Star Trek

[Alex]

Before tehy make the next movie, Karl Urban needs to have some issue arise that prevents his continued participation. I'm sure another quick temporal issue can explain McCoy suddenly being played by Macauley Culkin or something (that would be an improvement over Urban's apparent attempt to do an impression of DeForest Kelley doing an impression of Jack Nicholson).

I was surprised at how quickly I accepted Quinto as Spock and I was mostly fine with Pegg taking Scotty to the next level of comic relief. Sulu and Checkov I'm indifferent to though I'm curious about it appearing that they are enlisted rather than officers (only way to explain their presence on the ship when so young). Interesting move with Uhura. Chris Pine reminds me too much of Neal McDonough and I found that distracting for the first half or so.

Wouldn't have minded a few movies of Bruce Greenwood as captain while mentoring Kirk and Spock. Pike remains my pick for best captain of an Enterprise.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I'll keep it brief, just to get my thoughts down.

It was a Star Trek movie, with characters from the original series. They made the movie about Kirk, Spock, Bones etc because they are characters that we love and are familiar with.

...

This wasn't how Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu et al met... this movie is how similar characters with the same names met. And I felt like a victim of bait-and-switch halfway through. And I don't like it. Not one bit.

I'm okay with that. Honestly, one of the things I hated most about Enterprise was how much, "Ooooh, THAT'S the backstory x, y, and z for that person or invention or treaty," stuff. I find that after a while, I don't give a crap about back story. So I'm pretty okay with just scrapping it all and starting new. Same characters, new adventures, screw the obsessive continuity hawks.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm okay with that. Honestly, one of the things I hated most about Enterprise was how much, "Ooooh, THAT'S the backstory x, y, and z for that person or invention or treaty," stuff. I find that after a while, I don't give a crap about back story. So I'm pretty okay with just scrapping it all and starting new. Same characters, new adventures, screw the obsessive continuity hawks.

It's okay to be okay with it. And I don't think a prequel needs to adhere to some canonical backstory, either.

But to go back to my comic book analogy: The Flash was cool because he could run really fast. The Green Lantern was an interesting hero because all of his power was in his ring. When they brought out new versions of those heroes - with different 'real' names and everything - it was okay because they still retained the stuff that made them popular.

I would argue that this particular Enterprise crew is popular not because of any super powers, but because of the adventures they had together and the relationship they had with each other. I liked Shatner's Kirk and Nimoy's Spock because of the relationship they had with each other. So that was the bait that brought me to the theater on opening weekend.

And it turns out it's not those guys. Not even those characters. And it's okay that you're okay with that. But the "alternate timeline" stuff is hackneyed and easy. Not clever.

It's as if Marvel took an issue of the old comic "What If?" ("What if Spider-Man had joined The Fantastic Four?" "What if Conan The Barbarian walked the earth today?") and decided to make it a series of its own, but didn't tell anyone until halfway through the comic.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by mousepod

But the "alternate timeline" stuff is hackneyed and easy. Not clever.

The admission of such with the line about going back in time and changing things being cheating was a bit too meta for me.

I definitely understand what you're saying and I'm surprised I don't agree more than I do. I told Lani walking home afterward that it was bittersweet since the movie essentially instructs us to ignore the hundreds of hours of TV and movies that have come so far (not to mention the first 100 or so of the novels I read as a kid). Sure it still happened in one sense but is no longer relevant to any future engagement with the Star Trek world.

But I'm bothered by that much less than I though I would be (I've always preferred Trek to Star Wars but the product has been so awful for long enough that I think I'm grateful for something that can be enjoyed on at least some levels).

[innerSpaceman]

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

But these characters are NOT different people. It's an alternate timeline, not an alternate universe. If my father had not died 10 years ago, but was still alive today ... I would still be me. Different incidents may happen, and I might be slightly different for that. But no more different than I am between a Monday and a Wednesday.

So I'm really not getting this thing about the charcters not being the same, or their relationships to each other being false ... especially since the characters and their relationships to each other are what I think the movie nailed so successfully.



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.

[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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

But the "alternate timeline" stuff is hackneyed and easy. Not clever.

Which I agree with. Like I said, it brought it down a notch for me. But I understand why they did it and appreciate the benefit that comes with it. To me, it frees me up to just enjoy this stuff as pure popcorn adventure again instead of worrying about whether it makes sense with what I already know. This coming form someone who's watched Next Generation with my Nitpicker's Guide in hand...and has sent in things the author missed.




And just for the record, the "dickhead" comment was a line from a cameo by Nimoy on SNL

[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.

[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."