Wesley Crusher took the entrance exam when he was 15. Had he passed he would have been allowed in the Academy despite still only being a child.
What would Roddenberry think?
- Thread starter Itisnotlogical
- Start date
Wesley Crusher took the entrance exam when he was 15. Had he passed he would have been allowed in the Academy despite still only being a child.
QFFT!!!!
I think 'The Cage', 'TMP', and 'TNG' are the most like Gene's original vision for Trek. Think about it. Those three productions have more in common than you think.
I think Gene had good ideas, but he did need to be surrounded by other writers. His take on Trek could be a bit...dull...at times.
I think Gene had good ideas, but he did need to be surrounded by other writers. His take on Trek could be a bit...dull...at times.
If he approved "Court Martial" I can see him approving "The Drumhead"
Key word being helped
Nah it should be a character we know. Not nameless faceless FedIntelOps guy. Thats why we watch these movies to see our heroes do stuff.
Drama!!!! Come on this is fiction. Its going to unfold in a way that is dramatic, just as it has in all previous Treks.
Having lived through the 1960s I'm more than familiar with the differences between then and now. More so what hasn't changed. That the modern version of the Uhura character is more than a glorified telephone operator that gets frightened is progress.
Being a black woman I doubt folks in the 1960s would approve of her "hanging onto" any of the male leads in the show. 2009 Uhura gets to have a relationship with a lead and contribute to solving the problem at hand.
Thats whay is called Science Fiction, Star Trek is not a documentary about current science theory. Never has been. Its primary goal is to Entertain.
The science advisor on the film was Carolyn Porco PhD. Works for NASA.
It worked the way it needed to for the plot and wasnt a typical Super Nova. The term a touchstone for those in the audience with out advanced degrees. Movies do that a lot. even Star Trek movies.
Its just a quick easy name for the audience to remember. Most of whom realy dont give a damn about how things are named. Given more time I'm sure they could have worked in a subplot on how science names things. Remember this is a show full of "quick and easy" names like Vulcan (its hot!), Romulan (likr Rome), Caitian ( for a feline species!!!
) and phaser ( because it sounded like laser) Lets not ascribe a level of "sophistication" to past Treks that did not exist. We no nothing of the sort. We just know that they wrote a film they hoped would be accessable.
Not really.
Cant say I disagree with 1. 2 and 3 just show you're over thinking it. It was buikd on the ground because they needed it to be in the same shot as Kirk to give the scene an "ooh ahhhh look at that" moment. Wouldn't have worked in space. Again its a movie. And as a movie it need to hit certain notes that resonate with the audience. (nitpickers be damned) Your read while interesting has little to do with the why of the scene. Might make for some interesting fanfic. Hopefully not written by you, because while you have a flair for the dramatic, you lack a flair for drama.
If you say so. Your word choice tells me otherwise.
What Supernatural force is that? Old Spock? Maybe, he did say being a Starship Captain was Kirk first, best destiny. Pike? All he did was suggest Kirk put his talents to use in a way they help sentientkind. No supernatural puppet masters.
See the Wes Crusher comment made by someone else. Starfleet Academy is more than a Battle School.
Vietnam and Bonanza are not the whole of the Sixties and the issues at play at that time. I was there, were you?
Once I was there, were you? Even in the Sixties ( the Seventies) we saw the hammer and had to
No, they need to become the characters we know thats what the movie was about. Getting them to that point. No idea where your getting this destiny is forcing them into it angle.
I've little tolerance for fanatics, true believers and fundamenalist of any stripe. The ones who work themselves into a tizzy over a movie are just easier to laugh at than the ones with access to high explosives.
I've read and seen a lot of material about Star Trek (Just finished reading Solow and Justman's book) and I cant say that ST09 runs counter to any of the ideas expressed there in.
If you want to quote Roddenberry to prove your point, then "friggin" quote him. Dont Play St Paul to his Jesus.
Really?
isn't hyperpole???
I didn't claim to. All I said was that it fits with Star Trek "science". Where a sling shot around the sun or escaping a "black star" lets you travel in time. Where people from different planets can produce offspring. Where transporter accidents can split you in two or send you to an alternate reality.
So its a Star Trek film then.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
No, she didn't help at all, neither did Kirk, for that matter. Once Kirk finally convinces Pike that indeed something is going on, and they shouldn't just drop into the Vulcan system without a plan first, they drop into the Vulcan system without a plan - result being: NOTHING AT ALL! One of the many, many, many, many weak, no, horribly bad writing in this movie.
Then you must use it such a matter it makes sense. Not that it matters
Except that if there are so many, and so big plotholes in the movie it isn't dramatic, let alone drama, because you just look at the screen with dropped jaw going,
Excpet that the new Uhura is NOT more than a glorified telephone operator, quite the contrary, TOS Uhura was LESS a glorified telephone operator than the new Uhura. Which was rather the original point.
Yeah, I never said she did, quite the contrary, but . . . reading.
She didn't contribute, at all.
