What Amazes Me

[M'Sharak]

We looked at the movie as a sequel to the surviving member of the Starship Enterprise, who was Spock Prime, as we called him in the script. That story can be seen from Leonard Nimoy’s point of view and as a sequel to the last member of the Enterprise.[...]Those things are prologues to this movie.

Can you post a look to the original source? I'm not saying you're lying, I'd just like to see the quote in its full context.

Googling the text preceding the bracketed ellipsis returns this source -- look for the second quoted block of text in the article, labeled "On making changes while reconciling canon":

http://trekmovie.com/2010/01/21/orc...ressure-trekmovie-fans-more-at-wga-screening/

And yeah, providing a link to the source of quoted text is generally expected precisely because context matters. It's also just common courtesy.

 

[RookieBatman]

You're making assumptions about my opinions that simply aren't true.

it's clear they had no intention of this being about Spock (especially not Old Spock).

Yes, you're correct that this is what I think, but your stated assumption that this is only my opinion because it's what I desire is categorically untrue.

We looked at the movie as a sequel to the surviving member of the Starship Enterprise, who was Spock Prime, as we called him in the script. That story can be seen from Leonard Nimoy’s point of view and as a sequel to the last member of the Enterprise.[...]Those things are prologues to this movie.

Yeah, so the context doesn't really change things much, and ultimately, all I can say is that Roberto Orci doesn't really seem to understand the meaning of "sequel" himself. Let me use an analogy; if they made a sequel to "Rocky" where Rocky doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie, and then is only in three or so scenes, would you consider that a sequel, or a spin-off?

 

[Withers]

And yeah, providing a link to the source of quoted text is generally expected precisely because context matters.

Yeah, so the context doesn't really change things much

ultimately, all I can say is that Roberto Orci doesn't really seem to understand the meaning of "sequel" himself. Let me use an analogy; if they made a sequel to "Rocky" where Rocky doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie, and then is only in three or so scenes, would you consider that a sequel, or a spin-off?

I'm going to agree that he probably misspoke...or just didn't phrase it quite right or...something along those lines. I think a better choice might have been the word "successor."

-Withers-​

 

[M'Sharak]

And yeah, providing a link to the source of quoted text is generally expected precisely because context matters.

Yeah, so the context doesn't really change things much

Without having seen the quoted material in context, there'd be no way for RookieBatman to have made that assessment, would there? (Whether you agree with his assessment or not is another matter, and not really pertinent to this issue.) Unless that context is provided (customarily, at TrekBBS, via a link following the quoted text) the person posting the quote is in effect saying "No, you don't need to see where that comes from; just take my word for it"... which is a little imperious, don't you think?

.

.

Side question: is there a reason you choose not to include the attribution on the two bits (the first mine and the other RookieBatman's) which you've quoted above, or in most of the instances where you've quoted other posters? Since the functionality built in to the "Quote" and "Multi-Quote" buttons at the bottom right of each post makes attribution quite simple, I have to wonder why you omit it.

 

[Withers]

Without having seen the quoted material in context, there'd be no way for RookieBatman to have made that assessment, would there? (Whether you agree with his assessment or not is another matter, and not really pertinent to this issue.) Unless that context is provided (customarily, at TrekBBS, via a link following the quoted text) the person posting the quote is in effect saying "No, you don't need to see where that comes from; just take my word for it"... which is a little imperious, don't you think?

Set Harth found it by searching. You found it by searching, if RookieBatman questioned the validity of the quote or thought that quote mining had been employed, he's a smart guy so surely he could have found it by using Google (neither a novel nor obscure tool) too. Should Seth have included a link? Meh, whatever, but "jumping" on him as though he had broken an unspoken rule everyone else treated as sacrosanct seemed unfair since that isn't the case the way your public rebuke makes it seem. All of that amplified by the fact that we're talking about an Orci quote regarding XI (not exactly uncommon stuff.)

Side question: is there a reason you choose not to include the attribution on the two bits (the first mine and the other RookieBatman's) which you've quoted above, or in most of the instances where you've quoted other posters?

No.

-Withers-​

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Amen, brother. One thing I've never understood is the idea that the Ent needed to be updated,

Really?
Details aside, the original design represents very much the 1960s design aesthetic. That isn't meant as a negative, since there is something really pleasing about this simpler (less is more) design approach.
But the fact of the matter is, that the Enterprise from TOS no longer looks all that futuristic anymore. She simply doesn't.
That's why she needed to be updated, to be brought from the 60s into 2009.
Will the design stand the test of time?
Perhaps not. Rarely any futuristic designs do.
Even the TMP refit is begining to look odd with its very thin pylons.

