I-Am-Zim
Captain
Those who like the movie do seem to be perfectly willing to accept whatever brainless drivel the writers throw at them without hesitation.
Watched it a 3rd time -- it's great!!
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
Those who like the movie do seem to be perfectly willing to accept whatever brainless drivel the writers throw at them without hesitation.
As we always did.
Gene Roddenberry said many things over several decades that seemed to contradict his previous statements about aspects of Star Trek. And statements about most movies still being made are deliberately "ambiguous".
Some viewers seem to demand that they be spoonfed every fact, leaving absolutely nothing to discussion or debate after leaving the cinema.
Re the Delta Vega thing. Kirk Prime once marooned his friend Gary on a lonely cracking station with that name. Here was a new reality, and now it was Spock marooning Kirk on a lonely cracking station with the same name. (We know from TOS, TAS and ENT that there are several Rigels and Arrets.) It's kinda like Pike ending up in a 23rd century wheelchair in both realities, and Kirk munching on an apple whenever dismissing the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
Last edited:
I've seen the film several times now and I've loved it just as much each ti--
...
Oh. This is another pathetic whiny thread where haters cry "Delta Vega!", "change is bad!" and "I don't like the characters/visuals/story!" and various other subjective nothings as "proof" that because they didn't like it, it's of no worth to anybody.
...
Oh. This is another pathetic whiny thread where haters cry "Delta Vega!", "change is bad!" and "I don't like the characters/visuals/story!" and various other subjective nothings as "proof" that because they didn't like it, it's of no worth to anybody.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
I am not a huge dan of the movie. I'd rate it a B or B- depending on how many of the annoying details that could have been quickly fixed bother me. I'm all for change. However, I'd rather that the change be for the better and in some ways I feel that this is a step backwards. Does that mean I want the next movie to fail? Not at all. I want it to be better. Does that mean I didn't like the story? Partially. I think the story could have been much stronger. Did I like the characters? Most of them. Some were excellent, some were such minor parts of the story that it didn't matter one way or the other and two or three I felt really missed capturing the essence of the characters. That does not mean that they have to be the SAME as what has come before but they should at least capture the spirit. Scotty, while used for comic relief, wasn't used for much else. Kirk, being one of the major focus characters came across as a characture, concentrating on the bad boy side of Kirk and ignoring the leadership & charm elements.
You have your opinion of the movie, I have mine. I wouldn't claim that you'd love anything with the Star Trek name on it, why should I be derided for finding fault? It was a rollicking adventure flick without much depth. Hopefully the next one will delve more into the characters and less on the whiz-bang of flashy effects, lens flares and shallow plot.
You have your opinion of the movie, I have mine. I wouldn't claim that you'd love anything with the Star Trek name on it, why should I be derided for finding fault? It was a rollicking adventure flick without much depth. Hopefully the next one will delve more into the characters and less on the whiz-bang of flashy effects, lens flares and shallow plot.
John Goodman was a huge dan.
Funnily I saw past the "whiz bang." I found the correlation between those who complain the supposed "flash" but then have to be corrected on nearly every single point they got wrong about the film.
Just sayin.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
It's meant to be the same Delta Vega. Orci said so when asked. He confirmed it three times in the same sentence.
I've seen the film several times now and I've loved it just as much each ti--
...
Oh. This is another pathetic whiny thread where haters cry "Delta Vega!", "change is bad!" and "I don't like the characters/visuals/story!" and various other subjective nothings as "proof" that because they didn't like it, it's of no worth to anybody.
Yep. So?
This addresses the literal words, taken out of the overall context of the subject at hand.
What is the actualy difference between a figurative and literal statement?
The statement is only literal in the fact of it being made.
I could say that a man kicked the bucket. It is a direct statement with no qualifiers. However, common sense tells us that I am saying the man died.
