• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star Trek"

Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

They aren't wrong, they are likely just defining the word "Star Trek" differently. And honestly I don't see why anybody deserves so much crap for defining it differently from you.

Is some Clintonian thing, like "that depends on what the meaning of the words 'Star Trek' are?" :confused:
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

They aren't wrong, they are likely just defining the word "Star Trek" differently. And honestly I don't see why anybody deserves so much crap for defining it differently from you.

They are wrong. Look: Voyager is one of my least favorite series. If I were to remove it from my own idea of what is and is not Star Trek, that's one thing. It's my opinion. I am wrong, but it's my opinion as long as I don't compare it to fact, because the fact is that VOY is canon and included in the Star Trek mythos, just as this new movie is included in the Star Trek mythos. I'm not giving anyone crap, you just don't like my answers as is obvious the level of offense you're taking.

J.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

It is Star Trek. And the few disgruntled fans are regarded as collateral damage. Star Trek is just an entertainment P R O D U C T. As in to make money. Too bad you didn't like it, your loss.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Yes. There's no objectivism to it realistically.

The movie is called "Star Trek". It is centered around the universe of "Star Trek" (no matter how altered), and contains characters from the "Star Trek" series and movies.


It is Star Trek.
J.

I think we both got a little confused I can see now that you were trying to answer the question, I was distracted by the line immediately following the "Yes" the "There's no objectivism to it realistically." which I interpreted as you saying that nobody else was allowed to have a different opinion. Which lead to our discussion where we were kind of talking about 2 different things. You were talking about your opinion, and I thought you were defending the argument that nobody else should be allowed to have a different opinion on this.

So yeah, no that it's resolved we can move on.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Works for me, Joe.

J.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

They aren't wrong, they are likely just defining the word "Star Trek" differently. And honestly I don't see why anybody deserves so much crap for defining it differently from you.

They are wrong. Look: Voyager is one of my least favorite series. If I were to remove it from my own idea of what is and is not Star Trek, that's one thing. It's my opinion. I am wrong, but it's my opinion as long as I don't compare it to fact, because the fact is that VOY is canon and included in the Star Trek mythos, just as this new movie is included in the Star Trek mythos. I'm not giving anyone crap, you just don't like my answers as is obvious the level of offense you're taking.

J.

I don't want to engage you again as I feel we just got through with it, but consider a definition of star trek as "the things I consider to be in keeping with ToS" by that definition Voyager could "not be Star Trek".

Star Trek is: Whatever Paramount calls "Star Trek"

is just a definition, just like

Star Trek is: ToS-ENT minus voyager

Under the second definition Voyager isn't Star Trek under the first it is. But in the end all they really are are definitions.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Wait, did somebody just decide what this thread was about? I'm lost again.

Under the second definition Voyager isn't Star Trek under the first it is. But in the end all they really are are definitions.

Well, yeah, but there's no way to get everybody to agree on the second definition, because it's all about personal taste. Qualitative and quantitative classifications aren't equivalent and shouldn't be treated as such.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Wait, did somebody just decide what this thread was about? I'm lost again.

Under the second definition Voyager isn't Star Trek under the first it is. But in the end all they really are are definitions.

Well, yeah, but there's no way to get everybody to agree on the second definition, because it's all about personal taste. Qualitative and quantitative classifications aren't equivalent and shouldn't be treated as such.

No they aren't the same, but they are both used and just because a definition is quantitative does not make it more accurate than a qualitative one.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Yes. There's no objectivism to it realistically.

The movie is called "Star Trek". It is centered around the universe of "Star Trek" (no matter how altered), and contains characters from the "Star Trek" series and movies.

It is Star Trek.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

What do you think, is this movie part of that?

After two viewings, I think this is a wonderful addition to that Star Trek catalog. Being one of those whose personal canon includes the TOS and TMP ONLY (extreme I know), I think this film does the best job at capturing the essence of those characters as originally presented. It has been a long time since I have been able to watch Trek and not think about those on screen as Shatner, Takei, Kelley , etc. I really enjoyed thinking of them as characters again. I will gladly sacrifice canon, as long as I get those characters back.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

I just registered, loved the movie, but i just registered to say

"J. Allen, what is your problem"

seriously every thread i read to see others opinions your lurking around being a duche, let people enjoy the discussion.

