To Boldly Go.....
- Thread starter Plumster
- Start date
I don't understand your problem with this. Four-digit numbering systems that start off with 0001 (or sometimes 0000) and end with 9999 are very common.
For example, my car registry number (license plate) is XXX-0021 (not really XXX, but I'm not telling the real letters). When I bought the car, the guy who gave my the plate pulled it out of a box full of license plates; the next plate in the box was XXX-0022, then the one after that was XXX-0023, and so on. Therefore 0021 was obviously the 21st in that series.
So using your method, they should have just dropped the "00" part, since my plate is the 21st one in the XXX series.
I did a quick Google search for other people using four-digit numbering systems, and the first one I found is that scientists label active sunspot regions on the sun using a four-digit numbering system starting with region 0001.
It seems to me that complaining about something as trivial as "0514" as compared to "514" means that you are just looking for any reason to criticize, especially since a numbering system that uses a consistent number of digits is very commonplace and practical.
However, it has already been established that Starfleet ships have had three digit registries, the USS Grissom was NCC-638. Why did they feel the need to stick the zero on the Kelvin's registry? By giving it a registry of NCC-514, Abrams and his cohorts would be respecting continuity and canon. But no, they had to go and make it NCC-0514, thus showing that they are willing to go out of their way to piss all over Star Trek's continuity and canon.
And besides, even if we accept that at some point Starfleet decided to add zero as the first of a four digit number, in preparation of when they hit NCC-1000, then logically they would have done it at some point after the Grissom was commisioned. Meaning the Kelvin should have a registry higher then 638. So now we have Starfleet using four digit registries starting with zero. At some point after 0514, they decide this doesn't make sense, then switch to three digit numbers, even though they are 400 numbers away from needing four digit numbers anyway? Does that even make sense? No it doesn't. See Trek XI has already pissed all over everyhting Star Trek represents and stands for, and it isn't even in theatres yet.
Much like everything else in the movie that has been condemned by the non-fans. I too looked it up and saw the same thing, that Trek in the past did use three digit numbers instead of four with a "0". And again I thought: "Nice, they're fixing that too..."
Sweet! Trek stands for numbers and asthetics as opposed to Hope in Mankinds future!
I rarely post here, but I just have to say that if the presence of a zero in a registration number has raped your childhood or pissed you off or even made a smidge of an impression on you, then you have much bigger problems than disillusionment in a movie.
^ I learned the hard way that the 4 or even 5 digit system is a must have when trying to catalog on a computer. Hopefully, in the future they will be smart enough to figure it out as well.
Right, I've had that same problem. I worked with some computer programs that would order the list of the numbers 1 through 25 like this:
1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
...grouping all of the "1s" together first, then the "2s" and so on. I think the original version of Windows XP ordered numbers in this manner.
However, if you used a 2-digit system, the computer would list the numbers in order like this:
01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12...and so on
I'm pretty sure that Windows and the latest computer programs now understand that "10" comes after "2", but that was only a recent development. However, I'm sure that by the 23rd century, computers will understand numbered lists in a more intuitive manner.
I really don't want this to sound nasty. Really. I don't. But I feel I must say this: I'm not impressed by appeals to Trek's in-universe, thematic ethos of "boldly going" or "generic optimism" as defenses for what is overwhelmingly a fiduciary decision on the part of a Hollywood movie distribution company. Really, the existence of Trek XI has no more to do with boldly going optimism than Aliens Vs. Predator, Saw V or Sex & the City: The Motion Picture (The harlot adventure is just beginning). Paramount has a franchise. They want to squeeze money out of it. That's it. Our only concern (and only real room for debate) is whether this latest attempt at squeezing looks good or bad to us considering what info we have to go on: advance word, creative team involved, the few divulged story elements, etc. All else--claims of raped childhoods (we geeks have such promiscuous childhoods that any claim of rape is suspect, the cry of a whore who hasn't been paid enough) on the one side, appeals to the Sacred Pillars of Trekkism on the other--is sheer phumphery.
To my ears, all this talk about the higher ideals of Star Trek (on either side of the debate, cheerleaders or naysayers) flirts with cultishness.
To my ears, all this talk about the higher ideals of Star Trek (on either side of the debate, cheerleaders or naysayers) flirts with cultishness.
Well I'm sorry for you then. Because we'll be getting a hell of a Trek movie.Oh by the way... ALL movies are made to make a profit. And I am glad they are finaly making a Trek movie that will
because they aren't being as close minded when it comes to production as previous PTB were and the non-fans that so heartedly oppose it.
