Title: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on October 20, 2008, 11:47:10 AM Nevermind, forgot about the rules. Sorry.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 01:12:49 PM I didn't see anything wrong with this thread. It's a movie coming out, it's called Star Trek and your post was basically about the movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 05:16:03 PM I highly support this product and/or service. With:
http://www.mtv.com/photos/?fid=1580156&pid=3298534 8 photos. Not going to directly link each one. Loads fast enough to hussle your left mouse finger over there in a jif. First shot is sort of a let down but the rest are cool. Also, wasn't sure about Simon Pegg at first as Scotty, but then I saw (and watched a few dozen other times) "Hot Fuzz". Love that movie and him in it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on October 20, 2008, 05:28:07 PM Also, wasn't sure about Simon Pegg at first as Scotty, but then I saw (and watched a few dozen other times) "Hot Fuzz". Love that movie and him in it. I feel the same after seeing the shot of Karl Urban's McCoy.(http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/gallery_photos/STarTrek_crew_gal.jpg) That bridge does look a little too shiny though. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Miasma on October 20, 2008, 06:07:23 PM If they were willing to make a good looking bridge I don't see why they couldn't have replaced the awful old uniforms too.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on October 20, 2008, 08:09:28 PM That is Karl Urban? HAHA! That is around the last guy I would have picked... I wonder if he is gonna do well.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on October 21, 2008, 09:09:49 AM Is this movie going to be a comedy?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: apocrypha on October 21, 2008, 09:32:04 AM If they were willing to make a good looking bridge I don't see why they couldn't have replaced the awful old uniforms too. They have. They've replaced them with near-identical copies but made in groovy modern fabrics. Random musing from times past... why do you never see or hear any mention of toilets in Star Trek? Do they have personal poo transporters or something? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 21, 2008, 09:40:45 AM If they were willing to make a good looking bridge I don't see why they couldn't have replaced the awful old uniforms too. They have. They've replaced them with near-identical copies but made in groovy modern fabrics. Random musing from times past... why do you never see or hear any mention of toilets in Star Trek? Do they have personal poo transporters or something? They beam it out of your bowels and into klingon territory, for kicks. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on October 22, 2008, 12:34:21 AM I would guess something like what airliners have. + Airlocks of course.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on October 22, 2008, 07:50:16 AM You never guessed where they get the raw material for the food replicators?
In Space, everything is recycled. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on October 22, 2008, 07:57:45 AM Yeah, they're not going to ditch any organic matter into space if they can help it. Although it's not like there's a big tank of poo on the ship feeding the repliators; it's broken down into a "neutral" material for storage (sort of like the "base blocks" that fed the makers in Transmet), along with any other garbage produced on the ship.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on October 22, 2008, 08:05:52 AM So Bad.
Looks Awful. Sylar is the only thing that's working for me. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on October 22, 2008, 01:06:37 PM Is this movie going to be a comedy? It sure looks like it. Everybody's got a goofy expression on their faces, and everything's so damn bright. Kinda like Mel Brooks directed it or something. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on October 22, 2008, 01:10:34 PM I'm hoping so because then it might be good. Look at the Shatner impersonator!
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Brogarn on October 22, 2008, 01:29:02 PM I think it's supposed to be a serious movie and I seriously hope I'm wrong in that I seriously think it's going to suck. Seriously. :why_so_serious:
The brightness I think has something to do with the fact that it's supposed to be "optimistic". Quote ''In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast,'' Abrams says. ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.'' http://io9.com/5064748/star-trek-will-spread-abrams-message-of-optimism Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on October 22, 2008, 04:37:05 PM I can get behind the optimism thing. It's one of the main things that makes me a geek for that show. I don't think optimism is that unpopular though.. Unlike the Dark Knight, just about all superhero movies are optimistic.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2008, 06:31:21 PM Also, wasn't sure about Simon Pegg at first as Scotty, but then I saw (and watched a few dozen other times) "Hot Fuzz". Love that movie and him in it. I feel the same after seeing the shot of Karl Urban's McCoy.(http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/gallery_photos/STarTrek_crew_gal.jpg) That bridge does look a little too shiny though. (http://api.ning.com/files/wtoVEIB-LkEmOiv3PSh8ETqeIVM2gb0p99zXtV9wGFFOdJ4Xs1ZC1vbUQmyd93z*GmJDCB*2S9obVGMW*icKOb96*XzTTd*m/galaxyquest.jpg) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on October 24, 2008, 07:49:33 AM I don't like the bridge, hate might not be too strong of a word. Kirk looks to young. Yes, I know, they're supposed to be young, but that actor almost looks like a teenager to me, and him in the Captain's chair just doesn't have the right feel.
Spock looks great. I'm not a huge Trek fan but I'm a bit worried that J.J. Abrams is not a Trek fan and is doing this movie. I'd rather they got someone like the dude who did Wrath of Khan to do it with maybe Abrams producing. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on October 24, 2008, 08:29:08 AM Uh, well.. He's enough of a Trek fan to lay hold on the optimism thing. Better than I can say for some writers.
I'm sure he is a Trek fan though. He's a writer for a sci-fi themed television series as it is....with an ensemble formula that is very much like how Trek episodes are written. I highly doubt that Star Trek escaped his interest all of these years. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on October 25, 2008, 04:33:35 AM This movie cannot possibly be worse than 5, 7, 9 (and some would say 10). The expectations are as low as they were for Palin right before her debate with Biden :awesome_for_real:
I am not a fan of the bridge either, but I'm wondering how long it takes us to get to that point in the set. Is most of this setup to a new ship at the end (ala ST 4)? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: K9 on November 16, 2008, 11:01:43 AM TRAILER (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c)
Zachary Quinto looks spot on as Spock. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Megrim on November 17, 2008, 06:03:00 AM TRAILER (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c) Zachary Quinto looks spot on as Spock. Um, who put the Fast and the Furious into my Star Trek? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on November 17, 2008, 10:43:28 AM I'm goddamn stoked about this movie now. It looks fun.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: climbjtree on November 17, 2008, 11:04:41 AM Simon Pegg as Scotty? I'm in.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on November 17, 2008, 11:34:39 AM Trailer is up on Apple now. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nebu on November 17, 2008, 11:47:50 AM Looks like an interesting and updated take on the classic. I'm intrigued.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Aez on November 17, 2008, 01:21:09 PM :drill:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on November 17, 2008, 02:40:12 PM When I saw the trailer with QoS, I felt really "meh" about it.
But...I cannot stop rewatching it. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is going to be really, really, really good. I hope so, I do like most of the casting they've done so far. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on November 17, 2008, 03:32:18 PM The car chase looks like it belongs is some Michael Bay 'splode-em-up, and the ship interior is straight out of the Lost in Space remake. Horrible.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on November 17, 2008, 05:12:27 PM Spock looks like he might work well and I'd need to see more but I'm a bit more confident that Pegg can pull of Scotty. Still undecided on Kirk, he does look a bit too young but he also didn't seem hilariously awful. I didn't mind the look of the ship though I think they might have been better off making the ship not look sleeker and more modern than TNG inside. That said I don't think any studio would have let them get away with making a non-ultra modern looking spaceship. Frankly I'm more concerned with the characters and the gadgets.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on November 18, 2008, 05:05:55 AM Star Trek: The Action Movie.
I'm underwhelmed, but only because I always enjoyed ST for its morality plays, not the 'action.' It's not a thinking man's world, though. Still, I think it'd be a better movie without the link to the franchise. Oh, but then they wouldn't have all the built-in audience and viral marketing. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on November 18, 2008, 09:28:47 AM I'm underwhelmed but only because it's Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Oban on November 18, 2008, 09:33:59 AM A classic corvette, a cliff, a motorcycle and explosions.
Yeah... I will wait until I can rent it on my Apple TV, which should be about two months after it comes out in theatres. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on November 18, 2008, 05:13:20 PM I'm hoping that and Spock's early life take up the first 15 minutes of the film leading swiftly onto Enterprise related awesomeness. I am secretly prepared to be heartbroken.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on November 18, 2008, 05:21:56 PM I'm underwhelmed but only because it's Star Trek. That implies Star Trek somehow sets high expectations. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sir T on November 18, 2008, 05:32:09 PM Why does this rmake me thing they have pulled out that god awful "Kirk and Spock Relive school days" movie idea that they were damn close to making before George Takei found out (I think he even snuck a look at the script) and went around to every star trek con screaming about it resulting in the deluge of fan mail that persuaded them to shelve the idea and instead make "Star trek 6 - the really good movie" instead? (probably the last of the truly great trek films, bar perhaps "Nemesis" which was actually fairly enjoyable)
If so this is going to be a monumental cluster fuck of epic proportions. So many people's "We were right 10 years ago and this idea is awesome dammit" egos are going to be riding on this movie that it cant not suck. I forsee a mix of Lost in Space and Thunderbirds... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on November 19, 2008, 02:32:34 AM I'm underwhelmed but only because it's Star Trek. That implies Star Trek somehow sets high expectations. Really? The implication was meant to be "It's Star Trek therefore I'm underwhelmed". EDIT: which could be read to say the same thing. Let me be quite clear. I have no interest in this film at all because it's about an IP that I don't care about. Also, the trailer doesn't sell it to me as a non Trek fan because it seems to cater to the fan base albeit not as much as the first one did. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on November 20, 2008, 07:31:02 PM I would bet this trailer does not appeal to the fanbase. There's no morality discussion. There's no other races shown (til the very end). There's no sense of story/narrative conveyed at all. And all of the action shown are conflict and space battles.
Having said that, it looks like a damn fun movie that could spawn a television series what with the TV actors they've been using (even Simon Pegg who while has done movie work could maybe be convinced into a series). But more importantly it looks truly like the IP reset Paramount sourly needs. I'd guess this movie does real well even if it alienates the base, such as it is these days. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: apocrypha on November 20, 2008, 11:30:46 PM I've always liked Star Trek (except for Voyager and several of the films ofc) but I wouldn't consider myself part of "the fanbase" (the Worf & Troi costume incident notwithstanding) and I thought that was a pretty cool trailer. Trailers rarely say fuck all about the final product of course, so wait-and-see will be the policy for me :)
I liked the shot of the Enterprise being built though. Mind you, I never thought of the Enterprise ships as being believably capable of landfall, they just look so fragile. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on November 21, 2008, 12:46:46 AM I would bet this trailer does not appeal to the fanbase. There's no morality discussion. There's no other races shown (til the very end). There's no sense of story/narrative conveyed at all. And all of the action shown are conflict and space battles. Don't want to sound like an ass, but I guess that makes me not part of the fanbase. I'm going into this looking at it as a breath of fresh air. The whole Star Trek universe has been stagnating for some time, and I really hope this breathes some new life into it, ala the new Batman movies. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on November 21, 2008, 11:27:52 AM The bar has been set so low by the recent series and movies that there is almost no way for this movie to get under it. So, sit back, stfu, eat some pop-corn and don't let the nerd rage consume you.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on November 21, 2008, 01:20:51 PM It won't really be Star Trek unless Capt. Archer and Data appear half-way through to prevent the Romulans from assassinating a young Kirk and the Romulan is a half naked hot chick that Data bangs.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on November 21, 2008, 04:12:59 PM I would bet this trailer does not appeal to the fanbase. There's no morality discussion. There's no other races shown (til the very end). There's no sense of story/narrative conveyed at all. And all of the action shown are conflict and space battles. Don't want to sound like an ass, but I guess that makes me not part of the fanbase. You and me both. I actually think the IP reset thing is a good idea. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on November 21, 2008, 06:30:40 PM It won't really be Star Trek unless Capt. Archer and Data appear half-way through to prevent the Romulans from assassinating a young Kirk and the Romulan is a half naked hot chick that Data bangs. Wait. You mean that isn't going to happen? WELL FUCK THIS SHIT. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on November 22, 2008, 04:56:00 PM Found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxTpyCdriY) during participation in the 90's song thread, thought I'd share it here too. Whee.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on November 22, 2008, 05:34:35 PM Another one along those lines, Star Trek White Rabbit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: WindupAtheist on November 23, 2008, 02:12:03 PM If I'm going to watch a music video with Nimoy in it, I know which one it will be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04).
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on November 25, 2008, 02:47:37 PM Slightly remixed version of the trailer with a cameo at the end. (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_480p.mov)
720p (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_720p.mov) 1080p (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_1080p.mov) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on November 25, 2008, 04:31:47 PM Slightly remixed version of the trailer with a cameo at the end. (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_480p.mov) 720p (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_720p.mov) 1080p (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_1080p.mov) Maybe Riker will show up and the whole movie will turn out to be a holodeck novel. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on November 25, 2008, 06:10:38 PM Slightly remixed version of the trailer with a cameo at the end. (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_480p.mov) 720p (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_720p.mov) 1080p (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_1080p.mov) Maybe Riker will show up and the whole movie will turn out to be a holodeck novel. :awesome_for_real: Sadly, I have already heard some rumors that it sort of is. At least the IDW comic that is connecting to it has Next Gen links to it. http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/6640371.html (Maybe someone with more desire and brainpower can figure out what it all means and what is connected to what and how. I have Fallout 3 to play.) The trailer looks cool and Cloverfield fucking rocked, but that's no guarantee this will be any good. I'd love to see this Trek movie be a total reboot and ignore EVERYTHING that came before and after it timeline wise and take it from the top. Basically what Enterprise should have been other than same old Trek just looking better and trying desperately to make the casual Trek fans happy in the face of the hardcore flipping out over every continuity fart. The Toho Godzilla movies prove you can endlessly reset your continuity and make some interesting stuff. Maybe its time for Trek to try it instead of attempting to fit into a silly disjointed 40 year one? Drop transporters and ultra tech and the idealistic but dubious ultra happy socialist society dreams Roddenberry had and go back to the foundation of what Trek could be. (We don't need money but everyone loves that gold pressed latinum stuff?) (Which does have idealism in it, but it needs to be BELIEVABLE idealism. Uplifting and something people can see happening. The mixed race, gender, and nationality thing of TOS was believable and may have had a little bit of influence on the real world, something all good sci fi should aim for really. Unless its merely trying to do pulp action with LAZARS ala Star Wars.) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on November 25, 2008, 11:24:38 PM Quote Drop transporters and ultra tech and the idealistic but dubious ultra happy socialist society dreams Roddenberry had and go back to the foundation of what Trek could be. :uhrr: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on November 25, 2008, 11:49:52 PM If you just want some random science fiction movie then say so. What Jain seems to be looking for isn't Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on November 25, 2008, 11:50:55 PM Is it a bad sign that when I first viewed the trailer, I had the Dawson's Creek theme song in my head the entire time? I kept wondering how Uhura would handle breaking up with Pacey.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2008, 03:56:11 AM (Which does have idealism in it, but it needs to be BELIEVABLE idealism. Uplifting and something people can see happening. The mixed race, gender, and nationality thing of TOS was believable and may have had a little bit of influence on the real world, something all good sci fi should aim for really. Unless its merely trying to do pulp action with LAZARS ala Star Wars.) Racial and international harmony wasn't believable idealism at the time ST was first created. 3 years after "I have a dream" 10 years after Brown vs Board of Education and right at the start of the Black Power movement. The Cuban Missile crisis was only 4 years past and here they were putting one of those damn Commie Russians in the middle of the crew. Star Trek was so far left and idealistic for it's time we should be surprised it survived and endured as it has. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on November 26, 2008, 03:58:03 AM Martin Luther King was actually a fan... Always thought that was cool.
I don't think he'd be a fan of Jain's show though. :grin: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on November 26, 2008, 05:58:09 AM Drop transporters and ultra tech and the idealistic but dubious ultra happy socialist society dreams Roddenberry had and go back to the foundation of what Trek could be. (We don't need money but everyone loves that gold pressed latinum stuff?) Star Trek without transporters is like a breakfast without rum. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on November 26, 2008, 09:16:47 AM (Which does have idealism in it, but it needs to be BELIEVABLE idealism. Uplifting and something people can see happening. The mixed race, gender, and nationality thing of TOS was believable and may have had a little bit of influence on the real world, something all good sci fi should aim for really. Unless its merely trying to do pulp action with LAZARS ala Star Wars.) Racial and international harmony wasn't believable idealism at the time ST was first created. 3 years after "I have a dream" 10 years after Brown vs Board of Education and right at the start of the Black Power movement. The Cuban Missile crisis was only 4 years past and here they were putting one of those damn Commie Russians in the middle of the crew. But you could see it as viable in a fantastical sense. Now imagine a world without money. Believable fantasy is easy to convey as future history particularly at the time of MLK and various race-based goings on. It's also easy to imagine transporters and lasers because this was the era of NASA rising and the billions spent on stuff that might as well have been science fiction at the time too. As such, you can actually present these as future fact and anyone who bothered to think about it for a second on their own would arrive at that potentiality. Money though, that's different. Imagine a world without money against the backdrop of how we live our lives today. The only frames of reference are cultures we read about in National Geographic. We're surrounded every day by the trappings of money, the drive to get more, the results of people leaching off the system, etc etc etc. How do you go from World War III to no money within the span of 200 years? I can imagine a lot of industries themselves being worthless in a future where transportation is not measured by distance or time invested and where all media experiences are instantly shareable in a post-Internet Internet. But commerce itself needs an underlay when you're talking about even just a few billion people, much less the quadrillion of the Federation. I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying though that unlike almost all other concepts, the no money thing requires an explanation that has never been given because it's more alien than any of the aliens they've ever portrayed in the movies and shows. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2008, 09:42:08 AM (Which does have idealism in it, but it needs to be BELIEVABLE idealism. Uplifting and something people can see happening. The mixed race, gender, and nationality thing of TOS was believable and may have had a little bit of influence on the real world, something all good sci fi should aim for really. Unless its merely trying to do pulp action with LAZARS ala Star Wars.) Racial and international harmony wasn't believable idealism at the time ST was first created. 3 years after "I have a dream" 10 years after Brown vs Board of Education and right at the start of the Black Power movement. The Cuban Missile crisis was only 4 years past and here they were putting one of those damn Commie Russians in the middle of the crew. But you could see it as viable in a fantastical sense. No, you couldn't. Talk to your parents, if they're in their 60's or your grandparents if they're still alive about that timeframe. My grandmother is still amazed that we, as a nation, elected a black man. See, "they just don't think like us." The idea that blacks and whites could ever live together was fucking radical, if not plain batshit crazy. It was so far left that a good portion of the population viewed anyone who thought that way the same way frutarians, PETA and other way-lefters are viewed today. Quote I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying though that unlike almost all other concepts, the no money thing requires an explanation that has never been given because it's more alien than any of the aliens they've ever portrayed in the movies and shows. The idea was there is no need for money when you can take raw mass and convert it into ANYTHING. Gold loses value, latinum loses value.. any thing rare loses value if you can simply whip it up by recombining things at a quantum level. The Transporter/ Transmuter is the one tech that allowed folks to do whatever the fuck they wanted, becuase you can't 'leech off the system' if everything is plentiful. We never saw enough of civilian life to understand the world outside of the military, either. It simply wan't part of the story that was cared about. Latinum was only ever obsessed over by non-fed-aligned worlds and races like the Ferengi, whose whole culture was based on aquisition of goods. If anything that culture stood out as the most "wtf, really?" because what they obsessed over made no sense. If they had coveted artifacts or things whose value wasn't linked to mere mineral scarcity but a more metaphysical thing like 'history' or 'religious belief' they'd have made so much more sense. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on November 26, 2008, 09:52:56 AM Good points; however, I disagree on the race thing. I don't have any statistics, but you can't have the 60s without a culture that was looking to evolve its thinking. And we're still dealing with race issues today and probably will for some time. And TOS still had plenty of racism in it anyway, mostly because of their Star Wars-esque one-dimensionality to them. Just as every world had precisely one ecosphere, so did every race only really have one culture. Yes, that was to drive home the point of humans being all together, but when things were bad with the Klingons or Romulans, it was bad with ALL Klingons or Romulans. Only TNG started allowing for abnormalities like free-thinkers and factions within the races.
Now, if this was 150 years ago, I'd entirely agree. Things were "just that way" because that's how it was. On transporters, you could convert mass to anything, but transmuters were not like coffee makers. As far as I know, in the 23rd century at least, only Starfleet had access to transporters. Everyone else used sky and ground transport of some form, and still had to build shit. But this goes right to your point about there being a lack of coverage about the culture beyond the military. It's this lack that is the root of why I don't think lack-of-money was ever addressed. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on November 26, 2008, 02:46:54 PM There are episodes I've seen, DS9 ones, where Starfleet had money to deal with non Fed trading. So they do value it somewhat. The same could probably be said for many private citizens.
Voyager portrayed a lot of bartering. They still had the skill for it... therefore it must have not completely disappeared from their lives. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on November 26, 2008, 09:15:52 PM I will make one addendum. My favorite Trek stories are Starfleet Universe ones. The sorta but not really Trek of Starfleet Battles and Federation Commander. Where idealism usually fails to basic human/human with funny forehead/furry human nature trumping everything else. Turning its Trek universe into one endless series of wars in spite of anyone's good intentions. In that universe the Federation's greatest accomplishments involved keeping the Kzinti from eating their captives and a temporary alliance with all the other Alpha Octant (not quadrant in SFU) factions in pushing the Andromedans out. (Which was only thanks to another Federation like group deciding everyone in Alpha was violent nutjobs so they started millitarily enforcing everybody's borders and shooting anyone who was dumb enough to bring a combat ship near their opposition's border. Of course this merely gave everyone a break from endless fighting so they could build more fleets. This faction took the brunt of the Andromedan assault in the early stages.)
I dunno. Maybe its just the way I grew up but I was always disappointed with Trek as a kid and perhaps I have a bit of a nitpicky bias against the franchise even though I want to like it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: WindupAtheist on November 26, 2008, 11:39:00 PM The idea was there is no need for money when you can take raw mass and convert it into ANYTHING. Gold loses value, latinum loses value.. any thing rare loses value if you can simply whip it up by recombining things at a quantum level. The Transporter/ Transmuter is the one tech that allowed folks to do whatever the fuck they wanted, becuase you can't 'leech off the system' if everything is plentiful. Only if their replicators allow them to create so much of everything that no one ever needs to wait on anything ever. And as long as no one ever wants anything that not everyone can have, like a house on the beach, or their own spaceship, or a horse, or a trip to Jupiter, or a spiffy farm like Picard had. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on November 27, 2008, 12:56:56 AM As I understood it, Latinum was valuable purely because it Couldn't be replicated.
Then there was that odd episode where Morn eat a bunch of it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tebonas on November 27, 2008, 05:15:54 AM That whole concept of a moneyfree society breaks down with DS9. Not only by trade with other races, but by restaurant of Siskos father on earth itself.
Somebody has a restaurant, people go there, get something better than replicated food and pay for it. I can see a baseline provided by the government (starfleet). Basic Replicators for everyone, along with social security and healthcare. If you want perks, you got to work for them. Sweden with Replicators! :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on November 27, 2008, 06:16:42 AM They don't use money on Earth. They just don't. It's silly and unrealistic but supposedly people on Earth have progressed past such things.(1) Sisko's dad runs a restaurant because he likes to cook not because he's hoping to make tons of money and retire to do something he enjoys.
The Federation uses money to deal with outsiders - they might even use it internally between members but I'm very sure that money isn't used on Earth and hasn't been since the TOS era.(2) (1) Remember the TNG episode where they revive those people who died in the 21 first century and were frozen? One of them was a Wall Street type who kept wanting to contact his lawyers to see if they'd taken care of his fortune properly. Picard told him flat out that his money was gone, nobody used it, and people were better than that now. (2) In The Voyage Home Kirk tells the 20th century dolphin doctor that they don't use money where he's from. There now you've made me expose my inner geek to everyone. I hope you're happy. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on November 27, 2008, 06:16:54 AM Wasn't it Stephenson that said the same in his books ? The Feed was provided by the Government for basic MC stuff, but it was like Bandwidth, in that you payed for the 'amount'.
Replicators would be similar, which is why all Starships would have them. Actually, wait, who gives a fuck ? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evildrider on November 27, 2008, 09:55:47 AM As I understood it, Latinum was valuable purely because it Couldn't be replicated. Then there was that odd episode where Morn eat a bunch of it. Not sure about the replicated part, but in that episode with Morn, didn't they basically say that Latinum is actually a liquid metal? It seems that the bars and slips are actually just holding the liquid inside. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on November 27, 2008, 10:03:10 AM http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3fu656gGkhI
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on November 27, 2008, 06:03:01 PM As I understood it, Latinum was valuable purely because it Couldn't be replicated. Then there was that odd episode where Morn eat a bunch of it. Not sure about the replicated part, but in that episode with Morn, didn't they basically say that Latinum is actually a liquid metal? It seems that the bars and slips are actually just holding the liquid inside. From Wikipedia: "Latinum, or Gold-Pressed Latinum, used by Ferengi in the Star Trek universe, is a fictional liquid, stored in gold slips, strips, bars and bricks in standardized amounts. Latinum derives its value from being non-replicable by any known existing or predicted replication technology.[1] It should be noted that, as Quark points out in "Who Mourns for Morn?", the gold in Gold-Pressed Latinum is merely a convenient material in which to suspend standardized quantities of Latinum, which, as Rom points out in reply, is somewhat awkward to use as cash due to being a liquid at room temperature and standard pressure. (Compare with events in Venus Equilateral: in one episode, the crew of the titular space station invent similar replication technology, inadvertently creating a solar-system-wide inflation crisis (suddenly anyone can materialize all the cash they want out of thin air at the push of a button), which they then solve in the next episode by developing a substance which cannot be produced by replicators to be used to create non-replicable currency.)" Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on November 27, 2008, 10:43:02 PM Hey, I was right.
Big who cares. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on November 27, 2008, 10:50:09 PM Well, the Mourn episode was funny at least. I forgot about that one. Thanks for mentioning it. DS9 is the funniest series, generally.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on November 28, 2008, 02:18:48 AM DS9 was the most mature series, for sure. So if you are into mature humor (and I am) it is generally funnier.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on November 28, 2008, 11:19:27 AM DS9 had one of the few episodes where I was nearly bowled over in laughter. It was that episode where Quark, Rom, and Nog turn out to be the Roswell aliens, and while Quark and Rom are arguing about something Nog had the nurse-chick-whatever rubbing his lobes. For those that don't know, that's basically a Ferengi-handjob.
Oohh look, more time-travel! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on November 28, 2008, 11:24:36 AM Most people who dislike DS9 dislike it because the first couple seasons were kinda lame and they stopped watching after that. Which is a shame because it really picked up after Sisko grew the beard.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on November 28, 2008, 11:30:25 AM The first couple of seasons were quite sterile, even for Star Trek. Then, however, the cast really grew into their characters and the ensemble clicked so well.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on November 28, 2008, 11:43:12 AM DS9 was by far the best of the Star Treks IMO. My favourite moment was a late night conversation between Quark and Garak talking about how the Federation was more insidious than the Borg with their goodness and niceness and how they were developing a taste for root beer.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evildrider on November 28, 2008, 12:20:16 PM DS9 is my favorite out of all the different shows. It seemed to have more character development and less "monster" of the week type deals.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 28, 2008, 01:11:09 PM The episode that is narrated by Sisko as a confession to what he had done to ensure that safety of the federation is probably one of the best trek episodes of any series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on November 29, 2008, 03:53:31 PM From Wikipedia: "Latinum, or Gold-Pressed Latinum, used by Ferengi in the Star Trek universe, is a fictional liquid, stored in gold slips, strips, bars and bricks in standardized amounts. Latinum derives its value from being non-replicable by any known existing or predicted replication technology.[1] It should be noted that, as Quark points out in "Who Mourns for Morn?", the gold in Gold-Pressed Latinum is merely a convenient material in which to suspend standardized quantities of Latinum, which, as Rom points out in reply, is somewhat awkward to use as cash due to being a liquid at room temperature and standard pressure. (Compare with events in Venus Equilateral: in one episode, the crew of the titular space station invent similar replication technology, inadvertently creating a solar-system-wide inflation crisis (suddenly anyone can materialize all the cash they want out of thin air at the push of a button), which they then solve in the next episode by developing a substance which cannot be produced by replicators to be used to create non-replicable currency.)" Which is a total ret-con of the first Ferengi epsiode in TNG where they were interested in Starfleet communicators because they were gold-plated. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on November 29, 2008, 04:51:10 PM How? They needed more gold to encase the Latinum.
Which itself is dumb. They're saying that Gold encases Latinum which otherwise would ooze out onto the table? In Gold? You'd think something so valueable in a future tech society would be encased in something a bit more substantial. So then you could say gold is used as a paint to make it shiny. But then I'd wonder how a galaxy-wide set of civilizations all equate that color with value. Even the theory of the Preservers populating the galaxy happened well before a single uncommon Earth element was used as a means of barter. Eh. Who was it that coined "mental masturbation"? :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: shiznitz on December 08, 2008, 03:03:31 PM Most people who dislike DS9 dislike it because the first couple seasons were kinda lame and they stopped watching after that. Which is a shame because it really picked up after Sisko grew the beard. Guilty. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Abagadro on December 08, 2008, 03:27:44 PM After he became Commander Hawk it definitely got better.
(does that ref date me?) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Morat20 on December 08, 2008, 03:35:45 PM The episode that is narrated by Sisko as a confession to what he had done to ensure that safety of the federation is probably one of the best trek episodes of any series. Damn skippy. Especially the ending line. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: LK on December 08, 2008, 03:39:49 PM Could you state the name of the episode, please?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Montague on December 08, 2008, 03:55:42 PM In the Pale Moonlight. Season 6, IIRC.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2008, 01:15:33 AM The episode that is narrated by Sisko as a confession to what he had done to ensure that safety of the federation is probably one of the best trek episodes of any series. Damn skippy. Especially the ending line. Yeah. Wondrous episode proving the Federation is as morally bankrupt as any system here on Earth. Yay. DS9 was total shite. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 09, 2008, 01:44:27 AM That is the most wrong you have ever been.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 09, 2008, 01:55:12 AM I've said it before, but besides the funny, this is the number 1 reason why DS9 isn't shite:
(http://www.ufpofsa.org/Interviews/Marc_Alaimo/Marc_Alaimo_01.jpg) Who, mind you, is also full of the funny himself. But basically, that's the greatest Star Trek villain ever. Perhaps if Khan got as much screen time and attention to character depth as him, I'd say differently -- but as it is, Dukat is the fucking man. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2008, 03:14:16 AM This is the same Dukat that got rid of his makeup and became the sidekick to a silly bitch with delusions of Godhood at the end ?
Yeah. Fine. Whatever. Look, you took DS9 and decided that you would throw the turmoils most felt in your country into the storylines. Bully for you. I'm sure it resonated. But you know what ? The BIG OLE DOMINION WAR wasn't interesting. The ZOMG THERE ARE RELIGIOUS FREAKS IN CHARGE OF THE NOSE PEOPLE wasn't even remotely interesting. The TERRORISTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE GOOD aspect was so fucking overdone as to be not funny. I'm not even going to go into the whole SISKO TURNED INTO A BADASS WITH A BEARD WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY JUST A WHINY PUSSY WHO HAD A DEAD WIFE stuff. And Jake. Jake. For Fuck's Sake, Jake. Even the episode where he was an old man and his Dad was caught out of time couldn't save Jake. What a punky little whiny cunt. Intrepid War Reporter to THE RESCUE !!! The Ferengi were good. Quark was good. Garak was Good. Those were the Good episodes. I've never laughed so much when the Ferengi made that Dead Dominion chap come to life and wander around. Many giggles. But, hey, whatever. You want to say that DS9 is the best Trek ? Go for it. I don't agree, but go for it. Voyager was fucking mince, most of the films sucked with the exception of Khan and Country, Enterprise was a fucking joke with anti-rad oil thrown in and, frankly, this new film kinda looks to me like that Episode of SG1 (the 200th one) where they float the idea of reworking SG1 with 'younger hipper cast'. Trek Died. It Died very very badly. I'm ready to let it go. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 09, 2008, 03:18:14 AM Holy shit! This comes just after I praised you for a one-word awesome post. :awesome_for_real:
Anyways, I'm not praising for it the storyline so much as the characters. Like you, I thought Quark, Garak, and all that shit was great too. Dukat though -- or you know, Caradassians in general.. cuz Garak had this too -- this guy's proclivity to bullshit people is just legendary. Oh, and the swagger too. Khan didn't have the swagger. Heh Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 09, 2008, 03:49:01 AM Wow Ironwood. Such passion. You obviously feel very strongly about DS9. Did you miss a single episode of this much hated Star Trek series? Do you own the complete set of DVDs?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 09, 2008, 04:04:40 AM He's not wrong.
Much :heart:, 'wood. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sir T on December 09, 2008, 04:21:23 AM No he's not wrong. At all.
