How will Trek XI blend in with the rest of Trek

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

You know what would really propel this discussion forward? If we got into an argument about how TWoK was in no way the best ST film (I still think it's TVH), and how TMP sucked on every level.

Nah, just kidding.

I think that would propel the discussion downard, to the movie forum.

[TWOK was lumpy and does not date well but has some stand out scenes which elevate it.]

[TMP, The Motionless Picture, nuff said]

 

[Disillusioned]

Got quite a good one, in fact,

No we didn't, we got an origin story for an alternate universe, and it wasn't even all that good. Instead it was contrived to get everyone together on Enterprise with the same rank and position they had during the original series by the end of the movie.

unblemished by all the fanwank that so many trekkies insist should be part of such things.

Okay, the Kobyashi Maru was a little fanwanky, but served a dramatic point and was certainly a lot more entertaining than trivial crap like "meeting Finnegan and Gary Mitchell."

How about all the name dropping even when completely inappropriate (i.e. Delta Vega)? How about the idea that Spock created the Kobyashi Maru test in order to make Kirk's cheat a matter of personal conflict between them? How about all the excuses used to parrot quotes from the other movies and series?

If one wants to be precise, there never can be and never will be a TOS origin story.

Actually there could be, and it could even be both good and stick much more closely to what's been established for the era.

There hasn't been a TOS episode produced since 1969, and the TOS-based films aren't even really that close a match. They simply feature the cast from TOS.

Oh, I get it, you're arguing semantics.

A good Kirk/Spock/The Gang origin story is as close as we'll ever get to a good TOS origin story, and for my (repeated) money this one was fine.

And in my opinion it was a horribly cliched and contrived origin story for a crew that shares the same names as the original crew and not much else.

Perhaps Trek XI detractors would be better.

"Critics" would probably be more appropriate.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Like a tear in the rain.

A very shiny tear in the rain.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Here is what I see with doing a direct prequel:

- When we examine the lives of our cast as already established, it would essentially be a biopic, with nothing particularly happening in many places.
- There would be gaps of many years between key events, leading to a feel of "x years later" between every scene, and little for a non-fan to grab ahold of.
- It would therefore have probably failed, and due to adherence visually with TOS, there would be somewhat less innovative designs, leading to a lack of true creativity due to restrictions.
- If creative restrictions were to be lifted too far, the movie would have been lambasted for violating canon in terms of design.

The issue with the straight reboot is that it would be a complete slap in the fact to the rest of Star Trek, and would be rejected on that basis.

Therefore, they used a very typically Star Trek time travel/alternate reality plot device to allow for flexible storytelling while providing a way to place the movie effectively within existing continuity.

 

[ST-One]

How about all the name dropping even when completely inappropriate (i.e. Delta Vega)?

How's it 'inappropriate?

How about the idea that Spock created the Kobyashi Maru test in order to make Kirk's cheat a matter of personal conflict between them?

He didn't create it.
He only programmed the test for the last four years.

How about all the excuses used to parrot quotes from the other movies and series?

Such as.

 

[Captain Pike]

Best Trek movie since TWOK imo. But as to how it will "blend" in with other Trek - like oil and water. I guess if you try real hard and squint your eyes alot you could have a colloidal suspension, but never a homogeneous solution

You know what would really propel this discussion forward? If we got into an argument about how TWoK was in no way the best ST film (I still think it's TVH), and how TMP sucked on every level.

Nah, just kidding.

TMP was the best, TWOK was average and everything else sucked!

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

I wouldn't say IV: TVH or VI: TUC sucked at all, they were good films.

 

[Captain Pike]

YMMV

 

[Sector 7]

Yep.

I think I may just settle on only the original TV series and this movie as canonical. The rest of it is some other "alternate universe."

Obviously, the mainstream public have done exactly that.

There are elements of the prime universe I will miss, but how nice it's been to see Star Trek blast its way out of the nerd basement it was rotting in.

True-dat!

So very true.

I wouldn't say IV: TVH or VI: TUC sucked at all, they were good films.

Those are my two favorite movies of the first ten.

 

[Disillusioned]

- When we examine the lives of our cast as already established, it would essentially be a biopic, with nothing particularly happening in many places.

Not really. We've heard plenty that's been interesting. It seems like a pretty cool idea to me to actually get a chance to see it.

- There would be gaps of many years between key events, leading to a feel of "x years later" between every scene, and little for a non-fan to grab ahold of.

Again, not necessarily, because it would depend on how it was framed. "Batman Begins" managed to do a pretty good job even though it started with Bruce Wayne as a child. Framing his background as dreams just worked. Or (ironically) they could do something like the flashbacks in "Lost." I just wouldn't do a whole lot of them because there's only so much of their childhood we'd need to see.

- It would therefore have probably failed, and due to adherence visually with TOS, there would be somewhat less innovative designs, leading to a lack of true creativity due to restrictions.

Again not true. The "restrictions" are simply a framework, and any franchise is going to have that. There's nothing particularly restricting about any of it, and there could have been plenty of new and innovative things for eye candy if that's all you really care about. And on the other side of the coin, I didn't see anything particularly innovative about STXI either.

- If creative restrictions were to be lifted too far, the movie would have been lambasted for violating canon in terms of design.

Which is basically what happened, since that is what happens when you leave the framework of what you're trying to build.

The issue with the straight reboot is that it would be a complete slap in the fact to the rest of Star Trek, and would be rejected on that basis.

No, this movie was a complete slap in the face because it tried to have things both ways by coming up with this contrived time travel/alternate timeline business. While I'm not really interested in a complete reboot either, at least then it could have been judged on its own the way BSG was.

How's it 'inappropriate?

Because Delta Vega is no where near Vulcan. Just dropping names like that is pointless and lame.

He didn't create it.
He only programmed the test for the last four years.

If he didn't create it, why was it specifically referred to as his test? And why was it then so obviously tied in with the background the movie set up for him?

Such as.

Are you serious? Did you seriously not notice all the quotes they used over again in an attempt to remind us that this was supposed to be Star Trek and that these were supposed to be the same characters?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Got quite a good one, in fact,

No we didn't, we got an origin story for an alternate universe,

It's all fiction. I don't give a fuck what "universe" it supposedly takes place in; I'll leave that to the OCD crowd to hash out for the next two or three decades.

What it is, is a real good launch for a new version of Star Trek chronicling the adventures of Kirk, Spock and the original crew during the time-frame of the original series. I'm looking forward to this far more than any of the later installments of those previous Trek movies and TV shows that (supposedly) take place in the fan-sanctioned "Trek universe."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here is what I see with doing a direct prequel:

- When we examine the lives of our cast as already established, it would essentially be a biopic, with nothing particularly happening in many places.
- There would be gaps of many years between key events, leading to a feel of "x years later" between every scene, and little for a non-fan to grab ahold of.

That is a precise basic analysis of the problem. A few million Trekkies might have adored it, and Paramount would have pissed money away on losing proposition.

 

[Disillusioned]

It's all fiction. I don't give a fuck what "universe" it supposedly takes place in; I'll leave that to the OCD crowd to hash out for the next two or three decades.

Cool, so you don't mind that it's all an AU.

What it is, is a real good launch for a new version of Star Trek chronicling the adventures of Kirk, Spock and the original crew during the time-frame of the original series.

Well, it's a launch of a new version of Star Trek anyway. "Good" is pretty much relative.

 

[ST-One]

If he didn't create it, why was it specifically referred to as his test? And why was it then so obviously tied in with the background the movie set up for him?

Admiral Komack said that Spock programmed the test for the last four years.
That only tells us that this particular version of the KM-test was his idea, not that the test as an institution was created by him.

Are you serious? Did you seriously not notice all the quotes they used over again in an attempt to remind us that this was supposed to be Star Trek and that these were supposed to be the same characters?

Like what, 'Fascinating'? 'Bones'? 'I'm giving her all she's got'?

 

[startrekrcks]

it is like they made it like TOS and squashed it into a movie cool isn't it do you think so

 

[Disillusioned]

Admiral Komack said that Spock programmed the test for the last four years.
That only tells us that this particular version of the KM-test was his idea, not that the test as an institution was created by him.

And the implication is still that he made the test, not that he'd continued someone else's work.

Like what, 'Fascinating'? 'Bones'? 'I'm giving her all she's got'?

Like "I'm giving her all she's got" would be one example, especially since that's one that gets used a lot in jokes. Kind of like "get to the chopper" is one example from AVP2.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's all fiction. I don't give a fuck what "universe" it supposedly takes place in; I'll leave that to the OCD crowd to hash out for the next two or three decades.

Cool, so you don't mind that it's all an AU.

More accurately, I don't care much that folks like you think such conceits matter at all. Give yourself a high-five for challenging me to a pissing contest about nothing at all, if you feel good about that.

In fact, I think I'll just declare this to be the one and only "Trek universe" just because I happen to feel like it and because my opinion matters as much as yours - in fact, it matters as much as yours and those of a hundred of your closest friends.