EDIT: And if that is flirting with cultishness then I hope all those who are declaring this film a rape to their childhood, and a disrespect to everything Trek and all the other comments that have been made are being considered bordeline cultists aswell.
Sorry you responded before I was done editting. But please, look over what I said and tell me where I am materially out of line. Your snide dismissal of any dissent is becoming more than a little troubling.
Of course I dismiss it. The only purpose it serves is...
There's a movie coming out, you'll enjoy it or you won't. I'm just sorry for those who have already decided they won't because they'll probably miss out. If it sucks it sucks, oh well it was ten bucks for giving something a shot.
The fear of change here is becoming more than a little troubling.
So if it bugs you so much, why stick around? Why not just put all of us who don't hew to your slavish, unthinking enthusiasm on ignore? Failing that, why not just have something intelligent to say? It can be done--Therin, J. Allen, Herkimer Jitty,among others, have shown time and again that this debate can be fun and brainy (productive it will never be but few things here are). You, and other posters who shall remain nameless, seem stuck in an adolescent pose of patently un-earned superiority.
Think on this--if you are indeed capable of thought--by your logic, you should be equally eager to condemn those who are enthusiastic as you are to mock those who are not. Both positions have about as much to back them when looked at objectively.
Think on this--if you are indeed capable of thought--by your logic, you should be equally eager to condemn those who are enthusiastic as you are to mock those who are not. Both positions have about as much to back them when looked at objectively.
I have no interest in a reply.
It seems to me with every guy I see disparaging online about Abrams' Trek, I find at least two guys (or girls) elsewhere who've never watched a minute of Trek in the past but are eagerly anticipating this new venture. This franchise is literally on death's door and they need a transfusion of "new blood" so to speak. The current fanbase is either unequipped or unwilling to step in and save it.
Agreed. I showed my dad the pics for the new Trek.
He was a TOS and TNG fan but fell away from Trek in the 90's after TNG ended.
"Whoa that looks cool, when's it out?" I think there will be some fans coming back
who became disenchanted with it. And also alot of "Kids" or younger fans who go
see it simply because it looks like a cool Scifi flick then end up with more interest in Trek in general.
There's alot to be gained from this film and actual reason to be optimistic.
^^^
That's great.
Seriously though, I'm an old-time Trekker and love TOS for what it was and I'm tickled pink that this film is set in that era with those characters.
That said, I also realize changes were necessary and I truly think that in the end result, the changes will work. Yeah, let's give this film a chance before we shit-can it.
And I love your av, JOL. It's about time we got a little HLA here on the BBS.
That's great.
Seriously though, I'm an old-time Trekker and love TOS for what it was and I'm tickled pink that this film is set in that era with those characters.
That said, I also realize changes were necessary and I truly think that in the end result, the changes will work. Yeah, let's give this film a chance before we shit-can it.
And I love your av, JOL. It's about time we got a little HLA here on the BBS.
My outlook exactly.
I wont add anything accept that i too am a big TOS-er
and think this is the best news, as much as i adore TOS and all, an update was needed in some aspects, especially set designs, for a Big Damm Movie of this magnitude.And for a modern audience, it was need to be able to sell it to non fans alike.
Its much like the re-design of the sets in Serenity, very different from the show but almost exactly the same aswel. The cargo area and cockpit being the main changes, but they were need. Serenity in the show was dark and rugged, that wont fly in a movie when your selling to non-firefly fans, so it was cleaned up a little, given a few new Big Damm Features and given a light blue tinted interior.
Changes are need, and especially for Star Trek migrating from 60's tv show to big budget 2009 movie.
This is a highly specious argument, as you most assuredly are perfectly aware of. Yes, as we all know, nobody, not even the most fiercely independent filmmakers, plans to lose money when they make a movie. That would be completely absurd. These people are professionals, they want to earn some money while doing their job. It's all the more true because we're talking about a movie franchise, and it's even more true because we're talking about a corporation trying to make a buck. Yes, this movie would not exist if Paramount didn't expect it to make money. Actually, if money didn't exist, the chair I'm sitting on would probably not exist either.
That is not, however, what we're debating here, is it? If it were, it would be impossible to talk about movies - and equally impossible to talk about books, music, sculpture, or any other kind of art made by professionals - without instantly ending the conversation with a good "pfff! they're just in it for the money"... There's a point beyond which cynicism becomes a waste of time for everybody.
Yes, the movie exists because of financial reasons. That's not the end of the debate, though, it's the beginning. What the OP was trying to talk about was not, as you know, the movie's existence, it was the movie's content, most of which is not dictated by Paramount's bank account. I mean, come on.
Similar threads
