That writer's error thing is crazy, huh? Surely someone should've picked up on that and said 'hey, we can't call them that. Fix it.' And then use the same wrong term in the movie?!
But in all honesty, I thought the ships were named differently at some point well before the Enterprise series. But when?
Bird of Prey has always been the Klingon ship. Warbird has always been the Romulan ship. I am pretty sure this is the first time I have ever heard a Klingon Bird of Prey called a Warbird. Never watched much of Enterprise, so I didn't know that the mistake had been made at least once before. Of course there is a difference between an episode of a tv show and a big budget feature length film. I have a feeling that from now on they will be called Klingon Warbirds. Why? I dunno, but I am pretty sure the official reason will simply be, "Nero did it".
Another dumb continuity error (NERO DID IT!!!) is that they mention the Warbirds decloaking in during the simulation. Yet in TOS I seem to remember them making a huge deal about the discovery of the Romulans' ability to cloak their ships. Why would they have been so shocked and awed at the very idea of Romulans having cloaking devices, when they already knew the Klingons had that technology? And why were Kirk and friends so intrigued and confused by the cloaked Bird of Prey in Trek III? Perhaps Klingon "Warbirds" with cloaking devices are pretty standard, but a Romulan Warbird or a Klingon Bird of Prey with a cloaking devices is absolutely unheard of.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Stupid Nero... ;) That was just one of the many things that bugged me about the movie; the Romulans were bland, American thug types that could be plopped in any Vin Diesel action movie. Hell's Angels with pointy ears.
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
You just made my head hurt. Wow, what a mess.
Now that I am thinking about it, it doesn't make sense that both races would have a bird theme going on with their vessels. They all ready had a confusing and messed up think going on here. I've got to give the new movie credit for screwing this up even more than it already was. Let's give a nice big round of applause for Mr. J. J. Abrams!
Looking at this page, http://home.comcast.net/~ststcsolda/klingons/klingons.html (scroll down until you get to all nice little pictures) that Bird of Prey design looks completely out of place among all the other Klingon ships. They all have a certain look to them, and that one particular design just doesn't match. Now seems very obvious to me that it was originally intended to be a Romulan vessel.
And I was wrong in my previous post about Warbird = Romulan; Bird of Prey = Klingon. Both Warbird and Bird of Prey are originally Romulan, as FF said. But that one model of Klingon ship is called a Bird of Prey. There was never a Klingon Warbird until J.J. Trek (except for what was fully admitted to be a writing error found in the Enterprise pilot).
The fanboyesque explaination for the Klingon ship being named a Bird of Prey and looking Romulan is that Romulans and Klingons traded technologies, which is also why the Klingons have Romulan cloaking devices. I am usually not a big fan of contrived fanboy-explain-away-every-inconsistency explaintions, but this one works quite effectively IMHO.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Thanks for that, FF. I remembered the part about the Romulan ship being named a Bird of Prey (which made total sense, and it was a cool ship, too), but I didn't know many of those details.
You know what was another cool bird ship? Hawk's ship, from Buck Rogers. Really nice design. :)
"May 02, 2012 · After months of speculation, it has been confirmed that actor Benedict Cumberbatch will appear in J.J Abram's Star Trek sequel as Khan"
Not too sure how I feel about this news.
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
Prof Godbole says :
But he isn't remotely Indian...Boyo.
FanFiltration said:
"May 02, 2012 · After months of speculation, it has been confirmed that actor Benedict Cumberbatch will appear in J.J Abram's Star Trek sequel as Khan"Not too sure how I feel about this news.
I feel that that was a major spoiler for me. I'd be quite annoyed if I actually cared about the movie. ;)
It would only be a major spoiler if there was a big reveal near the end.
The publicity machine is bound to feature who the villain is over and over again.
It's not like FF said "Khan's actions lead to the Death Of Spock!"
Yeah, I suppose. I'll probably know everything about it by the time they play it on TV, which is when I will end up watching it. :p
I was always a bigger fan of TNG, so that probably explains why I don't mind new Trek. When I saw it, I essentially thought that it achieved its goal of being more appealing to the mainstream without necessarily pandering to them. Sure, it was action-packed on a level most Trek films are not, but I enjoyed the writing and scenarios quite a bit.
