This is an article I so agree with

[The Castellan]

http://guy-wires.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-jj-abrams-taught-me-to-embrace-my.html



I am in agreement with this guy about pretty much each thing he said, there.

 

[number6]

He's basically saying the same tired things the same 12 or so people here have been saying about the film for over two years. Most of those nitpicks have been stated and debunked over and over again. The rest are just fannish expectations. He needs to get over it and move on.

 

[Gojira]

I agree with only about 5-10% of what he said. I loved the movie.

 

[Balrog]

Sounds like the same complaints made in the numerous Plot Hole threads.

Regarding the "reboot vs. alternate timeline" debate, it sounds a bit semantical, although I think I understand the nuance. I believe STIX is an alternate timeline simply because of the presence of Nimoy's Spock. He represents all we know so well from before, and the change that has happened with his and Nero's trip to the past.

That being said, is there some change in 23rd Century tech in STIX? Yes. Nothing's perfect, and Trek fans have been very accepting in the past of all the changes made in the TOS movies.

 

[number6]

That's because TOS usually gets a free pass. Trot out Shatner and Nimoy to pass the torch for the umpeenth time and you'll get some TOSsers frothing and fapping over it. Try to do something new and exciting and, well.. we've seen it with every iteration of Trek that's come since. TOS fans can't seem to accept anything beyond the original 79 and TAS. TNG was too preachy and how dare they not have Kirk and Spock. DS9 was too dark and gritty and GR would have never approved. VOY had Kirk in a dress and ENT tried to erase Kirk and Spock's importance by claiming that there was an Enterprise before those historic voyages, and heaven forbid they try to recast Kirk and Spock. OMG Teh Fail.

 

[The Castellan]

I got no problems with TNG, loved that series a lot.

I just feel that JJ Trek was Trek in name only. And a lot of things did not make sense, and it seems the staff making it watched maybe one episode of Trek for research, if even that.

 

[Gojira]

I got no problems with TNG, loved that series a lot.

I just feel that JJ Trek was Trek in name only. And a lot of things did not make sense, and it seems the staff making it watched maybe one episode of Trek for research, if even that.

I actually felt the previous movie captured much of what made the original series as good as it was.

 

[PointedEars]

And let's not forget the Stardate debacle. Changing the system for Stardates took away the notion that this was another continuation of the franchise, though in another timeline. It seems now that Star Trek XI is clearly a complete reboot, and that Leonard Nimoy is not playing the same version of Spock he played before.

 

[Balrog]

TOS stardates never followed a system. That only began with TNG.

 

[The Castellan]

And let's not forget the Stardate debacle. Changing the system for Stardates took away the notion that this was another continuation of the franchise, though in another timeline. It seems now that Star Trek XI is clearly a complete reboot, and that Leonard Nimoy is not playing the same version of Spock he played before.

Plus the Kelvin is is bigger and more powerful than the Enterprise, our original Enterprise, which makes it feel more like a reboot.

And apart from the brewery looking awful and less advanced (Jar Jar seems to think all ship interiors are the same after 1950), but why concrete floors and cinder block walls? I mean I could accept that if it were some TV show B film on a shoe string budget, but this is supposed to be what, a multimillion, mega budget film, did Jar Jar spend so much of it on CGI and those annoying lens flares that he had to resort to a method that I last saw on the original V and use some old factory and say it's a space ship engine?

Plus the whole Delta Vega boo boo, as well as the Wrath of Khan Eels were like, "What?" It's like they used the names, but did not know what they were really doing. Same with the idea that because one ship, the Kelvin was trashed, everything with Starfleet and the Federation changed so much.

I think Jar Jar did a sorta bait and switch with "Alternate Universe" for Trek fans, like me, who did not want to go see a reboot, when it pretty much is one, since nothing seemed to gel with the established stuff prior to all this. And akin to what John Cleese said in "How to Irritate People", by this time it's not so much a reboot that's annoying folks, it's the inability to admit it's a reboot that's more irritating. Though reboots, to me, have always been the easy, lazy way out of something, since doing something original seems to be uncouth these days.

 

[Gojira]

And let's not forget the Stardate debacle. Changing the system for Stardates took away the notion that this was another continuation of the franchise, though in another timeline. It seems now that Star Trek XI is clearly a complete reboot, and that Leonard Nimoy is not playing the same version of Spock he played before.

Plus the Kelvin is is bigger and more powerful than the Enterprise, our original Enterprise, which makes it feel more like a reboot.

And apart from the brewery looking awful and less advanced (Jar Jar seems to think all ship interiors are the same after 1950), but why concrete floors and cinder block walls? I mean I could accept that if it were some TV show B film on a shoe string budget, but this is supposed to be what, a multimillion, mega budget film, did Jar Jar spend so much of it on CGI and those annoying lens flares that he had to resort to a method that I last saw on the original V and use some old factory and say it's a space ship engine?

