Author Topic: Star Trek (2009)  (Read 4003 times)

Offline Podmark

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 5100
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2008, 02:14:06 AM »
Quote
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.

Except most people I know don't take that particular expression that literally.  My guess would be that Han doesn't either.

Also Shadows is totally canon.

Offline Uncle Yuan

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2008, 06:48:28 AM »
It'll still make way more sense than Return of the Jedi.
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.

 :blink: Dude, you have way too much free time in your life.

Offline Gremlin

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3255
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2008, 08:54:12 PM »
It'll still make way more sense than Return of the Jedi.
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.

 :blink: Dude, you have way too much free time in your life.

Being such a slave to Star Wars hardly counts as free time. She is a harsh mistress...

Offline Dr.Volt

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 671
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #63 on: November 25, 2008, 07:52:24 PM »


Btw, what does TAS stand for?  TAS=The Animated Series???


I think he meant TOS... The Original Series.  Though there was a TAS as well... which in some regards had a more interesting crew.

Oh that makes sense.

I definitely agree!  TAS DEFINITELY doesn't get the respect it deserves.  Yeah it had some additional characters that were more interesting!  Lt. M'Ress and the 3 armed-3 legged guy navigator were great.  And the stories were actually really well written, often done by people like DC Fontana and Larry Niven (who wrote my favorite episode...The Slaver Weapon that had the Kzinti in it!).

Offline Midnite

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 580
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #64 on: November 25, 2008, 08:16:47 PM »
Internet Trailer

A few different scenes? The ending scene maybe a bit too spoilerish... click at your own risk!

Offline thanoson

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1409
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #65 on: November 25, 2008, 11:36:04 PM »
Ok, I could have sworn Spock died in TNG. Am I wrong?

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #66 on: November 25, 2008, 11:38:51 PM »
Yes, you are.  Spock was last seen on Romulus, working on reunification with a group of friendly Romulans.

Offline House Quake

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1847
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #67 on: November 26, 2008, 04:31:07 AM »
I wanted to add a note concerning Star Trek continuity and why this movie smells of retool/reboot vs. an account of the crews early days.

In TOS episode 'Balance of Terror', this was the first time the Enterprise crew, under Kirk, had ever faced a Romulan ship as well it was the first time humans had ever seen what Romulans looked like.  In previous encounters between humans and the Romulans... there was no visual contact... only sub space radio.  A significant amount of time had passed since the 'Nuetral Zone' was established and there hadn't been any sightings of Romulans since.   Thus even if they some how work it so that no one actually sees the Romulan(s)... I can't see getting around Kirk and crew not knowing who they are up against.

This piece of Star Trek fact has been well protected during all the Trek series even and most notably the sucky 'Enterprise'. 

In other words... since the villains in this movie are Romulans... and this is supposed to be pre-TOS years... this single plot device totally re-writes much of known Trek continuity and lore as it relates to Kirk, the Enterprise Crew, the Federation and the Romulans.

Also on a minor note... for Chekov to be part of a 'young' crew with Kirk as Captain... if they stuck to continuity... he'ld be younger than Wesley Crusher was on TNG.  His youith was a significant plot device for his character.

Offline Dr.Volt

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 671
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #68 on: November 26, 2008, 10:49:50 AM »
I wanted to add a note concerning Star Trek continuity and why this movie smells of retool/reboot vs. an account of the crews early days.

In TOS episode 'Balance of Terror', this was the first time the Enterprise crew, under Kirk, had ever faced a Romulan ship as well it was the first time humans had ever seen what Romulans looked like.  In previous encounters between humans and the Romulans... there was no visual contact... only sub space radio.  A significant amount of time had passed since the 'Nuetral Zone' was established and there hadn't been any sightings of Romulans since.   Thus even if they some how work it so that no one actually sees the Romulan(s)... I can't see getting around Kirk and crew not knowing who they are up against.

This piece of Star Trek fact has been well protected during all the Trek series even and most notably the sucky 'Enterprise'. 

In other words... since the villains in this movie are Romulans... and this is supposed to be pre-TOS years... this single plot device totally re-writes much of known Trek continuity and lore as it relates to Kirk, the Enterprise Crew, the Federation and the Romulans.

Also on a minor note... for Chekov to be part of a 'young' crew with Kirk as Captain... if they stuck to continuity... he'ld be younger than Wesley Crusher was on TNG.  His youith was a significant plot device for his character.

Well said.  And it appears that there are actually several other discontinuities in the film.  Another striking one is we see Kirk as a boy driving a car with a stick shift when in TOS episode, A Piece of the Action, Kirk couldn’t drive a car with a stick shift (thanks to Mark Altman...from the link below for pointing this discontinuity out).  And as to the Romulans I’m pretty sure it’s canon that they didn’t even have warp drives at the time of TOS.  And yet what you wanna’ bet that they’ll have warp drives in the up coming movie?

But I guess the question for me really is do these discontinuties disturb the heart of Trek.  Are they disrespectful?   Do they hold up the plot and lend depth to it?  I suppose we won’t know fully until the movie comes out.  But I for one am going to be there opening day.

Oh btw, there is a very good review by a guy who has seen 30 minutes of the movie.  As always, beware of spoilers!  Here it is:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/24/mark-altmans-take-on-the-jj-abrams-star-trek-preview/

Offline cmdrkoenig67

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #69 on: November 26, 2008, 11:46:15 AM »
Hasn't Abrams claimed this film is a reboot?  If so, None of the original TOS continuity applies.

Dana

Offline udasu

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 239
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2008, 08:50:15 AM »
Wow, this thread is still going? Cool!

Yeah, some continuity they just shouldn't mess with.

Offline cmdrkoenig67

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #71 on: December 05, 2008, 03:31:13 PM »
Ok, I could have sworn Spock died in TNG. Am I wrong?

Spock's father died in TNG, at the beginning of the story with Spock on Romulus...How the heck am I remembering this?

Dana :wacko:

Offline cmdrkoenig67

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #72 on: December 05, 2008, 03:32:22 PM »
Wow, this thread is still going? Cool!

Yeah, some continuity they just shouldn't mess with.

...And they're not messing with it...If it's a reboot  (judging from the vast differences in the original Enterprise and this one, it's bridge/interior, Starfleet uniforms, etc....You might as well just view it as a reboot...It'll save you all a lot of aggravation).

Dana

Offline udasu

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 239
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #73 on: December 05, 2008, 06:29:24 PM »
agh! Mind frelled!  :wacko: