startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
relax you may think the movie was a disaster but not to me and other Trek XI fans.
How will Trek XI blend in with the rest of Trek
- Thread starter startrekrcks
- Start date
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
yes you either loathe or love the movie but what is the point of hating something that was a big hit.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel. It's just another alternate timeline that I'm invested in about as much as I'm invested in all the other alternate timelines that we saw in Parallels or something, ie. not at all.
Incorrect. You're actually investing a lot of time into posting and trying desperately to slam it, and because it hasn't quite worked out for you then you keep trying harder. So the notion that you haven't "invested in it at all" is actually quite incorrect.
I don't feel a need to have any of it fit together. I love TOS, and I very much like this movie, and it's just not a problem.
I don't have an investment in any fantasy "timeline." They're all just stories, some better than others. Since I like this one so much, there's no reason in the world that I should care more about the many mediocre ones that took place in older versions of Trek just because some fans have decreed that those took place in some "correct timeline" and this superior one doesn't.
I don't have an investment in any fantasy "timeline." They're all just stories, some better than others. Since I like this one so much, there's no reason in the world that I should care more about the many mediocre ones that took place in older versions of Trek just because some fans have decreed that those took place in some "correct timeline" and this superior one doesn't.
Last edited:
its easy to see that some fans are scared, because ...well ya they fliped the whole trek world onto its nose. but is that really a bad thing?.... for years no director wanted to touch this beast with a 10 foot pole on account of messing up the cannon and have hundreds of pitch fork and torch wealding trek fans forming a linch mob after them! now that the world has changed and trek has gone from a biohazard in the boxoffice, to gold pressed Media latnium! its great... were open to new opertunaties, new story lines and a whole new look at the trek universe in general!
honistly i freakin love tos... its tha sh!t! but in a world ware we have super futuristic cellphones, laser eye and thermal reconition software, 3D scanning technology and even verbal interfacing with your own home computer...
the little flashing buttons and reel to reel computers projected in the original serieas seem less like the future and more like pre 1980<lol. star trek if nothing else has always been ahead of the curve and created the idea for cell phones, i pods and Crunk juice <(which is actually romulan ale if you do your research) why then should we not take our trek back to the future ware it belongs!
and what a better crew to do it then the one who started this whole cabootle!
my 16 year old cousin (who thinks hees a gangsta.. with his guci sunglasses and bleached eminem hair) watched it and thought it was awsome... and so did my hard core trekkie uncle!
your question was will it blend in? not only has it easially blended in with the ST universe, it blends in perfectally with the fast pased hypr technological muckey muck of todays generation! to that i say BOOYA!
but i will say... if i EVER see another plug for nokia or apple or any crap like that pluged in star trek again... i will set my 10-22 rougar hand phaser for ULTRA KILL!!
honistly i freakin love tos... its tha sh!t! but in a world ware we have super futuristic cellphones, laser eye and thermal reconition software, 3D scanning technology and even verbal interfacing with your own home computer...
the little flashing buttons and reel to reel computers projected in the original serieas seem less like the future and more like pre 1980<lol. star trek if nothing else has always been ahead of the curve and created the idea for cell phones, i pods and Crunk juice <(which is actually romulan ale if you do your research) why then should we not take our trek back to the future ware it belongs!
and what a better crew to do it then the one who started this whole cabootle!
my 16 year old cousin (who thinks hees a gangsta.. with his guci sunglasses and bleached eminem hair) watched it and thought it was awsome... and so did my hard core trekkie uncle!
your question was will it blend in? not only has it easially blended in with the ST universe, it blends in perfectally with the fast pased hypr technological muckey muck of todays generation! to that i say BOOYA!
but i will say... if i EVER see another plug for nokia or apple or any crap like that pluged in star trek again... i will set my 10-22 rougar hand phaser for ULTRA KILL!!
That's what I'm hoping for!
