Orci is still a moron.

Will someone please put a hit on these guys or something? Orci talks about the new movie and his... ahem... writing process.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/08/remember-a-couple-of-week.php

Seriously, he needs to be shut up. At the very least Orci and Kurtzman obviously need not be involved in Star Trek in ANY way.

These two just keep talking about nothing but bad ideas. Here's the highlights.

The discussions include brainstorming classic Trek missions, which could be revisited with a new timeline established thanks to Spock and Nero's time travel. Even generating new ideas brings up past Trek episodes, Orci said.

New Timeline. That's right kiddies. It's a different timeline. So, why should trekkies care at all about it? We shouldn't. It's like 1985a in Back to the Future II, it needs to be undone. The paradox stands; all 40 years of trek need to have taken place in order for the new movies timeline to be stable. But, it's already unfolded so radically different that it can't. So, either all future trek projects have to boldly go where we've been (the antithesis of trek) or this new universe can't even logically exist and they just need to stop.

Orci is at least smart enough to see this, thus his 'new ideas' all involve old episodes.

At the same time, the writers want to make sure any follow-up is not too Trek-heavy, so as not to confuse the new fans who were brought into the fold by director J.J. Abrams' movie. "A lot of what makes die-hard Trekkers really focused on Trek are those details that can sometimes be alienating to people who are not on the inside," Kurtzman said. "That leads us back to what are the big themes, the emotional ideas? That's a language everybody speaks."

First of all; stop calling them writers.

They want a trek that isn't too trek heavy. Read that line again. Now, if you haven't choked on your drool, or you managed not to have an aneurysm, you should be as ticked off as I am.

How the hell can anyone read that and think that's a good thing? That's just saying "we have to keep it dumb, because the new fans are not so much fans of trek as wallets that enjoyed a big dumb blockbuster with a star trek name slapped on it."

Then there's "A lot of die-hard trekkers..." It's trekkies numb-nuts. You'd think Roddenberry's confirmation of this fact, a brief study of the history of our fandom, the word being in dictionaries, and two movies with that title would be a clue; it's trekkies, not trekkers. I'm seriously thinking that these three are really nothing but major real life trolls, purposely fucking with us. What ticks me off is, I'm one of about three people that's even rising to the bait to feed the trolls. Well, that's how you troll a troll afterall. You feed them until they expose themselves.

After these two troll baits, they then troll us more; all in the same paragraph. Basically they say that it's the details, the technobabble and canon that we real trekkies are focused on all the time, and we miss the big themes and emotional ideas of trek.

Now, have I, or have I not, pointed out several times that the new movie totally misses not only the 'nerdy' aspects like technobabble and canon, but that they also miss the big themes, the morality and emotional content of trek itself? I believe I have. Indeed, the fact that the new movie was bereft of such things entirely is why I hate it more than anything else.

In fact the lack of accurate technobabble and total violation of canon that the new movie represents is the RESULT of them not paying attention to the bigger picture of what trek is really about in the first place. And I do believe I've mentioned that, but in case I haven't, here it is for sure.

One thing Orci does want to do is get more classic catchphrases into the sequel...

Oh for fucks sake. How can this A-hole say WE focus on inconsequentials, and then the very next thing out of his mouth is that he wants more catchphrases? Catchphrases! IF there's anything Trek ISN'T about, it's catchphrases. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and even baby Jesus!

Here's Orci, master of the trek universe now, daring to critique trekkies (while calling us trekkers) about missing the big pictures, while offering us something as inconsequential and retarded as catchphrases.

Oh yes, catchphrases. I'd have fucking loved star trek XI if only it had had catchphrases!

Abrams' childhood friend, Heroes star Greg Grunberg, has appeared in some form or other in most of Abrams' projects: In Trek, he was the voice of Kirk's stepfather on the car phone. Grunberg has begun telling reporters that he wants to play Harry Mudd in a future Star Trek and most recently said it on Wednesday at the TCA summer press tour. Orci agreed to consider Grunberg's proposal. "It's a good idea," Orci said.

