Home  Info  Starships  Fleet Yards  Treknology  Episodes  Database  Fandom  Community	Bloopers & Oddities   FAQ   Site Map

Star Trek (2009) FAQ

Q: I enjoyed reading your review and comments about "Star Trek (2009)". While I don't agree with all of it, I respect your opinion.
A: Well, this is not really a question or request, but most of the feedback I receive pertaining to my take on the movie begins like this. I'd just like to make clear that it should be possible to discuss the new movie in a civilized fashion, even if we all are a bit worked up about this or that, and I don't exclude myself.

Q: I noticed that on <any page> you forgot to include a new reference from "Star Trek (2009)".
A: It will take months until everything at EAS is up to date again. Bear in mind that I don't have a staff and that I am doing everything in my spare time. I haven't forgotten or disregarded anything, unless a page has recently been updated, and something from the movie is not yet included. Your suggestions are definitely welcome, but please have patience with me.

Q: I am truly disappointed. Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3 have more recent information than EAS.
A: Yes. Because Site 1 has a huge staff, Site 2 is a blog in which a new entry can be appended with one click and Site 3 is entirely dedicated to the new movie and part of the promotion campaign.

Q: I take it you hate "Star Trek (2009)"?
A: Read my review, rather than listening to hearsay. It was an exciting movie, a definite improvement over "Nemesis", but it failed to become a worthy prequel of Star Trek as we know it. I have many issues with the basic premise, with the outcome, with the characterizations, with the many amendments to the technology and the set design, with general continuity and with visual effects. But my rating of 6 points clearly indicates that I don't hate it. I just feel it is a new Trek that is not really my Trek any longer.

Q: So what are you going to make of "Star Trek (2009)"? Is it fully canon?
A: Principally yes. At least as far as I have to accept the producers' stance that it is supposed to be a canon Trek movie that happens to take place in a parallel universe (or in a new universe replacing the old one, as this is definitely open to interpretation). I have reservations though. Many events and other facts in the movie are inconsistent with established canon regardless of the parallel universe premise. I may decide to give the old Trek (5 series, 10 movies) precedence over the rebooted Trek. For the time being, the new movie will remain in confinement, meaning that facts will be accordingly tagged, in a similar fashion as with TAS.

Q: Why isn't "Star Trek (2009)" fully canon in your view? You initially complained a lot about Star Trek Enterprise, and now you have it on par with the other Trek series. 
A: Time will show. Currently I have a huge problem putting up with the redefinition of basic technology, with the countless plot holes (that would make much more sense if the old Trek had never existed) and with the general look & feel of the new movie. Enterprise, on the contrary, was true Trek and an affectionate prequel (with some issues) from the very first episode, and that is why I integrated this series rather quickly.

Q: You keep moaning that the "Star Trek (2009)" universe replaces the Prime Universe. But Roberto Orci made it clear that the old continuity (including the planet Vulcan) still exists. No need to worry!
A: I disagree with Orci because if there used to be anything consistent about the effects of time travel in Star Trek so far, it was that a new timeline was created that had to be fixed at any rate. We know the real-world reason why no one bothers to repair the damage in "Star Trek (2009)", because it is required to enable a reboot of the franchise. However, parallel timeline or not, it is depressing how no one among the characters gives a shit about the planet Vulcan and simply carries on as if nothing has happened. This is the perhaps most dramatic change to the basic premise of Star Trek.

Q: I have a theory: What if "First Contact" changed the timeline in the first place, and everything that followed, including the too advanced series Star Trek Enterprise and the too big U.S.S. Kelvin, is already in a parallel timeline?
A: Bob Orci, you have opened a can of worms. Damn you! ;-) I have never be a fan of time travel theories or similar far-flung conjecture to explain away discontinuities, because ultimately it would reduce the principle of canon to a mere option. Which more or less happened in "Star Trek (2009)". I would prefer not to extend this idea to the pre-Abrams continuity. In "Star Trek (2009)" we have explicit statements that many things are not as they are supposed to be. In classic Trek we have only decent changes like Sisko's picture being labeled as "Gabriel Bell", so there is no reason to assume that history has been noticeably changed from "The Cage" to ENT: "These Are The Voyages".

Q: You could at least give me some feedback on my ideas other than a blunt "Nice theory. But I won't include it".  
A: Sorry, but I don't feel like discussing their personal fan conjecture with a dozen people. Fan conjecture that can have no bearing on how I am dealing with the movie.

Q: But EAS is already full of conjecture!
A: That's not true, unless you refer to the non-canon (fan fiction) sections. EAS is about the depiction and evaluation of canon facts. I may re-evaluate a few things, but I don't add conjecture.

Q: The Kelvin and the Narada predate the parallel universe. You ought to move them to the "regular" section of your starship database. 
A: Perhaps I will have to do that eventually, but currently I still have a huge problem accepting them as belonging to the Prime Universe.

Q: Come on. The official CGI length of the Enterprise is 725m. Why don't you accept it?
A: I wonder why it is such a big deal that I beg to disagree with official figures (note that there is a difference between "official" and "canon"). I have pointed out incidences of mis-scaling many times before, and I have arrived at different figures for the BoP and the Defiant, to name only the two EAS articles that have become classics of their kind. The ship has been designed at 366m, and there are various pieces of evidence why it should be only 300m or at most 400m long. But the New Huge Enterprise seems to be a holy cow.

Q: So you want us to believe the ship is 300m long because you say so?
A: Come on. I have neither worked on the movie itself, nor do I have any authority. But I take the right to question an authority that fails to make an (ambitious!) design consistent with its purported size.

Q: Why get worked up about ship sizes? It was a great movie after all.
A: Yes, and I need to get a life and I should not be hanging around in my mom's basement. Sorry for being sarcastic. But seriously, this whole website is about the consistency (or lack thereof) in the Star Trek Universe, and to a certain extent about starship sizes. Where else but at EAS would the size issue be scrutinized? Why should I remain silent about this one of all starships?

Q: It is a parallel universe. Things are not inconsistent if they are different than we were used to. The ship could well be 725m long.
A: The ship still looks like 300m long in spite of the half-hearted attempts to make it look bigger in a few scenes. And I don't see the reason why such a monster should exist in the parallel universe and why the engine room looks like a brewery, only because of a phantom ship that destroyed the (already too big?) Kelvin 25 years ago. These and many more constants of the Trek Universe have been changed without justification, and under the pretext that in the parallel universe everything is allowed to be different. This is careless, and as such not something I put up with easily. Ultimately the "parallel universe" approach is just a genre-specific and slightly more intelligent variant of the "Bobby-in-the-shower" trick to abandon an established continuity.

Q: I suspect the true reason why you disregard "Star Trek (2009)" in your various articles and why you don't include my suggestions is because you hate it.
A: For the record: For the first four weeks after the movie premiere I have been working four hours per day on average besides my normal life to get at least some sections updated. In addition, I was taking care of two dozen visitor e-mails with suggestions pertaining to "Star Trek (2009)" every day.

Q: You are misusing your well-established website to spread inaccurate information about the new movie, as part of your pathetic crusade against it.
A: Firstly, you may find flaws in my argumentation that I will gladly correct where I am really wrong about something. Secondly, there is a good reason why some information is inaccurate: I don't have the movie on DVD, I don't have a complete transcript, I don't have many screen caps, I haven't seen all details of the ships. It is very unfair that you label my effort to keep everything updated as a deliberate attempt to twist facts. Thirdly, I admit that I am not a big fan of "Star Trek (2009)". So what? I have been equally biased about various other Trek movies, several VOY episodes and basically the whole idea of Star Trek Enterprise. I have been criticized especially for the latter as well, but people have been nowhere near as defamatory as in the case of the new Trek movie. You have to chill out. It is no sacrilege to have issues with this movie. Finally, I have a damn right to write anything I want to on my personal website as long as it is not illegal. And criticizing a movie is hardly illegal, even if everyone else loves it. You are invited to create your own website where you can worship "Star Trek (2009)" and explain why it makes perfect sense that the Enterprise is huge.

Q: You keep complaining about the inconsistencies of "Star Trek (2009)", although there is the Countdown graphic novel, although there are cut scenes and although Orci and Kurtzman have explained pretty much all of them away. 
A: I assume you refer to Star Trek (2009) Inconsistencies. I don't know how much more clearly I can still explain it as in the preface of that list. If only someone would bother to read this short paragraph before starting to whine! As always at EAS, I only comment on what is in the movie, and the Countdown comic is not part of the movie. It is non-canon, as even explicitly stated by Orci and Kurtzman in the very interview that you refer to! Otherwise the interview contains a few nifty ideas, but if you're honest there is nothing that could really explain away the inconsistencies. Finally, I am not complaining about "Star Trek (2009)" on that page, I am simply pointing out what is and what could be inconsistent, as I always do with every episode or movie.

Q: I am a huge Trek fan and a regular poster at a major Trek message board. You are giving fellow fans like me a bad name if you nitpick a great movie to death. I didn't even bother to read the preface. It's a total waste. Get a life!
A: I assume you refer to Star Trek (2009) Inconsistencies. Wow. This has to be the most preposterous charge ever against me. Firstly, you call yourself a fan, you frequent a message board, so don't tell me that you have not silently acknowledged or even actively discussed any of the movie's shortcomings. Who are you to accuse me of doing the same, only in a more comprehensive and in a permanent fashion? Secondly, I have a page about the Movie Inconsistencies of the first ten Trek movies with exactly the same format, the same tone and the same level of detail. I only happened to find quantitatively more fault with new movie. Heck, I have a whole section about Trek inconsistencies, the by far biggest of its kind in the whole internet. No one thinks that I am giving Trek a bad name because of that. You can call my take on "Star Trek (2009)" biased, but even if you're right about that I don't fabricate inconsistencies because of that. I don't need to prove anything. Thirdly, you're creating a no-win scenario for me. Because if I didn't list the inconsistencies of the new movie, you or someone else would accuse me of ignoring it. Finally, I wonder how you can possibly post at a Trek message board and visit nerdy sites in the first place if you are so much offended by the old art of nitpicking. I suggest you chill out and come back when you are open to a reasonable discussion. Because while you may currently think you're a cool kid, I know you are a nerd too.

Q: Everything you say about the new movie is biased. You smugly comment on it, rather than sticking to the facts. I will boycott your site, and rather peruse Memory Alpha.
A: Firstly, as you have correctly recognized, EAS is not Memory Alpha. MA has thousands of contributors, EAS has to be maintained by a single person. MA is a fairly complete encyclopedic database, EAS is a collection of data, analyses and comments. MA usually deals with inconsistencies by leaving them uncommented, EAS further elaborates on them. MA may accidentally contain opinions despite all the policies and the matter-of-factly format, EAS freely admits that it is a personal website and hence not bias-free. At MA you won't find the one person in charge of everything, at EAS you have someone to attack personally. Yes, I don't like many aspects of the reboot movie, but that doesn't mean that I don't stick to the facts. See my answers about the inconsistencies in the movie and the length of the Enterprise. Secondly, I realize that I don't always strike the right chord. I have already revised the Star Trek (2009) Ship Classes page in a way not to comment on the ship designs more openly than I am doing on other pages of the database. There is nothing more that I can do and nothing more that I will do, only to avoid offending ardent fans of the new movie.

Q: This used to be a great site until you started to post your monthly rants about "Star Trek (2009)" instead of thorough analysis.
A: I don't think that EAS has changed since the announcement of the movie. But I understand that the controversial nature of the articles pertaining to "Star Trek (2009)" may create the impression that I am just seeking reasons not to like it. Yes, I was never fond of the idea of the movie, and perhaps I have never given it a chance. But the more important reason for my critical distance is that the movie introduces elements that I can't deal with in the usual fashion here at EAS. Star Trek has changed, rather than EAS. The difference between a "normal" Trek fan and me is that I have to make sense of what is shown on screen, and this without resorting to speculation or even supplementing it with fan fiction. Yes, I could fully integrate "Star Trek (2009)", add some conjecture and pretend it blends in perfectly. But then I would betray my own principles. I could ignore it, and Abramsverse fans would keep nagging me forever. Or I could try to find a compromise. Whatever I decide gives me a lot of trouble. The critical articles, just like this FAQ, may not provide much in terms of knowledge but they help me create standards and define boundaries. Sorry, but EAS is more than a collection of fun articles that show how buttons on a console or markings on a starships move between the episodes. It is not a Memory Alpha style database either but a personal compendium that has to make sense on a certain higher in-universe level.

Q: You're such a loser. Pretty much everyone else agrees that it's the greatest Trek movie ever.
A: I will leave that uncommented. Just so much: I am far from being the only once who criticizes aspects of the new movie. In fact, hundreds of other fans have already contributed their own concerns, and the response to my recent articles has been predominantly positive, although this FAQ may create a contrary impression. 

Back to general FAQ

Home   Top
	Last modified: 17.10.09
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/misc/trekxi-faq.htm