Though I did enjoy Nemesis as well. Personal taste. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 09, 2008, 04:25:51 AM Oh come on now. You two obviously didn't really hate DS9. If you did you'd be able to quote long passages of dialogue from it that you'd memorized while watching each episode multiple times. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2008, 08:17:13 AM This is the same Dukat that got rid of his makeup and became the sidekick to a silly bitch with delusions of Godhood at the end ? Yeah. Fine. Whatever. Look, you took DS9 and decided that you would throw the turmoils most felt in your country into the storylines. Bully for you. I'm sure it resonated. But you know what ? The BIG OLE DOMINION WAR wasn't interesting. The ZOMG THERE ARE RELIGIOUS FREAKS IN CHARGE OF THE NOSE PEOPLE wasn't even remotely interesting. The TERRORISTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE GOOD aspect was so fucking overdone as to be not funny. I'm not even going to go into the whole SISKO TURNED INTO A BADASS WITH A BEARD WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY JUST A WHINY PUSSY WHO HAD A DEAD WIFE stuff. And Jake. Jake. For Fuck's Sake, Jake. Even the episode where he was an old man and his Dad was caught out of time couldn't save Jake. What a punky little whiny cunt. Intrepid War Reporter to THE RESCUE !!! The Ferengi were good. Quark was good. Garak was Good. Those were the Good episodes. I've never laughed so much when the Ferengi made that Dead Dominion chap come to life and wander around. Many giggles. But, hey, whatever. You want to say that DS9 is the best Trek ? Go for it. I don't agree, but go for it. Voyager was fucking mince, most of the films sucked with the exception of Khan and Country, Enterprise was a fucking joke with anti-rad oil thrown in and, frankly, this new film kinda looks to me like that Episode of SG1 (the 200th one) where they float the idea of reworking SG1 with 'younger hipper cast'. Trek Died. It Died very very badly. I'm ready to let it go. * out of *****. I'm sorry, but I'm just not feeling the vibe. Started out kinda good with the dig on the very shitty end of Dukat's story, and totally agree that the new Trek reeks of "teen pregnant" bullshit, but everything in the middle lacks inspiration. It reads like a random post from SomethingAwful. :crying_panda: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Johny Cee on December 09, 2008, 08:29:46 AM After he became Commander Hawk it definitely got better. (does that ref date me?) :heart: Spencer for Hire Shit, I watched the short-lived Hawk spinoff because I loved the character so much. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 09, 2008, 08:35:27 AM Oh come on now. You two obviously didn't really hate DS9. If you did you'd be able to quote long passages of dialogue from it that you'd memorized while watching each episode multiple times. :awesome_for_real: For real. I can't even quote it, and I liked it. I'll be honest though.. The guy who plays Sisko is a pretty hammy, overly dramatic actor. Turned me off at first. On the flipside, it's perfectly in the spirit of Shatner, I guess. As for good acting, Chief O'Brien is Ace. All the time. He did have one particular episode though where he worked undercover in the Orion Syndicate or something. The story was inspired by Donnie Brasco, and worked suprisingly well in a Star Trek context. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 09, 2008, 08:46:38 AM I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 09, 2008, 09:21:18 AM But, hey, whatever. You want to say that DS9 is the best Trek ? Go for it. I don't agree, but go for it. Voyager was fucking mince, most of the films sucked with the exception of Khan and Country, Enterprise was a fucking joke with anti-rad oil thrown in and, frankly, this new film kinda looks to me like that Episode of SG1 (the 200th one) where they float the idea of reworking SG1 with 'younger hipper cast'. Trek Died. It Died very very badly. I'm ready to let it go. First, DS9 is shit. I've never understood the love for that show. Even the Defiant was "oh shit, we have a space show where noone can go anywhere!" Sisko? Worst Captain. Period. Worse than Archer. Worse than Janeway. I do disagree slightly with your films comment though. Khan and Country were the best TOS films. Hands down. In fact, Khan is the only Trek I own. That said, First Contact was also pretty good. So, out of 10(?) movies, they had 3 great ones. The rest ranged from eye-gougingly terrible to so-so. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Morat20 on December 09, 2008, 10:30:08 AM I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other. Didn't the two actors admit they spent a lot of time trying to push that vibe as far as humanly possible? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2008, 11:23:00 AM First, DS9 is shit. I've never understood the love for that show. Even the Defiant was "oh shit, we have a space show where noone can go anywhere!" Sisko? Worst Captain. Period. Worse than Archer. Worse than Janeway. Man, I'm totally tempted to go comic book guy over that shit. It's impossible to have a worse captain than Janeway. Like Carrot Top would be a better captain impossible. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on December 09, 2008, 11:30:56 AM I don't disagree with anything Ironwood said, really, but I still have a lot of respect for DS9, even if it wasn't totally :awesome_for_real: all the time. They were at least trying to do something a little different with the Trek universe. That whole shiny happy people vibe gets old after a while.
Also, Janeway is the worst captain decision-making wise. Sisko is the worst acting wise. He was like an unholy combination of Shatner, Calculon from Futurama (incredible ACTING TALENT), and David Caruso. He did improve a bit when he reverted to Hawk mode. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 09, 2008, 12:12:47 PM I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other. Didn't the two actors admit they spent a lot of time trying to push that vibe as far as humanly possible? Haha did they? I'd love to see a link if you can remember where you heard that. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Johny Cee on December 09, 2008, 03:56:49 PM I don't disagree with anything Ironwood said, really, but I still have a lot of respect for DS9, even if it wasn't totally :awesome_for_real: all the time. They were at least trying to do something a little different with the Trek universe. That whole shiny happy people vibe gets old after a while. Also, Janeway is the worst captain decision-making wise. Sisko is the worst acting wise. He was like an unholy combination of Shatner, Calculon from Futurama (incredible ACTING TALENT), and David Caruso. He did improve a bit when he reverted to Hawk mode. You take that shit back about Hawk, right fucking now. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on December 09, 2008, 09:48:18 PM Oh, my bad. Yeah, actually, he got worse when he started channelling Hawk. :oh_i_see:
Seriously, though, I'm only bashing his acting as Sisko. Hawk was a bad motherfucker. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on December 10, 2008, 12:00:57 AM Though I did enjoy Nemesis as well. Personal taste. :ye_gods: Surely that should have been in green. I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other. Forutnately, they've gone on to better things. Colm Meaney has always been a solid actor and Alexander Siddig has shown his acting versatility playing a middle eastern prince in Syriana, a suspected Middle Eastern terrorist in Spooks, an actual Middle Eastern terrorist in 24 and a real-life Middle Eastern terrorist in the docudrama "The Hamburg Cell" about 9/11. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 10, 2008, 12:35:53 AM Though I did enjoy Nemesis as well. Personal taste. :ye_gods: Surely that should have been in green. I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other. Forutnately, they've gone on to better things. Colm Meaney has always been a solid actor and Alexander Siddig has shown his acting versatility playing a middle eastern prince in Syriana, a suspected Middle Eastern terrorist in Spooks, an actual Middle Eastern terrorist in 24 and a real-life Middle Eastern terrorist in the docudrama "The Hamburg Cell" about 9/11. Isn't it a bit unfair to label his character that way in Syriana? I mean, since his character didn't want to give U.S. oil companies everything they wanted, doesn't that make him kind of a terrorist? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on December 10, 2008, 12:58:24 AM I said he played a Middle Eastern prince. How is that an unfair or inaccurate description?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 10, 2008, 01:13:30 AM NM, I worded my joke badly and it should all be in green anyway.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on December 10, 2008, 01:20:03 AM /banghead
You didn't word your joke badly - I just didn't read it right. My excuse is that I have 'flu and am running a temperature you could fry eggs on. Honest. I'll get my coat. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2008, 02:41:11 AM Sorry, I didn't mean to shit up the thread.
That said, if I reply to any of the posts thereafter, I probably will end up doing so. I didn't like First Contact. It was 'Aliens' with a Trek theme on the ship and the stuff on the planet fucked so badly with the continuity and was so cheesy, I just switched off. Also Nemesis. Well, all I say is I thought that your comment should be in green also. A Romulan Picard Clone. With a Big Ship. Christ, the Clone Wars cartoon has a more convincing Baddy with a masterplan than that. I pretty much covered Voyager being shite and, yes, though I didn't say it the Chief reason was Frigging Katherine Hepburn in charge of a Starship was waaaayyyyy off. Also, timeships. Also, Prime Directive shattered so hard you could hear it in the Alpha Quadrant. Also, Seven of Nine and her magically rythmic pussy. Frankly, they should have just renamed the whole fucking thing 'The Doctor' and had Robert Picardo soloing every fucking episode. He was great. *looks at long ass post* Dammit, I did it again. Sorry. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2008, 04:06:29 AM Though I did enjoy Nemesis as well. Personal taste. :ye_gods: Surely that should have been in green. I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other. Forutnately, they've gone on to better things. Colm Meaney has always been a solid actor and Alexander Siddig has shown his acting versatility playing a middle eastern prince in Syriana, a suspected Middle Eastern terrorist in Spooks, an actual Middle Eastern terrorist in 24 and a real-life Middle Eastern terrorist in the docudrama "The Hamburg Cell" about 9/11. You can't really blame that all on Siddig. Post 9-11 is a shitty time to be a Middle-East-descended actor in Hollywood. You can probably count on one hand the number of positive characters with that background in the last 7 years. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 10, 2008, 04:19:31 AM OK, Ironwood. You hated DS9. You hated Voyager. You hated Enterprise. That's every single Star Trek series since Generations. You did like Generations I hope? You hated all of the movies except for Wrath of Khan.
In fact, as far as I can tell you absolutely despise the great majority of the Star Trek IP. So when are you going to stop watching? I mean, someone who hates a show and yet keeps religiously watching it might as well be a dedicated fan... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2008, 05:01:53 AM I loved TOS and TNG.
Also, the two films. Also, you're well jumping to conclusions. Really, really badly. 'Religiously' ? Where the fuck did you get that from ? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 10, 2008, 06:07:52 AM "Religiously" because you write these posts in excruciating detail explaining everything that you hated. I would expect someone that actually despised every single thing to come out of the Star Trek franchise since TNG would have stopped watching long ago or at least not have been paying enough attention to recall a specific hateful episode in painful detail a decade after seeing it.
Do you take notes or something? Are you some kind of masochist? Or is it just the usual Ironwood "I hate everything. It's all shite and you're a cunt." routine? Not that it's become predictable or anything. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Johny Cee on December 10, 2008, 06:27:47 AM Oh, my bad. Yeah, actually, he got worse when he started channelling Hawk. :oh_i_see: Seriously, though, I'm only bashing his acting as Sisko. Hawk was a bad motherfucker. Shut your mouth! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2008, 06:32:16 AM "Religiously" because you write these posts in excruciating detail explaining everything that you hated. I would expect someone that actually despised every single thing to come out of the Star Trek franchise since TNG would have stopped watching long ago or at least not have been paying enough attention to recall a specific hateful episode in painful detail a decade after seeing it. Do you take notes or something? Are you some kind of masochist? Or is it just the usual Ironwood "I hate everything. It's all shite and you're a cunt." routine? Not that it's become predictable or anything. He. God Forbid anyone around here becomes predictable. Your familiarity is clearly breeding contempt. I would recommend not reading my posts. At all. I'll honestly thank you for it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sir T on December 10, 2008, 06:46:31 AM I liked Nemesis because it had Romulans in it. No other reason really. If it didn't it would have completely sucked for me. But I have a large soft spot in my heart for the Romulans.
What interested me though (aside from everything else) was the quasi religious nature of what went on around that film. People literally were convinced that it was going to be a good Trek film, it had to be a good trek film... because it had an even number in the title. That's the reason. I saw over and over and OVER people saying totally seriously that it would be good because ever trek with an odd number was terrible and every trek with a even number was good. It was completely ludicrous and me mentioning that that was utter bollox would start multi page flame wars. It was modern superstition in action. First Contact? I hated it. Utterly hated it. For one thing, me dragging the love of my life to it basically started the whole process of us breaking up, because I forced her take her to such a terrible film that gave her nightmares. Later I came out with the impression that the borg were controlled by the internet with every ounce of porn in total control (see the borg Nymphomaniac Queen). It was a bad bad BAD zombie film, crossed with Moby Dick and a bit of the Wizard of OZ. And the horrid revelation that the great hero of the federation was a drunk that did it for the money, oh come on. Why the hell does Holywood have to make every one of its heroes hard drinking alcoholics? And as for why people watched trek.. well guess what for a long time there was nothing else remotely decent in Sci-Fi on TV. There was BAB 5, but the whispering campaign against that was pretty horrendous from the trek fandom. I only started watching because I saw it at a Book convention. What people liked about the DS9 really started because DS9 Started basically ripping off B5 left and right. The Shadows appear, the Dominion turn up. The White Star? Shit we need a small supership of our own. A bit of B5 gets blown off? 3 Episodes later a bit of DS9 Gets blown off... Thing is the Dominion just hung around for 2 seasons because (and I have a friend who knows someone that worked in paramount at the time) they made up the Dominion and suddenly were foxed as they had no bloody idea what to do with them. If they invaded, the Federation was dead. But everything they made up about the Dominion showed that they should be attacking the second they were aware of the Federation. So they spent a season in a half in panic mode. And as for Quark. He was Rick Berman's Hubris. He was originally supposed to be a big organized crime character, as Berman made up the Ferangi and he always was pushing them as a real threat race. But they were always comic relief, and people said they should be dropped. But he insisted on an evil Ferangi in the show. And Quark became comic relief. I'm just telling you all this to show how little planning there went into DS9. Yes some of the actors were good in the show. But when you look back at it it was the odd space battle followed by 12 boring episodes of "character development" where nothing much happened. It was all stalling for time. Even this huge battle where they went all out against the Dominion was basically the actors reciting "The charge of the light Brigade" By Tenneson and long scenes of Gul DuKat philosophizing on the real meaning of victory. ANYTHING to eat up screen time in this double episode. And 20 seconds of total combat footage with them bouncing around the set a lot. It was mind boggling. And at the end the First Ones turned up to save the day. Yey. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 10, 2008, 08:15:51 AM And the horrid revelation that the great hero of the federation was a drunk that did it for the money, oh come on. Why the hell does Holywood have to make every one of its heroes hard drinking alcoholics? This isn't far fetched. There's a lot of people who would be utterly shocked to find out how our forefathers carried themselves. We see it all the time even with the false idols in Hollywood. I enjoyed First Contact. It wasn't really Star Trek, but that's ok because even at that point what was Star Trek wasn't carrying it well. I mostly enjoyed all of the movies to a degree, even parts of Final Frontier, which otherwise was a complete travesty that became the second movie for which much apology was needed and therefore the trend that followed through Generations and that silly provincial rescue-the-native-Americans one. People would not have hated on Search for Spock if it wasn't for Final Frontier. And I have a lot of forgiveness for Motion Picture simply because it was first and trying to revive an IP that only geeks and conventions help limp through the 70s. I'm the person who gave up on DS9 before it purportedly got good. And nowadays I would rather rewatch Firefly's one season than attempt to like a period and setting of an IP we'll probably never see in that form every again. If the upcoming movie is successful, it's an IP reset anyway. If it fails, no more movies and probably no more IP outside of the occasional game and geek conventions. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Teleku on December 10, 2008, 08:28:45 AM I thought DS9 was easily the last good series. :cry:
Everything that came after was complete shit, both story and acting wise. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Morat20 on December 10, 2008, 08:51:13 AM I'll always regret that Chief O'Brien and Doctor Bashir never got around to coming out of the closet and proclaiming their love for each other. Didn't the two actors admit they spent a lot of time trying to push that vibe as far as humanly possible? Haha did they? I'd love to see a link if you can remember where you heard that. Also, if you're not reading TV Tropes, you're wrong. At least the Crowning Moment of Awesomes. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 10, 2008, 09:41:34 AM He. God Forbid anyone around here becomes predictable. Your familiarity is clearly breeding contempt. I would recommend not reading my posts. At all. I'll honestly thank you for it. Ha, I'm sorry. We all have our own little routines. Haemish is indignant. Angrybob is angry. Signe hungers for human flesh. Only I remain as fresh as the first spring day in May. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on December 10, 2008, 10:07:08 AM Nemesis is undefendable. They fucking killed Data. May a swarm of crotch locus descend upon Rick Berman.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on December 10, 2008, 10:14:06 AM Nemesis is undefendable. They fucking killed Data. May a swarm of crotch locus descend upon Rick Berman. Which is bad enough by itself. Then they went and replaced him with a retarded clone.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 10, 2008, 10:14:33 AM Oh c'mon they didn't really kill Data. You just know his retarded little twin will end up with all of the memories.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on December 10, 2008, 10:15:57 AM Bah. This is what happens when you let fucking boomers write scripts. :oh_i_see:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on December 10, 2008, 10:55:33 AM Hah. Here's some fuel for the fire: the drowsiest, lousiest fucking review I've watched in a long time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JaxKHniVQ&feature=channel_page).
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on December 10, 2008, 03:33:03 PM Hah. Here's some fuel for the fire: the drowsiest, lousiest fucking review I've watched in a long time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JaxKHniVQ&feature=channel_page). Fuck you. I did not need that in my life. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 10, 2008, 03:37:32 PM I didn't get the constant "Matthew is confused" cartoon. Should I have heard of this guy or something?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2008, 03:39:33 PM I saw "part 1 of 2" and that was all I needed to know. If you can't review a movie like Nemisis in less time than your average youtube clip, you've failed horribly and don't deserve my viewing time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on December 10, 2008, 08:41:36 PM Hah. Here's some fuel for the fire: the drowsiest, lousiest fucking review I've watched in a long time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JaxKHniVQ&feature=channel_page). Ho. Lee. Crap. That thing was fifteen fucking minutes long. Not because he had much to say, he just took forever to say it. He even has the gall to end it with "So that, in a nutshell..."He made a few decent points, though, but fuck if I'll ever watch another one of those. Who the fuck is Matthew and why should I care that he gets randomly confused throughout his reviews? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on December 10, 2008, 10:22:42 PM I don't remember exactly how I found those reviews, but I do know that the ones of his I have watched make me think I'd rather endure water-boarding than go through another. It really is one of the most terribad things on the internet I've stumbled upon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 11, 2008, 01:20:56 PM What interested me though (aside from everything else) was the quasi religious nature of what went on around that film. People literally were convinced that it was going to be a good Trek film, it had to be a good trek film... because it had an even number in the title. That's the reason. I saw over and over and OVER people saying totally seriously that it would be good because ever trek with an odd number was terrible and every trek with a even number was good. It was completely ludicrous and me mentioning that that was utter bollox would start multi page flame wars. It was modern superstition in action. I liked III so the even number rule never came home for me anyway. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Montague on December 11, 2008, 03:27:19 PM OK, Ironwood. You hated DS9. You hated Voyager. You hated Enterprise. That's every single Star Trek series since Generations. You did like Generations I hope? You hated all of the movies except for Wrath of Khan. In fact, as far as I can tell you absolutely despise the great majority of the Star Trek IP. So when are you going to stop watching? Probably when all of us who bitch about MMO's stop playing them. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 12, 2008, 11:11:24 AM Nemesis is undefendable. They fucking killed Data. May a swarm of crotch locus descend upon Rick Berman. Which is bad enough by itself. Then they went and replaced him with a retarded clone.That was what pissed me off. If they wanted to kill Data everyone involved in the movie should have been forced to watch Wrath of Khan until they got it. If you're killing a character, that is absolutely the template to follow. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 12, 2008, 04:30:03 PM Nemesis is on AMC as I type this. It's the last 14 mins, and it's godawful for just this smidgen, too. I'd kind of blocked it from my mind and now I remember why.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on December 13, 2008, 02:13:29 AM Upon reading that time travel is an important plot point in the upcoming movie, I am somewhat less enthusiastic. (http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 13, 2008, 02:35:56 AM Oh I don't know. It sounds like they're just using time travel to justify a reset that lets them start retelling the story from the beginning with a few updates and changes. If it's done well I don't object to it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on December 13, 2008, 02:54:15 AM Oh I don't know. It sounds like they're just using time travel to justify a reset that lets them start retelling the story from the beginning with a few updates and changes. If it's done well I don't object to it. Making a good movie should be the only justification they need. If they want to reboot the franchise they should have just rebooted it instead of building this movie around a time travel plot so they could explain away why it doesn't fit in with continuity. You can't really have it both ways. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 13, 2008, 03:02:08 AM Quote You can't really have it both ways. Sure you can. They're using the many worlds time travel paradigm. You can have it an infinite number of ways. :awesome_for_real: I just hope the all the time travel nonsense happens in the first and last 10 minutes to explain why things are different and doesn't interfere with the actual guts of the story. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on December 13, 2008, 03:09:14 AM I'm not sure how you'd be able to have a villain who has traveled to the past to alter time, and only have the be the focus of the first and last 10 minutes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 13, 2008, 05:03:37 AM If he just stays put and Kirk and the gang don't need to travel through time chasing him that should be good enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 13, 2008, 08:01:43 AM Tempted to use the word 'wank' here.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 13, 2008, 08:10:15 AM Like you aren't planning to camp out for a week before it opens so you can be the first nerd in your neighbourhood to see it. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 13, 2008, 08:22:09 AM You're offering to babysit ? How sweet.
Haven't watched one of these at the cinema since generations. You're reaching REALLLLLY hard, aren't you ? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 13, 2008, 08:33:16 AM Good. I hope this is used as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise in future TV series, movies, etc. Ditch the Federation, make Earth and Vulcan enemies (cold logicians who believe emotional races should be destroyed, etc) and make all the other races cranky and Star Warsy. Every Star Trek since the TOS could be named "The Democratic Senate Caucus Tries To Find A Way To Peacefully Resolve Things But Then Is Forced To Defend Itself With Plucky Human Ingenuity: The Series."
Just turn it into the Starfleet Battles universe... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 13, 2008, 08:35:59 AM So you want the Federation replaced with a bunch of Republicans then? Scary.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 13, 2008, 08:43:14 AM So you want the Federation replaced with a bunch of Republicans then? Scary. Yes. Completely aside from what is the best way to govern irl, Republican ideals make for much more entertaining television :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2008, 10:32:27 AM Good. I hope this is used as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise in future TV series, movies, etc. Ditch the Federation, make Earth and Vulcan enemies (cold logicians who believe emotional races should be destroyed, etc) and make all the other races cranky and Star Warsy. Every Star Trek since the TOS could be named "The Democratic Senate Caucus Tries To Find A Way To Peacefully Resolve Things But Then Is Forced To Defend Itself With Plucky Human Ingenuity: The Series." Just turn it into the Starfleet Battles universe... You wish. This is gonna be one big "reset button" movie. Shit will blow up, Kirk will die, the Borg will show up, and old Spock will hit the big red button and it'll all be Janeway and Picard discussing the timeline over tea and crumpets. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on December 13, 2008, 12:40:23 PM You wish. This is gonna be one big "reset button" movie. Shit will blow up, Kirk will die, the Borg will show up, and old Spock will hit the big red button and it'll all be Janeway and Picard discussing the timeline over tea and crumpets. Don't the Borg send an Infiltrator unit back in time to kill Kirk's mother before he's born but Spock is sent back in time by the Kirk of his era to stop it doing so and in a plot-twist that defies temporal causality, shags Kirk's mum and becomes Kirk's dad? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on December 13, 2008, 06:27:08 PM (http://de.futuramapedia.net/images/4/44/Hedonismbot.png)
Time-travel as a Star Trek plot device? How deliciously absurd! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 13, 2008, 07:55:38 PM Thanks for making me spray my glass of water all over my monitor, ass :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on December 14, 2008, 05:48:32 AM Good. I hope this is used as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise in future TV series, movies, etc. Ditch the Federation, make Earth and Vulcan enemies (cold logicians who believe emotional races should be destroyed, etc) and make all the other races cranky and Star Warsy. Every Star Trek since the TOS could be named "The Democratic Senate Caucus Tries To Find A Way To Peacefully Resolve Things But Then Is Forced To Defend Itself With Plucky Human Ingenuity: The Series." Better idea: Turn it into what the Federation should really be like with the technology they've got i.e. The Culture.Just turn it into the Starfleet Battles universe... Also, Ironwood is as wrong as it is humanly possible to be about DS9, even though it's only a copy of B5. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2008, 09:14:08 AM Good. I hope this is used as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise in future TV series, movies, etc. Ditch the Federation, make Earth and Vulcan enemies (cold logicians who believe emotional races should be destroyed, etc) and make all the other races cranky and Star Warsy. Every Star Trek since the TOS could be named "The Democratic Senate Caucus Tries To Find A Way To Peacefully Resolve Things But Then Is Forced To Defend Itself With Plucky Human Ingenuity: The Series." Better idea: Turn it into what the Federation should really be like with the technology they've got i.e. The Culture.Just turn it into the Starfleet Battles universe... Also, Ironwood is as wrong as it is humanly possible to be about DS9, even though it's only a copy of B5. I think showing the Federation as an emerging "Culture-like" society would be more interesting than what we get lately. It's the next logical step instead of going back and doing prequels like Enterprise. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 15, 2008, 12:03:46 AM I thought that DS9 did a pretty good job of showing that at the very highest levels the Federation was much like the culture. ie. A lot of the naive idealism is gone and they're prepared to do whatever it takes to win.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Margalis on December 15, 2008, 12:26:54 AM If this is supposed to be a reboot why does how it fits with Trek canon even matter?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 15, 2008, 12:34:22 AM Trailer came up yesterday and I explained the Time Travel Stuff.
Wife looks at me and says 'Why won't they let it die in peace?' Every now and then you're reminded with sharp clarity why you married someone in the first place. :why_so_serious: Oh, and Babylon 5 was awesome stuff. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 15, 2008, 12:40:09 AM The whole time travel aspect of the movie is their attempt to explain the differences from canon to their most OCD fans.
12 of my closest friends totally agree that we should go see the movie before rushing to judgement on it. "Why don't we go see the movie before rushing to judgement?" they said. And naturally, I felt compelled to agree. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on December 15, 2008, 01:04:32 AM The whole time travel aspect of the movie is their attempt to explain the differences from canon to their most OCD fans. Exactly, which is why it's a shit idea. It's not organic storytelling. It's "well we have to reboot the franchise, but also connect it to established continuity, so what story can we tell that's within those boundaries?". And then they came up with time traveling Romulans. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 15, 2008, 02:54:28 AM I hate the time line idea being used to explain why a movie made in 2008 won't be the same as a tv series from the 1960's. It's not a good sign for them to be worrying about this trivial shit, if the make over is good enough then you don't need to justify why you did something. Starbuck being a girl worked out ok.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 15, 2008, 04:02:54 AM Totally. Why the hell would you be worrying about a reboot when you look at what BSG did ? Nods and winks to the fans all over the shop but compelling stand alone fare.
It's odd and it stinks. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 15, 2008, 04:19:47 AM BSG is nothing more than a critically acclaimed niche IP playing on a specialty cable channel and won't even have had the longevity of Enterprise when it finishes this spring. And the series it was based on was a single short-running series from decades ago that spawned nothing after it was gone - hardly to be compared to Star Trek.
And honestly, Star Trek geeks are famous for obsessing over trivial points of canon. Is it really such a shock that the movie producers would want to avoid pissing them off? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 15, 2008, 04:41:58 AM Oh yeah, what about Galactica 1980? That was terrible enough to be right up there with some of the worst Star Trek spin off episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2008, 08:31:36 AM If this is supposed to be a reboot why does how it fits with Trek canon even matter? It's not supposed to be a reboot. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 15, 2008, 08:38:08 AM If this is supposed to be a reboot why does how it fits with Trek canon even matter? It's not supposed to be a reboot. Are you certain about this? I didn't read anything in that article that indicates future Trek TV and movies won't flow from the new timeline. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 15, 2008, 08:52:23 AM Upon reading that time travel is an important plot point in the upcoming movie, I am somewhat less enthusiastic. (http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/) The only part about that article that pissed me off was the constant "Quantum Mechanics is the latest, best, most awesome scientific theory ever!" stuff spouted by whoever was being interviewed. It made me want to strangle him with his entrails, while using his own still beating heart for a gag. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 15, 2008, 09:02:26 AM After Enterprise flopped in such a fantastic way, didn't they say "no more trek on TV for at least 5-10 years." The feeling was that Trek had been overloaded into the consciousness, being constantly around since '88. Which would be why there's no indication of 'future' episodes not flowing from this. No need, since there are no plans for future ANYTHING.
I know dollars trump this, but they seemed to really believe it at the time. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 15, 2008, 11:18:15 AM My guess would be that the noise about "no more trek for 10 years" was coming mainly from Rick Berman and the gang who were responsible for the huge failure of Enterprise. I mean, geeze it couldn't possible have been THEIR fault could it? Who doesn't like mutant, vampire, time-traveling, space Nazis? The only possible reason that nobody liked Enterprise had to be that the world was just generally tired of all things Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Morat20 on December 15, 2008, 11:23:18 AM I think showing the Federation as an emerging "Culture-like" society would be more interesting than what we get lately. It's the next logical step instead of going back and doing prequels like Enterprise. A movie about extremely attractive hedonists, with sentient starships whose minds are best described as "quirky"? Whose warships, even the centuries old mothballed ones, can fuck entire solar systems? Whose assasins are composed entirely of nano-machines, so can look like anything from a person to a flock of birds -- and whose calling card (no use assasinating someone if no one gets the point) is anti-matter missiles 10mm long?Fuck, I'd watch that. Throw up the Idrian War. Let me watch shit blow up, good looking people fuck, and starships with a fucking sense of humor. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on December 15, 2008, 12:47:37 PM If this is supposed to be a reboot why does how it fits with Trek canon even matter? It's not supposed to be a reboot. And therein lies the problem. If it wasn't supposed to be a reboot, why the radical change in direction? This is a lot of fuckheads at Paramount not wanting to face the reality that the franchise has been shagged to shit and back for at least 5-10 years (but really since they made the movie switchover from TOS crew to TNG). They recognized that the franchise needed fresh blood to make it still relevant, only they don't want to admit that they need a rethink of the entire concept because that means they piss off the Trekkies (who deserve to be fried in pig lard more than furries). They want to have their cake and eat it too. I like the look of it, but this does weaken it a bit. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evildrider on December 15, 2008, 01:11:13 PM Star Trek is not dark and gritty enough to survive in the current entertainment environment. If they would have had another series that went ahead with the "corruption" and stuff going on in the Federation and didn't reboot with Enterprise, they probably would have had a better show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Montague on December 15, 2008, 01:12:58 PM The whole time travel aspect of the movie is their attempt to explain the differences from canon to their most OCD fans. This. I have a friend of mine who runs a Star Trek RPG (GURPS system). I'm more than conversant with TOS and STNG, but most of the one game I played was filled with him saying variations of "Well you wouldn't do that because..." followed by the most anal lorewhoring that would put Forgotten Realms fanboys to shame. As for me I'm just kinda meh on the whole thing. Good Star Trek characters take a period of time to settle in. If you watch the early TOS episodes Nimoy is still feeling his way around, he smiles at times and raises his voice. Encounter at Farpoint had more than a few cringe-worthy moments, and any episode where Riker doesn't have a beard is usually bad, and of course Sisko has been already mentioned. Despite the special effects Star Trek shines or fails on characterization, and I doubt whether this group will be up to the challenge on the first go-round. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2008, 04:36:57 PM If this is supposed to be a reboot why does how it fits with Trek canon even matter? It's not supposed to be a reboot. Are you certain about this? I didn't read anything in that article that indicates future Trek TV and movies won't flow from the new timeline. I'm not certain about a movie I haven't seen yet, of coure. But you never hear them say "reboot" or somesuch. Just a lot of writer wank about quantum timelines. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 15, 2008, 05:21:08 PM Upon reading that time travel is an important plot point in the upcoming movie, I am somewhat less enthusiastic. (http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/) The only part about that article that pissed me off was the constant "Quantum Mechanics is the latest, best, most awesome scientific theory ever!" stuff spouted by whoever was being interviewed. It made me want to strangle him with his entrails, while using his own still beating heart for a gag. Yea, wtf is that all about? He writing a book or something? Why does it hafta be the "most tested" multiple times? It's not like this explains anything, but it's like he's soooo worried about getting egged on the street or something. They didn't like the name Farragut, they put Kelvin in because it sounded more scientific, Leonard Nimoy was available for a bit part, and they needed to justify a completely new casts. So they retconned the whole thing. Who gives a crap? Even the most ardent Trek fans are used to Paramount not giving a shit about consistency. It feels like an overemphasis on explaining stuff nobody cares about. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Broughden on December 15, 2008, 10:59:17 PM Good. I hope this is used as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise in future TV series, movies, etc. Ditch the Federation, make Earth and Vulcan enemies (cold logicians who believe emotional races should be destroyed, etc) and make all the other races cranky and Star Warsy. Every Star Trek since the TOS could be named "The Democratic Senate Caucus Tries To Find A Way To Peacefully Resolve Things But Then Is Forced To Defend Itself With Plucky Human Ingenuity: The Series." Better idea: Turn it into what the Federation should really be like with the technology they've got i.e. The Culture.Just turn it into the Starfleet Battles universe... Also, Ironwood is as wrong as it is humanly possible to be about DS9, even though it's only a copy of B5. No he's not. DS9 sucked monkey balls. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 16, 2008, 01:36:25 PM Who doesn't like mutant, vampire, time-traveling, space Nazis? *raises hand* Can I watch a show with those? It sounds kind of cool! At least if it's not Star Trek. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: shiznitz on December 29, 2008, 10:17:31 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on January 02, 2009, 01:55:46 PM Overall I didn't like DS9 either. It's not Star Trek. It's not. Star. Trek. A journey thru the stars. Star Trek is about going out there and making contact; in Kirk's case it's either by fist or penis but I digress.
DS9 should have been called Federation Flophouse. Hey! Guess who's visiting the flophouse this week! It looks like Klingons! They had some good episodes, particularly dealing with the big Dominion War, but it was too passive. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 02, 2009, 04:28:03 PM And Voyager WAS Star Trek in a way that not even TNG was. Same with Enterprise. Didn't help them either.
Personally though, I could care less about Star Trek. I think I just like Space Bar type of shit. Sci-fi civilian shit. Space smuggler stories too. DS9 had a good deal of this type of writing. I've said before that Futurama is my favorite sci-fi series.. And I like Buck Rogers too. Hah. More shows like that please. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on January 02, 2009, 04:38:06 PM I think one of the problems with DS9 and Enterprise was they went away from each episode being pretty much separate from all other episodes.
