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.

jangler3

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this May. 11 2013, 7:46 am

I only have one problem with the new timeline...Uhura is not thick enough.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 11 2013, 8:56 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ 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.


Well, this is pure speculation on my part, but the whole reason for the war between the Federation and the Klingons was due to a bad first contact event. Enterprise has the Klingons being belegirent, but the first contact was hardly poorly received, since the Enterprise returned Klang.


I think I might need to rewatch it andd see how the Klingons continued on in Enterprise. I know the war was never really explained in TOS.


Also, the Defiant might not have affected the time flow but it affected the evolution of technology, which expanded the Empire's power.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 11 2013, 11:41 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 11 2013, 8:56 am

>Well, this is pure speculation on my part, but the whole reason for the war between the Federation and the Klingons was due to a bad first contact event. Enterprise has the Klingons being belegirent, but the first contact was hardly poorly received, since the Enterprise returned Klang.


thats because your judging the event with human values.


try looking at that event thru klingon eyes.


a decorated klingon intelegence oficer, while in the presuit of his enemy, is shot down and almost killed by a civilian member of what the klingons view as a "baby rase not worthey of notice".


not only that, but they rob that klinon worrior of his honerable death while in presute  his duties, these humans then not only take the now dis-honered klingon back home, but they tresspass on the home world and the high councel chambers.


sounds like a pretty bad first contact to me..........shotting klang alone would be enough for the klingons to start a war.saving hi and returning him is like rubbing salt in wound


as for the rest, Archer was considered a criminal y the high councel, they even sent duras to kill him.every contact with the klingons we saw boradered on bad to worse.


Also, the Defiant might not have affected the time flow but it affected the evolution of technology, which expanded the Empire's power.


to some degree, it also stunted develoment as tiirk and crew vusited, their tech wasnt that more advanced then the prie universe.


Photobucket

Doc Boomstick

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 178

Report this May. 13 2013, 8:55 pm

I stepped away from these boards for awhile and popped in tonight to see what was up. Little has changed. It's mostly an angry group saying how JJ ruined Trek for them, much in the same way the TOS people said it about TNG or TNG fans did about some of the later work. The arguments are even the same. I think JJ has made two good movies, although I admit that it doesn't feel like MY Trek. But you know what? Neither is TOS. I was TNGer and I find it hard to rewatch TOS and some of the movies. Sometimes in all of these remake/reboot debates I like to think that the fanbase is owed something. When I see all the venom spewed on these boards, I'm not sure it's deserved.

Doc Boomstick

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 178

Report this May. 13 2013, 9:02 pm

Quote: Trajan @ Feb. 27 2013, 10:49 pm

>

>I enjoyed the film for what it was, but Quinto was not "spot on" portraying Spock.  None of the actors were "spot on", nor do I think they were trying to be.

>Leonard Nimoy and Mark Lenard set the standard for how Vulcans should look, speak, and act.  And, in my opinion, no other actor has come close to meeting that standard.

>


I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Nimoy played Spock everyday for years to develop the character we love. We think that this is how Vulcans should act because that's he HE acted. Rewatch the first season of TOS. Spock doesn't feel quite like he does in the movies or his TNG appearances.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 14 2013, 12:34 am

Quote: Doc Boomstick @ May. 13 2013, 8:55 pm

>

>I stepped away from these boards for awhile and popped in tonight to see what was up. Little has changed. It's mostly an angry group saying how JJ ruined Trek for them, much in the same way the TOS people said it about TNG or TNG fans did about some of the later work. The arguments are even the same. I think JJ has made two good movies, although I admit that it doesn't feel like MY Trek. But you know what? Neither is TOS. I was TNGer and I find it hard to rewatch TOS and some of the movies. Sometimes in all of these remake/reboot debates I like to think that the fanbase is owed something. When I see all the venom spewed on these boards, I'm not sure it's deserved.

>


A great point. Paramount and the Star Trek franchise do not owe me anything. This isn't "my Star Trek" because I don't own it. I enjoy it, have fun with it, ponder on it and sometimes hate it, but I don't own it. If I have a problem with it, I don't buy the product. For me, it really is that simple. I am not owed anything

E!!i

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 14 2013, 3:46 am

Before I watched the movies I thought the same, that they never can be as good as the original cast but now after watching both movies I even prefer the new one and I don't think that Pine or Quinto aren't doing a good job, quite to the contrary I totally think they're doing it very good.

H.T.4461

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this May. 14 2013, 11:13 am

Everybody has said the same thing about Star Wars too, and how George Lucas destroyed that franshise too, That's not stopping everyone from going to see the new one Episode 7 in 2015 either.  I am huge fan of Star Wars and I'm huge fan of Star Trek at the same time too , and I'm quite anxious to go see Into Darkness here very soon, wheather or not its bad or good. . . And what's up with all the hate against Quinto playing Spock?  I find him quite attractive looking for young looking Spock, Besides, Even Leornard Nimoy gave him credits on playing Spock. He said they couldn't pick a better actor to play him. 

