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

Alternate Timeline

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 11:42 am

Those are issues with this movie and many more, but it feels like beating a dead horse....specialy that promorion at the end. *shudders*


Instead I've been wondering how I'd do it differently and came up with some basic premises.


- Have the Nerada attack Vulcan a month or so after graduation. The main cast would have at least a bit of space legs by then and not be so green an avocado would be jelouse of them.


- Have the main cast assigned to different ships in the fleet to rescue Vulcan. That way it doesn't feel so forced. For example, Kirk could have been given a commendation for his Kobiashi Maru scenario, be an acting lieutenant with a course at the academy and then ships out on the Republic.


- The ships's last a little longer against the Nerada, with no Sulu-forgetting-the-parking-break joke. The Enterprise can rescue the main cast and reunite them after we se them last a few scenes prior in the academy.


- Not call the planet where Spock is Delta Vega. If JJ wants to prove his a Trek fan, there's a better way than randomely name dropping familiar names.


- I'd rather after Spock marrons Kirk, McCoy recognizes Spock isn't fit for command and forces concesus to get Kirk (and Spock) back.


Having Scotty on Delta Vega doesn't bug me too much, but it's wierd that in TOS he, Spock and Sulu were assigned from the beginning to the Enterprise. So he should be more worthy of that role than say....Kirk or Uhura or McCoy.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 11:53 am

^ We're ST fans. Beating dead horses is what we do!


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

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 12:00 pm

Quote: Treknoir @ Nov. 29 2011, 11:53 am

>

>^ We're ST fans. Beating dead horses is what we do!

>
And we don't use any old sticks....we grab bats from the Pike City Pioneers to do it!


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 12:38 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Nov. 29 2011, 6:26 am

>Stubborn as a Klingon as well, also making Kahless proud.

>I don't deny other Trek being less flawed than this one, never have. Based on canon screen evidence How can we know why Khan will never forget Chekov who had not been cast as of yet; or how the Enterprise can travel to the Galactic Barrier in Star Trek V in a relatively super short time span. I'd like to think I dissect them all equally and question them when necesary. Take the Kzin Wars from TAS for example. There is not a more questionable piece of Trek history than that. I hold that epside partly as reason for TAS' barely-canon status/limbo canon status.

>Back to the matter at hand, usng your own quote: 'When any aspect is ignore or forgotten in a film it is again bad writing/film making but it is not a story inconsistency' First, I'm not arguing against fans filling in the missing gaps. I'd never do that since I myself fall pray to it. Now, you state that this movie has no inconsistancies that can't be explained logically. I feel that your basic premi is based on an error. Webster's Dictionary defines inconsistency as: NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ANOTHER FACT OR CLAIM. Now, let's take the Klingon example you introduced. Their apperance in TOS is one way, every other (minus Enterprise is another). I-world there was no explanation for this, again before Enterprise. This is an inconsistency. Ther look before did not match up with their look after. What I think you have been defending is that there was no inconsistency because it was a plot hole.

>I have to disagree with your basic premise because, as stated, an inconsistency is when two facts aren't compatible. Whatever explanation is missing for the inconsistency...THAT is the plot hole. They aren't the same. And I bring up again my point of view is being brought from the fact that we have to take what is or is not presented on screen.

>Moving to the Kelvin again, 1. Romulans didn't identify themselves at all, 2. the ship is nothing like any Romulan vessel, 3. after the timeskip, everyone seems to know who they are. The facts of the first scene are not compatible with the facts of the events above Vulcan. That is not negative, it is not a sign that the writters didn't have an idea there; it is a sign that they didn't put it in...it is inconsistent within the story we are presented. How Starfleet came to know this is a plot hole that anyone is welcome to fill in lack of info, but the inconsistency still remains, no matter how well you explanations are.

