The Supernova.

[F. King Daniel]

It's a reboot. That's why San Fran looks like Trantor, that's why the ships are bigger amd have beer brewery engine rooms.
These things do not matter. They are mostly different artistic spins on what went before and affect only those who worship size-comparison charts and still haven't forgiven The Dark Knight for contradicting Adam West's Batman.
Nobody except a few die-hards wanted to see a Kirk/Mitchell/Piper origin story. They want the real Star Trek crew, not one-shot characters from a pilot whose line-up changed.
Chekov's in it STXI by error, but because they wanted to pit him in, so they changed his age to fit. Most fans forgive these things.

The supernova? Didn't make much sense.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Most of those are covered by it being an Alternate reality. A Divergent timeline. If they had set the movie in the Prime Universe, you'd have a point.

It's an alternate reality that diverged with one event set in 2233, an attack on a single starship, after which everything else went on uninterrupted.

I know, you can wave your hands and say "butterfly effect" to justify (almost) anything 25 years later, but the fact is, the writers could plausibly have kept as much of the original history as they wanted to, with the obvious exception of Kirk's father. They chose to do otherwise. Sometimes in ways (the ship's construction, Chekov's age) that even the divergent timeline can't really explain. Since the question was about how they chose to demonstrate their appreciation of past Trek canon, this is entirely relevant.

Yeah, they chose not to, so they wouldn't have to follow the old continuity too closely. It was the whole point of making it a reboot. A clean slate. A divergent timeline can change many things. Some peoples lives are altered. They will no longer wind up in the same places they would have been. They won't meet the same people. They might not even do the same things they did in the other timeline. If everything is the same except for George Kirk being dead, whats the point?

Lets play the old favorite Trek fan game of "speculation". The ship is launched later because they spent more time developing the Constitution class to meet stronger threats than the one in the Prime Timeline. Chekov's parents have sex more often than in the Prime Timeline because Andrie Chekov was on the Kelvin and almost lost his life. Now he lives life to the fullest.

You guys must have hated 2001.

The corporate logos in 2001 were there for a story reason, and made sense in the context of the time and place in which it was set. (Of course, product placement wasn't really a profit center back in 1968.)

I don't recall how Pan-Am and AT&T figured into the story. Made it seem more real though. Using "Trans-World" and "United Telephone" would have lessened that. I guess we cant have Star Trek be too real.

 

[lawman]

My Fanwank Explanation...

I imagine something like this perhaps happening, but in terms of the movie itself: It really didn't need much of an explanation betond "it happened".

I like your explanation. A dilithium-fueled supernova creating a subspace shockwave attracted to large gravity wells: that would make perfect sense in terms of previously established Trek pseudoscience.

Thing is, that would not have been hard to convey on film. (It's about ten times less technobabble than a typical episode of Voyager. ) And telling your audience stuff that makes your story make sense, rather than leaving them scratching their heads, is a Good Thing, not just some frill you "don't need."

Personally, I hate it when a movie just shows me something "happening" and expects me to go along for the ride because it's shown on screen, despite the absence of any plausible explanation. Star Trek is hardly the only example of this, but it's never good writing.

It's a reboot. That's why San Fran looks like Trantor, that's why the ships are bigger amd have beer brewery engine rooms.
These things do not matter. They are mostly different artistic spins on what went before and affect only those who worship size-comparison charts and still haven't forgiven The Dark Knight for contradicting Adam West's Batman.
Nobody except a few die-hards wanted to see a Kirk/Mitchell/Piper origin story. They want the real Star Trek crew, not one-shot characters from a pilot whose line-up changed.
Chekov's in it STXI by error, but because they wanted to pit him in, so they changed his age to fit. Most fans forgive these things.

Your post swings all over the map here.

Yes, I know it's a reboot... but honestly a lot of the arbitrary "artistic" changes (not the plot holes or bad science... but one thing at a time) would have been less objectionable if they'd just done a "clean" reboot, without insisting that they respected the Trek canon and trying to tie it into what went before, implying that all the changes have some actual story rationale.

I don't "worship size comparison charts," and I think Chris Nolan's Batman is one helluva lot better than the '60s TV version (although neither one has zip to do with the comics continuity), but regardless, trying to caricature the motivations of me or any other critic of this movie doesn't actually defuse the criticisms. Story elements either work or don't; to some extent that's subjective depending on audience expectations, of course, but expecting an internally consistent and logically plausible story is hardly an unreasonable thing.

