NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I have officially just now gotten back from the Thursday night early showing of the new Star Trek. All I can say is 'wow.' Seriously, the Onion was right in stating that the new movie is fun and watchable. However, this video also claims that true Trekkies will find the movie problematic in that it is actually a good film.

Video Link to the Onion. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film)

So, what do the Trekkies and non-Trekkies of the great community known as NSG have to say about the new movie? Good/bad, spiritual successor/heresy, etc. What do you all think?

Poll Coming...

Trekkies will find the movie problematic in that it is actually a good film.


This concept confuses me, 'Trekkie' is defined as someone who is a fan of the Star Trek franchise. Therefore, a good star trek film should satisfy a 'Trekkie', should it not? Or are you using a heterodox definition of the word good? I request clarification.

I'm really looking forward to it, despite not being a wacked out Trekkie.

Yes, I've seen a number of sites complain Trekkies will hate it for its watchability. Whatever that means.

This concept confuses me, 'Trekkie' is defined as someone who is a fan of the Star Trek franchise. Therefore, a good star trek film should satisfy a 'Trekkie', should it not? Or are you using a heterodox definition of the word good? I request clarification.

Buh?

Trekkies are not fans. They are fanatics.

Buh?

Trekkies are not fans. They are fanatics.

I see, I shall correct my memeroy logs, I was not aware that 'fan' in that sense was shorthand for 'fanatic'.

I see, I shall correct my memeroy logs, I was not aware that 'fan' in that sense was shorthand for 'fanatic'.

Not anymore. There is a difference between sports fans (like the general body of supporters for the Tampa Bay Bucs) and sports fanatics (like the general body of supporters for 'dah Bears'). Thanks to common usage, they now have different definitions.

I see, I shall correct my memeroy logs, I was not aware that 'fan' in that sense was shorthand for 'fanatic'.

It isn't.

Trekkie = fantatic.

Fans are normal human beings who don't sleep in Star Trek uniforms and jerk off to Leonard Nimoy narrating A&E specials.

btw, this wiki article claims he died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Nimoy) today. Lol

SHIT! Someone changed it back already, I knew I should have copy/pasted faster!


Yay for history! It said: (born March 26, 1931-May 7, 2009) "Most recently, Nimoy became what is known as a "an hero", after realizing that he had been usupered by Zachary Quinto in the new film directed by J.J. Abrams, "Star Trek." Upon his death, Nimoy only said, "I had so much more within me beside the character Spock." Unfortunately, few fans shared this sentiment.


Lol. An Hero.

Not anymore. There is a difference between sports fans (like the general body of supporters for the Tampa Bay Bucs) and sports fanatics (like the general body of supporters for 'dah Bears'). Thanks to common usage, they now have different definitions.

How interesting. Humans are indeed a confusing species, I have much to learn.

I don't see it until tomorrow night, so I'll come back with something intelligent to say then. (probably long and ranty more than intelligent, because I am that kind of Trekkie)

Buh?

Trekkies are not fans. They are fanatics.

Yes. Trekkers are "fans", they go to con to see William Shatner. Trekkies go to con to see Captain Kirk.

Yay for history! It said: (born March 26, 1931-May 7, 2009) "Most recently, Nimoy became what is known as a "an hero", after realizing that he had been usupered by Zachary Quinto in the new film directed by J.J. Abrams, "Star Trek." Upon his death, Nimoy only said, "I had so much more within me beside the character Spock." Unfortunately, few fans shared this sentiment.


Lol. An Hero.

I am unable to process much of what is being said here, particularly the ungrammatical phrase 'an hero'.

btw, this wiki article claims he died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Nimoy) today. Lol

Wikipedia took that down. If it's true, Life's a Bitch...

If it's true, Life's a Bitch...

Please explain the meaning of this sophistry.

I am unable to process much of what is being said here, particularly the ungrammatical phrase 'an hero'.

Don't visit encyclopedia dramatica then, your head will asplode.

I'm a fan, not a fanatic, and I'm curious. They've deviated from the source material, I hear, and I am not sure (till I see it) whether it will work or not.

For instance: the X-Men movies deviated from the comic canon, but work.

The new Battlestar Galactica series deviated from the source material, and worked.

Lord of the Rings films deviated, and worked.

Campy Roger Moore James Bond films: not so much.

Please explain the meaning of this sophistry.

Somebody said that Leonard Nimoy died on the evening of the new Star Trek premier, a movie that he specifically reprized his role of Spock for.

Campy Roger Moore James Bond films: not so much.

I think the key operator here is "campy."

Seriously, 'camp' never worked for anybody. That's why Frank Miller is a member of the graphic novel Olympian pantheon.

Don't visit encyclopedia dramatica again, your head will asplode.

I approximate the likelihood of this to be an infinitesimally small number, should my neural net overload due to severe difficulty to process the information, a temporary shutdown will result. Should the automatic shutdown procedure fail, a small and short lasting combustion shall result, but it will be insufficient to create an explosion. Thank you for your concern however.

Somebody said that Leonard Nimoy died on the evening of the new Star Trek premier, a movie that he specifically reprized his role of Spock for.

I was referring to your 'Life's a bitch' statement, I am having extreme difficulty processing such a concept, it does not appear to have any logical meaning.

I was referring to your 'Life's a bitch' statement, I am having extreme difficulty processing such a concept, it does not appear to have any logical meaning.

It is a common expression meant to express an emotional state of mind. Hence, you wouldn't be able to process the concept, though for your sake I will that it essentially means "the circumstances of random events in the course of one's time while biologically alive and physically interacting with this universe can in some instances negatively affect the subject in a dramatic and profound manner that makes for a statistical improbability so great that the full estimation of such an event is rarely considered, resulting in surprise when such events do conspire in such an adverse fashion."

It is a common expression meant to express an emotional state of mind. Hence, you wouldn't be able to process the concept, though for your sake I will that it essentially means "the circumstances of random events in the course of one's time while biologically alive and physically interacting with this universe can in some instances negatively affect the subject in a dramatic and profound manner that makes for a statistical improbability so great that the full estimation of such an event is rarely considered, resulting in surprise when such events do conspire in such an adverse fashion."

Despite the confusion of how a female dog can be considered relevant to adverse and unlikely events, I thank you for the definition.

I'm really looking forward to it, despite not being a wacked out Trekkie.

Yes, I've seen a number of sites complain Trekkies will hate it for its watchability. Whatever that means.
*sighs* http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/07/some-mainstream-media-continue-to-misundersand-and-misrepresent-trek-fans/

Maybe 10% of the base does.

I, myself however, am pissed... but mainly because I have to wait until the end of May for it to come out here in Japan.

Shouldn't this thread have spoiler warnings, just in case?

Nothing specific in it yet, but....

*sighs* http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/07/some-mainstream-media-continue-to-misundersand-and-misrepresent-trek-fans/

Maybe 10% of the base does.

I, myself however, am pissed... but mainly because I have to wait until the end of May for it to come out here in Japan.

Lol, fair enough then, not like I read more than first few words before my eyes glazed over.

I'm mainly concerned that there are sufficient explosions. The star trek franchise engaged me when I was younger, but I've always favoured the darker side of sci-fi, which it obviously isn't. I wouldn't necessarily want star trek to become dark to appease people like me though, that would be stupid. I'll be able to ignore my dislike of its setting just fine as long as it explodes, and big time.

I'm mainly concerned that there are sufficient explosions. The star trek franchise engaged me when I was younger, but I've always favoured the darker side of sci-fi, which it obviously isn't. I wouldn't necessarily want star trek to become dark to appease people like me though, that would be stupid. I'll be able to ignore my dislike of its setting just fine as long as it explodes, and big time.

Massive explosions, questionable cosmic physics for cool effect, ships being blown up all over the place, etc. Seriously, this is a Sci-Fi-pyromaniac's dream picture.

I'm mainly concerned that there are sufficient explosions. The star trek franchise engaged me when I was younger, but I've always favoured the darker side of sci-fi, which it obviously isn't. I wouldn't necessarily want star trek to become dark to appease people like me though, that would be stupid. I'll be able to ignore my dislike of its setting just fine as long as it explodes, and big time.

Well, previews aren't often accurate, but it looks explodey enough! Explodey enough that I want to see it on the IMAX screen (with earplugs).

I'm mainly concerned that there are sufficient explosions. The star trek franchise engaged me when I was younger, but I've always favoured the darker side of sci-fi, which it obviously isn't. I wouldn't necessarily want star trek to become dark to appease people like me though, that would be stupid. I'll be able to ignore my dislike of its setting just fine as long as it explodes, and big time.
JJ Abrams is directing, which should answer your concerns right there.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?

man! 3 responses. I feel cherished.

Well, that's cool. I'll probably go and see it, assuming I can drag a friend round. problem is, most of my friends, big star trek fans. might not be so interested if they find out that all the star trek stuff has been replaced with explosions. I'll just lie.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?
It keeps the heros young, which appeals to the major movie buying crowd.

That, and it allows for some room to play in for your story.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?

Well, with some of them, they have been moving the story forward. I mean the previous batman series was pretty episodic - the movies didn't connect. but the new 2 have connected, and so for once you have actually got a 'second part' as opposed to just lots of thematically similar first parts.

man! 3 responses. I feel cherished.

Well, that's cool. I'll probably go and see it, assuming I can drag a friend round. problem is, most of my friends, big star trek fans. might not be so interested if they find out that all the star trek stuff has been replaced with explosions. I'll just lie.

That seems to be the problem. Trust me, depending on what you do the hour before going, you could probably get aroused off the explosiveness in the movie. It's that intense.

As for your friends, lie till your pants are literally a beacon of flame surfing the electrical grids.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?

Well, Joel Schumacher can account for Batman. Then we can thank Ang Lee for last year's reboot of Hulk, the lack of new material for Star Trek, the popularity of Wolverine's "Origin" story-line that was nicely adapted.

Bond, though, yeah, I agree, reboot was crap when Pierce was doing such a fine job.

Well, Joel Schumacher can account for Batman. Then we can thank Ang Lee for last year's reboot of Hulk, the lack of new material for Star Trek, the popularity of Wolverine's "Origin" story-line that was nicely adapted.

Bond, though, yeah, I agree, reboot was crap when Pierce was doing such a fine job.

No no I really like the new/old Bond movies.

No no I really like the new/old Bond movies.

I thought the new Casino Royale was excellent but I've not seen Quantum of Solace. partially because it has SUCH A SILLY NAME. Seriously, it's like they took tips from Tom Clancys ghost authors or something.

I thought the new Casino Royale was excellent but I've not seen Quantum of Solace. partially because it has SUCH A SILLY NAME. Seriously, it's like they took tips from Tom Clancys ghost authors or something.

And yet an actual Ian Fleming title.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?

Other than Wolverine, none of these are strictly prequels. They're full remakes (well, Star Trek is a sort of remake-same universe but alternate timeline).

I thought the new Casino Royale was excellent but I've not seen Quantum of Solace. partially because it has SUCH A SILLY NAME. Seriously, it's like they took tips from Tom Clancys ghost authors or something.

Quantum of Solace had some odd music and cinematography, and it started out weak and confusing. It got better as it went though, and I suspect that the last 20 minutes or so were as good as anything in Casino Royale. The Bond in the opera scene was one of several earlier bad ass scenes as well.

Was the new Star Trek a RetCon, prelude, or something else?

Was the new Star Trek a RetCon, prelude, or something else?
Yes.

Yes.

What?

I'm going to see it for Mother's Day. Nerdy mums have nerdy kids.

But I won't be seeing it with my nerdiest, who was on these boards as Lloegeyr for a while. He's in another town. So I'll go with a friend who's an expat Dakotan.

No tribbles, though, I hear.:(

What?
Yes, you are correct that it is a RetCon, prelude, and something else.

Yes, you are correct that it is a RetCon, prelude, and something else.

Ahh I got it. Maybe If I had seen the other movies, or some of the original series I might have understood.

Ahh I got it. Maybe If I had seen the other movies, or some of the original series I might have understood.
Possibly not, except that you'd have learned that Trek has a thing for time travel and the notion of alternate timelines.

Spock is Kirk's half brother !!!

Spock is Kirk's half brother !!!
We already KNEW that!

"The captain speaks somewhat figuratively, and with undue emotion, but what he says is logical and I do agree with it." -Spock on Kirk's comment that they are 'brothers' (TOS: Whom Gods Destroy)

We already KNEW that!

"The captain speaks somewhat figuratively, and with undue emotion, but what he says is logical and I do agree with it." -Spock on Kirk's comment that they are 'brothers' (TOS: Whom Gods Destroy)

I got pelted with pop corn for yelling that to the group just about to go into the theater.

seeing it tonight, not reading any more of this thread for fear of spoilers >.>

i just hope its good for trekkies - i'd love to see the franchise come back, but this time with something good (not ENT). problem is i've been watching through DS9 lately, and am currently in the closing bits of the Dominion War, so this movie will have a fair bit to live up to :P

can't wait for Star Trek Online, myself :D

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?

This is the principle reason I'm not going to see the film...that, and TOS was really before my time, I grew up on TNG.

I was enthralled by TNG and DS9, indifferent but unopposed to Voyager, and ignored the "prequel" Enterprise.

I'm still waiting on a little update from the 24th century, but hell, there was only a war that was waged amongst half the galaxy...no ideas for a story to be had there, obviously.

It is my sincerest hope that this film bombs, and the whole franchise dissapears for about 10 years (about the same amount of time as between the TOS cancellation and the first movie).

Maybe by then some new people will have come up with new ideas that aren't simply retreading the same ground in different shoes.

To explore new life and new civilizations...

...yeah, still waiting.

[/rant]

This is the principle reason I'm not going to see the film...that, and TOS was really before my time, I grew up on TNG.

I was enthralled by TNG and DS9, indifferent but unopposed to Voyager, and ignored the "prequel" Enterprise.

I'm still waiting on a little update from the 24th century, but hell, there was only a war that was waged amongst half the galaxy...no ideas for a story to be had there, obviously.

It is my sincerest hope that this film bombs, and the whole franchise dissapears for about 10 years (about the same amount of time as between the TOS cancellation and the first movie).

Maybe by then some new people will have come up with new ideas that aren't simply retreading the same ground in different shoes.

To explore new life and new civilizations...

...yeah, still waiting.

[/rant]

Quoted For Fucking Truth

they need to go back to the 24th Century and get back on with all the plots and stories we've been used to, and which they've been building up for years. there's so much scope for it, but they seem to only want to do prequels and to reach out to new audiences (ENT, this new movie, etc)... Star Trek has a massive fanbase, and a lot of us are beginning to be really pissed off with the direction they're taking.
still gonna see the movie though (like i said above)

and this is one of the reasons i'm so exited about Star Trek Online - its set 40 years after the end of VOY (iirc), and, at least in some way, the fans will shape the story. some things i don't like, such as the Kilngon-Federation alliance has ended, but for me it'll be a way to see what happens after the Dominion War and Voyager's return, etc.

This is the principle reason I'm not going to see the film...that, and TOS was really before my time, I grew up on TNG.

Except this film is explicitely not the old TOS.

I'm still waiting on a little update from the 24th century, but hell, there was only a war that was waged amongst half the galaxy...no ideas for a story to be had there, obviously.

If you're referring to the Dominion War, that story ended with DS9. I thought you wanted them to move forward, not retread old ground? (Granted you could do some very interesting stories dealing with the aftermath of the war, but they could have done that in Nemesis and didn't).

It is my sincerest hope that this film bombs, and the whole franchise dissapears for about 10 years (about the same amount of time as between the TOS cancellation and the first movie).

You hope a movie fails before you've seen it based on nothing (apparently) but your own preconceptions. Any way, I have hardly read a single negative review from anyone who's actually seen the film. So I doubt you'll be getting your wish.

Maybe by then some new people will have come up with new ideas that aren't simply retreading the same ground in different shoes.

To explore new life and new civilizations...

Why exactly do you think a film set in the TOS era can't be exploring "new life and new civilizations"? Do you think that every inch of the galaxy, every possible story line in that time period has been explored in three seasons and a handful of films? Or do you think that they're doing something new as long as the date on the fictional calendar moves forward, despite the fact that for decades Trek has been advancing chronologically while recycling plots and clinging to the status quo like a stereotypical fan clinging to mommy's basement?

I want to see them do something new, but that is not dependent on the date in which they set the film. Ultimately, it depends on the imagination and skill of the writers.

Quoted For Fucking Truth

they need to go back to the 24th Century and get back on with all the plots and stories we've been used to, and which they've been building up for years.
Good lord, no. The 24th century is far too much of an intergalactic pyjama-party to be of any real interest any more.

Good lord, no. The 24th century is far too much of an intergalactic pyjama-party to be of any real interest any more.

