Ok so I watched that new Star Trek movie and I have this to ask... ** spoilers **

[LynneSin]

SPOCK AND UHURA???!!!!

:wtf:

I mean, I think perhaps Uhura had a bit of a crush on Spock during the original series but she never once acted like a woman who once was romantically involved with him. What's with the history rewrite? Did JJ Abrams not watch the original series?

[Flaxbee]

1. sure, why not?

:D

I was never much of a Trek purist, so I thought the whole storyline was interesting. Abrams obviously wanted to move the franchise away from its history...

Otherwise, did you like it?

(btw, same thing happened to me with jury duty. Only there were no trials that week, and we got sent home after 2 hours).

[LynneSin]

3. I'm not any kind of Trekkie, probably haven't seen the original series in years

But I think there has to be some sort of continuity to the storeline. Perhaps the sequel will better explain why Uhura and Spock never seemed like a 'former couple' in the original series.

As for Spock and Uhura as a couple, it was definately an interesting pairing and think (if it wasn't for the original series) they could have built a strong triangle between Spock, Kirk and Uhura.

But well it is what it is.

[Flaxbee]

5. I've heard many rumors about the sequel, hopefully they'll

explain or fix the timeline issue / destruction of Vulcan. And also do some detail work / explanation around the relationships. You're right, would be a good triangle.

[Mist]

23. The death of Amanda, Spock's mother, needs some explaining, as she made an

appearance in the original series, IIRC.

[rcrush]

2. I would like to know how future Romulan managed to make that happen.

[LynneSin]

6. I thought about that

that the Star Trek cast was living in an alternative universe since I think Spock Prime commented about how Kirk's father was very proud of him (the movie had Kirk's father dying at childbirth).

So I suppose since technically they were in an alternative universe it could be feasible that in this universe, Spock and Uhura do become a couple.

But to me it was just plain :crazy:

[rcrush]

9. Somehow Nero blowing up Kirk Sr's ship caused Uhura to fall in love with Spock at the academy.

lol

[rebel with a cause]

37. You are right about the alternative universe.

Also in the original series they meant for there to be a romance between Spoke and Uhura, but later changed their minds and just had a flirtation between her and Kirk. At least this is how it was explained to me by someone who reads everything about Star Wars, Star Trek and Abrams.

I watched the first three shows of the original Star Trek the other night and the attraction/flirtation between Spock and Uhura was obvious and as someone who always found Spock more attractive than Kirk, I really liked it. Kirk was too much a ladies man to ever have a serious romance (except with his wife who was on that planet along with his son that ended up being blown up). Do I remember that last part right?

[Dr. Strange]

4. Butterfly wings

[Orrex]

7. This thread can't be said to exist until Deja Q posts about how much he hates the movie

And how it isn't real science fiction, and how it isn't real Star Trek, etc. etc. etc.


:evilgrin:

(not a callout--just a zinger!)

[Dr. Strange]

10. I just read an interview with Ridley Scott.

He claims that Captain Pike was a replicant.

[Orrex]

20. Maybe I won't wait until Xmas to give you your present.

[Dr. Strange]

40. It's a Festivus miracle!

Or is that just the tip of the iceberg?

[Orrex]

41. You know, that link went to the vid for the "accu" model.

I'd hate to get stuck with an "inaccu" model.

[PVnRT]

14. If only Harlan Ellison had written it, Spock would've grabbed Uhura's breasts

Of course, it would be hard for a Vulcan to claim it was a joke...

[Deja Q]

26. Teehehehehehe...

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

:D

:pals:

[Orrex]

8. By the way, did you watch it in the jury room?

:shrug:

[pokerfan]

11. Star Trek 2

ST2: The Wrath of Harlan

[sarge43]

15. RODDEN BERREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Oh, like the rest of you didn't think of it.

[eShirl]

29. LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[sarge43]

12. Remember the time line was changed.

Nero and Spock Prime coming back in time altered everyone's destiny - the butterfly wing effect on an enormous scale.

Altering the time line gives the writers the freedom to make a new history for Kirk and crew.

As for Spock and Uhura, I can see two mega nerds being attracted to one another. Nothing odd about it -- Sarek and Amanda loved each other enough to defy Vulcan convention.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Women got the short shrift in this film. Big Time. Black actors had some key roles,

but not women.

[hedgehog]

22. Abrams is already on the hot plate for not hewing to canon. Can you imagine

what would have happened had he replaced a major character with a new female character or even turned a major male character into a woman?

As it is, I think the rule of the parallel universe is everyone is there, but reacting differently because circumstances have changed.

[Captain Hilts]

31. New characters were introduced - such as the court martial panel - where it would have been nice

to see a woman in charge of something. Anything. How about the starship that goes 'boom' in the beginning?

No one is asking to "replace a major character."