"Good" is pretty much relative.

Absolutely.

"Successful," on the other hand, can be measured.

Which is why, of course, for the foreseeable future the opinions and tastes of J.J. Abrams and the people who own Star Trek matter way more than ours or anyone else here. JJTrek is what the majority of people will think of as Star Trek for the next decade or two or three, and there will never be any going back to a previous version any more than the studio returned to TOS for a new TV series in 1987 or cared to replicate TOS when they decided to revive it in the form of J.J. Abrams's Star Trek.

Admiral Komack said that Spock programmed the test for the last four years.
That only tells us that this particular version of the KM-test was his idea, not that the test as an institution was created by him.

And the implication is still that he made the test, not that he'd continued someone else's work.

Because you took that implication from it doesn't mean it's a reasonable or justified one. Most people didn't, after all.

 

[Disillusioned]

More accurately, I don't care much that folks like you think such conceits matter at all. Give yourself a high-five for challenging me to a pissing contest about nothing at all, if you feel good about that.

Given what you've said, I'm pretty sure you care, but whatever.

In fact, I think I'll just declare this to be the one and only "Trek universe" just because I happen to feel like it and because my opinion matters as much as yours - in fact, it matters as much as yours and those of a hundred of your closest friends.

It matters as much as each of ours, yes. Of course doing so makes you looks silly. And yes, I know you're taking a shot here, but your little example here has nothing to do with the movie being horrible in my opinion.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Best Trek movie since TWOK imo. But as to how it will "blend" in with other Trek - like oil and water. I guess if you try real hard and squint your eyes alot you could have a colloidal suspension, but never a homogeneous solution

You know what would really propel this discussion forward? If we got into an argument about how TWoK was in no way the best ST film (I still think it's TVH), and how TMP sucked on every level.

Nah, just kidding.

TMP was the best, TWOK was average and everything else sucked!

Can of worms! Can of worms! once opened, it can never be closed! What have I done?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

- When we examine the lives of our cast as already established, it would essentially be a biopic, with nothing particularly happening in many places.

Not really. We've heard plenty that's been interesting. It seems like a pretty cool idea to me to actually get a chance to see it.

Interesting, but not for the general audience Star Trek needs to survive.

- There would be gaps of many years between key events, leading to a feel of "x years later" between every scene, and little for a non-fan to grab ahold of.

Again, not necessarily, because it would depend on how it was framed. "Batman Begins" managed to do a pretty good job even though it started with Bruce Wayne as a child. Framing his background as dreams just worked. Or (ironically) they could do something like the flashbacks in "Lost." I just wouldn't do a whole lot of them because there's only so much of their childhood we'd need to see.

You and I might enjoy a lot of the details, but an audience needs some kind of emotional hook. Again, as Trek fans, we see characters with whom we've been familiar since childhood, and grown attached to. To tell the story in a non-confusing way, the Lost option is not viable for a movie, the Batman Begins flashbacks could only be used for a couple of key scenes, and we would STILL need several jumps of several years during which a LOT would need to be established.

Again not true. The "restrictions" are simply a framework, and any franchise is going to have that. There's nothing particularly restricting about any of it, and there could have been plenty of new and innovative things for eye candy if that's all you really care about. And on the other side of the coin, I didn't see anything particularly innovative about STXI either.

I saw a lot that was innovative from a cinematic perspective. The designs were different, the style was different, the feel was different, and the pacing was different. The story worked well for me as well.

Which is basically what happened, since that is what happens when you leave the framework of what you're trying to build.

Actually, they worked around the framework via the Alternate Reality explanation. As pointed out 1000 times before, TMP did it with the Enterprise being refit.

No, this movie was a complete slap in the face because it tried to have things both ways by coming up with this contrived time travel/alternate timeline business. While I'm not really interested in a complete reboot either, at least then it could have been judged on its own the way BSG was.

Each film is ALREADY judged on it's own merit, and for those who haven't seen Trek before, that's the only way it COULD be judged. From what I've observed, they mostly gave it the thumbs up. This is not new ground we're covering here, and you know it.

Because Delta Vega is no where near Vulcan. Just dropping names like that is pointless and lame.

I have the same issue, I just don't see it as important in the big sceme of things, and I'm taking it in the intended spirit: a reverent wink.

Back to the question at hand:
I think it holds well within the continuity, considering the alternate reality created in 2233 at the start of the movie.

I also think it's a good way to introduce TOS: Have them get an idea by watching the movie, then introduce the best TOS episodes, and move on from there.