RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,505
Posts: 5,511,362
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 456
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 14 2011, 05:44 PM   #16
Aldo
Admiral
 
Aldo's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere Out there beneath the pale moonlight.
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
.....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.
__________________
Don't believe everything I say.
Aldo is online now  
Old December 14 2011, 05:46 PM   #17
Robert D. Robot
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Pre-Warp Civilization of New England
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
.....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.
Robert D. Robot is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 05:46 PM   #18
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

horatio83 wrote: View Post
)
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.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 05:48 PM   #19
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

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.
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 05:52 PM   #20
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

matsuiny2004 wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
I actually really like Nemesis - but Star Trek XI was a FAR superior movie. That you can't recognize STXI's humanistic core, and want for more meaningless babytalk technobabble (exactly when did TOS explain it's weapons or technology?), is kind of sad.
What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?

Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.

The 2009 thing contained none of that.
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.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 05:54 PM   #21
matsuiny2004
Lieutenant
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
matsuiny2004 wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?

Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.

The 2009 thing contained none of that.
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 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
matsuiny2004 is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 05:58 PM   #22
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

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)
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 05:59 PM   #23
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
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'.

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 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 is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:09 PM   #24
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
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.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:14 PM   #25
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
.....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.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:14 PM   #26
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
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'.

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 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!
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.
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:18 PM   #27
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
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.
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.
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:19 PM   #28
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
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!
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 is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:23 PM   #29
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
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.
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.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 14 2011, 06:24 PM   #30
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

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
F. King Daniel is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
nemesis, philosophy, science, star trek (2009 film)

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.