Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv series?

[Sindatur]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

<star wars, wolverine, sabertooth, x-men nonsense snipped>

Not to be mean or rude because I say this with respect.

Can you fan boys listen to logic/reason and accept the facts for once instead of trying to make excuses for how bad the star wars prequels and the wolverine movie was.

I hope star trek does not fall into the same trap .the 09 film is set in an alternate reality, the chances of limited possibilities. There should be no reason why the events should turn out like they did in TOS.

Captain Demotion does have a point about the "Not to be mean or rude because I say this with respect" lead-in to "Can you fan boys listen to logic/reason and accept the facts for once".

That aside, haven't I also pointed out to you on more than one occasion that the proper place for discussions of non-Star Trek science fiction/fantasy material is the Science Fiction and Fantasy forum? Not only were you being rude and lecturing people about what you think they ought to accept, but you're going on at length about stuff which has nothing at all to do with either the thread topic or the forum topic.

Take it all to SF&F and start a thread about it there if you're so interested in getting ranty about Padme's broken heart, Anakin's virgin birth, "OB1", Wolverine and the rest, but I'd like to see that stop right now in this forum, please. It's off-topic and doesn't belong here.

Thak you M'Sharak

I wasn’t really talking about Star Wars or X-Men, I was simply using those series to point out how inconsistencies and plot holes can ruin a film series and why star trek 2013 must avoid such mistakes.

I will try not to talk about star wars or x-men next time. I genuinely dont mean to be rude but I am sick and tired of passionate fans getting angry at those who criticise a film series they worship and can find no fault in. Popular culture uses the term 'fan boys' and 'fan girls' to describe this people.

However I wont use such terms on this board to describe people again since some find it offensive.

Generally, it's not finding fault with a specific Series or movie that generates rage, it's the way that fault is put forward in a manner that implies one must be an idiot not to see how obviously wrong they are for liking that Series or Movie and not agreeing with you. I find oftentimes, if you merely present a fault in a respectful manner, even lovers of that Series or Film will often agree that, that is indeed a flaw, but, that goes out the window when it's related in a manner implying if they disagree with you, there is something wrong with them.

 

[1bulma1]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

Captain Demotion does have a point about the "Not to be mean or rude because I say this with respect" lead-in to "Can you fan boys listen to logic/reason and accept the facts for once".

That aside, haven't I also pointed out to you on more than one occasion that the proper place for discussions of non-Star Trek science fiction/fantasy material is the Science Fiction and Fantasy forum? Not only were you being rude and lecturing people about what you think they ought to accept, but you're going on at length about stuff which has nothing at all to do with either the thread topic or the forum topic.

Take it all to SF&F and start a thread about it there if you're so interested in getting ranty about Padme's broken heart, Anakin's virgin birth, "OB1", Wolverine and the rest, but I'd like to see that stop right now in this forum, please. It's off-topic and doesn't belong here.

Thak you M'Sharak

I wasn’t really talking about Star Wars or X-Men, I was simply using those series to point out how inconsistencies and plot holes can ruin a film series and why star trek 2013 must avoid such mistakes.

I will try not to talk about star wars or x-men next time. I genuinely dont mean to be rude but I am sick and tired of passionate fans getting angry at those who criticise a film series they worship and can find no fault in. Popular culture uses the term 'fan boys' and 'fan girls' to describe this people.

However I wont use such terms on this board to describe people again since some find it offensive.

Generally, it's not finding fault with a specific Series or movie that generates rage, it's the way that fault is put forward in a manner that implies one must be an idiot not to see how obviously wrong they are for liking that Series or Movie and not agreeing with you. I find oftentimes, if you merely present a fault in a respectful manner, even lovers of that Series or Film will often agree that, that is indeed a flaw, but, that goes out the window when it's related in a manner implying if they disagree with you, there is something wrong with them.

see that what I disagree with, some film series are just plain awful. Examples of this are the twilight films and the transformers trilogy.we know of how terrible they are based on their critical reception especially on trusted sites like rotten tomatoes and metacrtic.

When a movie is a 26/100 on rotten tomatoes, people respectfully point out the reason why the movie got mostly negative reviews and the diehard fans losses it and go into rage mode.

Gladly Star Trek 2009 despite some Trekkies given it cold shoulder won critical praise.

It’s an 83/100 ON METATCRITIC

A 95/100 on ROTTEN TOMATOES

An 8/10 on IMDB

TOTAL film Magazine named it the best science fiction film of the last decade.

It got 4 Oscar nominations with 1 win

Star Trek 2009 is a critical acclaimed film only a small minority thinks it sucks. I can't say this for other films.

My only wish is that the 2013 film has the same critical praise as the 09 film and if there are avoidable inconsistencies in the plot ths wont be possible.

I know film studios are all about Quantity aka making money but as a star trek and general movie fan its all about the critical reception aka the quality of the film.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

[
I will try not to talk about star wars or x-men next time. I genuinely dont mean to be rude but I am sick and tired of passionate fans getting angry at those who criticise a film series they worship and can find no fault in. Popular culture uses the term 'fan boys' and 'fan girls' to describe this people.

