Late to the thread, but has anyone done a full blown plot summary post?
World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]
- Thread starter M'Sharak
- Start date
It does seem that way sometimes (although the review that was Posted indicates that it may be pretty lightweight), which is why I said it's a shame they didn't apply all this effort to the traditional characters and setting.
The difficulty is that, with Batman, you essentially had one character to flesh out with a backstory, same with Iron Man. The secondary characters are truly secondary.
With Trek, not only do you have "the big 3" in Kirk, Spock and Bones, and then well-established secondary characters to introduce, you also have to set up the Trek universe and include Nimoy and pass the baton and...
Well, that's a lot more to do in 2 hours than was the case for Batman and Iron Man. Plus you want to reel in the general audience.
The Supreme Court bit off a hell of a lot here, and man has it had to chew.
Pass 'em a napkin and give 'em a pat on the back, because that plate is clean, baby...
Who says he ever did? That was Kirk's "spin" on the story when he was trying to impress Saavik; it'll be fun and much more believable if it turns out that behind his self-created legend was a rather harrowing and humiliating learning experience for a young man who'd made a mistake.
Well, we're assuming events unfolded the same way, too, which is a false assumption. This is still Kirk, so he will probably chafe at a "no win" scenario. But so many circumstances are different that the "hows" and "whys" of his cheating are probably different. He may have received a commendation in the prime timeline, but not in this one. In this timeline, his method of winning may not have been so commendable.
What it does go to show, however, is that this is still Jim Kirk, and he'll do what he needs to do to win. Act first, apologize later.
Actually, in this timeline he barely has time for either censure or commendation before he's in command of the Enterprise. 
Who says he ever did? That was Kirk's "spin" on the story when he was trying to impress Saavik; it'll be fun and much more believable if it turns out that behind his self-created legend was a rather harrowing and humiliating learning experience for a young man who'd made a mistake.
Well, we're assuming events unfolded the same way, too, which is a false assumption. This is still Kirk, so he will probably chafe at a "no win" scenario. But so many circumstances are different that the "hows" and "whys" of his cheating are probably different. He may have received a commendation in the prime timeline, but not in this one. In this timeline, his method of winning may not have been so commendable.
What it does go to show, however, is that this is still Jim Kirk, and he'll do what he needs to do to win. Act first, apologize later.
I think the results of his cheating would still have played out largely as they did in the prime timeline, despite the alterations that've been made. He gets suspended for this, but his superiors could grudgingly admire him for his ingenuity.
BTW, what do the Klingon ships look like in the Kobayashi Maru sequence? Are they the classic D7 battlecruiser type?
Yes but there could be different people running the Academy- what one smart prof will discipline but also commend as original thinking another may be more of a by the book type and only discipline and not commend
Just what exactly is Spock doing at the academy when Kirk takes the Kobayashi Maru test? Isn't he supposed to have already graduated by this time? Any indication of how long he's served in Starfleet proper? Has he served with Pike prior to the launch of Enterprise?
Oh, and just how much detail do they go into as to how "brand new" the Enterprise is? Is there any room for the possibility that it's only undergone a brand new upgrade, so it could have seen prior action under Pike (& April?), in an earlier form?
Oh, and just how much detail do they go into as to how "brand new" the Enterprise is? Is there any room for the possibility that it's only undergone a brand new upgrade, so it could have seen prior action under Pike (& April?), in an earlier form?
Well, it couldn't be any more difficult to establish the traditional characters and setting than it was to create alternate ones. The general audience-- if they even show up for something called Star Trek-- is unlikely to care either way.
The difficulty is that, with Batman, you essentially had one character to flesh out with a backstory, same with Iron Man. The secondary characters are truly secondary.
With Trek, not only do you have "the big 3" in Kirk, Spock and Bones, and then well-established secondary characters to introduce, you also have to set up the Trek universe and include Nimoy and pass the baton and...
Well, that's a lot more to do in 2 hours than was the case for Batman and Iron Man. Plus you want to reel in the general audience.
The Supreme Court bit off a hell of a lot here, and man has it had to chew.
Pass 'em a napkin and give 'em a pat on the back, because that plate is clean, baby...
If its a straight up prequel then how would they have gotten around using the cheesy looking old sets and ships and so forth? There is no way they could use those, they'd look like a joke in todays big budget summer blockbusters.Well, it couldn't be any more difficult to establish the traditional characters and setting than it was to create alternate ones. The general audience-- if they even show up for something called Star Trek-- is unlikely to care either way.