1st viewing: WTF?!?! That was terrible. (irrational pessimism)
2nd viewing: That was pretty good. (irrational optimism)
3rd viewing: That wasn't that great, but I don't hate it. (balanced indifference)
I don't really feel a need to watch it again. You get all the jokes by the 2nd viewing and I've enjoyed every nuance of the special effects by the third. Not much else to draw me back again. Eh...maybe Urban's McCoy. It'll have for a while longer. Maybe next year.
2nd viewing: That was pretty good. (irrational optimism)
3rd viewing: That wasn't that great, but I don't hate it. (balanced indifference)
I don't really feel a need to watch it again. You get all the jokes by the 2nd viewing and I've enjoyed every nuance of the special effects by the third. Not much else to draw me back again. Eh...maybe Urban's McCoy. It'll have for a while longer. Maybe next year.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
The man said they "moved the planet", not that they used a different planet and gave it DV's name. The interviewer asked if they fudged canon, Orci said they did. He asked if they moved the planet, Orci said they did. It is quite obvious by his statements that the DV we saw in STXI was intended by the writers to be the same DV we saw in WNMHGB. They simply moved it and changed its climate because they could. It's quite simple to understand really.
Pull The Other One. You are missing the obvious. What they LITERALLY SAID was meant, OBVIOUSLY in a FIGURATIVE WAY.
The fact that you are refusing to accept the plainly obvious is ridiculous. Therefore, I cannot have a rational conversation with your irrationality. We're done here.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
I must disagree once again. The FACT of the matter is that Orci stated in a quote that they MOVED THE PLANET TO SUIT THEIR PURPOSES. When asked if they fudged canon, he was quoted as saying "True. YEAH WE DID." The assumption that they used the name on a different planet is pure speculation since none of the writers has ever confirmed that(As far as I know. If they did, I'd like to see the quote). The fact that you are refusing to accept the plainly obvious and base your conclusions on speculation is rediculous. And I must agree that your irrational refusal to accept the man's quote as fact based upon the fact that it was indeed a quote that he actually said as opposed to assumptions and speculations to the contrary boggles the mind. You are so determined to shoehorn this convoluted movie into the Star Trek universe that we know that you are simply unable to accept what the writer said as fact. You would rather make something up based upon speculation than to just simply accept what the man said as fact. I don't get it.
I said WE'RE DONE HERE.
Brilliant. You've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt something everyone already knew, and knew more than a year ago. Now here's the big question:
So what?
So Orci says they moved an otherwise-insignificant (and wholly fictional) planet containing a remote Starfleet outpost and a human-unfriendly environment in order that the writers be able to tip a wink to fans who'd recognize the name. Seriously - why is this a problem? (It isn't, really, is it?)
And why get hung up on Delta Vega's climate at all, for that matter? It's not as if we know to begin with that all planets have a single, uniform climate (just like Earth's?
Come on, now.) What we know about the planet from WNMHGB would fit easily on the back of a business card, with room to spare: whereabouts vague, completely uninhabited; slightly smaller than Earth; [d]esolate, but rich in crystal and minerals; Dehner's comment that it would take "almost a miracle to survive here" (and oh, yes - there's a ridiculous, magical god power-granting galactic barrier nearby which utterly fails to exhibit those same god power-granting properties on Enterprise's later galactic-barrier crossings.) And that's it. There's nothing there which says the planet can't have an icy polar region, too, or that it wasn't the height of the summer season on Delta Vega when Gary Mitchell met his end (or, for that matter, that DV might not be conveniently situated along the best short-cut route to the also vaguely-situated but clearly very remote Laurentian system.)These trivial things you complain about can't really be that big a deal - can they? In all the time since the rest of the March fishing expedition gave up and moved on, I've yet to see a real argument from you on any of these so-called problems which convinces me that you truly believe so.
Okay, I'll bite again
I think the clues regarding the general intent of the writers, plus the very different depiction of Delta Vega in the movie, point to the writer's making a figurative statement that reads literally when taken out of the greater context (as I tried to explain ad-nauseam, and you casually dismiss without invoking common sense).
First, lets address the core: writers intent.
