Star Trek XI

[RoninFox]

If you hate time travel period i don't know what to tell you but it was the only way to reset thing and i think it was do very well and it was only mentioned about three times you didn't really need to know everything to fallow the story.

Well I don't think you would need to introduce time travel to reset a timeline.  You could just say "Okay, here's the story."  Or maybe not.  Look at the mental gymnastics some people go through to figure out the order of the Legend of Zelda video games.  They did Zelda for NES, then Zelda II for NES, a pretty clear sequel.  Then they did Zelda III for SNES, a clearly stated sequel.  Then, once Ocarina of Time came out, it didn't fit in anywhere, before or after any of the existing games.  Some people assume all the Zelda games are part of one long chain and desperately try to figure out an order.  I just assume that each game is its own self contained universe.

Also, Majora's Mask involved a meteor that was going to destroy the planet in 3 days, and you'd automatically go back to the beginning of the three days every time that happened.  How fucked up is THAT?

Zelda III for the SNES was Link to the Past, and was billed originally as a prequel.

[Thrifty]

Aw shit.  Doctor Who pulled a Godwin.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are not a real fan is the same as calling someone Hitler. 

I"m disagreeing with you and you're going way more nuts about it, so I guess I hit a nerve....  Feeling guilty about liking the new movie are we??

Once again you're making stuff up I never said, I never said anything about a new voyages movie, it was an analogy to say that they didn't have to shit all over the timeline just to use different actors, if they did their jobs all that time travel crap would be unnecessary.  People will accept a new actor playing the same role as an older one if the new one does their job well enough.

All the "exciting new universe" where anything can happen is bull.  People flocked to the crappy Star Wars prequels even knowing how it all turns out.  The only thing the studio was thinking of was how do we get new young actors in, there probably were loads of meetings over how do we get stupid people to accept new actors that have the same character names....

[RoninFox]

Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are not a real fan is the same as calling someone Hitler. 

I"m disagreeing with you and you're going way more nuts about it, so I guess I hit a nerve....  Feeling guilty about liking the new movie are we??

Once again you're making stuff up I never said, I never said anything about a new voyages movie, it was an analogy to say that they didn't have to shit all over the timeline just to use different actors, if they did their jobs all that time travel crap would be unnecessary.  People will accept a new actor playing the same role as an older one if the new one does their job well enough.

All the "exciting new universe" where anything can happen is bull.  People flocked to the crappy Star Wars prequels even knowing how it all turns out.  The only thing the studio was thinking of was how do we get new young actors in, there probably were loads of meetings over how do we get stupid people to accept new actors that have the same character names....

I agree that a talented actor playing the younger version of a character can convince an audience to accept them as that character, but I still like the idea of resetting the timeline.  It gives the writers a lot more freedom to create something new.  This way we can get homages and touches of the original continuity, but with new results and directions.  You say that people flocked to the Star Wars prequels, true, but that doesn't mean they were good.

Overall the thing I like the best of the use of time travel in this movie is that it isn't used as a band-aid.  I mean, they don't fix everything and put everything back the way it was or make things better by bringing back an extinct species or something like the usually do in Trek time travel stories.  Someone travels back in time and the effects are actually cataclysmic.  People's lives are altered massively, an entire planet is destroyed, it finally shows the kind of thing that we get warned about anytime someone messes around with time.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are not a real fan is the same as calling someone Hitler. 

I"m disagreeing with you and you're going way more nuts about it, so I guess I hit a nerve....  Feeling guilty about liking the new movie are we??

Once again you're making stuff up I never said, I never said anything about a new voyages movie, it was an analogy to say that they didn't have to shit all over the timeline just to use different actors, if they did their jobs all that time travel crap would be unnecessary.  People will accept a new actor playing the same role as an older one if the new one does their job well enough.

All the "exciting new universe" where anything can happen is bull.  People flocked to the crappy Star Wars prequels even knowing how it all turns out.  The only thing the studio was thinking of was how do we get new young actors in, there probably were loads of meetings over how do we get stupid people to accept new actors that have the same character names....

I agree that a talented actor playing the younger version of a character can convince an audience to accept them as that character, but I still like the idea of resetting the timeline.  It gives the writers a lot more freedom to create something new.  This way we can get homages and touches of the original continuity, but with new results and directions.  You say that people flocked to the Star Wars prequels, true, but that doesn't mean they were good.

I guess you didn't read the word I put in right before "Star Wars prequels"...

Overall the thing I like the best of the use of time travel in this movie is that it isn't used as a band-aid.  I mean, they don't fix everything and put everything back the way it was or make things better by bringing back an extinct species or something like the usually do in Trek time travel stories.  Someone travels back in time and the effects are actually cataclysmic.  People's lives are altered massively, an entire planet is destroyed, it finally shows the kind of thing that we get warned about anytime someone messes around with time.

That's a valid point, it's just too bad the cataclysmic effects mess with a story I like so much.    Why couldn't they wipe out the last 2 next generation movies instead.    I guess they did in a way, so there's a happy thought.

