STAR TREK **MAJOR SPOILERS**

TRP · Post by **TRP** » Fri May 15, 2009 12:53 pm

I wasn't fond of the industrial atmosphere in some of Enterprises interior spaces. Until now, every incarnation of ST, except one, used clinically clean interiors. The only exception being DS9, but that took place on a non-Federation constructed space station. Whenever they traveled Federation-style however, they flew in the clean ships. The new 1701 wasn't exactly the Nostromo, but I missed the hallmark Federation clean look. Realistic? Probably not, but then, neither are transporters.

Calithena · Post by **Calithena** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:11 pm

I saw this film last night.

I can't understand why there is controvesy about it. The story provides a pretext for an 'official' reboot. These aren't supposed to be the same Kirk, Spock, etc.; their history was changed by the time travel thing. The pretext allows them to tell new stories about the same people - my guess is that it will end with a closed arc where the new Kirk and Spock somehow undo the time travel accident to get Vulcan/Mom/Dad back and restore the 'original' ST universe of the sixties show.

But even if they don't do that there are no continuity issues because it's a different timestream.

So anyway, I enjoyed it moderately and give it I think a B+ (the plus being for the character acting). I don't think it poses much threat to ST canon and while the general tendency towards remakes is annoying to me personally, given that this is a remake I think it's a pretty good one.

JCBoney · Post by **JCBoney** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:39 pm

Calithena wrote:I saw this film last night.

I can't understand why there is controvesy about it. The story provides a pretext for an 'official' reboot. These aren't supposed to be the same Kirk, Spock, etc.; their history was changed by the time travel thing. The pretext allows them to tell new stories about the same people - my guess is that it will end with a closed arc where the new Kirk and Spock somehow undo the time travel accident to get Vulcan/Mom/Dad back and restore the 'original' ST universe of the sixties show.

But even if they don't do that there are no continuity issues because it's a different timestream.

So anyway, I enjoyed it moderately and give it I think a B+ (the plus being for the character acting). I don't think it poses much threat to ST canon and while the general tendency towards remakes is annoying to me personally, given that this is a remake I think it's a pretty good one.

B+ is what a lot of people are giving it... as in "good first try." We'll see how the sequel pans out... and yes, there will be a sequel.

One thing to keep in mind is Abram's approach to time travel. Anyone watching Lost will recognize this factor in Abram's and Lindelof's stories: even though Spock speaks of an "alternate reality," there's a definite chain of events which will attempt to correct any deviation. It's established in history that Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise because that's what Nero knows about in the future. Thus, Kirk must become captain. There are little things in the plot indicating that time attempts to correct itself after the death of George Kirk (and the subseqent re-arrangement of Jim Kirk's life because of that):

- Pike's meeting with Kirk
- Kirk's sudden change of heart about joining Starfleet.
- Sulu forgetting to "disengage the parking brake" on the Enterprise and thus saving it from the same fate as the other ships.
- Spock irrationally marooning Kirk on Delta Vega so Kirk meets Spock Prime and discovers his real destiny.

These events set the flow of time back to something like a normal course of events. It's an aspect of the movie I've yet to read anyone else discuss, and it's obvious when you know something about the works of Abrams and Lindelof.

TRP · Post by **TRP** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:51 pm

Semaj, thanks for the perspective on Abrams. Not having watched Lost, I didn't even know there was a time travel aspect to it.

The points you make do help me better accept the Kirk meeting the older Spock by chance on a seemingly uninhabited planet event. That was the one part of the film that bothered me.

You forgot to mention that Pike still winds up in a wheelchair.

JCBoney · Post by **JCBoney** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:15 pm

TheRedPriest wrote:Semaj, thanks for the perspective on Abrams. Not having watched Lost, I didn't even know there was a time travel aspect to it.

The points you make do help me better accept the Kirk meeting the older Spock by chance on a seemingly uninhabited planet event. That was the one part of the film that bothered me.

You forgot to mention that Pike still winds up in a wheelchair.

Yeah, he does, but at least he's not flashing everyone with that one light.

I'm sure there's other "course corrections" throughout the movie. I'll have to see it again on DVD so I can study it.

Stormcrow · Post by **Stormcrow** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:27 am

Calithena wrote:I can't understand why there is controvesy about it. The story provides a pretext for an 'official' reboot. These aren't supposed to be the same Kirk, Spock, etc.; their history was changed by the time travel thing. The pretext allows them to tell new stories about the same people

The controversy isn't about whether the changes make sense, it's about whether they should be done at all.

Let's take it to a further (and absurd) extreme, just to illustrate the point. Suppose the pretext of a reboot movie was that the arrival of a time traveler in the past has the mysterious effect of changing the sex of every being in the universe, without their knowledge. Reality reforms around them as if this is the way things always were.

The fans wouldn't stand for it. Aside from it being a really stupid idea, the whole thing changes the characters beyond recognition. If these were new characters in a new movie franchise, nobody would care. But these are established and loved characters, and you've just mutilated them. Sure, there'll be a lot of morons saying they love it because they like to look at all the hot'n'sexy actresses playing the main characters, but sex appeal should not be a big factor in a science-fiction/action film, unless it's porn.

Now dial back the rhetoric and apply the same idea more reasonably. A reboot, whatever its intentions, has the effect of wiping out all the adventures you've shared with those characters, and likely wipes out their character too. They may mimic the original characters, but you haven't gotten to know the characters over time.

By "rebooting" the franchise, what they create is merely a reflection of what they once had, mimicry of the original. Kirk can swagger, Spock can be internally tortured, McCoy can be ornery—but they do these things because you expect them to, not because that's how they developed. This, to me, is the very definition of "soulless."

- my guess is that it will end with a closed arc where the new Kirk and Spock somehow undo the time travel accident to get Vulcan/Mom/Dad back and restore the 'original' ST universe of the sixties show.

No way. Never gonna happen. They'd be eliminating any future Star Trek profits from that point on.

while the general tendency towards remakes is annoying to me personally, given that this is a remake I think it's a pretty good one.

This isn't a remake—there was no episode or film with this plot. It's purely a "reboot." It's also a prequel and an origin story. All three of those are generally reprehensible for their lack of originality.

TRP · Post by **TRP** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:30 am

/McCoy voice on

Damn it, Stormcrow. It's a movie, not a Holocaust denial!

/McCoy voice off

AxeMental · Post by **AxeMental** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:11 am

SC: "The controversy isn't about whether the changes make sense, it's about whether they should be done at all."

There were two options for a start over, a new crew or this time travel reboot. The second choice was the only realistic option IMHO. Think about the constraints they have to follow, thats a good thing.

Stormcrow · Post by **Stormcrow** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:13 pm

AxeMental wrote:There were two options for a start over, a new crew or this time travel reboot.

You're taking a "start over" as a necessary given.

Stormcrow · Post by **Stormcrow** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:16 pm

TheRedPriest wrote:Damn it, Stormcrow. It's a movie, not a Holocaust denial!

The traditional response in a Star Trek discussion. Accuse the other side of being too serious about it.

Calithena said he didn't understand the controversy. When someone on the Internet says he doesn't understand something, I am obligated to make him understand!

Post by **Falconer** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:19 pm

Stormcrow wrote:Suppose the pretext of a reboot movie was that the arrival of a time traveler in the past has the mysterious effect of changing the sex of every being in the universe, without their knowledge. Reality reforms around them as if this is the way things always were.

The fans wouldn't stand for it. Aside from it being a really stupid idea, the whole thing changes the characters beyond recognition. If these were new characters in a new movie franchise, nobody would care. But these are established and loved characters, and you've just mutilated them. Sure, there'll be a lot of morons saying they love it because they like to look at all the hot'n'sexy actresses playing the main characters, but sex appeal should not be a big factor in a science-fiction/action film, unless it's porn.

Exactly my feelings regarding the new Battlestar Galactica.

JRR · Post by **JRR** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:23 pm

Stormcrow wrote:
AxeMental wrote:There were two options for a start over, a new crew or this time travel reboot.

Why not just assume it's the last 2 years of the 5 year mission? New ACTORS, but not new characters.

As it stands, the only way that abomination of a movie could be worse is if it starred Wil Ferell as Kirk.

Stonegiant · Post by **Stonegiant** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:47 pm

Heres my opinion-

prequels, reboots, remakes, etc. are always harder on the fan, based on the fans love of the orginal material, greater the love = greater the dislike.

The same can be said about historians and historical films (don't get me started on the crapfests The 13th Warrior or 300

).

For the casual fan its just not that big of a deal (good or bad).

I am a casual Star Trek fan so I doubt this movie is going to hurt my sensabilities but I can appreciate the pain of the Trekies watching this movie.

Just my 2cps.

AxeMental · Post by **AxeMental** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:03 am

This was the only good Star trek since the original crew and movies with the old cast. Everything EVERTYHING else has sucked...if you think differently your lieing to yourself (because your Sci Fi starved).

Could these writers and director done it with a new ship and crew, sure. But they probl. couldn't have gotten it made (who'd fund it).
If it came to not having it or having it, I'd choose have it. Plus its upping the interest in Kirk and Spock (culturally). TLG is quickly being forgotten (thank God). Also, they can't screw things up too much, there stuck with cool ships, cool phasers, etc. no holideck crap. Also, they seemed to have finally shaken off those California Liberals who apparently got a strangle hold on the franchise (these new guys rock!)

Stormcrow · Post by **Stormcrow** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:54 am

AxeMental wrote:This was the only good Star trek since the original crew and movies with the old cast. Everything EVERTYHING else has sucked...if you think differently your lieing to yourself (because your Sci Fi starved).

No one has argued against that. There were darn few good Star Trek films.

Could these writers and director done it with a new ship and crew, sure. But they probl. couldn't have gotten it made (who'd fund it).

So you're saying if it weren't for the fact that it was called Star Trek, with the names Kirk and Spock, it wouldn't have gotten made?

Doesn't that tend to indicate that it's not a good movie, but is just riding on the coattails of greatness? Mooching, if you will?

Knights & Knaves Alehouse

STAR TREK MAJOR SPOILERS