Author Topic: JJ Abrams Trek Movie  (Read 1823 times)

Offline Tiberius

  • Cadet 2nd Class
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Cookies: 0
JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« on: July 20, 2011, 01:14:38 PM »
I give the 2009 Trek movie more credit than do my fellow posters.  I think it was a good movie for what it was intended for:  to re-boot Trek.  Let's face it, Nemesis was a sub-standard movie.  The only thing that made it great was the fact that the TNG actors portrayed their characters very well.  It had its moments, sure, but it didn't take me long to realize that Baird or whatever his name was had killed the TNG franchise.

Then, several years down the road, Paramount looked around and saw all these franchises being "re-booted"...Batman, The Hulk, Superman, etc...and they thought to themselves "Hey, we have something old like that...Star Trek!  Let's re-invent the franchise, make it appeal to a broader fan-base, but still keep enough of what made it work to bring back the loyal fans."  Isn't that what every "re-boot" tries to do?  Some succeed very well (Batman).  Others do not (The Hulk).

We have to accept that the cutting edge of Star Trek today is not going to be the same as it once was.  The box office numbers for AbramsTrek proved beyond any doubt that this new incarnation of Trek appeals to a much broader audience (more than doubling Trek's largest total at the time:  First Contact).

I for one have high hopes for the second movie.  Now that we have more people interested in Star Trek again, the opportunity here is to make a movie that's more along the lines of The Wrath of Khan or First Contact.  It's got those action sequences, but it has much more at its heart than just "a good action flick."

Personally, my favorite Trek film is The Undiscovered Country.  It's not really an action movie at all, it's much more of a political thriller.  That type of cerebral storytelling is right in line with what Roddenberry envisioned for Star Trek.  But that type of thing won't work if the goal of these new movies is to keep Trek alive. 
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am

Offline Poseidon

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
  • Cookies: 5
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2011, 02:18:47 PM »
I give the 2009 Trek movie more credit than do my fellow posters.  I think it was a good movie for what it was intended for:  to re-boot Trek.  Let's face it, Nemesis was a sub-standard movie.  The only thing that made it great was the fact that the TNG actors portrayed their characters very well.  It had its moments, sure, but it didn't take me long to realize that Baird or whatever his name was had killed the TNG franchise.

Then, several years down the road, Paramount looked around and saw all these franchises being "re-booted"...Batman, The Hulk, Superman, etc...and they thought to themselves "Hey, we have something old like that...Star Trek!  Let's re-invent the franchise, make it appeal to a broader fan-base, but still keep enough of what made it work to bring back the loyal fans."  Isn't that what every "re-boot" tries to do?  Some succeed very well (Batman).  Others do not (The Hulk).

We have to accept that the cutting edge of Star Trek today is not going to be the same as it once was.  The box office numbers for AbramsTrek proved beyond any doubt that this new incarnation of Trek appeals to a much broader audience (more than doubling Trek's largest total at the time:  First Contact).

I for one have high hopes for the second movie.  Now that we have more people interested in Star Trek again, the opportunity here is to make a movie that's more along the lines of The Wrath of Khan or First Contact.  It's got those action sequences, but it has much more at its heart than just "a good action flick."

Personally, my favorite Trek film is The Undiscovered Country.  It's not really an action movie at all, it's much more of a political thriller.  That type of cerebral storytelling is right in line with what Roddenberry envisioned for Star Trek.  But that type of thing won't work if the goal of these new movies is to keep Trek alive.

I'm sorry, but I really like Nemesis.  The story was a decent one, but there were things about it I did not like so much.  I loved the Wrath of Khan and the Undiscovered Country.  I love the old days.  The original series started everything.  To disregard it, is a terrible thing to those who stood by it, and those who grew from it.  11 did that in many ways.  11 also has some great moments IMO.  The actors are perfect for there rolls.  The sets were terrible, and  the story was sub par IMO.  Not to mention all the little inconsistencies from the original series.  To each his/her own.  I thought 11 was a good Sci Fi movie, but a poor Trek film.  The more I look at it, the more that J.J. Abrams had little to do with all of this actually.  Look at the story writer.  Abrams was directing this, but little more.  I think if Abrams had a bit more hands on, and was a bit more in tune with the original series, this might have been much better.  There is the next movie.  We will see if he grabs the reins and kicks it into high gear!
Current Rig:
MSI 890FXA-G70 MoBo
Phenom II 955 Quad Core (3.2Ghz x 4)
16Gigs Corsar 1600Mhz FBS RAM
(2) Diamond HD 6870 XOC @ Crossfire
XFI Fata1ity
500G x 1 Tera SATA HD's
1200w ToughPower Mini "Warp Core"
26" ASUS
Windows 7 x64 Ulimate