Yeah, it's a brilliant idea. Mudds episodes were amongst the silliest. What real trekkie cares? Seriously. And nepotism, yes this is how I want people getting into the new trek. Not because they're themselves interested, or because they auditioned and were the best at the role. No. Just no. Remember Lwaxanna? She's the result of neoptism. Exactly.

Orci went on to detail the collaboration between himself and Kurtzman, director Abrams and producers Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk. "We're going to come up with the story together, obviously, in consultation with J.J. and Bryan," Orci said. "Then we're going to write it up together, the story. Also Damon, and then Alex and I will go write the script."

Now what am I going to complain about here? He's not even talking about trek! No, he's talking about the amount of people writing the script.

He's talking about five writers. Two are producers, one is the director, IE the suits. It's a general rule that the more writers you have for a movie, the more that particular movie is a piece of shit. It's also a general rule that when the suits are involved, they fucking ruin everything. And here, Orci is freely just going to write with them all.

NO.

This is yet another reason this guy isn't a writer. If he was, he'd write with maybe one other person. They'd finish up the script. They'd agree to take some crap out because perhaps it's too expensive to show, or seems superfluous to the story at hand. But for the most part the job of the writer is twofold:

1. write a fucking script you care about.
2. defend the hell out of that script and attempt to stop all directorial, and production edits and changes to your story as possible. Because it's inevitable they will all want to change it because they do not comprehend your story at all and just want to make money.

Exceptions to this:

1. if you're the director and you wrote your own script.
2. if you're the director and you've picked up someone elses script, like the concept, but not how they wrote it, so you rewrite it massively or hire someone else to so that it completely fits your vision. The writer you hire knows they aren't writing, they're just putting your ideas on paper.

Which aren't really exceptions. That's just the director also playing the part of the writer.

What's going on in this movie doesn't resemble any of these things. Abrams isn't at the helm saying: This is what I want to do, write it down. Orci and Kurtzman aren't the ultimate fans writing an awesome trek script, insisting that non-trek fans have no part in writing it because non-trekkies can't possibly understand trek.

Nope. They're bending over and opening wide. And they're asking fans to do the same.

So will you?
Are you fanboys? Or are you trekkies?

Ok, it's official. The world will end in 2012.

Or at least I hope it does, before I have to watch another shitfest trek movie brought to you by Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman
.

And then there's this asshole. Who said trek was dying? I mean yeah, now and again I ran into people who said that, despite there still being a star trek on TV

...

but since there was still a Star Trek on TV, still reruns running somewhere in the world, and 10 movies, four of which were awesome, and a lot of new books published; those who said such things were clearly imbeciles.

I mean, no one said Star Wars was dead when the Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, 8 billion plastic toys, and cartoons were being released. They may have said star wars sucked now, and was retarded, but they didn't say it was dead.

And I now truly feel the pain of the fanboys. Truly. I comprehend your horror that people loved new pieces of shit films with the star wars name on it, and that said films just tore the shit out of what was, at one point, actually enjoyable.

I didn't empathize before. I was ok with just loving the trilogy, the real trilogy. The unremastered rereleased reremastered super-deluxe trilogy. I wasn't a true fan. I hated what the new movies did, but I was content with ignoring them and their fans... occasionally making fun of them for being unable to comprehend the new movies sucked.

I was clearly a monster. The new star trek movie was my Karmic reward; for now it was my beloved franchise that was being destroyed by a new movie, that legions of mindless fans love, and are unable to comprehend that the new movie sucks.

I call a truce fanboys. And I apologize. I am so very sorry, this is truly a fate worse than death. Of course, I'm not sure which is worse. Your franchise has been raped by it's own creator. Our franchise has been raped by untalented overly hyped hacks who've apparently never actually heard of Star Trek before, and seem to think they're making a Star Wars movie.

What's worse is, fanboys... fanboys actually realized the new movies sucked. Some insisted they didn't, but it was about equal. It was amazing compared to trekkie reactions.

And appalling.

Far less than half of the fanbase realizes what a fucking horror-show the new movie was. They enjoyed it. Such is the depths of our nerdiness.. You'll never quite comprehend fanboys, because though you've always been just as nerdy as we, the media itself never ridiculed you as they have us. Nor for nearly half as long. Star Wars was acceptably nerdy. Trek never was. Trek was what all scary lonely losers had in common. Trek was the refuge of the truly socially inept. Trekkies were acceptable targets.

Now is the chance for far too many trekkies to have something they never dared dream of one day contemplating imagining wondering about accidentally thinking they'd ever have a hope of a prayer of having; acceptance.

Until the new movie. And worse; now it's not even nerdy! It's cool!

Star Trek XI is like Barack Obama.

It gives trekkies hope it'll never deliver.

This is madness.



THIS. IS. STAR. TREK!

Star Trek XI still sucks

This poster ALMOST says it all. But I ran out of room to list all of Nero's inanely stupid behavior and motivations. I also couldn't find a font where the zero's matched the ones used on the release date. Oh well.

Yes. I determined that Nero doesn't wait a mere 28 years, he waits 38. Thirty fucking eight. I could be wrong though, I refuse to buy the DVD on principle, I don't wanna pirate it either. I mean, imagine being so unlucky as to get busted for it, and it's a movie I detest? No. Besides I don't want it on my computer, and I don't want to ruin a DVD, it's more entertaining and mentally stimulating if I leave it blank.

Anyway, yah. 38 years.

Again I could be wrong and though that poster sums it up, let me break it down and I'll be happy to correct myself if anyone can clarify.

Nero shows up in the past; Kirk is born (at the wrong time in the wrong place).

Flash forward to Kirks wanton destruction of historical artifacts, neatly mirroring Orci's, Kurtzman's and Abrams' destruction of Trek itself.

When he drives the car off the cliff (into a gorge sized quarry) I figure he must be AT LEAST 10 years old. Then after an interlude where we see Vulcans logically hating a halfbreed and calling his mother a whore; we get the infamous '25 years later' fade.

Now, anyone who's watched Transformers 2 knows that Orci and Kurtzman obviously failed 3rd grade math because in that movie they make it clear that they think 5-1+1=6. But, in an arguably simpler equation 10+25=35, and that actually manages to be true in base 10.

At this point we see barhopping date rapist Kirk (who logic dictates is at least 35... unmarried and going to bars... what else does logic say about him?) get dared into going to Starfleet Academy... we then get another message that tells us 3 years have passed.

Follow along. 10+25+3= 38. Still true, still in base 10.

38 years pass before the actual action of the ... it pains me to say this word in reference to this movie... plot... ugh... gets underway.

Now, even if Orci and Kurzmans excuse for Nero's procrastination REALLY IS that he and his crew were captured by Klingons and thrown in Rura Penthe (which raises more questions than it answers, particularly since it doesn't actually manage to answer any), the two have stated, on record, that Nero and crew were imprisoned for 25 years.

Follow me again through the simple math. 38-25=13. There are still 13 years unaccounted for.

And this is assuming Kirk was only 10. He could've been younger... but, personally I think even 10 stretched credulity, as far as a child being able to drive that car is concerned. Never mind where they got the gas or why his step dad kept it's tank full.

Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are so incredibly stupid it stopped being funny months ago.

This is more old news but I've been away and despite having a computer, I've been bad on staying up to date.

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/09/17/j-j-abrams-says-star-trek-will-boldly-go-allegorical/

"In many ways a sequel will have a very different mission."

So, instead of the movies mission being to promote the sociopatich asshole New-Kirk from soon to be expelled cadet to Captain in the span of a three hour tour, show Spock with jungle fever, and take scotty on a tour of the willy wonka factory, you're actually going to try and write a movie?

"It needs to do what [Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory," says Abrams. "It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant."