So, an update was necessary.
It was necessary in 1979.
And it will be necessary in a few years again (assuming Trek continues beyond the next movie as a film series).

QFT

 

[EEE]

I realize where we are and what we're talking about here,

No. I don't think you really do. Because...

but for me, people who have strong opinions on which films belong to which timelines are crossing the thin dorky line.

...you wouldn't have said that if you noticed that "thin dorky line" was waaaaaaaaay behind you, by virtue of being here and part of this thread.

"He's dorkier" isn't a real defense for being "dorky" (even if being "dorky" needed a defense), it's just misdirection.

*dorky-grin*

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

"He's dorkier" isn't a real defense for being "dorky" (even if being "dorky" needed a defense), it's just misdirection.

Heh. Touché. Let's just say that there are two dorky lines, and one of them has been crossed here. The other one is way behind me.

 

[Jeyl]

So, an update was necessary.
It was necessary in 1979.
And it will be necessary in a few years again (assuming Trek continues beyond the next movie as a film series).

It wasn't that they altered the design of the original Enterprise to modernize it for this new film, it was the fact that JJ Abrams and the design team pretty much made it their goal to turn it into a hot rod. It looks ugly compared to the original. The secondary hull just throws the balance off, and having that gigantic open spaced shuttle bay that essentially takes up all of the secondary hull sort of defeats the purpose of having the warp engine pylons connected to it. That's just my preference of course.

 

[Set Harth]

all I can say is that Roberto Orci doesn't really seem to understand the meaning of "sequel" himself. Let me use an analogy; if they made a sequel to "Rocky" where Rocky doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie, and then is only in three or so scenes, would you consider that a sequel, or a spin-off?

He understands the definition of "sequel". You're the one trying to create a new definition, in an apparent attempt to summarily throw out STXI due to personal distaste. The question as framed is itself contradictory. "If they made a sequel" would you consider it a sequel? Beneath the Planet of the Apes is a sequel to Planet of the Apes regardless of Heston content.

Yes, you're correct that this is what I think, but your stated assumption that this is only my opinion because it's what I desire is categorically untrue.

You're reading too much into the phrase "desired value". By that I meant what you thought.

 

[RookieBatman]

And yeah, providing a link to the source of quoted text is generally expected precisely because context matters.

Yeah, so the context doesn't really change things much

Sorry you feel that way, but I stand by it. Feel free to expound on your non-verbal criticism whenever you feel like it (bearing in mind that this is a discussion board and not an emoticon board, you'll pardon me if I don't feel like such things really move the discussion forward).

Sorry if I sound a little short, but I'm not a fan of using emoticons to make a point.

ultimately, all I can say is that Roberto Orci doesn't really seem to understand the meaning of "sequel" himself. Let me use an analogy; if they made a sequel to "Rocky" where Rocky doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie, and then is only in three or so scenes, would you consider that a sequel, or a spin-off?

I'm going to agree that he probably misspoke...or just didn't phrase it quite right or...something along those lines. I think a better choice might have been the word "successor."

I agree that it's a possibility he misspoke, but Set Harth appeared to be taking Orci at his word, so for the benefit of the discussion, I decided to treat it as if he did know what he was saying.

Although, it does seem clear from looking at some of the other quotes that those probably weren't exact transcriptions, as a lot of the grammar and syntax were not consistent with natural speech. It's possible that someone recorded them and then was just rushed when they were typing, or I suppose it's even possible that they did it from memory. Still, a word as specific as "sequel" seems less likely to be misplaced. I agree there's room for doubt, though.

"He's dorkier" isn't a real defense for being "dorky" (even if being "dorky" needed a defense), it's just misdirection.

Heh. Touché. Let's just say that there are two dorky lines, and one of them has been crossed here. The other one is way behind me.

Heck, there are probably at least twenty dorky lines, but if I tried to define them, I suppose I'd go down another rung.

Actually, it's okay, because somebody already has.

 

[Set Harth]

as a lot of the grammar and syntax were not consistent with natural speech.

Somehow I knew it would come to this. Remember, kids, don't screw up those public appearances or everything gets thrown out. Try to tear down this quote all you want, it's ultimately pointless - because you don't really need the quote. The film depicts a sequence of events which started in the Prime timeline with post-TUC, post-Unification Spock and gave rise to the Abrams timeline. That makes it a sequel from Spock's POV as merely an expression of fact. You don't need the writer to wave a magic wand and formally declare this concept in a public forum for it to be considered accurate.