No, it's called Science Fiction. The goal is to entertain through the exploration of (potential) scientific concepts having an impact upon humanity and/or exploring present day humanity through the allegory of such.
You can create scientific concepts that contradict present day idea in science as long as those ideas aren't ironclad facts. However, if you've got ironclad facts that we've seen with our very own eyes with only a telescope to help out, you don't get to contradict those.
1. Prove it.
2. If it's true, they didn't get their money's worth there, did they?
Or...
3. They completely ignored her, which begs the question: what's the point of hiring her if you're just going to ignore her?
Actually, it WAS a typical super nova, because the movie never claimed anything different. Result being, it was a pile of shit. Even a hyper nova doesn't do what this super nova did, not even the most impressive subspace-based Star Trek nova can do what this movie claimed it did, as it defied all logic, as it could apparently obliterate a planet lightyears away, but a rinky dink little science vessel and a mere mining ship could pass through that very same shockwave that destroys planets without a scratch on them.
And every movie that does, is a pile of shit, especially Science Fiction movies.
If so many people don't care about naming, they could have put in a few additional efforts and come up with something that doesn't sound like it came from an idiot to anyone with more than a little passing knowledge of science.Its just a quick easy name for the audience to remember. Most of whom realy dont give a damn about how things are named. Given more time I'm sure they could have worked in a subplot on how science names things. Remember this is a show full of "quick and easy" names like Vulcan (its hot!), Romulan (likr Rome), Caitian ( for a feline species!!!
This ridiculous idea that just because a good chunk of the people are ignorant morons, you must write something that only ignorant morons can enjoy, is just pure ridiculousness.
And yes, the past Treks ALL had that sophistication. None of the names that you mentioned are ridiculous. Hell, most of the names you mentioned, would just be the human names for them, humans tend to do that; put names to things that fit their ideas. Like the Rihannsu, they have very different names for themselves.
We do know, we can see it.
The why of the scene doesn't matter. What it represents DOES. And it COULD have worked in space, hell, with Earth as a backdrop it could have worked BETTER.
But that's besides the point.
To anyone who has a functioning brain, and likes to engage it during movies, IT DOES NOT RESONATE. On the contrary, you get the absolute disgust I feel when I see that because I understand the consequences of 23rd century Star Trek Earth being reduced to building on the ground.
This is a Science Fiction movie. It's supposed to engage the brain. It's not supposed to give pretty pictures for ignorant morons to go "ooh" over.
I've got plenty flair for drama.
The supernatural force that made Nero put Spock on the same planet that held Scotty, and made Spock Jr put Kirk on that very same planet. You know, the explanation for the 'coincidence', "destiny is converging back on its original path."
It was all but outright stated by Old Spock, and in a bit of cut dialog it was outright stated by Old Spock.
That it teaches other things does not matter, that it is a military school is. And Wesley did NOT join Starfleet Academy at 15, quite the contrary. Just because he gets to take the entrance exam, doesn't mean he gets enter at 15.
Go on, name ONE show in the entire sixties that dealt with Vietnam other than Star Trek. Just one.
The simple fact ultimately is though; it does not matter. What Gene Roddenberry used Star Trek for, DOES. And the fact that this new pile of shit didn't even come in the neighborhood of trying to produce anything resembling this, is the problem.
You maybe, as a kid, as the enlightened few. The rest, not so much.Once I was there, were you? Even in the Sixties ( the Seventies) we saw the hammer and had to
The aren't the characters we knew, they did not become the characters we knew. Quite the contrary, Kirk is an a-hole at the beginning and an a-hole at the end. Spock decided with his logic or contrary to his logic to start a relationship with one of his students, which is as far removed from the Spock we knew as we can get. And I can go on and on.
Spock, Kirk, Scotty - same planet, coincidence? Nope. Listen to Spock's little speech, fill in the blanks, listen to the dialog they cut.
Of course not. Every documentary about Star Trek I've seen ever always talk about the human condition being explored, and present day events through allegory, not to mention Gene's documented secular humanism and him infusing this in Star Trek, and STXI didn't have anything even close to resembling that, but it doesn't run counter to that, nah, not at all.
Willful ignorance is worse that just ignorance. At the least the latter part has a chance to be remedied.
Nope.
Wrong. None of those are contradicting cold hard facts, nor is doing nothing but dropping buzz words. Some events are improbable, and weak, but they don't contradict cold hard facts AT ALL, anywhere, even close. In fact, going faster than light in science is often viewed as immediate time travel to the past, so slingshot around a star, an additional gravitational and thus space-time bending object at FTL speeds, is actually quite reasonable as something that may cause you to travel through time.
I really have to wonder if you've ever seen Arena or City on the Edge of Forever. I'm sure there are more examples, but those are two of the best (worst?) ones. All Uhura seems to be able to do is answer the phone and get scared. The STXI one has more confidence and seems more adept and well-rounded in her job (knowing alien languages and such).
3D Master
Rear Admiral
And there are also episodes where all that Sulu did was push a button and say: "Firing phasers."
