The New Movie: What Are Your Fears?

[3D Master]

Finnegan - bullied - Kirk - in - the - academy.

That's not reading anything into it, that's a cold hard fact.

Stop misusing words like "facts."

What you describe above is a little bit of second-hand testimony by a fictional character in a story. It's not even established as an objective occurence within the fiction, only as Kirk's recollection. It is anything but a "cold hard fact."

Ah, I see, so first hand testimony because it's done by the actual character that it had happened to him, is now suddenly second hand testimony, and from now on we're not allowed to take any words of a character as face value when he says the straight to your face.

I see, well then, let's have the Enterprise obliterate a primitive society who had some minerals on their planet and enslave the survivors to mine them for them. After all, the logs of the Enterprise are only second-hand knowledge, and Kirk's claims they were good people and against such practices are only his recollections.

It's not at all important, anyway.

Wrong, it IS VERY important. This gives us an insight, about WHO the MAIN CHARACTER is and WHAT FORMED HIM. It's about as important as you can possibly get.

Two months?? Where do you get these ridiculous time frames? You're just making shit up.

I'm not making shit up. A higher education is some 4 years, Kirk obviously isn't a senior if he has to be smuggled on board the ships, that least at most three years for him to be in the academy when it happens, and more likely two. When do you want him to be bullied between his fight in the bar with Starfleet cadets that he'll be serving at the academy with, and him still being mister law breaker smuggling on board the Enterprise before his graduation?

It's pretty much impossible for him not to be switching from rebel to bullied nerd and back again in month, a year maybe the best you can get.

I'm sorry, but you haven't come up with anything substantial to back up your premise, and resorting to a petulant condescending tone isn't convincing me either. Walk away and we can continue debating when you learn a little civility. For now you'll get no satisfaction by bullying me with that attitude of yours.

I don't start with a condescending tone unless you start with it. You're constant talking past me as if I didn't write anything down or the opposite is about as insulting as you can get, or you're complete idiot who can't read.

You see, I go with the assumption you're working from the same facts I work with, namely the trailer and bits and pieces we've come to know from interviews and such, and then you have the mental capacity to understand the implications of these things. If you can't, and I have to explain every bit of evidence we have and what that means for the events of things happening and how much time is between them - I'm going to. It essentially means I have to treat you like a 4-year-old who has no grasp of logical deduction and extrapolating estimates on how much time must have past - namely the above little tidbit about him being in a bar fight with the very cadets he'll be serving at the academy with. Meaning that that there can't be much time in between certain events, for example.

 

[number6]

The loser in any debate is the one who has to resort to insults when he is incapable of proving his point.

You've resorted to insults and I am done talking to you.

 

[3D Master]

The loser in any debate is the one who has to resort to insults when he is incapable of proving his point.

You've resorted to insults and I am done talking to you.

I didn't resort to insults, I stated facts. You are all the ones resorting to insults. And I've already proven my point, you just refuse to accept it, or are incapable of getting even the most basic of logic and timeline extrapolations from a guy who is in a bar fight with the very cadets he'll become a fellow cadet off while remaining the same rebel guy, but somehow manages to become a wimp who lets himself get bullied and revert back back again in no time at all.

 

[number6]

The loser in any debate is the one who has to resort to insults when he is incapable of proving his point.

You've resorted to insults and I am done talking to you.

I didn't result to insults, I stated facts. You are all the ones resorting to insults. And I've already proven my point, you just refuse to accept it, or are incapable of getting even the most basic of logic and timeline extrapolations from a guy who is in a bar fight with the very cadets he'll become a fellow cadet off while remaining the same rebel guy, but somehow manages to become a nerd and revert back in the meantime.

You've proven nothing except your inability to control your demeanor.

We're done. Stop talking to me.

 

[DaveyNY]

The loser in any debate is the one who has to resort to insults when he is incapable of proving his point.

You've resorted to insults and I am done talking to you.

I didn't result to insults, I stated facts. You are all the ones resorting to insults. And I've already proven my point, you just refuse to accept it, or are incapable of getting even the most basic of logic and time line extrapolations from a guy who is in a bar fight with the very cadets he'll become a fellow cadet off while remaining the same rebel guy, but somehow manages to become a nerd and revert back in the meantime.

You've proven nothing except your inability to control your demeanor.

We're done. Stop talking to me.

Oh Lordy.....

Perhaps it's time to Stop READING Each Other's Stuff, if it bothers you so much?
If ya don't reply, it becomes just another post filling an empty slot.


Anyway,
Either interpretation could be somewhat Factual, but of course WE really won't know till WE Actually See The MOVIE!

(Why is it that so often around here, one persons post apparently becomes another's Hell On Earth around here?!)

 

[trevanian]

Finnegan - bullied - Kirk - in - the - academy.

That's not reading anything into it, that's a cold hard fact.

Stop misusing words like "facts."

