Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[Agenda]

Yes. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

Yes, they can.

No. They can't.



Not necessarily. If thay had "won", this thread wouldn't be here.

Excactly. NuSpock wasn't even close to Original Spock as far as his personality and emotions. Sure, Spock smiled in "The Cage". And he also had a smattering of emotion in "WNMHGB". But he was still Vulcan. And he still had control over his emotions. It was disheartening to watch NuSpock lose control of his emotions so often. As a child, it was somewhat understandable. But as an adult, not so much. They could have done much better.

Did young TOS Spock watch his mother and planet die in front of him?

Give that guy a cookie!!!!! That is precicesly my point! Because NuSpock had to endure such radically different circumstances in his alternate universe, he is pretty much a completely different person both physically and emotionally as compared to his Original Universe counterpart. If young TOS Spock were to cross over to the Abramsverse, he surely wouldn't recognize his NuTrek doppelganger(sp?). They probably wouldn't even get along well with each other.

I wouldn't go that far. But yeah, they're taking the character in a different direction. And that's what you don't like?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

They're two entirely separate things. And I don't know why the film's fans are so bugged by it.

The reverse is also true.

 

[Shazam!]

I wouldn't go that far. But yeah, they're taking the character in a different direction. And that's what you don't like?

Personally, I don't think it's a question of 'like'. Because it's in an alternate universe/timeline, you can do pretty much whatever you want with the characters without fear of 'tarnishing' the orginals because the originals are still there.

Which is kinda my point because I question how wise it was to state in the movie itself that we're watching an alternate timeline/universe because then it becomes nothing more than a glorified mirror universe episode and as I care very little for the alternate universe fad in general, I care very little for these characters and their adventures.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I wouldn't go that far. But yeah, they're taking the character in a different direction. And that's what you don't like?

I would go that far. But yes, to an extent, that's one of thet things I didn't like. They could have taken the characters in new directions without such dramatic changes. There were plenty of blanks that could have been filled in about the crew's younger days without such sweeping re-working of the whole Trek universe. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

Yes, they can.

No. They can't.



Not necessarily. If thay had "won", this thread wouldn't be here.
.

Well, they won as far as the general public is concerned. Twelve people arguing on a message board doesn't really count. It's fun, but it has no real impact on how the movie is received in the real world.

They obviously made the right call.

 

[Agenda]

I wouldn't go that far. But yeah, they're taking the character in a different direction. And that's what you don't like?

I would go that far. But yes, to an extent, that's one of thet things I didn't like. They could have taken the characters in new directions without such dramatic changes. There were plenty of blanks that could have been filled in about the crew's younger days without such sweeping re-working of the whole Trek universe. In my opinion, of course.

I hate prequels, myself. I hate "going through the motions". I prefer not knowing what's going to happen. And if I want to see Nimoy's more non-emotional Spock, there are plenty of great TOS episodes and movies right at my fingertips.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

What's wrong with keeping STAR TREK fresh, too?

Not a damn thing. A recast, reboot, rewhatever, was even predicted by the Great Bird himself in The Making of Star Trek The Motion Picture. I think fans sometimes forget that.

Although, there are those who want to dehydrate or hermetically seal the original in a vain attempt to keep it "fresh".

 

[Greg Cox]

Which is kinda my point because I question how wise it was to state in the movie itself that we're watching an alternate timeline/universe.

But if they hadn't, they would have been obliged to keep everything consistent with all the previous versions, and where's the fun in that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes, they can.

Not necessarily. If thay [sic] had "won", this thread wouldn't be here.

Eh. A few recalcitrants do not a resistance make. There are folks in the southern U.S. who still think the Civil War is unresolved.

Not a damn thing. A recast, reboot, rewhatever, was even predicted by the Great Bird himself in The Making of Star Trek The Motion Picture. I think fans sometimes forget that.

Although, there are those who want to dehydrate or hermetically seal the original in a vain attempt to keep it "fresh".

Yeah...well to try that, first they'd have to own it. They don't.

 

[lawman]

...Just because they have the same names doesn't make them the same people. They are not the same people. They are alternate reality versions of the characters we know. They (espceially Kirk and Spock) have experienced wildly different circumstances as compared to their original universe counterparts, thus making them essentially different people. Add to that the fact that they are, quite literally, physically different people since they exist in another separate alternate universe as compared to their original universe counterparts.

This, I think, is a crucial point. What is a person, after all? Just the embodiment of a particular batch of DNA? Perhaps with a "destiny" tacked on, as the writers of this film seem to think?

(Selectively, anyway. Apparently Kirk and Spock have destinies that transcend time, but none of the billions of residents of Vulcan did. But I digress.)

I don't think it's controversial to say that a person, in the sense that we can actually come to know him/her, is the sum total of his/her cumulative life experiences, and the decisions made in response to them. Indeed, one of the central characteristics of good fiction (and for that matter, biography) is showing how and why that's so.

If you'd won the lottery at age 18, would you be the same person you are today? What about if you'd lost your home and family to a fire? I think we can all imagine how different life events could have made us very different people from whoever we are.

So it makes no sense to me to claim that these are the "same" characters, just because they have the same names and jobs, when most of what makes them who they are has been changed. One might as well claim that Mirror Kirk was the "same person" as the captain we knew.

Even more illogically, a lot of the film's defenders try to have it both ways. We've seen it in this very thread. It's the same characters, they'll insist... until someone points out how one of them behaved uncharacteristically, at which point they'll protest "but look at what he's been through!" Well, yes: that's the point... that's what makes him a different character.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Excactly. NuSpock wasn't even close to Original Spock as far as his personality and emotions. Sure, Spock smiled in "The Cage". And he also had a smattering of emotion in "WNMHGB". But he was still Vulcan. And he still had control over his emotions. It was disheartening to watch NuSpock lose control of his emotions so often. As a child, it was somewhat understandable. But as an adult, not so much. They could have done much better.

