SPOILERS!!! NEW AICN RUMORS (APRIL 30)

[Anticitizen]

My one real question here is...How does Nero showing up from the Prime Time line and creating an alternate history manage to transform K. Noonian Singh from an ethic character to someone looking like they strolled off Abbey Road? Nero showing up as he did should have no affect on KNS who launched from earth in 1996. It's just not possible. How are they going to explain this?

The more sense you try to make out of NuTrek, the less sense it will make. It's popcorn fare and will not hold up to scrutiny. It's about as deep or structured as 'Independence Day'.

Like Independence Day, you'll have fun watching it, and while you're driving home from the theater, you'll suddenly realize that it was silly and didn't make any sense. And then you'll remember when Trek was good, and you'll feel sad.

Want to shock your senses? Try to picture Shatner's Kirk in the new film, with the same lines, scenes, etc in place. I GOT YOUR GUN, LOL! Or perhaps running around the Enterprise with Giant Wacky Hands, accidentally tit-grabbing Uhura.

I would have preferred a shot-for-shot remake of Spock's Brain. Not The Way to Eden, though, that was shit.

 

[F. King Daniel]

My one real question here is...How does Nero showing up from the Prime Time line and creating an alternate history manage to transform K. Noonian Singh from an ethic character to someone looking like they strolled off Abbey Road? Nero showing up as he did should have no affect on KNS who launched from earth in 1996. It's just not possible. How are they going to explain this?

Probably the same way they explained Zefram Cochrane's transformation between "Metamorphosis" and "First Contact". Or Saavik's between "Wrath of Khan" and "Search for Spock".
Or how Khan's followers transformed into an all-white, blond-haired group in "Wrath of Khan" despite them looking totally different in "Space Seed"

Want to shock your senses? Try to picture Shatner's Kirk in the new film, with the same lines, scenes, etc in place. I GOT YOUR GUN, LOL! Or perhaps running around the Enterprise with Giant Wacky Hands, accidentally tit-grabbing Uhura.

I can see Shatner doing all of that, no problem.

 

[Devon]

Like Independence Day, you'll have fun watching it, and while you're driving home from the theater, you'll suddenly realize that it was silly and didn't make any sense.

No.

How are they going to explain this?

They aren't, nor is there any reasonable need to. Remember, 90% of the movie going audience are NOT going to have any idea who Khan was, so why would it matter to them? But if Cumberbatch through his ACTING, not still spy pics that were leaked on the interwebs, can convince you that he is Khan then it really makes no difference.

 

[UFO]

I've always admired the morale fiber of the original characters, it's one of the things causing me to be a fan of the series but most people, and this may be why original Trek had such a limited following, (compared to other shows) most people do not believe their near perfect personas were realistic.

That moral fibre is definitely missing from STXI. I'm grateful to you for bringing it up. Its one of the things fans of the latest offering have to ignore in order to believe that NuTrek is just TOS in more stylish clothing. In actual fact the current moviemakers have traded in an optimistic view of the future for a few pretty sordid peeks at the present or even the past. They say dirt sells and that may have more to do with it than Kirk and co being too perfect or unrealistic in terms of what’s possible.

Does anyone here honestly believe we're really going to evolve into a species like that? I used to hope so but hey, I faced facts, (thanks to the internet ;-) things are not getting better. Nutrek says to me, and most of the "new" fans, we're going to make it to the future but Human Nature is what it is and will continue to be so.

We don't need to evolve into that species. We already are that species, at least in terms of hardware anyway. Granted we could use a few tweeks in that department no doubt, but there is massive room for improvement in socialisation, the software if you will. We don't like to look at ourselves in those terms yet and that more than anything else is holding back such development. I would disagree to some degree about us not getting better. We have a much better understanding of what is fair and just than we often had in the past. Sure, in some ways we are worse, or appear to be, but that can be fixed if we want to. So far we don't.

Original Trek was eventually labeled "The Human Adventure". Bullcrap. I see now that those characters were only barely human. They did exhibit a few human characteristics but really, were they as Human as Nutrek characters? McCoy excepted, I think not. I do think the Nucharacter flaws are big percentage of why so many more of the general population has embraced NuTrek.

