What Trekie things did we learn from this 'rendition'..?

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

No I am talking about people who go after this movie and act like it is the worst thing under the sun because they didn't give the "Right" reason for Kirk's middle name and then act like the old show was perfect and there were no mistakes in it.

I've pointed this out before but if you think this is the first time Trek fans have argued over the plot inconsistencies in the shows, the movies and back again, you've never read a word about Trek (the "Chekov wasn't on the Enterprise when Khan was aboard" just for example).  The difference is that the movies and at least until the end of TNG they used to make the effort to be as consistent as possible....Abrams seems almost to have gone out of his way to make sure that almost nothing was correct.

In my post was having fun with the fact that Imrahil was speaking of this Kirk as though it was a given that nothing in Abrams' timeline change would effect that aspect of Kirk's personality and why....

And funny how I'm now being ragged on for knowing info about the original Trek when before I was accused of not really being a fan at all...

Sorry but I am a fan but even i can see that 90% of all Star Trek is dated a mistake riddled.

Like the majority of your posts.

I'm fine with her not liking the movie it's just that she can't seem to go three posts between some sort of rant about it and she seems to think that if she keeps bringing up manor things that only someone who owns tons of Star Trek books cares about would notice those of us who like it will decide it was a bad movie. It's been almost a year since the movie came out and the hate is getting a little old.  It's getting near Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings levels.

And god knows, I'm the only one in this thread who has pointed out things that the film got wrong.....

[Doctor Who?]

Sorry I have Asperger syndrome and that makes it hard for me to spell.  I run spell check on all my posts but if it doesn't catch it i don't stand much of a chance do I?

Also you are the only person who seems to be on a crusade to prove the movie is bad because it didn't star the bloated corpse of William Shatner.   

Also the things that you are upset about who besides you is mad about them?  The fact is no one cares about why Kirk is James T.Kirk.  Also nothing in the movie can be seen as being as bad as changing a character's name like they did in the old perfect show.  You decided this movie was bad before you saw a frame of the trailer and now you are on a crusade to force everyone else to hate it,expect to be mocked.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

Make fun of the person with a brain disorder that makes spelling hard.  I run spell check on all my posts but if it doesn't catch it i don't stand much of a chance do I?

And I know about this how?

There are plenty things you've gotten wrong in your posts in the past that had nothing to do with your spelling.

Also you are the only person who seems to be on a crusade to prove the movie is bad because it didn't star the bloated corpse of William Shatner.

You mean that "corpse" who co-starred in "Boston Legal" for four years?   

This has nothing to do with Shatner - or any other member of the original cast.  When have you ever seen me post that?  This is about that if they wanted to make a prequel because they can't think any new stories post TNG to do.  Fine if that's all they wanted to do.

But there was no reason they had to re-write everyone's history to do it.  Especially when the story they came up with has it's own horrific plot holes and ever-changing rules of physics within itself.  PLUS it can't even stick to it's own plot device that everything after a certain stardate was changed...the natural insinuation being that anything that was before that point would still be the same.   Oh no....they can't even do that and put together a coherent story.

Abrams in this film wants Vulcan to be Alderaan - unarmed and at the mercy of Nero.  And yet he has Spock's Vulcan ship heavily armed because it's the only way he can have the ending he wants. Or is he claiming that Vulcan in this new timeline disarmed because of the loss of the Kelvin?  WTF?

It's bad writing, period.  It was written by the team who wrote the two Transformer films and The Island. Do you think they suddenly spontaneously grew talent for this one film?

Also the things that you are upset about who besides you is mad about them?

Are you kidding?   Just one example from here

Let me get this straight.

Former Trek movies have blatantly disregarded the details of the Trek franchise's history, resulting in screw-ups like the fact that Khan said he recognized Chekov, even though Chekov was not in the series until the following season.
The Trek series "Enterprise" threw out the established facts from TOS and re-wrote the Trek history to include things we all knew had not happened.
And now -- good God almighty -- the makers of the new movie have blatantly stated that it was made for:

-- the "FaceBook" generation who are only NOT familiar with Trek in general, but are NOT interested (and by implication do NOT care) in Trek's backstory or history.

Hey, I have great idea, folks! Let's dig up Gene Roddenberry's body and beat it until it bleeds! Anybody else interested in doing this?

Something from IMDB:

The soul of Star Trek has gone from this movie, replaced with stupid jokes and unexplained plot changes that must've been just because someone thought "wouldn't it be cool"?
Leaving the theater there were some shocked and disappointed looking faces.
So, non-fans view and enjoy but know that this is not Star Trek. This is JJ Abrams SciFi flick #1 with Star Trek written on it.
Fans, it's a fun movie but you're going to have to completely leave your brain at the door, something you should never have to do with a Star Trek movie.
Suffice to say when they talked about making this movie for a broader audience, they haven't just done that, they've completely dumbed it down to a point where only small children and and people who don't like to think will enjoy it. That's OK, but the problem is Star Trek has always been for people who do think, for people who don't like random silliness, who like serious and interesting plots. We had a non-Star Trek fan see it with us and even he thought it was just silly. Too much is unexplained and too much has to be forgiven (in terms of "why did they do this instead of this?" sort of thing.) If you had ANY ties to previous Star Trek series or films, this film will likely break your heart.

Just look around....there's more out there than you can possibly accuse me of being the one and only author of....there just aren't enough hours in the day.

[Doctor Who?]

Make fun of the person with a brain disorder that makes spelling hard.  I run spell check on all my posts but if it doesn't catch it i don't stand much of a chance do I?

And I know about this how?

There are plenty things you've gotten wrong in your posts in the past that had nothing to do with your spelling.

Also you are the only person who seems to be on a crusade to prove the movie is bad because it didn't star the bloated corpse of William Shatner.

You mean that "corpse" who co-starred in "Boston Legal" for four years?   

This has nothing to do with Shatner - or any other member of the original cast.  When have you ever seen me post that?  This is about that if they wanted to make a prequel because they can't think any new stories post TNG to do.  Fine if that's all they wanted to do.

But there was no reason they had to re-write everyone's history to do it.  Especially when the story they came up with has it's own horrific plot holes and ever-changing rules of physics within itself.  PLUS it can't even stick to it's own plot device that everything after a certain stardate was changed...the natural insinuation being that anything that was before that point would still be the same.   Oh no....they can't even do that and put together a coherent story.

Abrams in this film wants Vulcan to be Alderaan - unarmed and at the mercy of Nero.  And yet he has Spock's Vulcan ship heavily armed because it's the only way he can have the ending he wants. Or is he claiming that Vulcan in this new timeline disarmed because of the loss of the Kelvin?  WTF?

It's bad writing, period.  It was written by the team who wrote the two Transformer films and The Island. Do you think they suddenly spontaneously grew talent for this one film?

Also the things that you are upset about who besides you is mad about them?

Are you kidding?   Just one example from here

Let me get this straight.

Former Trek movies have blatantly disregarded the details of the Trek franchise's history, resulting in screw-ups like the fact that Khan said he recognized Chekov, even though Chekov was not in the series until the following season.
The Trek series "Enterprise" threw out the established facts from TOS and re-wrote the Trek history to include things we all knew had not happened.
And now -- good God almighty -- the makers of the new movie have blatantly stated that it was made for:

-- the "FaceBook" generation who are only NOT familiar with Trek in general, but are NOT interested (and by implication do NOT care) in Trek's backstory or history.

Hey, I have great idea, folks! Let's dig up Gene Roddenberry's body and beat it until it bleeds! Anybody else interested in doing this?

Something from IMDB:

The soul of Star Trek has gone from this movie, replaced with stupid jokes and unexplained plot changes that must've been just because someone thought "wouldn't it be cool"?
Leaving the theater there were some shocked and disappointed looking faces.
So, non-fans view and enjoy but know that this is not Star Trek. This is JJ Abrams SciFi flick #1 with Star Trek written on it.
Fans, it's a fun movie but you're going to have to completely leave your brain at the door, something you should never have to do with a Star Trek movie.
Suffice to say when they talked about making this movie for a broader audience, they haven't just done that, they've completely dumbed it down to a point where only small children and and people who don't like to think will enjoy it. That's OK, but the problem is Star Trek has always been for people who do think, for people who don't like random silliness, who like serious and interesting plots. We had a non-Star Trek fan see it with us and even he thought it was just silly. Too much is unexplained and too much has to be forgiven (in terms of "why did they do this instead of this?" sort of thing.) If you had ANY ties to previous Star Trek series or films, this film will likely break your heart.

