ST09 critics, why don't you like it?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
So... the destruction of the Kelvin had the knock on effect of creating an extra moon/planet around Vulcan?
I generally agree with your points, but what I have to reply to is your brilliant signature! Although its presence on an internet message board makes it incorrect.
Or turn their once red skies blue?
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Well, the black hole/wormhole/temporal anomoly thingy whatever could have caused gravametric disturbances throughout the alpha quadrant that shifted the positions of various planets and moons causing all sorts of atmospheric and planetary strangeness...uh...nah. The writing was just lazy.
what the fuhhhhhhh.......
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! I mean, we had Nero say "I'm going to make him watch!", something he's obviously been waiting to do for 25 years and now when he finally gets the chance, he pulls a Dr. Evil "just assume it all went to plan".
I mean, are you telling me that Nero gave Spock a nice winter coat, beams him near a Federation outpost, and gives him a viewing device that he hopes will not only work but that Spock will actually use it? That's not really 'making' him watch anything.
If you watch the deleted "Birth of Spock" scene that takes place three years before the Kelvin incident, the skies are still blue.
No more or less so than for Star Trek in the past. One need look no further than The Search For Spock for a plethora of bad examples, and TOS itself is replete with them.
To the extent that the writers may have thought some storytelling shortcuts would be acceptable to the audience they pretty much demonstrated their familiarity with both Trek and the fanbase.
The Planet may have been in the Vulcan system, but never seen, in the Prime Reality. It was never established as a Moon.
♫ Blue skies
Smiling at me
Nothing but blue skies
Do I see ♪
Smiling at me
Nothing but blue skies
Do I see ♪
Indeed, there was nothing in TOS which suggested Chekov was some kind of great genius. Obviously he wasn't stupid, but he certainly wasn't the kind of boy wonder this movie depicts him as.
And further more, 17 years old and he was already in his final year in the Academy? Does that mean he enlisted when he was 13? As I understand, most militaries today don't allow anyone younger than 16 to enlist. So assuming Starfleet has a similar practice, and Chekov actually enlisted when he was 16, he skipped four years worth of studies in one year? I'm sorry, but if you're that smart, wouldn't a starship navigator be somewhat below your talents?
Sadly, this is a result of Abrams and the Cohorts just wanting the whole TOS gang to get together. Since Chekov is supposed to be the youngest, and everyone else is the age he was in TOS, he ends up being a teenager. And the end result is just downright ridiculous.
I generally agree with your points, but what I have to reply to is your brilliant signature! Although its presence on an internet message board makes it incorrect.
Well, obviously my signature isn't 100% accurate about myself. It comes from the special that aired in January for The Simpsons 20th anniversary. At one point, the writers were discussing the criticism the show has received in recent years, and one of them simply made that statement. I loved it so much I made it my signature.
What I didn't like about this film was because it created a new annoying type of criticism which heretofore I haven't seen before...
If you don't like something and the majority does, you're obviously an idiot for not liking it.
If it's something the previous version didn't do well, you're not allowed to criticize it in the new version, as well.
Even if you're polite and attempt to be civil with your disagreement, there's always a few people who just think it's a cover for being an asshole.
I was hoping a Trek forum would be above the petty bitchyness found in other forums but so far, it's been even worse. I'll admit, that was a naive position but I liked my naivety.
If you don't like something and the majority does, you're obviously an idiot for not liking it.
If it's something the previous version didn't do well, you're not allowed to criticize it in the new version, as well.
Even if you're polite and attempt to be civil with your disagreement, there's always a few people who just think it's a cover for being an asshole.
I was hoping a Trek forum would be above the petty bitchyness found in other forums but so far, it's been even worse. I'll admit, that was a naive position but I liked my naivety.
Including Chekov is a little silly, but your math isn't quite right. Let's assume he was 17, but almost 18 in the film (since it isn't specific). Let's also assume that, like Kirk, he finished the Academy in three years (since the film identifies him as a kid genius). So it's perfectly reasonable that he joined the Academy at 15, not 13.
Which is still...kind of ridiculous, but perhaps not quite as much so.