 

[Withers]

Sorry you feel that way, but I stand by it. Feel free to expound on your non-verbal criticism whenever you feel like it (bearing in mind that this is a discussion board and not an emoticon board, you'll pardon if I don't feel like such things really move the discussion forward).

I was rolling my eyes at the latest example of overreaction from an "authority" figure. It didn't have anything to do with what you said. Your quote was the verification of my thoughts. Sorry for the confusion. (Oh, and for the record- we are in complete agreement about the necessity and lack there of regarding certain things and the progression of a thread.)

I agree that it's a possibility he misspoke, but Set Harth appeared to be taking Orci at his word, so for the benefit of the discussion, I decided to treat it as if he did know what he was saying.

Although, it does seem clear from looking at some of the other quotes that those probably weren't exact transcriptions, as a lot of the grammar and syntax were not consistent with natural speech. It's possible that someone recorded them and then was just rushed when they were typing, or I suppose it's even possible that they did it from memory. Still, a word as specific as "sequel" seems less likely to be misplaced. I agree there's room for doubt, though.

I've re-read the quote a few times now and even I'm not exactly clear what he's trying to say. There are ways to interpret it where it makes more sense than others I'll certainly say that much.

-Withers-​

 

[RookieBatman]

as a lot of the grammar and syntax were not consistent with natural speech.

Somehow I knew it would come to this. Remember, kids, don't screw up those public appearances or everything you say gets thrown out.

I'm not sure if you read the entirety of my comment, but what I was saying was that I didn't believe that Orzi had been transcribed accurately. I'm beginning to get the impression that you're pretty closed-minded on this subject, but here are a few examples anyway, to illustrate how strange some of the writing is.

...if you are a fan you are going to have a top 40 things...

...this is something that we were being asked to take of for a while...

...that’s is how to reconcile...

...we felt that like we really poured our hearts and souls into the dialog...

...and ultimate asked for the ultimately sacrifice...

Do you feel that those were accurate transcriptions of what intelligent people said, or is it possible that the transcriber needed to do a little proofreading?

Try to tear down this quote all you want, it's ultimately pointless - because you don't really need the quote.

Then why did you post it in the first place?

The film depicts a sequence of events which started in the Prime timeline with post-TUC, post-Unification Spock and gave rise to the Abrams timeline. That makes it a sequel from Spock's POV as merely an expression of fact.

But the movie is not from Spock's POV, therefore the fact that it would be a sequel in that regard is artistically irrelevant.

You don't need the writer to wave a magic wand and formally declare this concept in a public forum for it to be considered accurate.

All that would accomplish would be to make the writer lose credibility in my mind. The concept of this being a sequel, just because Old Spock is in it, doesn't make any sense. You still haven't answered my Rocky analogy; I consider the point highly relevant.

 

[RookieBatman]

Sorry you feel that way, but I stand by it. Feel free to expound on your non-verbal criticism whenever you feel like it (bearing in mind that this is a discussion board and not an emoticon board, you'll pardon if I don't feel like such things really move the discussion forward).

I was rolling my eyes at the latest example of overreaction from an "authority" figure. It didn't have anything to do with what you said. Your quote was the verification of my thoughts. Sorry for the confusion. (Oh, and for the record- we are in complete agreement about the necessity and lack there of regarding certain things and the progression of a thread.)

Fair enough. But for the record, I am still glad that he posted the context, even if it didn't end up changing my opinion of the quote.

 

[Set Harth]

I'm not sure if you read the entirety of my comment, but what I was saying was that I didn't believe that Orzi had been transcribed accurately.

Which I covered. In any event, it's a futile tactic to assume that errors by the transcribers can be used as an excuse to throw out the content of the quote.

But the movie is not from Spock's POV, therefore the fact that it would be a sequel in that regard is artistically irrelevant.

By the same token Generations' status as a sequel is "artistically irrelevant", whatever that means. It's still a sequel. The relevance of Spock Prime's POV is due to the fact that he is a character in the story, whose actions give rise to everything else. It's not dependent on amount of screen time or order of presentation, criteria invented for your personal definition of "sequel", and "whose POV is the movie from" is just another appearance of the irrelevant and subjective About function.

You still haven't answered my Rocky analogy; I consider the point highly relevant.

I addressed your semantic game of "sequel" vs. "spinoff". However, this particular moving of the goalposts only reinforces that Spock Prime came from the original continuity - because spinoffs are based in the original continuity.

