They're having us on!!

[datas_cat_spot]

James Bond (Roger Moore) lays flowers at his late wife's tomb in For Your Eyes Only. When he married her, he had George Lazenby's face. It's definitely not just a code name.

Just a minor continuity error.

Ah, I guess the fact that in 'The Spy who loved me' Major Amasova says about Bond that he had many love-affairs but was married only once is also just a 'minor continuity error' then?

Not to mention in License To Kill when the dead wife is referenced yet again by Felix. So that's three Bond actors right there who share the same version of the same character.

 

[ST-One]

Just a minor continuity error.

Ah, I guess the fact that in 'The Spy who loved me' Major Amasova says about Bond that he had many love-affairs but was married only once is also just a 'minor continuity error' then?

Not to mention in License To Kill when the dead wife is referenced yet again by Felix. So that's three Bond actors right there who share the same version of the same character.

 

[chardman]

Oso -

There's nothing in any of the Bond movies or novels which conclusively confirms that Bond is not a timelord, either. Timelord regeneration, of course, is the real explanation for Bond's periodic change of features/personality/age.

 

[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.

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.

You're right, I owe you an apology, I assumed you were of the "THEY'RE KILLING MY TREK" persuasion when you're actually not. In truth, I don't really care either, as long as it's a good film that stays true to the principles of Star Trek and as long as we get back to a feeling of optimistic exploration rather than "best baddie since Khan/final fist-fight on board the doomsday device" movies we've had. If they can convince me that Pine, Quinto and Urban really ARE those characters then I'll be very happy indeed.

I was a little peeved that the ship differs so greatly, I mean, couldn't they have updated it/detailed it but still remained more sympathetic to the original design? I don't see how something similar to Vector's NCC-1701 wouldn't have held up on the big screen ... but on the other hand it would've been ridiculous to just use the jellybean button 60s bridge. I am, of course, cogniscent of the fact that so far I've seen ONE photo of it.

I dunno ... I guess it's a fine line they're treading and that's where perhaps greatness will come. But I definitely don't think it can be called a true bill REBOOT when the writers and director are constantly referencing "canon".

Interesing that this turned into more of a discussion about Bond! See what happens when you put a bunch of geeks in a 'room' together .... LOL

So anyways ... apologies. Still think that they'll find a way to rectify the timeline though. Unoriginal as that may seem, Orci's quote (first post) means something.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Oso -

There's nothing in any of the Bond movies or novels which conclusively confirms that Bond is not a timelord, either. Timelord regeneration, of course, is the real explanation for Bond's periodic change of features/personality/age.

Additionally, there's nothing in The Old Man and the Sea that concretely says the book doesn't take place on Mars. So, for all intents and purposes, I firmly believe it does.

 

[Sector 7]

As far as I'm concerned, if it does turn out that everything that happens in the movie is reset to the way things were before Nero's interference, I will be FURIOUS; I mean, letter-writing, boycotting, "hot molten hate upon all canonistas until the end of time" furious. If anything damages my fandom of Star Trek in a permanent way, it will be a giant reset button on this movie.

Listen, I don't give one-tenth of one crap what movie, television series, or comic book has gotten away with it before. I don't even care that Star Trek itself has done it before, thereby making it something we should come to expect from the franchise. I cannot conceive of anything more abominably stupid than to create this bold, daring new vision of Star Trek only to more or less press the big "RESET" button and say, "Just kidding!"

And, oh, Hell hath no fury like mine if I find out it's because they're afraid of upsetting the hard-core Trek fans who just ADORE their canon. Their Trek hasn't gone ANYWHERE. It lives on in their memories and hearts, and in television reruns, DVDs, books, and comic books. As long as there are fans of it, someone will keep telling those tales. So these purists need to calm down, take a pill, and let someone else take the reins for a while. Lord knows they can't do more damage to Star Trek than Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise did.

QFFT!!

 

[shapeshifter]

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 ...

Finally, someone else has thought of and had the guts to say this is a possibility. Clues all over the released material suggest this. Perhaps, and I so hope this is true, this story [finally] gives the TCW the proper closure it needed.

@ other posts not quoted here: My goodness, the hostilities here towards a reset button being pushed is astonishing. Am I seeing the same people who labeled some others here as purists for not accepting the bridge/ship design now doing the same over a plot device? Could the shoe be on the other foot now?

While a reset button is a cheap device, that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of Yesterdays Enterprise nor I suspect, will it of Star Trek if the same is true for it.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...Not to mention in License To Kill when the dead wife is referenced yet again by Felix. So that's three Bond actors right there who share the same version of the same character.

Correct.

...and don't forget Felix Leiter. Did all of the different "code name James Bonds" just happen to know a bunch of different CIA agents code named "Felix Leiter".

Also (even though the novels could be considered irrelevant to this discussion about movies), Ian Fleming had an entire background history of his character James Bond -- including his time in Eton (the school), and his name growing up was always James Bond (no code name).

Did any movie Bond ever talk about the fact that he attended Eton?

 

[John Picard]

Finally, someone else has thought of and had the guts to say this is a possibility. Clues all over the released material suggest this. Perhaps, and I so hope this is true, this story [finally] gives the TCW the proper closure it needed.

@ other posts not quoted here: My goodness, the hostilities here towards a reset button being pushed is astonishing. Am I seeing the same people who labeled some others here as purists for not accepting the bridge/ship design now doing the same over a plot device? Could the shoe be on the other foot now?

While a reset button is a cheap device, that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of Yesterdays Enterprise nor I suspect, will it of Star Trek if the same is true for it.

The problem is that they *KEEP GOING BACK TO RESET BUTTON MATERIAL*. Yesterday's Enterprise was fresh and original. No matter how often the original is duplicated or imitated, it is still the best. That's why people are against these stupid reset button/restore the timeline plots. They're tired, old, and unimaginative.

There's a huge universe of diverse characters and storylines out there (Romulan/Federations war, anyone?) to be explored. But no, the writers pick up their reset-button crutch and pen a story of plagiarism.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Oso -

There's nothing in any of the Bond movies or novels which conclusively confirms that Bond is not a timelord, either. Timelord regeneration, of course, is the real explanation for Bond's periodic change of features/personality/age.

That was always my theory.

 

[Qonos]

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.

Actually his name was Bond when we was trying to get his two kills to become a 00 agent in the beginning of Casino Royale. It's a reboot because Casino Royale was Bonds first Adventure, It was the first Bond book ever written. Which is funny cause it's sequel Quantum of Solace took place.. Well lets just say the original movie chronology is f'd up especially having Dr. No happen Before Moonraker.