Only if Picard bought the Dune Buggy with GPL from some shady Ferengi, to do bad product placement :P ... not sure what "mind r4pe" done by some Remans, has to do with anything from Picards & the Federation message ...
A kid (who will one day be known for being a maverick) stealing a car (and in an alt reality, eventually steals a starship) to take it out for a joyride makes more sense than prude, by-the-books Picard suddenly having a post mid-life crisis with a dune buggy which is not only poorly armored, but just happens to have a gun that points in the direction of anyone who's eventually going to chase it.
As for the Troi scene - totally a W.T.F. moment. The only message I got from that was that Kid Picard was into cougars...or maybe secretly likes Troi? I mean really, what was the point except to set it up for the fight at the end in a pretty nasty and unpleasant way?
I'm not saying these things were good, but at least they didn't r4pe anything the Federation stands for ...
Spare me the verbal drama. Using that word (as people do these days) so frivolously when talking about gaming and (like in this case) referring to opinions of forms entertainment is far more detrimental than any changes made in the reboot.
Gene's ST Future was something to look forward too (while it will never happen) ... JJ's stuff is just depressing ... I guess i would just kill myself in that timelime :P (totally makes sense Kirk being some drunk slob there, though)
Riiight, because Picard crying over his deep fried brother and nephew + him being the last in his family, Kirk dying s stupid death for a stupid plot, Picard going all Rambo + murdering a crewman, and the entire Nemesis movie were TOTALLY uplifting moments in Star Trek history.
And this is exactly what Kirk tries to fix in Into Darkness, and why I feel they made a point in destroying Section 31 so we never hear of that abomination and insult to Gene's legacy ever again.
Nothing was ever said about Section 31 being destroyed. I doubt the handful of crew onboard the Vengeance included every single member. I'm pretty sure there's still a shipyard out there with a bunch of engineers and personnel.
Just as REman mindr4pe didn't apply to the Federation, the Nerada's path of destruction had nothing to do with the Federation either. But it sure as hell scared them into thinking more militaristic. And for this, the Fleet Admiral is portrayed as the villain, and Kirk announces that even though war with the Klingons may be inevitable (remember, that war was still in TOS), it does not mean we should abandon our ideals. Personally, I think the message of Into Darkness is a return to ideals.
Really? I thought the Admiral was portrayed as villain by virtue of being completely insane and enslaving 20th century supermen to build weapons of mass destruction to launch unprovoked wars of aggression against neighboring powers and trying to murder his own people to cover it up. But that's just me.
Now, I know you're going to point out all the shooting and stuff in Into Darkness, but as with any movie (including original Star Trek) its a means to an end, and whats important is the message at the end. The audience clearly sees the military-focused Starfleet is bad, which is why we accept Kirk's "return to ideals" speech at the end. It is in pure Star Trek form, telling a relevant message, in the guise of a sci-fi/action/adventure. Personally (considering what Berman did to DS9, VOY and ENT) I think Gene would be proud of Into Darkness.
I think you're stretching a bit to insert a lot more meaning than there was in the movie. All it really had was a ham-handed attempt to insert a poorly done War on Terror allegory into the movie, culminating in that tasteful recreation of 9/11 near the end, when it wasn't busy trying to rip off the Wrath of Khan.
By saying that the time line hasn't been erased, and that the New Trek is an alternative timeline and the old timeline is intact misses the point.
With this new alternative timeline, years of history are now irrelevant, and no new stories that incorporate that history are anticipated, which basically has erased that timeline.
No, you are missing the point. That timeline - which BTW has been branching off in several directions since TOS - still exists. It has to in order for "Prime" Spock to exist. NOTHING is erased. Nothing ever is. EVER. Otherwise, everything would just repeat itself and remain in a loop.
:rolleyes:
What made Star Trek special and set it apart from other space media, was that it was first a drama/story that happened to be set in the future in space travel. The back stories of the characters and their relationships gave the viewer a reason to be invested in these characters.
If you really have been a fan since TOS, then you'd know that the vast majority of TOS is about action. That's exactly what the movies are based on. And you'll find that the majority of fan favorite episodes and films are about....action. TNG is what made it more than that, not TOS.
While many people like this reboot, the fact remains that there are many who believe that Abrams has fixed something that wasn't broken, and fixing something that is not broken can shorten its lifespan.
Last I checked, his Trek movies have enjoyed quite a bit of success. That means there will be additional funds set aside for future Trek productions.
Like it or not, Star Trek is a product, and if no one is buying a product, production stops.
Nemesis and Enterprise TANKED. They failed, and their failure resulted in an END to Trek productions for quite a few years. Why? Because "many people" didn't like the product. In other words, no one in Hollywood was interested in investing in something which generated dismal returns from us, i.e. the "many people" you speak of.
The 2 new films are successful.
The prior 2 films and last series - not so much.
Now, what were you saying about something not being broken?
By saying that the time line hasn't been erased, and that the New Trek is an alternative timeline and the old timeline is intact misses the point.