Offline Roar54

  • Boom! Headshot.
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Cookies: 0
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2011, 03:09:08 PM »
I'm sorry, but I really like Nemesis.
Seconded.
The 2009 film rated against any other film and it is great! As a Star Trek film rated against all of the others; nono. Which is a shame, but it did do its job to re-awaken Star Trek, that can be seen through the number of people who have bought and are playing ST:O.
"Do you always fly at women at warp speed Mr Paris?"
"Only when they're in visual range."
______________________________________________
Voyager: Caretaker

Offline L.

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 558
  • Cookies: 9
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2011, 04:23:18 PM »
Abram's Trek was a great film and a great ST film. I look forward to the sequel.

Offline Darkthunder

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 4
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2011, 05:07:01 PM »
I'm sorry, but I really like Nemesis.  The story was a decent one, but there were things about it I did not like so much.  I loved the Wrath of Khan and the Undiscovered Country.  I love the old days.  The original series started everything.  To disregard it, is a terrible thing to those who stood by it, and those who grew from it.  11 did that in many ways.  11 also has some great moments IMO.  The actors are perfect for there rolls.  The sets were terrible, and  the story was sub par IMO.  Not to mention all the little inconsistencies from the original series.  To each his/her own.  I thought 11 was a good Sci Fi movie, but a poor Trek film.  The more I look at it, the more that J.J. Abrams had little to do with all of this actually.  Look at the story writer.  Abrams was directing this, but little more.  I think if Abrams had a bit more hands on, and was a bit more in tune with the original series, this might have been much better.  There is the next movie.  We will see if he grabs the reins and kicks it into high gear!

#1: Star Trek (2009) did not disregard any of what previously came before. In fact, it acknowledged it within the movie, by stating that they were in an "alternate reality" because of changes made to the timeline by the antogonist (Nero).

#2: To what inconsistencies are you referring? For one thing, the entire movie takes place in an alternate reality/timeline, so things will undoubtedly be different from what they "should've" been. And it's not like inconsistencies are entirely unknown to Star Trek in the past, is it? :)

#3: The one thing i'll agree on, is some of the set designs. The "Budgineering" set for one thing, and the excessive use of lens flares. All in all, I found the movie quite enjoyable, and more than enough nods/acknowledgements to what came before. Sounds on the bridge were clearly TOS, Pike in a wheelchair near the end, Admiral Archer's beagle etc

In short, i'm with Lewis on this one: I look forward to more movies, and possibly a tv-show with the new cast. Trek was old, and to be honest, NEEDED a reboot. The only way forward was to either reboot it, or set it hundreds/thousands of years past Nemesis. I think a reboot was the better choice.
// Darkthunder

Offline L.

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 558
  • Cookies: 9
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2011, 05:36:04 PM »
The only real inconsistency is the Kelvin and its tech. Post that you can easily explain the change in tech due to the fear of what they considered a sanctioned Romulan attack smashing one of their ships, not to mention the deaths and events means lots of Starfleet people were put on projects and career paths they never would have been on in the prime universe.

Offline Black Patriot

  • Admiral
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Cookies: 3
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2011, 05:44:34 PM »
#2: To what inconsistencies are you referring? For one thing, the entire movie takes place in an alternate reality/timeline, so things will undoubtedly be different from what they "should've" been. And it's not like inconsistencies are entirely unknown to Star Trek in the past, is it? :)

Well the Kelvin is far larger (given the size and number of shuttles that were stored inside it) than any TOS era ship we've ever seen, not to mention the fact that it supposedly had 800 people aboard, double the amount on the original Enterprise (evacuating that many people on 20 shuttles is a plot hole, not an inconsistency, though it's still stupid). This counts as a massive inconsistency since the Kelvin predates the changes to the timeline.

Quote
#3: The one thing i'll agree on, is some of the set designs. The "Budgineering" set for one thing, and the excessive use of lens flares. All in all, I found the movie quite enjoyable, and more than enough nods/acknowledgements to what came before. Sounds on the bridge were clearly TOS, Pike in a wheelchair near the end, Admiral Archer's beagle etc

I though the bridge set was quite good, though the "engineering" sections really, really needed to be toned down.

Quote
In short, i'm with Lewis on this one: I look forward to more movies, and possibly a tv-show with the new cast. Trek was old, and to be honest, NEEDED a reboot. The only way forward was to either reboot it, or set it hundreds/thousands of years past Nemesis. I think a reboot was the better choice.

Whilst I'm also cautiously looking forward to the next film, I don't think Trek needed a reboot, it just needed people in charge that weren't complete morons (Bragga and Berman).

The only real inconsistency is the Kelvin and its tech. Post that you can easily explain the change in tech due to the fear of what they considered a sanctioned Romulan attack smashing one of their ships, not to mention the deaths and events means lots of Starfleet people were put on projects and career paths they never would have been on in the prime universe.

I believe the explanation for the more advanced ships was the scans of the Narada that the Kelvin's shuttles brought back with them.
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R
Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.6 GHz
12GiB G.Skill RAM
Gigabyte GTX 680 2048MB
128GB Kingston SSD (Windows 7 Drive)
64GB Kingston SSD (Windows 8 Drive)
2 x 160GB 7200rpm HDD (RAID 0)
8.2TiB Storage (on File Server)
875W Thermaltake ToughPower XT PSU
46" Samsung Series 6 LED @ 1080p
Logitech Z-5500 THX
Windows 7 Professional x64
Windows 8 Consumer Preview x64

Offline Jon Deane

  • Lt. Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • Cookies: 0
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2011, 06:39:37 PM »
I prefer to think that the way the ship looked in STXI is how it always looked in the trek universe and that what we saw in TOS and other episodes was due to the tech limitations of the 60s.  Like the Klingon forehead ridges problem, I'd say stick with that unless some stupid writer decides to point out the difference in canon.  This way you don't need a way to explain why the ships of the 23rd century are less advanced than 21st century technology.

As for the Kelvin, I prefer to disregard the large sizes given by the writers as well as Pikes figure of 800 for the crew.

Offline Mark

  • aka Ignis
  • Project Director
  • Fleet Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 3548
  • Cookies: 181
  • Creative Leader
    • Excalibur
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2011, 08:57:17 PM »
The only real inconsistency is the Kelvin and its tech.

Why did they need to drill into the middle of Vulcan before creating a black hole? Is a black hole in Vulcan's atmosphere not going to be just as effective and 100 times quicker? They prove that a black hole can be created in "normal" space at the end of the film. That whole sequence made me cringe!

The effects and pace were great but the story was as weak as a 70's bond movie in places.

Offline Darkthunder

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 4
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2011, 11:07:25 PM »
Well the Kelvin is far larger (given the size and number of shuttles that were stored inside it) than any TOS era ship we've ever seen, not to mention the fact that it supposedly had 800 people aboard, double the amount on the original Enterprise (evacuating that many people on 20 shuttles is a plot hole, not an inconsistency, though it's still stupid). This counts as a massive inconsistency since the Kelvin predates the changes to the timeline.

It is my belief (and feel free to correct me if you have proof otherwise);

That the USS Kelvin (NCC-0514) being more technologically advanced, and larger in size than in the "Prime Universe", is a result to influences occured during "First Contact". Those events which took place in 2063, ultimately had a great influence on the future of 2151, in large part shown in the ENT episode 'Regeneration'. Reference to dialog in First Contact was made, "Cybernetic beings from the future, coming back in time to enslave the human race", as well as the fact that they found debris from a Borg sphere on Earth (after the Enterprise-E destroyed a sphere in 2063).

The threat of the Borg (up until 2153, unknown name), is likely a major source to why Starfleet/United Earth and later the Federation, would kick into high-gear of producing more and more advanced ships. The mention of a "Warp 7 starship" as early as 2161 sort-of supports this idea. Furthermore, after the encounter with Nero in 2233, would've given Starfleet an even greater incentive to produce more technologically advanced ships.

I base my belief, in large part due to the mention of "Admiral Archer's prized beagle". Now i'm no idiot, I realize the beagle is likely not the same one as Captain Archer's "Porthos". But it's been confirmed by the writers that Admiral/Captain Archer are one in the same. Obviously, Admiral/Captain Archer could've existed in the "Prime Universe" as well, but seeing as the NX-01, later the NCC-0514, and the vastly upgraded NCC-1701, sort-of supports my idea that the entire movie takes place in the same "Alternate Reality" as the entire ENTERPRISE series.

And don't forget... We also have the ENT-era "Temporal Cold War" which could've messed up the timeline prior to Nero's arrival too  :lol:
// Darkthunder

Offline Tiberius

  • Cadet 2nd Class
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Cookies: 0
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2011, 12:56:53 AM »
Quote
It is my belief (and feel free to correct me if you have proof otherwise);

That the USS Kelvin (NCC-0514) being more technologically advanced, and larger in size than in the "Prime Universe", is a result to influences occured during "First Contact". Those events which took place in 2063, ultimately had a great influence on the future of 2151, in large part shown in the ENT episode 'Regeneration'. Reference to dialog in First Contact was made, "Cybernetic beings from the future, coming back in time to enslave the human race", as well as the fact that they found debris from a Borg sphere on Earth (after the Enterprise-E destroyed a sphere in 2063).

The threat of the Borg (up until 2153, unknown name), is likely a major source to why Starfleet/United Earth and later the Federation, would kick into high-gear of producing more and more advanced ships. The mention of a "Warp 7 starship" as early as 2161 sort-of supports this idea. Furthermore, after the encounter with Nero in 2233, would've given Starfleet an even greater incentive to produce more technologically advanced ships.

I base my belief, in large part due to the mention of "Admiral Archer's prized beagle". Now i'm no idiot, I realize the beagle is likely not the same one as Captain Archer's "Porthos". But it's been confirmed by the writers that Admiral/Captain Archer are one in the same. Obviously, Admiral/Captain Archer could've existed in the "Prime Universe" as well, but seeing as the NX-01, later the NCC-0514, and the vastly upgraded NCC-1701, sort-of supports my idea that the entire movie takes place in the same "Alternate Reality" as the entire ENTERPRISE series.

And don't forget... We also have the ENT-era "Temporal Cold War" which could've messed up the timeline prior to Nero's arrival too

This posits an interesting theory.  One that is sound and well within the "generally accepted drift" in terms of (a lack of) consistency that exists in the Prime universe.  I would present a few alternatives/modifications, however:

I don't want to open another can of worms, but if anyone has read Shatner's Trek series, in them he postulates that the Mirror Universe sprang up as a result of Cochrane deciding by the flip of a coin on whether or not to go against what I'm sure was the advice of the Ent-E crew and tell the Vulcans about the Borg.  In the Prime Universe, he keeps it to himself, and Picard and company were successful in restoring the timeline.  In the Mirror Universe, he tells the Vulcans (and presumably all of Earth), and this accounts for the militaristic nature of things in the Mirror Universe.

I know this isn't canon, but it makes perfect sense, and it ties in well with canon.

If what you postulate is true, then perhaps the split from the Prime Universe and the Abrams Universe occurred not at First Contact, but at the moment the researchers in "Regeneration" found the sphere.  That would create the schism that leads to Starfleet's hurried expansion of technology.  And it would account for many of the other inconsistencies in Enterprise's story with canon (meeting the Ferengi, for example).

I mean, all of this is just our way as loyal fans of dealing with the wreck of a show that was Enterprise.  I say that half-kiddingly--I actually liked Enterprise, in terms of the stories they told.  I feel like they tried to be Voyager at times (indeed, some of the early episodes were just rehashes of planned-but-not-filmed Voyager scripts), but overall I enjoyed the series.  The writers just took too many liberties with what was overwhelmingly accepted canon (the Borg weren't encountered until the 24th Century, as with the Ferengi, etc.).

Quote
Like the Klingon forehead ridges problem, I'd say stick with that unless some stupid writer decides to point out the difference in canon.

