RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,843
Posts: 5,220,636
Members: 24,231
Currently online: 744
Newest member: pheniks

TrekToday headlines

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Miles Away Glyph Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16


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 XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 27 2009, 12:26 AM   #76
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Who gives a flying fuck about canon? Good movie.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 12:38 AM   #77
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote:
2. Who hired said writers? You guessed it! J.J. Abrams.
Did he? I thought they were a package deal.
Yeah, they were. It was actually Orci who was approached first by Paramount about a possible Star Trek project and how it would/could be done -- this, while he, Kurtzman and Abrams were working on M:I:III.
__________________
"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank and that settles it. I mean it does nowadays, because we can't burn him."
— Mark Twain, from Following the Equator
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 03:18 AM   #78
Geckothan
Fleet Captain
 
Geckothan's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of Britainistan
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Dennis wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
You're a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain.

RIP Star Trek 1964-1999
Geckothan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 05:43 AM   #79
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

BillJ wrote: View Post
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.
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.

2. Who hired said writers? You guessed it! J.J. Abrams.
Who were said writers that wrote the script? You guessed it! Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci!

3. No the dialogue was dire.
Hardly. If this had "Dire Dialogue" as you're exaggerating, then the rest of Trek is in deep crap.

The best line in the film came from marketing chopping up the written dialogue.
In your opinion, of course.

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

5. The script jumps from one coincidence to the next at break neck speed.
C'est La Vie

6. Isn't one of the things that makes Kirk special is that he is able to do it in three?
Yes, but that doesn't explain why it supposedly doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense about it?

7. Didn't look like Kirk was really all that interested in studying.
It's obvious he did if he got this far.

How do we know that the Kobayashi Maru was the only thing he cheated on?
How do we?

8. So what did he do to earn the promotion and be XO of the flagship only a few years out of the academy?
Ask him yourself.

Of course this isn't a problem for people who look the other way when Cadet Kirk is made captain of the same flagship.
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.

9. If I hadn't already seen so many impossibilities already this one probably wouldn't have stuck out like a sore thumb.
You're looking for them where there aren't any I think.

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

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.
Same character. He's still the Ensign Pavel Chekov from Russia, navigator for the Starship Enterprise. Except this time he's useful.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 05:52 AM   #80
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

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.

Last edited by Admiral Buzzkill; December 27 2009 at 06:30 AM.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 10:41 AM   #81
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Dennis wrote: View Post
A thirty-four year old captain, commanding one of the biggest ships in a fleet?
I don't think that Kirk's Enterprise was the biggest ship in the fleet (or the flagship). Both Gene Roddenberry's novelization of TMP and Franz Joseph's blueprints referred to the Enterprise as a "Heavy Cruiser." Heavy Cruisers were medium size cruisers with medium size guns and powerful torpedo armaments, designed for long range and high speed. Usual not the biggest ship in any fleet.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 10:58 AM   #82
Aragorn
Admiral
 
Aragorn's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

I had forgotten all about BillJ. Now I can't forget him.
Aragorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 12:08 PM   #83
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Uk
View startrekrcks's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

I love that they did Star Trek XI it breathes new life into the franchise don't you think. I love the original series as well.
startrekrcks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 02:28 PM   #84
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

T'Girl wrote: View Post
I don't think that Kirk's Enterprise was the biggest ship in the fleet (or the flagship).
Gee, that's too bad.

We were never shown or given any indication that a larger, more powerful or faster ship than the Enterprise existed anywhere in the fleet. On at least one occasion, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday," Kirk referred to the ship with considerable pride as follows:

CHRISTOPHER: Must have taken quite a lot
to build a ship like this.

KIRK: There are only 12 like it in the fleet.


Even if one concedes the possibility of a larger ship somewhere that doesn't mitigate the unlikely nonsense of so young a man achieving the rank of Captain and being put in command of so sophisticated and desirable a command as the Enterprise - and testament to how coveted such a billet is and what a remarkable vessel a starship like Kirk's is was referenced over and over again in the original series.

Last edited by Admiral Buzzkill; December 28 2009 at 12:22 AM.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 10:19 PM   #85
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

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.

Same character. He's still the Ensign Pavel Chekov from Russia, navigator for the Starship Enterprise. Except this time he's useful.
Isn't it possible that in this new reality, Mr. and Mrs. Chekov had two sons and named the second son Pavel? Whereas in the other reality as we all know, they had only one son, who they named Pavel. Who's to say that these people all have 100% the same DNA as the folks in the other reality who have the same names? Might explain the differences in looks - they're siblings rather than the originals.

Which doesn't necessarily mean their original universe siblings exist. Could just be a case of conception occurring a minute or two before or after it "should" have. A small bump in the space-time continuum, and someone pops out looking a bit different, maybe even with a somewhat different personality even if the upbringing is pretty much the same. I'd be surprised if you could mess with things and not have incidents like that.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2009, 12:22 AM   #86
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

He's Chekov. That's it, bottom line.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2009, 12:31 AM   #87
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
Location: The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

^Just with curly hair. And a goofball air.
__________________
"I have been wounded but not yet slain. I shall lie here and bleed awhile. Then I shall rise and fight again."

"Forget it, Jake...it's Chinatown."
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2009, 02:00 AM   #88
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
^Just with curly hair. And a goofball air.
But useful.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2009, 02:04 AM   #89
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
^Just with curly hair. And a goofball air.
Step up from bad wig and worse comb over.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2009, 02:26 AM   #90
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Koenig was more like bad hair and a goofball accent.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
bloggers, fandom, 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 07:31 PM.

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