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

The destruction of Star Trek as we knew and loved it.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 09 2013, 3:34 pm

They talked about it on the bridge of the Enterprise. You may get over it now. Why do you even have this problem in your mind? The ideas of time travel and alternate dimensions has been completely FUBAR'd for the longest time now. The setup for this movie is just about the least half-assed bit of time travel/alternate universes that they've done in some time.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 09 2013, 3:38 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ May. 09 2013, 10:28 am

>Never noticed that before. Huh.

>Maybe he recorded that hologram during a period of mourning before the events of Countown?


doesnt seem likely,


1]she was all smiles and expecting a baby in the film.


2]she was also seen in the countdown pre-quil books, looking just as pregnent but no tataoo.


There's a first time for everything.


agreed, I was just pointing out that nit woulkd be a new concept for trek.


I understand what you're saying. I'm just pointing out (or trying to) some in-universe evidence that the original timeline still exists.


and I'm pointing out that if the old theroy holds treue, and history is re-written in a single timeline, then the evidence you speak of was errased.,


Time is linear. If the JJverse had overwritten everything, the future factions never would have existed because history would have ended as soon as Nero went through the black hole,


not exactly right.


they would have exsisted in one of the many possiblke future timelines we have seen, but would then have been errased by Neros actions.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 09 2013, 3:45 pm

Quote: leroybrock @ May. 09 2013, 3:34 pm

>They talked about it on the bridge of the Enterprise

>.


Sorry, but no they didnt.


They spoke of alterred realities, nothing about branching co-exsisting parallel  universes.


You may get over it now. Why do you even have this problem in your mind?


Dont go confusing me with others here.I dont have a problem with JJ's concept.


I'm just pointing out that it was never done that way before in Trek.


The ideas of time travel and alternate dimensions has been completely FUBAR'd for the longest time now.


But time travel has never created a co-exsisting parallel universe before in trek.


Photobucket

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 09 2013, 3:59 pm

Quote: Quinten 1444 @ May. 08 2013, 11:34 pm

>

>You are compleatly right, by the way romulans dont have tatoe's and there ships do not look like a giant hedghog like in the previous film.

>


To the first point: Romulus is a big place (as mentioned). Also, we have only ever seen Romulan politicians, diplomats, soldiers, and urban civilians. Nero and his friends are basically the Romulan equivalent of industrial miners. And (as mentioned) they tattooed their faces as a mark of their grief.


To the second point: I think this is mentioned in the comics although i only know it from hearsay. The Narada was not, technically speaking, a Romulan ship. Rather, it was constructed from salvaged Borg technology.


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

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 09 2013, 4:41 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ May. 09 2013, 3:59 pm

>To the first point: Romulus is a big place (as mentioned). Also, we have only ever seen Romulan politicians, diplomats, soldiers, and urban civilians. Nero and his friends are basically the Romulan equivalent of industrial miners. And (as mentioned) they tattooed their faces as a mark of their grief.

>To the second point: I think this is mentioned in the comics although i only know it from hearsay. The Narada was not, technically speaking, a Romulan ship. Rather, it was constructed from salvaged Borg technology.

>


See, both those bits of info come from the pre-quil comic............and the comics have never been considered canon.


no less,  the film contradicts the tatoo explanation give in the comics.


Photobucket

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 09 2013, 6:17 pm

The tattoo doesn't cause me any concern. The species in Star Trek shouldn't be so 2 dimensional that you can say "species X doesn't do tattoos". Billions of Romulans and no one does tattoos because they feel like it? Regardless of what contradicts a comic the tattoo is an irrelevant point. I'm glad they went back to TOS style Romulans instead of the goofy forehead Romulans invented by TNG. I prefer my Romulans as very nearly Vulcan.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 09 2013, 6:20 pm

the tats dont bother me either.And I like the non0bump Romulans as well, but I think theres room for all 3

AccessWizard

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 10 2013, 5:59 am

The first Star Trek - Abrams movie was supposed to be a prequil to the origional series.  If planet Vulcan is destroyed there would never be an 'Amok Time', where Spock, going through Ponfar' has to return to vulcan or die.  Destroying the planet wouldcause all the Vulkins to be extint in sven years.  Total stupiditly.  I really wanted to see a movie that kinda looked like the old Star Trek.  I loved that old bridge.  


