Reasons to be happy / not happy about a 4th film.

[Greg Cox]

I don't know much about the 5th movie and the TV-series.
The classic movies and the new movies can't be in the same continuity just based on the fact that all the big things in classic movies appeared to have happened in the 20th century.

Yep. According to CONQUEST, the Apes take over in the hellish dystopian future of . . . the 1990s.

(Around the same time as the Eugenics Wars, I guess.)

And the ending of the fifth movie is ambiguous on whether the series is actually a closed time-loop or whether Caesar has actually managed to change the timeline so that the world of the first movie will never come to pass.

"Lawgiver, who knows the future?"

 

[JWPlatt]

(Around the same time as the Eugenics Wars, I guess.)

Gah! Do you really want to start a gigantic sub-thread?

 

[Greg Cox]

(Around the same time as the Eugenics Wars, I guess.)

Gah! Do you really want to start a gigantic sub-thread?

Or is that the sound of a thousand crossover fan-fics being born?

 

[Timewalker]

Thanks!

Although it probably depends on which computer. Yesterday, I was literally rolling back and forth between this discussion (on one computer) and proofreading my next TREK novel (on another computer). Thank goodness for desk chairs with wheels.

So, yes, I was taking time out from working on Trek to argue about Trek.

Make of that what you will.

Proofreading is good. Is it for the novel coming out in November, or is it a different one?

It's for the November book. I'm going over the first-pass page proofs, which is basically my last chance to look the text over before it goes to press. Got through about 200 pages yesterday. Hoping to finish up today . . ..

Funniest typo so far: "space hip" instead of "space ship."

Yay! This is my Christmas present you're working on, y'know...

...proofreading my next TREK novel...

Isn't that part of the editor's job? I can imagine authors in an endless cycle of changes and proofing, like Peter Jackson in the editing room where it's never really done.

When it's a genre such as science fiction or fantasy, it can sometimes matter very much if the author has a chance to proofread. Consider what an editor unfamiliar with Klingonese might do when confronted with words and sentences in that language... mutterings of "Wtf? Did a cat walk across the keyboard? Why are there capitals in the middle of the words?" and proceed to "fix" everything.

Exactly. Going to a forum with the purpose of disparaging the subject of that forum and its fans is petty and juvenile. Calling it "humor" doubly so.

And it's not "petty and juvenile" to disparage the fans who come here to say they don't like the movies? Neither the thread title nor even the forum title itself say that only pro-nuTrek opinions are allowed here.

Where in my comments did I say or even imply that only pro-nuTrek opinions are allowed here?Where did I say it was okay to disparage people who don't like the new films? I guess you missed my follow up post:

I prefer opinions with substance. "Shit", "crap" and "rubbish" have no substance. Nor do phrases like "true Trek" or "proper canon". I've had many discussions here with people who didn't like the film and they were able to intelligently and thoughtfully articulate their arguments. Some of them were even quite convincing and even enlightening. I might not agree with them, but I can respect them because of the way they were presented. So, the whole " it is disparaging just cos our opinion does not match yours is narrowminded" narrative just doesn't track

Its really about presentation and purpose. You'll note I said "a forum" and "fans" rather than STXI+. This was a deliberate choice because it applies to all franchises, properties and fandoms. Maybe I'm just too "hippie" but I think we can discuss and disagree without being disparaging.

While this thread has drifted this was the original post:

TWO reason why. STAR WARS and the COMIC BOOK MARKET.

I have a bad feeing that star trek will get swallowed up by star wars. star wars has 3 huge films coming out which are sequels to the original trilogy and they have spin off films as well.

I just wished trek will have gone back to tv instead of getting more films with this cast. in fact some people even said JJ Abrams announcing he was directing star wars over shadowed and hurt the momentum of star trek into darkness because in press conference for the film everyone were asking him about star wars not star trek.


with star wars coming back in a huge way and the never ending comic book film madness all bringing in billions and billions at the box office I think star trek will just get swallowed up in the midst of all this juggernauts comic films and star wars.

star trek should have gone back to tv instead. where the best stories are told, I think it has a better chance growing in popularity in tv than in films.

