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

Star Trek 2009

skianbeerfist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this Dec. 07 2010, 11:38 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Star Trek 2009 didn't bomb at the Box Office. Nemesis did. Don't look for logic when time-travel is involved. In TOS City on the Edge of Forever they had to be careful of everything they did when they went back in time while in Star Trek IV they could do as they wanted.


Heh. Good times. I can't wait to go to film school. Star Trek IV and and X were great movies. I really can care less about the critics when it comes to what I like. I thought Star Trek XI ruled too. Leonard Nimoy really helped out as well.

I will be sleeping outside the theater for Star Trek XII.

Oh, I am new by the way. But, I was raised on Star Trek. Speaking of that, I am going to sit in my Captains chair now and watch Star Trek in HD. I love watching TNG in HD. With this Samsung TV I don't need to go the movies much anymore.

Sincerely,
Skianbeerfist

ONE EYE FUTURE ROCK N ROLL

AnthonyExMachina

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Dec. 07 2010, 3:52 pm


"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."



As Star Trek has always tried to do the writers of this movie wanted to keep with what is currently considered the most likely mode of time travel and what is considered the most likely effect if one were to change the past. The most popular theory right now is the Multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse). If you've ever seen the show Sliders than you'll understand a bit better. In fact Data even mentioned this theory somewhat in a TNG episode. Anything that can happen does happen in another dimension or a "parallel universe". So when the Narada went back to 2233 and destroyed the Kelvin at that moment (instead of those actions changing the original Trek time line) it created a new one. Think of it like the Mirro Universe that was used in TOS, DS9, and ENT.

trekkie264692

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Dec. 08 2010, 6:01 pm

i hated all the action and romance. star trek is about discovery and science, not battling and destruction (though they do deal with their fair share of that, too) what i mean is star trek 2009 was just wrong. the computer graphics were pretty cool, but otherwise forget it. the romulans were just wrong, too much lens flare, AND TOO MUCH VIOLENCE!


my advice to anyone making a new movie: at least make it PG rated.


THIS WAS SENT BY A TRUE TREKKIE _\V/ (__) live long and prosper

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Dec. 08 2010, 10:28 pm

Quote: trekkie264692 @ Dec. 08 2010, 6:01 pm

>i hated all the action and romance. star trek is about discovery and science,


In the films, hardly any of Star Trek was about "discovery." Not really a lot to do with science either.

celebrenmorwen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 107

Report this Dec. 10 2010, 2:22 am

Abrams ruined Star Trek with this movie. The whole entire thing was a huge disappointment.

Ghostmojo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Dec. 10 2010, 4:35 am

Quote: Vger23 @ Nov. 30 2010, 5:12 am

Quote: Ghostmojo @ Nov. 30 2010, 2:59 am

>

>

>Don't other board members also feel that the Kirk character has to be right? As he is SO central to Star Trek if he deviates from accepted type the whole thing collapses. The original (Shatner) Kirk as envisaged by Roddenberry was more urbane and stolid following GR's desire to model him upon Horatio Hornblower. This version of Kirk is barely recognisable. The James Dean analogy holds true. It seems a standard approach by Hollywood these days that your heroes have to start mean and with a huge chip on their shoulders, alienating everybody, before finally proving themselves. That in itself is a totally hackneyed and stereotyped device ...

>42

>
I think you lose the entire point of the film and of the character if this is the way you view it. Kirk in Star Trek 2009 was supposed to show a young man with great potential who had lost his way because he did not "grow up" the same way his Prime Universe counterpart did. Instead, he's wasted his life being an arrogant a$$. The story of Trek 2009 shows us the beginnings of that man's personal journey to discover the person he really can (should) be. It's all but spelled-out in the post-bar fight scene with Captain Pike. I think this makes a MUCH more interesting character than just making him a black-and-white good guy that is a hero and role model from day one. That's dull and unrealistic. It's much more entertaining and interesting to see the JOURNEY rather than start at the destination.

And, the fact of the matter is, BECAUSE it's entertaining is why it is used so much.

