Two guys arguing over Trek 11, and beer.

[Captain Mike]

Obviously, Captain Mike is a sock-puppet of James Dixon, returning from exile...

You must need to get some medical attention about your fixation with this James Dixon...

Let's steer clear of insinuations of sock-puppetude, shall we, though? Even in jest, those tend not always to be taken well.

Yes I agree, coming from an ensign that seems to only joined less than a month.

When are you guys gonna stop fighting and tell me some Real News?!?!?!

You're assuming that these guys actually know something about Star Trek.. It's obvious they don't.

About the "real" Star Trek, or the wannabe?...You obviously have your opinion on what it is as do I. Which one of us is correct?....

 

[M'Sharak]

Obviously, Captain Mike is a sock-puppet of James Dixon, returning from exile...

You must need to get some medical attention about your fixation with this James Dixon...

Let us also steer clear of insinuating any need for medical attention on the part of another poster, 'K? That, too, has a way of not always being well-received.


And opinions? They are neither correct nor incorrect - they are merely opinions, and you'll find no shortage of them here. Feel free to argue those all you like.

 

[Captain Mike]

And opinions? They are neither correct nor incorrect - they are merely opinions, and you'll find no shortage of them here. Feel free to argue those all you like.

Yes I agree, which is why we all get along so well...

 

[F. King Daniel]

About the "real" Star Trek, or the wannabe?

Cliche alert!
People were saying the same thing about TMP in '79, TNG in '87 and DS9 in '93.

"It's not real Star Trek!" means no more now than it did back then.

 

[number6]

About the "real" Star Trek, or the wannabe?

Cliche alert!
People were saying the same thing about TMP in '79, TNG in '87 and DS9 in '93.

"It's not real Star Trek!" means no more now than it did back then.

Exactly.. The points the original poster brings up as being wrong aren't even true of the original show, let alone this film, which had more of the spirit of the original show than half the films..

These guys wouldn't know "real" Star Trek if Roddenberry puked it up on their shoes.

 

[number6]

When are you guys gonna stop fighting and tell me some Real News?!?!?!

You're assuming that these guys actually know something about Star Trek.. It's obvious they don't.

About the "real" Star Trek, or the wannabe?...You obviously have your opinion on what it is as do I. Which one of us is correct?....

I am, of course..

 

[-Brett-]

About the "real" Star Trek, or the wannabe?

Cliche alert!
People were saying the same thing about TMP in '79, TNG in '87 and DS9 in '93.

"It's not real Star Trek!" means no more now than it did back then.

Overuse has left that complaint meaning even less now than it did back then. A single "wrong" word, like "man", trips it these days.

 

[Devon]

Outside of an extremely loose description, no one but Paramount can qualify what "Real Star Trek" is.

 

[TeknoNurd]

From www.dictionary.com:
Oral [awr-uh

l, ohr-]
Aural [awr-uh

l]

Vulcan kids being mean: Correct me if I'm wrong, but all through Star Trek, didn't Vulcans have an arrogant, superior attitude, particularly where humans were involved? Couldn't the Vulcan children's attitudes be a reflection of their parents racist or purist attitudes to a Vulcan Ambassador marrying a Human woman with a half-breed offspring that has the audacity to try to be as good as 'pure' Vulcans?

Engineering: I'd have to review the movie again, but does all "engineering" necessarily have to do with propelling the ship? Wouldn't a ship with 800+ souls aboard need waste reclaimation and water purification systems to supply all that water to the ship for various human needs? Does the movie actually say that that part of engineering had to do with engines? Or could it be waste water reclaimation?

 

[Decker]

Excerpt from Roddenberry's Star Trek: The Motion Picture:

Forget Earth; think only of Vulcan. You were born here of a Vulcan father, raised here as a Vulcan son . . . and Vulcan children, like children everywhere, can be unthinkingly cruel. Strange, I have never been aware until now that it was my boyhood on Vulcan which had ultimately driven me into Starfleet. I had to prove to myself that those times of tears and laughter had been only a child's errors. It was to prove my mastery over myself that I went out among humans and defied them to make me less Vulcan than I am.

But what was it that Jim Kirk had once said? “Spock, why fight so hard to be a part of only one world? Why not fight instead to be the best of both?”

 

[Hartzilla2007]

There's a huge difference between not liking a film because you dislike the story, characters, artistic direction, directorial style etc. and disliking it because it conflicts with unsubstantiated preconcieved notions about how heavily crewed ships 25 years before TOS were, or how you think Romulans should talk or act, or because you think Orions shouldn't be in Starfleet, or whatever.

