Nov 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Star Trek
The preview for the upcoming J.J. Abrams-helmed movie looks pretty good, but the shot of the speedometer early on seems to imply that we’re still not on the metric system in the 23rd century, long after the USA has been subsumed into the United Earth government and then the Federation. My understanding is that Abrams doesn’t really care for Trek fans, and no doubt remarks like this won’t change his opinion of us for the better. But still!
95 Responses to “Star Trek”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
It’s amazing how in this new movie, Kirk gets to be a starship captain at the age of 14.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
A far simpler explanation is that he was driving a classic car. Of course it wouldn’t have a modern speedometer, Corvettes didn’t.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I always assumed that the USA was the basis for the United Earth government and then Federation.
If the US had taken over Earth, it wouldn’t have put its planetwide seat of government in San Francisco, Capital of Dirty Hippiedom.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
We’re above all that nationalism in the future, Al. The 23rd century is a groovy place.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Yes, that was a Corvette Stingray from 1964-ish. I look forward to the 2050 special edition DVD where the Corvette is digitally replaced with a very full supertrain heading toward a sensibly designed metro transit hub.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Al–
Pretty much there’s no government anywhere after WWIII and the Vulcans showing up leads to a new world government.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
A big part of the problem Trek has had for fifteen years is that it’s been in the hands of people who have apparent contempt for their fans.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “the shot of the speedometer early on seems to imply that we’re still not on the metric system in the 23rd century, long after the USA has been subsumed into the United Earth government and then the Federation. My understanding is that Abrams doesn’t really care for Trek fans, ”
————-
Or maybe he figured that the likelihood of any Star Trek fan being able to calculate the delta V for a Hohmann Transfer Orbit is vanishing small.
Especially if said Trekkie only has a Philosophy degree from Harvard.
So why sweat the units issue?
November 17th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
“Pretty much there’s no government anywhere after WWIII and the Vulcans showing up leads to a new world government.”
The bits and pieces we do know about life during and after WWIII is that it was essentially close to anarchy, without much real government and certainly not that much like the USA, even though a lot of references are made to the old American government (the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.) as important precursors to United Earth. In reality, though, it’s seemingly the Vulcans who are equally co-founders of the Federation of Planets as the humans.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Actually, the seat of government for both the united Earth and the Federation is Paris. San Francisco is just the hq for Starfleet.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I should point out that according to Star Trek:Enterprise which takes place before the movie, everyone is already using metric in everyday speech.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
J.J. Abrams not liking Trek fans but making a Star Trek movies strikes me as, um, well, asking for trouble.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I wish I could say that this was the geekiest thing I read today. Sadly, I cannot.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
So why sweat the units issue?
With an attitude like that, you could have a long career at LockMart.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Bill Cameron Says:
“J.J. Abrams not liking Trek fans but making a Star Trek movies strikes me as, um, well, asking for trouble.”
I find his disdain for Trek fans far less troubling than the fact that he generally sucks at what he does. I’m all for a complete reinvention of a stale franchise in order to bring it up to speed with modern sensibilities, but I wouldn’t have chosen JJ Abrams to do it.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
That trailer reminds me somehow of the Star Wars prequels.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
> I should point out that according to
> Star Trek:Enterprise which takes place
> before the movie, everyone is already
> using metric in everyday speech.
The USS Enterprise blueprints and operating manual published back in the 1970s, with Roddenberry’s blessing, are all metric.
Cranky
November 17th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
So why sweat the units issue?
With an attitude like that, you could have a long career at LockMart.
Or NASA’s Mars program.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It would indeed be odd for a ca. 60’s Corvette to have a speedometer that used kph instead of mph.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
seems to imply that we’re still not on the metric system in the 23rd century
Not true. In episode 23, the one where Judy finds the Space Chimp, I clearly remember Mr Spock calibrating a flux capacitor in newtons rather than pounds. So there.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“but the shot of the speedometer early on seems to imply that we’re still not on the metric system in the 23rd century”
Actually the characters on Star Trek have constantly mixed metric and standard measures as long as the shows have been running, sometimes even in the same conversation. This inconsistency is a common point of criticism by people who want to critique various Star Trek producers’ posturing about how “scientific” the show is.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
If memory serves, according to Star Trek: Enterprise the Federation is founded long after Star Fleet. My understanding of Trek history is as follows. Some time in the 21st century, after WWIII, Zephram Cochran builds the Phoenix and has the first FTL flight, which brings the Vulcans to Earth. The Vulcans’ first contact prompts a united Earth government and the creation of Starfleet, whose purpose is the development of starships, related technology, and eventually exploration. After the adventures of starship Enterprise have brought Earth into contact with several species, Captain Archer gives a landmark speech at the founding of the United Federation of Planets.
