On Nov 15, 8:54 pm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
Duggy wrote:
That is the scene where Cadet Kirk, who is a stowaway that is not even >>>> supposed to be on the ship, is promoted to first officer of Pike's
Enterprise. Kirk was called on the carpet for cheating on a test
earlier the same day, which is why he was not even supposed to be on the >>>> ship... he was supposed to stay behind.
McCoy brought Kirk aboard with him, under false pretenses, and here's
what I don't understand:
Why is Kirk being promoted instead of being thrown into the brig?
Pike likes him.
I also don't understand why Spock doesn't demote him and throw him into >>>> the brig, instead of marooning him.
Can any of you explain any of that to me?
The marooning didn't make much sense.
Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless.
So it's an action film.
Duggy wrote:It sells.
On Nov 15, 8:54 pm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
Duggy wrote:
That is the scene where Cadet Kirk, who is a stowaway that is not even >>>> supposed to be on the ship, is promoted to first officer of Pike's
Enterprise. aKirk was called on the carpet for cheating on a test
earlier the same day, which is why he was not even supposed to be on the >>>> ship... he was supposed to stay behind.
McCoy brought Kirk aboard with him, under false pretenses, and here's >>>> what I don't understand:
Why is Kirk being promoted instead of being thrown into the brig?
Pike likes him.
I also don't understand why Spock doesn't demote him and throw him into >>>> the brig, instead of marooning him.
Can any of you explain any of that to me?
The marooning didn't make much sense.
Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless.
So it's an action film.
Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.
Duggy wrote:Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days.
[Star Trek XI]
I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more forIt sells.Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless.So it's an action film.
this franchise but that's what we have now.
For someone is better thanST was clearly a TOS episode made too long (yes, I know it was the 2-
nothing for others was better nothing. I'm somewhere in between those
two position, personally. I started to enjoy the movie only after I
realized it is not Star Trek. Not ST as I think it should be, I mean.
And to be totally honest with myself I don't see any the ST movies that
is exactly as I think ST should be, expect Khaaaaaaannnnnn and, maybe,
[slow] Motion Picture.
[Star Trek XI]
It sells.Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless. >>>>> So it's an action film.
I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more for
this franchise but that's what we have now.
Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days.
You want a quality thoughtful film you're going to need to do a random no-budget film with no franchise attached.
Moon, for example.
I started to enjoy the movie only after I
realized it is not Star Trek. Not ST as I think it should be, I mean.
And to be totally honest with myself I don't see any the ST movies that
is exactly as I think ST should be, expect Khaaaaaaannnnnn and, maybe,
[slow] Motion Picture.
ST was clearly a TOS episode made too long (yes, I know it was the 2-
part pilot for Star Trek: "Phase 2" based on an unused "Genesis II"
idea) so yeah, it was Trek. 2... yeah, a bit too much action, but
very STTOS plot. 5... was a very Star Trek plot... but that doesn't
mean it was good. I think 6 was as well...
The first 3 Next Gen films were (in varying ways) very TNG. Nemesis
was a whole lot of different films... including Bond... thrown
together.
On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
Duggy wrote:
[Star Trek XI]
It sells.Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless. >>> So it's an action film.
I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more for this franchise but that's what we have now.
Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days.
You want a quality thoughtful film you're going to need to do a random no-budget film with no franchise attached.
Moon, for example.
"Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7bc5f90e-8d82-4562-8d23-47f5c3f54254@h31g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
Did you read the word "blockbuster"?On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
Duggy wrote:
[Star Trek XI]
It sells.Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless. >>> So it's an action film.
I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more for this franchise but that's what we have now.
Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days.
You want a quality thoughtful film you're going to need to do a random no-budget film with no franchise attached.
Moon, for example.
Not necessarily.
"Contact" (based on the novel by Carl Sagan) was thoughtful.
But it didn't skimp on visuals either.
You make it sound like "thoughtful" means it can't also be visually
appealing or have action. aOf course it can.
