Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:

ItisWritten wrote:I believe you are refering to Plato's Children

I believe you're both refering to Plato's Stepchildren.

Heh bitches!

Fixed it for 'ya Fist........

Thanks. I didn't want to appear rude.

Don't mess with a Trekkie, folks!

The only way that I would have liked this movie more would have been if it were completely about DS9.

There was nothing I didn't like about it. Ok-

Spoiler

time travel

bothered me at first, but I'm ok with it now because it opens up the possibility for more movies or (dare I say??) a new series.

I even liked the dude who played Chekov. Casting/acting, effects, editing, and story all did it for me. I even choked up a bit at the beginning. I plan on seeing it a few more times.

Even without the

Spoiler

time travel

there's still the opportunity for other films.

I think it's the idea of a new series that really gets me all hot and bothered. And with this "special thing" we can do another series with these characters but it can be fresh and new.

Also, the "special thing" also means that rabid fanboys (and girls like me) can't really do much bitching about continuity. I mean, I was really looking forward to picking it apart, but now I can't. Which is ok. I prefer being happy.

I'll grant you, it does remove all the BS "canon" gripes.

Still.

I think you want to pout about something and you've just chosen this to pout about

It's ok, I still <3 you.

You slay me Wadds......I just lose my ability to rant when we're posting in the same thread.



I <3 you too.

I've almost always hated, really f-ing hated, when that happens. It sounds like it could lead to something good, though, the way you're talking about it. Oh well, we'll have to wait and see.

Here's the best endorsement I can give.....

It's worth seeing. The "new" Enterprise looks really good. The effects are spectacular. The casting is good. The banter is good.

The story.......... You'll either love it or hate it.

Fist and Faith wrote:

ItisWritten wrote:I believe you are refering to Plato's Children

I believe you're both refering to Plato's Stepchildren.

Heh

that sounds right...
but there were other episodes, at least early in the run of the original series, weren't there?

*admitting I googled, since, as I said, I am terrible with titles and plot*

Spoiler

"Man Trap" - Uhura coming onto Spock and being frustrated by his unresponsiveness? "Charlie X" - Uhura in the mess hall being all flirty and teasing singing that song about him while he's smiling his half-grin? In fact, wasn't Spock the only guy she ever explicitly showed that kind of interest in TOS (apart from the salt vampire from "Man Trap when it took the form of a nonsexisting handsome black crew member who could speak Swahili). The only other time she showed interest in someone was the Scotty thing in Final Frontier, which was stupid because that one *really* came out of nowhere, they never showed any interest in each other in TOS. Sulu/Mirror Sulu had the hots for Uhura in TOS, but that was clearly one-sided. Sadly, they never developed their relationship, but there were always interesting moments - like in "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" when Spock mind-melds with Medusan ambassador Kollos (who had no knowledge of human bodies or language before) and Kollos/Spock starts smiling at everyone, addressing Kirk as his best friend, McCoy as another long acquaintance, and then turns to Uhura and recites Byron's "She Walks in Beauty" to her.

am I, and this poster I quoted, totally wrong?

I managed to peruse the thread without reading any of the spoilers.

I guess I'll go see the film.

Waddley wrote:Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

Heh. "Sure it was exciting but where were the heavy-handed messages, the stiff acting?"

But if I may reply to the joke with a serious answer (because I'm a dork): why can't we have it both ways? I can enjoy the serious, thoughtful side of Trek as well as the lighthearted and whimsical side (or "action-heavy" side).

Cail wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

ItisWritten wrote:I believe you are refering to Plato's Children

I believe you're both refering to Plato's Stepchildren.

Heh bitches!

Fixed it for 'ya Fist........

Uhhh, yeah. Well, you knew which one I was talking about! I haven't watched TOS in years, but something was pulling on my memory's shirttail for attention. I guess I should have dropped in an IIRC.

Menolly wrote:OK...so I cut and pasted so the spoiler wouldn't shop up when I posted. But it better be a darn good spoiler...

Oh yeah. You don't want to know that one. I hesitated posting it, hence the added warning.

matrixman wrote:But if I may reply to the joke with a serious answer (because I'm a dork): why can't we have it both ways? I can enjoy the serious, thoughtful side of Trek as well as the lighthearted and whimsical side (or "action-heavy" side).

