Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

[BillJ]

You think the only time people have discussed plot holes from TWOK is after Into Darkness came out?

Only time? No, but I do see the standard "supposedly-crazy fanboy" critique wielded routinely in that context. I'm not just talking Christopher's sort of objection -- which I don't think works but is at least reasonably sane -- but stuff like "You think STID had plot holes? Well, how did Khan recognize Chekov, smart guy! BOO-YAH!" That sort of... eccentricity. (And don't go telling me you haven't seen it, now. )

I've also seen people go out of their way to fit Chekov into the narrative as anything other than a plot hole. "Uh, he was on the lower decks", all the while screaming about inconsistencies in the Abrams films. You know you've seen that as well...

 

[BigJake]

I've also seen people go out of their way to fit Chekov into the narrative as anything other than a plot hole. "Uh, he was on the lower decks"

... or people suddenly discovering that this practice is Verboten -- despite it being the base explanation for all the times "regular" cast isn't onscreen in a Trek episode -- because someone questions whether it's comparable to the multiple ways in which STID's plot doesn't fit together? Yeah, I've seen that.

 

[BillJ]

... or people suddenly discovering that this practice is Verboten -- despite it being the base explanation for all the times "regular" cast isn't onscreen in a Trek episode -- because someone questions whether it's comparable to the multiple ways in which STID's plot doesn't fit together?

Dude, there are way too many people who have carved up TWOK like a turkey over the years. Put any critical thought into it and the story completely falls apart. Worst fucking thing about that? It's still an incredible movie. In that way, it is much like Star Trek Into Darkness.

Seriously. Why didn't Khan beam up Kirk when he beamed up the Genesis Device? He spent the whole movie trying to kill Kirk and then changed his mind all of a sudden? Khan didn't beam up Kirk because he'd have ripped out his heart as soon as Kirk appeared on the transporter pad and the movie would've been over. They wrote themselves into that corner and gave the lame "I wish to go on hurting you" as an out. Then as soon as the scene is over, Khan goes back to wanting to kill Kirk.

 

[BigJake]

Put any critical thought into it and the story completely falls apart.

Another of those convenient retroactive assertions that we keep seeing whenever STID comes up. Funny, that. And not a case that I think is actually convincingly defensible, but I don't want to turn this into a huge threadjack. Maybe a thread on the movie forums is in order?

 

[BillJ]

Another of those convenient retroactive assertions that we keep seeing whenever STID comes up. Funny, that.

The funny thing is that you continue to think that these are retroactive assertions.

 

[BigJake]

The funny thing is that you continue to think that these are retroactive assertions.

I think they're as convincing as retroactive defense of STID as they ever were (or have since been) as direct critique of TWOK. For whatever that's worth, which to my mind is very little.

 

[BillJ]

I think they're as convincing as retroactive defense of STID as they ever were (or have since been) as direct critique of TWOK. For whatever that's worth, which to my mind is very little.

"Star Trek fans compare different versions of Star Trek", isn't that one of the signs that the rapture is coming or something? Like it or not, Trek fans have been comparing differing versions of Star Trek since The Motion Picture ("Where Nomad Has Gone Before") came out.

You act like this is some specific affront committed by people who like Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

[BigJake]

You act like this is some specific affront committed by people who like Star Trek Into Darkness.

No, I act like the misuse and sloppy use of comparisons to TWOK is common in attempts to "defend" STID from attack real or perceived, because AFAICS that is the case. It's not really that complicated. (I am obliged to you for providing some direct examples, though... )

 

[Commishsleer]

...I'm amused that one mostly sees this critique re-emerge in the modern day as a by-association method of "defending" STID -- and it's amusing in part because I think it's just as useless for that purpose as it was for attacking the film on its own merits originally. But mileage varies, obviously.)

It isn't re-emerging, its always been there. You think the only time people have discussed plot holes from TWOK is after Into Darkness came out?

The biggest problem is that most of Trek doesn't rate very well when you go over it with as fine-toothed comb as people go over the Abrams films. I think you know that and that's why you try to dissuade such comparisons. In my opinion...