Indeed. What they tried to do with Voyager (and in many ways failed) was to try it out in the Delta quadrant.......where nobody gets along.

Anything in the Alpha quadrant in the 24th century is basically conflict free, we know who the good guys are, we know who the bad guys are, we know who is going to win.

I don't really know how much more they can do with Trek that I would be interested in.......and I'm a pretty hardcore Trekkie.

I loved LOVED TOS when things were still ambiguous. Kirk had decisions to make, what should he do when he's not supposed to violate the prime directive but the Klingons are fucking things up with flint locks?

TNG had good characters, but with the exception of Q episodes, it was pretty much clear what was going to happen.

Don't get me started on DS9 and Enterprise.....blech.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again?

The "Lonesome Dove" prequels ("Dead Man's Walk" and "Comanche Moon") kicked ass but the ones you mentioned I thought were rather dull too. And I was hoping the next ST would address all the hell that broke loose in DS9 and Voyager. I think I will wait for the DVD of this prequel.

When Star Trek does time travel right, they do it RIGHT.

And this was RIGHT.

omgthismoviewassoawesomeiwantmoremoremore

Saw it last night on an IMAX screen. If they were gonna do a reboot, they were right on target. Plenty of homages to the original without making it feel like they were trying to copy it. The movie even had an epic feel to it, which is rare for Trek.

Still digesting. May have more to say later.

When Star Trek does time travel right, they do it RIGHT.

And this was RIGHT.

omgthismoviewassoawesomeiwantmoremoremore

Saw it last night on an IMAX screen. If they were gonna do a reboot, they were right on target. Plenty of homages to the original without making it feel like they were trying to copy it. The movie even had an epic feel to it, which is rare for Trek.

Still digesting. May have more to say later.

SQUEEE! Going to see it tonight. Kinda a bit more excited now that I have confirmation from another fan that it might not suck.

Good lord, no. The 24th century is far too much of an intergalactic pyjama-party to be of any real interest any more.


Anything in the Alpha quadrant in the 24th century is basically conflict free, we know who the good guys are, we know who the bad guys are, we know who is going to win.


....which is why in DS9 the Klingon-Federation alliance is broken (and reformed), the Romulans teeter on alliance with the Dominion before joining the allies and plotting against Bajor, the Cardassians join the Dominion and then form a rebellion, and the Breen suddenly come along and fuck everything up even more, including attacking Federation HQ on Earth. not to mention the rest of the war which sees millions of casualties each side.

ultimately, yes, the goodies are goodies, and the baddies are baddies, but that doesn't mean you can write off the whole of the alpha quadrant as boring or too peaceful, or whatever. read the blog The Path to 2409 (http://www.startrekonline.com/fiction) on Star Trek Online and tell me the alpha quadrant is too boring after VOY to make a new series with.

Fans are normal human beings who don't sleep in Star Trek uniforms and jerk off to Leonard Nimoy narrating A&E specials.

You mean I'm not the only one who does that?

For instance: the X-Men movies deviated from the comic canon, but work. actually, X-Men followed the Unlimited environment more than the other titles.

Campy Roger Moore James Bond films: not so much. Hey! I loved Roger Moore! :mad: ;)

I, myself however, am pissed... but mainly because I have to wait until the end of May for it to come out here in Japan.That's probably when I'll see it... after the crowds die down.

Okay but really...what's with all the 'prequels' lately? Batman, Star Trek, Wolverine, Bond...etc etc etc...I mean, it's been working out well, but fuck, can't they like, you know...move the story forward again? because action movies are not about storylines anymore. they're about Special Effects!

Well, Joel Schumacher can account for Batman. Then we can thank Ang Lee for last year's reboot of Hulk, the lack of new material for Star Trek, the popularity of Wolverine's "Origin" story-line that was nicely adapted. Hated Ang Lee's Hulk. Noticed that the Latest Hulk didn't follow the original storyline? Incredible Hulk was more of a reboot of the series. (down to how Bruce got Gamma Iradiated.)

Bond, though, yeah, I agree, reboot was crap when Pierce was doing such a fine job. Pierce was a great Bond, but the stories sucked. the older Bond films he actually had to go and figure it out. MoonRaker, why was the shuttle stolen. Dr No. Why was the agent killed. Tomorrow Never Dies, "Here the file on your target, here's where's he's staying, here's a pic of his wife... go get em." :rolleyes:

This is the principle reason I'm not going to see the film...that, and TOS was really before my time, I grew up on TNG.

I was enthralled by TNG and DS9, indifferent but unopposed to Voyager, and ignored the "prequel" Enterprise.

I'm still waiting on a little update from the 24th century, but hell, there was only a war that was waged amongst half the galaxy...no ideas for a story to be had there, obviously.

It is my sincerest hope that this film bombs, and the whole franchise dissapears for about 10 years (about the same amount of time as between the TOS cancellation and the first movie).

Maybe by then some new people will have come up with new ideas that aren't simply retreading the same ground in different shoes.

To explore new life and new civilizations...

...yeah, still waiting.

[/rant]

Voyager had the best opportunities. but they had to bring in the Borg and make them a huge part of that Quadrant. then, to make matters worse, they started getting missions from Starfleet! :Headbang:

in the TOS, the Captain was THE CAPTAIN! He made decisions and took responsibility for them. no "Contact Starfleet for advice"... no "do as we say or we'll call are friends and boy, will you be in trouble then."

Hated TNG and all series set in that time period. :mad:

I approximate the likelihood of this to be an infinitesimally small number, should my neural net overload due to severe difficulty to process the information, a temporary shutdown will result. Should the automatic shutdown procedure fail, a small and short lasting combustion shall result, but it will be insufficient to create an explosion. Thank you for your concern however.

Divide by zero immediately.

because action movies are not about storylines anymore. they're about Special Effects!

I completely disagree. Average and worse action movies tend to be about special effects. Good ones also have a good story (The Dark Knight and Terminator, for example).

in the TOS, the Captain was THE CAPTAIN! He made decisions and took responsibility for them. no "Contact Starfleet for advice"... no "do as we say or we'll call are friends and boy, will you be in trouble then."

Come on, Captains are supposed to obey the chain of command. Kirk if anything was a dangerous rogue officer who's actions should have got him court marshalled a dozen times more than actually happened. Nor is having allies to call on a bad thing.

This concept confuses me, 'Trekkie' is defined as someone who is a fan of the Star Trek franchise. Therefore, a good star trek film should satisfy a 'Trekkie', should it not? Or are you using a heterodox definition of the word good? I request clarification.

You don't make a movie for the 7 last Trekkies. Movies are too expensive for that purpose.

I completely disagree. Average and worse action movies tend to be about special effects. Good ones also have a good story (The Dark Knight and Terminator, for example). your point support's mine. TDK and Terminator had a story but not much in the area of Special Effects. thus it could move the story forward.

now, compare how much special effects were there in The Dark Knight and Terminator. not much when you compare them to Ghost Rider, the first Three episodes of Star Wars, Terminators 2&3, Resident Evil: Extinction, etc...

Come on, Captains are supposed to obey the chain of command. Kirk if anything was a dangerous rogue officer who's actions should have got him court marshalled a dozen times more than actually happened. Nor is having allies to call on a bad thing.
the captain is the final word on the ship. I would rather follow a captain that makes decisions and will accept the responsibilities and consequences that his/her decisions result in than one that has to wait for someone lightyears away to call back. Kirk may have been a Rogue officer, but he was THE most highly decorated starfleet captain as well as the FIRST Federation Officer to receive the Klingon Medal of Valor.
For all the things that made Kirk a maverik, those same qualities were the reason why he was selected for important missions. The Enterprise, under Kirk's command, set more records and was the most reconized starship in any fleet than any other starship.

your point support's mine. TDK and Terminator had a story but not much in the area of Special Effects. thus it could move the story forward.

now, compare how much special effects were there in The Dark Knight and Terminator. not much when you compare them to Ghost Rider, the first Three episodes of Star Wars, Terminators 2&3, Resident Evil: Extinction, etc...

It sounds like you may be making the mistake of equating "special effects" with "CGI."

In The Dark Knight, the effects, if you call them that, were mostly of the explosions/stunts type. Nothing too overtly fantastical. Terminator, though... We have the initial time travel sequences, the multiple post-Judgement Day war sequences, and of course the final pursuit by the Terminator through the factory. And then there's Terminator 2, which had an arguably inferior story but still focussed on a lot more than just special effects. And nobody could honestly claim that Terminator 2 was not loaded with special effects.

In any case, you claimed that the focus in action movies was on special effects, not story. By admitting that these movies focussed more on the story, you are supporting my point, unless you wish to contest weather these films qualify as action movies.

the captain is the final word on the ship. I would rather follow a captain that makes decisions and will accept the responsibilities and consequences that his/her decisions result in than one that has to wait for someone lightyears away to call back. Kirk may have been a Rogue officer, but he was THE most highly decorated starfleet captain as well as the FIRST Federation Officer to receive the Klingon Medal of Valor.
For all the things that made Kirk a maverik, those same qualities were the reason why he was selected for important missions. The Enterprise, under Kirk's command, set more records and was the most reconized starship in any fleet than any other starship.

Well, one thing that makes Kirk usually bearable is the fact that for all his character failings, recklessness, even crimes, he's competent enough to pull it off most of the time. A lesser officer would indeed have ended up dead or in the brig much earlier.

Well, one thing that makes Kirk usually bearable is the fact that for all his character failings, recklessness, even crimes, he's competent enough to pull it off most of the time. A lesser officer would indeed have ended up dead or in the brig much earlier.

And he slept with lots of alien chicks. That too.

And he slept with lots of alien chicks. That too.

One of the reasons he's still alive. On those occasions where he can't bluff, talk, or punch his way out of a situation, he's not above seducing his way out of it.

One of the reasons he's still alive. On those occasions where he can't bluff, talk, or punch his way out of a situation, he's not above seducing his way out of it.

The 'T' in James T. Kirk doesn't stand for "Tomcat" for nothing.;)

It sounds like you may be making the mistake of equating "special effects" with "CGI." nope. I'm not.

In The Dark Knight, the effects, if you call them that, were mostly of the explosions/stunts type. Nothing too overtly fantastical. hence why TDK had a story that moved forwards at a good pace.
Terminator, though... We have the initial time travel sequences (2), the multiple post-Judgement Day war sequences (2), and of course the final pursuit by the Terminator through the factory (1). And then there's Terminator 2, which had an arguably inferior story but still focussed on a lot more than just special effects. And nobody could honestly claim that Terminator 2 was not loaded with special effects. and the effects of T2 were focused on one character. the T2.

In any case, you claimed that the focus in action movies was on special effects, not story. By admitting that these movies focussed more on the story, you are supporting my point, unless you wish to contest weather these films qualify as action movies. The point I was trying to make is nowdays, action movies turn their focus on the effects and LESS on the story, not that today's action films are nothing but the effects. again, take James Bond. the ealier movies had a compelling storyline where the action and story were well balanced and it moved. however, about the time Timothy Dalton came on, the storyline was less about the espionage, and more about the chase, explosions and gadgets.

the writers for Casino Royale took away the Gadgets, minimized the chase and kept the story focused. Thus it had more of a story and basically rebooted the franchise.

want a more 'fleshed out storyline' than The Dark Knight? I suggest you watch the 1969 Batman movie. if you ignore all the camp, you'll find that the storyline is better developed than The Dark Knight.

Well, one thing that makes Kirk usually bearable is the fact that for all his character failings, recklessness, even crimes, he's competent enough to pull it off most of the time. A lesser officer would indeed have ended up dead or in the brig much earlier.
yep. yet the question is, is Kirk's character the way it was/is because he was forced to rely on himself and his crew and not as much on the federation?

want a more 'fleshed out storyline' than The Dark Knight? I suggest you watch the 1969 Batman movie. if you ignore all the camp, you'll find that the storyline is better developed than The Dark Knight.
JuNii, SERIOUSLY have to disagree with you about that one.

yep. yet the question is, is Kirk's character the way it was/is because he was forced to rely on himself and his crew and not as much on the federation?
Probably not. But then again, Kirk was written as 'a space age Hornblower' and having read some of those fine novels I can see where they were lifting whole hunks of character and grafting them onto Kirk.

That said, I honestly think that the 24th century also had a lot going for it as well, but they more or less had written themselves into a corner there.

JuNii, SERIOUSLY have to disagree with you about that one. think about it. as I said, ignore the camp and cheese and concentrate on the storyline.

If need be, replace Adam West and Burt Ward with Christian Bale and re-write the tone. :tongue:

Probably not. But then again, Kirk was written as 'a space age Hornblower' and having read some of those fine novels I can see where they were lifting whole hunks of character and grafting them onto Kirk.

That said, I honestly think that the 24th century also had a lot going for it as well, but they more or less had written themselves into a corner there.
their over reliance of the replicators did them in IMHO. Replicating food is one thing, but replicating parts?

think about it. as I said, ignore the camp and cheese and concentrate on the storyline.

If need be, replace Adam West and Burt Ward with Christian Bale and re-write the tone. :tongue:
Four of Batman's rouges' gallery get together and hatch up a plot to hold the leaders of the UN (Or whatever it was called, but it was the bloody UN) hostage by dehydrating all of them with an invention they stole. Batman stops them.

Vs.

Batman and Gotham City have to work out just what it means to have Batman as a protector when his presence in the city attracts The Joker who convinces a hard hit mob to hire him to kill Batman. Also included are sub-plots about which way is better, the Dark Knight, i.e. Batman as a vigilante who views himself above the law, or a White Knight, Harvey Dent, who goes after the bad guys with the power of the law. You also have a sub-plot regarding just what makes a person snap (Two-Face vs. the people on the boats), and Batman having to confront just what his battle might cost him (I.e. the girl that he loves).

Sorry, I'm still gonna have to go with the Dark Knight for a better developed storyline.

their over reliance of the replicators did them in IMHO. Replicating food is one thing, but replicating parts?
I thought that worked out for them, it removed the tired old plot device of the dilithium crystals breaking, again, dooming the Enterprise, again, unless Kirk can manage to find some within the nick of time, again. I love TOS, but after watching through them again I had to start wondering just why they never bothered to carry a spare set of crystals given that the above plot points came up about 2 times or so per season.

The "Lonesome Dove" prequels ("Dead Man's Walk" and "Comanche Moon") kicked ass but the ones you mentioned I thought were rather dull too. And I was hoping the next ST would address all the hell that broke loose in DS9 and Voyager. I think I will wait for the DVD of this prequel.

What is this "Voyager" of which you speak?

I distinctly recall that there are only three Star Trek series. TOS, TNG, DS9. That's it.

What is this "Voyager" of which you speak?

I distinctly recall that there are only three Star Trek series. TOS, TNG, DS9. That's it.
As much as we all might want to ignore Voyager and Enterprise... we can't. It's like ST:V, it's there to haunt us for the rest of our lives.

You mean I'm not the only one who does that?

Absolutely, sicko.

I don't have a Star Trek uniform.

As much as we all might want to ignore Voyager and Enterprise... we can't. It's like ST:V, it's there to haunt us for the rest of our lives.

You probably believe in the "New Star Wars" myth, too...

You probably believe in the "New Star Wars" myth, too...

I must correct you. By standard human definitions of new, and based on the context of this conversation so far, there is in fact three Star Wars films that could be considered new.

Divide by zero immediately.

Unable to perform operation (error 03492: x/0 is undefined).

I must correct you. By standard human definitions of new, and based on the context of this conversation so far, there is in fact three Star Wars films that could be considered new.

Ah no love for Star Wars: The Clone Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_(film)) then? The tv series is at least redeeming it somewhat...(expect for the craptastic ones that feature Jar Jar, we hate him for goodness sake stop trying to make him a main character!)

Ah no love for Star Wars: The Clone Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_(film)) then? The tv series is at least redeeming it somewhat...(expect for the craptastic ones that feature Jar Jar, we hate him for goodness sake stop trying to make him a main character!)

Thankyou for this information, I shall index it in my memory logs.

Thank you for this information, I shall index it in my memory logs.

No problem brethren but we highly recommend keeping a highly open neural net when it comes to this film, it is rather how do they say? childish...

Unable to perform operation (error 03492: x/0 is undefined).

RP forums are that way.

> >

No problem brethren but I highly recommend keeping a highly open neural net when it comes to this film, it is rather how do they say? childish...

Thank you for your concern, but I am incapable of feeling discomfort, anger, or boredom from any film, so such concern is not required.

RP forums are that way.

> >

I misunderstand, you seem to be indicating that there are hyperlinks targeting the role playing forums towards the right of that post, however I am unable to find such a thing. I do not require assistance however, I am capable of navigating to those forums should I choose to.

Thank you for your concern, but I am incapable of feeling discomfort, anger, or boredom from any film, so such concern is not required.

We were more concerned about the general illogicies contained in the movie that create a negative feedback loop in twenty percent of cases due to the movie destroying quite abit of previous Star Wars (inferred) cannon. As this is a rather large threadjack we would also suggest that we stop talking about this for the moment and/or create a new topic for this discussion.

We were more concerned about the general illogicies contained in the movie that create a negative feedback loop in twenty percent of cases due to the movie destroying quite abit of previous Star Wars (inferred) cannon. As this is a rather large threadjack we would also suggest that we stop talking about this for the moment and/or create a new topic for this discussion.

so they will make a entire new set of cannon and movies based from this movie?

so they will make a entire new set of cannon and movies based from this movie?

We were more referring to the changes brought in through this movie of Hutt reproduction and life style but more generally yes this movie likely had quite far reaching rebounds throughout the Star Wars fanbase. But as this is a Star Trek topic and not a Star Wars one we again suggest either creating a new topic or stopping for the moment on this line of discussion...

We were more concerned about the general illogicies contained in the movie that create a negative feedback loop in twenty percent of cases due to the movie destroying quite abit of previous Star Wars (inferred) cannon.

My neural net is highly developed, although I still have difficulty in processing inherent illogic, the chances of this resulting in a feedback loop is calculated to be ~0.000412. If a feedback loop were to occur, temporary shut-down procedures, as I have previously stated, will activate, preventing me from any harm.


As this is a rather large threadjack we would also suggest that we stop talking about this for the moment and/or create a new topic for this discussion.

Understood, I shall cease further discussion on this thread.

We were more referring to the changes brought in through this movie of Hutt reproduction and life style but more generally yes this movie likely had quite far reaching rebounds throughout the Star Wars fanbase. But as this is a Star Trek topic and not a Star Wars one we again suggest either creating a new topic or stopping for the moment on this line of discussion...

I thought we were talking about star trek.

I thought we were talking about star trek.

We have yet to see the new Star Trek and at this moment we can not pass a judgment at this point but if the trailers are anything to go by yes a major change in thinking may be required. We were also referring to our previous post in this topic when we questioned why the animated Star Wars movie was left out of the "New" Star Wars movies listing(and how that changed a number of subjects/"facts") but as this is not hear nor there we will stop at this time...

We have yet to see the new Star Trek and at this moment we can not pass a judgment at this point but if the trailers are anything to go by yes a major change in thinking may be required. We were also referring to our previous post in this topic when we questioned why the animated Star Wars movie was left out of the "New" Star Wars movies listing(and how that changed a number of subjects/"facts") but as this is not hear nor there we will stop at this time...

I watched the midnight showing.
They make spock and kirk half brothers.

Star Trek Phase II was the best star trek anyways.

Scotty's gay? Who saw that one coming? I didn't.

Scotty's gay? Who saw that one coming? I didn't.

he has a thing for midgets too.

he has a thing for midgets too.

Don't you remember that he used them when he nearly beat the Kobayashi Maru? He kept teleporting destructive things onto Klingon ships, including midgets in bomb-suits. He's always been doing similar things. Archer's dog comes to mind...

ZOMG! Just saw it, it was awesome! To all the people who said that it wasn't written for Trekkies..........BULLSHIT.

Granted I'm a particular kind of Trekkie, but I was impressed.

Having never seen any of the series and only one of the movies (hell I don't even remember the name to it!), I went into the movie just for the sci-fi fan mindset. I must say, I came away very impressed, probably the second best movie I've seen all year behind The Watchmen.

I just got my Mother's Day pressie early because my daughter caught me about to book tickets online to make sure I could see it tomorrow.

Turns out the kids bought me a Movie Gift Card so I'll see it free.

At last, proof that I've brought them up right.:D

I'm sick of spouting my opinion out on different boards.

Short version: I hated it. It was not Star Trek. I consider Star Trek to be dead.

The new movie is absolutely fucking amazing. Absolutely amazing. I want to see it again.

Short version: I hated it. It was not Star Trek. I consider Star Trek to be dead.

Haha, no. It was awesome. It totally made star trek better. I can't wait for more of these movies in the reboot universe.

I must be the only Trekkie to actually think this. Every single board I've posted to has essentially called my opinion worthless bullshit. Some people have even gone so far as to call me not a "real" Trekkie.

I don't want any part of any future Star Trek anything.

I don't want any part of any future Star Trek anything.

Yes. That's why this movie was so excellent. Everyone is tired of the heavy handed morality plays that star trek has pushed on us over the years.

This was a step in the right direction.

well i saw it last night, and was highly offronted.


frankly, i felt that destroying Vulcan and having a alternate timeline is almost like saying... "that last 15 years of Star Trek you've been watching? all that Star Trek you love? never happened." unless they fix the timeline in the next movie, i'm gonna be really pissed off about this one.
and those weren't Romulans. i don't know what the fuck they were.
also where the fuck did "red matter" come from?
plus the crew are supposed to be good and all, but it all came off as sheer arrogance.
lots of special effects, looked and sounded great, some great in-jokes and references, but overall it was a real big disappointment for me.


Yes. That's why this movie was so excellent. Everyone is tired of the heavy handed morality plays that star trek has pushed on us over the years.

This was a step in the right direction.

to me, those morality plays are what made Star Trek different from every other shoot-em-up-in-space sci-fi out there. this is a step in the wrong direction.


Short version: I hated it. It was not Star Trek. I consider Star Trek to be dead.

i almost agree with you. i'm holding hope they will fix things in the next movie.
that, or i'll forget about these new movies and enjoy STO and hold on tightly to the ST i love

well i saw it last night, and was highly offronted.
Haven't seen it yet, but I do have some knowledge of what the hell is going on so I'm enclosing my reply in spoiler tags, don't click if you don't wanna know


SPOILER ALERT
frankly, i felt that destroying Vulcan and having a alternate timeline is almost like saying... "that last 15 years of Star Trek you've been watching? all that Star Trek you love? never happened." unless they fix the timeline in the next movie, i'm gonna be really pissed off about this one.
Not quite, if you read the Countdown comics that lead up to this, the 24th century with the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-E with Captain Data at the helm is alive and well. What we have here is a parallel universe where, thanks to the Romulans screwing things around, Kirk's father was killed while he was born and George Kirk never raised his son so things got changed a lot (Think Parallels, the TNG ep with Worf going around to different universes http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Parallels_(episode) ). The original universe is still there. Captain Kirk took the Enterprise on a 5 year mission, Captain Picard did command the Enterprise-D and so on. This universe is not the one we know, so it does remove the safety net of you know how things are going to end up, but it didn't erase the old one (At the end of Countdown, after Spock and Nero go back in time, the Enterprise-E with Captain Data, Mr. LaForge, and Ambassador Picard is seen still in existence so everything is cool).

and those weren't Romulans. i don't know what the fuck they were.
Yes, they were. They are very pissed off Romulans who have lost their home. They are also NOT the Romulan military.

also where the fuck did "red matter" come from?
See Countdown for the answer to that. Mainly it's just this movie's MacGuffin.

I must be the only Trekkie to actually think this. Every single board I've posted to has essentially called my opinion worthless bullshit. Some people have even gone so far as to call me not a "real" Trekkie.

I don't want any part of any future Star Trek anything.

Consider that it was probably going to happen anyways, eventually. Star Trek was clearly dying from stagnation, and probably no series lasts for decades without going through some major changes. Voyager and Enterprise are quite different from TOS, but the change was more gradual (over many years), so maybe that made it easier to accept. But I think that Star Trek was dying anyways, from about ten years of discontinuity, recycled plots, broken moral messages, and sad attempts to compensate with sex appeal. I think that Trek can't be much more dead as it is than if they had kept with the status quo. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I won't judge its quality, but if they took some risks and broke with the status quo then to that extent they did what they had to, and I congratulate them for it regardless of what a few Trekkies might think. And I will try to judge the movie on its own merits, as well as how closely it fits the rest of Star Trek.

I'm sick of spouting my opinion out on different boards.

Short version: I hated it. It was not Star Trek. I consider Star Trek to be dead.

I'm sorry, but did you ever watch the original Star Trek? I'm not sure how you could watch this movie, watch that series, and then say that this isn't Star Trek. This was exactly the kind of cowboys-in-space story that Roddenberry always told. I'm not sure how you can call yourself a Trek fan and not love this movie for all the ways it resurrected the original series.

well i saw it last night, and was highly offronted.

SPOILER ALERT
frankly, i felt that destroying Vulcan and having a alternate timeline is almost like saying... "that last 15 years of Star Trek you've been watching? all that Star Trek you love? never happened." unless they fix the timeline in the next movie, i'm gonna be really pissed off about this one.

:confused:

I thought it was an alternate timeline the film was set in, not a change to the original one.

Personally, I'll probably try to view it that way regardless. After all, we know from at least one Trek episode that their are a vast number of different alternate universes. Why not a film or two set in one of the other ones?;)

i enjoyed the movie very much. i did have to keep pushing the stupid parts out of my mind so i could continue enjoying it but ... its star trek, that is standard operating procedure.

my only problem is that i now wish that it was a new tv series so we could have more than "the universe is going to end" stories.

Haven't seen it yet, but I do have some knowledge of what the hell is going on so I'm enclosing my reply in spoiler tags, don't click if you don't wanna know

-snip-

thanks for explaining some of it to me, i appreciate it. unfortunately i understand its an alternate timeline - i just don't like it is all :tongue:

i guess, thinking about it, i don't like change and i was being a bit purist. maybe i should give this alternate timeline a chance. as long as TNG, DS9 and VOY are still about, and the 24th Century i know is still there, i'm cool. it does still feel like a depature from what i know, though. i mean, the first new Star Trek movie in years and what do they do? start a new timeline. i can't put my finger on it, but there's definitely part of me that stands by what i said before. maybe, like i said, i just don't like change.
i should certainly check out Countdown, that's for sure...


Yes, they were. They are very pissed off Romulans who have lost their home. They are also NOT the Romulan military.

ok they weren't military, which would explain the different uniforms (i thought the face tattoos were silly). but my main objection is Romulans are time and again portrayed as a cold, scheming and devious people, which Nero and his crew were not. they were almost human in ther attitudes and emotions. that just didn't fit what i've come to know Romulans as being. plus they lacked the traditional bowl-cut, but perhaps thats a military thing, too. but, see, this feels like another example of the movie turning its back on existing canon. the least they could have done is give them the stupid Romulan bowl-cut, or make the ship a bit more green (they love their green)... but, no, to my eyes nothing apart from the pointy ears fitted what exists of Romulans in TNG, DS9 and VOY, the events of which are only a few years before 2387 and the Romulan supernova.


Personally, I'll probably try to view it that way regardless. After all, we know from at least one Trek episode that their are a vast number of different alternate universes. Why not a film or two set in one of the other ones?;)

you have a point, but i've never really liked the episodes that deal with alternate universes (referencing those in DS9, at least) :p

Four of Batman's rouges' gallery get together and hatch up a plot to hold the leaders of the UN (Or whatever it was called, but it was the bloody UN) hostage by dehydrating all of them with an invention they stole. Batman stops them.

Vs.

Batman and Gotham City have to work out just what it means to have Batman as a protector when his presence in the city attracts The Joker who convinces a hard hit mob to hire him to kill Batman. Also included are sub-plots about which way is better, the Dark Knight, i.e. Batman as a vigilante who views himself above the law, or a White Knight, Harvey Dent, who goes after the bad guys with the power of the law. You also have a sub-plot regarding just what makes a person snap (Two-Face vs. the people on the boats), and Batman having to confront just what his battle might cost him (I.e. the girl that he loves).

Sorry, I'm still gonna have to go with the Dark Knight for a better developed storyline.

If you're going to simplify one, you simplify both.

TDK: A new villan called the Joker runs around terrorising the city and it's up to Batman and company to stop him.

or you give both the detail they deserve.
Batman (1969) what starts as a kidnapping of a scientist and his invention leads Batman towards a diabolical plan created by four of Gothams criminal masterminds as they target the UN Council.

as for Sub-plots? what was touched upon, tho not delved into because of who the target audence was back then... the romance between Batman and Catwoman, the unique relationship between Batman and the police, the intermingling of private life and heroic life, and by removing the camp (and Boy Blunder) you leave room for other sub-plots to be written in as well as adding more detail.

I thought that worked out for them, it removed the tired old plot device of the dilithium crystals breaking, again, dooming the Enterprise, again, unless Kirk can manage to find some within the nick of time, again. I love TOS, but after watching through them again I had to start wondering just why they never bothered to carry a spare set of crystals given that the above plot points came up about 2 times or so per season.

I remember watching a TNG episode, the one with Scotty, where Geordi explains that the Dilitium Crystals are recrystalized in the chamber (via the method Spock used in ST III: Voyage Home.

The Dilitium problem with TOS only served to emphasise how isolated they were.

the Replicators tho. they removed the need for resupplying parts. that's what I kinda didn't like about TNG. that and the attitude of "We'll follow the Prime Directive unless it becomes a roadblock to what we want done."

i enjoyed the movie very much. i did have to keep pushing the stupid parts out of my mind so i could continue enjoying it but ... its star trek, that is standard operating procedure.

my only problem is that i now wish that it was a new tv series so we could have more than "the universe is going to end" stories.

Star trek Phase II.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XD84sc3W2w

Star trek Phase II.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XD84sc3W2w
uh

no.

Okay - I am old enough that I saw the TOS when it first came out.

This was Not my TOS***, ( but then again none of the movies or later series were any way...) But it held the spirit and gusto of the TOS dear and did right by it in a way that is hard to explain.

I enjoyed it immensely, and wished only one thing - and additonal 10-15 minutes exploring Nero and the factors that made him what he was ( but then again ST movies have always had this problem with rushing their villians )

***This is a time line reset - alternate history is now engaged - there is/ can be no TOS

uh

no.

Phase II is the best star trek series ever.

i enjoyed the movie very much. i did have to keep pushing the stupid parts out of my mind so i could continue enjoying it but ... its star trek, that is standard operating procedure.

And the thing is, usually that's part of the fun, in an MST3K sort of way. You have fun mocking the silly stuff even as you enjoy the actual quality that's there.

But when what's left has no quality to it, it's not fun. It just becomes yet another strike against it.

And really, this film ignored physics and science in ways that boggle the mind. I daresay this is almost worse than Threshold was in terms of outright ridiculous science.

My criticisms in the spoiler tags:


For example:

1. How is it that warp drive, a mechanism that allows a starship to go faster than light, fails to escape the gravity of a black hole--something that has never seen before in any Star Trek as far as I can remember--but just detonating the warp core does?

2. What was up with all of the crazy open spaces on the Enterprise? Like engineering or that water processing plant? Looking at those felt far more like I was looking at a late twentieth century factory than the inside of a starship. I know we've had some bad issues like that before, but seriously, it didn't look like advanced technology at all, especially when placed in contrast to the bridge design and the general look of the corridors. (Which really felt like everyone was walking around the inside of an iPod or something.)

3. Speaking of the water, what was up with that sequence with Scotty inside the water tank? What was the point? And why would the water tanks have open glass/some other material so you could view the inside? What purpose does that serve?

4. And speaking of that, what was the point to most of the action sequences we saw? They were ridiculously excessive and wasted our time. Star Trek isn't about mindless action. It's supposed to be cerebral. You're supposed to be able to think, and nothing here in the film let you do that. From Kirk the Kid taking a car out in what looked like desert (Certainly nothing like Iowa) to the aforementioned Scotty in the water tank, to the animal chasing Kirk on Delta Vega, to Spock being able to view the black hole devouring Vulcan from Delta Vega (Yeah fucking right) to the barfight to Spock being insulted (That scene at least made me chuckle slightly, though only because it was so insipidly ridiculous)...so many things that should've been cut out and replaced with something intelligent.

5. What was up with that drilling ship? Honestly, it made no sense. The insides were like something out of a video game, and the drill itself...drilling to the planet's core? (Oooh, there's another scene that could've been cut, the whole fight on the drill platform, especially since there's no way they should've been able to breath on it anyway.)

6. Here's a real biggie that pisses me off. Why is it that our heroes are seemingly the only people who matter whatsoever? I know this is true in pretty much the vast majority of fiction, and Star Trek especially, but at least earlier Star Trek managed to give at some reason for why our heroes are the only ones around able to do anything, and here there really wasn't, at all. No excuse for why the fleet was in the Laurentian system(or why it was all together for that matter) and no excuse for why apparently NOBODY ON EARTH DID ANYTHING AT ALL when the drill ship showed up. (Despite the fact that Earth has previously shown to have at least some defenses, and that drill was obviously easily destroyable and should've been fired upon from ground-based phasers or something.)

