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

Why Star Trek 2009 sucked

wolfman_9234

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 3:33 pm

The newest movie (Star Trek 2009) was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it completely undermines the Star Trek Universe with its plotline. How can they possibly explain away the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus when so many episodes of all 5 television series make reference to them and feature them as existing locations. Jean-Luc Picard himeslf stands on Romulus in the Romulan senate in Nemesis, or did they forget that tiny detail?? Had the young Spock taken the stolen future ship containing the red matter to the star that went supernova, destroying Romulus, and destroyed it before it went supernova, thus negating the alternate timeline protrayed by the movie, this problem could have been avoided. Ending the movie in this alternate reality was a huge mistake, in my opinion. I have lost all faith in J.J. Abrams.

___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 3:53 pm

The newest movie (Star Trek 2009) was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it completely undermines the Star Trek Universe with its plotline.

How so? It's not retconning anything.

How can they possibly explain away the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus when so many episodes of all 5 television series make reference to them and feature them as existing locations.

Because it's post Nemesis era. And Vulcan still exists in the Prime universe.

Jean-Luc Picard himeslf stands on Romulus in the Romulan senate in Nemesis, or did they forget that tiny detail??

That took place before the events depicted in Star Trek

Had the young Spock taken the stolen future ship containing the red matter to the star that went supernova, destroying Romulus, and destroyed it before it went supernova, thus negating the alternate timeline protrayed by the movie, this problem could have been avoided.

What would that accomplish? Destroying anything in the alternate timeline wouldn't cause any changes to the Prime universe.


Ending the movie in this alternate reality was a huge mistake, in my opinion.

The movie begins in the alternate reality and takes place there. The only scenes from the Prime universe are what we see in Spock's mind meld.

I have lost all faith in J.J. Abrams.

That implies you put faith in him to begin with.


Ziriath

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 245

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:04 pm

I liked that movie just after seeing it, but the more I think about it, it becomes to me more and more illogical.


I dont know, why was Nero waiting for that old boy for 20 years, when he could do something useful. And he couldnt know, where in time will be Spock Prime spewed out of the black hole. Or if he wasnt moved to the future, or killed.  And WHY Nero wanted this revenge. Vulcans just wanted to help, damn!  And the whole Spock/Uhura thing pulled the director from his ass.


I could write at least 6 A4's about the inconstencies, physical nonsenses and things I did not like there, but  many of nice moments, details and references was there too. And I liked the architecture and costumes.


THE WOMEN!!!

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:23 pm

Quote: wolfman_9234 @ Apr. 24 2011, 3:33 pm

>

>The newest movie (Star Trek 2009) was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it completely undermines the Star Trek Universe with its plotline. How can they possibly explain away the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus when so many episodes of all 5 television series make reference to them and feature them as existing locations. Jean-Luc Picard himeslf stands on Romulus in the Romulan senate in Nemesis, or did they forget that tiny detail?? Had the young Spock taken the stolen future ship containing the red matter to the star that went supernova, destroying Romulus, and destroyed it before it went supernova, thus negating the alternate timeline protrayed by the movie, this problem could have been avoided. Ending the movie in this alternate reality was a huge mistake, in my opinion. I have lost all faith in J.J. Abrams.

>


 


No.  Your post contradicts itself and even illogically within the contradiction!

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:26 pm

I dont know, why was Nero waiting for that old boy for 20 years, when he could do something useful.


You're assuming he was capable of doing "something useful" to begin with for that time.


And he couldnt know, where in time will be Spock Prime spewed out of the black hole.


He did obviously, so yes he could.


And WHY Nero wanted this revenge. Vulcans just wanted to help, damn!  


This has been explained numerous times in the last two years now.


And the whole Spock/Uhura thing pulled the director from his ass.


That doesn't make sense.

wolfman_9234

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:33 pm

The newest movie (Star Trek 2009) was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it completely undermines the Star Trek Universe with its plotline.

How so? It's not retconning anything.


retconning is not a word

How can they possibly explain away the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus when so many episodes of all 5 television series make reference to them and feature them as existing locations.

Because it's post Nemesis era. And Vulcan still exists in the Prime universe.


Check your math. Based on Spock's statement that he is 129 years in the future, the movie begins at best 10 years BEFORE Nemesis.

