RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,505
Posts: 5,511,320
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 478
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 > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

View Poll Results: Do fans want the prime timeline back?
I'm a fan and I want the Prime timeline back. 211 56.87%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 61 16.44%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 39 10.51%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 53 14.29%
I don't know. 7 1.89%
Voters: 371. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 4 2013, 02:40 AM   #256
Andymator
Lieutenant Commander
 
Andymator's Avatar
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

The way I see it the Enterprise hiding underwater was great writing.

It was unexpected and fresh.

That awe-inspiring moment of it rising out of the ocean, you could really believe that witnessing it would impact the trajectory of a primitive society, which was what the plot required.
Andymator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:05 AM   #257
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Absolutely fair enough. I'm certainly not inclined to pull rank here. Heck, I only get cranky when people question my fan cred.
Likewise completely fair enough, and cheers, I appreciate that.

(On TMP's visual style, incidentally, I think the point about its heritage in trying to imitate Kubrick and/or Close Encounters is spot on. Hadn't quite placed it in that context, but that makes it quite explicable.)

Andymator wrote:
The way I see it the Enterprise hiding underwater was great writing.

It was unexpected and fresh.
Well, it was "unexpected." And don't get me wrong, the ship rising out of the water is, in and of itself, a cool shot.

What makes it bad writing to me is that there is no explicable reason for it to happen except to get the cool shot. Kirk is, we are told repeatedly, a starship Captain of greatness. It could not or at least should not have failed to occur to someone fitting that description that just keeping the ship in orbit would hide it from the natives and allow it to better support Spock's operation in the volcano*. That's why the ship on the sea floor is "unexpected." There is no good reason for him to do it.

The plot requires Kirk, in other words, to act stupidly in a way that has to be lampshaded by his Chief Engineer -- so that the viewers will know not to take any of this seriously, because the writers sure didn't -- in order to get a cool shot. That it was good spectacle does not make it good writing. Having to contrive stupidity on the part of supposedly-capable characters is bad writing. Good writing would have been to find a means to the spectacle or something like it without having to resort to that kind of contrivance.

(* Which, even worse for scientific illiteracy: "cold fusion" does not freeze things. And I actually have to wonder if the writers just didn't know that, or knew and just didn't care to come up with an alternate name for the device, like a "stasis bomb" or something. It's a moment of gratuitous badness that a simple copy-edit should at any rate have caught, which really does create the impression that nobody of importance on the production cared at all. I'm not one of these people who believe the filmmakers should be "respecting the fans" at every turn -- but not respecting your own craft and product is a different kettle of fish... and one of the reasons I hold it against Abrams is that I know for a fact he is, or can be, a better filmmaker than that.)
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:19 AM   #258
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Perhaps in the future "cold fusion" doesn't have the same connotations it does in the present.

While it's not stated, if we're to assume that Kirk is a great captain, etc., then shouldn't we also assume that if Kirk put the ship underwater then there was a good reason for it?

Here's one - atmospheric interference would prevent the ship from communicating with the folks on the ground. In order to both keep in contact but also keep the ship hidden, Kirk decided to put it in the ocean, conveniently near where he and Bones would be in case things went badly...as they did.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:29 AM   #259
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

DonIago wrote: View Post
Perhaps in the future "cold fusion" doesn't have the same connotations it does in the present.
And perhaps with better writers we wouldn't have to resort to those kinds of shenanigans.

While it's not stated, if we're to assume that Kirk is a great captain, etc., then shouldn't we also assume that if Kirk put the ship underwater then there was a good reason for it?
Not really, no. If you have to tell the audience that a character is hot stuff because Take Your Word For It, even though they act nonsensically, that's bad writing.

Here's one - atmospheric interference would prevent the ship from communicating with the folks on the ground.
As opposed to megatonnes of seawater? Come on. Anything that applies to "atmospheric interference" applies a thousandfold to the ocean.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:37 AM   #260
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Mmm, yes, this is certainly much, much worse than anything that's ever occurred in Trek before.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:39 AM   #261
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

That would only be a relevant response if I was claiming bad writing had never occurred in Trek, DonIago. Which I'm not. (See my earlier remarks on the Final Frontier.)
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:51 AM   #262
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

No, but you are going on about it. We get it, you found the writing inferior. Thank you for presenting your opinion.

My apologies, my phone decided to spontaneously brick itself, my job has given me a crappy week, and my patience is probably sub-optimal right now, but I'm reminded of when Glen Bateman encountered Randall Flagg near the end of "The Stand" and burst into laughter, saying "We made such a -business- of you!" So many threads on this board seem to be people going on...and on...and on...about how awful the recent films are. They usually won't change their opinions and they usually won't change anyone else's opinions, so what's the point exactly? What are we accomplishing? Is this some perverse form of catharsis?
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 05:11 AM   #263
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

DonIago wrote: View Post
No, but you are going on about it.
Yes, you will have to forgive me for "going on" about Trek on a "Future of Trek" forum on a Trek board. I do happen to care about writing as a craft, believe that Trek can do it well, and to be disinclined to be told that Shizznit (as The Kidz Today might put it) is Shinola. If none of that is your bag, I'm fine with that. Just say so from the outset.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 12:07 PM   #264
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Perhaps they were underwater, and flying shuttles around beneath ash clouds, to keep Starfleet and their long-range satellites from seeing Kirk break the prime directive?

