it connects to the movie.

Actually, STXI invalidates itself as part of Trek history. This is, after all, how it respected canon.

It is part of trek history it's just creating new history in a new universe. But it is disconnected from the old trek.

As much as I enjoyed the movie and the story I do wish it had been more of a straight and complete reboot. Because the muddied time travel concept does make it a bit confusing.

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:25 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ July 14 2009, 4:02 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 2:49 pm)
Quote (trekbuff @ July 14 2009, 3:45 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 15 2009, 2:23 pm)
Since this movie completely invalidates TOS, I wouldn't think about how it connects to the movie.

Actually, STXI invalidates itself as part of Trek history. This is, after all, how it respected canon.

It is part of trek history it's just creating new history in a new universe. But it is disconnected from the old trek.

Say what :question: It is, but it isn't? It's part of it, but it's disconnected?

It may be part of the Trek franchise, but many of the production crew have gone out of their way saying STXI respects Trek canon. The only way for this to be is the movie not being part of it.

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 2:49 pm)
As much as I enjoyed the movie and the story I do wish it had been more of a straight and complete reboot. Because the muddied time travel concept does make it a bit confusing.
It's as much a reboot as the new BSG. They just didn't make McCoy or Scott a female, but we did get a new history of Chekov.

Time travel now, somehow, creates new universes? I've yet to see proof of this in either the movie or the Countdown comics. This concept was never before in Trek and we only have Orci's afterthought to quell fan ire to even consider it.

STXI is entirely a reimagining of both the Trekverse and the crew of the Squiderprise.

The only commonality, which were not even sure of, is everything prior to 2233. Looking at the Kelvin places even this in doubt.

I guess that is what I was trying to say, that Trek XI is part of the franchise history but it really is hard to place it within the Trek universe itself.

In my opinion I think this is how I can squeeeeeeeeze Star Trek XI into the Star Trek universe.

Up until Star Trek: First Contact the Trek time line is as we all have known it. In that time line Jonathan Archer's Enterperise NX-01 didn't exist. Then Picard and crew alter history by helping Zefram Cocrane with his warp flight. It is from that point history has changed. Because of Picard and crew technology in the Star Trek universe was more advanced than it had been earlier in it's history. In this time line the Enterprise NX-01 was the first Enterprise and then came the USS Kelvin. Nero comes from the past and alters the time line even more with the destruction of the Kelvin. The USS Enterprise in this altered time line is launched earlier and with the arrival of Spock from the old time line we witness the destruction of Vulcan and the further alteration of the time line. So as of Today James Kirk is starting on his first mission and is Captain much earlier than in the original time line.

In the above scenario this new Trek is erasing the old. Yes, I know that creates inconsistencies, but to my feeble little mind it does makes sense.

My point is that despite my love for this movie, by trying to tie it in with the already established Trek Universe it really messes up continuity. So right now continuity is a bit of a mess!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:26 pm

Yep, it's a reboot.
Sugarcoated with gimmicks like Leonard Nimoy and    this "alternate timeline" as a half hearted attempt to make it easier to swallow for those of us who don't want a reboot.

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:30 pm

Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:26 pm)
Yep, it's a reboot.
Sugarcoated with gimmicks like Leonard Nimoy and ¿ ¿this "alternate timeline" as a half hearted attempt to make it easier to swallow for those of us who don't want a reboot.

Believe it or not, I do agree with you. I think by placing Spock Prime in the movie they were trying to please fans who might not have been happy with a reboot that erases 40+ years of Star Trek history. But despite it being an enjoyable movie for me, even thought the time travel elements really make a mess of continuity, I do understand why some fans are upset.

I am more confused than upset.

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:33 pm

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:30 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:26 pm)
Yep, it's a reboot.
Sugarcoated with gimmicks like Leonard Nimoy and ? ?this "alternate timeline" as a half hearted attempt to make it easier to swallow for those of us who don't want a reboot.

Believe it or not, I do agree with you. I think by placing Spock Prime in the movie they were trying to please fans who might not have been happy with a reboot that erases 40+ years of Star Trek history. But despite it being an enjoyable movie for me, even thought the time travel elements really make a mess of continuity, I do understand why some fans are upset.

I am more confused than upset.

I would have respected these guys a bit more if they had went with a straight reboot.
I still would have hated the reboot concept, but I do appreciate straightforwardness.
Ron Moore and the guy who did Babylon 5 have said they wanted a Trek reboot.
I'm not giving them a hard time.