Long story short, the united Earth government came first, then Starfleet, then, quite a bit later, the Federation.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
What’s the only thing with less scoring than a soccer game?
A Star Trek fan convention at a singles bar.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Actually the thing that bothered me most is that in the Star Trek the ships are built in orbit for a variety practical reasons. In this trailer the ship is being built on the ground.
Also it’s clear that it is a classic car and not one of the period.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I just saw the trailer today – it was massively confusing. Are we going to have to sit through all of Kirk’s and Spock’s life to get to the point where they’re on the Enterprise?
Movie will probably be VERY long.
I suspect this will not be as good a movie as the first Star Trek movie. Anybody remember that long, loving paean to the Enterprise as Kirk approaches it in the shuttle?
Meanwhile, more confusing Terminator tonight! After last week’s disastrous situation, is somebody finally going to come down hard on John for running around unsupervised? And what do Sarah’s bizarre dreams of turtles in maternity ward beds and Cameron first comforting a turtle then handing it to Cromartie mean? And why are they intruding into her real life?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Jim Henson’s Trekkie Babies!
November 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Star Trek! I thought Matt was cooler than this. So very sad.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
RSH- the tortoise on its back was an obvious Blade Runner Voight-Kampff reference.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Jim, good point.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I don’t recall it being on its back is the problem. Looked upright to me. More obvious was Cameron acting like she was cuddling it like a new mother.
I can see the turtle referencing John being fucking slow to “come out of his shell” as the “future leader of mankind”, instead of acting like an idiot.
If he’s the “future leader of mankind”, it’s time to send in the first string.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Good God. Having MY fail to grok why a mid-60’s classic would have an MPH speedo is giving me flashbacks to my wife failing to distinguish between a ‘57 T-bird and a generic Corvette.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oh, wait. Matt grew up in Manhattan, while I grew up in Orange County, CA. Correlation == causation.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Commentaries like this remind me of how it feels when people complain that they liked the 1960’s Batman TV show better than the recent movies because the TV show was a lot more fun and not so dark. And if you think I’m making that up, you’re wrong.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Commentaries like this
Wait, which people are you referring to? There seem to be a lot of different points of view here.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
It doesn’t look very promising. I’m guessing too many individual plot lines spanning too long a period of time crammed into a feature length film.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
…when people complain that they liked the 1960’s Batman TV show better than the recent movies because the TV show was a lot more fun and not so dark.
The 1960s TV Batman might’ve been overly silly, but I find the recent Dark Knight films almost comically self-serious—which, judging solely from the trailer, looks to also be a general problem with the new Trek movie.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Well, I’m a sucker for trailers, but I also realize that it’s really not wise to get too excited based on trailers alone. So, I guess it could go either way. The “building the ship on Earth rather than in space” thing does bother me a bit, but I’ve never been one to have my opinion influenced too much by nitpicks. If there’s a coherent story in there, I bet it’ll be a fun movie at the very least.
And other matt, what in God’s name led you to believe that MattY was too cool for Trek? Was it the posts on comics or his love of trains? Oh, or the previous posts he’s had about Trek?
November 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
> That trailer reminds me somehow of the Star Wars prequels.
I got that feeling as well, but I’ll reserve judgment. In any case, casting Zachary Quinto as Spock was a brilliant move.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I’d love to see a feature movie:
“Before there was the Babylon Project…”
“Before the Battle of the Line…”
“Before the first contact with the Minbari….”
Shots of pointy-eared, catlike aliens lining up in battle gear…
Shots of ships battling out in space….
Shots of aliens dying of some horrible plague….
“See the conflict that made the Earth Alliance a superpower, and launched humans into the galaxy!”
BABYLON 5:
THE DILGAR WAR
November 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
According to Enterprise, the Euros recover first but it’s an alliance. In theory even in the 24th century, earth still has a planetary (state) government.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Is there going to be a Reman in this flick, too? Oy.
.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Matt, your concern is ridiculous. Kirk is clearly driving an ancient automobile. The real question is why kirk forgot how to drive an automobile when he needed to in the classic episode A Piece of the Action
Finding themselves in an alien replica for old Chicago, Kirk and Spock climb into a car and Kirk tries to drive:
(Grinding) “Oops! Gears!”
“Yes. Oh… I believe they had a device known as a… clutch. Clutch, captain. Perhaps one of those pedals on the floor.”
(Kirk shifts the car into gear)
“I kind of like this. I’m going to get one myself.”
see: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/A_Piece_of_the_Action_(episode)
BUT HE HAD ONE HIMSELF, IT JJ ABRAMS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE?!?! PREPOSTEROUS!!!
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 am
… people complain that they liked the 1960’s Batman TV show better than the recent movies because the TV show was a lot more fun and not so dark. And if you think I’m making that up, you’re wrong.
I don’t think you’re making it up. I think most people of discernment and taste recognize that the 1960s Batman was a landmark in the mainstreaming of camp and gay sensibilities into mainstream media. “Dark Night” is pretentious overblown noise – it’s a 16-year old’s idea of “deep.” The Adam West show will be remembered fondly even 50 years from now, “Dark Night” will be forgotten in 10 years time.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:22 am
The US military uses metric. I think NASA tries to use metric. Even if the Enterprise was a purely US vessel it would have metric measurements.
Just like the US government keeps minting a dollar coin, but still produces dollar bills and circulates them more widely, the US government shifted to the metric system, but didn’t really.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:29 am
The cop is chasing him a vehicle that self levitates but it can’t go fast enough to overtake him? I suspect if they are able to build android cops that flit about in flying pods they also use those for personal transport. ( The pods not the android cops ) The teenaged Kirk isn’t going to have car mania because he’s never seen one. . . and you are all arguing over MPH versus KPH whether or not it’s a classic ‘Vette or whether or not Kirk knows how to drive. . . . and then there’s that whole if the cop has a self levitating vehicle why are people still driving around in wheeled vehicles, he’s speeding along roads that are being used…. and why if you have tractor beams and transporters would you needs cops flitting about in vehicles at all?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Hey, Gotta use energy efficient vehicles in teh futars!
November 18th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Oh come on. It’s obviously a 300 year-old car. Why wouldn’t the speedometer be in mph?
And who cares? It’s not like the original Star Trek doesn’t violate its own continuity and logic OVER AND OVER again.
And Kirk’s in a classic Corvette because he’s loves 20th C. artifacts! Duh!
Anyway, the movie looks awesome. I’m not one of those conservative fanboys. I’m a fanboy that’s open to new takes; it’s about time someone who wasn’t so dangerously immersed in Star Trek lore made a Trek film. 7/10 of the films are for FANS ONLY as it is, and only 3.5 of those seven are ANY good.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:14 am
That trailer reminds me somehow of the Star Wars prequels.
Actually, the trailer reminds me of a saturday morning cartoon spinoff of a big budget movie entitled “Teen [Movie Franchise].”
November 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Trek Dork wins the thread.
Personally I have very low hopes for this movie; with the old actors gone what you’ll get is generic big-budget space action movie with some familiar ship configurations and character names.
In any case, Trek’s strengths (both in the original series as well as the various follow-ons) were the strengths of television shows: strong writing and characterization (sometimes), the ability to take chances with different types of stories and to vary the scale and pace of storytelling, the ability to develop long arcs, the chance to stretch long-established characters by throwing them into unexpected situations, etc.
Movies can’t do a lot of this as they have to wrap everything up in a couple of hours, so instead they rely on budgets and spectacle. The Trek movies were able to draw on the long backstories of their characters, but even there you ended up in the later ones (like Insurrection and Nemesis) with overblown shouty action stuff instead of interesting stories.
If they really want to bring Trek back it should be on TV.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:55 am
I guess I’m thinking more about the absurdity of driving centuries-old antiques off cliffs rather than whether 1960s vintage cars haven’t been retrofitted with metric speedometers.
It seems like Abrams is sanding down Kirk’s interesting qualities. He’s kind of your standard Hollywood rogueish flyboy, instead of the pensive/cunning space Odysseus that was Shatner’s Kirk.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:25 am
The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that the director doesn’t much like Star Trek fans. It’s a pretty significant issue. Imagine if some Bond director had no respect for the history of James Bond and, instead, tried to put their own mark on the franchise.
Star Trek isn’t one of those franchises that can just be reimagined and repackaged. There’s a history there that deserves to be respected. We’ve seen what happens otherwise with piss-poor Star Trek movies like “Nemesis” where the director frankly didn’t give a shit about the mythology or anything else that came before.