And call me a die-hard, but I really wanted to see Gary Mitchell in this film, even if just in a cameo. He was Jim's close friend dating back to the academy, and I can't see what's accomplished by leaving him out. (Of course, I'd also have liked to see the Jim Kirk I remembered, the guy who worked his way up the ranks and proved his leadership skills, and he wasn't really in this film either. But I digress.) In general, supporting relationships that add depth to the main characters make them more "real," not less, and I can't see why only "die-hards" would want that.

Chekov's an error, you admit, but there because they "wanted" him, and this doesn't bother you? They couldn't have found a way to set this story in the 2260s if they wanted him so much, and thus avoid the error? C'mon, that's just storytelling by writers' fiat. It's lazy, so why should fans "forgive" it?

Bottom line here? Abrams, O&K turned Star Trek into a Big Dumb Action Movie, and that's a shame, because Trek at its best had always aspired to much more than that. So long as these guys are at the helm, I honestly have no interest in further Trek projects.

 

[F. King Daniel]

One of the strengths of Star Trek is that almost any type of story cam be told in it's universe(s).
They went for "big dumb" this time. Who says they wont do something a little smarter the next? (ok, they probably won't, but it's possible)

Honestly I don't think Garry was needed in this film, simply because they were already introducing everybody else, and every second Garry had would have been one less for McCoy, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov.

I personally loved the "in canon" reboot of this film. I much prefer Nimoy being "our" Spock from TOS and not the future of Quinto's. I can see how everything not adding up 100% would annoy some, but I'm not one of them.
Then again, I didn't have a problem with STV. I guess, although i'm a die-hard fan too, i just say "it's just a film" when something goes or is gotten "wrong". Each to their own.

 

[The Wormhole]

A story that makes sense would have scared people away? Do you really have such a low opinion of your fellow moviegoers?

Considering some of the movies that have been number one at the weekend box office for the past few, I have a justifiably low opinion of my fellow moviegoers.

Actually, to be precise, they have Pike call the Federation an "armada." Talk about painfully sloppy writing... might as well mix up the United States with the U.S. Navy!

Though he says "Federation" he is clearly referring to Starfleet.

I would disagree that this is apparent, unless "serving" and "enlisting" in an "Armada" were used in common English for non-military activity or employment.

All I'm saying is that they seem to be going out of their way to avoid directly referring to Starfleet as a military, just as has been done most of the time in modern day Trek.

Even though in TOS Starfleet was clearly supposed to be military and was portrayed as such.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm an old school fan. I started watching the show in 1966 when I was seven. And rediscovered it when I was 13 and at an age where I could start thinking about what I saw and discuss it with fellow fans ( in this case my best friend). Yeah, we noticed when things didn't quite add up. Be it the science, characterization or continuity. What we didn't do was whine, complain, rend our clothes, gnash our teeth and pull our hair. Instead we found a solution. Figured out how the information in Episode X could fit with Episode Z. If Episode Y's science was a little wonky we searched around to make it work or if all else failed we faked it. If we thought too much about it, Star Trek wouldn't work. Spock. Warp drive. the Federation. All impossible without faking it. If, in 1972, we saw an episode where Spock stops a Galaxy threatening supernova with a red matter created black hole we'd figure it wasn't a regular supernova or a regular black hole. That they had properties beyond what 20th Century science told us. Engage the old "Right Brain". Look for solutions outside of your comfort zone. Have a little fun. Go old school.

 

[The Wormhole]

What we didn't do was whine, complain, rend our clothes, gnash our teeth and pull our hair.

I'm bald.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What we didn't do was whine, complain, rend our clothes, gnash our teeth and pull our hair.

I'm bald.

Do you look like a 0 from above?

 

[The Wormhole]

Sure, why not.

The ulitmate irony, I resemble that which I hate.

 

[Devon]

Devon-

True to course, you steadfastly defend everything about this film,

No I don't.

regardless of how far out on a limb you have to go to do it.

Not far at all, thanks.

I'll cop to the fact that brother Sam was originally in the screenplay, so I guess the blame for losing him falls to Abrams, rather than O&K.

Now you're getting it.

Likewise an earlier draft has Robau actually ordering "first contact protocols" on seeing the Narada, rather than immediately arming weapons as shown on screen...

so perhaps they were originally trying for a slightly less militaristic sensibility, although that obviously didn't last.

That didn't happen. It would be worth re-watching that first scene. Robau made no initial order for "immediately arming weapons."