With this new alternative timeline, years of history are now irrelevant, and no new stories that incorporate that history are anticipated, which basically has erased that timeline.
What made Star Trek special and set it apart from other space media, was that it was first a drama/story that happened to be set in the future in space travel. The back stories of the characters and their relationships gave the viewer a reason to be invested in these characters.
While many people like this reboot, the fact remains that there are many who believe that Abrams has fixed something that wasn't broken, and fixing something that is not broken can shorten its lifespan.
Um, were all playing a game that continues the 'Prime Timeline' stories of Star Trek; and CBS has printed STO fiction in their own Star Trek magazine. So, the idea that the 'history is irrelevant' and that 'no new stories that incorporate that history are anticipated' is specious at best (unless you feel only stories made for TV broadcast or feature film release are 'valid' (and if that's the case you're missing out on some very well written novels - and some very poorly written ones as well. )
But my point? There are still stories being written using the history and characters from the 'original' Starv Trek time line.
As to your second point about 'fixing something that isn't broken - come on. The facts are:
Star Trek: Nemesis was the worst performing Star Trek franchise film at the box office to date. It was beaten by the Jennifer Lopez film "Maid in Manhattan" in opening weekend gross.
On the TV front - 'Enterprise' continued the Nielson rating spiral downward that had been occurring with EVERY Star Trek series post TNG. With 700+ hours of Star Trek episodes produced over 18 TV seasons from TNG to ENT; overall the general viewing public got tired of Star Trek (it happens - and it wasn't 'the bad writing' per se as let's be honest, probably the worst written Star Trek is probably TNG season 1; but WHY did TNG catch on? Because the TV audience hadn't seen a new live action TV episode of Star Trek in 18 years (1969-1987).
TNG was given a chance by the audience because it was a 'new take' (at that time) on an old favorite (and Star Trek fans in 1987 weren't all behind or pleased with the then new direction either -- kind of a familiar pattern here, no?)
Anyway, the fact is 'modern' Star Trek (1987-2005) was no longer pulling in viewers (be it TV of film) to justify the cost of producing new material. Then JJ Abrams came along with a pitch to yet again re-invent the old favorite; the studio was swayed enough to believe it might work and generate a new audience (and profit - which was the MAIN motivation for GR and Desilu/Paramount to start the ball rolling even back in 1966); and the made a film in 2009 that bought in $385 million worldwide; and a sequel that to date has brought in $415 million worldwide (compared to Nemesis which took in $67 million worldwide)
^^^
Even adjusting for inflation, there's little doubt that the Star Trek franchise 'needed fixing' from a profitability standpoint; and further, little doubt that JJ Abram's idea worked in that regard, and (even accounting for inflation with previous Star Trek films); Star Trek: Into Darkness will end up being the most profitable Star Trek film released to date (beating Star Trek: TMP after adjusting for inflation).
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
If you say so. I found enough enjoyment in the 2009 Star Trek to purchase it on DVD several months after the "hit for a month" period ended. And I can also guarantee I will spend my hard earned money on Into Darkness too. I submit Into Darkness is a summer blockbuster in the same way Dark Knight was. Fit that bill to a T, but had something deeper to it that gave it life far beyond that (and no, I am not talking about the whole Heath Ledger thing).
What I don't get is.... why you said "No" specifically at "Its a reboot, get over it". Because it is, by very definition, a reboot. And besides, how was Wrath of Khan not a summer blockbuster? Or First Contact?
star trek is not mint to be a fraking movie its mint to be a TV SHOW!!!!!!! I take any 7 year running show over JJ TRIBBLE any day
they may have helped get TNG on the air but they did not help get DS9 and VOY
and one could say TNG help make the last kirk movie because im sure god needs a ship didnt help
As bad as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was (and it was BAD) - it still made MORE money at the box office than TNG's final outing Star Trek: Nemesis (which came in second place it's opening weekend -- it was beat by "Maid in Manhattan")
So, if you're trying to claim TNG did better box office business then the previous TOS themed films, history says different.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
If by pasting those figures you're trying to say Nemesis made more than TFF, you don't understand the time value of money. $63 Million in 1989 is worth over $90 Million in 2002 dollars.
*sigh* oh boy.... people see a movie once and think they got the whole thing down, I think, being too busy with their own impressions to even catch obvious lines of dialog and scenes, much less adequately analyze it
Nothing was ever said about Section 31 being destroyed. I doubt the handful of crew onboard the Vengeance included every single member. I'm pretty sure there's still a shipyard out there with a bunch of engineers and personnel.
Admiral Marcus explained it quite literally that the underground facility that was blown up was Section 31. Whether that's all of them or not, who cares? the IMPLICATION is that the facility, and the Vengeance, are gone, therefore GONE. Please tell me you aren't trying to defend Section 31
Really? I thought the Admiral was portrayed as villain by virtue of being completely insane and enslaving 20th century supermen to build weapons of mass destruction to launch unprovoked wars of aggression against neighboring powers and trying to murder his own people to cover it up. But that's just me.
