The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Abram-Trek
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Miscellanea -> Abram-Trek Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2456

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
I'm sure there are old school Trek fans who deny the canonicity of the J.J. Abrams films and stick to their own interpretation.


Yup. I'm one. I Think Abrams-Trek sucks. While I can see the Rebel Alliance letting Luke pilot an X-Wing, seeing as how he just rescued Princess Leia from the Death Star, was the son of a famous hero, and was Obi-wan pupil, I just don't see how the Federation would turn over command to one of thier top of the line Cruisers to an academy graduate.

I also don't see how Kirks father getting killed off when Kirk was a baby somehow got all the other Original Series cast members born within a year or so of James T., retroactively, so they could all be in the same class. What happened, they all showed up at George Kirk's funeral, accidentally took Klingon aphrodisiacs and all wound up "in the family way"?

At least when an anime show does something like that it's acknowledge as a comedy and not part of the real continuity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4897
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
I Think Abrams-Trek sucks. While I can see the Rebel Alliance letting Luke pilot an X-Wing, seeing as how he just rescued Princess Leia from the Death Star, was the son of a famous hero, and was Obi-wan pupil, I just don't see how the Federation would turn over command to one of thier top of the line Cruisers to an academy graduate.

I also don't see how Kirks father getting killed off when Kirk was a baby somehow got all the other Original Series cast members born within a year or so of James T., retroactively, so they could all be in the same class. What happened, they all showed up at George Kirk's funeral, accidentally took Klingon aphrodisiacs and all wound up "in the family way"?

atgxtg, the examples of the aspects of the new Trek you don't like are based on your (1) expectations of Trek realism, and (2) perceived discontinuity, but by your statement of it flat-out sucking, it seems that you just don't like it overall regardless of specific reasons. I've encountered this a lot. Is it just a laundry list of aspects of it that you don't like that causes your overall extreme dislike, or do you just not like it at all so like to criticize it? You don't have to answer - It's just a rhetorical question - Food for thought. My purpose in saying this is - No one has to justify why they don't like it. If you just extremely dislike it, you don't like it. Citing a few criticisms on top of just not liking it anyway can come across as unnecessary bashing.

If your few criticisms are specifically the reasons that you don't like it, and you might otherwise like it, then here are my responses in case they may help...

(1) Alternate Reality Kirk only being on the verge of Academy graduation and Starfleet giving him command of a starship. First of all, by stopping Nero, Kirk saved Earth from destruction (and potentially the entire Federation from destruction one planet at a time). Pike told Kirk that his father possessed a quality that was lost in Starfleet officers of the era, and it is established by the film that Kirk possessed that quality too.

This is just like the prime universe Trek. Countless inept officers, especially starship captains, are shown in contrast to the heroic Kirk. You have a problem with a graduating Starfleet Lt being promoted strait to captain and given command of the Alternate Reality Enterprise? I have a problem with the loser John Harriman being given command of the Enterprise-B. Generations is in my personal Trek canon, but the only way it works for me is if John Harriman only rose to the rank of captain and got command of Enterprise-B due to being the son of a powerful an influential Starfleet admiral. After the maiden voyage shown in the film, Captain Harriman's immense ineptitude was blamed for the death of Kirk causing the admiral to retire and his son to be drummed out of Starfleet for the sake of PR (and to coax Chekov out of retirement to take command).

Perhaps young Kirk was given command of the Enterprise for her 1-year shakedown run for the sake of good PR. Kirk was a galactic hero. And perhaps it was also to serve as an inspiration to Starfleet that was serious lacking in officers of Kirk's mettle. Experience is a valuable quality but Kirk was always portrayed as being an officer of a higher caliber, even in his youth. TOS established that the prime Kirk rose through the ranks rapidly without saving the Federation, so I don't find the AR Kirk to be that much of a stretch.

