Star Trek: The Future Begins is TINO

[jonahfish7]

nuBSG was embraced by an overwhelming majority of the fans of BSG classic.

Hey, I said I liked Moore's BSG. I watched the entire run, including the half-lame ending (the first hour was top-notch though). But, (not to start a forum war), the nice fans over at colonialfleets.com would have a different opinion about "many fans" embracing the Moore's BSG.

 

[stonester1]

But at the same time called it an "insult" to fans, and referred to it as GINO.

 

[Messianni]

Maybe it's because I teach theatre, but, as opposed to being TINO, this ST is very recognizably ST in much the same way that Olivier, Zefferelli, and Brannagh all have directed different but recognizable Hamlets. That this ST is not your personal cup of tea is no fault of the current producer/director.

Great way to put it!

Frankly, I think you could say the same thing in pre-Abrams Trek, too. You could tell what was Berman's, what was Behr's, what was Coto's, what was Coon's Trek. That's what I love about the franchise as a whole, all these wonderful interpretations as to what Trek could do with sci-fi!

I feel the same way. My other favorite 40+ year old sci-fi series, Doctor Who, is the same way: you could tell when John Nathan-Turner or Hinchcliffe or Russell Davies were in charge of the show. Likewise, after having not been on the air since 1989 (one TV movie in '96 aside), it was revived with a whole new creative team in 2005 and is now more popular than ever. Sound familiar?

 

[Cyke101]

Moore's BSG could never have succeeded if he didn't draw in the old school BSG fans, either. Word of mouth did a ton of favors for "GINO." Just as Abrams Trek did, too (ie, the sheer number of TOS fans on this very board who endorse the movie).

 

[jonahfish7]

Going back to the original premise of my post, that ST:TFB is not trek, another point is that you can be true to the original concept while embracing new fans too and having a good story. The X-Files didn't throw away their nifty concepts for the films. The Spiderman movies did a good job of bringing a Marvel hero to the big screen. The Batman movies have been a mixed bag, but the current crop with Christian Bale have been closer to the comic book roots than anything else.

The producers of ST:TFB could have used canon to flesh out Kirk, Spock, and McCoy more, instead of trashing their characters.

 

[stonester1]

Did anyone release something called ST:TFB and I haven't seen the ads?

On the other hand, the JJ Abrams helmed STAR TREK rocked the world, fans love it, critics love it, general audiences love it and the cash rolls in.

I pity this ST:TFB having to compete against that onslaught.

 

[Messianni]

Going back to the original premise of my post, that ST:TFB is not trek, another point is that you can be true to the original concept while embracing new fans too and having a good story. The X-Files didn't throw away their nifty concepts for the films. The Spiderman movies did a good job of bringing a Marvel hero to the big screen. The Batman movies have been a mixed bag, but the current crop with Christian Bale have been closer to the comic book roots than anything else.

The last X-Files film was an absolute failure at the box office and critically and the last Spider-Man film, while financially successfully, was also a critical failure amongst movie critics and fans. And as far as Batman goes, there is a great deal different from the comics in the Nolan films and as far as Nolan is concerned, you'll never see Superman or the like in his Batman movies because it doesn't fit his vision. He's gone on record as saying so. Nice "examples" there.

The producers of ST:TFB could have used canon to flesh out Kirk, Spock, and McCoy more, instead of trashing their characters.

They did.

 

[jonahfish7]

I feel the same way. My other favorite 40+ year old sci-fi series, Doctor Who, is the same way: you could tell when John Nathan-Turner or Hinchcliffe or Russell Davies were in charge of the show. Likewise, after having not been on the air since 1989 (one TV movie in '96 aside), it was revived with a whole new creative team in 2005 and is now more popular than ever. Sound familiar?

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

 

[Messianni]

I feel the same way. My other favorite 40+ year old sci-fi series, Doctor Who, is the same way: you could tell when John Nathan-Turner or Hinchcliffe or Russell Davies were in charge of the show. Likewise, after having not been on the air since 1989 (one TV movie in '96 aside), it was revived with a whole new creative team in 2005 and is now more popular than ever. Sound familiar?

