View Single Post
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,506
# 147
12-12-2012, 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
That all fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my "general point", which was that the writers of Trek disregard realism whenever they want. "Q" was just one example to show that it is hardly exclusive to JJ's movies. So while you may not like JJ-Trek, that has nothing to do with my point.
Yes, but again, it's one thing to disregard realism for a scenario/creature etc, and something else to suddenly expect people to believe that a militery (ish) organisation who are punishing a cadet for cheating on a crucial exam, would ignore the chain of command, and just say "Oh here you go, have a starship..." Maybe overlook the cheating, but to give him a full commission, that really was just pushing suspension of disbelief too far for the sake of a movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
You mean like how TNG wasnt "truly original", and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Or how DS9 wasnt "truly original", and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Or how Voyager wasnt "truly original" and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Yep, thats right. Nothing after TOS was "truly orignal", as they were all just piggybacking on the existing Star Trek brand name.

Pretty much any complaint(besides lens flairs) that is leveled against the JJ movies can also be leveled against the previous Trek series. They also disregarded realism(see "Q") and also were not "truly original" beyond TOS. None of that means you have to change your mind about not liking the movie, it just means that if you have a problem with one but not the other then you have a double standard.
A fair point with regards riding on the coattails of the name, but a crucial difference, is that TNG, DS-9 and Voyager (even Enterprise) weren't ever intended to be re-workings of TOS, but extensions of that universe.