And have you seen the last film? It does actually specifically address your criticism. [Spoilers follow] After one year in command, the Enterprise was stripped from Kirk and he was demoted because he wasn't ready for the position and responsibility. (And in a bit of irony, the event that initiates it is a case of reckless violation for the Prime Directive which is sooo Kirk but actually more realistic than the prime universe's Starfleet that allowed such blatant disregard commonly). Of course, over the course of this film Kirk indirectly saves the galaxy again, and so Kirk is given command of the Enterprise to begin her first 5-year mission.

Over all, the movies are so incredibly enjoyable and entertaining, so I choose to just go with it.

(2) Over the course of researching Trek canon in the interest of establishing my own personal Trek continuity, I've researched the character ages. The only AR character with a different age than established by prime universe canon is Chekov. Scotty, Bones and Spock, being older than Kirk in the prime universe were born before the point of divergence so are still the same ages in the AR. (Kirk and Spock's respective childhood scenes were intentionally shown out of order in the film for narrative reasons but that was not meant to suggest a change to continuity). Bones already had medical practice and was married and divorced before enrolling in Starfleet, which mirrors the Trek expanded universe continuity. (Also, there had previously even been a never-made Trek prequel film in development that would have shown an older Bones being roommates with Kirk in Starfleet Academy.) Some characters like Uhura and Sulu never had their age or academy years established by prime canon, so there is a little play room there. Also, in the Alternate Reality, Kirk doesn't enlist in Starfleet until he is 22, so he is still a little older than Sulu and Uhura. Chekov, being a 17-year-old prodigy in the first new film, was admittedly made a few years older than prime universe canon, or else he would have been another Wesley Crusher on the bridge and we don't need that!

Maybe Chekov's parents did show up at George Kirk's funeral, accidentally took Klingon aphrodisiacs, and had a child a few years earlier than they were originally planning. Cool

crmcneill wrote:
I'm sure there are old school Trek fans who deny the canonicity of the J.J. Abrams films and stick to their own interpretation.

And even though there is time-travel and timeline divergence involved, the film's 'quantum mechanical red matter black hole' method of time travel meant the time travelers either created a divergent universe or entered an alternate but similar universe. My personal explanation is that the supernova being sucked up by the 'black hole' went back to the dawn of time and sparked the big bang of an alternate but nearly identical universe, and Nero and Spock-Prime entered that new universe at more recent points in its timeline, causing it to then diverge from the continuity of the prime universe's timeline.

Since the new Trek canon takes place in a parallel universe, it has had absolutely no effect on the original prime universe. There would be no need for fans to deny the alternate reality canon - They can easily just ignore the new universe. All previously produced Trek canon is still canon in the current franchise, and both Treks exist within the same Trek multiverse.

Star Wars already had two distinct canon universes, and they both still exist. The main difference with Star Wars is, the EU is technically the newer universe and that one is ceasing publication of new products, while the new products will take place in the original but newly expanding film universe. This is better then my "EU2" idea.

Unlike Star Wars, the Star Trek still produces prime universe expanded universe products along with the newer alternate reality stuff. One thing I love about the new reality portion of the franchise is that they want it to remain consistent with the films. The executive consultant of the Star Trek ongoing comic series is one of the producers of the films series. Now it seems they are applying the same idea to the Star Wars publishing franchise.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help


Last edited by Whill on Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2456

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:


atgxtg, the examples of the aspects of the new Trek you don't like are based on your (1) expectations of Trek realism, and (2) perceived discontinuity,


Whill,
You fondness for the new Trek is based on your own expectations and perceptions.


Quote:

but by your statement of it flat-out sucking, it seems that you just don't like it overall regardless of specific reasons. [//quote]

Regardless of specfic reasons to what? like it? I miss your point. Are you saying I should like it despite the things that I mentioned becuase it's a otherwise a good film?

[qoute]
I've encountered this a lot. Is it just a laundry list of aspects of it that you don't like that causes your overall extreme dislike, or do you just not like it at all so like to criticize it? You don't have to answer - It's just a rhetorical question - Food for thought. My purpose in saying this is - No one has to justify why they don't like it. If you just extremely dislike it, you don't like it. Citing a few criticisms on top of just not liking it anyway can come across as unnecessary bashing.