And why did he use the leader of those former terrorists? As a means to increase Starfleet's Power and make it a more military organization, and to provoke a war that he wanted. Generally I try not to spell out every little thing, because I like to assume people are able to connect the dots themselves.... but I guess I expected too much. Gene would be disappointed
I think you're stretching a bit to insert a lot more meaning than there was in the movie. All it really had was a ham-handed attempt to insert a poorly done War on Terror allegory into the movie, culminating in that tasteful recreation of 9/11 near the end, when it wasn't busy trying to rip off the Wrath of Khan. You call it a rip off, I call it a nod. There is literally NOTHING that links ID to tWoK except Khan happening to be IN it, the mention of Carol Marcus (fans have been wanting that backstory ever since tWoK) and the switched reactor scene.
Where was the Reliant and her crew? Where was Project Genesis? Where was the nebula battle, Khan's anger over the death of his wife, Seti Alpha 5, the list goes on and on and on. And besides... how is it considered a rip-off when its already a part of that same franchise? Is Star Trek not allowed to mention previous episodes or films? Seriously?
While many people like this reboot, the fact remains that there are many who believe that Abrams has fixed something that wasn't broken, and fixing something that is not broken can shorten its lifespan.
What exactly was left of Star Trek before the 2009 movie? Enterprise was cancelled four years earlier, and was seen as a total failure (by both critics and fans). Bethesda had failed with Star Trek Legacy (at least the PC version). And the last film (Star Trek Nemesis) was seen as a nail in the coffin of the TNG cast.
... there was nothing of Star Trek left, except for fan productions (which continue, in fact gain even more fanfare SINCE the new movie). The Franchise was on the verge of death, as Paramount would likely have phased it out, had JJ not proposed the idea of a new film (which you will notice, is not a sole-Paramount production).
Bottom line, we get some new films... and people go off in an uproar, as if they shouldn't have been made at all, thus giving Star Trek absolutely NO presence, except for STO. And even that, I don't think, would have any Paramount support (like they actually SUPPORT it) if it weren't for the 2009 film.
And the reboot films are FUN. That's something that has been missing in Star Trek for a LONG LONG time. Is THAT what people hate so much?
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
You're using arguably the worst Star Trek films (from fan-perspective) as your evidence that the movies don't make that much money? Lets not forget, Nemesis went up against probably the biggest blockbusters of the year.
Post the numbers of Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact; and then include revenue gained by TNG Series viewership, THEN we can qualify your statement.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
If by pasting those figures you're trying to say Nemesis made more than TFF, you don't understand the time value of money. $63 Million in 1989 is worth over $90 Million in 2002 dollars.
You're using arguably the worst Star Trek films (from fan-perspective) as your evidence that the movies don't make that much money? Lets not forget, Nemesis went up against probably the biggest blockbusters of the year.
Post the numbers of Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact; and then include revenue gained by TNG Series viewership, THEN we can qualify your statement.
would not matter now as gfreeman98 pointed out
and just for the record I don't like Nemesis that movie shows what happens when fans get a hold of the ip
deleted thought they were in a book before that movie
While many movies are made off books, Star Trek has never had any published literary works that they made their movies after. And Lord knows Paramount wouldn't want to credit a fan, if they didn't absolutely HAVE to.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
Admiral Marcus explained it quite literally that the underground facility that was blown up was Section 31. Whether that's all of them or not, who cares? the IMPLICATION is that the facility, and the Vengeance, are gone, therefore GONE. Please tell me you aren't trying to defend Section 31
One Section 31 facility was destroyed and their secret doomship got popped, that is not the same thing as being wiped out. I highly doubt Section 31 consists entirely of 10 guys in one room on Earth.
And why did he use the leader of those former terrorists? As a means to increase Starfleet's Power and make it a more military organization, and to provoke a war that he wanted. Generally I try not to spell out every little thing, because I like to assume people are able to connect the dots themselves.... but I guess I expected too much. Gene would be disappointed.
Except that, ya know, he didn't. All the secrets he got from those 'former terrorists' as far as we can tell were dumped solely into the Vengeance. And hint: Starfleet is in fact a military organization responsible for the defense of the Federation, even in TOS which was entirely Gene's baby the Enterprise fought the enemies of the Federation.
So we still have one rogue Admiral using enslaved technicians to launch wars that he wants. None of that equates to "He's evil because he likes the military.". Or are you suggesting that all military personnel are murdering war-mongers?
You call it a rip off, I call it a nod. There is literally NOTHING that links ID to tWoK except Khan happening to be IN it, the mention of Carol Marcus (fans have been wanting that backstory ever since tWoK) and the switched reactor scene.
Where was the Reliant and her crew? Where was Project Genesis? Where was the nebula battle, Khan's anger over the death of his wife, Seti Alpha 5, the list goes on and on and on. And besides... how is it considered a rip-off when its already a part of that same franchise? Is Star Trek not allowed to mention previous episodes or films? Seriously?
:rolleyes: They lifted entire lines of dialogue and whole set pieces from TWOK, are you seriously trying to claim that because it wasn't a scene by scene remake it doesn't count?