The best Spock episodes are the ones where he struggles with ( and usually loses control) of his emotions. That struggle is what the character is all about. So a story with a focus on Spock should probably contain something that leaves him emotionaly compromised. That they incorporated that into this film shows they understand the character. Otherwise Spock is reduced to whats bascially a supporting role as a wry observer of the human "condition" and Kirk's sounding board.

 

[Warped9]

I can understand the rationale behind a reboot. It resets things to square one. Fine.

My real argument isn't that ST09 isn't TOS because, hell, it's a reboot. My real argument is that, a) it's not a good and credible reboot within its own context and, b) it's not good as a film.

One of the strengths of TOS was that it far more right than it got wrong. ST09 isn't even the reverse--it got almost nothing right!

The TOS characters and universe were not ones lost in annals of television history that someone finally decided to resurrect for a feature film. They've been with us constantly for forty years.

Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Superman, 007 and others, they've all been reinterpreted since their introduction. But Kirk, Spock and the rest haven't. They've been a constant for four decades. And so I think it's quite understandable that some folks won't take to their reinterpretation particularly when the characters are changed into something less than admirable in the eyes of many.

Shatner's Kirk (for example) was the classic hero: dedicated, loyal, brave, resourceful, larger-than-life and flawed. He was fast-on-his-feet and led from the front. Pine's interpretation (given him by the directors) was a wiseass punk and a jerk. He had none of Shatner/Kirk's class or charm. Pine/Kirk was the bad boy who gets lucky and wins a prize he doesn't deserve, except that the script says he supposed to get the prize. Shatner/Kirk had an established credible history and service experience that justifies where he is--he paid his dues over-and-over and he deserves to be where he is.

Shatner/Kirk makes sense. Pine/Kirk is total nonsense. And Pine/Kirk is the most glaring example of so much that doesn't make sense in this film.

Any film will have logic flaws, but if they're not too blatant and not too numerous then you can usually overlook them if everything else is done well. TWoK is a fair example, and it's a film I have issues with. But if the logic flaws are too numerous and too blatant as they are in Abrams' film then it's no wonder people argue against it, no matter how popular it may be.

Star Wars is popular and it is some of the worst batch of films in terms of writing, acting and logic flaws. But it sure looks purty. And that's the template Abrams wanted to apply to Star Trek, which he did.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

NuSpock gets the essence of Spock exactly right.


I mean, Nimoy approves - who else's opinion is nearly as informed?

 

[M'Sharak]

But if you like the kool-aid then drink up.

With the Kool Aide remark, this..




Is mine. Followed by a hearty "fuck you".

While I can appreciate the reasons why one would find the sentiment expressed by Warped9 offensive, I'm sure you also appreciate that I really can't excuse the "fuck you". Since you don't make a habit of directly flaming other posters, the warning I'm going to issue now should not affect you adversely so long as you continue not making that a habit.

Comments to PM.


Warped9, I'm going to stop short of saying that you had that coming, because I don't actually know that you seriously equate the holding of a favorable opinion concerning the 2009 movie, its makers and its place in the Star Trek canon with the event to which the notion of "drinking the Kool-Aid" is an allusion. Even in its more current political usage of baiting those holding an opposing viewpoint, it's a phrase I don't like seeing employed; it's one which has been used here before to troll and it's one which I personally find pretty damned callous. At the very least, it was a cheap shot -- one which you should have known better than to take. That you did so anyway calls into question your reasons for having recently become active in this forum, after so carefully avoiding it for so long.

Now, we've had some surprisingly good discussion going on, the last week or so. Not everyone's changed their mind a great deal, but many people on either side have at least been willing to entertain other opinions and to see the merit in viewpoints and ideas other than their own, and even to meet in the middle, here and there. Don't fuck that up by making direct insinuations toward people who hold any of those differing viewpoints. You've got other soapboxes you can stand on if you want to get personal, but it's not what I want to see here.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Yes, I was being flippant. I meant that if he likes the film just as it is and accepts the premise Abrams and company are pitching then he's welcome to wallow in that viewpoint.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Wallow?"

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Superman, 007 and others, they've all been reinterpreted since their introduction. But Kirk, Spock and the rest haven't. They've been a constant for four decades. And so I think it's quite understandable that some folks won't take to their reinterpretation particularly when the characters are changed into something less than admirable in the eyes of many

I would disagree. I think the Kirk we was in the TOS movies was different than the Kirk we saw in TOS. Shatner and the writers changed the character, made him more a "superman". Even in TOS, first season Kirk has a different feel than in later seasons, as the writers tailored the role to Shatner rather than GR's vision of the character. NuKirk has more in common with the Movie and later TOS Kirk than he has with the first season Kirk. Which isn't suprising, since the Movie and Later TOS Kirk is the Kirk most people know.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Wallow?"

No negative connotations there.

 

[stonester1]

Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Superman, 007 and others, they've all been reinterpreted since their introduction. But Kirk, Spock and the rest haven't. They've been a constant for four decades. And so I think it's quite understandable that some folks won't take to their reinterpretation

They gambled that that "some" wouldn't be enough to matter. They were right.

particularly when the characters are changed into something less than admirable in the eyes of many.

How many is "many"?

 

[stonester1]

^^ Yes, I was being flippant. I meant that if he likes the film just as it is and accepts the premise Abrams and company are pitching then he's welcome to wallow in that viewpoint.

Of course, and there are a number of things you are free to wallow in as well, take your pick.