More "New Trek" oddness

[Captain]

I just read at another site that the original opening scene for the new Trek movie didnt involve the Kelvin, but rather the TOS Enterprise under the command of Robert April. Everything went down as seen in the film, but it was the original 1701 and April that bought the bullet. According to Bob Orci that one event would be the proof that that exact moment is were the timelines diverge. Of course, Paramount pitched a fit, and disallowed the use of the 1701 we all know and love, along with April (Tom Cruise?) in that scene.

Weird huh!?

[cdhall]

It would have been nice to establish April as first Capt of the Ent but then they would have had to destroy it. Tom Cruise as April might have worked.

This website has some issues with the reboot,

http://blog.adamnash.com/2009/05/17/...-movie-reboot/
but he doesn't address some that I have which include Kirk being born in Iowa apparently in the Original Continuity. George Kirk being Capt of a ship... other stuff bugged me like the phaser belts, etc.

I think it would have been better to just reboot. Or call me for help. They needed to go back Prior to George Kirk to make this make more sense. I think.

[Captain]

I'm just guessing at Cruise, because he hung around the set like an old hound dog behind the butcher shop during shooting.

I saw the film 3 times. First time it was fun, the last two I could only see all the plotholes and goof ups. To be fair, no matter what these guys did, this film would be harshly scrutinized. Best thing for the producers would be to forge ahead, and forget about the missteps of the first one. For the most part, the public only sees Trek in stereotypes anyway, and as long as everybody says his or her usual lines, and McCoy and Spock lift an eyebrow or two, there happy.

Its old farts like us that scrutinize everything down to the number of rivets on the toilet role holder in the brig that they end up angering or disappointing.

[darklord1967]

Lord knows I'm no STAR TREK expert, but couldn't the differences in this timeline (prior to the events depicted in the film) be explained by The Enterprise D's interference with the timeline in STAR TREK First Contact where the first meeting with Zefrem Cockrum was changed?

[UnderdogDJLSW]

I think I would have liked that version better. In some of the novels, George Kirk served under April. It also would have made this Enterprise 1701, so the new version would have had to be -A or a new registry number. Would have made better continuity in my opinion.

[Captain]

Lord knows I'm no STAR TREK expert, but couldn't the differences in this timeline (prior to the events depicted in the film) be explained by The Enterprise D's interference with the timeline in STAR TREK First Contact where the first meeting with Zefrem Cockrum was changed?

Yep. Thats the way I prefer to think of things too. First Contact begat Enterprise, which Begat the new movie series.

[Nostalgiabuff]

hey, whatever works for you. I still liked the movie and am looking forward to getting it on Blueray o watch a few more times

[Earth 2 Chris]

I think that would have only muddied the timeline further. As it stands, in the long run, the timeline hasn't diverged THAT much, save for the destruction of Vulcan, and Kirk and crew maybe meeting and attaining their Enterprise positions earlier. If they'd destroyed the classic Enterprise earlier, that would have invalidated even more of the old timeline. That was the number one gripe I heard from diehard fans upset with the film, so making it worse would have only made most of them angrier.

You can dissect and scrutinize ANY movie to death. The bottom line is, the vast majority of the people who saw this movie enjoyed it, and felt they spent their money well. And it was a big success and revived the franchise. Mission accomplished.

Chris

[The Bat]

As it stands, in the long run, the timeline hasn't diverged THAT much, save for the destruction of Vulcan, and Kirk and crew maybe meeting and attaining their Enterprise positions earlier.

You can dissect and scrutinize ANY movie to death. The bottom line is, the vast majority of the people who saw this movie enjoyed it, and felt they spent their money well. And it was a big success and revived the franchise. Mission accomplished.

Chris

Amen Chris...well said!!

[shaunhood]

Tom Cruise?! That's kinda surreal er-- odd

[Captain]

^^^Again...just a guess based on how often the guy kept turning up on set. He was either set for a part, wanted a part, or was handing out scientology brochures to the Romulans?

[trekman101]

ANSWER:a four leaf clover....a rabbits foot...ships named enterprise
QUESTION:name three things that bring good luck
something similar was said by a star fleet admiral on TNG.
First rule of star trek...the enterprise doesn't get destroyed (unless you want to make a bad movie).In STIII Nimoy made an exception to this rule saying in STII spock was sacrificed to save the enterprise so he thought it fitting for Kirk to sacrifice her to save him in STIII.Destroying the enterprise would have only made the plot less plausable in the new film.She is always in the right place at the right time in reality and in fiction (STIV comes to mind)

SOME TREK TRIVA....Gene's original ship name was the yorktown under the command of Robert April...he later changed it because "the big E" in WWII was always in the thick of things and always came out on top.....the enterprise and yorktown were sister ships (built at the same time and identical)and in STIV the yorktown was the last constitution class star ship in service. So instead of being decommisioned she was updated and renamed the enterprise 1707A

[chunky B]

Isn't supposed to be bad luck to rename a ship?

I never realized the "A" was the Yorktown, I just figured they built another Enterprise when I was a kid, but makes sense now that I'm older and understand how things are made...

[Megotu]

Isn't supposed to be bad luck to rename a ship?
...

Like you could have worse luck than ST5???

[Captain]

...They did Megotu...It was called Insurrection (or Nemesis take your pick!).