Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

[T'Girl]

WoK does contradict the series in claiming that Kirk never faced death.

Kirk (prime) said that he never faced death, he cheated death.

Not simply that he never faced death.

Even in the Tholian Web, floating in a pressure suit with limited life support, Kirk's optimism never let him believe that he was going to die, something would change the situation, resulting in his survival.

By the end of the episode, once again he cheated death.

 

[borgboy]

I consider the novels to be the true continuation too. Of course, there are some novels that don't work in the main novel continuity, like the Shatner novels and the Crucible novels. Still very enjoyable reads, and I can deal with alternate realities.
I really enjoyed Of Gods and Men too. It was fun, it had heart, and it was great to see beloved actors back in their classic roles, and Uhura finally got a starring role. I'm really looking forward to Renegades too, and whatever future projects come from that creative group.

 

[BillJ]

WoK does contradict the series in claiming that Kirk never faced death.

Kirk (prime) said that he never faced death, he cheated death.

Not simply that he never faced death.

Even in the Tholian Web, floating in a pressure suit with limited life support, Kirk's optimism never let him believe that he was going to die, something would change the situation, resulting in his survival.

By the end of the episode, once again he cheated death.

I think that Kirk is suppose to be talking about losing people close to him. Which is also in contradiction to the TV series where he lost his brother and Edith Keeler.

 

[Nerys Myk]

DAVID: Lieutenant Saavik was right. You never have faced a death.
KIRK: No, not like this. I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I tricked my way out of death ...and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. ...I know nothing.

Kirk's brother and sister in law died in Operation: Annihilate! Kirk was in the room when Aurelan dies.

 

[BillJ]

DAVID: Lieutenant Saavik was right. You never have faced a death.
KIRK: No, not like this. I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I tricked my way out of death ...and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. ...I know nothing.

Kirk's brother and sister in law died in Operation: Annihilate! Kirk was in the room when Aurelan dies.

Thanks for posting the relevant dialogue. I was simply too lazy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

[Ygritte]You know nothing, James Kirk[/Ygritte]

 

[HaventGotALife]

I enjoyed Star Trek before '09. I understand it will never happen, but I don't like the new timeline. Too much trauma to the universe. It is going to militarize Starfleet and they have yet to do any exploring.

 

[C.E. Evans]

WoK does contradict the series in claiming that Kirk never faced death.

Kirk (prime) said that he never faced death, he cheated death.

Not simply that he never faced death.

Even in the Tholian Web, floating in a pressure suit with limited life support, Kirk's optimism never let him believe that he was going to die, something would change the situation, resulting in his survival.

By the end of the episode, once again he cheated death.

That's the way I've always looked at it. Up until then, Kirk thought of himself as pretty much immortal, that there was no such thing as a no-win scenario.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

. Too much trauma to the universe. It is going to militarize Starfleet and they have yet to do any exploring.

Welcome to the TOS era where scary crap runs around trying to eat you half the time and planets are destroyed because some of them get bored.

Also during this time Starfleet was already militarized.

 

[bbjeg]

^True, though the direction of nuTrek is much different than that of TOS. Section 31's role in Into Darkness will play a big part in the next movie. IMO Starfleet will be on a warpath after whats been happening to them.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^True, though the direction of nuTrek is much different than that of TOS.

Yeah, I'm not seeing too many differences.

Section 31's role in Into Darkness will play a big part in the next movie.

Oh, I didn't know the script for the third film was not only finished but apparently available for all to read.

IMO Starfleet will be on a warpath after whats been happening to them.

Or so you assume, we don't know what is going to happen in the next film yet.

 

[bbjeg]

Section 31's role in Into Darkness will play a big part in the next movie.

Oh, I didn't know the script for the third film was not only finished but apparently available for all to read.

It's an assumption but it's safe to say they won't ignore the events in STITD. Marcus tried to start a war with the Klingons, plus a top secret ship crashed into starfleet headquarters. How do you sweep something like that under the rug?

IMO Starfleet will be on a warpath after whats been happening to them.

Or so you assume, we don't know what is going to happen in the next film yet.

Note the IMO.

 

[Hober Mallow]

We don't know anything about the next film, but I'm gonna just go ahead and call the plot: An Evil Bad Guy[TM] is out for revenge. Which, I should point out is totally different from the plots of the last two films, both of which were, "Evil Bad Guy[TM] from another time out for revenge."

 

[T'Girl]

^ The "Big Evil Bad Guy" will have a ship which in many times the size of the hero ship.

 

[Kemaiku]

is many times the size of the hero ship.

By a factor of 2. The Enterprise D is 6 times bigger than Voyager, that must make her the antichrist.

 

[Greg Cox]

If the second reboot film was a retread/remake/reboot/rip-off of the second original film then why should I have faith that it's going anywhere?

Because it's not. The "retread" argument has been wildly overstated by the film's critics.

It's no more a "retread" of THE WRATH OF KHAN than THE DARK KNIGHT is a just a retread of BATMAN (1989) because they both feature the Joker . . . .

 

[HaventGotALife]

If the second reboot film was a retread/remake/reboot/rip-off of the second original film then why should I have faith that it's going anywhere?

Because it's not. The "retread" argument has been wildly overstated by the film's critics.

It's no more a "retread" of THE WRATH OF KHAN than THE DARK KNIGHT is a just a retread of BATMAN (1989) because they both feature the Joker . . . .

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVIt0DYKssI[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMLs-ceP5o[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54[/yt]

It's like my brother and I trying to do something original with Star Trek figurines when I was 10. The Dark Knight is completely, and unapologetically different from the Tim Burton movies.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Now show us how the rest of the two movies are identical.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Now show us how the rest of the two movies are identical.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8npGLg2g8[/yt]

 

[Harvey]

And that demonstrates that the movies are identical how exactly?