That said, I'm interested in seeing what they do with Khan. How will they handle this if Khan has no vendetta against Kirk? Will they still have an interesting dynamic? Only time will tell. I hope it's not just a retelling of his introduction episode, I'll say that much.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
Depending on who actually revives Khan and his crew of genetic supermen, it could be a whole new ball game.
I was more enamored of the villain being Captain Garth. Kirk having to take down a personal hero would have been more meaty.
Where were you in '77?
Oh! Just thought of a good Mormon connection! Chris Pine is the son of actor Robert Pine, who played in the Mormon film entitled On the Way Home.
Robert Pine
Chris Pine
You know that Adam Sandler song about famous Jews? I think I should do a Mormon version ;) Of course those in Mormon culture know just how many weird and phony rumors abound on that topic. To my knowledge, Robert is not actually Mormon.
I'm shocked that skyjedi didn't start this silly thread.
It was always burning since the world's been turning.
TV's Frink said:
I'm shocked that skyjedi didn't start this silly thread.
Boo! Leave skyguy alone! So he hates everything, at least he knows exactly why and who is to blame. He is often right, and I would rather hear it a dozen times than not at all. I will concede to being in the minority, but I'm sure there are others who miss skyjedi.
doubleKO said:
TV's Frink said:
I'm shocked that skyjedi didn't start this silly thread.
Boo! Leave skyguy alone! So he hates everything, at least he knows exactly why and who is to blame. He is often right, and I would rather hear it a dozen times than not at all. I will concede to being in the minority, but I'm sure there are others who miss skyjedi.
Right there along side you, doubleKO. I loved that guy's rants. They were often extremely entertaining. Many times I felt the exact same way he did.
I am not even sure if we are in the minority. I remember hearing plenty of others say they felt the same way about him as I did. I think we have only a small yet VERY vocal group that can't stand him. Fink and DJ are the only two I've seen rip into him regularly and consistently.
He really captured the spirit of this place and the way many of us have felt over the last decade or so. When people started treating him like a troll kind of felt like the day this place lost its purpose. A bit melodramatic of me? Sure. But this place isn't what it once was. (When I was a newb I remember Dayv, Sean, and others saying the same thing, and thinking they were total queens for it, so it is funny to me that I've felt this way the last few years).
OT.com used to be this great sanctuary of nerd angst. We were all frustrated and nobody cared, which added to our frustration. In the grand scheme of things, alterations to films are not a big deal, no lives are being lost because of this, the world isn't changed in even some tiny way by it, it simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that Indy is now flying in lead lined refrigerators or that Darth Vader build C3PO. Nobody gives a crap. It doesn't matter. They are just dumb movies.
OT.com was the place you went to where it matter, where people cared, and where you could talk about it. Here, these things were the end of the world, were matters of life and death, and we were allowed to be overly concerned about them, and to each go about our own ways of helping each other come to terms.
Like fight club for anal retentive nerds.
He wasn't always an "all films post-1985 are shit" person. No doubt, that was usually the case. However, look several pages back in this very thread. He started out as he usually did - assuming the worst and passing judgement before ever seeing a single frame.
Read on and you'll see he went to the theater to see it, ended up liking it, and came back to talk about it. His rants were over the top alright, but he wasn't beyond an occasional mea culpa. That's commendable and goes a long way toward making the rants tolerable.
Okay, let me clarify, as I didn't read any of this thread. I saw the thread title and immediately assumed it was sky. The reason I called it silly is because there's a huge difference between someone directing a reboot and someone trying to ERASE FILM HISTORY.
Happy, Pappy?
I thought it was a frevious sock, before I saw the date.
Also, nice of you to drop by Ripplin!
Furthermore... best post ever Warb!
doubleKO said:
Also, nice of you to drop by Ripplin!
Oh, I'm always around, I'm just not always around.
At least the originals haven't gone anywhere. That's more than can be said for Star Wars, forever gone and debased.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