As for the rest, however... well, saying that the built-late-and-in-Iowa Enterprise has been discussed to death only repeats what I already wrote,

No, you're repeating what was already wrote and cleared up a long time ago.

but the fact remains that in all that discussion it's never been plausibly explained.

Nor is there any reason it needs to be, it's not important except to some of those who maybe notice the difference, and just explaining it changes nothing about the fact of when and where it's being built. But it isn't important to the story, therefore zero reason it needs to be explained.

And on what basis do you conclude that Robert April "didn't exist,"

That's me being facetious.

or for that matter that any other supporting character potentially did?

We know in the Trek verse that the others did, which is what I said. In fact I asked you to explain why they didn't exist in the new universe.

even though doing so would have been a great way to show that O&K knew and respected the show's backstory. Instead, the writers consistently took the story along the most expedient path they could find, moving directly from action set-piece to action set-piece and slotting the "famous" bridge crew into their familiar roles as quickly as possible, plausibility be damned.

Based on this comment, it seems as though a lot of Trek references (canon or otherwise) flew past you. Chapel? Admiral Komac? Winona and George Kirk? Sam Kirk? Kohlinar? Kobyashi Maru? Farragut? Archer? "Nyota?" Etc. Based on your criteria, they respect it just fine.

And in that vein, Chekov's age and position was blatantly a major retcon... whereas the Enterprise's age in ST III is a very weak analogy to bring up, as it could easily be written off as a poorly informed Admiral just spouting off.

So you're more comfortable with admirals that don't know their own ships? Especially the most famous one in the fleet? Eek.

And you know perfectly well that a stowaway cadet up on disciplinary charges winding up as on-the-fly First Officer (or in any other position than "in the brig") shows what nonexistent chain of command the ship had. Were there no senior officers aboard other than Pike himself?

Probably. But Kirk was the appointed first officer (and a rather good choice too.)

(If not, that of course begs the additional question of why Starfleet had seven perfectly good starships hanging around in Earth orbit,

There were docked. Same reason "several" were usually seen hanging around that massive Space Dock in the later movies.

including the new flagship, yet no experienced officers ready to crew them.

You're assuming that.

So, all told: saying that you don't recognize any of the inexplicable changes I've described doesn't mean they don't exist.

I didn't say that. There's a logical reason any changes happened = Alternate Timeline. But most were not "on a whim" as you claimed, and in a couple of cases weren't even changes.

Or do you have some evidence you'd like to point to that O&K actually did value past canon, aside from them claiming so in interviews?

Based on this comment, it seems as though a lot of Trek references passed over you. Chapel? Admiral Komac? Winona and George Kirk? Sam Kirk? Kohlinar? Kobyashi Maru? Farragut? Archer? "Nyota?" Etc. Based on your criteria, they respect it just fine.

The fact is, the writers had the opportunity to give this thing depth and context, layers and complexity, to build on what's gone before rather than discarding it. A few less (literal!) cliffhangers, in exchange for a little more time spent on character-building and integrity of plot and theme, would have made this a far stronger story, and one more in keeping with the best of Trek's history.

The only fact rests in that they didn't make a movie you personally like.

When discussing the corporate and military shilling, don't forget the product placements!

"The Voyage Home." (And yes it counts, and yes it was product placement.)

 

[BillJ]

Based on this comment, it seems as though a lot of Trek references passed over you. Chapel? Admiral Komac? Winona and George Kirk? Sam Kirk? Kohlinar? Kobyashi Maru? Farragut? Archer? "Nyota?" Etc. Based on your criteria, they respect it just fine. [/I]

So if I write a G.I. Joe movie and do a bunch of name drops it means I've been respectful to what has come before?

Part of my issue with these is that they are just name drops. They didn't seem to understand the 'flavor' of what they referencing.

And I don't remember Winona or Sam Kirk ever being mentioned by name. I remember some kid who evidently is suppose to be Kirk's brother being called "Johnny" in the film.

No offense... but there is a fine line between showing respect to what's come before and pandering. Not quite sure where I put this film in that regard.

 

[lawman]

They went for "big dumb" this time. Who says they wont do something a little smarter the next? (ok, they probably won't, but it's possible)

The fact that this movie was a reboot, that it made a boatload of money, and that the same director and writers have been retained for the sequel, says to me that this movie set the template for foreseeable future Trek and that the sequel will be as much like it as they can possibly make it. IOW, Big Dumb Summer Movie.

If it were "just another" bad Trek film (e.g., like STV back in '89), I'd be a lot more willing just to criticize it and move on. Unfortunately, I fear that fans of good Trek won't really be given an opportunity to "move on" in this case.

