ADF did "correct" it. The novelization says "... nothing left but my skeleton."
Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
ADF did "correct" it. The novelization says "... nothing left but my skeleton."
"Your aptitude tests are off the charts, so what is it? You like being the only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest?" -- Pike
Intelligent, yet unmotivated at that point in his life.
^And in the Academy scenes, Kirk's attitude wasn't that of a slacker, but that of a student so gifted that he found the educational process tedious and restrictive and refused to be bound by its limits. (So more like Caulfield in Frazz than like Calvin or Bart Simpson.) After all, he was smart enough to hack a computer program designed by Spock.
I thought the idea behind it was that the Orion chick hacked the program for him...he just wrote the code...
^ Even if that's true, it's not like any dummy can write usable computer code for something as sophisticated as a tactical simulation...contrary to the opinions espoused by Facebook ads, stupid radio commercials for community colleges as well a good portion of the people I've been forced to deal with over way too many years spent in the IT industry.
(Yeah, I've been carrying that around for a long time....
)
(Yeah, I've been carrying that around for a long time....
)
However, since that is the 23rd century, one should think that writing computer code would be taught in school just as any other language as it would be an integral part of life. Think how much we rely on computers and IT-based stuff today, from cars to refrigerators, now think of an extrapolation of how much we'll rely on these things in the future. I have no issue with thinking that even the dumbest high school student in the late 2250s could write code.^ Even if that's true, it's not like any dummy can write usable computer code for something as sophisticated as a tactical simulation...contrary to the opinions espoused by Facebook ads, stupid radio commercials for community colleges as well a good portion of the people I've been forced to deal with over way too many years spent in the IT industry.
(Yeah, I've been carrying that around for a long time....
^In a future where you just ask computers to do things, and computers are a billion times more complicated? I don't think so.
I think she actually just got him into the program so he could hack it. At least that was how I interpreted it.
I didn't say no one had ever said it before. I said that I had never heard it before, and that it didn't sound to my ear like something anyone would ever say. I'm not stating that as an objective reality, but it was very jarring for me.
It's certainly one more thing not to like about the movie, but if I had liked the rest of the movie (or even just the character of Kirk), I would've been able to live with it, and it's really not that surprising. But yeah, the original series especially was very insistent about not using present-day colloquialisms because they reasoned that that's not how people would talk 300 years in the future...
But this defense is inconsistent with the rest of the movie. If they weren't using all those present-day colloquialisms, then that would make sense. But you can't just apply it to that one line, since there's no other future slang or idioms used anywhere else in the movie (at least, not as I recall).
Yeah, I've been thinking about that, too. They also may or may not be doing it with X-Men (hard to say at this stage of development). I think it's probably quite likely for Star Trek (and also Batman; probably Bond, too).
Why would anyone think sequels are always bad? It's kinda contradictory to say that someone thinks both reboots and sequels are always bad, because the bad thing about reboots is that they eliminate the possibility for more sequels (in that previous style). If the greater body of Star Trek fans (old and new) like Chris Pine et al., as directed by J. J. Abrams, then it would be unfortunate for those fans if that series weren't continued, in favor of other stars and directors. Who wants to see a whole new cast every ten years?
It's not that reboots are automatically bad, it's basically just "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Unfortunately, by Hollywood standards, "broke" is defined as "too expensive.")
That's a knockout argument.
Personally, I prefer sequels over reboots and remakes any time. And if I asked you now what you would prefer, a sequel to Star Trek 2009 or yet another reboot, I'm sure you'd say: sequel. And if Star Trek 2009 Part III is just as good as Star Trek 2009 or even better, you'd still prefer yet another sequel over a reboot, no?
No, according to a cut line, Gaila talked in her sleep, and Kirk was thus able to get the access codes from her. She was not actively complicit in the sabotage; Kirk did all the work himself. He probably could've broken the access codes some other way, but he instead found a way to do it that involved having sex with an Orion woman, and I'd call that pretty damn smart.
Driving cars is an integral part of life, but every student isn't taught automotive mechanics as a universal part of the curriculum. We're taught to drive them, but learning how to build or repair them is a specialized skill.
My point is, it's unrealistic to begin with for a film set 300 years in the future to show characters speaking recognizable modern American English at all. More realistically, they'd be speaking some future variant of English that would sound as strange to us as Shakespearean English does, and would probably have a lot of Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Hindi, etc. loan words and grammar as part of it. So what we're listening to is poetic license in the first place, and that means it's losing perspective to argue about the "realism" of the usage of any particular idiom one way or the other. It's like complaining about the evolutionary implausibility of, say, the shape of an Ocampa's ears, when the fact that they're remotely humanoid in the first place is a far huger implausibility. Given how much disbelief you have to suspend about the whole usage of language in the series, why is it so impossible to suspend disbelief about a single awkward sentence?