Which is still...kind of ridiculous, but perhaps not quite as much so.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Ya know, if they had acutally made any effort whatsoever to stick to the original continuity, the movie would have taken place between the events of "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before". In that event, we would not have seen Chekov, Uhura, or Bones on the bridge at all. Boyce would have been Pike's doctor and then Piper for Kirk. Sulu would have been the astro science officer and Scotty would have been in his customary chief engineer's position, etc. etc. The problem I have is that we all know the continuity of the original Trek universe that we have followed for decades. Now JJA and his cohorts come along and say "who cares about the last 40+ years of Trek history?" and just completely re-write and re-vamp the entire Trekverse for us. Wasn't that nice of them? Anyway, the only way they could have gotten the entire seven main characters on the bridge at the same time was to compile a bunch of rediculous contrivances and convenient occurances that strain one's ability to suspend disbelief to the very breaking point. The movie itself was fun and entertaining, as long as one doesn't try to think about it too much. After you use your brain for a minute (which the writers, apparently, hope you won't do), you realize how stupid and rediculous the writing is and how silly the coincidences and contrivances are. I think someone else said it earlier in another post, but this movie has more screwups-per-minute than all 79 episodes and 6 movies from the TOS era combined. One can forgive some of the worst of TOS because it was episodic TV. There were bound to be some turkies mixed in with the good stuff. But in a movie, you get one shot. Two hours +/-. And they had plenty of time to "proofread" and edit the movie to make it make sense. Apparently nobody did. And as much as I admire and respect Leonard Nimoy, I am disappointed in his decision to involve himself in this travesty. He passed on Generations but signed on for this????? Well, he is getting on in years. Maybe he thought this was his last opportunity to get back on the big screen again and just said "heck with it." I don't know. I just miss "my" Star Trek. And it saddens me to know that I will never see real Star Trek again. I'm very unhappy with the knowledge that the Abramsverse will be the face of Star Trek for the forseeable future.
"Who Mourns for Adonais?" established Chekov's birthyear as being 2245, so he should have been only 13 years old in the time of the movie (2258), NOT 17 years old. I don't see how Nero's incursion would have changed the year he was born (or added an extra moon around Vulcan...which is figurative, somehow...)
The "alternate timeline" excuse only covers some f*ck-ups, not all. Chekov's birthyear is one of those f*ck-ups NOT covered by that excuse.
EXACTLY. Which is why I'm happy that Warped9 made this thread for us, as a "refuge" of sorts. Unfortunately some people STILL try to start arguments while blatantly ignoring the title of this very thread...
The "alternate timeline" excuse only covers some f*ck-ups, not all. Chekov's birthyear is one of those f*ck-ups NOT covered by that excuse.
EXACTLY. Which is why I'm happy that Warped9 made this thread for us, as a "refuge" of sorts. Unfortunately some people STILL try to start arguments while blatantly ignoring the title of this very thread...
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Well, we're the "bad guys" here. We don't worship at the altar of JJ Abrams. Therefore we are the "insurgents" or "dissenters" in this tragic affair. Those who fall into the majority are the "good guys" and thus have earned the right to give the rest of us a hard time. We don't follow the crowd like lemmings, therefore we must be wrong. That's the way it is. Unfortunately. Even in a thread where we should be able to voice our opinions freely, the "ruling majority" continue to force their opinions upon us as if they were fact. It's irritating, but unavoidable nonetheless.
Interesting note: According to the Webster's dictionary, an "Insurgent" is one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party. Substitute "Original Star Trek Canon" in the place of "political party" and would it not be more appropriate to consider JJA and those who accept this new version of Star Trek as the insurgents? Just food for thought.
Interesting note: According to the Webster's dictionary, an "Insurgent" is one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party. Substitute "Original Star Trek Canon" in the place of "political party" and would it not be more appropriate to consider JJA and those who accept this new version of Star Trek as the insurgents? Just food for thought.
The original continuity is full of contradictions.
Now you have a few more, at least according to your interpretation. But hell, it's a new version of Star Trek anyway.
This is a claim of victimization and nothing more.
Here is the basic problem that some TOSers are having with the new version: for decades Trek fans have asserted a claim to Trek based on the premise that the people who own it need us in order for it to succeed.
Well, no they don't.
Or perhaps more accurately, most of us are happy with what they're doing and so are the members of the now greatly enlarged Trek audience, so the relative few - ten percent or less of traditional Trek fans - who call themselves Trek fans and object to the new direction have no leverage, none whatever, with which to insist that Paramount listen to them instead of serving the majority.
Fandom was like a club with passwords, secret handshakes etc, and the club is facing the problem of declining membership - not because people are no longer interested in the object of the club's focus, but because people no longer feel the need to come to the clubhouse in order to express and indulge that interest.
In short, old style Trek fandom is becoming obsolete.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
The original continuity is full of contradictions.
Now you have a few more, at least according to your interpretation. But hell, it's a new version of Star Trek anyway.
This is a claim of victimization and nothing more.
Maybe. But it's true nevertheless. In fact, I've been called an "insurgent", among other derogatory names, in another thread on another board by someone not unlike yourself. Therefore, I know this to be a fact. From personal experience.
It's a choice.
So you feel victimized because someone called you a name that you don't like? Huh.
If that person told you that you have green hair, would you consider yourself a "victim" or might it occur to you not to engage in a clearly nonsensical conversation?
I choose not to be a victim. You?
- Status
Similar threads
