Hatrack River Forum: Star Trek (2008) scene spoiler...

This is topic Star Trek (2008) scene spoiler... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=051371

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

An out of the left field casting choice includes a scene spoiler for the upcoming film...

Cool. Star Trek II left me wanting to see that portion of Kirk's past.

Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :

Sounds like a neat scene and I too have been wanting to see that portion of the past. Glad to hear we will see it.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

What, we needed ANOTHER Kirk-and-Spock-really-had-a-History-before-the-Enterprise retcon? Pfaugh!

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

Well, rivka, it -is- Star Trek. The Franchise has never had a well-set continuity. The past has always been "Whatever the writers of this week's episode/this film decide it is."

Don't believe me?

Let's view examples.

Is saying Kirk and Spock's Academy years overlapped at some point any worse a retcon? [Smile]

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
Well, rivka, it -is- Star Trek. The Franchise has never had a well-set continuity. The past has always been "Whatever the writers of this week's episode/this film decide it is."

True. And it is one of the things that makes me absolutely HATE certain of the movies, not to mention Enterprise. [Razz]

(Although many of the classic "paradoxes" are relatively easy to explain away, like Kirk's middle initial.)

Anyway, the Kirk/Spock-prehistory thing shows up in some of the very worst fanfic. Bleargh.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

It turned up in all the TV series. When Dax's species was introduced in TNG, everyone was shocked that they were symbiotic. When Dax...uhm...itself was introduced in DS9, no one raised an eyebrow. People had known its species were symbiotic for ages. Huh?!? [Big Grin]

I prefer the only onscreen explanation we've ever been given that explains -all- the contradictions: The episode where Worf began shifting between alternate universe versions of himself. That's why Trek history is such a Rube Goldberg contraption! The shows shifting to another reality between episodes. [Wink]

Sticking just (and I do mean just) to the sparse onscreen info we have about Kirk and Spock's respective pre-TOS years, I think they have enough leeway to establish a meeting. But we'll see. It all depends on the context.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
(Although many of the classic "paradoxes" are relatively easy to explain away, like Kirk's middle initial.)

'Splain? I thought it was always Tiberius.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

In the second TOS pilot, it was given onscreen as James R. Kirk. [Wink]

But that's one of the more minor examples. The video clips seen above feature a mixture of glaring major and minor retcons, flubs, and inconsistencies.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
In the second TOS pilot, it was given onscreen as James R. Kirk.

Which simply means Gary wasn't as omnipotent as he claimed. No shocker there.

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

I still have zero interest in seeing this movie. That's all I have to say.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
]Which simply means Gary wasn't as omnipotent as he claimed. No shocker there.

(But then you -know- Kirk would have taunted Gary for not getting his name right. [Big Grin]

)

I'm more concerned with examples like what I gave: Dax's species. Nobody knows their secret at all in one series/Everyone's known it since the TOS era in the next. It doesn't help that it being a secret was a major plot point of the episode that introduced 'em.

In Star Trek, facts about history, races, and the past have always been highly malleable.

The writers just never took it as seriously as the fans. And they never will. Nothing wrong with that. If it makes for a better story, I say go ahead and change it. [Smile]

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
(But then you -know- Kirk would have taunted Gary for not getting his name right. )

Nah. No time -- he was busy dodging boulders. Did he ever even get a good look at the gravestone?

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
I still have zero interest in seeing this movie. That's all I have to say.

Posting just to let me know you have no interest in the subject of my post? Well, thanks. I guess. [Wink]

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
[QUOTE]Nah. No time -- he was busy dodging boulders. Did he ever even get a good look at the gravestone?

I can guarantee you none of these details even registered on the writers. They just changed things when it suited them for whatever new story they were writing.

And (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) I see nothing wrong with that. Let them write the story they want to tell. Star Trek continuity has always been rather shoddily put together.

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

I wasn't letting you know. It was a public service announcement. [Razz]

And anyway, I don't see why a thread about an upcoming movie should be limited to those who want to see it.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
I can guarantee you none of these details even registered on the writers.

Writers?

Oh, you mean the biographers. Well, yeah, a little poetic license is ok, I guess.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
And anyway, I don't see why a thread about an upcoming movie should be limited to those who want to see it.

Remarking that I found your post just to say you have no interest in the thread kind of odd isn't the same thing as saying you shouldn't make such a post. [Smile]

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Writers?

Oh, you mean the biographers. Well, yeah, a little poetic license is ok, I guess.

Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :

I think JJ Abrams directing will make it much better than it might have been.

Also Tyler Perry will be in this movie. This will be his first role outside of his own stuff. I think he plays the head of Starfleet Academy.

Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
It turned up in all the TV series. When Dax's species was introduced in TNG, everyone was shocked that they were symbiotic. When Dax...uhm...itself was introduced in DS9, no one raised an eyebrow. People had known its species were symbiotic for ages. Huh?!?

That's nothing. If I recall correctly, that episode of TNG also established that Trills with symbiotes couldn't use transporters whereas Dax transports all the time in DS9. The symbiote was also implanted in Riker for a time, even though in DS9 it's made clear that only Trills can be hosts.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

I haven't even touched two of the biggies:

1. Klingons going from a culture of lying, cheating, stealing, always-angry jerks with only the occasional vague modicum of decency to a misunderstood warrior culture where honor, courage, and integrity are everything.

(Though I understand Enterprise -tried- to address this at some point)

2. Zefram Cohrane. His history is a convoluted mess, even by Star Trek standards, thanks to a certain movie. [Smile]