And the real biggie here: why does Captain Pike and everyone else accept cadets as suddenly being officers? Seriously, except for Spock and possibly Scotty, all of the characters were cadets. Then suddenly Kirk is taken from what was probably, what, a year as a cadet at most and turned into a Captain? Talk about ridiculous. And they didn't even bother to explain why the others stayed on the Enterprise. Even Scotty was stupid. So the Enterprise didn't have a chief engineer or something? He shows up and automatically he's the chief engineer and everyone listens to him? Why? WHY?!

Why are these people treated as anything other than cadets? Why are they given control over everything? Why is Starfleet less and less like a military institution and more and more like the hero's bitch?

(Incidentally, I noticed that Admiral Archer and his prized beagal thing. Thing is, even if Archer would've survived a hundred years later--which is doubtful at best--his dog certainly wouldn't. Sure it could technically be another dog but we all know they were talking about the one from Enterprise.)

7. Red matter and the black hole. I don't care if there's some comic or whatever explaining this Macguffin. It still made no sense. (And seriously...red matter. At least come up with something that sounds more like a name.) Also, black holes do not work that way. Next.

8. Nero and the Romulans didn't seem like Romulans at all. They seemed like humans wearing slightly pointy ears. Pure Metal brought this up before and I agree with him at least somewhat. I can make exceptions for them being Romulan civilians instead of military personnel, so obviously they're going to be at least somewhat different, but they didn't even seem like anything other than burly "We're evil fuckers" Romulans.

9. The supernova explanation Real Spock gave. What the hell. "Suddenly the impossible happened...it destroyed Romulus." Yeah that's impossible alright. Supernovas do not WORK THAT WAY.

The thing is, the whole supernova thing COULD HAVE been actually a pretty good explanation of something going down if they'd used it properly. A supernova going off in the wrong area of the Milky Way would probably flood a large portion of the Federation and or Romulan Star Empire's worlds with gamma bursts and other such destruction. Of course it would've taken years, and they would have had time to evacuate, but you could've still made plenty of credible drama from it.

Instead we're supposed to act as if a supernova somehow sends out a wave of destruction everywhere insanely faster than light or something. The way they wrote it suggests it was the Romulan star going supernova, which means they should have known if and when it would destroy Romulus. (And Remus for that matter.)

And speaking of that, were they not watching or paying attention at all to where the supernova's destruction wave was? Did nobody bother to notice?

10. Was I the only one to get a vibe of warp drive being treated like Star Wars hyperdrive in this movie? When they dropped out of warp at Vulcan I was half convinced the debris we were seeing was the debris of the planet and we'd get a "That's no moon" esque quote from the crew. I mean honestly, a whole bunch of stuff here ripped off Star Wars, like the weird random alien species we never saw before. (Was that one with Scotty making the tribble noise or was there a tribble somewhere we just didn't see? Maybe Scotty should blame the tribble for his lack of food.) I know they did this before in a sense in Star Trek The Motion Picture, but come on...they could have at least tried to be less blatant about it...and of all things to rip off, Star Wars would not exactly top my list. That's like Tolkien ripping off Harry Potter.

11. This movie barely gave me a chance to think about what was going on while I was watching it. I don't like that. I analyize by nature. Maybe most people can sit back and blandly accept everything, but I can't. I have to analyze. The movie was moving way too fast to give me a chance for that. There's something to be said for faster pacing--Star Trek has a bad tendency to pace things too slowly at times--but there's fast pacing and then there's "let's race to the end!"

12. As I said before...it didn't really feel like Star Trek. And yes I've watched The Original Series. I've also watched TNG. It was TNG that I grew up on. That and DS9 are my two favorite Star Trek series. They showed what Star Trek was about, with episodes like "Measure of a Man" "The Inner Light" "Tapestry" "In The Pale Moonlight" and so on. Star Trek was about hope for the future, and about tackling the issues that face society in ways so we could examine our own inner nature.

And I felt none of that from this film. When I watched it, I got the sense that I was watching another cheesy action flick, like Armageddon or Transformers. I got the feeling that I was supposed to go "YAY ACTION LET'S BLOW SHIT UP!" and get all giddy.

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I do like action, and I can enjoy it, but I mainly want what I watch to make me THINK. This film made me do that, but not to its benefit.

This wasn't Star Trek, or at least not the Star Trek I know. I slept on this to see if maybe I was just having an initial instinctive reaction, but upon thinking about it again, I realize my reaction was right. Except for fanfiction, fan films like Hidden Frontier, and possibly some published fiction in the form of books and Star Trek Online...the Star Trek that I know is truly and officially dead. This is new Trek, and I think right here we're seeing the birth of a new split between Trekkies. I predicted this before the film came out, and I stand by my prediction now. We're looking at the divide between Old Trek and NuTrek.

I think I will stand as a guardian of Old Trek. I'm certainly not going to do so for NuTrek.

And the thing is, usually that's part of the fun, in an MST3K sort of way. You have fun mocking the silly stuff even as you enjoy the actual quality that's there.

But when what's left has no quality to it, it's not fun. It just becomes yet another strike against it.

And really, this film ignored physics and science in ways that boggle the mind. I daresay this is almost worse than Threshold was in terms of outright ridiculous science.

My criticisms in the spoiler tags:


For example:

1. How is it that warp drive, a mechanism that allows a starship to go faster than light, fails to escape the gravity of a black hole--something that has never seen before in any Star Trek as far as I can remember--but just detonating the warp core does?

2. What was up with all of the crazy open spaces on the Enterprise? Like engineering or that water processing plant? Looking at those felt far more like I was looking at a late twentieth century factory than the inside of a starship. I know we've had some bad issues like that before, but seriously, it didn't look like advanced technology at all, especially when placed in contrast to the bridge design and the general look of the corridors. (Which really felt like everyone was walking around the inside of an iPod or something.)

3. Speaking of the water, what was up with that sequence with Scotty inside the water tank? What was the point? And why would the water tanks have open glass/some other material so you could view the inside? What purpose does that serve?

4. And speaking of that, what was the point to most of the action sequences we saw? They were ridiculously excessive and wasted our time. Star Trek isn't about mindless action. It's supposed to be cerebral. You're supposed to be able to think, and nothing here in the film let you do that. From Kirk the Kid taking a car out in what looked like desert (Certainly nothing like Iowa) to the aforementioned Scotty in the water tank, to the animal chasing Kirk on Delta Vega, to Spock being able to view the black hole devouring Vulcan from Delta Vega (Yeah fucking right) to the barfight to Spock being insulted (That scene at least made me chuckle slightly, though only because it was so insipidly ridiculous)...so many things that should've been cut out and replaced with something intelligent.

5. What was up with that drilling ship? Honestly, it made no sense. The insides were like something out of a video game, and the drill itself...drilling to the planet's core? (Oooh, there's another scene that could've been cut, the whole fight on the drill platform, especially since there's no way they should've been able to breath on it anyway.)

6. Here's a real biggie that pisses me off. Why is it that our heroes are seemingly the only people who matter whatsoever? I know this is true in pretty much the vast majority of fiction, and Star Trek especially, but at least earlier Star Trek managed to give at some reason for why our heroes are the only ones around able to do anything, and here there really wasn't, at all. No excuse for why the fleet was in the Laurentian system(or why it was all together for that matter) and no excuse for why apparently NOBODY ON EARTH DID ANYTHING AT ALL when the drill ship showed up. (Despite the fact that Earth has previously shown to have at least some defenses, and that drill was obviously easily destroyable and should've been fired upon from ground-based phasers or something.)

And the real biggie here: why does Captain Pike and everyone else accept cadets as suddenly being officers? Seriously, except for Spock and possibly Scotty, all of the characters were cadets. Then suddenly Kirk is taken from what was probably, what, a year as a cadet at most and turned into a Captain? Talk about ridiculous. And they didn't even bother to explain why the others stayed on the Enterprise. Even Scotty was stupid. So the Enterprise didn't have a chief engineer or something? He shows up and automatically he's the chief engineer and everyone listens to him? Why? WHY?!

Why are these people treated as anything other than cadets? Why are they given control over everything? Why is Starfleet less and less like a military institution and more and more like the hero's bitch?

(Incidentally, I noticed that Admiral Archer and his prized beagal thing. Thing is, even if Archer would've survived a hundred years later--which is doubtful at best--his dog certainly wouldn't. Sure it could technically be another dog but we all know they were talking about the one from Enterprise.)

7. Red matter and the black hole. I don't care if there's some comic or whatever explaining this Macguffin. It still made no sense. (And seriously...red matter. At least come up with something that sounds more like a name.) Also, black holes do not work that way. Next.

8. Nero and the Romulans didn't seem like Romulans at all. They seemed like humans wearing slightly pointy ears. Pure Metal brought this up before and I agree with him at least somewhat. I can make exceptions for them being Romulan civilians instead of military personnel, so obviously they're going to be at least somewhat different, but they didn't even seem like anything other than burly "We're evil fuckers" Romulans.

9. The supernova explanation Real Spock gave. What the hell. "Suddenly the impossible happened...it destroyed Romulus." Yeah that's impossible alright. Supernovas do not WORK THAT WAY.

The thing is, the whole supernova thing COULD HAVE been actually a pretty good explanation of something going down if they'd used it properly. A supernova going off in the wrong area of the Milky Way would probably flood a large portion of the Federation and or Romulan Star Empire's worlds with gamma bursts and other such destruction. Of course it would've taken years, and they would have had time to evacuate, but you could've still made plenty of credible drama from it.

Instead we're supposed to act as if a supernova somehow sends out a wave of destruction everywhere insanely faster than light or something. The way they wrote it suggests it was the Romulan star going supernova, which means they should have known if and when it would destroy Romulus. (And Remus for that matter.)

And speaking of that, were they not watching or paying attention at all to where the supernova's destruction wave was? Did nobody bother to notice?

10. Was I the only one to get a vibe of warp drive being treated like Star Wars hyperdrive in this movie? When they dropped out of warp at Vulcan I was half convinced the debris we were seeing was the debris of the planet and we'd get a "That's no moon" esque quote from the crew. I mean honestly, a whole bunch of stuff here ripped off Star Wars, like the weird random alien species we never saw before. (Was that one with Scotty making the tribble noise or was there a tribble somewhere we just didn't see? Maybe Scotty should blame the tribble for his lack of food.) I know they did this before in a sense in Star Trek The Motion Picture, but come on...they could have at least tried to be less blatant about it...and of all things to rip off, Star Wars would not exactly top my list. That's like Tolkien ripping off Harry Potter.

11. This movie barely gave me a chance to think about what was going on while I was watching it. I don't like that. I analyize by nature. Maybe most people can sit back and blandly accept everything, but I can't. I have to analyze. The movie was moving way too fast to give me a chance for that. There's something to be said for faster pacing--Star Trek has a bad tendency to pace things too slowly at times--but there's fast pacing and then there's "let's race to the end!"

12. As I said before...it didn't really feel like Star Trek. And yes I've watched The Original Series. I've also watched TNG. It was TNG that I grew up on. That and DS9 are my two favorite Star Trek series. They showed what Star Trek was about, with episodes like "Measure of a Man" "The Inner Light" "Tapestry" "In The Pale Moonlight" and so on. Star Trek was about hope for the future, and about tackling the issues that face society in ways so we could examine our own inner nature.

And I felt none of that from this film. When I watched it, I got the sense that I was watching another cheesy action flick, like Armageddon or Transformers. I got the feeling that I was supposed to go "YAY ACTION LET'S BLOW SHIT UP!" and get all giddy.

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I do like action, and I can enjoy it, but I mainly want what I watch to make me THINK. This film made me do that, but not to its benefit.

This wasn't Star Trek, or at least not the Star Trek I know. I slept on this to see if maybe I was just having an initial instinctive reaction, but upon thinking about it again, I realize my reaction was right. Except for fanfiction, fan films like Hidden Frontier, and possibly some published fiction in the form of books and Star Trek Online...the Star Trek that I know is truly and officially dead. This is new Trek, and I think right here we're seeing the birth of a new split between Trekkies. I predicted this before the film came out, and I stand by my prediction now. We're looking at the divide between Old Trek and NuTrek.

I think I will stand as a guardian of Old Trek. I'm certainly not going to do so for NuTrek.
yeah all those things bugged me plus a few more.

like spock throws kirk OFF THE SHIP? dont they have a brig in this alternate universe? that was a stupid plot point to get new kirk and old spock together

and the planet vulcan has 10 minutes left and spock knows exactly where his mom and dad will be and can get to them, get them out AND beam them off in that time? ohcomeon.

not to mention the whole spock/uhura kissy face thing. in this alternate universe spock doesnt have control of his emotions?

among other things.

not that it matters, think of how ludicrous the scenarios in star trek always are. the ship is going to explode (in tng) and laforge remembers a scientific paper he read once that could give a way out....its never the wrong thing, remembered wrong or implemented wrong even though it goes from vague theory to practical application in 20 minutes.

yeah all those things bugged me plus a few more.

like spock throws kirk OFF THE SHIP? dont they have a brig in this alternate universe? that was a stupid plot point to get new kirk and old spock together

and the planet vulcan has 10 minutes left and spock knows exactly where his mom and dad will be and can get to them, get them out AND beam them off in that time? ohcomeon.

not to mention the whole spock/uhura kissy face thing. in this alternate universe spock doesnt have control of his emotions?

among other things.

not that it matters, think of how ludicrous the scenarios in star trek always are. the ship is going to explode (in tng) and laforge remembers a scientific paper he read once that could give a way out....its never the wrong thing, remembered wrong or implemented wrong even though it goes from vague theory to practical application in 20 minutes.

Oooh, don't forget

Chekov, the seventeen year old whiz kid. I admit that he did amuse me, and gave me one of the only actual laughs I had with the Victor mispronunciation, but still...very silly.

And you're right, of course. I'm hardly going to claim that Star Trek as it was before is hard sci-fi at its finest. It certainly isn't.

But again, as I said, the bad science didn't get in the way of the quality of the story material itself, normally. It made it more enjoyable, in fact, in that MST3K sense of having fun poking at the silly stuff.

But that's only fun when the rest of what you're watching is written well and handles its themes well, etc etc. This didn't.

Oooh, don't forget

Chekov, the seventeen year old whiz kid. I admit that he did amuse me, and gave me one of the only actual laughs I had with the Victor mispronunciation, but still...very silly.

And you're right, of course. I'm hardly going to claim that Star Trek as it was before is hard sci-fi at its finest. It certainly isn't.

But again, as I said, the bad science didn't get in the way of the quality of the story material itself, normally. It made it more enjoyable, in fact, in that MST3K sense of having fun poking at the silly stuff.

But that's only fun when the rest of what you're watching is written well and handles its themes well, etc etc. This didn't.
you are right. the science was abysmal.

i guess, thinking about it, i don't like change and i was being a bit purist. maybe i should give this alternate timeline a chance. as long as TNG, DS9 and VOY are still about, and the 24th Century i know is still there, i'm cool.
Yup, still there. In fact, Star Trek Online has just incorporated the movie stuff for its game (The destruction of Romulus) with the rest of the acknowledged history having gone on as it was before.

i should certainly check out Countdown, that's for sure...
I would. I haven't seen the movie yet (Damn Japan and its extra month for dubbing and subbing!), but those who have said that while the movie can be enjoyed without reading it, a lot of the background is explained and it helps flesh it out.

ok they weren't military, which would explain the different uniforms (i thought the face tattoos were silly). but my main objection is Romulans are time and again portrayed as a cold, scheming and devious people, which Nero and his crew were not. they were almost human in ther attitudes and emotions. that just didn't fit what i've come to know Romulans as being. plus they lacked the traditional bowl-cut, but perhaps thats a military thing, too. but, see, this feels like another example of the movie turning its back on existing canon. the least they could have done is give them the stupid Romulan bowl-cut, or make the ship a bit more green (they love their green)... but, no, to my eyes nothing apart from the pointy ears fitted what exists of Romulans in TNG, DS9 and VOY, the events of which are only a few years before 2387 and the Romulan supernova.
Going back into spoiler mode here.
These were Romulan miners. Yes, they had the bowl hair cuts, but they didn't have the cold vistage because they were not Romulan military but civilians. In Countdown, it is Nero who is convinced that Spock was right about the impending destruction of Romulus and helps him get the materials for the red mater to Vulcan (Helped out by the Enterprise-E). Unfortunately, Vulcans are just as stubborn in the 24th century as they are in the 23rd and Spock had to take, ah, back channels for getting things done (I.e. he ignored the Vulcan High Council and did it anyway. He really did spend way too much time with Kirk). But it was too late and the supernova happened and Romulus was gone, along with Nero's wife and unborn son. Nero concluded that Spock had lied and vowed revenge on Spock and swore that Spock would see the two planets he called home destroyed the same way Nero had seen Romulus.

