Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
November 15, 2012
Image Size
5.0 MB
Resolution
4096×2214
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,251
Favourites
82 (who?)
Comments
112
Downloads
78
×
A monument to all our sins by thefirstfleet A monument to all our sins by thefirstfleet
Okay, now we're threading on shaky ground, but why not? Let me give you my recipe on how JJ Trek should have been made:

The beginning: In the far future, Romulan navy veteran Nierruwh (his name should be spelled like this) witnesses his homeworld being destroyed. Behind the tragedy is the Federation's negligence, or even malignance, in letting the Hobus supernova grow out of control and not doing anything to pervent the impending disaster. Nierruwh, one of the few survivors of the RSN (he's not a miner. How could a miner get a dreadnought and could conduct such elaborate strategies?), blames Ambassador Spock, a kindred soul, now a mortal enemy of his. In the wake of Hobus' wormhole solution, both Spock's ship and Nierruwh's IRW Narada (Why a Scimitar? Because 1, we know it as the pinaccle of Romulan tech 2, we are familiar with it 3, it makes much more sense than an upside-down Christmas tree) get sucked in the wormhole. The Narada arrives to the past to meet the USS Kelvin NCC-514 (no zero at the front of the registry number and looking like a proper TOS ship). The doomed crew of the Klevin look with terror upon the monster their Federation has created: a monument to their sins...



Models by me
Sun stock by :icona-j-s:
Add a Comment:
 
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
It's funny because JJ Abram's universe blatantly goes against Trek lore. Everyone forgetting what the Federation does in the 29th century?
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014
Abrams's blasphemy isn't real Trek at all!
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed, it can't even exist within Star Trek's lore. Not the way Abrams describes it, since timeships stop time incursions.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014
What saddens me is that so many people think that simply by changing it back to the Prime Universe will all of a sudden make the movies so much better.  If you ask me, it will actually make them WORSE, because the failings of story and direction will shine through even more.  At which point, the argument would be more along the lines of "how dare you make Star Trek fun", which is just as asinine.

People just hate new things,... which is the very antithesis of what it means to be a Star Trek fan.
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Trekkies have a right to hate it, considering JJ blatantly ignored Star Trek lore. An alternate universe caused by time travel isn't possible the way JJ Abrams describes it. 29th Century Federation Timeships patrol the timeline stopping anything from altering time. As soon as Nero appeared in the past he would of been destroyed by a waiting Timeship which is five centuries ahead of the Narada's technology.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014
The original draft had nothing to do with time travel.  It was a straight-up reboot, nothing more, nothing less.  But when purist fans whined, bitched and moaned about it, they had to throw in the stupid time travel scenario just to tie in the original somehow, some way.

I am as oldschool and life-long a Trekkie as one can be, and even I can say "screw lore, who frakking cares?"  The point of Star Trek is much more than timeline history.  And on top of that, the movie industry as it stands today is totally incapable of delivering what you may call "true Star Trek".  Hell, even look at how much your beloved "Wrath of Khan" was a departure from the original series.  From the standards of 1982, it was a blatant sci-fi action film, with even MORE space battle than either 2009 or Into Darkness.  Do me a favor, count off exactly how many times Enterprise fires its weapons in Into Darkness.

"Timeships" were something created by Voyager.  They didn't exist in TOS, TNG or DS9, and just how many times has the timeline been affected in each of those series'?  Where was a timeship when McCoy jumped through the Guardian of Forever?  Where was a timeship when the Enterprise C encountered the Enterprise D?  Where was a timeship when Sisko was forced to take the identity of Gabriel Bell?  And where was a timeship when Kirk and company traveled to 1986 to kidnap a pair of humpback whales?

"Lore" and "canon" are asinine reasons to pick apart a movie that has given the Star Trek franchise its greatest boost of popularity since the early 1990's.
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I would rather have a reboot than a terrible alternate universe which is just an excuse to bring Nimoy back as Spock and now Shatner is supposed to appear in the third movie.

