miscellaneous questions

[Devon]

And what is your point supposed to be?

That no one cares.

Is this another one of your broken record tirades about how the majority thinks one way, so everyone must or that it's prudent? Give it a rest.

Some "tirade"

 

[Ryan8bit]

And what is your point supposed to be?

That no one cares.

Yep, absolutely no one cares, which is why it was brought up and has been brought up many times before.

Perhaps you don't care, and there's a great solution for that.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Nah. It was just another plot contrivance chalked up to lazy writing in my opinion. NuKirk, NuOldSpock, and NuScotty all conveniently meeting in the same place stretches the suspension of disbelief factor to its very limits.

Your opinion is unsurprisingly ill-informed; this issue was addressed in the script very much along the lines of "City On The Edge Of Forever" and the explanation simply edited out.

So the explanation was not in the movie then? Okay. It doesn't count if it's on the cutting room floor. It is surprising to me how many proponents of the movies merits constantly bring up all these scenes and dialogue that were "edited out". My opinion stands.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Nah. It was just another plot contrivance chalked up to lazy writing in my opinion. NuKirk, NuOldSpock, and NuScotty all conveniently meeting in the same place stretches the suspension of disbelief factor to its very limits.

Your opinion is unsurprisingly ill-informed; this issue was addressed in the script very much along the lines of "City On The Edge Of Forever" and the explanation simply edited out.

So the explanation was not in the movie then? Okay. It doesn't count if it's on the cutting room floor. It is surprising to me how many proponents of the movies merits constantly bring up all these scenes and dialogue that were "edited out". My opinion stands.

If it's not in the film, but in the script, it has nothing to do with the writing.

Sorry

 

[I-Am-Zim]

It has everything to do with the writing. People sitting in the theatre watching the movie can't see the early draft of the script in subtitles below the action. Therefore, it doesn't count. The only writing that counts is what is depicted on the screen. And that was lazy. In my "rabid fanboy" opinion, of course.

 

[sonak]

Well, for my $0.02...


I agree with those who found that sequence of the movie of Kirk running into Old Spock and then Scotty to involve too much of coincidence. It smacked of a "will of the force" aspect for them to get together like that which is acceptable for a Star Wars movie since the Force is part of the mythology of that film series but has no place in a Trek movie.

Also, I find it an odd argument that anyone criticizing poor film logic or poor film writing in general is is some kind of ranting "fanboy." Why is it a mark of pride to NOT be intellectually curious about something you like, paid money to see, is a form of art, etc.? Blindly accepting plot holes or poor writing would seem to only encourage lower-quality movies in the future. (The Transformers 2 effect, if you will).

 

[Devon]

Yep, absolutely no one cares,

All things considered, yes.

which is why it was brought up and has been brought up many times before.

By the same four people. Other than that, no.

So the explanation was not in the movie then? Okay. It doesn't count if it's on the cutting room floor. It is surprising to me how many proponents of the movies merits constantly bring up all these scenes and dialogue that were "edited out". My opinion stands.

Then it isn't "lazy writing" if it was written.

Blindly accepting plot holes or poor writing would seem to only encourage lower-quality movies in the future. (The Transformers 2 effect, if you will).

Trek fans have done it for 40+ years.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Yep, absolutely no one cares,

All things considered, yes.

Seeing as how some people care, you're just flat out wrong.

which is why it was brought up and has been brought up many times before.

By the same four people. Other than that, no.

I'm not just talking about the limited scope of this message board in the past week. I've seen this comment all across the internet in various places, some which aren't specifically devoted to Trek.

And even if you did limit yourself to just this board, you could start a poll asking if people found it too coincidental that they met there in those circumstances, and you'd still get more than a few votes for it being too coincidental.

Questioning fate in Star Trek is a pretty reasonable thing to do given its history.

 

[Captrek]

Well, for my $0.02...


I agree with those who found that sequence of the movie of Kirk running into Old Spock and then Scotty to involve too much of coincidence. It smacked of a "will of the force" aspect for them to get together like that which is acceptable for a Star Wars movie since the Force is part of the mythology of that film series but has no place in a Trek movie.

Here’s what I wrote a few days ago in another thread:

Is XI considered to be an alternate timeline within the original canon, or is it a separate canon?

In theory; altered timeline.

In reality; totally separate franchise.

That strikes me as a sensible answer.

The first time I saw the movie, I didn’t like it. I think that’s because I came into it thinking of it as a sequel and I was put off by (as perceived by me) its lack of fidelity to existing canon.