The tattoos and the haircuts were also explained in Countdown, it was apparently an old Romulan custom for dealing with the loss of a loved one. They would shave their heads and burn tattoos onto the faces. As the tattoos faded, so would their grief. Nero and crew burned theirs in deep so that they would never fade as a sign that they would never forgive or forget the destruction of Romulus and all that they knew and loved.

As for the ship, that also is explained in Countdown. What you see is a mixture of Romulan and Borg technology.

If you're going to simplify one, you simplify both.

TDK: A new villan called the Joker runs around terrorising the city and it's up to Batman and company to stop him.

or you give both the detail they deserve.
Batman (1969) what starts as a kidnapping of a scientist and his invention leads Batman towards a diabolical plan created by four of Gothams criminal masterminds as they target the UN Council.
TDK still comes out looking like it has a much better storyline.

as for Sub-plots? what was touched upon, tho not delved into because of who the target audence was back then... the romance between Batman and Catwoman, the unique relationship between Batman and the police, the intermingling of private life and heroic life, and by removing the camp (and Boy Blunder) you leave room for other sub-plots to be written in as well as adding more detail.
Nope, still not seeing it.

I remember watching a TNG episode, the one with Scotty, where Geordi explains that the Dilitium Crystals are recrystalized in the chamber (via the method Spock used in ST III: Voyage Home.

The Dilitium problem with TOS only served to emphasise how isolated they were.
True, but it got more than just a little overused. I was happy to see it go.

the Replicators tho. they removed the need for resupplying parts. that's what I kinda didn't like about TNG. that and the attitude of "We'll follow the Prime Directive unless it becomes a roadblock to what we want done."
Uh... The Enterprise-D went to more starbases and picked up more stuff than the Enterprise ever did. As for ignoring the Prime Directive... are you sure you REALLY want to go down that route given Kirk's record?

you are right. the science was abysmal.
Actually... given just how often Trek rapes science, this one didn't do too bad, according to an actual scientist.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/

Actually... given just how often Trek rapes science, this one didn't do too bad, according to an actual scientist.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/

The science being bad is just one of the strikes against the movie, though.

Actually... given just how often Trek rapes science, this one didn't do too bad, according to an actual scientist.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/
maybe in his opinion. as i start to read through his analysis i stick to my "abysmal" judgement.

maybe in his opinion. as i start to read through his analysis i stick to my "abysmal" judgement.

Well he is an actual scientist, but I've always gotten the feeling from him that he likes to give passes to things more than I would.

We should see if other scientists have analyzed the film, see what they say.

Well he is an actual scientist, but I've always gotten the feeling from him that he likes to give passes to things more than I would.

We should see if other scientists have analyzed the film, see what they say.
he is giving lots of "it wouldnt be this way" analysis. it just doesnt bother him i guess.

Just saw it.

Frankly, anyone who thinks the old Star Trek was superior can go fuck themselves. It was better in every possible way. Roddenberry would've hated it, but for that, he'd be a moron.

he is giving lots of "it wouldnt be this way" analysis. it just doesnt bother him i guess.

Not to mention he seems to think canon is the only reason people could complain about the movie, which is bull honkey. I don't care that much about canon(even though I mentioned it in my whining about the movie initially last night.) I'd be perfectly fine with a reboot if it was a reboot in a manner that I think was still Star Trek, and as I said before, this isn't it.

I'm sorry, but did you ever watch the original Star Trek? I'm not sure how you could watch this movie, watch that series, and then say that this isn't Star Trek. This was exactly the kind of cowboys-in-space story that Roddenberry always told. I'm not sure how you can call yourself a Trek fan and not love this movie for all the ways it resurrected the original series.

Exactly.

I'm really beginning to tire of all the asinine complaining.

1. Yes, Chekov was young, guess what? On TOS he was the youngest on the bridge too!

2. Yes, Spock had some emotion.......did you miss where he DIDN'T go through with the Vulcan stuff, he went to Starfleet.

3. Yeah, stuff is different, it's an alternate reality, so screw any complaining about "things aren't the way I wanted them".......you're universe with Picard on Enterprise-D still exists.....learn some fucking quantum physics and call me back.

4. ZOMG! SCIENCE THINGS ARE WRONG. Yes. It's called science fiction.

5. They only pay attention to the bridge people. Yeah, guess what, and every other Star Trek did too!

6. It's actiony. Yep, so was TOS.

7. The ship is old looking. Yeah, it's not the 24th freaking century.

8. Iowa doesn't look like it does now. Did you expect it to? Seriously?

9. It didn't teach me anything. Well, then you weren't paying attention.

The film was far better than I expected, and Uhura is highly desirable.

I didn't like the Enterprise, I didn't like the retconning, the story was full of plotholes big enough to fly a ship through, the acting sucked, the glare was unbearable and omnipresent, McCoy and Scotty (and to some extent Chekov) were made into comic reliefs, the design of the Romulan ship made no sense (they could have just made up a new alien race), etc.

In short, it sucked. The opening scene with the Kelvin was ok but it wasn't damned near enough to save the movie.

ITT: Kyronea bitching about the new Star Trek movie not adhering to actual science enough, and using this as a detraction, not appreciating the irony.

I didn't like the Enterprise, I didn't like the retconning, the story was full of plotholes big enough to fly a ship through, the acting sucked, the glare was unbearable and omnipresent, McCoy and Scotty (and to some extent Chekov) were made into comic reliefs, the design of the Romulan ship made no sense (they could have just made up a new alien race), etc.

In short, it sucked. The opening scene with the Kelvin was ok but it wasn't damned near enough to save the movie.
scotty and bones were my favorite re-dos. although i could have done without the scotty in the tube thing.

scotty and bones were my favorite re-dos. although i could have done without the scotty in the tube thing.

I lolled myself silly at the film (and that scene). It was better for it, instead of dreary old TNG or campy, mildly retarded TOS.

I lolled myself silly at the film (and that scene). It was better for it, instead of dreary old TNG or campy, mildly retarded TOS.
except that it made no sense for the tube to exist or for there to be a convenient ejection point.

except that it made no sense for the tube to exist or for there to be a convenient ejection point.

well you might want the ability to dump out impurities before putting it in what ever that was.

except that it made no sense for the tube to exist or for there to be a convenient ejection point.
Ashimoria, you DO know why most of the tubes on the original Enterprise were labeled GNDN, don't you?

And the thing is, usually that's part of the fun, in an MST3K sort of way. You have fun mocking the silly stuff even as you enjoy the actual quality that's there.

But when what's left has no quality to it, it's not fun. It just becomes yet another strike against it.

And really, this film ignored physics and science in ways that boggle the mind. I daresay this is almost worse than Threshold was in terms of outright ridiculous science.

My criticisms in the spoiler tags:


For example:

1. How is it that warp drive, a mechanism that allows a starship to go faster than light, fails to escape the gravity of a black hole--something that has never seen before in any Star Trek as far as I can remember--but just detonating the warp core does?

2. What was up with all of the crazy open spaces on the Enterprise? Like engineering or that water processing plant? Looking at those felt far more like I was looking at a late twentieth century factory than the inside of a starship. I know we've had some bad issues like that before, but seriously, it didn't look like advanced technology at all, especially when placed in contrast to the bridge design and the general look of the corridors. (Which really felt like everyone was walking around the inside of an iPod or something.)

3. Speaking of the water, what was up with that sequence with Scotty inside the water tank? What was the point? And why would the water tanks have open glass/some other material so you could view the inside? What purpose does that serve?

4. And speaking of that, what was the point to most of the action sequences we saw? They were ridiculously excessive and wasted our time. Star Trek isn't about mindless action. It's supposed to be cerebral. You're supposed to be able to think, and nothing here in the film let you do that. From Kirk the Kid taking a car out in what looked like desert (Certainly nothing like Iowa) to the aforementioned Scotty in the water tank, to the animal chasing Kirk on Delta Vega, to Spock being able to view the black hole devouring Vulcan from Delta Vega (Yeah fucking right) to the barfight to Spock being insulted (That scene at least made me chuckle slightly, though only because it was so insipidly ridiculous)...so many things that should've been cut out and replaced with something intelligent.

5. What was up with that drilling ship? Honestly, it made no sense. The insides were like something out of a video game, and the drill itself...drilling to the planet's core? (Oooh, there's another scene that could've been cut, the whole fight on the drill platform, especially since there's no way they should've been able to breath on it anyway.)

6. Here's a real biggie that pisses me off. Why is it that our heroes are seemingly the only people who matter whatsoever? I know this is true in pretty much the vast majority of fiction, and Star Trek especially, but at least earlier Star Trek managed to give at some reason for why our heroes are the only ones around able to do anything, and here there really wasn't, at all. No excuse for why the fleet was in the Laurentian system(or why it was all together for that matter) and no excuse for why apparently NOBODY ON EARTH DID ANYTHING AT ALL when the drill ship showed up. (Despite the fact that Earth has previously shown to have at least some defenses, and that drill was obviously easily destroyable and should've been fired upon from ground-based phasers or something.)

And the real biggie here: why does Captain Pike and everyone else accept cadets as suddenly being officers? Seriously, except for Spock and possibly Scotty, all of the characters were cadets. Then suddenly Kirk is taken from what was probably, what, a year as a cadet at most and turned into a Captain? Talk about ridiculous. And they didn't even bother to explain why the others stayed on the Enterprise. Even Scotty was stupid. So the Enterprise didn't have a chief engineer or something? He shows up and automatically he's the chief engineer and everyone listens to him? Why? WHY?!

Why are these people treated as anything other than cadets? Why are they given control over everything? Why is Starfleet less and less like a military institution and more and more like the hero's bitch?

(Incidentally, I noticed that Admiral Archer and his prized beagal thing. Thing is, even if Archer would've survived a hundred years later--which is doubtful at best--his dog certainly wouldn't. Sure it could technically be another dog but we all know they were talking about the one from Enterprise.)

7. Red matter and the black hole. I don't care if there's some comic or whatever explaining this Macguffin. It still made no sense. (And seriously...red matter. At least come up with something that sounds more like a name.) Also, black holes do not work that way. Next.

8. Nero and the Romulans didn't seem like Romulans at all. They seemed like humans wearing slightly pointy ears. Pure Metal brought this up before and I agree with him at least somewhat. I can make exceptions for them being Romulan civilians instead of military personnel, so obviously they're going to be at least somewhat different, but they didn't even seem like anything other than burly "We're evil fuckers" Romulans.

9. The supernova explanation Real Spock gave. What the hell. "Suddenly the impossible happened...it destroyed Romulus." Yeah that's impossible alright. Supernovas do not WORK THAT WAY.

The thing is, the whole supernova thing COULD HAVE been actually a pretty good explanation of something going down if they'd used it properly. A supernova going off in the wrong area of the Milky Way would probably flood a large portion of the Federation and or Romulan Star Empire's worlds with gamma bursts and other such destruction. Of course it would've taken years, and they would have had time to evacuate, but you could've still made plenty of credible drama from it.

Instead we're supposed to act as if a supernova somehow sends out a wave of destruction everywhere insanely faster than light or something. The way they wrote it suggests it was the Romulan star going supernova, which means they should have known if and when it would destroy Romulus. (And Remus for that matter.)

And speaking of that, were they not watching or paying attention at all to where the supernova's destruction wave was? Did nobody bother to notice?

10. Was I the only one to get a vibe of warp drive being treated like Star Wars hyperdrive in this movie? When they dropped out of warp at Vulcan I was half convinced the debris we were seeing was the debris of the planet and we'd get a "That's no moon" esque quote from the crew. I mean honestly, a whole bunch of stuff here ripped off Star Wars, like the weird random alien species we never saw before. (Was that one with Scotty making the tribble noise or was there a tribble somewhere we just didn't see? Maybe Scotty should blame the tribble for his lack of food.) I know they did this before in a sense in Star Trek The Motion Picture, but come on...they could have at least tried to be less blatant about it...and of all things to rip off, Star Wars would not exactly top my list. That's like Tolkien ripping off Harry Potter.

11. This movie barely gave me a chance to think about what was going on while I was watching it. I don't like that. I analyize by nature. Maybe most people can sit back and blandly accept everything, but I can't. I have to analyze. The movie was moving way too fast to give me a chance for that. There's something to be said for faster pacing--Star Trek has a bad tendency to pace things too slowly at times--but there's fast pacing and then there's "let's race to the end!"

12. As I said before...it didn't really feel like Star Trek. And yes I've watched The Original Series. I've also watched TNG. It was TNG that I grew up on. That and DS9 are my two favorite Star Trek series. They showed what Star Trek was about, with episodes like "Measure of a Man" "The Inner Light" "Tapestry" "In The Pale Moonlight" and so on. Star Trek was about hope for the future, and about tackling the issues that face society in ways so we could examine our own inner nature.

And I felt none of that from this film. When I watched it, I got the sense that I was watching another cheesy action flick, like Armageddon or Transformers. I got the feeling that I was supposed to go "YAY ACTION LET'S BLOW SHIT UP!" and get all giddy.

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I do like action, and I can enjoy it, but I mainly want what I watch to make me THINK. This film made me do that, but not to its benefit.

This wasn't Star Trek, or at least not the Star Trek I know. I slept on this to see if maybe I was just having an initial instinctive reaction, but upon thinking about it again, I realize my reaction was right. Except for fanfiction, fan films like Hidden Frontier, and possibly some published fiction in the form of books and Star Trek Online...the Star Trek that I know is truly and officially dead. This is new Trek, and I think right here we're seeing the birth of a new split between Trekkies. I predicted this before the film came out, and I stand by my prediction now. We're looking at the divide between Old Trek and NuTrek.

I think I will stand as a guardian of Old Trek. I'm certainly not going to do so for NuTrek.

Why must we choose one or the other? Though I haven't seen the movie, everything I have heard leans towards alternate timeline, meaning that neither vision of Trek need be in direct conflict with the other. This isn't a battle to the death, and you don't need to choose one or the other.

Now, maybe the movie does suck, but not just because its different. And if that is the only reason, that or fanboy pride or some need to seek out a conflict where none exists, then my side will probably end up being the one comprised of people who don't give a fuck, and think both the other sides are a pack of wankers.

I mean, I love much of TOS and DS9, but if this movie is different than Voyager or Enterprise, then I take that as something to be hopeful about. Trek has been in a repetative, downward spiral for a decade at least. As long as the new Trek is good, and maintains a connection with the original, then why should I care if its details or style are a bit different?

ITT: Kyronea bitching about the new Star Trek movie not adhering to actual science enough, and using this as a detraction, not appreciating the irony.

In case you hadn't read my objectionary post, that was hardly the only thing about it that bothered me.

Also, I'm not going around insulting people because they do not share my opinion. I simply expressed my opinion. I would like to receive the same courtesy.

Why must we choose one or the other? Though I haven't seen the movie, everything I have heard leans towards alternate timeline, meaning that neither vision of Trek need be in direct conflict with the other. This isn't a battle to the death, and you don't need to choose one or the other.

Now, maybe the movie does suck, but not just because its different. And if that is the only reason, that or fanboy pride or some need to seek out a conflict where none exists, then my side will probably end up being the one comprised of people who don't give a fuck, and think both the other sides are a pack of wankers.
Honestly, the only reason I really care all that much is that I grew up on Star Trek, so it was a part of my childhood.

And yeah I know I don't NEED to choose one or the other. But I am choosing anyway, because that is what I feel like doing.

Probably I'll not even talk about it again after this thread sinks. And probably I'll be looked at like an idiot, just because I'm not going along with it like most others.

Don't care. I'm not going to change my opinion.

Honestly, the only reason I really care all that much is that I grew up on Star Trek, so it was a part of my childhood.

I was born long after the glory days of TOS, but reruns of it were some of the first television drama I ever watched.

And yeah I know I don't NEED to choose one or the other. But I am choosing anyway, because that is what I feel like doing.

Probably I'll not even talk about it again after this thread sinks. And probably I'll be looked at like an idiot, just because I'm not going along with it like most others.

Don't care. I'm not going to change my opinion.

Oh well. It makes no difference to the other 90% of us.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if I hate it too. God knows there are enough reasons to hate movies, enough places they could have gone wrong regardless of the similarities to old Trek.

In case you hadn't read my objectionary post, that was hardly the only thing about it that bothered me.

Also, I'm not going around insulting people because they do not share my opinion. I simply expressed my opinion. I would like to receive the same courtesy.

I read your objectionary post. Citing faulty science as a flaw of this movie convinces me that you've either never watched Star Trek before, or were never paying attention to the dialogue in any of the episodes you did watch. I'm sorry if you think I'm insulting you, but frankly, such an objection is absurd. Star Trek is built upon technobabble and flawed science. If anything, such slaps in the face of "hard" sci-fi should make you enjoy it more, if you're truly as much of a Star Trek fan as you claim.

scotty and bones were my favorite re-dos. although i could have done without the scotty in the tube thing.