This was explained in a series of Enterprise Episodes.  Some Klingon scientist (oxymoronic, I know) tried to create a genetically-superior Klingon warrior, but instead unleashed a highly "contagious" pathogen into the Klingon population that altered their physical appearance to match the TOS Klingons.  They found a cure at the end, but it was noted that it would take several generations for the cosmetic effects to wear off (just in time for TMP).  It's actually a very genius bit of writing, IMO.

If our "Enterprise-is-part-of-AbramsTrek-Universe" theory is to hold true, then if the Klingons appear in the upcoming movie, they should resemble TOS Klingons, at least in terms of how they look (not so much how they dress).  Doubtful that's gonna happen.

Quote
Why did they need to drill into the middle of Vulcan before creating a black hole?

Perhaps drilling to the center of the planet means they can create a smaller black hole, thereby using less red matter.  Waste not, want not, as they say.

Quote
Well the Kelvin is far larger (given the size and number of shuttles that were stored inside it) than any TOS era ship we've ever seen, not to mention the fact that it supposedly had 800 people aboard, double the amount on the original Enterprise...

This bothers me, but I can see why they would want to make the ships bigger.  A modern aircraft carrier has roughly 5,000 people on board!



I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am

Offline Poseidon

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
  • Cookies: 5
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2011, 02:29:25 AM »
Why did they need to drill into the middle of Vulcan before creating a black hole? Is a black hole in Vulcan's atmosphere not going to be just as effective and 100 times quicker? They prove that a black hole can be created in "normal" space at the end of the film. That whole sequence made me cringe!

The effects and pace were great but the story was as weak as a 70's bond movie in places.

LMFAO@!!!!!!
Current Rig:
MSI 890FXA-G70 MoBo
Phenom II 955 Quad Core (3.2Ghz x 4)
16Gigs Corsar 1600Mhz FBS RAM
(2) Diamond HD 6870 XOC @ Crossfire
XFI Fata1ity
500G x 1 Tera SATA HD's
1200w ToughPower Mini "Warp Core"
26" ASUS
Windows 7 x64 Ulimate

Offline Poseidon

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
  • Cookies: 5
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2011, 02:32:15 AM »
#1: Star Trek (2009) did not disregard any of what previously came before. In fact, it acknowledged it within the movie, by stating that they were in an "alternate reality" because of changes made to the timeline by the antogonist (Nero).

#2: To what inconsistencies are you referring? For one thing, the entire movie takes place in an alternate reality/timeline, so things will undoubtedly be different from what they "should've" been. And it's not like inconsistencies are entirely unknown to Star Trek in the past, is it? :)

#3: The one thing i'll agree on, is some of the set designs. The "Budgineering" set for one thing, and the excessive use of lens flares. All in all, I found the movie quite enjoyable, and more than enough nods/acknowledgements to what came before. Sounds on the bridge were clearly TOS, Pike in a wheelchair near the end, Admiral Archer's beagle etc

In short, i'm with Lewis on this one: I look forward to more movies, and possibly a tv-show with the new cast. Trek was old, and to be honest, NEEDED a reboot. The only way forward was to either reboot it, or set it hundreds/thousands of years past Nemesis. I think a reboot was the better choice.

Yes, it's a new time line, but it still disregards the original in many ways.  Also, the inconsistencies are everywhere if you care to look.  There's a thread around here where everyone shared there thoughts on 11.  If someone could dig that back up and post a link (or merge the thread).

@ BP, I might agree with Bragga, but not Berman.  Berman was the creative lead for TNG, DS9 and Voy to some degree.  Berman would still be good here IMO.

@ Tiberius, I always thought that Klingons got there head ridges as a reaction to the infestation of Tribbles that Scotty beamed over to there ship, which in turn spread to there homeworld?  LOL  :lol: 
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 02:44:03 AM by Poseidon »
Current Rig:
MSI 890FXA-G70 MoBo
Phenom II 955 Quad Core (3.2Ghz x 4)
16Gigs Corsar 1600Mhz FBS RAM
(2) Diamond HD 6870 XOC @ Crossfire
XFI Fata1ity
500G x 1 Tera SATA HD's
1200w ToughPower Mini "Warp Core"
26" ASUS
Windows 7 x64 Ulimate

Offline MajorD

  • Fleet Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
  • Cookies: 7
  • Look Behind You
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2011, 03:41:17 AM »
Why did they need to drill into the middle of Vulcan before creating a black hole? Is a black hole in Vulcan's atmosphere not going to be just as effective and 100 times quicker? They prove that a black hole can be created in "normal" space at the end of the film. That whole sequence made me cringe!

The effects and pace were great but the story was as weak as a 70's bond movie in places.

They didn't have, or didn't listen to, their scientist. The latter happened all the time in TNG for cinematic reasons. There's one part of old Trek they kept that really annoyed me too. In the first battle, some one on the Kelvin states, "power down to 70%".
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 03:50:25 AM by MajorD »
I'm on a pig.

Now, it's diamonds.

Offline Aresius

  • The Samurai-Viking of Space
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
  • Cookies: 4
  • Qapla'
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2011, 01:24:37 PM »
Okay, let me spit some words here.

Star Trek (as we know it with TOs, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) is NEVER dead. Not as long as there are people watching it, remembering it anyway. I admit, TOS was and still is not my personal favourite, maybe because the first Trek I know was TNG, and TOS is almost twice my age. Still I love it.
The thing with reboots is that they put the stuff in a new and shiny outfit, with more special effects and stuff and a bit litigous razzel-dazzle. Technically, TNG is a reboot of TOS, DS9 a reboot of TNG, and so forth. There are ever-repeating plots that literally have been in every version.
Like the eternal plague (a race is suffering from some kind of disease for decades/centuries/ever since, and along comes the Federation and cures it in record time); TOS "The Mark of Gideon", TNG "When the Bough breaks", DS9 "The Quickening", Voyager made it to an entire arc with 'The Phage' that mutilates the Viidians, and Ent "Dear Doctor".

Abrams-Trek is a reboot in an alternative reality, fine, I can live with that as it leans I can simply ignore it changing anything to the original. Still, there are things that just don't make sense and not even the alternative-reality babbling can change that.
For one, the Kelvins ridiculous size. For two, the weapons itself (hose were real turrets not phaser-banks, why?!), the general tech (a windowsscreen an generally other Avatar-tech on the bridge, opposed to engineering section being an industrial mashup worse than the screensaver with the pipes, the Turbolift going DOWN to the shuttlebay when it's in the UPPER pod, etc.) the uniforms (why the heck is the CAPTAIN wearing a BLUE uniform all of a sudden when it should be YELLOW?), Archers beagle (they made it clear that it's THE Jonathan Archer, who we know from Ent, but now think about it, he lived almost 100 years before and was a frakking President. And while we can be certain that humans may live that long -seeing Bones still being a cynical geezer early on in TNG- I doubt we can say the same for dogs), and a whole crapload of other stuff that follows since then, but I won't go into detail here...
They blame the size of the Enterprise and the stylish design of the most stuff on recovered data that the revese-engineered. Nice idea to justify the Enterprises stupidity, but not the Kelvins blatant inconsistency. But fine, to each his own.

@Darkhunter: The Temporal Cold War can be ruled out for certain, as the timeline corrected itself at the end of "Stormfront II". Means all those insane events were undone and never happened.

Offline Black Patriot

  • Admiral
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Cookies: 3
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2011, 02:33:27 PM »
@ BP, I might agree with Bragga, but not Berman.  Berman was the creative lead for TNG, DS9 and Voy to some degree.  Berman would still be good here IMO.

Berman fired Ron Jones, the man who did most of the audio for the first 3 seasons of TNG (i.e. the only consistently good part of those seasons) and in particular the episode "Best of Both Worlds". Berman then went on to allow Bragga to dick around with Voyager for 7 years, and then let him try again with Enterprise. He's just as much to blame for the decline of Star Trek as Bragga.
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R
Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.6 GHz
12GiB G.Skill RAM
Gigabyte GTX 680 2048MB
128GB Kingston SSD (Windows 7 Drive)
64GB Kingston SSD (Windows 8 Drive)
2 x 160GB 7200rpm HDD (RAID 0)
8.2TiB Storage (on File Server)
875W Thermaltake ToughPower XT PSU
46" Samsung Series 6 LED @ 1080p
Logitech Z-5500 THX
Windows 7 Professional x64
Windows 8 Consumer Preview x64

Offline Poseidon

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
  • Cookies: 5
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2011, 04:45:09 PM »
Berman fired Ron Jones, the man who did most of the audio for the first 3 seasons of TNG (i.e. the only consistently good part of those seasons) and in particular the episode "Best of Both Worlds". Berman then went on to allow Bragga to dick around with Voyager for 7 years, and then let him try again with Enterprise. He's just as much to blame for the decline of Star Trek as Bragga.

In your opinion perhaps, but Berman was the main key to TNG.  He was, after all, the Executive Producer.  That is pretty much the brains behind TNG.  So, believe what you will, but I still believe Berman had it right.
Current Rig:
MSI 890FXA-G70 MoBo
Phenom II 955 Quad Core (3.2Ghz x 4)
16Gigs Corsar 1600Mhz FBS RAM
(2) Diamond HD 6870 XOC @ Crossfire
XFI Fata1ity
500G x 1 Tera SATA HD's
1200w ToughPower Mini "Warp Core"
26" ASUS
Windows 7 x64 Ulimate

Offline L.

  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 558
  • Cookies: 9
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2011, 05:22:38 PM »
Berman wanted the Dominion War to be just 4 episodes long. We would never have gotten In the Pale Moonlight if he'd had his way.

Offline Black Patriot

  • Admiral
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Cookies: 3
  • Member
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2011, 06:24:12 PM »
In your opinion perhaps, but Berman was the main key to TNG.  He was, after all, the Executive Producer.  That is pretty much the brains behind TNG.  So, believe what you will, but I still believe Berman had it right.

The funny thing about being an Executive Producer is that you can do as much or as little work as you really want, it can all be delegated or you can jump right in and get your hands dirty. Given the way he allowed the series to stagnate I think it's clear that he didn't personally get into TNG, waiting for Voyager and Enterprise to get involved. Either that or he really was only good at TNG, which is also possible (though it still doesn't explain firing Ron Jones after all he did to help TNG), and absolutely useless at any series that wasn't trying to be TNG. We saw Voyager start out as essentially TNG season 8, just lost in space, instead of what it should have been, a mix between TNG and the reimagined BSG, which would have been awesome (also proof that Ron Moore would have been a much better choice as Executive Producer of Voyager). Notice that the only time Enterprise started to be a consistently good series was after Berman and Bragga took a back seat to Manny Coto, by which point it was already too late.
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R
Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.6 GHz
12GiB G.Skill RAM
Gigabyte GTX 680 2048MB
128GB Kingston SSD (Windows 7 Drive)
64GB Kingston SSD (Windows 8 Drive)
2 x 160GB 7200rpm HDD (RAID 0)
8.2TiB Storage (on File Server)
875W Thermaltake ToughPower XT PSU
46" Samsung Series 6 LED @ 1080p
Logitech Z-5500 THX
Windows 7 Professional x64
Windows 8 Consumer Preview x64

Offline Jon Deane

  • Lt. Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • Cookies: 0
Re: JJ Abrams Trek Movie
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2011, 06:44:54 PM »
This was explained in a series of Enterprise Episodes.  Some Klingon scientist (oxymoronic, I know) tried to create a genetically-superior Klingon warrior, but instead unleashed a highly "contagious" pathogen into the Klingon population that altered their physical appearance to match the TOS Klingons.  They found a cure at the end, but it was noted that it would take several generations for the cosmetic effects to wear off (just in time for TMP).  It's actually a very genius bit of writing, IMO.
It never needed to be explained until Worf's "we do not discuss it with outsiders" scene in Trials and Tribble-ations.  Before then, it was accepted that all Klingons had ridges, and that we just never saw them in TOS for budget reasons, as stated by Gene Roddenberry.

I never liked the Enterprise is because of First Contact theory.  It always seemed to be a huge cop-out when the producers were hiding behind it all the time, and most inconsistencies can be explained easily enough.  The word Ferengi was never mentioned, and as stated in Dark Frontier, the Federation knew about the Borg long before Q Who.

On the mirror universe, the shatnerverse explanation was proved false in In a Mirror, Darkly.