Can we agree on the following:
- The Writers created the Alternate Reality scenario as a way to link the old continuity to the new.
- The Writers, at great length, entered into several interviews to clarify that the Alternate Reality was created by Nero's arrival and subsequent actions in 2233.04.
Since these are well established, we then go to on-screen evidence:
- Delta Vega in the new movie looks very different in both climate and appearance in orbit.
- The requisite Starfleet Outposts in both Delta Vega depictions are very different (small listening-like post vs. large, automated industrial complex)
If we can agree on these two things, then we have to ask:
- Would the writers mean "moving" as in changing the location, or changing the name?
- Would they have literally changed the location of the Delta Vega, if they were aiming to keep true to established Canon?
If you'll allow me to quote from another property with Star in the title, many of the great truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
To my reading of all this, it really doesn't matter what they said in a literal sense, since ALL of it was from a storytellers perspective rather than an in-universe perspective.
You are assuming that they wanted to do a retcon, when really they were simply after name recognition, a nod to fans. It is not that this is literally the same planet, but the same planet in spirit (the first alien world we see Kirk visit), by using the same name.
I submit that you cannot see the wood for the trees here.
Exactly. It doesn't matter if the writers say they moved the planet. Creators may not really care nearly as much about canon as fans do.
For example, in Star Wars: A New Hope, Obi-Wan Kenobi says that the Jeni Knights have been guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic for over a thousand generations, but in Attack of the Clones, which takes place about 22 years earlier, Chancellor Palpatine says he will not let this Republic, which has stood for 1000 years, be split in two. No matter how you define a "generation", over a "thousand" of them is definitely much more than 1000 years. Maybe Lucas forgot the exact line in the first movie, or maybe he just thought 1000 years sounded better in the prequel? Maybe he wanted the reference to be 1000 years since the Sith were thought ot have gone exinct around that time and it was a Sith Lord speaking? Who knows?
It is not the creator's responsibility to be concerned about minute canon details that only fans care about. It is our responsiblity to make up the retcons that make it all make sense. And in Star Wars, they did make up something that makes them both makes sense (the Republic significantly changed 1000 years ago to its current form).
In this Star Trek case, the creators say they "moved" a planet. But if you want it to make sense, then you just say there are two unrelated planets with the same name. In fact, perhaps the WNMHGB planet hasn't even been discovered yet in the new timeline (I don't remember if the the ep revealed if the planet had been previously discovered or when, and I don't care).
So you have a choice.
(1) You complain that they changed canon, be unhappy about it and waste time trying to prove something completely pointless in the grand scheme of things
OR
(2) You just say there were two planets with the same name. You accept that they had no other reason to name the planet that except to pay tribute to the origins of Trek. You know they truly watched TOS and all Trek movies before making this new movie. You are happy that they honored the original Kirk Trek with a reference instead of merely ignoring it.
I chose #2 and I am happy with it.
For example, in Star Wars: A New Hope, Obi-Wan Kenobi says that the Jeni Knights have been guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic for over a thousand generations, but in Attack of the Clones, which takes place about 22 years earlier, Chancellor Palpatine says he will not let this Republic, which has stood for 1000 years, be split in two. No matter how you define a "generation", over a "thousand" of them is definitely much more than 1000 years. Maybe Lucas forgot the exact line in the first movie, or maybe he just thought 1000 years sounded better in the prequel? Maybe he wanted the reference to be 1000 years since the Sith were thought ot have gone exinct around that time and it was a Sith Lord speaking? Who knows?
It is not the creator's responsibility to be concerned about minute canon details that only fans care about. It is our responsiblity to make up the retcons that make it all make sense. And in Star Wars, they did make up something that makes them both makes sense (the Republic significantly changed 1000 years ago to its current form).
In this Star Trek case, the creators say they "moved" a planet. But if you want it to make sense, then you just say there are two unrelated planets with the same name. In fact, perhaps the WNMHGB planet hasn't even been discovered yet in the new timeline (I don't remember if the the ep revealed if the planet had been previously discovered or when, and I don't care).