No film does when you go over it with a fine-toothed comb. Look at the Star Wars films. Do you think Vader would recognise a planet he'd spent his first 12 years as a slave on? And there's more and it has the advantage of being a fantasy so people are free to act weirdly for no reason. And I didn't realise there were so many flaws in INS until the threads discussing it on the movie board. But the real problems in INS aren't from the inconsistent story.

We can overlook story problems if we love the movie. Take TWOK for example

 

[Nebusj]

Yes and no. They were indeed hits, popularly and financially. Critical reception was essentially "great popcorn fun" on average. But that's exactly the sort of film that is forgotten in the long run.

Yeah, like Star Wars, who the hell remembers that?

I'd like to mention that the web site The Dissolve has a regular feature, Forgotbusters, which is entirely about films that were among the top box-office draws of their times and that have little or no pop cultural influence today. Some of them are surprising: who knew that Psycho II or What Women Want were ever watched? (The characterization of Space Jam as forgotten is a mistake, but, not because anybody likes it; but the series was new at the time and they were still working out its parameters.)

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes and no. They were indeed hits, popularly and financially. Critical reception was essentially "great popcorn fun" on average. But that's exactly the sort of film that is forgotten in the long run.

Yeah, like Star Wars, who the hell remembers that?

I'd like to mention that the web site The Dissolve has a regular feature, Forgotbusters, which is entirely about films that were among the top box-office draws of their times and that have little or no pop cultural influence today. Some of them are surprising: who knew that Psycho II or What Women Want were ever watched? (The characterization of Space Jam as forgotten is a mistake, but, not because anybody likes it; but the series was new at the time and they were still working out its parameters.)

I really liked Psycho II, as I recall.

 

[BigJake]

I'd like to mention that the web site The Dissolve has a regular feature, Forgotbusters, which is entirely about films that were among the top box-office draws of their times and that have little or no pop cultural influence today.

It's interesting looking at the movies in AbramsTrek's box office bracket (all time top-grossing movies from #101-200). A mixture of classics and eminently forgettable films there (I'd forgotten those Chronicles of Narnia sequels even happened), with a crop of recent movies included on which it's still too soon to tell.

 

[Christopher]

Which unfortunately is only interesting if all other things are equal.

Nobody's talking about equality. Just saying that people have always been trying to reject the latest incarnation of Trek and claim it would be forgotten, and they've never been right yet. It's not just these movies versus TWOK, it happens every single time a new incarnation of Trek is made.

(I'm betting you can find superficially similar criticism of almost any Trek film. That doesn't make them all unjustly-excoriated classics being victimized by the dyspeptic fanboisie.)

Again, not about quality, just legitimacy or acceptance. There is quite a lot of Star Trek -- any series, any generation -- that falls far short of being "classic." But eventually it gets accepted as part of the whole. Star Trek is far from perfect, so it makes no sense to reject something from it just because it has imperfections of its own. It's just the reflexive fear of the new -- and ST is supposed to be about overcoming that fear and embracing the new.

(As I've remarked elsewhere before, I'm amused that one mostly sees this critique re-emerge in the modern day as a by-association method of "defending" STID -- and it's amusing in part because I think it's just as useless for that purpose as it was for attacking the film on its own merits originally. But mileage varies, obviously.)

Ohhh, I've been saying it since long before Abrams made a Trek movie. And I'm not specifically defending STID. I didn't like it as much as the '09 movie, and I haven't felt motivated to see it a second time. There's a lot about it I thought was fine, but some things in the third act I didn't care for much (but then, it's hard to find a modern blockbuster movie that doesn't fall apart in the third act).

 

[BigJake]

Just saying that people have always been trying to reject the latest incarnation of Trek and claim it would be forgotten, and they've never been right yet.

They haven't always been wrong to reject it, I wouldn't say*. Those who didn't care for the TNG movies were largely right; even the best of that crop, First Contact, doesn't cut any particularly dashing figure on the horizon of popular culture today and for good reason, it was only better by comparison with the awful misjudged material that surrounded it. Those who didn't care for The Final Frontier were largely right. Those who weren't super-jazzed about the original Motion Picture haven't been particularly shown up by any later rehabilitation of that film.