I never understand Star Trek fans who value "realism" over entertainment. Star Trek is fiction, my friends. It is designed to entertain. Too many Trek fans get caught up in the "yeah, but could you actually LIVE there?" game when they are analyzing the realism and consistency of things.

Consider that before you just dismiss what you see on the surface.


Well, the whole thing in so many ways was very superficial anyway ...


I think what I really mean is that J.J. Abrams just fell back on a childishly easy device, so beloved of Hollywood producers. But that mean 'James Dean' approach is boring, hackneyed, done-to-death. It was a cop out and an obvious one. Tiresome and predictable. There is no reason why a younger Kirk has to travel this route and then find some spiritual path to redemption. It is just so stereotyped and has been done a million times in movie story-telling. Star Trek deserves better. But then Abrams threw the rule book out. He was more concerned with making money for the production (which is understandable) and perhaps not really understanding either Star Trek or science fiction very well - tried a different template. But it was neither an original nor particularly appropriate one ...


to boldy go where no man has gone before

annika.hansen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 30

Report this Dec. 10 2010, 11:01 am

Quote: celebrenmorwen @ Dec. 10 2010, 2:22 am

Abrams ruined Star Trek with this movie. The whole entire thing was a huge disappointment.


i agree, people saying it was an alternate timeline is no excuse. it was in my opinion a terrible movie and they really need to move on. that timeline and 23rd century has been covered enough. and i think it ruins the integrity of tos.

seven of nine-tertiary adjunct of unimatrix zero-one, grid 9-2 of subjunction 12 "we are borg"

USS BLACKSUN

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Dec. 10 2010, 2:07 pm

Quote: lois.s.smith @ 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



I completely agree. Every event that made Star Trek significant, i.e ST Gen, ST DS9, VOY, etc., is no longer. I believe that if and when they make the next movie, they need to correct this huge flaw. This will be a writers challenge, to correct the timeline and (some how) keep the new crew. One can not throw away what made Star Trek incredible, the progression of the story, events and it's characters.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 10 2010, 3:58 pm

This thread acts like fly paper for newbies saying the same, tired old stuff we've been listening to for 18 months from disgruntled fans:

TEW MUCH ACTION, NOT ENUFF NERDY STUFF
HATE DA NEW TIMELINE ALL MY 24th SENTERY STUFF IS GONE
JJ ABRAHAMS RUNED STAR TRACK FOR EVERYWON
DID'T FEEL LIKE REEL STAR TRACK...!!!

God, please make it stop. Can't we just move on? I think at this point, even if I hated the new movie and agreed with everything people were complaining about, I'd want to leave this topic behind. It gets really, REALLY tiresome.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

spydertrek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 149

Report this Dec. 10 2010, 4:28 pm

Besides, a lot can happen in an alternate timeline.

Good guys always win. 'India's like a neverending Comicon where everyone's wearing the same costume!' -Raj, Big Bang Theory 'Khan!' -Captain Kirk 'I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!' -Dr. McCoy 'Bazingitty.' -Stephen Scott 'I'm a Trekker, not a Trekkie.' -Stephen Scott 'Greetings, humanoid.' -Stephen Scott 'Dude, just because the rest of your friends are retards doesn't mean I am.' -Stephen Scott 'If you go with the flow, you may get swept away by the current.' -Stephen Scott

annika.hansen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 30

Report this Dec. 11 2010, 4:29 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Abrams ruined Star Trek with this movie. The whole entire thing was a huge disappointment.
i agree, people saying it was an alternate timeline is no excuse. it was in my opinion a terrible movie and they really need to move on. that timeline and 23rd century has been covered enough. and i think it ruins the integrity of tos.
How does it ruin TOS's integrity when it has absolutely no effect on TOS?


it made a mockery of it. and again, it being an alternate timeline is no excuse. enough said and i know alot of people will agree with me on this.

seven of nine-tertiary adjunct of unimatrix zero-one, grid 9-2 of subjunction 12 "we are borg"

skianbeerfist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this Dec. 12 2010, 2:30 am

Quote: Roboto @ 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.

>


Well said


Brent Spinner is a great actor.


ONE EYE FUTURE ROCK N ROLL

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