It's not "just a movie". I've been crazy about Star Trek and what it represents since I was 5 years old, it's part of who I am. It pisses me off when major details are changed without any regard for continuity or integrity, or to appease the average moviegoer.
The Official Trek Thread
- Thread starter cookiecutter
- Start date
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
my mom's kids all have different fathers
i remember my younger brother's father being a trekkie and my mom sitting through an entire episode of the TOS for the first time just a couple months before the series premeire of TNG
even though she was in highschool when TOS was making episodes
i remember still being a little kid and sitting on my mom's lap as we eagerly watched the series premiere of the TNG
i remember watching "Starfleet's War with the Dominion" and realizing how it was clearly done as something to get Star Wars fans to start watching Star Trek
i was one of the people already addicted to Voyager before the audience doubled with the appearence of the "new sexy chick" Jerri Ryan playing "7 of 9"
so don't lump me in there with the "average movie goer"
but i also understand that the 2009 movie was specifically made to be entertaining to the specific people that had never sat through any kind of star trek anything before
for the specific people that knew absolutely nothing of the star trek universe, the 2009 movie was an awesomely done "sci-fi action movie"
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
The whole premise was that it was an alternate reality. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the original fucking canon at all.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
that's exactly what they did
they did it so they could make a movie that would be entertaining to the specific movie goers that knew absolutely nothing about star trek
that's what they did
get over it already
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
now you're just being a stubborn jack ass
they even advertized it as "not your father's Star Trek"
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...034,d.dmQ&fp=b2a3ff9779943005&biw=792&bih=425
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
OMFG
laughing so hard i'm choking
seriously though
the whole time-travel shit in the first movie was for the purpose of being able to ignore cannon and create a whole new universe and make a "sci-fi action movie" that non-trekkies would enjoy
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
yeah
there's some other people doing that too
seriously
aside from the parts that pissed you off
it does seem like a well-put-together movie
does Into Darkness take place at the same time as the TOS episode with Kahn or did they just totally ignore that part of the timeline??
Balls McHoolihan
You mean coitus?
- Jan 22, 2012
- 759
- 9
- 18
The Stardate from the episode of TOS where Kahn was introduced was 3141.9. The Stardate in Into Darkness was 2259.55. So, they totally ignored the original series timeline in this aspect.
Edit: From some online research, the Earth date from TOS would have been 2267. They did Stardates kind of weird I guess during TOS. In Into Darkness, the Stardate is the same as the actual Earth year.
So,
Kahn in TOS=2267
Kahn in Into Darkness=2259
Still not consistent.
Edit: From some online research, the Earth date from TOS would have been 2267. They did Stardates kind of weird I guess during TOS. In Into Darkness, the Stardate is the same as the actual Earth year.
So,
Kahn in TOS=2267
Kahn in Into Darkness=2259
Still not consistent.
Balls McHoolihan
You mean coitus?
- Jan 22, 2012
- 759
- 9
- 18
Possible spoiler:
Don't want to give anything away to those who didn't see the movie yet, but in one important scene in Into Darkness, I was like, "what the fuck is going to happen now?? There's no Genesis planet..." I think you might know what I'm referring to.
Draehl
Lurker
Patrick Stewart is indeed the man. Picard was obviously and factually the best Starfleet captain.
Balls McHoolihan
You mean coitus?
- Jan 22, 2012
- 759
- 9
- 18
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
this might sound weird, but TBH this^^ is pissing me off a hell of a lot more than any of the things The Butt was complaining about with the 2009 movie
IMO, the 2009 movie was totally bad-ass, but i thought they were making this new movie series taking place durring the the gap of time of the episodes of TOS, showing how those episodes would have come out different with the alterations in the timeline, but to make Kirk interact with Kahn for the very first time happen in a whole 8 years earlier than the TOS episode just doesn't make sense