The difficulty is that, with Batman, you essentially had one character to flesh out with a backstory, same with Iron Man. The secondary characters are truly secondary.
With Trek, not only do you have "the big 3" in Kirk, Spock and Bones, and then well-established secondary characters to introduce, you also have to set up the Trek universe and include Nimoy and pass the baton and...
Well, that's a lot more to do in 2 hours than was the case for Batman and Iron Man. Plus you want to reel in the general audience.
The Supreme Court bit off a hell of a lot here, and man has it had to chew.
Pass 'em a napkin and give 'em a pat on the back, because that plate is clean, baby...
Personally, I think they should have gone the direct-to-DVD route and used the Starship Exeter approach. I think that concepts should be allowed to be what they are. But I'm sure you're right that the contemporary audience wouldn't be able to deal with it; it's hard enough to get people to watch black-and-white movies.
In any case, they still could have "modernized" the sets and uniforms and done a straight prequel. Westerns from the 60s and today look quite different, yet they are set in the same time period.
In any case, they still could have "modernized" the sets and uniforms and done a straight prequel. Westerns from the 60s and today look quite different, yet they are set in the same time period.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Why would making something true to the established continuity mean using the old plywood sets? Why is there this attitude that something either has to be completely different or exactly the same as it was. Just look around the art forum, there's plenty of stuff in there to show that updating the old designs would be a great way to go.
You know in the Prime Universe Kirk took the test three times and reprogramed it before taking it the third time, and from what it sounds like Kirk in the Nu Universe reprogramed it before taking the test the for the first time. If this is the case then that could explain the difference there.
You know, that's a funny concept when you think about it - taking what was described as "a test of character" three times because he failed it the first two. I mean, so what do they expect him to do - pull an all-nighter before the exam building character?
If its a straight up prequel then how would they have gotten around using the cheesy looking old sets and ships and so forth? There is no way they could use those, they'd look like a joke in todays big budget summer blockbusters.Well, it couldn't be any more difficult to establish the traditional characters and setting than it was to create alternate ones. The general audience-- if they even show up for something called Star Trek-- is unlikely to care either way.The difficulty is that, with Batman, you essentially had one character to flesh out with a backstory, same with Iron Man. The secondary characters are truly secondary.
With Trek, not only do you have "the big 3" in Kirk, Spock and Bones, and then well-established secondary characters to introduce, you also have to set up the Trek universe and include Nimoy and pass the baton and...
Well, that's a lot more to do in 2 hours than was the case for Batman and Iron Man. Plus you want to reel in the general audience.
The Supreme Court bit off a hell of a lot here, and man has it had to chew.
Pass 'em a napkin and give 'em a pat on the back, because that plate is clean, baby...
This is one of the really silly arguments in favor of the reboot. Note that I do not mean to imply that you are making this argument, being silly, or otherwise. I'm just pointing out that the question you asked has also been used by some as an argument in favor of the reboot.
The reason I think it's so silly is that the majority of fans would really not get that uptight about the physical appearances of things. I am one of the strongest advocates of a strict canon that there is, but I understand that cinematic technology improves, and budgets increase. I would have no problem watching a film set in the original timeline with newer, better looking sets and visuals. I realize that this is ultimately just a tv show/film, and you can make it look better in 2009 than you can in 1969. It's perfectly alright. I wouldn't have a problem believing it is the same ship any more than a person who sees Hamlet in a high school production versus a professional production would be able to believe it was the same story in spite of the vast differences in the sets.
You know, that's a funny concept when you think about it - taking what was described as "a test of character" three times because he failed it the first two. I mean, so what do they expect him to do - pull an all-nighter before the exam building character?
I think it was to show that he he didn't believe the test didn't have a way to win...
As he said, "I don't believe in a no win scenario."
Each time he took the test he was trying a different solution to "win"... It wasn't a test of character to him but a simple matter of solving the problem.
Yes, but if the Academy defined it as "a test of character" what would be their reasoning behind permitting him to take it three times?
You know, even on tests limited to facts and textual material, I can't remember many situations in my education where I was allowed three shots at passing an important test.
The writer didn't think that one through, presumably because they never expected it to be focused on and to become the subject of so much lore and so much speculation over decades. Like so much of Trek, the fans have concentrated on it a great deal more than the creators did.
Similar threads
