Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

[Crazy Eddie]

Depends on how dependable those new fans are. Are they going to be the least bit interested in the earlier shows and movies?

Only if they're into oldies. Alot of the kids in my classes--the ones who were introduced to Star Trek for the first time by this film--weren't even born yet when Star Trek began its decline. Maybe a handful of them remember Enterprise and fewer of them remember Nemesis or Insurrection. Only some of the teenagers were aware (or fans) of Star Trek before, and without exception every one of them became a lot MORE interested after STXI.

And as with all things Trek, for every ten people who go and enjoy a Trek movie, two of them become casual fans and one becomes an active fan.

Are they going to show up for the next movie?

Depends on what they thought of this one. An aggregate of some thirty thousand Yahoo users gave it an A-minus, if that's any indication.

They sure haven't been very reliable with regard to the merchandizing, if the shelves at Toys R Us and Big Lots are any indication, along with Playmates' decision to drop their line of NuTrek stuff completely.

Does the fact that Playmates' merchandize is consistently god awful have anything to do with it?

Are they going to be the least bit interested in the earlier shows and movies?

Who gives a shit if they aren't ? It's a bit of popular culture fluff to kill a few hours not a religious text.

If you're trying to build an enduring franchise, you need to develop a loyal following. Otherwise, it's one and done.

Cult movies have a loyal following; they are not usually very profitable though.

A profitable franchise is one that is able to maintain mass appeal by consistently entertaining the masses. Doesn't matter how loyal your fanbase is if nobody else ever goes to see it. And as we found out the hard way, fans are fickle; even if you cater directly to them, some times they turn their backs on you anyway, so you might as well focus on making GOOD films instead of simple appeasing a small and highly specialized demographic.

 

[M'Sharak]

I don't have a lot of friends I don't have many friends that are as into Trek as me.

Hmm...new username, but still following I-Am-Zim around and trolling. Yep.

And already settled. Yep.

 

[Pauln6]

Highest rated Trek film and 2nd highest grossing? How "apparent" it is.

TMP was also extremely successful at the box office and I also love that film. However, I don't think anybody is under the illusion that it wasn't flawed in some ways and many people will step up to say it was a truly awful film.

La plus ca change, la plus ca meme chose.

 

[lawman]

Are they going to be the least bit interested in the earlier shows and movies?

Who gives a shit if they aren't ? It's a bit of popular culture fluff to kill a few hours not a religious text.

It never fails to amaze me how some people will chime in to a discussion just to assert that the discussion isn't worth having.

Seriously: speaking for myself, I find pop culture a much worthier object of attention than religious texts.

And obviously, there's a big difference between people who are fans of any given cultural artifact or phenomenon, and those who merely consider it disposable fluff. If you're in the latter category WRT Trek, I can't imagine why you'd be wasting your time here.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Apparently so.

Apparently not. We can do this all day.

Highest rated Trek film and 2nd highest grossing? How "apparent" it is.

If I'm not mistaken, the highest grossing Trek film was TMP. And it wasn't that great. Apparently, the demographic JJA was aiming for isn't hard to please.

"Actually" nothing.

Actually, still the same three turkies I mentioned before.

I hope you didn't debate with some of the same misinformation and misconceptions that you do now.

That was a whole different ball game. And I was quite good. Here, unfortunately, I just have to adapt my tactics to your lower standards.

 

[Pauln6]

Tee hee - we've moved on from Monty Python onto Alexis & Krystle or possibly Diana and Lydia!

 

[Ryan8bit]

If I'm not mistaken, the highest grossing Trek film was TMP.

I think it depends on what you factor in. First and foremost there's inflation. Then there's the budget. Then there's the domestic and foreign gross (which are typically proportionate anyway). Then there's things like the amount of theaters they've been in. Then there's the fact that much more competition exists these days. Then there's a lot more people around today than 30 years ago.

If you just factor in domestic adjusted for inflation, the highest grossing was Star Trek 2009, with TMP being second and TVH being third. If you start factoring the other things in, Star Trek 2009 starts to drop down the list, and we see movies like TWOK shoot up.

Of course, it's likely that none of this is relevant at all. Just because a majority agrees on something or something is more profitable isn't going to change one individual's mind.