What are you talking about? The fans had absolutely no say in Nemesis, and the director had never seen Star Trek before then.
John Logan, the guy who wrote Nemesis, is a fanboy. So we got Special Forces Commando Picard, a 'Romulan' movie where the Romulans were irrelevant, and a really terrible attempt to turn TNG into an action franchise, which nobody bought into.
John Logan, the guy who wrote Nemesis, is a fanboy. So we got Special Forces Commando Picard, a 'Romulan' movie where the Romulans were irrelevant, and a really terrible attempt to turn TNG into an action franchise, which nobody bought into.
also how we got Remans that had never been herd of on tv before
When writer John Logan came up with the idea of featuring Remans as the villains of the 2002 film Star Trek Nemesis, he first had to explain to a perplexed Rick Berman and Brent Spiner exactly who the Remans were, that alien race never having been established in canon Star Trek before. Berman and Spiner eventually approved of Logan's idea, giving him the go-ahead to write the species into the upcoming movie. Logan later explained, "Brent and Rick agreed it would be fun to explore the Remans and their relation to the Romulans." (Star Trek Nemesis (novel), pp. xviii & xix)
also how we got Remans that had never been herd of on tv before
When writer John Logan came up with the idea of featuring Remans as the villains of the 2002 film Star Trek Nemesis, he first had to explain to a perplexed Rick Berman and Brent Spiner exactly who the Remans were, that alien race never having been established in canon Star Trek before. Berman and Spiner eventually approved of Logan's idea, giving him the go-ahead to write the species into the upcoming movie. Logan later explained, "Brent and Rick agreed it would be fun to explore the Remans and their relation to the Romulans." (Star Trek Nemesis (novel), pp. xviii & xix)
Now I'm not defending the Remans here... you either like them or you don't. That's personal opinion and either is fine.
But I don't see anything wrong with introducing new elements to a franchise. I actually think it's a necessary part of keeping a franchise fresh. Remans weren't mentioned before, sure, but their existence fit just fine within the continuity. It didn't betray the continuity. Just because they weren't mentioned before isn't really a justification for hating them. Now, if you hate them just because you thought they were stupid, that's fine.
As far as I know, Praxis had never been mentioned before ST 6. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Or Rura Penthe. Carol Marcus had never been mentioned before ST2, even though she was clearly a very big part of Kirk's life and even gave him a son.
Now I'm not defending the Remans here... you either like them or you don't. That's personal opinion and either is fine.
But I don't see anything wrong with introducing new elements to a franchise. I actually think it's a necessary part of keeping a franchise fresh. Remans weren't mentioned before, sure, but their existence fit just fine within the continuity. It didn't betray the continuity. Just because they weren't mentioned before isn't really a justification for hating them. Now, if you hate them just because you thought they were stupid, that's fine.
As far as I know, Praxis had never been mentioned before ST 6. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Or Rura Penthe. Carol Marcus had never been mentioned before ST2, even though she was clearly a very big part of Kirk's life and even gave him a son.
because they are never talked about hinted at in all TV show its like poof they came out of the air and I think a slave race would be herd of out what 24 years of tv don't ya think they would have been used in the romulan earth war? or herd of that species was wrote into cannon
Praxis = was a Klingon moon which acted as the Klingon Empire's key energy-production facility. not a moon in orbit around Q'onoS
Rura Penthe = was a penal colony asteroid utilized by the Klingon Empire
Carol Marcus all im going to say do you think time stop when it was not on the big screen or tv? and the son bit did you forget he did not know of him till that movie?
One Section 31 facility was destroyed and their secret doomship got popped, that is not the same thing as being wiped out. I highly doubt Section 31 consists entirely of 10 guys in one room on Earth.
And what if the following movie states that Section 31 is destroyed, never to be seen again? Or what if it is simply never mentioned again, as the intention was to have it destroyed here? What then?
I hate the very idea of Section 31, and find its very existence is an insult to everything Gene Roddenberry stood for. And in my heart, I feel destroying it in this movie (facility or whatever) was less using it and more illustrating that this retconned abomination is destroyed before it grows into what we hate about DS9
And hint: Starfleet is in fact a military organization responsible for the defense of the Federation, even in TOS which was entirely Gene's baby the Enterprise fought the enemies of the Federation.
So we still have one rogue Admiral using enslaved technicians to launch wars that he wants. None of that equates to "He's evil because he likes the military.". Or are you suggesting that all military personnel are murdering war-mongers?
Starfleet's primary focus is exploration. If we happened to find hostile aliens in space, where do you think weapons would be mounted first? On a NASA spacecraft, even though NASA is not a "military organization"
And in TNG they fixed this, Picard himself stating "Starfleet is not a military organization" - (Peak Performance (TNG)), even though they've used phasers and photon torpedoes. Just because you use military rank structure, doesn't mean your sole purpose is combat.
What I see is the intention and meaning behind the story, not the little details everyone insists on picking apart.
:rolleyes: They lifted entire lines of dialogue and whole set pieces from TWOK, are you seriously trying to claim that because it wasn't a scene by scene remake it doesn't count?