I was bitterly disapointed!

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 10 2013, 6:20 am

Vulcans don't actually have to be on Vulcan. They just have to mate with something. Tuvok humped a hologram on Voyager and T'Pol would have been fine if she had managed to rape a member of the Enterprise crew.

Try again.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 10 2013, 6:31 am

Quote: Kornula @ Jan. 18 2013, 4:14 am

>

>Has anyone thought that maybe.. just maybe, the franchise should just die? 

>


 


I don't think it should die, but I am okay with letting it rest for 20 or so years.  We don't need a constant barrage of Star Trek labeled content.  19 years passed between TOS and TNG, and it worked.  We have what, 800+ hours of material? Let it rest, let it breathe.  Then when someone comes up with a concept that moves FORWARD, like TNG, then take a stab at it.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 10 2013, 6:53 am

I keep seeing comments in the vein of "If Leonard Nimoy is okay with it, then it's fine by me." "Leonard Nimoy said Zachary Quinto did a good job so I agree."


Let me be clear, I adore Leonard Nimoy. I respect him a lot, love his work and meeting him was an absolute dream come true.  When he is involved in a Star Trek project, it automatically adds value, interest and weight to it. Spock is my absolute favorite character.


That being said, Leonard Nimoy does not dictate to me what is "good" Star Trek.  Leonard Nimoy is an actor who we pay to entertain us.  He draws a salary from our dollars. I view him with a reverence and awe....to a point.  I think a lot of people lose persepctive of that.


But in the end, with every appearance, every convention, every commercial, every interview, Leonard Nimoy is doing a job he gets paid to do.  I'm not saying he doesn't care about Star Trek or the fans, I'm sure he very much does.  But it is up to the actors to win the fans approval. In the end, he is doing a job. A job with a lot of longevity and emotional investment on the sides of both the actors and fans, but a job nonetheless.   When I met Leonard Nimoy, got his autograph and took a photo with him, it was not out of the goodness of his heart. It was because I paid a premium for it. He is a well loved and respected actor. He is not a spiritual leader who sets policy for his followers.


 


It is not a sin to say "I disagree with Leonard Nimoy's opinion."  Which I do. I like Leonard Nimoy's Spock. I am less than thrilled with Zachary Quinto's Spock. I do not think he is amazing.  And nothing Leonard Nimoy says will direct me to spend my money or give approval to something I'm not happy with.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 10 2013, 9:54 am

Quote: AccessWizard @ May. 10 2013, 5:59 am

>The first Star Trek - Abrams movie was supposed to be a prequil to the origional series.  If planet Vulcan is destroyed there would never be an 'Amok Time', where Spock, going through Ponfar' has to return to vulcan or die.  Destroying the planet wouldcause all the Vulkins to be extint in sven years.  Total stupiditly.  I really wanted to see a movie that kinda looked like the old Star Trek.  I loved that old bridge.  

>I was bitterly disapointed!

>
I dont mean to sound rude, but you either need to pay closer attention to the film or to wehat has been said in topics like this.


JJ's trek film was NOT intended to be a prequil to the TOS series.It was intended to be a new telling.


And you should also check your facts about Vulcans.They are only driven to mate every 7 years, they dont need to go home to do it.We have seen Vulcans survive my medetation, combate and by mating where ever they are, like starships.


Photobucket

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 10 2013, 8:06 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 09 2013, 3:45 pm

Quote: leroybrock @ May. 09 2013, 3:34 pm

>

>They talked about it on the bridge of the Enterprise

>.

Sorry, but no they didnt.

They spoke of alterred realities, nothing about branching co-exsisting parallel  universes.

You may get over it now. Why do you even have this problem in your mind?

Dont go confusing me with others here.I dont have a problem with JJ's concept.

I'm just pointing out that it was never done that way before in Trek.

The ideas of time travel and alternate dimensions has been completely FUBAR'd for the longest time now.

But time travel has never created a co-exsisting parallel universe before in trek.


Not to nit, sto-vo-kor, as we usually agree, but could't Enterprise's Temporal Cold War be argued as a co-existing alternate timeline?


 Also of note is the fact that the Defiant from the Prime universe came through a interphase distortion and affects the time flow in the Mirror universe.


 

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 10 2013, 8:32 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 10 2013, 6:53 am

>

>I keep seeing comments in the vein of "If Leonard Nimoy is okay with it, then it's fine by me." "Leonard Nimoy said Zachary Quinto did a good job so I agree."

>Let me be clear, I adore Leonard Nimoy. I respect him a lot, love his work and meeting him was an absolute dream come true.  When he is involved in a Star Trek project, it automatically adds value, interest and weight to it. Spock is my absolute favorite character.

>That being said, Leonard Nimoy does not dictate to me what is "good" Star Trek.  Leonard Nimoy is an actor who we pay to entertain us.  He draws a salary from our dollars. I view him with a reverence and awe....to a point.  I think a lot of people lose persepctive of that.

>But in the end, with every appearance, every convention, every commercial, every interview, Leonard Nimoy is doing a job he gets paid to do.  I'm not saying he doesn't care about Star Trek or the fans, I'm sure he very much does.  But it is up to the actors to win the fans approval. In the end, he is doing a job. A job with a lot of longevity and emotional investment on the sides of both the actors and fans, but a job nonetheless.   When I met Leonard Nimoy, got his autograph and took a photo with him, it was not out of the goodness of his heart. It was because I paid a premium for it. He is a well loved and respected actor. He is not a spiritual leader who sets policy for his followers.

>It is not a sin to say "I disagree with Leonard Nimoy's opinion."  Which I do. I like Leonard Nimoy's Spock. I am less than thrilled with Zachary Quinto's Spock. I do not think he is amazing.  And nothing Leonard Nimoy says will direct me to spend my money or give approval to something I'm not happy with.

>


I understand that point of view, but I give more weight to Nimoy's opinion than most due to really being around since Star Trek's inception. And given how choosy he is regarding the movies/shows he appears in AS Spock, turning down multiple scripts. The fact that he choose Abrams version to participate with and appear in speaks a lot to me.


Honestly, Nimoy, aside from conventions, has been kind of done with Trek. I mean, even Koening and Taeki have participated in fan films, as have Denise Crosby, and Tim Russ, to name a few. Nimoy has distance himself, doing more with photography and film that went beyond his Star Trek career. He honestly seems to have more success doing that than being Spock.


Again, I put more weight to Nimoy's opinion for many reasons-you don't have to agree with them (I feel bad repeating that, but given the tone of many threads now, it feels necessary).


Any actor is a personal taste matter. I love Vin Disel, most people give him a pass. I think Dwayne Johnson is great-the reception to him is not always the same. So, if Quinto isn't for you, then ok. I think he did a fantastic job and that's just me.


For those curious, here is one interview Nimoy did regarding Abrams' Trek, his reason for doing it and feelings about the cast:


http://io9.com/5230589/why-abrams-star-trek-brought-the-original-vulcan-to-tears

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 10 2013, 8:51 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 10 2013, 8:06 pm

>Not to nit, sto-vo-kor, as we usually agree, but could't Enterprise's Temporal Cold War be argued as a co-existing alternate timeline?

> Also of note is the fact that the Defiant from the Prime universe came through a interphase distortion and affects the time flow in the Mirror universe.

>


Nit bpic any time.


I dont see how the TCW can be seen that way, but please enlighten me.


The Defiant was pulled threw a interphasic rift, but I see nothing that suggest it effected time flow in the mu.


Photobucket

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