Blindess is a film about people suddenly going blind and the firstI liked "Blindness", "Code 46", "Cube", "Cypher"...I've never seen "Blindness"
and "Cypher", so wish-listed.Spy thriller with some action and cheap FX by the guy who did Cube.
I had a reallyFair enough.
hard time watching "Code 46", they whisper a lot and that's a pain with
a language is not your own, thus I may be biased, I didn't like it.
I did like "Cube".I didn't like Cube 2.
Good point.True. Although those Borgs were more Voyager's that TNG's.but I disagree on First Contact. Unless you are sayingOK, yeah, Picard as action hero wasn't very TNG... but big borg
that FC was a ST:TOS movie, in that case I sort of agree. The
kirkization of Picard in FC was complete(d).
episode was... they even had to reset the Borg to do it.
"ToolPackinMama" <philnbl...@comcast.net> schreef inberichtnews:j855sn$v3r$1@dont-email.me...
PIKE: Without transporters, we can't beam off the ship, we can't assist Vulcan, we can't do our job. Mister Kirk, Mister Sulu, Engineer Olson,
will space-jump from the shuttle. You will land on that machine they lowered into the atmosphere that's scrambling our gear. You'll get inside. You'll disable it, then you'll beam back to the ship. Mister Spock, I'm leaving you in command of the Enterprise. Once we have transport capabilities, communications back up, you'll contact Starfleet, report
what the hell's going on here. And if all else fails, fall back,
rendezvous with the fleet in the Laurentian system. Kirk, I'm promoting
you to first officer.
KIRK: What?
SPOCK: Captain, please, I apologize. The complexities of Human pranks escape me.
PIKE: It's not a prank, Spock. And I'm not the Captain, you are. Let's go.
===
That is the scene where Cadet Kirk, who is a stowaway that is not even supposed to be on the ship, is promoted to first officer of Pike's Enterprise. aKirk was called on the carpet for cheating on a test earlier the same day, which is why he was not even supposed to be on the ship...
he was supposed to stay behind.
McCoy brought Kirk aboard with him, under false pretenses, and here's what I don't understand:
Why is Kirk being promoted instead of being thrown into the brig?
I also don't understand why Spock doesn't demote him and throw him into
the brig, instead of marooning him.
Can any of you explain any of that to me?
Uhm...
The guys who wrote that don't have a clue?
Steven L. wrote:quoted text -
"Frosty" <frostywinni...@mymts.net> wrote in message
news:j8a4tk$kpu$1@dont-email.me:
Where did this "repeat offender" movie backstory even come from ?
TOS only mentioned that Kirk had found a way to modify a test that no
one else ever thought of.
Ingenuity,...is not something usually thought of as Bad Boy Anarchist
behaviour.
Romulans go back in time, attack the Kelvin, Kirk's dad dies. Which is
slightly different from Kirk's dad seeing him become Captain of the
Enterprise.
Also because of that, Kirk never has a biological brother Sam like he
did in the TOS universe. aHe grew up an only child with a stepfather
with whom he evidently did not get along.
-- Steven L.
Which still says,...That Movie has nothing to do with REAL STAR TREK- Hide
- Show quoted text -There is no REAL STAR TREK. It's all product for you morons to buy and
On 10/28/2011 10:35 PM, Duggy wrote:Because the writer wrote it that way and you didn't. Frankly you don't
The marooning didn't make much sense.
WOW you are RIGHT, it DIDN'T.
That was their ham-fisted way of giving Kirk a chance to meet OLD Spock.
I understand why they did it. aI understand what was accomplished by
doing it. aWhat I don't understand is WHY SPOCK DID IT.
On 10/29/2011 1:01 AM, ToolPackinMama wrote:Maybe you are too anal retentive to just sit back and enjoy what is
On 10/28/2011 10:35 PM, Duggy wrote:
The marooning didn't make much sense.
WOW you are RIGHT, it DIDN'T.
That was their ham-fisted way of giving Kirk a chance to meet OLD Spock.
I understand why they did it. I understand what was accomplished by
doing it. What I don't understand is WHY SPOCK DID IT.
Pardon me for this afterthought...