With TNG, someone who hadn't watched it before could watch an episode towards the end of the series, and know wtf was going on. Not so much since then (I don't mention TOS because I don't care for it and really don't watch it). It effects pretty much all TV these days unfortunately. I don't like being shackled into watching every single fucking episode, whether they be good or bad, in order to understand what is going on. It's why I never bothered finishing BSG. I missed a couple of episodes and had no way of watching them unless I dl'd them. I guess that might also be one of the reasons why I prefer Stargate SG1 over Atlantis. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2009, 08:10:05 AM Overall I didn't like DS9 either. It's not Star Trek. It's not. Star. Trek. A journey thru the stars. Star Trek is about going out there and making contact; in Kirk's case it's either by fist or penis but I digress. DS9 should have been called Federation Flophouse. Hey! Guess who's visiting the flophouse this week! It looks like Klingons! They had some good episodes, particularly dealing with the big Dominion War, but it was too passive. That's a supid argument, and you should feel bad for using it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 04, 2009, 08:42:53 AM From what I can see the guys who hated DS9 so much don't really seem to have liked any Star Trek at all since Next Gen. I suspect that Star Trek just isn't for them anymore.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on January 04, 2009, 11:26:13 AM Overall I didn't like DS9 either. It's not Star Trek. It's not. Star. Trek. A journey thru the stars. Star Trek is about going out there and making contact; in Kirk's case it's either by fist or penis but I digress. DS9 should have been called Federation Flophouse. Hey! Guess who's visiting the flophouse this week! It looks like Klingons! They had some good episodes, particularly dealing with the big Dominion War, but it was too passive. That's a supid argument, and you should feel bad for using it. On the other hand, your counter-argument made some very valid and insightful points. Oh wait... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2009, 11:51:52 AM Overall I didn't like DS9 either. It's not Star Trek. It's not. Star. Trek. A journey thru the stars. Star Trek is about going out there and making contact; in Kirk's case it's either by fist or penis but I digress. DS9 should have been called Federation Flophouse. Hey! Guess who's visiting the flophouse this week! It looks like Klingons! They had some good episodes, particularly dealing with the big Dominion War, but it was too passive. That's a supid argument, and you should feel bad for using it. On the other hand, your counter-argument made some very valid and insightful points. Oh wait... C'mon man! You can dislike the format but "It's not Star Trek because they're not trekking through the stars!" really misses the point. Not a few of us liked the series and liked the stories they told. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: WindupAtheist on January 04, 2009, 12:03:27 PM Original > DS9 > TNG > Enterprise > Voyager
"But Star Trek is supposed to be about trekking through the staaaars, exploring and meeting alien races that look like humans with bumpy heads, and making contact with them in ways that transparently ape contemporary political issues!" Bah, my ass. Original Trek succeeded as a sci-fi adventure show about Kirk the two-fisted space pimp and his loyal crew, and succeeded because it was a fun show with good characters and generally pretty good writing. DS9 was uneven, but overall successful for the same reasons. Both shows were willing and able to work in some humor, DS9 in particular with stuff like Bashir and Garak getting stuck in Bashir's cheesy James Bond holodeck fantasy. I love that episode. TNG was some kind of transgendered vegetarian politically correct castrated version of original Trek, and the other two were just incoherent garbage. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on January 04, 2009, 12:13:17 PM DS9 in particular with stuff like Bashir and Garak getting stuck in Bashir's cheesy James Bond holodeck fantasy. I love that episode. I think that one was an homage to the early TNG episode where Picard, Crusher, and Data get stuck in Picard's cheesy Maltese Falcon holodeck fantasy. Also one of my favorites. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2009, 01:07:49 PM DS9 in particular with stuff like Bashir and Garak getting stuck in Bashir's cheesy James Bond holodeck fantasy. I love that episode. I think that one was an homage to the early TNG episode where Picard, Crusher, and Data get stuck in Picard's cheesy Maltese Falcon holodeck fantasy. Also one of my favorites. Man, it's hard to concentrate now. Your avatar keeps giving me a boner. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 04, 2009, 01:13:35 PM Although Garak and Dukat were my favorite characters, my favorite episode is when Quark and his brother accidentally traveled back in time and crashed on earth, circa 1948 -- in Roswell, New Mexico. Heh
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on January 04, 2009, 02:40:37 PM Man, it's hard to concentrate now. Your avatar keeps giving me a boner. Enjoy the season while it lasts, there's only one day left. :cry: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2009, 03:06:58 PM Man, it's hard to concentrate now. Your avatar keeps giving me a boner. Enjoy the season while it lasts, there's only one day left. :cry: I am mildly curious. What's the occasion? (And is there a larger version of that pic...) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on January 04, 2009, 03:46:22 PM It's an obscure Christian holiday that lasts twelve days. You probably haven't heard of it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on January 04, 2009, 08:48:22 PM TOS wasn't immune from the occasional heavyhanded political message. I seem to remember an episode where aliens with black and white faces (but reversed from each other!) destroyed each other in a civil war. The difference is that Kirk actually seemed like a badass, whereas every other captain was a Democratic U.S. Senator.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rasix on January 04, 2009, 08:50:07 PM I think you just insulted Picard. Wake up, TIME TO DIE.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on January 04, 2009, 08:53:10 PM TNG was a good show. Picard did what he was supposed to do well. But at the end of the day, he was still the senior U.S. Senator from someplace like Delaware.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 04, 2009, 08:53:18 PM Actually, Janeway was probably insane. Where Kirk duped someone for the (hundredth) time that he was going to self-destruct his ship to gain an advantage, Janeway would actually press the button. She did that multiple times.. Not to mention diving into things many times just on gusto, without a plan (hell, the entire show's premise is built on that).
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2009, 03:15:40 AM It's an obscure Christian holiday that lasts twelve days. You probably haven't heard of it. I noticed fairly early you were doing this again (and properly this time !). As I mentioned last year, I'm impressed. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on January 05, 2009, 03:21:32 AM Actually, Janeway was probably insane. Where Kirk duped someone for the (hundredth) time that he was going to self-destruct his ship to gain an advantage, Janeway would actually press the button. She did that multiple times.. Not to mention diving into things many times just on gusto, without a plan (hell, the entire show's premise is built on that). She is the absolute worst captain of any of the shows. Only Tuvok and the indian guy (not gonna try to spell it) kept her from fucking up constantly. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tebonas on January 05, 2009, 05:25:19 AM To be fair to the other captains, Sisko became increasingly badass through the series, up to a highpoint where he actually incited Garak to assassinate Romulans to draw them into a war on the Federations side.
Actually poisoning a planet to draw the bad guy out of hiding wasn't that weak and accommodating either. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on January 05, 2009, 05:55:25 AM TOS wasn't immune from the occasional heavyhanded political message. I seem to remember an episode where aliens with black and white faces (but reversed from each other!) destroyed each other in a civil war. The difference is that Kirk actually seemed like a badass, whereas every other captain was a Democratic U.S. Senator. Hey, guess what. TOS was CONCEIVED to push heavy-handed liberal political messages. "All races" and a RUSSIAN on a ship? An interracial kiss? Zomg, fucking liberals messing with our kids minds in the 60's! In some interview (I think it was shown in "How Star Trek changed the world") Nichelle Nichols relates how she called Roddenberry on it one day and he conceded but said "keep it between us or they won't let me continue," or somesuch. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on January 05, 2009, 06:27:12 AM From what I can see the guys who hated DS9 so much don't really seem to have liked any Star Trek at all since Next Gen. I suspect that Star Trek just isn't for them anymore. That's because Star Trek got progressively worse after TNG. Sorry, but it did. Rick Berman (I think that's his name) pretty much destroyed the house that Rodenberry built. To make it clear, it's not that Star Trek isn't for us anymore, it's that Star Trek become the anti-matter to good television's matter. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 05, 2009, 06:55:07 AM Voy and DS9 succeeded in lasting the same length of time, and had as many high points and low points as TNG.. In the end, it's all basically the same to me on a dramatic level. Trying to proclaim anymore than that, like what was more closer to this "ideal" view of whatever the fuck the "Star Trek" is and isn't supposed to be is way beyond my limits. There's a general idea, sure -- and they all kept to it. Other than that, I'm just looking to be entertained... on the simplest level.
[edit] By the way, all of you are too (just wanting to be entertained, I mean).. At least when you didn't let dumb shit like that get in your way. I mean, I could transfer stories from various Voyager or DS9 episodes, and put them in another setting -- and you'd fucking eat them up. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on January 05, 2009, 07:10:24 AM Voyager had high points? Really? I'm asking because I couldn't even stomach the first half season and gave up on it then. I was amazed it lasted as long as it did. More surprising to me was that I enjoyed Enterprise (with some very obvious missteps on their part) and hated Voyager so strongly.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 05, 2009, 07:14:56 AM Pretty much everything that focused on the Doctor was a high point.
[edit] Oh yeah, there was one story arc where these "Predator" type of hunter dudes had a clash with the Voyager crew. Janeway finally came to a truce, and offered them holodeck technology where they could channel their sport into that (it's a little more complex than that, but that's basically what it came down to). It got cool many episodes later when they ran into them again, and it turned out that they had been leaving their holo technology on the whole time -- and the holo characters became sentient and started a rebellion. Then Janeway was in the thick of it, confused on whether to help the hunters or the holos. The actors who played the holos were all based on Alpha quadrant races too, so you had Klingons and Romulans working together -- their leader was religious, a Bajoran (he knew he was a hologram, but he still believed in Bajoran religion.. and that was the reason why he was such a forceful personality in the first place). Anyways, it was pretty original, I think. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on January 05, 2009, 10:49:55 AM Voyager would have been great if it had a 90% different cast and 50% different writers. The basic premise was fine though.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on January 05, 2009, 12:08:50 PM Aside from the easy watching factor, where I could turn my brain off after working overtime and just stare at Voyager until I dropped off to sleep, and not worry that I was going to miss anything interesting... there were a handful of episodes that weren't total shite.
My favorite is the planet that was in a pocket of time that was sped up. After entering orbit, Voyager couldn't pull away without mucking up the planet, and didn't have enough power to make a sure getaway anyway. So they remained in orbit for a few days, which translated to thousands and thousands of years down on the time planet. With Voyager observable from the surface. And the inhabitants had some interesting reactions to a starship in orbit that didn't seem to do much of anything for thousands of years. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on January 05, 2009, 12:12:06 PM Voy and DS9 succeeded in lasting the same length of time, and had as many high points and low points as TNG.. This is where your argument falls apart for me. TNG had say 70% good episodes, 20% meh episodes and 10% awful episodes. These other two series? They reversed that breakdown. BTW, the numbers are purely made up, it boils down to: TNG good>bad Voy,DS9 bad>good and Enterprise? All bad. It had the hottest actress ever in Star Trek and Sam and I still couldn't make it past the first season! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 05, 2009, 01:18:38 PM Golly. There's just no way I'd even try to argue with those hard stats you're quoting. I'm too intimidated now to even ask for the source of them much less their methodology.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on January 05, 2009, 01:27:20 PM Golly. There's just no way I'd even try to argue with those hard stats you're quoting. I'm too intimidated now to even ask for the source of them much less their methodology. Jesus... BTW, the numbers are purely made up, it boils down to: TNG good>bad Voy,DS9 bad>good and Enterprise? All bad. You fail at reading. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 05, 2009, 01:34:41 PM Quote You fail at reading. Ha you got me. Your post just made my eyes roll so hard I must have missed that sentence. In any case, you're obviously one of those guys that hasn't liked Trek in a good twenty years. You just don't like it anymore. It's ok. Tastes change. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on January 05, 2009, 02:03:25 PM In any case, you're obviously one of those guys that hasn't liked Trek in a good twenty years. You just don't like it anymore. It's ok. Tastes change. *takes a deep breath* I'm by no means a Trekkie or Trekker or whatever the term is but I like Trek. I didn't like shows past TNG because they were sterile, poorly written pieces of crap that are being produced solely to cash in on the fans. Star Trek became horrible and needed to be stopped before it was past saving. This new movie looks interesting and I have some hopes for it but we'll see what happens. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 05, 2009, 02:11:45 PM Who knows? I guess it's remotely possible that you will suddenly start to enjoy it again for the first time in decades.
Perhaps the new Trek movie will have a spunky 13 year old who saves the ship over and over and over until blood shoots out of your ears. 'Cause really. That's what Star Trek is all about. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tebonas on January 05, 2009, 04:26:59 PM You sure you watched DS9? Usually the attacks against DS9 are the exact opposite of what you say. That its too gritty for a Trek, and that its long story arches run counter to the standard episode of the week concept.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 05, 2009, 04:46:40 PM It had it's share of "grit", but it also had a lot of humor to it. Obvious humor and subtle. That's always the first thing that comes to mind when I think of it. Some people recommended BSG to me because it focused on "grit", but that isn't why I even watched DS9. Those two shows weren't going for the same thing at all (it's nothing like "Babylon 5" to me either, another show people recommend. I mean, if BSG and Babylon 5 is someone's idea of a better DS9, then they weren't watching DS9. They might be better by some standard, but they're entirely different).
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evildrider on January 05, 2009, 05:03:11 PM Babylon 5 sucked ass.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 05, 2009, 05:04:57 PM I've only seen a few episodes of it.. Same with BSG. Couldn't get into either one.
But.. I understand that's how some people feel about DS9 as well (I'll be the first to admit that it didn't get off to a good start too --- but neither did any other Trek.). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on January 05, 2009, 05:37:06 PM Just rewatched Wrath of Khan. It's still awesome. If Abrams is smart he'll have looked to a lot of that films more subtle touches as inspiration.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on January 05, 2009, 07:27:31 PM I hope the new flick is good. Itll give me impetus to run the old FASA Star Trek RPG I just got. Ship counters only half punched out. Great price and outside of the box wear and tear (its a 20+ year old copy!) its practically in perfect condition! :drill:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Abagadro on January 05, 2009, 07:47:22 PM Quote Some people recommended BSG to me because it focused on "grit", but that isn't why I even watched DS9. Those two shows weren't going for the same thing at all I actually think they are remarkably similar. Not surprising considering they were made by the same guy. I'm one of those (and there are many) who think Trek improved mightily after Roddenberry had nothing to do with it. The entire first season and a half of TNG was absolutely terrible except for maybe 2 episodes. Only when Gene stepped aside did things really get going well IMO. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on January 05, 2009, 08:10:54 PM I'm one of those (and there are many) who think Trek improved mightily after Roddenberry had nothing to do with it. The entire first season and a half of TNG was absolutely terrible except for maybe 2 episodes. Only when Gene stepped aside did things really get going well IMO. QFT. I've heard that Patrick Stewart kept his bags packed for the first 3 or so seasons. He expected it to fail any day. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 05, 2009, 09:29:14 PM Quote Some people recommended BSG to me because it focused on "grit", but that isn't why I even watched DS9. Those two shows weren't going for the same thing at all I actually think they are remarkably similar. Not surprising considering they were made by the same guy. Yeah, and I gravitated towards it when some told me that he was involved. I just couldn't get into it though. This may sound cheesy, but it could have been because it was a post 9/11 type of deal -- I mean, it seemed a lot more bleak and in touch with themes of war and crisis. I didn't stick around long, but I didn't notice much potential for humor either. On the flipside, even when DS9 got fully settled into it's Dominion story arc, characters like Weyoun (who was always getting killed by his shapeshifter superiors and cloned) were funny. And BSG Cylons are nowhere near as funny in their deception as Cardassians. I can't emphasize enough how funny Garak and Dukat become as the show progresses. Garak's the best Star Trek side character ever, and Dukat the best villain ever. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on January 06, 2009, 06:00:58 AM You sure you watched DS9? Usually the attacks against DS9 are the exact opposite of what you say. That its too gritty for a Trek, and that its long story arches run counter to the standard episode of the week concept. To be fair, I was generalizing. My problem with DS9 was that the characters didn't click with me, especially the Captain. How that particular actor managed to play a Captain that I not only didn't like but that actively pissed me off I don't know. So, yeah, with DS9 it was more about the characters than the writing. I liked a couple of them, Quark and Bashir mostly. I liked umm...spotfacegirl kinda, but that's mostly because she was hot. Her character was kind of boring in the first season. I hear she improved later but they'd already lost me by then. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 06, 2009, 06:23:26 AM The first DS9 episode had Sisko hating Picard, I thought the forced hate was such a lazy and obvious way to introduce an important new character. I liked the original series, the casting in the later ones was either excellent or terrible, also too many kids.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on January 06, 2009, 10:55:28 AM Some people recommended BSG to me because it focused on "grit", but that isn't why I even watched DS9. Those two shows weren't going for the same thing at all I actually think they are remarkably similar. Not surprising considering they were made by the same guy. Oh dang. I didn't know Ronald Moore had a hand in DS9. I love everything I've seen of his except BSG. By all rights I should like that show, but it just never clicked with me. Quote I'm one of those (and there are many) who think Trek improved mightily after Roddenberry had nothing to do with it. The entire first season and a half of TNG was absolutely terrible except for maybe 2 episodes. Only when Gene stepped aside did things really get going well IMO. Sad yet true. Edit: quote blocks >_< Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on January 06, 2009, 11:53:00 AM Counterpoint to the "Voyager was good Star Trek" arguement: Threshold.
And seriously, people complaining about DS9/B5/BSG because they have story arcs? Really? You like reset buttons every week? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on January 06, 2009, 12:24:58 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 06, 2009, 02:17:45 PM Counterpoint to the "Voyager was good Star Trek" arguement: Threshold. And seriously, people complaining about DS9/B5/BSG because they have story arcs? Really? You like reset buttons every week? Mind you, I never said it was good. Just that it had some good elements. So did Enterprise, but I'm not that much of a fan of either one. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on January 06, 2009, 06:31:47 PM Counterpoint to the "Voyager was good Star Trek" arguement: Threshold. And seriously, people complaining about DS9/B5/BSG because they have story arcs? Really? You like reset buttons every week? I'm going to admit a horrible secret. I like Voyager. It was the first Trek I watched as a kid when it was first starting (DS9 was on too late), and I pretty much never missed an episode. It is probably my second fav series after TNG (which I also watched the hell out of when I was a kid). I never really watched DS9, it has never really been on at a good time for me even to this day. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ingmar on January 07, 2009, 03:13:45 PM I don't know that I've ever seen a show with such a completely huge gulf in acting quality between the best performances and the worst performances than B5. On the 'incredibly good' end you had Londo and G'Kar just completely dominating the screen every time they were on it, despite their extreme makeup and prosthetics and such, and on the 'incredibly awful' end you had Lyta, who had no sense of timing AT ALL - and the doctor was painful too. I liked the show but it was definitely held back by some of the actors. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on January 07, 2009, 03:21:31 PM It helps that Andreas Katsulas (G'kar) was one of those fanatics as far as character actors go. The DVD set has a story that he'd get into makeup and WAS G'Kar until he took it off again, even at meal breaks or when having a cigarette. Too bad he never got any really big roles. His only other series with more than 2 appearances was TNG.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Abagadro on January 07, 2009, 10:29:06 PM Quote and on the 'incredibly awful' end you had Lyta, who had no sense of timing AT ALL To be fair, Patricia Tallman is more of a stunt woman than an actress. The only reason she ended up in the series past the pilot was because Andrea Thompson bailed to go be on CNN. I agree there was a huge gulf but mainly because Katsulas and Jurasik were so awesome (I'd also throw in Mummy, Furlan and Boxlietner in an elevated category, but not as elevated as those two). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 08, 2009, 03:21:56 AM It always cracked me up seeing Billy Mumy in the credits. It gave me Lost in Space flashbacks.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Johny Cee on January 08, 2009, 05:27:34 AM It always cracked me up seeing Billy Mumy in the credits. It gave me Lost in Space flashbacks. I always wondered why he didn't send the bad guys to the corn field.... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on January 10, 2009, 07:52:00 AM Voyager had high points? Really? Year of Hell, that episode where they're introduced to Slipstream tech (by that vengeful guy), and the one where the prototype Federation ship split into three parts were all pretty cool. Where they fell down was that they didn't carry through in almost any of these concepts because their contracts required full seasons on programmed cycles. I didn't hate this show with the bile some have here. I didn't really hate DS9 either, I just got bored with it purportedly before it got good. And Enterprise was just a bunch of retconned crap I was glad to see them stop doing. I like the lore of Star Trek, but the entire IP needed the reboot we may get with the next movie. And if that doesn't succeed in breathing life back into it, ah well. More important things in this world are no longer with us either. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 10, 2009, 08:10:47 AM Enterprise had one standout story arc: Brent Spiner came in and played Data's grandfather -- the Soong before the Soong. Hell, I don't even remember all of the details, but umm.. He was a genetic engineer or some such. He created these super soldier kids -- the oldest of which was played by the guy who played Paul Atreides in the Sci Fi Dune movies. Anyways, they got out of control with the asskicking or somesuch. Again, I don't remember the details, but something about his genetic modifactions were tied into how the appearance of the Klingons changed as well (from the TOS look to the TNG ridged foreheads).. which is where it got pretty funny.
Also, General Shran was a funny character. Because the actor Jeffrey Combs (who played a Ferenghi in DS9, along with Weyoun from the Dominion, along with a host of other shit.. the best of which is the doctor from Re-Animator...) is basically the funniest actor to ever be in Trek. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on January 10, 2009, 08:58:13 AM It always cracked me up seeing Billy Mumy in the credits. It gave me Lost in Space flashbacks. I always wondered why he didn't send the bad guys to the corn field.... That one's even more obscure, and even more awesome. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 11, 2009, 04:55:41 PM That Brent Spiner story arc was in the last season after they'd replaced the writers who gave us the mutant vampire time travelling space nazis. The last season really wasn't bad. I was sorry they didn't get that writing team earlier. They might have saved the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on January 12, 2009, 12:21:29 AM You're dreaming.
Pretty much all the way through the thread. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 12, 2009, 02:25:05 AM Yeah, yea, I know. It's all shit and the writers are cunts. Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on January 12, 2009, 05:47:23 AM Also, General Shran was a funny character. Because the actor Jeffrey Combs (who played a Ferenghi in DS9, along with Weyoun from the Dominion, along with a host of other shit.. the best of which is the doctor from Re-Animator...) is basically the funniest actor to ever be in Trek. Also had a one episode role in Voyager and Babylon 5 too. Soon to be appearing as Wilbur Whateley in a new version of the Dunwich Horror from the director that brought you "Transmorphers", "Flu Bird Horror" and "Hillside Cannibals". Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on January 12, 2009, 12:51:49 PM Last season of Enterprise was actually pretty cool if you ask me, the rest was crap.
I liked DS9 once the better story arcs were getting established. I will always watch a TNG show, and Voyager was always shit. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 15, 2009, 10:38:01 AM You sure you watched DS9? Usually the attacks against DS9 are the exact opposite of what you say. That its too gritty for a Trek, and that its long story arches run counter to the standard episode of the week concept. You had to stick with it for a while to get to that though. The first couple of seasons had a very different feel to the later ones. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on January 16, 2009, 06:54:32 AM Last season of Enterprise was actually pretty cool if you ask me, the rest was crap. Yeah, but this is the important bit. It was dead already. The last season was merely giving a transfusion to a corpse. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on January 21, 2009, 01:54:21 PM Once the put in a pretty good plot line and figured out how to create a storyline it got good. They had to many retarded "lets explore random space" episodes that got rediculous.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on January 21, 2009, 09:49:21 PM It's probably already been said, but I would have preferred Star Trek to take on a new crew and ship for the movie, not rehash TOS.
Also, I don't get the excitement around this. The preview did nothing for me. ... I'll show myself out. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2009, 08:34:06 AM I'd like them to jump 500 years into the future and do something new. Make it a good TV show, change the attitude so it's less hoakey and more sci-fi. A more serious attitude, it doesn't have to be grungy etc.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on January 22, 2009, 08:37:30 AM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.
That's why we had Enterprise. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on January 22, 2009, 09:03:55 AM Guys, I wish you'd get it through your heads : They Don't Care What You Want.
Really. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on January 22, 2009, 09:23:45 AM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with. That's why we had Enterprise. Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do. At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Broughden on January 22, 2009, 12:10:55 PM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with. That's why we had Enterprise. Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do. At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want. They did that already. See Star Wars. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on January 22, 2009, 01:40:22 PM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with. That's why we had Enterprise. Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do. At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on January 22, 2009, 04:02:18 PM Although a Culture TV series would be interesting to watch, I don't think there's a large enough market for it. Yeah, when I started thinking about what the Federation could look like in 10k years all I got was Culture too. Well, I'd watch it. :drill: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on January 22, 2009, 05:49:19 PM The immediate timeline following DS9 is expansive enough. After the Dominion loses, the "Gamma" quadrant (if I recall correctly) is open for exploration. Voyager also had the Federation represent itself in the Delta quadrant, so there's that. Both of them are pretty alien places (in Trek terms), especially the Gamma. Thirdly, Fed, Romulan, and Klingon finally united towards the end of it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nevermore on January 23, 2009, 06:18:54 AM Poor, neglected Beta quadrant.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2009, 06:32:57 AM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with. That's why we had Enterprise. Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do. At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want. They did that already. See Star Wars. Star Wars was in the past. Ya know, "Long time ago in a galaxy far far away.." Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on January 24, 2009, 05:14:05 AM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with. That's why we had Enterprise. Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do. At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want. They did that already. See Star Wars. Err? Outside of KOTOR, most of the stuff everyone cares about happened in the space of, at most, 75 years. That's less of a span than from Enterprise through Nemesis. Though of course, they did make everything up as they went in SW too :grin: On Trek, going back into the past has absolutely no value beyond pissing the fanbois off, particularly that late in the Trek IP. You weren't going to get a zillion new viewers because you lost that potential on DS9 and Voyager already. So all you had left was to fill in a timeline that had already been completely defined in book form, which means your series is a comic-book retcon with the same nerdrage attached. Their only hope is this next movie. If that tanks (in that it doesn't attract more newbies than trekkies they likely lose), then it goes dormant again. But even if it's successful, unless these same actors (or most of them) move on to a subsequent TV series, it's going to be just a movie license. That's fine, but more a cash cow than an IP reinvention, imho. Because, if you lose the nerds, you're losing book sales, and therefore your entire story is just being told through movies every few years. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on January 24, 2009, 05:37:24 AM I think the continued participation of the "Trek has been DEAD since Wrath of Khan!!!11one!!" crowd in this thread proves that it's impossible to "lose the nerds" no matter what. They'll keep watching it on television and paying to rent DVDs or see the movies just so they can nerd it up on the internet with mammoth displays of angst.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on January 24, 2009, 06:13:10 AM So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with. That's why we had Enterprise. Prequels are even more bound by legacy than sequels, since the framework is already laid out in the lore. You know which characters are under threat and which ones aren't. I never got the idea of "Enterprise" - it seemed to be based on the idea of "let's take this sci-fi series backwards because that's what people will want to see". They were wrong. We wanted to see new stories, not nods to lore from other series (or even total disregard of established lore). To use the Star Wars link: Darth Vader was badass because he was badass, not because of anything he did while he was Annie Skywalker. Although what happened as Skywalker turned him into Vader, it really didn't do much for the character other than fill in some blanks (e.g. "He likes sand"). Arguably this was because the prequels were awful from a narrative point of view, but that's as it was. If the idea is to reboot Star Trek, then do that. A new crew, a new mission, not a "here are all the names of characters you know, but with flashier effects and you can know learn why James T. Kirk is compelled to bone alien chicks regardless of what diseases he might catch and we can hear where each character learned their catch phrase"-type fill-in. The whole time-travelling Spock thing also fills me with dread. Because time-travel + Star Trek = high probability of suck. "Trouble with Tribbles" is a noted exception, but that was a comedy episode. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: pxib on January 24, 2009, 03:31:50 PM Like the Marvel and DC comic worlds, Star Trek is old enough and geeky enough that it practically MUST escape its own continuity in order to flourish. The ancient trivia is largely embarrassing, and every time a writer has to reference it they risk either offending loud fans who know it exists and will not shut up, or simultaneously confusing and disappointing the high expectations of the narratively savvy uninitiated. That weight of background information serves a very small portion of the entertainment consumer public, and although they'll do the majority of the early word-of-mouth advertising... but when it comes at the expense of fun, accessible storytelling then it will lose more eyeballs than it gains.
So once the world design gets deep enough, outside of throwing a few bones to the rabid fans (a couple inside jokes, a historical reference, the development of a minor character from the canon,) old franchises are well served to stay as far from the known world as they possibly can. For everyone's sake... not just the bottom line's. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on January 25, 2009, 05:33:02 AM Just add on to pxib - every time I see the theme of "young versions of characters" for a film or TV series I /facepalm. Apart from "Muppet Babies" it's not shown to be a good idea - "Young Indiana Jones", "Young Sherlock Holmes", the apparently in pre-production "Young X-Men", etc.
I see this movie as "Star Trek: Young Original Series". It's a dumb idea. IMO. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on January 25, 2009, 07:51:48 AM Because time-travel + Star Trek = high probability of suck. "Trouble with Tribbles" is a noted exception, but that was a comedy episode. :nda: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on January 26, 2009, 08:04:08 AM Just add on to pxib - every time I see the theme of "young versions of characters" for a film or TV series I /facepalm. Apart from "Muppet Babies" it's not shown to be a good idea - "Young Indiana Jones", "Young Sherlock Holmes", the apparently in pre-production "Young X-Men", etc. I see this movie as "Star Trek: Young Original Series". It's a dumb idea. IMO. I never saw Young Indiana Jones but I've always heard it was good. As for Sherlock, I actually have a bit of a weak spot for the movie even if it is trademark Spielberg '80s kid movies. Young X-men sounds like the suck though. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on January 26, 2009, 05:00:09 PM I've heard that "Young Indiana Jones" is good too, but I've never seen an episode that didn't bore me to tears.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: taleril on January 30, 2009, 03:01:15 PM Because time-travel + Star Trek = high probability of suck. "Trouble with Tribbles" is a noted exception, but that was a comedy episode. :nda: Is there a "Trouble with Tribbles: The Game" beta that you can't legally discuss? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on January 31, 2009, 08:14:30 AM I figured because he thought "Trouble with Tribbles" sucked, or I got the name of the episode wrong, or something like that.
And I did - the DS9 episode was "Trials and Tribble-ations" which included TOS "Trouble with Tribbles" footage. My bad. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on February 01, 2009, 05:06:13 AM Yeah, but I didn't dare point it out or Reg would POUNCE !
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on February 01, 2009, 09:32:54 AM You were wearing your collectible Spock ears just now when you posted that message weren't you? All you bitter "Trek's been dead since the Wrath of Khan" guys have collectible Spock ears. It's a well known fact.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nebu on February 01, 2009, 09:35:29 AM Nerd slapfights are always more about comparing trivial pursuit knowledge than actual comparisons of merit. That or attempts to emulate the nerd status quo.
I always preferred the original Star Trek to the derivatives, but it's largely because the original has nostalgic ties to my childhood. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: rattran on February 01, 2009, 09:45:15 AM I'm with Nebu. I picked up the restored old series hd-dvds and rewatched season 1. Lots of fun. I gave up on the Next Gen pretty early, it was okay moral-of-the-week tv, but didn't really seem to have much in common with the old stuff except names.
So I guess Trek to me has been pretty much dead since the Mid 70's, before the movie with that Persis chick. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on February 01, 2009, 01:09:39 PM I could never get into TOS as a child, since it was slow, boring, and talky.
Basically it wasn't Star Wars. And was thus inferior. I tried giving it another shot in the remastered version, but it still failed to wow me. It was just.. meh. Even the big episodes like City on the Edge and the one with the Doomsday Device failed to do anything for me. Maybe this makes me a sci fi heretic (along with largely hating the entire work of Joss Whedom), but fuck it. By this point I am never gonna be anything but an outsider regardless of what I do so why fucking even care? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on February 01, 2009, 01:54:10 PM City on the Edgeof Forever is an overrated bit that's only good if you like the characters to begin with. The Doomsday Device is pretty good, but some of the pacing feels and it isn't as suspenseful as it once was, imo.
Naked Time, Balance of Terror, Amok Time, Who Mourns for Adonis? and Patterns of Force were all better episodes, IMO. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Abagadro on February 01, 2009, 03:25:29 PM Quote Balance of Terror This is the best episode of TOS in my opinion and it never gets shown in syndication for some reason. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on February 02, 2009, 03:27:19 AM Quote Balance of Terror This is the best episode of TOS in my opinion and it never gets shown in syndication for some reason. This man speaks the truth. It's a great reflection of Cold War paranoia, plus a suspenseful battle. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on February 02, 2009, 03:45:14 AM When TV land was showing Star Trek they'd show every episode in the original rotation and Balance of Terror came up quite a few times. Of course, as of January 1 they're showing infomercials until something like 11am, so no more Star Trek. Or Night Court for that matter :cry:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on February 02, 2009, 02:26:15 PM Balance of Terror was one of the first remastered episodes they showed. It wasn't bad, but again.. didn't WOW me. Kept me interested though.
I think the Trek in my head without any socialist utopia or prime directives and just based around cool ships blowing each other up and a lot less rubber foreheads is the Trek I always wanted. So basically Starfleet Universe, the kind of Trek but not really from Starfleet Battles and Federation Commander. (The latter being an actually fun game for people who are only mostly nerdy poindexters.) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: AngryGumball on February 02, 2009, 05:15:58 PM So uh yeah, Karl Urban is Bones? While I can buy his looks, I can't buy him fitting this role based off his past acting then sliding in and filling these shoes I'm gonna expect him to be my leading man now. I expect him to be more excellent than the no name Kirk actor. I even expect him to be more superior than Sylar.
Edit: hurray for 1/2 second commercial shot of him introducing himself. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on February 07, 2009, 06:09:46 PM I don't think it's impossible to lose the nerds. The thing is, you just don't hear from them in most of these threads. I didn't bother to see any of the films after the Borg one, just didn't interest me. I don't care whether they broke canon, or whatever, just seemed boring. Voyager I watched for the first season, it was so very bad as a show (I could care less about what it did to canon) that I was done with that. Enterprise, who cares. And though there are plenty of nerdfights I'll throw a mudball or two in, after Voyager, I haven't even really thought much about Star Trek, despite the fact that it was *the* show that defined my youthful attachment to SF. You can see some of that absence in the ratings and box office and so on. But of course modest indifference and resigned irritation don't catalyze a lot of board posts or other nerd outcry, so debates become defined by the truly obsessive haters and the truly crazed fanbois. As with much geek culture. But don't take that to mean that these are the only stakeholders.
So the only thing for me about this movie is: is it good? I could care less about what it does to canon, except inasmuch as canon offers a good story idea or characterization that gets passed over because some suit has what he thinks is a more marketable idea. As far as world-envisioning canons go, Star Trek is unusually full of shit ideas, inconsistent or unworkable premises, and guns-on-the-mantlepiece that go unfired, so violating that canon still further strikes me as the only consistent thing you could do it anyway. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on March 06, 2009, 03:32:18 AM New Trailer (also showing on Watchmen) is up (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/hd/).
I swear, the stuff these guys say at panels or interviews when they talk about time travel shit, and hinting at TNG tie-ins and possible appearances from Data and Picard, all makes me want to avoid this movie. Every time they release a trailer though it pulls me back in. If I were to forget everything I've seen or heard except for this trailer, I'd say this shit looks fucking awesome. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on March 06, 2009, 06:53:32 AM That commercial was much better than previous ones. I'm not sure what to think about the implications with Uhura's character. Apparently Kirk's dad dying turned her into a slut somehow?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Abagadro on March 06, 2009, 05:48:56 PM I swear, the stuff these guys say at panels or interviews when they talk about time travel shit, and hinting at TNG tie-ins and possible appearances from Data and Picard, all makes me want to avoid this movie. It's possible they are just fucking with people when they say that stuff. This is JJ Abrams after all. He likes to do that sort of thing. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on March 06, 2009, 08:46:22 PM Holy SHIT that was a good trailer. If the movie sucks, I'll just watch this again :grin:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on March 06, 2009, 11:00:43 PM It's possible they are just fucking with people when they say that stuff. This is JJ Abrams after all. He likes to do that sort of thing. But Then Again, this is Star Trek, so...I'm guessing at the end Captain Picard will say "Freeze program" and it will all be a holodeck thing. Or a dream. Probably both. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on March 07, 2009, 01:42:41 AM Long time ST-fan (my father used to watch it during dinner when I was ~10), first time poster in this thread.