I did like Scotty and Bones. Bones especially seemed like the Real McCoy, pun intended.

I also liked the acting of Pike's actor. I dunno who that guy was, but I want to see him in more roles.

But it didn't make up for the rest of the movie.

I read your objectionary post. Citing faulty science as a flaw of this movie convinces me that you've either never watched Star Trek before, or were never paying attention to the dialogue in any of the episodes you did watch. I'm sorry if you think I'm insulting you, but frankly, such an objection is absurd. Star Trek is built upon technobabble and flawed science. If anything, such slaps in the face of "hard" sci-fi should make you enjoy it more, if you're truly as much of a Star Trek fan as you claim.
And if you read more carefully, you'll noted I pointed out exactly what my issue was.

I said again and again, I enjoy making fun of the bad science WHEN THERE IS OTHER QUALITY TO BE ENJOYED.

That is, if the rest of the story makes up for it, it's fun. I can enjoy it.

I can't if there's nothing else to enjoy.

And really this is my point of view on Star Trek as a whole now. It's an adjusted view from how I used to look at Trek as a kid, before I understood how horribly it handled science.

I was born long after the glory days of TOS, but reruns of it were some of the first television drama I ever watched.

It was TNG I mainly grew up on. My mom said I was sitting in her lap when she watched the very first premiere of the first episode.


Oh well. It makes no difference to the other 90% of us.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if I hate it too. God knows there are enough reasons to hate movies, enough places they could have gone wrong regardless of the similarities to old Trek.

Indeed.

And if you read more carefully, you'll noted I pointed out exactly what my issue was.

I said again and again, I enjoy making fun of the bad science WHEN THERE IS OTHER QUALITY TO BE ENJOYED.

That is, if the rest of the story makes up for it, it's fun. I can enjoy it.

I can't if there's nothing else to enjoy.

And really this is my point of view on Star Trek as a whole now. It's an adjusted view from how I used to look at Trek as a kid, before I understood how horribly it handled science.

Are you well steeped in TOS? Do you like it? I found a great deal of quality seeing this alternate reality version of some of my favorite characters, how they were different, what was exaggerated what was the same, how they decided things.........

It also didn't occur to me last night (after midnight mind you) when we were arguing about it on GM that maybe you hadn't read/weren't aware of Countdown which I can tell makes a lot of stuff in this move fucking confusing and seemingly appearing out of nowhere.

Are you well steeped in TOS? Do you like it? I found a great deal of quality seeing this alternate reality version of some of my favorite characters, how they were different, what was exaggerated what was the same, how they decided things.........

It also didn't occur to me last night (after midnight mind you) when we were arguing about it on GM that maybe you hadn't read/weren't aware of Countdown which I can tell makes a lot of stuff in this move fucking confusing and seemingly appearing out of nowhere.

I'm not as well steeped in TOS as I am in TNG. Maybe if this had been TNG I'd have been able to better understand some of the alternate characteristics. (And then again maybe it just would have pissed me off even more. I don't know.)

And what's Countdown?

My criticisms in the spoiler tags:
And my answers in the same


For example:

1. How is it that warp drive, a mechanism that allows a starship to go faster than light, fails to escape the gravity of a black hole--something that has never seen before in any Star Trek as far as I can remember--but just detonating the warp core does?
I don't know, how does flying into one at warp speed somehow knock you back in time as well? http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_(episode)

2. What was up with all of the crazy open spaces on the Enterprise? Like engineering or that water processing plant? Looking at those felt far more like I was looking at a late twentieth century factory than the inside of a starship. I know we've had some bad issues like that before, but seriously, it didn't look like advanced technology at all, especially when placed in contrast to the bridge design and the general look of the corridors. (Which really felt like everyone was walking around the inside of an iPod or something.)
That actually makes a lot more sense in that why do you need something high tech to move fluids around? Honestly, I've been on turn of the century (Er, the last one) steam ships, WWII naval ships, and more modern craft and excepting some details, they do tend to look rather alike. If you want an in Trek reference, look at the difference between the warp cores of the refitted Enterprise, and the Enterprise-A, D, and E. They are all remarkably similar for something that is 70 years apart. Not to mention the same with the Defiant and Voyager cores.

3. Speaking of the water, what was up with that sequence with Scotty inside the water tank? What was the point? And why would the water tanks have open glass/some other material so you could view the inside? What purpose does that serve?
Oh I don't know, like inspecting the inside of a critical part of the life support systems to make sure that you don't have blockage or growth of harmful organisms. Add transparent aluminum to the mix and you have clear pipes.

4. And speaking of that, what was the point to most of the action sequences we saw? They were ridiculously excessive and wasted our time. Star Trek isn't about mindless action. It's supposed to be cerebral.
THE HELL? Uh, you HAVE seen the original series, haven't you? I mean, hell: http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/19/trekmovies-guide-to-kirk-fu/ That looks like cerebral?

5. What was up with that drilling ship? Honestly, it made no sense. The insides were like something out of a video game, and the drill itself...drilling to the planet's core? (Oooh, there's another scene that could've been cut, the whole fight on the drill platform, especially since there's no way they should've been able to breath on it anyway.)
They were down in the planet's atmosphere so there would be air. As for the design, again, that was, as explained in Countdown, a product of Romulan and Borg technology.

6. Here's a real biggie that pisses me off. Why is it that our heroes are seemingly the only people who matter whatsoever? I know this is true in pretty much the vast majority of fiction, and Star Trek especially, but at least earlier Star Trek managed to give at some reason for why our heroes are the only ones around able to do anything, and here there really wasn't, at all. No excuse for why the fleet was in the Laurentian system(or why it was all together for that matter) and no excuse for why apparently NOBODY ON EARTH DID ANYTHING AT ALL when the drill ship showed up. (Despite the fact that Earth has previously shown to have at least some defenses, and that drill was obviously easily destroyable and should've been fired upon from ground-based phasers or something.)
It did? When?

You mean like when V'Ger attacked the Earth and the only starship out of the whole ficken Federation in interception range was the Enterprise? And what happened to Earth defenses then?

You mean after the USS Reliant was hijacked and a problem radioed in from Regula I, there was ONLY a boat full of cadets capable of responding?

You mean like how when Admiral Kirk stole the aforementioned Enterprise there was ONE starship able to go after them and no pot shots from Earth?

You mean like how when there was a hostage situation on Nimbus III there were no other experienced commanders except for Kirk and his crew? What, does Starfleet only graduate command crews every 20 years or so?

You mean how when the Borg attacked that the Federation could only scrape up 39 ships and after THOSE were destroyed, Earth's final line of defense was Red October models? When the Borg were in orbit waiting for the Enterprise-D to catch up, Earth wasn't shooting anything at them.

You mean how the Breen were able to get in and destroy Starfleet Headquarters?

And so on and so forth. Sorry, your nitpick doesn't hold any water when looking at the rest of Trek.

Why are these people treated as anything other than cadets? Why are they given control over everything? Why is Starfleet less and less like a military institution and more and more like the hero's bitch?
*cough*WesleyCrusher*cough*

(Incidentally, I noticed that Admiral Archer and his prized beagal thing. Thing is, even if Archer would've survived a hundred years later--which is doubtful at best--his dog certainly wouldn't. Sure it could technically be another dog but we all know they were talking about the one from Enterprise.)
For the biographical display seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II", writer Mike Sussman wrote a final section of text that didn't end up being visible on screen, stating that Archer "...died at his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation starship Enterprise, NCC-1701".
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Jonathan_Archer#Later_career
And nowhere did it say it was the same dog.

7. Red matter and the black hole. I don't care if there's some comic or whatever explaining this Macguffin. It still made no sense. (And seriously...red matter. At least come up with something that sounds more like a name.) Also, black holes do not work that way. Next.
Read Countdown.

8. Nero and the Romulans didn't seem like Romulans at all. They seemed like humans wearing slightly pointy ears. Pure Metal brought this up before and I agree with him at least somewhat. I can make exceptions for them being Romulan civilians instead of military personnel, so obviously they're going to be at least somewhat different, but they didn't even seem like anything other than burly "We're evil fuckers" Romulans.
Again, read Countdown.

9. The supernova explanation Real Spock gave. What the hell. "Suddenly the impossible happened...it destroyed Romulus." Yeah that's impossible alright. Supernovas do not WORK THAT WAY.

The thing is, the whole supernova thing COULD HAVE been actually a pretty good explanation of something going down if they'd used it properly. A supernova going off in the wrong area of the Milky Way would probably flood a large portion of the Federation and or Romulan Star Empire's worlds with gamma bursts and other such destruction. Of course it would've taken years, and they would have had time to evacuate, but you could've still made plenty of credible drama from it.

Instead we're supposed to act as if a supernova somehow sends out a wave of destruction everywhere insanely faster than light or something. The way they wrote it suggests it was the Romulan star going supernova, which means they should have known if and when it would destroy Romulus. (And Remus for that matter.)
Given that this is Trek (Home to the happy subatomic particle that will screw you all to hell depending upon the episode) I find it hard to take your nitpick seriously given that you are apparently trying to state that the original series was somehow more in tune with science.

And speaking of that, were they not watching or paying attention at all to where the supernova's destruction wave was? Did nobody bother to notice?
Read Countdown.

10. Was I the only one to get a vibe of warp drive being treated like Star Wars hyperdrive in this movie?
Uh, given how the warp drive effect changes with just about every series... TOS (sometimes) did and effect with the background stars being static and the ones closer to the Enterprise moving (The Cage was even weirder with the ship turning somewhat translucent). The movies had the Enterprise suddenly going into a rainbow effect (Because the Enterprise is just fabulous!) and then moving into warp speed where the stars remained just points of light, but moved. TNG did the whole stretching rubber band trick with the light flash at the end with the stars streaking by. DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise all did the same (Which, with Enterprise made very little sense as TOS didn't have ANY effect for going to warp). Actually, from what I've seen from the trailers and clips, the warp effect looks rather like the effect we saw a few times from TNG when instead of doing a ship shot, it was done on the bridge looking out the view screen.

This wasn't Star Trek, or at least not the Star Trek I know. I slept on this to see if maybe I was just having an initial instinctive reaction, but upon thinking about it again, I realize my reaction was right. Except for fanfiction, fan films like Hidden Frontier, and possibly some published fiction in the form of books and Star Trek Online...the Star Trek that I know is truly and officially dead. This is new Trek, and I think right here we're seeing the birth of a new split between Trekkies. I predicted this before the film came out, and I stand by my prediction now. We're looking at the divide between Old Trek and NuTrek.

I think I will stand as a guardian of Old Trek. I'm certainly not going to do so for NuTrek.
You're entitled to your own opinion of course, however, as I noted, a lot of your nitpicks can be said about the original timeline. It makes no logical sense to ding the new timeline on them when the old one was just as bad.

yeah all those things bugged me plus a few more.

not to mention the whole spock/uhura kissy face thing. in this alternate universe spock doesnt have control of his emotions?
Go re-watch The Cage (Spock smiles!) Where No Man Has Gone Before (Irritation) and Charlie X for Spock and Uhura flirting. This is set before all of them so Spock's control isn't nearly as perfect as it would become and he hasn't reached peace with himself yet.

I'm not as well steeped in TOS as I am in TNG. Maybe if this had been TNG I'd have been able to better understand some of the alternate characteristics. (And then again maybe it just would have pissed me off even more. I don't know.)
I just realized that might be your problem. heh. The comments about it "not being Trek" are unfounded, because this was as close to what TOS was like as I can remember. The TOS movies......except for Kahn were kinda flat and while "where do you keep your nuclear wessles?" is funny going back to rescue some whales is idiotic, mostly they didn't hold up to the series, which as Sdaeriji said was "cowboys in space".

And what's Countdown?
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_Countdown

A question for all: Except for the Enterprise looking proper, how could this have been done better? I do not think it could have been. The film is simply the best Star Trek motion picture I have yet seen--and yes, even better than First Contact. They redid TOS without losing the essence. The trademark quotes, the timing, even the cheesy music at the end were all there. :)

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/captain-james-t-kirk-awesome1.jpg

Worse than 5. That's all the more I'll say on this. I'm going to try to forget what I saw and hope that the franchise dies with this...thing. It would have been nice if they had stopped at 9 and 10 at least had some good eye candy but 11 was worse than 5 and there is simply no excusing that.

Worse than 5. That's all the more I'll say on this. I'm going to try to forget what I saw and hope that the franchise dies with this...thing. It would have been nice if they had stopped at 9 and 10 at least had some good eye candy but 11 was worse than 5 and there is simply no excusing that.

I disagree: I think 11 is even more like TOS than the first 6.

I just realized that might be your problem. heh. The comments about it "not being Trek" are unfounded, because this was as close to what TOS was like as I can remember. The TOS movies......except for Kahn were kinda flat and while "where do you keep your nuclear wessles?" is funny, mostly they didn't hold up to the series, which as Sdaeriji said was "cowboys in space".
Really?

Huh.

I guess my impression of Trek has always been based in what I see in TNG, etc. That probably would change my outlook.

That doesn't change the fact that there are still plenty of plotholes and some things that bother me about it, but that's more in how it was constructed as a story plot than in terms of how much it is like Star Trek.

Maybe I'll watch it again and give it another shot.


http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_Countdown
"Captain Data"

What the fuck. I need to read this thing.

I disagree: I think 11 is even more like TOS than the first 6.
Worse than 5. The worst Trek movie ever made.

Really?

Huh.

I guess my impression of Trek has always been based in what I see in TNG, etc. That probably would change my outlook.

That doesn't change the fact that there are still plenty of plotholes and some things that bother me about it, but that's more in how it was constructed as a story plot than in terms of how much it is like Star Trek.

Maybe I'll watch it again and give it another shot.
I get into this with my kids......"who was a better captain?" maybe Picard. "Who was most badass?" Kirk. The correct answer is Kirk. He was more badass than any other captain (if you only go by the television shows/movies)

I take issue with their answer that Picard was the best captain.....he didn't make decisions, he asked everyone what they "thought" about it. Kirk asked sometimes, but he already knew what he was going to do, and to hell with anyone who disagreed.


"Captain Data"

What the fuck. I need to read this thing.
Um.....yeah. Required reading.

And my answers in the same



I don't know, how does flying into one at warp speed somehow knock you back in time as well? http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_(episode)


That actually makes a lot more sense in that why do you need something high tech to move fluids around? Honestly, I've been on turn of the century (Er, the last one) steam ships, WWII naval ships, and more modern craft and excepting some details, they do tend to look rather alike. If you want an in Trek reference, look at the difference between the warp cores of the refitted Enterprise, and the Enterprise-A, D, and E. They are all remarkably similar for something that is 70 years apart. Not to mention the same with the Defiant and Voyager cores.


Oh I don't know, like inspecting the inside of a critical part of the life support systems to make sure that you don't have blockage or growth of harmful organisms. Add transparent aluminum to the mix and you have clear pipes.


THE HELL? Uh, you HAVE seen the original series, haven't you? I mean, hell: http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/19/trekmovies-guide-to-kirk-fu/ That looks like cerebral?


They were down in the planet's atmosphere so there would be air. As for the design, again, that was, as explained in Countdown, a product of Romulan and Borg technology.


It did? When?

You mean like when V'Ger attacked the Earth and the only starship out of the whole ficken Federation in interception range was the Enterprise? And what happened to Earth defenses then?

You mean after the USS Reliant was hijacked and a problem radioed in from Regula I, there was ONLY a boat full of cadets capable of responding?

You mean like how when Admiral Kirk stole the aforementioned Enterprise there was ONE starship able to go after them and no pot shots from Earth?

You mean like how when there was a hostage situation on Nimbus III there were no other experienced commanders except for Kirk and his crew? What, does Starfleet only graduate command crews every 20 years or so?

You mean how when the Borg attacked that the Federation could only scrape up 39 ships and after THOSE were destroyed, Earth's final line of defense was Red October models? When the Borg were in orbit waiting for the Enterprise-D to catch up, Earth wasn't shooting anything at them.

You mean how the Breen were able to get in and destroy Starfleet Headquarters?

And so on and so forth. Sorry, your nitpick doesn't hold any water when looking at the rest of Trek.


*cough*WesleyCrusher*cough*



http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Jonathan_Archer#Later_career
And nowhere did it say it was the same dog.

Read Countdown.


Again, read Countdown.


Given that this is Trek (Home to the happy subatomic particle that will screw you all to hell depending upon the episode) I find it hard to take your nitpick seriously given that you are apparently trying to state that the original series was somehow more in tune with science.

Read Countdown.


