Community Forums => General Chat => Topic started by: bustin98 on May 09, 2009, 11:42:14 PM
Title: Star Trek
Post by: bustin98 on May 09, 2009, 11:42:14 PM
It was an awesome movie. Go see it.
All of the reviews had been so quiet about the spoilers, I had no idea what was going to happen. It was so neat.
That said, I don't like the new kid as Kirk. And I'm not really fond of the new Checkov and Scotty. Everyone else is alright. I kept picturing seeing them in a weekly TV series, and I just can't do it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 09, 2009, 11:50:05 PM
I'm not a Trek fan & yet I really want to see this movie. So I hope its more awesome than this: Star Trek Pad (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/5290491/Tony-Alleyne-and-his-Star-Trek-flat.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EasyCure on May 10, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
ive never EVER seen a sngle episode of any Star Trek, and i really liked this movie. i knew enough about it though to catch all the fanservice, but i wasnt one of the nerds that clapped or chuckled everytime they popped up.
i actually liked this movie better than xmen origins: wolverine, which i saw 2 days ago. This was the kinda fun movie i wouldnt mind seeing twice.
the only part i didnt like? when leanord nemoy tells Kirk he learned cheating "from an old friend" only a few scenes after explaining that they were currently in an alternate reality. if the Romulans or whatever didnt go back in time and attack the ship Kirks father was on, the movies young Kirk (probably) wouldnt of cheated on that simulation test in Star Fleet. Of all characters, youd think Mr Logical would be the LAST one to ruin the movie ;) haha im just nitpicking now
oh and too bad they didnt have whats his face, john cho?, immitate George Takais laugh.. oh well!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2009, 01:16:37 AM
lost spoiler watch other jj abrams projects for that sort of time travel continuity...i soo cant wait for next weeks lost!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_pap64 on May 10, 2009, 01:42:56 AM
I never seen the original TV series, but I did watch a few episodes of the 90s series as well as nearly all of the movies, so I can't wait to see this one. What struck me, however, is that this films seems to be more about the humor and action than about science and exploring other universes. This especially contrasts the first movie which I thought took itself too seriously. But I heard a lot of good things about this one!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2009, 02:33:31 AM
one of the key differences i noticed between whats happened before and this new movie
before there were scenes mostly on a set which just consisted of hallways and corridors and the bridge, these were broken up by space ship scenes. The most special effects were mostly lazor shots and prosthetic makeup.
In this movie it looks like theres an interaction with the characters and the creatures and the environments
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 10, 2009, 03:56:30 AM
the only part i didnt like? when leanord nemoy tells Kirk he learned cheating "from an old friend" only a few scenes after explaining that they were currently in an alternate reality. if the Romulans or whatever didnt go back in time and attack the ship Kirks father was on, the movies young Kirk (probably) wouldnt of cheated on that simulation test in Star Fleet. Of all characters, youd think Mr Logical would be the LAST one to ruin the movie ;) haha im just nitpicking now
oh and too bad they didnt have whats his face, john cho?, immitate George Takais laugh.. oh well!
It was established in Wrath of Khan that Kirk was the only cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario and that he did so by cheating by reprogramming the simulator.
I absolutely loved the movie. They managed to reboot the franchise in the most Star Trekkish way possible, with an alternate timeline, and threw in so many great old-school Trek references. I thought Spock and McCoy were perfect, both in their characters and in their interactions with each other. I liked the rest of the cast too and can't wait to see what they do with the next one, though it'll be hard to wait years for it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 10, 2009, 06:19:02 PM
I will see the movie, but I don't like the whole idea of it. At least I am happy that the movie is NOT canon (I had heard about some of the crap the movie did that would have conflicted with the established canon). I hope the next movie gets out of the lame Kirk era and gets back to the Enterprise era (meaning TNG/DS9/VOY and beyond).
Abrams is a mixed bag with me. I love Fringe, but Lost is one of the most boring shows I have ever seen.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Plugabugz on May 10, 2009, 06:31:44 PM
Is this film really a reboot? It seems be more of a retcon, and squeeze into the existing setup between Enterprise and TOS.
I hope the next movie gets out of the lame Kirk era and gets back to the Enterprise era (meaning TNG/DS9/VOY and beyond).
A friend of mine had said that following the series finale of Voyager - specifically the final two episodes - that it was extremely unlikely we'd see anything happen in Star Trek timeline after that point. Nemesis skipped it entirely. So i wouldn't expect anything.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 10, 2009, 06:52:28 PM
The film is not a retcon, it's set in an alternate reality (meaning it doesn't touch the canon).