 

[RookieBatman]

I'm not sure if you read the entirety of my comment, but what I was saying was that I didn't believe that Orzi had been transcribed accurately.

Which I covered. In any event, it's a futile tactic to assume that errors by the transcribers can be used as an excuse to throw out the content of the quote.

So, if the transcriber inaccurately used the word "sequel," we should still consider the quote valid?

Anyway, this is all either a misunderstanding or a straw man, because I've already challenged the quote taken at face value. The argument that the quote may not have been accurate was really just a side discussion.

But the movie is not from Spock's POV, therefore the fact that it would be a sequel in that regard is artistically irrelevant.

By the same token Generations' status as a sequel is "artistically irrelevant", whatever that means.

Is it? A lot more of that story was told from Kirk's point of view (including the opening scenes), therefore it's a lot more relevant to claim that as a sequel.

It's still a sequel. The relevance of Spock Prime's POV is due to the fact that he is a character in the story, whose actions give rise to everything else. It's not dependent on amount of screen time or order of presentation,

Since when? By that logic, you could take one of the main characters of "The Hurt Locker," put him in a crowd scene of another movie for one frame with no lines, and call that a sequel, as long as you indicated later on that his actions may have caused some other stuff.

...criteria invented for your personal definition of "sequel".

Well, if I invented this definition, I must be pretty popular, because a lot of people use it.

But we're really just back to your About function and your apparent privileged knowledge regarding its value.

May I draw the assumption, from your use of terms like "About function" and "desired value," that you're an engineer, or maybe a mathematician? That would illuminate a lot about this discussion.

 

[RookieBatman]

You still haven't answered my Rocky analogy; I consider the point highly relevant.

I addressed your semantic game of "sequel" vs. "spinoff". However, this particular moving of the goalposts only reinforces that Spock Prime came from the original continuity - because spinoffs are based in the original continuity.

If you say so. That's not written in any holy texts that I've seen, though. And besides, since you're already accusing me of "semantic games," there's quite a difference between a spin-off being based in the original continuity, and a character in a spin-off having actually come from that continuity.

And for those just tuning in, let me reiterate that my assertion that Spock may not have come from the Prime universe in no way affects my judgment of the movie. This whole discussion is purely academic, because even if someone could convince me that there's no possibility that Old Spock could have come from any other timeline but Prime, it wouldn't change my opinion of the movie, because this rather miniscule point was never the basis for my negative value judgment in the first place.

 

[Set Harth]

The argument that the quote may not have been accurate was really just a side discussion.

As someone once said: then why did you post it in the first place?

as long as you indicated later on that his actions may have caused some other stuff.

Right, because that's the approach STXI takes: that Spock "I got no lines dammit" Prime "may have" caused stuff.

A lot more of that story was told from Kirk's point of view (including the opening scenes)

Once again, "opening scenes" are only part of the criteria in your personally invented definition, but feel free to prove otherwise. Also, what's the magic cutoff point here? 29% or something? Where are the "holy texts" that establish this figure?

And besides, since you're already accusing me of "semantic games," there's quite a difference between a spin-off being based in the original continuity, and a character in a spin-off having actually come from that continuity.

I've always marveled at the strategy of responding to an accusation by confirming the accusation even more blatantly. No, there's no difference at all.

I must be pretty popular, because a lot of people use it.

I'll keep that in mind for when we're debating your popularity, or in the event that the appeal to majority fallacy somehow stops being a fallacy.

 

[RookieBatman]

You know, you seem to have a very significant emotional stake in this, and I really can't understand why. I have come across a number of people who disliked the movie and treated people who liked it as if they were idiots not capable of rational thought. But that's no excuse to act the same way in the opposite case.
Refer back to the part where I said this line of discussion was unimportant to the overall topic of the thread. I really have no emotional stake in feeling as if I've "won" this debate (not that any debates like this can ever really be won by either side), and so I really don't have any reason to put up with your continuously insulting tone. If you're determined to consider me an idiot, I ultimately can't change that, though I think your judgment is impaired by your apparent bias against people who dislike STXI. So, if you'd like to continue the discussion in a more civil manner, as befits equals, I'd be glad to do so. Otherwise, I really see no point in continuing, as your logic and mine seem to be coming from completely different places (that's why I asked if you're approaching this from an engineering standpoint--since I see things from an artistic standpoint, that could be where the disconnect derives). If my suspending my remarks makes you feel like you've won the discussion, well, my pride won't be hurt by it. Whatever makes you feel warm at night.