Whill, when somebody states that they like or don't like something almost immediately someone will ask them why. And it is customary to list some reasons why.

We do it here on the forum all the time. Someone will post something, about a rule, character, story, whatever, someone else will say they like or don't like it, and why. Especially if they don't like it.



Quote:
If your few criticisms are specifically the reasons that you don't like it, and you might otherwise like it, then here are my responses in case they may help...


No, I've got lots more reasons why I dislike it. In fact, about the only thing that I was favorably impressed with was Karl Ubrn's portray of McCoy. He manages to capture the character without turning it into a impersonation.

Quote:

(1) Alternate Reality Kirk only being on the verge of Academy graduation and Starfleet giving him command of a starship. First of all, by stopping Nero, Kirk saved Earth from destruction (and potentially the entire Federation from destruction one planet at a time). Pike told Kirk that his father possessed a quality that was lost in Starfleet officers of the era, and it is established by the film that Kirk possessed that quality too.


So Kirk is Strong if the Force? C'mon.

This is just like the prime universe Trek. Countless inept officers, especially starship captains, are shown in contrast to the heroic Kirk. You have a problem with a graduating Starfleet Lt being promoted strait to captain and given command of the Alternate Reality Enterprise?
Quote:


Yup.

Quote:

I have a problem with the loser John Harriman being given command of the Enterprise-B.


Me too. Generations isn't exactly a great film, IMO, either.



[qoute]
so I don't find the AR Kirk to be that much of a stretch.


You don't. But that's your own expectations and perceptions. I do.
Now, I don't go out picking theaters or anything. I just don't go out and see the new Trek, nor do I buy the DVDs.

Quote:

And have you seen the last film? It does actually specifically address your criticism. [Spoilers follow] After one year in command, the Enterprise was stripped from Kirk and he was demoted because he wasn't ready for the position and responsibility.


No. I don't plan to. I didn't like the first one and don't plan on watching the second one.

And the reasons for stripping Kirk of command are basically the reasons why they don;t give command of top rated ships to recent graduates. It's more of an inditement of the new Starfleet than on Kirk. Really, it's not his fault that he was given command before he was ready for it. Thats the brass' fault.


Quote:

Over all, the movies are so incredibly enjoyable and entertaining, so I choose to just go with it.


In your option. Personally, I found the first one un-enjoyable and boring. Even my non-Trekkie friends started to chuckle when they asked about it:

"Is is about time travel?"
"Uh, yes."
"Again!"


If you like the films that's your choice. You can go watch them, spend your money on them, but NuTrek merchandise, and run a NuTrek RPG campaign. But please, don't try to force me to join you.


If you want to debate the merits and flaws on NuTrek somewhere appropriate, I'd be willing to do so (not glad, it means I'd have to rewatch it in order refresh my memory), but not here.


Now as far as this topic goes. I was simply responding to a post that there are Star Trek fans who don't like the Abrams films-and indeed there are.

Matter of fact, the Abrams filsm are much more popular with Star Wars fans than with Star Trek fans. Not surprising since Abrams himself admitted that he was more of a Star Wars fan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2456

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mikael Hasselstein wrote:
Might I say that I am really looking forward to this Trek debate that you and atgxtg are about to launch?


I think you're the only one.

Since when did we have to all agree on everything?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4897
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:31 am    Post subject: Trek Reply with quote

I moved this 'discussion' to its own thread to not muck up the thread about Star Wars publishing with Star Trek. My bad on posting the first long (and mostly pointless) post about Trek in that other thread.

atgxtg, what would the point of debating the merits and flaws of the film between someone who loves and someone who hates the film? I do not feel the need to convince you or anyone else to like it and there is no purpose in that. If those two things were the only things you didn't like, (one was flat-out incorrect factually), I thought I might be able to help you "let go of your own hate". You have now made it clear it is not only two criticisms of the film that you don't like. You have now made it clear you are the in the camp of those who hate the first new Trek film all the way around and like throwing out a couple criticisms when the topic comes up comes up.