There is plenty left after Voyager. Everything that happened in Nemesis was a result of the Romulan government being weakened by the Dominion War (which let Shinzon and the Remans rise to power since there wasn't much opposition). For example, Voyager ended with the Borg Unicomplex being destroyed. It is unknown if the Borg are completly gone though, and a film could show them rising back up. Not to mention that a movie could be farther in the future. Enterprise showed that by the 26th century (about 200 years after the end of Voyager) the Klingons and Xindi join the Federation.
You can also do a new prequel (one that actually counts as canon) and set it right after the end of Enterprise and have it be about the Earth-Romulan war, although this is less likely due to the fact that the Romulans are the focus of the current one; there is also the fact that established canon states that Humans and Romulans never actually saw each other in the war (they only communicated via audio) and that could make it boring.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Plugabugz on May 10, 2009, 07:02:28 PM
I agree with you, there is still lots of potential. What happened after the end of DS9 is one point i want to see.
Story wise however the writers will have a hard time trying to "write away" the significance of Voyager with all of the future-upgrades. People would expect to see it integrated into the fleet, which would (in theory) mean they become superior to everyone else. And that's sorta boring..
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: bosshogx on May 11, 2009, 12:33:21 AM
I saw it on Saturday. Great flick. If you haven't seen it, go check it out. It'll probably be the best movie of the summer.
when leanord nemoy tells Kirk he learned cheating "from an old friend" only a few scenes after explaining that they were currently in an alternate reality. if the Romulans or whatever didnt go back in time and attack the ship Kirks father was on, the movies young Kirk (probably) wouldnt of cheated on that simulation test in Star Fleet. Of all characters, youd think Mr Logical would be the LAST one to ruin the movie ;) haha im just nitpicking now
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Halbred on May 11, 2009, 02:02:15 AM
I thought it was a great movie. Star Trek all the way, but it certainly did its own thing. Bones was perfect, so was Scotty, so was Spock. I really liked Kirk, too. Wasn't too sure about Uhura or Chekov, though. The only cast member I simply disagreed with was Sulu. But maybe I'll get used to him.
I'd like to see a "wrap-up" Voyager movie, about what the crew did after they got home. How'd Seven integrate into society? How did Janeway get that plushy Admiral position?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 11, 2009, 02:04:10 AM
canon can always be reset, Superman used to be raised by the government in a foster home, now he is always raised by the kents
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: UncleBob on May 11, 2009, 08:57:42 AM
I'd like to see a "wrap-up" Voyager movie, about what the crew did after they got home. How'd Seven integrate into society? How did Janeway get that plushy Admiral position?
For what it's worth, there's a series of Post-Endgame books. Homecoming is the only one I've read that was really worth reading though...
Story wise however the writers will have a hard time trying to "write away" the significance of Voyager with all of the future-upgrades. People would expect to see it integrated into the fleet, which would (in theory) mean they become superior to everyone else. And that's sorta boring..
That's easy. Wesley gets aboard Voyager. Wonders what the big, red button that says "Do not touch" does. He touches it. Ship go boom. No more future tech. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 11, 2009, 09:54:23 AM
Well the Voyager story is simple.
1)The Federation welcomes the crew home but realizes they have future technology on the ship this sparks a huge debate on what to do. It brings up prime directive debate and whether or not it is safe to allow the federation to have this technology before it is developed.
2)They rule against it. But before the ship could be dismantled a zealous Federation Captain takes the ship and decides to eliminate the Federation's enemies first. This creates a race with Janeway leading the battle against her ship to stop them before they do irreparable damage to the Federation.
3)Seven of Nine does some great stuff to upgrade existing Tech, Huge Space Battle and Away Team battle on Voyager, and 7 of 9 eventually is killed in battle, and Voyager is blown up.
4)The End.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sundoulos on May 11, 2009, 10:55:22 AM
I grew up watching several of the Star Trek series' with my dad, so you could say that I'm a long-time fan, as long as I don't think to hard about it.
I saw it; and I enjoyed it because I refuse to let myself over-analyze it. Having seen it, I'd say it's definitely a reboot rather than a retcon.
Anyway, the movie did seem like it borrowed elements from other popular sci-fi series, but it was a better action flick for having done so.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 11, 2009, 11:28:03 AM
You can also do a new prequel (one that actually counts as canon) and set it right after the end of Enterprise and have it be about the Earth-Romulan war, although this is less likely due to the fact that the Romulans are the focus of the current one; there is also the fact that established canon states that Humans and Romulans never actually saw each other in the war (they only communicated via audio) and that could make it boring.
