Alternate Timeline! (a.k.a. Everyone can chill out now!)

[xortex]

I think Fringe and lost are horrible times ten.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

And everything you say is just your opinion and not fact. Don't you just feel special now?

This is a mis-representation of Ovation's post...

...the difference is that Ovation hasn't made any statements that he claims are facts (at least not in that post to which you responded). The only claim he has made in that post is that all of the criticisms BillJ has regarding this film are only BillJ's opinion. And that is indisputable.

Ovation did not make any claims that he thought the film will DEFINITELY be great, nor did he claim that it is a FACT that Abrams and his cohorts have done great things in the past thus this will translate into a good film.

so...yeah...Ovation's post was opinion, and I bet he would agree with you on that (although I won't speak for him). However, how does pointing this out validate what BillJ had to say?

 

[Ovation]

Let's look at it objectively...

Again, more subjectivity. There is so little in pop culture entertainment that can be evaluated from an objective point of view that it is usually foolish to try. How it performs at the box office will provide an objective indication of its general popularity, but, beyond that, most comments will be in the subjective (positive or negative) realm. Let's not pretend otherwise.

And everything you say is just your opinion and not fact. Don't you just feel special now?

First of all, you are wrong. Not EVERYTHING I say is opinion. Second, I DO feel special, thanks for asking (not that my feeling special has anything to do with posting on a message board). Third, I was taking him at his word (bolded above)--he made the claim of objectivity and failed to actually live up to it. And that, by the way, is NOT a matter of opinion.

 

[Ovation]

And everything you say is just your opinion and not fact. Don't you just feel special now?

This is a mis-representation of Ovation's post...

...the difference is that Ovation hasn't made any statements that he claims are facts (at least not in that post to which you responded). The only claim he has made in that post is that all of the criticisms BillJ has regarding this film are only BillJ's opinion. And that is indisputable.

Ovation did not make any claims that he thought the film will DEFINITELY be great, nor did he claim that it is a FACT that Abrams and his cohorts have done great things in the past thus this will translate into a good film.

so...yeah...Ovation's post was opinion, and I bet he would agree with you on that (although I won't speak for him). However, how does pointing this out validate what BillJ had to say? And if it didn't validate BillJ's post, then why even bring it up?

I would generally agree. I like some of Abrams work and I expect, based on that state of affairs, to like the new movie. I certainly wouldn't guarantee it ahead of seeing it, though--nor would I suggest that those who don't end up liking it are wrong (I may be among them). But if one is claiming to be objective and then fails to provide any objective statements in support of their claim, then it's only fair to point that out (and that is the part of my post that is NOT opinion, as I pointed out to the good captain). BillJ is certainly entitled to his opinion (I even share one or two of his concerns in his list), but they are not facts.

 

[Captain X]

And everything you say is just your opinion and not fact. Don't you just feel special now?

This is a mis-representation of Ovation's post...

...the difference is that Ovation hasn't made any statements that he claims are facts (at least not in that post to which you responded). The only claim he has made in that post is that all of the criticisms BillJ has regarding this film are only BillJ's opinion. And that is indisputable.

Ovation did not make any claims that he thought the film will DEFINITELY be great, nor did he claim that it is a FACT that Abrams and his cohorts have done great things in the past thus this will translate into a good film.

so...yeah...Ovation's post was opinion, and I bet he would agree with you on that (although I won't speak for him). However, how does pointing this out validate what BillJ had to say? And if it didn't validate BillJ's post, then why even bring it up?

I would generally agree. I like some of Abrams work and I expect, based on that state of affairs, to like the new movie. I certainly wouldn't guarantee it ahead of seeing it, though--nor would I suggest that those who don't end up liking it are wrong (I may be among them). But if one is claiming to be objective and then fails to provide any objective statements in support of their claim, then it's only fair to point that out (and that is the part of my post that is NOT opinion, as I pointed out to the good captain). BillJ is certainly entitled to his opinion (I even share one or two of his concerns in his list), but they are not facts.