xxburnITdownxx

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this May. 14 2013, 5:55 pm

...I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree, because I absolutely think Quinto's performance was spot on...his haircut...his pale complexion...his bony lanky physique...AND the way he spoke and where he put the stresses in sentences. He took on arguably the toughest assignment of any castmember and pulled it off fabulously. As far as the liberties that were taken with regards to the timeline and the plot, Abrams made it VERY clear that this film wasn't Star Trek XI, which is why it wasnt called that. It was NOT a continuation of any previous plot or timeline, nor was it intended to be placed within the timeline of other Star Trek projects. Still, even his plot liberties were minor and insignificant. And finally, if facial tattoos and ship sizes are all that you have to offer up as complaints, then we are REALLY nitpicking. But to even those weak points, may i remind everyone that Nero wasnt on a Romulan warbird, nor was he a ship crewman. He was on a MINING VESSEL, and considering that we've never seen a Romulan mining vessel in any previous Star Trek project, there cant be any criticsm with regards to its size. And it also stands to reason that Nero and his crew likely got their facial tattoos in the rogue two decades that they spent in pursuit of Spock, and not during his time in any official capacity. Finally, I would just LOVE for SOMEONE to give me examples of these so-called blasphemous liberties that Abrams has supposedly taken in "destroying" Star Trek. I understand that all directors want to leave their own mark on the films they make, so some creative liberties are expected, but its inexcusable when these liberties are taken with core aspects of the material at hand. Dr. Smith was NEVER a diabolical madman, Kojak was NEVER black, KITT was NEVER a Ford Mustang, and the Duke boys NEVER cruised around ANY major metropolitan city. Abrams has done no such thing to Star Trek. Seriously stop smoking the bad crack and accept all this.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 16 2013, 8:18 am

It seemed fairly apparent to me that JJ was aware of how upset some fans were about his vision as STID has loads more references to Prime story lines that fans can identify with and enjoy.


There is a way to please everyone after all.


A major compromise, I thought and JJ has gone up in my estimation for submitting to it.


Shame it took a whole movie for him to twig it.


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

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 16 2013, 10:03 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 16 2013, 8:18 am

>

>It seemed fairly apparent to me that JJ was aware of how upset some fans were about his vision as STID has loads more references to Prime story lines that fans can identify with and enjoy.

>There is a way to please everyone after all.

>A major compromise, I thought and JJ has gone up in my estimation for submitting to it.

>Shame it took a whole movie for him to twig it.

>


So the references in STID feel less condescending than the references in ST09?

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 16 2013, 2:35 pm

Not sure. They are more obvious i guess, but i found the original "needs of the many" speech corny anyway.


I found it fun though and I felt included at least. In the first one i felt excluded.

FluffyFox

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Jun. 18 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote: xxburnITdownxx @ May. 14 2013, 5:55 pm

>

>...I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree, because I absolutely think Quinto's performance was spot on...his haircut...his pale complexion...his bony lanky physique...AND the way he spoke and where he put the stresses in sentences. He took on arguably the toughest assignment of any castmember and pulled it off fabulously. As far as the liberties that were taken with regards to the timeline and the plot, Abrams made it VERY clear that this film wasn't Star Trek XI, which is why it wasnt called that. It was NOT a continuation of any previous plot or timeline, nor was it intended to be placed within the timeline of other Star Trek projects. Still, even his plot liberties were minor and insignificant. And finally, if facial tattoos and ship sizes are all that you have to offer up as complaints, then we are REALLY nitpicking. But to even those weak points, may i remind everyone that Nero wasnt on a Romulan warbird, nor was he a ship crewman. He was on a MINING VESSEL, and considering that we've never seen a Romulan mining vessel in any previous Star Trek project, there cant be any criticsm with regards to its size. And it also stands to reason that Nero and his crew likely got their facial tattoos in the rogue two decades that they spent in pursuit of Spock, and not during his time in any official capacity. Finally, I would just LOVE for SOMEONE to give me examples of these so-called blasphemous liberties that Abrams has supposedly taken in "destroying" Star Trek. I understand that all directors want to leave their own mark on the films they make, so some creative liberties are expected, but its inexcusable when these liberties are taken with core aspects of the material at hand. Dr. Smith was NEVER a diabolical madman, Kojak was NEVER black, KITT was NEVER a Ford Mustang, and the Duke boys NEVER cruised around ANY major metropolitan city. Abrams has done no such thing to Star Trek. Seriously stop smoking the bad crack and accept all this.

>


I agree wholeheartedly! ^^


After going and seeing the newest film my opinion of this new timeline changed signifigantly. While watching the movie I cried, actually cried. I haven't done that watching a Star Trek movie in years. After seeing the movie I went home and re-watched Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan and the original Space Seed ep.


I was floored by how JJ used it as a reference, but that was all. Like what was said above, JJ hasn't done anything overly wrong. He didn't make Spock Irish or Uhura white. He took a few liberties with the seires, but that's what had to be done. After all with copyright laws, things had to be changed and with the new fans that are being brought into the series they had to have a way to hook them. After all, nothing in Star Trek is ever going to be the same, hence, 'To bodly go where no one has gone before.'


I just hope these new fans learn to enjoy the series to the fullest no matter what. That's my opinion anyway. And thanks for reading my rant. =^..^=


"Live long and don't piss me off!" =^..^=

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Aug. 23 2013, 6:45 pm

queenuhura

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Aug. 23 2013, 7:38 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 23 2013, 6:45 pm


Beep Beep. Hilarious.


*Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations* *Live Long and Prosper*

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