If you want a story set in the Earth-Romulan War I recommend the Enterprise novel The Romulan War coming out this fall. I'd also recommend the Enterprise novels The Good That Men Do and Kobayashi Maru that explain how the awful Enterprise series finale isn't exactly what happened (in a way that makes sense within canon) and are great novels in their own right.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EasyCure on May 11, 2009, 11:31:45 AM
the only part i didnt like? when leanord nemoy tells Kirk he learned cheating "from an old friend" only a few scenes after explaining that they were currently in an alternate reality. if the Romulans or whatever didnt go back in time and attack the ship Kirks father was on, the movies young Kirk (probably) wouldnt of cheated on that simulation test in Star Fleet. Of all characters, youd think Mr Logical would be the LAST one to ruin the movie ;) haha im just nitpicking now
oh and too bad they didnt have whats his face, john cho?, immitate George Takais laugh.. oh well!
It was established in Wrath of Khan that Kirk was the only cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario and that he did so by cheating by reprogramming the simulator.
ive never EVER seen a sngle episode of any Star Trek, and i really liked this movie. i Knew enough about it though to catch all the fanservice, but i wasnt one of the nerds that clapped or chuckled everytime they popped up.
when leanord nemoy tells Kirk he learned cheating "from an old friend" only a few scenes after explaining that they were currently in an alternate reality. if the Romulans or whatever didnt go back in time and attack the ship Kirks father was on, the movies young Kirk (probably) wouldnt of cheated on that simulation test in Star Fleet. Of all characters, youd think Mr Logical would be the LAST one to ruin the movie ;) haha im just nitpicking now
I knew you didn't know, I'm just saying that that's not a plot hole or error and it totally made sense for him to say that.
Well it didn't ruin the movie for me, it was still enjoyable and it washed the bad taste X-Men Origins: Wolverine left in my mouth. I'm glad you pointed that out though, cuz now i won't let it bug me if/when i do see this again. It'll just make it even more enjoyable.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: oohhboy on May 12, 2009, 06:17:39 AM
I really enjoy this movie. I put it right next to First Contact in the Star Trek awesome scale.
I had my doubts when I first saw the trailers. My greatest concern was Kirk. That kid isn't Kirk. Kirk wasn't a self destructive asshole. First opening scene my nerd alarm went nuts. This isn't Trek History WTF. But by the end of the opening, I understood.
This isn't a reboot. This is alternate. The last scene between Spock and Spock lamp shades it. By not hitting the reset button took balls and it pays off. The Star Trek was all know and love remains untouched and it allows them to tell new stories unburdened by hundreds of years of future and real history.
I still have a couple of nags. The choreography on most of the fight scenes were found wanting. Who the hell designed the lights on that bridge? Sulu, he tried, but not good enough.
Now some of the good. Nice Phaser pistols with great effects to go long with them. That new transport effects looks real expensive. Borrowed a little something from video games by quadrupling at the very least the number of weapons the starships pack and now with visible hard-points.
This is worth money to go to the theater to see.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Plugabugz on May 13, 2009, 08:07:04 PM
I watched this film. WOW. Amazing. My friend i went with has never watched star trek and now he wants to. JJ Abrams did in 3 hours what nintendo hasn't in 3 years. I have one nitpick. Transporting objects at warp? In the original timeline that's not possible, because in "our spocks future" about 30 years that puts it in DS9/Voyager era and it weren't possible then either.
So if this is alternate, does this mean the events of Enterprise still took place?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 13, 2009, 11:54:18 PM
So if this is alternate, does this mean the events of Enterprise still took place? [/quote]
Well, logically, based on the way they did it, it should mean that, but I don't know if they'll stick to it in the future.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 14, 2009, 12:11:21 AM
canon can always be reset, Superman used to be raised by the government in a foster home, now he is always raised by the kents
There is a HUGE difference between Star Trek and comics. Comics are well estlabished in their history of being full of contradictions, re-boots, etc. Superman alone has had dozens of different stories. DC has re-set the canon of every one of their comics multiple times.
Star Trek canon has been solid for 40+ years and is quite simple to explain (unlike that mess that is Star Wars, where everything written in books is considered canon unless it conflicts with the movies): All 5 live action TV series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) are canon. TAS is not canon. The first 10 movies are all officially canon (although The Final Frontier is unofficially non-canon as the writers ignore the events of the movie and have actually written several canon things that contradict stuff in the movie)
There are several things that were introduced in the animated series that later became canon by being used in a live action series or movie (Kirk's middle name "Tiberius" was first mention in TAS but was not considered canon until it was used in The Undiscovered Country).
The new Trek movie may technically be considered canon, but since it is set in a alternate reality it has not bearings whatsoever on the real Trek universe (which I think Abrams may have done to avoid pissing off real Trek fans since re-booting 40+ years of well-established canon would have made him look like a p***k and been the worst mistake Paramount ever made with the franchise). This also means Uhura still has no canon first name.
