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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 1:27 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 02 2012, 12:36 am

>

>I'm so glad the original timeline still exists!!

>Can someone tell me where I can see it please?

>

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

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 1:49 pm

No no no, I mean the one that is continuing now.

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 2:10 am

Quote: mario.aragona @ 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.

>


 


At the risk of revisiting an old post, I feel compelled to point out what others have already mentioned- TOS, TNG and DS9 aren't gone, simply because of the 2009 film. The film itself spells it out clearly that it's an alternate reality.


A better way of looking at it is, are your collections of TNG/DS9/VOY DVDs, books and merchandise all suddenly gone? If not, don't worry!


I am here to shake things up

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 7:55 am

Don't worry? Well you may not worry that the Trek you have known and loved for 40 years has been stopped dead in its tracks, but I do. Especially since the new direction is inferior to the old.


 


I'm so fed up with Abrams apologists telling me the old timeline still exists.


You are dreaming! It is gone. Replaced by low brow, populist, disrespectful horse sh*t.

ProsperousOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 62

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 9:28 am

About the "new" bridge - again, this is an alternate reality and the Starfleet designers and engineers might have also been altered due to Nero's arrival.

I have a love-hate thing for ST09 myself. It was great to see the effects but I concur I would have preferred a more Spock-ish Spock. Children bullying other children is an extremely emotional concept.

Anyhoo... just my opinion.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:03 pm

there is precedent for it in tos.  Amands said the other children were very cruel to spock


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:10 pm

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 04 2012, 7:55 am

>

>Don't worry? Well you may not worry that the Trek you have known and loved for 40 years has been stopped dead in its tracks, but I do. Especially since the new direction is inferior to the old.

>I'm so fed up with Abrams apologists telling me the old timeline still exists.

>You are dreaming! It is gone. Replaced by low brow, populist, disrespectful horse sh*t.

>


You can be fed up with it all you like...but denying the truth doesn't help. The movie was perfectly constructed to create its own "bubble" to operate in while carefully leaving what had come before alone and unaltered, potentially to be revisited someday.


It's only "gone" if nobody choses to or cares to resurrect it. My guess is that it will not be revisited any time soon. The new "lowbrow, disrespectful" version is much more entertaining than the last 12 years of anything the Star Trek franchise produced. So, the idea that the new direction is "inferior" is an interesting opinion you might have, but not supported by any facts whatsoever.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 3:05 pm

Quote: ProsperousOne @ Dec. 04 2012, 9:28 am

>About the "new" bridge - again, this is an alternate reality and the Starfleet designers and engineers might have also been altered due to Nero's arrival. I have a love-hate thing for ST09 myself. It was great to see the effects but I concur I would have preferred a more Spock-ish Spock. Children bullying other children is an extremely emotional concept. Anyhoo... just my opinion.


Spock being teased was covered in "Journey to Babel" TOS. Vulcans are not emotionless and had trouble maintaining quite often. This concept can be seen in ENT, TOS, and TNG. Check out the episode with Sarek in TNG when he was elderly, suffering from Bendii, and needed Picard's help to negotiate. 


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 7:32 pm

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 04 2012, 7:55 am

>

>Don't worry? Well you may not worry that the Trek you have known and loved for 40 years has been stopped dead in its tracks, but I do. Especially since the new direction is inferior to the old.

>I'm so fed up with Abrams apologists telling me the old timeline still exists.

>You are dreaming! It is gone. Replaced by low brow, populist, disrespectful horse sh*t.

>


All evidence to the contrary if you take into account almost every multiverse episode of Star Trek.


Ultimately I don't claim to know if a hypothetical new series will make use of the JJ-verse (My thoughts are that they would be better to leave the JJ-verse for JJ Abrams to play with, and go back to the Prime Universe) But since it's all fiction anyway, then any thoughts of it "existing" in the first place (either in the Prime, Mirror, JJ-, or any other universe) are, essentially, dreams.


You can choose to worry about a story that ended regardless of any new movie, or you can choose not to. But don't pretend that it's not a matter of choice.


_______________________________


The idea of Vulcan children being bullies was something that struck me as rather out of character, but of course I had forgotten that it was not unmentioned in earlier series.


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

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 11:03 pm

The Star Trek I knew and loved died with the end of DS9. The steady introduction of too much technobabble, rehashing of the Borg every five minutes, half-naked rub downs (see ENT) and weak stories week in week out killed Star Trek for well before the 09 film. At least the 09 film had a sense of fun. It had a sense of a fresh start. And yes, the original timeline is still there, should anyone choose to revisit it.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 2:13 am

Vger23


I don’t quite understand what you mean by ”the truth”


Do you mean the truth of your opinion as opposed to mine?