Whole set pieces? .... where? You mean that tiny glass door, which bears NO resemblance to the giant plexiglass box in the corner of tWoK's Engineering set? We got the Bridge... yeah, the Bridge, ooh what a rip off. Engineering looks NOTHING like... well ANY Trek film, and in this case it actually should. There's a corridor.
I don't see Regula 1 anywhere... I don't see the Genesis Cave anywhere... I don't see Shatner-Kirk's quarters anywhere.... aside from ship interiors, there WERE no other set pieces in Wrath of Khan. What, is Star Trek not allowed to have an Engineering and a Bridge anymore?
And dialog... there was the death scene, which again was a nod, not a ripoff (and again, how can a series ripoff itself?) ... quote me a single "lifted line" that wasn't in that single scene, cuz I literally can't think of any.
Honestly, I see someone desperately trying to nitpick something to death out of nothing but pure bias.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
because they are never talked about hinted at in all TV show its like poof they came out of the air and I think a slave race would be herd of out what 24 years of tv don't ya think they would have been used in the romulan earth war? or herd of that species was wrote into cannon
Praxis = was a Klingon moon which acted as the Klingon Empire's key energy-production facility. not a moon in orbit around Q'onoS
Rura Penthe = was a penal colony asteroid utilized by the Klingon Empire
Carol Marcus all im going to say do you think time stop when it was not on the big screen or tv?
As a slave race, its kinda obvious the Romulans wouldn't be all like "ooh look, here they are", and how often has a Federation ship been to Romulus? You cannot build a continuing show out of just using what has been named in the past, or you will dead-end it pretty damned quick.
And as far as we know, the Remans didn't really exist during the Earth-Romulan War. Furthermore, direct quote from Spock here "space vessels which allowed no captives, nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communications. Therefore, no Human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other". So, there could have been Remans on those ships, for all we know. Or Remans were limited to the mines, never to be seen. The point is, there are MANY ways to hide a species that just simply was never thought of at the time. Thats what retcon is for, and it is not always bad, sometimes it works.
As for Praxis, I think the dialog on Undiscovered Country made it pretty clear that Praxis was near the Klingon Homeworld, otherwise why would its environment have been affected so harshly?
And what about Carol Marcus? I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
because they are never talked about hinted at in all TV show its like poof they came out of the air and I think a slave race would be herd of out what 24 years of tv don't ya think they would have been used in the romulan earth war? or herd of that species was wrote into cannon
Praxis = was a Klingon moon which acted as the Klingon Empire's key energy-production facility. not a moon in orbit around Q'onoS
Rura Penthe = was a penal colony asteroid utilized by the Klingon Empire
Carol Marcus all im going to say do you think time stop when it was not on the big screen or tv? and the son bit did you forget he did not know of him till that movie?
This post confuses me a bit. Your tone suggests you're arguing against my point, but your points seem to agree with me.
Everybody on the Enterprise knew what Rura Penthe was. They all were well acquainted with it, and were horrified that Kirk had been sent there. Yet in 4 decades of Star Trek, nobody had ever mentioned it on an episode ever, even when dealing with the Klingon justice system.
And Carol Marcus was Kirk's big love. She was the one that got away. This is established clearly in the elevator scene with McCoy, yet through all of Kirk's adventures, not once did he or anybody else mention the woman who gave him a son. Nor did they mention he even had a son. I think it's much stranger that Kirk would have never mentioned his son.
Thing is, I agree with your point that time doesn't stop when it's not on the screen. I'm just saying the Remans were no more continuity breaking than Carol or Rura Penthe.
Again, if you just don't like them, that's fine. But the fact that they were never mentioned before isn't anything new on Star Trek. They're constantly introducing elements that you'd think would've been mentioned before.
And Carol Marcus was Kirk's big love. She was the one that got away. This is established clearly in the elevator scene with McCoy, yet through all of Kirk's adventures, not once did he or anybody else mention the woman who gave him a son. Nor did they mention he even had a son. I think it's much stranger that Kirk would have never mentioned his son.
not every one is a open book and talks about all the ones who got away or talks about their first love that got away
again kirk did not know he had a son till he met him face to face........
not every one is a open book and talks about all the ones who got away or talks about their first love that got away
again kirk did not know he had a son till he met him face to face........
Not true. It's clearly established in Wrath of Khan that he knew about his son all along. As soon as David left the room, Kirk said to Carol: "Well, I did what you asked. I stayed away."
Then they talked about why Carol hadn't told their son. So Kirk absolutely knew he had a son.
So you'll defend the show never mentioning Kirk's love or his son by saying he doesn't talk about it, but you find it intolerable that one of the most secretive aliens in the galaxy didn't advertise their slave race?
Not true. It's clearly established in Wrath of Khan that he knew about his son all along. As soon as David left the room, Kirk said to Carol: "Well, I did what you asked. I stayed away."
Then they talked about why Carol hadn't told their son. So Kirk absolutely knew he had a son.
