The new Concordance (again) and ST: Of Gods and Men
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Similarly, the Bad Robot crew had a copy of the Concordance's successor, the Star Trek Ency, on their desk while planning out STXI. You can see it on the DVD extras. I had one of those childish "I've got one of those!" moments.
None of which had a lexicon of quickly accessible, alphabeticised facts about the characters, planets, ships and aliens already seen in TOS and TAS.
Captain Robert April was mentioning publications useful to the creators of new Star Trek so they wouldn't "screw things up any more than they already are".
That was my reaction when I saw The Real Merlin & Arthur special, which had Merlin's Colin Morgan and Bradley James do Road Rules in Wales. And Colin's reading Arthurian books, and I'm like, "I've got that one! And that one! And that one, too!"
Then he was operating under a false premise, as he usually is when it comes to the new movie. The screenwriters have clearly demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of Trek continuity and history and are on record as having made use of Memory Alpha and other references during the creation of the film. However, it is the prerogative of filmmakers to choose to disregard or alter details if doing so serves the story or makes it more accessible to the vast majority of viewers who either don't know or don't care about the trivial details that obsess the likes of us. Poetic license is not the same thing as ignorance.
Neither is poor taste or bad judgment the same as ignorance.
I haven't seen much of an "encyclopedic" knowledge on display in that movie.
It's almost Star Trek as told by Borat. They know enough of the language to get by and find the nearest resturaunt, but the syntax is still off enough that they really shouldn't be surprised if something they just said results in their getting slapped.
It's almost Star Trek as told by Borat. They know enough of the language to get by and find the nearest resturaunt, but the syntax is still off enough that they really shouldn't be surprised if something they just said results in their getting slapped.
For the most part, I have to say that I did like the film. It's just that the film has some credibility problems that seem to be waved away with the alternate timeline magic wand. The film requires us to accept some amazing coincidences and also accept that a third-year midshipman is commissioned as captain of a ship of the line. Starfleet ceases to be a credible organization if it entrusts the lives of over 300 men, women, and transgendered species to someone, who although talented, lacks maturity or experience.
The James T Kirk character was based on CS Forester's Horatio Hornblower. Mr. Midshipman Hornblower did not receive command of a ship of the line and was promoted to post captain after one adventure. He progressed through the ranks gaining knowledge and command experience. The Kirk of Star Trek TOS has over a decade of experience before he was assigned to be captain of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701.
If they wanted to show Kirk in the academy and tell his origin story, why did they not also tell the story of his time as an ensign, lieutenant, and commander. I would have been fine if they wanted to tell a young James T. Kirk story. But no, they have him jump up several ranks from midshipman to become captain at the end of the film. Haven't Orci or Kurtzman heard of time at rank?
But it seems as though I am fan intolerant of change if I cannot rationalize away these credibility problems in Orci and Kurtzman's script or the creative changes they made during the production of the film such as the scale of the new Enterprise.
The James T Kirk character was based on CS Forester's Horatio Hornblower. Mr. Midshipman Hornblower did not receive command of a ship of the line and was promoted to post captain after one adventure. He progressed through the ranks gaining knowledge and command experience. The Kirk of Star Trek TOS has over a decade of experience before he was assigned to be captain of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701.
If they wanted to show Kirk in the academy and tell his origin story, why did they not also tell the story of his time as an ensign, lieutenant, and commander. I would have been fine if they wanted to tell a young James T. Kirk story. But no, they have him jump up several ranks from midshipman to become captain at the end of the film. Haven't Orci or Kurtzman heard of time at rank?
But it seems as though I am fan intolerant of change if I cannot rationalize away these credibility problems in Orci and Kurtzman's script or the creative changes they made during the production of the film such as the scale of the new Enterprise.
Last edited:
Just to put things in perspective, imagine what it would be like if the TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT people were behind this remake: Kirk as an early-Trip style hillbilly. Spock played by (and as) Ensign Vorik. The "reimagined" Enterprise cobbled together from surving parts of Voy/Ent sets. Nero with a bowl cut, retarded shoulder pads and a generic bird-of-prey. All the energy and excitement of ENT: "Fusion".
The word is 'disaster'.
The word is 'disaster'.
Hyperbole, much?
So, 450 pages for roughly 100 hours of Star Trek, pre-2009. That works out to 4 1/2 pages per hour.
The new movie is two hours. So, nine pages.
And you say that the movie would generate an entire book on its own of 450 pages?
What kind of math are you using?
You can't write nine pages? I routinely write twenty pages a day, and I know there are other writers here who write that or more.
So, hyperbole. I just get the feeling you don't want to be arsed, and that's your right, but I also think you're wrong.
Yeah, I don't understand why the new film will be totally ignored in the new Star Trek Concordance. The alternate timeline makes it easy to separate it from the Prime universe. I have been vocal about its credibility problems, but for the most part I found it to be an entertaining film and there are several things I believe that they got right.
He was discussing TNG. Why Roddenberry had Bjo's book in his office for reference as a lexicon.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I think you owe the hard working men and women of the Star Trek office that brought us 100s of hours of visually interesting sets, costumes and fx on a shoestring budget compared to major motion pictures an apology.
Okay, I was wrong to bash them for recycling old sets, outfits, alien heads etc and apologize. They have done a good job over the years. Same for the fx people (who I didn't bash at all, btw)
However, although I've liked many of the characters TPTB have come up with over the years, I don't believe they would have done Kirk, Spock and co justice. I think watching a few episodes of early Enterprise, when they were on Plan A (more Voyager but with a different crew, terribly written bickering between Archer and T'Pol, characters without character etc) pretty much gets across my worst-case scenario.
However, although I've liked many of the characters TPTB have come up with over the years, I don't believe they would have done Kirk, Spock and co justice. I think watching a few episodes of early Enterprise, when they were on Plan A (more Voyager but with a different crew, terribly written bickering between Archer and T'Pol, characters without character etc) pretty much gets across my worst-case scenario.
As you just told me in your previous post, he was suggesting reference books that the makers of the new ST could use. That was the part I was addressing.
But assuming that a worst-case scenario would come true is just as fallacious as the stuff that CRA is saying.
Sigh. I didn't tell you that. He asked why we thought GR had a copy of Bjo's book when making TNG, and that's the only line I was addressing.
And the answer is: it was the only lexicon of its kind at the time, despite all the other ST reference materials out there.
Okay, maybe that's not specifically what you meant, but what you said was:
My point is that, regardless of which specific series is under discussion, it is a fundamental fallacy to mistake informed creative license for lack of knowledge. No matter how many reference sources or expert consultants a show or film may have at its disposal, it is still the prerogative of the creative staff to ignore that information and advice if they decide that doing so is in service to the story.
RookieBatman, I see your point. But unlike CRA, I (usually) fill my posts with IMO's and don't present my thoughts and opinions as stone-cold facts. I should have written "could have been like" instead of "would". I wouldn't have been wishing for faliure or anything like that had the old guard rebooted Trek, but I would have had my reservations about it.
No offence, CRA.
No offence, CRA.