Yes, Starfleet made a mistake in promoting Kirk despite his rare Starfleet qualities of intuition and the ability to leap before he looks, and that mistake is addressed in more recent film. I thought you'd feel that was validation for your criticism of that aspect of the first film. I respectfully withdraw everything I said about your first criticism. I know now it pointless to go there because you have made it clear it means nothing to you anyway.

As far as my expectation of the first film? I was optimistic it would be better than Nemesis, and in my opinion, it was way better. After the first film, my expectation of the second film was that it would at least be almost as good as the first film, and in my opinion, it was. I'm a fan of prime and alternate Treks, and yes, the new Trek films are probably my two favorite Trek films because they are more like Star Wars, which I like even more than any Trek (Attack of the Clones notwithstanding).

A friendly suggestion for Abram-haters, when you are throwing out just a couple of criticism along with the declaration of your hatred, you should cross off the 'new characters all being the same age' one for the reasons I explained in my previous post about it. That one is not correct, and since you have a very long list of things you don't like, it should be easy to move on to the next one.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 797
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
I think you're the only one.

Possibly. Though maybe other people will come around and see this as great entertainment too.

atgxtg wrote:
Since when did we have to all agree on everything?

Who's saying that?

Sorry, I didn't mean to go off topic here.

I really enjoyed the new Trek movies, as I mentioned in the other threads. Yes, there were some continuity problems; and many more than I could possibly fathom, which were papered over by a cheap plot device. (In the new Star Wars movies, we're not even going to get that.)

What I, and I think most in Star Trek's audience liked about the films was that it was like seeing old friends when they were young again - younger even than when we first new them. Unlike the original series (and I mean all of the different Star Trek series), this was not a moralistic sci-fi show. It was a character-driven remember-old-friends story who's primary point was to appeal to old people's nostalgia, and new people's (presumed) desire for flashy sfx.

In that respect, it performed beautifully. I imagine that the new Star Wars movies will be much the same way, except we're not getting to see the old characters when they were young, we're going to get to see them again as they're older. I'm not sure that I like that, but that's my guess of what it's going to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jedi Skyler
Moff
Moff


Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 8450

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to agree with Mikael here; I too enjoyed the new films. Yes, there is a certain degree of uneasiness due to the divergent universe; however, I personally believed the casting department did a PHENOMENAL job of finding people to play the main bridge crew. And I also agree that Karl Urban did a FANTASTIC job as Bones. I really enjoyed his performance, which isn't surprising since I really like him as an actor, but I thought he nailed it spot-on, and as previously said, without it being any sort of 'impersonation.' Instead, it struck me as Karl Urban's best interpretation of Leonard McCoy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2011
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I loved the acting in the Trek movies but hated the movies themselves.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4356

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
I loved the acting in the Trek movies but hated the movies themselves.

I can understand why there would be a negative reaction among many fans, given the distinct flavor change. The new movies are different and not what they'd come to expect from Trek. Though... I kind of enjoy them for the same reasons. I love the previous iterations of Star Trek (except for Enterprise), but found myself enjoying the new films despite some of their obvious flaws.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DougRed4
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 1806
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too greatly enjoy the new Trek movies. I was a big fan of the originals (well, all but Enterprise), but still really loved the new ones. As was said, it was like a fun chance to see old friends. Better than that, it was the continuation of some classic characters with new actors. Sort of like characters like Sherlock Holmes and Batman have been seen as portrayed by different actors over the decades, it gave us a chance to see new, exciting stories with familiar characters.

It didn't bother me at all that they were mostly the same age. This wasn't meant to be a remake, but a reimagining of the old crew, and (as Whill said) it actually makes sense the way they did it (and keeping them close in age allows for some story decisions like many of them coming out of the Academy together).

As others have said, I thought the casting was phenomenal. They all gave fresh performances that reminded of those characters without being impersonations.

