I didn't read the article.
I've heard it all, and dismissed as totally anal, before.
I've heard it all, and dismissed as totally anal, before.
This is an article I so agree with
- Thread starter The Castellan
- Start date
I took TMP to be TOS with the budget it deserved. I was comfortable imagining that the Klingons really always had ridges. (How come the Romulans didn't have ridges in TOS either?)
EM. Probably for the same budgetary reasons, and/or an oversight at the time.
By the time of TNG more thought had been given to them and so, given a bigger budget, someone may have thought; why not give the Romulans something to really hate their Vulcan Brethren over - their lack of ridges.
It was an oversight? No, I don't think so.
Well, you asked for opinions. What do you think it was? Someone said; Romulans cannot have ridges, the Klingons will someday have them?
No, that was a rhetorical question. Such a big deal was made about Klingon ridges, to the point that ENT came up with a ridiculous series of episodes about Klingon Augments. Thank goodness we don't have to go through a similar story about Romulan ridges, now that the Prime Universe has been dumped. A lot of fans are so literal-minded that it just sucks the fun out of Star Trek, as far as I'm concerned. Why does everything need an in-universe explanation?
Well, Brother, we reach. 
I agree. if it was supposed to be a reboot, there was no point to having Spock Prime at all. His scenes should have been cut.
But if its supposed to be an alternate timeline, then we didn't get that film, either. Too many unforgivable ret-cons of events that occur prior to the events of the Kelvin, which by definition should match the Prime universe.
As a movie-going fan, I enjoyed the movie. Great flick, good for popcorn. I watched it again just the other day, and was thoroughly entertained.
As a Trekkie, Star Trek '09 was a facepalm.
The film ends up being one of two things: Either A) an alternate timeline, in which case everything prior to the Narada exiting the black hole is supposed to be 100% identical to the TOS we know and love (with the exception of CGI/make-up upgrades) but it isn't, its been changed significantly; or B) A reboot, in which case things are changed for the better, such as the size of ships, their crew compliments, and their technological abilities, but yet the Spock we know and love somehow comes back in time anyway.
I would have been happy with an alternate timeline. I would have been happy with a reboot. The problem is that we got NEITHER.
Not really.
Care to elaborate? Because that's exactly what I saw on the big screen. Please offer a counter-point.
Excellent post. This is one of the problems I got with what JJ made, he said it was just an alternate time line, but there's so much against that. Same with this reboot stuff...though it feels more like a reboot than merely a different time line. I really feel someone else should have made this film. I mean he's the same guy who made Lost, and trying to figure that show out can cause a headache.
Surely there could have been someone better, more capable of making a film both the general audiences and Trek fans could have enjoyed. I think they just got JJ to do it, mainly for the fact they got some big shot to make the film....you know, like how they get such and such and such celebs to be in a film ot TV show, just because such and such celeb is in it, regardless if the film or TV show was horrible. I know folks who'll go see stuff because of that.
Me: How was _________?<----- Insert name of film of TV show here.
Friend: Sucked, I kinda knew it would be bad. I don't even like ________ type of films.
Me: Than why'd you see it?
Friend: Because ________ was in it!
Me:
Started to read the blog but couldn't make it past the third sentence of that tired shit, sorry. This guy takes himself very seriously, and I can't be bothered.
Oh, and I don't really give a crap about the reboot/alternate universe stuff - it was just a great Star Trek movie.
Watched part of Abrams's movie this morning - a friend was demonstrating their new home theatre system. Loved the system, loved the movie, can't wait for the next one.
Oh, and I don't really give a crap about the reboot/alternate universe stuff - it was just a great Star Trek movie.
Watched part of Abrams's movie this morning - a friend was demonstrating their new home theatre system. Loved the system, loved the movie, can't wait for the next one.
Speaking of LOST, the scene where the Kelvin launches into the Narada and the shuttles are escaping screams LOST to me. The music, the tone, the emotion, shoot I think he just lifted the score straight from the TV show. It kinda took me out of the film. I thought for a second that there was going to be some kind of flashback or that Jack was going to make out with Kate or something.I mean he's the same guy who made Lost, and trying to figure that show out can cause a headache.
Regardless of the response some hard core fans have had to this movie, I'm very grateful it was made. Star Trek was dead as a franchise. The only person who watched the reruns and DVDs with me was my husband. I only had 2 friends I could talk Trek with.
When this movie came out, a lot of people were excited. Excited! Suddenly people were talking Trek. I was even talking Trek with people at work. I never dreamed I'd see that happen!
This movie made Star Trek accessible. People realized Trek could be fun and entertaining...I couldn't believe so many people were unaware of this! Some of the young people I've spoken with were even moved to give the some of the TV shows a chance because of this movie.
I just can't see this as a bad thing.
When this movie came out, a lot of people were excited. Excited! Suddenly people were talking Trek. I was even talking Trek with people at work. I never dreamed I'd see that happen!
This movie made Star Trek accessible. People realized Trek could be fun and entertaining...I couldn't believe so many people were unaware of this! Some of the young people I've spoken with were even moved to give the some of the TV shows a chance because of this movie.
I just can't see this as a bad thing.
number6
Vice Admiral
Isn't that what we call "proving a negative"?
I look at it this way: this is an alternate timeline of an alternate timeline. In timeline one, we get a progression -- more or less -- from "The Cage" in TOS through "All Good Things" in TNG and then Generations. Then, in First Contact, 1701-E goes back in time chasing the Borg and allows Zephram Cochrane and Lily Sloane to see advanced starship designs. Sloane crawled around in one and saw model representations of others. These clues probably gave Cochrane enough information to make small improvements to his original concepts. This then leads to an altered timeline that at least goes through Star Trek: Enterprise, which featured a larger, possibly more advanced starship than may have existed at that time originally. Archer's mission might never have been, and the whole Temporal Cold War may have been started by a misunderstanding of the events in First Contact.
This new timeline would have continued to develop in the 23rd century in a manner probably very much like that seen in TOS, although the ships would continue to be larger and more advanced. NX-01, after refit to NX-01.5 with a secondary hull and other refinements, might have delayed the production of Constitution-class starships. But ultimately, the Enterprise might still have been crewed by Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc.
But twenty years before that, Nero and the Narada came from the future and nailed the Kelvin, creating the second divergence from the original timeline. Where then does Spock-Prime come from? It's tempting to say he comes from the original timeline, but he recognized a man as Montgomery Scott who clearly looked nothing like Scotty. So I'm happy to shrug my shoulders and go along with the idea that Spock-Prime actually hails from Archer's future, not the future we've already seen.
Another pet theory of mine is that Chekov in this alternate timeline isn't the same Chekov from the original show. In the original show, Chekov was much younger than his crewmates, but in Trek '09, the difference didn't look as great. I suspect his parents got together a bit earlier and Pavel was born sooner. I actually prefer Trek '09's Chekov. With all due respect to Mr. Koenig, Yeltzin's Chekov seems so much more Russian.
number6
Vice Admiral
No. I am referring to the mental gymnastics on exercises in trying to invent some back story to justify a random artistic choice, instead of accepting it as such, or inventing some kind of conspiracy theory based on quotes taken out of context to justify their hatred of something they don't "agree" with.
Similar threads