So you'll defend the show never mentioning Kirk's love or his son by saying he doesn't talk about it, but you find it intolerable that one of the most secretive aliens in the galaxy didn't advertise their slave race?
I just don't agree with your reasoning there.
its one thing not to talk about you loves of your life that got away and the son you have been told to stay away from its another to pull a species like remans out the air
but if ppl are ok with it no wonder star trek is dying
its one thing not to talk about you loves of your life that got away and the son you have been told to stay away from its another to pull a species like remans out the air
but if ppl are ok with it no wonder star trek is dying
Star Trek is the most popular it's been in decades. It's gaining fans of the originals on Netflix, it has two successful movies, a successful MMO, and two very popular campaigns going on to get two different shows picked up by Netflix. There are far more Star Trek fans today than there were 10 years ago.
Comments
As for the Troi scene - totally a W.T.F. moment. The only message I got from that was that Kid Picard was into cougars...or maybe secretly likes Troi? I mean really, what was the point except to set it up for the fight at the end in a pretty nasty and unpleasant way?
Spare me the verbal drama. Using that word (as people do these days) so frivolously when talking about gaming and (like in this case) referring to opinions of forms entertainment is far more detrimental than any changes made in the reboot.
Riiight, because Picard crying over his deep fried brother and nephew + him being the last in his family, Kirk dying s stupid death for a stupid plot, Picard going all Rambo + murdering a crewman, and the entire Nemesis movie were TOTALLY uplifting moments in Star Trek history.
:rolleyes:
Nothing was ever said about Section 31 being destroyed. I doubt the handful of crew onboard the Vengeance included every single member. I'm pretty sure there's still a shipyard out there with a bunch of engineers and personnel.
Really? I thought the Admiral was portrayed as villain by virtue of being completely insane and enslaving 20th century supermen to build weapons of mass destruction to launch unprovoked wars of aggression against neighboring powers and trying to murder his own people to cover it up. But that's just me.
I think you're stretching a bit to insert a lot more meaning than there was in the movie. All it really had was a ham-handed attempt to insert a poorly done War on Terror allegory into the movie, culminating in that tasteful recreation of 9/11 near the end, when it wasn't busy trying to rip off the Wrath of Khan.
:rolleyes:
If you really have been a fan since TOS, then you'd know that the vast majority of TOS is about action. That's exactly what the movies are based on. And you'll find that the majority of fan favorite episodes and films are about....action. TNG is what made it more than that, not TOS.
Last I checked, his Trek movies have enjoyed quite a bit of success. That means there will be additional funds set aside for future Trek productions.
Like it or not, Star Trek is a product, and if no one is buying a product, production stops.
Nemesis and Enterprise TANKED. They failed, and their failure resulted in an END to Trek productions for quite a few years. Why? Because "many people" didn't like the product. In other words, no one in Hollywood was interested in investing in something which generated dismal returns from us, i.e. the "many people" you speak of.
The 2 new films are successful.
The prior 2 films and last series - not so much.
Now, what were you saying about something not being broken?
Um, were all playing a game that continues the 'Prime Timeline' stories of Star Trek; and CBS has printed STO fiction in their own Star Trek magazine. So, the idea that the 'history is irrelevant' and that 'no new stories that incorporate that history are anticipated' is specious at best (unless you feel only stories made for TV broadcast or feature film release are 'valid' (and if that's the case you're missing out on some very well written novels - and some very poorly written ones as well.
But my point? There are still stories being written using the history and characters from the 'original' Starv Trek time line.
As to your second point about 'fixing something that isn't broken - come on. The facts are:
Star Trek: Nemesis was the worst performing Star Trek franchise film at the box office to date. It was beaten by the Jennifer Lopez film "Maid in Manhattan" in opening weekend gross.
On the TV front - 'Enterprise' continued the Nielson rating spiral downward that had been occurring with EVERY Star Trek series post TNG. With 700+ hours of Star Trek episodes produced over 18 TV seasons from TNG to ENT; overall the general viewing public got tired of Star Trek (it happens - and it wasn't 'the bad writing' per se as let's be honest, probably the worst written Star Trek is probably TNG season 1; but WHY did TNG catch on? Because the TV audience hadn't seen a new live action TV episode of Star Trek in 18 years (1969-1987).
TNG was given a chance by the audience because it was a 'new take' (at that time) on an old favorite (and Star Trek fans in 1987 weren't all behind or pleased with the then new direction either -- kind of a familiar pattern here, no?)
Anyway, the fact is 'modern' Star Trek (1987-2005) was no longer pulling in viewers (be it TV of film) to justify the cost of producing new material. Then JJ Abrams came along with a pitch to yet again re-invent the old favorite; the studio was swayed enough to believe it might work and generate a new audience (and profit - which was the MAIN motivation for GR and Desilu/Paramount to start the ball rolling even back in 1966); and the made a film in 2009 that bought in $385 million worldwide; and a sequel that to date has brought in $415 million worldwide (compared to Nemesis which took in $67 million worldwide)
^^^
Even adjusting for inflation, there's little doubt that the Star Trek franchise 'needed fixing' from a profitability standpoint; and further, little doubt that JJ Abram's idea worked in that regard, and (even accounting for inflation with previous Star Trek films); Star Trek: Into Darkness will end up being the most profitable Star Trek film released to date (beating Star Trek: TMP after adjusting for inflation).