>Finally, you said that we failed to present any inconsistencies because you cleared them up. No, you offered your interpretation of what could be placed in that plot hole, based on your extensive Trek knowledge, but you aren't getting rid of the inconsistency. I'm not arguing with you about how right or wrong your explanations for the missing stry elements are. I rather liked your defense of the Kelvin's look. I'd never lookd at it from that point of view. But still, inconsistencies are what they are, and it is up to the individual fan to handle each as they choose. You creat context for them, but you can't sell that to others like myself and tell us the inconsistencies went away.

>P.S. I can't resist...I find that pasisng down an assignment patch from one ship to another once it is gone just fine. Now having two distinct crews or vessels with the same patch at the same time is just not acceptable. There's no logic to it. You can't just make up an excuse and say "Oh, he was transferring out" or something and assume you are correct. Sometimes the fan has to take a step back and say, okay, it was on screen but it has to be a mistake since this goes against the establish canon rules.

>Okay, rant over....I promise not more long boring posts on this matter. Convinced you or not Stovokor, I enjoyed the jousting of ideas.


Actually what I claim is that to date, no-one has pointed out any "IN STORY" inconstancy between the Prime universe and the start of JJ's film that cant be explained by the changes in history made by Nero's actions. I also dont deny that the mechanism used to make the changes was a mistake.


As you pointed out ,inconsistency is defined as: NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ANOTHER FACT OR CLAIM. ...but how the term is used depends on the context of the conversation being had.And I think the issue we are having is that we are talking about 2 different things.You are claiming that the neglect to cover these issues represents an inconstancy story telling wise, which I would agree with.But these issues do not reperesent an inconsitancy from within the story.


They dont represent an "IN STORY" inconstancy....meaning that they dont indicate the universe Nero arrived in is a different one then that of the original timeline. Now, let's look at my Klingon example again. Their appearance in TOS differes every from their apparance in later series, yes there was no explanation for this.But this is not a "IN STORY" inconsistency.It is just an un-explained event [till DS9& Enterprise anyway] Their looks before did not match up with their look after, YES, but again, it is only an un-explained event.


A story inconsistency is when 2 claims are made that contradict each other.Like Troi saying in Insurrection that she never kissed Riker with a beard.


On to the Kelvin again, 1. like I said, the ship may have had markings.,2. scanns were taken,3. Neros actions would have lead to the knowlidge being spreadI'm not sure what you mean by "The facts of the first scene are not compatible with the facts of the events above Vulcan"


The fact that they neglected to cover these issue may be considered "inconstant or bad story telling", but it is not an "in story inconstancy".They did not present info that was incompatible, they just presented nothing on the issue.


Finally, I said that you guys here failed to present any "in story" inconsistencies because none of what has been posted constitutes a contradiction to other "in story" elements.And I still stand by that claim.Thats not to say that the film doesnt have issues, but these issues dont equate to what has been claimed.And about the delta about the patch......"it was on screen but it has to be a mistake since this goes against the establish canon rules."??


Sorry, but it was never established within the series the reason for different patchs.What we know about it is from interviews with the writers/creators.........which isint a casnon source.So, there is no canon rule about it.


I hope you reply to this, I enjoyed this very much.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 12:42 pm

Quote: Captain Sam @ Nov. 29 2011, 8:58 am

>it's only logic that after the Klingons captured them then the word would have gotton out some time ago about who they were.


exactly, the fact that it wasnt covered in the film does not equate to a "in story" inconsistency.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 12:47 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Nov. 29 2011, 9:17 am

>Funny how in one paragraph you almost destroyed my Romulan knowledge inconsistency argument Captain Sam. But rules are rules and deleted scenes don't count. If they did, we'd know that Spock and Saavik have a kid.

>And thank you for the compliment, though I feel bad everytime I go off on a rant and post a wall of text.

>


I really dont see how the the fact that the scene was deleated matters.We know the event happened near Kligon space.Its not hard to believe that info would have leaked.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 12:49 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Nov. 29 2011, 9:53 am

>And then of course, Chechov being 5 years older from a different sperm and ovum combo. Can't explain this one away. No way no how.

