RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,162
Posts: 5,402,540
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 577
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29 2010, 02:24 PM   #211
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Who says the supernova was natural? If Dr. Soran can build a missile that suddenly kills a star, who says some weapon can't make a star suddenly nova? In Voyager the Q civil war was fought by (or caused the byproduct of) sending stars supernova without warning.

There's a precedent for everything in Star Trek, no matter how retarded. Trying to prove one stupid thing is somehow of less worth than "Spock's Brain", "Threshold" and the rest is utterly pointless.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 04:49 PM   #212
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Who says the supernova was natural? If Dr. Soran can build a missile that suddenly kills a star, who says some weapon can't make a star suddenly nova? In Voyager the Q civil war was fought by (or caused the byproduct of) sending stars supernova without warning.
All those artificial supernova's have one thing in common: they just went boom without warning.

Spock and Romulans could see it coming and thought of a (idiotic making things worse but still) plan to deal with it.

But ultimately it doesn't matter. Nobody can deal with the problem of Spock and a Vulcan science ship being needed to generate an artificial black hole when the Romulans have artificial black holes powering their ships.

I mean seriously, Romulans waiting for the end to come and trusting Spock and some Federation / Vulcan science generating a black hole to deal with a supernova, and then got blown to bits? Even if they didn't power their ships with black holes?
3D Master is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 05:28 PM   #213
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.
Still false. Constantly resorting to hyperbole removes your credibility. Absolutely is a word with an established meaning. The only absolute you've demonstrated is that you absolutely refuse to accept the film.

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
To me, the use of the alternate whatever was just lazy writing.
So what? "Lazy writing" does not equate to "not the same continuity". And if the use of alternate timelines constitutes "lazy writing", then the charge applies to TOS and TNG as well, making it a particularly toothless allegation against STXI as a valid continuation of Trek continuity.
__________________
"Your advertising's just dandy. Folks'd never guess you ain't got a thing to sell."

Last edited by Set Harth; May 29 2010 at 05:43 PM.
Set Harth is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 05:55 PM   #214
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

If it's possible to instantly kill or explode a star, then it's possible that some event destabilized the star enough that everyone realized it was going to go supernova in the near future.

The Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their drives. Since we know nothing of how they are generated, captured or harnessed it's entirely possible that creating a large enough black hole to absorb the supernova was beyond their technology.

That is, of course, unless you're a closed-minded, only-one-right-answer canon nazi.

I'd hate to think anyone here thought like that.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 06:08 PM   #215
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
The Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their drives. Since we know nothing of how they are generated, captured or harnessed it's entirely possible that creating a large enough black hole to absorb the supernova was beyond their technology.
In fact, if the Romulans always had the ability to do such a thing, you'd think it would have come up before - yet it didn't. In this sense, the film's portrayal of the Romulans is consistent with how they have always been portrayed: as having ships powered by microscopic black holes, while not apparently having the ability to use said technology on a larger scale to absorb planets or stars.
__________________
"Your advertising's just dandy. Folks'd never guess you ain't got a thing to sell."
Set Harth is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 09:41 PM   #216
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.
Meh, the people who made TOS even did that. I should know I've been watching TOS seasons 1 and 2 on Blu Ray.
Hartzilla2007 is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 10:50 PM   #217
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
if they had really wanted us to believe that OldSpock was, indeed the Spock we know, then they should have written him to resemble the Spock we know. The Spock in STXI didn't remind me of the original Spock.
I'm sure Mr Nimoy disagrees with you.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline  
Old May 29 2010, 11:37 PM   #218
I-Am-Zim
Captain
 
Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
if they had really wanted us to believe that OldSpock was, indeed the Spock we know, then they should have written him to resemble the Spock we know. The Spock in STXI didn't remind me of the original Spock.
I'm sure Mr Nimoy disagrees with you.
And? That wouldn't change my opinion in the least. I'd argue the points with him too.
I-Am-Zim is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 12:13 AM   #219
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Set Harth wrote: View Post
I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.
Still false. Constantly resorting to hyperbole removes your credibility. Absolutely is a word with an established meaning. The only absolute you've demonstrated is that you absolutely refuse to accept the film.

