If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

[Aldo]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

Guess I'm not a Star Trek fan then. Oh well, could have thought I was, but whatever.

[Robert D. Robot]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

My reasoning?.......

With an opening like this, I don't even need to read the rest of this post to know that the reasoning is flawed and the post is probably intended to just get certain folks steamed.

I suspect that I was watching starships while you were still in di-a-pers, and I prefer Trek 2009 over Nemesis.

You might like to choose your words better.

[trek_futurist]

horatio83 wrote:

---

)
In my opinion everything about ST09 except for the script is top notch

Yea, everything but the actual substance of it, or should I say, lack thereof, it is really good.

As far as the acting in nemesis goes, I find it far superior to that of the 2009 thing. And stewart and company were not even making the best effort. But Tom hardy alone could act circles around anyone on the 2009 film. And he does so in Nemesis.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics,established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the faceof 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).

As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.

The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.i

It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.

Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes. This incarnation is no different in that regard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.

[trek_futurist]

matsuiny2004 wrote:

---

alternate kirk gave Nero a chance to live despite how he felt. Nero refused help and insulted him. So kirk blew him up.

Despite how he felt?

Real kirk would never have felt that way! And this is the point that goes unnoticed. Yes kirk has spoken with distaste for klingons, but he would never destroy a sitting duck space ship if another alternative were available, such as boarding and imprisoning the captain.

Imposter kirk was intended to appeal to action hero fans. That is the only explanation. Real kirk could also appeal to action hero fans, but his actions and reasoning require some participation from the audience, rather than being neurologically numbed by bright, powerful explosions because imposter kirk is just such a 'bad asss' like Bruce Willis in the die hard movies, or the terminator, or what have you.

[matsuiny2004]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Despite how he felt?

Real kirk would never have felt that way! And this is the point that goes unnoticed. Yes kirk has spoken with distaste for klingons, but he would never destroy a sitting duck space ship if another alternative were available, such as boarding and imprisoning the captain.

Imposter kirk was intended to appeal to action hero fans. That is the only explanation. Real kirk could also appeal to action hero fans, but his actions and reasoning require some participation from the audience, rather than being neurologically numbed by bright, powerful explosions because imposter kirk is just such a 'bad asss' like Brice Willis in the die hard movies, or the terminator, or what have you.

Nero is too dangerous to imprison and Nero is not a helpless sitting duck. He lost a fight that he had the chance to win. There was no viable alternative Nero refused to be taken prisoner. end of story

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes. This incarnation is no different in that reguard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.

There have been continuity errors, but these were usually made by mishap, or were explained in novels (I.E the broader trekverse).

What we're discussing here has a greater magnitude than just continuity mishaps, what we are dealing with is

1-The intentional defecation on canon, unprecedented than in any pre-ENT star trek show (yes, enterprise set the precedent for this intentional abuse of canon) and

2-The intentional abuse of character continuity, behavior traits and basic essentials of what made a character who they were (back to kirk destroying neros ship when it was a sitting duck in space), which was a major part of the trek universe, and a big part of what made it unique and special. Having the characters act no different than any other generic action hero from any number of films condescendingly derides the original essence of them.

Now, call me a trek purist, but I cannot comprehend how someone can be a star trek fan if they deride everything that made it unique and and entity unto itself. That is, the philosophy, the characterization (humans being portrayed as essentially better than they are by todays standards) and, perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of science!

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Nero murdered 6 billion. Kirk Prime (and Chris Pine's is just as "real") never came up against ANYTHING like that - not from anyone accountable (i.e. not the doomsday machine)

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.

Sorry, been a fan since 1966.

My reasoning?

Doesn't matter, as your conclusion is indefensible based on any reality-based premises and/or criteria.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

There have been continuity errors, but these were usually made by mishap, or were explained in novels (I.E the broader trekverse).

What we're discussing here has a greater magnitude than just continuity mishaps, what we are dealing with is

1-The intentional defecation on canon, unprecedented than in any pre-ENT star trek show (yes, enterprise set the precedent for this intentional abuse of canon) and

2-The intentional abuse of character continuity, behavior traits and basic essentials of what made a character who they were (back to kirk destroying neros ship when it was a sitting duck in space), which was a major part of the trek universe, and a big part of what made it unique and special. Having the characters act no different than any other generic action hero from any number of films condescendingly derides the original essence of them.

Now, call me a trek purist, but I cannot comprehend how someone can be a star trek fan if they deride everything that made it unique and and entity unto itself. That is, the philosophy, the characterization (humans being portrayed as essentially better than they are by todays standards) and, perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of science!

I'm afriad *I* can't see how someone can be so judgemental of others and still be a Trek fan.

I gave you my take on the characterizations and morals of the film in a prior post.

And, frankly, you're wrong about the continuity of Trek. Massive and deliberate retcons have been going on for it's entire run -just look at the Klingons in TMP! Look at fundamentally incompatible episodes like "The Q and the Grey" and "True Q" or "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Where Silence has Lease". Galaxy-spanning warp speeds in TOS, TAS, STV, TNG, DS9 and ENT vs the far slower warp speeds in Voyager. Trek's continuity had always been an illusion, albeit a good one.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

non-sense.

Khan had every intention of killing billions with the genesis device, kirk still did not blow him out of the sky when the reliant was a sitting duck. That is the character of kirk, and the mark of a good starfleet officer who practices the principles espoused by the federation.

You mean like when Kirk offered to help Nero and his crew, even over Spock's objections?
What you see as a crime, I see as Kirk ensuring that there was NO CHANCE Nero or any part of his ship could survive to reek havok further in the past. Something he only did AFTER his offer of mercy was rejected.

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

I'm afriad *I* can't see how someone can be so judgemental of others and still be a Trek fan.

I gave you my take on the characterizations and morals of the film in a prior post.

And, frankly, you're wrong about the continuity of Trek. Massive and deliberate retcons have been going on for it's entire run -just look at the Klingons in TMP! Look at fundamentally incompatible episodes like "The Q and the Grey" and "True Q" or "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Where Silence has Lease". Galaxy-spanning warp speeds in TOS, TAS, STV, TNG, DS9 and ENT vs the far slower warp speeds in Voyager. Trek's continuity had always been an illusion, albeit a good one.

Those 'galaxy spanning' warp speeds were usually the result of an extraneous source, often resulting in near compromise of structural integrity.

No, most of the blunders between TOS and TNG were either mistakes or lapses in memory on the part of the writers. Nothing that intentionally devours canon as in ENT and the 2009 thing.

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

You mean like when Kirk offered to help Nero and his crew, even over Spock's objections?
What you see as a crime, I see as Kirk ensuring that there was NO CHANCE Nero or any part of his ship could survive to reek havok further in the past. Something he only did AFTER his offer of mercy was rejected.

That logic is silly. Mercy was 'rejected'? Real kirk would have taken him prisoner and seen that justice was met without destroying his sitting duck vessel like a coward. Regardless of whether his 'mercy was rejected'. And by the way, I find imposter kirks 'mercy' quite condescending and arrogant in those final moments.

My take is that the writers were trying to appeal to people who think it's okay to destroy other people in times of war, that some 'gung ho' behavior is acceptable. This more closely resembles todays awful political climate when it comes to moral acts in times of war. It's sickening.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I'm afraid, if you can't even acknowledge Trek's endless parade of rewrites and retcons ( Gene Rodenberry himself had admitted he's a revisionist), I've got nothing else to say