STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

I've only been watching it for 39 years; I agree that it's Star Trek.

 

^I've been watching it for...eh, since childhood.

I have seen every single episode of TOS, TNG, and DS9, along with a decent amount of ENT and VOY. I have seen every movie, and a handful of TAS.

This. Movie. Is. Star Trek.

Period.

 

It does? I don't recall that.

 

Why do people think differently about it it is Star Trek you must have expected much more.

 

^I think the purists were wanting another Gene Roddenberry....

 

If he said you rolled your eyes it means you did, damnit!

 

No. I wanted something fun... and smart... that respected what had come before. J.J. Abrams got a lot of things right in the re-boot but the script wasn't one of them.

- Dialogue was clunky
- Red Matter was a terrible plot device
- Script depended on a ton of coincidence to move forward

Plus there were moments that essentially felt like snippets of TOS episodes were copy and pasted into the script.

There are elements of TOS that make it feel like a fleshed out universe that this movie lacks. One is the evolution of the crew. We went from The Cage to Where No Man Has Gone Before to The Corbomite Maneuver that allowed us to see both young Kirk and young Spock grow together and we see characters come and go before we get the main seven together. This movie has none of this. Let's mash these seven characters together when it really makes no sense that three of them would go to the academy, all graduate in three years (Kirk, McCoy, Uhura and Cupcake). Is the academy that easy? That Spock in this timeline is a full Commander (and XO) when he was only a Lieutenant in the original timeline. That they would find Scotty on an ice planet and he would within a few hours have clearances of a top of the line starship. Poor helmsman McKenna that just happens to come down with lung worm to open a chair for Sulu. And that Chekov is a completely different character.

It was too forced. It feels a lot like TNG movies having Worf inexplicably show up everytime there is an emergency or the later TOS films where the crew has served together for thirty years.

 

well sorry you feel that way about the movie but I have to disagree this movie did do a lot of things right, didn't the actors capture the spirit and essence of what came before by the original actors.

 

I'm guessing this is pointed at me sooo...

Guess this part of my post was ignored.

 

We got it.

Go to the credits and tell us who the writers are.

You mean it wasn't stiff and boring like previous Trek.

Oh yes, the devastation that a plot device like tons of other plot devices in Star Trek brought.

As all scripts do, but not on the level that you are mistaken.

Show us why.

People can graduate college in three years if they work hard and don't take summers off, you tell us.

Good for him.

And? I think you're seeing impossibilities where there are none.

And?

Not completely different, just useful.

 

At Devon:

1. No, you really don't get it. You seem to want people to come in here and gush about how great this film is.

2. Who hired said writers? You guessed it! J.J. Abrams.

3. No the dialogue was dire. The best line in the film came from marketing chopping up the written dialogue.

4. Agreed Star Trek has had a ton of bad plot devices over the years. It still doesn't excuse the current one.

5. The script jumps from one coincidence to the next at break neck speed. Right up there with Bad Boys.

6. Isn't one of the things that makes Kirk special is that he is able to do it in three?

7. Didn't look like Kirk was really all that interested in studying. How do we know that the Kobayashi Maru was the only thing he cheated on?

8. So what did he do to earn the promotion and be XO of the flagship only a few years out of the academy? Of course this isn't a problem for people who look the other way when Cadet Kirk is made captain of the same flagship.

9. If I hadn't already seen so many impossibilities already this one probably wouldn't have stuck out like a sore thumb.

10. No need to discuss the issue if you don't have a problem with it. I don't need the cast of seven rammed down my throat to get that it's Star Trek.

11. Different character. Chekov is 22 in 2266, this character was 17 in 2258. Which even in Trek's convoluted timeline makes him a completely different character.

 

I WILL say that the new Chekov strikes me as a bit of a goofball.

That being said, that's about my ONE complaint with the film.

As for the dialogue, it was a THOUSAND times better than the dialogue of Revenge of the Sith, I can tell you that.

But then, you can say that about MOST films, anyway....

 

ah heck no.

all the way back to tos the writers at times would fidget with or ignore fanon or even canon.

one of the reasons the writers did what they did was not only make the future a suprise(we no longer know the exact fate of the characters but to not be driven crazy by a very contradictory canon.

 

Now...out of the three "Great Birds" (Roddenberry, Berman, and Abrams), WHICH ONE was the most concerned about staying true to canon?

Here's a hint: It wasn't Roddenberry.

 

Did he? I thought they were a package deal.

 

Who gives a flying fuck about canon? Good movie.

 

I don't give a damn about canon but I do care about things like substance and a good plot, both of which Star Trek XI lacked in my opinion. It's like a hollow shell of a movie.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with my first response other than a misinterpretation of my comment, deliberate or not. My comment was that we got something smart and respected what had come before.

Who were said writers that wrote the script? You guessed it! Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci!

Hardly. If this had "Dire Dialogue" as you're exaggerating, then the rest of Trek is in deep crap.

In your opinion, of course.

What makes you think it needs excuses? It's a plot device, it did its job. It didn't cause the end of the world (well, at least ours.)

C'est La Vie

Yes, but that doesn't explain why it supposedly doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense about it?

It's obvious he did if he got this far.

How do we?

Ask him yourself.

Incorrect assumption. In fact I have stated either on here or another forum that the very part you mention was one of the few things I think could have been improved.

You're looking for them where there aren't any I think.

Neither do I, but I'm not making the film either.

Same character. He's still the Ensign Pavel Chekov from Russia, navigator for the Starship Enterprise. Except this time he's useful.

 

What a waste of life and breathe, fretting about the imaginary age of imaginary Chekov.

I was talking with a couple of older, former naval officers this afternoon, one of whom (who'd watched Trek as a kid on NBC) pointed out that the ages of the characters in the original Trek TV series were entirely as ridiculous for the ranks and positions they held as are the characters in the current movie. A thirty-four year old captain, commanding one of the biggest ships in a fleet? For plausibility's sake, he might just as well have been nineteen.

Must admit that had never occurred to me. On reflection, it was obviously ridiculous enough even to the people making the show that they hung a lantern on it by declaring Kirk to be "the youngest ever" and suggesting in their writer's guide for the series that "a legend is growing" about Kirk...IOW, it's silly and they know it's silly to be putting this young man forward as holding the rank of captain and commanding this ship, but they don't want any fuss made about it.