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
To me, the use of the alternate whatever was just lazy writing.
So what? "Lazy writing" does not equate to "not the same continuity". And if the use of alternate timelines constitutes "lazy writing", then the charge applies to TOS and TNG as well, making it a particularly toothless allegation against STXI as a valid continuation of Trek continuity.
It's a "Copy and Paste" comment that the critics are using because they someone else using it once and felt they could use it is a slam against the film. However, ask them what it means or how it equates to "lazy writing" and you won't get a straight answer because there seemingly is no straight answer. Simply put, it is a remark against the film that is flawed and never had much thought behind it to begin with.
Devon is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 12:26 AM   #220
I-Am-Zim
Captain
 
Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Set Harth wrote: View Post
I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.
Still false. Constantly resorting to hyperbole removes your credibility. Absolutely is a word with an established meaning. The only absolute you've demonstrated is that you absolutely refuse to accept the film.
Actually, my statement is pretty much true. Lets look at some TOS canon "facts" just off the top of my head.

In TOS, Spock said that he served under Captain Pike on the Enterprise for 11 years, 4 months, 5 days. He made that statement in 2266. If Kirk took command of the Enterprise in 2265, then the Big E was launched sometime in 2255 (although it's not "canon", it is universally accepted that the E was actually launched in 2245 under Capt. Robert April). In the Abramsverse, the Abramsprise was launched in 2258, 3 years after the approximate date in TOS. NuSpock had apparently never served under Pike on the Abramsprise since it was the maiden voyage. It was also stated that he had programmed the Kobayashi Maru for the past 4 years at Starfleet Academy. If he did serve on a starship for that 4 year timespan, it wasn't the Abramsprise.

According to TOS, Chekov was about 12 years younger than Kirk. In the Abramsverse, he's only about 8 years younger. In order to get Chekov into the movie, they made him older.

In TOS, Dr. Boyce was the Chief Medical Officer under Pike on the Enterprise. In the Abramsverse, some guy named Purri was the CMO on the Abramsprise.

In TOS, James T. Kirk had an older brother named Sam, went through the Academy, taught, classes, lived on Tarsus during the Kodos massacre, served on several starships including the Farragut, progressed through the ranks and gained command experience, and finally took command of the Enterprise in 2265 when Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain. In the Abramsverse, Kirk is a jerk, apparently didn't have a brother, never actually finished the academy, never lived on Tarsus (that we know of), didn't progress through the ranks or gained any command experience, never served on any other starships, and was "given" command of the Abramsprise.

In TOS, Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain prior to Kirk taking command of the Enterprise. In the Abramsverse, Pike gets promoted to Admiral...I don't get it either.

And I could go on and on. Abrams didn't adhere to any type of TOS canon except for the character names and uniform colors. And no, I don't accept this movie as part of the Star Trek continuity. Because it's not. It is off in left field somewhere in its own continuity completely separate from the Star Trek that I know.

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
To me, the use of the alternate whatever was just lazy writing.
Set Harth wrote: View Post
So what? "Lazy writing" does not equate to "not the same continuity". And if the use of alternate timelines constitutes "lazy writing", then the charge applies to TOS and TNG as well, making it a particularly toothless allegation against STXI as a valid continuation of Trek continuity.
Yes. It was lazy writing. Inventive and creative writing would have been writing a story that took place within the existing continuity and using a bit of creativity and imagination to come up with an exciting story. Lazy writing is using a BS alternative universe plot device so that they would not have to overexert their imaginations to come up with a good story set within the existing TOS universe.
I-Am-Zim is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 12:27 AM   #221
I-Am-Zim
Captain
 
Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Devon wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.
Still false. Constantly resorting to hyperbole removes your credibility. Absolutely is a word with an established meaning. The only absolute you've demonstrated is that you absolutely refuse to accept the film.