When I rewatched it with a mindset of “It’s a re-imagining with a guest appearance by a character from the original series, like the 1978 Cylons who showed up in the 2004 BSG,” it fared much better.

So if you find, as I did, that it fails as a sequel because it requires either impossible coincidence or “will of the Force” to bring the same crew together on the Enterprise, then forget that it’s a sequel.

Think of it instead as a re-imagining. The “coincidence” of the same crew ending up on the Enterprise can be regarded in the same light as the coincidence of the Battlestar Galactica, under command of Bill Adama, being the only battlestar (other than the later-to-be-discovered Pegasus) to survive the Cylon attack, with Adama’s son Apollo and hot-shot viper pilot Starbuck, all of which happens in both BSG universes.

When watching NuTrek, think of original Trek as a wholly separate series. All we know about the Prime universe is what is established in ST09: Kirk and Spock are longtime friends and serve together as captain and first officer of the Enterprise. Scotty invents the theory of transwarp beaming. I don’t think it’s even established in ST09 that Prime Scotty serves on the Enterprise or is personally acquainted with any of the other characters. The annoying “will of the Force” aspect goes away when we do not assume that this same bridge crew served on the same ship in NuOldSpock’s original reality.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

It has everything to do with the writing. People sitting in the theatre watching the movie can't see the early draft of the script in subtitles below the action. Therefore, it doesn't count. The only writing that counts is what is depicted on the screen. And that was lazy. In my "rabid fanboy" opinion, of course.

If you criticize the Editing for removing the line in question, the criticism would be valid.

However, the writers were not the editors.

 

[Devon]

So if you find, as I did, that it fails as a sequel because it requires either impossible coincidence

What "impossible coincidence?"

Or do you mean "improbable coincidence?"

 

[M'Sharak]

Nah. It was just another plot contrivance chalked up to lazy writing in my opinion. NuKirk, NuOldSpock, and NuScotty all conveniently meeting in the same place stretches the suspension of disbelief factor to its very limits.

Your opinion is unsurprisingly ill-informed; this issue was addressed in the script very much along the lines of "City On The Edge Of Forever" and the explanation simply edited out.

That’s interesting. Can you provide any more details?

Here:

Regarding a controversial scene, where Kirk and Spock meet up in the ice cave, Abrams explains how this meet-up makes sense after all. “There are elements in the special features and deleted scenes that address the storylines, the logic of it,” said Abrams. “For example, one of the things that people had issues with was ‘Oh COME on. Kirk is going to run into an ice cave and he’s going to run into Spock like that? That is the dumbest thing ever and…unlikely.’ But, there in the scene, they’re in the cave and there was a sequence that was cut from the movie where Spock speaks to that and he talks about how this is sort of the timeline’s way of trying to repair itself and it’s as much about fate as anything.”

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/10/abrams-deleted-scenes-clarify/

And here, from an interview published the week before the film went into general release (which may explain why some of the specifics are obscured):

Even though things are different in this timeline, like Kirk coming aboard the Enterprise first as a cadet, by the end of the movie every one of the original bridge crew end up where they are supposed to be. Is there some kind of notion that it is their destiny to be on that bridge, regardless of what timeline you are on?
Kurtzman: Yes. In fact there was one version of the script where Kirk points out that it is incredibly odd that they all sort of turned as they would have. Nimoy Spock tells Kirk ‘I knew this character as this person and that character as that person’ and Kirk says ‘wow, those characters are exactly the same ones that I know’ and Spock says something like ‘Fascinating, that must be the timestream’s way of trying to mend itself.’
Orci: It is a nod to destiny. And there is still something like that in the film.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/30/interview-roberto-orci-alex-kurtzman/

Also, this, from an interview with Kurtzman:

AK: It's funny you ask about time travel and the idea that time sorts itself out. There was a line that we had written that was shot which ended up getting cut from the movie. Watching it the other day, I wish we'd kept. When Kirk and Spock Prime are in the cave and Spock's telling him everything, there's a mention by Kirk of "How is it that I found you in this cave in the middle of an ice planet? It's insane that we should ever even meet this way." Spock says, "Perhaps it's the timestream's way of trying to mend itself. It is fate and destiny trying to bring us together."

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=4abd55d466556&mailtofriend=1

And from the script, the portion of the ice-cave scene as written, but not used in the completed film:

KIRK
Going back in time... you changed all our
lives.

SPOCK PRIME
Yet remarkably, events within our
timelines, characteristics, people...
seem to overlap significantly. Tell me
about the rest of the crew? Chekov--
Uhura --?

KIRK
Tactical and Communications --

SPOCK PRIME
-- Sulu --

KIRK
-- he's the helmsman, why?

SPOCK PRIME
Dr. McCoy would assert our meeting here
is not a matter of coincidence... but
rather, indication of a higher purpose.

KIRK
... he'd call it a damn miracle.

SPOCK PRIME
Yes he would. Perhaps the time stream's
way of attempting to mend itself. In
both our histories, the same crew found
its way onto the same ship in a time of
ultimate crisis -- therein lies our
advantage.
(rises)
We must go-- there's a Starfleet outpost
not far from here.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately. It would have made much more sense if those lines had been left in the script. But as it stands according to what was seen on screen, the coincidences still stretch the limits of suspension of disbelief.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately. It would have made much more sense if those lines had been left in the script. But as it stands according to what was seen on screen, the coincidences still stretch the limits of suspension of disbelief.

Again, and I ask this bluntly, are you criticizing the WRITING or the EDITING?

Pick ONE. They WERE in the script. It was written. THE END.

 

[Devon]

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately. It would have made much more sense if those lines had been left in the script. But as it stands according to what was seen on screen, the coincidences still stretch the limits of suspension of disbelief.

Right, but that isn't what you initially said. You said it could be chalked up to "lazy writing." It was written tho, regardless if it made it to the screen or not. That's the point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Any number of them meeting up anywhere is probably going to be labled a "coincendence" by someone.

 

[M'Sharak]

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately. It would have made much more sense if those lines had been left in the script. But as it stands according to what was seen on screen, the coincidences still stretch the limits of suspension of disbelief.

captrek asked for more details about material which was in the written script but was omitted from the finished movie, in response to Dennis' statement that an explanation had been edited out. I gave him some details, just as I've done several times before in response to similar questions.

Your assertion that lazy writing is to blame is off the mark. The lines were in the script. Some version of that scene with those lines was actually filmed, but those lines weren't included in the movie, which is ultimately a directorial choice. All of this has been discussed here before, many times over.

 

[Timo]

Again, and I ask this bluntly, are you criticizing the WRITING or the EDITING?

Isn't that rather silly splitting of hairs?

It's not a matter of assigning blame to specific artists, it's a matter of the movie coming off looking poorly written, due to an editing job that affected story logic. The story we see is badly written, even if the editing gnomes are at fault.

It's a half-assed job: the movie would work without the element of truly absurdly astronomical coincidences that are the work of Fate, or it could work (perhaps even better) if based entirely on the concept of Fate. There are elements of both approaches in the final product. But the story lacks the courage to decide either way. If the audience chooses to choose, this just faults the movie all the more: the audience is better at creating a story than the writers (or the editing gnomes) are!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Devon]

Isn't that rather silly splitting of hairs?

It's not a matter of assigning blame to specific artists, it's a matter of the movie coming off looking poorly written, due to an editing job that affected story logic. The story we see is badly written, even if the editing gnomes are at fault.

It's a half-assed job: the movie would work without the element of truly absurdly astronomical coincidences that are the work of Fate, or it could work (perhaps even better) if based entirely on the concept of Fate. There are elements of both approaches in the final product. But the story lacks the courage to decide either way. If the audience chooses to choose, this just faults the movie all the more: the audience is better at creating a story than the writers (or the editing gnomes) are!

Timo Saloniemi

No. The point was trying to get I-Am-Zim to understand that lazy writing isn't an issue if it was written. But I'm glad we got your opinion out of the way again.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Is the TOS crew getting together in STXI any more unlikey than the TOS crew's evil twins uniting in time for "Mirror, Mirror", a universe that diverged from Prime centuries prior (going from the "In a Mirror, Darkly" intro - and assuming that's the same mirror universe)?

And is it any different from most lucky-coincidence-filled movies? Not to me.

You can interpret STXI's coincidences as probability (they all got together in the radically different Prime and Mirror, so it wasn't out of the question in Alternate), the "currents of time" and the universe attempting to repair itself (as per "City on the Edge of Forever" and Spock Prime's cut lines. This may be the same as the probability argument) or Act of God/Random fluke (which is also pretty much the above two as well under different names). Why on earth are Trekkies so unable to pick one of these for themselves? You shouldn't need someone to hold your hands and explain every tiny thing to you. Use your imaginations, people!