Star Trek

JWBear · 05-09-2009, 11:00 AM

To respond to some of your points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Scotty evolved to a comic relief character in the original series, a process accelerated in the movies. I think this Scotty was completely in line with that, and was set up as an eccentric genius that others will dismiss, but Kirk will trust implicitely.

That doesn't make it right. imo. Why follow the trend from the later movies which i disliked, btw) if your goal is to "reboot" the entire mythos?

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, it seems pretty obvious that Muppet Babies Star Trek was the entire point. Yeah, it was a tad un-canonly convenient that they are all part of the same cadet class, but a dramatic license I accept for the story of getting them all to their ToS status within a week of meeting. Besides, and I think this was the only clever achievement of the thin plot - - it's an alternate timeline from the first minute of the movie, so there's no canon to adhere to. Everything's the same, but free to be completely different. Brilliant, imo.

BTW, it's "canon" that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise in first season before he was promoted to a Bridge Officer. To have him on the Bridge from the get-go in an alternate timeline is, imo, completely acceptable.

This movie takes place 7 years before the events in the first season of TOS. I still don't buy Chekov being on the Enterprise in any capacity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yeah, ok, but so? I thought they were going for a kind of early-Federation look, but I don't watch Sci-Fi Channel and I didn't watch "Enterrpise" to see how they did that same thing. Of course, the Bridge was ultra high tech, so this was inconsistent. But really, set design? Nitpick.

(The Bridge was awesome, btw.)

Enterprise had sets that looked far better than the crap we saw in this movie. There is no excuse for putting a freaking chemical factory on board the USS Enterprise. It was lazy and cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

First, I'll grant that I'm tired of the movies having to have some "big" destruction thing, either the Earth in mortal danger or the Enterprise being destroyed over and over again. But I liked this plot-point very much for setting up the tortured Spock of the original series. We are so used to Spock being so together and wise and ultra cool, but in the early series he was a tortured soul of stranger in a strange land. I think this plot point and its affect on Spock brings this element back to the character, and I like it.

So what if they destroyed Vulcan? It certainly was unexpected! And the alternate timeline allows for anything. Oh, and the actress playing Amanda was lame, so I'm glad they killed her off. Jane Wyatt she was not.

(Young Sarek, on the other hand, came off reasonably well, I thought)

If he already was a "tortured soul" in TOS, why did they need to do something that wasn't part of original canon to make him so? It doesn't make any sense. the destruction of Vulcan was just a gratuitous excuse for more "gee-whiz" special effects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Seems to me a lot of military bases are in the middle of U.S. nowhere. Sure this was a stretch, if you're going to think about things in terms of real-world probable logistics. When has Star Trek ever gone there either?

Star Fleet Academy is in San Francisco. Why were recruits from all over the globe going to Iowa first? As I asked, do they not have direct flights to SF in the future? Canon has established that the main Starfleet shipyards were in orbit around Mars. Why would you build a huge masive starship on a planet's surface? Illogical. Small things, yes, but all the small inconsistencies add up to one big annoyance.

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

This movie takes place 7 years before the events in the first season of TOS.

Sorry, but I missed this earlier.

Um, did I miss this? I've seen the movie twice now and I don't recall them mentioning that it was seven years ealier? Was there some StarDate announced that's seven years earlier than the first StarDate ever mentioned in the first season of the show?

That would be a stretch, but please don't tell me it's in the press materials or the novelization or some such completely non-canonical source. The MOVIE made it seem as if the time of the tv series is about 3 months later, though of course they didn't specify if it was that or 7 years or any such thing.

Unless I missed it.

Oh, and Alex ... touche.

JWBear · 05-10-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Sorry, but I missed this earlier.

Um, did I miss this? I've seen the movie twice now and I don't recall them mentioning that it was seven years ealier? Was there some StarDate announced that's seven years earlier than the first StarDate ever mentioned in the first season of the show?

That would be a stretch, but please don't tell me it's in the press materials or the novelization or some such completely non-canonical source. The MOVIE made it seem as if the time of the tv series is about 3 months later, though of course they didn't specify if it was that or 7 years or any such thing.

Unless I missed it.

Oh, and Alex ... touche.

Kirk was 35 when the first season began (accepted canon). He goes from 0 to 28 in this movie.

I also found the idea that Starfleet would promote a cadet fresh out of the Academy to Captain of one of their capital ships to be laughable.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

I also found the idea that Starfleet would promote a cadet fresh out of the Academy to Captain of one of their capital ships to be laughable.

Actually I think there's precedent. Isn't it true that after the events depicted in Red Dawn, Lea Thompson was appointed Secretary of Defense by a grateful nation-fragment?