Having said all that, I will see this movie one way or another just because I am a huge Trek fan (although I am not a big fan of the Kirk era, the other two eras are much better).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: UncleBob on May 14, 2009, 09:31:56 AM
>"but since it is set in a alternate reality it has not bearings whatsoever on the real Trek universe"
Wrong. Romulus "Prime" is destroyed and Spock is gone from the "Prime" universe. Yeah, I'm nit picking, but it could be important later. :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Halbred on May 16, 2009, 03:42:32 PM
It's best for everyone if we all just forget about Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 16, 2009, 03:48:30 PM
It's best for everyone if we all just forget about Enterprise.
Have you seen the truly excellent 4th season of Enterprise? I mean I liked the whole series but Season 4 of Enterprise is the only season of any Star Trek to be better than any season of Deep Space 9. I guess considering NWR's track record with Star Trek I shouldn't be surprised at that statement, though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Kairon on May 16, 2009, 04:10:35 PM
It's best for everyone if we all just forget about Enterprise.
Have you seen the truly excellent 4th season of Enterprise? I mean I liked the whole series but Season 4 of Enterprise is the only season of any Star Trek to be better than any season of Deep Space 9. I guess considering NWR's track record with Star Trek I shouldn't be surprised at that statement, though.
Wow, really? I gave up on Enterprise actually.. I mean, I WANTED to like it, I wanted to enjoy Scott Bakula, really, but it started out so...
Actually, I'm not much of a trekkie. *Sigh* I don't really dig TNG, but I love the original series' camp, and DS9 was pretty epic. I wanted to like Voyager more since I liked the characters, but *shrug*
As for the movie Star Trek, it was very enjoyable. I have no qualms with "rebooting" franchsies or the writing tricks they used: I wanted to enjoy the movie, not feel weighted down by canon. I felt like it was truly the first great big summer blockbuster. Very well done, and I LOVED the cast they put together! Tons of minor actors who I've been waiting to see get their big breaks, from Uhura's Zoe Saldana (Guess Who) to Bones' Karl Urban (Lotr, Chronicles of Riddick).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 16, 2009, 04:18:32 PM
If you loved the Original Series you'd like Enterprise season 4, they make a lot of references to it, especially the 2-part Mirror universe episode which is made up almost entirely of Original Series references.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 16, 2009, 04:25:36 PM
Enterprise is like TNG. Both series started out really bad (the first season of TNG is horrible and easily the worst Trek season ever) but got better as they went along. I loved the season long Xindi story arc and season 4 was great. It was filled with storylines meant to help bridge the series with the futures shows. We got to see how the humans ended up being oppressed in the mirror universe, the use of augments and Soong's desire to experiment with androids, etc. The finale was pretty annoying though as it was nothing more than a holodeck fantasy being played out by Commander Riker.
I agree that DS9 is the best Trek series.
I guess I am just disappointed that after 5 years with no new Trek material and 6 1/2 years since the last movie that we would get a movie made for Trek fans and not the general audience who have never seen it before. Maybe the movie is good, but I want the next movie to be a true Trek movie. That means following the established canon, and get out of the Kirk era. 4 1/2 TV seasons (3 from TOS and 1 1/2 from TAS) and about 6 1/2 movies (Generations is mostly modern era but some Kirk era) is more than enough. A good movie can follow canon but still fell enjoyable by newcomers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 16, 2009, 04:34:02 PM
The Enterprise finale being just a holodeck simulation is very important because it allowed them to say that that's not what really happened and write some really great novels continuing the story.
And there is zero chance the next movie will go back to the old canon and even less chance that it will get out of the Kirk era, you need to accept that. Making a movie just for hardcore Trekkies just isn't profitable. As I've pointed out quite a few times, they're still writing novels in the old canon if you really want a story there.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 16, 2009, 04:50:59 PM
I didn't say it had to be for hardcore Trekkies. I said it needs to follow Trek canon. It's more than possible to make a Trek movie that follows canon and still appeals to the mainstream audience. Have the next Trek movie be set in the future, that way they can choose to come up with new characters and give them more freedom to create something that is canon without ruining what is already established.
My only problem with the Kirk era is that it is the most boring one in Star Trek. Some of the Kirk era movies are alright (except The Final Frontier), but the TNG era movies are much better and TOS is also the worst live action series. Nostalgia is just blinding people though from that fact. Nobody even gaves a rats ass about TOS until it entered syndication.
I have read some Trek books. I like them, but I want something that is canon. The books are not canon, they are like those "What if?" stories that comics do sometimes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 16, 2009, 05:12:22 PM
See I disagree, I think only one of the TNG movies was good at all (First Contact), and it's not nearly as good as 2 or 6. Star Trek had enough of a following during its run to inspire a massive letter-writing campaign that got the show a third season when it was going to be canceled after two.
I think you should see the new movie before declaring the Kirk era boring, and while it's probably possible to make a canonical movie that will appeal to a wider audience that's not what they're going to do. Star Trek XII is going to be a direct follow up to Star Trek XI and I for one can't wait for it.
The novels may not be officially canon but they do stay within canon and I know there are a good number of Trek novels that I consider canon until contradicted even though they officially aren't, just like some people consider the Animated Series canon even though it officially isn't.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 17, 2009, 01:46:45 AM
one could say that the kirk era is boring, but it definitely wasn't this go around. I want to see a sequel to this movie. Is it me or are all the good star treks the ones with time travel?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: oohhboy on May 17, 2009, 02:02:52 AM
I will have to agree that First contact was the only good (Excellent) TNG movie. The others were average or terrible (Insurrection).
Of the Kirk era movies, I find the first one to be terrible and just comes off as trying way too hard. Final Frontier was an awkward mess. Khan, Voyage home, Undiscovered country are great.
TOS is great because lacking the whiz bang effects you get these days, you focus more on the characters and enjoy the fact it was made on a shoe string budget.
I am glad that the books aren't canon. It avoids the Dragon Ball type BS that Star Wars expanded universe stuff gets into. The EU stuff just gets outright silly.
Of the ST books you get things like the Shatner ones, while enjoyable, you feel glad that they aren't canon. It also frees them to tell stories without a too heavy burden on history.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Stogi on May 17, 2009, 03:53:38 AM
Saw the movie yesterday and I thought it was real tight.
the best part of the movie is when Nero is beating the **** out of Kirk.......
Underling: "Captain, the Vulcan ship has been stolen!" Nero: *shakes fist* "FUUUUCKKKK!"
I know I know....He was actually saying SPOCK! but it was hilarious. I'm still laughing about it now.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Plugabugz on May 17, 2009, 10:13:14 AM
It's best for everyone if we all just forget about Enterprise.
Turns out there was a line in the film which referred back to Enterprise, about Admiral Archer's prize beagle.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 18, 2009, 04:36:38 AM
I just got back from seeing this movie, and I can't wait to see the sequel. I am no trekkie and have never followed a Trek show, althought I have seen a few eps of TNG, Voyager & an ep or 2 of DS9 & ENT.
This movie was good. I think it did exactly what it intended in being aimed at an audience larger than but still including all the Trek fans. And as someone else already mentioned, I loved seeing a bunch of recognizable actors that haven't quite made it big & this might be just what they needed. I highly recommend this movie to anybody that was never into Star Trek but were even slightly interested in the trailer. Go see it. you won't regret it.
You have no idea how many people I know that have never watched the TV show and would feel uncomfortable being surrounded by trekkies who were really interested in seeing this movie based on the trailer alone. I was one of them, and now I anticipate a sequel. They managed to throw in some things for the trekkies, but a re-boot lets me hop in right from the beginning and not feel like I need to go watch all the past movies to actually understand everything that is going on.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 18, 2009, 03:38:45 PM
i was at Wal-mart yesterday and they have this best of star trek dvd for 9 bucks. I was considering buying it. I have seen many episodes of the original series, but I'm no expert. The show i got really addicted to was DS9, and of course any time a TNG episode comes on I usually watch. I liked Voyager, but not as much as DS9. 7 of 9 of course was a hottie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 19, 2009, 01:58:10 PM
The movie was fantastic, and this is coming from someone who has watched every episode EVER of the main series from TOS to Enterprise (Season 4 of Enterprise is one of my favorite seasons EVER of Star Trek).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2009, 02:45:56 PM
Hmm, I am still torn but I will see it. I guess I am just mad that as a huge Trek fan it looks like we have to continue going without a real Trek movie and that instead we get this alternate universe (it's like in comics were the the live action series and first 10 movies are the real Trek universe and this movie is an alternate reality that is not real). It's bad enough that the 12th movie will stay in this alternate universe and be in the Kirk era, I hope the 13th movie returns to the canon universe and gets out of the Kirk era as well.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 19, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
This is most definitely a "real Trek movie". It's better than all but 2 or 3 of the 10 that came before it. The timelines have been changed so many times by the various Treks that I don't get why this is such a huge deal. You also need to get it through your head that they are never going to go back to the original timeline outside of novels and comics, and quit bashing the Kirk era as this is quite a bit different from any Kirk era stuff that came before.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2009, 04:51:00 PM
well zelda has lived with two alternate universes!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2009, 05:01:56 PM
This is most definitely a "real Trek movie". It's better than all but 2 or 3 of the 10 that came before it. The timelines have been changed so many times by the various Treks that I don't get why this is such a huge deal. You also need to get it through your head that they are never going to go back to the original timeline outside of novels and comics, and quit bashing the Kirk era as this is quite a bit different from any Kirk era stuff that came before.
It's NOT a real Trek movie. By real, I mean it's canon in the Trek universe. I don't know how much of a Trek fan you are, but the timeline has not changed at all in the series and movies. The only thing that doesn't fit in is "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" and that is unofficially considered non-canon as the writers ignore the events. They have done a fantastic job of keeping stuff straight. Why shouldn't I want them to get away from this alternate reality and get back to the real Trek universe? The TNG TV series showed that you can appeal to the mainstream audience while staying within the Trek canon.
I am not bashing the Kirk era, I am just stating my opinion that it is the most boring of the 3 eras. The beginning of the Federation is more exciting and the future of Trek is more exciting.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Stogi on May 19, 2009, 05:19:26 PM
Dude, just watch it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 19, 2009, 05:25:43 PM
But this movie is canon, and so is all the old stuff, and the way they explain both of them being canon is that they occur in separate timelines. Take for instance the Borg; it was establised in TNG in Q Who that that was the first contact between the Federation and the Borg but then there were Borg in Enterprise, which makes sense within canon because the Borg altered the timeline in First Contact when they went back in time to stop Zeframe Cochrane and their sphere crashed in the Arctic.
It's not that I wouldn't like to see more Trek in the old timeline, I just realize that it's not going to happen and will be happy with more of this new timeline. You really need to see the new movie before you call Kirk era Trek boring.
That was a real pain in the ass to type out on the iPhone keyboard.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Plugabugz on May 19, 2009, 05:33:05 PM
We were saying above how we wanted a DS9/Voyager wrap up movie. With this film, both of those are extemely unlikely. I also said how a friend stated we won't see anything in the prime timeline post-Voyager in terms of building that story on. Nemesis aside, it hasn't happened. That's even less likely now.
But returning to the prime timeline? That's stone dead not going to happen.
The whole point of rebooting into a new universe like this was to not be hindered by all the events that followed by all the previous movies and series.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2009, 05:55:14 PM
I said I am going to, mainly because I am a Trek fan. That doesn't mean I have to like the idea that we are not gonna return to the main timeline anytime soon. I can only hope Paramount (or CBS or whatever the name of the company is now) decides to take this success and make a new series set in the real timeline.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 19, 2009, 06:15:49 PM
You don't get it. They're never going back to the old timeline. Believing that there is a chance they will is only going to disappoint you in the long run.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2009, 06:49:10 PM
They will eventually, it may take awhile but Paramount would keep their backs turned to real Trek fans forever. Eventually they will go back to the real timeline. For folks who like this alternate one, they can stick that to books and video games.
Is there a particular reason you seem to prefer this alternate timeline rather than the real one?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Stogi on May 19, 2009, 07:57:25 PM
The alternate timeline allows them more creative freedom.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
heres the timeline theres kirk, spock, bones, chekov, scotty, sulu, and Uhura. Some unimportant details.
the new timeline theres kirk, spock, bones, chekov, scotty, sulu, and Uhura. Some unimportant details.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 19, 2009, 08:43:56 PM
heres the timeline theres kirk, spock, bones, chekov, scotty, sulu, and Uhura. Some unimportant details.
the new timeline theres kirk, spock, bones, chekov, scotty, sulu, and Uhura. Some unimportant details.
You forget one ship is made out of plywood with christmas lights on it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: bustin98 on May 19, 2009, 11:34:38 PM
All the old stories can be retold now. Captain Pike getting to walk again, Genesis Project, Kahn, Harry Mudd (!!), Q, Borg... Everything gets a new spin.
(Yes, I'm being silly)
I don't see the old timeline coming back. This is a new Trek for a new generation. Just like Transformers will never go back to G1 except in overpriced toys.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2009, 11:40:55 PM
There is a huge difference between Transformers G1 and the real Trek timeline. Transformers started as a toyline and only later got adapted into cartoon series and movies and G1 was ended back in 1991. Star Trek has 40+ years of canon behind it. I would be fine with letting this alternate timeline have the movies if the real timeline got a TV series (the current Transformers TV show has nothing to do with the crappy live action movie, for example).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: bustin98 on May 20, 2009, 12:28:34 AM
I don't think anything can compare to the history of Trek. The closest is Bond, but that franchise gets a kick in the pants everytime someone new plays Bond. I still miss Q, M should be a man, and Moneypenny should eternally pine for hot Bond love.