I liked TOS. When I was younger, there was even a time I read all the novels as they came out. I liked a lot of TNG, though it had a very different feel. Got bored with DS9 half way through and stoppped watching (apparently, before it became good). Voyager and Enterprise were wastes of time. I only watched a few episodes of each. Next Gen movies kind of all sucked. But then, there are only two classic Trek movies - Khan and Undiscovered Country. I had concerns about Abrams' revision after seeing the previous trailers. I withheld judgment. But this new one? I must quote Dr. Weird's assistant; "Gentlemen! Fill me with barbecue sauce, because I'm dumb as hell!" But what else should I have expected from one of the writers of the science fiction masterpiece Armageddon? Anyway. That clinched it for me. Giving this one a pass. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on March 07, 2009, 06:07:26 AM Ah, so you thought the existing formula was improveable? I can see that. For me, I basically gave up on it around that same before-it-got-good period for DS9. I limped through Voyager semi-interested some of the time and didn't make it past the pilot for Enterprise. Heck, I only really started truly liking TNG after Best of Both Worlds.
The new film is sorta like DCUO for me: it's compelling just because it's different and so far has presented to me an experience I want. Whether it survives me watching/playing, won't know for awhile. But then, I loved Armageddon. :grin: In all seriousness, it was a dumb patriotic ra ra summer movie, and sometimes that's good enough for me. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on March 10, 2009, 01:04:45 AM As a Trek fan myself, I'm very optimistic about this, especially based on the casting and the direction. I'm thinking the biggest potential danger to the movie is the fact that it's a franchise reboot and carries the baggage usually accompanying those. It could go Batman Begins on us(also an origin story) and be all sorts of Robot-Jesus-Awesome, or it could be Superman Returns and make the prospects of future movies very "Meh".
Yes, J.J. Abrams did take part in writing the screenplay for Armageddon's story, but then he also wrote Regarding Henry, Forever Young, created that island show that half the internet nerds all over itself every week, and to top it all off, he wrote my favorite movie to be headlined by Danny Glover and Joe Pesci, Gone Fishin'. Well, maybe that last one was a joke... I liked the last movie he directed, so I guess I'll take that scriptwriter from Armageddon over more vampire-space-nazis-from-the-future-and-the-past and sultry vulcans with the acting prowess of a pickle. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on March 10, 2009, 05:16:18 AM I dunno. As far as time travel shit goes, the Romulan bad guy appears to say something that's very time-travelly in the trailer at one point. Maybe that's just more teasing.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on March 10, 2009, 06:11:42 AM Yes, J.J. Abrams did take part in writing the screenplay for Armageddon's story, but then he also wrote Regarding Henry, Forever Young, created that island show that half the internet nerds all over itself every week, and to top it all off, he wrote my favorite movie to be headlined by Danny Glover and Joe Pesci, Gone Fishin'. Well, maybe that last one was a joke... I liked the last movie he directed, so I guess I'll take that scriptwriter from Armageddon over more vampire-space-nazis-from-the-future-and-the-past and sultry vulcans with the acting prowess of a pickle. Sadly, out of that list of movies the only one I enjoyed was Armageddon and that is a definite guilty pleasure. It's just so damned over the top that I can't help enjoying it. Steve Buscemi's character alone is more entertaining than most characters in other movies. I dunno. As far as time travel shit goes, the Romulan bad guy appears to say something that's very time-travelly in the trailer at one point. Maybe that's just more teasing. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on March 10, 2009, 08:25:06 AM I dunno. As far as time travel shit goes, the Romulan bad guy appears to say something that's very time-travelly in the trailer at one point. Maybe that's just more teasing. Granted, the time-travel aspects apparently in this new movie do give me pause sometimes, but it could not possibly be as bad as Enterprise was, right? RIGHT? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 10, 2009, 02:08:10 PM if the time travel angle is just a way of making this star trek universe2(or five, however many they have) then I'm asll for it because it means they aren't constrained by any of the previous series lore except the very basics.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Miasma on March 10, 2009, 04:53:31 PM I liked star trek IV so I don't really care about the time travel...
Also, bluestripe. (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/blue-stripe-decon.php) You need to read past the first page. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on March 10, 2009, 07:47:03 PM if the time travel angle is just a way of making this star trek universe2(or five, however many they have) then I'm asll for it because it means they aren't constrained by any of the previous series lore except the very basics. This, for me. I'd rather have them try something new and fail spectacularly than pump out another hamfisted life lesson political allegory as the safe thing to do. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on March 11, 2009, 07:51:45 AM Yes. But honestly, if they want to reboot?
Just reboot. Say, "Glad you liked all those other stories. But this is a remake: it's not in the old continuity, it's a new thing with the old characters. No connection except the IP, the characters, the rough situation." The time travel thing saddles it with a nasty storytelling virus that even Robot Jesus would have a hard time getting away from. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: DraconianOne on March 11, 2009, 08:11:23 AM This thread makes me feel like I'm trapped in a time loop.
Maybe Riker will show up and the whole movie will turn out to be a holodeck novel. :awesome_for_real: But Then Again, this is Star Trek, so...I'm guessing at the end Captain Picard will say "Freeze program" and it will all be a holodeck thing. Or a dream. Probably both. Making a good movie should be the only justification they need. If they want to reboot the franchise they should have just rebooted it instead of building this movie around a time travel plot so they could explain away why it doesn't fit in with continuity. You can't really have it both ways. Yes. But honestly, if they want to reboot? Just reboot. Say, "Glad you liked all those other stories. But this is a remake: it's not in the old continuity, it's a new thing with the old characters. No connection except the IP, the characters, the rough situation." The time travel thing saddles it with a nasty storytelling virus that even Robot Jesus would have a hard time getting away from. I'm sure Darniaq has expressed the fact that he's eager to see this movie because it's a refreshing take on an old and faded IP several times as well but that could be an alternative universe influencing the thread and not the temporal Moebius strip that this is turning into. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 11, 2009, 08:18:08 AM Yes. But honestly, if they want to reboot? Just reboot. Say, "Glad you liked all those other stories. But this is a remake: it's not in the old continuity, it's a new thing with the old characters. No connection except the IP, the characters, the rough situation." The time travel thing saddles it with a nasty storytelling virus that even Robot Jesus would have a hard time getting away from. Making it the same universe gives them a lot of leeway for cameos and crossovers. Neither of these things in my mind is a good idea but I'm sure that's the reason it's not an entirely new trek. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on March 11, 2009, 10:43:34 AM Cameos could work as long as the tone set by JJ Abrams is maintained. That means the old style of Trek cameos don't work. Which means they can't throw a cameo character under the bus to show how evolved the sensibilities of the "right" crew is. Which means they can't dig up TOS characters to show how much more evolved Starfleet/Federation has gotten from the guntoting Pike/Kirk days. Which means they don't have Joe Piscopo teach Data music or some crap. Trek became a parady of itself in harkening back to the bygone era of optimism that gave us Back to the Future and Real Genius. The 80s to us is like the 50s to our parents, but Trek didn't really get beyond that, because TNG was their highwater mark.
I want a modern inspired Trek, but without the Heroes-esque hamfisting. I'm sure Darniaq has expressed the fact that he's eager to see this movie because it's a refreshing take on an old and faded IP several times as well but that could be an alternative universe influencing the thread and not the temporal Moebius strip that this is turning into. Yea, but I think there was a precursor thread to this one because even I'm getting deja vu when I say I'm interested just because it's new :-) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on March 11, 2009, 09:12:49 PM What Trek needs is a reboot of the Federation. Make a show about how some catastrophic external threat (maybe Andoria gets the Death Star treatment, or something else like that) causes some elements in the Federation to want go much more militarist and fascist (and others are idealists who want to keep things the same). The planets (and different elements of Starfleet Command) slowly gravitate into those respective camps- the Earth faction and the Vulcan faction, maybe. Things slowly deteriorate into full blown civil war, and the rest of the quadrant factions try to grab a piece of the action at the same time.
That would be good Trek. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on March 11, 2009, 10:17:35 PM That already happened and it was good trek. It was called DS9.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on March 12, 2009, 01:20:10 AM Everyone keeps saying the first season of DS9 sucks, but to be honest, I don't even remember if the first season sucked or not. I just don't remember anything about it. I remember everything else though, and DS9 is by far the best of the bunch. Perhaps it's too little too late for some people, but at the time, I was new to it all, watched the different series back to back, and think that's the most interesting one. And it's silly to just write it off under some excuse that you don't want any more "Star Trek". It's Star Trek, but an entirely different formula. No monster-of-the-week/scientific oddity shit, and actual consistent/longterm antagonist characters (good ones, too).
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on March 12, 2009, 01:25:48 AM No no. All of us world-weary internet guys as we sigh heavily, light up a gauloise and put on our collectible Spock ears are totally confident that Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan. And nothing anyone says can ever change that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on March 12, 2009, 01:29:34 AM I understand why everyone likes Khan.. Villain wise, he's the best. But he only had like a movie and an episode's worth of screentime, right? So to me, Gul Dukat is more interesting. You get tons of Dukat in DS9, and he consistently steals the show, just like Khan did. He's not the aggressive type of villain character like Khan is, but maybe that's why he's so funny to watch too. All Cardassians are funny, even the (relatively) good guys like Garak. They're deceptive bastards. It's cool to see what they do to people over a long period of time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on March 12, 2009, 01:30:19 AM As a little DS9 aside, I still don't understand why they haven't taken the Section 31 concept and built a show around that. It would be a great fit for today's political and idealogical climate, and I think it could be home to some great stories as well.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on March 12, 2009, 07:06:58 AM As a little DS9 aside, I still don't understand why they haven't taken the Section 31 concept and built a show around that. It would be a great fit for today's political and idealogical climate, and I think it could be home to some great stories as well. Wait, was Section 31 in DS9? I read some of the books and they were the kind of Trek I could get behind. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on March 12, 2009, 07:08:53 AM Jeri Ryan was the kind of Trek I could get behind.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on March 12, 2009, 07:25:15 AM I forgot about Section 31. I always thought it'd be cool to see a Trek series through of the eyes of only one character. Not section 31 necessarily, but a Starfleet Intelligence operative or something. It's cool to see one person break the rules, but not an entire clandestine unit. Either way, they'd be the kind of series that leave more options to explore civilian and political life on a deeper level, and the criminal world like the Orion syndicate. Which, after all of the different series have been said and done, still hasn't been touched on enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on March 12, 2009, 09:04:18 AM Wait, was Section 31 in DS9? I read some of the books and they were the kind of Trek I could get behind. Yep. William Sadler had a particularly juicy role in it. Jeri Ryan was the kind of Trek I could get behind. Often I'll catch an episode of Voyager and feel like I really missed out on some decent Trek with the whole Seven-of-Nines plotline; that perhaps I should have watched it when it was first on more often. What was most certainly a fluke at first (anybody arguing that she wasn't brought on for the T&A is full of crap) ended up being exploited quite well for story purposes, and it makes me wish TNG had maybe followed through some more on the whole Hugh/splinter-borg faction theme, but without Lore making a big mess of things. With that having been said, I still second Ironwood's sentiments. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on March 12, 2009, 09:09:56 AM Meh. She had ok stories and bad stories and then she was in the Holodeck in Paris in a sundress.
Worked for me. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Hoax on March 12, 2009, 10:13:25 AM No no. All of us world-weary internet guys as we sigh heavily, light up a gauloise and put on our collectible Spock ears are totally confident that Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan. And nothing anyone says can ever change that. lol'd I'll see this because I've skipped a ton of stuff that was pandering to people like me lately (i.e. every Marvel movie since X-Men 2 except Iron Man) but I really really like spaceships so I don't feel bad watching this. Fucking spaceships 4tw Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on March 14, 2009, 04:23:35 PM This thread makes me feel like I'm trapped in a time loop. Three. :oh_i_see:Maybe Riker will show up and the whole movie will turn out to be a holodeck novel. :awesome_for_real: But Then Again, this is Star Trek, so...I'm guessing at the end Captain Picard will say "Freeze program" and it will all be a holodeck thing. Or a dream. Probably both. Making a good movie should be the only justification they need. If they want to reboot the franchise they should have just rebooted it instead of building this movie around a time travel plot so they could explain away why it doesn't fit in with continuity. You can't really have it both ways. Yes. But honestly, if they want to reboot? Just reboot. Say, "Glad you liked all those other stories. But this is a remake: it's not in the old continuity, it's a new thing with the old characters. No connection except the IP, the characters, the rough situation." The time travel thing saddles it with a nasty storytelling virus that even Robot Jesus would have a hard time getting away from. I'm sure Darniaq has expressed the fact that he's eager to see this movie because it's a refreshing take on an old and faded IP several times as well but that could be an alternative universe influencing the thread and not the temporal Moebius strip that this is turning into. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on March 23, 2009, 01:18:32 AM TACHYONS!
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ashamanchill on March 24, 2009, 10:17:08 PM Holy SHIT that was a good trailer. If the movie sucks, I'll just watch this again :grin: Lol. Honestly this movie is one of the only things on the big screen that looks watchable for the next while. I'm not expecting a whole lot out of it....I just want to see the Enterprise destroy some smug alien ship, and Kirk make it with an alien babe. Is that too much to ask? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ragnoros on March 28, 2009, 08:13:31 AM Holy SHIT that was a good trailer. If the movie sucks, I'll just watch this again :grin: Lol. Honestly this movie is one of the only things on the big screen that looks watchable for the next while. I'm not expecting a whole lot out of it....I just want to see the Enterprise destroy some smug alien ship, and Kirk make it with an alien babe. Is that too much to ask? This. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on April 07, 2009, 12:53:48 PM Apparently there was a total nerdgasm in Austin when there was a surprise early showing of the film at a planned showing of Wrath of Khan. But it's a lot of the usual suspects who've gushed wrongly about other things when studios were sufficiently slavish towards them (think AICN). Still, promising.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on April 07, 2009, 05:59:02 PM Goddammit. I saw that listing in the paper and was thinking about seeing it since seeing Khan in a theater seemed fun. Why the fuck did I decide to play WoW instead? :heartbreak:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azaroth on April 10, 2009, 09:56:30 AM Quote Wait, was Section 31 in DS9? I read some of the books and they were the kind of Trek I could get behind. Yeah, it was introduced during the period that DS9 got good. That being the Dominion Wars. Everyone who quit DS9 before the last couple seasons really missed out. Clear and away the best trek of all time, depending on personal taste. Remove Voyager talk from this thread. We're talking about DS9 now. Voyager is ass and can gtfo. I forgot about Section 31. I always thought it'd be cool to see a Trek series through of the eyes of only one character. Not section 31 necessarily, but a Starfleet Intelligence operative or something. It's cool to see one person break the rules, but not an entire clandestine unit. Watch the DS9 episode"In The Pale Moonlight". For real. Right now. Edit: I used google and wikipedia for you: Quote "In the Pale Moonlight" (working title: Patriot) is the 19th episode of the sixth season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The episode has an average rating of 4.8/5 on the official Star Trek website (as of March 1, 2008), making it the highest rated episode on the website (including all of the Star Trek series).[1] As far as your comment about the Orion Syndicate, that happened in DS9 as well. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on April 25, 2009, 10:24:24 AM Saw this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxTpyCdriY&feature=related) (audio probably NSFW), thought it was a probably a good warm up for all the slash fic that will inevitably follow the movie's release.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on April 25, 2009, 03:29:16 PM Saw this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxTpyCdriY&feature=related) (audio probably NSFW), thought it was a probably a good warm up for all the slash fic that will inevitably follow the movie's release. :drillf: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on April 30, 2009, 02:28:07 AM Quote Wait, was Section 31 in DS9? I read some of the books and they were the kind of Trek I could get behind. Yeah, it was introduced during the period that DS9 got good. That being the Dominion Wars. Everyone who quit DS9 before the last couple seasons really missed out. Clear and away the best trek of all time, depending on personal taste. Remove Voyager talk from this thread. We're talking about DS9 now. Voyager is ass and can gtfo. I forgot about Section 31. I always thought it'd be cool to see a Trek series through of the eyes of only one character. Not section 31 necessarily, but a Starfleet Intelligence operative or something. It's cool to see one person break the rules, but not an entire clandestine unit. Watch the DS9 episode"In The Pale Moonlight". For real. Right now. Edit: I used google and wikipedia for you: Quote "In the Pale Moonlight" (working title: Patriot) is the 19th episode of the sixth season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The episode has an average rating of 4.8/5 on the official Star Trek website (as of March 1, 2008), making it the highest rated episode on the website (including all of the Star Trek series).[1] As far as your comment about the Orion Syndicate, that happened in DS9 as well. Full episode is on youtube now, here is the first part. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyvqPdslROA&feature=channel_page) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NiX on April 30, 2009, 08:48:29 AM Wow, that was an awesome episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on April 30, 2009, 11:08:39 AM (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/12/Vreenak.jpg)
Any excuse to post a Vreenak... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on April 30, 2009, 11:24:26 AM Wow, that was an awesome episode. Yeah, really. Even though I saw the end result of the plot coming it was really well executed. I'm surprised I missed this one during one of the many re-airings of DS9. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azaroth on April 30, 2009, 11:44:42 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lHgbbM9pu4&feature=related
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: FatuousTwat on April 30, 2009, 11:48:18 AM (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/12/Vreenak.jpg) Any excuse to post a Vreenak... Hell yeah. (http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/99701/1fakebunny.gif) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on April 30, 2009, 12:03:04 PM Better than Az's vid!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXWQIiFxjbc&feature=related Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 02, 2009, 11:55:45 AM I just got back from a preview screening of this.
Fuckin' nailed it :drill: MORE PLEASE :grin: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 02, 2009, 12:49:55 PM Is a) not nearly as good as the Wrath of Khan? or
b) totally sucky compared to the Wrath of Khan? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azaroth on May 02, 2009, 12:55:51 PM I dunno. I watch the commercials and think "Star Trek is not an action movie" to myself.
They should have just cast Jean Claude Van Damme as Kirk and had him Sonic Boom Ricardo Montalbán's corpse in the fucking face and be done with it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 02, 2009, 02:41:35 PM I don't know how widely this has been advertised, but for those who don't know, theaters have been ok'd to start showing the movie as early as 7:00PM on Thursday. Most theaters in the big chains seem to be going with 7:00, 8:00, 10:00, and 11:00 showings, and since it's a somewhat unusal time to open a new movie it's probably a good way to avoid the larger crowds you might run into on a Friday night.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 02, 2009, 03:19:16 PM Is a) not nearly as good as the Wrath of Khan? or b) totally sucky compared to the Wrath of Khan? I just finished watching Wrath of Khan with the people I went to the screening with, and while I'd like to say that it's too early to seriously compare the two (Khan has mostly stood the test of time for 25 years), my current opinion is: on par with Wrath of Khan. Azaroth: the problem with your line of thinking here is that, despite being very much a definition of awesome, Khan is not the end-all-be-all of Star Trek goodness. This hits a lot of the right buttons, but I guess my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt when you consider that I like Knowing. There is more "action" in the movie than there was in Khan, but think of it like the action in Terminator 2, or a similar movie, where it exists almost entirely to further the progress of the story. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 02, 2009, 03:23:58 PM I just don't see how that can be possible. It's a well known fact that the entire Star Trek franchise has been dead since shortly after Wrath of Khan's release.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 02, 2009, 03:25:12 PM DS9 sez hi.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 02, 2009, 03:28:06 PM Does Bones ever say "Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor not a <whatever>!!" ?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 02, 2009, 03:29:19 PM Yes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on May 02, 2009, 03:39:57 PM :heart: Simon Pegg. Otherwise I'll decide on this when I see it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 02, 2009, 03:42:45 PM Simon Pegg was/is so awesome. He too had a classic Scotty line, I'll let you find out what it is.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 05, 2009, 08:05:27 PM Damn ye all who have seen it. I'm going Friday with a bunch of folks, to an IMAX because, well, why the heck not? There was enough longshot action to vistas to make Jerry Bruckheimer proud.
I loved Wrath of Kahn. It was the best of the Trek movies. But it's also the best of the old style trek. Time for something new, even if trekkies hate it (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section) (warning: Onion link you probably saw but which I only caught up to this morning). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ashrik on May 07, 2009, 01:20:29 PM Full episode is on youtube now, here is the first part. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyvqPdslROA&feature=channel_page) Awesome. Thank you.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on May 07, 2009, 01:25:59 PM Bought my ticket last night for the 715 showing today.
I am looking forward to it. I even rewatched Wrath of Khan in preparation Monday. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ard on May 07, 2009, 02:02:48 PM Bought my ticket last night for the 715 showing today. I am looking forward to it. I even rewatched Wrath of Khan in preparation Monday. :awesome_for_real: I'm joining you in your nerdity. I just bought ones for 7:30. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 07, 2009, 02:13:26 PM I was pretty impressed by it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: schild on May 07, 2009, 02:27:39 PM I'll wait for the blu-ray.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 07, 2009, 03:22:04 PM I'm going to go see it this weekend. If I had collectible Spock Ears this would be the perfect opportunity to wear them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on May 07, 2009, 06:25:56 PM Just saw it. Great film! Very tight cohesive story and pacing. Re-establishes and re-defines the mythos.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on May 07, 2009, 07:16:32 PM It was pretty fucking rad overall. Outside of it sort of figuring everyone knows what the Federation, Vulcans, and Romulans are anyhow.
I guess by this point they figure the basics of Trek are pop culture and known about as well as sports... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 07, 2009, 09:47:20 PM (just saw a 7pm IMAX sneak preview)
I'm with others here (and I'm a hardcore Trekker) in saying that this is by far the best Trek movie since Khan, bar none. The franchise has just been resurrected. (and Cryptic just laid the golden egg for box sales at least) Are we allowed to even discuss the movie here? (if I knew how to show/hide I'd do it) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 07, 2009, 09:49:02 PM How about the time travel aspect? I recall that it provoked a lot of angst among the "Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan" crowd.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 07, 2009, 10:09:43 PM How about the time travel aspect? I recall that it provoked a lot of angst among the "Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan" crowd. (just figured out how to /spoiler)Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ard on May 07, 2009, 10:13:54 PM I walked out of the movie wanting to walk right back in for another showing. I'd say mission accomplished on their parts.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 07, 2009, 10:20:24 PM I walked out of the movie wanting to walk right back in for another showing. I'd say mission accomplished on their parts. Exactly my feelings. I've never wanted to see a movie in the theatre twice ('cept for maybe the Matrix), but this one I did. There's enough nuance along with shear entertainment that can keep you coming back for more... similar to Star Wars ep. 4 actually - but not quite that classic. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 07, 2009, 10:31:37 PM My biggest problem with the time travel/Spock whatever is this: I know nothing about this movie, other than it's Star Trek, and there's mention of time travel, and Leonard Nimoy is in it. So my fear is, if it's all a dream sequence, or a holodeck thing, or even if Leonard Nimoy is seen at the end telling this story to a bunch of kids (God especially that last part) I will freak out. I don't care how good it is. If there's even a hint of retconning, rather than just telling a damn story, I will feel like I wasted my money.
Can someone please answer that for me? I love spoilers. PM me if you don't want to post. I just want a warning! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ashrik on May 08, 2009, 01:17:27 AM I haven't seen the movie, but what I've read from reviews tells me that that is not the case.
I hope this worth-nothing post helped :grin:. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 08, 2009, 01:41:01 AM How about the time travel aspect? I recall that it provoked a lot of angst among the "Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan" crowd. I still think the time travel aspect was just there to pander to Star Trek fans who would have otherwise been upset that the Trek timeline they know is now gone, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. It made for a few nice Leonard Nimoy scenes, and the movie as a whole was awesome enough that I could overlook the time travel. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yoru on May 08, 2009, 01:49:56 AM How about the time travel aspect? I recall that it provoked a lot of angst among the "Trek has been dead since the Wrath of Khan" crowd. I still think the time travel aspect was just there to pander to Star Trek fans who would have otherwise been upset that the Trek timeline they know is now gone, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. It made for a few nice Leonard Nimoy scenes, and the movie as a whole was awesome enough that I could overlook the time travel. Saw it last night. This is correct, although I thought the time travel plot device was the weakest link in the entire movie. Particularly since they mash it in your face by explaining it no less than 3 times throughout the film. Either way, I thought it was a decent summer blockbuster and little more. If you turn your brain on even a little, it's going to scream in agony at all the plot holes and macguffins. As a pretty display of space lazers and space boobies and space guys in space ships throwing space punches, it works great. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 02:14:44 AM My biggest problem with the time travel/Spock whatever is this: I know nothing about this movie, other than it's Star Trek, and there's mention of time travel, and Leonard Nimoy is in it. So my fear is, if it's all a dream sequence, or a holodeck thing, or even if Leonard Nimoy is seen at the end telling this story to a bunch of kids (God especially that last part) I will freak out. I don't care how good it is. If there's even a hint of retconning, rather than just telling a damn story, I will feel like I wasted my money. Can someone please answer that for me? I love spoilers. PM me if you don't want to post. I just want a warning! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yoru on May 08, 2009, 02:18:56 AM Re: What trippy said above, they come right out and confirm that. In dialogue. You don't need to "pretend".
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Quinton on May 08, 2009, 02:34:43 AM Catching this with coworkers tomorrow afternoon. I grew up watching reruns of classic trek after school, enjoyed the classic cheese, was never really a follower of TNG or DS9. I was not horribly offended by the "reimaging" of BSG, and am hoping trek-rebooted will similarly be a fun ride, borrowing bits and pieces from trek-of-yore as appropriate.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 03:11:24 AM Re: What trippy said above, they come right out and confirm that. In dialogue. You don't need to "pretend". Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yoru on May 08, 2009, 03:33:39 AM Re: What trippy said above, they come right out and confirm that. In dialogue. You don't need to "pretend". Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 03:39:55 AM Re: What trippy said above, they come right out and confirm that. In dialogue. You don't need to "pretend". Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yoru on May 08, 2009, 03:41:39 AM I am going to cease having this argument for fear of spontaneously sprouting a neckbeard.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 03:43:00 AM :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ShenMolo on May 08, 2009, 04:52:29 AM Saw it last night....loved it.
Seeing Nokia and Budweiser product placements in a Star Trek movie was kinda jarring though. I know they gotta pay the bills and all, just saying. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 08, 2009, 07:25:03 AM Oh wow. I was totally going to not see it until you posted this. This is exactly what I needed to know, thank you...and it's probably the only retconning I could stomach. I think I didn't want them to tie in to all the previous Star Trek stuff because I'm sick of the previous Star Trek stuff. I don't like Voyager, Next Gen and DS9 was always hit or miss for me, and the original series was fun but nothing worth geeking out about. I like Star Trek, but I'm also tired of it, so... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2009, 07:53:41 AM It all sounds good.
Someone said that people were worried about Sylar as Spock. Really ? This was the only thing I wasn't worried about ! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 08, 2009, 08:00:34 AM BIG
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yoru on May 08, 2009, 08:23:19 AM It all sounds good. Someone said that people were worried about Sylar as Spock. Really ? This was the only thing I wasn't worried about ! The new Chekov is a whiny little pimply teenager and the new Kirk isn't rugged enough. Those are pretty much the limit of my complaints with the casting. I do think that the whole movie had the feeling of speed - as if they were rushing through plot points. There's no slow, sedate scenes or any contemplativeness. It's punching scene, shooting scene, stuff blowing up scene, space lazors scene, another punching scene, okay wacky hijinks time, back to punching... Even the new warp speed effect seems oriented towards conveying a sense of the movie rushing by quickly and chaotically. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 08, 2009, 08:35:01 AM It all sounds good. Someone said that people were worried about Sylar as Spock. Really ? This was the only thing I wasn't worried about ! The new Chekov is a whiny little pimply teenager and the new Kirk isn't rugged enough. Those are pretty much the limit of my complaints with the casting. I do think that the whole movie had the feeling of speed - as if they were rushing through plot points. There's no slow, sedate scenes or any contemplativeness. It's punching scene, shooting scene, stuff blowing up scene, space lazors scene, another punching scene, okay wacky hijinks time, back to punching... Even the new warp speed effect seems oriented towards conveying a sense of the movie rushing by quickly and chaotically. The effect of Star Wars fans (Abrams and the entire cast except Sulu) making a Star Trek film. Kind of a happy medium with this flick I think though, and they've got plenty of room to explore the cerebral aspects in the sequels. And for the new Trek, you've really gotta come out with more of a bang imo - to rebuild the fanbase. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 08, 2009, 08:36:32 AM I don't recall the new chekov ever whining in the movie. He is a pimply teenager, though.
Embrace the zeitgeist of the moment. Love your new robot jesus. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Quinton on May 08, 2009, 10:34:38 AM Someone said that people were worried about Sylar as Spock. Really ? This was the only thing I wasn't worried about ! this! As soon as I heard that, I thought "brilliant casting, maybe there's hope." Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ShenMolo on May 08, 2009, 10:47:00 AM Someone said that people were worried about Sylar as Spock. Really ? This was the only thing I wasn't worried about ! this! As soon as I heard that, I thought "brilliant casting, maybe there's hope." I thought he was great. I liked the emphasis on his humanity, his emotions, and the conflict between Vulcan/Human etc etc. He really pulled it off. He managed to be a stud too. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Zar on May 08, 2009, 10:52:21 AM Not much to add other than I really enjoyed this. Only real complaint I had was that the villain was basically a cardboard cutout, i.e. "MY NAME IS NERO, YOU KILLED MY FAMILY/SPECIES. PREPARE TO DIE." Definitely no Khan here.
I thought all the new actors were great in the roles. And while it's true that this was more action-oriented than most Star Trek, I don't think that was a bad thing for this reboot. I look forward to seeing where they take it. Also, as far as this potentially drawing in new fans, I dragged my wife along, and she thought it was enjoyable as well. Normally when I start watching one of the various Star Trek series/movies on TV, she's asking me to change the channel within 5 minutes. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 08, 2009, 11:14:26 AM It's dragging a lot of new fans in including a lot of people who wouldn't have been caught dead watching an episode of any of the Star Trek series on TV.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 02:54:50 PM ...and the new Kirk isn't rugged enough. Those are... Rugged? Original young Kirk was so metro the french would be tempted to use him as a form of publi\c transport. That having been said, my main complaint is that he looks like a goddamn college intern. Kirk was at least in his mid-thirties. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 08, 2009, 03:03:51 PM ...and the new Kirk isn't rugged enough. Those are... Rugged? Original young Kirk was so metro the french would be tempted to use him as a form of publi\c transport. That having been said, my main complaint is that he looks like a goddamn college intern. Kirk was at least in his mid-thirties. Kirk was only 17 when he entered Starfleet. As for Bana's Nero and the complaints I've been seeing about him. I kinda agree his character was a bit underdeveloped, but this is done in a perspective I agree with. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 03:14:35 PM Kirk was only 17 when he entered Starfleet. Matters not, he was 34 when he got his first command, and was the youngest captain in starfleet. Nevertheless, it's not even a lore thing, he just doesn't look like he would be in charge of the flagship of the entire federation. He looks like a d-bag from marketing to me. :grin: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 03:44:18 PM Kirk was only 17 when he entered Starfleet. Matters not, he was 34 when he got his first command, and was the youngest captain in starfleet. Nevertheless, it's not even a lore thing, he just doesn't look like he would be in charge of the flagship of the entire federation. He looks like a d-bag from marketing to me. :grin:My only complaint about his character is: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: LK on May 08, 2009, 04:08:19 PM They did a fantastic job. Everyone I saw it with (couple hundred nerds) thought it was amazing. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 08, 2009, 04:14:20 PM Loved the movie. Best one in the IP (I didn't get into Trek until Wrath of Khan, so while that was an awesome movie, it didn't have that omgawesomesauce vibe that followed 15+ years of watching 2+ seasons of TOS). This is #1, Khan 2, First Contact 3.
I eagerly await anyone who hated it. I have my guesses :wink: Only one part I wasn't thrilled with, but that was relative (in the spoiler below). They absolutely nailed the casting though. Visual effects, sound, top shelf. I saw it in an IMAX, and I'm not sure I can see it again unless it's in an IMAX. And way more than enough fanservice, enough so that they clearly established which lore they were retaining and which they weren't. I'm still trying to decide which reference I enjoyed the most, and I'm sure I didn't catch all of them. I do think that non trekkies might miss some of the nuance, but not any more than someone might miss in The Dark Knight if they didn't read the the Batman comics. There was enough here due to decades of pop culture. Minor nitpick, which isn't spoilerly because it's in the trailers: it's long been part of canon (TV and movies) that Voyager was the first ship to land on a planet after serviving atmospheric entry. I know they wanted a nice scene of Kirk "encountering" the Enterprise, but I'd love to see them get that ship into space. I'm sure it's space elevators or tractors or something, but still. And yes, I'm nitpicking because while I loved the movie, it wouldn't be Trek without the nitpick. But I hate time travel, particularly in Trek, because it's so inconsistent. More in the spoiler. Really hope this becomes a TV series. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 04:29:40 PM See, to me, having it be a whole new reality goes against the point of using 40-year old characters that have their own ingrained expectations. Although, yes, the new-character versions (i.e., Enterprise), well...Yeah.
I'm just having a hard time as seeing this as anything other than a venal attempt to get gen-y butts in seats. I strongly suspect it's just Not For Me. I'm honestly trying to push back on my admittedly knee-jerk trailer-based nay-say until I see the thing, but. I just have a bad feeling about this drop. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on May 08, 2009, 04:51:41 PM See, to me, having it be a whole new reality goes against the point of using 40-year old characters that have their own ingrained expectations. Although, yes, the new-character versions (i.e., Enterprise), well...Yeah. I'm just having a hard time as seeing this as anything other than a venal attempt to get gen-y butts in seats. I strongly suspect it's just Not For Me. I'm honestly trying to push back on my admittedly knee-jerk trailer-based nay-say until I see the thing, but. I just have a bad feeling about this drop. We had that discussion earlier. Those who felt that way were told to get their walkers and get out of dodge because ST is old and tired and lame and needs this 'reboot' to make it a valid bit of pop culture again. I question why it needs to be such, but w/e. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 08, 2009, 05:02:01 PM So yah, I thought they left some stuff out but you could easily fill in the blanks to make sense of it. It's not like they flat-out broke a bunch of rules that made the movie make no sense. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 08, 2009, 05:43:22 PM Good thoughts man. Some response:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 06:02:38 PM I'm quite sure I don't get the actual science beyond how they hack it into a story :) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 08, 2009, 07:44:12 PM The sciency-ness:
p.s. Trek just broke the Rottentomatoes Tomatometer record for highest positive percentage. It was at 94%, now it's at 96%. (with over 200 reviews counted) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 08:12:49 PM Good thoughts man. Some response: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2009, 08:15:27 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kitsune on May 08, 2009, 08:18:05 PM The whole infinite branching timeline thing is current sci-fi vogue, but to associate it with any real science is a bit premature. Once we actually have working time travel, or at least empirical evidence of working mechanisms that are related to such, then we can say that the new movie's based on real science time travel. Until then, the whole thing is in the domain of people who like to talk a lot, and may be insane and/or talking out of their ass.
