2017, A Trek For The Fans?
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
They might have a different definition of good than you do.
Yep, just like they did with the new movies...
I agree with this. Abrams truly did want to have his cake and eat it. He wanted TOS characters and he wanted to have a clean slate. But he didn't want to turn off the old fans and miss out on a Nimoy cameo so he kept one foot in the old universe and one foot in the new parallel universe. This was always going to cause a divide in the fanbase but it's sad that it seems to have become an Us Vs. Them scenario. Shout out to the fans who love both universes
To be honest though, I never saw the "canon" or the continuity or whatever it is as an issue. All anyone ever needed to do was put a century between the events of the TNG era and then all they have to remember are the main events from the previous shows as and when they're needed in the script. TNG didn't hinge on anything the Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans or Federation did in The Original Series and was never a slave to the continuity of that series. Its hands were never tied. I don't see why a new series set in the same universe would be any different. Ironically the destruction of Romulus in Star Trek 2009 is the only major event I can think of that would still have major repercussions 100 years later
Exactly so.
Why do people keep making out Abrams is responsible for the plot elements in his two films? He didn't write them, a couple of Star Trek fans did. Hence why it's a sequel in disguise.
Quiet frankly, half-dozen people arguing on this board is not an indication of a 'us vs them' fan base. We have polls showing on this board alone, a vast majority like, don't mind, or are just apathetic about the Abrams films. It's 'I feel very strongly about my dislike' population isn't unusually large, and not even that noisy most of the time.
Note that is not the same thing as me saying 'they're the minority, so they're opinions must be wrong.' That'd be silly.
Quiet frankly, half-dozen people arguing on this board is not an indication of a 'us vs them' fan base. We have polls showing on this board alone, a vast majority like, don't mind, or are just apathetic about the Abrams films. It's 'I feel very strongly about my dislike' population isn't unusually large, and not even that noisy most of the time.
Note that is not the same thing as me saying 'they're the minority, so they're opinions must be wrong.' That'd be silly.
Knowing about Star Trek beforehand was a positive liability in watching these films. i.e As worthy as an actor Cumberbatch is, he's not a stitch on Montalban.
'Positive liability' is not what you think it is. A positive liability is when a typically harmful thing is a benefit. So you've just said that your knowledge of Star Trek is usually a thing that takes away something, but that it ended up working to you're benefit in the situation.
Usually you apply the term to debts. Don't ask for particulars, because I wasn't that interested in my business courses and have forgotten nearly everything beyond that.
Just 'Liability' would have been correct. For eg. My knowledge of a somewhat obscure term is a liability, because it's incorrect usage began a lecture!
Last edited:
More satire?
I stand by my post.
If you want to think that Cumberbatch is on par with Montalban's performance, you can work with that. In my eyes, it's not a credible view.
You can pretty much disregard Voyager and Enterprise straight off the bat. Voyager took place entirely in the Delta Quadrant. The most notable thing done on that series was crippling the Borg in the finale. 100 years later I'm sure they've adapted by now if anyone ever want to use the Borg again. Enterprise is one big continuity mistake all by itself so its best to just ignore it instead of addressing it and overcomplicating things. The races that show introduced can still be used either way. All the writers have to really contend with is what became of the Cardassians after the genocide on their planet and what became of the Romulans after their planet exploded. Everything else is very much in a neutral place and only a problem if the writers are incapable of doing anything new and intend to go over old ground rehashing old storylines just so they can put their own slant on them.
Avoid mentioning Vulcan and set it a few centuries later and no one will even know which universe its set in. Though personally I think the loss of Vulcan is a shame.
Avoid mentioning Vulcan and set it a few centuries later and no one will even know which universe its set in. Though personally I think the loss of Vulcan is a shame.
Dammit, I've been sniped.
But they really aren't. Both will manipulate you and pretend to be your friend as long as it suits them, then turn around and stab you in the eye with a fork.
Cumberbatch is entirely miscast in that film either through lazy casting or a tunnel vision desire to insert a star name. I wasn't disturbed by that character at all, it's old hat employing a well-spoken English guy as the villain. There's a menacing charisma with Montablan though with his thirst for vengeance on Kirk personally that puts Montalban a universe ahead of the generally lifeless performance from Cumberbatch in his Star Trek.
Montalban may have only really acted once in his career if you want to say that - but that was in TWOK and in that film he was outstanding.
Montalban may have only really acted once in his career if you want to say that - but that was in TWOK and in that film he was outstanding.
Both were quick studies, becoming familiar enough in a short time with the Enterprise and its operations to effectively destroy the ship...
...and both were willing to do so, because in all three of his appearances one of Khan's defining characteristics was that when his will was thwarted by an enemy he was willing to destroy both them and himself in order to avenge the loss.
Similar threads
- Locked