Plus the whole Delta Vega boo boo, as well as the Wrath of Khan Eels were like, "What?" It's like they used the names, but did not know what they were really doing. Same with the idea that because one ship, the Kelvin was trashed, everything with Starfleet and the Federation changed so much.

I think Jar Jar did a sorta bait and switch with "Alternate Universe" for Trek fans, like me, who did not want to go see a reboot, when it pretty much is one, since nothing seemed to gel with the established stuff prior to all this. And akin to what John Cleese said in "How to Irritate People", by this time it's not so much a reboot that's annoying folks, it's the inability to admit it's a reboot that's more irritating. Though reboots, to me, have always been the easy, lazy way out of something, since doing something original seems to be uncouth these days.

It sounds like you didn't want to have Star Trek rebooted period.

If that is the case then it seems that any divergence from original trek would not have made you happy.

 

[sonak]

not a lot new there. Most was nitpicky, but I do agree with the "Kirk's rapid and ridiculous promotion strains credibility" and the absurdity of Quinto's Spock just stranding Kirk on a planet rather than just putting him in the brig.

Those are both just stupid, stupid contrivances that smack of "writer needed to get the story to a certain point and didn't give a crap," yet still, these are not new criticisms.

 

[Gojira]

not a lot new there. Most was nitpicky, but I do agree with the "Kirk's rapid and ridiculous promotion strains credibility" and the absurdity of Quinto's Spock just stranding Kirk on a planet rather than just putting him in the brig.

Those are both just stupid, stupid contrivances that smack of "writer needed to get the story to a certain point and didn't give a crap," yet still, these are not new criticisms.

Kirk's rapid promotion didn't bother me at all. I do agree that it is a contrivance that Spock didn't throw Kirk in the Brig. But I think it can be easily be rationalized that Spock's actions demonstrate an individual who is already emotionally compromised.

 

[The Castellan]

And let's not forget the Stardate debacle. Changing the system for Stardates took away the notion that this was another continuation of the franchise, though in another timeline. It seems now that Star Trek XI is clearly a complete reboot, and that Leonard Nimoy is not playing the same version of Spock he played before.

Plus the Kelvin is is bigger and more powerful than the Enterprise, our original Enterprise, which makes it feel more like a reboot.

And apart from the brewery looking awful and less advanced (Jar Jar seems to think all ship interiors are the same after 1950), but why concrete floors and cinder block walls? I mean I could accept that if it were some TV show B film on a shoe string budget, but this is supposed to be what, a multimillion, mega budget film, did Jar Jar spend so much of it on CGI and those annoying lens flares that he had to resort to a method that I last saw on the original V and use some old factory and say it's a space ship engine?

Plus the whole Delta Vega boo boo, as well as the Wrath of Khan Eels were like, "What?" It's like they used the names, but did not know what they were really doing. Same with the idea that because one ship, the Kelvin was trashed, everything with Starfleet and the Federation changed so much.

I think Jar Jar did a sorta bait and switch with "Alternate Universe" for Trek fans, like me, who did not want to go see a reboot, when it pretty much is one, since nothing seemed to gel with the established stuff prior to all this. And akin to what John Cleese said in "How to Irritate People", by this time it's not so much a reboot that's annoying folks, it's the inability to admit it's a reboot that's more irritating. Though reboots, to me, have always been the easy, lazy way out of something, since doing something original seems to be uncouth these days.

It sounds like you didn't want to have Star Trek rebooted period.

If that is the case then it seems that any divergence from original trek would not have made you happy.

Reboots are just, to me, the easy, lazy way to pump out a product. Make something original, something that that won't alienate loyal fans who enjoyed the past several decades of Trek, and that can wow the Joe Sixpacks. Look how annoyed Star Wars fans are at Lucas with constantly playing with and changing the films every few years, and turning their once beloved lord of darkness into a whiny emo boy that screams "NOOOOOOO!" every 10 minutes and alienating the long time loyal fans. I'm no Star Wars fan by any means, but I can at least understand their irritation at Lucas.

One can have the cake and eat it, too, and one can make a Trek story to appeal to the masses, and yet not giving the one fingered salute the fans who've enjoyed the past Trek....I don't think that is too difficult, just takes a little hard work, some research, and what not.

Hell, I'm looking at some fan stories online, like Mr. Cowley's Phase 2, and I enjoyed what those guys have done. New stories without having to flush the past 40+ years of stuff down the toilet bowl. And even Mr. Cowley gave the reboot a big with that cute video he did awhile ago.

 

[The Castellan]

not a lot new there. Most was nitpicky, but I do agree with the "Kirk's rapid and ridiculous promotion strains credibility" and the absurdity of Quinto's Spock just stranding Kirk on a planet rather than just putting him in the brig.

Those are both just stupid, stupid contrivances that smack of "writer needed to get the story to a certain point and didn't give a crap," yet still, these are not new criticisms.

Kirk's rapid promotion didn't bother me at all. I do agree that it is a contrivance that Spock didn't throw Kirk in the Brig. But I think it can be easily be rationalized that Spock's actions demonstrate an individual who is already emotionally compromised.