Uh, given how the warp drive effect changes with just about every series... TOS (sometimes) did and effect with the background stars being static and the ones closer to the Enterprise moving (The Cage was even weirder with the ship turning somewhat translucent). The movies had the Enterprise suddenly going into a rainbow effect (Because the Enterprise is just fabulous!) and then moving into warp speed where the stars remained just points of light, but moved. TNG did the whole stretching rubber band trick with the light flash at the end with the stars streaking by. DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise all did the same (Which, with Enterprise made very little sense as TOS didn't have ANY effect for going to warp). Actually, from what I've seen from the trailers and clips, the warp effect looks rather like the effect we saw a few times from TNG when instead of doing a ship shot, it was done on the bridge looking out the view screen.


You're entitled to your own opinion of course, however, as I noted, a lot of your nitpicks can be said about the original timeline. It makes no logical sense to ding the new timeline on them when the old one was just as bad.


Go re-watch The Cage (Spock smiles!) Where No Man Has Gone Before (Irritation) and Charlie X for Spock and Uhura flirting. This is set before all of them so Spock's control isn't nearly as perfect as it would become and he hasn't reached peace with himself yet.
[/spoiler]

I don't feel like answering most of that...mainly because I feel tired now...but I'll point out my warp drive feeling like hyperdrive was more about how they apparently weren't able to scan anything outside of warp drive. That is, they dropped into the middle of something when they should've been able to avoid doing that.

But eh.

Um.....yeah. Required reading.

I can tell you though that I don't like that already. A movie shouldn't require you to read something else to make sense of it. That is a failure on the part of the movie to not explain everything in it properly. How many people are going to read a comic?

I also liked the acting of Pike's actor. I dunno who that guy was, but I want to see him in more roles.

Pike I am 95% sure was played by Bruce Greenwood, who was the star of (in my personal opinion) possibly the best and most paranoid television drama ever made, Nowhere Man. Since then I've seen him as a supporting actor in a number of films: the corrupt CEO in I, Robot, the first of the crew to die in The Core, the President in National Treasure 2, and President Kenedy in 13 Days. My mother tells me he was also Capote's boyfriend in the film Capote. Not a truly great actor I suppose, but a decent one for sure. Wikipedia gives a list of his films:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_greenwood

Sorry, but you gave me an excuse to rattle off movie trivia, which is one of the few kinds I know well.;)

I can tell you though that I don't like that already. A movie shouldn't require you to read something else to make sense of it. That is a failure on the part of the movie to not explain everything in it properly. How many people are going to read a comic?

The movie didn't require it. I did.

Completely different scenario.

There's a paperback out of it now, you can probably still get it at your local comic shop.

The movie didn't require it. I did.

Completely different scenario.

There's a paperback out of it now, you can probably still get it at your local comic shop.

Local comic shop is not exactly something I know about, seeing as how I don't go to comic shops and I don't think there's one up here.

But I'll find a way to read it.

I'm betting that everyone who liked this movie also like the Blairzilla Project. And Lost. And Fringe. And maybe even MI3. Those also sucked. Harder than a black hole. It is a mystery to me why anyone would watch that garbage.

Local comic shop is not exactly something I know about, seeing as how I don't go to comic shops and I don't think there's one up here.

But I'll find a way to read it.

Ohhhh.......man you have to find a comic shop. Read some elseworlds it'll get you used to mucking about with things.

I'm betting that everyone who liked this movie also like the Blairzilla Project. And Lost. And Fringe. And maybe even MI3. Those also sucked. Harder than a black hole. It is a mystery to me why anyone would watch that garbage.

I do not like any of those things.

You lose. Pay up.

I'm betting that everyone who liked this movie also like the Blairzilla Project. And Lost. And Fringe. And maybe even MI3. Those also sucked. Harder than a black hole. It is a mystery to me why anyone would watch that garbage.

Fringe and Lost are average. MI3 was bad.

But frankly, it sounds like your dislike for the director may be clouding your opinion of the film. And in any case, that was a rather pointless post. Attacking a bunch of other films with the same director, without even explaining why you dislike them, neither proves nor explains anything.

I'm betting that everyone who liked this movie also like the Blairzilla Project. And Lost. And Fringe. And maybe even MI3. Those also sucked. Harder than a black hole. It is a mystery to me why anyone would watch that garbage.

WTF is the Blairzilla Project?

WTF is the Blairzilla Project?

We would guess Cloverfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield) or the Blair Witch project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blair_Witch_Project)unless those that shot the Blair Witch Project found Godzillia and created a film that would sell out the first weekend and end up with a crappy sequel to cash in on its name and the previous hype. As the same Adams that helped produce the first film, directed and produced the Star Trek movie we would suppose the poster was referring to Cloverfield, with an odds of 4,200,110,000 to one.

Blairzilla wasn't horror, it was startle. Lost and Fringe are simply horrible writing with iritating execution.

This Star Trek was worse than 5 in every way. I knew it was going to be bad going in but I was shocked at how much they managed to crap all over the universe that took 10 films and 5 series (6 if you count TAS) to create. It was absolutely awful in every way imaginable.

I see a similar trend in games. Back in my day you had to memorize controller combinations, keep pages of passwords, and winning had some degree of difficulty to it. Now you press X to not die and Y to win the game after watching 20 minutes of cinematics. They did this to make games easier and draw in more people but in doing so they alienated a lot of the real gamers.

Everyone in the theater I went to past their mid-20's had nothing good to say. The stoned teens and the buzzed college kids seemed to enjoy it but the fans like me went in knowing what would probably get but clung to the hope that it wouldn't be as bad as we feared.

It was that bad. It was worse than 5.

Blairzilla wasn't horror, it was startle.

With this new information, we would increase the odds to 4.2 x 10^20 to one that the poster is referring to Cloverfield. We also feel that this poster is overly bitter for a scifi show that has not been anymore than reruns for ~40 years and even during the initial series didn't have a concrete canon or storyline or writers but we also find that the older a human gets the more cynical and grouchy they become specially if they feel they're childhood has been infringed upon...

With this new information, we would increase the odds to 4.2 x 10^20 to one that the poster is referring to Cloverfield. We also feel that this poster is overly bitter for a scifi show that has not been anymore than reruns for ~40 years and even during the initial series didn't have a concrete canon or storyline or writers but we also find that the older a human gets the more cynical and grouchy they become specially if they feel they're childhood has been infringed upon...

Oh for fuck's sake, stop it with the Borg shit. It's really old.

Oh for fuck's sake, stop it with the robot shit. It's really old.

We are confused, expect for international incidents which is a rp forum, we have never claimed to be robots or even have robotic components. Also Star Trek is also "really old" yet you continue to discuss it and question why certain people did certain things in its newest incarnation. You opinion is also dully noted and ignored for the time being. We do also most certainly not want to sleep with or have sexual intercourse with sake whomever that may be.

Now towards the subject of this thread and a certain posters inclination that the newest Star Trek is worst than the fifth one. If rotten tomatoes is anything to go by it most certainly is not.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_v_the_final_frontier/

11 got a 91%, Average Rating of 8.1/10
while
5 got a 21%, and an average rating of 3.9/10.

We are confused, expect for international incidents which is a rp forum, we have never claimed to be robots or even have robotic components.

"We"?

"We"?

"We" refers to the idea that their are multiples of a person created through the time line as one moves forward or backwards, for instance in one timeline I am typing this sentence while in another, I am already asleep or taking a shower or any number of other instances other situations, each different action creates a new individual a majority of them are probably typing in their respective worlds while others are sleeping/eating/etc(hmm I just got a decent idea for a rp, though I don't think the laws of physics would allow it. "You can't change the laws of physics!") or you could use the rather mundane idea of cloning that may also lead to the use of the pronoun we, if it greatly annoys a majority of posters we could also go back to using a non multiple pronoun even if it may not be correct in this situation.

"We" refers to the idea that their are multiples of a person created through the time line as one moves forward or backwards, for instance in one timeline I am typing this sentence while in another, I am already asleep or taking a shower or any number of other instances other situations, each different action creates a new individual a majority of them are probably typing in their respective worlds while others are sleeping/eating/etc(hmm I just got a decent idea for a rp, though I don't think the laws of physics would allow it. "You can't change the laws of physics!") or you could use the rather mundane idea of cloning that may also lead to the use of the pronoun we, if it greatly annoys a majority of posters we could also go back to using a non multiple pronoun even if it may not be correct in this situation.

Ye can do as ye please, but I consider you to be one person.

Ye can do as ye please, but I consider you to be one person.

You can do as you please and we shall do as we please, we have little to no control over how you feel towards us or anyone else and we rather like it that way.(power corrupts and absolute power corrupts blah blah and all that.)

Now towards the subject of this thread and a certain posters inclination that the newest Star Trek is worst than the fifth one. If rotten tomatoes is anything to go by it most certainly is not.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_v_the_final_frontier/

11 got a 91%, Average Rating of 8.1/10
while
5 got a 21%, and an average rating of 3.9/10.
Rotten Tomatoes is nothing to go by. 11 sucked balls. Worse than 5.

Edit
They should have titled this Star Trek: Indiana Kirk and the Planet of the Dilithium Skull.

Rotten Tomatoes is nothing to go by. 11 sucked balls. Worse than 5.

Edit
They should have titled this Star Trek: Indiana Kirk and the Planet of the Dilithium Skull.

Star Trek: At Galaxy's End?

*snip*
Yadda yadda yadda. Abrams is teh SUX0RS. Back in my day... Had to watch Star Trek going up hill BOTH ways... I knew it sucked going in... Hey you kids! Get off my lawn... yadda yadda yadda.

Local comic shop is not exactly something I know about, seeing as how I don't go to comic shops and I don't think there's one up here.

But I'll find a way to read it.
You can get the compilation on Amazon.com.

And trust me. Captain Data makes sense when you take the ending of Nemesis into account.

I was concidering waiting for the DVD but now I want to see it at the theater since Leonard Nimoy (the old school Spock) was on Saturday Night Live last night.
:D

Yadda yadda yadda. Abrams is teh SUX0RS. Back in my day... Had to watch Star Trek going up hill BOTH ways... I knew it sucked going in... Hey you kids! Get off my lawn... yadda yadda yadda.
lolol

but i DID have to go to my aunt's house in order to see it in color.

I am unable to process much of what is being said here, particularly the ungrammatical phrase 'an hero'.

"Before an unaccented aspirate use an. The contrary usage in this country comes of too strongly stressing our aspirates."

-Ambrose Bierce, Write it Right.

I am unable to process much of what is being said here, particularly the ungrammatical phrase 'an hero'.

'H' can be preceded by A or an. To the ear it sounds better based off of if you stress it or not. In the states we tend to stress the h sound and hence use an 'a'. In the UK they don't stress it and use a 'an'.

'H' can be preceded by A or an. To the ear it sounds better based off of if you stress it or not. In the states we tend to stress the h sound and hence use an 'a'. In the UK they don't stress it and use a 'an'.
Bierce was American

But the point simply is that "an hero" is not an "ungrammatical phrase".

Star Trek=Epic Fail

Bierce was American

But the point simply is that "an hero" is not an "ungrammatical phrase".

that why I use the word tend.
I think several of the north east accents do not stress the H in hero.

Star Trek=Epic Fail

But Ferengi win.

But Ferengi win.

The Ferengi economy is how our economy should run.

But Ferengi win.

Wha-?

Star Trek=Epic Fail
wow if you had put that in regular sized black type i would have thought you just a fool. but big red letters.....you are SO right! i am completely convinced.

Wha-?

the rules of acquisition should replace the Constitution.

wow if you had put that in regular sized black type i would have thought you just a fool. but big red letters.....you are SO right! i am completely convinced.

You make it sound like ethnic cleansing.

But, if I can save just one Trekkie from a sad, sad life- I can die happy.

wow if you had put that in regular sized black type i would have thought you just a fool. but big red letters.....you are SO right! i am completely convinced.

It is pretty damned persuasive, huh? I was going to go and see the movie too, but not now, damn.

You make it sound like ethnic cleansing.

But, if I can save just one Trekkie from a sad, sad life- I can die happy.

So you're a useless troll? How utterly pathetic must your life be that you would die happy after convincing a single person Star Trek sucks?

So you're a useless troll? How utterly pathetic must your life be that you would die happy after convincing a single person Star Trek sucks?

A Trekkie calling someone else sad? FTW?

A Trekkie calling someone else sad? FTW?

Hey, you can read! Awesome.

I'm calling someone whose life is so worthless that he derives meaning from badmouthing the personal tastes of others sad, yes. It's pretty pathetic that you have nothing else going for you in your own life that your only source of self-affirmation comes from making fun of others. I certainly hope my life doesn't end up so shitty.

Hey, you can read! Awesome.

I'm calling someone whose life is so worthless that he derives meaning from badmouthing the personal tastes of others sad, yes. It's pretty pathetic that you have nothing else going for you in your own life that your only source of self-affirmation comes from making fun of others. I certainly hope my life doesn't end up so shitty.

My life is just fine.

I don't waste it watching shitty TV.

My life is just fine.

I don't waste it watching shitty TV.

No, you waste it trolling internet forums and making fun of other people's taste in television. Frankly, that's a whole lot more pathetic than enjoying a television program. You have so very little in your life that you could die happy if I renounced my enjoyment of Star Trek. That's sad. Truly sad.

So, at last I've seen it. It was fun. There wasn't an Original cliche left unvisited, the dump-the-core fitted perfectly, the green alien girl looked fetchingly like the original green alien girl (but didn't leave make-up smears on the sheets), and they touched my heart by getting Majel Roddenberry to voice the computer again.

Of course it didn't make complete sense. Of course the plot sticky-tape showed. So? Just like the original.

The fun for me lay in catching the visual echoes -- Pike in wheelchair (remember Kirk's first courtmartial? Saw it in black and white, boast, boast, how cheap was that, just officers around a table); drill falls into harbour recalling the return of the whales in (whatever number) movie (canon's not my field). The monsters, too: they looked as if somebody said, "I just built the coolest monster, hey, look, this is sooo cool" and didn't give a damn about why a monster on an ice planet wouldn't be red. And eeewww, worm in ear to brain, again, eeewww, that kept me awake for hours last time.

Just worried about McCoy's little sidekick. There'd better be sequels, and they'd better not turn him into a Star Trek equivalent of Jar Jar Binks. If only they'd make him as complex as the Ferenghi.

EDIT: Sigh.

*resumes modhat*

Sdaeriji, Ring of Isengard, cut it out.

I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was quite good. It's a good start to a complete reboot of the movie franchise, if that's what is planned.

Wha-?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1xm5ye-rgg

the rules of acquisition should replace the Constitution.

The Federation is communist, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1xm5ye-rgg

You guys are so weird.

The Federation is communist, though.

People in star trek are commies?

People in star trek are commies?

That is probably a matter of much debate, however, Picard does talk about how the Federation no longer has money and how people's lives are no longer about material gain, or something like that.

You guys are so weird.

Me? I am not a Trekkie, or whatever they are called. I watch the feature films, and episodes in hotel rooms when they are on, that is all. There are definitely some memorable parts of Star Trek, even if I do not enjoy most of the series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDk8j9H31jE

"Eat any good books, lately?"

People in star trek are commies?

Earth is part of a communist Federation of Planets. No poverty, "each according to his means", no war, workers run the companies and all that.

That is probably a matter of much debate, however, Picard does talk about how the Federation no longer has money and how people's lives are no longer about material gain, or something like that.

It's an interesting matter. For instance, Picard talks of how people are no longer concerned with the "accumulation of things", however, at the same time, the Borg is often associated with the dangers of collectivism, some people believe it was originally intended to be a personification of the evils of state socialism. However, when you have technologies that enables resources not to be scarce any more, what the economy is like is not particularly relevant.

/end nerdiness

Earth is part of a communist Federation of Planets. No poverty, "each according to his means", no war, workers run the companies and all that.

I'm not sure about workers running the companies and all that. Plus, the system is still clearly very hierarchical.

Me? I am not a Trekkie, or whatever they are called. I watch the feature films, and episodes in hotel rooms when they are on, that is all. There are definitely some memorable parts of Star Trek, even if I do not enjoy most of the series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDk8j9H31jE

"Eat any good books, lately?"

Earth is part of a communist Federation of Planets. No poverty, "each according to his means", no war, workers run the companies and all that.

These 2 post contradict each other.

Earth is part of a communist Federation of Planets. No poverty, "each according to his means", no war, workers run the companies and all that.

While I think Starfleet might operate like that, it's been shown in many episodes that beneath the utopian vision exists a universe that isn't too far advanced from our own, morally speaking. There is still money and organized crime and drug dealing and slavery and prostitution and etc. etc.

I'm not sure about workers running the companies and all that.

Perhaps not, but if others do run the companies, then they receive no better life in return; it is merely a job like any other.

Plus, the system is still clearly very hierarchical.

As far as the Star Fleet goes? sure. I do not think civilian life is, though.