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
star trek is not mint to be a fraking movie its mint to be a TV SHOW!!!!!!! I take any 7 year running show over JJ TRIBBLE any day
system Lord Baal is dead
ya the TMP way big hit lol the one to combat with star wars
also god needs a ship lmao
captain we need whales to save the planet
and for you info them movie don't say any thing that star trek should be a movie over a 7 year tv show so try again ty come again
sorry but their are just as many bad kirk movie as they are tng
system Lord Baal is dead
Given the fact, that without the movies, there would be no TNG or any other Trek-related series.
they may have helped get TNG on the air but they did not help get DS9 and VOY
and one could say TNG help make the last kirk movie because im sure god needs a ship didnt help
system Lord Baal is dead
As bad as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was (and it was BAD) - it still made MORE money at the box office than TNG's final outing Star Trek: Nemesis (which came in second place it's opening weekend -- it was beat by "Maid in Manhattan")
So, if you're trying to claim TNG did better box office business then the previous TOS themed films, history says different.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
nope im saying TNG dose better as a show then movie.......... same goes for star trek in general it is better as a show not a movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier 63 mill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Nemesis 67 mill
system Lord Baal is dead
responses in red
and on to you.
Bottom line, we get some new films... and people go off in an uproar, as if they shouldn't have been made at all, thus giving Star Trek absolutely NO presence, except for STO. And even that, I don't think, would have any Paramount support (like they actually SUPPORT it) if it weren't for the 2009 film.
And the reboot films are FUN. That's something that has been missing in Star Trek for a LONG LONG time. Is THAT what people hate so much?
You're using arguably the worst Star Trek films (from fan-perspective) as your evidence that the movies don't make that much money? Lets not forget, Nemesis went up against probably the biggest blockbusters of the year.
Post the numbers of Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact; and then include revenue gained by TNG Series viewership, THEN we can qualify your statement.
would not matter now as gfreeman98 pointed out
and just for the record I don't like Nemesis that movie shows what happens when fans get a hold of the ip
system Lord Baal is dead
What are you talking about? The fans had absolutely no say in Nemesis, and the director had never seen Star Trek before then.
system Lord Baal is dead
While many movies are made off books, Star Trek has never had any published literary works that they made their movies after. And Lord knows Paramount wouldn't want to credit a fan, if they didn't absolutely HAVE to.
One Section 31 facility was destroyed and their secret doomship got popped, that is not the same thing as being wiped out. I highly doubt Section 31 consists entirely of 10 guys in one room on Earth.
Except that, ya know, he didn't. All the secrets he got from those 'former terrorists' as far as we can tell were dumped solely into the Vengeance. And hint: Starfleet is in fact a military organization responsible for the defense of the Federation, even in TOS which was entirely Gene's baby the Enterprise fought the enemies of the Federation.
So we still have one rogue Admiral using enslaved technicians to launch wars that he wants. None of that equates to "He's evil because he likes the military.". Or are you suggesting that all military personnel are murdering war-mongers?
:rolleyes: They lifted entire lines of dialogue and whole set pieces from TWOK, are you seriously trying to claim that because it wasn't a scene by scene remake it doesn't count?
John Logan, the guy who wrote Nemesis, is a fanboy. So we got Special Forces Commando Picard, a 'Romulan' movie where the Romulans were irrelevant, and a really terrible attempt to turn TNG into an action franchise, which nobody bought into.
also how we got Remans that had never been herd of on tv before
When writer John Logan came up with the idea of featuring Remans as the villains of the 2002 film Star Trek Nemesis, he first had to explain to a perplexed Rick Berman and Brent Spiner exactly who the Remans were, that alien race never having been established in canon Star Trek before. Berman and Spiner eventually approved of Logan's idea, giving him the go-ahead to write the species into the upcoming movie. Logan later explained, "Brent and Rick agreed it would be fun to explore the Remans and their relation to the Romulans." (Star Trek Nemesis (novel), pp. xviii & xix)
system Lord Baal is dead
Now I'm not defending the Remans here... you either like them or you don't. That's personal opinion and either is fine.
But I don't see anything wrong with introducing new elements to a franchise. I actually think it's a necessary part of keeping a franchise fresh. Remans weren't mentioned before, sure, but their existence fit just fine within the continuity. It didn't betray the continuity. Just because they weren't mentioned before isn't really a justification for hating them. Now, if you hate them just because you thought they were stupid, that's fine.