To use an example from the OP's link:

"I don't like how the Romulans were portrayed, I think they should all act and speak like we saw in TNG" is an opinion. I think it's silly and closed-minded to see the Romulan Empire as a monoculture, but whatever.

"The Romulans are all wrong because they should speak formally" is nonsense. The makers of the film knew how Romulans were written and played before, but they chose to go in a different direction. It's not a mistake.

Hal didn't like the direction the film took the Romulans, but he tried to dress up his opinion, and his own notions about Trek's universe, as fact.

BUT as I stated earlier, ever since "Balance Of Terror" Romulans are "duplicative" in nature. Hence their development of the cloaking device, in BOTH their appearrances in TOS. All through TNG & DS9 you see the same thing.

So becuase MILITARY Romulans (and only the ones we've seen at that) act a certain way all Romulans even CIVILIAN ones have to act in that same manner?

 

[Captain Mike]

There's a huge difference between not liking a film because you dislike the story, characters, artistic direction, directorial style etc. and disliking it because it conflicts with unsubstantiated preconcieved notions about how heavily crewed ships 25 years before TOS were, or how you think Romulans should talk or act, or because you think Orions shouldn't be in Starfleet, or whatever.

To use an example from the OP's link:

"I don't like how the Romulans were portrayed, I think they should all act and speak like we saw in TNG" is an opinion. I think it's silly and closed-minded to see the Romulan Empire as a monoculture, but whatever.

"The Romulans are all wrong because they should speak formally" is nonsense. The makers of the film knew how Romulans were written and played before, but they chose to go in a different direction. It's not a mistake.

Hal didn't like the direction the film took the Romulans, but he tried to dress up his opinion, and his own notions about Trek's universe, as fact.

BUT as I stated earlier, ever since "Balance Of Terror" Romulans are "duplicative" in nature. Hence their development of the cloaking device, in BOTH their appearrances in TOS. All through TNG & DS9 you see the same thing.

So becuase MILITARY Romulans (and only the ones we've seen at that) act a certain way all Romulans even CIVILIAN ones have to act in that same manner?

Other than non-canon books I have not read and NOT being sure that "the Reunification Faction" of the "civilians" of the Empire have done since Spock's appearance in those episodes, you are throwing "speculation" into your hypothesis...

 

[CommanderRaytas]

The worst thing is this guy saying "You might like Star Trek, but I'm a real Trekkie!"

OMG! I OWNZ DA TRUTH!

Seriously, get out of your basement and let the sunshine into your heart.

Most points are just plain silly, nitpicky and nonsensical. Like people have already said: you don't like it, fine. It's a matter of opinion. Just don't state your opinion as if it were fact. It doesn't work that way.

It's like creationists trying to disprove evolution.

 

[F. King Daniel]

you are throwing "speculation" into your hypothesis...

No he isn't. We've seen Romulan soldiers and politicians act in one way (TOS, TNG, DS9) and we've seen Romulan miners act in another(STXI). Therefore not all Romulans act in the same manner. That's not speculation, that's canon.

Are all Klingons honourable? Are all Ferengi greedy? Are all Vulcans logical? Nope.

 

[Dukhat]

The worst thing is this guy saying "You might like Star Trek, but I'm a real Trekkie!"

OMG! I OWNZ DA TRUTH!

Seriously, get out of your basement and let the sunshine into your heart.

Most points are just plain silly, nitpicky and nonsensical. Like people have already said: you don't like it, fine. It's a matter of opinion. Just don't state your opinion as if it were fact. It doesn't work that way.

It's like creationists trying to disprove evolution.

you are throwing "speculation" into your hypothesis...

No he isn't. We've seen Romulan soldiers and politicians act in one way (TOS, TNG, DS9) and we've seen Romulan miners act in another(STXI). Therefore not all Romulans act in the same manner. That's not speculation, that's canon.

Are all Klingons honourable? Are all Ferengi greedy? Are all Vulcans logical? Nope.

Based on his posts and responses, I've come to the conclusion that CM just likes starting arguments just for the sake of arguing, and his posts have very little to no substance. Just ignore him, like I've decided to do.

 

[T'Girl]

Hal didn't like the direction the film took the Romulans, but he tried to dress up his opinion, and his own notions about Trek's universe, as fact.

Maybe less a notion, as a product of observation over time (fictional centuries) of a pattern of past behavior.

