Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Trek » 7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009 [message #82499] Sat, 08 June 2013 15:48 Go to next message
Wouter Valentijn is currently offline  Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 228
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In the past I've stated that the rebootverse isn't really my thing and that,
at best, it can be considered a combination of a spoof, and an homage
collage of Trek images and sound bites, all jumbled up. BTW, I have the DVD
of the movie, and I've seen it 2 1/2 times. Yesterday it happened to be on
TV.
Now I've come up with a list of things that would have made it, in my
opinion, a better Trek movie. And no, I won't be mentioning the flares in
this list. Annoying as they were, they were not the main problem. The actors
in my opinion did their best. No real issues there.


01. The USS Kelvin.

In the movie a ship of a class we've never seen before. I think it would
have been cooler if they had made it a something close to a transport/tug
ship like the Ptolemy class:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/ptolemy-class-starship. php

Not something that was actual canon in classic Trek, but close enough.
Being a cargoship it could explain why the Kelvin had /that/ many shuttles
on board!


02. Starfleet.

Pike used the line: "Enlist in Starfleet!" He wanted Kirk to become an
officer. Shouldn't that have been something like: "Enroll in Starfleet
Academy"?
Plus, as others have stated before, he mixes the Federation with Starfleet.
The Federation is not an Armada. It /has/ 'an Armada'.
I really get the feeling that the 'professional' aspect in this version of
Trek has been 'dumbed down' and more aimed at 'kiddies'. In the original
series, in the really serious episodes, you got the feel that you saw
something aimed at a mature audience. Something this new Trek lacks. Mind
you, half the time I already had that feeling in the TNG era!


03. The Red matter to create a black hole.

Romulan ships use a singularity to power their engines in the TNG era.
Basically already a black hole. The use of Red Matter seems unnecessary. JJ
seems to love this stuff.


04. The marooning of Kirk.

Why not the brig? Storywise he had to get to Spock Prime. I think they could
have come up with a better reason why Kirk was send there. Not just
punishment. A mission. A job to do. Young Spock could have ordered him to
contact the Starfleet outpost.


05. The name 'Delta Vega'.

Okay. A nod to the Delta Vega of WNMHGB. But it would have made more sense
if they had given that planet (obviously a sisterplanet of Vulcan) another
name. Something like: T'Khut.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/T'Khut#Sister_planet


06. The speed of the promotions of Kirk is astounding!

From fresh out of the Academy to First Officer to Captain. Heads spinning! A
ship that big, that many crew and a newbie almost directly to the centre
seat. Wow! Too soon I think. Someone other could have made captain whilst
Kirk could still be out there in the action.


07. Correcting the timeline.

Once it was established that the timeline had been altered and they were no
longer in immediate danger, they should have undertaken action to restore
the timeline. On several occasions throughout the franchise, Starfleet crews
have gone to great lengths to preserve the timeline. In future centuries
they even had a Time Fleet to watch over it! See 'City on the Edge of
Forever' and 'Yesterday's Enterprise' as prime examples.
With Spock Prime with them, they had someone with vast experience in that
area. In mere moments Spock Prime was capable of computing what was needed
to bring a Klingon Bird of Prey in 'The Voyage Home' in the past to do what
was needed and with the same ease they traveled back. Timetravel would not
have an issue. They would need to intercept the Narada the moment it showed
up in front of the Kelvin. Having knowledge about the ship and about future
technology, thanks to, again, Spock Prime, they might have had a chance to
stop it /before/ too much damage to the timeline was done. George Kirk would
not have been killed and Vulcan and Amanda would have been safe in the
future.


One last item one might mention, is the Stardate system. 2387 is used for
the future Spock Prime came from. Had he really come from 'our Prime' Trek
universe, that should have been something around Stardate 64000, or 23 years
after 2364 (the year of the first season of TNG). I understand (internet
search) that the comic prequel to this movie was more accurate about that.
Trivial in the large scheme of things. It might be an indicator that Spock
Prime wasn't really /our/ Spock Prime. :-) So, in the end, I can consider
the /entire/ movie as something set in two alternate realities. One close to
the regular 'Prime-verse', and the 'Nero-verse'.
Abrams Trek, a kind of Spoof Trek, like 'Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning'.
http://www.starwreck.com/. Which really was incredibly funny.

--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net

Xander Harris to Kendra Young: "Welcome. So, you're a slayer, huh? I like
that in a woman."

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: What's My Line?: Part 2

http://zeppodunsel.blogspot.nl/

liam=mail
Re: 7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009 [message #82530 is a reply to message #82499] Sat, 08 June 2013 18:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
YourName is currently offline  YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <51b38a9a$0$15889$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> In the past I've stated that the rebootverse isn't really my thing and that,

> at best, it can be considered a combination of a spoof, and an homage

> collage of Trek images and sound bites, all jumbled up. BTW, I have the DVD

> of the movie, and I've seen it 2 1/2 times. Yesterday it happened to be on

> TV.