The last part is sad but probably true. However science fiction is not supposed to show us the way we already are. As you say, we can look online for that. It's supposed to be a window on how we might change in other environments and situations. True, there have to be some points of connection between the characters in a movie and the audience, but I don't think it was necessary to degrade ST in that fashion.

More generally its easy to be pessimistic, but that doesn't mean we are right to be so. I never saw TOS characters as too perfect, merely examples of some of the better humans now, and within a couple of centuries, the way most could easily be. Keep the faith, there are enough people already who don't appear to even see that side of Star Trek (or at least don't miss it).

 

[Trekkie2]

My one real question here is...How does Nero showing up from the Prime Time line and creating an alternate history manage to transform K. Noonian Singh from an ethic character to someone looking like they strolled off Abbey Road? Nero showing up as he did should have no affect on KNS who launched from earth in 1996. It's just not possible. How are they going to explain this?

Freezer burn. That or Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson overbleached.

The real question is why it won't be a Wrath of Khan. Someone picked him up. The Romulans (who knew about the past) before they were caught by the Klingons? The Klingons who picked up the Romulans (who knew about the past) and surely would gotten the information out of one of them. That information would be relayed to Khan that he was overpowered by lesser people who left him to rule a sandcastle in the middle of nowhere.

 

[JRoss]

This is really terrible news. I could be proven wrong, but I have a bad feeling about this movie now.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Like Independence Day, you'll have fun watching it, and while you're driving home from the theater, you'll suddenly realize that it was silly and didn't make any sense.

No.

Anticitizen had a very different experience watching the first Abrams movie than most filmgoers did.

As for Shatner - I can imagine him doing almost anything that's intended to be funny, including most anything in ST 2009, but it doesn't matter anyway; I was more than ready for him to be replaced.

 

[Trekkie2]

I think the most unbecoming scene and the one that made Shatner look repulsive was, in fact, when he screamed Khan. I look away every single time......

....and I won't be reading any response from someone who feels the need to add that picture or scene.

 

[Franklin]

The more sense you try to make out of NuTrek, the less sense it will make. It's popcorn fare and will not hold up to scrutiny. It's about as deep or structured as 'Independence Day'.

Actually, that ANY Trek in ANY form holds up to ANY scrutiny ANY more when it's all dissected and analyzed like it's Shakespeare is amazing.

I mean, since when have salt monsters, green-skinned beauties, smooth and/or bumpy foreheaded Klingons, omniscient beings, V-gers, transporters, warp drive, gravity plates, and ANY of that other stuff really held up to scrutiny?

 

[Franklin]

I think the most unbecoming scene and the one that made Shatner look repulsive was, in fact, when he screamed Khan. I look away every single time......

....and I won't be reading any response from someone who feels the need to add that picture or scene.

Excuse the double post if I've followed my own.

You know, now that you've mentioned it, it always seemed like an awkward moment to me because the reaction seemed out of character for Kirk, and because Kirk knew the Enterprise would be back for him.
So as I thought about it, in context, I took the line as almost tongue-in-cheek. Kirk wants to make Khan feel he's finally got him. So, Kirk ovesells his reaction to being "stranded" to make Khan believe he's won. Tongue in cheek? Because there's Shatner, so often accused of overacting, deliberately overacting in delivering this line as pure melodrama. I also thought the way the line was shot accentuated that melodrama. It was trying to get the audience to think, "Uh-oh."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54[/yt]

This may be the most remembered, widely-seen shot in Shatner's entire career.

 

[horatio83]

As expected the eternal repetition of the same, a Khan hattrick, and the franchise is still deeply continuity obsessed. On the other hand Cumberbatch is a great actor and his Khan will most likely be far superior to the pathetic copies Shinzon and Nero.

 

[Trekkie2]

I think the most unbecoming scene and the one that made Shatner look repulsive was, in fact, when he screamed Khan. I look away every single time......

....and I won't be reading any response from someone who feels the need to add that picture or scene.

Excuse the double post if I've followed my own.