None of those are "forgotten" per se, because the Trek brand and its fandom more or less automatically makes even the utter nadirs of Trek part of popular culture, at least North American popular culture, in some way. But they don't stand out as particularly well-known instances of pointless fan outcry, because there was actually reasonable grounds for the fan outcry (to whatever degree that occurred). That's exactly why the major and most infamous instance of the fans getting it "wrong" is The Wrath of Khan, which for a number of fairly persuasive reasons is widely-regarded outside the franchise as its gold standard. That's why people bring up 1982 specifically... and is also exactly why it's typically a false comparison.

(* For varying values of "reject." Some people really do take it excessively personally, obviously, but leaving those aside.)

Ohhh, I've been saying it since long before Abrams made a Trek movie. And I'm not specifically defending STID.

I do get that, sorry, didn't mean to seem like I was talking about your posts in particular. (By the same token I'm not necessarily endorsing Beaker's position as it stands, I'm just pointing out that "remember 1982" isn't a persuasive response to it.)

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Yes and no. They were indeed hits, popularly and financially. Critical reception was essentially "great popcorn fun" on average. But that's exactly the sort of film that is forgotten in the long run.

Yeah, like Star Wars, who the hell remembers that?

I'd like to mention that the web site The Dissolve has a regular feature, Forgotbusters, which is entirely about films that were among the top box-office draws of their times and that have little or no pop cultural influence today. Some of them are surprising: who knew that Psycho II or What Women Want were ever watched? (The characterization of Space Jam as forgotten is a mistake, but, not because anybody likes it; but the series was new at the time and they were still working out its parameters.)

Thank you for posting that link. Some interesting articles over there...

 

[Maurice]

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYH5w0AC.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYH5w0AC" style="display:none"></embed>

This is the video which helped me to put the Abrams movies into perspective. Enjoy, and be prepared to laugh your asses off!

Oh, it looks like my HTML code is turned off. Is it because of my rank?

I don't think anyone can do an embed of the sort you appear to be attempting.

 

[plynch]

Why do we argue so much on matters of taste?

 

[BigJake]

^ Because it's fun. What a question!

 

[albion432]

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYH5w0AC.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYH5w0AC" style="display:none"></embed>

This is the video which helped me to put the Abrams movies into perspective. Enjoy, and be prepared to laugh your asses off!

Oh, it looks like my HTML code is turned off. Is it because of my rank?

I don't think anyone can do an embed of the sort you appear to be attempting.

Damn! And for some reason the video is no longer available on youtube!

 

[Christopher]

They haven't always been wrong to reject it, I wouldn't say*. Those who didn't care for the TNG movies were largely right...

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about having a low opinion of the quality of a movie. I'm talking about the way some people always, always react to the newest incarnation of Trek as if it were some unprecedented failure, as if it were the only incarnation of Trek that had ever been disappointing or made continuity errors or whatever, and that it deserved to be damned and declared non-canonical and erased from existence, even when its flaws were no worse than the flaws in many earlier Trek works.

I'm not saying there are no grounds for criticizing a given Trek movie or series. I'm just tired of this kneejerk tendency to treat the flaws in the newest incarnation as unforgiveable while glossing over comparable flaws in many, many earlier Trek series and films. It's an irrational double standard, and I just wish people would get some perspective.

That's exactly why the major and most infamous instance of the fans getting it "wrong" is The Wrath of Khan, which for a number of fairly persuasive reasons is widely-regarded outside the franchise as its gold standard. That's why people bring up 1982 specifically... and is also exactly why it's typically a false comparison.

I don't know where you're getting that. As I think I mentioned above, the clearest example for me is TNG, because it took years for the TOS fanbase to overcome their resistance. And of course there's TAS, which many fans still don't accept to this day, whether because of general prejudice against animation or because of the false belief that the brief "decanonization" of TAS in 1989 is still binding, which it hasn't been in over two decades. (It was mainly a result of uncertainty about who owned TAS after Filmation went bankrupt, but that was resolved ages ago.)

I mean, yes, I personally tend to use TWOK as an example, but I'm surprised at the suggestion that others are pervasively doing the same. I honestly didn't realize, until Greg mentioned it earlier, that TWOK was criticized on those grounds at the time. I thought it was just me -- and I actually liked the movie a lot more in 1982 than I do now. I didn't realize its flaws until later on.