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
To me, the use of the alternate whatever was just lazy writing.
So what? "Lazy writing" does not equate to "not the same continuity". And if the use of alternate timelines constitutes "lazy writing", then the charge applies to TOS and TNG as well, making it a particularly toothless allegation against STXI as a valid continuation of Trek continuity.
It's a "Copy and Paste" comment that the critics are using because they someone else using it once and felt they could use it is a slam against the film. However, ask them what it means or how it equates to "lazy writing" and you won't get a straight answer because there seemingly is no straight answer. Simply put, it is a remark against the film that is flawed and never had much thought behind it to begin with.
See above.
I-Am-Zim is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 12:34 AM   #222
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Lazy writing is - at least in my opinion - when a writer encounters a problem in his story (like "how the hell am I going to get these two characters meet"), and while you read or watch the story unfold you realize he went for the cheapest way possible, for instance by relying on a set of rather unbelievable coincidences or "stupid" decisions made by the characters to get from A to B. It's in every B class horror movie, when the character who needs to get killed by the monster of course makes this one absolute stupid decision that gets him killed. Intelligent, non-lazy writing would get him killed without being stupid.

And example in Star Trek is Young Spock throwing Kirk into an escape pod so he can just happen to meet Old Spock on that ice planet.

I explained it in another thread how this could have been solved surprisingly easy, without relying on coincidence, without making Old Spock look totally passive, and without throwing Kirk into an escape pod instead of putting him in a brig, which really falls in the stupid/unbelievable decision category.

When it comes to the continuity problems/reboot/prequel/canon/schmanon thing, this script is really a case of heavily lazy writing. Instead of coming up with creative and intelligent answers on how to solve this or that contuinity problem a prequel might cause, they went for the cheapest trick: time travel. But because time travel in Trek doesn't work that way, they brought this MWI thing into it and called it an alternate universe. And then they just stopped thinking about it: Is it connected to the original Trek, is it not connected, will Nero's time travel indeed explain ALL the changes of continuity, will some thing be just different without an explanation, why should we care at all, etc...

Does the Enterprise really look different because of Nero? Is it really built in Iowa because of George Kirk's death? Why is it then that an event that influenced the design and construction of an entire ship class is totally forgotten about by everyone else except Kirk? Is Nero the cause for Spock being the programmer of Kobayashi Maru? And more stuff.

Most of it really feels like the writers came up with rather half-assed "explanations" for all those things only when they went to Trekmovie.com and noticed that the fans noticed, but when they wrote the script, they didn't think about it much. That's how it feels to me. And that's what I call lazy writing.

Last edited by JarodRussell; May 30 2010 at 12:51 AM.
JarodRussell is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 01:23 AM   #223
I am not Spock
Commodore
 
Location: Australia
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.
Meh, the people who made TOS even did that. I should know I've been watching TOS seasons 1 and 2 on Blu Ray.
Too true. TOS wasn't consistent with TOS. So XI is merely following in a time-honoured Trek tradition, then! People need to loosen up.
__________________
It's a FAAAAKKKEEE!
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 03:40 AM   #224
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
If it's possible to instantly kill or explode a star, then it's possible that some event destabilized the star enough that everyone realized it was going to go supernova in the near future.

The Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their drives. Since we know nothing of how they are generated, captured or harnessed it's entirely possible that creating a large enough black hole to absorb the supernova was beyond their technology.
You did notice that the Red Matter needed to create the black holes is just a tiny little bauble, right? Notice that Spock also take equally small bauble for the super nova? And you notice that if you collapse that to the density required to form a black hole, you get a microscopic black hole?
3D Master is offline  
Old May 30 2010, 04:54 AM   #225
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Yes. It was lazy writing. Inventive and creative writing would have been writing a story that took place within the existing continuity and using a bit of creativity and imagination to come up with an exciting story. Lazy writing is using a BS alternative universe plot device so that they would not have to overexert their imaginations to come up with a good story set within the existing TOS universe.
You're making up your own "convenient" definition for the purpose of slamming the film.

Think about what you just said for a minute.

Just try it, seriously.
Devon is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

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 11:42 PM.

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