Mostly it was about a fear that Star Trek can not compete against Star Wars and comic book movies. And the idea that the "safer waters" of TV would be better.

It goes off track with this post which has nothing to do with the OP.

Come on. You know there's been a lot of disparaging and mocking things said to and about people in numerous threads in this movie forum, if they have the unmitigated gall to state they don't like nuTrek and give reasons why. It's been going on for years.

While I think gazomg's post was unnecessarily rude, I do agree with the general sentiment behind it, which is definite dislike for the Abrams movies.

Or is that the sound of a thousand crossover fan-fics being born?

If it is, we're not allowed to tell you.

 

[fireproof78]

Come on. You know there's been a lot of disparaging and mocking things said to and about people in numerous threads in this movie forum, if they have the unmitigated gall to state they don't like nuTrek and give reasons why. It's been going on for years.

While I think gazomg's post was unnecessarily rude, I do agree with the general sentiment behind it, which is definite dislike for the Abrams movies.

Here's my thing (and I'll try to be brief): dislike the films all you like, I don't have a problem with it.

What I hope for is informed discussion beyond labels of "cool" "shit" "awesome" "trash" "inspired" "insulting"...fill in your own term here.

The frustration that I have had over the years is the fact that I am late to the game to discuss 09 (despite best efforts) and the negativity surrounding ID was, frankly, depressing.

I hold no ill-will against those who don't like Abrams Trek. But, I'll discuss the merits of the film all day long, because I think that they are not only good movies, but good Star Trek.

 

[Trekkin]

There is a problem with 'people have been doing it for years'. That is, you're are not talking to 'people'. You're talking to some individuals, most of whom had nothing to do with the sort of behaviour you're talking about, or if they did they aren't repeating it now.

Except some of the behaviour and personal attacks that have popped up lately, I've never even crossed into the realms of 'mild annoyance' with the other posters here. So you disagree with me? Big deal. So you're crude? Whatever, so long as your willing to discuss and not just 'projecting' and attempting to browbeat others into submission. This discussion is an enjoyable time waster, not a matter of life and death.

I'd say 'it's just a movie', but the thing we're talking about hasn't even reached that stage yet.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Come on. You know there's been a lot of disparaging and mocking things said to and about people in numerous threads in this movie forum, if they have the unmitigated gall to state they don't like nuTrek and give reasons why. It's been going on for years.

Did I state there wasn't? Nothing I've said, especially in the posts you quoted have said this. So I'm unsure why you're bringing it into the conversation with a "Come on". Neither side is totally comprised of perfect little angels.

While I think gazomg's post was unnecessarily rude, I do agree with the general sentiment behind it, which is definite dislike for the Abrams movies.

And this has what to do with my posts? I'm quite aware of your opinion and fully support your right to express it in any way you see fit. I hope you support my right to counter that opinion with my own.

 

[Timewalker]

Come on. You know there's been a lot of disparaging and mocking things said to and about people in numerous threads in this movie forum, if they have the unmitigated gall to state they don't like nuTrek and give reasons why. It's been going on for years.

Did I state there wasn't? Nothing I've said, especially in the posts you quoted have said this. So I'm unsure why you're bringing it into the conversation with a "Come on". Neither side is totally comprised of perfect little angels.

Okay, this merits a reaction. Stop with this "where did I say..." and "did I state" crap. You and others have been saying plenty over the years. You know I'm not speaking only of this particular thread - there are many in this part of the forum. You know where you said things, and while I don't have a photographic memory, it's easy enough to search if I had the time, patience, and nothing better to do with my life.

While I think gazomg's post was unnecessarily rude, I do agree with the general sentiment behind it, which is definite dislike for the Abrams movies.

And this has what to do with my posts? I'm quite aware of your opinion and fully support your right to express it in any way you see fit. I hope you support my right to counter that opinion with my own.

You brought up his post. Therefore my comment has something to do with your post.

Have any opinion you want. But I have no patience for all this pretzel-type word twisting thing you've got going on here.

 

[Amaris]

Do not tell Greg Cox to get away from his computer. In fact, he should spend even more time at his computer, because he is one of the people who writes a lot of the better Star Trek novels, and there can never be enough of those.

Thanks!

Although it probably depends on which computer. Yesterday, I was literally rolling back and forth between this discussion (on one computer) and proofreading my next TREK novel (on another computer). Thank goodness for desk chairs with wheels.

So, yes, I was taking time out from working on Trek to argue about Trek.

Make of that what you will.

On my most fanniest of fan days, I cannot reach this level of fandom. I applaud you.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

How about we stop discussing the history of personal disputes and treatment of certain subsets of fans in this forum and get back to talking about reasons to be happy or not about the fourth film?

 

[Trekkin]

Point for Happy - Another soundtrack to add to the collection. Don't think they've done one yet that I didn't like. Point Against - No doubt they'll release a super-duper deluxe edition a few months after I cave and buy the vanilla one.

Oh the hardships of being addicted to something more expensive than crack.

Have they confirmed the whole cast is signed on for all 4?

 

[F. King Daniel]

As far as I know, only Pine and Quinto are signed on for this possible ST4 thus far.

As for what I'm happy about, another Star Trek film in this rebooted universe! I loved the first two and am hugely excited for the third, which I'd assumed until recently would be the end.

 

[Greg Cox]

When it's a genre such as science fiction or fantasy, it can sometimes matter very much if the author has a chance to proofread. Consider what an editor unfamiliar with Klingonese might do when confronted with words and sentences in that language... mutterings of "Wtf? Did a cat walk across the keyboard? Why are there capitals in the middle of the words?" and proceed to "fix" everything.

True story: Many years ago, the copyeditor on a Harry Harrison novel assumed that "ion rifles" was an error and changed it to "iron rifles" throughout the entire book!

Fortunately, we caught this and fixed it before it went to press!

And the copyeditor on my WAREHOUSE 13 novel pointed out that Pete and Myka could not have possibly met H.G. Wells since Wells died in 1946 . . . .

(Clearly, the copyeditor had not seen the TV show!)

 

[Trekkin]

I've only seen a few episodes of Warehouse 13, but wasn't Wells a woman in that show? That little historical error didn't stick out at all?

 

[Greg Cox]

I've only seen a few episodes of Warehouse 13, but wasn't Wells a woman in that show? That little historical error didn't stick out at all?

Thank god I didn't mention that Wells was a woman. That would have blown the copyeditor's mind!

(It was just a throwaway reference to a previous adventure.)

This is secondhand but I've heard a story about a copyeditor who assumed that any references to time-travel were metaphorical and adjusted the prose accordingly.

"It was as though he had suddenly been transported back in time to the pitching deck of a pirate ship . . .."

 

[gazomg]

Why has the thread title changed for some posts? Was it explained earlier and I missed it?

That would be my doing. I amended the title a bit to make it more generally applicable than "Reason why I am not happy" was.

You mean you did not like the negative connotations you perceived, and as a mod tampered with a members thread to suit your own agenda.


Why because obviously you did not like people listing their reasons for NOT BEING HAPPY....which was the original point.

You decided to change the thread to suit yourself, so now you can moan about people being negative.
You could not make this up.

 

[JWPlatt]

I suspect that the thread evolved into both happy and unhappy posts and so the title was changed to reflect that rather than the "1984" revisionism you fear. I'm okay with the former to attract more people to participate, but oppose the latter as you might.

 

[F. King Daniel]

HOW DARE THERE BE HAPPY POSTS IN THIS THREAD I ONLY WANT NEGATIVITY

 

[JWPlatt]

HOW DARE THERE BE HAPPY POSTS IN THIS THREAD I ONLY WANT NEGATIVITY

Is the reverse equally invalid?

 

[Jedi_Master]

HOW DARE THERE BE HAPPY POSTS IN THIS THREAD I ONLY WANT NEGATIVITY

So much happy... I weep for the future.