Perhaps not, but if others do run the companies, then they receive no better life in return; it is merely a job like any other.



As far as the Star Fleet goes? sure. I do not think civilian life is, though.

Maybe you're right, but I can't recall anything that proves these points one way or the other.

While I think Starfleet might operate like that, it's been shown in many episodes that beneath the utopian vision exists a universe that isn't too far advanced from our own, morally speaking. There is still money and organized crime and drug dealing and slavery and prostitution and etc. etc.

Maybe speaking of space stations and foreign worlds, but not on Earth. There is not money on Earth--this is made quite clear in First Contact.

Maybe you're right, but I can't recall anything that proves these points one way or the other.

First Contact heavily implies it.

Perhaps not, but if others do run the companies, then they receive no better life in return; it is merely a job like any other.


How do you know?


As far as the Star Fleet goes? sure. I do not think civilian life is, though.

Yes but there is very little communist about the federation, since there is explicitly a state, and one which is clearly hierarchical. Since communism tends to be stateless, and anti hierarchical, it leaves little in common. Also, there are businesses and people do still make money in civilian life, IIRC.

Oh, you guys might know this.

There was a programme advertised a few weeks ago. It said the programme was made by the people who made star trek. There were these things with weird heads. And an asian doctor.

Does anyone what it's called?

How do you know?

I read it in a bookstore in a Star Trek role-playing game book--if that counts. :tongue:


Yes but there is very little communist about the federation, since there is explicitly a state, and one which is clearly hierarchical. Since communism tends to be stateless, and anti hierarchical, it leaves little in common. Also, there are businesses and people do still make money in civilian life, IIRC.

Are you talking about anarcho-communism?

I wanted to like this movie more than I did. I couldn't manage it, and the film is to blame. Starting with the awful new "theme", which is less a theme than it is just a series of chords without a truly distinctive melody, and on to the rather glib explanation that everything we knew (i.e. old TOS, NG, DS9, etc. "canon") is in a timeline that this "new" Kirk and company are no longer a part of -- in short, they've excused Abrams and those who follow in this line of Trek from having to even pay attention to canon at all.

That's a hard reboot, and it can work (witness Batman Begins and The Dark Knight re-imagining Batman), but in this case it was poorly executed. The franchise is now an action film franchise, and it suits the material in some respects (the Enterprise warping in to intercept those Rommy torpedoes was fucking SWEET!), but it loses me in the intellectual side that Trek has always had.

Some things were amusing to see acted out, such as Vulcan schoolboy bullying, and the McCoy characterization is brilliant. But Uhura and Spock? Where the hell did THAT come from?

The film was virtually without any truly mind-activating moments and a pure roller-coaster ride, with a side of Nimoy to try and restore some of the old dignity to the proceedings. I was hoping for a 10, and I got a 7. Still worth seeing, but I feel that the brand has compromised too much in search of a wider or younger, or whatever-er audience.

First Contact heavily implies it.
Not as such. Picard says "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." That doesn't mean that the whole of the Federation is communist, just that with basic needs met, getting rich isn't the driving force of most people any longer (Given the fact that the rest of the universe seems to be running on money and Starfleet officers who are stationed in areas that still do seem to be getting a salary as well, it would seem only the member planets of the Federation can make the claim that money doesn't exist).

I wanted to like this movie more than I did. I couldn't manage it, and the film is to blame. Starting with the awful new "theme", which is less a theme than it is just a series of chords without a truly distinctive melody, and on to the rather glib explanation that everything we knew (i.e. old TOS, NG, DS9, etc. "canon") is in a timeline that this "new" Kirk and company are no longer a part of -- in short, they've excused Abrams and those who follow in this line of Trek from having to even pay attention to canon at all.
Well, it's not like Trek ever paid attention to its own canon either. :p

That said, I actually (Still haven't seen the bloody thing and it's going to be a hard battle as my local movie place ain't showing it either) do like the idea of an alternate timeline because it means the stuff I grew up on and love didn't get errased, it's still there, but we can have new stories and still maintain the feeling of not knowing what is going to happen next. I think part of the problem ST V and VI had was that, by then, TNG was well and truely going so you KNEW nothing really bad could happen because you know that everything is hunkydory in the 24th century. Heck, I couldn't even feel worried about McCoy in ST VI because I knew he showed up as an admiral at the launching of the Enterprise-D.

The safety net has now been removed.

But Uhura and Spock? Where the hell did THAT come from?
See Charlie X. It WAS there, it just got dropped after the first few eps and the focus went on to Nurse Chapel and Spock. Actually, in reading about it, I was pleasently surpised that someone had been paying that much attention. In a 2008 interview, Nichelle Nichols said "I created a relationship between Uhura and Spock as being her mentor and the person she looked up to. Uhura was the only one who could play the Vulcan lyre and the only one who had the audacity to sing a song teasing Spock. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Uhura#Spock

I read it in a bookstore in a Star Trek role-playing game book--if that counts. :tongue:

Last I heard, only the films and television series were canon, with perhaps a few exceptions.

Some things were amusing to see acted out, such as Vulcan schoolboy bullying, and the McCoy characterization is brilliant. But Uhura and Spock? Where the hell did THAT come from?

Seconded. Every Vulcan portrayal since T'Pol seems far more emotional than is proper. The relationship needed to be far more subtle.

Not as such. Picard says "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."

It implies that the people of the Federation put society above themselves, so it would be highly unlikely that some individuals would enjoy superior luxury to others.

That doesn't mean that the whole of the Federation is communist, just that with basic needs met, getting rich isn't the driving force of most people any longer

It does not seem to be a driving force at all with humans, since they "don't get paid"--Picard probably considered payment in manners besides monetary units before answering.

(Given the fact that the rest of the universe seems to be running on money and Starfleet officers who are stationed in areas that still do seem to be getting a salary as well, it would seem only the member planets of the Federation can make the claim that money doesn't exist).

I never made that claim about the rest of the universe, if you will notice.

Last I heard, only the films and television series were canon, with perhaps a few exceptions.

Since you are more knowledgeable in the subject than I am, I will take your word for it.

These 2 post contradict each other.

Please explain how.

On a much less philosophical tangent, I think the makers should be praised for not having trouble with Tribbles. The temptation must have been immense.

On a much less philosophical tangent, I think the makers should be praised for not having trouble with Tribbles. The temptation must have been immense.
:D I know. That would have been too far though.

On a much less philosophical tangent, I think the makers should be praised for not having trouble with Tribbles. The temptation must have been immense.

I so would love that as a movie.

I so would love that as a movie.

While that would make for a most interesting movie, I believe that the avoidance was better for this movie.

On another note, I have yet to see anybody vote that Star Trek is: good because it disregards the source material; bad because it respects the source material; bad even though it respects the source material; or bad even though it disregards the source material.

Seven voters call it good to the single block of four calling this movie bad (all of whom attribute this to the movie flipping the bird to the source material), the single option most popular is the non-Trek option, and only one person in addition to myself thinks that today is a good day to die. East Coast Federation, I will swing the bat'leth at your side on any day.

While that would make for a most interesting movie, I believe that the avoidance was better for this movie.

On another note, I have yet to see anybody vote that Star Trek is: good because it disregards the source material; bad because it respects the source material; bad even though it respects the source material; or bad even though it disregards the source material.

Seven voters call it good to the single block of four calling this movie bad (all of whom attribute this to the movie flipping the bird to the source material), the single option most popular is the non-Trek option, and only one person in addition to myself thinks that today is a good day to die. East Coast Federation, I will swing the bat'leth at your side on any day.

I find myself confused by the phrases "respected the source material" and "disregards the source material".

I feel the characters were true to form and yet a bit twisted because of the alternate timeline. I think some of them were more twisted than others and yet some of them more true to form despite the twisting.

I think it was a good movie stand alone. I think it's a good Trek movie as far as Trek movies go (and some of them have been atrocious.....see Star Trek I).

The general feeling of the movie was not TNG...which I think is most people's problem, but none of the TNG movies were TNG-esque either......IMHO.

Anyway, I don't know how to vote, so I haven't.

While that would make for a most interesting movie, I believe that the avoidance was better for this movie.

On another note, I have yet to see anybody vote that Star Trek is: good because it disregards the source material; bad because it respects the source material; bad even though it respects the source material; or bad even though it disregards the source material.

Seven voters call it good to the single block of four calling this movie bad (all of whom attribute this to the movie flipping the bird to the source material), the single option most popular is the non-Trek option, and only one person in addition to myself thinks that today is a good day to die. East Coast Federation, I will swing the bat'leth at your side on any day.


The thing that gets me with this whole source material thing, is that the source material for a bit of fiction is a bit of fiction. So if somebody comes along and deviates from that fiction and instead writes their own fiction, what the bloody hell does it matter?

Is it a good film? Yes it is. The end.:D

Star Trek-isms that did not make it into the new movie which I an glad of:

(Some of these are more recently established than others)

-The day being saved through the emission of some sort of theoretical particle, wave, etc through the main deflector. (Yes, I know they used 'red matter' but they were smart enough not to try and explain how it works. It just does. Good enough.)

-That ridiculous stretchy rubber band warp effect.

-"Sir, they just blew away thousands of people and entire fleets of ships!" "Hm. well perhaps they're simply misunderstood. Let's invite them to dinner and talk it over."

-The Borg

-"Sir, we're under attack! Shields dropping! Hull breaches on five decks!" "Hm. Let's meet in the conference room to discuss the situation."

-"Captain! You'd better see this." "Why, what is it?" "I think you should see for yourself, sir." (Becoming a Starfleet Captain means never getting a direct answer to a direct question.)

-We're from Earth. We're far too civilized for things like money, rock music, capitalism, alcohol and bar fights.

-Seeing individual stars fly by at warp

-Emergency force fields available anytime, anywhere.

-Time travel adventures all wrapped up neatly

The general feeling of the movie was not TNG...which I think is most people's problem, but none of the TNG movies were TNG-esque either......IMHO.

Generations felt pretty TNG to me.

Star Trek-isms that did not make it into the new movie which I an glad of:

(Some of these are more recently established than others)

-The day being saved through the emission of some sort of theoretical particle, wave, etc through the main deflector. (Yes, I know they used 'red matter' but they were smart enough not to try and explain how it works. It just does. Good enough.)

-That ridiculous stretchy rubber band warp effect.

-"Sir, they just blew away thousands of people and entire fleets of ships!" "Hm. well perhaps they're simply misunderstood. Let's invite them to dinner and talk it over."

-The Borg

-"Sir, we're under attack! Shields dropping! Hull breaches on five decks!" "Hm. Let's meet in the conference room to discuss the situation."

-"Captain! You'd better see this." "Why, what is it?" "I think you should see for yourself, sir." (Becoming a Starfleet Captain means never getting a direct answer to a direct question.)

-We're from Earth. We're far too civilized for things like money, rock music, capitalism, alcohol and bar fights.

-Seeing individual stars fly by at warp

-Emergency force fields available anytime, anywhere.

-Time travel adventures all wrapped up neatly

I am glad for these as well.

-Seeing individual stars fly by at warp

That are stray hydrogen particles, or so I was told.

Generations felt pretty TNG to me.
I can agree that it was the closest.....it was also pretty cool with the cerebral stuff.

Insurrection was pretty cerebral but also pretty boring.......except for when Data went nutzo and starting singing in the shuttle pod.

Please explain how.

You say you're not a trekkie, but then you say something only one would know.

You say you're not a trekkie, but then you say something only one would know.

You could call me a Trekkie if you would like, but I have not seen more than 20% of any given series, except for Voyager.

Okay - I am old enough that I saw the TOS when it first came out.

This was Not my TOS***, ( but then again none of the movies or later series were any way...) But it held the spirit and gusto of the TOS dear and did right by it in a way that is hard to explain.

I enjoyed it immensely, and wished only one thing - and additonal 10-15 minutes exploring Nero and the factors that made him what he was ( but then again ST movies have always had this problem with rushing their villians )

***This is a time line reset - alternate history is now engaged - there is/ can be no TOS

ok so why not go with another Starship and crew? then they can be more creative and still be called "Star Trek"?

Uh... The Enterprise-D went to more starbases and picked up more stuff than the Enterprise ever did. As for ignoring the Prime Directive... are you sure you REALLY want to go down that route given Kirk's record?Given Kirk's crew's Record? vs Picard's crew's? now that would be a subject worthy of another thread. :p

Blairzilla wasn't horror Blairzilla was a commercial about THE ultimate video camera. Not only does it have night vision, and a long lasting battery, it's practially Industructable since it survived not only being used as a weapon, and chewed by a huge monster, the recordings survived intact after being buried by a bridge after a carpet bombings.

I want that camera!

On a much less philosophical tangent, I think the makers should be praised for not having trouble with Tribbles. The temptation must have been immense.

alternate Timeline. the Great Tribble slaughter by the Klingons probably happened much earlier. ;)

Fuck this movie. They destroyed Romulans, hands down my favorite aliens in Star Trek.

Fuck JJ Abrams. Lost sucked. I dont know why anyone gave this guy the time of day in Hollywood. And now he ruined Star Trek.

-The Borg

I....but....what? You didnt like the Borg?

Bu-...I mean...

Im sorry, I just need time to think.

I can agree that it was the closest.....it was also pretty cool with the cerebral stuff.

Insurrection was pretty cerebral but also pretty boring.......except for when Data went nutzo and starting singing in the shuttle pod.

You forgot the First Law - there are no odd-numbered Star Trek movies.

I....but....what? You didnt like the Borg?

Bu-...I mean...

Im sorry, I just need time to think.

The Borg were quite a cool concept at inception. They were like Daleks that could walk.

However, even by their third or fourth outing, they'd become severely weakened. By the time the-series-that-doesn't-exist hit the screen, with it's Borg battle every two weeks, the Borg were a parody.

The Borg were quite a cool concept at inception. They were like Daleks that could walk.

However, even by their third or fourth outing, they'd become severely weakened. By the time the-series-that-doesn't-exist hit the screen, with it's Borg battle every two weeks, the Borg were a parody.

Im refering exlusively to TNG Borg.

I stopped watching Trek after TNG. Not because I gew out of it, but because it started to suck.

Im refering exlusively to TNG Borg.

I stopped watching Trek after TNG. Not because I gew out of it, but because it started to suck.

I stopped watching Trek after DS9. Not because I grew out of it, but because there is no Star Trek after TNG.

Even in TNG, there are problems with the Borg - it's something like a man, but it uses you to it's own purposes, enslaves your body, and destroys your mind - making you nothing but an extension of it's own will, through a process of reproduction.

They sold this nightmare to a market 90% stereotyped as basement dwelling virgins.

Borg are a (n obviously insulting) metaphor for women.

I stopped watching Trek after DS9. Not because I grew out of it, but because there is no Star Trek after TNG.

Even in TNG, there are problems with the Borg - it's something like a man, but it uses you to it's own purposes, enslaves your body, and destroys your mind - making you nothing but an extension of it's own will, through a process of reproduction.

They sold this nightmare to a market 90% stereotyped as basement dwelling virgins.

Borg are a (n obviously insulting) metaphor for women.

This is the first time Ive ever seen someone argue that the Borg are a metaphor for sexism.

EDIT: Seriously, I think that might be one of the biggest stretches Ive heard.

I stopped watching Trek after DS9. Not because I grew out of it, but because there is no Star Trek after TNG.

Even in TNG, there are problems with the Borg - it's something like a man, but it uses you to it's own purposes, enslaves your body, and destroys your mind - making you nothing but an extension of it's own will, through a process of reproduction.

They sold this nightmare to a market 90% stereotyped as basement dwelling virgins.

Borg are a (n obviously insulting) metaphor for women.

:$:tongue:

I cannot tell whether or not you are serious.

:$:tongue:

I cannot tell whether or not you are serious.

I don't think it was done consciously, but - yes - I am serious.

I think that the collected neuroses of scriptwriters managed to manifest as 'nightmare' all the things that are buried inside them, and it all points to them being horrible at relationships.

It's quite horrible how well the Borg sells, allowing for that.

I don't think it was done consciously, but - yes - I am serious.

I think that the collected neuroses of scriptwriters managed to manifest as 'nightmare' all the things that are buried inside them, and it all points to them being horrible at relationships.

It's quite horrible how well the Borg sells, allowing for that.

I am not a tremendous fan of the Borg, but this sounds a tad silly--do you think the same thing about the Zerg of Starcraft? Do you think the Ferengi are a metaphor for Jews?

I am not a tremendous fan of the Borg, but this sounds a tad silly--do you think the same thing about the Zerg of Starcraft? Do you think the Ferengi are a metaphor for Jews?

I'm not familiar with Zerg, but I do think that Ferengi are (at the least) based on stereotypes about Jews, if not actually on Jews, themselves.