[highlight]ARE THEY ALSO SHOUTING?!?[/highlight]
continuity? who cares
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Exactly. If they want to introduce some new elements into Trek lore that either shouldn't be there or should be there, then I'm for it as long as the movie is good. But if they discredit everything of Trek and make it their own movie, then it wouldn't be worth it.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I would go along with that...however, since other TREK shows crapped all over the continuity, and some of the movies as well, then if the movie does crap over continuity BUT is still a good movie? Then that is all that matters to Paramount..and on this I agree.
Rob
Scorpio
You know, the one element I'm not looking forward to in the new movie is the Romulans.
I thought they were fantastic in Balance of Terror, but I never really saw too much in them after that. All that shoulder pad stuff in TNG put the nail in really and I couldn't give a monkeys in Nemesis - although I did quite like the Remans.
Am I the only one?
I thought they were fantastic in Balance of Terror, but I never really saw too much in them after that. All that shoulder pad stuff in TNG put the nail in really and I couldn't give a monkeys in Nemesis - although I did quite like the Remans.
Am I the only one?
RobertScorpio
Pariah
The only modern ROMULAN episode I liked was the Defector and the Romulan senator from PALE MOONLIGHT...but the rest was weak..
Rob
Sounds like you're either getting old or lazy
so I went to www.StarTrek.com and just watched the episode again. The line in question occurs when Kirk begins to quote the charges against Tracey and Tracey finishes quoting the regulation. For three decades I've sworn Tracey called him Tony. What he actually said was "to me" in a very bad accent. Ahh the miracle of modern playback features.Thanks, Therin. I always wondered when they started calling him Tiberius instead of James T. Heck, until it came up in this thread I never noticed the James R. Kirk on the headstone either.
Thanks for a fun learning experience!
If we were to start all over, I think it would make it more interesting.
At some point, we have to draw a line under the continuity. Frankly, I think we have reached saturation point already. At some point, this will happen IMO. But, probably not for a while now.
I mean, how much continuity can we carry round? 50 years? 60? 70? Wouldn't it be more interesting to turn on a new episode of Star Trek and not know whether Kirk & Spock are going to die?
At some point, we have to draw a line under the continuity. Frankly, I think we have reached saturation point already. At some point, this will happen IMO. But, probably not for a while now.
I mean, how much continuity can we carry round? 50 years? 60? 70? Wouldn't it be more interesting to turn on a new episode of Star Trek and not know whether Kirk & Spock are going to die?
People forget that ST did die and some of the reasons would have to be related to the burden too much continuity places upon writing good exciting, novel episodes where we don't know what to expect. This even gets more important when going back in time to a prequel. A total reboot could get rid of the staleness, unadventerous story lines, and mistakes previous Trek made. Continuing that which ST was was no longer working and the franchise was appealing to a less and less encompassing fan base only.
ST TOS worked in part because they were writing history. I don't think them being merely players in an already written story line, boxed in by an already written history will work. Violates the premise of ST -- ".... To boldly go where no man has gone before....."
"Star Trek Lives!"
JJ chose the danger and is in the process of putting its katra back.
Yep.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Double post
Last edited by a moderator:
L
Lord Garth
Guest
The reason we're getting ST XI seven years after the last movie is because of NEM's performance. That's all the Movie People care about.
NEM was a stand-alone movie that had nothing to do with INS, nothing to do with FC, and nothing to do with any movie before that. Outside of one throwaway line mentinoning the Dominion War, DS9 isn't mentioned at all. Janeway's appearance was nothing more than a cameo, if someone never watched VOY then to them she was just another admiral. NEM had no more to do with VOY than it had to do with DS9.
So we have a movie that had nothing to do with the previous movies and nothing to do with any of the then-recent series.
My question is: how could NEM suffer from the burden of continuity when it didn't go out of its way to depend on continuity at all?
Maybe, just maybe, and this might be Crazy Talk, but what if NEM didn't do well because it wasn't a good movie?
Maybe it might have even had to do with NEM seeming old-fashioned. Maybe it had nothing to do with continuity, maybe it was just that movies in general changed during the four years between INS and NEM and Star Trek hadn't kept up. Those four years made a difference: The Matrix (1999), The Phantom Menace (1999), and The X-Men (2000) all came in and changed things. That's not even mentioning fantasy with Lord of the Rings (2001) and Harry Potter (2001). Big difference between 1998 and 2002.
"But most people didn't see NEM!" Okay, if you want to try that, how about this? INS was a very pedestrian movie and I remember it not being the type of movie that they were hoping would come after FC. What if INS stopped the momentum of the TNG movies dead in its tracks and by the time NEM rolled around no one cared anymore? Which was also not helped by the fact that times changed over the next four years.
