Star Trek 2009 Movie

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#1
I could have sworn there was a topic for this, but I couldn't find it, so here's a new one ....

I just saw the movie for the first time, and amazingly, I loved it. I'm a devout Star Trek original lover, but if you go in understanding that the 2009 movie is AU, it's fine ... and it's obvious from the opening scene that it's AU. They show you.

So, while I didn't like everything about the characters, I wasn't bothered by the differences, like Chekov's early arrival. In fact, some of them I really thought were cool, like the big reveal for Spock and Uhura.

The movie has my vote, and I thought Leonard Nimoy's portion was superb. It fits our reality, too, so again, thumbs up.

It also sets up all the sequels to come in a totally AU timeline and they can do just about anything without offending 'our' reality.

Stargate did it first. Star Trek is following.
 

BCF68

DTVUSA Member
#2
I hate that it. To accept it's premise means NOTHING in the original series or the movies ever happens. Well then WTF is the point? I was totally disappointed in the movie just based on that. They could have done an origin story without destroying the entire series.
 
#3
I really do not like the new Star Trek movie, but I do not really hate it either. My biggest issue with it is how it screws with the established timelines and events to create an alternate universe, which in itself would be fine if it was a one off thing, but I have this uncomfortable feeling that all future Star Trek films and any possible television series will follow it's example.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#4
They can't do any more original movies, guys. The actors are too old and frankly, I don't want to see Jesse McCartney (or whoever) as Tom Paris, or Rhianna as Uhura. I want Shatner, Spiner, Mulgrew ... etc. The day is done. It's not going to happen.

For Star Trek to live on, they have to go outside the world we know. The alternate universe works if you can let go of our universe. I realize not everyone can.

I remember Nimoy on ST:TNG when he stayed on Romulus. So it works. Unless I'm missing something with the timeline, it does work. He is sucked through the black hole and not just goes to another universe but back in time. I think it's a wonderful solution.

They still have to be true to the ones we know, but I can handle the differences, at least the ones in the 2009 movie.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#5
They can't do any more original movies, guys. The actors are too old and frankly, I don't want to see Jesse McCartney (or whoever) as Tom Paris, or Rhianna as Uhura. I want Shatner, Spiner, Mulgrew ... etc. The day is done. It's not going to happen.

For Star Trek to live on, they have to go outside the world we know. The alternate universe works if you can let go of our universe. I realize not everyone can.

I remember Nimoy on ST:TNG when he stayed on Romulus. So it works. Unless I'm missing something with the timeline, it does work. He is sucked through the black hole and not just goes to another universe but back in time. I think it's a wonderful solution.

They still have to be true to the ones we know, but I can handle the differences, at least the ones in the 2009 movie.
 

BCF68

DTVUSA Member
#6
They can't do any more original movies, guys. The actors are too old and frankly, I don't want to see Jesse McCartney (or whoever) as Tom Paris, or Rhianna as Uhura. I want Shatner, Spiner, Mulgrew ... etc. The day is done. It's not going to happen.

For Star Trek to live on, they have to go outside the world we know. The alternate universe works if you can let go of our universe. I realize not everyone can.

I remember Nimoy on ST:TNG when he stayed on Romulus. So it works. Unless I'm missing something with the timeline, it does work. He is sucked through the black hole and not just goes to another universe but back in time. I think it's a wonderful solution.

They still have to be true to the ones we know, but I can handle the differences, at least the ones in the 2009 movie.
No it sucks. If he went back in time everything changed therefor nothing in the original series the movies or in any other series happened with the exception of Enterprise. So if none of it happened then Star Trek never exists does it? So what is the point? It's stupid. That would almost be like James Cameron making Titanic but in his movie the ship doesn't sink. Or if you want to use something fictional it would be like re-making Gone with the Wind but at the end Rhett Butler stays with Scarlett. He doesn't, he leaves and you can't change that just to "modernize" it. I will definately not be seeing any more Star Trek movies as they are FAKE.
 
#7
They can't do any more original movies, guys. The actors are too old and frankly, I don't want to see Jesse McCartney (or whoever) as Tom Paris, or Rhianna as Uhura. I want Shatner, Spiner, Mulgrew ... etc. The day is done. It's not going to happen.
Wait a minute here, you WANT all of the original actors to play the roles that they pioneered, but yet you somehow liked a new Star Trek film filled with new actors filling established roles?

I don't know if i'm understanding this right, but it seems like you just contradicted yourself.

Also, there is another way to keep Star Trek going without the alternative history route. Why not just start a new television series or new movie series with entirely new characters, or at least a cast of MOSTLY new characters with a possible 1 or 2 holdovers from other series?

Wouldn't that make more sense than retreading the original Star Trek series with new actors, only in an alternate reality?

I am all for them creating a new Star Trek legacy, only if it's actually NEW and not just alternate reality versions of characters established long ago.
 
#9
I think I understand what BCF68 was trying to say, and I think I actually agree...at least to some extent anyway.