The quicker you accept the changes, the happier you'll be. Light a candle, say a prayer. "He's dead, Jim"
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 20, 2009, 02:23:38 AM
TJ, have you even seen the movie yet? I think you should go watch it, let the movie digest for a little while, and then come back and tell us how you really feel.
I think a re-boot is the best option for the series. Like said before, its a new Trek for a new generation. Now a whole new generation of Trek fans can be brought into the fold with all new story lines that change nothing from the old Trek universe. There is nothing to be mad at here. consider the old Trek to have run its course, and new Trek is here to pick up where it left off.
Its an alter-trek but i think it was explained and executed perfectly to tie in with the "canon" series without taking anything away from it. seriously, just go watch the movie and let it all soak in for a while. New Trek is a good thing, not all change is bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 20, 2009, 05:08:40 AM
i don't see a huge difference in storylines, the original series was only on for 3 seasons, most episodes don't even tie together. Anything that happens post kirk era will be retroactively fixed as the newer series goes on. The only thing that has been canon is the interactions with other aliens(klingons and romulans) which is minimal in the new movie(or at least in this movie their interaction doesn't count). Its like an origina story with an alternate origin, and this alternate origin is explained in the movie. The real canon universe still exists, but its only accessable through black hole Leonard Nemoy explains the whole thing in a very satisfactory way(and funny)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: oohhboy on May 20, 2009, 10:22:12 AM
I am just throwing this out there but what if this is the mirror universe where Spock gets his Goatee on? However unlikely it is, it is a direction they could take. The destruction of a founding UFP member could have been that event that spawned the Terrain empire.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: UncleBob on May 20, 2009, 10:54:11 AM
Didn't watch much Enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Mirror,_Darkly_(Enterprise_episode)), did ya? :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 20, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
They will eventually, it may take awhile but Paramount would keep their backs turned to real Trek fans forever. Eventually they will go back to the real timeline. For folks who like this alternate one, they can stick that to books and video games.
Is there a particular reason you seem to prefer this alternate timeline rather than the real one?
I'm most certainly a "real Star Trek fan" and so are lots of people who loved this new movie. I don't prefer the new timeline, I love the old timeline, I just like the new one too and I realize they're never going back. It's just not profitable to make a movie or a series just for Trek fans. I'd love to see more stuff in the old timeline, but the choice isn't between the old timeline and the new timeline, it's between the new timeline and no Trek at all. You have it backwards, the old timeline is the one that's going to be only in books and games.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 20, 2009, 02:45:47 PM
Not profitable to make a Trek movie for Trek fans? Besides the fact that you can make a Trek movie in the real timeline that still appeals to fans while appealing to the general audience, Nemesis was the only Trek movie that lost money (and part of that may have been that it went up against The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers). There are plenty of movies made for fans of a series that are hugely popular. The Star Wars movies and the Lord of the Rings movies (don't even try and claim any of the LotR movies were made with the general audience in mind) are some great examples.
I also don't buy into the belief that it's either alternate timeline Trek or no Trek at all. People just became burned out from Trek because there had been 18 straight years of Trek shows (TNG 1987-1994, DS9 1993-1999, VOY 1995-2001, ENT 2001-2005). Paramount stated they just wanted to give the franchise a break. I think it was Abrams idea for this whole re-boot, so I blame him. He is so-so as a director/producer. Fringe is a good show but Lost is complete crap.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 20, 2009, 02:56:59 PM
I'm not going to argue with you anymore; if you want to hold onto false hope go right ahead. I stopped going to a Star Trek message board I used to go to a long time ago to avoid arguments like this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 20, 2009, 03:24:52 PM
Why isn't this kind of passion nerd city present in the other gaming threads?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: oohhboy on May 21, 2009, 12:45:33 PM
Wow there was some good episodes inside that giant turd of a show. Oh your link is really messed up if you want to get around fixing it Uncle Bob.
By the end of VOY, trek was getting tired. It did need a break. However they went ahead and made ENT which pretty much killed it. As rich of a universe as trek is they went back to make prequels. DS9 brought us section 13. VOY brought back a treasure ship in tech. TNG era was still quite rich in directs to go that didn't need to focus on one bloody ship of people I didn't care about over events that didn't happen. They shouldn't have done another ship based series.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 21, 2009, 01:07:55 PM
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sundoulos on May 21, 2009, 01:14:27 PM
Why? The Dawson's Creek in space formula seems to be working out for them.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 21, 2009, 01:20:28 PM
But who watches that? Gotta casualize this baby.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 21, 2009, 03:45:40 PM
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
me, i've been toying with a sitcom that pokes fun at scifi shows. Its most like its always sunny in phillidelphia. I have plotlines for like 5 episodes
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Plugabugz on May 21, 2009, 03:57:53 PM
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
me, i've been toying with a sitcom that pokes fun at scifi shows. Its most like its always sunny in phillidelphia. I have plotlines for like 5 episodes
It's semi sort of been done already. We had a sci fi comedy called Hyperdrive two years ago.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 21, 2009, 05:59:48 PM
Quote
Wow there was some good episodes inside that giant turd of a show.