What? You mean it's irrelivant that people still use Nokia and drink Budweiser in the future? People connect to that don't they? Surely the new movies success helped boost sales of Nokia and Bud as much as Picards drinking habit sparked thousands of people to try a tea they've never before heard of!

"It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. There needs to be relevance, yes, and that doesn't mean it should be pretentious."

So you won't be showing the willy wonka tubes, turbines and Mac computer screens as much? And relevant without pretention? Really now Abrams, calm down, you've none of the former and too much of the latter, that's clearly far too ambitious for you.

Orci echoed Abrams....

Because you always want the writer under the director/producers thumb. Nothing well written ever comes from writers insisting that the director, producers and all the other suits, are idiots that don't know anything about the material.

Orci echoed Abrams, noting that it had been one of the biggest criticisms of the new Trek. "One of the things we heard was, 'Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.'

Like how much do nokia phones cost in the 23rd century? what sort of coverage do they have? Planetary, interplanetary? I mean, can I talk to my cousin on Mars and my grandma on the moon without having to pay roaming fees?

We're trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what's going on today as possible. So that's one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today." When asked if "modern day issues" meant war, terrorism, and torture, Orci agreed that was "an approach" they were taking.

Because torture was never ever addressed in ToS, TNG or DS9. War and terrorism were never ever mentioned in TNG or DS9 either. Bajorans? Cardassians? Please, Cardassians just make alcoholic beverages for cadets to order in bars before a spectacular bar fight scene.

Many feel that the films should reflect the original 1960s series and hint at social issues.

Who? Where? All the complaints I've seen have been about how horrible the writing and confused the direction was.

Others feel that such blatant allegory can make a film feel very dated in a few short years, and want Trek to just stick to telling good adventure stories. After all, taking a political stance stands to alienate many moviegoers, though controversy is always welcome from a publicity point of view.

Yeah, Star Trek IV was popular because of it's stupid save the whales message, not because it was a well written funny fish out of water story.

And Star Trek VI was so good because of it's obvious cold war is over allegory, not because it was a well written mildly suspensful whodunnit.

No. Good writing isn't what makes trek movies good. It's the issues. Miss the point a bit more why don't you?

Star Trek is definitely heading into problematic waters.

I can't believe they said it. Though it's not clear whether they did or the writer of the piece did.

Anyway...Heading? It was dragged out by Abrams' undertow the minute he was hired. Then Orci and Kurtzman summoned up a hurricane and sharks with frickin laser beams just to make sure there was no chance of surviving within the first five minutes.

Sci-fi has always been at its best when it reflected the modern world, but it is such a fine line to tread because you don't want your sci-fi epic to be full of thinly disguised Communists when the geopolitical climate changes.

Indeed. Because trek has always been about epic film making and not good stories. Jebus. Besides; it was OUR HEROES that were the thinly disguised commies. Really now, no money, perfectly egalitarian society, and everyone wore red in the movies until the TNG ones, even then, the ones in red are in command.

While I think issues of pre-emptive strikes, war, and torture might be general enough to be forever relevant, I worry that trying to tackle them will just be clumsy.

You guys certainly don't have the grace to pull it off, you're absolutely right about that.

It already feels dated in some ways, and it's difficult to imagine Starfleet saying anything new on the subject.

Yeah, because STAR TREK has already addressed all of these issues, since 1966.

War movies are always made and always have the same core, and good ones are damn good! Whether it's a Vietnam movie, a WWII movie or even a flippin' Civil War movie.

Dated? Try timeless and part of the human condition. You just can't handle it because it's beyond your scope. Trek is all about the human condition.

If Star Trek is going to tackle something I hope they go gentle, and tackle prejudice through Spock and Uhura's relationship. There's some racial and gender issues there just waiting to be mined for a background story.

Seriously? Interracial dating is taboo? Maybe in the deep south and other bastions where white folk barely ever see anyone darker than a red neck.

Gender issues? Watch trek sometime will you?

Addressed in ToS, addressed in TNG, addressed in DS9, even Voy and Ent managed to address it!