Beyond that, it just makes no sense. Why would someone decide to direct a movie that they have no respect for? It’s like Michael Bay directing The Lord Of The Rings.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Now that I’ve seen tonight’s Terminator episode, I know which turtle you mean. I was going on the promo, not the scene in Mexico. But the writers had to screw that up later by having Cameron turn over Ellison after beating his ass. Very poor joke.
jimBOB is right, though – TV series can do much better than movies if the executive producers, the directors, and the writers – and preferably the actors – are all on the same page and are fans of the particular movie franchise. The Terminator TV show is MUCH better than the movies in terms of characterization and story development, as opposed to special effects and scale which movies, being far more expensive, are better at.
Unfortunately, the characterization of the Terminator characters is almost becoming embarrassing. If Sarah Connor makes one more mistake this season, or loses her mind – which is beginning to look like a real possibility – John is probably going to have to send her back to the Pescadero State Mental Hospital.
And if he or his idiot uncle screws up one more time, they’re all likely to be in prison during Judgment Day – which paradoxically was established tonight as the best place to be!
And agent Ellison screwed up BIG TIME tonight. So bad that he really deserves to get his ass killed – and I think he will when he discovers that his “employer” is actually a Terminator. His fuzzy little head will explode – probably because Catherine Weaver will put her tongue through it like she did the nuclear plant manager.
The only characters on the Terminator series with a clue are the Terminators: Weaver, Cromartie (now “dead” – but his body is still in play!), and Cameron who knows exactly what she’s doing – when she’s not glitched anyway.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Contempt for fans of Trek is a feature, not a bug.
Thank GOD.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Vanya, the 60s Batman series clearly has a place in television history that will probably be remembered (by some) for quite a while. That said, Batman comics have run nonstop for over 60 years and for most of that time have been closer to “The Dark Knight” in tone than the series. If “The Dark Knight” is forgotten it will be because another movie channeling the comics will come out and replace it as the movie most closely associate with the character. No one’s going to bother to channel the TV series because though it mainstreamed kitsch and gay sensibilities, it also sucked.
Adirondacker, you’ve got a point about transportation, but I think by the 23rd century teleportation was not widely used for casual travel. McCoy still had safety concerns, even though they seemed to be a bit archaic by the time the original crew were adults. And in Enterprise they pretty much only used the transporter for non-living materials or in cases of extreme emergency.
jimBob, while I agree with that Trek is at its best in television, I think the original movies are much more widely accepted by the general public. Ask them whether Trek was best in “The City on the Edge of Forever” or “Wrath of Khan” and I’d bet good money that Khan wins. There’s nothing wrong with spectacle, and Trek films have done a reasonably good job of delivering good spectacle along with decent characterization. But I too would like to see a new Trek series on TV.
Brett, I think there’s a continuum on this. On the one hand, a director that doesn’t know anything about a franchise’s history and doesn’t care to learn at all can make pretty generic contributions to that franchise. On the other, fans can be ridiculous in their expectations of “respect”. If Abrams has Kirk talk about the Galactic Empire overthrowing the Old Republic, I’ll be out in the street with torches along with the fans. If he forgets that Chekhov thought Russia had invented everything or that ships like Enterprise should have been built in space, I’ll probably snort in mild contempt but otherwise let it pass.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Lot of contempt for the fans in the new ST, particularly the weird conceit that a mob of people of different ages were all at the Academy together (!) and have served together forever, when Kirk and Spock obviously were not acquainted when Kirk was first assigned to the Enterprise in TOS. Groan.
That said, I think there was some mention, somewhere in the original series, of the Enterprise being built at the San Francisco Star Fleet yards – so presumably on the ground (seems impossible given the design, though).
November 18th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Khan was basically a two hour TV episode though, it leveraged the bejeasus out of the original story from the series.
Building the Enterprise on the surface really pisses me off. The ship is as aerodynamic as a brick, and the amount of scaffolding needed to hold up the saucer is just a stupid waste of resources. There are even a number of episodes where the ship is in danger of burning up in a planet’s atmosphere or ends up in atmosphere and has major problems.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:46 am
So James T. Kirk has fewer balls than Thelma and Louise combined?
November 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Building the Enterprise on the surface really pisses me off. The ship is as aerodynamic as a brick, and the amount of scaffolding needed to hold up the saucer is just a stupid waste of resources.
Yeah, well, you must get pretty livid every time they use the Transporter, then—since that’s about the most implausible invention in all of sci-fi.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
1966 (judging by the very quick glimpse of the gills). Also, looks like a 327 car (judging by the hood). Kirk always did have good taste. He knows the lighter small block Stingrays are much more fun than the pig-heavy 427s.
Trekkies? Pah! You will all tremble before my utter automotive geekery!
November 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Oh you think I don’t have Trek chops too?
Gene Roddenberry himself posited, in 1968, that the vessel’s components were constructed at the San Fancisco Navy Yards and then assembled in space.
Note also that in the ST:TNG episode “Parallels” a Galaxy-class ship is shown under construction on the surface of Mars (Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards).
November 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Eh, the big ticket gadgets that tell the laws of physics to STFU I don’t have a problem with. SciFi would be pretty limited without them.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Yeah, but a kid able to afford $3000 a gallon gasoline? Come on!
November 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Re Bret’s comment “The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that the director doesn’t much like Star Trek fans. It’s a pretty significant issue ”
—————-
Actually, it contributes Great Value to the movie.
Now hordes of Star Trek fans will spend years throwing hilarious little hissy fits over all the MISTAKES JJ Abrams made. Of how he doesn’t understand the REAL Star Trek. The Controversy will be good for several conventions at least. As well as give Trekkies a way to display/gage their Old Trek knowledge.
Which will give meaning to their bleak, empty, pitiful lives.
It may even bring a rosy glow to their pasty faces –but probably not.
Plus it will let the REST of us — those who don’t give a hairy rat’s ass — an endless source of amusement watching the Trekkies debate the issue with fevor while $5 Trillion Gifts to Rich sail over their heads unnoticed.
I bet Karl Rove put JJ Abrams up to it –just to divert the herd’s attention away from that financial disaster on Wall Street.
Too bad the movie didn’t come out 2 months earlier — John McCain could simply had showed up at a debate in his Navy uniform, said “Live Long and Prosper” with a Spock salute to the audience , and slid into the Presidency faster than Todd on his dog sled.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
And what’s with Captain Kirk saying “buckle up”? The Enterprise never had seat belts, they’re for wimps. That’s why the bridge crew did cartwheels every time the ship got hit with something.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Well said, Jamie. If you’re still a “fan” of star trek, after the shit sandwiches they’ve been serving for the past decade, then you have the exact opposite of good taste. They should ask current star trek fans what to do, then do the exact opposite.
That said, here’s what they’ve got to do: If they want to revive the series, they need to ignore continuity, the over-developed universe, and all the accumulated pseudo-science. It’s all too much, and it constrains the story-telling. Hell, the fucking bible is full of self-contradictions and latter-day revisions; I think star trek can survive it too.
Of course, you’ve got to have someone who can tell a decent story in the first place; Abrams is not that guy.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I think a re-vamping might be exactly what Star Trek needs. The original series was good because it showed cool technology and social norms that weren’t around any more. To be faithful to that exactly, you’d have to show characters be all excited and confused when they use their communicators (cell phones). You’d also have to show everyone half-avoiding Uhura. I think it might be good to have a re-imagination, keeping the characters but changing the technology and design around. That and I <3 Zach Quinto and I’m curious to see how he’ll handle Spock.
That being said, I don’t know much about this Abrams character, but suffice to say that I’m suspicious of anyone connected with “Armageddon.”
November 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I have a way to do that, which no one else seems to have thought of, but I can’t write a treatment on something I don’t have the rights to, so I’ll probably take it to my grave.
.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Ah, yes. I remember Kirk carrying some woman who was worried about her “reputation.”
Heh.
.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Show me a ‘64 ‘Vette with a kilometers/hr on the speedometer, and I’ll show you
November 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Show me a ‘64 ‘Vette with a kilometers/hr on the speedometer, and I’ll show you the “Idiot” setting on my Phaser.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Matt’s reading way too much into a quick glimpse of a film trailer. Star Trek has never shown any attempt to follow scientific norms or even engage in self-consistency.
In the original series, Kirk was once placed in the driver’s seat of a 20th century vehicle and quite obviously had no clue how the thing worked, so it seems like a stretch to believe he was racing 1960’s corvettes as a young teenager.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The world is in dire need of a new space opera movie franchise.
Word. Miles Vorkosigan, anyone?
Or Known Space, which — absurd as its science is — would make a fun series.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
There’s contempt for fans – which I know all about, being a Rush fan and having not a lot of respect for the objectivists-living-in-parents-basement typical Rush fan
– and then there’s contempt for the material itself. The former can produce fascinating reinvention. The latter produces unpleasant dreck no one even realizes is satire.