Actually, to be precise, they have Pike call the Federation an "armada." Talk about painfully sloppy writing... might as well mix up the United States with the U.S. Navy!

Though he says "Federation" he is clearly referring to Starfleet.

Which makes it a nonsensical remark. If it's "clearly" what he was referring to, why on earth didn't they have him say that? Sloppy writing, as I said.

I'm an old school fan. ... What we didn't do was whine, complain, rend our clothes, gnash our teeth and pull our hair. Instead we found a solution. Figured out how the information in Episode X could fit with Episode Z...

Where do you see me "whining and rending my clothes"? We're just talking here. Debate. Discussion.

Personally, I love reconciling continuity. It's what kept me reading comic books all these years. Take a look at my blog; I recently had a series of posts analyzing Sherlock Holmes stories and reconciling their dates. And I love SF, and understand just how far it's sometimes necessary to stretch science for the sake of a dramatic story.

But there is a line between (on the one hand) minor errors and artistic license, and (on the other hand) sheer careless stupidity. To my eyes, this movie falls on the far side of that line. So as a fan of the sort who likes to analyze stories and make sense of things, what could I do other than point out how and why this is so?

Nor is there any reason [the ship's construction] needs to [explained], it's not important except to some of those who maybe notice the difference, and just explaining it changes nothing about the fact of when and where it's being built. But it isn't important to the story, therefore zero reason it needs to be explained.

This makes no sense. If it isn't important to the story, then why include the change in the first place? OTOH, if it is important to the story, why not make the reasons clear? If you put something in a story that will leave anyone who notices it scratching their heads, expecting them not to notice is not a solution: explaining it is.

Once again, the writers' approach comes down to: "Here's something on screen. Don't ask questions, just accept it and move along." You seem fine with that.

Based on this comment, it seems as though a lot of Trek references (canon or otherwise) flew past you. Chapel? Admiral Komac? Winona and George Kirk? Sam Kirk? Kohlinar? Kobyashi Maru? Farragut? Archer? "Nyota?" Etc. Based on your criteria, they respect it just fine.

As I already noted earlier and BillJ just underscored again, these are Easter eggs. Name dropping. Nothing more. And it's especially odd that you mention Winona and Sam, since I'd already pointed out that neither one was named on screen.

The sole exception from your list, the one item that's an actual story element, is the Kobayashi Maru test. Unfortunately, while YMMV, I absolutely hated the way they presented this sequence. They had Kirk chew the scenery so blatantly that he might as well have hung a sign around his neck saying "I'm cheating!" Moreover, the real purpose of the scene in this story wasn't to explore anything about Kirk's character, but to set up antagonism between him and Spock, so as to play out the tired old "they're enemies before they're friends" thing that's familiar from about a million buddy-cop movies.

So you're more comfortable with admirals that don't know their own ships? Especially the most famous one in the fleet? Eek.

The "20 year old Enterprise" line in STIII was a goof that was rightly decried at the time. However, speaking realistically, it was an error on that writer's part that can be and was dismissed as an error on the part of the character speaking. As such, it's very different from a deliberate (and unexplained) retcon like Chekov's presence in this film.

You're assuming that.

The complete absence of senior officers to staff the ships? Yes, I'm "assuming" that because (A) we saw none, and (B) otherwise Pike would have to have been insane to appoint a stowaway cadet up on disciplinary charges as acting First Officer. (Oh, and then there's McCoy's insta-promotion to CMO as soon as one other doctor dies. And Scott's insta-promotion to Chief Engineer. And Chekov's run to the transporters because, apparently, there's not a single other experienced officer aboard who "can do that." Need I go on?...)

I didn't say that. There's a logical reason any changes happened = Alternate Timeline. But most were not "on a whim" as you claimed, and in a couple of cases weren't even changes.

An alternate timeline is not a "logical reason" for any particular change unless the writers actually show the reason. Otherwise, it's just a convenient excuse for writers' fiat, an act of handwaving.

When you can point to a good reason for a difference, then you can make a case that it's not just a whim. But your preference instead seems to be to insist that such things just "don't matter" (as with the ship's construction), or to try to excuse them by comparisons to past films' gaffes (as with Chekov). I don't think I'm unreasonable in concluding that you do this because there just aren't any actual reasons you can point to.

The only fact rests in that they didn't make a movie you personally like.

And again, you try to personalize this. No, it's not about the movie, the movie was flawless, it must be something about me.