Heh, to quote an old saying that an old, southern fellow one told me, "His bread was not quite done".

 

[number6]

The fact that you constantly feel the need to refer to JJ Abrams as Jar Jar doesn't make your argument compelling or interesting. When you have to resort to namecalling to get your point across, you've got nothing to say. You don't like the new Trek film. We get it. The points you've made are the same ones purists made a long time ago. There's nothing new here.

 

[Cyke101]

Plus the Kelvin is is bigger and more powerful than the Enterprise, our original Enterprise, which makes it feel more like a reboot.

Bigger yes, but how do we know the Kelvin was more powerful than the TOS Enterprise? There were rules in the show that implied the ship was powerful enough to slag a planet, but the Kelvin had no such feats (you would think that would be helpful in such a battle).

But yes, TOS never established the Constitution class as the biggest, merely one of the most advanced. It could very well be a precedent followed by the Intrepid and Defiant -- smaller ships that packed more wallop than older, bigger ships like the Ambassador and the Excelsior (or even the E-D vs. the E-E).

 

[The Castellan]

not a lot new there. Most was nitpicky, but I do agree with the "Kirk's rapid and ridiculous promotion strains credibility" and the absurdity of Quinto's Spock just stranding Kirk on a planet rather than just putting him in the brig.

Those are both just stupid, stupid contrivances that smack of "writer needed to get the story to a certain point and didn't give a crap," yet still, these are not new criticisms.

Kirk's rapid promotion didn't bother me at all. I do agree that it is a contrivance that Spock didn't throw Kirk in the Brig. But I think it can be easily be rationalized that Spock's actions demonstrate an individual who is already emotionally compromised.

Plus the Kelvin is is bigger and more powerful than the Enterprise, our original Enterprise, which makes it feel more like a reboot.

Bigger yes, but how do we know the Kelvin was more powerful than the TOS Enterprise? There were rules in the show that implied the ship was powerful enough to slag a planet, but the Kelvin had no such feats (you would think that would be helpful in such a battle).

But yes, TOS never established the Constitution class as the biggest, merely one of the most advanced. It could very well be a precedent followed by the Intrepid and Defiant -- smaller ships that packed more wallop than older, bigger ships like the Ambassador and the Excelsior (or even the E-D vs. the E-E).

Had to be bigger, since we saw like 2 dozen shuttles. But why would they go from little ships in the Archer era, then to bigger ships, and then back to little again? And I never recalled any other ship with batteries of phasers that send out a shower of weapons fire.

With the Kelvin, supposedly being such a unremarkable ship, it sure raised a big stink when I got wasted....I mean I am sure Starfleet lost better ones, and never caused such an event that everyone's still talking about it more than two decades later.

 

[Set Harth]

I believe STIX is an alternate timeline simply because of the presence of Nimoy's Spock.

STIX = Insurrection

 

[F. King Daniel]

not a lot new there. Most was nitpicky, but I do agree with the "Kirk's rapid and ridiculous promotion strains credibility" and the absurdity of Quinto's Spock just stranding Kirk on a planet rather than just putting him in the brig.

Those are both just stupid, stupid contrivances that smack of "writer needed to get the story to a certain point and didn't give a crap," yet still, these are not new criticisms.

Kirk's rapid promotion didn't bother me at all. I do agree that it is a contrivance that Spock didn't throw Kirk in the Brig. But I think it can be easily be rationalized that Spock's actions demonstrate an individual who is already emotionally compromised.

Plus the Kelvin is is bigger and more powerful than the Enterprise, our original Enterprise, which makes it feel more like a reboot.

Bigger yes, but how do we know the Kelvin was more powerful than the TOS Enterprise? There were rules in the show that implied the ship was powerful enough to slag a planet, but the Kelvin had no such feats (you would think that would be helpful in such a battle).

But yes, TOS never established the Constitution class as the biggest, merely one of the most advanced. It could very well be a precedent followed by the Intrepid and Defiant -- smaller ships that packed more wallop than older, bigger ships like the Ambassador and the Excelsior (or even the E-D vs. the E-E).

Had to be bigger, since we saw like 2 dozen shuttles. But why would they go from little ships in the Archer era, then to bigger ships, and then back to little again? And I never recalled any other ship with batteries of phasers that send out a shower of weapons fire.

With the Kelvin, supposedly being such a unremarkable ship, it sure raised a big stink when I got wasted....I mean I am sure Starfleet lost better ones, and never caused such an event that everyone's still talking about it more than two decades later.

You do realize that by applying these standards to the rest of Trek, not a lot of it's gonna hold up, right? Discontinuities have been raging for 40 years.

Believe me, if they could have done cool Kelvin-style weapons effects in 1964, they would have. If you can believe the Gorn is a fearsome monster, or that blinking coloured squares are usable computer readouts, then you should be able to recognize that the only difference is that wheras we were once seeing the 23rd century through the eyes of the 1960's, we're now seeing it through the eyes of the 2010's.