Those events you mentioned were the events that led to the Temporal Prime Directive which is later enforced in the 29th century with the timeships and then even further in time in the 31st century. Kirk acts were within Temporal Prime Directive's parameters. Most of the other events fixed themselves thus required no need for a timeship to be sent to those points. However the Narada incident was something much larger which altered the course of Federation history thus one would be sent.

Just because numbers say it's more popular doesn't mean the movies aren't massively flawed in it's choices. If numbers were everything all we would get is Call of Duty the movie.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2014
But without the numbers, there is zero possibility of a new Star Trek series.  Star Trek's popularity was declining steadily since 2000, no new fans were joining, and old fans were leaving.  The entire franchise had stagnated horribly.  It needed an infusion of attention from a whole new generation.  And after the new viewers, whom had never given Star Trek a second look before, now find themselves intrigued by the new movies, what do they do?  They go back and watch the old shows, the older movies, and find even greater stuff to enjoy.  They find more series' and even more movies, and endless new frontiers to explore (as it were).  Now you have whole new generations of fans, as "Trekkie" as the rest of us,... but THEY are more open minded and accepting, while the "true Trekkies" spend all their time preaching hate, intolerance and paint their fandom in some cloak of exclusivity as if they are somehow "better" than newer fans.

I'm sorry, but that spits in the face of Gene Roddenberry's legacy even worse than any film could ever have.  And as for Shatner being in the third movie, did you not hear that Jonathan Frakes was going to direct it?  I suppose you will be against that idea too?  What is the big problem about having the older actors reprising their roles, or even portraying different roles?  These people (especially Nimoy, in his failing health) deserve our RESPECT, do they not?

The movies are nothing more than appetizer, to draw people into where Star Trek truly shines,... television.  Yes, Star Trek NEEDS a new Television series, but it could not GET one until its numbers rose back to a level that could sustain a TV series with just its fanbase.  If they tried making a "True Star Trek Film" (as the purists claim to want it) in 2009, it would have bombed in the box office so hard that Paramount would all but shove the entire franchise into the vault, never to be revived again.  And once they do that, they have their lawyers guarding it 24/7, ready to drop heavy lawsuits on anyone who attempts a revival.

Without Star Trek (2009): Star Trek Online would not exist, Star Trek Axanar would not exist, likely other independant productions like Star Trek Continues, Renegades, and Phase II would not exist, the franchise owes its very life to the new movies.  That doesn't mean you have to love them, nobody is asking that at all, BUT spewing hate against it to claim they "destroyed the franchise" is not only 100% false, but does even greater damage as it paints "Trekkies" as bitter hatemongers.  Is that REALLY the image we want new fans to see?  Is that how you want for us to be portrayed in the media?  We finally shed off the stigma of being always labelled as "nerds",... but now we're getting the label of "trolls".  Is that REALLY what you want?
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I am fine with Frakes directing it, however Shatner's appearance seems more like a money grab than anything else. Also Star Trek Online started way back in 2004 it has nothing to do with 2009's influence so calling BS on that. Given I play the game myself and the amount of hate the STO community has for 2009/Into darkness. Also the franchise was never truly dead, sure on TV media it was but Star Trek still had it's books and games still selling. I usually keep my beef with the JJverse to myself but I won't stand idly by when people have claimed it is the true Star Trek since a lot don't give TOS or even TNG any recognition. Many new "Trekkies" only see the new Trek as the real not the originals. 

A lot of Trekkies don't like the new interpretations of the original characters which is completely justifiably. It's like changing what everyone sees in Batman or any other much loved character. Since you are eliminating what people loved about those characters, sure some are really close to the originals like the new Mccoy. Also for such a big budget people can complain of the design choices made. They still could of done it much different than they did. There was nothing stopping them keeping it in the Prime Universe apart from JJ Abrams himself who didn't have much love for Star Trek. They say Into Darkness wasn't a remake of Wrath of Khan but it essentially was. It isn't just Star Trek which is effected by this. Fans want something new not essentially a remake which is the JJverse. 
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner 6 days ago
Shatner's appearance is, quite frankly, the complete opposite of a money grab.  The man is a diva, even back in the 80's.  The amount of money they gotta pay him,... hell, I'm willing to bet that he is the one who demanded an appearance.  There is actually a sizable portion of the fanbase who are sick of Shatner.