In any event, heavy-duty time travel of the Back to the Future variety may be simply impossible. The passage of time in general is entirely possibly an illusion of our being creatures of three dimensions, an inability of us to perceive the fourth dimension as anything but a slideshow when in fact it's just as concrete as the first three. If you could step completely out of time and look at the universe, it would be like a big glass cube with everything of every moment of time frozen inside, with each human resembling a ribbon that stretches from their birth to the point at which their body's dissolved. Every moment of all of our lives already exists, from the beginning of the universe to the end, we just can't see it. Attempting to buck this system is futile, it would be like a stick figure trying to leap from one page to another in our three-dimensional world. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azaroth on May 08, 2009, 08:22:10 PM Quote Until then, the whole thing is in the domain of people who like to talk a lot, and may be insane and/or talking out of their ass. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kitsune on May 08, 2009, 08:31:46 PM Oh, and as a side note, the whole 'oh noes, since we're old school Star Trek the transporters have a hard time picking up a moving target' is absolute and utter bullshit. The galaxy is currently hurtling at some half a million miles per hour through the universe, the solar system is swinging through the galaxy at an additional half a million miles per hour, Earth is orbiting the sun at 67000 miles per hour, and just by sitting on our asses on the planet we're doing around 1,000 miles per hour. So just by 'standing still', each of us is currently plowing through space at the better part of a million miles per hour (depending on whether the galaxy's rotation is moving us with or counter to the galaxy's motion at the moment).
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 08:41:59 PM To further blow your mind. There's a scientist (for real) Please to be naming? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 08:54:16 PM Stuff. 1st paragraph, very lucid. 2nd paragraph, rife with the sort of the very shit the first paragraph decried. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 08, 2009, 09:11:37 PM Oh, and as a side note, the whole 'oh noes, since we're old school Star Trek the transporters have a hard time ... That was never an issue, except at warp, since the transporters essentially operated at warp, and the ship was moving at....You get it. Besides, arguing science in Star Trek is like arguing 18th century community dynamics in Firefly...Star Trek is NOT hard sci-fi. Everything is a story driver! Everything with buttons in Star Trek is a MacGuffin. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kitsune on May 08, 2009, 09:16:39 PM Stuff. 1st paragraph, very lucid. 2nd paragraph, rife with the sort of the very shit the first paragraph decried. That's the point. Once you start going on about the nature of the unseeable inner workings of the universe, you're pretty much shoveling a big load of mental horse manure. Unless someone can finish the paragraph with '...and this is a machine that I built that proves it.' Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Chimpy on May 08, 2009, 09:40:52 PM No idea what tangental conversation I am breaking into here.
Saw it, liked it quite a bit. Was never a huge Trekkie though, so my opinion does not have the nerd-cred of some people I know. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ragnoros on May 08, 2009, 11:59:21 PM Saw it, liked it quite a bit. Was never a huge Trekkie though, so my opinion does not have the nerd-cred of some people I know. What he said. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 09, 2009, 05:54:31 AM @Ghambit: from your post of the Trek science: I'm inferring that while there's infinite timelines, there's only a single consciousness per sentient organism. That can't be right. Yea it makes sense as a pure story telling device, but as a matter of multiverse, it's like saying that in all of infinity only one time line at a time really matters. There's also the assumption that every timeline travels concurrently, which itself wouldn't permit the specific universe it's own binary choices. Eventually the machinations of the moving mass in a timeline is going to impact time itself.
That is the geekiest paragraph I've written in a longtime :wink: @Trippy: I agree. Spock made sense and that's what I meant too about leadership. @Ragnaros: agree on the ship and Scotty's comment. I don't think it's spoilery to say that the ship seemed entirely intended to show something fearful, and that's it. And the whole Spock time travel thing seemed specifically because Nimoy showed interest in an extended cameo. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 09, 2009, 08:15:44 AM To further blow your mind. There's a scientist (for real) Please to be naming? Ronald L. Mallett @Darniaq. All of infinity from your perspective and mine (singularly), indeed only matters one timeline at a time - the one you're consciously aware of. It's a failing of our senses and our conscious understanding of the Universe. However, if we were beings like Wesley Crusher and The Traveler, we wouldnt have this problem and could view the Multiverse in all its grandeur (and travel freely amongst it, simply using our minds). I agree that all the Timelines, from a higher perspective, do indeed matter simultaneously at every point in space-time... because I posit that Information can flow freely between all of them. Hence, they effect eachother in the greater binary processes of the entire aether. I dont assume every timeline travels concurrently, hell I dont assume they travel at all (they probably dont; most likely they're static vibrations or some such weirdness). If we step out into what would be the Consciousness of the entire "Multiverse" than Time itself has nearly no meaning. The term "Timeline" is just used to give us mere mortals understanding; in reality what we're really denoting is a particular Universe. However, one could also say that the Mutiverse itself being a computational consciousness MUST recognize Time because computation itself requires it, unless you're a quantum computer - which will just represent all the data at every point as a probability (it's more like a seething, vibrating mass at a particular frequency). Since the whole system is entangled, even though it's computing "over time," the passage of time (as we know it) itself isnt a part of the equation. Also, each Universe being representative of it's own Space, has its own clock per se... if you were to take a Constant and apply it over all the different Universes, that Constant would manifest itself differently in each. Pretend you're hovering above the Multiverse shining a beam of light through it. The speed of light to you isnt violated. But, the speed of light in each individual universe below is... each in its own way depending on the geometry and physics of that particular Universe. Kind of like resistance in a wire. This line of thinking leads many down the path that there is indeed a limit to the speed Information can flow (in a quantum machine). It seems instantaneous to us, but more than likely it runs at the speed of light from a different perspective (a higher one). Going further, Time itself doesnt exist from the perspective of the entire Multiverse itself, but it does exist to someone outside of it. And it exists to each conciousness within it. :why_so_serious: I have a headache Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Engels on May 09, 2009, 08:15:59 AM Edit: dupe post. sorry, not gonna ready umpteen pages of nerd analysis to see if the video has been posted before!
Btw, loved the movie. specially Spock and Chekov. What was it with the odd sidekick that Scotty had? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2009, 09:05:21 AM I'm fairly sure we've seen that before. In this thread.
Hmmm. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on May 09, 2009, 09:23:41 AM @Ghambit: from your post of the Trek science: I'm inferring that while there's infinite timelines, there's only a single consciousness per sentient organism. That can't be right. Yea it makes sense as a pure story telling device, but as a matter of multiverse, it's like saying that in all of infinity only one time line at a time really matters. There's also the assumption that every timeline travels concurrently, which itself wouldn't permit the specific universe it's own binary choices. Eventually the machinations of the moving mass in a timeline is going to impact time itself. Does 3 care about 3.00000000001, 3.5 or 4? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on May 09, 2009, 09:27:52 AM Man I hate time travel. I will gladly maintain no matter how well they pull off the time travel thing that this would have been a better film if they'd just left that bit out and had it as a series restart. Mostly because then not every internet thread about it would wind up with a discussion of how time travel would actually work.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 09, 2009, 09:43:58 AM @Ghambit: from your post of the Trek science: I'm inferring that while there's infinite timelines, there's only a single consciousness per sentient organism. That can't be right. Yea it makes sense as a pure story telling device, but as a matter of multiverse, it's like saying that in all of infinity only one time line at a time really matters. There's also the assumption that every timeline travels concurrently, which itself wouldn't permit the specific universe it's own binary choices. Eventually the machinations of the moving mass in a timeline is going to impact time itself. Does 3 care about 3.00000000001, 3.5 or 4? Is a circle a circle before it's measured? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Raguel on May 09, 2009, 10:40:10 AM Kirk was only 17 when he entered Starfleet. Matters not, he was 34 when he got his first command, and was the youngest captain in starfleet. Nevertheless, it's not even a lore thing, he just doesn't look like he would be in charge of the flagship of the entire federation. He looks like a d-bag from marketing to me. :grin: I haven't seen the movie, but whenever I see a shot of the crew together, I immediately think: "Star Trek 90210" :-P Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Chimpy on May 09, 2009, 11:56:36 AM I just realized a funny bit about the whole time travel thing.
I went to see the movie with an old friend last night. He and I went to see the first time-travel Star Trek movie together when we were kids. Just an odd aside. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 09, 2009, 06:44:40 PM Great movie, great relaunch of the series.
NVM, that was the "NX-01". Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 09, 2009, 09:33:26 PM Man I hate time travel. I will gladly maintain no matter how well they pull off the time travel thing that this would have been a better film if they'd just left that bit out and had it as a series restart. Mostly because then not every internet thread about it would wind up with a discussion of how time travel would actually work. That would be ideal, but I don't think that will ever happen. The impression I have is that the franchise bible demands time travel, because they want to keep everything tied together. You want Star Trek, you gotta have cameos and borg and time travel. Can't have it without those things. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Arnold on May 10, 2009, 12:42:56 AM Man I hate time travel. I will gladly maintain no matter how well they pull off the time travel thing that this would have been a better film if they'd just left that bit out and had it as a series restart. Mostly because then not every internet thread about it would wind up with a discussion of how time travel would actually work. The impression I have is that the franchise bible demands time travel, because they want to keep everything tied together. Wouldn't a rug have sufficed? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stu on May 10, 2009, 01:06:04 AM Star Trek has time travel but no mullets. WTF?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: justdave on May 10, 2009, 02:54:47 AM Quote from: Ghambit link=topic=15009.msg641566#msg641566 date=1241882144 Ronald L. Mallett [/quote Next, we shall discuss inertia as defined by Hal Puthoff. Or we could talk about N-rays! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: apocrypha on May 10, 2009, 03:51:18 AM Star Trek has time travel but no mullets. WTF? (http://splendidred.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/st_montalban_trek2.jpg) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 10, 2009, 04:51:42 AM Pleased to be having more people see this movie.
@Darniaq. All of infinity from your perspective and mine (singularly), indeed only matters one timeline at a time - the one you're consciously aware of. Ok, so the timeline I'm in right now matters only to me. But if there's infinite timelines branching from every binary system (or in psychohistory, every major decision point), then what about my consciousnesses in those other timelines? Do they not matter? Am I some sort of antiestablishment sociopath in those infinite timelines because I subconsciously know that only in some other timeline (like this one: in which I made this parenthetical, instead of the timeline in which I decided not to) am I Darniaq Prime the Singularly Relevant? :uhrr: (and yes, I'm just geeking out here because it's fun. I'm not smart enough by aeons to have a real discussion about the multiverse). Quote from: Kitsune wrote Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Surlyboi on May 10, 2009, 07:58:15 AM For those of you interested in the story that got the whole thing started... Click here. (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Countdown,_Number_One)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NiX on May 10, 2009, 08:12:56 AM Amazing movie. Really revitalized Star Trek. I normally don't like J.J. either, so I was pleasantly surprised. Now fuck off with your time travel bitching.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Surlyboi on May 10, 2009, 08:54:11 AM Ah, the nerd rage is so tasty... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/board/thread/137596500?p=1) :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 10, 2009, 09:04:05 AM Quote 4. When did Scotty ever engineer a technology that allowed interstellar transporting at warp speed? Hell in SNG, they couldn't even transport within their own ship. WRONG. Transporting at warp speed is possible as long as the destination and target have sufficiently similar velocities. So says the ST:TNG technical manual. (http://www.sneeko.net/images/macros/Thread-Crap-ComicBookGuy.jpg) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 10, 2009, 09:21:46 AM I don't mind me a bit of nerdrage. Always in good fun. But the part I always laugh most about is the idea that anything is done simply because of money. Someone said it here and that link had it too
OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT THE GODDAMNED MONEY. And so was all the crap that was running the IP into the ground. And so was the very metric they used to determine it was running into the ground I read the countdown thing from above. Sets up some minor things well. You'd have to accept that jumping to an earlier point in time and destroying the very things that made that jump possible wouldn't cause you to cease to be though. Instead of destroying Vulcan and therefore destroying Red Matter and the event that caused the jump, Nero jumped to an earlier decision point in a parallel timeline. And why the he'll does Worf always seem to get beat up? And why does everyone seem to be arming up on discard Borg tech except Starfleet, save the Enterprise which apparently was the one ship that could cause a threat? The movie I can forgive behind the smoke and mirrors of ships and lasers. But the written stuff should be better than that because it had no budget nor time limit to constrain the act of telling the story. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Surlyboi on May 10, 2009, 10:11:15 AM Nimoy says, If you don't like it, you're a dickhead." (http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4a0711d4686a2db0/4a06a499b7c239c7/7a551d6c/-cpid/f5fcc4b64ff5c770) :drill:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on May 10, 2009, 02:26:32 PM Great, great movie. I'll probably see it again.
I love all the nerd rage. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 10, 2009, 03:21:47 PM Very good movie. As a fan of trek in general, mostly tng and ds9 I loved it. Sure some things were a bit over the top like bad guys ship and retractable sword but still, it was fun. Actiony but still definitely trek, solid movie and a solid start to a new/old crew.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Quinton on May 10, 2009, 03:32:37 PM I enjoyed it. The plot was a bit silly, the "science" was rather absurd, but it was a fun new take on characters I'm fond of (I grew up watching classic trek reruns after school, etc). Plenty of little nods to the existing trek canon while clearly indicating that this is a reboot, going its own way. The casting was really fantastic, and I'd love to see them do more with this reset of the characters and the universe -- a TV series would not upset me.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 10, 2009, 03:33:26 PM Very good movie. As a fan of trek in general, mostly tng and ds9 I loved it. Sure some things were a bit over the top like bad guys ship and retractable sword but still, it was fun. Actiony but still definitely trek, solid movie and a solid start to a new/old crew. I purposely started a nerd fight about that retractable sword because I wanted the guys next to me to stop raging over the convenience of wood in the Spock cave :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Miasma on May 10, 2009, 04:06:10 PM That was possibly the best Star Trek movie they've ever made, I'd have to rewatch the undiscovered country to be sure though.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: murdoc on May 10, 2009, 04:43:42 PM Star Trek sucks, but this movie was enjoyable.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: MournelitheCalix on May 10, 2009, 05:09:49 PM I have hated star trek rather passionately. That being said, my girlfriend dragged me kicking and screaming into this movie. I am really glad she did. This was a sci fi film done right without the star trek crap geeks seem to eat up and I despise in a movie.
I highly recommend it. J.J. Abrams might just have proven that he is the greatest director of our time. It just seems like everything he does turns to gold. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: schild on May 10, 2009, 05:37:21 PM Quote J.J. Abrams might just have proven that he is the greatest director of our time. no Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Strazos on May 10, 2009, 05:55:38 PM I thought it was pretty great.
Now I'm wondering when we all get Orion slave girls dressed in Victoria's Secret stuff. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on May 10, 2009, 05:58:57 PM We got one golden movie out of the reboot. The next will be average, and the third will open with a montage of zoom-ins on Kirk and Spock's codpieces as they fight on a planet filled with statues of kneeling naked men. So buy this one on DVD and forget about the future :oh_i_see:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 10, 2009, 06:00:34 PM I highly recommend it. J.J. Abrams might just have proven that he is the greatest director of our time. It just seems like everything he does turns to gold. This is the second movie he's directed. The first was Mission Impossible 3. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on May 10, 2009, 06:35:16 PM I have hated star trek rather passionately. That being said, my girlfriend dragged me kicking and screaming into this movie. I am really glad she did. This was a sci fi film done right without the star trek crap geeks seem to eat up and I despise in a movie. Welcome to Trekdom! Qua'plah! We'll have you in a Starfleet uniform in no time. :drill: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 10, 2009, 06:37:32 PM (more of my 3rd-hand info)
Paramount gave the go-ahead a few weeks ago for the sequel. A writer from Fringe, Star Trek, and some other guy (forget his name) will be tasked with the screenplay. There are whisperings they want to make an alternate version of Khan, perhaps with Javier Bardem as his namesake. After seeing Abrams' work on this film, I'm not sure they should do as they typically do with Trek and have alternate directors/producers. They need to keep him on tap. I mean, fresh ideas are good but I'd really like more from Abrams and his Transformers writers - why screw up a good thing? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: MournelitheCalix on May 10, 2009, 06:40:02 PM no I am not exaggerating when I said that I had to be dragged into seeing this movie. Just a few hours ago if you would have asked me if I could have sat through an entire old cast of star trek my answer would have been a resounding no. I left this movie thinking that I had just saw something that wasn't just good, but great. To each his own I admit. This is the second movie he's directed. The first was Mission Impossible 3. Yeah thats right, I keep forgetting he didn't direct Cloverfield. I really liked his MI interpretation as well. Anyone catch that Kirk's "mother" was the same chick from his MI movie that Tom Cruise is sent to retrieve? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 10, 2009, 06:43:48 PM We got one golden movie out of the reboot. The next will be average, and the third will open with a montage of zoom-ins on Kirk and Spock's codpieces as they fight on a planet filled with statues of kneeling naked men. So buy this one on DVD and forget about the future :oh_i_see: Well, we'll see if the "every other" curse starts up again (broken previously by ST: Nemesis), this time with the "odd" movies being the good ones and the even ones being the bad ones.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 10, 2009, 06:48:01 PM Yeah thats right, I keep forgetting he didn't direct Cloverfield. I really liked his MI interpretation as well. Anyone catch that Kirk's "mother" was the same chick from his MI movie that Tom Cruise is sent to retrieve? Keri Russell != Jennifer MorrisonTitle: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 10, 2009, 07:03:27 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 10, 2009, 08:07:32 PM Very interesting, very well done. I'm glad I saw it. Random scattershot thoughts....
I was afraid, so very afraid, so tremblingly pee-my-pants afraid, that tying in the old with the new would invalidate the new and make it less important than the almighty whatever of the original series. Strangely, they invalidated the old stuff, but made it okay at the same time. It wasn't a formula Star Trek movie, but it was a formula movie, which I appreciate. Each character had their own story, I liked their individual interactions with each other, Sulu was badass without being over the top, and I pretty much felt for everybody as much as I wanted to. Chekov's accent was too much. Uhura was downright awesome. I kinda wanted her and Kirk to get together but I really like her with Spock in the end. Very interesting relationship. All the relationships, they didn't force them, but just allowed them, just enough. I didn't identify with Kirk as much as I would have liked, but he definitely had his moments. I like how they found Scotty, but that little greeble sidekick was just weird. I wouldn't call it a movie where you turn your brain off. I don't get that at all. Oh, and I loved the hints of the old music, very subtle. Oh, and I don't understand why there's so much argument about time travel. Are we talking from experience here? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 10, 2009, 08:23:26 PM (more of my 3rd-hand info) Paramount gave the go-ahead a few weeks ago for the sequel. A writer from Fringe, Star Trek, and some other guy (forget his name) will be tasked with the screenplay. There are whisperings they want to make an alternate version of Khan, perhaps with Javier Bardem as his namesake. After seeing Abrams' work on this film, I'm not sure they should do as they typically do with Trek and have alternate directors/producers. They need to keep him on tap. I mean, fresh ideas are good but I'd really like more from Abrams and his Transformers writers - why screw up a good thing? Everything I hear mentioned about future movies indicates that Abrams and team are absolutely against remaking/reimagining/rebooting Khan. I hope that is true and stays that way; Khan has it's place in the list of awesome already, and trying to make another version would just dilute that. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azuredream on May 10, 2009, 08:36:35 PM I wouldn't call it a movie where you turn your brain off. I don't get that at all. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 10, 2009, 10:53:13 PM I thought it was awesome that they held to Star Trek tradition and used Majel Barrett as the computer voice even though she's been dead for a while now.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Comstar on May 11, 2009, 04:20:34 AM Apparently there's a deleted scene where Spock says something about the Time Line attempts to heal itself, so improbable and incredible coincidences result from that. Or you could blame Starfleet time cops (who were in Enterprise, so are still in the same time line). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 11, 2009, 04:34:16 AM Voyager had the Starfleet Time Police as well.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 11, 2009, 04:41:25 AM I liked it a lot, Star trek should be about short skirts and alien sword fights, the other spin off shows were too politically correct. Sure, occasionally, you hit on a good episode (Yesterday's Enterprise) but most of the time bad casting choices dragged them down.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 11, 2009, 05:16:18 AM All the good I remember of old Trek was in TNG, and most of that was a byproduct of 80s/early-90s optimism (as an episode or in the face of overwhelming bad guyness). I missed the latter 2/3 of DS9 though.
There are whisperings they want to make an alternate version of Khan, perhaps with Javier Bardem as his namesake. You don't reboot a franchise by retelling the same old stories. That's how they drove it into the ground in the first place. If your whisperings are legit, I'd suspect it's part of the old guard at Paramount that a) doesn't know how to do anything else; and, b) hasn't recognized the impact it had on early TNG, early DS9, half of Voyager and a good chunk of Enterprise. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on May 11, 2009, 06:13:08 AM I wouldn't call it a movie where you turn your brain off. I don't get that at all. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azuredream on May 11, 2009, 06:25:57 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Brogarn on May 11, 2009, 07:33:22 AM Definitely have to turn your brain off for some of the weaker parts of the script, but over all a great movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 11, 2009, 07:58:23 AM Here's a thought I had about the Kobiyashi Maru....
Just a thought I had this morning, for what it's worth. I rather think ridiculous coincidences are part of movies. They all have them, everything from Star Wars to The Matrix to Splash, Schindler's List, Braveheart, You Got Mail, and Evil Dead 2. So yeah, in that respect, you have to turn your brain off for every movie. Shrug. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 11, 2009, 08:05:36 AM I think the blatantly obvious cheating was the way to go. It made it clear to everyone that he had no intention of trying to get away with anything. He was just making the point that he didn't believe in "no-win" scenarios.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 11, 2009, 08:13:01 AM I wouldn't call it a movie where you turn your brain off. I don't get that at all. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on May 11, 2009, 08:52:48 AM Movie was fucking fantastic. Nerdragers can gladly lick chocolate sauce off of my nuts. As a long-time old skool Trek fan, not only was I quite happy with the movie, I thought the actors, script writers and directors all honored the original characters and performances while still taking them in new directions. Despite it being a 2-hour movie, I wanted MORE TIME with every one of the main characters. I could happily watch this cast in a weekly TV show. Karl Urban as McCoy was easily the standout, but even Pine's Kirk was great.
As for the plot holes/coincidences: the coincidences of narrative are what make the stories interesting. This guy at this time in this place doing these actions with these supporting characters - that's what makes narrative. As long as the coincidences aren't so unbelievable as to distract from the story, it's all good. Spock being on the planet and close to Kirk when it happens really isn't that far of a stretch, especially if you take the "timeline tries to heal itself" approach. The time travel I thought was done well enough - it wasn't confusing to the punters (who would have hated a confusing time-travel story), it was definitely sci-fi lite with just enough truthiness to make a good movie without being overburdened by theoretical discussions most people won't give a shit about anyway. It reboots the franchise nicely without totally shitting on the previous continuity - unless you are a hopeless Trekkie twat, in which case you really should go back and hide in your mother's closet you freak. I plan to see it again with the wife this weekend. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 11, 2009, 09:05:43 AM What's the statute of limits for the spoiler tag? I feel like at this point if you're joining a 13-page deep thread about a movie, you've seen it or are looking for more than hated/loved it. That'd seem as intuitive as not clicking on the T&A thread at work...
I think the blatantly obvious cheating was the way to go. It made it clear to everyone that he had no intention of trying to get away with anything. He was just making the point that he didn't believe in "no-win" scenarios. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 11, 2009, 11:04:32 AM Bah, Spock himself is incredulous at meeting first Kirk and then Scotty JUST when they need to meet. I'm pretty sold that his reaction were intended to be interpreted as, "This is unlikely to the point of nearly impossible, something else is going on."
Of the things that bothered me in the movie, that sequence of events wasn't really one of them. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 11, 2009, 12:36:53 PM Spock-Prime makes blatant references to destiny. Fin. Why did Spock put Kirk into a pod instead of beam him down to the outpost? Anger and spite since Kirk has been nothing but a huge pain in his ass the whole time. How is it that Kirk finds Spock-Prime instead of Skywalker on Hoth? Either destiny or plot device. In any case this movie kicked ass. Acting, action, plot (yea, I said it), it all came together to make a fantastic movie that was completely absent any TNG Model UN moments.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 11, 2009, 12:49:01 PM Regarding Karl Urban as McCoy, he looked awful in the trailers. It looked like he was doing a really bad DeForest Kelly impersonation. Watching the movie though, holy crap he nailed it. I especially liked how he related to the other characters, and those scenes at Starfleet Academy were great.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 11, 2009, 01:05:21 PM How is it that Kirk finds Spock-Prime instead of Skywalker on Hoth? Either destiny or plot device. Obvious nod to Empire with the over the shoulder flyover shot and the beast thing appearing out of the snow. I was almost positive it was going to be a Tauntaun. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 11, 2009, 01:24:44 PM How is it that Kirk finds Spock-Prime instead of Skywalker on Hoth? Either destiny or plot device. Obvious nod to Empire with the over the shoulder flyover shot and the beast thing appearing out of the snow. I was almost positive it was going to be a Tauntaun. Unfortunately, that whole sequence with Kirk being chased by the snow creature reminded me more of Lucas' more recent work (the beginning of the sequence in particular, where the smaller creature gets eaten by the bigger one reminded me of the underwater sequence in Episode 1). I was so relieved when that part ended that I didn't care how coincidental Kirk meeting Spock was. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 11, 2009, 01:26:51 PM Regarding Karl Urban as McCoy, he looked awful in the trailers. It looked like he was doing a really bad DeForest Kelly impersonation. Watching the movie though, holy crap he nailed it. I especially liked how he related to the other characters, and those scenes at Starfleet Academy were great. They were all doing really good impersonations. It was a lot like remembering the show instead of actually watching it, which we all know is better. Even (especially?) when Pine was struggling to get up during fights, he was doing Shatner. Incredible. First monster being eaten by second, larger monster was great. I laughed. I don't remember anything about Star Wars Episode One. Also, did anyone else think of (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m6SQn5XIlNQ/RqWJIiWkBiI/AAAAAAAAAWw/B848hMlZTIY/s400/1.jpg) during that first shot of Vulcan's surface? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azuredream on May 11, 2009, 02:13:59 PM I got to like all the characters, I think that was the movie's strength. The plot wasn't great, but I left the theater happy when they all got together at the end. This movie could have turned out way worse than it did and that's about all you can ask for a Star Trek reboot I'd say.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: naum on May 11, 2009, 03:03:14 PM Quote If your story is not about time travel, but it has time travel in it, then your story sucks. Still, was an entertaining flick (have seen it twice now), albeit cheesy (though it is Star Trek). Thought this Star Trek cartoon was funny… Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nevermore on May 11, 2009, 03:46:32 PM I liked it, so don't take the following as not liking it.
Nero was very dull. They really didn't need to get Eric Bana for that role. Still, he worked for the plot which was basically: Dumb miner in ridiculous ship is pissed off and wants revenge. I say dumb because any moron given 25 years could have figured out that perhaps a better use of his time would be to stop the supernova from destroying Romulus himself. So yeah, in that respect he was the worst villain ever. But it works for the plot because give a drooling retard a vastly technologically superior ship, even if it looks stupid, and he can wreck havok. I mean really, 25 years and that's the best he could come up with? Yet he was still somehow able to predict exactly where future Spock would show up? But yeah, I still liked the film. The drill didn't bother me because I just assumed it needed atmosphere to operate. So just stick it on a big long chain, problem solved. The rest of the ship didn't make any sense but the drill was fine. Now the effect that Nero had changing the past I think worked really well. Kirk became a bigger fuckup without the positive influence of his father but was still brilliant in his own way (we assume, since to be honest I didn't really see a lot of brilliance from him in the movie but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I figure the original Kirk was probably more subtle in his cheating the Kobayishi Maru. All the other principles worked for me except Chekov. If I remember correctly, Chekov wasn't one of the original crew. He showed up later on in the original series and he never displayed any of the brilliance he did in the movie. I guess Nero mucking up the past turned this Chekov into some kind of prodigy. The only other quibble I have is I thought the interior of the Enterprise was a bit too shiny. I'd hate to be the one that has to wipe all the fingerprints off of all those clear plastic surfaces. But that's just a minor thing. Actually, pretty much all my problems with the movie are just minor quibbles with the exception of Nero having less brainpower than a turnip, but if he were smart we wouldn't have had a movie at all so it's fine. Overall a fun movie. I hope whatever story they use for the next one is something taken from the original series (not Khan) and turned completely on it's ear. Preferably one of the lesser known episodes so it doesn't feel like a retread. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tale on May 11, 2009, 04:15:44 PM This movie left me feeling flat. It was well made, but silly. I wanted a bit less humour and more serious oldschool moments from Kirk and Bones. Serious Sylar-Spock was almost out of place among the slapstick.
Simon Pegg was basically doing a Billy Boyd (Pippin) impression. His alien sidekick was a Jar Jar Binks element for the kids. I like Simon Pegg but I didn't like his silly Scotsman. The use of "black holes" as a time travel device was dumb. Distracting even. I don't have a problem with accidental time travel as a plot device, but the implementation was weak. And Nimoy-Spock wasn't very well written into the plot. Also, I've a question: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 11, 2009, 04:31:07 PM Without the silliness, I would have hatehatehatehatehated it. I'm tired of movies trying to be serious and ohsoserious and darkdarkseriousdarkserious. But that's just me.
Now that is a good question. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 11, 2009, 04:34:43 PM Simon Pegg was basically doing a Billy Boyd (Pippin) impression. His alien sidekick was a Jar Jar Binks element for the kids. I like Simon Pegg but I didn't like his silly Scotsman. I had the impression Scotty's alien sidekick was more like the hybrid animal-man midget from "Island of Dr. Mareau," y'know, the creepy red one that played the piano? (he's actually the smallest person in the world... from Mexico I believe) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nevermore on May 11, 2009, 04:35:34 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Strazos on May 11, 2009, 04:43:44 PM Yeah, he definitely warped out, and I'm going to assume that because the Vulcan ship was designed to be one of the fastest ships around, they were able to get a goodly distance away from the Sol system.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Miasma on May 11, 2009, 06:02:23 PM Also, did anyone else think of (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m6SQn5XIlNQ/RqWJIiWkBiI/AAAAAAAAAWw/B848hMlZTIY/s400/1.jpg) during that first shot of Vulcan's surface? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 11, 2009, 06:37:58 PM Now that is a good question. Quote from: Nevermore wrote Four damned spoiler nests in one post? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 11, 2009, 07:12:01 PM Now that is a good question. Quote from: Nevermore wrote Four damned spoiler nests in one post? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nerf on May 11, 2009, 08:45:58 PM Black holes don't suck in everything either, when a star turns into a black hole it has the same gravitational pull it did before it was a black hole, it's just contained in a single point of space instead of spread out throughout the star it formed from.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on May 12, 2009, 04:05:53 AM I think there were two or three lines in TOS about Chekov being Spock's science prodigy, under his instruction in science, and so on. It's just that they never really played that angle for anything--most of the time he was there just to say a few Russian-accented lines and occasionally to be the "young guy" in the crew. The Chekov-was-added-later thing has been debated ever since Khan "recognized" him in Wrath ("But you, Mr...Chekov...I never forget a face") with the conclusion being that he was assigned to the Enterprise crew before he appeared regularly on the bridge. Of course, that means that Khan somehow saw all 400+ of the Enterprise's crew during his brief stay on board...
Speaking of 400+ on the Enterprise, what was the Kelvin doing with 800 people on board, as a considerably smaller ship than the Enterprise? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 12, 2009, 04:53:13 AM Speaking of 400+ on the Enterprise, what was the Kelvin doing with 800 people on board, as a considerably smaller ship than the Enterprise? I thought it was a scientific vessel and so it had an extra compliment of researchers and also contained families. This Enterprise is a warship and doesn't need as much crew. Also, Black Holes don't exist indefinitely, they eventually 'burn out' over time (Hawking radiation). The nature of the 'Red Matter' is unclear and so really, ANY physical characteristics can be attributed to it that moves the story along. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on May 12, 2009, 06:49:19 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: MrHat on May 12, 2009, 07:09:21 AM That's what I gathered too. Kirk was trying to get Spock to admit it to himself, and then the logical thing for Spock to do is follow protocol. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Mattemeo on May 12, 2009, 07:25:08 AM It was enjoyable, and to give it the credit it's due, it was a hell of a lot better than it had any right to be. Perhaps that's a bit of my general anti-Abrams bias showing there, but for me it was one of the few things he's been involved in that I could A: watch more than once and B: not need an emergency treppaning afterwards to allieviate the built up pressure of WTF.