What you describe above is a little bit of second-hand testimony by a fictional character in a story. It's not even established as an objective occurence within the fiction, only as Kirk's recollection. It is anything but a "cold hard fact."

Ah, I see, so first hand testimony because it's done by the actual character that it had happened to him, is now suddenly second hand testimony, and from now on we're not allowed to take any words of a character as face value when he says the straight to your face.

Yeah, what you provided is first-hand testimony, which is pretty irrefutable. That's probably why they're jumping your shit, because you can provide stuff that is unassailable, and it makes you more of a target. I mean, SHORE LEAVE was mostly GR, plus the actors, rewriting as they went. That's as close to, 'from the horse's mouth' as you can get, plus as you said, the character relating a past incident to his good friend. Hardly apocryphal.

I also don't see how they can leave Gary Mitchell out of this thing, but hey, maybe his dad was on the KELVIN but wasn't as lucky as others.

 

[trevanian]

My "fear" is that 3DMaster will manage to get yet another once interesting and civil thread closed in the end.

How many is it now ? 6-7 ?

I refer you to my post above. It isn't the poster who is getting the threads closed, it is those folks intent on trying to discredit his worldview that cause this to escalate time and again, instead of allowing for a reasoned dissenting viewpoint. You guys ought to take a look at a James Bond site like Commanderbond.net ... there is a ton of resistance to anti-Craig posters there, but if you weigh in with some legitimate info and well-stated opposition, there is respect given, and the snipes stop. Here, any dissent from the Paramount is god position gets everyone burned at the stake.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I said he wasn't a rebel James Dean Kirk smashing things to pieces metaphorically speaking wherever he went. A guy like that doesn't get bullied, and anyone trying gets bullied in return, or at least his face smashed in.

A guy trying to overcome a rebel past he now regrets, and putting his mind to bookish things, and having been told he's on his last chance, may very well become the victim of a bully. A bully who knows there's a boiling, resentful temper under that serious facade, and who then takes every opportunity to provoke him.

Certainly, that's basically the plot of William Shatner's recent novel, "Academy: Collision Course". Rebellious Kirk always on his last chance, and temptation always in his path.

Anybody can become a victim of a bully. It's about inequality of power, and perceived isolation, not how rebellious or serious someone might be. And, of course, almost every bully has been, or is being, bullied themselves. Bullying someone else gives a victim a tiny bit of escape/satisfaction as a respite from their own situation.

Of course, the other possibility is that Kirk was always serious in one timeline, and in the movie's changed timeline he's rebellious instead, and now Old Spock has to rectify that timeline, or find a way to blend two sets of events into something the universe can live with. We don't know yet whether rebellious Young Kirk will turn into Serious Teen Kirk or not. Maybe Old Spock is the one who points Finnegan in Kirk's direction?

 

[trevanian]

Relying on Shatnerverse to justify Abrams sounds REALLY funny to me. Sort of like citing science in Disney's BLACK HOLE to prove the validity of a standup routine.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Relying on Shatnerverse to justify Abrams sounds REALLY funny to me. Sort of like citing science in Disney's BLACK HOLE to prove the validity of a standup routine.

Shatner's opinion of Kirk's background is what helped to form the Kirk persona, like his books or not.

 

[xortex]

Corruption of the characters. Making Kirk devious and immoral all to tell a story. Once devious always devious I say. If one has no ideas, one delves into characters. Can't Tos be remade to satisfy a modern audience without all that mucking around. That's what made the characters great. They're making the characters the concepts again. It worked for X men but not for Star Trek I'm afraid. Damage that can't be undone started with the first movie to the last, now they're goona start messing with the character form the other side - the beginning.
Anyway, Picard was the leather bound rebel, not Kirk. He was a herbert.

 

[SalvorHardin]

My "fear" is that 3DMaster will manage to get yet another once interesting and civil thread closed in the end.

How many is it now ? 6-7 ?

I refer you to my post above. It isn't the poster who is getting the threads closed, it is those folks intent on trying to discredit his worldview that cause this to escalate time and again, instead of allowing for a reasoned dissenting viewpoint. You guys ought to take a look at a James Bond site like Commanderbond.net ... there is a ton of resistance to anti-Craig posters there, but if you weigh in with some legitimate info and well-stated opposition, there is respect given, and the snipes stop. Here, any dissent from the Paramount is god position gets everyone burned at the stake.

No, it is the poster who gets the threads closed.
He derails thread after thread saying the same things over and over and over, refuses to listens to anyone and is the first to start the name calling in most cases.

There are many Trek XI "haters" around here but nobody else no matter how rational or irrational has managed to derail and have so many threads closed as this guy.

And stop playing the martyr all the time. You don't convince anyone.

In any case, answer however you wish I will not reply on this matter again.
This thread needs to get back on track.

 

[CaptainGold]

Just my .02.