> Now I've come up with a list of things that would have made it, in my

> opinion, a better Trek movie. And no, I won't be mentioning the flares in

> this list. Annoying as they were, they were not the main problem. The actors

> in my opinion did their best. No real issues there.


You only need one thing ...

1. Don't make it.

After reading the proposed script, any self-respecting real "Star Trek"
fan would have thrown it in the bin within the first page and fired the
writer.
Re: 7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009 [message #82531 is a reply to message #82499] Sat, 08 June 2013 20:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: trekky0623

The problem with Star Trek 2009 is that J.J. Abrams wanted to create
his "own" Star Trek, rather than having to work with existing canon.
That's fine if he wants to disregard the plot and create his own
Universe. But that's not what he has done. He has not only disregarded
the plot of Star Trek, but the entire history of the Star Trek series,
including the things that make Star Trek Star Trek.

Star Trek, primarily, is a show about ethics. There are a couple of
silly episodes throughout, but all in all, the point of Star Trek is
having people with in a futuristic society deal with moral dilemmas and
social issues, and in turn having the audience reflect on humanity and
what it means to be human. Look at "The Measure of a Man," or "The
Drumhead," or "The City on the Edge of Forever," or "Duet." All of them
had to do with ethical choices and philosophy. And though the TNG films
started to transition away from philosophy towards action, they never
lost the fact that a main element of Star Trek was the philosophy.

J.J. Abrams doesn't see that. In fact, recently he said he thought Star
Trek was "too philosophical" as a child. Well, Abrams, if you take the
philosophy out of Star Trek, you have nothing left. These new films are
not Star Trek. They are action-adventure blockbuster movies. Ask
yourself, what was the ethical choice in the 2009 Star Trek film? I
can't see one. There's a generic bad guy who is bad, and our heroes
have to stop them. There's no ethical dilemma because right and wrong
are laid out for us.

Into Darkness is just as bad. I let 2009 slide because it was
essentially Star Trek getting back on its feet. But Into Darkness
suffered the same fate. It came off more as Star Trek fanficton than
its own movie, shoving references in for their own sake:

—Khan
—Yelling Khan
—Tribbles
—Reversal of Wrath of Khan
—Section 31
—Carol Marcus
—Prime Directive

All of these things are not there to service the plot. They're just . .
.. THERE. Khan was not Khan, he was a generic villain. The sacrifice
from Wrath of Khan lost all meaning because the story was not about the
no-win scenario like Wrath of Khan was, and it didn't have the
parallels with Paradise Lost and Moby Dick that WoK had. It was
kind-of-sort-of used to introduce the "We're family" moral, but that's
the same thing from 2009 that we've been seeing, and without a
framework to hold the family together, it's just a hollow shell of a
moral anyway.

J.J. Abrams has ruined Star Trek by removing any sort of thought or
philosophy from it. And now that he has control of Star Wars as well, I
think we can assume that both of these franchises will be raped to
death by the time Abrams is done with them.
Re: 7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009 [message #82532 is a reply to message #82531] Sat, 08 June 2013 21:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
YourName is currently offline  YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <51b3d1ee$0$44718$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>,
trekky0623 wrote:
>

> The problem with Star Trek 2009 is that J.J. Abrams wanted to create

> his "own" Star Trek, rather than having to work with existing canon.

<snip>

There were three problems:

- Berman and Braga never had any interest in making "Star
Trek" at all, knew very little about it, and so produced
crap that killed the franchise (e.g. holodreck fantasies,
a so-called musical episode on Voyager).

- the morons in management took Beavis & Butthead's
failures as a faulty sign that the franchise was "tired",
which in their tiny little brains means making an idiotic
"reboot" attempt (which always simply destroys the
franchise), which resulted in the dismal "Enterprise" and
then when that failed a second reboot attempt with a new
movieand bringing in an over-egoed "big name".

- JJ Abrams never had any interest in making "Star Trek"
at all, knew almost nothing about it, and has stated he
wasn't a fan, and so produced crap that finally nailed
the final coffin lid down and buried real "Star Trek"
60ft under. :-(
Re: 7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009 [message #82601 is a reply to message #82499] Sun, 09 June 2013 01:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daniel47@teranews.com is currently offline  Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Wouter Valentijn wrote:

<Snip>
> 02. Starfleet.

>

> Pike used the line: "Enlist in Starfleet!" He wanted Kirk to become an

> officer. Shouldn't that have been something like: "Enroll in Starfleet

> Academy"?

> Plus, as others have stated before, he mixes the Federation with Starfleet.

> The Federation is not an Armada. It /has/ 'an Armada'.

> I really get the feeling that the 'professional' aspect in this version of

> Trek has been 'dumbed down' and more aimed at 'kiddies'. In the original

> series, in the really serious episodes, you got the feel that you saw

> something aimed at a mature audience. Something this new Trek lacks. Mind

> you, half the time I already had that feeling in the TNG era!


Could it be that Trek is aimed at the purse string holders?? In the
sixties, the parent held the purse strings, now and, to an extent, in
the TNG Era, it's the kids that control the money!

<Snip>

> 06. The speed of the promotions of Kirk is astounding!

