Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

And that's not to mention the fan rage against Voyager and Enterprise and (to a slightly lesser extent) DS9 on television.

Let's face it - a very small but very vocal minority of Trek fans has always instinctively hated the "Trek of the moment" no matter what it was, simply because it wasn't the "Trek they were familiar and comfortable with" - whether that be TOS, TNG, etc.

Personally I've been a Trek fan since TOS, and I think the last two movies were among the best. And one of the nicest things - with both Trek (09) and STID, I saw them in a theater full of moviegoers who loved it, cheered the crew on and enjoyed every moment of the film. There was applause at the end credits.

Contrast that with Nemesis or Insurrection, which I saw (on the opening weekend) in near-empty theaters and slunk out afterwards basically embarrassed to be seen at the Star Trek movie.

 

I loved TMP. I saw it five times in the theatre, and on two of those occasions I'd dragged my family along, plus some of my grandmother's friends (my grandmother was a William Shatner fan). I do feel a bit sorry for the fans who have never seen this movie as it was meant to be seen - on a big theatre screen. The experience is completely different from seeing it on TV.

Thank you for clarifying. For some reason I recalled it as being one of the other Voyager probes, but yeah, it's even worse for them to destroy one of the Pioneer ones... I know I'm anthropomorphizing, but I feel some degree of affection for those probes, traveling so far from earth and being so lonely out there without even a single scrap of contact with Earth.

I guess a lot of audience members didn't realize they were supposed to be angry. I remember feeling appalled at how some people thought it was a huge joke. But then I guess they hadn't read Carl Sagan's books and articles about these probes and how much time and effort went into designing them, making them work, and getting them launched - never mind actually getting all that lovely data back.

Robin Curtis' Saavik... sweet???

I thought she had all the appeal of a piece of cardboard... no personality whatsoever, whereas Kirstie Alley's Saavik was an actual, relatable character. But regardless of the actress, Saavik's part in the movie trilogy continued on seamlessly from movie to movie. The only real WTF moment came in TVH, when they're on Vulcan, it's three months later, and only then is Saavik getting around to mentioning to Kirk that his son saved her life and died bravely. She couldn't have spared a minute to tell him that before?

 

Pioneer 10 shrieking in agony upon being struck by blaster fire was both anthropomorphic and comical. The probe being hard to hit was also comical, as was Klaa's targeting scope. The scene was infuriating, because of its high level of banality, like most of STV.

 

I don't know, Facebook seems to be jam-packed with over-the-top levels of fanrage. Just look at the dozens of ignorant cries of "Khan is a Sikh!" whenever Startrek.com posts a picture of Benedict Cumberbatch to hype the latest issue of the Khan prequel comic.

 

Ain't that the truth? Most shockingly of all is that this came from William "let's make it more theatrical" Shatner, himself! How the hell does he come out with something so lame, of all people? Even if he doesn't really "get" STAR TREK, himself, nevermind all that ... it shouldn't have owed for spectacle and over-the-top performances. I know that Shatner's cited "studio interference," basically, but I don't really buy that. But what a perfect, one-worded description for STAR TREK V ... "banal." It really does sum it up, quite nicely, doesn't it?

 

The fact that it's being argued means one side of the argument should stop using the word ? That makes no sense to me. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If it's being debated, then both sides will argue the term. What other term would you suggest ?

The characters will be anything they write them to be. Could you provide any reason why changes can't or shouldn't be made along the way ?

 

"it splinters from the previous timeline" pretty much covers it.

This does not equate to "it has no connection to the previous timeline whatsoever and so absolutely anything from prior canon can be thrown out".

Khan is from before the timelines diverge, it's as simple as that.

Speaking of which:
http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/Use-Three.jpg

 

Check out most of the nasty comments about STID on the Facebook page of Star Trek: Phase II as well.

 

Set, love that Khan pic.

Star Trek: Phase II is surely the kind of production that selects for fans who prefer TOS Trek, many of whom may not particularly care for nuTrek. That should not be any kind of shock.

(And Daniel, as for the supposedly "ignorant" cries of "Khan is a Sikh!", the racial stuff is a distraction. The real core of the complaint, and it's a valid one, is that Khan originated as a character with a distinctive background and "feel" to him that is not present in the nuTrek version. If you prefer the nuTrek version that's your biz, but the difference is very real and usual tactic trotted out to obscure that difference -- "but Ricardo Montalban was white and his TOS costume wasn't technically Sikh, aha!" -- is not as impressive as some people apparently imagine it to be.)

 

*Sigh*

Khan cannot have been a Sikh in "Space Seed" because he violated two of the most basic tennants of Sikhism. He was clean shaven and at no point did he don a turban. This is not a "technicality" it's the foundation of the religion. Google it if you don't believe me. The claim he's a Sikh comes from Marla - who somehow pegs him as a Sikh on-sight which makes no sense whatsoever (and destroys the "he just wasn't a good Sikh" counter I keep hearing)

Furthermore, the TOS writers were actually warned that Sikhs don't trim or remove any body hair and for some reason chose to ignore it.

So, in short, yes it is ignorance that leads fans to parrott Marla's line. Of course he's changed with the recasting and I'm fine with people disliking that, but no version of Khan was ever a Sikh.

 

*Sigh*

An ethnic Sikh, not a practicing Sikh. And it's not the first time this distinction has been explained. Not to mention that the Khan comic has him wearing a turban.

 

But how would McGivers know at first site?

 

How does one identify an "ethnic" Sikh on sight? Especially with out any of the outward signs of Sikhism?

 

There is no such thing as an ethnic Sikh. Sikhism is a religion, and a Sikh is a follower of the religion. Most Sikhs are ethnically Punjabi, but not all Punjabi persons are Sikh.

 

Agreed. I seen a movie review where it was observed that Pine manages to embody the character of Captain Kirk without falling into the trap of going anywhere near imitating William Shatner. It's a fine (some might have said impossible) line, but Pine really does just about pull it off with ease.

 

Everyone faults SPACE SEED for Khan not wearing a beard and all of the accoutrements of a Sikh, rather than blaming Marla McGivers for just not knowing what the hell she was even talking about, in the first place. And judging by her actions in this episode, I'm more inclined to believe she was never right in the head, to start with. Khan merely recognized this, from the beginning ... and exploited it. At least he committed to her, in the end.