But I also don't understand how Spock could maroon anyone without
somebody aboard the ship questioning and opposing such an action.
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht news:G_CdnVey4NAFOzTTnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
"Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote in message news:j8c731$guf$1@dont-email.me:
Steven L. wrote:
"Frosty" <frostywinnipeg@mymts.net> wrote in message
news:j8a4tk$kpu$1@dont-email.me:
Where did this "repeat offender" movie backstory even come from ?
TOS only mentioned that Kirk had found a way to modify a test that no >> >>> one else ever thought of.
Ingenuity,...is not something usually thought of as Bad Boy Anarchist >> >>> behaviour.
Romulans go back in time, attack the Kelvin, Kirk's dad dies. Which is >> >> slightly different from Kirk's dad seeing him become Captain of the
Enterprise.
Also because of that, Kirk never has a biological brother Sam like he
did in the TOS universe. He grew up an only child with a stepfather
with whom he evidently did not get along.
-- Steven L.
Which still says,...That Movie has nothing to do with REAL STAR TREK
It's a reboot, just like the 2000s Battlestar Galactica was a reboot of
the 1970s series. That meant that the basic concept was the same, but the details are all different, updated to reflect a different time with a different audience.
The new Battlestar Galactica downplayed or even dropped the "Chariots of the Gods" mythology of the 1970s series, and replaced it with an allegory of the War on Terror.
In my opinion they did even more so!
In the 1970's show and in G80 they arrived in the 'now'.
In the Reboot they did arive in our prehistory. Exactly 'Chariots of the Gods'.
In Abrams' Star Trek, Kirk finally gets the captaincy, Spock ends up
second in command, and Pike ends up in a wheelchair. Just like in TOS.
But how they got there is totally different.
Kirk is also the only one who has any idea of what has happened having
put two and two together when he remembered the story of his father's sacrifice on the Kelvin and about the Romulan transmission that Uhura intercepted. (Which itself is also a plot hole since I believe Pike
was also on the Kelvin when it was destroyed and should be more likely
to remember that incident than Kirk who was busy being born at the
time.)
Did Pike have to promote Kirk to first officer to do this? Probably
not but keep in mind that Enterprise's entire crew at the time
consisted of graduating Starfleet cadets on a training mission. Spock
who is a an Academy instructor only a few years older than the
graduating cadets is the closest thing to senior officer Pike has and
he makes Spock Captain. So given this perspective, Kirk's promotion
isn't all that extraordinary.
The marooning didn't make much sense.
On 10/28/2011 10:35 PM, Duggy wrote:
The marooning didn't make much sense.
WOW you are RIGHT, it DIDN'T.
That was their ham-fisted way of giving Kirk a chance to meet OLD Spock.
I understand why they did it. I understand what was accomplished by
doing it. What I don't understand is WHY SPOCK DID IT.
On 10/28/2011 11:06 AM, Steven L. wrote:
In Abrams' Star Trek, Kirk finally gets the captaincy, Spock ends up
second in command, and Pike ends up in a wheelchair. Just like in TOS.
But how they got there is totally different.
Nobody was confused about that part. None of that was ever in dispute.
Kirk is also the only one who has any idea of what has happened having
put two and two together when he remembered the story of his father's
sacrifice on the Kelvin and about the Romulan transmission that Uhura
intercepted. (Which itself is also a plot hole since I believe Pike
was also on the Kelvin when it was destroyed and should be more likely
to remember that incident than Kirk who was busy being born at the
time.)
There is no mention of this. Source?
Did Pike have to promote Kirk to first officer to do this? Probably
not but keep in mind that Enterprise's entire crew at the time
consisted of graduating Starfleet cadets on a training mission. Spock
who is a an Academy instructor only a few years older than the
graduating cadets is the closest thing to senior officer Pike has and
he makes Spock Captain. So given this perspective, Kirk's promotion
isn't all that extraordinary.
In TOS was not Spock much much older?