Dont bother replying trying to argue with me, im not interested, I'm just pointing out your lurking around brining a negative attitude to positive discussion.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

It is Star Trek. I refer you here: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html.

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts.

It is Star Trek.

Either that or the "definition" of my reality is: the Earth is flat, the universe exists in my head, and every time a bell rings a pink bunny gets its wings. Ideas don't make truths. We have to live in reality and I see no bunnies with wings.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Of course, it's part of that. The entire fabric of the characters and plot is woven of it. The movie would make little sense without it.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

Considering all of Star Trek ever takes place in an ever-shifting future, I tend to look at its sum as a chronology roughly following the production order of the various series and films. So by that logic, Enterprise took place after the TNG era. Why? Because people from that era traveled back in time and messed around with it, thus launching this new timeline, which continues into the movie currently in theaters. You wonder, can I accept this new movie, if it invalidates almost everything I've seen so far? Well, the DVDs are still on your shelf, aren't they? They haven't magically disappeared because of a temporal disturbance, have they? It all "happened". We will never again see new movies with those casts in that timeline, but who cares? We have a new cast, on a starship ENTERPRISE, to explore the galaxy with. The STAR TREK galaxy. And a new, unknown future. That's all that matters.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

And that's an opinion an opinion you are acting like is a fact. What do you have against me asking the question: In people's minds is this movie part of "Star Trek" as defined as "the sum of the previous TV series and Movies"?

I have nothing against it. You are simply not understanding my answer.

J.

Your answer appears to me to be that I can't ask my question, and I think that is fairly obnoxious honestly.

Yes - there is actually a lot of that going on around here lately. I have at the moment four ongoing discussions with people from here and elsewhere regarding this fairly new phenomenon that is occurring where people feel they cannot actually discuss,

1) Is this Star Trek?
2) In the altering is this STILL Star Trek?
3) Should it be allowed to continue as Star Trek if it has to be altered for mass consumption so much?


Sadly each of these people have stated they feel intimidated to discuss these things on the boards. One person even compared it to not being able to openly criticize bad decision made by the US in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. It's like this jingoistic air has taken over(much like the PC frenzy that prevents ANY discussion of ANY differences for fear of being called "RACIST!!!!!1!!!!!!!")and nobody will brook ANYTHING that is not glowing and gushing praise of the new film.

It's actually rather scary and, for somebody looking at studying psych, quite an interesting phenomena in group thinking.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

^ Actually I think we are discussing it. Just because we don't agree with him doesn't mean that we are telling him no he can't think. He says that you can genuinly call it non Star Trek and some of us are saying that you can't. That's not prohibition, that's the nature of his question. It is a debate, it just happens to be so fundamental a debate that it is a yes or no issue. The debate is over what is a definition of Star Trek and he wants to know if this 'Star Trek'(the new movie) fits in it. You can answer yes or no.

When you ask the question can this not be Star Trek?, don't expect everyone to agree with a certain metaphysical philosophy. They will say no, they will say yes, they will say maybe. But he asked the question? What gives you the right to tell people they are jingoistic because they don't agree with him. How is that any different by trying to minimize their opinion that in reality it is Star Trek? I can turn that argument around on you.

This isn't intimidation it is an opinion. Just because they believe strongly in it just means they don't agree with him. That is the nature of discussion and debate.
 
Re: Take the sum of the previous TV series and Movies, call it "Star T

I didn't limit the nature of the jingoistic posts to merely what is being discussed in THIS thread. It now pervades this entire forum - enough that, as I said, people have said to me in private they feel intimidated to even discuss it further.

So much for acceptance and IDIC, right?


Oh that's right - Joe Sixpack hasn't heard of IDIC, right? Nevermind, I am sure all of that will be covered in the sequel, "STAR TREK II: Too Fast Too Furious...er".
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top