Do you mean gay? That's not a gender issue, it's a sexuality issue, though they ARE often confused for one another. A lot of gay trek fans have clamored for years that it needs to be specifically addressed in trek.

I disagree.

Let me count the ways it's already been addressed.

Lonely nerdy women have sworn Spock and Kirk were gay since the 60s.

How can a Frenchman with perfect British received pronunciation that can't maintain long term relations with women NOT be gay?

How can Wes be anything other than a flamer? He wore a rainbow pride sweater almost every episode. He dated Ashley friggin Judd... but didn't DO anything with her except play a game. He gets all surly and disinterested in Starfleet after he lied and cheated for his dashingly handsome upperclassman... comes back to the Ent and gripes... hangs out with an old Native American and participates in his 'scared rituals' and LEAVES THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT with a man who's forehead literally looks like an ass and is dressed in a skin tight silver speedo. I rest my case with Wes. Sure, Wil happens to be straight, but don't confuse a nerdy actor with his nerdy GAY character.

Bashir started off flirting with anything in a skirt... but he ends up dating a woman who's been more men than women.

She was also another woman before who dated a coworker of his, and when a man was his bosses mentor.

One of her previous female incarnations found herself still attracted to a woman she was married to when she was one of the he's she used to be.

How's that for gender issues?

Sticking the the gender bending of the Trill; Dr.Crusher couldn't cross her own sexuality when the man she loved became a woman.

Riker loved a gender-bender who refused to go along with their societies concept of being gender neutral so much he risked his career for the heshe!

Harry Kim anyone? 'Oh my girlfriend back home... in SAN FRANCISCO, I can't cheat on her'... even though the odds of getting home are nil, and the sexiest twins ever wanna date me. We know which way Mr.Kim swings.

Malcom Reed? All Americans automatically assume anyone with a British accent that isn't Hugh grant is a bit of a puff anyway. He had no love interests in a show that matched everyone with everyone and was terribly fond of shower scenes and rubbing gels. Friggin' Hoshi was considered 'sexy' in that show. Sad, but true. Without a female love interest, Malcom was clearly gay.

And? Other than Kirk, Spock and Picard, these characters really DO read as gay, bi or at least very open... with only ONE being slightly prejudiced (Dr.Crusher) about it, and that was over her own inability to cross, which didn't make her feel any better about the situation.

None of them faced any real problems due to their apparent sexuality. Quite simply put, by the 23rd, and absolutely by the 24th century, no one gives a fuck if you're gay or not.

No reason to address it specifically. THAT would be ham-fisted. Get it under the radar, imply it, get the audience to infer it. Then, just maybe, like the characters, people watching also simply won't care whether or not anyone is gay.

Clearly, far too subtle for the three musketeers currently in charge of the future direction of Star Trek.

I didn't mean to turn this rant against Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman into a plea for homosexual fans to pay more attention and admit trek has no need for purely openly gay characters. I just hated how much time was spent on 'relationships' in Voy and Ent. That's not what trek is about, gay or straight.

Not that these three yahoo's would know what the hell Trek is about, as they've so amply demonstrated time and time again. I'm sure while exploring Uhura's and Spocks relationship, they'll delve into Spock and Kirk ACTUALLY being gay for one another. They're dumb enough it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that they think it's a continuity nod. They don't even know the difference between continuity and canon...

ugh, enough said for today.

More half assed explanations from Orci and Kurtzman

Podcast of these two idiots trying to address the obvious problems with the new movie

The original post I stumbled across

Why time travel?

We didn't wanna tell a story where everyone knows what happens.

So instead we'll tell a story in a universe where it's been established time and time again when you alter the timeline you have to make things right again somehow or THIS UNIVERSE SHOULD NOT EXIST. But, since we remade the universe, we threw that rule out. We're too cool for your nerdy conventions.

Coindicences on hoth.

Just to refresh you on what those coincidences are:

1.Nero stranding Spock on hoth.
2.Spock stranding Kirk on Hoth.
3.Scotty being exiled to Hoth.
4.Spock knowing the calculations that would get Scotty and Kirk back to the enterprise.

