• Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to

    From Akira Norimaki@1:2320/105 to All on Tue Nov 15 12:10:53 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: diotonante@gmail.com
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    Duggy wrote:
    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.

    Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.

    --
    I'll be seeing you,

    - "We don't need no education..."
    - Yes, you do. You've just used a double negative!

    http://craphound.com/walh/audiobook/download-audiobook
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Duggy@1:2320/105 to All on Tue Nov 15 18:38:59 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Nov 15, 9:10apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Duggy wrote:
    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.
    It sells.
    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Duggy@1:2320/105 to All on Wed Nov 16 14:12:49 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Duggy wrote:
    [Star Trek XI]
    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.
    It sells.
    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.
    For someone is better than
    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.
    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.
    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Akira Norimaki@1:2320/105 to All on Thu Nov 17 08:07:12 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: diotonante@gmail.com
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    Duggy wrote:
    [Star Trek XI]
    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.
    It sells.

    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.

    Or, "The Man from Earth"... and, well, I don't recall anything else
    recent at the moment. LOL. I'm sure there are others though, there must be.

    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.

    Maybe Generation, but I disagree on First Contact. Unless you are saying
    that FC was a ST:TOS movie, in that case I sort of agree. The
    kirkization of Picard in FC was complete(d).

    Insurrection and Nemesis don't exist. I had them removed from my memory.
    They are god awful things of evil. :P

    I still have nightmares of the inflatable Data and of the Enterprise
    driven with a joystick... and that is disconcerting because having them removed from my memory I don't know where those idiotic ideas come from.
    LOL.

    --
    I'll be seeing you,

    - "We don't need no education..."
    - Yes, you do. You've just used a double negative!

    http://craphound.com/walh/audiobook/download-audiobook
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Steven L.@1:2320/105 to All on Fri Nov 18 12:59:16 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?



    "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message news:7bc5f90e-8d82-4562-8d23-47f5c3f54254@h31g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

    On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Duggy wrote:

    [Star Trek XI]

    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.
    It sells.

    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. Of course it can.




    -- Steven L.


    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Duggy@1:2320/105 to All on Fri Nov 18 17:29:40 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Nov 18, 10:59apm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
    "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

    news:7bc5f90e-8d82-4562-8d23-47f5c3f54254@h31g2000pro.googlegroups.com:









    On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Duggy wrote:

    [Star Trek XI]

    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.
    It sells.

    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.
    Did you read the word "blockbuster"?
    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Duggy@1:2320/105 to All on Fri Nov 18 17:34:02 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Nov 18, 10:03apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
    I liked "Blindness", "Code 46", "Cube", "Cypher"...
    I've never seen "Blindness"
    Blindess is a film about people suddenly going blind and the first
    people getting surviving in quarantine.
    It's not action SF by any means... an interesting drama, though.
    and "Cypher", so wish-listed.
    Spy thriller with some action and cheap FX by the guy who did Cube.
    I had a really
    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.
    Fair enough.
    I did like "Cube".
    I didn't like Cube 2.
    I linked the first half hour or so of "The Island"... then it went to
    shit.
    but I disagree on First Contact. Unless you are saying
    that FC was a ST:TOS movie, in that case I sort of agree. The
    kirkization of Picard in FC was complete(d).
    OK, yeah, Picard as action hero wasn't very TNG... but big borg
    episode was... they even had to reset the Borg to do it.
    True. Although those Borgs were more Voyager's that TNG's.
    Good point.
    Still don't think the "Think 4 dimensionally line makes sense."
    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From MITO MINISTER@1:2320/105 to All on Sun Nov 20 03:28:21 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: cigarmanwine@gmail.com
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Oct 26, 4:54aam, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
    "ToolPackinMama" <philnbl...@comcast.net> schreef in
    berichtnews: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?

    Kirk's promotion advances the plot? Just sayin.
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From MITO MINISTER@1:2320/105 to All on Sun Nov 20 03:30:24 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: cigarmanwine@gmail.com
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Oct 28, 3:14aam, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
    Steven L. wrote:
    "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
    quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -
    There is no REAL STAR TREK. It's all product for you morons to buy and
    talk about.
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From MITO MINISTER@1:2320/105 to All on Sun Nov 20 03:33:38 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: cigarmanwine@gmail.com
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Oct 29, 2:01apm, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
    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. aI understand what was accomplished by
    doing it. aWhat I don't understand is WHY SPOCK DID IT.
    Because the writer wrote it that way and you didn't. Frankly you don't
    write anything that you don't self - "publish" yourself. And that's on
    the internet.
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From MITO MINISTER@1:2320/105 to All on Sun Nov 20 03:34:57 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: cigarmanwine@gmail.com
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Oct 29, 2:03apm, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
    On 10/29/2011 1:01 AM, ToolPackinMama wrote:

    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.
    Maybe you are too anal retentive to just sit back and enjoy what is
    essentially an action-adventure movie ? Nah, can't be.
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Steven L.@1:2320/105 to All on Fri Oct 28 15:06:31 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?



    "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.


    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From ToolPackinMama@1:2320/105 to All on Fri Oct 28 18:22:38 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: philnblanc@comcast.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Frosty@1:2320/105 to All on Fri Oct 28 22:54:55 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: frostywinnipeg@mymts.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    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?


    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From ToolPackinMama@1:2320/105 to All on Sat Oct 29 01:01:21 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: philnblanc@comcast.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From ToolPackinMama@1:2320/105 to All on Sat Oct 29 01:03:59 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: philnblanc@comcast.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On 10/29/2011 1:01 AM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
    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.


    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Wouter Valentijn@1:2320/105 to All on Sat Oct 29 18:01:07 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: liam@valentijn.nu
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?


    "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:j8f9vi$g7d$2@dont-email.me...
    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.

    Yep.
    For their next trick they should bring Vulcan and Amanda back.



    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Zombie Elvis@1:2320/105 to All on Sat Oct 29 19:13:06 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: DELETErobertocastillo@ameritech.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:54:55 -0500, "Frosty"
    <frostywinnipeg@mymts.net> wrote:

    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.

    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?

    Again, we're talking about the 2009 Star Trek movie which rebooted the franchise. This movie takes place around the time that Kirk cheats on
    the Kobayashi Maru scenario, putting his graduation from Starfleet
    Academy in doubt and greatly irritating Spock who is a young Academy
    instructor in this movie.
    --
    "Please captain, not in front of the Klingons."
    -- Spock

    Roberto Castillo
    robertocastillo@ameritech.net

    http://robertcastillo.net/
    http://twitter.com/ZombieElvis
    http://robertocastillo.tumblr.com/
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: Forte Inc. http://www.forteinc.com/apn/ (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Frosty@1:2320/105 to All on Sat Oct 29 21:27:56 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: frostywinnipeg@mymts.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    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.

    There's no such scene.

    Pike wrote a paper on the attack, that's about it. You would think that when he mentions the 800 lives GK saved that besides JTK and his mother he would have said he saved his life as well.

    There's a good thread at http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Pike#Cadet_on_the_USS_Kelvin that explains exactly what Pike said. A number of people have misunderstood
    or misheard what Pike said.

    Pike: For my dissertation I was assigned the USS Kelvin.

    Dissertation: A long essay on a particular subject, esp. one written as a requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.

    I hate to be the bearer of bad memory bubbles busting.



    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Bast@1:2320/105 to All on Sun Oct 30 21:57:28 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: fakename@nomail.invalid
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?



    Steven L. wrote:
    "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.


    I'm not sure how anyone could consider these three things,...."the same result".
    ....When everything else ended up differently.

    It's like saying, Superman, and Bizzaro Superman, are identical because they both wear similar costumes.


    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Duggy@1:2320/105 to All on Mon Oct 31 06:30:45 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Oct 29, 3:03apm, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
    But I also don't understand how Spock could maroon anyone without
    somebody aboard the ship questioning and opposing such an action.
    The marooning didn't make much sense.
    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Duggy@1:2320/105 to All on Mon Oct 31 06:30:17 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    On Oct 29, 3:01apm, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
    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. aI understand what was accomplished by
    doing it. aWhat I don't understand is WHY SPOCK DID IT.
    The marooning didn't make much sense.
    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From anim8rfsk@1:2320/105 to All on Mon Nov 7 20:13:35 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: anim8rfsk@cox.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> 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.

    Sure he has a brother; that's who he's talking to on a com at one point, although the movie is so ineptly made that it's hard to catch. The reason
    he doesn't get along with the stepfather is that the guy is molesting him,
    but you have to read interviews with the actor (who bizarrely thought he
    was playing Kirk's uncle) to get that part.


    --
    sent from a borrowed ipad
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From anim8rfsk@1:2320/105 to All on Mon Nov 7 20:13:35 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
    From Address: anim8rfsk@cox.net
    Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?

    "Frosty" <frostywinnipeg@mymts.net> wrote:
    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.

    When did that ever happen?

    --
    sent from a borrowed ipad
    --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
    # Origin: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! (1:2320/105.97)
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)