Just look around....there's more out there than you can possibly accuse me of being the one and only author of....there just aren't enough hours in the day.

I have said that I have the disorder many times in threads that I know you have read.  Whoops you made a mistake and under your own logic that makes you a bad person.

Every writer has his ups and downs.  Those two films were also directed by Bay.  Also they wrote Alias,and MI3 and I think those turned out fine.

So you are calling anyone who likes this film stupid? then you wonder why people are sick of hearing from you?  Also Star trek was never for people who think it was for people who like to think they think.  Anyone who really thinks wouldn't be caught dead watching a show like Star trek.  You have one planet that is nothing but warriors and nothing else where do they get their space ships? Who builds their houses?  You have faster then light travel.  You have transporters. You have character back story changing on the fly.  Kirk's name used to be James R.Kirk and his he was one of only eight people to witness a slaughter on the planet(that wasn't earth)he grew up on,but by the time of the third season he was James T.Kirk from earth who has a brother who was a alive just long enough to die.  Spock panics in some episodes. Russia seems to still be communist.  Also no one was trying to get anything right.  The writers were not talking to each other,no one had a plan and do you think the spin off writers cared about getting things right?  If so take a look at some of the spin offs some time and tell me they make sense.  Witness the changing death toll from WW3,see the defiant nearly destroyed in first contact a movie that happens right in the middle of DS9 and yet it is never mentioned in Ds9.  Star trek was full of plot holes and have you ever seen a 'comedy" episode of star trek painful.

Also dozens of people were killed on the Kelvin you can't tell me that that doesn't screw things up in a big way time line wise.  Also Valcon is a part of the federation,may be their ships are part of the fleet that is tied down in another system and besides it's not like this is the first time the Enterprise has been the only ship that can save a planet.  it happens in every other Star Trek movie and episode it just so happens that this time it was not earth.

If you think this is the only star Trek with any plot hole or that they are somehow worse i don't know what to tell you.

In short i am through debating you.  You seem to have gotten very angry over a few little things and I am sorry but that does not make you smarter then the rest of us and you are not going to make anyone hate this movie.

[ScottotD]

Seriously.  Get a puppy or something.

Yes, I keep forgetting.   No one's interests or opinions are valid except yours.

Holy crap I think I just OD'd on irony 

[Moleman]

Seriously.  Get a puppy or something.

Yes, I keep forgetting.   No one's interests or opinions are valid except yours.

Holy crap I think I just OD'd on irony 

Nah see its different.  With Plastic Duck, other opinions are valid because they exist to show how inferior they all are in comparison.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

I have said that I have the disorder many times in threads that I know you have read.

You said you had a disorder, yes.  Something that makes it difficult (but not impossible) to interact with other people.  Everything I've read about it led me to believe that it was an "in person" thing and didn't effect your ability to learn or your ability to read..

Which is why when you can't seem to follow the basic plot of North by Northwest and claim instead that it has to be bad screenwriting that the spies think Roger Thornhill is Kaplan and claim that "It's good to be the king" is a line in The Producers when it's from History of the World: Part I among other things ...and do with such absolute moral authority despite being completely wrong....I tend to think of it being more something other than your disorder.

So you are calling anyone who likes this film stupid?

No, I'm calling this a film for people who like shallow entertainment....like fans of the Bay and Uwe Boll films.

Also Star trek was never for people who think it was for people who like to think they think.

  Oh, that's supposed to be two sentences.

Anyone who really thinks wouldn't be caught dead watching a show like Star trek.

Ahem.... (and that just scratches the surface).   Yeah....Stephen Hawking...celebrated non-thinker.   

Kirk's name used to be James R.Kirk

You mean this blooper from the second pilot....which according to Roddenberry was a set design error.



And Spock smiled in the first pilot with Jeffery Hunter.  They were still developing the show. Those things don't count yet.

...and his he was one of only eight people to witness a slaughter on the planet(that wasn't earth)he grew up on

"the earth colony of Tarsus IV, who was responsible for the massacre of over 4000 people — including members of both Kirk's and Leighton's families — 20 years before."  Kirk is 49 in TWoK so figure he's about 35 in TOS - that would make him around 15 on Tarsus IV.  And families move around all the time...

Spock panics in some episodes.

Name one.

Russia seems to still be communist.

WTF?  The USSR was a socialist republic...and as Roddenberry's view of the future was that there was no money used on Earth anymore - if you needed something you got it.  So in a way the whole planet Earth was Socialist. 

If so take a look at some of the spin offs some time and tell me they make sense.

Because Berman and Braga didn't care - they just wanted the money. And that's when the rot began in the franchise that led them to this ill-advised reimagining.

...see the defiant nearly destroyed in first contact a movie that happens right in the middle of DS9 and yet it is never mentioned in Ds9.

Key word being "nearly"....in which case it's naturally assumed that it would be fixed....or are we back to that "you have to show everything" bullshit of the other thread?

and have you ever seen a 'comedy" episode of star trek painful.

Yeah...."The Trouble with Tribbles"....what a piece of shit.   

Also dozens of people were killed on the Kelvin you can't tell me that that doesn't screw things up in a big way timeline wise.

After the fact and within their normal range of influence, yes.   But this has things that happened before that point different too - either because their weak story needs it that way or they just didn't bother to learn anything about the series.

You seem to have gotten very angry over a few little things

I'm angry that this franchise has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator (and if you think I mean that personally, you're right).  And that while others can rip apart anything that bothers them constantly - including this film right here in this thread....

like you did in another just now....

Oo, can you help me not know Dane Cook?

I really wish he would spend the rest of his life getting kicked in the nuts.

.....but somehow I'm the only one who is vilified for it.

Seriously.  Get a puppy or something.

Yes, I keep forgetting.   No one's interests or opinions are valid except yours.

Holy crap I think I just OD'd on irony 

Nah see its different.  With Plastic Duck, other opinions are valid because they exist to show how inferior they all are in comparison.

Posts two others I've "owned" on other occasions.....

And it's only "irony" if whenever one of you posted your opinion I showed up to tell you to shut up about it....which I do not.

[bettertomorrowamy]

You are seriously damaged.  Seek treatment.

[Action Batch]

I think I'm in love.

[Moleman]

What are the rules on "owning"?  Is it just declaring ownage or do you actually have to make a well thought out argument that isn't intentionally confrontational?


If this is a game of "not it" then I think I just lost.

[Dr. Whopoopeepee]

I have said that I have the disorder many times in threads that I know you have read.

You said you had a disorder, yes.  Something that makes it difficult (but not impossible) to interact with other people.  Everything I've read about it led me to believe that it was an "in person" thing and didn't effect your ability to learn or your ability to read..

Which is why when you can't seem to follow the basic plot of North by Northwest and claim instead that it has to be bad screenwriting that the spies think Roger Thornhill is Kaplan and claim that "It's good to be the king" is a line in The Producers when it's from History of the World: Part I among other things ...and do with such absolute moral authority despite being completely wrong....I tend to think of it being more something other than your disorder.

So you are calling anyone who likes this film stupid?

No, I'm calling this a film for people who like shallow entertainment....like fans of the Bay and Uwe Boll films.

Also Star trek was never for people who think it was for people who like to think they think.

  Oh, that's supposed to be two sentences.

Anyone who really thinks wouldn't be caught dead watching a show like Star trek.

Ahem.... (and that just scratches the surface).   Yeah....Stephen Hawking...celebrated non-thinker.   

Kirk's name used to be James R.Kirk

You mean this blooper from the second pilot....which according to Roddenberry was a set design error.



And Spock smiled in the first pilot with Jeffery Hunter.  They were still developing the show. Those things don't count yet.

...and his he was one of only eight people to witness a slaughter on the planet(that wasn't earth)he grew up on

"the earth colony of Tarsus IV, who was responsible for the massacre of over 4000 people — including members of both Kirk's and Leighton's families — 20 years before."  Kirk is 49 in TWoK so figure he's about 35 in TOS - that would make him around 15 on Tarsus IV.  And families move around all the time...

Spock panics in some episodes.

Name one.

Russia seems to still be communist.

WTF?  The USSR was a socialist republic...and as Roddenberry's view of the future was that there was no money used on Earth anymore - if you needed something you got it.  So in a way the whole planet Earth was Socialist. 

If so take a look at some of the spin offs some time and tell me they make sense.

Because Berman and Braga didn't care - they just wanted the money. And that's when the rot began in the franchise that led them to this ill-advised reimagining.

...see the defiant nearly destroyed in first contact a movie that happens right in the middle of DS9 and yet it is never mentioned in Ds9.

Key word being "nearly"....in which case it's naturally assumed that it would be fixed....or are we back to that "you have to show everything" bullshit of the other thread?

and have you ever seen a 'comedy" episode of star trek painful.

Yeah...."The Trouble with Tribbles"....what a piece of shit.   

Also dozens of people were killed on the Kelvin you can't tell me that that doesn't screw things up in a big way timeline wise.

After the fact and within their normal range of influence, yes.   But this has things that happened before that point different too - either because their weak story needs it that way or they just didn't bother to learn anything about the series.

You seem to have gotten very angry over a few little things

I'm angry that this franchise has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator (and if you think I mean that personally, you're right).  And that while others can rip apart anything that bothers them constantly - including this film right here in this thread....

like you did in another just now....

Oo, can you help me not know Dane Cook?

I really wish he would spend the rest of his life getting kicked in the nuts.

.....but somehow I'm the only one who is vilified for it.

Seriously.  Get a puppy or something.

Yes, I keep forgetting.   No one's interests or opinions are valid except yours.

Holy crap I think I just OD'd on irony 

Nah see its different.  With Plastic Duck, other opinions are valid because they exist to show how inferior they all are in comparison.

Posts two others I've "owned" on other occasions.....

And it's only "irony" if whenever one of you posted your opinion I showed up to tell you to shut up about it....which I do not.

NNNNNEEEEERRRRRRDDDDD!!!!

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

I also learned only the population of Vulcan being destroyed mattered.

The deaths of the crew of all of those ships that arrived there before the Enterprise where never mentioned again....

[ScottotD]

Seriously.  Get a puppy or something.

Yes, I keep forgetting.   No one's interests or opinions are valid except yours.

Holy crap I think I just OD'd on irony 

Nah see its different.  With Plastic Duck, other opinions are valid because they exist to show how inferior they all are in comparison.

Posts two others I've "owned" on other occasions.....

And it's only "irony" if whenever one of you posted your opinion I showed up to tell you to shut up about it....which I do not.

Huh? who do you imagine you've "owned" here?  that wasn't my point at all.  

You really are delusional enough where you can't see how often you sledge the tastes of others?  Although the fact you tend to usually confront imaginary people (hypothetical fans of Transformers, Twilight, etc, etc) probably says a lot about you as well  

However, please don't let me stop you and Dr, Who fighting to the death, which I'm sure he'll suggest soon.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

What are the rules on "owning"?  Is it just declaring ownage or do you actually have to make a well thought out argument that isn't intentionally confrontational?

Owning as in through argument showing the other person for what they are....like I did with ScottH in the Twilight: New Moon when I proved that he thinks he can have his own set of facts about a subject and argue them endlessly no matter what kind of evidence you present to prove otherwise.

And speaking of evidence, for all of the name calling of "Nerd" no one is arguing the fact that I shot down all of DW's claims about the show.  And I'm still waiting for that list of episodes where Spock panicked (which I'm guessing will all turn out to be ones where he was possessed by another lifeform or otherwise under the influence of something alien).

Although the fact you tend to usually confront imaginary people (hypothetical fans of Transformers, Twilight, etc, etc) probably says a lot about you as well  

Fans of Transformers, Twilight and this Trek are "imaginary" and "hypothetical"?

[ScottotD]

You mean where you used Billy Joel as a supportive arguement? 

I'll have to remeber to use a lyric from Phil Collins or some equally dull singer/songwriter as indisputable evidence next time

Although the fact you tend to usually confront imaginary people (hypothetical fans of Transformers, Twilight, etc, etc) probably says a lot about you as well  

Fans of Transformers, Twilight and this Trek are "imaginary" and "hypothetical"?

The ones you seem most comfortable dismissing are yes, you get very testy when someone actually questions your 'arguement'