All right, enough. Argue the points, but if that can't be managed without taking petty swipes at each other, then take it to PM or take it off-board altogether. It doesn't belong here.
Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.
- Thread starter Cara007
- Start date
And that's not to mention the fan rage against Voyager and Enterprise and (to a slightly lesser extent) DS9 on television.
Let's face it - a very small but very vocal minority of Trek fans has always instinctively hated the "Trek of the moment" no matter what it was, simply because it wasn't the "Trek they were familiar and comfortable with" - whether that be TOS, TNG, etc.
Personally I've been a Trek fan since TOS, and I think the last two movies were among the best. And one of the nicest things - with both Trek (09) and STID, I saw them in a theater full of moviegoers who loved it, cheered the crew on and enjoyed every moment of the film. There was applause at the end credits.
Contrast that with Nemesis or Insurrection, which I saw (on the opening weekend) in near-empty theaters and slunk out afterwards basically embarrassed to be seen at the Star Trek movie.
I loved TMP. I saw it five times in the theatre, and on two of those occasions I'd dragged my family along, plus some of my grandmother's friends (my grandmother was a William Shatner fan). I do feel a bit sorry for the fans who have never seen this movie as it was meant to be seen - on a big theatre screen. The experience is completely different from seeing it on TV.
Thank you for clarifying. For some reason I recalled it as being one of the other Voyager probes, but yeah, it's even worse for them to destroy one of the Pioneer ones... I know I'm anthropomorphizing, but I feel some degree of affection for those probes, traveling so far from earth and being so lonely out there without even a single scrap of contact with Earth.
I guess a lot of audience members didn't realize they were supposed to be angry. I remember feeling appalled at how some people thought it was a huge joke. But then I guess they hadn't read Carl Sagan's books and articles about these probes and how much time and effort went into designing them, making them work, and getting them launched - never mind actually getting all that lovely data back.
Robin Curtis' Saavik... sweet???
I thought she had all the appeal of a piece of cardboard... no personality whatsoever, whereas Kirstie Alley's Saavik was an actual, relatable character. But regardless of the actress, Saavik's part in the movie trilogy continued on seamlessly from movie to movie. The only real WTF moment came in TVH, when they're on Vulcan, it's three months later, and only then is Saavik getting around to mentioning to Kirk that his son saved her life and died bravely. She couldn't have spared a minute to tell him that before?
Pioneer 10 shrieking in agony upon being struck by blaster fire was both anthropomorphic and comical. The probe being hard to hit was also comical, as was Klaa's targeting scope. The scene was infuriating, because of its high level of banality, like most of STV.
Yep. Always my experience - and the same people are often more forgiving as the next new Trek comes along. I know people who deflected their initial resistance to TNG into hatred for DS9. It doesn't say much for fans' ability to embrace IDIC.
Indeed!
With "Nemesis", yes, I saw it on opening night in a near-empty suburban cinema (huge gala premieres for most of the others, but no one organised one for "Nemesis"). Sigh.
Last edited:
I don't know, Facebook seems to be jam-packed with over-the-top levels of fanrage. Just look at the dozens of ignorant cries of "Khan is a Sikh!" whenever Startrek.com posts a picture of Benedict Cumberbatch to hype the latest issue of the Khan prequel comic.
Ain't that the truth? Most shockingly of all is that this came from William "let's make it more theatrical" Shatner, himself! How the hell does he come out with something so lame, of all people? Even if he doesn't really "get" STAR TREK, himself, nevermind all that ... it shouldn't have owed for spectacle and over-the-top performances. I know that Shatner's cited "studio interference," basically, but I don't really buy that. But what a perfect, one-worded description for STAR TREK V ... "banal." It really does sum it up, quite nicely, doesn't it?
The fact that it's being argued means one side of the argument should stop using the word ? That makes no sense to me. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If it's being debated, then both sides will argue the term. What other term would you suggest ?
The characters will be anything they write them to be. Could you provide any reason why changes can't or shouldn't be made along the way ?
"it splinters from the previous timeline" pretty much covers it.
This does not equate to "it has no connection to the previous timeline whatsoever and so absolutely anything from prior canon can be thrown out".
Khan is from before the timelines diverge, it's as simple as that.
Speaking of which:
http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/Use-Three.jpg
This does not equate to "it has no connection to the previous timeline whatsoever and so absolutely anything from prior canon can be thrown out".
Khan is from before the timelines diverge, it's as simple as that.