Everyone here has stated opinions as facts. You try to make your self out to be better than people who don't like the movie, but you're still wasting your time posting on a Star Trek board like the rest of us.

 

[The]

 

[Captain X]

I'd say something, but even if it was lulzy the mods would probably slap a warning on me anyway since I'm evil or something.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Everyone here has stated opinions as facts. You try to make your self out to be better than people who don't like the movie, but you're still wasting your time posting on a Star Trek board like the rest of us.

I'd like to respectfully disagree here.

There are a few "blind believers" on this board who say things such as "this film is gonna rock! Abrams is awesome!" just like there are people (let's call them 'naysayers') who say "this film will definitely suck, because I don't like the track record of Abrams and the screenwriters".

However it seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the naysers outnumber the blind believers.

Then there are the people (myself included) who say that every film needs to be seen before someone can pass judgement on it. To me, that is being neutral. Being neutral and truly open-minded about this film is NOT the same as saying that the film will be good in our opinion -- nor have we ruled out the possibility that the film will indeed be a big fat "FAIL". We just don't know -- and we won't know until much more is known about the film.

You may be lumping us neutral people into the the "blind believer" camp, but I personally am as far away from them as I am from the naysayers.

Presently (until the film is seen) I think the people who are of the opinion that this film will be a bad one are just as valid as the people who say this film will be a good one -- because we are only talking about peoples opinions. The only people who are stating fact (in my opinion ) are the people who are saying "we all need to wait and see it before we say it's a bad (or good) film".

 

[Ovation]

This is a mis-representation of Ovation's post...

...the difference is that Ovation hasn't made any statements that he claims are facts (at least not in that post to which you responded). The only claim he has made in that post is that all of the criticisms BillJ has regarding this film are only BillJ's opinion. And that is indisputable.

Ovation did not make any claims that he thought the film will DEFINITELY be great, nor did he claim that it is a FACT that Abrams and his cohorts have done great things in the past thus this will translate into a good film.

so...yeah...Ovation's post was opinion, and I bet he would agree with you on that (although I won't speak for him). However, how does pointing this out validate what BillJ had to say? And if it didn't validate BillJ's post, then why even bring it up?

I would generally agree. I like some of Abrams work and I expect, based on that state of affairs, to like the new movie. I certainly wouldn't guarantee it ahead of seeing it, though--nor would I suggest that those who don't end up liking it are wrong (I may be among them). But if one is claiming to be objective and then fails to provide any objective statements in support of their claim, then it's only fair to point that out (and that is the part of my post that is NOT opinion, as I pointed out to the good captain). BillJ is certainly entitled to his opinion (I even share one or two of his concerns in his list), but they are not facts.

Everyone here has stated opinions as facts. You try to make your self out to be better than people who don't like the movie, but you're still wasting your time posting on a Star Trek board like the rest of us.

The time is mine to waste. And I don't give a rat's ass if you think "everyone here has stated opinions as facts". A) You're wrong. B) "Everyone is doing it" is a poor excuse for anything (especially when it's not true). As for thinking I'm better than some in here--quite right. But it has nothing to do with whether any of them like or hate what they've seen of the movie so far.

 

[The]

I'd say something, but even if it was lulzy the mods would probably slap a warning on me anyway since I'm evil or something.

Hey, unclench man, I'm just yanking your chain for being so uptight. Relax...

 

[Captain X]

The time is mine to waste.

At which point did I say it wasn't?

And I don't give a rat's ass if you think "everyone here has stated opinions as facts".

A) You're wrong.

"No, you're wrong."

"No I'm not!"

"Yes you are!"

That would be an opinion, BTW.

B) "Everyone is doing it" is a poor excuse for anything.

Tell that to JJ.

As for thinking I'm better than some in here--quite right.

But it has nothing to do with whether any of them like or hate what they've seen of the movie so far.