BUT as I stated earlier, ever since "Balance Of Terror" Romulans are "duplicative" in nature. Hence their development of the cloaking device, in BOTH their appearances in TOS. All through TNG & DS9 you see the same thing.

So becuase MILITARY Romulans (and only the ones we've seen at that) act a certain way all Romulans even CIVILIAN ones have to act in that same manner?

But why would a military Romulan, a cilivian Romulan and a government Romulan (we've seen all three) possess different cultural norms? Cultural norms are ingrained into the societal whole, it likely that Romulan don't even recognize that they are as a group duplicitous, it's who they are. Captain Mike is simply pointing out a in common characteristic that Romulans have constantly displayed.

Even Shinzon, a Human, raised in the Empire manifested basic Romulan characteristics too.

It's like creationists trying to disprove evolution.

Or even more silly, evolutionist attempting to disprove creation.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Shinzon was a cocky douche because Picard was a cocky douche at that age, not because he took over the Romulan senate. Picard and Beverly spoke about how Shinzon was just like Picard once was (see also "Tapestry").

Shinzon was raised in a dark Reman mine, his only Romulan contact being his abusive guards. If anything, he should have resembled his Reman "brothers"

Nero and co don't act like most of the Romulans we've seen so far, but neither did Worf act like any Klingons we'd seen by the start of TNG. Was Worf a "mistake"? What about the other decent Klingons we've since met? No - the writers simply decided that some Klingons are different.

With Spock as our only guide, some fans assumed all Vulcans to be a decent, respectable people - but with a few exceptions they turned out to be arrogant jerks. Some fans insist that's a mistake too (citing Enterprise, most frequently), despite it going back to "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time".

STXI Romulans = "Fanon violation!"

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Hey, I started the evolution vs creation thing! I want to be credited that quote!

 

[Captain Mike]

Shinzon was a cocky douche because Picard was a cocky douche at that age, not because he took over the Romulan senate. Picard and Beverly spoke about how Shinzon was just like Picard once was (see also "Tapestry")

Shinzon was raised in a dark Reman mine, his only Romulan contact being his abusive guards. If anything, he should have resembled his Reman "brothers".

And yet the Remans being "offcasts", showed the same trait in duplicity as their Keepers (Romulans joining them,... ) in throwing a "coup". Yes, Shinzon showed some of the "basic" personality traits as Picard but as shown he wasn't Picard.( As that he didn't think Picard would ram his ship.)
So your argument there is hogwash IMO.

Nero and co don't act like most of the Romulans we've seen so far, but neither did Worf act like any Klingons we'd seen by the start of TNG. Was Worf a "mistake"? What about the other decent Klingons we've since met? No - the writers simply decided that some Klingons are different.

No you are mistaken in your "assumptions" yet again in trying to defend this film. When TNG first came out it was stated by many as being set farther into the future. I found it an interesting and plausible plot of how a Klingon could be in Starfleet at the time and never questioned it. Then the backstory (hell everyone knows Worf's history.... ) after close to twenty years you are trying to use that as an excuse?...

With Spock as our only guide, some fans assumed all Vulcans to be a decent, respectable people - but with a few exceptions they turned out to be arrogant jerks. Some fans insist that's a mistake too (citing Enterprise, most frequently), despite it going back to "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time".

But Spock was our "guide" and yet he was "half-human". His constant put downs through the whole TOS series doesn't show Vulcan arrogance??? Even in most of thw TOS movies he has an "arrogance" about him!!!

STXI Romulans = "Fanon violation!"

Again you come up with that effed up rationality for some of us that don't like the movie....

 

[nightwind1]

Hal didn't like the direction the film took the Romulans, but he tried to dress up his opinion, and his own notions about Trek's universe, as fact.

Maybe less a notion, as a product of observation over time (fictional centuries) of a pattern of past behavior.

So becuase MILITARY Romulans (and only the ones we've seen at that) act a certain way all Romulans even CIVILIAN ones have to act in that same manner?

But why would a military Romulan, a cilivian Romulan and a government Romulan (we've seen all three) possess different cultural norms? Cultural norms are ingrained into the societal whole, it likely that Romulan don't even recognize that they are as a group duplicitous, it's who they are. Captain Mike is simply pointing out a in common characteristic that Romulans have constantly displayed.

Quick, what are the "cultural norms" for modern day Americans? Why would an interstellar empire have homogenous norms anymore than a single nation or even state on 21st century Terra?

People from anywhere do not behave in a homogenous manner.