Trailer Reaction...authors?

[tranya]

By the way, since the "let's see what we think when a number of people get to see these clips" criterion has been proposed, what the hell, here are the specific phrases used in a number of independent reviews of those scenes:

Spoiler: Review Snippets

Anthony Pascale: "Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) has smuggled him on board the USS Enterprise for her maiden voyage. "

Cinematical: "However, the Enterprise is about to make its maiden voyage and Kirk really wants to see what she's all about"

MovieWeb: "The Enterprise is on its maiden voyage under Captain Pike."

Wizard Universe: "The Enterprise's Maiden Voyage"

SciFi.com: "Enterprise, on her maiden voyage, takes part in a rescue mission to Vulcan."

Etc. Etc.

Do you need more?

 

[tranya]

^ Well, to me, the biggest question would seem to be: Are any changes "permanent," or are they resolved via the events of the film? Everything pretty much hinges on that. Until that's answered, we're left with a lot of interesting visuals and a few piecemeal explanations for scenes shown without any real context so far as the entire story's concerned.

That's not sticking one's head in the sand; that's being pragmatic. I realize that's a foreign concept so far as Internet message boards are concerned, but I've always been a rebel.

And for the record: I really have no druthers about it being a reboot, partial or otherwise. I just want to understand the true extent before I start pitching TOS novel ideas

Fair enough! The Internet does tend to turn these kinds of things into polarizing arguments, and I apologize if I'm getting too snarky or annoyed in this thread.

I do agree that, obviously, we won't know until we've all seen the full movie and properly dissected it. But, by my read, the writing's on the wall -- it just doesn't make any sense for Abrams, et al, to go to this much trouble presenting an alternate view of Trek and then hit a reset button at the end of the film. The cast are signed to three-movie contracts (according to Chris Pine), and if this film doesn't serve as a jumping-off point for a new trilogy that's at least somewhat self-consistent, then they've wasted an opportunity to make the franchise relevant for today's audiences.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but I don't think they particularly care about what established Trek fans think re: "canon" or continuity. They clearly want to honor some of it (Kirk in Iowa, his parents' names, the Kobayashi Maru scene, etc.), but some of it just isn't necessary for the story they want to tell.

I forget who posted it, but I really do like the analogy to the Big Finish audio dramas in the Doctor Who world -- I'd personally enjoy seeing the future of Trek lit bifurcate into a classic Trek universe and a new Trek universe.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Well, from where I sit, the biggest pill folks are trying to swallow is that we've been hearing for two years...that's right...two frikkin' years...how this movie "respects canon," is "consistent with canon," "honors the Trek canon," etc.

Here's my take: JJA and Company have done nothing by accident, or due to any failure to perform due diligence so far as Trek "history" is concerned. Even if there are changes to what we know as "canon," they'll be for deliberate reasons and will be explained within the course of the film. They've chosen to reveal tasty morsels that seem to counter their earlier statements, or at least turn them on their ear a bit, precisely to spin up the message boards, fan sites, and so forth. Goes a long way toward keeping up interest for a movie that's still months away, doesn't it?

 

[tranya]

Yep, that makes sense, I think we just have different views of what "respects canon" (as, um, any two fans of Trek will, I guess ).

Having seen Orci and Kurtzman's previous films, I don't have a lot of hope that there will be subtle explanations for why continuity has changed -- I suspect it'll likely be "Well, the Kelvin blew up when it hadn't before, and, wow, everything changed after that! Fast forward 25 years!"

Which is, of course, a "canonical" explanation of sorts. And, I'm keeping my expectations low, assuming we won't get much more than that.

 

[Timo]

It seems there's a lot of misreading and speaking past each other here...

I don't particularly doubt any specific bit of those reports we have read so far. I categorically doubt each and every bit of those reports, because the people behind those reports are fallible. And not because they would be somehow closer to our primate ancestors than exalted me, but because we all are fallible, and none of us could be expected to get all the details right.