It wasn't perfect, and one criticsm I had (besides the overuse of lens flares) was how they gave the flagship of the fleet to a person right out of the Academy (so I agree with you in that regard). Like Whill said, though, at least they addressed this in the next film.

I've liked the vast majority of the stuff J.J. Abrams has done, so his excellence with Trek really makes me optimistic for what he'll do with Star Wars! Very Happy
_________________
Currently running Villains & Vigilantes (campaign now 24 years old), d6 Star Wars, The One Ring, and occasionally Marvel Heroic Roleplaying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4897
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been a Star Trek fan since watching the entire TOS in syndication over the course of the summer between my 7th and 8th grades. I then caught up on the live-action franchise by watching TMP, TWOK and TSFS on VHS. The Voyage Home is the first ST film I saw in the theater, and to this day still has the record for the movie I've seen the most times in the theater (17 times!). TVH is still my personal favorite TOS-prime film.

TNG is my favorite overall Trek series with the highest total number of episodes that I enjoy, but I never got into DS9 or Voyager. A rarity among Trek fans, I actually liked Enterprise. It got off to a slow start but Season 2 was a little better. The Season 3 season-long story arc 'Search for Xindi Superweapon' was unprecedented and handled well overall. But Season 4, after wrapping up the uninspired Temporal Cold War, was the best. I call S4 the 'TOS prequel season', and it's 2-4 episode story arcs comprise the single best season of any Trek series, IMO. Enterprise just got better as it went along, and Season 5 would have dove into the Earth-Romulan War if the series hadn't ended.

For the movie series, TNG had bombed out with its horrible 4th film, the entire 24th century franchise had been completely run into the ground, the 22nd century series had been cancelled due to poor ratings and the Trek franchise was dead, so the franchise really had nowhere else to go but back to the beginning. Like it, love it, bash it or just ignore it - The TOS series/films 'reboot' was the only logical way to go. I find the casting and performances to be excellent, and I love the sheer epic adventure of the two films.

Anyway, I'm not quite a first-generation Trek fan, but very similar to all the SW prequel-hatred I encounter, I very commonly run into Abram-Trek hatred among ST fans of my generation. It's refreshing to hear a few people chime in that experienced enjoyment with the new film(s), even with some criticisms. Spread more Smile than Mad .
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4897
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:03 am    Post subject: Character age & Academy contemporaries Reply with quote

DougRed4 wrote:
It didn't bother me at all that they were mostly the same age. This wasn't meant to be a remake, but a reimagining of the old crew, and (as Whill said) it actually makes sense the way they did it (and keeping them close in age allows for some story decisions like many of them coming out of the Academy together).

True, it is a reimaging. I'm glad the character ages didn't bother you, but they were not even 'mostly' the same age. Based in my research from my copy of Star Trek Chronology and Memory Alpha, here are the character ages in the main story of ST09, which takes place in 2258:

Scotty - 36 (canon in both universes)
Bones - 31 (canon in both universes)
Spock - 28 (semi-canonical from TAS)
Kirk - 25 (canon in both universes)
Sulu - 23 (no Prime canon age established)
Uhura - 22 (no Prime canon age established)
Chekov - 17 (admittedly 4 years older than Prime canon age)

Kirk, born in the year of divergence (2233), as well as the three older characters, are the same age they were in the prime universe. Sulu and Uhura have no canon ages, but are portrayed in the reboot as being within a couple years of the original actor ages relative to the timeframe of the TOS, and they are both born after the point of timeline divergence anyway.

Chekov was born well after the point of divergence. I say again: Chekov is the ONLY character whose alternate version has a different age than his original canon age. The alternatives were to make Chekov only 13 which would have been ridiculous, or to not have him at all (which would have been sad). Or they could have made a full blown-reboot and just changed whatever they wanted.

Instead of an actual reboot that completely disregarded canon, they instead made this a time-travel story involving another universe, which completely preserves the original canon (and allowed them to use the wonderful Nimoy as Spock-Prime to boot). I think it is amazing how well they worked within the existing canon. Chekov not being a kid is a small price to pay.