[LynneSin]

43. Do you know that was Tyler Perry's first move that wasn't one of those 'Tyler Perry' movies he makes

you know the movies that always has his name in the title.

He was the admiral that almost kicked Kirk out of the academy.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Because Abrams is creating a whole new different timeline because he's an uncreative shitbag

so everything you remember about Star Trek is now null and void in favor of the new timeline that has nothing in common in Star Trek except the names of the characters.

[Orrex]

17. And Casino Royale sucks for the same reason too, right?

:eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. Um - Casino Royale is a James Bond book/films

Not Star Trek.

And Abrams had nothing to do with any of them.

[Orrex]

19. Um... It's relevant because it's a reboot in a de facto alternate universe with ties to the "prime"

And they did the reboot specifically so that they could jettison a lot of the garbage and foolishness that had built up in the franchise since the 60s. Sound familiar?

Does that mean that it was put together by uncreative shitbags? By most standards it's the best Bond film in decades.

By many standards Abrams' Star Trek was the best Trek film in decades. Somehow it garnered critical and commercial success despite the fact that the production staff didn't submit the script for your approval before filming began.

As usual, The Onion pegs it: Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

[wickerwoman]

21. But Casino Royale was written by Ian Fleming.

It's the first James Bond book. And I agree that they're both reboots but the purpose of Casino Royale was to get closer to the creator's original vision while jettisoning all the garbage).

Abrams is on record as saying that he's not even a fan of Star Trek.

I love Abrams' other work and think the new Star Trek is a mixed bag... It's intention clearly is not to get closer to Gene Rodenberry's original vision but how you feel about that is up to you.

[Orrex]

33. I don't know...

Reading the wikipedia plot summaries of the novel and film reveals that there are substantial differences between the two, particularly in regard to Vesper's role. But in other ways this is to be expected; Fleming was writing about a spy in the world five decades in our past. Unless the film were done as a period piece, there'd be no way to put the book directly onscreen.

In that regard, the Abrams film does something similar, because it would be preposterous to put ST:TOS onscreen today. Instead, Abrams took elements of the original Trek and brought it forward with specific and significant changes. Some will complain that he thereby lost the depth and characterization that we attribute to the original series, but I'm not so sure.

This new Trek "alternate" universe came about as a result of a cataclysm that needed to be explained and dealt with before moving forward. Abrams could have done a "hard" reboot, as we've seen with Bond, Batman, The Incredible Hulk, Silence of the Lambs, and the like, but instead he chose a "soft" reboot and actually incorporated the "rebooting" into the storytelling in a way we hadn't seen previously. For this alone I'm inclined to give him credit.

Incidentally, "Roddenberry's original vision" pertained to an hour-long weekly tv program, and I submit that he tweaked his "original vision" as often as it suited him to do so. Rather than clinging to whatever it is he might originally have intended, it's more appropriate to look at the finished product, and that includes everything from The City on the Edge of Forever to Spock's Brain.

[wickerwoman]

38. My issue with Abrams' Trek

is not with the fact that he made changes. Simply that the changes he made were generally poor and the script in general was weak. Eric Bana's villain was completely generic and boring. I lost track of what he was doing for large portions of the film while more and more characters were introduced. And by the time they finally introduced Scotty I felt the movie had done it's job and was ready to go home. The first 3/4 of the film was just a series of "very special moments" followed by a tacked on "let's save earth" climax.

I love the cast though and will happily see the next film (and hope that that one actually has a plot).

What I see as the cornerstones of Roddenbury's vision are 1.) the Federation has solved all of humanity's problems. The future is utopian. The Federation acts as a catalyst for change in cultures that it encounters. (OK, this was violated again and again, especially in the later series because it's impossible to tell a story with zero character growth, but in general people in the future are better than people today. That's why "Kirk has an abusive step-father and is a hell-raising punk" rang really false to me.) and 2.) Trek uses future scenarios to shed light on contemporary issues. Where was the soul in Abrams' Trek? It might as well be "Independence Day" or "Mars Attacks" with franchised characters thrown into the middle of it. In that sense it felt cynical and manipulative to me.

[Kutjara]

47. Abram's abandonment of Federation principles is my biggest gripe.

His Trek universe is just ours. Dr. McCoy is called "Bones" because his wife cleaned him out in their divorce. Nokia, Anheuser Busch, Jack Daniels (and presumably a host of other profit-making companies) still exist in the supposedly non-materialistic future. A "lady's" honor can still only be protected by fisticuffs.

Abram's Trek universe is capitalistic, misogynistic, macho and unenlightened. New Trek is just another action movie franchise.

