ST09 critics, why don't you like it?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
The content of trekkie criticism of Trek 09 can be encapsulated in one word: trivial.
Incorrect on all points.
I laughed when Spock died in TWOK.
I was sitting with a friend at the premiere showing of TWOK at the MacArthur Theatre in Washington DC, and when Spock - after apparently absorbing incredible amounts of radiation or something - slaps his bloody hand up against the glass in the Vulcan salute, this guy leans over and says loudly enough to be heard for a few seat around, "Live Long And Phosphor."
I cracked up, as did several other adults.
Or just discard the ones that don't work - such as debunked time travel theory and the "Kal-El saves Lois" slippery slope.
None of them work if you want to criticize, and all of them work if you want to argue in their favor. There is no baseline of reality against which to peg these things; this is an inconsistent and arbitrary fantasy world.
I laughed when Spock died in TWOK.
I was sitting with a friend at the premiere showing of TWOK at the MacArthur Theatre in Washington DC, and when Spock - after apparently absorbing incredible amounts of radiation or something - slaps his bloody hand up against the glass in the Vulcan salute, this guy leans over and says loudly enough to be heard for a few seat around, "Live Long And Phosphor."
I cracked up, as did several other adults.
I found the scene to be so awkwardly directed and acted that it became comical.
Puh-lease - the vast majority of the conversation in the entire forum is between people who like the film. Do you think we have any need to cultivate that topic?
Now
you
bring up
canon?
Absolutely. And if DS9 is considered part of the TOS timeline, they did it no less than 17 times. At least 13 were not shown. As far as I'm concerned in canon world, they did go back and fix all that stuff and you didn't get to see it. Your point?
Of the 4 times that the good crew Enterprise time-traveled in TOS, 3 of those times they were fixing their own time-travel mess. The 4th they were fugitives and broke so many regs, what is one more?
"Tomorrow is Yesterday" -> They F'd up their own timeline by accident and needed to fix it.
"Assignment Earth" -> They were under orders from the Feds. They thought they were F'cking up the timeline and in attempting to fix it nearly did but all was well in the end.
"Guardian of Forever" -> McCoy F'd it up. Kirk and Spock go back and fix it.
ST:IV -> Kirk & Co were already fugitives and at this point didn't care about F'cking up the timeline - like one more violation is going to make a difference to their court-martial. Of course it was convenient that humpback whales were going to go extinct anyway
ST:XI -> sorta-Prime Spock (and Nero) F'd up Abram Trek's timeline and since he broke it, he should fix it.
Boil it down for you. 75% of canon time, they F'd up the time-line and 100% of the time they were responsible enough to try and fix it. Hows them numbers?
Surgeon General Warning: If this thread is going to get your blood pressure high, I strongly recommend not reading it as no one is going to change anyone's mind
That's not really what I meant by "work"; of course it can be said that logically problematic and inherently paradoxical time travel would "work" for someone arguing in its favor.
Sorry, your opinion carries no weight at all with respect to "the canon world."
In the Trek canon, none of what you are suggesting happened. That is, if you understand what the word "canon" means in this context.
If you want to substitute your opinion for canonical reference, I'll do the same: Spock tried to go back to save Vulcan and you didn't get to see it.
There, your problem is solved using your own "logic." Move along.
Yeah, but my point is that the only basic issue in any of this is whether one is hostile or friendly to a story in analysing it. There's no possibility of objective standards where any of this is concerned. If one is inclined to embrace and forgive error or inconsistency it can be done; if one is determined to attack the narrative no defense is sufficient.
They created Abrams Trek's timeline ( in that they created its divergence from the Prime ). This does not get fixed; Nero is merely prevented from destroying the Federation.
You know, when Chekov lost nuSpock's mom in the transporter lock, the first thing I thought was "whoops", but said in a bad russian accent kinda way. And when nuKirk's getting his ass kicked by nuSpock, at the last moment he points to Chekov saying, "NOT ME it was him!"
Sorry, your opinion also carries no weight at all with respect to "the canon world."
In the Trek canon, none of what you are suggesting happened either. That is, if you understand what the word "canon" means in this context.
If you want to substitute your opinion for canonical reference, I'll do the same: Spock didn't try to go back to save Kirk from Soran and you didn't get to see it.
There, your problem is solved using your own "logic." Move along.
In the Trek canon, none of what you are suggesting happened either. That is, if you understand what the word "canon" means in this context.
If you want to substitute your opinion for canonical reference, I'll do the same: Spock didn't try to go back to save Kirk from Soran and you didn't get to see it.
There, your problem is solved using your own "logic." Move along.
Why are you talking to me, man?
Very zen-like. The only option you're really giving is don't bother to critique it 'cause you'll be hitting the Submit Reply button without hesitation?
Which is why I didn't substitute my opinion for canon onscreen events.
You did.
I have suggested nothing seriously that was not onscreen, because I understand what the word "canon" means.
You don't.
I never said that he did. I simply pointed out the nonsensical implications of your logic with regard to the movie.
I have no problem with either TOS or Abrams's Star Trek movie.
You do.
Now, don't try that again unless you're ready to up your game quite a bit, 'mkay?
- Status
Similar threads
