They're having us on!!

[wonderstoat]

There's a couple of things not sitting with me right at the moment. I think this is all a wind-up. These guys have made their money with genre shows, they understand that the "ordinary public" may take them to $500m, but it's the fans that'll buy the merchandise, see the movie 5 times, buy it on every format - that's where the real dough is. It's inconceivable that when every studio is trying their hardest to build "franchises" that paramount/CBS would let Abrams wreck what is still, far and away, their most valuable property and alienate the fans.

I'm suspecting that this is all a massive wind-up. I offer 2 nuggets:

Interview published today with Abrams:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a135565/jj-abrams-we-cut-klingons-subplot.html

"they hadn't seen [Romulans] for so many years, so that it immediately breaks, for anyone who knows, the rules of Trek to start the movie and have Romulans crossing paths with Starfleet.

"It jumps in breaking the rules, which I think is kind of fun."

He added: "That's not to say it's not explained and it’s not consistent with canon"

So JJ KNOWS that they shouldn't have seen the Romulans.

Also, see MattJCs thread about his conversation with Robert Orci:
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=73423

Mr. Orci gave me some examples from past Treks which give some precedence( I don't know if I spelled that right) for what is happening with this movie.
Here is his exact post to me:

Did you see the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise?" Or Star Trek iV? Was Tasha coming back to life, or the theft of whales a canon violation?

Now, think about it. If all you'd seen of Yesterday's Enterprise was a couple of stills we'd all be "WHAT??? Weapon belts on the bridge?? Set 'canon has been compromised' outrage to 'TOTAL F**KING DESTRUCTION'!!"

I'm really starting to think that all of this will be reset either at the end of the movie, or at the end of the third movie, (if that's what they're planning). I think Abrams is saying as much. And I think Orci is too.

These guys are too smart to denigrate this. What better way to have your cake (kewl new ships & sets for today's movie theatre) and eat it (but our heroes restore normality after a hell of a ride) than a baddie f#%king with the timeline?

I know it sounds like Temporal Cold War all over again. Hopefully it won't be!
For all we know the Shat is going to turn up at the end of the 3rd movie.
At the end of Revenge of the Sith the big pay off was seeing all the art design mirror the Blockade Runner and Tattoine as seen in Star Wars. I think they'll get away with showing the 60s bridge (albeit "movied-up") at the end of the 3rd movie. It'll elicit the same feelings ("Ahh, I see now how it all comes together") in the audience.

I dunno, I just get this feeling ...

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm really starting to think that all of this will be reset either at the end of the movie,

I think you are completely wrong - this isn't a serial TV series where you can get away with that, an ending which is "that never happened" is a complete cop-out and would go down like a dose of the clap with the audience. How do you do a second film? "it never happened... again!"

Now you could say "oh well it will be resolved in a trilogy" but since he has to prove that the franchise has legs, it's a pretty bizarre decision not to resolve things when you know you might not get another shot.

I'm afraid I don't buy any of it.

 

[Franklin]

I don't think you can do an origins story that basically has the old DC Comics stamp "Imaginary Story" on the cover and say you've reintroduced the franchise. What? In the next issue, we go back to the world as we knew it. Huh-uh.

I've always believed whatever this story is fits into canon as well as anything before it has, and still changes the future in some way. Perhaps just as Picard may have changed the future at the end of "All Good Things," by letting his friends know their fates.
In other words, the TOS timeline may be the equivalent of the timeline Picard led up to when we first see him as an old man in AGT. Everything after that, including how the timeline unfolds again, is problematic. Everything that happened before happened, there's just no guarantee it's fated to happen again.

This "reset but not a reset" has been a off-and-on topic of conversation on these boards as an explanation for how they stay true to what went before yet start more or less afresh.

 

[wonderstoat]

I'm really starting to think that all of this will be reset either at the end of the movie,

I think you are completely wrong - this isn't a serial TV series where you can get away with that, an ending which is "that never happened" is a complete cop-out and would go down like a dose of the clap with the audience. How do you do a second film? "it never happened... again!"

Now you could say "oh well it will be resolved in a trilogy" but since he has to prove that the franchise has legs, it's a pretty bizarre decision not to resolve things when you know you might not get another shot.

I'm afraid I don't buy any of it.

ummm ... seen any Bourne? Casino Royale? Ironman? It's pretty easy to resolve the particular plot points of a movie and still show that there's more of the overall picture to come in future installments. And big studios have shown no fear when it comes to assuming sequels for restarted franchises (um excepting Superman Returns, obviously ... )

OK then, don't get caught up in what was only an aside (i.e. the trilogy idea). What do you think about my feeling that it won't be as bad as we fear and that the canon violations will be resolved at the end of the movie?

 

[JoeZhang]

ummm ... seen any Bourne? Casino Royale? Ironman?

Huh? Bourne and Ironman are irrelevant to the discussion, they contain a linear narrative with no canon or back story to call upon, so I have no idea what you are getting at there.

It's pretty easy to resolve the particular plot points of a movie and still show that there's more of the overall picture to come in future installments.

Plot points is one thing, that's entirely different from an ending that says "this never actually happened", it's a cheap copout that you are never going to sell to an audience.

Casino Royale is a slightly better example but not by much as it's a reboot - they are not trying to say "those old films and series still happened" and unless I missed a timewave at the end, the events of Casino Royale weren't wished away at the end and Roger Moore didn't pop up.

What do you think about my feeling that it won't be as bad as we fear and that the canon violations will be resolved at the end of the movie?

I don't think anyone really cares to be honest - the audience they are trying to attract certainly does not.

 

[wonderstoat]

Plot points is one thing, that's entirely different from an ending that says "this never actually happened", it's a cheap copout that you are never going to sell to an audience.

Um ... seen any Superman:The Movie recently?

I don't think anyone really cares to be honest - the audience they are trying to attract certainly does not.

Ahhh ... sorry, didn't realise I was speaking to a fundamentalist. Whatever, let's not fight about it. Yes the movie will be crap, it's an insult to the fans etc etc.

EDIT: Look before this descends into trading insults. Yes, my heart sank when I saw the new bridge and the new ship, I NEED everything in my on-screen universe to hang together, it's what gives Trek its versimilitude and allows us to argue about how shields react to photon torps and how a warp field works on a single nacelled design. I FEEL YOUR PAIN, but I'm trying to see a silver lining on this cloud, that's all ...

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't think anyone really cares to be honest - the audience they are trying to attract certainly does not.

Ahhh ... sorry, didn't realise I was speaking to a fundamentalist. Whatever, let's not fight about it. Yes the movie will be crap, it's an insult to the fans etc etc.

Huh? You are starting to piss me off, if you have a question about my views, ask me because your mind-reading ability is pretty fucking shitty.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Casino Royale is a slightly better example but not by much as it's a reboot - they are not trying to say "those old films and series still happened" and unless I missed a timewave at the end, the events of Casino Royale weren't wished away at the end and Roger Moore didn't pop up.

Casino Royale was not a reboot, it was a sequel to the previous Bond movies. If it had been a reboot, how do you explain Judi Dench as "M"?

The Daniel Craig character took the designation "James Bond" just like the other characters did before him.

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Dimothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig are completely different characters who just happened to have the same professional designation: "James Bond". Much the same way as his superior is labelled as "M", regardless who is actually holding the position (Bernard Lee, Judi Dench or whoever).

 

[wonderstoat]

Huh? You are starting to piss me off, if you have a question about my views, ask me because your mind-reading ability is pretty fucking shitty.

I'm assuming either

a) you posted before my concilatory edit, above

or:

b) you're an ass.

I hope it's the former.

 

[ST-One]

Casino Royale is a slightly better example but not by much as it's a reboot - they are not trying to say "those old films and series still happened" and unless I missed a timewave at the end, the events of Casino Royale weren't wished away at the end and Roger Moore didn't pop up.

Casino Royale was not a reboot, it was a sequel to the previous Bond movies. If it had been a reboot, how do you explain Judi Dench as "M"?

The Daniel Craig character took the designation "James Bond" just like the other characters did before him.

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Dimothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig are completely different characters who just happened to have the same professional designation: "James Bond". Much the same way as his superior is labelled as "M", regardless who is actually holding the position (Bernard Lee, Judi Dench or whoever).

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

 

[JoeZhang]

Casino Royale is a slightly better example but not by much as it's a reboot - they are not trying to say "those old films and series still happened" and unless I missed a timewave at the end, the events of Casino Royale weren't wished away at the end and Roger Moore didn't pop up.