Well, okay, the former wasn’t so much contempt for fans as unconcern with their yammering about the discarding of everything they loved that was bad…
November 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Professor Kum’n'go, why shouldn’t people be fans of the Trek that was good and still not like the Trek that wasn’t as good. The last few movies weren’t terribly good, and Enterprise floundered from the beginning, but why should I like TNG or DS9 any less? Like any long-lived franchise, there’s good and bad, and I think most Trek fans accept that (though even I’m prone to defending Voyager from time to time).
Look, there’s no one right way to revitalize Trek. A BSG-style reimagining could be interesting, and if it’s good most fans will flock to it even though they might miss some of the old continuity. Or you could go the Doctor Who route, where it’s not quite clear what aspects of the old continuity are still relevent but the show gives a subtle nod to the fans from time to time. Or you could just continue on with a new show based on the same continuity. You’d surely have to try to make it accessible to new viewers, but good writing is good writing. If you’re too reliant on things happening off screen, even if it’s in-continuity, then you’re not writing very well.
The short version: to relaunch Trek, they need to make it good.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Note also that in the ST:TNG episode “Parallels” a Galaxy-class ship is shown under construction on the surface of Mars (Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards).
Of course, Mars has a lot less atmosphere than Earth, so building the ship on the surface of Mars makes more sense,
November 18th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
My particular strain of Trekkitis is that I want to see more and more of the timeline gaps filled. That’s why I really liked “Enterprise”, because it was all about filling in gaps so the timeline made sense. If this movie is as exciting as it looks AND plausibly fills in some more gaps, I’ll love it. If it messing stuff up too much, I’ll hate it. I don’t think Kirk “forgetting” how to drive in “A Little Piece of the Action” counts as an historical inconsistency. As long as they mention Jonathan Archer and Zephram Cochrane in the proper context, we’ll be fine. Maybe Kirk’s father knew Archer or something like that. Or, maybe Uhura learned the communications biz from Hoshi.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
By the way, just looked at the trailer again and remembered that it’s Winona Ryder playing Spock’s mother!
Go, Noni!
November 18th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Actually the movie isn’t as long as “Dark Knight”, and it’s tested very well. But superfans are never happy unless all the original actors are in their old costumes, on the old sets, reading from the original scripts, WITH NO EDITS.
But, like, 14 people would watch that. Superfans are rabid, but they overestimate their numbers. See (unfortunately): “Firefly, “Serenity”.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
> Building the Enterprise on the surface really pisses
> me off. The ship is as aerodynamic as a brick, and
> the amount of scaffolding needed to hold up the saucer
> is just a stupid waste of resources.
You are thinking about the mature Earth/Star Fleet/UFP, with pressurized space station drydocks the size of the Excelsior. Everything we have learned so far about construction in space is that lack of air is an incredible barrier to getting work done ( the jury is still out on whether zero-g {no, I won’t say “microgravity”} makes things harder or easier). Look at the difficulty they are having replacing a fairly simple bearing on the ISS solar array.
The post-war Earth, with its motley collection of old technolog and new technology, busy rebuilding itself and integrating what it has learned from the Vulcans, probably does not have the resources to construct any kind of in-space airdock. Since tractor beams are available why not build the ships on the surface, where conditions are better, and gradually lift them into orbit using tractors both for lift and to hold the structure together.
Cranky
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
The new Movie Trailer for JJ Abrams ‘ Star Trek was attached to Quantum of Solace over the weekend and is now officially online! Get the latest Flash Player to see this player. I was really hoping that this much
December 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Youthful incarnations of James T. Kirk and Spock are just two of the revelations in the new trailer for J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek movie. The trailer, attached to this weekend’s Quantum of Solace opening , shows
December 11th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Five years ago, Virginia Tech burst onto the high-performance computing scene using Apple Power Mac G5 computers to build System X, one of the fastest supercomputers of its time. Today, Srinidhi Varadarajan and Kirk W. Cameron
December 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
The question for me, after seeing this trailer in front of Quantum of Solace , is: What are the faithful gonna say? I sat next to a dude who said
March 1st, 2009 at 5:10 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:22 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
March 28th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:01 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Jpay50 dfrxxbldkqhr, [url=http://wlumcmfykvdg.com/]wlumcmfykvdg[/url], [link=http://rklrqdmjdzgr.com/]rklrqdmjdzgr[/link], http://ednlqvtkpcbn.com/