It's a television series, with 60s sensibilities of focusing on the 2/3 stars and the rest are there mostly for eye candy to boot. You can't haver he be fully in the story every single episode. It's the episodes where she did more than just be a telephone operator that you have to look at. Mirror Mirror for example, the episode where she repaired the circuit board - I can never remember the title of that one, and other similar episodes.
In contrast, we've got a 21st century MOVIE, where Uhura does what? Jack shit, that's what.
I have to agree with 3d master. The movie was "fun" if you don't know anything about trek, or are just a casual viewer. If you are a fan, you had to turn off your brain in order to enjoy it. It's really a far cry from Roddenberry's vision and style. Whether he would have liked the money or not, I don't know, but I know that he wouldn't have liked the film.
No, you don't. You believe that he wouldn't have liked the film, but that belief is based on an interpretation you possess of his "vision" -- which you erroneously describe in static terms, as though he actually had the same "vision" throughout his career, when he clearly did not, as a casual glance at his scripts for TOS, TMP, and TNG will reveal.
Personally, I believe that the Gene Roddenberry who wrote TOS would have enjoyed ST09 and that the Gene Roddenberry behind TNG would have hated it. Personally, I think that the TOS Gene Roddenberry was a much better writer than the TNG Gene Roddenberry, so I'm not bothered by this.
That's very well put. I thought the same thing, but you put it much better. Gene started out wanting to make a fun show - that made you think, but still a fun show - but in the end, he bought into that whole "vision" hype, or at least that's how it seems to me. I expect that's one (though not the only) reason the two earliest seasons of TNG tended to be so...heavy-handed. The show got so much more interesting once he was no longer directly involved (at least Wiki says he wasn't directly involved after that).
Last edited:
Nerys Myk said:
Exactly. Another TOS geezer, here - Uhura is a far more important character in Abrams's movie than in the original series, and is one of the greater improvements introduced in nuTrek.
No, you don't, except in the sense that one does in order to watch a good deal of Trek TOS..or TNG...or DS9...or VOY...or ENT. All of Trek has its logical and dramatic failings, both internally and in comparison to other fiction. It also has its strengths. And Roddenberry was a far more canny and worldly producer than folks who prefer him as a creative sage often acknowledge.
The new version of Trek has elevated the property's profile and would have enhanced his own reputation as well as bringing him back into the public spotlight yet again. He'd have loved it.
Exactly. In TOS, the "ethnic" characters, while progressive for their age, were still background characters only there to be living background set pieces for the "Big Three" white guys. In ST09, by contrast, Uhura is part of the "Big Three" -- McCoy is sidelined much more than she is -- and she's really the heart and soul of the piece, the conscience who keeps Kirk and Spock in check when they're getting ready to hose the deck with testosterone.
Here's how much Uhura and Sulu mattered to the producers and writers of TOS in the 1960s:
They don't have full names. The white guys have full names, including Pavel Chekov who was added a year after the others.
The reasons are most likely a combination of the fact that Uhura and Sulu were minor characters and the fact that they were "exotics" - like Spock, who notably although he's much more important also lacked a proper full name (although a first season writer inserted a reference to its supposed existence as a script joke).
They don't have full names. The white guys have full names, including Pavel Chekov who was added a year after the others.
The reasons are most likely a combination of the fact that Uhura and Sulu were minor characters and the fact that they were "exotics" - like Spock, who notably although he's much more important also lacked a proper full name (although a first season writer inserted a reference to its supposed existence as a script joke).
It's easy to compare previous movies and shows, and STXI and see that it's different. If you took an IQ test, and the question asked you to pick the odd one out:
A. Star Trek original series
B. Star Trek TWOK
C. Star Trek TMP
D. Star Trek XI
E. TNG Season 1
F. TNG Season 2,
which one do you pick? Anybody can see that the style and vision of 'D' are much different. The humor was funny, but there was too much of it. At times it was like a light comedy movie. His Enterprise was needlessly changed, the villain had dubious motives - a miner blaming Spock for a disaster precipitated by natural phenomenon. If they wanted to make him like Khan, who had a legitimate grievance for SF not following up and was a crazy maniac to begin with, they failed. There was way too much action, the ship wasn't one of the main characters of the show, etc. you can just tell it's not the same. What themes were explored in the movie? I dont know to this day what complex-for-adults themes were faced in this move, it's sort of like Phantom Menace.
Oh, one would definitely pick out "E" and "F" as the most different on that list - totally different characters and a setting a century removed from "A," "B," "C," or "D."
Unless, of course, one were ranking by entertainment value - then TMP would stand part as the least like Star Trek in general in that regard.
Unless, of course, one were ranking by entertainment value - then TMP would stand part as the least like Star Trek in general in that regard.
There are two possible answers:
1) E - because it's utterly, embarrasingly awful, while the other, although they have their flaws and cheesy moments, still have their merits.
or
2) C - because the others are entertaining, and don't contain endless space porn sequences.
Did you watch TOS lately?
Similar threads
