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

Star Trek 2009

lois.s.smith

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Nov. 28 2010, 5:00 pm

I have just watched Star Trek 2009 for the second time and as a true Trekkies I do not understand how a movie which changes the entire original Star Trek Series was done. I could understand if the time-line was changed back at the end of the movie, but it wasn't. How can you destroy Vulcan when it was in the series, how can you kill Spock's mother when she appeared in several episodes. How can you show Captain Pike relinquishing his Captaincy to Kirk when he was left on another planet in the series. I think it would only be right and just to make another movie that changes the time-line back. You can't just leave it that way. It does a serious injustice to true Trekkies and to the memory of Gene Roddenberry and the series he created. Why do you think this movie bombed in the theater? Because when true Trekkies watched it and told other Trekkies they didn't go see it because it's a bunch of bull. Also as for those Star Trek fans that call themselves Trekkers you need to recognize that the correct name for a Star Trek Fan is Trekkie, it's been that way since 1963 when the series started and will be that way long after all of us are gone. There is no such thing as a Trekker, we are all Trekkies


lsm

stunned4life

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 181

Report this Nov. 28 2010, 10:27 pm

Well the movie actually does explain that the original time line still exists on its own but there is this second time line that has been created. Everything before Nero arrived is normal in both and that includes Enterprise the series but all else has changed. So Vulcan is alive and well with the TOS line but gone in the new one.

stunned4life

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 181

Report this Nov. 28 2010, 10:32 pm

oh ya and the movie did really well at the box office. I'm a trekkie too, however a few friends are Trekkers. the way I look at is a trekkie likes it all including the small stuff like how could they beam that there or that room is on a lower deck, type of thing. Trekker likes the story and the universe but is not as involved...maybe dare i say it a casual fan.

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 3:42 am

Whats your other screen name here?

"Thank Pitch Forks and Pointed Ears"

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 5:20 am

Please stop, I beg you.

1. You're 19 months late...posting a topic that's been discussed at LEAST once-a-week for each of those 19 months.

2. The show didn't start in 1963.

3. Star Trek fans can call themselves anything they like. Who are YOU to proclaim it otherwise?

#@$%, somebody shoot me.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

lois.s.smith

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 8:53 am

In typing my beef I mis keyed 1963 when it should have been 1966 September 3rd to be exact. In any case I beleive that I am probably older and have seen more Star Trek than most of you. I don't appreciate it when things just don't end right. How can you do a movie that creates a new time line that does not feed into the original series, without changing the time line back.What's next two different movies extending two different time lines?


lsm

Shumsky

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 131

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 9:09 am

Quote: lois.s.smith @ Nov. 29 2010, 8:53 am

In typing my beef I mis keyed 1963 when it should have been 1966 September 3rd to be exact. In any case I beleive that I am probably older and have seen more Star Trek than most of you. I don't appreciate it when things just don't end right. How can you do a movie that creates a new time line that does not feed into the original series, without changing the time line back.What's next two different movies extending two different time lines?


I agree with you. J.J. made a mess. Gene Roddenberry's version of Star Trek ended with new movie (well it started with Nemesis). So if you are an old trek fan stick to the old movies and series and ignore the new movie, coz trek is not coming back.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 9:35 am

Quote: lois.s.smith @ Nov. 29 2010, 8:53 am

In typing my beef I mis keyed 1963 when it should have been 1966 September 3rd to be exact. In any case I beleive that I am probably older and have seen more Star Trek than most of you. I don't appreciate it when things just don't end right. How can you do a movie that creates a new time line that does not feed into the original series, without changing the time line back.What's next two different movies extending two different time lines?



Actually....




It was September 8th.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 10:56 am

It was good fun. The timelines business annoyed me too - but not so much as the daft guy they got into play Kirk. This Chris Pine guy thought he was James Dean not James Kirk ...


to boldy go where no man has gone before

jamesspock1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 461

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 11:32 am

This Trek, if you can call it that, was made for a young crowd, I guess any teen would like it, but some of us like it more evolved, with a script that makes sense and is accurate.
This movie is a joke.

jralley

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 11:42 am

I am a huge trekkie and had no real issues with Star Trek 2009. I just look at the concept of the multiverse, the original timeline (1966) is still intact and safe. But when Nero arrived and destroyed the Kelvin the timeline split creating a parallel universe. If they had put everything back in place at the end of the movie then they would have to repeat all the same story lines of TOS to some extent. Now anything is possible.

John R. Alley

jamesspock1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 461

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 12:06 pm

Its not so much this new universe as much the content of this film, I may be over picky but even if you change things, it has to make sense, just about everything in this movie had to be assumed, there was no explansion to many events, they gave us no answer to why they did stuff.
And everybody of the main crew just pops out like that, out of the academy or from barren planets and are being made chief of this or leader of that, and after a day or so Kirk is Captain and so on. No this movie was not well thought out, ofcourse this is only my opinion.

Roboto

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3883

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 1:18 pm

*sigh*


While I admit to having been disappointed by the first film- so many reasons why, but I will not be repeating myself yet again- I choose to look at it all from a different angle, and I suggest that you do as well, Lois.


First of all, what happened in the series... well, happened. Time travel really messes with your brain, but understand this: no single movie can change what happened in the series, unless you decide to believe that it does. The biggest reason is because none of it is real, and the whole point is for personal entertainment. As far as I am concerned, the viewer can interpret it any way he wants. The idea of the movie is that it is supposed to be an alternate universe, so I just take comfort in that and think of the film as a whole separate Trek universe.


As to the term "Trekkie" versus "Trekker"... I read an interview of Leonard Nimoy from some years back where he was asked which was the correct term. Surprisingly, he said that TREKKER was correct, not Trekkie. I wish I had saved the link to the article so I could show it to you and you could calm down a bit, but unfortunately I did not think to save it. Honestly, I generally call myself a Trekkie, because non-Star Trek fans seem to recognize that term more than "Trekker", but I am perfectly at ease with the use of both terms.


Old Sapper

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 5:47 pm

Star Trek 2009 renewed my interest in all things 'Trek'. I have been a Trekkie since day one and have faithfuly watched every new series and every movie. After 43 years it was getting a little tedious; thank God for Star Trek 2009! I can not begin to describe all the positives this venture puts forward. A new begining; what a brilliant idea, from here on in everything can be new and interesting without someone pointing to some arcane item forty years ago and critizing a excellent piece of work. Bring on more more more!!!!!


Old Sapper

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Nov. 29 2010, 6:38 pm

The thing with me about this movie is,
it was not in a position to do badly.

*First, it had the novelty of being the
first, total recast of TOS. People were
going to be curious about it and come out.

*Second, getting rid of Berman and Bragga
assured a fresh approach, which was demanded.

*Third, it was made deliberately commercial.
Having legendary characters handed on a sliver
platter and essentially an unlimited budget,
STAR TREK '09 wasn't going to completely suck.

Was it all just nostalgia, curiosity and hype,
making this a 1 Trick Pony? We're going to find
out with this sequel. That's the real test ...

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