If you are referencing Enterprise it picked up during season 3 and hit the ground running on season 4 with a new head of the show. Manny Coto basically threw everything else from past seasons out the window and did an excellent job of making it a true prequel with a lot of excellent episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sundoulos on May 21, 2009, 06:28:10 PM
I totally missed this when I watched the movie, but apparently there was a throwaway line referencing Admiral Archer's dog. I thought it was a nice nod to Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 21, 2009, 06:31:21 PM
i never heard of hyperdrive...but Nick Frost is in it! Got to check it out. I loved Spaced. If i were to create a sitcom i want all the main characters to be total douchebags, and in the process of their scheming they are always punished bring themselves further down into the gutter. Topics include, STDs, health care, running from the mob. What would real people in the future be like?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: King of Twitch on May 21, 2009, 06:39:27 PM
Future people will probably complain about lack of internet on their food replicators, lack of leaderboards on the holodeck, and how much better pressing buttons used to be, even though they no longer have buttons to press.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 21, 2009, 06:44:13 PM
I totally missed this when I watched the movie, but apparently there was a throwaway line referencing Admiral Archer's dog. I thought it was a nice nod to Enterprise.
Scotty says it when they are talking about the evolution (or something like that need to watch it again) of transporter technology when they run into him on the Federation outpost.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dasmos on May 21, 2009, 07:12:14 PM
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
me, i've been toying with a sitcom that pokes fun at scifi shows. Its most like its always sunny in phillidelphia. I have plotlines for like 5 episodes
It's semi sort of been done already. We had a sci fi comedy called Hyperdrive two years ago.
Not to mention the Always Sunny guys are already making their own Sci-Fi comedy. Bodly Going Nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldly_Going_Nowhere)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 21, 2009, 07:19:04 PM
Star Trek and Punch-Out are tearing the community apart. What if we combine the two.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 21, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 21, 2009, 07:54:39 PM
lol yeah,i forgot about that. I was in the shower thinking and I was like Oh yeah? Maybe i should just write some of their episodes. That would save me some trouble.
heres somke episodes synopsi I made
Season 1 1 Downloading porn turns off our oxygen - the ships engineer downloads some porn from a suspicious alien site, the ship gets a virus and the oxygen shuts down.
2 This Alien doesn't have health insurance - an alien life form reaches out to the crew for help, the doctor wont help him because he doesn't have health insurance
3 The Trouble with Herpes - the captain sleeps with bunches of women and gets space herpes
4 Seductrice - a seductruce alien girl takes over the star ship using her seducing power, unfortuantely this doesn't work on the gay dude on the ship.
5 Time Travel Episode- ensign alex travels in time a year in the past, just so he can sleep with himself
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Caliban on May 21, 2009, 08:59:56 PM
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
me, i've been toying with a sitcom that pokes fun at scifi shows. Its most like its always sunny in phillidelphia. I have plotlines for like 5 episodes
The same people that made It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia are supposedly working on such a show.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dasmos on May 21, 2009, 09:17:07 PM
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
me, i've been toying with a sitcom that pokes fun at scifi shows. Its most like its always sunny in phillidelphia. I have plotlines for like 5 episodes
It's semi sort of been done already. We had a sci fi comedy called Hyperdrive two years ago.
Not to mention the Always Sunny guys are already making their own Sci-Fi comedy. Bodly Going Nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldly_Going_Nowhere)
Where's the genius who will turn Star Trek into a sci-fi sitcom similarly structured to `FRIENDS`?
me, i've been toying with a sitcom that pokes fun at scifi shows. Its most like its always sunny in phillidelphia. I have plotlines for like 5 episodes
The same people that made It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia are supposedly working on a such a show.
Yay!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: UncleBob on May 21, 2009, 09:17:36 PM
All this talk makes me think of Galaxy Quest. Best Star Trek movie ever.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 22, 2009, 12:36:41 AM
All this talk makes me think of Galaxy Quest. Best Star Trek movie ever.
I love that movie. Spaceballs is funnier but Galaxy Quest is just the perfect Star Trek parody.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: ThePerm on May 22, 2009, 03:52:11 AM
once you watch star trek(the shows) you look at the world differently, once you watch its always sunny in philidelphia you look at the world differently. There need to be more characters that sniff paint.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 22, 2009, 04:04:24 PM
Yeah, I learned it's better to play outside.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: UncleBob on May 22, 2009, 08:33:01 PM