[wysimdnwyg]

49. It seems to me that you're condensing the time line too much

If you look at TNG, the utopian society is in full force, with few paid jobs and a largely socialistic economy (at least on Earth). In TOS, however, there's still quite a bit of the antagonism and capitalism associated with present society. Sure, they've made a lot of progress, but their society is still not what it will be in 100 years (TNG). Did Abrams take a lot of liberties? Surely. But it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

And as for Kirk himself, look at Shatner's version. Yes, it began in the '60s when misogyny was still pretty standard behavior, but his Kirk was macho, arrogant and uninhibited. He was, for the times, a "man's man". In this regard, I can completely buy into the rebellious teen and trouble-making young man that is Abrams' version of Kirk. If anything, I think Abrams did a great job of trying to make Kirk MORE like the Kirk from TOS and less like the aging father we see in the first seven movies.

[wickerwoman]

51. But even in TOS.

they had already long made the defining technological breakthroughs of the Trek universe (matter replicators and dilithium energy which remove the need for struggle over material goods.. you just tell the computer what you want and it makes it for you.) So within that world, what sense does it make to still have corporations like Pepsi or Jack Daniels? There's no money in the Trek world and therefore no advertising and no brand names. Trek is in many ways profoundly anti-corporate.

Having product placement in the movie was just the most obvious sign that Abrams doesn't fundamentally understand what the Trek world is about.

[wysimdnwyg]

52. I can't believe I'm going to perpetuate this, but...

OK, so in TOS they DID have matter replication and dilithium energy. But these seemed - at least to me - to be somewhat expensive and/or nascent technologies. Take the first few minutes of the first movie when the transporter malfunctions and kills a couple of people. While I don't recall anything explicit about it, I always assumed that these technologies were not widely available, at least outside of Starfleet. Perhaps this is me recalling the show, as humans frequently do, in a more idyllic way that it was in reality. But my memories and interpretations were not at all violated by Adams's version. Frankly, the only real issue I had with it was the destruction of Vulcan, and the altered time line easily explains that. (Oh, and Spock giving Scotty the equation for the transport, but they already did something very similar in ST4.)

[Kutjara]

53. You make interesting points.

Particularly about the extent to which capitalism is still a force in the TOS universe. I'd always considered it would be mostly eradicated on Earth by that point, due to a combination of WWIII reducing humanity to near barbarism in the 2060s and the influence of the Vulcans shortly after that. Single world government and focus on a unified, equitable post-war society on Earth would, I believed, have limited the scope for a return to the kinds of unequal access to opportunity that late-stage capitalism requires to flourish. Obviously, a lot of this is conjecture on my part, but it didn't seem at odds with the way the various series' portrayed the social evolution of the Trek universe.

Even Enterprise,which was much closer in time to the events of First Contact, seemed very TNG-like, particularly in the episode where Archer informs a bunch of displaced humans living on a Wild West planet that, if they return to earth, their bigotry and greed won't be tolerated.

By the time of TOS, the Federation has access to replicator technology, which is pretty much the last straw in any kind of scarcity-based capitalist system. If everyone can make anything they want, where's the room for profiteers?

Hmmm, maybe that's the answer: In Enterprise there are no replicators; in TOS, replicators seem to be limited to food production; in TNG, replicators can make anything. That would support your contention that there is a gradual decline in capitalism from the 2060s to the 2360s, rather than an abrupt cutoff sometime before 2100.

Or maybe I just think about this kind of stuff too much. ;)

[Deja Q]

28. A partial reboot; given the silliness and jive nonsense that was too outlandish in the 1990s...

I DO see your point in that it's a reboot. One just has depth. The other makes a pastiche and a loud, brash mockery out of the characters just for vapid crowd-pleasing, effects-laden moments.

Some people like both formats.

Some don't.

Depends on the context.

NuTrek still sucks black holes. :D

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Bond was rebooted because it was getting silly; rebooted back to what it WAS

Abrams has taken something that was perfectly fine - even better than fine (except for Berman's fucking it up) - and rebooted it to be dumber and flashier, and lacking in anything that was so good.

Abrams reboot is to Star Trek what the James reboot was mid-way through Roger Moore's tenure as Bond.

[Orrex]

32. Bond was silly for a long, long time.

Diamonds are Forever, The Man With The Golden Gun, Moonraker, Octopussy, A View To A Kill, and the list goes on; none of these was a serious, hard-hitting film, so the Brosnan films are only guilty of continuing what had been started years before. And we can't blame Moore, because he's been off the job for about 25 years--if the franchise couldn't recover in a quarter century, then it wasn't the actor's fault.

Also, with perhaps two exceptions, none of the first 10 Trek films could be described as deep or really thought-provoking. All we can say is that some of the films showed entertaining development of two or three of the characters. Since they were building off of what had already been established, they had a lighter burden to bear. Abrams had a harder task--namely, he had to rework the characters from the ground up, and so far he's only had two hours in which to do it.

