Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: New Khan?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg View Post
    It got worse from there. The "let's rewrite the continuity" idea didn't start with the Abrams film. When the producers give the impression that they don't care much for the series history and continuity, it makes fans wonder why should they.

    The really odd thing is that the original series writers and staff figured this out long ago.
    I am sorry. But are you about to tell us how TOS never made a continuity mistake and rewrote itself back in its original run?

    Are you sure?
    DanG/Darth Gurden
    The Voice of Reason and Sith Lord

    “Putting the FUNK! back into Dysfunctional!”

    Coming soon. The USS Ganymede NCC-80107
    "Ad astrae per scientia" (To the stars through knowledge)

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gurden View Post
    I am sorry. But are you about to tell us how TOS never made a continuity mistake and rewrote itself back in its original run?

    Are you sure?
    Continuity mistake implies continuity : P
    Portfolio | Blog Currently Running: Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek GUMSHOE Currently Playing: DramaSystem, Swords & Wizardry

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Paris, France, Earth
    Posts
    2,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gurden View Post
    I am sorry. But are you about to tell us how TOS never made a continuity mistake and rewrote itself back in its original run?
    Ah but that's not the same, Dan.
    Continuity mistakes in TOS are creativity not letting itself be impaired by fanboyish sticking to details.
    Continuity mistakes in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT are the ultimate proof that their writers are utterly devoid of dedication to their loyal fanbase and any talent whatsoever.
    Continuity mistakes in ST XI are not continuity mistakes, since it's a parallel universe anyway (no matter if the continuity mistake happens before the diverging from the original universe).
    "The main difference between Trekkies and Manchester United fans is that Trekkies never trashed a train carriage. So why are the Trekkies the social outcasts?"
    Terry Pratchett

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    3,462
    To be fair to Trek XI it has better continuity than many of Enterprise's episodes. It has timeline shifts, which explain many of the differences, but in terms of the back story it respects what's been before.

    Enterprise was a continuity minefield, to even the most casual Trek fan. By then they'd stopped even trying to make an effort!
    Ta Muchly

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Paris, France, Earth
    Posts
    2,587
    What I find funny about Trek XI continuity errors, is to see how people who liked the movie go to great lengths to find an explanation for them (which usually come down to "it's a parallel universe anyway, so it's normal if everything is different"), while at the same time as detractors of the other series they show an iron inflexibility toward continuity errors in them.

    For instance, the size of the nu-Enterprise which is explained at length by the fact that scanning Nero's ship jumpstarted Fed tech, while the likeness of the NX-01 to the Akira was seen as an unforgivable error from the show's designers (or, actually, Bermann and Braga, who seem to be considered responsible for everything that went wrong in Trek, starting with Spock's Brain).

    Anyway... I'll have to watch ST XI again sometime in the future, while doing my best to forget everything about an interview of Abrams I had read before watching it the first time, where he explained that Star Trek was boring to him because there always were lots of talking and stuff, and that he wanted to inject some action and fun in it (this interview has also given me dreams of inflicting to Abrams what many fans wanted to inflict on Wesley Crusher).

    So, trying now to make this post at least partially relevant to the topic... if for some reason the writers of Trek XII decided to stick a little to continuity, I'd love anyway to see some element of the crew's past we've heard about, but never seen onscreen, instead of a remake or re-imaging of a past episode.
    Like for instance Pike's accident (hey he probably was the character I liked best in this movie, so I don't mind seeing him again), Kirk's encounter of Carol Marcus, or whatever obscure event about the characters' past I forgot about and that would be mentioned in some TOS episode.
    But so far my hopes for that are very very low... (and the fact that I didn't quite like how the Kobayashi Maru scene was handled in ST XI does not help much).
    "The main difference between Trekkies and Manchester United fans is that Trekkies never trashed a train carriage. So why are the Trekkies the social outcasts?"
    Terry Pratchett

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gurden View Post
    I am sorry. But are you about to tell us how TOS never made a continuity mistake and rewrote itself back in its original run?

    Are you sure?
    No, I'm not saying that. What I was trying to say was:

    1) The people behind Trek have been ignoring/rewriting the continuity for the past few years (Star Trek: Enterprise).

    2) The original producers and writers considered continuity and the fans to be important to the success of the franchise. In recent years the fans have been marginalized, and continuity/setting history has been ignored or rewritten pretty much on a whim.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    [QUOTE=Tobian;175051]To be fair to Trek XI it has better continuity than many of Enterprise's episodes. It has timeline shifts, which explain many of the differences, but in terms of the back story it respects what's been before. [/qipte]

    Yeas, it has better continuity than Enterprise, that's not saying much.

    No it doesn't respect what's been before. Somehow Kirk, Spock and McCoy all end up at Starfleet Academy at the same time, despite differences in age and back story that indicates otherwise. The previous history under Chris Pike isn't just rewritten, but somehow the timeline is condensed.

    Scotty is now the inventor of "transwarp" drive, and the effect is so revolutionary as to completely rework the way space travel works as from then on.

    The continuity of the Spock-Uhura romance?

    Or how about Sulu using a Katana, rather than a foil/rapier/epee. Sulu practiced fencing not kenjutsu.







    Enterprise was a continuity minefield, to even the most casual Trek fan. By then they'd stopped even trying to make an effort!
    Which is my point. It's not that continuity causes lots of problems. It is that in recent years they have gone out of their way to destroy continuity.

    For instance, in the series pilot where they have the Klingon homeworld close to Earth. Since the Klingons were not vital to that story (it was really just an excuse to get the ship out in space-any alien would have sufficed), and only played a minor part to the series, there was really no need to have done that.

    What it loked like was that they wrote stores and then tried to "trek" the stories by sprinkling in whatever Trek stuff they could recall of the top of their heads. Whatever sounded neat. The T'Pau/T'Pol thing comes to mind.

    In a nutshell, they were writing episodes the way bad Gs write scenarios.

    I think the reason why the film deliberately erased the previous continuity was ti try and avoid the backlash the Enterprise caused.

    Nut, since they changed everything, what the point of a retread anyway? The ship, setting, and characters are all different.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by C5 View Post
    and the fact that I didn't quite like how the Kobayashi Maru scene was handled in ST XI does not help much
    Now THAT is a band-wagon I can jump aboard.
    DanG/Darth Gurden
    The Voice of Reason and Sith Lord

    “Putting the FUNK! back into Dysfunctional!”

    Coming soon. The USS Ganymede NCC-80107
    "Ad astrae per scientia" (To the stars through knowledge)

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gurden View Post
    Now THAT is a band-wagon I can jump aboard.
    Me too.

    I didn't care for the fact that Kirk gets the Enterprise upon graduation, either. It gives me the feeling that:

    1) The commendation for the Kobayashi MAru even had nothing to do with the test, but was simply an acknowledgement for saving everyone's butt.

    2) Starfleet is comprised of idiots. Is there no one in the Federation more capable of commanding a Starship than an Academy graduate? It's like turning the Nimitz over to someone who just got out of Annapolis.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Jacksonville, Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    1,880
    It's worse than that; Kirk was a 3rd year cadet, not even a graduate. If I had worked 20 years to get to the rank of captain and then a 3rd year cadet was promoted to the same rank, I'd give some serious thought to resigning my commission in protest.
    + &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<

    Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Psalm 144:1

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    Even a merit based promotion system which completely ignores seniority doesn't even give the most "bad ass" hardcore victory providing noob instant senior command. At best a direct commission to the lowest officer rank. Even high speed, "fast promotion route" Janeway had to work her way up the rank ladder. Sure for commendable works of valor they are given additional opportunities to command and continue to shine, but they still have to work their way up.

    No, the only system that I see that would allow promotion from 3rd year cadet to captain, is based on nepotism.

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by JALU3 View Post
    No, the only system that I see that would allow promotion from 3rd year cadet to captain, is based on nepotism.
    Or the system of wanted to start the next film with Kirk as the Captain and "shoehoring" the ending for that result. It's "force and ending". I don't like it in gaming and I don't like it in film either.

    But, it's very Star Wars. That's why Yoda and Obi-wan run off and hide for 20 years-so the ending will match up with the beginning of Episode IV. Yep, Abrams is definitely a Star Wars fan.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Paris, France, Earth
    Posts
    2,587
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg View Post
    2) Starfleet is comprised of idiots. Is there no one in the Federation more capable of commanding a Starship than an Academy graduate? It's like turning the Nimitz over to someone who just got out of Annapolis.
    Hey, starting with that, naming a (suspended) stowaway cadet acting first officer of the flagship only because he was the only one to realize that an electrical storm was the sure sign of a Romulan aggression is not what I'd call the smartest move. As JALU3 said, this looks a lot like nepotism ("Hey, I liked your father. You can command my ship, then").

    If they wanted from the start to film a trilogy, why couldn't they use it to get Kirk in command of the Enterprise over the span of the three movies ? The first movie would have had him graduating Academy, and he would have legitimately been sitting in the Captain's chair somewhere in the 3rd movie.
    Guess the movie specs stated that Kirk should be sitting in the big chair at the end of the move, or else.

    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg View Post
    But, it's very Star Wars. That's why Yoda and Obi-wan run off and hide for 20 years-so the ending will match up with the beginning of Episode IV. Yep, Abrams is definitely a Star Wars fan.
    Sooo... this explains why I did not like this movie, then. (I am a bad geek in the sense that I never cared much for Star Wars).
    "The main difference between Trekkies and Manchester United fans is that Trekkies never trashed a train carriage. So why are the Trekkies the social outcasts?"
    Terry Pratchett

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Kaunakakai, Molokai, Hawaii, USA
    Posts
    4,020
    Quote Originally Posted by C5 View Post
    If they wanted from the start to film a trilogy,...
    That would have been a very big investment on the studio's part. After all, Star Trek is not like Lord of the Rings (though technically it was the writer's desire to be one book, his publisher however thought different).

    AFAIC, Trek 2.0 Universe is a parallel reality timeline. It's not the Prime Universe. Just something from our Prime Universe contaminated the alternate universe's timeline.

    I'm interested in learning the new relationship dynamic between Sarek (little bit less stern as the Prime version) and his son Spock (who is probably exploring his human side at this stage of life development). I wonder if the death of his mother would pain him (as well all know, Vulcan have extreme emotions) to the point to abandon his humanity for Vulcan Logic.

    I'm also interested in the evolution of Spock-Uhura relationship.

    As for Sulu's "fencing," meh. Back in the 60's katana is not very well known nor very familiar nor very popular to the average American TV audience. They're more familiar with European swords of Erroll Flynn's movies. But there are many types of "fencing" in our diverse world. Besides John Cho (a Korean) doesn't really make a good D'Artagnan.

    (George Takei didn't make a good D'Artagnan, IMNSHO, but we can chalk it up with him being "intoxicated" in the episode, "The Naked Time.")

    Anyhoo, back on-topic...

    It's too early to bring a Khan 2.0 into the big screen. If JJ's smart, he'll use what he did in Alias to make a memorable villain through a series of films.
    Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

    "My philosophy is 'you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way.'"
    -- Monte Cook

    "Min/Maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game: they're problems with the players."
    -- excerpt from Guardians of Order's Role-Playing Game Manifesto

    A GENERATION KIKAIDA fan

    DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Lawyer

  15. #45
    Lol Flaming Abrams ftw?
    To sum it up for me, I thought the latest Trek movie, could have been way better... I wanted to see what REALLY happened in the past, not some alternate reality crap. I don't even think of Kirk or Spock that way when there young... Just... No.

    I read some posts that were flaming Enterprise, which kinda hurts. :\ I actually thought Star Trek Enterprise was pretty awesome. It explained some things that didn't make sense in TOS, and things of that sort, I didn't find it had much flaws at all in reality. It was better then the latest Star Trek movie.

    Anyway, my two cents.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •