View Single Post
  #30  
Old 12-21-2009, 02:37 AM
Nate the Great's Avatar
Nate the Great Nate the Great is offline
You just activated his Trek card
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 4,870
Default

Did I say that Voyage Home had no scifi in it? NO! NO! NO!

I said that Voyage Home let up on the scifi. By which I mean the object wasn't simply "two ships fighting each other in space for reasons that seem questionable and unexplainable for any reason other than 'the script said so.'" It went beyond the plot device of "a Big Bad wants to take over the universe through superior firepower" that was used in II and III. Not that it's a bad plot device, but Voyage Home went BEYOND that. It was about the human condition as much as anything else, which is what Trek is theoretically ABOUT. There was a message behind it that spoke in terms that didn't require a Ph.D. in scifi to understand. Loyalty, environmentalism, humor, a desire to help others even at grave personal risk.

"This one does fit into film-based canon. As Roberto Orci observed, it is takes place chronologically in 2233 - 2258, but, causally speaking, it takes place after Star Trek Nemesis."

How does chronological placement have ANYTHING to do with fitting into film-based canon? At all? Giving a year only means that events happened within that year, not that said events fit into prior canon.

And by the way, "2233-2258" and "after Nemesis" are CONTRADICTORY. Yes, you're referring to time periods before and after a time travel, but if I'm going to be flamed for being an obsessive fanboy I demand the right to flame for grammatical inaccuracy.

Yes, I'm a minority of one. Everybody on the planet is a minority of one. Our opinions are what makes us individuals and not drones.

How does eliminating the time travel and saying "this movie is a reboot in another timeline" terminate the use of the original timeline in marketing, etc.? In this very thread people have pointed out that the original timeline is still used in novels and computer games. It's another continuity! What does an Iron Man movie have to do with an Iron Man animated series or an Iron Man comic line? NONE! Toys are sold for all three, adaptations are made of all three, all three COEXIST!

Had there been no time travel in Trek 11, there'd be no reason for us to think that the original timeline was destroyed. But the original timeline WAS present, and now it's GONE. There's a big difference between "the original timeline is elsewhere in the multiverse" and "we rewrote history in front of your very eyes."

I'm sorry, but when I see history rewritten in front of my eyes without being restored before the end of the movie, I get the crazy idea that the creators don't care about the old timeline. This is another reason why I didn't like Cinderella III.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate.
Zeke: It comes nateurally to him.

mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea.

Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity.

Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further.
Reply With Quote