I responded to your original post in a courteous and civil manner. I'm not sure where or how you could have found any passion or anger in my response. Nor did I claim to worship either SW or the X-Men movies. For one thing, I pointed out the inconsistency in the manner Sabretooth was portrayed and depicted. I just happen to think that the other issues you raised can be interpreted in a manner which allows the prequels and sequels to be reconciled and viewed as consistent with each other.

This is a board where people discuss movies and tv shows. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they're angry with you; merely that they have a different view of things. If you want to have your views totally endorsed and supported at all times, you'd be better not engaging in this sort of forum. The only person showing anger and passion was you.

However I wont use such terms on this board to describe people again since some find it offensive.

I think you'll find that most people would find being called a fanboy offensive. But at least you're learning.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I couldn't care less what Rotten Tomatoes Total Film or any other reviewer thinks. I only care about my enjoyment of a film. Many movies recieved tepid reviews upon release, yet have gone on to be regarded as classics. Like Wrath of Khan.

Wrath of Khan, which is packed with inconsistancies vs. Space Seed. Khan's skin colour? All his followers becoming suddenly younger, all white and blonde? The insignia on Khan's necklace being of a type introduced in Wrath of Khan, when Space Seed had only sewn-on patches?

And, despite these inconsistancies and unimpressive reviews upon release, Wrath of Khan is now considered great.

 

[1bulma1]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I couldn't care less what Rotten Tomatoes Total Film or any other reviewer thinks. I only care about my enjoyment of a film. Many movies recieved tepid reviews upon release, yet have gone on to be regarded as classics. Like Wrath of Khan.

Wrath of Khan, which is packed with inconsistancies vs. Space Seed. Khan's skin colour? All his followers becoming suddenly younger, all white and blonde? The insignia on Khan's necklace being of a type introduced in Wrath of Khan, when Space Seed had only sewn-on patches?

And, despite these inconsistancies and unimpressive reviews upon release, Wrath of Khan is now considered great.

I know most dont care about the critical reception of a film. its all aou how much money it makes. Unfortunately critical reception matters. We all want star trek 2013 to be very successful and not just as the box office.

It will suck if Star Trek makes 500 million dollars worldwide and gets to be listed as one of the worst movies of the year or we all become embarrassed by it in 10 years.

I have no doubt that Star Trek 2013 will be terrific. I completely trust JJ Abrams. He is like Christopher Nolan those guys have not made a crappy movie yet

 

[Gojira]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

As a reboot concept, it occured to me that in a lot of ways (sans the obvious removal of a certain canon home planet ) the Trek '09 reboot could quite comfortably fit as a prequel to the film series, rather than anything to do with the TOS television show. I really felt that if every episode of TOS suddenly fell into a wormhole and were gone forever, you could still theoretically watch Trek '09 (and it's eventual sequels) before popping in TMP, and not actually lose anything in terms of it being contradictory. Sure, the reboot NCC-1701 looks bigger and more blingy than that seen in TMP/TWOK/TSFS, but you could easily justify that as being a trend towards refitted starships being smaller and more ergonomic. Decker does say in TMP that following the refit "this is an almost entitely new Enterprise". Perhaps it only looks less advanced than the reboot version, a change of style rather than it being a step back in technological terms. Little touches like Pike wearing a TMP admirals uniform at the end of Trek '09 would help to solidify the links between it and the succeeding movies, bypassing the series entirely.

In some ways I do hope that the announcement of [a certain returning villain] for the next sequel is still played in a loosely confined fashion. If done correctly, they might still, theoretically, be able to make it 'fit' with the subsequent events seen in later films, while still contradicting other parts of his first appearance.

Before the 09 movie came out I was hoping that it would fit in nicely with the TOS movies but too many things happened to where it doesn't fit with the previous TOS movies.

 

[Gojira]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I couldn't care less what Rotten Tomatoes Total Film or any other reviewer thinks. I only care about my enjoyment of a film. Many movies recieved tepid reviews upon release, yet have gone on to be regarded as classics. Like Wrath of Khan.

Wrath of Khan, which is packed with inconsistancies vs. Space Seed. Khan's skin colour? All his followers becoming suddenly younger, all white and blonde? The insignia on Khan's necklace being of a type introduced in Wrath of Khan, when Space Seed had only sewn-on patches?

And, despite these inconsistancies and unimpressive reviews upon release, Wrath of Khan is now considered great.

I often think that a majority of inconsistencies in movies/shows can be logically explained. For those that cannot be explained then I usually do not get upset about them.

I also wondered about the young members of Khan's posse. At first I thought they might be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V but then I realized that they were exiled only 15 years previously and since many of the members of Khan's group looked to be in their early 20s I realized they were too old to be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I couldn't care less what Rotten Tomatoes Total Film or any other reviewer thinks. I only care about my enjoyment of a film. Many movies recieved tepid reviews upon release, yet have gone on to be regarded as classics. Like Wrath of Khan.

Wrath of Khan, which is packed with inconsistancies vs. Space Seed. Khan's skin colour? All his followers becoming suddenly younger, all white and blonde? The insignia on Khan's necklace being of a type introduced in Wrath of Khan, when Space Seed had only sewn-on patches?

And, despite these inconsistancies and unimpressive reviews upon release, Wrath of Khan is now considered great.

I often think that a majority of inconsistencies in movies/shows can be logically explained. For those that cannot be explained then I usually do not get upset about them.

I also wondered about the young members of Khan's posse. At first I thought they might be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V but then I realized that they were exiled only 15 years previously and since many of the members of Khan's group looked to be in their early 20s I realized they were too old to be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V.

All that sand blowing around all the time, was like getting a sand blast facial every day, and this caused them to look much more youthful then they actually were It also, due to the chemical makeup of it, caused their hair to bleach out

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I also wondered about the young members of Khan's posse. At first I thought they might be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V but then I realized that they were exiled only 15 years previously and since many of the members of Khan's group looked to be in their early 20s I realized they were too old to be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V.

Greg Cox's "To Reign in Hell" novel, the third in his "Khan" trilogy, comes up with a satisfying solution: the Eugenics supermen age to puberty quicker that regular humans. The young blond people we see are the offspring of Khan's multi-racial "Space Seed" followers - but without Eugenics tinkering, there is an unexpected throwback effect to the Aryan DNA used to create the original supermen. ST II's Joachim (Judson Scott) is the son of Khan's right hand man from "Space Seed", Joaquin (dark-haired Mark Tobin).

 

[Lance]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I couldn't care less what Rotten Tomatoes Total Film or any other reviewer thinks. I only care about my enjoyment of a film. Many movies recieved tepid reviews upon release, yet have gone on to be regarded as classics. Like Wrath of Khan.

I agree with this sentiment. The irony of Star Trek to me is that my initial opinions are often in contrast to what others think about certain episodes or films in the series. I can distinctly remember having enjoyed Nemesis a lot when it came out in theatres back in 2002, and even today on some level it doesn’t matter a tinker’s cuss to me whether Joe Public (or even Joe Reviewer) said they didn’t like it, or whether the film has got high box office success or was a flop. What matters to me if how much *I* enjoy a film.

I was all set to be turned against Trek 2009 on principal. I didn’t even waste my money going to see it in cinemas at the time. But I eventually caught up with it on a trip home to the UK, sitting in a plane for several hours. It seemed like a decent way to kill time, and I came out of it impressed with what was done. I knew, of course, that the film had come to public acclaim, but all that mattered to me, sitting there in the seat of the plane, was that I was tempted to watch it again straight away. That’s the only barometer by which to judge a film. It doesn’t honestly matter to me what other people may think about it, or how much money it made (or didnt make) at the Box Office, or whatever.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

TSFS messes up the idea that the J.J. Abrams movies are prequels to the earlier installments. Out of respect to their old planet, you'd think the Vulcans would refer to their new home as New Vulcan.

I live in New England. If something happened to England (and I hope not), I'd still be living in New England. It would never be called England, like New York would never be called York.

And I'd find it boring if the new movies led into the first six. I'd rather not know what's going to happen next to these characters.

 

[Kelthaz]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

Out of respect to their old planet, you'd think the Vulcans would refer to their new home as New Vulcan.

That would be quite illogical.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

Wouldn't they want to acknowledge that there was a homeworld they lived on before the one they'll migrate to?

Explain why it would be logical it ignore their own past.

Upthread, you actually agree with me. You don't want the new movies to follow the same path as the old, and neither do I. Passing off the new planet they'd be living on as just plain old "Vulcan" is following the same path as the old.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

TSFS messes up the idea that the J.J. Abrams movies are prequels to the earlier installments. Out of respect to their old planet, you'd think the Vulcans would refer to their new home as New Vulcan.

Vulcan also appeared in TMP, though I can't remember if was specifically referred to as Vulcan (pretty sure it wasn't called New Vulcan).

I can't remember the Kohlinaru scene too clearly but I think there may have been some reference to this being the land of their ancestors or something like that.

 

[Gojira]

Re: Trek '09 -- a prequel to the other movies, rather than the tv seri

I also wondered about the young members of Khan's posse. At first I thought they might be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V but then I realized that they were exiled only 15 years previously and since many of the members of Khan's group looked to be in their early 20s I realized they were too old to be the children of the core group that got exiled on Ceti Alpha V.

Greg Cox's "To Reign in Hell" novel, the third in his "Khan" trilogy, comes up with a satisfying solution: the Eugenics supermen age to puberty quicker that regular humans. The young blond people we see are the offspring of Khan's multi-racial "Space Seed" followers - but without Eugenics tinkering, there is an unexpected throwback effect to the Aryan DNA used to create the original supermen. ST II's Joachim (Judson Scott) is the son of Khan's right hand man from "Space Seed", Joaquin (dark-haired Mark Tobin).

That sounds plausible. I can accept that.