good thing he bought the overpriced no fault insurance.
just realized, my photo = beastie boys video, corvette sequence = beastie boys video
coincidence?
World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]
- Thread starter M'Sharak
- Start date
good thing he bought the overpriced no fault insurance.
just realized, my photo = beastie boys video, corvette sequence = beastie boys video
coincidence?
You mean from that universe that you keep reminding people is supposed to be different from what's being established in the movie and so doesn't count anymore[sic]?Exactly. That was Kirk as an instructor/officer at the Academy, quite some time after he'd left Iowa. How old do you suppose - early twenties?
They're all the same characters except when they're different. Orci clearly understands who this character is, and has successfully carried that into the screenplay characterization.
If this kind of thing really bugs you, you'll be in a continual state of irritation and discomfort from here on.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Captain X
Rear Admiral
They're all the same characters except when they're different. Orci clearly understands who this character is, and has successfully carried that into the screenplay characterization.
If this kind of thing really bugs you, you'll be in a continual state of irritation and discomfort from here on.
The only irritation I feel here is the double standard some proponents of the film have for themselves.
If someone critical of the movie points something out from the original continuity, it doesn't count, but if someone who isn't does the same to explain something especially stupid, like a third year cadet gaining command of a ship, suddenly it's cool. 
Isn't that a supposition on your part? Very few of us have seen the movie and have no idea whether Orci 'understands' or not.
Just out of curiosity, how would you say the Kirk of ST II-VI differs from the Kirk of TOS?
Kirk of TOS seemed to operate within the normal operating parameters of Starfleet. He was very adventurous and brash, but he rarely deviated from the norms of what a captain should do.
In the movies, Kirk bent and broke the rules at times and seemed to have a contrarian attitude. Remember Kirk in STVI dissatisfied with having to entertain the Klingons even though it was then Federation policy. Or Kirk in STIII stealing the Enterprise. He just seemed to have more of an independent bent in the movies.
He was like a living legend who didn't always concur with the status quo around him.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
That would be your irritated opinion, then.
Yeah, I like how some people constantly remind us that we haven't seen the movie and should withhold judgment until which point we have, then turn around and say that the writers or producers "got it right". Double standards are awesome!
Seeing that we have some of the best schools in the nation...
Besides, Riverside is like what, 10 minutes away from Iowa City.
number6
Vice Admiral
That would be your irritated opinion, then.
Yeah, I like how some people constantly remind us that we haven't seen the movie and should withhold judgment until which point we have, then turn around and say that the writers or producers "got it right". Double standards are awesome!
Some of those people have seen the film. The need not withold judgement any longer. Those who haven't who want to like this film are encouraged by this, while those who want this film to fail have little to stand on since it would seem they still haven't seen the film and have no idea about the veracity of their conclusions.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
DS9 viewers threw a fit when Red Squad got their own Defiant-class ship ("Valiant"), but this one gets a free pass? Just because it's Kirk?
I'm sorry - who? When? On what?
"Captain Kirk." That's the character's real name, isn't it?
Dennis, do you have a clue how the military -- ANY MILITARY -- operates?
Do your blood pressure a favor, CRA, and ignore the ugly, hairy little creature that lives under the bridge...
number6
Vice Admiral
How the current military operates isn't ultimately important to the Star Trek story, any Star Trek story.
The producers of all series and films have borrowed certain Naval and NASA protocolls, to give Starfleet a quasi-military feel. The writers use what they do to tell the story. Should we get this annoyed about sound waves travelling in space, or how near misses roc the ship and toss everyone out of their chairs, or how control panels simply love to explode and kill red shirts??
How many of you have been on a starship hundreds of years into the future and can really tell everyone how it's done?? Not too many, I'll bet. It's fiction.
The producers of all series and films have borrowed certain Naval and NASA protocolls, to give Starfleet a quasi-military feel. The writers use what they do to tell the story. Should we get this annoyed about sound waves travelling in space, or how near misses roc the ship and toss everyone out of their chairs, or how control panels simply love to explode and kill red shirts??
How many of you have been on a starship hundreds of years into the future and can really tell everyone how it's done?? Not too many, I'll bet. It's fiction.
darkwing_duck1, I've asked you before not to make in-thread accusations of trolling. In fact, you've been here long enough that I shouldn't have to tell you about it at all -- you know perfectly well the proper mechanism for raising that sort of issue -- but here you are again, going after Starship Polaris again, and this time it gets you a warning.I'm sorry - who? When? On what?
"Captain Kirk." That's the character's real name, isn't it?
Dennis, do you have a clue how the military -- ANY MILITARY -- operates?
Do your blood pressure a favor, CRA, and ignore the ugly, hairy little creature that lives under the bridge...
Absolutely. Frankly if I held the creators of these things to any reasonable standards of plausibility where military protocol or operations are concerned I should have abandoned Trek during the TOS era. That you take umbrage at my flippancy about "Captain Kirk" is something I care not a fig about. Okay, that's not true - I suppose it amuses me a little that you either didn't get the joke or didn't like it.
OTOH, despite your own service, I've yet to see you make a post here indicating a reasonable level of expertise or understanding of anything we're discussing. I'm afraid that a thorough familiarity with the minutiae of Trek canon is not the same as knowing something about anything.
You simply have an unfounded conviction, which you truculently repeat in often vulgar fashion, that these people are failing because they're not making the film you want to see.
Your conviction is unfounded because despite the considerable controversy the movie is causing, it's already achieved a degree of acceptance here and created levels of anticipation among Trek fans that almost nothing in the last twenty years of the Franchise has managed.
Simply because you wish something to be so has no bearing whatever on what is happening or is going to happen, and you've produced absolutely no argument or evidence of substance that elevates your opinion above uninformed wishful thinking.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
I've always found it fascinating how some people equate seeing something of a movie and not liking it to "wanting it to fail".
Well, unless you want some of that realism people are always going on about, so it'll be easier for the "mainstream" audience to grab onto and understand what's going on. Even if you know nothing of the military I'm pretty sure most people would find a cadet ending up in command of a ship a bit odd. Unless of course you were desperate for the film to be popular and just need every aspect of the movie to be awesome despite anything negative someone might point out.
Selective reading is fascinating to me. If you're paying attention you know that we have a small but determined chorus here rooting for the film's failure.
number6
Vice Admiral
Interesting still how someone puts words into another's mouth to deflect the point being made.I've always found it fascinating how some people equate seeing something of a movie and not liking it to "wanting it to fail".
There only seem to be a small and vocal handful of Trek fans saying that.
Military accuracy has never been a focal point of Star Trek. It's only military folk who seem to want it to be just like how it is for them. No one else really cares too much about that.
I am not "desperate for the film to be popular." I haven't seen it. Of course I want it to be good. Why wouldn't anyone? I haven't decided for the rest of the BBS how it should be or whether or not it will fail. Some insist on drawing conclusions from what little they've seen and declare this film a waste, based only on what they want the film to be and little else. I can't help those people when people who have seen the film seem to be saying otherwise, from the experience of having actually, you know, seen the film.
You want to continue attacking every poster who is willing to defend that? That is your perogative. It only seems to underscore how desperate you are to make a point that cannot be validated, and your only real proof is to try and repeat yourself over and over again until people give in or give up. That doesn't exactly make you right, nor will it ever.
Similar threads