As far as I know, Praxis had never been mentioned before ST 6. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Or Rura Penthe. Carol Marcus had never been mentioned before ST2, even though she was clearly a very big part of Kirk's life and even gave him a son.
because they are never talked about hinted at in all TV show its like poof they came out of the air and I think a slave race would be herd of out what 24 years of tv don't ya think they would have been used in the romulan earth war? or herd of that species was wrote into cannon
Praxis = was a Klingon moon which acted as the Klingon Empire's key energy-production facility. not a moon in orbit around Q'onoS
Rura Penthe = was a penal colony asteroid utilized by the Klingon Empire
Carol Marcus all im going to say do you think time stop when it was not on the big screen or tv? and the son bit did you forget he did not know of him till that movie?
system Lord Baal is dead
And what if the following movie states that Section 31 is destroyed, never to be seen again? Or what if it is simply never mentioned again, as the intention was to have it destroyed here? What then?
I hate the very idea of Section 31, and find its very existence is an insult to everything Gene Roddenberry stood for. And in my heart, I feel destroying it in this movie (facility or whatever) was less using it and more illustrating that this retconned abomination is destroyed before it grows into what we hate about DS9
Starfleet's primary focus is exploration. If we happened to find hostile aliens in space, where do you think weapons would be mounted first? On a NASA spacecraft, even though NASA is not a "military organization"
And in TNG they fixed this, Picard himself stating "Starfleet is not a military organization" - (Peak Performance (TNG)), even though they've used phasers and photon torpedoes. Just because you use military rank structure, doesn't mean your sole purpose is combat.
What I see is the intention and meaning behind the story, not the little details everyone insists on picking apart.
Whole set pieces? .... where? You mean that tiny glass door, which bears NO resemblance to the giant plexiglass box in the corner of tWoK's Engineering set? We got the Bridge... yeah, the Bridge, ooh what a rip off. Engineering looks NOTHING like... well ANY Trek film, and in this case it actually should. There's a corridor.
I don't see Regula 1 anywhere... I don't see the Genesis Cave anywhere... I don't see Shatner-Kirk's quarters anywhere.... aside from ship interiors, there WERE no other set pieces in Wrath of Khan. What, is Star Trek not allowed to have an Engineering and a Bridge anymore?
And dialog... there was the death scene, which again was a nod, not a ripoff (and again, how can a series ripoff itself?) ... quote me a single "lifted line" that wasn't in that single scene, cuz I literally can't think of any.
Honestly, I see someone desperately trying to nitpick something to death out of nothing but pure bias.
As a slave race, its kinda obvious the Romulans wouldn't be all like "ooh look, here they are", and how often has a Federation ship been to Romulus? You cannot build a continuing show out of just using what has been named in the past, or you will dead-end it pretty damned quick.
And as far as we know, the Remans didn't really exist during the Earth-Romulan War. Furthermore, direct quote from Spock here "space vessels which allowed no captives, nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communications. Therefore, no Human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other". So, there could have been Remans on those ships, for all we know. Or Remans were limited to the mines, never to be seen. The point is, there are MANY ways to hide a species that just simply was never thought of at the time. Thats what retcon is for, and it is not always bad, sometimes it works.
As for Praxis, I think the dialog on Undiscovered Country made it pretty clear that Praxis was near the Klingon Homeworld, otherwise why would its environment have been affected so harshly?
And what about Carol Marcus? I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.
This post confuses me a bit. Your tone suggests you're arguing against my point, but your points seem to agree with me.
Everybody on the Enterprise knew what Rura Penthe was. They all were well acquainted with it, and were horrified that Kirk had been sent there. Yet in 4 decades of Star Trek, nobody had ever mentioned it on an episode ever, even when dealing with the Klingon justice system.
And Carol Marcus was Kirk's big love. She was the one that got away. This is established clearly in the elevator scene with McCoy, yet through all of Kirk's adventures, not once did he or anybody else mention the woman who gave him a son. Nor did they mention he even had a son. I think it's much stranger that Kirk would have never mentioned his son.
Thing is, I agree with your point that time doesn't stop when it's not on the screen. I'm just saying the Remans were no more continuity breaking than Carol or Rura Penthe.
Again, if you just don't like them, that's fine. But the fact that they were never mentioned before isn't anything new on Star Trek. They're constantly introducing elements that you'd think would've been mentioned before.
not every one is a open book and talks about all the ones who got away or talks about their first love that got away
again kirk did not know he had a son till he met him face to face........
ok I just watch it he did know about his son
system Lord Baal is dead
Not true. It's clearly established in Wrath of Khan that he knew about his son all along. As soon as David left the room, Kirk said to Carol: "Well, I did what you asked. I stayed away."
Then they talked about why Carol hadn't told their son. So Kirk absolutely knew he had a son.
So you'll defend the show never mentioning Kirk's love or his son by saying he doesn't talk about it, but you find it intolerable that one of the most secretive aliens in the galaxy didn't advertise their slave race?
I just don't agree with your reasoning there.
its one thing not to talk about you loves of your life that got away and the son you have been told to stay away from its another to pull a species like remans out the air
but if ppl are ok with it no wonder star trek is dying
system Lord Baal is dead
Star Trek is the most popular it's been in decades. It's gaining fans of the originals on Netflix, it has two successful movies, a successful MMO, and two very popular campaigns going on to get two different shows picked up by Netflix. There are far more Star Trek fans today than there were 10 years ago.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dying".