What I fear:

1. ST XI becomes a comic book movie with lots of action and appeal to the young demographics, while ignoring some basic stuff about a starship, like military order which allows it to function (Note: that is why the sex scene I have seen pictured does really bother me). I don't want to watch a sci-fi version of Shrek with 21st century sexual practice in it.
2. I fear that another time-travel story is pretty close to jumping the shark, can't anyone write a Trek movie in its own time frame? Isn't there any new ideas out there?
3. That in our cynical, base society, even a good Trek XI gets parodied and laughed at by the "popular" culture that has its fun with anything but a very small slice of thoughts as acceptable or mainstream.
4. Trek XI becomes politically-correct.
5. Trek XI has really little to interest or excite people who were alive when TOS came out. "Reimaging" is okay, as long as people of all demographic groups can buy into it, not just people under, say age 35.
6. That there is no real deep plot to it, it is just another space opera with lots of tech, toys, tits, and tripe, that has an affect on you only until you are finished throwing the empty food containers out as you leave the 15 theater cineplex.
7. That Trek XI has no way to have a Trek XII in the future.

 

[MisterPL]

My fear is that this movie keeps us from getting a decent Trek TV series any time soon. It's my firm belief that Trek does not belong in movie theatres and never should have gone there in the first place.

Star Trek should be an ongoing TV series, not a movie franchise.

 

[JuanBolio]

3D Master - You don't have to be a wimp to get pushed around by a dick upperclassman.

 

[3D Master]

3D Master - You don't have to be a wimp to get pushed around by a dick upperclassman.

If you're in highschool where there's a massive difference in size, strength, and mental acuity between an underclassman and upperclassman. However, if you're in college/university/Starfleet academy, you're all adults, and thus equal in size, strength, and mental acuity, and there is no significant difference unless the upperclassman's name is The Big Show, and you let yourself get bullied around, you're a wimp.

Rebel Kirk would have beaten the shit out of Finnegan and be done with it.

No, it is the poster who gets the threads closed.
He derails thread after thread saying the same things over and over and over, refuses to listens to anyone and is the first to start the name calling in most cases.

There are many Trek XI "haters" around here but nobody else no matter how rational or irrational has managed to derail and have so many threads closed as this guy.

And stop playing the martyr all the time. You don't convince anyone.

In any case, answer however you wish I will not reply on this matter again.
This thread needs to get back on track.

Except for that annoying problem that I've never derailed a thread, but eh.

If I was part of a derailed thread, someone else derailed it first, and he/she just brought up something that required me to reply.

 

[trevanian]

Relying on Shatnerverse to justify Abrams sounds REALLY funny to me. Sort of like citing science in Disney's BLACK HOLE to prove the validity of a standup routine.

Shatner's opinion of Kirk's background is what helped to form the Kirk persona, like his books or not.

I actually DID like a couple of those books, but I seriously doubt there is a lot of Shatner's POV on Kirk in them. In the first couple, yeah, because he had ideas he wanted to explore on film.

 

[DaveyNY]

3D Master - You don't have to be a wimp to get pushed around by a dick upperclassman.

If you're in highschool where there's a massive difference in size, strength, and mental acuity between an underclassman and upperclassman. However, if you're in college/university/Starfleet academy, you're all adults, and thus equal in size, strength, and mental acuity, and there is no significant difference unless the upperclassman's name is The Big Show, and you let yourself get bullied around, you're a wimp.

Rebel Kirk would have beaten the shit out of Finnegan and be done with it.

No, it is the poster who gets the threads closed.
He derails thread after thread saying the same things over and over and over, refuses to listens to anyone and is the first to start the name calling in most cases.

There are many Trek XI "haters" around here but nobody else no matter how rational or irrational has managed to derail and have so many threads closed as this guy.

And stop playing the martyr all the time. You don't convince anyone.

In any case, answer however you wish I will not reply on this matter again.
This thread needs to get back on track.

Except for that annoying problem that I've never derailed a thread, but eh.

If I was part of a derailed thread, someone else derailed it first, and he/she just brought up something that required me to reply.

Awww 3D...

Ya should never let the opposition know they can get to ya!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Making Kirk devious and immoral all to tell a story. Once devious always devious I say.

Yeah, it's terrible what they did to Kirk in TWOK isn't it? No wonder Trek just completely died off after that movie.

If one has no ideas, one delves into characters.

That's backward.

If one can't tell stories about human beings, one resorts to telling tales intended to "enlighten" us.

Star Trek should be an ongoing TV series, not a movie franchise.

"Should" has nothing to do with it. There's no venue interested in running "Star Trek" on TV right now for the kind of money that Paramount would want for it.

 

[DarthAkuma]

TOS Kirk?

TWOK Kirk?

Shatner novels Kirk?

Who cares?????

With the time travelling in this movie we are getting, for all intents and purposes, an alternate timeline. This is a different Kirk than we've seen before because of this.