Beyond that, there are items that are more likely to be subject to error than others. We are seeing one and the same actor portray a character at multiple time periods, for example - and many of the early reports were quite confused about which scene represents which timepoint, and even the latest reports have to speculate on whether scenes 3 and 4 are shown in right order, or reversed.

And no, reading more of those reports is in no way helpful, because it won't take away a systematic error - say, JJ Abrams mistakenly saying in the showing that the audience is seeing the maiden voyage of the ship. And yes, the director is quite likely to make such mistakes. He hasn't written this thing, after all, or proofread all the nerdy in-jokes. He's merely directing it. Actors are just as likely to make elementary mistakes when speaking of their characters.

Not accepting that such mistakes are likely to exist is half-witted at very best. Whether the original report-giver is failing to accept this, or whether somebody else divining his or her meaning is, said party is still half-witted, that is, stupid, and worthy of contempt, or pity, or both.

The only thing that can possibly help is, as I said, and as most people here seem to be saying, waiting and seeing the entire movie, then debating what was actually there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

On a different tack, and hopefully excusing the double post, here's what might be helpful: we could divide the factoids given in the movie into three categories.

1) Factoids that are in conflict with previous factoids, but can be explained as the influence of Nero's time-tampering. This would include basically everything that happened after Nero first popped into the 23rd century and supposedly attacked the Kelvin. It would not include things such as Pike's birthdate, or even Kirk's.

2) Factoids that are in conflict with previous factoids, and cannot be blamed on Nero.

3) Factoids that are in conflict with nothing but fan assumptions, or are conflict-free.

Of the hot topics of this thread, the maiden voyage thing can be dropped easily into pigeonhole #1. So can the early meeting with Romulans. The age difference between Kirk and Pike goes to #3. The idea that Kirk first met Pike in a bar brawl is an obvious #1 (we can blame it on Nero), but it is also an obvious #3 because nothing would really preclude this from happening in the untampered timeline, too.

The interesting category then is #2. If we get any entries there, those are "real" mistakes that should elicit a few boo-boos from us (but hopefully only on DVD viewing, so as not to ruin the experience for those in the theater).

Any candidates for a #2 case?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[tranya]

And no, reading more of those reports is in no way helpful, because it won't take away a systematic error - say, JJ Abrams mistakenly saying in the showing that the audience is seeing the maiden voyage of the ship. And yes, the director is quite likely to make such mistakes. He hasn't written this thing, after all, or proofread all the nerdy in-jokes. He's merely directing it. Actors are just as likely to make elementary mistakes when speaking of their characters.

Not accepting that such mistakes are likely to exist is half-witted at very best. Whether the original report-giver is failing to accept this, or whether somebody else divining his or her meaning is, said party is still half-witted, that is, stupid, and worthy of contempt, or pity, or both.

Um, okay, so you're basically arguing that Abrams is mischaracterizing a movie that he helped write, that he directed, that he has worked with along every step of the post-production process. Because, "he's fallible."

Well, on the basis of that kind of reasoning, since we don't ever get "Spock's" name in the trailer and we only have Abrams' word to go by, I'm going to go ahead and assume Quinto's really playing a character named "Tuvok."

I guess there's no way we can know until we see the movie!

 

[Timo]

I guess we have to agree to disagree on how likely or unlikely it is for these folks to get "maiden voyage" wrong. What do you think of the analogy to the situation in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" - the adventure that would quite probably get characterized as "Kirk's first adventure" or "the first mission of starship Enterprise"?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TheAlmanac]

I forget who posted it, but I really do like the analogy to the Big Finish audio dramas in the Doctor Who world -- I'd personally enjoy seeing the future of Trek lit bifurcate into a classic Trek universe and a new Trek universe.

That was me, and thanks.

Approaching things that way does seem to work out vis-à-vis Doctor Who tie-ins, so it may make the most sense in TrekLit to both expand on the ever-widening world of its existing continuity and create a separate body of works which rely mainly on the movie (and its audience).

In DW, people seem to enjoy both...