You know, now that you've mentioned it, it always seemed like an awkward moment to me because the reaction seemed out of character for Kirk, and because Kirk knew the Enterprise would be back for him.
So as I thought about it, in context, I took the line as almost tongue-in-cheek. Kirk wants to make Khan feel he's finally got him. So, Kirk ovesells his reaction to being "stranded" to make Khan believe he's won. Tongue in cheek? Because there's Shatner, so often accused of overacting, deliberately overacting in delivering this line as pure melodrama. I also thought the way the line was shot accentuated that melodrama. It was trying to get the audience to think, "Uh-oh."

That's probably why I turn away. It's just pathetically overacted.

 

[Franklin]

I think the most unbecoming scene and the one that made Shatner look repulsive was, in fact, when he screamed Khan. I look away every single time......

....and I won't be reading any response from someone who feels the need to add that picture or scene.

Excuse the double post if I've followed my own.

You know, now that you've mentioned it, it always seemed like an awkward moment to me because the reaction seemed out of character for Kirk, and because Kirk knew the Enterprise would be back for him.
So as I thought about it, in context, I took the line as almost tongue-in-cheek. Kirk wants to make Khan feel he's finally got him. So, Kirk ovesells his reaction to being "stranded" to make Khan believe he's won. Tongue in cheek? Because there's Shatner, so often accused of overacting, deliberately overacting in delivering this line as pure melodrama. I also thought the way the line was shot accentuated that melodrama. It was trying to get the audience to think, "Uh-oh."

That's probably why I turn away. It's just pathetically overacted.

Exactly. But I think it was done deliberately so. For Khan. Somewhat for the audience behind the fourth wall. Really selling it, so to speak.
After all, just a few minutes later, as everyone seems to be resigned to their fate and talking about no-win scenarios, Kirk is calmly eating a piece of fruit. He's just biding his time until the Enterprise is back within transporter range. There was no real danger to merit even a well-acted and sincere exclamation of, "Khaaaaaaaaaan!" So, it's a cringe-inducing moment, espeically on subsequent viewings.

 

[Saul]

My one real question here is...How does Nero showing up from the Prime Time line and creating an alternate history manage to transform K. Noonian Singh from an ethic character to someone looking like they strolled off Abbey Road? Nero showing up as he did should have no affect on KNS who launched from earth in 1996. It's just not possible. How are they going to explain this?

To answer that you'd need to tell me why the events in 'Star Trek Enterprise', Borg encounter, Xindi attack that killed 7 million, future technologies etc had no effect on the rest of Star Trek continuity while the destruction of one starship in Trek 09 did.

 

[starburst]

Simple, it always happened that way. Its like watching the Back to the Future films, massive changes after the first trip to 1955 but nothing after the second.

The Xindi attack may have always been a part of the 22nd Century, the Borg however is a little bit of a problem as the Enterprise saw an Assimilated Earth and followed the Sphere back in time.

 

[Dukhat]

My one real question here is...How does Nero showing up from the Prime Time line and creating an alternate history manage to transform K. Noonian Singh from an ethic character to someone looking like they strolled off Abbey Road? Nero showing up as he did should have no affect on KNS who launched from earth in 1996. It's just not possible. How are they going to explain this?

You wanna hear something funny? Bruce Greenwood looks and acts nothing like Jeffrey Hunter. And yet I can't recall reading a single post (even from the Abrams-haters), that complained about this, or even tried to make any kind of comparison between the two. Do you know why? Because Greenwood is a good actor, and he made the role his own, and we all accepted it. So why can't we accept this? (Unless Cumberbatch is a shit actor, which I have no idea about because I've never seen him in anything).

But that's beside the fact. I personally don't believe for a minute that Cumberbatch is playing Khan anyway. I think it's all BS, because that's what most of the information on the internet is made up of, and I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it until my ass is in that theater seat in 2013.

And then, if this unsubstantiated rumor turns out to be true? Then I'll say "whoops," and continue on with my life.

 

[Joerib]

My one real question here is...How does Nero showing up from the Prime Time line and creating an alternate history manage to transform K. Noonian Singh from an ethic character to someone looking like they strolled off Abbey Road? Nero showing up as he did should have no affect on KNS who launched from earth in 1996. It's just not possible. How are they going to explain this?