Jean-Luc Picard himeslf stands on Romulus in the Romulan senate in Nemesis, or did they forget that tiny detail??

That took place before the events depicted in Star Trek


See above.

Had the young Spock taken the stolen future ship containing the red matter to the star that went supernova, destroying Romulus, and destroyed it before it went supernova, thus negating the alternate timeline protrayed by the movie, this problem could have been avoided.

What would that accomplish? Destroying anything in the alternate timeline wouldn't cause any changes to the Prime universe.


Ok. Here you got me. I agree that my solution is flawed, but they could have certainly found a better way to resolve the movie where no planets would be cdestroyed.


Ending the movie in this alternate reality was a huge mistake, in my opinion.

The movie begins in the alternate reality and takes place there. The only scenes from the Prime universe are what we see in Spock's mind meld.


Romulus cannot have been destroyed in the prime universe pre-Nemisis.

I have lost all faith in J.J. Abrams.

That implies you put faith in him to begin with.


I did....until 2009.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:40 pm

Check your math. Based on Spock's statement that he is 129 years in the future, the movie begins at best 10 years BEFORE Nemesis.


Star Trek: Nemesis = 2379.  Romulus Destruction = 2258 + 129 = 2387.


Ok. Here you got me. I agree that my solution is flawed, but they could have certainly found a better way to resolve the movie where no planets would be cdestroyed.


Nero's intent was to destroy the federation.



Romulus cannot have been destroyed in the prime universe pre-Nemisis.


That's right and it wasn't.

wolfman_9234

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:41 pm

No. Your post contradicts itself and even illogically within the contradiction!


 


Your reply doesn't make sense gramattically.


I cannot find any 'contradictions' in my post. Perhaps you would be good enough to point them out to me.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:50 pm

I cannot find any 'contradictions' in my post. Perhaps you would be good enough to point them out to me.


Essentially you bashed the film because your recolletion of the events of the film are off.

wolfman_9234

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 4:58 pm

See my above post. Essentially you bashed the film because your recolletion of the events of the film are off. This is a commom characteristic of the critics of the film.


I can recite the film by heart, and just finished watching it yet again when I began this thread. My recollection of the events of the film are spot on.


I don't dislike the film, only the inconsistencies in it, and I do agree that the Uhuru/Spock relationship is frivolous and completely unneccessary.

___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 5:10 pm

retconning is not a word

Actually it is. It's an amalgamation of the first letters of "RETroactive CONtinuity." The word appears at dictionary.com which is as reliable as Merriam-Webster or MacMillan.

Check your math. Based on Spock's statement that he is 129 years in the future, the movie begins at best 10 years BEFORE Nemesis.

Check your script. Spock said while melding with Kirk "One hundred twenty-nine years from now, a star will explode, and threaten to destroy the galaxy." At that point it was 2258. The Romulans arrived in 2233. We skip ten years later to Kid Spock and Kirk and their respective shenanigans. Fast Forward to Iowa in 2255, when Pike convinces Kirk to join Starfleet. After he boards the shuttle, fast forward again three years later. 2258 + 129 years = 2387, eight years AFTER the events depicted in Nemesis.

See above.

I did see above and it's a nitpick. An incorrect one. The events depicted in Star Trek do not contradict JLP on Romulus in ST:NEM

Ok. Here you got me.


Concession accepted.


I agree that my solution is flawed, but they could have certainly found a better way to resolve the movie where no planets would be cdestroyed.

Why is planetary destruction taboo?

Romulus cannot have been destroyed in the prime universe pre-Nemisis.

This is true, which is why the supernova took place eight years afterward.


Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 5:16 pm

Star Trek isn't real. Please tell me you know this. Lie if you must.



It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 5:18 pm

I can recite the film by heart...


My recollection of the events of the film are spot on...



I don't dislike the film, only the inconsistencies in it....


What was that about ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE in the OP? If you didn't dislike the film, then why did you lose faith in JJ??


 


___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 5:22 pm

Star Trek isn't real.


Every time someone says that a Trekkie dies. Clap your hands if you believe!!


 


Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 24 2011, 5:34 pm

Oh noes!



Live Trekker, LIVE!


It just tickles me that folks freak out about continuity like the characters' lives depend on it.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam, Vicsage

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