[Ortega]

Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are not a real fan is the same as calling someone Hitler. 

I"m disagreeing with you and you're going way more nuts about it, so I guess I hit a nerve....  Feeling guilty about liking the new movie are we??

Once again you're making stuff up I never said, I never said anything about a new voyages movie, it was an analogy to say that they didn't have to shit all over the timeline just to use different actors, if they did their jobs all that time travel crap would be unnecessary.  People will accept a new actor playing the same role as an older one if the new one does their job well enough.

All the "exciting new universe" where anything can happen is bull.  People flocked to the crappy Star Wars prequels even knowing how it all turns out.  The only thing the studio was thinking of was how do we get new young actors in, there probably were loads of meetings over how do we get stupid people to accept new actors that have the same character names....

I agree that a talented actor playing the younger version of a character can convince an audience to accept them as that character, but I still like the idea of resetting the timeline.  It gives the writers a lot more freedom to create something new.  This way we can get homages and touches of the original continuity, but with new results and directions.  You say that people flocked to the Star Wars prequels, true, but that doesn't mean they were good.

Overall the thing I like the best of the use of time travel in this movie is that it isn't used as a band-aid.  I mean, they don't fix everything and put everything back the way it was or make things better by bringing back an extinct species or something like the usually do in Trek time travel stories.  Someone travels back in time and the effects are actually cataclysmic.  People's lives are altered massively, an entire planet is destroyed, it finally shows the kind of thing that we get warned about anytime someone messes around with time.

OFT.

I liked the new movie.  Sure, there were some elements there that kinda irked me(The puffy hands Kirk scene, and the water pipe scene(Why do they have water pipes in a starship, and why do they need to have a huge ass turbine churning the water?).  But, yeah, the time travel aspect had huge consequences, and there was no convenient Huge-Reset Button.  Horrible things happened, and now they have to cope with it.  I'm not debating they they couldn't have told another story without huge changes, and kept the same tone.  But setting it apart from "canon" was the smartest move.  They did the same thing with the DC universe with Crisis, and this is what the franchise needed.  I do feel though that Star Trek's native home is television, and until we get a new series, i really won't feel that ST is back until then.

But quite honestly, if they had made a new ST movie that , to some people's perception, FELT like Star Trek, i'd think that the movie wouldn't have been as successful.  The fact that the new movie was able to entertain non-scifi fans, as well as entertain Trekkies like myself, was an accomplishment. 

And Marty S, give it at least a chance.  Watch it once.  Hell, they have at Redbox.  Its only a dollar spent. 

( Also, was I they only one to hear the little shout-out to Enterprise during Scotty's scene:  "I transported Admiral Archer's prized beagle...")

[RoninFox]

I caught the beagle line the second time I watched it, got a good laugh.

[RoninFox]

I guess you didn't read the word I put in right before "Star Wars prequels"...

Well it was confusing me that you were using what you yourself called crappy movies for an example for what you'd have preferred they do with Star Trek.

[Doctor Who?]

MartyS did you or did you not say that a real fan wouldn't want to watch this movie?  Point in fact you did that only thing i can take from that is that you are pulling some sort of bull where you are saying anyone who doesn't think the way you do is not a 'real fan" and anything they say doesn't count.  Show me any other way to look at this.  In a thread about Sci-Fi that is the same as calling someone Hitler in another thread.  You are calling some one a name to try and shut them up and say that what they say does not count.  Sorry but i am not playing the 'real fan' game.    Any way i am done debating a movie with someone who has not even seen it.  You have no idea if it is real trek or not because you have not even given it a chance.  If I were playing the "real fan" game i would say that a "real fan" would at least give the new movie that has been given credit for bringing the franchise back from the dead a viewing before declaring it not to be trek.

People flocked to the Star wars prequels because people will watch anything with the Star wars logo on it it is a very strong brand the last two movies and Tv show proved that the same can not be said for star trek.    Star trek was a dead franchise that was only selling dvds and book to a shrinking hardcore fan base the new movie needed to be exciting and good or the franchise was dead for all time.  Superman Returns showed us what happens when a movie only caters to the fans and tries to jam a bunch of stuff from past movies that no one cares about into it,people don't show up to see it.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I guess you didn't read the word I put in right before "Star Wars prequels"...

Well it was confusing me that you were using what you yourself called crappy movies for an example for what you'd have preferred they do with Star Trek.

People have said that people would not go see a movie where they knew how things would turn out, I was using the prequels as an example of that not being true.

MartyS did you or did you not say that a real fan wouldn't want to watch this movie? 

You can go back and read exactly what I said, it's only a few posts back.   The word "real" is a bit of overstatement but as a fan of the origional show I would rather have a new story set in that universe than start over with a new one.

[Doctor Who?]

Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are not a real fan is the same as calling someone Hitler. 

I"m disagreeing with you and you're going way more nuts about it, so I guess I hit a nerve....  Feeling guilty about liking the new movie are we??

Once again you're making stuff up I never said, I never said anything about a new voyages movie, it was an analogy to say that they didn't have to shit all over the timeline just to use different actors, if they did their jobs all that time travel crap would be unnecessary.  People will accept a new actor playing the same role as an older one if the new one does their job well enough.

All the "exciting new universe" where anything can happen is bull.  People flocked to the crappy Star Wars prequels even knowing how it all turns out.  The only thing the studio was thinking of was how do we get new young actors in, there probably were loads of meetings over how do we get stupid people to accept new actors that have the same character names....

I agree that a talented actor playing the younger version of a character can convince an audience to accept them as that character, but I still like the idea of resetting the timeline.  It gives the writers a lot more freedom to create something new.  This way we can get homages and touches of the original continuity, but with new results and directions.  You say that people flocked to the Star Wars prequels, true, but that doesn't mean they were good.

Overall the thing I like the best of the use of time travel in this movie is that it isn't used as a band-aid.  I mean, they don't fix everything and put everything back the way it was or make things better by bringing back an extinct species or something like the usually do in Trek time travel stories.  Someone travels back in time and the effects are actually cataclysmic.  People's lives are altered massively, an entire planet is destroyed, it finally shows the kind of thing that we get warned about anytime someone messes around with time.

OFT.

I liked the new movie.  Sure, there were some elements there that kinda irked me(The puffy hands Kirk scene, and the water pipe scene(Why do they have water pipes in a starship, and why do they need to have a huge ass turbine churning the water?).  But, yeah, the time travel aspect had huge consequences, and there was no convenient Huge-Reset Button.  Horrible things happened, and now they have to cope with it.  I'm not debating they they couldn't have told another story without huge changes, and kept the same tone.  But setting it apart from "canon" was the smartest move.  They did the same thing with the DC universe with Crisis, and this is what the franchise needed.  I do feel though that Star Trek's native home is television, and until we get a new series, i really won't feel that ST is back until then.

But quite honestly, if they had made a new ST movie that , to some people's perception, FELT like Star Trek, i'd think that the movie wouldn't have been as successful.  The fact that the new movie was able to entertain non-scifi fans, as well as entertain Trekkies like myself, was an accomplishment. 

And Marty S, give it at least a chance.  Watch it once.  Hell, they have at Redbox.  Its only a dollar spent. 

( Also, was I they only one to hear the little shout-out to Enterprise during Scotty's scene:  "I transported Admiral Archer's prized beagle...")

I was a little upset at that line,i love dogs. 

I would just like to point out that a lot of fans hated Star trek 2 when it came out and now a lot of those same fans hail it has the best Trek movie or trek story full stop. 

Also i am not some mindless fan boy look back in this thread i hated this movie based on the add I was pretty much drag to it and was just watching it so i could post about all the things wrong with it but guess what I was wrong it is now my fourth favorite Star trek movie.  The first 12 minutes alone are some of the most amazing stroy telling trek has ever done. 

The way to keep a franchise going be it Doctor who,James Bond,or Star trek is to bring in new people who have their own ideas about what types of stories to tell and who know how to make the characters fresh again.  that is what happened with St trek and it isn't the first it has happened.  it was done with Wrath of kKhn and then again with TNG. 

Also i would like to stress that this does not undo anything from the past so if you like the prime universe i am sure there will be new adventures there at some point,be those book,film or TV.  For the here and now i would same that you should at least try to enjoy Star trek being popular again,the last time it was this popular was when TNG was on tv.  it will fall out of favor with the public at some point so Trek fans should enjoy this time while we have it.

[RoninFox]

I guess you didn't read the word I put in right before "Star Wars prequels"...

Well it was confusing me that you were using what you yourself called crappy movies for an example for what you'd have preferred they do with Star Trek.

People have said that people would not go see a movie where they knew how things would turn out, I was using the prequels as an example of that not being true.

Fair enough.  I still like this way better though.

[Doctor Who?]

They didn't want the actors to have to pretend to be Shatner or the rest

I never said new actors had to act like Shatner and Nimoy, if the new actors played their roles properly then they could play younger versions of Kirk and Spock and it would be acceptable without having to do the time travel crap.  It sounds like the actors in the movie did play the characters correctly.

Take those New Voyages fan shows, it sounds like if you put the actors from the movie into those shows it would be a pretty good version of Star Trek (with a little script polishing also).

also the main point is to put the danger back in star trek if you place it in the same universe then you know everyone is going to be ok,you know Earth can't be destroyed,you know all sorts of things.  Also you have to make sure that nothing you write makes what happens in the future impossible.  

So what you really want is a new science fiction franchise, not Star Trek.  A real fan of Star Trek would want more stories set in that universe, not create a new one just to make it easier on the writers.  

That is your post.  You are in fact saying that anyone who doesn't boycott this movie like you is not a real fan.  There is no other way to read that and i know you are just going to accuse me of flipping out and misreading what you said and you are going to try and bully me off the forum but I am not playing any more.  Go ahead call me names,laugh at me,spread your hate i will never reply to any post you make again. 

[RVR II]

[Doctor Who?]

What on earth is that guy doing?  Is he trying to keep the dirt away from himself?  threatening dust?  What?