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

It also contradicts itself. In fact, the entire Doctor Who franchise is well-known for contradicting itself all the time. Why? Because no one gives two shits about "canon". Try again.

 

[Qonos]

I feel the same way. My other favorite 40+ year old sci-fi series, Doctor Who, is the same way: you could tell when John Nathan-Turner or Hinchcliffe or Russell Davies were in charge of the show. Likewise, after having not been on the air since 1989 (one TV movie in '96 aside), it was revived with a whole new creative team in 2005 and is now more popular than ever. Sound familiar?

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

No Larson's Cain was a Senile old man who didn't realize when the fight was over and decided to sacrafice a whole Battlestar (And he would have gotten the Galactica destroyed to if he had the chance) to take out two base ships.

Prime Spock was in no position to save Vulcan, stranded shipless on Delta Vega he was powerless. He probably also realized that no matter what he did he didn't have the resources in this time to do a bunch of time traveling. Didn't have the resources and there was NO VULCAN to build him another ship since he was now AMBASSADOR SPOCK and no longer a memeber of Starfleet.

PAY ATTENTION.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

Davies wrote off Gallifrey, at the hands of The Doctor, no less.

 

[Messianni]

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

Davies wrote off Gallifrey, at the hands of The Doctor, no less.

Exactly. And considering he actually has a time machine, he still won't go back and fix it because of what might happen if he does. Obviously Spock fears what else may happen if he tries to interfere and as such, the best he can hope to do is rebuild their race.

 

[Captain Pike]

I feel the same way. My other favorite 40+ year old sci-fi series, Doctor Who, is the same way: you could tell when John Nathan-Turner or Hinchcliffe or Russell Davies were in charge of the show. Likewise, after having not been on the air since 1989 (one TV movie in '96 aside), it was revived with a whole new creative team in 2005 and is now more popular than ever. Sound familiar?

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

While the Doctor may spend alot of time on Earth, any fan knows it is not his home planet. And with the 2005 series RTD did in fact destroy Gallifrey, much to the consternation of many classic series fans. I'm pretty sure, too, that during the Eccleston Doctor's run there is a line of dialogue like "..I watched it happen, I made it happen!", which completely goes against what you are saying - in effect the Doctor did write off his planet (for the greater good of course), during the "Great Time War" (another retconned concept by RTD).

The term TINO (and GINO), btw, are incredibly lame. It makes you sound like some out of touch Republican. And ST:TFB isn't much better as it certainly isn't the official name of the movie nor the commonly accepted shorthand (STXI). Both terms do little to enhance the perception that you are a mature, thinking human being.

 

[pookha]

reversing the polarity of the isometric ionization inhibitor or a wide beam Tachyon pulse.

I am not saying that this plot device from various episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY is good either. However, going through a black hole, ala Disney's The Black Hole, and time/distance crap is bad science.

so slingshotting around the sun is good science????
and giant amoeba??

oh yeah giant amoeba,,,
spock was not himself due to the destruction of vulcan.

and the death of his mother.

 

[Biggshow]

Going back to the original premise of my post, that ST:TFB is not trek, another point is that you can be true to the original concept while embracing new fans too and having a good story. The X-Files didn't throw away their nifty concepts for the films. The Spiderman movies did a good job of bringing a Marvel hero to the big screen. The Batman movies have been a mixed bag, but the current crop with Christian Bale have been closer to the comic book roots than anything else.

The producers of ST:TFB could have used canon to flesh out Kirk, Spock, and McCoy more, instead of trashing their characters.

For all the reasons stated in previous posts, your basic premise, that ST09 is not Trek, is flawed. The current movie is Trek in the same way that the Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig, Fleming, Gardner, Benson, Faulks, etc. Bonds are all versions of the James Bond character. You may not like the current ST but that assertion does not mean that Abrams Trek is any less Trek than Roddenberry, Coon, Berman, Moore, Piller, Behr, Braga, Coto, etc. Trek.