The TV end has nothing to do with it. No one knew that ENT was going to be cancelled "early" (meaning not seven seasons) and I doubt anyone expected ENT to make movies anymore than they thought DS9 or VOY would.
This is about the movies, and the decision to stop making movies was because TNG was not working out the way Paramount hoped and the TOS cast was too old. Now that they've decided to recast TOS they're no longer stuck in a bind. It really is that simple.
I expect them to completely reset continuity too, the next time they recast, but it is not the reason the Star Trek movies died, neither as a primary reason or a secondary. The quality of the last two movies was.
NEM was a stand-alone movie that had nothing to do with INS, nothing to do with FC, and nothing to do with any movie before that. Outside of one throwaway line mentinoning the Dominion War, DS9 isn't mentioned at all. Janeway's appearance was nothing more than a cameo, if someone never watched VOY then to them she was just another admiral. NEM had no more to do with VOY than it had to do with DS9.
So we have a movie that had nothing to do with the previous movies and nothing to do with any of the then-recent series.
My question is: how could NEM suffer from the burden of continuity when it didn't go out of its way to depend on continuity at all?
Maybe, just maybe, and this might be Crazy Talk, but what if NEM didn't do well because it wasn't a good movie?
Maybe it might have even had to do with NEM seeming old-fashioned. Maybe it had nothing to do with continuity, maybe it was just that movies in general changed during the four years between INS and NEM and Star Trek hadn't kept up. Those four years made a difference: The Matrix (1999), The Phantom Menace (1999), and The X-Men (2000) all came in and changed things. That's not even mentioning fantasy with Lord of the Rings (2001) and Harry Potter (2001). Big difference between 1998 and 2002.
"But most people didn't see NEM!" Okay, if you want to try that, how about this? INS was a very pedestrian movie and I remember it not being the type of movie that they were hoping would come after FC. What if INS stopped the momentum of the TNG movies dead in its tracks and by the time NEM rolled around no one cared anymore? Which was also not helped by the fact that times changed over the next four years.
The TV end has nothing to do with it. No one knew that ENT was going to be cancelled "early" (meaning not seven seasons) and I doubt anyone expected ENT to make movies anymore than they thought DS9 or VOY would.
This is about the movies, and the decision to stop making movies was because TNG was not working out the way Paramount hoped and the TOS cast was too old. Now that they've decided to recast TOS they're no longer stuck in a bind. It really is that simple.
I expect them to completely reset continuity too, the next time they recast, but it is not the reason the Star Trek movies died, neither as a primary reason or a secondary. The quality of the last two movies was.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd agree will all of this. Combined with the fact that a hardcore group of ST fans spent several years getting themselves very worked up that this film was destined to fail. I heard no good fannish word of mouth about "Nemesis" during its production. Scripts got leaked, blasted, refuted, but in the end the film was word for word the same as the leaked script. Whereas, fannish word of mouth about most of the other ST films (except maybe ST V) was overall positive and hopeful. This stuff does permeate through to the general potential audience eventually.
There was talk that Scott Bakula negotiated a Paramount film deal that would kick in after seven years of ENT. (Not necessarily a ST film deal, though; it wasn't that specific.) If ENT had been wildly successful, I think we'd have probably seen Bakula leading a film series on the Romulan Wars. They chose a certain point in the timeline to start ENT for a reason - it was only about a decade before the Romulan/Earth Wars, so the TV series was only going to get close to that point, leaving it open for potential movies.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
No, it was HALF a decade before the Earth-Romulan War. It was decade before the founding of the Federation. Meaning that 7 years standard length, would end Enterprise smack dab in the middle of the Earth-Romulan War.
We saw quite a time jump for "These Are the Voyages..." My point is that ENT was leading up to several significant events that would have been suitable for a movie to cover.
IIRC, the date(s) of the War(s) was not set in stone, only the date of the formation of the UFP.
Part of the fun of Trek, for me, is making it all fit together - the shows, the movies, the books, the comics, the fan films, EVRYTHING - its all "canon" to me - and rationalizing how it all goes together is actually an enjoyable part of the experience (and btw, it all fits together much better then you would think, by that I mean descrepencies can be explained pretty easily). So, in that sense, I don't think strict continuity is all that important - if its Trek, if will fit in. As someone else mentioned, the key is CHARACTER continuity, especially with the 3 leads. Just tell a good story, and that will make it work. As Lewis Carroll said - "Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves".
I used to do that too, siskokid888. Then I went online, (ST.Com) and began being assaulted for actually just having fun and enjoying Star Trek. Much, but not all, of my playfulness towards Trek was beaten out of me.
Similar threads
- Locked