The movie's pace is brisk, but there are thoughtful moments. They just aren't numerous, and pushed aside here in favor of eye-candy action and humor. Most of those moments are heavy with spoilers anyway.

Cail wrote:I'll grant you, it does remove all the BS "canon" gripes.

Still.

I totally get what you mean. They've used it so badly over the years that it's hard to grant a mulligan when they do it right.

I should add that I knew about the

Spoiler

time travel

going into this. So that could also explain why it didn't bother me.

Spoiler

Also, Lost is currently having a blast with this concept, so it's something I've been intrigued with lately. Come to think of it, Donaldson is doing it, too. So it seems to be the plot device of choice lately. I like that, but I can see how people could get tired of it.

But, as others have noted, this is the first time I've seen it used in this way, to completely erase what has come before. In every other example, changes to the timeline have been something to correct (Back to the Future, Theomach's ripple control, etc.) or something that would be impossible to alter (Eloise's position in Lost where you can't change your destiny--but Lost seems to be revising that position).

I'm curious to see if future movies alter this line of thinking, and how the canon "interacts" with what is new.

Yeah I think that will be interesting too. We will have a universe .....

Spoiler

without Vulcan

...............and foreknowledge of ..............

Spoiler

the supernova that will destroy the Romulans

Now if the Klingons find this out what would they do to prepare for such a power vacuum and what of their moon in a new continuum?

As someone might have said (or will say) "fascinating"!


Also a word on casting and characters. I always took Chekhov for regular light relief, making fun with his accent. This character fleshes his origins out as an extraordinary scientific prodigy which when you think of it he would have needed to be. The original cast of characters was a bit wooden in that its main aim was to flesh out the backdrop for Kirk and the Kirk and Spock interaction (ie, Spock was dramatic relief from Kirk 'interacting' with green skinned alien women). As the various series progressed the ability to write, the understanding and background knowledge of the audience, the very concepts of Sci-Fi, filming and editing have all allowed a richer and deeper tableaux that allows multiple character developments. I think we may have the beginnings of a much better appreciation of the rest of the cast who boldly go (or went).

Khaliban, now that they have dumped the book of canon overboard, you can submit your novel LIEUTENANT KEEGAN.

I liked the movie for the crew's personal interaction, and Chris Pine as Kirk finally looks attractive enough to have seduced all the women he's supposed to have. Most of the replacement actors morphed successfully into their originals. The way the Kirk-Spock relationship begins is a good idea. However, Leonard Nimoy is an incredibly hard act to follow. And please tell me, why does Spock look pink but bleed green?

The plot is where I have problems. In the places where the plot especially needs clarifying, those are the places where the screen is suddenly buried in a kaleidoscope. It is quite "actiony" in places -- but it would be better if we could see the sequence of action.

I too say that I like Insurrection better than this one, but that's not so bad because I like Insurrection. In my preference level, I rank it above ST The Motion Picture and well above Final Frontier, and Undiscovered Country drops out the bottom by comparison.

Malik23 wrote:I should add that I knew about the

Spoiler

time travel

going into this. So that could also explain why it didn't bother me.

Spoiler

Also, Lost is currently having a blast with this concept, so it's something I've been intrigued with lately. Come to think of it, Donaldson is doing it, too. So it seems to be the plot device of choice lately. I like that, but I can see how people could get tired of it.

But, as others have noted, this is the first time I've seen it used in this way, to completely erase what has come before. In every other example, changes to the timeline have been something to correct (Back to the Future, Theomach's ripple control, etc.) or something that would be impossible to alter (Eloise's position in Lost where you can't change your destiny--but Lost seems to be revising that position).

I'm curious to see if future movies alter this line of thinking, and how the canon "interacts" with what is new.

I knew too. They showed a scene during an episode of something I saw on TV last week. I was worried I was seeing too many bits, but that particular scene was from the opening sequence.

One could imagine whole TOS episodes playing out the same way (The Apple, Return of the Archons), but others

Spoiler

(Amok Time, Journey to Babel)

are virtually lost. Harvey Mudd would be an interesting character to revisit.