>

> From fresh out of the Academy to First Officer to Captain. Heads spinning! A

> ship that big, that many crew and a newbie almost directly to the centre

> seat. Wow! Too soon I think. Someone other could have made captain whilst

> Kirk could still be out there in the action.


I thought the Enterprise was, largely, manned by Academy Graduates. But
I would have still expected the senior staff to be very experienced so
should have been many suitable to be "field promoted" to Captain!!

> 07. Correcting the timeline.

>

> Once it was established that the timeline had been altered and they were no

> longer in immediate danger, they should have undertaken action to restore

> the timeline. On several occasions throughout the franchise, Starfleet crews

> have gone to great lengths to preserve the timeline. In future centuries

> they even had a Time Fleet to watch over it! See 'City on the Edge of

> Forever' and 'Yesterday's Enterprise' as prime examples.

> With Spock Prime with them, they had someone with vast experience in that

> area. In mere moments Spock Prime was capable of computing what was needed

> to bring a Klingon Bird of Prey in 'The Voyage Home' in the past to do what

> was needed and with the same ease they traveled back. Timetravel would not

> have an issue. They would need to intercept the Narada the moment it showed

> up in front of the Kelvin. Having knowledge about the ship and about future

> technology, thanks to, again, Spock Prime, they might have had a chance to

> stop it /before/ too much damage to the timeline was done. George Kirk would

> not have been killed and Vulcan and Amanda would have been safe in the

> future.


If they had gone back to the moment the Narada showed up in front of the
Kelvi the you would have Kirk partisipating/preventing the actions which
lead to him "prem" birth, so createing another script problem!!

> One last item one might mention, is the Stardate system. 2387 is used for

> the future Spock Prime came from. Had he really come from 'our Prime' Trek

> universe, that should have been something around Stardate 64000, or 23 years

> after 2364 (the year of the first season of TNG). I understand (internet

> search) that the comic prequel to this movie was more accurate about that.

> Trivial in the large scheme of things. It might be an indicator that Spock

> Prime wasn't really /our/ Spock Prime. :-) So, in the end, I can consider

> the /entire/ movie as something set in two alternate realities. One close to

> the regular 'Prime-verse', and the 'Nero-verse'.

> Abrams Trek, a kind of Spoof Trek, like 'Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning'.

> http://www.starwreck.com/. Which really was incredibly funny.


Never got my head around the Stardate system!! Is 2387 one (24 hr) day
and 2388 the next day?? I had, sort of, worked on the first digit being
the year of the "Five Year mission" and the rest being a fraction of the
way through the year, i.e. 2387 would be 0.387 of the way (approx 141
days) into the second year of mission.

Why did later Star Trek series move to five figure date?? Who knows??
Who really cares??

Daniel
Re: 7 Things I would change about Star Trek 2009 [message #82666 is a reply to message #82601] Sun, 09 June 2013 14:57 Go to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: trekky0623

On 2013-06-09 05:48:10 +0000, Daniel47@teranews.com said:

> Never got my head around the Stardate system!! Is 2387 one (24 hr) day

> and 2388 the next day?? I had, sort of, worked on the first digit being

> the year of the "Five Year mission" and the rest being a fraction of

> the way through the year, i.e. 2387 would be 0.387 of the way (approx

> 141 days) into the second year of mission.

>

> Why did later Star Trek series move to five figure date?? Who knows??

> Who really cares??

>

> Daniel


The stardate system in TOS was kind of random, with no real rhyme or
reason. It was just used to show that we're in THE FUTURE.

The TMP films started to make more sense, progressing like:

TMP: 7410.2 — 2270s
WoK: 8130.3 — 2285
TSS: 8210.3 — 2285
TVH: 8390.0 — 2286
TFF: 8454.1 — 2287
TUC: 9521.6 — 2293

The TNG system works like this:

42514.9

4: Represents that we are in the twenty-fourth century, at least at the
beginning of TNG.
2: Represents that we are in the second season in TNG.
514: Progresses logically through the season, 000 being near the first
episode, and 999 near the season finale.
..9: Progresses through a 24-hour day.

2373, however, begins with the stardates beginning with 5, since we
have progressed through ten digits:

41: TNG season 1 — 2364
42: TNG season 2 — 2365
43: TNG season 3 — 2366
44: TNG season 4 — 2367
45: TNG season 5 — 2368
46: TNG season 6, DS9 season 1 — 2369
47: TNG season 7, DS9 season 2 — 2370
48: DS9 season 3, VOY season 1, Star Trek: Generations — 2371
49: DS9 season 4, VOY season 2 — 2372
50: DS9 season 5, VOY season 3, First Contact — 2373
51: DS9 season 6, VOY season 4 — 2374
52: DS9 season 7, VOY season 5, Insurrection — 2375
53: VOY season 6 — 2376
54: VOY season 7 — 2377
55: 2378
56: Nemesis — 2376

etc
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: More Trekspotting, El Vino edition
Next Topic: Altered Enterprise Playback Speed
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 19:53:35 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08362 seconds