>
Why does it need to be explained?


 


He's a different person, the genetic brother of the original...thats all.


Photobucket

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 1:19 pm

He is NOT a different person. He was put into the movie to be the same character. A different person would not end up being so similar with the same personality and career. Face it, they messed up.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 1:21 pm

Quote: Treknoir @ Nov. 29 2011, 11:53 am

^ We're ST fans. Beating dead horses is what we do!



Lol, right on. I was missing you, Noir.

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 1:22 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Nov. 29 2011, 12:47 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Nov. 29 2011, 9:17 am

>

>Funny how in one paragraph you almost destroyed my Romulan knowledge inconsistency argument Captain Sam. But rules are rules and deleted scenes don't count. If they did, we'd know that Spock and Saavik have a kid.

>And thank you for the compliment, though I feel bad everytime I go off on a rant and post a wall of text.

>

I really dont see how the the fact that the scene was deleated matters.We know the event happened near Kligon space.Its not hard to believe that info would have leaked.

I agree. Throughout most of my arguments I neglected this bit of info, which makes quite a bit of difference in my mind. Since we know for a fact that Klingons and the Federation spy on each other, I can' flat out deny this is how Starfleet discovered the Nerada is of Romulan origen.


I can deny it eve less since I believe that the comics Countdown, Nero and the deleted scenes should be canon. They wer emade by the same people after all. So arguments for the Romulan discrepancy loose a lot of luster.


I also don't have more than perhaps two of those rants in me per day Stovokor. like an Andorian ith higher metabolism, run his around enough and he starts to loose steam. I can debate the patch issue till you get sick of it though.


Here's a simple example. You have the crew of the Starship Enterprise. They have the Delta patch. You have the crew of another ship, say another Constitution class we haven't seen before...the USS Constitution, just to throw a name out there. Both ships are in active service, but could share similar assignments or radically different assignments. That doesn't matter.


Next, we analize the purpose of the patch. Much like insignias from our time, up to Enterprise, these represent a thing of pride for that particular crew. I point out the example of Capt. Erika Hernandez from the NX-02 Columbia welcoming Trip to her ship. What does she do before ending that first encounter? She teels him to change uniforms because of the Enterprise patch. That's pride in your patch right there...


We know that in the 23rd century each crew has it's own patch. Except for you, I have never met anyone who would question this. Examples exist al throughout TOS. Now, taking into account that the insignia is a decendent of the patch, why would two unrelated crews in different assignments wear the same one? Are they insulting each other? Do they both stake claim on it? That's pure conjecture with ZERO backing from TOS. You have to take a step back (specially with a low budget show like TOS was) and say "Okay, what we have here is a blooper. It was made for a small tv in 1967 meant to be run once, maybe twice. Not the plasma TVs of tv with Bluerays and DVDs with Pause feature. You can't just say "It was on the screen so it canon!"


If we used that logic, we'd have to assume there's more than one kind of Gorn, as seen on ENT, or that Klingon Birds of Pray and sisko's Defiant can alter their mass and change sizes.


This turned out longer than I planned...


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 1:28 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Nov. 29 2011, 1:19 pm

>He is NOT a different person. He was put into the movie to be the same character. A different person would not end up being so similar with the same personality and career. Face it, they messed up.


He IS a different person, everyone in this film is a different person because their lives have been different.


Its similar to mirror universe counterparts, they look the same but they are different people.


Nu Checkov is just more different because he is geneticly different.


And yes, different people can indeed be as similar, or have you never heard of "like father like son" or about twins seprated at birth having similar life events, having basicly the same kind of career.


And I really didnt see much of the original Checkovs personality in the Nu Checkov, but that might have just been a failur on the part of the actor or script.


Face it, even thou he serves the same "role", he's a different person plane and simple, they all are, Checkov's just more different.


Photobucket

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 1:31 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Nov. 29 2011, 1:21 pm

Quote: Treknoir @ Nov. 29 2011, 11:53 am

>

>^ We're ST fans. Beating dead horses is what we do!

>
Lol, right on. I was missing you, Noir.


Shoot, otherwise we'd be stuck with "your political beliefs/religion or non-religion sucks" and "who's hotter, Spot or a Tribble" type threads.


 


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

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 1:53 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Nov. 29 2011, 1:22 pm

>I agree. Throughout most of my arguments I neglected this bit of info, which makes quite a bit of difference in my mind. Since we know for a fact that Klingons and the Federation spy on each other, I can' flat out deny this is how Starfleet discovered the Nerada is of Romulan origen.

>I can deny it eve less since I believe that the comics Countdown, Nero and the deleted scenes should be canon. They wer emade by the same people after all. So arguments for the Romulan discrepancy loose a lot of luster.

>I also don't have more than perhaps two of those rants in me per day Stovokor. like an Andorian ith higher metabolism, run his around enough and he starts to loose steam. I can debate the patch issue till you get sick of it though.

>Here's a simple example. You have the crew of the Starship Enterprise. They have the Delta patch. You have the crew of another ship, say another Constitution class we haven't seen before...the USS Constitution, just to throw a name out there. Both ships are in active service, but could share similar assignments or radically different assignments. That doesn't matter.

>Next, we analize the purpose of the patch. Much like insignias from our time, up to Enterprise, these represent a thing of pride for that particular crew. I point out the example of Capt. Erika Hernandez from the NX-02 Columbia welcoming Trip to her ship. What does she do before ending that first encounter? She teels him to change uniforms because of the Enterprise patch. That's pride in your patch right there...

>We know that in the 23rd century each crew has it's own patch. Except for you, I have never met anyone who would question this. Examples exist al throughout TOS. Now, taking into account that the insignia is a decendent of the patch, why would two unrelated crews in different assignments wear the same one? Are they insulting each other? Do they both stake claim on it? That's pure conjecture with ZERO backing from TOS. You have to take a step back (specially with a low budget show like TOS was) and say "Okay, what we have here is a blooper. It was made for a small tv in 1967 meant to be run once, maybe twice. Not the plasma TVs of tv with Bluerays and DVDs with Pause feature. You can't just say "It was on the screen so it canon!"

>If we used that logic, we'd have to assume there's more than one kind of Gorn, as seen on ENT, or that Klingon Birds of Pray and sisko's Defiant can alter their mass and change sizes.

>This turned out longer than I planned...

>
I'll try to make this short sine I have to get ready for treatment...


Sure, we have seen different crews/ships have different insignias, but we were never told why from within the narritive, so any believed/accepted reasons for this is just speculation.Even if and when the creators explain things, unless it was revealed within the context of a canon story then its not canon.


 


What we really know is that in the 23rd century MOST crews has their own patch....but not all.The TOS episode "court-martial " proves that.The real world reason for the mistake doesnt change the fact that it was seen on screen that other crews share the same ingignia.And if your an advocate for canonizing the deleated stuff and the comic, then it should also apply to TAS.There are more examples of different crews with the delta in TAS


 


As to why would two crews with [presuabley] different assignments wear the same one insignia..........who knows it wasnt covered in the series, your sepeculation is as good as mines.Maybe it has to do with some kind or sorritory, or their primary mission, or the year they started their 5 year missions.


 


Sure its pure conjecture with ZERO evidence to back it, but since the issue was never mentioned in the series so is the idea that its solys an issue of being of different ships.Sometimes you have to look acknowlidge that we just werent given all the answers and that loge time accepted "FACT" just really arent canon facts.


Photobucket

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 3:05 pm

Well Stovokor, I can say that yes, there's no other actual dialogue from TOS where this is stated, so I can't argue this point from any other angle than logical application. And I can continue to argue against that level of nitpicking even less.


So back to the Klingon, one more time...fingers crossed I control myself from now on and stop commenting on it. If I copy+pasted your quote correctly, it goes like this: 'Their appearance in TOS differes every from their apparance in later series, yes there was no explanation for this.But this is not a "IN STORY" inconsistency.It is just an un-explained event [till DS9& Enterprise anyway] Their looks before did not match up with their look after, YES, but again, it is only an un-explained event.' I agree with you on everything you say, except for one thing...the difference is in fact an unexplained event, which was never really meant to be explained officially as far as fans were concerned. You cannot define it as just an unexplained event because even the writters had no explanation. They were content leaving it out there forever like that. With no explanation ever expected, it falls under the category of inconsistency.


You can't argue this from the POV that 'oh, the eventually fixed it' because a mere ten years ago, it looked like Enterprise itself was going to ignore it...as if Klingons were always ment to look like that. If they were always meant to appear that way, there was no in-canon explanation to look for. It was an inconsistency, plain and simple.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Nov. 29 2011, 4:51 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Nov. 29 2011, 3:05 pm

>Well Stovokor, I can say that yes, there's no other actual dialogue from TOS where this is stated, so I can't argue this point from any other angle than logical application. And I can continue to argue against that level of nitpicking even less.

>So back to the Klingon, one more time...fingers crossed I control myself from now on and stop commenting on it. If I copy+pasted your quote correctly, it goes like this: 'Their appearance in TOS differes every from their apparance in later series, yes there was no explanation for this.But this is not a "IN STORY" inconsistency.It is just an un-explained event [till DS9& Enterprise anyway] Their looks before did not match up with their look after, YES, but again, it is only an un-explained event.' I agree with you on everything you say, except for one thing...the difference is in fact an unexplained event, which was never really meant to be explained officially as far as fans were concerned. You cannot define it as just an unexplained event because even the writters had no explanation. They were content leaving it out there forever like that. With no explanation ever expected, it falls under the category of inconsistency.

>You can't argue this from the POV that 'oh, the eventually fixed it' because a mere ten years ago, it looked like Enterprise itself was going to ignore it...as if Klingons were always ment to look like that. If they were always meant to appear that way, there was no in-canon explanation to look for. It was an inconsistency, plain and simple.


I dont see why the only "logical application" for the use of the patch must be the different ship/crew explanation.Mission specs, year of deployment of the crew of ship..........any of these are resaonable and logical an a reason for the application of the patch.


Yes, the differences in the klingons was just an unexplained event...not a story inconsistancy.Wether for not they ever intended to explain it is a different debate.And yes, it CAN be define as just an unexplained event because even thou writters had no explanation at the time, its not impossible to have come up with one.In a on going series there is always the chance a future writer will re-visit un-explained issues and explain them.


What the writters were content with means nothing to the issue in debate....thats a mater of writer intent which we arent debating..And its not like there arent other similar examples yet to be covered...The Romulans with bumpy heads, the different kinds of the Trill, that the Thril can now use the transporters.These are just 3 examples of un-explained events that a future writter may care to explain one day.


And even if they end up leaving it out there with no explanation, it does not fall under the category of a in story inconsistency.It falls under the category of a mystery, an unknown, like what happened to V'ger after the 1st film, of what happened to those "buggs" that tried to take over the fedaration in TNG's season 1,or just about the entire Earth/Romulan war.


You can argue the neglect to re-visit these points was a failur, an example of bad story telling for a series or even a shame that it was never addressed........but in no way was in an inconsistency in the story.And the reason its not is because as fans we have no reason to expect or demand that they reveal everything to us.This series has never given us every detail about every story point.plain and simple.As a matter of fact, the show has been very CONSISTENT in not revealing everything to us,Consitent in not explaining everything,Consitent in leaving a few things unknown.


So, how can it be inconsitent to not explain things when they CONSISTENTLY dont explain everything?


"plain and simple".........not explaining things is not an inconsitency


Photobucket

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: CO_Fowler

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