There might be an argument to be made as to how the latest film rates against the best of the television series, but even that's an unfair comparison; the tv shows had years to establish the characters and tone, whereas the new film had about 120 minutes.

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. Yes, it was silly - that's why I said "partway through Moore's tenure"

Bond seemed to take a sort of mini-reboot during Moore's time into the world of the silly, withthe movies you mention (though I actually think Man With the Golden Gun stands out as one of the better ones).

I think Brosnan's were actually a move back to a more serious Bond (though by his third movie, they'd gotten silly and vapid again), the way he was intended - and certainly a nice upgrading into the modern era and modern sensibilities.

[pokerfan]

48. I think Brosnan was intended to be a blend of Dalton and Moore

with Dalton being the most serious of all the Bonds and Moore (mostly) being the silliest. It does seem to swing back and forth like a pendulum and a new actor is just an opportunity to change things up and break with the past, though there have been changes within each actor's tenure (with the exception of Dalton and Lazenby who weren't around long enough). Connery had the atrocious 'Diamonds Are Forever' and Moore had the mostly serious 'For Your Eyes Only.' Brosnan began I think as a happy medium between the extremes but it ultimately got sillier and sillier until we wound up with Denise Richards playing a nuclear physicist and Bond driving an invisible car. It's a shame that Pierce didn't get a chance to play Bond in the eighties when Eon wanted him and was in the mood for a serious Bond.

[DerekG]

46. It helps that Daniel Craig is a grown man

If you have to replace Shatner, fine. But don't use a goddamn kid.

[Deja Q]

27. No, that one actually has depth and thought put into it... not to mention,

it restores Bond to the persona found in the books: Gritty, determined, having to use his wits, bends the rules when he feels he needs to.

CR was utterly refreshing after the vomit-filled 1990s with Brosnobond(tm)...

QoS was a let-down, but if nothing else they DID maintain character continuity. The plot was a hacked nightmare with grossly uneven direction, but M and Bond were the saving graces.

[Orrex]

34. Don't mistake me--I really enjoyed Craig in the role and the film overall

I'd be hard pressed to name a Bond film that I enjoyed more, though Goldfinger and Dr. No both rank right up there. I'm willing to forget all of the Moore films except The Spy Who Loved Me, as well as all of the Dalton and Brosnan movies.

Star Trek was in major trouble prior to Abrams' film. Berman and Bragga had been screwing with the controls for more than 20 years, since even before Roddenberry's death, and the films since Star Trek: First Contact have been doing steadily worse at the box office. We can argue about "what might have been" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that the franchise was facing possible extinction. Like it or not, Abrams has breathed life back into a universe that could easily have been given up for dead ten years ago.

[Deja Q]

25. Yes! I was waiting for you!

:pals:

Your assessment is 100% correct, and devoid of the usual babbling techno-prattle I am known for... :evilgrin:

[DainBramaged]

24. I LOVE the rewrite, it ads a whole new dimension to the movie.

I've watched it 5 times now...........great movie, can't wait for the sequel......

[MSchreader]

35. I didn't think anyone could kill the Star Trek franchise

But then, I didn't count on J.J. Abrams.

I mean, I liked Star Trek V, fercrissakes! But I can't even watch this new "Star Trek". I was ready to walk out after the Nokia product placement, but I gave it a chance. When it was done, I realized two things: 1) those were two hours of my life I'd never get back, and 2) I'd have rather seen Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls a second time.

[kentauros]

36. I downloaded a bootleg,

and deleted it when the credits started.

Abrams will never purposely get any of my money.

[MilesColtrane]

44. Yeah, but it had LENS FLARES!!!!!!

Too much focus on the adrenal gland, and not enough on the heart and brain.

[madinmaryland]

39. Hey! How was the Punkin Chunkin championship? I didn't see you

at the contest in Delaware on the show last night!

:D

[DerekG]

45. That Star Wars clone ain't my idea of Trek

But that's okay. When I'm in the mood for Trek, I've got the first two seasons of TOS, and II, III, IV and VI to choose from.

[LanternWaste]

50. If nothing else...

If nothing else, I'm happy that Abrams and crew got the movie away (far away) from the preaching and moralizing that seemed to me to bog down what would have otherwise been (at least somewhat) enjoyable films

[Orsino]

54. Well, yeah. As you note, it's a history rewrite. (spoilers)

The setting has been substantially rewritten. The arrival of that renegade Romulan, for instance, seems somehow to have prevented Kirk from having an elder brother, and the near-extinction of Vulcans kick-started the original-series crew a bit early, though conveniently gathering them on the bridge of the same old ship. Captain Pike's paralyzing accident may have happened earlier(?).

If an Uhura-Spock crush was suggested in the series, it seems appropriate to give it a chance to blossom in this alternate timeline. I don't recall any such thing, but I like the idea, and the new movie presented it pretty well, I thought.