Kirk is also the only one who has any idea of what has happened having
put two and two together when he remembered the story of his father's
sacrifice on the Kelvin and about the Romulan transmission that Uhura
intercepted. (Which itself is also a plot hole since I believe Pike
was also on the Kelvin when it was destroyed and should be more likely
to remember that incident than Kirk who was busy being born at the
time.)
There is no mention of this. Source?
Huh? It's right there in the 2009 movie.
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote in message news:4ea9be6b$0$6841$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl:
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:G_CdnVey4NAFOzTTnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
"Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
news:j8c731$guf$1@dont-email.me:
Steven L. wrote:
"Frosty" <frostywinnipeg@mymts.net> wrote in message
news:j8a4tk$kpu$1@dont-email.me:
Where did this "repeat offender" movie backstory even come from ? >>>>>>>
TOS only mentioned that Kirk had found a way to modify a test
that no one else ever thought of.
Ingenuity,...is not something usually thought of as Bad Boy
Anarchist behaviour.
Romulans go back in time, attack the Kelvin, Kirk's dad dies.
Which is slightly different from Kirk's dad seeing him become
Captain of the Enterprise.
Also because of that, Kirk never has a biological brother Sam like
he did in the TOS universe. He grew up an only child with a
stepfather with whom he evidently did not get along.
-- Steven L.
Which still says,...That Movie has nothing to do with REAL STAR TREK
It's a reboot, just like the 2000s Battlestar Galactica was a reboot
of the 1970s series. That meant that the basic concept was the same,
but the details are all different, updated to reflect a different
time with a different audience.
The new Battlestar Galactica downplayed or even dropped the "Chariots
of the Gods" mythology of the 1970s series, and replaced it with an
allegory of the War on Terror.
In my opinion they did even more so!
In the 1970's show and in G80 they arrived in the 'now'.
In the Reboot they did arive in our prehistory. Exactly 'Chariots of
the Gods'.
I said: The details are all different. The basic concept is the same.
In Abrams' Star Trek, Kirk finally gets the captaincy, Spock ends up
second in command, and Pike ends up in a wheelchair. Just like in TOS.
But how they got there is totally different.
This, btw, is a favorite theme of Abrams and his favorite writer
Lindelof: The universe course-correcting itself. Details may change
but it converges to the same end result.
-- Steven L.
But I also don't understand how Spock could maroon anyone withoutThe marooning didn't make much sense.
somebody aboard the ship questioning and opposing such an action.
On 10/28/2011 10:35 PM, Duggy wrote:The marooning didn't make much sense.
The marooning didn't make much sense.
WOW you are RIGHT, it DIDN'T.
That was their ham-fisted way of giving Kirk a chance to meet OLD Spock.
I understand why they did it. aI understand what was accomplished by
doing it. aWhat I don't understand is WHY SPOCK DID IT.
"Frosty" <frostywinnipeg@mymts.net> wrote in messagenews:j8a4tk$kpu$1@dont-email.me:
Where did this "repeat offender" movie backstory even come from ?
TOS only mentioned that Kirk had found a way to modify a test that no one >>> else ever thought of.
Ingenuity,...is not something usually thought of as Bad Boy Anarchist
behaviour.
Romulans go back in time, attack the Kelvin, Kirk's dad dies. Which is
slightly different from Kirk's dad seeing him become Captain of the
Enterprise.
Also because of that, Kirk never has a biological brother Sam like he did
in the TOS universe. He grew up an only child with a stepfather with
whom he evidently did not get along.
Where did this "repeat offender" movie backstory even come from ?
TOS only mentioned that Kirk had found a way to modify a test that no one >> else ever thought of.
Ingenuity,...is not something usually thought of as Bad Boy Anarchist
behaviour.
Romulans go back in time, attack the Kelvin, Kirk's dad dies. Which is slightly different from Kirk's dad seeing him become Captain of the Enterprise.
Sysop: | DaiTengu |
---|---|
Location: | Appleton, WI |
Users: | 906 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 208:36:00 |
Calls: | 12,035 |
Files: | 186,477 |
Messages: | 2,214,342 |