 

[tranya]

The specific phrase "maiden voyage" was used many times by reviewers of the clips, not "first mission," which has a very different connotation. ("First mission" for the Enterprise might mean that particular crew, while "maiden voyage" is commonplace for meaning the first voyage of a ship). Read those reviews and the impression is that this is the Enterprise's first voyage, and that it was recently (within the previous three years) being constructed on Earth.

Additionally, the number of times the phrase "maiden voyage" has popped up in reviews implies to me that it's coming from Abrams or the film clip itself (perhaps some dialogue in the film). Your point about the fallibility of Abrams is valid, I guess, but also rather perplexing -- if Abrams's statements can't be taken as accurately describing the movie that he himself made, then whose can? Bob Orci, because he's got stronger Trekkie credentials? It seems acceptable to question statements made by Abrams -- again, about the film that he knows better than pretty much anyone on the planet -- but why are you so selectively irked by this "maiden voyage" thing?

Again, it comes back to motivation for me. I don't get why certain elements of "canon" are so inviolable for people that common sense goes out the window. In many ways, I hope this movie is radically offensive to people who think in this way -- perhaps being a Trek fan would be more easy to tolerate if large swaths of the rabid Trek fanbase were to give up on the franchise entirely. It'd certainly be more enjoyable than these tiresome exchanges.

 

[TerriO]

^ Nope. There was initial confusion coming out of some of these screenings on that point. Same with Kirk/Uhura. There were even a couple of near-meltdowns on the latter right here on the good ol' TrekBBS. Apparently, that's how it was reported by people at the screenings.

Okay, how can anyone who's ever seen Ben Cross mistake that profile for Nimoy's?

Or is my Dark Shadows (and the remake) fandom showing again?

And I actually had entire panel discussions at PhilCon on the sex versus sexuality in Trek aspect of the new trailer.

 

[Timo]

If you are on such an offensive footing yourself, then you can perhaps understand my anger at the insensible tendency to outright declare that everything about STXI must be wrong because it is a "reboot".

Sure, it is a reboot. And sure, it shows an altered timeline. (And sure, those are two different things, although both are dramatic choices, and probably very good ones.) But from that does not follow that arbitrary accusations should be thrown around on random factoids that may or may not have come up in the movie material made public so far.

Really, I have very little antipathy or sympathy towards the movie as such, although I'm excited about the potential. However, each of the reviews bringing up continuity issues has been heavily leaning towards the view that there is something wrong with the movie. When claims of factoid mismatch are made on top of this, they start to look much less reliable than if they were part of a generally positive review (and by positive I mean positive towards the idea of rebooting and/or timeline alteration).

I have no money involved in the issue of "maiden voyages" - I did mention that I'd only make a bid if I were a betting man. Nor do I wish to specifically concentrate on that, as there are so many other things that unjustly are painted as flaws, such as the "Kirk can drive a car" thing or the claim that Kirk can only have met Pike once. It's just a very good example of what is going on here in general.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[tranya]

If you are on such an offensive footing yourself, then you can perhaps understand my anger at the insensible tendency to outright declare that everything about STXI must be wrong because it is a "reboot".

Wait, what? Who's argued that "everything about STXI must be wrong because it is a 'reboot'"? I'm not even sure what that sentence means; are you claiming that's a position I'm arguing?

Sure, it is a reboot. And sure, it shows an altered timeline. (And sure, those are two different things, although both are dramatic choices, and probably very good ones.) But from that does not follow that arbitrary accusations should be thrown around on random factoids that may or may not have come up in the movie material made public so far.

Who's throwing around "arbitrary accusations" and "random factoids"? I presented a reasonable interpretation of something which has been widely reported by multiple reviewers. Again, are you talking about me or someone else here?

Really, I have very little antipathy or sympathy towards the movie as such, although I'm excited about the potential. However, each of the reviews bringing up continuity issues has been heavily leaning towards the view that there is something wrong with the movie. When claims of factoid mismatch are made on top of this, they start to look much less reliable than if they were part of a generally positive review (and by positive I mean positive towards the idea of rebooting and/or timeline alteration).

Again, no clue what you're talking about here -- my apologies if you're not a native English speaker, but I'm having a hard time parsing your argument here. Who is arguing that there's something wrong with the movie? What is a "factoid mismatch" for you?