Considering pretty much everyone I've gotten into a nerdy argument with about this movie who likes what they've seen has accused me of living with my parents and spending all day on Memory Alpha (or something along those lines). Which is pretty stupid considering that we're both nerds engaging in a nerdy argument about a nerdy subject on a Star Trek board. I've also seen several claims about how supposedly "the majority" of fans like/don't like ____" when referring to one's opinion. That would be a classic example of someone so insecure with their own opinion that they think they need to have "the majority" behind them. It's also what's called unwarranted self-importance.

If everyone is supposed to "just chill, man..." that will be one of the first things that has to disappear from the same dozen or so who like to think they are slightly less nerdy than the nerd they disagree with about this movie, which makes them slightly cooler or something.

Anyway, by all means, carry on, I was just pointing something out.

 

[Captain X]

Hey, unclench man, I'm just yanking your chain for being so uptight. Relax...

No, really, it's just a matter of the mods apparently thinking I'm some huge evil bastard or something, otherwise I would've given you this one:

 

[Lord Garth]

I preferred a reboot to begin with. A reboot starts everything over from scratch while a prequel is supposed to lead into what we already know.

Yes, and that's the problem here. That's why I wanted a prequel, not a reboot. I wanted to see unchronicled history of characters we know and love -- not alternate versions of those characters. This isn't Star Trek, so much as it's something new and different with a Star Trek label hung on it.

We'll probably end up agreeing to disagree but I'll still offer my point of view just to clarify why I have the opinion I have.

If it were a one-time thing, I wouldn't have a problem with a prequel, but as a long-term direction it's a problem. With Star Trek, Paramount is not interested in a one-time thing. This movie is to be the basis for continuing the movies.

If ST XI is a failure, then that's it. No story to continue. If you have a prequel series and you start with Kirk and Spock as cadets and work your way up to the point where they're both serving on the Enterprise, and the movies stop before you get to the TOS status quo, then the story you wanted to tell never gets completed. Preparing for any scenario (even the worst ones), the best approach is to get Kirk onto the Enterprise as Captain by the end of the first movie.

If this type of ST XI is a success, then you go beyond the origin story and overlap into actual TOS. Now you have a movie series that's actually weaving in and out of the TV series. Blending into the series is harder than simply being faithful to it and requires a lot more suspension of disbelief.

Plus, what happens when you run out of the TOS era and Paramount still wants to continue making movies? Do you go onto TMP? TNG? We can't repeat everything, so eventually Paramount has to either continue forward with new characters or start over with a new continuity.

In the future, I think Star Trek on TV and Star Trek in the movies should be kept as seperate and far away from each other as possible, so as to not dilute each other or step on each other's toes. Continue ST 1.0 on TV? Sure. Have ST 2.0 in movies? Why not.

The added advantage here is that if ST XI sucks, it doesn't affect the rest of Star Trek. If anyone thinks the movie is going to be horrible then they should be glad it won't have anything to with whatever else.

 

[M'Sharak]

post deleted

 

[BillJ]

And this is exactly what Abrams & Co. are aiming for...

From what everyone is telling me... I'm the last person Abrams wants in the audience.

 

[The]

And this is exactly what Abrams & Co. are aiming for...

From what everyone is telling me... I'm the last person Abrams wants in the audience.

Your money spends just like everyone else. He wants you there...

 

[xortex]

I preferred a reboot to begin with. A reboot starts everything over from scratch while a prequel is supposed to lead into what we already know.

Yes, and that's the problem here. That's why I wanted a prequel, not a reboot. I wanted to see unchronicled history of characters we know and love -- not alternate versions of those characters. This isn't Star Trek, so much as it's something new and different with a Star Trek label hung on it.

We'll probably end up agreeing to disagree but I'll still offer my point of view just to clarify why I have the opinion I have.

If it were a one-time thing, I wouldn't have a problem with a prequel, but as a long-term direction it's a problem. With Star Trek, Paramount is not interested in a one-time thing. This movie is to be the basis for continuing the movies.

If ST XI is a failure, then that's it. No story to continue. If you have a prequel series and you start with Kirk and Spock as cadets and work your way up to the point where they're both serving on the Enterprise, and the movies stop before you get to the TOS status quo, then the story you wanted to tell never gets completed. Preparing for any scenario (even the worst ones), the best approach is to get Kirk onto the Enterprise as Captain by the end of the first movie.

