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

Back to the real world !

rtb2k6

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 73

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 7:12 am

Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 7:40 am

I can't even read that.

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 7:44 am

Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:12 am)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

:question:  :question:  :question:   :eyesroll:

rtb2k6

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 73

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 7:46 am

Read it slowly and it will sink in ! why blow up vulcan just for a plot device.i am a big fan of the movie but why oh why do they always have to resort to time travel for a story idea !

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 7:49 am

Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:46 am)
Read it slowly and it will sink in ! why blow up vulcan just for a plot device.i am a big fan of the movie but why oh why do they always have to resort to time travel for a story idea !

it works

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 8:51 am

Quote (thereR4lights @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:44 am)
Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:12 am)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

:question: ¿:question: ¿:question: ¿ :eyesroll:

I think its basically another person that doesn't like the new movie and wants the ones who like it to ignore it.

DarthRage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 289

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 9:11 am

Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:12 am)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Sentence structure. Punctuation. Capitalizing. Did we not pay attention in GRADE SCHOOL?

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 9:11 am

Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:12 am)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Star Trek isn't real.

SpaceClown77

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 337

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 9:19 am

Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Oct. 09 2009, 9:11 am)
Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 09 2009, 7:12 am)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Star Trek isn't real.

LOL For some fans it is.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 11:04 am

Destroying Vulcan was extremely necessary from a dramatic standpoint in this film.

1- One of the problems with Star Trek over the last 15 years was (IMO) unwillingness to take real risks with the audience and an unwillingness to do anything that is "shocking" or "game-changing."

2- The inherent problem with "prequels" is that everyone already knows what is going to happen, so the suspense and drama can only be so intense. If I know that Anikin becomes Darth Vader and I know that Obi-Wan kicks his butt in a fight...how much can I truly be invested in that story?

So, this "prequel" was put in the alternate timeline to avoid issue #2. Vulcan was destroyed and Amanda killed to drill home that issue #1 wasn't going to be a problem in Star Trek any longer...and that all bets are off in this alternate universe.

So, the audiences get the characters the love but we eliminate the idea of the "prequel pitfall" but demonstrating that anything can and will happen to these people. There is a real sense of drama and danger now. The audience can be emotionally invested again.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 1:08 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Oct. 09 2009, 10:06 pm)
*Inserts Standard Reply #1-4A*

ROFL  :laugh:

A d@mn good one!!!

btw. congrats on the 60k SB!  :cool:

kludge77

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1477

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 1:13 pm

Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 08 2009, 4:12 pm)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Isn't going to happen.

They will run with this idea for a while. And they should. It needs to play out. The next movies turnout will give us an idea of longevity for the franchise.

I see two options

1. XII is a success. From there we get more movies and maybe in the years to come a series.
2. XII is a flop. Star Trek goes back into hibernation for anther 5-7 years.

Which would you prefer? Personally I'd rather have some ST than no ST.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 1:17 pm

Quote (kludge77 @ Oct. 09 2009, 10:13 pm)
Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 08 2009, 4:12 pm)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Isn't going to happen.

They will run with this idea for a while. And they should. It needs to play out. The next movies turnout will give us an idea of longevity for the franchise.

I see two options

1. XII is a success. From there we get more movies and maybe in the years to come a series.
2. XII is a flop. Star Trek goes back into hibernation for anther 5-7 years.

Which would you prefer? Personally I'd rather have some ST than no ST.

Frankly I don't care, since I am only interested in the prime timeline... so either it's a success and we will have more of JJ Trek, or it fails and we will have no Trek.

My hope is that CBS will try to pick up on the success and will create a new show, set in the prime timeline. If that happens... I wish the movies a good run, to keep the interest in TREK.

I know... it's selfish...  :p  ;)

kludge77

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1477

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 1:23 pm

Quote (Captain_Storma @ Oct. 08 2009, 10:17 pm)
Quote (kludge77 @ Oct. 09 2009, 10:13 pm)
Quote (rtb2k6 @ Oct. 08 2009, 4:12 pm)
Whether you liked or loved what they did with trek XI the writers can just carry on with the prime timeline we all are familiar with in the follow up with no need for explanations.that was an alternate timeline so can be dismissed as such.i cant see how things can carry on with the changes they have made.i mean no vulcan !

Isn't going to happen.

They will run with this idea for a while. And they should. It needs to play out. The next movies turnout will give us an idea of longevity for the franchise.

I see two options

1. XII is a success. From there we get more movies and maybe in the years to come a series.
2. XII is a flop. Star Trek goes back into hibernation for anther 5-7 years.

Which would you prefer? Personally I'd rather have some ST than no ST.

Frankly I don't care, since I am only interested in the prime timeline... so either it's a success and we will have more of JJ Trek, or it fails and we will have no Trek.

My hope is that CBS will try to pick up on the success and will create a new show, set in the prime timeline. If that happens... I wish the movies a good run, to keep the interest in TREK.

I know... it's selfish... ¿:p ¿;)

I again, would be totally surprised, if the movies did well not to set a series in the new timeline.

I'd rather see more TNG prime universe, but I think that ship as sailed (so to speak!;) :laugh:

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Oct. 09 2009, 1:31 pm

No TNG, no DS9, no VOY, no ENT and no TOS for me.

I want something new, fresh, original.

There are so many things they could do for a TV show... they should just read the recent books to get some ideas ("Articles of the Federation" or "Singular Destiny" for example).

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