"The Voyage Home." (And yes it counts, and yes it was product placement.)

The only thing I can recall that you could possibly be referring to in STIV is the Mac computer. I don't know whether that was paid for by Apple or not, but the difference is that it was an actual story element (and one used for good humorous effect, to boot), rather than something completely gratuitous like the Nokia console or the Budweiser beer in this movie. If it hadn't been a Mac, it would've had to be some other kind of computer.

 

[BillJ]

"The Voyage Home." (And yes it counts, and yes it was product placement.)

The only thing I can recall that you could possibly be referring to in STIV is the Mac computer. I don't know whether that was paid for by Apple or not, but the difference is that it was an actual story element (and one used for good humorous effect, to boot), rather than something completely gratuitous like the Nokia console or the Budweiser beer in this movie. If it hadn't been a Mac, it would've had to be some other kind of computer.

Plus the Michelob beer (mentioned by name) at the pizza place and the Chevrolet truck (seen multiple times) and the Pacific Bell Yellow Pages and a USA Today newspaper rack. But I would think the rules would be a touch different in a film that takes place in the 20th Century.

 

[BurntSynapse]

it addresses why the science in the other films seems to get a pass, while nuTrek does not.

It does not.

Sometimes, ignorance really is bliss!

 

[The Wormhole]

And it's especially odd that you mention Winona and Sam, since I'd already pointed out that neither one was named on screen.

I'm going to assume you meant to say George instead of Sam, since Sam was named when we saw him in Operation Annhilate.

 

[EJA]

Regarding the supernova, the film states that the Red Matter was needed in order to create a black hole that would stop it. But the Romulans themselves are fully capable of creating their own artificial singularities, which they use to power their ships, so what do they need the Red Matter for in the first place?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Regarding the supernova, the film states that the Red Matter was needed in order to create a black hole that would stop it. But the Romulans themselves are fully capable of creating their own artificial singularities, which they use to power their ships, so what do they need the Red Matter for in the first place?

Difference: scale.

 

[M'Sharak]

it addresses why the science in the other films seems to get a pass, while nuTrek does not.

It does not.

Sometimes, ignorance really is bliss!

And sometimes, personal potshots are better not taken. Nearly always, in fact.

If you wish to post only to taunt, go play in TNZ; almost anything goes there.

 

[Devon]

So if I write a G.I. Joe movie and do a bunch of name drops it means I've been respectful to what has come before?

As long as it fits, yes. However, it isn't what I said. Pay attention to "lawman's" post. He claims that they didn't respect the back history because there was "no mention" of those particular characters. However, most of the examples I mentioned aren't merely "name dropped."

And I don't remember Winona or Sam Kirk ever being mentioned by name.

Doesn't matter, she was still a character and was cast as Winona. She's still Kirk's mother.

I remember some kid who evidently is suppose to be Kirk's brother being called "Johnny" in the film.

The writers wrote him in as the older brother named Sam (which shows they respect canon.) What J.J. decided to do in editing shouldn't be used as some sort of "slam" against the writers, nor takes away from the fact that he was written and filmed as Kirk's older brother.

No offense... but there is a fine line between showing respect to what's come before and pandering. Not quite sure where I put this film in that regard.

Then don't try.

----

Which makes it a nonsensical remark. If it's "clearly" what he was referring to, why on earth didn't they have him say that? Sloppy writing, as I said.

Or *gasp* he meant it!

This makes no sense. If it isn't important to the story, then why include the change in the first place?

To clear this up: The reasoning for it being built on the ground isn't important. There would be zero reason to explain why it is the way it is because it is there for about all of 5 seconds. The important part of that scene was Kirk's turning point and seeing his future. This would be as pointless as going into great detail about why the crew uniforms were different, etc. I mean do you honestly think that many people care? They don't. Also how is it important to the story?

OTOH, if it is important to the story, why not make the reasons clear? If you put something in a story that will leave anyone who notices it scratching their heads, expecting them not to notice is not a solution: explaining it is.

Were you expecting a scene in which Kirk rides up to the Enterprise, then rides up to the area as far as he can and gets in a conversation with one of the assemblymen about why the Enterprise built on Earth? You're forgetting that this is only important to you (which is fine.) Not to the story.

Once again, the writers' approach comes down to: "Here's something on screen. Don't ask questions, just accept it and move along." You seem fine with that.

Because in this case they would be correct. But then, the reason why the Enterprise being built on the ground isn't important to me, or to the story. It seems to be of little importance to anyone else for that matter. Therefore the writers knew what worked and went for it.

As I already noted earlier and BillJ just underscored again, these are Easter eggs. Name dropping. Nothing more.

Nope. They are actually parts of the story. Remember, you implied that a "mere mention" would show that the writers would respect canon. Well the "mere mentions" were actually parts of the story and even more than "name dropping."

And it's especially odd that you mention Winona and Sam, since I'd already pointed out that neither one was named on screen.

Are you saying that Kirk's mother actually has no name despite being cast and written as "Winona?" So the fact that someone didn't mention her by name says what about the writers? Then earlier you admitted that the Sam thing was J.J. We're discussing if the writers respect canon here, just as a refresher.

The complete absence of senior officers to staff the ships? Yes, I'm "assuming" that because (A) we saw none,

First you said no "experienced officers," now you've changed it to "senior officers." Let's stick to your original claim. What evidence do you have that there were zero experienced officers on the ship?

An alternate timeline is not a "logical reason" for any particular change unless the writers actually show the reason.

Not at all. I didn't think it would be hard to figure that some changes would happen because of an alternate timeline (like anything else in Trek in which this occured.) Plus how would some of these "changes" be explained? The people of this timeline aren't even aware of the changes until 3/4 of the way through, or 25 years after they started. That's what you need to understand. To them, the Enterprise looks the way it's supposed to, it's built on the ground because it's supposed (which obviously caused no problems,) etc. Therefore there are no changes to have to explain.

You're making all these claims that the writers "should do this" or "should do that" as though you're some sort of self proclaimed authority figure on how to write, but have offered little reasoning or solutions to doing so yourself.

When you can point to a good reason for a difference, then you can make a case that it's not just a whim. But your preference instead seems to be to insist that such things just "don't matter" (as with the ship's construction), or to try to excuse them by comparisons to past films' gaffes (as with Chekov). I don't think I'm unreasonable in concluding that you do this because there just aren't any actual reasons you can point to.

Incorrect.

And again, you try to personalize this.

Right, because it's the only reason you're complaining.

No, it's not about the movie, the movie was flawless, it must be something about me.

Not exactly.

The only thing I can recall that you could possibly be referring to in STIV is the Mac computer.

Michelob Beer, Budweiser Logo, Yellow Pages (if I recall.)

I don't know whether that was paid for by Apple or not, but the difference is that it was an actual story element (and one used for good humorous effect, to boot),

The fact that it was a computer was the story element. The fact it was Apple was product placement. And you can bet that Paramount got a kick back from that.

rather than something completely gratuitous like the Nokia console or the Budweiser beer in this movie.

Nokia was there obviously because of the tie-in that eventually happened. The Budweiser reference was likely a trade off of using their brewery for a filming location.

If it hadn't been a Mac, it would've had to be some other kind of computer.

It could have been "Bananas Computers" and still been a computer. It wasn't. Nor am I saying there is anything wrong with what Star Trek 4 did either, I accepted it as product placement (and wasn't the last time to do so until this film.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm an old school fan. ... What we didn't do was whine, complain, rend our clothes, gnash our teeth and pull our hair. Instead we found a solution. Figured out how the information in Episode X could fit with Episode Z...

Where do you see me "whining and rending my clothes"? We're just talking here. Debate. Discussion.

Personally, I love reconciling continuity. It's what kept me reading comic books all these years. Take a look at my blog; I recently had a series of posts analyzing Sherlock Holmes stories and reconciling their dates. And I love SF, and understand just how far it's sometimes necessary to stretch science for the sake of a dramatic story.

But there is a line between (on the one hand) minor errors and artistic license, and (on the other hand) sheer careless stupidity. To my eyes, this movie falls on the far side of that line. So as a fan of the sort who likes to analyze stories and make sense of things, what could I do other than point out how and why this is so?

I wasn;t address you specifically, just an general attitude.

I'm a solution oriented person, so if I find a flaw I look for a way to fix it. They go hand in hand in my opinion. And thats where the real fun lies. A chance to flex those creative muscles. I see no difference between goofing up continuity or goofing up the science. And I dont like making accusations like "careless stupidity". I've no idea what the thought process behind a creative decision might be. They might be perfectly aware that the science is bad but went with it any way for any number of reasons. We dont write or produce movies ( well I know I dont) so I'm not sure I can always differentiate bewtween "stupid" and needs of the medium/story/visual presentation or impact. But I'm the generous sort and the world's negative enough.