So you have a choice.
(1) You complain that they changed canon, be unhappy about it and waste time trying to prove something completely pointless in the grand scheme of things
OR
(2) You just say there were two planets with the same name. You accept that they had no other reason to name the planet that except to pay tribute to the origins of Trek. You know they truly watched TOS and all Trek movies before making this new movie. You are happy that they honored the original Kirk Trek with a reference instead of merely ignoring it.
I chose #2 and I am happy with it.
Last edited:
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Okay, I'll bite again
I think the clues regarding the general intent of the writers, plus the very different depiction of Delta Vega in the movie, point to the writer's making a figurative statement that reads literally when taken out of the greater context (as I tried to explain ad-nauseam, and you casually dismiss without invoking common sense).
First, lets address the core: writers intent.
Can we agree on the following:
- The Writers created the Alternate Reality scenario as a way to link the old continuity to the new.
- The Writers, at great length, entered into several interviews to clarify that the Alternate Reality was created by Nero's arrival and subsequent actions in 2233.04.
Since these are well established, we then go to on-screen evidence:
- Delta Vega in the new movie looks very different in both climate and appearance in orbit.
- The requisite Starfleet Outposts in both Delta Vega depictions are very different (small listening-like post vs. large, automated industrial complex)
If we can agree on these two things, then we have to ask:
- Would the writers mean "moving" as in changing the location, or changing the name?
- Would they have literally changed the location of the Delta Vega, if they were aiming to keep true to established Canon?
If you'll allow me to quote from another property with Star in the title, many of the great truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
To my reading of all this, it really doesn't matter what they said in a literal sense, since ALL of it was from a storytellers perspective rather than an in-universe perspective.
You are assuming that they wanted to do a retcon, when really they were simply after name recognition, a nod to fans. It is not that this is literally the same planet, but the same planet in spirit (the first alien world we see Kirk visit), by using the same name.
I submit that you cannot see the wood for the trees here.
Delta Vega has the most elongated orbit in the known galaxy. In 2258 one end of the orbit was in the Vulcan system. By 2265, the other end of the orbit was near the edge of the galaxy.
Okay, I'll bite again
I think the clues regarding the general intent of the writers, plus the very different depiction of Delta Vega in the movie, point to the writer's making a figurative statement that reads literally when taken out of the greater context (as I tried to explain ad-nauseam, and you casually dismiss without invoking common sense).
First, lets address the core: writers intent.
Can we agree on the following:
- The Writers created the Alternate Reality scenario as a way to link the old continuity to the new.
- The Writers, at great length, entered into several interviews to clarify that the Alternate Reality was created by Nero's arrival and subsequent actions in 2233.04.
Since these are well established, we then go to on-screen evidence:
- Delta Vega in the new movie looks very different in both climate and appearance in orbit.
- The requisite Starfleet Outposts in both Delta Vega depictions are very different (small listening-like post vs. large, automated industrial complex)
If we can agree on these two things, then we have to ask:
- Would the writers mean "moving" as in changing the location, or changing the name?
- Would they have literally changed the location of the Delta Vega, if they were aiming to keep true to established Canon?
If you'll allow me to quote from another property with Star in the title, many of the great truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
To my reading of all this, it really doesn't matter what they said in a literal sense, since ALL of it was from a storytellers perspective rather than an in-universe perspective.
You are assuming that they wanted to do a retcon, when really they were simply after name recognition, a nod to fans. It is not that this is literally the same planet, but the same planet in spirit (the first alien world we see Kirk visit), by using the same name.
I submit that you cannot see the wood for the trees here.
Delta Vega has the most elongated orbit in the known galaxy. In 2258 one end of the orbit was in the Vulcan system. By 2265, the other end of the orbit was near the edge of the galaxy.
And by making that statement, you obviously failed to read what you quoted. Unless of course you're just making a joke, but I have a feeling you weren't.
Similar threads