Their cop out reason for all these coincidences?

Because time and space itself wants to correct itself by bringing Kirk and Spock together.

So it works on the unconscious minds of everyone in it to try and fix everything up.

Because even the new universe knows; THIS UNIVERSE SHOULD NOT EXIST. And you don't even have to be Guinan to know it.

We're still too cool for your nerdy conventions, even though we threw the rules out we're still trying to obey them in our half assed way. Because everything we do is half assed.

And with two such enormous asses, you'd expect a lot more than just a half of one.

The corvette and wanton destruction of a 300 year old artifact.

Because we wanted to establish what everyone knows; Kirk is a badass. But we wanted to do it with a big fisty ham that makes him look like a sociopathic little dickweed instead.

Oh and we tried to establish that his step dad was the real dick. Meaning his mom is a fucking retard and an obviously horrible mother for letting her husband be such a dick to her FIRST BORN CHILD (who's father, by the way, in case you forgot the scene that was just shown, was tragically killed and may need extra love and attention... maybe).

It also implies she's a horrible judge of character; meaning Kirks real dad was probably also a dick, or at least it's fairly safe to presume so judging from his moms track record. He just happened to have one crowning moment of glory before he died, y'know, to redeem himself vis a vis, Vader.

We really wanted to reiterate that the new-kirk, like the new-coke, left a bad taste in real trekkies mouths by leaving no uncertainies that he was BORN to be a total douchebag.

Further subtext: because we're actually star wars fans, so suck it.

The big gorge in Iowa?

Uh, that's er uh... That's a quarry.

Because in the future, huge megalithic monuments are built on a regular basis and they require huge quarries to be dug that are thousands of feet deep and nearly a mile wide and stretch on for several miles long, looking like gorges instead of quarries.

Iowa of course has the best stones to build 23rd century pyramids with.

Further subtext; holy shit these trekkies are fucking nerds, we never even thought about that! Iowa doesn't have gorges! Fuck me, next time we write about a location we should consult... what are those things? Maps? Christ I didn't even know where Iowa was before they brought that one up!

No one mentions the biggest offense in this scene; NOKIA?

In the words of MacReady: Yeah, fuck you too!

Families on board?

Ok so they didn't have families on board starships until the 24th century... so why WAS Kirks momma on the Kelvin?

Because Kirks momma was also a starfleet officer.

Who was on active duty still, 9 months into her pregnancy.

These guys are brilliant! What a fool I was to doubt their writing prowess!

The doozy: 25 year wait?

First off; at least 28 years. Pay attention to your own movie, thanks.

You're gonna LOVE this one.

Ahem. I'm serious, I'm not making this up, they filmed the scenes and everything!

Ok... I have to compose myself because this is just such ... you be the judge. Ready?

The Kelvin, a ship approximately 1/100th the size the Narada (if that, I'm being generous, by at least an order of magnitude, to the Kelvin) Rammed the retardedly huge death sta.. er... Narada, and damaged it SO badly... that a Klingon convey happened by and took Nero and his crew as prisoners.

And then threw them into a prison camp.

And it took them 25 years to escape.

When they did, they took their ship back and blew up 47 klingon vessles.

So yeah... The Klingons either took 25 years to repair the Narada, and didn't pick up any of it's advanced technology and integrate it into any of those 47 warships, nor thought about using it as a warship themselves... Because why would a warrior society think of such things...

Tactics, strategy, and technological advantages have no place in war!
Every Klingon knows that.

Or: after escaping a Klingon gulag the stalwart Romulan miners repaired the ship that had been sitting around DERELECT for 25 friggin' years, and blew up 47 warships.

Ahem.

Oh, that makes so much more sense than them just waiting around for 28 years doing nothing. Thanks for clarifying.

Uhura is Spocks sex toy? Uhura and Spock? Really?

Because Orci and Kurtzman never before saw Star Trek when they finished the script. Oh, wait that's not their answer.

Because Spock and Uhura flirted in the show. And, since Uhura was a smart, mature woman they felt she'd gravitate to a more intellectually mature man.

OH.

Yeah, of course.

Yeah.

All the time, yup, I remember that, they were ALWAYS flirting, it was episode... er... and then uh... and that one time with that kiss... wait that was Kirk...

WTF.

Wait.

Uhura WAS smart and mature, and knew how to handle herself... in the original series. In the movie she was bright, sure. And she knew how to handle herself too; but in a more manipulative way.

No? Refresh me, how'd she get onto the enterprise? It wasn't by using her blatant physical charms and her influence on HER TEACHER THAT SHE WAS FUCKING was it?

No no, it was because she was so smart and mature. I'm the moron for assuming she was just sleeping her way to the job of her choosing because that's how it looked.

I missed the subtext.

She's not a ho, she's a post modern feminist.

Like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilara and the Pussycat Dolls.

And of course, a smart intelectually mature woman will OBVIOUSLY gravitate towards that sort of man.

She wouldn't be single, as she was in the real universe, and be quite content with it.

Nope.

See, that Uhura was a lie.

I know, because of all the times she was blatantly flirting with Spock, and he was illogically returning those flirtations.

WTF show were they watching? Seriously.

Gratuitous Orion Slave girl

So yeah... Kirk fucks green chicks. Except of course, he never did. Nope. Seriously watch Star Trek sometime, ok.

Some of us happened to know that, because some of us, yeah... guilty, we watched star trek.

We thought it was ... odd... it fit in it's own way, but odd, that he was messing around with the Orion, seemingly just to get at Uhura.

I mean they'd so far painted Kirk as a huge douchebag, but still, we clung to our old picture of Kirk pretty well and it seemed too out of place for him.

So they filmed more material showing that Kirk started the relationship with the Orion in order to gain access to the Kobayashi maru computer simulation so he could cheat so he could finally beat the friggin thing.

So, New-Kirk isn't just a womanizing cad! No SIR! He's a MANIPULATIVE womanizing cad. That's so much better!

Thanks Orci and Kurtzman! You've done such wonderful things for Star Trek!

Two Spocks, one room; no boom.

When Kirk asks Senile Spock why he won't come with him to the enterprise, he heavily implies it's because he can't meet his younger self without making the universe implode in on itself. Considering how bad this new timeline is, I think that would be the best thing really but, I digress.

At the end of the movie, the senile old bastard goes and introduces himself to himself.

And nothing happens.

Ok so... uh, 'writers', get yourself out of this corner.

Oh you read that according to more recent theories, which TNG, and DS9 writers knew about, and incorporated into their time travel eps, time travel can just create parallell universes where you can kill your own grandpa and nothing bad will happen?

Yeah, we knew that, we'd been watching trek for the last 40 years.

Why didn't Spock seem to know that? Was he lying to young kirk? Is Spock as senile as Nimoy clearly is?

Yea yea, I know it won't actually cause anything to blow up, at most it causes an odd paradox.

I watched Yesterdays Enterprise.

I know who Sela is.

I saw 'cause and effect'

I saw Trials and Tribble-ations.

And every other friggin' show that dealt with time travel and different universes that were created by time travel.

I get it.

You obviously don't.

Spock seemed to think it would destroy the universe.

You established that it may.

WHY DID YOU DO THAT IF YOU KNEW IT WOULDN'T?

I know; you only wanted young Kirk and Scotty going back to the ent, I get that too.

But, there are many different ways to come up with a way to leave old Spock behind. None of which involve IMPLYING THAT OLD SPOCK MEETING YOUNG SPOCK WOULD DESTROY THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM.

Note further; that despite the fact that a NEW universe is created, it has a nasty habit of rewriting the established universe, and this tends to create all sorts of horrible things that need to be corrected by further time travel so that some semblance of the original history is preserved. For sanity's sake at the very least.

Jebus it's amazing how much more ignorant you sound trying to come up with ways not to sound totally ignorant of trek.