It has a name: Star Trek: Into Darkness.

[Overmind One]

No, it was The Motion Picture. If you recall, they were the first to encounter V-ger and were destroyed.

Every statue of Kahless shown in Trek (there werent that many) had ridges. The only REAL reason they did not in TOS was because the makeup for such prosthetics did not exist at the time cheaply. It was later explained why there were Klingons without the ridges, but the understanding is that all Klingons were born with ridges and those who did not have them were because of genetic modifications.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Every statue of Kahless shown in Trek (there werent that many) had ridges. The only REAL reason they did not in TOS was because the makeup for such prosthetics did not exist at the time cheaply. It was later explained why there were Klingons without the ridges, but the understanding is that all Klingons were born with ridges and those who did not have them were because of genetic modifications.

Yeah, and I still think they should have just left it alone and chalked it up to the era. This obsession the uber luser, prosthetic Spock-ear wearing community has to keep the 60's visual effects relevant is embarrassing. When they showed the bridge of TOS Enterprise instead of the one from the movies on the TNG episode where they rescued Scotty, it made me cringe. We have touch screens now. Why in the hell would we regress technology 200 years from now to blinking lights and cheap styrofoam consoles? Sometimes, people need to be shaken until their brains come loose.

 

[Overmind One]

Yeah, and I still think they should have just left it alone and chalked it up to the era. This obsession the uber luser, prosthetic Spock-ear wearing community has to keep the 60's visual effects relevant is embarrassing. When they showed the bridge of TOS Enterprise instead of the one from the movies on the TNG episode where they rescued Scotty, it made me cringe. We have touch screens now. Why in the hell would we regress technology 200 years from now to blinking lights and cheap styrofoam consoles? Sometimes, people need to be shaken until their brains come loose.

Well, of course they have to change some things as far as how they look. But some of the things they just cant change without making fans cringe. For instance the Enterprise communicators looked like this:

WHY? Cellphones of the time when this was made were more sophisticated looking (like the Motorola RAZR). And sorry dude, but there is no easy way to do the Spock-ear without a rubber prosthetic. Its not the prosthetic, its the shape of the ears that is important. You cant make the point in the middle of the upper lobe, it has to be towards the rear...stuff like that. You cant have red plasma, it has to be blue. You cant have the status lights on the main viewing screen on the Bridge going across the top, it has to be the bottom. These things have become part of Trek canon (for whatever reason) and Paramount had kept them all very very consistent with the help of fans. It does not help your case that Roddenberry himself was also a stickler for these things. He created the canon and the details.

The new Trek is trampling on lots more than the timeline. Red matter? How is it that a single drop of the shit sucked Vulcan into a black hole, but a whole ship of the stuff was only enough to draw Nero's ship in and was thwarted by a few tiny warp cores exploding? Why did the original black hole jump Nero (and Future Spock) into the past, but the second one destroyed his ship? How did Scotty get his hands on a Tribble when they had not been seen until the Enterprise encountered Harry Mudd? How was Vulcan visible from Delta Vega when Vulcan has no moons? These are not trivial things.

There is lots of stuff that comes to mind which are cringeworthy in the 2009 Trek movie. The beer factory engine room juxtaposed with the Apple Bridge for instance. The freakin STICK SHIFT to engage warp drive. Seriously?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Well, of course they have to change some things as far as how they look. But some of the things they just cant change without making fans cringe. For instance the Enterprise communicators looked like this:

View attachment 27981

My problem is with the fanatics who want to keep the blinking lights and the lack of sophisticated Klingon makeup canon.

WHY? Cellphones of the time when this was made were more sophisticated looking (like the Motorola RAZR). And sorry dude, but there is no easy way to do the Spock-ear without a rubber prosthetic.

I was referring to the fanatics who walk around wearing Spock ears annoyingly blasting TPTB for not keeping styofoam consoles with blinking lights "canon" rather than just accepting that they were limitations of the special effects of the 60s within the budget.

Its not the prosthetic, its the shape of the ears that is important. You cant make the point in the middle of the upper lobe, it has to be towards the rear...stuff like that. You cant have red plasma, it has to be blue. You cant have the status lights on the main viewing screen on the Bridge going across the top, it has to be the bottom. These things have become part of Trek canon (for whatever reason) and Paramount had kept them all very very consistent with the help of fans. It does not help your case that Roddenberry himself was also a stickler for these things. He created the canon and the details.

The new Trek is trampling on lots more than the timeline. Red matter? How is it that a single drop of the shit sucked Vulcan into a black hole, but a whole ship of the stuff was only enough to draw Nero's ship in and was thwarted by a few tiny warp cores exploding? Why did the original black hole jump Nero (and Future Spock) into the past, but the second one destroyed his ship? How did Scotty get his hands on a Tribble when they had not been seen until the Enterprise encountered Harry Mudd? How was Vulcan visible from Delta Vega when Vulcan has no moons? These are not trivial things.

There is lots of stuff that comes to mind which are cringeworthy in the 2009 Trek movie. The beer factory engine room juxtaposed with the Apple Bridge for instance. The freakin STICK SHIFT to engage warp drive. Seriously?

View attachment 27982

Yeah, I agree about stupidities and deux ex machina bullshit like "red matter". Abrams is playing fast and loose with canon and the established science and hiding behind the whole alternate timeline thing which, again, only changed at Kirk's birth. He's also relying on most fans being sucked into the action and explosions to mask these issues.

I like a good movie but I also enjoy when they try to maintain technical consistency. The more I think about these points you bring up the more it disappoints me.

 

[Overmind One]

My problem is with the fanatics who want to keep the blinking lights and the lack of sophisticated Klingon makeup canon.

I agree there. But we dont have any of those people here...as far as I know.

I was referring to the fanatics who walk around wearing Spock ears annoyingly blasting TPTB for not keeping styofoam consoles with blinking lights "canon" rather than just accepting that they were limitations of the special effects of the 60s within the budget.

Agree there too. But you can easily take the TOS bridge and update it with real consoles and displays as long as they are all in the same place on the bridge consoles. They did this in Enterprise. I was okay with that. And the shuttlepods were also very well done in retro before-TOS tech terms. The transporter was sufficiently behind TOS. Abrams gets to toss all of that out the window and he still messed it all up.

Yeah, I agree about stupidities and deux ex machina bullshit like "red matter". Abrams is playing fast and loose with canon and the established science and hiding behind the whole alternate timeline thing which, again, only changed at Kirk's birth. He's also relying on most fans being sucked into the action and explosions to mask these issues.

What I dont get, is that Kirk was NOT born in space, he was born in Iowa. In Abram's movie he was only raised there by his mother and stepfather. And although Kirk's mother was never mentioned in canon, it was mentioned in a novel and her name was Winona and she was a farm wife. The author Vonda McIntyre gave her that name, and she is also responsible for giving Sulu his first name Hikaru which has now become canon. Why is Kirk's mother in starfleet, and how did she come to serve on the same ship as her Captain husband and how did they do the hunka chunka without violating Starfleet protocols on fraternization? Am I sounding like a Trekkie yet?

I like a good movie but I also enjoy when they try to maintain technical consistency. The more I think about these points you bring up the more it disappoints me.

I have been following Trek (not a deep Trekkie but close) since I was 6 years old. Im over 50 now. So, I think I have a lot invested in Trek. The time lapsed from TOS is no excuse, since I also have seen how Doctor Who came back and was still the same in premise and style. James Bond has gone through several 007s now, but every one of them (except the original Casino Royale with David Niven) was still recognizingly Bond. There is no excuse for this.

 

[YJ02]

This!

Abrams didn't do too bad a job breathing new life into Trek with 2009 but I don't want to see him steer the entire franchise into GI Joe territory, which seems to be where it's headed. He's admitted that he "never got Star Trek". They shouldn't just hand him creative carte blanche and let him turn it into his pet.

And, seriously, f'k product placement. He's destroying the future Roddenberry built with that bullshit. Even his "alternate universe" bullshit of an excuse wouldn't explain it because history changed at Kirk's birth.

Goddammit I'm taking a lazy day off from exploring the city, sitting in the condo with the balcony doors open and the damned breeze, which is more like cyclone at this height, is blowing the lamp and my laptop across the table.
--- merged: Mar 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM ---


Every man has his price. You've found mine. Damn you, Abrams!!

i would say that after fringe, lost and trek, abrams has quite a fascination with alternate universes and timelines and a huge love for product placement- especially in fringe

making up of "false situations and drams for the look of the effects" is what i got from the first abrams trek film; the huge romulan ship (were the romulans ever scientific enough to be able to create such a ship with its capabilities? i thought they were always more of a science to support warfare type), the romulan tattoos, the destruction of vulcan, building ships in Iowa instead of at spacedock, etc-all were, for me, "visionary distractions" meant more to look good on a big screen set then to add to the ST family.

This "wowee" factor is what I think, is driving a lot of sci fi (like blood and chrome and its sex and pew-pew) we should be "wowed" by the story and the delivery with just the right amount of visual effect-instead we get it the other way-visual centered films/shows with little to no storyline

Back when the film was set to come out on disc, i actually knew people (on FB at School) who were going to upgrade their tv just to watch the effects of ST. I am guessing its the same type of person who buys a big screen to watch the superbowl then makes a return type of thing, but, just guessing...

 

[Overmind One]

i would say that after fringe, lost and trek, abrams has quite a fascination with alternate universes and timelines and a huge love for product placement- especially in fringe

making up of "false situations and drams for the look of the effects" is what i got from the first abrams trek film; the huge romulan ship (were the romulans ever scientific enough to be able to create such a ship with its capabilities? i thought they were always more of a science to support warfare type), the romulan tattoos, the destruction of vulcan, building ships in Iowa instead of at spacedock, etc-all were, for me, "visionary distractions" meant more to look good on a big screen set then to add to the ST family.

This "wowee" factor is what I think, is driving a lot of sci fi (like blood and chrome and its sex and pew-pew) we should be "wowed" by the story and the delivery with just the right amount of visual effect-instead we get it the other way-visual centered films/shows with little to no storyline

Back when the film was set to come out on disc, i actually knew people (on FB at School) who were going to upgrade their tv just to watch the effects of ST. I am guessing its the same type of person who buys a big screen to watch the superbowl then makes a return type of thing, but, just guessing...

That Romulan ship was a joke. Romulans build ships which have design elements of birds...at least they did until Abrams got involved. From the smallest ships to the largest warbirds. So it was a mining ship. What was with all the spikey interior design elements? It was like a huge tumbleweed. Look at the interior of this POS ship...it doesnt make any sense at all.

 

[Overmind One]

 

[Bluce Ree]

I would give a month's pay to see this movie:

 

[Gatefan1976]

Romulan Holoship from ENT:




So, they were not *always* bird shaped.

 

[Overmind One]

I would give a month's pay to see this movie:

AWESOME MOVIE!!!!!!!!!

I would actually pop a little bit of popcorn for a slightly longer clip like that! Great concept...a renegade Starfleet captain and crew chased down by Starfleet's best captains.
--- merged: Mar 30, 2013 at 3:09 PM ---

Romulan Holoship from ENT:




So, they were not *always* bird shaped.

Nothing seen in Enterprise can be considered full canon. Hey! Now I have a way to understand Enterprise and the ST 2009 movie...Enterprise came from the same lame universe where communicators are made by Nokia and Romulan ship designers look to fleas and tumbleweeds for design inspiration.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Nothing seen in Enterprise can be considered full canon.

Ya DO know what Canon means??
It's canon, but that does not mean you have to like it however.

 

[Bluce Ree]

AWESOME MOVIE!!!!!!!!!

I would actually pop a little bit of popcorn for a slightly longer clip like that! Great concept...a renegade Starfleet captain and crew chased down by Starfleet's best captains.

There is Star Trek novel I read a while back called "The Return", which takes places between Generations and First Contact. In the story, Kirk's body is taken by the Romulans and revived, who have allied with the Borg in a plot to destroy the Federation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_(Star_Trek)

That sort of context would make the perfect set up for a story featuring a renegade TOS crew along the lines of that fan-made trailer.

Alas, digging up James Doohan and Deforest Kelly would require far too much makeup and special effects to make them look presentable.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Weekend at Bones?

 

[Overmind One]

Ya DO know what Canon means??
It's canon, but that does not mean you have to like it however.

Many Trek fans do not consider it canon. The first season of the show did not even have Star trek in the title of the show. A small but vocal group of fans of this show insisted on putting Star trek in the title of the show, whilst a good portion of fans were asking for the show to be cancelled altogether. I think I have been showing that I know what "canon" means throughout this thread. . The Suliban, Xindi and the worlds these aliens come from exist only in the universe of Enterprise. They are not the creation of Gene Roddenberry or his "anointed". The behavior of the Vulcans and of Starfleet personnel are peculiar to Enterprise only. Just because it was a show does not make it canon. Many Stargate fans do not consider ANY of the series to be canon, and others do not consider SGU to be canon within the TV series. Canon is relative, however. What is becoming canon for the new Trek movies is not canon in the previous timeline.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Gee, all this talk of canon. Canon this, canon that. Here's what I think of all your canon:

 

[YJ02]

Many Trek fans do not consider it canon. The first season of the show did not even have Star trek in the title of the show. A small but vocal group of fans of this show insisted on putting Star trek in the title of the show, whilst a good portion of fans were asking for the show to be cancelled altogether. I think I have been showing that I know what "canon" means throughout this thread. . The Suliban, Xindi and the worlds these aliens come from exist only in the universe of Enterprise. They are not the creation of Gene Roddenberry or his "anointed". The behavior of the Vulcans and of Starfleet personnel are peculiar to Enterprise only. Just because it was a show does not make it canon. Many Stargate fans do not consider ANY of the series to be canon, and others do not consider SGU to be canon within the TV series. Canon is relative, however. What is becoming canon for the new Trek movies is not canon in the previous timeline.

So, then what you are saying is that once they added STAR TREK to the opening credits (and then everyone knew they weren't watching Doogie Howser or something) then it was canon?

 

[Bluce Ree]

So, then what you are saying is that once they added STAR TREK to the opening credits (and then everyone knew they weren't watching Doogie Howser or something) then it was canon?

Of course not. Adding STAR TREK to the name didn't change the fact that it was still

 

[Overmind One]

So, then what you are saying is that once they added STAR TREK to the opening credits (and then everyone knew they weren't watching Doogie Howser or something) then it was canon?

Brannon Braga wanted his Trek to be thought of as a reboot of sorts. An updated vision with a look and feel he thought was closer to TOS. Thing is, he acted as though he was starting with a blank slate when that era before TOS had already been written retroactively by the canon of the later (in the timeline) series. A nice touch in the premiere episodes was the appearance of the First Contact Zephrem Cochran talking about the Warp Five engine. But the introduction of the "Suliban" was a turn off right out of the gate. NO NEW ALIENS, Brannon! You just cant do that. Not like he did it. The Borg were retroactively inserted into First Contact by the TNG movie. But their presence did not disrupt existing canon. References were made by Seven of Nine about that incident on Voyager. How the hell were the Suliban or the Xindi supposed to be explained in canon?
--- merged: Mar 30, 2013 at 7:54 PM ---

Of course not. Adding STAR TREK to the name didn't change the fact that it was still

Totally.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Many Trek fans do not consider it canon. The first season of the show did not even have Star trek in the title of the show. A small but vocal group of fans of this show insisted on putting Star trek in the title of the show, whilst a good portion of fans were asking for the show to be cancelled altogether. I think I have been showing that I know what "canon" means throughout this thread. . The Suliban, Xindi and the worlds these aliens come from exist only in the universe of Enterprise. They are not the creation of Gene Roddenberry or his "anointed". The behavior of the Vulcans and of Starfleet personnel are peculiar to Enterprise only. Just because it was a show does not make it canon.

Yes, yes it does.
Trek accepts all movies and live action shows as "canon". Just because an individual, or even groups of individuals do not like "whats on offer" does not remove it from canon.

Many Stargate fans do not consider ANY of the series to be canon, and others do not consider SGU to be canon within the TV series. Canon is relative, however.

SG-1/A/U form the "television canon" of Stargate, again, no matter if you like or hate it. The MOVIE however remains the only "canon" from the original creators and it is THIER call if something is canon or not.

What is becoming canon for the new Trek movies is not canon in the previous timeline.

Its AU canon within the Trek canon.