The other half of the common broad generalization regarding character age is that they are all in Starfleet Academy at the same time. In the film, only Kirk, Bones and Uhura are actually portrayed in the Academy. Kirk, having already earned the rank of Lt while still in the Academy and taking the Kobayashi Maru, is presumable on the verge of graduation in 2258. Also, when Kirk enlisted 3 years earlier, he told Pike that he would complete a 4-year program in only 3 years.

McCoy had already graduated medical school when he enlisted with Kirk. Uhura was already an academy cadet when Kirk and McCoy joined. Like Kirk, Uhura had also already achieved the rank of Lt while still at the academy, and Uhura and McCoy both ended up stepping up to officer roles for the crisis at the planet Vulcan, so it is safe to assume that they were also both on the verge of graduating in 2258, Uhura taking the usual 4 years and McCoy presumably only having a 3-year program since he already had the bulk of his professional medical training before enlisting in Starfleet.

In the prime timeline, George Kirk lived beyond James Kirk's birth year and served as James' inspiration in enlisting in Starfleet when he was 17 or 18. In the alternate timeline, George Kirk died when James was born and James didn't enlist until he was 22 when coaxed by Pike. By his age, Sulu likely graduated a year before the 3 film cadets. It is almost certain that the 17-year-old whizkid Ensign Chekov had very recently graduated, so that would make him an academy contemporary as well.

In the original timeline, it is canon that Kirk was a young contemporary of Spock at the Academy, but it is very likely that later, Sulu, Uhura and McCoy were contemporaries. In ST09, only ONE character's age was changed from Prime canon (Chekov), and only ONE other character attended Starfleet academy at a significantly different time in his life (Kirk). That's it! I don't get how anyone could have a huge problem with that, but whatever.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4356

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a problem that they seemed to change Kirk's character. He was really chasing after the ladies a lot in the academy. Why would that change?

Wink
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DougRed4
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 1806
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Character age & Academy contemporaries Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
True, it is a reimaging. I'm glad the character ages didn't bother you, but they were not even 'mostly' the same age. Based in my research from my copy of Star Trek Chronology and Memory Alpha, here are the character ages in the main story of ST09, which takes place in 2258:

Scotty - 36 (canon in both universes)
Bones - 31 (canon in both universes)
Spock - 28 (semi-canonical from TAS)
Kirk - 25 (canon in both universes)
Sulu - 23 (no Prime canon age established)
Uhura - 22 (no Prime canon age established)
Chekov - 17 (admittedly 4 years older than Prime canon age)


The ages you show above seem to me to be "mostly the same age". With the exception of the few outliers (Scotty and Chekov) they're mostly in their mid-20's, with less than a decade between them all.
_________________
Currently running Villains & Vigilantes (campaign now 24 years old), d6 Star Wars, The One Ring, and occasionally Marvel Heroic Roleplaying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4897
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Character age & Academy contemporaries Reply with quote

DougRed4 wrote:
Whill wrote:
True, it is a reimaging. I'm glad the character ages didn't bother you, but they were not even 'mostly' the same age. Based in my research from my copy of Star Trek Chronology and Memory Alpha, here are the character ages in the main story of ST09, which takes place in 2258:

Scotty - 36 (canon in both universes)
Bones - 31 (canon in both universes)
Spock - 28 (semi-canonical from TAS)
Kirk - 25 (canon in both universes)
Sulu - 23 (no Prime canon age established)
Uhura - 22 (no Prime canon age established)
Chekov - 17 (admittedly 4 years older than Prime canon age)


The ages you show above seem to me to be "mostly the same age". With the exception of the few outliers (Scotty and Chekov) they're mostly in their mid-20's, with less than a decade between them all.


But I thought the 'same age' criticism was based on a misperceived change from the prime universe? Why would someone use the age concern specifically to criticize the new Trek if they know the ages (except Chekov) are the same? Do you know?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Miscellanea All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0