JJ Abrams Trek Movie

[Aresius]

[...]Since Nemesis, trek has really had a canon smashing time of it.

Only since Nemesis? Think again...

For me, it's pretty simple. It's a different/parallel universe since young Kirks greates support and drive to become a Starfleet member, his own father, died. Means his motivation was never there and the universe is different. Now I'll come back to that later, but first, let me have a go at the entire stuff.

So, We know that the Kelvin is a giant ship, and like an explorer (given how she reacts to the "lightning-storm in space" stuff). So let's just asume that it was a relatively unique ship, maybe a first-of-its-kind, a testbed. Not just for the technology (the odd weapondry and the unusual interfaces simply being testing-grounds and in the Prime Universe, the tests failed and we were grounded with what we know from TOS), but also for how big a ship can become to serve as a good deep space vessel. When the Narada came it and altered history, the survivours managed to deliver some pieces of the info to Starfleet who managed to perfect the testbed technology with the data of the advanced-because-future Narada and that's why we have a TOS that is essentially on the technological leve of around Nemesis with the design-lines of TMP.

Now, let me get back to Kirk lacking motivation.
The problem here is that inth e Prime-verse, he was intrisically motivated, from within. He saw his father and wanted to be like him, wanted to follow his footsteps.
In the JJverse, he's extrinsically motivated, from without. He was basically a drunkard until Pike challenged him ("Your hvather was captain for 8 minutes, yadda~yadda. I dare you to do better!"), that pulled his ego and told him to show that old bastard that he's a better captain than his dead father who can't tell him "Pround of ya, son." "Nice job kicking that Romulan idiot." or "Good job not crushing a ship on your first command like I did."

The problem is that people who are motivated from within always strive to become perfect in what they do. They do it for the fun and the joy. While those motivated from without do it just for the sake, or in our modern terms, for the money. They don't want to be come perfect, become admired,t hey ust want to get it done and over with it.
And I'm afraid that JJverse Kirk is a prime (pun intended) canditate for doing sloppy jobs.

[MajorD]

Would like to add thou, that I personally believe the ENT series to be sort-of a crossover canon between Roddenberry-Trek, and Abrams-Trek, in part due to references to "Admiral Archer", and the apparent technological advancement compared to Roddenberry-Trek TOS.

There are two easy explanations for Star Trek. First, Nero going back and messing with the Kelvin caused a bunch of future time travel to never happen, or to happen differently, which changed the deeper past, which in turn changed the present past, resulting in huge shiny ships. Second, Nero and Spock traveled to a different dimension that happens to be back in time.

[Poseidon]

There are two easy explanations for Star Trek. First, Nero going back and messing with the Kelvin caused a bunch of future time travel to never happen, or to happen differently, which changed the deeper past, which in turn changed the present past, resulting in huge shiny ships. Second, Nero and Spock traveled to a different dimension that happens to be back in time.

That's kind a weak D, don't you agree?  I mean, that seems kind out there, even for me.  You effect the present which effects the past to the future?   

[Tiberius]

The fact of the matter is, most of the stuff we're discussing has to do with design, aesthetics, and cinematography.  I for one would have been **extremely** disappointed if ST09 had attempted to completely replicate 1960s TOS Trek.  C'mon, guys...TOS is a result of the time it was made:  the 1960s.  ST09 is a result of the time it was made:  2009.

[Josh F]

The fact of the matter is, most of the stuff we're discussing has to do with design, aesthetics, and cinematography.  I for one would have been **extremely** disappointed if ST09 had attempted to completely replicate 1960s TOS Trek.  C'mon, guys...TOS is a result of the time it was made:  the 1960s.  ST09 is a result of the time it was made:  2009.

Exactly.  Everything from the art design to the writing of the film was tailored to a 2009 audience, not the audience that watched the original series...and not the audience who grew up with Trek.  Oh, it was packed full of nods and subtle design consistencies, the same characters (reimagined, but instantly recognizable), and the "wrapper" of Star Trek.  But this film remains, at its heart, a hybrid of old and new.  I don't consider it the same Trek that I grew up with, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what it does well using that material as a foundation.  Think of it like an adaptation, rather than a sequel or a reboot.  You take a novel and adapt it to film...things must change.  Nothing ever transitions perfectly.  Now, in this context, you take a beloved franchise and attempt to reignite popular interest beyond the original fanbase.  In much the same way as any adaptation, elements must change...not only to bring new ideas to the screen (to entice a broader audience), but also to pay respect to that which should not simply be copied for its own sake. 

In my mind...TOS, the original films, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT stand on one line, and this new film (and its successors) stand on another.  And quite frankly, that's fine with me.  I find myself less disappointed with the little errors and inconsistencies that way.

 


~Josh F.

[Tiberius]

Exactly.  Everything from the art design to the writing of the film was tailored to a 2009 audience, not the audience that watched the original series...and not the audience who grew up with Trek.  Oh, it was packed full of nods and subtle design consistencies, the same characters (reimagined, but instantly recognizable), and the "wrapper" of Star Trek.  But this film remains, at its heart, a hybrid of old and new.  I don't consider it the same Trek that I grew up with, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what it does well using that material as a foundation.  Think of it like an adaptation, rather than a sequel or a reboot.  You take a novel and adapt it to film...things must change.  Nothing ever transitions perfectly.  Now, in this context, you take a beloved franchise and attempt to reignite popular interest beyond the original fanbase.  In much the same way as any adaptation, elements must change...not only to bring new ideas to the screen (to entice a broader audience), but also to pay respect to that which should not simply be copied for its own sake. 

In my mind...TOS, the original films, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT stand on one line, and this new film (and its successors) stand on another.  And quite frankly, that's fine with me.  I find myself less disappointed with the little errors and inconsistencies that way.

 


~Josh F.

Well put.

[Jon Deane]

Yeah, I forgot about that.  That does throw the Shatnerverse theory out the window.  But it's still a very nice theory, IMO.

I just re-watched it yesterday and I think the Shatnerverse theory can be tweaked.  What if, instead of being a timeline where Cochrane told the Vulcans about the Borg, it was a timeline where the Borg didn't travel back in the first place (creating a sort of inverse grandfather paradox in "our" universe where the alterations in the past were necessary for the time travel in the first place), thereby causing Cochrane to not meet the Enterprise crew?  Would Cochrane interpret the Vulcans to be an invasion force (as Archer suggested in the episode), leading to the formation of the Terran Empire?

[AricwithanA]

Exactly.  Everything from the art design to the writing of the film was tailored to a 2009 audience, not the audience that watched the original series...and not the audience who grew up with Trek.  Oh, it was packed full of nods and subtle design consistencies, the same characters (reimagined, but instantly recognizable), and the "wrapper" of Star Trek.  But this film remains, at its heart, a hybrid of old and new.  I don't consider it the same Trek that I grew up with, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what it does well using that material as a foundation.  Think of it like an adaptation, rather than a sequel or a reboot.  You take a novel and adapt it to film...things must change.  Nothing ever transitions perfectly.  Now, in this context, you take a beloved franchise and attempt to reignite popular interest beyond the original fanbase.  In much the same way as any adaptation, elements must change...not only to bring new ideas to the screen (to entice a broader audience), but also to pay respect to that which should not simply be copied for its own sake. 

In my mind...TOS, the original films, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT stand on one line, and this new film (and its successors) stand on another.  And quite frankly, that's fine with me.  I find myself less disappointed with the little errors and inconsistencies that way.

 


~Josh F.

A well developed story is not bound by generational timespans.  Visuals and storyTelling may change, but a well developed story doesn't change. 

I do agree with most of what you stated, in spirit at least.  Things DID need a reboot/redo.  The first time I read about the movie, I was excited!  The trouble is, most times, when things are "Redone" they are brought over so poorly, yea.  I'm an avid reader, same with I'd wager many of you guys here.  I've seen so many things just totally butchered, it is just depressing.  Things can be redone/brought over/adapted without such such travesty. 

Not that ST09 was a travesty, but for the money, time and hype the created/spent, by damn they failed.  They didn't fail via the numbers, sadly.  The movie was going to make money, good or bad, it didn't matter.  lol  Really if the whole movie could have extended the feel of the first five or six min, hell yea.  Yes, I know there are problems with the first few min via inconsistent to canon, but as you said, some things can be overlooked if everything else is up to par.

Maybe, you might be right.  The new way of storytelling just isn't my thing.  I just see a lot of crap after crap.  Not just with ST but most movies in general. I digress though.

I could forgive everything in ST09 if it were not for one thing.  One, very specific thing.

I work at a gas station and I do the order for magazines.  We get a lot of scifi-science-geek magazines because of this.  We did get the ST one for awhile and within one of them, it was the writers/JJA that defended their "alternate reality" with science.  Before making any thought judgements, continue reading.

It wasn't because they used science to defend it, but because they used science to defend it and then throw science out the window when it came to some of the very major story elements.  I do like the movie, I love all the star trek movies.  I'm a fan of star trek.  lol  But, but.  That little quip just didn't sit right with me at all.  We could all agree that probably many of the main problems people have with the movie could have been changed and not impacted the average viewers enjoyment correct?  Would the average person care if the Enterprise was at warp or not at warp when escaping?  The suspense would have been built, the viewscreen can crack.  All is good.  Instead of being at warp, they can't go to warp, and Scottie's idea is still the same...eject the (singular) warp core, big boob and now the breach in space/time is being sealed and they get away.

To the average viewer, all the elements are there for them to enjoy the end scene.  Had JJ/the writers done their job also, the end scene would be more believable, even for the world of Trek, for the trek fan.  While I'm sure we can find some random technicality as to why the ship was still at warp with no warp core, when max warp couldn't get them out, that isn't the point.

If JJ/the writers actually used science/trek science, the fans would have been happy (for the most part) and the average movie viewer would have been happy.. especially since they used "science" to defend the alternate universe route they took.

Sorry, I could go on and on.  I'd love to have a chance at rewriting some of the things in the movie.  Most of it is fine, but there are very specific things that, gah, just make no sense in any reality.  lol

[Josh F]

They should have just ejected several of the antimatter storage pods (that would have elicited the same end result as ejecting the core...actually, more of a result, because the storage pods contain more antimatter than the core at any given time), but yeah...movie goof.  They felt it was emotional fodder and made for a wonderful climactic scene, and it did, even if it didn't make sense within their own universe.  Feh.  That's the movie business for you.  I guess I'm just able to forgive a lot more when it comes to this sort of thing.  For example, a lot of Trek fans hate STIII, but I love it.  I think it has wonderful character development, and the idea of stealing a starship is just damn cool.  But that's just me.


~Josh F.

[MajorD]

That's kind a weak D, don't you agree?  I mean, that seems kind out there, even for me.  You effect the present which effects the past to the future?   

It's the grandfather paradox, to a certain extent. Go back in time, kill your grandfather, you cease to exist, your grandfather lives because you didn't exist to kill, but now you exist because he exists, you kill your grandfather, you cease to exist, and so on.

That kind of thing exists in Star Trek.

[Jon Deane]

They should have just ejected several of the antimatter storage pods (that would have elicited the same end result as ejecting the core...actually, more of a result, because the storage pods contain more antimatter than the core at any given time), but yeah...movie goof.  They felt it was emotional fodder and made for a wonderful climactic scene, and it did, even if it didn't make sense within their own universe.  Feh.  That's the movie business for you.  I guess I'm just able to forgive a lot more when it comes to this sort of thing.  For example, a lot of Trek fans hate STIII, but I love it.  I think it has wonderful character development, and the idea of stealing a starship is just damn cool.  But that's just me.


~Josh F.

That's also more consistent with the visuals.  Maybe Scotty was simplifying for the benefit of time?

[AricwithanA]

They should have just ejected several of the antimatter storage pods (that would have elicited the same end result as ejecting the core...actually, more of a result, because the storage pods contain more antimatter than the core at any given time), but yeah...movie goof.  They felt it was emotional fodder and made for a wonderful climactic scene, and it did, even if it didn't make sense within their own universe.  Feh.  That's the movie business for you.  I guess I'm just able to forgive a lot more when it comes to this sort of thing.  For example, a lot of Trek fans hate STIII, but I love it.  I think it has wonderful character development, and the idea of stealing a starship is just damn cool.  But that's just me.


~Josh F.

Oh, just so everyone knows, I was pulling a Quagmire with my post.  The episode of family guy where Brian found out Quagmire hates him and takes him out for steak.  He could forgive all the flaws of Brian if he wasn't such a bore.  lol 

I still love ST09, and I've watched it many times and enjoy it, but always will there be that little quip from the director/writers that will always bug me.

How can people hate TSFS? 

[sauertrauben]

In the 24th century when the supernova occurred, the Romulans had several ships, including the famous D'Deridex class Warbird, that were powered by artificial quantum singularities.  If the Romulans were familiar with creating artificial black holes, why couldn't they save themselves?  If they couldn't build a single artificial black hole large enough to save themselves, wouldn't it be a small price to pay to sacrifice their entire fleet of D'Deridex's to save the seat of their empire?

[BFGfreak]

First off, holy necro.

That said, I think STO mentioned that since the supernova was 50 light years away from romulus, the romulans thought they had about 50 years to prepare.

[sauertrauben]

yeah, life has a tendency to get in the way of forum'ing.  when star begins showing signs of going nova or supernova (x-ray flash) wouldn't a spacefaring race send scientists to monitor it so they can head off disaster?  50 lightyears is a huuuge distance and even if the wavefront of destruction were traveling at c, it would still give the rom-u-lans plenty of time to construct devices to deflect or absorb the matter & energy, then transit into the path of the wavefront.  of course this means there would be no movie to sell to foolish audiences who just want to see big explosions and guys running around shooting each other.  also, one single star going supernova wouldn't destroy the entire galaxy.  poor science,  poor fiction, good action = profit?  a lot of my friends who are into trek just won't count the abrams title as a 'true' star trek movie.