What I think he's trying to say is that the new Star Trek film cheapens the legacy of the original Star Trek and the other Star Trek series, since it means none of it ever happened due to the alternate reality element.

BCF68 seems to be a Star Trek fan(like the rest of us I assume), and just doesn't like what the new Star Trek film does to established series canon, much like I don't.

My biggest issue with the new Star Trek besides the alternate reality issues, is the fact that it is also a retread of the original Star Trek, only with different actors filling mainly the same roles, and why couldn't they just make a NEW Star Trek film with new characters, instead of crapping on the legacy of the original?
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#10
No it sucks. If he went back in time everything changed therefor nothing in the original series the movies or in any other series happened with the exception of Enterprise. So if none of it happened then Star Trek never exists does it? So what is the point? It's stupid. That would almost be like James Cameron making Titanic but in his movie the ship doesn't sink. Or if you want to use something fictional it would be like re-making Gone with the Wind but at the end Rhett Butler stays with Scarlett. He doesn't, he leaves and you can't change that just to "modernize" it. I will definately not be seeing any more Star Trek movies as they are FAKE.
It's a different reality. What Spoke does in the other universe doesn't affect our universe. They are two different things. I recommend a course in Stargate SG-1. lol They've covered this in depth. Maybe that's why it's so easy for me to get the difference.

It's not fake. It's a different universe. One universe does not affect the other, for the most part.

I love our ST, but there won't be any more of it, so it either dies and becomes yesteryear, or it evolves, and the other universe is a way to let it evolve. It doesn't cancel out our universe. This is another version of it.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#11
Wait a minute here, you WANT all of the original actors to play the roles that they pioneered, but yet you somehow liked a new Star Trek film filled with new actors filling established roles?

I don't know if i'm understanding this right, but it seems like you just contradicted yourself.

Also, there is another way to keep Star Trek going without the alternative history route. Why not just start a new television series or new movie series with entirely new characters, or at least a cast of MOSTLY new characters with a possible 1 or 2 holdovers from other series?

Wouldn't that make more sense than retreading the original Star Trek series with new actors, only in an alternate reality?

I am all for them creating a new Star Trek legacy, only if it's actually NEW and not just alternate reality versions of characters established long ago.
lol no. What I'm saying is that in an ideal world I wish we could have ST7 and ST8 and ST9 -- with Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock, and Kelley as Bones. I'd like to see ST-Voyager 1 with Mulgrew as Janeway et al. I'd like to see ST TNG 4 or whatever number they were up to -- with Frakes and Sirtis as the Rikers.

That's the ideal world. Unfortunately, time has passed. Decades have passed. We aren't going to see those characters anymore as played by those who made them great.

TOS folks are passing. We've lost a few. I don't really want half a movie, either.

What I am saying is that the ideal is no longer possible, so you have a choice. The dynasty dies. Gene Roddenberry's space ends with that last episode of Enterprise. It ends with Data blown to bits. It ends with Kirk dead and Spock on Romulus. It ends. That's it. No more,.

OR ... the dream carries on in an alternate universe where Jim Kirk can be young again and over years more of entertainment. A new Picard. A new Janeway. Ideal? Hardly, but if done right, it can be entertaining and move the dream on.

They can't pretend to be exactly the same, and the thing about alternate universes is that there are always differences. Alternate Kirk's dad died right after he was born. It shifted him a little. Alternate Spock accepts his humanity much earlier and embraces it; heck, he's in love.

If you are looking for mirror images of our reality, you'll be miserable. If, however, you are open to what can be fun about the differences, like Spock's humanity, then you can embrace this alternate universe and run with it.

That's what I'm saying. It's not ideal, but it works for an alternate reality, and as long as the powers that be don't do something that dramatically alters the basics of the character, then the alternate movies could last for decades.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#12
A couple more responses to different comments.

1) This isn't a retread. We've never seen this history before. How can it be a retread if it's new material? Also, it's new with not the same characters, not as we know them. There are a lot of differences that make the alternate universe characters unique.

2) In the past, one thing about the new series is that they sort of built on the other and there were little crossovers and such. I'm not sure if that's possible anymore. I don't know that the later series actors are as dedicated to their ST roles as the TOS folks were.

And what is the theme of the new series? We've been all over space. What's the new concept? We've been to the far reaches of our galaxy, to another quadrant, and all throughout a span of time. They've done it. I don't know that folks want another series. Enterprise's numbers weren't that good and a SCI FI series would take a lot of $$$$. We're in the wrong economy for that, and I don't think anyone would support a new movie that just is out there on its own. ST 2009 worked because of the familiarity with the characters.

3) I have to say it again, lol, and I realize it's old news, but seriously, watching SG-1 has helped prepared me for this. What happens in an AU does not affect canon at all because it's another universe. They are two completely separate things.

In fact, SG-1 of season 9 and 10 and the two movies are actually an AU. It is not even the original universe. That changed at the end of season 8 and it was even acknowledged by a line in the show.

Long live the fish! :}
 
Top