This argument has rapidly devolved into "Is so" "Is not" gainsaying.

Bored now. (rips flesh from jonahfish's body)

I kid.

 

[Cyke101]

I feel the same way. My other favorite 40+ year old sci-fi series, Doctor Who, is the same way: you could tell when John Nathan-Turner or Hinchcliffe or Russell Davies were in charge of the show. Likewise, after having not been on the air since 1989 (one TV movie in '96 aside), it was revived with a whole new creative team in 2005 and is now more popular than ever. Sound familiar?

There's my point exactly. Dr. Who in 2000 draws plenty of canon from all the previous producers/writers/actors who have fleshed out the role since it came on in the early sixties. When Davies came started producing the new Doctor Who he didn't turn our favorite Time Lord into a psychopathic rapist of detained criminals ala Admiral Cain versus Commander Cain from Moore's BSG versus Larson's BSG. Nor did he have the Doctor write off Earth like Spock wrote off his home planet. Prime Spock would have saved his planet, no matter what the cost, and fixed the time line.

It also contradicts itself. In fact, the entire Doctor Who franchise is well-known for contradicting itself all the time. Why? Because no one gives two shits about "canon". Try again.

I just want to add, the production crews, as well as Davies and Moffatt, insist that fans have their own personal continuities, that anything they want to count or discount is all a matter of their opinion and equally valid, too. Such freedom with the material is so refreshing and it means no one is wrong, either.

And, of course, the in-universe explanation is the good ol' "wibbly wobbly, timey-wimey." How many times has Earth been destroyed? How many variations of the 21st century are there? How many ships named Titanic can there be? God, I love Doctor Who

reversing the polarity of the isometric ionization inhibitor or a wide beam Tachyon pulse.

I am not saying that this plot device from various episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY is good either. However, going through a black hole, ala Disney's The Black Hole, and time/distance crap is bad science.

so slingshotting around the sun is good science????
and giant amoeba??

oh yeah giant amoeba,,,

Bad science which, by the way, lead to some classic and really kick-ass Trek stories that continue to stand the test of time.

 

[pookha]

yeah despite giant amboeba in it immunity sydrome is one of the episodes i really like for the character interactions within it.

tomorrow is yesterday is also great despite some really odd science in it.

 

[Jeri]

If that thing starts up, it will make the devil's own noise.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

Going back to the original premise of my post, that ST:TFB is not trek, another point is that you can be true to the original concept while embracing new fans too and having a good story. The X-Files didn't throw away their nifty concepts for the films. The Spiderman movies did a good job of bringing a Marvel hero to the big screen. The Batman movies have been a mixed bag, but the current crop with Christian Bale have been closer to the comic book roots than anything else.

The producers of ST:TFB could have used canon to flesh out Kirk, Spock, and McCoy more, instead of trashing their characters.

Your original premise was about how the other Trek's are better because they showed "good science, plausible science fiction, and stories that showed the conflict between man and alien, man and technology, and man against society."

Your most recent post, after all of the discussion, pretty much boils down your objection to "it's not canon." The other stuff didn't really matter to you in the first place did it? It's all about the canon. That's why you called Battlestar Galactica a flea bag show, then after being called on it with hard numbers of it's success vs. the original BSG, you changed your tune and now you like it and watched it all the way through. And after your claims of original Trek having "good science", you sort of brush off the crap science from TOS that was pointed out.

Your objections to STXI are really all about "canon", aren't they? Just be honest.

 

[Broccoli]

How many threads do we need to have on this same damn subject on that the movie is "not Trek." We get it. You don't like it. That's fine. Do we need a new thread everyday from a different member?

Can we have a "This Movie is Not Real Trek Appreciation Thread" stickied somewhere and all the NotTrek! people can bash the film there and not clutter up the forum?