As a reboot, it's a pretty daring prospect. Abrams has stamped on a lot of old Trek convention and story within the space of 90 minutes but managed to create something that very definitely feels Star Trek, for all its foibles. I was pleased, really - I've never considered myself a big fan of Star Trek - I pretty much hated DS9, watched Voyager if nothing else was on and pretended Enterprise didn't exist (not solely for its general poorness but because, man, Scott Bakula! What happened?!). I enjoyed Next Generation and love the original 60s series, including the cartoon series (shock horror decent voice acting!) but I've found the movies immensely hit and miss over the years - the majority of the TNG movies were extended TV episodes with a slightly larger effects budget. That's what got me about Abram's Star Trek. It was a fucking movie. It was spectacle, it was silly, but it was ferociously fucking fast paced and unapologetic in almost every way with a lot for oldschool fans and newbies to enjoy. "You're not used to this, but you'll like it" seems to be the order of the day. Yes, Nero was a complete mouthbreathing tool, but sometimes you need a badguy so mentally unhinged that the awful things he does are no longer questionable, you just have to react to them. I'd have loved loved loved to see some of Jim and Bones' cadet life, I did feel pretty cheated when the '3 years later' floated up on screen, but frankly the pace of the film didn't let me dwell on it. I also wanted more Scottie (I love Simon Pegg) but I could understand why he wasn't a vital fixture in the movie till the last third, though Deep Roy's little alien character was a curious and somewhat out of place addition that perhaps unfairly screamed 'EWOK!' at me... Quinto does a reasonable job of being Spock, but in all honesty it's less a case of his acting talent and more the fact he just looks so damn much like a young Spock that sells the performance. Acting wise it was just him being Sylar but keeping the crazy on the inside. I was unexpectedly impressed with Chris Pine though, he really got into the role, his Kirk is a lot cockier, more rough edged (no father figure beyond the stoic presence of Capt. Christoper Pike) but displayed some of the more subtle mannerisms that Shatner instilled in the character. It's true, he doesn't get to show much of his intellect (did anyone else get a bit of a Good Will Hunting vibe off the Kobiyashi test/trial?), but that'd be somewhat out of pace with the rest of the movie anyway. Less cogitate, more conflagrate. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jayce on May 12, 2009, 08:21:43 AM Overall I thought it was great. I also didn't fully buy him running into Spock on the planet, but I can live with that, and some of the comments here make it even more palatable.
I wish they had given Kirk a career in Starfleet before being instantly made captain. I don't think it would have hurt to have him in and out of trouble under someone else's command for a few years before being upjumped and we find out that "oh, the problem was that he is only cut out to be a captain". I thought Karl Urban really nailed McCoy, better than I would have thought. I never once looked at Eomer and thought McCoy, but I didn't even recognize Urban for most of the movie, just thought he was some dude who looks like Deforest Kelley. Did I see Felix Gaeta in the crowd that was watching Kirk get the medal at the end? Or am I mistaking someone else for him? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 12, 2009, 09:37:37 AM Woah holy crap, that was Eomer?! Damn, now I'll always see McCoy when I watch Lord of the Rings. :ye_gods:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 12, 2009, 10:18:41 AM He's also Lord Vaco in Chronicles of Riddick.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 12, 2009, 11:37:55 AM When I saw Riddick, I kept thinking Eomer. When I saw Trek though, I kept thinking McCoy. He's either really good, or just another genius casting choice.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 12, 2009, 12:05:35 PM Deep Roy's little alien character was a curious and somewhat out of place addition that perhaps unfairly screamed 'EWOK!' at me... Ah yes, dammit, he does look just like fucking Wicket. Could have done without him since Scotty was Comedy Relief and adding another Comedy Relief was overkill. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 12, 2009, 12:14:07 PM Seems FX has picked up TV rights for a J.J. Abrams Star Trek series.
http://www.moviejungle.com/headlines/templates/templatemjnews3.aspx?articleid=2269&zoneid=1 Quote Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 Source - Variety "Live Long and Prosper"...on FX. FX has picked up TV rights to "Star Trek" for apparently a four-year movie license. FX could end up paying $24 million or 12% or so of the film's box office gross if the film hits the $200 million mark domestically which it will most likely do. "Star Trek" will start showing on FX about 30 months from now for the 2011 holiday season. "Star Trek" opened over the weekend with over $75.2 million over the weekend as well as an extra $4 million from Thursday previews. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ghambit on May 12, 2009, 12:44:27 PM Seems FX has picked up TV rights for a J.J. Abrams Star Trek series. http://www.moviejungle.com/headlines/templates/templatemjnews3.aspx?articleid=2269&zoneid=1 Quote Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 Source - Variety "Live Long and Prosper"...on FX. FX has picked up TV rights to "Star Trek" for apparently a four-year movie license. FX could end up paying $24 million or 12% or so of the film's box office gross if the film hits the $200 million mark domestically which it will most likely do. "Star Trek" will start showing on FX about 30 months from now for the 2011 holiday season. "Star Trek" opened over the weekend with over $75.2 million over the weekend as well as an extra $4 million from Thursday previews. Uhhh.. that's not for a Star Trek series. That's just for the TV rights to show the Star Trek movie on their channel. I'm sure a pay cable HD network like HBO will also pick it up much sooner than 30 months. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on May 12, 2009, 12:49:42 PM Yeah, FX just has the exclusive non-pay-channel rights for that period. Similar to how Turner networks are the only guys who can show LOTR.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 12, 2009, 05:16:04 PM I just about had a stroke. FX often gives its shows a lot of support and leeway, enabling them to grow into greatness.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ookii on May 12, 2009, 06:32:43 PM Wow this is a long thread, I'll throw my stuff out there without seeing if anyone has said it before.
I listened to JJ Abrams on O&A and he was talking about how he wasn't really a fan of Star Trek. He even said, "Apparently Shatner's character dies in the 10th movie? That's what I've heard". He also said he didn't know there were 10 other movies, but did say one of the writers was a huge Trekker (apparently trekkie is bad?). That said the movie is great, and anyone who hates it needs to lighten up a bit. I also thought JJ didn't get Grunberg in the movie but apparently he's the voice of Kirk's stepfather. Also Rachel Nicols is in there which makes two Alias cast members for anyone who actually cares. Oh and fucking Karl Urban was unrecognizable, in fact there was just good casting overall. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 12, 2009, 07:02:14 PM For all the praise this was getting, I expected better. It's not a bad movie, but (and to be honest, I don't really care for TOS but ultimately ST canon should be respected because it is canon) it certainly could have been done without pissing on the canon - the reboot could have been a new crew post-Nemesis and it still would have worked.
Karl Urban was fantastic, everyone else did a perfectly acceptable job. Bana's villain needed more fleshing out. It was a good, solid formula Star Trek movie with lots of money poured into it. But I agree you could check your brain at the door (see: black holes as time portals). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 12, 2009, 07:25:14 PM The new-crew-post-Nemesis thing could have worked well too. There's a series of books that featured a Captain MacKenzie which would have been a good backdrop. Trouble is that nobody cared about Voyager and even less cared about Enterprise. So introducing what would be a sixth new crew with new names and the same mission of bad science would have been a harder sell than that retarded rescue-the-200-natives TNG flick (gods, I swear by that ninth movie they purposely made the odd numbers suck).
So using the pop culture source material as the backdrop for a reboot really feels like the right business decision. They didn't need to do that for a good story, but I suspect they felt they needed to in order to save the IP. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 12, 2009, 08:51:22 PM The new-crew-post-Nemesis thing could have worked well too. There's a series of books that featured a Captain MacKenzie which would have been a good backdrop. Trouble is that nobody cared about Voyager and even less cared about Enterprise. So introducing what would be a sixth new crew with new names and the same mission of bad science would have been a harder sell than that retarded rescue-the-200-natives TNG flick (gods, I swear by that ninth movie they purposely made the odd numbers suck). So using the pop culture source material as the backdrop for a reboot really feels like the right business decision. They didn't need to do that for a good story, but I suspect they felt they needed to in order to save the IP. The problem with a post nemesis crew is akin to (nerd reference incoming) starting level one characters in level 20 gear. With the level of tech and knowledge that starfleet has at that point any antagonist would have to be ridiculous in comparison to pose a threat. It just makes for a bad plot in general and while I understand not wanting a reboot, this method is probably what trek needed most, not constant building on top of old material. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: angry.bob on May 12, 2009, 09:18:29 PM Quote What happened to black holes? Current theory holds that they "evaporate", the smaller they are the faster they evaporate. Lots of math on websites indicates that a black hole formed by our sun would decay in a fraction of a second, so the ones in the movie actually lasted way to long (in theory anyway). It's one of the reasons why people weren't concerned about creating black holes with the Hadron collider - if it had managed to create one it would have almost instantly disappeared. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 13, 2009, 01:03:21 AM For all the praise this was getting, I expected better. It's not a bad movie, but (and to be honest, I don't really care for TOS but ultimately ST canon should be respected because it is canon) it certainly could have been done without pissing on the canon - the reboot could have been a new crew post-Nemesis and it still would have worked. The plot would have worked, but the plot isn't what people are praising this movie for. The whole fun of this movie is seeing these iconic character reinterpreted and given an origin story. The fact that's it's made about as much in a weekend as the last Trek movie made in its entire theatrical release suggests that they probably made the right decision. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 13, 2009, 01:05:44 AM The previous movie sucked. It's better to compare it to First Contact which until this one had the record for best opening weekend for a ST movie at around $50 million in inflation adjusted dollars.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 13, 2009, 02:39:29 AM The movie was fun. It's rejuvenated the Star Trek franchise (which has been dead since the Wrath of Khan). The people that continue to quibble and whine just make me tired. :roll:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Mattemeo on May 13, 2009, 04:52:43 AM Current theory holds that they "evaporate", the smaller they are the faster they evaporate. Lots of math on websites indicates that a black hole formed by our sun would decay in a fraction of a second, so the ones in the movie actually lasted way to long (in theory anyway). It's one of the reasons why people weren't concerned about creating black holes with the Hadron collider - if it had managed to create one it would have almost instantly disappeared. Ahh, the little white lies we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night, while the massive underground construction of our future demise patiently toys with the very fabric of the universe. Well, it would if we hadn't broken the fucking thing already. I actually agree with the Black Holes evaporation theory, but as in all things theoretical, we have no hard facts (which will turn out to be wrong in 20 years anyway) to stand on and it's always fun to look over our shoulder and see the misunderstood villain of time, space and physics sneaking up behind. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 13, 2009, 10:15:50 AM The problem with a post nemesis crew is akin to (nerd reference incoming) starting level one characters in level 20 gear. With the level of tech and knowledge that starfleet has at that point any antagonist would have to be ridiculous in comparison to pose a threat. It just makes for a bad plot in general... Agreed. Coincidentally, the backstory for this movie was that Nero's ship was overpowered even in the post-TNG timeframe from hence it came, because after Nero went insane he found some planet that was hoarding Borg tech they retrofitted to his ship. So he walked through Starfleet in that time period too.In any case, just aggressive agreement: this movie was the right thing to deliver for the IP. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on May 13, 2009, 01:11:08 PM Also, did anyone else think of (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m6SQn5XIlNQ/RqWJIiWkBiI/AAAAAAAAAWw/B848hMlZTIY/s400/1.jpg) during that first shot of Vulcan's surface? It is the same rock. That's Vazquez Rocks, a fun little state park that's fairly near to Los Angeles. We used to go there a lot when I was growing up: I'd play "Gorn vs. Kirk" with my brother quite a bit. Quite a few other TOS episodes used it as an alien planet. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 13, 2009, 03:24:21 PM As to the red shirt guy I didn't even question it I just thought to myself "I wonder how they'll shut it down without the blast charges" the moment he said he had them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: K9 on May 13, 2009, 03:33:09 PM Really fun movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 13, 2009, 10:49:07 PM For all the praise this was getting, I expected better. It's not a bad movie, but (and to be honest, I don't really care for TOS but ultimately ST canon should be respected because it is canon) it certainly could have been done without pissing on the canon - the reboot could have been a new crew post-Nemesis and it still would have worked. The plot would have worked, but the plot isn't what people are praising this movie for. The whole fun of this movie is seeing these iconic character reinterpreted and given an origin story. The fact that's it's made about as much in a weekend as the last Trek movie made in its entire theatrical release suggests that they probably made the right decision. I appreciated this movie as Ultimate Star Trek (Marvel Comics reference, for those playing at home) or a What If... Kirk Was A Bigger Jackass?. But I don't get some of the praises I've seen it get. Perhaps a lot of paid movie reviewers are closet Trekkers. And, just like Ulimates did for Marvel, I completely expect later Star Trek movies to scoop out the notable bits, tweak them for modern audiences / a bigger budget, then put them on screen. Some of this will be handled well (Ultimates taking on a Skrull invasion) others badly (Ultimate Spider-Man Clone Saga). Finally, I don't take how much money this film earned as any indication of its value. It's a well done popcorn flick, but a popcorn flick is all it is. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 13, 2009, 10:53:35 PM Well of course it's a pop corn flick. The vast majority of movies that actually make any money are pop corn flicks.
Perhaps they'll dub in the Swedish dialogue and add subtitles in the sequel. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tebonas on May 13, 2009, 11:11:53 PM Wasn't every Star Trek a popcorn flick? Sometimes I don't get contrarianism for contrarities sake.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 14, 2009, 01:22:53 AM Finally, I don't take how much money this film earned as any indication of its value. It's a well done popcorn flick, but a popcorn flick is all it is. How much money the film is making is an indication that rebooting the franchise was the way to go. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2009, 03:44:59 AM Like you need that kind of indication after Enterprise.
:oh_i_see: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 14, 2009, 05:53:30 AM As to the red shirt guy I didn't even question it I just thought to myself "I wonder how they'll shut it down without the blast charges" the moment he said he had them. Haha, yea somehow we caught it when he said he was ready to kick some Romulan ass but missed the bit about the blast charges until after he had died. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 14, 2009, 07:31:49 AM Wasn't every Star Trek a popcorn flick? Sometimes I don't get contrarianism for contrarities sake. Star Trek 3 and 9 really weren't to me. They were much more fanservice pieces than the usual mindless action summer blockbuster. Also, every 90s Trek movie (from Undiscovered Country through Insurrection) was delivered in Nov/Dec holiday time frame, as was Motion Picture and Voyage Home (and really, if Final Frontier really needed to come out it should have been Nov/Dec anyway, or buried somewhere in February). That's not generally the popcorn time frame. This feels like the first truly summer block-bustery movie in the Trek franchise since Wrath of Khan (summer 1982). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 14, 2009, 08:20:25 AM I guess it depends on what your definition of a "popcorn flick" is. To me it's any movie that exists purely for entertainment and escapism as opposed to one that girls would like.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 14, 2009, 08:57:20 AM Haha, well this would be a popcorn flick then. My wife preferred Wolverine.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 14, 2009, 09:14:29 AM Haha, well this would be a popcorn flick then. My wife preferred Wolverine. Divorce is always and option. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Yegolev on May 14, 2009, 09:38:47 AM She can keep her naked Hugh Jackman, it's cool with me. I don't expect her to get all excited over video cards or drill bits, either.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on May 14, 2009, 09:52:20 AM Like you need that kind of indication after Enterprise. Enterprise started getting...well, decent at least, in its last season. Unlike Voyager, which was pure shit from beginning to end.:oh_i_see: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 14, 2009, 12:01:18 PM Is anybody else sick of hearing "popcorn flick" and "check your brain at the door?" Those phrases are tossed around so much that they're totally meaningless now. You can't disagree with them, so they're safe. Blah blah blah. We need new buzzwords!
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on May 14, 2009, 12:54:35 PM I just think it's a little odd to call a Star Trek movie a popcorn flick as if it's some kind valid criticism. I mean it's Star Trek for crying out loud. If you were expecting some kind of life changing work of art you've come to the wrong place.
And Enterprise really did get a lot better in its last season. The Vampire Space Nazi writers were all gone by then and the new gang weren't bad at all. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nevermore on May 14, 2009, 01:05:26 PM Enterprise had the best take on the mirror universe, imo.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 14, 2009, 01:07:49 PM Enterprise had the best take on the mirror universe, imo. This. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on May 14, 2009, 01:26:02 PM Very much so. I liked the way it was tied in to the original series.
Also, (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/24/Empress_Hoshi_Sato_(mirror).jpg) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on May 14, 2009, 03:00:49 PM Speaking of Voyager, someone elsewhere pointed out (new film spoiler related):
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on May 14, 2009, 03:24:31 PM Very much so. I liked the way it was tied in to the original series. Also, (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/24/Empress_Hoshi_Sato_(mirror).jpg) Yay Hoshi. Even if I didn't get to see the final season. Stupid switching show days to when I was working and did not have a DVR at the time. Honeslty the biggest problem with Enterprise was that it skewed too close to basic done 100s of times before Trek instead of trying anything really different. Basically Enterprise just needed to be less Star Trek. And it wasn't. So it was basically fucked from both ends. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: bhodi on May 14, 2009, 03:37:46 PM The movie was good. I only wish they kept with the canon of how Kirk beat the simulation - as I recall, the only thing he did was change his own reputation - he rigged it so that the klingons recognized him as the most famous and feared captain in starfleet. Using his fake reputation he bluffed them into running away, convinced someone like him had to have a nasty (and ultimately fatal to them) trick up his sleeve.
It was a much more subtle method of victory, and I think it would have fit this movie better than the blatant rewriting of the parameters. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: LK on May 14, 2009, 03:47:57 PM Very much so. I liked the way it was tied in to the original series. Also, (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/24/Empress_Hoshi_Sato_(mirror).jpg) Schwing. I think I want to see that episode now. Edit: OK, she doesn't appear to be married and she lives near me. The game is now afoot. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Surlyboi on May 14, 2009, 03:57:26 PM There's so much to like about the mirror universe...
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/ef/Archer_interrogates_T%27Pol.jpg) That said, I wanna see mirror universe movie Uhura. :drill: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 14, 2009, 04:09:58 PM ...
I'll be in my bunk. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Aez on May 14, 2009, 04:14:01 PM Not sure it qualify as a mind fuck, still great (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 14, 2009, 05:48:35 PM I just think it's a little odd to call a Star Trek movie a popcorn flick as if it's some kind valid criticism. I mean it's Star Trek for crying out loud. If you were expecting some kind of life changing work of art you've come to the wrong place. It doesn't have to be a life-changing work of art, but I appreciate it if I have to pay attention. Star Trek (allegedly) has a bit of depth to it - the whole 'Federation being the best of we can be' and all that, trying to use diplomacy and science to make the universe a better place. Instead there was just lots of explosions in space (that were very well done) and characters guessing some fairly unlikely answers just to keep the plot moving along. Someone else said that this was Star Trek done for the people who really like Star Wars, which I can see. I'm not being contrary for the sake of it - I went in expecting big things given all the praise I've seen of this film. Instead I saw a good looking sci fi space film with a completely formula Star Trek narrative. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Nebu on May 14, 2009, 06:22:33 PM Saw the movie tonight. All I can say was that it was entertaining. It wasn't great. It wasn't bad. It was fun.
I hope that the writing on the next one is better. The story needed some help. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 14, 2009, 06:23:49 PM The movie was good. I only wish they kept with the canon of how Kirk beat the simulation - as I recall, the only thing he did was change his own reputation - he rigged it so that the klingons recognized him as the most famous and feared captain in starfleet. Using his fake reputation he bluffed them into running away, convinced someone like him had to have a nasty (and ultimately fatal to them) trick up his sleeve. It was a much more subtle method of victory, and I think it would have fit this movie better than the blatant rewriting of the parameters. That was from the book of the same name though, so hardly canon to the same crowd that wouldn't consider EU material from Star Wars either. Having said that, it was a damned good book. My favorite story was Scotty's, though Sulu choosing not to go into the Neutral Zobe because it was illegal was a nice touch, and totally in character. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2009, 08:16:32 PM I hope that the writing on the next one is better. The story needed some help. See, this is what I'm getting from all these demi-reviews. If it wasn't Star Trek you all would've ripped it apart pages back and been done with it. That's all I've needed to know to give it a skip until DVD. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Surlyboi on May 14, 2009, 08:43:01 PM I liked the story.
Saying, "because it's Star Trek, you guys didn't rip it apart" is a convenient cop-out. Whatever floats your boat though. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on May 14, 2009, 09:06:03 PM We need a TV series set entirely in the Mirror Universe. Just have us follow the plucky rebels who are fighting the evil humans if you need sympathetic characters. That plus midriff baring outfits= win :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Fabricated on May 14, 2009, 09:14:52 PM Saw it tonight. It was pretty good IMO outside of the head scratching black hole as time portal thing (they could've just called it a time-space anomaly or some shit and never said the word black hole, it's Trek. Just make it up).
I hated the first like 15+ minutes of it with the over-dramatic shaky-cam shit, but after that it was pretty solid. What bugged me is how young Sulu looks like Grant from Mythbusters. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on May 15, 2009, 04:38:39 AM I hope that the writing on the next one is better. The story needed some help. See, this is what I'm getting from all these demi-reviews. If it wasn't Star Trek you all would've ripped it apart pages back and been done with it. That's all I've needed to know to give it a skip until DVD. Yes, because the overwhelming arc of this thread hasn't somehow been ripping the dogfuck out of most of the Star Trek properties for being retread shit. It was GOOD STAR TREK. It wasn't literature, it wasn't even the best science fiction, but then neither was original Star Trek. Just because armies of nerds over decades have tried to turn the creator into the Great Firebird of the Universe and the movies and TV shows have had pretensions of grandeur don't make them cerebral art. The characters were interesting, the direction was good, the CGI was beautiful, and the story was fast-paced and fun. It never had to be more than that, Star Trek or no. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Hindenburg on May 15, 2009, 04:41:15 AM If it wasn't Star Trek you all would've ripped it apart pages back and been done with it. Perhaps you should read the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thread? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on May 15, 2009, 04:54:19 AM :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 15, 2009, 07:15:17 AM If it wasn't Star Trek you all would've ripped it apart pages back and been done with it. Perhaps you should read the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thread? Or, like how we all fellated Ep 1-3, right WUA? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 15, 2009, 12:05:05 PM I'm not being contrary for the sake of it - I went in expecting big things given all the praise I've seen of this film. Instead I saw a good looking sci fi space film with a completely formula Star Trek narrative. Wow, really? I didn't get that at all. Completely formula Star Trek has lower stakes, less action, doesn't wipe out entire civilizations, and anything seriously universe-changing is discreditted as a dream sequence or simulation. It did have the usual tie-in to the rest of the franchise, but other than that, I'd say it was very anti-Star Trek. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on May 15, 2009, 02:43:14 PM I'm not being contrary for the sake of it - I went in expecting big things given all the praise I've seen of this film. Instead I saw a good looking sci fi space film with a completely formula Star Trek narrative. Wow, really? I didn't get that at all. Completely formula Star Trek has lower stakes, less action, doesn't wipe out entire civilizations, and anything seriously universe-changing is discreditted as a dream sequence or simulation. It did have the usual tie-in to the rest of the franchise, but other than that, I'd say it was very anti-Star Trek. They can still hit the reset button! Maybe the sequel will be Janeway coming back in time to save Vulcan. :awesome_for_real: (I still haven't seen the movie though, so I can't get properly fanraged over it. :grin:) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 15, 2009, 03:00:04 PM I hope that the writing on the next one is better. The story needed some help. See, this is what I'm getting from all these demi-reviews. If it wasn't Star Trek you all would've ripped it apart pages back and been done with it. That's all I've needed to know to give it a skip until DVD. That's sort of an odd argument. This movie wouldn't have been possible without the IP. Generic sci-fi worlds don't work unless they're animated, mixed with a strong dose of horror, or retread Bruce Willis themes. I leave "good" sci-fi to Barnes & Noble. This whole movie would have to be rethought to be a generic sci-fi. The story, every ship, every set, the time travel bit, all the costumes, actors and characters. Heck, just imagine if this was called Star Wars, and done around the time Empire Strikes Back came out. Now remove all the heritage, history, fan service and the fans itself. Liking it as good Trek is exactly what they were setting out to do. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tale on May 15, 2009, 03:18:07 PM If it wasn't Star Trek you all would've ripped it apart pages back and been done with it. That's all I've needed to know to give it a skip until DVD. That's sort of an odd argument. This movie wouldn't have been possible without the IP. It's not an odd argument to me. He's saying imagine there's no Star Trek, it's easy if you try. No canon below us, above us only sky. And then someone makes this corny space adventure, call it what you will. Imagine this is a new IP, an original thought. Or you're from a cave and this is your first encounter with the IP. Would you like it? Would this movie succeed as a standalone product? Or is it liked because it's fan service, and underneath it's a bit thin? I thought it was OK, but thin. I would rather have a solid rip-roaring adventure, screw the fan service. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 15, 2009, 03:20:38 PM Would you like it? Would this movie succeed as a standalone product? Or is it liked because it's fan service, and underneath it's a bit thin? I thought it was OK, but thin. I would rather have a solid rip-roaring adventure, screw the fan service. As has been pointed out, people are typically MORE critical of new material from a beloved IP, not LESS. If IMDB is any indication, the really hardcore fans are the only ones who actually hated this movie. And we have a number of people in this very thread saying they either dislike Star Trek or have no prior experience with it, but liked this movie. So saying "lol you only like it cuz it's Star Trek" seems more than mildly retarded. No disrespect. Haven't seen it myself yet BTW. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Raging Turtle on May 15, 2009, 03:24:13 PM Just saw it, thought it was great, and I can't be bothered to read the previous 15 pages. If you didn't like it or expected a different kind of Star Trek, you're a bad person and that's all I can say :awesome_for_real:
fake edit to reply to Samwise: Yeah, I can see how the trekkies might not like it. Screw them. I assume someone has already posted the Onion video about the movie so I won't repost it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 15, 2009, 05:01:27 PM Would you like it? Would this movie succeed as a standalone product? Or is it liked because it's fan service, and underneath it's a bit thin? I thought it was OK, but thin. I would rather have a solid rip-roaring adventure, screw the fan service. I'm saying it wouldn't exist without the IP. To much prescience in the IP, too little actual sci-fi delivered to the big screen, much less during the summer months. Without the IP and all the elements within, you've got a basic pro-American optimism more appropriate for the same era that gave us Independence Day or Armaggedon than an actual sci-fi movie. And you'd need to spend a LOT more time explaining why all those pieces are in place, or create such a strong allegory to convention that you end up with something like the aforementioned Fifth Element where the movie itself is based on a formula timeless enough that the specific setting is irrelevant. So no, I don't think this movie would exist with almost 40 years of Trek heritage. It wouldn't have gotten greenlit, a script, certainly not the attention of JJ nor the budget from Paramount, nor the marketing nor distribution nor timing support. The movie is the product of the system that was required to get it there. You might as well ask how good this movie would have been without JJ Abrams doing it. But even putting all that aside for a sec, the reason I don't go for this line of thought is because that logic sets an expectation that no franchise sequel could reach. Is Lethal Weapon 4 any good without 1 and 2? Is Return of the Jedi any good without ESB and ANH? Spiderman 2 wouldn't have worked without the entire franchise. Wolverine wouldn't likely exist without Hugh Jackman making the X-men series palatable. Franchise sequels work because of the shorthand that fans of the IP (or the actors, or the director, or all of it) bring with them. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on May 15, 2009, 05:28:33 PM fake edit to reply to Samwise: Yeah, I can see how the trekkies might not like it. Screw them. I assume someone has already posted the Onion video about the movie so I won't repost it. It's brilliant marketing, and makes the movie nearly impervious to critisism. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2009, 06:55:55 PM Franchise sequels work because of the shorthand that fans of the IP (or the actors, or the director, or all of it) bring with them. And yet, throwing out that very shorthand is what everyone was praising the idea for to begin with. Make up your mind, here. Is the IP tired and lame and needs to be tossed out, or are you warm to the idea of it because it dredges up those old memories and recalls those tired and lame ideas. Trippy gets what I was saying. The whole shebang seems thin and weak with a lot of plot holes. "Well turn your brain off here and it's good!" "Well, the villain's motivations are stupid." "Why, if you can time travel, would you go back and try to kill the only guy trying to save your planet?" These are paraphrases from people who say they liked the movie. This doesn't inspire me to go see it, and I can wait for the dvd. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 15, 2009, 07:03:16 PM The fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no say in this without actually seeing the movie, nevermind whether or not Trippy understands your hypothetical point of view.
Oh, and the shorthand for this is in having Kirk be like Kirk, Spock play Spock, and so forth. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 16, 2009, 01:40:28 AM Franchise sequels work because of the shorthand that fans of the IP (or the actors, or the director, or all of it) bring with them. And yet, throwing out that very shorthand is what everyone was praising the idea for to begin with. Make up your mind, here. Is the IP tired and lame and needs to be tossed out, or are you warm to the idea of it because it dredges up those old memories and recalls those tired and lame ideas. Trippy gets what I was saying. The whole shebang seems thin and weak with a lot of plot holes. "Well turn your brain off here and it's good!" "Well, the villain's motivations are stupid." "Why, if you can time travel, would you go back and try to kill the only guy trying to save your planet?" These are paraphrases from people who say they liked the movie. This doesn't inspire me to go see it, and I can wait for the dvd. There's a difference between needing to toss an IP out and needing to get back to basics. For one thing, TOS had a very different tone from TNG and everything that came after, and it's been over 17 years since the last movie with the original crew, so it's not really accurate to call it tired and lame. Also, I'd say there are very few IP's if any that just need to be tossed out completely. Many of the same people here who are sick as hell of almost all things Star Wars these days would probably still love it if a talented writing and directing team did a movie that captured the essence of New Hope and Empire. And yeah, I said myself that the plot in and of itself isn't that great, but it's one of those cases where I don't really care. It's not about turning my brain off (I've said it myself many times that I find that kind of thinking to be a cop-out to excuse liking shit movies). I enjoy it as an origin story that sets up how this reimagined crew meets and interacts with each other. It's very much a character driven movie rather than plot driven. If you're hell bent on reading into that that this movie sucks somehow, so be it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 16, 2009, 04:34:10 AM I'm not being contrary for the sake of it - I went in expecting big things given all the praise I've seen of this film. Instead I saw a good looking sci fi space film with a completely formula Star Trek narrative. Wow, really? I didn't get that at all. Completely formula Star Trek has lower stakes, less action, doesn't wipe out entire civilizations, and anything seriously universe-changing is discreditted as a dream sequence or simulation. It did have the usual tie-in to the rest of the franchise, but other than that, I'd say it was very anti-Star Trek. Whether or not the destruction of Vulcan does anything at all to the Star Trek universe will depend on how the next movie deals with it. The end of this movie indicated that since they'd saved the Vulcan Grand High Cultural Elite, the culture was secure, and now they were seeding colonies. I can easily see the fact that Vulcan is destroyed could make little notable difference to the actual importance of Vulcans in future lore. (They may get a 'they blew our planet up!' emo phase but they aren't going to be a less important race to the Federation as a result, nor is it likely they are going to give up the pursuit of logic.) If Spock was the only Vulcan left, I could agree with you. But he isn't - I think they said 10 000 were left, which is more than enough for the lore to keep them active. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: rk47 on May 16, 2009, 04:45:20 AM "Its just another Alderaan" said a buddy of mine.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 16, 2009, 12:00:33 PM Franchise sequels work because of the shorthand that fans of the IP (or the actors, or the director, or all of it) bring with them. And yet, throwing out that very shorthand is what everyone was praising the idea for to begin with. Make up your mind, here. What? This movie only threw out a bunch of backstory people steadily grew less interested in over the last few decades anyway. Everything that was important was retained, from the characters to their histories to that point, to the state of the galaxy to that point, to the ship(s) to the secondary characters and all the important references. They didn't twist up a bunch of stuff that anyone outside the trekkies would even notice anyway. Kirk is still Kirk, Spock still Spock, warp power, starships, space stations, San Francisco, all still there. People keep calling this a reboot, but the only part I really thought was rebooted was how the story was told (acting, directing, sfx, camera work, etc). The reboot doesn't really happen until we see some more fallout from the plot elements laid down here, and that's where UnSub's point comes in. We're at least another movie and a TV show away from knowing whether the story was rebooted. And we're another movie away from the franchise business was rebooted. Besides, my point about "franchise sequels" was more to Tale's question about how this movie would stand as a generic sci-fi flick. That's why this wasn't really a reboot. If it was, everything would need to be different. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: pxib on May 16, 2009, 03:00:29 PM That was fun.
It was fun to see the very broad inside jokes. It was fun to watch the action and special effects setpieces. It was fun to laugh and cringe and jump. This isn't high art, it's sci-fi. It's frivolous space opera. When somebody makes superb speculative fiction which questions fundamental assumptions about humanity and explores the cultural potenital inherent in technological change... oh I'll be all over that. Until then I'm happy to watch a popcorn flick that fills the big screen. Was well worth the $5.00 matinee, and I'd recommend it to just about anybody. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on May 16, 2009, 06:12:16 PM When somebody makes superb speculative fiction which questions fundamental assumptions about humanity and explores the cultural potenital inherent in technological change... oh I'll be all over that. The TV shows did that. The movies, not so much.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on May 16, 2009, 06:48:59 PM That was fun. It was fun to see the very broad inside jokes. It was fun to watch the action and special effects setpieces. It was fun to laugh and cringe and jump. This isn't high art, it's sci-fi. It's frivolous space opera. When somebody makes superb speculative fiction which questions fundamental assumptions about humanity and explores the cultural potenital inherent in technological change... oh I'll be all over that. Until then I'm happy to watch a popcorn flick that fills the big screen. Was well worth the $5.00 matinee, and I'd recommend it to just about anybody. More recently, The Fountain tried to do that. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 16, 2009, 11:11:01 PM I saw the movie tonight, finally. Was very fun. Recommended viewing.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Simond on May 17, 2009, 03:54:37 PM When somebody makes superb speculative fiction which questions fundamental assumptions about humanity and explores the cultural potenital inherent in technological change... oh I'll be all over that. The TV shows did that. The movies, not so much.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Quinton on May 17, 2009, 04:30:09 PM Nah, not really. With the technology and mindset the Federation is supposed to have they should be a lot more like The Culture and a lot less like they are shown. Really? I have always wondered what the hell all the not-traveling-on-starships people in the Federation did, but I never thought that they'd have any cultural similarity to The Culture (besides being post-scarcity, not-much-use-for-money type societies). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Jain Zar on May 17, 2009, 10:59:47 PM All this Trek is making me want to play Federation Commander some more.
Too bad the person I played it with is a total douchebag who I never want to speak to again. Oh well, time to make my current gamegroup play it. I need an excuse to buy the new Orion Pirates and Lyran/Hydran sets anyhow. :drill: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Soln on May 18, 2009, 09:31:56 PM finally got to see this. Entertaining. Good action film. Far superior to recent Speilberg or Bay etc. Excellent film for the Trek franchise. Could've used a little more polish, but terrific with the entrance of characters we already knew before the film.
Basic complaint -- should've been longer. It felt short. I didn't mind the cheese here and there, but story felt too quick. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Hawkbit on May 18, 2009, 09:56:30 PM Finally saw it tonight. I really enjoyed it. Well worth my $9.00.
I'm going to bitch about some stuff though, in typical F13 fashion. As some others said, it seemed short. They had a lot of ground to cover, but they wasted a bit of time on filler. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Chenghiz on May 19, 2009, 03:50:57 AM LENS FLARES EVERYWHERE
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: K9 on May 19, 2009, 04:42:38 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Delmania on May 19, 2009, 05:29:42 AM Saw the movie over the weekend with my wife. We both liked it. The only complaint I really had was that some of the actions scenes were too blurry.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Brogarn on May 19, 2009, 05:41:18 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: K9 on May 19, 2009, 06:28:48 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Quinton on May 19, 2009, 06:31:48 AM But that didn't change, really. Even prior to the reboot in the new movie, Kirk beat the test by cheating... I just think the Kirk in this version of trek was a little more in-your-face about it during the test itself. Same basic premise though -- he doesn't believe in a no-win scenario and beats it by "thinking outside the box." Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: pxib on May 19, 2009, 11:53:29 AM As some others said, it seemed short. [He] had a lot of ground to cover, but [he] wasted a bit of time on filler. This is, in a nutshell, my opinion of all of J.J. Abrams' efforts. Sometimes it works, other times I wish he'd just tell the story.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on May 19, 2009, 02:18:29 PM tory later on. Wasn't that deliberate, though? I enjoyed that scene because it was an example of that even when Vulcans are trash talking each other, they are bland and deadpan.2. The kid Spock scene was terribly acted. As in Phantom Menace Anakin bad. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 19, 2009, 02:27:53 PM It was both deliberate and poorly done all at the same time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Velorath on May 19, 2009, 02:31:29 PM As long as we're nitpicking, I could have done without the Slusho reference also.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on May 19, 2009, 02:43:06 PM It was both deliberate and poorly done all at the same time. I guess after the ordeal that was Young Anakin, child acting has to be a particularly high level of gruesome in order for me to notice.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Soln on May 19, 2009, 02:46:42 PM Um. Wot now?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Hawkbit on May 19, 2009, 02:52:42 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: gryeyes on May 19, 2009, 03:27:22 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 19, 2009, 05:49:24 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 19, 2009, 06:12:29 PM So I've seen that "timeline tries to heal itself" bit a few times in this thread. When did that become part of Trek? I don't remember seeing it, but really haven't paid attention in years.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Hawkbit on May 19, 2009, 06:39:28 PM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Miasma on May 19, 2009, 06:58:10 PM Also I think we can stop using spoiler quotes by now... Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Chimpy on May 19, 2009, 07:50:50 PM I think the whole "give him the formula" thing was kind of an homage to the "Transparent Aluminum" scene in Star Trek IV. At least that is what instantly came to mind. Mainly because that is really the only Star Trek movie I remember well.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on May 19, 2009, 11:48:13 PM tory later on. Wasn't that deliberate, though? I enjoyed that scene because it was an example of that even when Vulcans are trash talking each other, they are bland and deadpan.2. The kid Spock scene was terribly acted. As in Phantom Menace Anakin bad. When I saw that scene, I was reminded of the horrible horrible short comic that showed Vulcan kids chasing Spock and throwing tomatoes or someshit, chanting "Spock, Spock, your head's an Earth rock!" and his mother shedding a tear over the anguish that must be within Spock's soul. Then Spock is crying in his mother's arms going "Why they hate Spock? Why mama why?" Holy crap that was awful. It was like JJ Abrams read that comic too, and went "Holy fuck I'm going to straighten that shit out right quick by cracky." Works for me! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Hawkbit on May 20, 2009, 12:45:56 AM tory later on. Wasn't that deliberate, though? I enjoyed that scene because it was an example of that even when Vulcans are trash talking each other, they are bland and deadpan.2. The kid Spock scene was terribly acted. As in Phantom Menace Anakin bad. When I saw that scene, I was reminded of the horrible horrible short comic that showed Vulcan kids chasing Spock and throwing tomatoes or someshit, chanting "Spock, Spock, your head's an Earth rock!" and his mother shedding a tear over the anguish that must be within Spock's soul. Then Spock is crying in his mother's arms going "Why they hate Spock? Why mama why?" Holy crap that was awful. It was like JJ Abrams read that comic too, and went "Holy fuck I'm going to straighten that shit out right quick by cracky." Works for me! I never read the comic, but a trekkie at work told me that was his exact impression of it too. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Broughden on May 20, 2009, 10:13:07 AM I saw the movie tonight, finally. Was very fun. Recommended viewing. +1 Liked it.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on May 20, 2009, 11:34:29 AM I thought the kid scene was also a nod to the surprisingly good episode of the cartoon show where Spock goes back in time to visit himself. (!! fuck, he does that a lot. I'm beginning to suspect a sexual fetish or something.) It had some scenes with Spock being hassled by other Vulcan kids that were very similar in feel to the film's scenes.
As far as nerd commentary goes, I don't think there is any evidence that the timeline tries to heal itself in Trek's canon--quite the contrary, Trek's canon argues that you can change the past and sometimes to devastating effect, and that it takes serious, difficult effort to restore the timeline to something approximating what it was. The show does argue though also for alternate realities and parallel dimensions--not just the Mirror, Mirror universe, but for example the Enterprise-C went into the future due to a space warp, encountered an alternate-universe Enterprise-D that was a byproduct of the C having dropped out of the past, and then went back to its past, but carrying an alternate-universe version of Tasha Yar. Shorter version: Trek's version of time travel is like Trek's version of technology, a scriptwriting MacGuffin that can basically do whatever the script calls for it to do. Trying to make it make sense is pointless, the only thing to ask is, "Was the MacGuffin manipulated in service to an otherwise good story?" With this film, I'd say yeah, basically, though I'm still unconvinced that they had any need for time-travelling shit to make it all work out. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Koyasha on May 20, 2009, 02:20:18 PM Liked the movie overall, one of the better trek movies (and better movies in general) I've seen in a while.
Quibble about the way warp speed was handled though, since it made no sense whatsoever when compared with every single other instance of warp speed in the entire Star Trek franchise that I can think of. Seemed to be handled more like hyperspeed from Star Wars where you appear to be oblivious to normal space until you drop out of hyperspeed. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 20, 2009, 02:23:08 PM THAT'S what that scene with them dropping out of warp reminded me of.
Anyone remember how warp travel looked in Enterprise? Maybe it can be explained away by the older-model sensors not working very well at warp speeds, leaving you mostly blind until you drop out into sublight. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 20, 2009, 04:23:50 PM Actually, I think that's how it's supposed to work in Trek. I could be mixing memories of old books and shows, but warp space (and transwarp, and TNG-era hyperwarp, slipstream, and sidewarp from the awesome original backstory for Zephram Cochrane in Federation]) are all "other" spaces. They're just smaller than normal space so it takes a shorter amount of time to go a longer relative distance. When you pop out of warp back into normal space, you've covered more distance. Some, like warp space, can interact with regular space, but not in the usual way. In warp you can go through things with less mass (and it's like shooting a lightspeed bullet through them, so no kinetic transfer, but it could break apart anyway), but big ass gravity wells will pull you right out of warp.
They don't spend as much screen/story time talking about navigation like they do with all that "plot a course to X" in Star Wars. But it's as much a requirement in Trek universe because you can't just go in a straight line. Incidentally, that same Cochrane book also explained how warp power worked, and why the Starfleet symbol looks the way it is (it's actually the plotted graph of how warp and normal power work, with the star being infinite energy I think). Even it is a retcon (or not) it was a great read. And yes, this is all from memory. So either a) I've gone completely around the bend, b) mashing together a bunch of geek fantasies and therefore way wrong; or, c) just succeeded in writing the geekiest thing I've written all day. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 20, 2009, 06:09:20 PM So I've seen that "timeline tries to heal itself" bit a few times in this thread. When did that become part of Trek? I don't remember seeing it, but really haven't paid attention in years. I don't know if it is Trek canon, but allegedly it was a deleted scene in the film that mentioned it. Also, it's a lazy way of dealing with trying to change history through time travel. Dean Koontz did it in Lightning Road, but at least he as consistent about doing it multiple times that then forced the protagonist to make more changes. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on May 21, 2009, 02:30:52 AM Actually, I think that's how it's supposed to work in Trek. I could be mixing memories of old books and shows, but warp space (and transwarp, and TNG-era hyperwarp, slipstream, and sidewarp from the awesome original backstory for Zephram Cochrane in Federation]) are all "other" spaces. They're just smaller than normal space so it takes a shorter amount of time to go a longer relative distance. When you pop out of warp back into normal space, you've covered more distance. Some, like warp space, can interact with regular space, but not in the usual way. In warp you can go through things with less mass (and it's like shooting a lightspeed bullet through them, so no kinetic transfer, but it could break apart anyway), but big ass gravity wells will pull you right out of warp. They don't spend as much screen/story time talking about navigation like they do with all that "plot a course to X" in Star Wars. But it's as much a requirement in Trek universe because you can't just go in a straight line. Incidentally, that same Cochrane book also explained how warp power worked, and why the Starfleet symbol looks the way it is (it's actually the plotted graph of how warp and normal power work, with the star being infinite energy I think). Even it is a retcon (or not) it was a great read. And yes, this is all from memory. So either a) I've gone completely around the bend, b) mashing together a bunch of geek fantasies and therefore way wrong; or, c) just succeeded in writing the geekiest thing I've written all day. Um. No. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Koyasha on May 21, 2009, 09:28:58 AM Warp speed in Star Trek creates a warp bubble around the ship that "bends" the fabric of space-time and allows you to go faster than light, it doesn't shunt you into an alternate-space or something. And you can't pass through other objects either.
Some of the Transwarp technologies do seem to function on some sort of limited alternate-space function, like the borg tubes or whatever, but for the most part you just go faster. Logically, any FTL travel of any form would make you completely blind to everything to your sides and behind you, and give you a limited timeframe to percieve things in front of you before you are there, but that's just not the way it's ever worked in Trek before, because of subspace sensors or something like that. Simply put, look at most random episodes of most Star Trek series: even when going at warp you can see what's in front of you before you get there. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 21, 2009, 04:25:13 PM Arguing technology in star trek is like arguing technology in star wars.
Don't. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on May 21, 2009, 08:33:18 PM Arguing technology in star trek is like arguing technology in star wars. Don't. Transwarp! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on May 21, 2009, 08:48:41 PM Warp speed in Star Trek creates a warp bubble around the ship that "bends" the fabric of space-time and allows you to go faster than light, it doesn't shunt you into an alternate-space or something. And you can't pass through other objects either. Tell that to Peter David :awesome_for_real: You're debating from a position of knowledge that can't possible be one of confidence given how stupidly inconsistent they've been. Someone said it earlier: all tech in Trek is merely a whimsical plot device for the momentary need of a story. Fun to geek out, but this doesn't even qualify as a disagreement. There's simply nothing here to discuss. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: naum on May 22, 2009, 12:42:25 PM I love how when popular sci-fi/fantasy flick/(or book) invites far fetched whimsical allegorical comparisons to RL.
In this episode, I give you: Star Trek and the Jews http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/star_trek_and_the_jews Quote About half way through, I started to get the sense that “the Vulcans” were a metaphor for the Jews. Much of the plot of the new Trek hinges around the “genocide” of “six billion” of Spock’s countrymen. Add the Vulcans themselves aren’t just smart and traditionalist; they strictly observe a hierarchal and highly ritualistic religion and code of conduct. One gets the impression that “Vulcan logic” isn’t just rational, but part of a much grander system that resembles Kabbalah in its level of complexity. And the Vulcan Ways, which are so successful in preserving tradition and religion, are certainly an affront to individualism. The half-human Spock actually leaves his home planet because of its oppressive anti-human bigotry, and after joining Starfleet, ends up dating a black girl (the perky Zoe Saldana (“Nyota Uhura”), who for most of the film seems to be wearing a galactic Bluetooth device). Anyway, after googling a bit, I found that I definitely wasn’t the first to make the Vulcan-Jewish connection, indeed a whole book’s been written on it! And there’s a fascinating YouTube video of Leonard Nimoy discussing his invention of the famous Vulcan salute, which he borrowed from a ritual in his Orthodox Schule in which the rabbis signed with their hands the Hebrew letter “shin,” ש, the first letter of “Shaddai” (“Almighty God). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: jayfyve on May 23, 2009, 01:30:51 PM I love how when popular sci-fi/fantasy flick/(or book) invites far fetched whimsical allegorical comparisons to RL. Well, in an interview on the Creative Screenwriting Magazine, Quote Star Trek Q&A Senior Editor Jeff Goldsmith interviews co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Here's a link (http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/StarTrekQandA.mp3). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Megrim on May 24, 2009, 01:29:00 AM Saw it. Cute movie, but a) too much lensflare, b) what's red-matter? Also, space-ship battles looked terrible, and furthermore, i don't think this director understands what 'dramatic involvement' for an audience actually means.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Quinton on May 24, 2009, 02:06:29 AM b) what's red-matter? Movie version of "particle of the week", I guess! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 24, 2009, 04:16:08 AM Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: K9 on May 26, 2009, 08:04:59 AM Also, space-ship battles looked terrible This I disagree with, I think these were the best space battles ever visualised in a Trek film. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Morat20 on May 30, 2009, 08:52:53 AM Logically, any FTL travel of any form would make you completely blind to everything to your sides and behind you, and give you a limited timeframe to percieve things in front of you before you are there, but that's just not the way it's ever worked in Trek before, because of subspace sensors or something like that. Simply put, look at most random episodes of most Star Trek series: even when going at warp you can see what's in front of you before you get there. One would assume that if you were moving FTL, you'd have sensors that worked FTL. Or else, yes, you'd be up shit creek because you'd have already hit something and died before you actually had a chance to see it.All FTL stuff, from pretty much every source, is an attempt to cheat Einstein. Warp space, hyperspace, whatever they call it is an attempt to postulate some place that corresponds to normal space, but where relative distance is shorter -- or the speed of light is higher. I've heard Star Trek warp drive most oftenly referred to as a bubble of warped space-time -- one of NASA's blue sky programs actually plays with the math of this, in fact. I think they find the energy requirements to be somewhere past infinite, but it's at least plausible that you could put space-time through a ringer around a given volume, and it's squirt that volume forward at multiples of light-speed, but to anything IN the volume, it'd be standing still. Of course, all that relies on models of the universe that are currently up in the air. Whether or not any form of FTL is possible, energy requirements aside, depends upon understanding the nuts and bolts of the universe -- the math all seems to end up in the very areas we don't understand. Having said that: Quite enjoyed the movie. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on May 30, 2009, 09:10:53 AM Fantastic. Saw it with my girlfriend, who generally dislikes both action and scifi, and she loved it and wants to see it again. I hesitate to say this because I'm sure it would devolve, but PLEASE give us a TV series with this crew.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 30, 2009, 10:23:30 AM Or maybe just give us a TV series with competent writers (like Abrams) at the helm from the get-go, instead of the crew who gave us Lizard Space Hitler.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: pxib on May 30, 2009, 11:36:51 AM Saw it with my girlfriend, who generally dislikes both action and scifi, and she loved it and wants to see it again. It's not action or scifi, though it contains both. It's a character piece about how these people interact and why. TV has been dropping this sort of stuff into every imaginable genre for more than a decade, and laughing all the way to the bank. Only geeks enjoy scifi for scifi's sake, or action for action's sake. Many more people are willing to accept them as seasoning to an already entertaining ensemble piece.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on May 31, 2009, 12:30:32 AM Or maybe just give us a TV series with competent writers (like Abrams) at the helm from the get-go, For the record, the official writers of this "Star Trek" movie are also responsible for "The Island" (the island of clones movie that had to pay out for stealing heavily from another cult film), "Eagle Eye" and "Transformers". They also appear to be pet writers of Abrahms. Plus: the script wasn't the strong point of this film. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on May 31, 2009, 08:20:53 AM And yet it was miles ahead of the last couple of Trek series in that respect.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on May 31, 2009, 11:29:31 AM Of course, all that relies on models of the universe that are currently up in the air. Whether or not any form of FTL is possible, energy requirements aside, depends upon understanding the nuts and bolts of the universe -- the math all seems to end up in the very areas we don't understand. Kip Thorne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne#Wormholes_and_time_travel has done the math several times (with help of course) and pretty much found that it should be possible, if not very probable to move FTL (by moving through time as well). I read Black Holes and Time Warps by him long before I had any real math/physics background so it's easy enough to get the gist of what he's saying even if you skip the proofs. Of course, you need amounts of energy that border on impossible and structures the size of planets to make the wormholes but the math seems to say it's ok. At least how we currently understand it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Morat20 on June 01, 2009, 08:37:36 AM Of course, all that relies on models of the universe that are currently up in the air. Whether or not any form of FTL is possible, energy requirements aside, depends upon understanding the nuts and bolts of the universe -- the math all seems to end up in the very areas we don't understand. Kip Thorne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne#Wormholes_and_time_travel has done the math several times (with help of course) and pretty much found that it should be possible, if not very probable to move FTL (by moving through time as well). I read Black Holes and Time Warps by him long before I had any real math/physics background so it's easy enough to get the gist of what he's saying even if you skip the proofs. Of course, you need amounts of energy that border on impossible and structures the size of planets to make the wormholes but the math seems to say it's ok. At least how we currently understand it. Then again, quantum mechanics is currently being a real bitch on the subject. It's stubborn refusal to allow information transfer at FTL rates (even with it's spooky action-at-a-distance fun) seems to indicate the universe is dead-set on not allowing temporal changes, which FTL travel effectively IS. Any FTL ship is a time machine, unless Einstein is badly wrong, and so far the universe is stubbornly acting as if his conclusions on that matter are correct. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ingmar on June 01, 2009, 02:22:05 PM I finally got to see this. Very good, very enjoyable, and they fucked with the old characters far less than I expected.
Holy shit @ Karl Urban, btw. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on October 04, 2009, 10:54:53 PM This movie fucking rocked!
Yeah, Karl Urban nailed it. Surprisingly.. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: tgr on October 05, 2009, 04:25:00 AM Going to latch on to this semi-necro for a bit.
The movie itself was fairly standard fare with a few awkward bits (kirk throwing himself out of the car 3 meters infront of the edge of a cliff in a /classic/ car? I'd have whupped his ass so hard he'd be whining for pillows to sit on when he was 75 years old), but that doesn't matter in the long run in this movie. What ruined the movie was how much damn *LENS FLARE* there was everywhere. I was expecting even fucking torches to throw lensflare at some point. And what was with the spasticly-shaking/overzoomy/constantly-moving camera? Nearly every scene felt like they thought they had to throw MORE action and MORE movement into it than it really should have, to the point where I thought it was straining. Zoom in on spock/kirk's face, and the camera is constantly moving around. STOP IT. STOPITSTOPITSTOPIT. It sucked in BSG, it sucks in ST. Just stop it with the mtv-generation's need for everything to be CONSTANTLY in motion. Apart from all that, though, not a bad movie. I'd almost go as far as to say it was enjoyable, even though I felt that the way the storyline itself moved along felt a bit weird, I'd be lying if I said that it was bad enough to really complain about. But the cameras... gah. I hope that fad stops. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on October 05, 2009, 05:19:23 AM Hmm.. Funny. I don't usually like that thing either, but I didn't notice it here for some reason.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on October 05, 2009, 09:08:06 AM Hmm.. Funny. I don't usually like that thing either, but I didn't notice it here for some reason. Same here. My anti-shakycam rants are probably well known by now but it didn't bother me in Star Trek that much. I literally have seen the last two Bourne movies only once because of that stupid shit. I wonder why it didn't bother us as much in Star Trek? Maybe J.J. Abrams is just a better director than Paul Greengrass or whatever his name is. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: tgr on October 05, 2009, 02:39:34 PM Just rewatched it, and I stand by my rantings. Rather enjoyable film, but some situations just come off unpolished/illogical, so could've used more work. But overall not that bad. 7/10 or so I suppose.
Granted, the camera shake's not nearly as bad as in some situations in BSG, but it's everywhere. But I can live with it I suppose, if I must. Actually, I believe what pissed me off first was the lens flare everywhere, and once I'd started seeing that, the shakycam started to seriously annoy me as well. I really wish it wasn't the case, as it annoying me as it does really detracts from my enjoyment of the film. I must be getting old and grumpy. :( Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: schild on October 05, 2009, 03:10:39 PM Hmm.. Funny. I don't usually like that thing either, but I didn't notice it here for some reason. Same here. My anti-shakycam rants are probably well known by now but it didn't bother me in Star Trek that much. I literally have seen the last two Bourne movies only once because of that stupid shit. I wonder why it didn't bother us as much in Star Trek? Maybe J.J. Abrams is just a better director than Paul Greengrass or whatever his name is. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sir T on October 05, 2009, 06:44:58 PM Shakycam is the reason I never watched more than one episode of BSG (the pilot)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on October 05, 2009, 07:25:56 PM Shakycam is the crack for directors. First hit's for free!
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Bunk on October 06, 2009, 11:19:48 AM Controlled use of shakey cam can be effective when used to set a tone - I liked it in BSG. Using it strictly to make what should be an exciting action sequence "more exciting" is just crap - see recent Bourne/Bond movies. Movies like Cloverfield and Blair Witch, it was basically integral.
I don't care whether you though Blair Witch was complete horeshit or not, you have to admit the handheld is what made it "work". I didn't find it bothered me much in Star Trek. My view is, if I don't specifically notice it, it wasn't an issue. addendum: worst ever use of Shakey Cam to "enhance" an action sequence: the first Transformers movie. How the hell does a completely animated fight sequence require camera tricks to enhance it?! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on October 06, 2009, 03:25:28 PM My vote for worst ever use of shakycam is from Bourne Ultimatum. There's a scene with Joan Allen and David Strathairn, sitting in an office, talking. That's it. Bourne isn't outside, assaulting the compound. It's literally just two people talking.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on October 07, 2009, 12:09:13 PM Shakycam in Star Trek didn't bug me. The lens flare on the bridge set and in space sometimes did.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on November 29, 2009, 10:29:31 AM Rise.
I got around to seeing this a few weeks ago. I really don't know how to feel about it. A lot of people are gushing over this movie, but I thought it was easily one of the most boring movies I've seen. I was expecting a fun space adventure, and got Revenge of the Fallen meets Star Trek 90210. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on November 29, 2009, 10:36:22 AM Lay off the weed.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: apocrypha on November 29, 2009, 11:28:21 PM Lay off the weed. I watched it stoned as a date and enjoyed it greatly. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: lamaros on December 05, 2009, 05:36:39 AM I enjoyed watching this but honestly it worked better as a comedy and playing off general Star Trek stuff than anything else. The plot was really really boring, the fight scenes worse, etc etc.
But I enjoyed it, if only for the good jobs nearly all of the actors did, getting it right without pushing it in to parody. Zoe Saldana was fucking awful though. They need to go somewhere with the sequal plot-wise though; clever acting and hip rebranding wont carry another film. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on December 05, 2009, 09:35:37 AM I'm kind of hoping that the light plot stemmed from trying to sell this as a relaunch and focusing more on the characters for people who are newish/introducing some subtle differences and that the next films will actually be about stuff rather than a fairly paper thin plot that gave the actors space to play their parts. If they keep the cast and get some good writing we could be getting a couple or more awesome movies. Alternatively they just descend into parody and have Simon Pegg pop up every 20 minutes being a cheery Scotsman.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 05, 2009, 01:06:55 PM There was some comedy, but this was still the best action movie of the year imho.
Best funny part to me was subtle... Which was just Eric Bana in general. So sloppy and informal for a space villain. "Hi Christopher. I'm Nero." I'm used to melodrama but he was just a pissed off working class schlub -- From teh future! Possibly the most dangerous of the Trek villains. :grin: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 05, 2009, 06:57:10 PM There was some comedy, but this was still the best action movie of the year imho. Best funny part to me was subtle... Which was just Eric Bana in general. So sloppy and informal for a space villain. "Hi Christopher. I'm Nero." I'm used to melodrama but he was just a pissed off working class schlub -- From teh future! Possibly the most dangerous of the Trek villains. :grin: This was actually one of my favorite parts. To steal from the Incredibles: Nero would never get caught monologuing. He didn't have grand schemes. He was in pain and wanted other people to hurt like he did. The end. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2009, 05:07:15 AM Yea, mine too. I got the sense that this guy was just becoming more and more unhinged the closer he got to his goal, after setting himself up for brain fail after sitting around for 25 years doing nothing but waiting. And once he destroyed Vulcan (allegorically similar to Moby Dick imho), he really had nothing better to do but to keep destroying shit. I'm just surprised they didn't go the route of destroying Romulus so that the Nero of this time stream would be saved the pain of overwhelming loss.
If it were me, I'd have become unhinged much sooner during that 25 years and just pulled a Terminator on Sarek and Amanda rather than waiting all that time so their son could grow up and ram red matter up my ship. Still hate the term "red matter". That just sounds like non-Trek, like the committee decided the lowest common denominator audience couldn't handle anything more techy... in a move with phasers, time travel, teleporters and so on. I am glad they skipped the whole back story on how Nero got all that fancy weaponry on his mining ship though. Seems like after the 24th century just about anyone is one transporter malfunction away from time travel and every Vendor in the galaxy is selling Borg spare parts. Both of which are the primary reasons I was such a big fan of this IP reset. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 06, 2009, 06:37:05 AM Hmm, well the drill was just a miner tool. The rest of the weapons just seemed liked phasers and torpedos. Considering that he's also Romulan (who are nearly as warlike as the Klingons), it seems like no big deal he'd have his shipped equipped. It just more powerful than usual because he's going back in time some 100 years (or something! I'm a halfassed trekkie. I don't do stardates ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2009, 06:57:13 AM Yea. Awhile back there was some debate as to why that didn't look much like a mining ship, and the throwaway line Scotty had ("if the ship makes any kind of sense") was supposedly homage to the fact that the ship was designed to look cool very separately from being designed to perform a mining function.
I think that's why the backstory (all the plot that lead up to Spock being dumped on Hoth pre-movie) was retrofitted with "welp, he just got Borg stuff in the 24th century". Because ya need to justify that stuff to trekkies :-) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 06, 2009, 08:12:55 AM Nero sucked because he only existed to motivate the heroes. And by that, I mean they threw him in a closet for 20 years! Patience is one thing, but sitting on your thumbs for two decades just floating out there like a dipshit is dull as dishwater.
Sloppy writing for a shit movie. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on December 06, 2009, 01:07:21 PM He was in the klingon prison Rura Penthe for most of the time between his and Spock-Prime's arrival.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 06, 2009, 01:48:33 PM He was in the klingon prison Rura Penthe for most of the time between his and Spock-Prime's arrival. I'm sorry. According to a scene that was never in the movie, he spent 20 years in a Klingon mine. That makes it all better! :oh_i_see: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2009, 01:50:30 PM Wait. Who "he"? Are you saying Nero spent time in a prison or a mine for 20 years? What'd his ship and shipmates do and/or how did they escape to a 24th century ship? And/or how did they let themselves get captured/imprisoned in the first place?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2009, 02:35:23 PM Their ship was damaged after the battle with the U.S.S. Kelvin. They strayed into Klingon space and were taken prisoner. Yes, it's a deleted scene. I thought the Klingons looked kinda cool, all masked, reminded me of Planet of the Apes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on December 06, 2009, 02:57:17 PM I'm sorry. According to a scene that was never in the movie, he spent 20 years in a Klingon mine. That makes it all better! :oh_i_see: I was under the impression you were actually trying to rationalize the behavior of an irrational character, so I figured the deleted scene stuff might shed some light on why Nero wasn't tearing ass across the quadrant, ripping the shit out of federation planets. The scene was removed for pacing purposes, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly no longer a part of their world and its stories. That would be like discounting all the things mentioned in the appendix of The Lord of the Rings as non-canonical. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2009, 03:06:54 PM Their ship was damaged after the battle with the U.S.S. Kelvin. They strayed into Klingon space and were taken prisoner. Yes, it's a deleted scene. I thought the Klingons looked kinda cool, all masked, reminded me of Planet of the Apes. Jeezus. I was happier thinking they were just sitting around blowing up remote/deep-space planets or some shit. This spawns more questions than answers, including the whole how'd-they-get-rescued thing. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: AutomaticZen on December 06, 2009, 03:09:59 PM Their ship was damaged after the battle with the U.S.S. Kelvin. They strayed into Klingon space and were taken prisoner. Yes, it's a deleted scene. I thought the Klingons looked kinda cool, all masked, reminded me of Planet of the Apes. Jeezus. I was happier thinking they were just sitting around blowing up remote/deep-space planets or some shit. This spawns more questions than answers, including the whole how'd-they-get-rescued thing. They didn't. Jailbreak. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2009, 03:18:31 PM Is there more to this cut backstory than the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29)? Still want to know how they escaped 20 years of imprisonment and found the Narada again. Somehow I doubt the Klingons spent 20 years pulling the ship apart for research only to have a few dozen future Romulans show up to take it back. Maybe that's the 5 years between their escape and the encounter with the Kelvin. Heck, maybe this is in the novelization? Not that I'd buy it of course. Not a good enough story to read it. But I would skim at Barnes & Noble :-)
Oh, and another thing, why would anyone think a 2nd movie with Khan would make any sense? They'd have to redo Space Seed first, which happens in the middle of a five year mission they still have yet to tell at all. And even then, was that really a fan favorite episode or did it just occur to N Meyer to go that route because it allowed for a great use of Moby Dick and superweapons? Kirk's had much more powerful enemies, but back then going with the throwback allowed for allegories to the cold war and people unable to change. THIS Kirk needs to establish a stronger backstory before he can have past villains show up to hunt him down. And they already wasted that concept on Nero. Edit: to add the Khan stuff Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Pennilenko on December 06, 2009, 03:34:47 PM You all brainfuck this shit too much. I went to go see a star trek movie, and I as happy with it. Sheesh, hang up the neck beards for five seconds so you can enjoy something every now and then.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 06, 2009, 03:42:26 PM I'm sorry. According to a scene that was never in the movie, he spent 20 years in a Klingon mine. That makes it all better! :oh_i_see: I was under the impression you were actually trying to rationalize the behavior of an irrational character, so I figured the deleted scene stuff might shed some light on why Nero wasn't tearing ass across the quadrant, ripping the shit out of federation planets. The scene was removed for pacing purposes, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly no longer a part of their world and its stories. That would be like discounting all the things mentioned in the appendix of The Lord of the Rings as non-canonical. My point is that the Nero story fizzles pretty badly. What exactly he was doing during those two decades isn't important to the fact that he does little and little is done with him. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2009, 03:48:02 PM You all brainfuck this shit too much. I went to go see a star trek movie, and I as happy with it. Sheesh, hang up the neck beards for five seconds so you can enjoy something every now and then. I was happy with it. When I saw it. But there's still something to discuss these many months later. That's actually an interest they can market to with a sequel or there wouldn't be this whole industry of movies made because there's believed to be a sequel. Don't be confused and think this is some indictment of the movie. There's plenty of shit that gets released that isn't worth discussing at all. And if you were the type to merely seek enjoyment and then privately convict yourself to staying with it or seeking something else, you wouldn't be here :grin:. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ahoythematey on December 06, 2009, 03:50:08 PM My point is that the Nero story fizzles pretty badly. What exactly he was doing during those two decades isn't important to the fact that he does little and little is done with him. Eh, it's not really about him, though. It's about Spock and Kirk. Obviously, I didn't mind the lack of focus on his part of the story.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 06, 2009, 03:57:59 PM My point is that the Nero story fizzles pretty badly. What exactly he was doing during those two decades isn't important to the fact that he does little and little is done with him. Eh, it's not really about him, though. It's about Spock and Kirk. Obviously, I didn't mind the lack of focus on his part of the story.You know, I did like young Spock. He had a few neat moments. The rest of the characters were crap. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Pennilenko on December 06, 2009, 04:03:33 PM You all brainfuck this shit too much. I went to go see a star trek movie, and I as happy with it. Sheesh, hang up the neck beards for five seconds so you can enjoy something every now and then. I was happy with it. When I saw it. But there's still something to discuss these many months later. That's actually an interest they can market to with a sequel or there wouldn't be this whole industry of movies made because there's believed to be a sequel. Don't be confused and think this is some indictment of the movie. There's plenty of shit that gets released that isn't worth discussing at all. And if you were the type to merely seek enjoyment and then privately convict yourself to staying with it or seeking something else, you wouldn't be here :grin:. You got me there, it's just frustrating seeing people be so discerning regarding science fiction movies they have seen, and i wasn't necessarily calling your Nero discussion out. I should have quoted a whole bunch of posts in this thread where people were being the hip dis a decent movie to look cool types. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: lamaros on December 06, 2009, 04:38:15 PM Stop thinking about the plot. It is shit and thinking about it will only make it apparent just how shit it is.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2009, 04:43:47 PM I remember watching the movie thinking 'wtf have the Romulans been up to for 20 years?'
But the movie was about Kirk and Spock, Nero got shafted storywise. Eh, no movie is perfect. But taken as a whole it's a great piece of entertainment. Lastly, no Khan please. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slayerik on December 07, 2009, 08:01:40 AM Fun movie. Will watch again at some point.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ubvman on December 07, 2009, 10:46:13 PM Their ship was damaged after the battle with the U.S.S. Kelvin. They strayed into Klingon space and were taken prisoner. Yes, it's a deleted scene. I thought the Klingons looked kinda cool, all masked, reminded me of Planet of the Apes. About Nero. What annoys me greatly is the fact that instead of, "lets warn the Romulan high command of the impending disaster and save all the future generations of Romulans including my wife; and while we are at, give all this advanced tech (including the red globe macguffin) to the Romulan empire so that they can properly ass fuck the Vulcans AND the Federation." Its, "No, let us just do an amateur job at it and get screwed for the next 20 years on a Kilingon planet AND still fail at killing the one I blame for the whole mess..." Writer's guild strike (which happened at the pre-production of the film and prevented re-writes) really messed up the movie IMHO. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on December 08, 2009, 03:28:46 AM No, Nero hated the Romulan government due to their anti-union strikebuster policies. Nero is a staunch member of the URMW, that's why he had weapons on his mining ship. He would never give his advanced mining technology to the Romulan government! Not after what they did to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, his father.
/got nuthin' Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on December 08, 2009, 05:49:27 AM I thought Nero was a Reman or something? The whole Romulan slave-caste thing that were stuck with life as miners and weren't overly-fond of the Romulan government and Tal Shiar or is that one of those things I've totally invented in my head by mashing random words I've read together?
