Star Trek 2009... I gave it another chance

[TheDoctor]

I completely agree...it's called 'SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF" ( see: Suspension of disbelief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

- an absolute necessity if you are going to enjoy fiction of any kind.
(If Sheldon Cooper can do it, so can you! :lol)

Your own Wikipedia reference betrayed you. Suspension of Disbelief still requires the writer to come up with something that's plausible enough to sound like the puzzle piece fits, even when it doesn't.

Which one invites the audience to suspend disbelief?

"A wizard used his wand to send Tim to Mars."

"Tim has invented a matter transporter which scans matter, breaks down matter into patterns of energy, transmits the energy through a quantum filament to the Martian Landscape. A device on Mars reconstructs Tim using a sub-micron filter to parse out any foreign isotopes that may have degraded Tim's signal."

 

[nickytea]

Which one invites the audience to suspend disbelief?

Which one will alienate 90% of the audience members?

 

[SSgt Burton]

Which one invites the audience to suspend disbelief?

And yet people are still able to watch and enjoy a film about a large man in a red suit using deer to make a sleigh fly around the World in one night.


Kevin

 

[TheDoctor]

Which one will alienate 90% of the audience members?

Given we're in a thread about Star Trek, I'd say the Magic Wand.

Star Trek audiences, even casual movie-going audiences, are expecting more than "abera cadabra" from a Star Trek movie - they're expecting to stimulated intellectually (at least somewhat).

Example: What was the big complaint about "Die Another Day"? It wasn't the outrageous plot, or the over-the-top acting, or even the embarrassingly cheesy dialog - that's all stuff people expect from a Bond movie. No, what really took audiences out of that "Suspension of Disbelief" mode was the Invisible Car. Even though Bond movies are famous for their gadgets, the Invisible Car took people over the edge of being able to sit back and loose themselves in the movie.

This is actually a VERY important point in a movie. If your audience can't loose themselves in the movie, they're not going to enjoy themselves.

 

[Mola Rob]

Kirk and Chekov are indeed closer in age in ST09 compared to the TOS- 8 years between them in ST09 as opposed to 12 years in the TOS but this isn't really a huge difference is it? It's not like they are the same age or even close.

However the film begins with the arrival of the Narada and the creation of the alternate timeline- so if Chekov was born a little early (only 4 years early mind you) his birth still took place in the alternate timeline.

I get what you're saying in that they are in an alternate reality "before" any of this happens (even before the Narada arrives in 2233), but I don't see how Chekov's age lends credence to this.

Kevin

Oh I don’t know maybe it’s just the silly premise that the Kelvin being destroyed causes Chekov to be born four years earlier yet he still winds up on the bridge of the Enterprise in the same exact position. I have to say the changes to the timeline were extremely convenient and most helpful to the story.

 

[jlee562]

Given we're in a thread about Star Trek, I'd say the Magic Wand.

Star Trek audiences, even casual movie-going audiences, are expecting more than "abera cadabra" from a Star Trek movie - they're expecting to stimulated intellectually (at least somewhat).

Example: What was the big complaint about "Die Another Day"? It wasn't the outrageous plot, or the over-the-top acting, or even the embarrassingly cheesy dialog - that's all stuff people expect from a Bond movie. No, what really took audiences out of that "Suspension of Disbelief" mode was the Invisible Car. Even though Bond movies are famous for their gadgets, the Invisible Car took people over the edge of being able to sit back and loose themselves in the movie.

This is actually a VERY important point in a movie. If your audience can't loose themselves in the movie, they're not going to enjoy themselves.

Well, that and Halle Barry.

 

[DARTH SABER]

No they didn't erase it, they just cast it aside. I want new stories in the prime universe. Anything else is like the Mirror universe, who cares?

Its only a mirror universe if you look at it from the prime universe.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Its only a mirror universe if you look at it from the prime universe.

And that makes it easier to just dismiss it and not care much for me, so I thank them for that.

 

[DARTH SABER]

And that makes it easier to just dismiss it and not care much for me, so I thank them for that.

Or you could look at the entire 40 years of star trek as a fictional universe that doesnt actually exist either. No sense in favoring the prime universe as being real, while dismissing the alternate universe...Especially when they are both the product of fiction created by paid writers.

 

[DARTH SABER]

I think the direction of travel was just done as a visual for the audience. The actual idea is to use the suns gravity along with the warp drive to excellerate to speeds high enough to travel through time... though the actual physics of that idea is spotty at best. But it is using fictional technology.

This is something I really dont get.
Someone will mention the black hole from the new film and say that going through the black hole would result in the ship's destruction rather than time travel. Immediately the black hole issue becomes a inexcusable problem to them .

However, when someone mentions the flaws regarding travelling around the sun, or the Guardian Gate, it is quickly excused by some simple fan-fic explanation.

Why is it that the flawed science in older Star Trek shows gets a free pass with fan-fic excuses, while the new film must adhere strictly to real science?

I can understand valid complaints with the new film but some of the issues Ive been hearing so far seem to indicate a certain amount of bias.


For what it's worth, in real science there is a theory regarding a Morris Thorne wormhole which theoretically may allow someone to pass through it....Of course this involves rotating black hole (with a ring singularity) and negative exotic matter.
Then there are simple traversable Lorentzian Wormholes which dont require exotic matter.
Regardess if these theories are possible or not, just the fact that it is a valid theory within the realm of real science makes it a perfect candidate for use in a science fiction story.

Ironically Einstein himself said that matter cannot travel faster than light....Which doesnt bode well for the slingshot around the sun method of timetravel.

 

[Jet Beetle]

Einstein actually said matter can't travel the speed of light without becoming energy itself.

The ripple effect did alot more than give Pavol a later birthday - it caused Admiral Archer to live to ripe old age of 170 - Scotty used his dog to test a transporter theory.

I love how the writers of the new film wound things down to the most simplistic of space phenomenon. What were we really dealing with here -

1. Super Novas - that burn faster than any other super novas - fast enough to wipe out an entire planet filled with people who have spaceships and could have evacuated
2. Black Holes - that eat all surrounding matter including light - but a good blast on the tailgate will knock you loose from being tossed through time.

Yep, that about does it when it comes to the science being thrown at you in JJ Trek

 

[CessnaDriver]

Or you could look at the entire 40 years of star trek as a fictional universe that doesnt actually exist either. No sense in favoring the prime universe as being real, while dismissing the alternate universe...Especially when they are both the product of fiction created by paid writers.

Roddenberry's TOS is the one I'll call prime everytime. It's far more engaging for me even after forty years.
It isn't even a contest. I don't recognize much Trek in the JJ-verse at all and there is nothing there that makes me think as TOS did, and still does.

But, it's a movie, not a series, not an attempt to entertain and make people think a little bit
too as TOS did when at it's best.

 

[darthgordon]

Well here's how I see it...

It's a wonderfully marketed movie geared toward a vast audience. The average person has an I.Q. of 100. Typical films are geared toward a younger audience. Your average person doesn't want something that's going to make them think. It makes them feel stupid (because... well... let's face it). Young people like young and sexy cast members (which is why these actors are closer in age than the TOS cast). They also seem to like rebellious jerks (check out Jersey Shore and the like) Both groups love action and FX (just look at every single blockbuster of the last 20 years).

So then there's the idea of doing a remake to capitalize on the fame of the original name, but without having to deal with the "kitschy stigma" of the original or way it's always associated with geeks. So you do a rapid redesign but make it vaguely familiar. But what about the fan base? The Star Trek fan base is still a big enough audience that you don't want to tick them off. So you create an alternate time line, figuring you'll only alienate an allowable percentage of the fan base, while retaining enough of it.

So, you have the young Hollywood "it" director (and is a big Star Wars fan... which is what Paramount always wanted out of Trek since '77) who's list of accomplishments are... I can't think of anything... Lost? Then you get the writers who gave us the stuff of legend and should be heralded with Shakespeare, Melville and Dickens (you know... the Transformers movies)

So what do you get? A shallow plot and characters, no moral, an extreme redesign, a young hot cast, lots of action and explosions and a big budget... and that's pretty much the formula for all blockbusters. People will eat it up faster than Snookie, Transformers, The Kardashians, American Idol and any other thing your average person likes.

It's brilliant, if you realize it isn't art, it isn't thought provoking, it isn't about characters or a message... it's a business. That's all the powers that be see. And that's all I saw in the movie.

So there. I gave some credit where credit is due.

I'm only glad that I did not pay in anyway to watch it (it was a friend's copy that he had already paid for... discounted).

 

[DARTH SABER]

Einstein actually said matter can't travel the speed of light without becoming energy itself.

Which still applies to my example, since the enterprise never became energy while travelling faster than light when slingshotting around the sun.

The ripple effect did alot more than give Pavol a later birthday - it caused Admiral Archer to live to ripe old age of 170 - Scotty used his dog to test a transporter theory.

That was more of an easter egg, than a factoid in the film...Besides, we already know that lifespans are much longer in the ST universe due to advanced medical science.
Besides, dont even know if it was the same Archer from the Enterprise series.

I love how the writers of the new film wound things down to the most simplistic of space phenomenon. What were we really dealing with here -

1. Super Novas - that burn faster than any other super novas - fast enough to wipe out an entire planet filled with people who have spaceships and could have evacuated

We dont know why they werent able to evacuate, so there's no point in assuming it would have been as simple as hopping in their ships an leaving.
likewise, Klingon's have pretty advanced technology, so they should have had some idea that their mining would have resulted in catastrophic effect on Praxis, but that didnt prevent it from being blown apart in Star Trek 6.

2. Black Holes - that eat all surrounding matter including light - but a good blast on the tailgate will knock you loose from being tossed through time.

Yes, its alos loosely and partially based on a real theory called the Penrose Process.
Warp cores also consist of Anti matter. If Antimatter is introduced to a black hole's event horizon it could theoretically have the opposite effect of matter (anti gravity) which would repel an object....However this effect remains unknown in real world science but still makes it a valid candidate for use in a science fiction.

 

[DARTH SABER]

Well here's how I see it...

It's a wonderfully marketed movie geared toward a vast audience. The average person has an I.Q. of 100. Typical films are geared toward a younger audience. Your average person doesn't want something that's going to make them think. It makes them feel stupid (because... well... let's face it). Young people like young and sexy cast members (which is why these actors are closer in age than the TOS cast).

Kind of ironic that TOS also employed scantly clad women in nearly every episode and the introduction a Chekov for the younger female audience (sex appeal), also involved hip modern production designs and themes geared towards the younger 60's generation as well.
Not to mention that the cast of the new film were pretty much the same age of Shatner and the rest of the cast when TOS first aired.

So what do you get? A shallow plot and characters, no moral, an extreme redesign, a young hot cast, lots of action and explosions and a big budget... and that's pretty much the formula for all blockbusters. People will eat it up faster than Snookie, Transformers, The Kardashians, American Idol and any other thing your average person likes.

It's brilliant, if you realize it isn't art, it isn't thought provoking, it isn't about characters or a message.

Apparently you didnt get the moral character message that involved Spock and Kirk's characters....Which Nimoy addressed at the end of the film.

More explosions and action is usually the result you get when a film makes a transition from TV to the big screen....More budget, more FX.
Or else whats the purpose of making that transition?

Ramped up effects also dont automatically translate to less character or moral messages....So proving there are more explosions or actions doesnt necessarily negate the moral message or characters.

it's a business. That's all the powers that be see.

That's how it's always been.
That's why TOS was cancelled after 3 seasons.
That's why TNG was created after TOS gained a huge money making fanbase after it went into sindication.
Thats why TNG was redisigned for the younger 80's generation.
And that's why no Trek films were made for over 10 years.

 

[Jeyl]

Apparently you didnt get the moral character message that involved Spock and Kirk's characters.

This was less friendship by development and more friendship by convenience since they wanted to fight an enemy they both wanted dead for personal reasons.

...Which Nimoy addressed at the end of the film.

Screw character growth, understanding and acceptance. Let the gleeful magical time traveler tell you how it will all turn out!.... He's quite the ecstatic happy fellow even after billions of his fellow Vulcans were murdered. This Spock sucks.

 

[Noeland]

Here we go again.

Kevin, I'm glad you gave the film another chance and found ways to enjoy it. It's not a bad little adventure movie all in all. But damn you for giving certain members another chance to post the same complaints all over again.

 

[Jeyl]

Here we go again.

Kevin, I'm glad you gave the film another chance and found ways to enjoy it. It's not a bad little adventure movie all in all. But damn you for giving certain members another chance to post the same complaints all over again.

Hey, quit being mean!

 

[CessnaDriver]

From what I can tell, nobody has any idea, even the crew why they are on board the JJ-prise.
Yeah, yeah... get in fights with bad guys and save the world or something. Resolve
some personal issues perhaps.

Space army guys sort of or something.

Federation Starships are not about that, though that gets in the way sure for drama.

TOS Kirk made damn sure why they were on board her.

TOS Kirk and JJ Kirk are two different people to me and I struggle to see any connection.
I know what the TOS E is about, I know why the name ENTERPRISE is written across that saucer, I know who Kirk is, I know where he stands and why he's out there and willing to risk his life if necessary for a cause grander then just self preservation.


JJ Kirk? JJ-Prise?

No idea. Daddy issues or fighting, or something. No clue.

The warp core of TOS Trek was ejected for me.

Is the sequal going to find it out there somewhere?

I"ll be open to that, but I am not delusional about JJ finding it.

 

[Noeland]

Hey, quit being mean!

Was I being mean? :lol

Hey, I enjoyed the 09 film, and I'm a fan of TOS and the movies. I love Trek. I think the new film fits it rather nicely with what's come before in it's own way.