And come on, do you really mean to tell me you've never heard a real person say something that you found awkward and strange? That's what I'd find unrealistic, if every sentence ever spoken were well-constructed and idiomatically precise.
In a way, I wouldn't mind that. Sometimes I think it's too limiting to have all screen Trek presented as a single consistent reality, with even the alternate timelines being part of the same multiverse. It might be more freeing if there were multiple totally unconnected interpretations of the Trek universe, as there are with Batman or Spider-Man or Sherlock Holmes.
And given how many of the core pulp-era assumptions of the Trek universe are already obsolete, and how many more will become untenable as time and technology continue to pass, eventually ST is going to need a wholesale, from-scratch reboot in order for audiences to find it relevant. Unless it ends up in a "retro" niche, a deliberately antiquated vision of the future, like steampunk. But that would have a limited audience, I'd think.
Re: express yourself or your-life in one word for today.
Assuming STXII is any good I'd probably prefer sequels, but I try to keep an open mind. "Automatic fail" is something I see far too often in the followers of what is supposed to be a show about a diverse, tolerant future.
Besides, I think Hollywood will be out of it's OCD reboot phase by 2014.
Hopefully.
Assuming STXII is any good I'd probably prefer sequels, but I try to keep an open mind. "Automatic fail" is something I see far too often in the followers of what is supposed to be a show about a diverse, tolerant future.
Besides, I think Hollywood will be out of it's OCD reboot phase by 2014.
Hopefully.
Re: express yourself or your-life in one word for today.
Don't count on it. The 1939 The Wizard of Oz was already something like the seventh film adaptation of that book. Hollywood is always hungry for properties to turn into movies, and pre-existing properties have the advantage of name recognition, so Hollywood's always been big on remakes and always will be.
Don't count on it. The 1939 The Wizard of Oz was already something like the seventh film adaptation of that book. Hollywood is always hungry for properties to turn into movies, and pre-existing properties have the advantage of name recognition, so Hollywood's always been big on remakes and always will be.
Yeah, but they're doing it anyway. So, since that's the rules they've established, they should be internally consistent.
I didn't say it was impossible to suspend disbelief. I said nothing of the kind. The line just didn't work for me, that's all. I thought something else (yes, even if it wasn't "sawbones") could've worked better (for me). I never said anything about suspending disbelief.
I've also heard real people talk too softly for me to tell what they're saying, but you don't hear a whole lot of that in movies. A lot of movies don't even have people using verbal pauses, even though such things have improved since the olden days. The fact is, dialogue in movies is not, nor has ever been, exactly like real life, just like most other things about movies aren't exactly like real life. So, yes, it is unrealistic, but we suspend our disbelief (and we are entertained...)
I wouldn't mind multiple interpretations, just not every three movies. I think, for a franchise whose last iteration had 28 seasons and ten movies, approximately eight hours isn't quite enough to give it that lived-in look. The more movies, the more chances to dig deeper into the characters.
Christopher, automotive mechanics should be taught in today's schools. I come from the UK where almost everybody who drives tops up their own oil (we don't have an entire dedicated industry to change oil every 3k miles because people are too lazy or incompetent to do it themselves). Learning how to make simple repairs should be taught, as it makes people far more independent.
But exactly that it what made Star Trek so great. That it's one consistent universe over 4 series, more than 24 seasons and 10 movies and a story spanning over 100 years.
One aspect that makes Deep Space Nine the best Trek show in my eyes is that there is a big story arc connecting most of the episodes. That's also why the TOS movies are so good, because TWOK, TSFS, TVH and TUC are all connected. I find that hundred times better than a bunch of standalone episodes, it is much more enjoyable that way.
And even while Stargate: Universe is so totally different in style from the previous Stargate series, I get a kick out of the fact that the story continues SG1 and SGA. If they had done an unconnected reboot, I wouldn't care.
Last edited:
But we're not talking about simple repairs here. We're talking about something far, far more involved. The proposition was that any idiot in the 23rd century would be given enough computer instruction to be capable of hacking a program designed by Mr. Spock. I think that's an absurd proposition. Yes, I'm sure basic programming skills are taught as part of the ordinary curriculum in Kirk's time, but that's a far cry from being able to outprogram an A7-rated computer expert. That's not changing the oil, that's rebuilding the entire drive assembly.
I think the idea is that computers are so intelligent that you can tell them: "Computer, hack this program to do this and that." and all the computer needs to ask for is an authorization code.
I know it's from TNG and not TOS, but Geordi created an artificial intelligence by simply asking the computer to create an opponent that matches Data's abilities.
And then... what exactly did Kirk do in the movie? The Klingon's shields were down, weren't they? That is a simple command that needs would be entered from the supervisors console.
No huge program hack involved. All he needed to do is to find a way to send the command "lower shields" to all Klingon ship objects from another console.