As for STO, its proposition started in 2004 sure, but as the franchise was losing steam and Enterprise failed (and then sabotaged at the end), the project was pushed back, delayed, defunded, and the original studio given the project was driven out of business.  Paramount played politics with it, even after it got a new studio (and the choice was a dubious one to start off with).  Then when it was finally being worked on, it again got pushed back again, and again, and again, and again.  If you follow its development, it practically mirrors the production of the new movie.  Star Trek Online began closed beta testing in October 2009, open beta in January 2010... even though it was promised way back in 2007-2008.

"Many new "Trekkie's" only see the new Trek as the real and not the originals"
I don't know where you got that from, but that is either ignorance of the worst kind, or a blatant outright lie that has been fed to you.  Virtually EVERYONE I have talked to, who has been introduced to Star Trek through the new movies and liked them, has gone back and looked at TOS and TNG and found at least one of them enjoyable.  Some gravitate toward TOS, others claim TNG is better, but MOST say they like all of it.  I have never (and I do repeat NEVER) seen a single person who has stated that "the new movies are the real Star Trek".  The ONLY times that thought has even come up is from people trying to use it as a point against the new movies to perpetuate their hatred of it.

Ahh there's the "eliminating" thing again.  Do you not understand what "reboot" and "alternate reality" even IS?  It is, by its very nature, something separate that has no impact on the original, and can go off in its own direction WITHOUT destroying the original. 

And the Wrath of Khan thing, oh boy...  I have done many complete walkthroughs of both movies side-by-side to show just how different they are.  The ONLY things that Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness have in common is the name "Khan" (it isn't even the same character, since his entire backstory changes upon his revival), and the homage reactor scene (and yes, it was an homage, NOT a "rip off").  There is no Saavik, no aging theme, no Reliant, no Genesis, no nebula, no Regula, no David, no Seti Alpha anything, no quoting Moby Dick, I mean... do I really need to go on?

And besides, the last times Star Trek was in the theater (before the reboots) was Insurrection and Nemesis.  They followed the "canon" timeline (one of which even directed by an established Star Trek alumnist), and yet they both were colossal failures (when compared to earlier Trek films).  And even before Nemesis, the idea of introducing a new cast to play young Kirk and Spock was already in the works.  Gene Roddenberry himself said he wanted to see a new director take younger versions of his characters in a different direction.  He specifically said he wanted to see someone try something new with them.  Rod Roddenberry even took this video interview in question to JJ Abrams.

You say fans want something new and that is all well and good, but you have to consider how it can be made in the first place.  You can't just go to a movie studio and say "we want something new", and expect gold to just appear.  Hell, the studio will laugh in your face if you don't have (at the very least) a guarantee of box office draw and marketability beyond initial release.  Remember, if a movie cannot guarantee asses in the seats, they won't even touch it.  And after Nemesis' results, and the ratings from Enterprise, it was abundantly clear that the fanbase itself was no longer large enough to support a movie on its own.  They HAD TO reach out to newer audiences.  The main problem is,... it WORKED, and now older fans are bitter, even though newer fans enjoy the same things, and WANT to be part of the community.

The community, however, is pushing them away, and giving the rest of us a bad name.  Star Trek is supposed to be about inclusiveness, acceptance, tolerance, understanding, hope and love.  Are ANY of you "JJ Haters" expressing a single one of those ideals, in your mad rantings?  Hell, you are practically bigoted against new fans, because of false claims and prejudice.  As a life long Star Trek fan, I am personally ashamed of all of you.
Reply
Add a Comment: