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

Star Trek the Movie

mario.aragona

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Oct. 31 2012, 3:21 pm

I finally watched the movie for a second time. I couldn't bring my selfe to watch for so long because i really felt that just what i saw from the trailer i was upset. Well I finally gave it a chance and my suspisions were right.


I felt there was no continuity. Those die hard fans of the oritinal series know that for example Spocks mother didn't die, she appeared in "jurney to Bable"  Vulcon wasn't distroyed and Uhura and spock didn't have a thing prior to the series. How can we fans accept this film as a part of STARTREK lore??? Can someone help me understand this.

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Oct. 31 2012, 4:10 pm

You are understating the matter.  It was not just a lack of continuity, it was a complete obliteration of what we all know.  The entire movie except for the first approximately 15 seconds was in an alternate timeline due to time travel.  Everything that you know was thrown out, stomped on and crapped all over.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Oct. 31 2012, 6:25 pm

This has been explained by the film makers as an alternate timeline that is seperate from the original timeline, which still exsists. So all the things we know and love about ST have not been obliterated, it's just in a different reality now. We have left the ST universe and entered Abrams Zone( cue creepy music )......do not attempt to adjust your screen....JJ is in control.....


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

pendaws

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 4:13 am

I didn't like this movie at all. As far as the CGI went it was ok but the manufactured story line was an insult. In one movie the writers have destroyed STNG, DS9, and Voyager. I would have liked to see a Voyager movie to round out the final part of the series, I always thought that the end episode of Voyager was tame and didn't have an ending befitting of a GREAT series.


Hopefully the NEXT movie will at least fit into the Star Trek universe?

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 4:50 am

Quote: Beershark @ Oct. 31 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>This has been explained by the film makers as an alternate timeline that is seperate from the original timeline, which still exsists. So all the things we know and love about ST have not been obliterated, it's just in a different reality now.

>


Exactly. You could think of it as just another universe, like the Mirror Universe, or all those alternate realities from TNG Parallels. These universes coexist with each other, and the Prime Universe just keeps on chugging along.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

A.J.Dembroski

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 1:34 pm

This is one of many posts that I think misidentify the issues with Star Trek 2009.


I mean, don't get me wrong, it's all subjective of course, but I think that we are really put off by a few core issues that we haven't really identified well as a group.


Let me try to break them down a little bit; first, in regards to OP; it's an alternate reality. That's a perfectly valid premise for a Star Trek reboot. It has the advantage (over other reboots) that it does not invalidate what's already occurred. When they rebooted Batman, the Burton/Schumacher Batmans were rendered invalid (thankfully), but when they rebooted Star Trek, nothing from the Prime Universe is gone. It's all still there. All because of the myriad of alternate universe stories that Star Trek has dug into time and time again.


Now, onto what's wrong with Star Trek '09.


* Captain James T. Kirk


Now, I'll give Abrams the benefit of the doubt on Kirk. While I was put off by the flatness of the New Kirk, I expect his fatherless childhood and relative youth in the film (we've never seen Kirk this young before) would contribute to him being less of a thinker.


That said, Pine has yet to convince me he can do the Warrior-Scholar that was Captain Kirk. I need to see the idealist, the thinker, before I am ready to accept this as the new Kirk. Nothing wrong with the performance, mind you, more the script.


* Spock


It took 25 episodes of TOS to show Spock having emotion, and even then it was due to infectious spores. Until that point he maintained that "emotions are alien to me." We learn as the franchise goes on that Vulcans are actually extremely emotional, perhaps moreso than humans, but have mastered a method of suppressing them through mental discipline. 


Abrams skips right to the end of that arch, with Spock blowing up and beating the crap out of a kid in his first scene. The mistake here was breaking the rule before you establish it. We, as Star Trek fans, generally approve of Quinto's performance and Spock's character in general in '09, but that's because we know who Spock is, we don't need that established.


The newcomers do... they need Spock to be emotionless, a robot, someone that McCoy despises for his lack of humanity. That is CORE to the original series, and without that dynamic, it simply isn't what we remember.


A similar thing occurred in TNG... Warf was supposed to be this powerful warrior, a badass... he was never established as such. For the first four seasons of TNG, he just gets his butt kicked over and over. It's meant to establish the enemy as a threat, but when you've never seen him win a fight, it's not that effective. When all you've ever seen of Spock is him blowing up on school kids, being offended by the entrance board, and beating the crap out of Kirk and marooning him on a planet, Spock as a cold, calculating Vulcan just doesn't jive.


* McCoy


McCoy was easily the best portrayed character in the film... however, his role was rendered nigh insignificant. The very core of TOS is the two polar opposites tugging Kirk in different directions.


Because Kirk is so brash, so rebellious in this film, McCoy is reduced to a bit player. That balance that is Kirk isn't present, so McCoy in his TOS role would be redundant. It also weakens Kirk as the level-headed decision maker he's supposed to be. The triumverate of Spock-McCoy-Kirk isn't there in the '09 film, and it suffers for it.


This is, ultimately, the core of what Star Trek is, and it's been diluted significantly because of these decisions. I don't care about Nero (a pretty solid performance, in fact, I enjoyed him as a villain), or Kirk being thrust into the captain's chair, or any of that crap. Continuity be damned, alternate universes are part of Star Trek continuity, so I'm fine with all that... it's the tearing apart of the 3-star dynamic that hurts it most for me.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 3:17 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ Nov. 01 2012, 4:50 am

Quote: Beershark @ Oct. 31 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>

>This has been explained by the film makers as an alternate timeline that is seperate from the original timeline, which still exsists. So all the things we know and love about ST have not been obliterated, it's just in a different reality now.

>

Exactly. You could think of it as just another universe, like the Mirror Universe, or all those alternate realities from TNG Parallels. These universes coexist with each other, and the Prime Universe just keeps on chugging along.


 


Does it?


Great! Can you tell me where I can watch the latest shows/films in the original timeline please?


 


What other people think of you is none of your business.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 4:54 pm

Quote: Somniac @ Nov. 01 2012, 3:17 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ Nov. 01 2012, 4:50 am

Quote: Beershark @ Oct. 31 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>

>

>This has been explained by the film makers as an alternate timeline that is seperate from the original timeline, which still exsists. So all the things we know and love about ST have not been obliterated, it's just in a different reality now.

>

Exactly. You could think of it as just another universe, like the Mirror Universe, or all those alternate realities from TNG Parallels. These universes coexist with each other, and the Prime Universe just keeps on chugging along.

 

Does it?

Great! Can you tell me where I can watch the latest shows/films in the original timeline please?

 


There's this great little dinner theater on Risa. Drop my name to the matre'd and ask for Sophia.....


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 7:23 pm


Does it?


Great! Can you tell me where I can watch the latest shows/films in the original timeline please?



 


I believe its called Netflix, Beershark.


 

mario.aragona

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 7:27 pm

Ok you are all telling me that its an alternate time line. ok so explain to me the even the smallest detail like spocks insigna was wrong? Can anyone answer that?????? It just sucked and JJAbrams may be a great director for small screen material but leave the great ones to the professionals.

mario.aragona

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 7:34 pm

OH and lets not for get that although it was made for the big screeen, I feel that the original bridge should have been used in some way the helm anad navigation station was way to big and not believable. Cone on true fans we can't allow Hollywood to deface an American icon to be defaced.  Come on JJ if you are going to direct then direct what fans will enjoy. After i watched the trailer it took me several years to finally watch the movie and it was such a disappointment.

Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 8:08 pm

Now lets be honest with ourselves. If you look up the word "Continuity" in the encyclopedia, you're not likely to see a picture from Abrams Trek. But then, Star trek has never really won any awards in Continuity. That's what happpens when you build off of a 3-season series produced 55 years ago when no one took it very seriously.


Real Trekkers know and ACCEPT this. Its just one of the quirks of Star Trek; something that was unavoidable as the universe evolved.


In Abrams defense: The movie did a fine job explaining that the characters realized and accepted that their histories had been changed by time travel. This is not a concept unique (or even original) to ST, and non-Trekkers aren't idiots; I'm sure they won't get lost.


The movie also satisfactorily explained Vucan tradition. Remember, we are talking about a 2-hour movie here, not a 25-hour season; I think they blended in the background very well in the time they had, all while not letting the audience fall asleep.


The CG, set design, characters, score, the directing and acting... it was all top rate. I was very proud of Paramount for finally giving Trek the investment it needed to really shine.


The plot is a different story, however. Speaking as a life-long Trek fan, I can honestly say that if you want to reboot the Trek universe... then just do it. Forget about time paradox's or alternate universes. Just reboot the series and let the fans deal with it.


Face it, those fans are going to complain about something anyway - probably best if we can get them all to complain about the same thing. Give them some credit on their old ST Tech Manuals if they want to trade them in for a revised version. That will make them feel better.


By the way - to those who say that this movie sucked, along with the last few movies, and the last few series too... Dude, what are you doing on this forum? How can you be a Star Trek fan if you hate everything Star Trek created in the last 15 years?

Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 01 2012, 8:20 pm

Come on Mario, the original bridge? The cardboard taped together and used for a NAV station in 1965 would be more believable to you?


I'm not a hollywood exec, but I'm pretty sure the kind of reboot your thinking of would have been given a slightly trimmed budget.


I think you might be able to find something to your liking on Youtube, like one of those fan based productions.


 

Dobie619

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 11:48 am

If I recall correctly, everything we know about Star Trek has been destroyed at least twice before.  In "City on the Edge of Forever" McCoy changed everything.  In Yesterday's Enterprise " the timeline was changed once again when " Charlie" came through the rift.  Since the Guardian of Forever has not yet been found, and Spock (Nimoy) is aware of its existence, it would be possible for him to use the Guardian to travel to the timeline where changes could be made to allow Romulus to survive and restore the original timeline.  The possiblilty for several movies leading to the restoration of the original line might indeed be interesting.  As for small details being wrong? Are they? Or could an alternate timeline where Star Fleet is more militaristic have developed new symbols and styles? I look forward to the changes, and wonder it they will move everything back to the way it was making two realities, each equally valid.


That which does not kill us sure can hurt like the devil

Jeffe525

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Nov. 02 2012, 12:44 pm

Great point, Dobie!


So we could argue that every time someone in ST has time traveled, we have seen a new alternate universe, and all discontinuities in ST lore can be explained this way.


Since their mere presence has changed something, no matter how insignificant, that makes it impossible for them to ever return to their orginal universe. So when they "restore" the timeline, they are really just trying to get themselves back to a future that is as similar as possible to the one they left; preferably back to a universe where their couterparts also time travelled (to prevent duplicates).


This is why I file all the ST time-travelling episodes under the heading PURE ENTERTAINMENT - Trying to rationalize them is pointless. To quote/paraphrase Captain Janeway, "Just the mention of time travel gives me an instant headache."


Sorry, I'm not sure which universe she said that in :-)

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Drunkin Druid, darmokattanagra

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