Casino Royale was not a reboot, it was a sequel to the previous Bond movies. If it had been a reboot, how do you explain Judi Dench as "M"?

The Daniel Craig character took the designation "James Bond" just like the other characters did before him.

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Dimothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig are completely different characters who just happened to have the same professional designation: "James Bond". Much the same way as his superior is labelled as "M", regardless who is actually holding the position (Bernard Lee, Judi Dench or whoever).

That's just fan fiction speculation - there has *never* been any indication that Bond is a code-name, none. The only place you get that from is breaking of the fourth wall by Lazenby in OHMSS and the comedy version of Casino Royale.

If it had been a reboot, how do you explain Judi Dench as "M"?

They like the actress?

And if it's not a reboot, you need to tell the director of Casino Royale

Q: Does it restart the franchise?

CAMPBELL: Yeah, I guess so.

 

[Oso Blanco]

That's just fan fiction speculation - there has *never* been any indication that Bond is a code-name, none.

Maybe I missed something, but is there any indication that Bond is NOT a code name? Maybe it is YOU that is relying on fan fiction speculation!

Q: Does it restart the franchise?

CAMPBELL: Yeah, I guess so.

That can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[JoeZhang]

Huh? You are starting to piss me off, if you have a question about my views, ask me because your mind-reading ability is pretty fucking shitty.

I'm assuming either

a) you posted before my concilatory edit, above

or:

b) you're an ass.

I hope it's the former.

Since your concilatory edit constiented of *still* mind-reading my position and getting my position 100% WRONG it wasn't much help.

So turn off you mind-reading machine and let me tell you my position.

This is a film aimed at a general audience, so I doubt they care to explain it - and guess what, I don't care either.

So when you say I FEEL YOUR PAIN, you don't because I don't have any. As long as it's a good film, I don't give a toss what they change, I couldn't give a crap if violates every single episode of Star Trek every produced. It's a TV show, it's not real, I don't care.

That's what I object to - instead of actually *asking* me to define my position, you call me a fundementalist and proceed with your complete misunderstanding of my viewpoint.

 

[JoeZhang]

That's just fan fiction speculation - there has *never* been any indication that Bond is a code-name, none.

Maybe I missed something, but is there any indication that Bond is NOT a code name? Maybe it is YOU that is relying on fan fiction speculation!

What? Maybe Bond is a clone, they don't make any indication in the films he's not so he might be!

 

[trekkerguy]

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Haha thank you. This was a reboot, starting over at the begining for the character. Notice how it starts out with him not even being a "Double 0" yet?

What do you think about my feeling that it won't be as bad as we fear and that the canon violations will be resolved at the end of the movie?

Please, don't say "We" again. I don't fear anything is going to be bad, the more information that is released contrary to your ideas the more I am relieved.

 

[Kpnuts]

Casino Royale isn't a reboot.

It's just a new actor who plays James Bond... like all the previous actors.

 

[trekkerguy]

Casino Royale isn't a reboot.

It's just a new actor who plays James Bond... like all the previous actors.

So you're completely ignoring the events of the movie?

 

[Oso Blanco]

Maybe Bond is a clone, they don't make any indication in the films he's not so he might be!

If he was a clone, he would still look like Sean Connery. But it still is a better explanation than to accept that Judi Dench transported herself fourty years back into the past to hire a brand new James Bond while all the technology is still on today's standards!

 

[datas_cat_spot]

The idea of "James Bond" being a code name with different individuals stepping into the assignment over time has always appealed to me, but there isn't much in the narrative to support it. Especially since at least three of the Bonds all share a certain death in their past, they can't be different people. I'd say it's just a case of a reboot with an actress the studio liked enough to have return in the same role.

 

[JoeZhang]

Casino Royale isn't a reboot.

It's just a new actor who plays James Bond... like all the previous actors.

You need to tell that to the Director (mentioned above) and the script-writers

P&W: HOWEVER! It was hard to make this very clear in the script, and we all liked the reference in the novel to the two kills that earned him the 'OO', so it was decided to go all the way, show the kills and start him off again. (The 'philosphical' theory above of course still applies to the character's emotional growth in the film…)


So it is a re-boot.

http://www.hmss.com/films/casinoroyale/interview/

But hey, they only wrote and directed the film, what would they know!