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:34 pm

Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:33 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:30 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:26 pm)
Yep, it's a reboot.
Sugarcoated with gimmicks like Leonard Nimoy and ? ?this "alternate timeline" as a half hearted attempt to make it easier to swallow for those of us who don't want a reboot.

Believe it or not, I do agree with you. I think by placing Spock Prime in the movie they were trying to please fans who might not have been happy with a reboot that erases 40+ years of Star Trek history. But despite it being an enjoyable movie for me, even thought the time travel elements really make a mess of continuity, I do understand why some fans are upset.

I am more confused than upset.

I would have respected these guys a bit more if they had went with a straight reboot.
I still would have hated the reboot concept, but I do appreciate straightforwardness.

In hindsight I do agree, a straight reboot would have been more straightforward and less muddled and confusing.

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:50 pm

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:34 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:33 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:30 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:26 pm)
Yep, it's a reboot.
Sugarcoated with gimmicks like Leonard Nimoy and ? ?this "alternate timeline" as a half hearted attempt to make it easier to swallow for those of us who don't want a reboot.

Believe it or not, I do agree with you. I think by placing Spock Prime in the movie they were trying to please fans who might not have been happy with a reboot that erases 40+ years of Star Trek history. But despite it being an enjoyable movie for me, even thought the time travel elements really make a mess of continuity, I do understand why some fans are upset.

I am more confused than upset.

I would have respected these guys a bit more if they had went with a straight reboot.
I still would have hated the reboot concept, but I do appreciate straightforwardness.

In hindsight I do agree, a straight reboot would have been more straightforward and less muddled and confusing.

IMO, the sugarcoating of this reboot is very patronizing.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:52 pm

Star Trek XI is essentially a new TREK with familiar faces in a new universe. :logical: :whatthe: :logical: :whatthe: :logical:

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 3:54 pm

Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:50 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:34 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:33 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:30 pm)
Quote (BrianHMay @ July 14 2009, 4:26 pm)
Yep, it's a reboot.
Sugarcoated with gimmicks like Leonard Nimoy and ? ?this "alternate timeline" as a half hearted attempt to make it easier to swallow for those of us who don't want a reboot.

Believe it or not, I do agree with you. I think by placing Spock Prime in the movie they were trying to please fans who might not have been happy with a reboot that erases 40+ years of Star Trek history. But despite it being an enjoyable movie for me, even thought the time travel elements really make a mess of continuity, I do understand why some fans are upset.

I am more confused than upset.

I would have respected these guys a bit more if they had went with a straight reboot.
I still would have hated the reboot concept, but I do appreciate straightforwardness.

In hindsight I do agree, a straight reboot would have been more straightforward and less muddled and confusing.

IMO, the sugarcoating of this reboot is very patronizing.

It is but maybe it is understandable because I think that patronizing was fear driven. Either risk pissing off a lot core fans by doing a straight reboot or trying to please them by including things from the original series.

It was a risk either way. That is why I say in hindsight a straight reboot would have been better.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 15 2009, 4:16 pm

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 15 2009, 3:30 pm)
Believe it or not, I do agree with you. I think by placing Spock Prime in the movie they were trying to please fans who might not have been happy with a reboot that erases 40+ years of Star Trek history. But despite it being an enjoyable movie for me, even thought the time travel elements really make a mess of continuity, I do understand why some fans are upset.

I am more confused than upset.

I thought we were all supposed to ignore the maggot ST.

I'm kind of surprised it's logging on here again after its puerile display yesterday. ?I figured either the mods would've yanked its latest account or that it might just be capable of some slight sense of human-like shame and remorse that would keep it from showing its sad, little virtual face around here again: ?



Since it's both demonstrated that it can still post here and chooses to, we can conclude that once again, nothing has been done by the mods, despite an incredibly sexist and despicable comment being made against a well-regarded and well-liked female poster, even moreso, a mother, here. ?Also, since it has nevertheless chosen to post under the same username (I'm going to email the eminent British guitarist and astrophysicist about the little s**t maggot who is using his name, and what he's said to a mother while using it. ?I can't imagine him being happy about that), we can also conclude that it feels no remorse like a normal, well-adjusted human would, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that it isn't a real man at all. ?It's just a s**t maggot posing as one.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum