Actually, I don't agree with that at all. Yes he is a great adversary but in the vast amount of TV and film Trek content, I think there are a half dozen characters that could be considered that.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Actually, I don't agree with that at all. Yes he is a great adversary but in the vast amount of TV and film Trek content, I think there are a half dozen characters that could be considered that.
I was shocked the first time around fans so easily threw canon to the wind. Blow up Vulcan? really? And everyone is cool with that?
Now it's just disappointment and confusion it persists as I see the product growing even farther from home, but just because something is well received by some doesn't mean I have to be silent. Nor do I avoid debate for my words.
My arguments are not without merit. I notice many fans who sort of guiltily give themselves
an out, along the lines of.... well it's not my idea of Trek but it was fun, entertaining, exciting, breaths new life, acting was good, etc. I think that says something in itself. You can find those common sentiments expressed by fans. They do sense something, that it's not quite Trek proper.
Zombie_61
Master Member
Equally good points, and I don't disagree with any of them. Regarding my previous post (the one you replied to), it's just that quite often I think about the way some fans have put the character of Khan on an unreachably high pedestal and can't help but wonder if they haven't mistaken Montalban's on-screen charisma and commanding performance in Wrath of Khan for a well-rounded, well-written character.
Mola Rob
Sr Member
I seriously don't agree with that. This is such an individual thing, don't try and put it in a Royal We wrapper. Canon wasn't thrown out, although I would have been perfectly fine with a 100% reboot and no inclusion of Spock Prime. How people cling to something so absurd as canon and timeline in a fictional story really strains credibility. That it can apparently ruin your entire experience with the franchise is beyond absurd.
Yeah. How dare anyone get invested in anything that makes them happy and showcases strong important stories that have helped shape Star Trek into the still relevant franchise that it is today. This attachment to a fictional series is so ludicrous, the next thing you know fans will be complaining about how the writers changed Kirk's name to Bob out of the blue and for no reason. So what if we change his name to Bob? Who cares? Do you care? I don't care.
(I care immensely)
Zombie_61
Master Member
Hey, now that's more like it! The "titles" and "credits" sequences are still too long though. :lol
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Well I wanted to keep those intact. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
Completely irrelevant rebuttals as usual. Nothing about my personal enjoyment of TOS is adversely effected by new Trek. I never suggested anything of the sort of what you try and ascribe to my comment. Saying I can enjoy old and new Yrek canyon has zero to do with changing character names. You're comment is without merit whatsoever. Nice try though. By the way, this is one of the reasons you get a lot of personal push back from other members in regards to your posts. Something to consider.
Last edited:
Zombie_61
Master Member
Okay, I'll give you that. But the "titles" should say just one thing--the name of the movie you're about to watch. Put the rest in the "credits" sequence where it belongs.
Edit: BTW, I feel this way about all movies, not just the one in Mola Rob's link above.
Last edited:
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Okay, I'll give you that. But the "titles" should say just one thing--the name of the movie you're about to watch. Put the rest in the "credits" sequence where it belongs.
Hmmmmm...good idea. I could cut out another minute or so. :thumbsup
When the canon defines so much of what Star Trek is, yeah it matters.
I do not recall Spock attempting to beat a man to death snapping arms, having to be called off like a rabid dog
and Federation warmongering admirals using massive battle starships with names like "Vengeance" killing federation
personell. Skull crushing? Multiple very violent beatings? Massacres? Assasinations?
What of Roddenberry's creation? Yes there were fights but it was more the old western brawl style.
Usually some explaination. Characters under influence of some outward force for instance.
Nemesis wasn't anything I cared for either. But I guess I didn't feel so betrayed for some reason.
Same actors, same characters, just a crappy movie that didn't have any Trek message to speak of.
Or I'm I just fool pointing these things out and I should just forget what Trek message has meant and
just roll with the uber-violent punches?
God, devil or sun help any aliens that don't pal up with the USS KickYerAss-prise in the JJ-Verse's five year mission.
No, the point is nothing about new Trek eradicates old. Choose to enjoy it or ignore it. If other fans want to embrace it, that's our prerogative and has no bearing on what came before. If you are trying to convince people your idea of Trek is what all Trek fans should embrace, or is correct, or that by embracing new we ignore the same ideals of old, that's douchy and arrogant.
Last edited:
Than shouldn't you have said "People who let a different canon and timeline affect their enjoyment of the original canon strains credibility"? Because when you say "How people cling to something so absurd as canon and timeline in a fictional story really strains credibility." implies that clinging to any issue involving canon is a bad thing. Kirk's name in canon is Kirk. But since clinging to canon strains our credibility, what's wrong with changing his name from Kirk to Bob?
Convenient ignoring the rest of my post. I tried to rech out and be friendly towards you but that ship has sailed. Canon is the general history of characters and history of a series of stories. Changing their history changes their canon. I don't consider Galaxy Quest Star Trek canon. You continue to badger without substance.
jlee562
Sr Member
That's the brilliant part though.
There's no way that ANYONE, let me say that again, ANYONE would have made a movie that would have pleased everyone, especially with a property like Star Trek.
A straight up-reboot would have run into the same complaints about "recycled characters." Moving it into an alternate universe avoids all that. That was the smartest thing that they could have done with the property.
Proper
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