King Daniel Into Darkness said:
Speaking of which:
http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/Use-Three.jpg
Check out most of the nasty comments about STID on the Facebook page of Star Trek: Phase II as well.
I don't believe I said that one side should stop using a word.
What I meant was that the question of reboot/not reboot is no closer to being settled now than it was five and a half years ago, largely due to the fact that people can't even agree in the first place on the meaning of the term "reboot". It has come to have too many incompatible definitions—even within the context of science fiction movie franchises—rendering it pretty well useless as a label for anything.
As to what term ought to be used instead, I have no preference, but whatever term is chosen ought to have the same meaning to all parties participating in the conversation. Without that, all you've got is an "Is too!"/"Is not!" argument which never, ever goes anywhere.
[insert 'Argument Clinic' macro here]
I've seen a few of those, but generally I don't pay a great deal of attention to fandom comments on Facebook or fan news sites. I have an idea that whatever rage and venom may be found therein is not statistically very significant, being representative of the opinions of a microscopically tiny (and extremely energetic) fraction of the total body of Trek fans. No matter which way the movies are done there will always be some who feel compelled to try to shout them down, but I certainly can't be bothered to read all of the hyperbolic drivel they post. It's just a movie, after all - not really something to get angry about.
Set, love that Khan pic.
Star Trek: Phase II is surely the kind of production that selects for fans who prefer TOS Trek, many of whom may not particularly care for nuTrek. That should not be any kind of shock.
(And Daniel, as for the supposedly "ignorant" cries of "Khan is a Sikh!", the racial stuff is a distraction. The real core of the complaint, and it's a valid one, is that Khan originated as a character with a distinctive background and "feel" to him that is not present in the nuTrek version. If you prefer the nuTrek version that's your biz, but the difference is very real and usual tactic trotted out to obscure that difference -- "but Ricardo Montalban was white and his TOS costume wasn't technically Sikh, aha!" -- is not as impressive as some people apparently imagine it to be.)
Star Trek: Phase II is surely the kind of production that selects for fans who prefer TOS Trek, many of whom may not particularly care for nuTrek. That should not be any kind of shock.
(And Daniel, as for the supposedly "ignorant" cries of "Khan is a Sikh!", the racial stuff is a distraction. The real core of the complaint, and it's a valid one, is that Khan originated as a character with a distinctive background and "feel" to him that is not present in the nuTrek version. If you prefer the nuTrek version that's your biz, but the difference is very real and usual tactic trotted out to obscure that difference -- "but Ricardo Montalban was white and his TOS costume wasn't technically Sikh, aha!" -- is not as impressive as some people apparently imagine it to be.)
Why?
I tend to hang out in places where fan acceptance of new ideas is more... IDIC.
So ironic, because the "Phase II" fanfilm team copped their own version of such bile when they started up.
*Sigh*
Khan cannot have been a Sikh in "Space Seed" because he violated two of the most basic tennants of Sikhism. He was clean shaven and at no point did he don a turban. This is not a "technicality" it's the foundation of the religion. Google it if you don't believe me. The claim he's a Sikh comes from Marla - who somehow pegs him as a Sikh on-sight which makes no sense whatsoever (and destroys the "he just wasn't a good Sikh" counter I keep hearing)
Furthermore, the TOS writers were actually warned that Sikhs don't trim or remove any body hair and for some reason chose to ignore it.
So, in short, yes it is ignorance that leads fans to parrott Marla's line. Of course he's changed with the recasting and I'm fine with people disliking that, but no version of Khan was ever a Sikh.
But how would McGivers know at first site?
How does one identify an "ethnic" Sikh on sight? Especially with out any of the outward signs of Sikhism?
Pasi Nurminen
Lieutenant Commander
There is no such thing as an ethnic Sikh. Sikhism is a religion, and a Sikh is a follower of the religion. Most Sikhs are ethnically Punjabi, but not all Punjabi persons are Sikh.
Agreed. I seen a movie review where it was observed that Pine manages to embody the character of Captain Kirk without falling into the trap of going anywhere near imitating William Shatner. It's a fine (some might have said impossible) line, but Pine really does just about pull it off with ease.
Everyone faults SPACE SEED for Khan not wearing a beard and all of the accoutrements of a Sikh, rather than blaming Marla McGivers for just not knowing what the hell she was even talking about, in the first place. And judging by her actions in this episode, I'm more inclined to believe she was never right in the head, to start with. Khan merely recognized this, from the beginning ... and exploited it. At least he committed to her, in the end.
Similar threads