Maybe, but I think Kirk will be equal with Spock by design, chicks dig Spock, dudes dig Kirk, it's sort of a rule of thumb I believe, that formula has worked and will probably be used and continue to work in the next films.
A
Amaris
Guest
To be fair, Shazam!, you do invest quite a bit into this whole timeline business. You have put much effort into pushing against people who enjoy the movie, people who consider it a good movie or a quality movie. When someone talks about an aspect of the character they like, you explain why you don't like them. You have stated on numerous occasions how much you dislike the ship, the characters, the timeline, the villains, the technology, all of these things you have focused on quite strongly, and you have vested much time and effort into it, so to say that you have not at all invested into the movie is quite incorrect. Nothing personal or against you in any way, just pointing out the observations of the matter.
J.
It'll happen on the TV show. The movies will always be big-budget-special-effects-heavy-juggernauts at heart with a little bit of commentary woven in to make it feel more like Trek. The TV spinoff, however, while still in Abrams' universe, will probably have less than one sixth the budget as XI did.
So for the new TV series that'll mean: less action, fewer new aliens, fewer worlds to visit, etc because they simply won't be able to afford that sort of thing week-after week (like the movies will be able to).
So you'll probably see the costumes, aliens, sets and --some of the minor--characters invented for the Abrams movies being re-used to tell the smaller character based stories that (in my opinion) defined what Star Trek was in all of its previous forms. Basically what I'm saying is: Abrams' Star Trek won't really mesh with my idea of what Star Trek is until its heavy on so-called "ship-in-a-bottle" storytelling and looks cheap.
You'll note that he said that about not being invested in the alternate timeline rather than not being invested in criticism of aspects of the movie, however - there's a difference. Everyone's allowed to criticize the movie in this forum. This thread here is about how one thinks this movie blends in with the rest of Trek, and not about how much Shazam! personally has invested in anything in particular.
Let's stick to the topic, not other posters, eh?
A
Amaris
Guest
So why would one have criticisms of an alternate timeline in which they have not invested? Your point is noted, just saying.
Of course. I have never said anything to the contrary. In fact, I tend to defend people who dislike the movie, because I do feel they have a right to dislike and disagree.
That is a part of the topic; Whether one dislikes the alternative history enough that there is no way for it to feasibly blend into Trek history. I did not insult the poster, I did not mock the poster, and I did not make any untoward comments that could be taken as anything approaching criticism of the poster in question, rather just an observed point from reading various posts over time.
However, it seems you wish for me to keep perspectives and motivations out of this particular thread, and focus strictly on the generalized aspect of the subject at hand, I will gladly do so. Not a problem.
J.
At least it was a hypospray that didn't hurt. They're gone now it seems.
A
Amaris
Guest
huh.. I don't care if something was a hit.. what do you mean by "what's the point of hating something that was a big hit." What does it being a big hit have to do with someone hating it? Are we supposed to like things just a little bit more because they are big hits? Or do you mean our hatred is futile if we mean to gather a mob of like minded haters and get some groundswell going to destroy our hated thing..
McCoy: Dammit, Jim, stand still!
*McCoy hits Kirk's neck for the third time with a hypospray"
KIRK: Gah! Stop it!
Not so far as I recall, not even on Enterprise. Which means we're to believe that technology took a step backwards. All for the sake of a cheap nearly-laugh when McCoy was giving Kirk the hyposprays.
Well, by that logic, what's the point of hating anything, hit or not? I dislike the film because it's the end for Star Trek as it was, and it'll now just be a big flashy mindless action film once every two or three years.startrekrcks said:
Still, keep plugging away at it, you're bound to come up with a genuine point sooner or later.
Disillusioned
Commander
To be fair I think there's always kind of been a reaction to it, and in the case of the movie Kirk was moving around a lot. If hyposprays are anything like the modern air injectors, then moving when they're activated can hurt quite a bit, but if you hold still they don't hurt as bad.
