Star Trek

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So I'm really not getting this thing about the charcters not being the same, or their relationships to each other being false

Yeah, while I'm not so bothered by it, I'm with mousepod here. I'm not sure you can at all argue that these characters are just slightly different but essentially the same people.

Because of the alteration of the timeline Kirk grew up without his father and a huge chip on his shoulder taking an entirely different route to where he is and meeting all of the characters in entirely different circumstances.

Spock is having a romantic relationship with Uhura has learned that it is ok to express that love and is living as the refugee of a nearly eradicated species.

Sulu apparently bought a stupid ass sword somewhere and now takes it with him everywhere.

This movie set up extremely different characters with the cheat that in future films they can return to our shared now falsified experience for cheap nostalgia.

I didn't care, but I am surprised to see that so many of the people who were so horribly upset when The Force turned out to be a bacterial infection don't seem to care at all that Abrams just pulled the science fiction version of "and then he woke up to find it was all a dream."

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

I am surprised to see that so many of the people ... don't seem to care at all that Abrams just pulled the science fiction version of "and then he woke up to find it was all a dream."

I suppose it comes down to an analog of the Roger Rabbit dictum, "As long as it was funny."

In other words, if the last season of Roseanne had been as good as the first 5 seasons instead of being craptacular, it wouldn't have mattered to me that the entire season was just a dream.


So slightly tortured exposition to explain why they won't be copying your father's Star Trek to a T. for Tiberius, building starships on gravity-bound planetary surfaces, engineering sections that look like 20th-Century power plants, and radically stupid alterations of basic scientific and plausible concepts don't matter ... since the movie was enjoyably fantastic.


Again, in my humble opinion (and that of 91% of critics and 97% of filmgoers)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Leonard Nimoy has officially declared JW and mousepod to be dickheads.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I don't understand what mousepod is saying at all.

It seems quite clearly to me the alternate timeline element is a skimpy conceipt to allow slight differences without being lambasted for it, and nothing more. I frankly don't know what mousepod is on about.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Leonard Nimoy has officially declared JW and mousepod to be dickheads.

I appreciate that iSm doesn't understand an argument that's not the one he expected and is prepared to defend.

And I'm sad that Leonard Nimoy is retarded.

Here it is, in simple terms, for both of you:

I have no problem with fvcking with the canon of Star Trek. I'm not a Trekkie, or a Trekker or whatever. I actually am fond of messing with stories. If I'm not mistaken, both iSm and GD, to name but two LoTers are sticklers for canon in other similar entertainment franchises. Not me.

My problem isn't that they changed the story, my problem is that the "sell" of the movie is "this is how the characters you loved all these years met." But once they blow up Vulcan, it's clear that this movie is about how different versions of these characters met. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around it, iSm, but that's not what they're hinting at, that's what they're telling. Because in this movie, Leonard Nimoy's Spock is the one that had all of those experiences that we saw in the TV show and movies. The new Spock won't be the one to have those experiences. He's a different guy.

And Leonard Nimoy's dentures suck.

[innerSpaceman]

It's just a silly device.


I don't read comics, so the only thing I can relate to as far as the stupid tricks mousepod eluded to previously is the James Bond movie series.


They don't explain why he's a different actor and often pretending to be the exact same character from 40 years ago perpetually young (e.g., Pierce Brosnon's Bond refers to his marriage to Diana Rigg that happened to George Lazenby Bond in the Sean Connery era).

They simply don't explain it, and it seems a little silly, but we accept it.

In the reboot, they also breeze past it ... but imply this is James Bond's first adventure, but happening in modern times. Has all of James Bond history not happened? Do they just keep assigning new agents the number 007 and the name James Bond? Do they implant some of these guys with past memory chips and some not?

No, it's just not explained and it's fine.


So Star Trek inserted a little plot point to "explain" why these guys will be the same, but different. Big freaking deal. It doesn't make these characters not the "same." Is Roger Moore the same Bond as Sean Connery. Is Daniel Craig? Who the fvck cares?


How do these "things" make for a bad movie or a good one? They are simply exposition points.

And you are mistaken, at least about me, as far as being a stickler for canon in other movie series. I may be a sticker for things not being dumbed down, made silly, or becoming bad entertainment ... but I've never given a fig about canon.


Did it bother me when Khan recognizes Checkov when he NEVER met him in the episode Khan is from? Not a single, solitary bit. Wrath of Khan is a fantastic movie.


And for those who freak out they killed Vulcan, does anyone recall the uproar and upset when they killed Spock? Pfft, they brought him back to life in the next episode. Relax, it's just a story.



I guess it seems to me JW and mousepod are, from different approaches, basing their dislike of the movie on plot points and expositionary choices. That seems a thin criteria.

I'm really rather sorry such ephemera took you guys out of the film and bugged you. That's too bad. I think you've missed out on a fantastically entertaining movie.

It's not a necessary indication of quality, but this is one of the best-reviewed films I've seen come along in a long time. And I've already seen the movie with at least 20 friends, all of whom liked it immensely, some of these people have been my Star Trek buddies for 30 years. They are all giving the movie great word-of-mouth, as are most people in this thread.

So what I'm suggesting is there's a strong possiblity of finding this movie a great entertainment. I regret it didn't hit you two this way. C'est la vie.

[innerSpaceman]

Nope, not buying it. Before I was with Isaac, I was repressing my homosexuality. Not anymore. Am I a "different" person after such a major lifestyle change?

No.

I am me under radically different circumstances.



And since it's just a silly plot point to explain why they won't be slavishly copying the original series, this entire line of argument just strikes me as beyond silly.


Oh, and Midochloreans are not what made The Phantom Menace a bad film.

[Alex]

Of course that's not what made Phantom Menace a bad film. But it is a "violation" of the pre-known story that pissed a lot of people off.

And your example of coming out of the closet isn't even close to the same thing as what we're talking about so I think we really are talking past each other. If the future you cam back and changed something from before your birth so that every single life experience you had was fundamentally different than what had already experienced then yes, I'd pretty strongly argue that you are a significantly different person. And that is what happened to Kirk (and now to significant degrees, if not before, for every other character).

A night's sleep hasn't helped my regard for the movie. As I think about it the near total stupidity of plot and science is coming more to the fore so it is probably best for me to stop thinking about it at all if I don't want to ruin what was a pretty good in-the-moment experience.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

If the future you cam back and changed something from before your birth so that every single life experience you had was fundamentally different than what had already experienced then yes, I'd pretty strongly argue that you are a significantly different person. And that is what happened to Kirk (and now to significant degrees, if not before, for every other character).

Ok, I'm not suggesting the following is due to any philosophical purpose of the screenwriters, but what happens is that there is "fate" to certain elements of one's life. Captain Pike is crippled from the waist down instead of face down. Checkov ends up at the helm 8 years earlier. Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise. On and on. The premise, which I happen to like and which is time-travel fiction standard, is that certain things will happen no matter what, and other things will change.

And, um, since it's all a matter of accepting Daniel Brosnon Moore as James Bond, I hardly think it matters anyway.

But, for curiosity's sake, when is the tipping point of total character-difference for you, Alex? Does it have to be a time anomaly before one's birth, or will the change occurring at age 7 do just as nicely? Is Spock a different person if, as in much fan fic, he's a big Vulan 'mo and Kirk's lover? Or is he only a different person if his planet is destroyed?


* * * * *


mousepod, I'm sorry I've seemed to miss your point. I love your opinions on film, even when I don't agree with them ... so I'll have to go re-read your posts with an eye on better comprehension ... but not just so's I can disagree with you properly.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The premise, which I happen to like and which is time-travel fiction standard, is that certain things will happen no matter what, and other things will change.

Yes, that is a time-travel staple...when things remain in a single timeline. It is definitely not a staple of multiple timeline science fiction however and that is what we are dealing with here.

But then I also simply don't have any personal or philosophical affinity for ideas such as "fate" so I'm sure that doesn't help.

[mousepod]

iSm ... you're arguing against a position that I didn't take.

I'm wondering if you don't understand what my real beef is.

And perhaps that's why you loved the movie. So rather than reiterate, I will just accept that you have gotten hours of entertainment for your money, and be happy for you.