Now, can someone explain why the Federation Holoship was underwater in Insurrection when it had a cloaking device as well??
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 12:43 PM   #265
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post

Yes, you will have to forgive me for "going on" about Trek on a "Future of Trek" forum on a Trek board. I do happen to care about writing as a craft, believe that Trek can do it well...
Problem is that many people here believe that Into Darkness, while flawed, is written well. You're trying to pass off your personal opinion as some type of standard that the Abrams films should aspire to.

Honestly, I think Into Darkness is better written than 85-90% of the entries in the franchise (episodes/movies). Including TOS, which is my personal favorite. A movie can be well written and a fun ride at the same time, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Your comments come down to "if they had just done it my way it would have been a better movie", which is just non-sense.

I'm 42 and have been a Trek fan since 1975, so I'm not some kid who happens to think that cinema of the past is slow and dated. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is my favorite Trek film.


King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

Now, can someone explain why the Federation Holoship was underwater in Insurrection when it had a cloaking device as well??
Especially when it was shown throughout the movie that people had no issues beaming back and forth between ships and the planet.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 01:50 PM   #266
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Perhaps they were underwater, and flying shuttles around beneath ash clouds, to keep Starfleet and their long-range satellites from seeing Kirk break the prime directive?
Finally we start explaining plot holes by making the characters look bad.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 02:33 PM   #267
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Perhaps they were underwater, and flying shuttles around beneath ash clouds, to keep Starfleet and their long-range satellites from seeing Kirk break the prime directive?

Now, can someone explain why the Federation Holoship was underwater in Insurrection when it had a cloaking device as well??
If other Federation ships like the mission scout ship were present, they would see a "hole" in the metaphasic cloud surronding the planet if it were in orbit. Cloaking in on the surface makes it a lot safer and probably easier to beam the Baku to it. But hiding in the water prevents them from walking into it or other ships seeing stray antiproton readings.

More to keep it away from prying eyes of other races, rather than the Baku or Son'a.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 02:39 PM   #268
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

DonIago wrote: View Post
No, but you are going on about it. We get it, you found the writing inferior. Thank you for presenting your opinion.

My apologies, my phone decided to spontaneously brick itself, my job has given me a crappy week, and my patience is probably sub-optimal right now, but I'm reminded of when Glen Bateman encountered Randall Flagg near the end of "The Stand" and burst into laughter, saying "We made such a -business- of you!" So many threads on this board seem to be people going on...and on...and on...about how awful the recent films are. They usually won't change their opinions and they usually won't change anyone else's opinions, so what's the point exactly? What are we accomplishing? Is this some perverse form of catharsis?
People arguing their opinion that the film is poorly written is no different than you arguing your opinion that it isn't. If all this kind of discussion is pointless and redundant, why do you engage in it?
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 03:10 PM   #269
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Problem is that many people here believe that Into Darkness, while flawed, is written well.
And the problem for that claim is that writers and editors have been chewing over the question of what makes or does not make "good writing," particularly in the sense of writing fiction for sale in prose form or for the screen, for some time.

I am not in fact the one trying to "pass off my personal opinion as some kind of standard." What I'm describing are some of the rough "standards" that have emerged from that conversation. What I'm getting back is "well, none of that matters compared to my personal opinion of what 'good writing' is." And respectfully, I don't find that very convincing.

If someone wants to tell me that they don't care about good writing as long as they get a spectacle, that's perfectly fine. If someone wants to say this:

A movie can be well written and a fun ride at the same time, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
That's 100% true and exactly what I have been saying. But one should not try to say that that's what happened with STID because-I-say-so and expect others to be convinced by that. It isn't going to happen.

Your comments come down to "if they had just done it my way it would have been a better movie"
My comments come down to "if it had been better written it would have been a better movie." Because a movie can be well-written and be a fun thrill ride. Whether "my way" would necessarily have been better I don't know, but to paraphrase the great Commander Taggart, it doesn't take a great writer to recognize bad writing.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Perhaps they were underwater, and flying shuttles around beneath ash clouds, to keep Starfleet and their long-range satellites from seeing Kirk break the prime directive?
Yeah, you see, when you have no way to explain something our supposed-heroes have done except to speculate that maybe they're hiding their chicanery from their own command, do you see how maybe that should tell you something?

Now, can someone explain why the Federation Holoship was underwater in Insurrection when it had a cloaking device as well??
And when you have to resort to saying "Insurrection [not exactly the most highly-regarded of Trek films] sort of did it too, so it must be okay," shouldn't that also tell you something?
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigKrampus; October 4 2013 at 03:35 PM.
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 03:14 PM   #270
BigKrampus
Rear Admiral
 
BigKrampus's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there's BigJake.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

<dl>
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigKrampus; October 4 2013 at 03:34 PM.
BigKrampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
prime timeline, prime trek

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 06:23 AM.

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