Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel....
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
It doesn't "piss me off"... it does however, make me get that tired "More of the same" feeling... especially when you add in Grandpa Spock (So... Very... Tired...), and an apparent fan-fiction plot of romulans going back in time to kill Kirk... well yes it sounds like "more of the same". But i'm open to being wrong.
It doesn't "piss me off"... it does however, make me get that tired "More of the same" feeling... especially when you add in Grandpa Spock (So... Very... Tired...), and an apparent fan-fiction plot of romulans going back in time to kill Kirk... well yes it sounds like "more of the same". But i'm open to being wrong.
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
That's truly an original complaint, now Spock is overused...
Sharr
That's truly an original complaint, now Spock is overused...Sharr
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
1) How do we know that there are Romulans? All we know, as far as I'm aware, is that Eric Bana is listed as playing a character named "Nero." I'm not aware of any formal confirmation that this character is a Romulan. Anyone able to provide a definitive proof of this?
2) Assuming that there ARE Romulans... how do we know that they are the bad guys? I mean, other than the preconceived idea that Romulans must be bad guys (but then again, so do Klingons...
)
3) And of course, as you point out, time travel isn't a given. I'm not convinced that it's even a serious option, actually... but I'm not one of the scriptwriters, sooo....
Okay, then...
1) How do we know that there are Romulans? All we know, as far as I'm aware, is that Eric Bana is listed as playing a character named "Nero." I'm not aware of any formal confirmation that this character is a Romulan. Anyone able to provide a definitive proof of this?
2) Assuming that there ARE Romulans... how do we know that they are the bad guys? I mean, other than the preconceived idea that Romulans must be bad guys (but then again, so do Klingons...
)3) And of course, as you point out, time travel isn't a given. I'm not convinced that it's even a serious option, actually... but I'm not one of the scriptwriters, sooo....
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
The writers forgot half the time.
The writers forgot half the time.
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
In what way was Lord Kruge (the first Klingon with an archaic honorific, I think) better or different than a "retard Space-Viking?"
The guy didn't make a single well-considered, crafty tactical decision in the movie. He was loud, blustering and stupid.
As if "I don't care which one" was not dumb enough in reference to killing one of the hostages, the fact that he was apparently completely unable to process the possible ramifications of having had the son of his adversary executed (which he's told outright by Kirk) was absolutely idiotic.
Moments later, he orders every man aboard his ship save one to board a vessel which he believes to have hundreds of people on it and when his subordinate points this out ("they outnumber us, my lord") he just snarls "We are Klingons!" and sends them off to what no one should be surprised to find is their certain doom.
No, Kruge shares this crucial quality of being too dumb to tie his shoes with the head of Starfleet, "Mr. Adventure," Captain Stiles, the prison guard watching over McCoy, Captain Esteban - well, okay, virtually everyone in the film other than Our Heroes (who include Sarek).
Trek III is a classic example of what's called "idiot plotting." Kruge is pretty much the Chief Moron.
TOS Klingons didn't reappear in "Star Trek" after the end of the original television series until TNG and DS9, when they were rechristened "Cardassians."
In what way was Lord Kruge (the first Klingon with an archaic honorific, I think) better or different than a "retard Space-Viking?"
The guy didn't make a single well-considered, crafty tactical decision in the movie. He was loud, blustering and stupid.
As if "I don't care which one" was not dumb enough in reference to killing one of the hostages, the fact that he was apparently completely unable to process the possible ramifications of having had the son of his adversary executed (which he's told outright by Kirk) was absolutely idiotic.
Moments later, he orders every man aboard his ship save one to board a vessel which he believes to have hundreds of people on it and when his subordinate points this out ("they outnumber us, my lord") he just snarls "We are Klingons!" and sends them off to what no one should be surprised to find is their certain doom.
No, Kruge shares this crucial quality of being too dumb to tie his shoes with the head of Starfleet, "Mr. Adventure," Captain Stiles, the prison guard watching over McCoy, Captain Esteban - well, okay, virtually everyone in the film other than Our Heroes (who include Sarek).
Trek III is a classic example of what's called "idiot plotting." Kruge is pretty much the Chief Moron.
TOS Klingons didn't reappear in "Star Trek" after the end of the original television series until TNG and DS9, when they were rechristened "Cardassians."
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
I'm crying right now, seeing such a concentrated bit of brilliance (in other words, I've been saying this for years) on my computer screen.
Okay, I'm not crying but I am really impressed.
I'm crying right now, seeing such a concentrated bit of brilliance (in other words, I've been saying this for years) on my computer screen.
Okay, I'm not crying but I am really impressed.
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
I'm going to argue for logical inference. It is rumoured that the film will include Romulans. Nero is a Latin name, the Romulans are strongly influenced by Ancient Rome. There are no alternate rumours about Emperor Nero making an appearance, or those guys from "Bread and Circuses". This is apparently good enough for Memory Alpha, so that's good enough for me, for now. If it's wrong I'll concede as such, but I think this is so comfortably likely we may consider it as the truth.
Eric Bana is definitely playing a villain. If we accept my supposition above, that Bana is playing a Romulan, then there is a Romulan villain in this film and since he has an ally played by Clitfon Collins Jr. as Ayel, also presumably a Romulan, we may say there are Romulan villains in this movie.
I'm going to argue for logical inference. It is rumoured that the film will include Romulans. Nero is a Latin name, the Romulans are strongly influenced by Ancient Rome. There are no alternate rumours about Emperor Nero making an appearance, or those guys from "Bread and Circuses". This is apparently good enough for Memory Alpha, so that's good enough for me, for now. If it's wrong I'll concede as such, but I think this is so comfortably likely we may consider it as the truth.
Eric Bana is definitely playing a villain. If we accept my supposition above, that Bana is playing a Romulan, then there is a Romulan villain in this film and since he has an ally played by Clitfon Collins Jr. as Ayel, also presumably a Romulan, we may say there are Romulan villains in this movie.
Yes, in a way. Time travel is getting a bit old in Trek, although I think they only used time travel in 2 of the films. Come to think of it, 2 out of 10 films isn't bad for time-travel stories. (The Voyage Home and First Contact).
I'm not really sure if you would count Generations as a time-travel movie. In a since, Kirk just moved from his time to the 24th century through the Nexus, and I'm not really sure if that would be considered time-travel.
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
Time travel, I feel, like any other plot device (sudden arrival, mistaken identities, road trip), is only effective if it is truly part of the story.
What we have here is a new Star Trek with new folks, and one of the old folks (Spock). I think it's fitting to use Time Travel as a plot device in a story that will connect two versions over a 40 year history in TV and film.
And hey, Star Trek has always, and will always, be doing time travel stories. It's been 40 years, get used to it.
Time travel, I feel, like any other plot device (sudden arrival, mistaken identities, road trip), is only effective if it is truly part of the story.
What we have here is a new Star Trek with new folks, and one of the old folks (Spock). I think it's fitting to use Time Travel as a plot device in a story that will connect two versions over a 40 year history in TV and film.
And hey, Star Trek has always, and will always, be doing time travel stories. It's been 40 years, get used to it.
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
Time Travel. rumored tm. check.
Romulans. rumored tm. check.
See, Time Travel, and Romulans are going to be in the movie!!!!
TOS Romulans became TNG Klingons. :thumbsup:
Time Travel. rumored tm. check.
Romulans. rumored tm. check.
See, Time Travel, and Romulans are going to be in the movie!!!!
TOS Romulans became TNG Klingons. :thumbsup:
Re: Does it piss anyone off that they had to use time travel
I'm personally tired of time travel in Trek. I feel it's become a cliche, especially with VOY. Not to mention the fact that, as everyone here has pointed out, it's already been done in three of the films (if you don't include the end of ST:G). While I really enjoyed ST:FC (saw it three times in theaters), I still wasn't too crazy upon first hearing it would be a time travel story--I would have personally made it akin to a big budget version of "The Best of Both Worlds," or perhaps cinematic equivalents of The Return or Vendetta. But even if ST:XI does use time travel, I will still give it the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they'll show the Guardian of Forever, as rumored?
As regards the Klingons, it was obviously inevitable that they'd make an appearance in the films, But I would also argue that they were overused. At the very least, I would have been happy if they were simply left out of ST:V, which surely features the lamest Klingon "villian" ever. They should have used the Romulans--as they had originaly planned for ST:III--and ST:N didn't quite cut it for me in that regard. I'd hope that ST:XI could use them in a more effective and satisfying manner, though I'm worried about maintaining continunity with "Balance of Terror." Still, if ENT pulled it off, I think they could come up with something similar.
I'm personally tired of time travel in Trek. I feel it's become a cliche, especially with VOY. Not to mention the fact that, as everyone here has pointed out, it's already been done in three of the films (if you don't include the end of ST:G). While I really enjoyed ST:FC (saw it three times in theaters), I still wasn't too crazy upon first hearing it would be a time travel story--I would have personally made it akin to a big budget version of "The Best of Both Worlds," or perhaps cinematic equivalents of The Return or Vendetta. But even if ST:XI does use time travel, I will still give it the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they'll show the Guardian of Forever, as rumored?
As regards the Klingons, it was obviously inevitable that they'd make an appearance in the films, But I would also argue that they were overused. At the very least, I would have been happy if they were simply left out of ST:V, which surely features the lamest Klingon "villian" ever. They should have used the Romulans--as they had originaly planned for ST:III--and ST:N didn't quite cut it for me in that regard. I'd hope that ST:XI could use them in a more effective and satisfying manner, though I'm worried about maintaining continunity with "Balance of Terror." Still, if ENT pulled it off, I think they could come up with something similar.