If this type of ST XI is a success, then you go beyond the origin story and overlap into actual TOS. Now you have a movie series that's actually weaving in and out of the TV series. Blending into the series is harder than simply being faithful to it and requires a lot more suspension of disbelief.

Plus, what happens when you run out of the TOS era and Paramount still wants to continue making movies? Do you go onto TMP? TNG? We can't repeat everything, so eventually Paramount has to either continue forward with new characters or start over with a new continuity.

In the future, I think Star Trek on TV and Star Trek in the movies should be kept as seperate and far away from each other as possible, so as to not dilute each other or step on each other's toes. Continue ST 1.0 on TV? Sure. Have ST 2.0 in movies? Why not.

The added advantage here is that if ST XI sucks, it doesn't affect the rest of Star Trek. If anyone thinks the movie is going to be horrible then they should be glad it won't have anything to with whatever else.

If it tries to step on TOS, it better have good balence.

 

[xortex]

I preferred a reboot to begin with. A reboot starts everything over from scratch while a prequel is supposed to lead into what we already know.

Yes, and that's the problem here. That's why I wanted a prequel, not a reboot. I wanted to see unchronicled history of characters we know and love -- not alternate versions of those characters. This isn't Star Trek, so much as it's something new and different with a Star Trek label hung on it.

We'll probably end up agreeing to disagree but I'll still offer my point of view just to clarify why I have the opinion I have.

If it were a one-time thing, I wouldn't have a problem with a prequel, but as a long-term direction it's a problem. With Star Trek, Paramount is not interested in a one-time thing. This movie is to be the basis for continuing the movies.

If ST XI is a failure, then that's it. No story to continue. If you have a prequel series and you start with Kirk and Spock as cadets and work your way up to the point where they're both serving on the Enterprise, and the movies stop before you get to the TOS status quo, then the story you wanted to tell never gets completed. Preparing for any scenario (even the worst ones), the best approach is to get Kirk onto the Enterprise as Captain by the end of the first movie.

If this type of ST XI is a success, then you go beyond the origin story and overlap into actual TOS. Now you have a movie series that's actually weaving in and out of the TV series. Blending into the series is harder than simply being faithful to it and requires a lot more suspension of disbelief.

Plus, what happens when you run out of the TOS era and Paramount still wants to continue making movies? Do you go onto TMP? TNG? We can't repeat everything, so eventually Paramount has to either continue forward with new characters or start over with a new continuity.

In the future, I think Star Trek on TV and Star Trek in the movies should be kept as seperate and far away from each other as possible, so as to not dilute each other or step on each other's toes. Continue ST 1.0 on TV? Sure. Have ST 2.0 in movies? Why not.

The added advantage here is that if ST XI sucks, it doesn't affect the rest of Star Trek. If anyone thinks the movie is going to be horrible then they should be glad it won't have anything to with whatever else.

If it's gonna try to step on TOS, it better have good balance.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

And this is exactly what Abrams & Co. are aiming for...

From what everyone is telling me... I'm the last person Abrams wants in the audience.

IF Abrams makes a good film out of this, then I would suspect that you would be able to recognize that it is a good film, whether you were a fan of Star Trek or not.

It could be a good film and still not be THE PARTICULAR film you wanted to see, but I would hope that you would be able to take a step back and view the film objectively for what it is.

 

[I am not Spock]

I always suspected we were in for a 'Yesterday's Enterprise' style alternate timeline with Trek XI. And I'm pleased. Now, instead of one all-encompassing Trek timeline, we have TWO. Neither one more or less valid than the other.

Besides, the original timeline in 'Yesterday's Enterprise' (you know, the one without Sela, and where Yar died on Vagra II) was never restored. Ever since YE, we've been in an altered timeline. There is precedent for this kind of storytelling in Trek before.

Bring on Trek Timeline B I say!