Comments on: Star Trek 2: The Eels Have Eyes

By: Carl

Carl — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:32:06 +0000

Well as I have been reading some of the letters and blogs, and as any of you that have seen my letters on so many web sights know I did not like this film. As I’ve been called I have to admit there is some proof to the fact that I’m an old die hard STICK IN THE MUD fan of Star Trek. The biggest problem I’ve got with the film is that it completely goes against Star Trek canon. As some people agree with me, some do not. So I think we both can come up with a solution that will appease both new fans of this film and us die hard STICK IN THE MUDS. We die hards cant do it alone so we need you new fans help and the best part about it is any of you that don’t know anything about Star Trek shouldn’t notice a thing anyway.
I purpose introducing characters that are not considered canon but are still known to us old STICK IN THE MUDS. As well as some we didn’t get to know real well and for those of you that don’t know what I mean here some names to help you out.

ROBERT APRIL he was suppose to be the Enterprises first Captain before Pike and was the only character ever played by Gene Rodenberry himself

AREX he was a navigator in the animated Star Trek and had six limbs. With new C.G.I. he could be created vary easily

WILL DECKER he was killed in the first movie but was suppose to be in the second T.V. show witch never happened.

ILIA also killed in the first movie

M’RESS also from the animated Star Trek she was of a cat like race easy to create now

I feel a letter writing campaign would help with this and then maybe you new fan and us old STICK IN THE MUDS can both enjoy the ride the next film takes us on

By: carl

carl — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:40:30 +0000

I’ve been reading some of the letters and just to comment I’ve herd about the paradoxes and continuity problems in STAR TREK for years I’m sorry I just don’t see them I feel that any thing that’s been said in STAR TREK T.N.G or any other show from that time frame that doesn’t sound quite right would be like you or I talking about the Civil War we know what we know from what we piece together within our own mind by what we’ve read and herd if we get something wrong it not antennal we just didn’t interpret things quite right But if someone makes a movie about that war and shows Abe Lincoln dying as a result of someone firing a canon at the White House that’s not interpretation THATS GETTING IT WRONG and J.J. GOT IT WRONG I know some will say that its just a show and some movies but its also a dream of one man named RODDENBERRY and I fell if he or his wife were alive right now this movie would never have reached theaters and would have faded it to the same abyss the first Fantastic Four movie fell into and I’m not talking about the one with Jessica Alba in it
By the way I’ve been called worse things then Scott in my life so no problem

By: Matthew Belinkie

Matthew Belinkie — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:29:28 +0000

@ Carl – Sorry I called you “Scott” in that second paragraph.

By: Matthew Belinkie

Matthew Belinkie — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:28:17 +0000

@ Carl – I like your thinking. However, in this Star Trek movie, the universe seems to be trying really hard NOT to let anything change. I mean, what were the odds that Scotty was working on that ice planet, that Kirk just happens to be marooned on? You can dismiss this as a lame coincidence. But I think it’s supposed to be Fate. The universe WANTS Scotty to be the Enterprise’s engineer. Even through the past is altered in a bunch of huge ways, somehow Scotty gets that job. It’s Destiny. Hell, on a more basic level, you’d expect the tragic death of Kirk’s father to change his entire life, resulting in a different personality and different career. But he still ends up on the bridge of the Enterprise, despite a radically different upbringing.

What I’m saying, Scott, is that the laws of cause and effect seem a little malleable, and we don’t know exactly how that will play out. Maybe none of the adventures in the original series happen at all. Maybe they all happen exactly the same way. But hey, whatever happens, remember it’s a parallel universe. This isn’t a question of “canon” or “non-canon.” This is just a second way Star Trek could have unfolded.

By: carl

carl — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:47:38 +0000

Has anyone stopped to think about all the things that could go wrong with the way this universes Star Trek is? Sarek will die in Journey to Babel because it was Spock’s mom that convinced Spock to go thru with the surgery to save his fathers life and if that happens when David (if he even exist) when builds the Genesis Device and its explodes Spock will die. But no one will go to Kirk to ask him to retrieve Spock’s body so the Kingons will kill David, Spock, and Savak. McCoy will most likely die in some mental hospital so sick from Spock,s Katra that no one knows how to treat him. When the Enterprise /A doesn’t work properly Kirk will go on vacation he will fall to his death because Spock will not be there to catch him. But I guess that that will all work out in the end because that mean that Spock cant make a promise to save Romulus and he and Nero cant go back in time and Screw every thing up.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:51:44 +0000

I was converted to a Trekkie through slow, methodical indoctrination (my babysitter was a Trekkie), and I don’t really know a lot of fans, except my brother, who was also converted. We kind of are an isolated sect, I suppose. I love Wrath of Khan, but what about Undiscovered Country? Am I totally off base? I thought that one was pretty good (bracing for tongue-lashing here, but have to ask…), the acting was decent, the story was fair, the characters seemed to act rationally according to his/her motives…

By: Dave M

Dave M — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:55:03 +0000

People actually enjoyed watching the one with the whales in it. So that one’s clearly better in the “more people have told Dave they liked that one” sense. Wrath of Khan barely even makes sense without being overthought (What with the alleged superman acting like a three year old all the time). Also, killing off a major character to make a movie seem like a big deal is kind of cheating if you just bring him back to life in the next movie.

By: stokes

stokes — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:49:40 +0000

Alas, there’s probably some dudes at the Chuck E. Cheese who have been working there for a looooooong time.

By: Pianodan

Pianodan — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:30:52 +0000

I think the fact that Khan is the best of the Star Trek movie is such a wide consensus that there’s no need to source it. It would be like sourcing the statement, “You know, I think it quite likely that the sun will rise tomorrow.”

Of course, being the best of this particular pool is like saying you’ve got the most seniority of ANYONE at your Chuck E. Cheese.

By: Open Thread for February 20, 2009 | Overthinking It

Open Thread for February 20, 2009 | Overthinking It — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:57:24 +0000

[...] just to flame bait needlessly, let’s pile on the recent fracas in the comments: What’s the best Star Trek movie? (Obviously you have to make the case for [...]