You wanna hear something funny? Bruce Greenwood looks and acts nothing like Jeffrey Hunter. And yet I can't recall reading a single post (even from the Abrams-haters), that complained about this, or even tried to make any kind of comparison between the two. Do you know why? Because Greenwood is a good actor, and he made the role his own, and we all accepted it. So why can't we accept this? (Unless Cumberbatch is a shit actor, which I have no idea about because I've never seen him in anything).

But that's beside the fact. I personally don't believe for a minute that Cumberbatch is playing Khan anyway. I think it's all BS, because that's what most of the information on the internet is made up of, and I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it until my ass is in that theater seat in 2013.

And then, if this unsubstantiated rumor turns out to be true? Then I'll say "whoops," and continue on with my life.

I think its BS also!!! I would be shocked if it was true but I am still going to see it!!

 

[Enterprise is Great]

if TrekMovie.com confirmed it then it's 99.9% for sure a sure thing.

 

[shapeshifter]

I've always admired the morale fiber of the original characters, it's one of the things causing me to be a fan of the series but most people, and this may be why original Trek had such a limited following, (compared to other shows) most people do not believe their near perfect personas were realistic.

That moral fibre is definitely missing from STXI. I'm grateful to you for bringing it up. Its one of the things fans of the latest offering have to ignore in order to believe that NuTrek is just TOS in more stylish clothing. In actual fact the current moviemakers have traded in an optimistic view of the future for a few pretty sordid peeks at the present or even the past. They say dirt sells and that may have more to do with it than Kirk and co being too perfect or unrealistic in terms of what’s possible.

I totally get what you're saying. Unfortunately I can offer no solution. None of us are in creative control, no say what-so-ever. Even boycotting won't help if they continue to make popular to mainstream moviegoers put their butts in seats at the level the last one did. All I can say is what I've said to others in the past once Trek had crossed whatever line it did which pissed them off; make the choice of either letting it go and continue in fandom or check out in bitterness. I've always chosen the former, hope you do too. Btw, I cannot stand the new design of the Enterprise!

Does anyone here honestly believe we're really going to evolve into a species like that? I used to hope so but hey, I faced facts, (thanks to the internet ;-) things are not getting better. Nutrek says to me, and most of the "new" fans, we're going to make it to the future but Human Nature is what it is and will continue to be so.

We don't need to evolve into that species. We already are that species, at least in terms of hardware anyway. Granted we could use a few tweeks in that department no doubt, but there is massive room for improvement in socialisation, the software if you will. We don't like to look at ourselves in those terms yet and that more than anything else is holding back such development. I would disagree to some degree about us not getting better. We have a much better understanding of what is fair and just than we often had in the past. Sure, in some ways we are worse, or appear to be, but that can be fixed if we want to. So far we don't.

I see what you mean about our being that species, poor choice of words on my part. Yes, agreed, our software is where the flaw lies. I believe and agree with the NuCreative folks whom seem to have, for whatever reason, concluded these characters should still suffer from these human flaws.

Original Trek was eventually labeled "The Human Adventure". Bullcrap. I see now that those characters were only barely human. They did exhibit a few human characteristics but really, were they as Human as Nutrek characters? McCoy excepted, I think not. I do think the Nucharacter flaws are big percentage of why so many more of the general population has embraced NuTrek.

The last part is sad but probably true. However science fiction is not supposed to show us the way we already are. As you say, we can look online for that. It's supposed to be a window on how we might change in other environments and situations. True, there have to be some points of connection between the characters in a movie and the audience, but I don't think it was necessary to degrade ST in that fashion.

Original Trek was a window, Nutrek uses a mirror. I don't know what level of contact you have with the World out there but in my experience it's a freaking madhouse! I definitely see a degradation going on. Manners and respect or regard for others is at an all time low. More people than ever would just as soon step on or run over anyone/thing in their way, without looking back. And the web - have you been to any non or little moderated sites? Don't. These are some of the things which make a future like Trek, or even more flawed Nutrek, seem impossible to attain yet there it is, we do it despite our destructive nature. That's still Star Trek to me.