I have no money involved in the issue of "maiden voyages" - I did mention that I'd only make a bid if I were a betting man. Nor do I wish to specifically concentrate on that, as there are so many other things that unjustly are painted as flaws, such as the "Kirk can drive a car" thing or the claim that Kirk can only have met Pike once. It's just a very good example of what is going on here in general.

Timo Saloniemi

Can you be a little more pointed, please? "What is going on here in general"?

I'll try to be clear about what I was arguing: That your blithe disregard of these reviews of the screened scenes was an overreaction ("maiden voyage" is mentioned several times, but you claim Abrams' "falliability" means we can't trust anything said in them).

So, this conversation's clearly gone off track. I started off genial, then got irked, and now I'm simply confused -- I have no idea what you're actually arguing anymore, Timo.

 

[Christopher]

And no, reading more of those reports is in no way helpful, because it won't take away a systematic error - say, JJ Abrams mistakenly saying in the showing that the audience is seeing the maiden voyage of the ship. And yes, the director is quite likely to make such mistakes. He hasn't written this thing, after all, or proofread all the nerdy in-jokes. He's merely directing it.

That is one of the most mind-bogglingly incomprehensible statements I've ever seen on the Internet. Are you serious?! That's like saying that Marco's comments about the novels can't be trusted because he "merely" edits them rather than writing them.

Unlike TV directors, the director of a motion picture is involved in every decision. He shapes the story at every step of the process from initial plot outline to final draft. He's as intimately familiar with -- and responsible for -- the script as the credited screenwriters. It's totally absurd to suggest that the director of a movie is unqualified to speak about its contents. There's nobody more qualified, because it all comes back to him. Every line, every action, every design, every image in the film was either conceived with his input or approved by him before it went in.

This is particularly true for someone like Abrams, who's a writer-director (as well as a producer, composer, and occasional FX artist and bit player). He may not have done enough to earn a credit under the WGA's rather byzantine rules, but nobody who knows anything about J.J. Abrams (let alone about film directors in general) would doubt that he had his hand in the script from beginning to end -- except during the writers' strike when he wasn't allowed to revise the script during filming as he normally would have.

Not to mention that the director supervises the shooting of every scene (except for second-unit stuff) and works directly with the editors and post-production department, in deciding what stays in, how scenes fit together, where to put music and visual effects and sound effects, etc. It goes without saying that Abrams has seen every second of this film hundreds or thousands of times by now. How in the hell could you possibly think he wouldn't know what's in the movie? What did you think a director's job was anyway? Making coffee?

 

[Therin of Andor]

you're basically saying that Anthony Pascale is enough of a Trek n00b that he doesn't know what a "maiden voyage" is?

As with the term "first contact" a "maiden voyage" may not be the official "maiden voyage".

If I recall the plot of Diane Carey's "Final Frontier" correctly, Robert April had a first contact with a Romulan, long before "Balance of Terror", on a maiden voyage of an unfinished Enterprise: a mission that was essentially covered up.

And regarding Pike and Spock in "The Menagerie". They served together for thirteen years, but I don't think that canon specifies that it was all on the Enterprise.

 

[tranya]

Hear, hear, Mr. Bennett.

 

[William Leisner]

I disbelieve all rumors.

In fact, I don't think there's going to be a movie at all -- it's all just an elaborate prank by Paramount Marketing.

 

[Lorraine Anderson]

I disbelieve all rumors.

In fact, I don't think there's going to be a movie at all -- it's all just an elaborate prank by Paramount Marketing.

That would explain a lot. No, really.

 

[Lonemagpie]

What I said in the Trek Today forum-

Kid Kirk's annoying but I guess he won't be in it long. Looks fantastic, though I'm not mad on the new transporter effect (if that's what that is when Quinto appears - I suppose it might be Nero's transporter or something)

Also, the Enterprise looks much more right in action than in the still picture they released.

Oddly enough, my wife saw the trailer last night and immediately went "no! I'm not seeing that, you can see it on your own That guy is not Kirk."

