Where did Spock go?

[3D Master]

In fact, I think he's understating things.

[Joker]

You're in a weird and obsessive minority, though.

Nobody ever listens to those.

[A beaker full of death]

^No... I don't think many people can honestly say this film has more in common with TOS than at the most superficial level -- basically, the same names are used.

[Joker]

Sure, we all have our views. But... in fiction, things can and will change, especially after 40 years. It isn't automatically better or worse for it.

All that's happened here is some fans weren't given what they wanted, which they were never entitled to or owed to begin with. To listen to 3D Master and Hyperbole9 overstating things while patting each other on the back like nodding dogs, you'd think there was a real problem beyond their own personal disappointment.

There ain't. Star Trek moved on, did something new, which it's allowed to do.

[T'Bonz]

Warped9 wrote:

---

Then we definately have a different interpretation of TOS' essence because from what I saw I didn't recognize one sliver of commonality between TOS and Abrams' crapfest.

Oh, there are commonalities.

However, nuTrek is more of a popcorn movie. Fun, a good summer movie flick, with some mild liking for the characters. I can't, however, see it leading to the kind of show (or series of movies) that will build a small, but loyal fanbase as TOS did, the kind of fanbase that is still around after 40 odd years.

As long as the new movies make enough money to make TPTB happy, we'll keep seeing nuTrek. I don't expect it to bring new fans permanently into the fold. It's the kind of movie that will bring temporary fans perhaps, who will in a short time move on to something else.

Personally, I think Trek has run its course. It's been much longer than I expected; when I was 13 I thought I had missed it all. It was really just beginning - with 4 series to go and eleven movies following the original Star Trek.

[3D Master]

elton wrote:

---

Sure, we all have our views. But... in fiction, things can and will change, especially after 40 years. It isn't automatically better or worse for it.

All that's happened here is some fans weren't given what they wanted, which they were never entitled to or owed to begin with. To listen to 3D Master and Hyperbole9 overstating things while patting each other on the back like nodding dogs, you'd think there was a real problem beyond their own personal disappointment.

There ain't. Star Trek moved on, did something new, which it's allowed to do.

You're wrong. Because if it did something that I didn't want, but was still good, I would say so. However, this movie is a plot-hole ridden pile of shit, that stabs a stake through the heart of Star Trek several times over.

It is a level of ineptitude and outright disdain for the source material that is horrible in its existence.

[Brutal Strudel]

Dennis wrote:

---

Kirk is Kirk.

Except when he's Gary Mitchell, which is essentially who Pine was playing.

I'm not suggesting that the creators had Gary in mind when they wrote Kirk, just that the rather standard-issue charming bad boy depicted by Pine has more in common with Mitchell than with the Kirk of TOS, particularly of S1 TOS. Pine's Kirk is a fairly decent back-extrapolation from the Kirk of TWoK but there are more than one way to arrive at that kind of outlook in mid-life.

[Joker]

3D Master wrote:

---

You're wrong.

Yeah, no hyperbole or weirdorage here:

...this movie is a plot-hole ridden pile of shit, that stabs a stake through the heart of Star Trek several times over.

It is a level of ineptitude and outright disdain for the source material that is horrible in its existence.

[3D Master]

elton wrote:

---

Yeah, no hyperbole or weirdorage here:

Nope, no hyperbole whatsoever, that's the horrifying part of it.

[xortex]

I couldn't watch transformers the other night. It sucked the air right out of my room. One has to beware of things that seem right 'cause very often they're not.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

elton wrote:

---

All that's happened here is some fans weren't given what they wanted, which they were never entitled to or owed to begin with...Star Trek moved on, did something new, which it's allowed to do.

That's right, and it's a good thing.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Brutal Strudel wrote:

---

I'm not suggesting that the creators had Gary in mind when they wrote Kirk, just that the rather standard-issue charming bad boy depicted by Pine has more in common with Mitchell than with the Kirk of TOS, particularly of S1 TOS.

This is true.

Pine's Kirk is a fairly decent back-extrapolation from the Kirk of TWoK but there are more than one way to arrive at that kind of outlook in mid-life.

This is also true.

[Joker]

3D Master wrote:

---

... this movie is a plot-hole ridden pile of shit, that stabs a stake through the heart of Star Trek several times over.

It is a level of ineptitude and outright disdain for the source material that is horrible in its existence.

3D Master wrote:

---

Nope, no hyperbole whatsoever,

[Brutal Strudel]

Dennis wrote:

---

This is true.

This is also true.

Of course, when one takes into account that Shatner's Kirk grew up in a completely different environment than Pine's, those kind of differences make sense. In one of the deleted scenes, George Jr. tells us that Kirk was a straight-A good boy right up to when he "steals" his father's car and destroys it.

[Ronald Held]

I still cannot see Kirk lasting 3 years at Academy with his attitude, no matter how intelligent he was.