I hope you don’t mean money made or bums on seats as they have little, and sometimes nothing, to do with quality.


The only truths in movie making is budget, continuity, plot hole, who-did-what,


and…oh yeh,  truth to character. Which this movie wasn’t.


The rest is subjective.


I’ll agree that the old timeline can be revisited again one day but I didn’t know that when I was watching and anyway, I might be dead along with a lot of other veteran fans. But  f*ck us. What do we matter.


I was a bit harsh on the movie and would have enjoyed it immensely if it had not been  TREK film.


Otakujo:


Of course it’s a matter of choice. I choose to hate it for reasons  I have already expressed.


Servalanfan (great handle)


The difference with TNG was that the old timeline was adhered to even to the extent that McCoy showed up. The background environment was still intact. Vulcan was still Vulcan etc.


This gave the fans of the old series something to hang on to and with which to identify.


Abrams doesn’t give a stuff about doing that obviously. He’s more interested in finding new followers and having himself identified as the saviour of the ST universe when in fact he has destroyed it.


 


 


 

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 6:09 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 06 2012, 2:13 am



"The only truths in movie making is budget, continuity, plot hole, who-did-what"



---------------

I'll give it to you there with the plot holes. No film in this day and age should ever have had as many plot holes as ST09 did. "Apologists" for the movie will try to flimsily justify it by reaching back to previous ST films mistakes from over 15-30 years ago. But for a film from 2009 there's no excuse for it to have had as many mistakes as it did. However, anyone arguing down that path is still barking up the wrong tree. ST09 wasn't supposed to be a deeply layered film/engrossing plot. It was supposed to be a fantastic, action-packed, fast-paced Rollercoaster!!


LieutenantCommanderData62
5

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1886

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 6:26 am

Here's my question, may seem elementary but if ST09 se up a new time line, how could Khan be the villian since he was part of the "old" timeline


"I do not believe it is justified to sacrifice one life-form for another."-Data

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 8:16 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 06 2012, 2:13 am

>

class="MsoNormal">Vger23

class="MsoNormal">I don’t quite understand what you mean by ”the truth”

class="MsoNormal">Do you mean the truth of your opinion as opposed to mine?

class="MsoNormal">I hope you don’t mean money made or bums on seats as they have little, and sometimes nothing, to do with quality.

class="MsoNormal">The only truths in movie making is budget, continuity, plot hole, who-did-what,

class="MsoNormal">and…oh yeh,  truth to character. Which this movie wasn’t.

class="MsoNormal">The rest is subjective.

class="MsoNormal">I’ll agree that the old timeline can be revisited again one day but I didn’t know that when I was watching and anyway, I might be dead along with a lot of other veteran fans. But  f*ck us. What do we matter.

class="MsoNormal">I was a bit harsh on the movie and would have enjoyed it immensely if it had not been  TREK film.

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal"> 

>


 


The "truth" is that the film was designed to exist in it's own isolated universe. I don't see how that is to be viewed as subjective or as an opinion. It's clearly stated in the film, and it's clearly one of the main points of the entire thing. It's not an opinion or a subjective observation, it's a fact. Seems pretty simple to me. 


What you're saying about measuring the success of a film is completely irrational. Respectfully, the only OBJECTIVE measures of success in the film industry ARE butts in seats, box office receipts, and critical acclaim. This film had all of those. Again, just the opposite of what you believe, the "true to character, plot, etc etc etc." is all subjective and based on the perceptions, tastes, and personal biases. 


That's okay, we all have them (clearly you do). But, don't confuse the issue. Success = dollars and critical acclaim. That doesn't mean you have to like it or agree with it, but it's the only measure that counts. Enjoyability = personal preferences and biases. That's more important to each of us as individuals, but is completely subjective.


You need to accept that your opinion is fine, but doesn't follow in line with the established facts. You can think that the film sucked, but it didn't. It sucked FOR YOU...but it was generally accepted as a rousing success by every measure that matters.


 


Sorry.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 8:17 am

Quote: LieutenantCommanderData625 @ Dec. 06 2012, 6:26 am

>Here's my question, may seem elementary but if ST09 se up a new time line, how could Khan be the villian since he was part of the "old" timeline


 


The same way Kirk can be the hero, but part of the "old" timeline.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

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