I say odd because she's *not* the Trekkie of the family, and mainly likes the 24th Century shows...

 

[Timo]

I admit this has gotten quite incoherent by now. My apologies.

I'll nevertheless try to clarify a few points if I can.

When I argue that "people" are predisposed to declare "random" factoids of STXI as incorrect or canon-violating, I mean that I have observed this sort of behavior in basically all the reviews I have read, and in some of your messages, Tranya. I do not mean to indicate that all the "offenders" would somehow be equally "offensive" in this respect, I just want to point out that IMHO everybody doing this predicting and interpreting business on STXI seems to be "guilty" of this to some degree. (Lots of quotation marks here, because I'm not really all that offended by these "offenses", nor do I think that anybody else should be.)

When I argue that this sort of predisposition happens, I speculate that it goes like this: people realize that STXI "resets" the Trek universe in many ways; they find some things not to their liking; and they then polarize into one of two camps: "None of it matters, because this is a complete reboot, a different Trek, and that's fine" and "It's offensive that Abrams makes all these mistakes and then tries to excuse it all by doing this reboot thing". Both camps are likely to pick an essentially random factoid that they think is in conflict with earlier Trek, and then list it as part of the perceived violations that prove their point: "This is a complete and good reboot" or "The guy has no idea what he is doing".

However, few people stop to think that the factoids of STXI aren't really that different from the factoids that we got from all the earlier Trek shows and movies that weren't explicitly "reboots". Some of them are moderately difficult fits, but they are fits nevertheless, like the inability of Kirk to drive a 1920s vehicle to Spock's liking, vs. his ability to drive a 1960s vehicle. Some are not in conflict with anything else but fan assumptions. Some may be actual "factoid mismatches", that is, cases where a factoid from earlier Trek is in unresolvable conflict with a STXI factoid. But people just don't stop to think, not when arguing about the factoids or conflicts. They argue about the factoids in terms of the more general issues they have with the movie. And that's what got me all excited in the first place, because I also care about the factoids and controversies an sich, and I would like to see them argued on their own merits. (In addition to all this other excitement about the movie, of course. I just happen to like arguing on factoids, in addition to being generally excited about the movie.)

Sure, when lots of "difficult fits" and things that are at odds with fan assumptions pile up, this sets a certain mood for the movie, and for the reviews. But when purely discussing continuity issues, the mood should not be an issue. Even if 90% of the factoids are controversial, that doesn't need to mean that they are errors, or that they support the claims of either of the two camps.

We could skip this phase of analysis and prediction, and we would probably have a less tense forum; once we get to see the entire movie, those controversial factoids will settle into their proper context, and some of the controversy is bound to disappear. But of course the analysis, prediction and controversy are all part of the fun.

You ask "what is this argument about?". For me, it's an argument about factoids, or at least originally was. I am interested in what the movie really has to say about the construction of the Enterprise, or the birth of Kirk, or the graduation of Chekov, or the death of Spock. And I am interested in concentrating on those particular issues, rather than "riding the mood" and trusting early impressions. So whenever I see an argument about a factoid being made on the basis of unconfirmed data, I balk.

We have gotten a lot of reviews. We have not gotten a transcript of dialogue. Ergo, it is IMHO bad form to make arguments that depend on the finer points of dialogue. Despite the massive amounts of spoiling we have already gotten, we still lack solid information on many key points of the movie. At this point, it is perfectly all right to state "the mood isn't right, I don't like this movie". But it's not all right to state "the factoids aren't right, I don't like this movie", not when the movie is such a fluid piece of time travel, time jumps, deliberate surprises and twists of tale, and just possibly a factoid error or two.

Put short, the main reason I argue here is my desire to find out what in STXI falls into categories #1, #2 and #3 of controversy, as outlined above. And the reason I get overtly excited is if and when a factoid is unjustly assigned into the #2 category.

So, essentially,

-I don't want to win anything here. So for my part, I'd like to bow out of this argument, and declare everybody else a winner.

-but I do want to find out if anybody here can come up with a real #2 type of controversy.

Timo Saloniemi