It's worse than that! He's dead, Jim.

Message boards : Cafe SETI : It's worse than that! He's dead, Jim.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next

AuthorMessage
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 934249 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 13:23:00 UTC - in response to Message 930287.  

I love some of the causal loops in the Star Trek movies.

"I am going to give you the formula for transparent aluminum that you are going to invent."

In the same scene, Scotty is talking to a 1970's computer. "Computer, Computer". The owner of the computer holds up the mouse. Scotty: "How quaint." Holds up the mouse: "Computer, Computer".



A little later, McCoy says to Dr Nichols, "you would be rich, beyond your dreams of avarice".




Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 934249 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 934317 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 16:59:10 UTC - in response to Message 934249.  

the latest movie had spock using the same device to give Scotty the information needed to transport Kirk and Scotty to the Enterprise. THey really shouldnt use the same trick more than once in a movie series


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 934317 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 934331 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 18:32:11 UTC - in response to Message 934317.  

The latest movie sucked
ID: 934331 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 934335 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 18:41:32 UTC

yeah I was disappointed that the movie went the alternate universe route


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 934335 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64992
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 934337 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 18:47:48 UTC

Leonard Nimoy says that Spock is in good hands with the person now playing Spock.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 934337 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 934377 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 21:38:14 UTC - in response to Message 934337.  

Leonard Nimoy says that Spock is in good hands with the person now playing Spock.


Meh. My opinion isn't a slam on those playing the characters, my opinion is on the story and it's alternate universe setting, and the fact that I do not want to go into the history of Star Trek, I want to keep going forward.
ID: 934377 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 934385 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 22:06:53 UTC - in response to Message 934377.  

Leonard Nimoy says that Spock is in good hands with the person now playing Spock.


Meh. My opinion isn't a slam on those playing the characters, my opinion is on the story and it's alternate universe setting, and the fact that I do not want to go into the history of Star Trek, I want to keep going forward.

As far as a desire to "Boldly go where no one has gone before" I think this new timeline is unexplored territory. <ducking>
ID: 934385 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 934386 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 22:09:49 UTC
Last modified: 18 Sep 2009, 22:10:06 UTC

Speaking of Zoe Saldana....

She did a great job as an immigration officer in "The Terminal" -- where her character said she liked to go to conventions as Yeoman Rand.

Wonder if that got her the part in Star Trek?
ID: 934386 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 934394 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 22:47:45 UTC

As long as were on a drift in here, I really belive if Gene Roddenberry was still alive this latest travesty would not have been made.
I thought the actors did a great job portraying the charectors, great action scenes, but what they did to the time line just ticks me off .

[/quote]

Old James
ID: 934394 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64992
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 934402 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 23:19:24 UTC - in response to Message 934385.  

Leonard Nimoy says that Spock is in good hands with the person now playing Spock.


Meh. My opinion isn't a slam on those playing the characters, my opinion is on the story and it's alternate universe setting, and the fact that I do not want to go into the history of Star Trek, I want to keep going forward.

As far as a desire to "Boldly go where no one has gone before" I think this new timeline is unexplored territory. <ducking>

I agree there, Maybe some won't, But a new direction, fresh ideas and some innovation can't hurt, change happens, As adapting to change means survival and I think most people don't know that today. Besides I haven't seen the movie, I do plan to buy the DVD from amazon(just not blu-ray, I can't see buying a player yet).
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 934402 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 934408 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 0:06:32 UTC
Last modified: 19 Sep 2009, 0:07:11 UTC

As William Shatner said, "Get a life, people!" He was talking to a group of fans in a SNL skit who were asking questions about the most esoteric details of plot and science. Such people do exist.

I consider myself a Star Trek fan, but there are many who are much more rabid than I. It's for these people, who would pick apart every little flaw, discrepancy and inconsistency in any new plot as compared to every TV episode and movie, that the producers of the new Star Trek movie did what I think is a brilliant move: they changed the timeline! This allows them the freedom to write completely new scripts and story lines without worrying about how they might offend the "Trekkies" if they get some detail wrong in reference to episode 12. Even Kirk's character is seen to have a somewhat different personality and temperment, because in this new "reality" his father wasn't around to raise him, unlike the Kirk of the previous episodes.

As long as the scripts for this new crop of movies hold up and entertain (in my opinion, most of the previous Star Trek movies were pretty poor), then doing the timeline change is fine by me.
ID: 934408 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 934562 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 17:58:09 UTC

I really have no problem with change, but IMO it seems like retconning the story just to get more out of it.

If the story has already been done, why change it? Why go back and redo the beginning?

I suppose my bigger issue is that I wasn't a fan of TOS and I don't care to go back to see the characters again. It seems to me yet another example of Hollywood going back to doing "safe" movies again instead of actually daring to entertain in new ways. All those remakes of older movies only strengthen my opinion that Hollywood is out of fresh ideas.

Sure, I could lower my expectations just to be "entertained" and have a good time, but I see no reason to do that. Why allow Hollywood to crap all over old ideas just to change what was once cherished by so many growing up (which I certainly don't fit in this category for TOS) when they could just as easily do new things to give a new generation something they can call their own when they grow up just like those who saw TOS had back in the 60s?

The problem isn't always that people are afraid of change. The problem is that people should stop trying to change and rewrite history (yes, even for a fictional universe). I have the same problem with Transformers changing the original story from the original cartoon series. I wouldn't call myself "rabid", but I'd certainly say that I'm passionate about what I love and any change to even my imperfect memories is going to be met with disdain.
ID: 934562 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 934616 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 20:34:53 UTC

OzzFan,

I wasn't aware of the term "retcon" before. Thank you for that information. On the website that you linked to it seems to say that this is done quite often. My point is that there are good reasons to "retcon" this particular franchise. The fans of Star Trek have long been known to be deeply engrossed in story lines, characters and inconsistencies.

There are a number of different versions of Star Trek spanning hundreds of years (though all set in the future). It would be out of the question to have the original cast continue to star in new Star Trek movies, television or stage plays since many are dead and the ones that have survived are pretty much over the hill, leaving only the occasional cameo as an option. By starting this new reality with new actors and an explanation for differences between this story and all other prior stories on TV, in movies and in books, writers of future episodes will be free to entertain rather than be constrained by some subtle factoid that turned up 30+ years ago in a story that only a small number of aging, vocal fans will remember anyway. The trick will be to capture the essence of the original Star Trek, i.e. the excitement and optimistic view that Gene Roddenberry was able to inspire us with that, arguably, is the reason the franchise has lasted so long.

For those people whose idea of fun is to actually look for these inconsistencies, well, they can still do that with all the material that's out there; and they can (and probably will) even point out the inconsistencies between this new timeline and the old stories. But for a new generation of Star Trek fans, the real test will be whether these new stories entertain on their own.
ID: 934616 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 934623 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 20:59:38 UTC - in response to Message 934616.  
Last modified: 19 Sep 2009, 21:05:33 UTC

On the website that you linked to it seems to say that this is done quite often. My point is that there are good reasons to "retcon" this particular franchise. The fans of Star Trek have long been known to be deeply engrossed in story lines, characters and inconsistencies.


I'm not saying that retconning isn't absolutely necessary. It can be quite useful from time to time. I didn't mean to make it sound like an overtly negative thing.

There are a number of different versions of Star Trek spanning hundreds of years (though all set in the future).


Understood, but I guess for my "universe", Star Trek only consists of TOS and TNG. I don't like any other series simply because I believe they're focused on drama and creative hooks to get you to keep watching each episode to find out what's happening. Whereas the with TNG and even TOS, each episode could be watched independently and still enjoy the storytelling. I'd rather watch because I enjoy the stories, not because "ZOMG, I have to find out what happens next!". [Edit] It is for this reason that I barely watch TV anymore. Too many writers are required to write storylines like this just to find that guaranteed audience, which means guaranteed ratings, which means guaranteed jobs for the actors. Good for them, bad for people like me. About the only show that I watch that is in this format is Smallville. House and CSI could almost be put into this category (more House than CSI), but they focus primarily on the story than character drama.

It would be out of the question to have the original cast continue to star in new Star Trek movies, television or stage plays since many are dead and the ones that have survived are pretty much over the hill, leaving only the occasional cameo as an option.


Absolutely. So instead of using the original characters and cast, why not create a whole new set of characters with the new cast? Or is Hollywood simply too scared to try something this new? I think so.

By starting this new reality with new actors and an explanation for differences between this story and all other prior stories on TV, in movies and in books, writers of future episodes will be free to entertain rather than be constrained by some subtle factoid that turned up 30+ years ago in a story that only a small number of aging, vocal fans will remember anyway. The trick will be to capture the essence of the original Star Trek, i.e. the excitement and optimistic view that Gene Roddenberry was able to inspire us with that, arguably, is the reason the franchise has lasted so long.


I understand why these things are done, but why try to capture what was 30+ years ago instead of "boldly going where no one else has gone" and do something different with the franchise? IMO, it's because Hollywood is too scared to try anything new, so they want to keep revisiting the old. Most sheeple will watch nearly anything out there attached to Star Trek, so it's practically guaranteed to make money, even if it was a bad idea.

For those people whose idea of fun is to actually look for these inconsistencies, well, they can still do that with all the material that's out there; and they can (and probably will) even point out the inconsistencies between this new timeline and the old stories. But for a new generation of Star Trek fans, the real test will be whether these new stories entertain on their own.


Yes, there will always be fans who enjoy catching the mistakes of writers and directors simply to make themselves feel smart. Hey, whatever makes them happy.

I'm not worried about spotting inconsistencies. I simply do not like new writers messing with cherished, older memories. Everyone has their own interpretation of whatever show they used to watch, so the writers and directors are almost guaranteed to get it wrong. Why not just leave it alone and move forward? Do something new.
ID: 934623 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 934640 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 22:52:10 UTC - in response to Message 934623.  

One complaint I have heard about spin-offs and extensions of the original Star Trek is that they do not have the same chemistry as the characters that were portrayed in "TOS" (another term you introduced to me). You like TNG (I knew this term) but didn't like TOS. Most die-hard Trekkies are the other way around, and they are quick to point out any inconsistency the later show has with the original.

By doing this retcon, there is actually less "messing with" the original--the crew members will be the same, the actors will try to come close to the original characters (both the new Bones and the new Spock made great efforts to do that in this new movie and critics think they mostly succeeded), and many old alliances and enemies will be similar. These may be some of the aspects of TOS that attracted its fans in the first place and keep them coming back. But, again, the writers of new screenplays probably think they will not have to be as concerned that those fans will stay away because of the failure of new scripts to faithfully follow previous scripts. Some will stay away anyway, but the gamble is that this will lessen the exodus.
ID: 934640 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 934643 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 23:10:00 UTC - in response to Message 934640.  

One complaint I have heard about spin-offs and extensions of the original Star Trek is that they do not have the same chemistry as the characters that were portrayed in "TOS" (another term you introduced to me). You like TNG (I knew this term) but didn't like TOS. Most die-hard Trekkies are the other way around, and they are quick to point out any inconsistency the later show has with the original.


Sure, there's fans of all types. I can only speak to how I feel.

By doing this retcon, there is actually less "messing with" the original--the crew members will be the same, the actors will try to come close to the original characters (both the new Bones and the new Spock made great efforts to do that in this new movie and critics think they mostly succeeded), and many old alliances and enemies will be similar. These may be some of the aspects of TOS that attracted its fans in the first place and keep them coming back. But, again, the writers of new screenplays probably think they will not have to be as concerned that those fans will stay away because of the failure of new scripts to faithfully follow previous scripts. Some will stay away anyway, but the gamble is that this will lessen the exodus.


I'm sure they aren't even worried about those extremely rabid fans that hate all change. You could probably even say the same thing about me, that no matter what they did it wouldn't have made me happy (not necessarily true). It's easy to conclude that the movie isn't targeted or marketed to the rabid fans or fans like myself. It's their right to target whomever they want.

What saddens me is that rabid fans and fans such as myself are excluded and uncared for unless we simply conform to the writer's new ideas. Why alienate any of the fan base? Why take the gamble at all? Why not simply do something new that all fans (or at least most) can enjoy?

Personally, I would have been happier if they simply left the original story alone and simply filled it with whatever retcon(s) they wanted. The "alternate universe" retcon is the easy, lazy way out.
ID: 934643 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 934649 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 23:55:44 UTC
Last modified: 20 Sep 2009, 0:07:30 UTC

I have not seen the movie yet so I am unable to comment on it, but consider the following
Gene Roddenberry wanted the original series to be the wild west moved into space
Next generation, every one was a communist - no need for money, had every thing they wanted including a neat space ship
Deep space 9 hard to tell but it seemed more like a soap opera
Voyager came off like lost in space
Enterprise was an attempt to return to Gene Roddenberry's original vision
Every set of writers had their own idea of what the series should be but they all tried to stay with the same story line. I agree that if you are going to change the story line, you should start with a new set of characters. Also, while many of the above used time travel, the plot was always about returning to the original story line.

I also have a quote that I have loved for years. I think I like it because it describes me.
A maverick is a hard core, industrial strength nonconformist.
Analog December 1989 - MAVERICK by W. R. Thompson
ID: 934649 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64992
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 934665 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 1:06:09 UTC - in response to Message 934649.  

I have not seen the movie yet so I am unable to comment on it, but consider the following
Gene Roddenberry wanted the original series to be the wild west moved into space
Next generation, every one was a communist - no need for money, had every thing they wanted including a neat space ship
Deep space 9 hard to tell but it seemed more like a soap opera
Voyager came off like lost in space
Enterprise was an attempt to return to Gene Roddenberry's original vision
Every set of writers had their own idea of what the series should be but they all tried to stay with the same story line. I agree that if you are going to change the story line, you should start with a new set of characters. Also, while many of the above used time travel, the plot was always about returning to the original story line.

I also have a quote that I have loved for years. I think I like it because it describes me.
A maverick is a hard core, industrial strength nonconformist.
Analog December 1989 - MAVERICK by W. R. Thompson

MAVERICK is also a Cowboy. Me I'll wait to see the movie with an open mind, But then It's a movie and It's meant to be mere entertainment, Not realism.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 934665 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 934667 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 1:13:58 UTC - in response to Message 934665.  

Me I'll wait to see the movie with an open mind, But then It's a movie and It's meant to be mere entertainment, Not realism.


I saw it with an open mind as well, not knowing what to expect. Of course no movie is supposed to represent realism, that's why we watch them! To suspend our disbelief and become enthralled and entertained in the writer's story they have for us.

Some good points about the movie was that the actors were great, fun to watch and enjoyable. The story had plenty of action and decent graphical effects.
ID: 934667 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 934683 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 2:51:07 UTC - in response to Message 934667.  

Me I'll wait to see the movie with an open mind, But then It's a movie and It's meant to be mere entertainment, Not realism.


I saw it with an open mind as well, not knowing what to expect. Of course no movie is supposed to represent realism, that's why we watch them! To suspend our disbelief and become enthralled and entertained in the writer's story they have for us.

Some good points about the movie was that the actors were great, fun to watch and enjoyable. The story had plenty of action and decent graphical effects.

Of course, the exceptions to movies not representing reality is documentaries, which are indeed supposed to represent reality.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 934683 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : It's worse than that! He's dead, Jim.


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.