I guess the real test will be how the next movie does.

(My how this thread has changed)

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah but the point is TMP was a successful film that many people (and I'm sure many fans of NuTrek) find boring. Financial success should not and does not make movies immune from criticism.

 

[Ryan8bit]

That's true. That's why I kinda summed up to say that it's probably irrelevant. There are lots of movies that have made more money or were more popular than various Star Trek movies. And I'm sure I'd find a lot of those non-Trek movies to be nowhere as good.

 

[Set Harth]

And there's also the little matter of Nero's ear being clipped, an allusion to 25 years of hardship at Rura Penthe.

Or his Van Gogh period, while not being at Rura Penthe at all.

I knew that as soon as I first heard about the alternate timeline BS.

Then you must feel that TOS and TNG are equally BS.

The black hole is one possibility, but as Timo pointed out, Nero faking the distress signal is a far stronger candidate.

That's right: at that point Nero's hanging around faking a distress signal, but not drilling. Drill baby drill!!!

No, it's a neutral zone between Romulan and Federation space.

Which borders Federation space.

You don't know what worlds ARE in the vicinity of Vulcan or what the radius of those effects are.

That's why I said "any given radius". It doesn't matter. If you exclude its effects on any other planet you effectively rewrite the script by resorting to the usual misconception that the hole opened up in the immediate vicinity of Vulcan.

When, exactly, was it established in the film that the first black hole was not accompanied by any other unusual phenomenon?

It's strongly implied by omission from Kirk's analysis.

You know for a fact that there weren't?

See below.

We know the drill blocks communications, and we don't know of any method of defeating that interference

Do you know for a fact that there isn't? Pure speculation works both ways.

 

[Klingon Empire]

Of course it can. Nero's appearance in the alternate universe accelerated technology to well beyond that of the TNG era by 2258. So sure, why not.

This is true. The Technology of that period is well beyond that of TOS, TNG and maybe some of the later series. Imagine this as more of a Twenty-fifth or Twenty-Sixth century Enterprise, cause that's about how advanced it would have to be to go that fast.

 

[Skellington]

Of course it can. Nero's appearance in the alternate universe accelerated technology to well beyond that of the TNG era by 2258. So sure, why not.

This is true. The Technology of that period is well beyond that of TOS, TNG and maybe some of the later series. Imagine this as more of a Twenty-fifth or Twenty-Sixth century Enterprise, cause that's about how advanced it would have to be to go that fast.

Alternatively, Future Spock can be seen as coming from a timeline that's separate from the TOS timeline. (Spock's ship uses the same Stardate notation as is used in 2258, quoting its manufacture date as Stardate 2387 instead of using the familiar TNG notation (which would by then follow the format 64xxx.xx)). In any case, one could argue that if the movie has continuity obligations to the televised Star Trek, later episodes are trumped by earlier ones, where the Enterprise can zip around the galaxy like no-one's business.

 

[Klingon Empire]

Of course it can. Nero's appearance in the alternate universe accelerated technology to well beyond that of the TNG era by 2258. So sure, why not.

This is true. The Technology of that period is well beyond that of TOS, TNG and maybe some of the later series. Imagine this as more of a Twenty-fifth or Twenty-Sixth century Enterprise, cause that's about how advanced it would have to be to go that fast.

Alternatively, Future Spock can be seen as coming from a timeline that's separate from the TOS timeline. (Spock's ship uses the same Stardate notation as is used in 2258, quoting its manufacture date as Stardate 2387 instead of using the familiar TNG notation (which would by then follow the format 64xxx.xx)). In any case, one could argue that if the movie has continuity obligations to the televised Star Trek, later episodes are trumped by earlier ones, where the Enterprise can zip around the galaxy like no-one's business.

Exactly. I think Gene R kinda added too many complications to the warp system to die down the image of Warp being Uber powerful and Uber fast. Not that that's a bad thing.

 

[Devon]

TMP was also extremely successful at the box office and I also love that film. However, I don't think anybody is under the illusion that it wasn't flawed in some ways and many people will step up to say it was a truly awful film.

Unlike Trek 11, which was successful and has the advantage in which not many people will say was a "truly awful film." So it's not "apparent" in the slightest other than it's someone's personal opinion, which is what I'm seeing if I-Am-Zim is aware of.

Apparently not. We can do this all day.

Which is why it's best that you don't, you aren't getting anywhere.

Highest rated Trek film and 2nd highest grossing? How "apparent" it is.

If I'm not mistaken, the highest grossing Trek film was TMP.

Hence my "2nd highest" comment.

And it wasn't that great.

Some people think it was, but if you go by overall ratings it wasn't deemed great. Unlike Trek 11, which is rated highly, which is why it's only apparently that it's only your opinion, and nothing more, that it was supposedly a "stinker" or whatever you said earlier.

Apparently, the demographic JJA was aiming for isn't hard to please.

Is that true for the Trek fanbase too then?

That was a whole different ball game. And I was quite good. Here, unfortunately, I just have to adapt my tactics to your lower standards.

*He swings and misses* Try again.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Since when as the opinion of mundanes mattered diddly squat?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Apparently not. We can do this all day.

Which is why it's best that you don't, you aren't getting anywhere..

Neither are you.

Some people think it was, but if you go by overall ratings it wasn't deemed great. Unlike Trek 11, which is rated highly, which is why it's only apparently that it's only your opinion, and nothing more, that it was supposedly a "stinker" or whatever you said earlier.

Yep. My opinion of STXI is that it was, indeed a "stinker" of STV-ian proportions.

Apparently, the demographic JJA was aiming for isn't hard to please.

Is that true for the Trek fanbase too then?

For some. But JJA wasn't aiming for the Star Trek fanbase. He didn't make this movie for Star Trek fans, remember?

"Forget what you know."

"This ain't your father's Star Trek."

Sound familiar?

That was a whole different ball game. And I was quite good. Here, unfortunately, I just have to adapt my tactics to your lower standards.

*He swings and misses* Try again.

Magnificent retort. If that's the best you can come up with, I have nothing to worry about.

And the crowd goes wild. Home run for me. Thank you very much. Try the veal. I'll be here till Thursday.

 

[M'Sharak]

Jesus.

Devon, Zim -- give it a rest, OK? I'm not sure how much more of this I can take.

 

[Pauln6]

Jesus.

Devon, Zim -- give it a rest, OK? I'm not sure how much more of this I can take.

I think they're caught in a feedback loop.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which borders Federation space.

We don't know that it does. Since "Federation space" can be analogous to "airspace" then it's only meaningful relative to a fixed point of reference like a solar system or a planet. It's entirely possible that "Federation space" only exists in a fixed radius around Federation claimed worlds like, say, Vulcan or Andor or their assorted colonies, in which case "The Federation" doesn't have an actual border as such.

That would neatly explain why a neutral zone is even necessary. If Federation space was just a contiguous blob encircling all their worlds, a simple "don't cross our border" arrangement would suffice. The neutral zone becomes a de facto border that both sides agree not to cross, despite the fact that what lies immediately beyond that zone is, technically and legally, international space.

So it's not an interplanetary boundary; it's a political treaty zone that probably coincides with a number of disputed star systems that the two sides were fighting over in the first place.

That's why I said "any given radius". It doesn't matter. If you exclude its effects on any other planet you effectively rewrite the script by resorting to the usual misconception that the hole opened up in the immediate vicinity of Vulcan.

It didn't need to be the immediate vicinity. Just close enough to affect Vulcan more than any other planet important enough for Starfleet to care about.

It's strongly implied by omission from Kirk's analysis.

Omission does not an implication make (same reason you can't prove a negative). It's just as possible Kirk assumed the lightning storm was Nero's black hole BECAUSE the Kelvin incident coincided with seismic disturbances in other nearby planets.

You know for a fact that there weren't?

See below.

Not good enough. You said "There were no seismic events." This is a statement of knowledge; do you actually know this, or is this just your assumption?

Because when I say "we don't know of any method of defeating that interference," that's a statement of fact. I say this because I actually know this: no method of defeating that interference has been suggested or implied, and there is no evidence for it.

You can speculate all you want, but you can't support that speculation without evidence, especially when the basis of your speculation is unnecessary and illogical in the first place.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Since when as the opinion of mundanes mattered diddly squat?

Since when did you become something other than a "mundane?"