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 08, 2009, 07:55:07 AM Ok guys. You have one major problem when it comes to Nero. You're trying to think about him and his actions logically. Stop that shit. It's not. He's not. He's nucking futz and everyone knows it including his crew. Nero is Spock's Khan. Did Khan fly off with his new ship to go find a home for his people and revel in the fact that he escaped that planet? Hell no. He hunted down Kirk and fought to the death even when offered mercy. Sound familiar? Had Nero been sane enough to go the Romulans and tell them what was coming as well as give them his ship the movie never would have happened.
Nero doesn't give a shit about the Romulans. He doesn't care about his crew. He doesn't care about himself. Nero died when his wife died. All he cared about was hurting Spock as much as possible. That's it. That's why he waited 20+ years. We're talking about a man who shaved his head and tatooed every inch of skin. a man who committed genocide simply to hurt his opponent. Ahab? Ahab was an amateur when it came to obsession compared to Nero. Nero would have literally gutted his best friend if it would help him hurt Spock. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: kaid on December 08, 2009, 09:42:03 AM My biggest problem with star trek is the whole omg vulcan blew up and now vulcans are an endangered species. Okay people vulcans are one of the oldest know warp capable civlilizations. If they were not logical enough to colonize a whole bunch of other planets then they deserve to go extinct.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on December 08, 2009, 09:55:15 AM You also seem to be forgetting that Nero was a "working-class" guy. Chances he would think about all the options that his time-travel allowed him are pretty low, especially when he's in a heightened emotional state of grief. Sure, it might have occurred to him in that 20 years time to help the Romulans, but for him, it was more about killing the guy that killed his wife. It was more Death Wish than Machiavelli.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 08, 2009, 01:47:43 PM I thought Nero was a Reman or something? The whole Romulan slave-caste thing that were stuck with life as miners and weren't overly-fond of the Romulan government and Tal Shiar or is that one of those things I've totally invented in my head by mashing random words I've read together? News to me. There's actually something called a Reman? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Rishathra on December 08, 2009, 02:00:31 PM http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Reman
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2009, 03:51:16 PM Ok then, fuck Nero, how about his crew. They were all fanatically devoted to him beyond all reason, or are you saying that they all had some PTSD and would have gladly slit their own throats just to appease their only tie to the lives they knew? None of them, NOT A ONE, said "eh.. guys why teh fuck are we doin' this?" in 20 years?
I'm glad I waited on the movie. It barely rose to my low expectations. The actors were solid in their character portrayals, but the movie was a special effects blockbuster with a plot so thin I was afraid to sneeze. Fandom and hope keeps it alive, but it was as weak as 5. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ingmar on December 08, 2009, 03:54:27 PM Man, you might need to rewatch 5. :ye_gods:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2009, 03:59:20 PM Possibly. I've only seen it once, when it was on Cable right before Undiscovered Country came out so it's been a long, long time. I do remember it was awful, and I disliked this one about as much as it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 08, 2009, 04:52:40 PM Fandom and hope do not keep it alive. The only people who bitch about it seems to be Trek fans. OTOH I know quite a few non Trek fans who enjoyed this movie. It's just fun summer schlock, and yes, while the plot isn't well thought out, not many people care. I don't blame them either.
And 5 is much sillier, I agree. But Kirk was pretty cool in it. Defiant till the end.. "What would God need with a starship?" Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 08, 2009, 06:53:49 PM Ok then, fuck Nero, how about his crew. They were all fanatically devoted to him beyond all reason, or are you saying that they all had some PTSD and would have gladly slit their own throats just to appease their only tie to the lives they knew? None of them, NOT A ONE, said "eh.. guys why teh fuck are we doin' this?" in 20 years? I'm glad I waited on the movie. It barely rose to my low expectations. The actors were solid in their character portrayals, but the movie was a special effects blockbuster with a plot so thin I was afraid to sneeze. Fandom and hope keeps it alive, but it was as weak as 5. First, comparing this one to 5 makes me suspect you're just trying to start something. As for his crew two things: 1) Who says some of them didn't? Their frozen corpses are probably still out in space somewhere. and 2) we all know how psychology works and how easy it is for people to get wrapped up in following their leader even against their own best interests. Combine that with the fact that all of them lost everything and everyone they loved and yes, it's probably that most of them latched onto Nero as the one thing in their lives that still made sense. "Nero ordered us to wait for Spock no matter how long it takes then we're going to destroy Vulcan? Thank god someone knows what to do!" Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 08, 2009, 07:06:13 PM I'm just gonna say this movie isn't for left brain thinkers.
In fact, most movies probably aren't for left brain thinkers. Me, I can appreciate some space explosions. And just plain ole explosions too. Can't get enough of them. Yes, I'm stupid. Ignorance is bliss. I, for one, would consider it a living hell if my mind had to analyze everything all the time. And if you think you lowered the bar in giving it a chance, then you probably didn't. You have no idea how low the bar can go. :oh_i_see: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2009, 07:49:58 PM In fact, most movies probably aren't for left brain thinkers. Me, I can appreciate some space explosions. And just plain ole explosions too. Can't get enough of them. Yes, I'm stupid. Ignorance is bliss. I, for one, would consider it a living hell if my mind had to analyze everything all the time. :awesome_for_real: First, comparing this one to 5 makes me suspect you're just trying to start something. No, I just apparently don't remember 5 being as godawful as you all do. Again, I only saw it once. So, instead, lets say it's as bad as the TNG one with the stretchy-skin people. This one was pretty bad. Sorry, it was. I have nothing invested in Trek, so it's not "zomg they ruined Trek!" If anything I'm a Star Wars geek of WUA's caliber, so I can forgive some pretty shitty stuff. However, this movie was 'meh'ville. Sorry. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2009, 11:10:46 AM See now, and like I said earlier, I can forgive the tissue thin story if the characters are good. But all the characters except for young Spock were crap. Kirk was dull, Bones was annoying, and the rest didn't matter anyway. That left the action and explosions. Eh. They were alright, but not enough to float the rest of the movie.
The only thing I can praise is that it seems the crew and actors were having fun. So I guess "E" for effort? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 09, 2009, 12:17:05 PM I thought Bones was on the money. And that's coming from someone who sort of disliked Karl Urban.. I thought he was just another square jawed idiot actor. No one could have done a better Bones.. Except Gary Sinise.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on December 09, 2009, 08:03:55 PM My biggest problem with star trek is the whole omg vulcan blew up and now vulcans are an endangered species. Okay people vulcans are one of the oldest know warp capable civlilizations. If they were not logical enough to colonize a whole bunch of other planets then they deserve to go extinct. In all likelihood, it was a fake dramatic act. Sure, Vulcan is destroyed, but the film ends with Vulcan colonies being set-up elsewhere, plus whatever planets / colonies / expansions they already had. The Vulcan people will continue. Although the new movies / lore could capitalise on this change - losing one's homeworld certainly hurts a civilisation and perhaps there would be those looking to take advantage of that power gap - the reality is it will probably be something for Vulcans to go emo over but mostly ignore. Or have some psycho Vulcan who uses logic about losing his homeworld to explain why he should kill everyone else, or something. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 09, 2009, 10:07:26 PM That'll be interesting at least. Vulcans are pretty hardcore once they're pissed. Having Spock torn between it would make for a good story. Even if a bit predictable.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 09, 2009, 10:52:15 PM No, I just apparently don't remember 5 being as godawful as you all do. Again, I only saw it once. So, instead, lets say it's as bad as the TNG one with the stretchy-skin people. This one was pretty bad. Sorry, it was. I have nothing invested in Trek, so it's not "zomg they ruined Trek!" If anything I'm a Star Wars geek of WUA's caliber, so I can forgive some pretty shitty stuff. However, this movie was 'meh'ville. Sorry. 5 isn't just bad for a Trek movie. It's bad in general. Same thing with the TNG stretchy skin people Really, all of the TNG movies except First Contact suck. This one is in a dead heat with Wrath of Khan for best Trek movie IMO. Your mileage is obviously measured on a totally different scale than mine. I thought they did a great job with the characters and while the plot had some weird elements in it I am able to rationalize most of them away and I moreover I like why they did what they did. The intent is true genius. They've managed to bring back the original characters that alot of people loved while simultaneously ejecting that heavy baggage known as canon. There is no canon in the new movies. Whatever they do, that is now canon. I think that's the real reason Vulcan was destroyed to be blunt. I can't think of a more explicit way to say "this is not going to happen the way you think it is." I am curious to see if they keep being ballsy in the sequels. If this were Batman we'd be at the point now where we wonder if the next movie is Batman Forever or the Dark Knight. And that is all going to come down to two things IMO: 1) if JJ and the others stay passionate and 2) if Paramount gets stupid and tells them to rein it in for the next one. Finally, I'll end this post with a terrifying thought: Paramount is not just responsible for Star Trek, they're also responsible for Transformers. It's enough to give you nightmares if you ponder a studio executive going "I know how to make more money in Star Trek 2! We have Bay direct it!!!!" Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: apocrypha on December 09, 2009, 10:56:58 PM I watched Wrath of Khan again recently, after having not seen it for over 10 years. I'm sorry to say that it hadn't aged well, although Ricardo Montalban still completely stole the show. It's a good film, it's just showing it's age a lot.
As for this Star Trek film, I liked it a lot, which surprised me. Simon Pegg was the low point of it and badly miscast IMO but other than that it was very enjoyable. It's just easy entertainment and sometimes that's just what I need. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ubvman on December 10, 2009, 01:29:01 AM (snip) No, I just apparently don't remember 5 being as godawful as you all do. Again, I only saw it once. So, instead, lets say it's as bad as the TNG one with the stretchy-skin people. This one was pretty bad. Sorry, it was. I have nothing invested in Trek, so it's not "zomg they ruined Trek!" If anything I'm a Star Wars geek of WUA's caliber, so I can forgive some pretty shitty stuff. However, this movie was 'meh'ville. Sorry. ST:V is not half as bad as so many people make it up to be. I agree on that. It had some good bits in it. On the other hand, the TNG movie with the stretchy skin people - Insurrection; was a stretched (weak pun intended) 2 hour TNG TV episode. And not one of the better TNG TV episodes at that. It was like just one of those annoying artificial crisis episodes with Picard (or Troi or Data or Wesley...) whinging over some stupid situation or the other with nothing really happening on screen. It was weak, whiny, unmemorable and commits the worst sin ever for a movie like this - it was BORING. Whatever else can be said about the new Star Trek movie - it wasn't boring. (big dose of IMHO of course) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2009, 08:52:26 AM Same thing with the TNG stretchy skin people Really, all of the TNG movies :oh_i_see: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 10, 2009, 01:32:21 PM I liked First Contact as well. Borg Queen is a hot bitch (it's that crazy milf I think.. who's probably like 80 years old.. but for some reason, she's always kind of sexy to me :grin:). In fact, I was turned off by Star Trek for years until I saw that movie..
Generations is kind of fun too. Malcolm McDowell is also a hot bitch. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2009, 02:47:58 PM Random anecdote: I have a friend who used to work at ILM, and did at the time they were doing some post-production work on First Contact. Apparently one of the things his team had to work on was removing the Borg Queen's 'moustache' (his words) from close-up shots.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 10, 2009, 03:15:46 PM Well, I did call Malcolm McDowell a hot bitch as well. Maybe I just like old grizzly men..even if they're women. :uhrr:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sir T on December 10, 2009, 05:22:58 PM First Contact was so awful it caused me and my fiance to break up. True story.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: schild on December 10, 2009, 07:25:08 PM First Contact was so awful it caused me and my fiance to break up. True story. First Contact was really the only Star Trek movie I'd qualify as good. Your fiance was right to break up with you.Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ghost on December 19, 2009, 10:14:50 PM Review: decent movie. They could have done better without the "time travel" bullshit. Leonard Nemoy is certainly cool, but was unnecessary in this movie. They could have developed the characters better.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 19, 2009, 11:00:56 PM Why was he unnecessary? Umm.. I'm confused. I mean, sure the whole time travel thing might be passe, but it's basically the only way you could tell this story. It stands or falls on the idea of old Spock accidentally pissing on a Romulan. Kind of have to love it or hate it for being a time travel story.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on December 19, 2009, 11:32:52 PM Review: decent movie. They could have done better without the "time travel" bullshit. Leonard Nemoy is certainly cool, but was unnecessary in this movie. They could have developed the characters better. What Stray said. Seriously, how do you propose they change Trek history without time travel? Now, if they'd undone it all at the end of the movie I'd agree. But they didn't. They changed things and made it permanent. I've heard Nimoy was there more to act as a bridge to the fans. Sort of a "here's one of the originals giving his stamp of approval to this." As for his role in the movie I liked it but don't think the movie would have fallen apart without it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kail on December 20, 2009, 12:04:27 AM Seriously, how do you propose they change Trek history without time travel? Perhaps.... we could reverse the polarities and route it through the main deflector dish. Really, though, they had a lot of options. 1) This is a different timeline from the original Star Trek. I understand that's what they do for the movies anyways (which allegedly is the canon reason why things like lighting and special effects look different in the shows from the movies). This is pretty much the norm for series reboots. Batman Begins doesn't start with George Clooney jumping back through time in a desperate attempt to prevent Batman and Robin. You just go with it. 2) Take your pick of one of the million time travel/alternate reality storylines already established in the lore. Didn't Fist Contact already basically fuck up the entire timeline afer 2063 anyways? 3) Stay faithful to the original design. I'm not really into the Star Trek EU, so I don't know what exactly got "changed" aside from Kirk's dad getting offed, but couldn't they have made that into the story just about as easily? This was largely an action/adventure flick. I may be missing a bit of background, but nothing I saw revolved around Kirk's dad dying except to try to make him an edgier character or something, which the movie would have worked fine without. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: AutomaticZen on December 20, 2009, 12:09:20 AM Perhaps.... we could reverse the polarities and route it through the main deflector dish. Really, though, they had a lot of options. 1) This is a different timeline from the original Star Trek. I understand that's what they do for the movies anyways (which allegedly is the canon reason why things like lighting and special effects look different in the shows from the movies). This is pretty much the norm for series reboots. Batman Begins doesn't start with George Clooney jumping back through time in a desperate attempt to prevent Batman and Robin. You just go with it. 2) Take your pick of one of the million time travel/alternate reality storylines already established in the lore. Didn't Fist Contact already basically fuck up the entire timeline afer 2063 anyways? 3) Stay faithful to the original design. I'm not really into the Star Trek EU, so I don't know what exactly got "changed" aside from Kirk's dad getting offed, but couldn't they have made that into the story just about as easily? This was largely an action/adventure flick. I may be missing a bit of background, but nothing I saw revolved around Kirk's dad dying except to try to make him an edgier character or something, which the movie would have worked fine without. You're angry they gave you a reason for the different timeline? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kail on December 20, 2009, 12:46:32 AM You're angry they gave you a reason for the different timeline? Kind of, I suppose. It seems to detract from the movie. Series are rebooted all the time. Watching the Spider-Man movie, I don't think it would be greatly improved by incorporating some time travel subplot in which comic book Spidey comes back in time to explain why he doesn't have mechanical webshooters anymore. You don't need to do that. We're not retelling the battle of Gettysburg or anything; explaining how one fictional setting ties in with another fictional setting is only really helpful if it adds to the current story somehow, and I don't think it does here, since this is a reboot and therefore is supposed to stand on it's own. And time travel plots in general are full of WTF, so I'd just as soon avoid that. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 20, 2009, 01:25:36 AM I don't understand if you like general feel of the movie, but just could do without something..? Or if you just don't like the movie. Only the latter makes sense. Otherwise, it is what it is. You can't just like this or that, but then go.. well, it could have done without a delinquent Kirk, or Nimoy, or time travel, or whatever. I mean, I'm not sure what that hypothetical movie is without any of them. The whole thing revolves those three elements.
[edit] Nothing in Star Trek "lore" (err.. is that the word?) ever went into much about the original Kirk's life afaik. Just that he grew up in Indiana or something. He was supposed to just represent that midwest American type. Nothing ever explained why he had to a tendency to be insubordinate either.. He did past that test in the academy by cheating or something or other. Most of the things about the new Kirk and old one are the same. I just don't think the old one had as much of a chip on his shoulder. In a way, I guess the dad dying and giving him some history of petty crimes or whatever gives the character more flesh than the old one had. It might in fact be an improvement. Except.. Shatner, the actor himself, is superior (in a shitastic kind of way). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 20, 2009, 01:42:18 AM Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kail on December 20, 2009, 03:44:14 AM I don't understand if you like general feel of the movie, but just could do without something..? Or if you just don't like the movie. Only the latter makes sense. Otherwise, it is what it is. You can't just like this or that, but then go.. well, it could have done without a delinquent Kirk, or Nimoy, or time travel, or whatever. I mean, I'm not sure what that hypothetical movie is without any of them. The whole thing revolves those three elements. I generally liked the movie, it's just that the time travel thing was something I didn't see the point of. You can still have Kirk being all edgy and stuff, still have basically the same plot (some bad guy has a big ship which blows shit up) without having to play the time travel card. There were only three or four scenes where it was at all relevant, and all of them could have easily been rewritten to omit it. Like that scene with Scotty inventing transwarp beaming. They could have just had Scotty come up with it then and there on the spot, but instead future Spock comes in and says "you would have invented this eventually, but now I'll just give it to you" and so we get the stupid "this technique was never invented by anyone but it still exists" paradox. It's not like it killed the movie for me, or anything, I just think I would have liked it better without it. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 20, 2009, 04:26:13 AM You couldn't really have the same villain. His whole schtick is just being some psychotic average joe..... from the future. Which makes him a psychotic, yet formidable average joe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 20, 2009, 05:11:16 AM Like that scene with Scotty inventing transwarp beaming. They could have just had Scotty come up with it then and there on the spot, but instead future Spock comes in and says "you would have invented this eventually, but now I'll just give it to you" and so we get the stupid "this technique was never invented by anyone but it still exists" paradox. That's pure Trek tradition right there. It's something old Scotty (Doohan) did in Trek IV, no less! "Oh hey you're the guy that invtented transparent aluminium, here you go! Now sell us some." I figured it was an homage to that. There were a lot of little things thrown in to the movie like that that were nods to old Trek. Kirk & the green alien, Sulu knowing how to sword fight, Uhura and Spock. They even mention Enterprise with incident involving Scotty & Admiral Archer's beagle. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ghost on December 20, 2009, 09:47:43 AM Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon. Maybe they should have incorporated a way to go back in time to save the whales. Oh, wait, they already did that and it was fucking stupid then too. I thought the acting was good and they were close to a good story. The whole thing smacked of a way to get a tie to the original franchise, which they didn't have to do. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on December 20, 2009, 10:38:39 AM Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon. Maybe they should have incorporated a way to go back in time to save the whales. Oh, wait, they already did that and it was fucking stupid then too. You shut your fucking whore mouth. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 20, 2009, 01:07:06 PM Too much LDS.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Merusk on December 20, 2009, 02:44:52 PM Too much LDS. What do the Mormons have to do with this? Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 20, 2009, 03:00:36 PM He had too much LDS back in the '60s. I think that's how he got his ears caught in the mechanical rice picker.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Teleku on December 20, 2009, 03:11:51 PM Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon. Maybe they should have incorporated a way to go back in time to save the whales. Oh, wait, they already did that and it was fucking stupid then too. I thought the acting was good and they were close to a good story. The whole thing smacked of a way to get a tie to the original franchise, which they didn't have to do. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 20, 2009, 07:14:39 PM Too much LDS. What do the Mormons have to do with this? That was a line in ST IV.. When Kirk was trying to excuse Spock's strange behavior. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on December 22, 2009, 05:19:06 PM Nerd fight in a Star Trek thread about LOTR! If we can somehow mix Star Wars and mechs, the circle will be complete! :grin:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on December 22, 2009, 05:19:38 PM Holy Jesus Christ you guys :oh_i_see:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 22, 2009, 05:26:30 PM I rather enjoyed it, was about ready to dive in :grin:
First Contact was so awful it caused me and my fiance to break up. True story. I sat behind someone like you when I saw it. They vocally bemoaned the new design, the Borg cube battle, and left when one of the Federation ships was caught in the explosion. Probably to go home, done their crenelated forehead and watch their VHS copy of Errand of Mercy. But I could have you figured wrong. What didn't you like about it? Personally, it's my #3 behind Wrath of Khan and the newest one. It was a good fun movie with enough "Trek" in it to be on IP without being shackled by what is really less consistent than your average Star Wars tripe. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 23, 2009, 12:10:21 AM First Contact was the best of the next generation movies as far as I'm concerned. I enjoyed the touches of humour in it as much as I did in Voyage Home which is another of my favourites.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 23, 2009, 12:23:37 AM Yeah, it's was the humor/fun take that drew me in. I don't think Star Trek was ever supposed to be so serious.
Which brings me to another thing. Just about everything is funwith the new movie, but the guy who plays Kirk has mighty shoes to fill. Spock and McCoy's shoes are filled.. But this just makes me appreciate Shatner all the more. He's irreplaceable. The new guy is funny in his own way, but it's probably the only thing that's ever going to be a little off about this "reboot". Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 23, 2009, 03:19:49 AM The new Kirk has the toughest job. If he goes full-Shatner with the over acting he'll get criticized and if he doesn't he'll be accused of not being enough like the original Kirk.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 23, 2009, 05:07:27 AM Like I said, Shatner is irreplaceable. More irreplaceable than even.. Christopher Walkin (not that Walkin has anything to do with Trek... although that'd be sweet if he did). So far, the new guy is more of a slapstick type of funny. While Shatner is just so uniquely and horribly bad that he's awesome.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: ghost on December 23, 2009, 09:17:17 AM I went to see the Menagerie at the local theater. The best part was the terrible home made "uniforms" the people had on. I love that kind of shit. Most of them appeared to arrive with parents or siblings.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 23, 2009, 09:50:58 AM First Contact was cancer of the brain.
Also, I went to see Generations at the cinema. There was a hawt wee sixth year lassie in a Star Trek Next Gen outfit. She was fucking awesome. The film blew though. I can't think of a single Next Gen movie I would rate as 'good'. And it's got fuck all to do with Star Trek, really. It's just that they were all shite. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 23, 2009, 09:54:27 AM Oh c'mon. Cancer? Some of you guys blow your load on hating the kind of shit that barely needs hating. There's a quota you know! :grin: What happens when a truly shitty movie comes around and deserves the hate? It'll be like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Nobody will give a fuck what you say, and then a truly shittastic movie will get away, laughing at you.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on December 23, 2009, 09:55:30 AM Oh c'mon. Cancer? Some of you guys blow your load on hating the kind of shit that barely needs hating. There's a quota you know! :grin: What happens when a truly shitty movie comes around and deserves the hate? It'll be like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Nobody will give a fuck what you say, and then a truly shittastic movie will get away, laughing at you. BUT WHAT IF THAT'S THIS ONE?!?!?! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Teleku on December 23, 2009, 10:17:05 AM I don't remember hating First Contact in the way that everybody here is. But then again, all the next gen movies were the same to me. Meh. Can't really think of one I liked much better than the other. Didn't really hate any of them or like them very much.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Triforcer on December 23, 2009, 10:23:05 AM First Contact was the only good movie of the TNG era, "good" meaning "barely passable." Everything after that until the reboot I've blocked out.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on December 23, 2009, 10:39:07 AM Nemesis was horribly bad. Compared to Nemesis, First Contact was a work of art. But yea, none of the the Next Gen movies were particularly good. Of them all, I think First Contact was the best though.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on December 23, 2009, 05:40:31 PM Like I said, Shatner is irreplaceable. More irreplaceable than even.. Christopher Walkin (not that Walkin has anything to do with Trek... although that'd be sweet if he did). So far, the new guy is more of a slapstick type of funny. While Shatner is just so uniquely and horribly bad that he's awesome. Would a Shatner Kirk be possible today though? I mean, was he a parody of overacting in the 60s or was that just the way things were for TV then? Not having been around then, I'm really curious. I think the new guy did a good interpretation of a modern Kirk, particularly in the final sequence from the opening of the turbolift, through "buckle up" through welcoming Spock back to the crew. It felt honest and contemporary. If he went full Shatner, I feel like it would have been Tim Allen parody. Which is why I asked the above :-) I'm also curious which Trek movie Ironwood liked second best (assuming Khan was the first). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: bhodi on December 23, 2009, 08:55:05 PM Undiscovered country? That's my 2nd anyway.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on December 23, 2009, 11:02:13 PM It's a fair question.
Hmmm. I suppose I'd have to say that III and IV work well as 'follow ups'. Indeed, if you'd left those three films out as the only legacy of the Original series, it would work really well. Surprisingly, The Undiscovered Country I didn't like all that much. It took itself way too seriously without that much merit. The Voyage Home was a much better Trek film. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: stray on December 24, 2009, 01:47:37 AM Like I said, Shatner is irreplaceable. More irreplaceable than even.. Christopher Walkin (not that Walkin has anything to do with Trek... although that'd be sweet if he did). So far, the new guy is more of a slapstick type of funny. While Shatner is just so uniquely and horribly bad that he's awesome. Would a Shatner Kirk be possible today though? I mean, was he a parody of overacting in the 60s or was that just the way things were for TV then? Not having been around then, I'm really curious. I don't remember if it was Shatner or Walken (probably Walken), but I heard that one of them intentionally delivered their lines in that staccato way because it was hard for editors to chop up any of their lines. It was a deliberate way to get more screentime. Then it just stuck like a trademark.. More than likely this was Walkin.. He's smart enough to come up with something like this. With Shatner, it's probably like you say.. Overacting. I mean it seems more like overacting than being completely staccato like Walken does. And I don't think it was symptomatic of 60's tv, no. He just sucked (or stood above the frey, if that's how you see it :why_so_serious:). Although sometimes his overracting delivers fine results. His Twlight Zone ep is one of the best. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on December 24, 2009, 10:15:27 AM I'd probably go 2, 1 then the reboot for my order of preference.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on February 15, 2010, 07:21:22 AM Well, hi! I watched this over the weekend for the first time. And I didn't read the thread. I expect I'll retread ground you already went over.
My verdict: It's a bad movie. I don't mean a bad Star Trek movie. I mean a bad movie. Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto were great -- and I went in with severe doubts about the latter. Spock is the most iconic character Star Trek ever produced. Quinto isn't The Spock, but he's very Spock. Simon Pegg was a highly entertaining new spin on the character. Not much like the old Scotty, but I ended up disappointed he didn't have a larger role. Chris Pine's glowering with generic rage left me cold. Not enraged. Just uninterested. Not a character I have any interest in seeing again as a main character. Chekov was even more useless and annoying than his original namesake, but at least he only had two scenes. The rest of the cast was inoffensive. The biggest problem I had with the movie was that the plot seemed to have been constructed by rolling on random encounter tables. Alien battleship comes through a wormhole! While Kirk is being born! Wait -- why is a pregnant woman on a military starship? When was the last time you heard of someone giving birth on an aircraft carrier? Spock maroons Kirk! Because... that's... logical somehow? Never mind! There are stupid looking CGI monsters to fight! Oh, look it's old Spock. In a random cave. Okay. I guess this is a moon of Vulcan, since he could watch Vulcan be destroyed from there (Why didn't Nero keep him on his ship for a better view? The world may never know). Why isn't the moon being sucked up into the black hole? Never mind! It's Scotty! With Mini-Me! And Scotty's on this moon because... uh, he just is, I guess. And then they beam on to the Enterprise! Which is, at this point, light years away and moving at warp speed. Shit, if you can teleport interstellar distances, why built starships at all? There are just so many contrived situations and plot holes, it makes my head hurt. I'm glad they left the Klingon stuff on the cutting room floor, because that was nearly as random as the ice planet BS. He disappeared for 20 years to fix his ship and wait for Old Spock to appear. No more explanation needed, thanks. And one last thing, completely a pet peeve -- why the hell do the new engineering spaces look like terrestrial power plants? The first time they did it, on the Kelvin, I was completely thrown on how the guy who'd been on the ship was suddenly in a warehouse. There's just no design connection at all between the bridge and engineering. It doesn't feel like they're different parts of the same ship. It feels like filmed a few scenes in a power plant because they couldn't afford to build enough sets. I'll stop rambling by saying something nice. I liked that they showed maneuvering thrusters firing when the ship turned, and that exterior space scenes were (mostly) silent. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on February 15, 2010, 07:27:06 AM Alien battleship comes through a wormhole! While Kirk is being born! Wait -- why is a pregnant woman on a military starship? When was the last time you heard of someone giving birth on an aircraft carrier? Research vessel. Hence the name Kelvin. Women serve on combat vessels all the time in today's military. I'm sure some of them have gotten pregnant. e: As I recall the only USN vessels that don't allow women are submarines. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on February 15, 2010, 07:29:26 AM Research vessel. Hence the name Kelvin. Really? I never got that impression. That's the most heavily armed research vessel I've ever seen... Quote Women serve on combat vessels all the time in today's military. I'm sure some of them have gotten pregnant. I'm sure you're right. But when they do, they put them on shore sometime in those nine months of lead time. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Bunk on February 15, 2010, 07:30:58 AM And that's what happens when a sci-fi technical writer watches a Star Trek movie written for the Michael Bay generation...
Seriously thoug, I partly agree. I felt just about everything involving the Vulcan moon was utterly :uhrr: (fate will make me pick the random direction to run from the snow monster, to happen to run straight into Spock!). I just felt that overall the rest of the movie had enough good to make it an enjoyable ride. Turn off the brain, don't think of it as hard scifi, have fun. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Murgos on February 15, 2010, 07:48:30 AM [I'm sure you're right. But when they do, they put them on shore sometime in those nine months of lead time. I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this, TNG Enterprise had whole families and children on it. Being in and out of ports on a planet where nothing is more than 16 hours travel away is probably different than being in deep space. e: Lol quoted same text twice. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on February 15, 2010, 07:50:45 AM And that's what happens when a sci-fi technical writer watches a Star Trek movie written for the Michael Bay generation... Hey, if I was going to be that sort of picky, I'd launch into a diatribe against "red matter." And If I was going to indulge my ST nerd, I'd point out that Vulcan has no moon. No amount of alternate timeline handwaving can explain that away. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on February 15, 2010, 08:00:06 AM I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this, TNG Enterprise had whole families and children on it. Because this isn't TNG. Roddenberry made a conscious decision that in Next Gen, they'd cart families along on their exploration ships. They didn't do that in TOS or Enterprise -- Starfleet was a navy. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: 01101010 on February 15, 2010, 08:09:24 AM Chris Pine had some parts where he nailed the Jim Kirk role - actually had me thinking he was not a bad choice for the role - but overall, forgettable. Shatner owned the screen, Pine just doesn't... but damn if he doesn't get some of the dialog and inflection down pat (especially in the scene where McCoy is trying to get him on the Enterprise).
Karl Urban was dead on..save for the blue eyes. They really did DeForest justice. Quinto was ... more Romulan than Vulcan if you ask me. Way too emotional given the fact my mother made me watch ToS religiously when it was on. I mean making out with Uhura? :uhrr: It was just enough Trek to keep things moving in my opinion. If they can run 2 more of these movies with the same cast, they'll make some money. Not an earth shattering movie, but entertaining. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on February 15, 2010, 08:39:23 AM For some reason every once in a while they have to tell a bad story in the Trek franchise. The fact that it's Trek with generations of fanboys lets them get away with it. A good story with the new cast will be very good and they're about due.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Samwise on February 15, 2010, 09:21:55 AM I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this, TNG Enterprise had whole families and children on it. Because this isn't TNG. Roddenberry made a conscious decision that in Next Gen, they'd cart families along on their exploration ships. They didn't do that in TOS or Enterprise -- Starfleet was a navy. I think Picard even said something in the TNG pilot episode about how unique it was that this new Enterprise had entire families on board, it being an exploration ship rather than a military one. That's also why it had the detachable saucer section (to serve as a giant escape pod for all the non-Starfleet personnel). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Trippy on February 15, 2010, 10:45:00 AM I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this, TNG Enterprise had whole families and children on it. Because this isn't TNG. Roddenberry made a conscious decision that in Next Gen, they'd cart families along on their exploration ships. They didn't do that in TOS or Enterprise -- Starfleet was a navy.Also Federation combat ships were usually "multi-purpose" ships by design. It wasn't until the Defiant that they actually built a "pure" combat vessel. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ironwood on February 15, 2010, 11:00:00 AM Constitution-class ships could detach their saucers as well. They just couldn't be reconnected like the Galaxy-class saucers could. You make me laugh. Give me a hammer and enough time and I'll detach the saucer section of any starship. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on February 15, 2010, 11:44:44 AM The biggest problem I had with the movie was that the plot seemed to have been constructed by rolling on random encounter tables. Alien battleship comes through a wormhole! While Kirk is being born! Wait -- why is a pregnant woman on a military starship? When was the last time you heard of someone giving birth on an aircraft carrier? Well, in the "official" histories his mother did serve on the Kelvin while pregnant with him but was eventually dropped off on Earth for the delivery. My guess is that the battle caused a premature delivery. But in any case, pregnant Kirk mother on the ship was always part of the lore the only change is where and under what circumstances Kirk was born. Quote Spock maroons Kirk! Because... that's... logical somehow? Never mind! There are stupid looking CGI monsters to fight! Oh, look it's old Spock. In a random cave. Okay. I guess this is a moon of Vulcan, since he could watch Vulcan be destroyed from there (Why didn't Nero keep him on his ship for a better view? The world may never know). Why isn't the moon being sucked up into the black hole? Never mind! It's Scotty! With Mini-Me! And Scotty's on this moon because... uh, he just is, I guess. And then they beam on to the Enterprise! Which is, at this point, light years away and moving at warp speed. Shit, if you can teleport interstellar distances, why built starships at all? Well, about the marooning: 1) As is shown later Spock is nearly insane with grief. Dr. McCoy rightly calls him to the carpet for this action and I would imagine that later this is probably officially reviewed but since Kirk and Spock saved the Earth it's probably swept under the rug. 2) My impression was that they were on another planet. Probably the equivalent of Mars for Vulcan. Nero stranded him so he could watch and Nero was free to leave and do his own thing. He wanted Spock to survive everything that was going to happen so he'd live with pain. 3) Well, Scotty was there because it was sort of the equivalent of being sent to an Antartica posting when you piss off an Admiral. Which is what he did. The novel, and apparently some unshown scenes, have Spock theorizing that the reason Kirk ran into him was because the timeline was trying to fix itself. 4) The transporting thing, I'd guess it still has a range so you can't use it between solar systems but the Enterprise wasn't out of range. That's just a guess and I have no idea if those kind of transporters are common in the TNG era or not. Quote And one last thing, completely a pet peeve -- why the hell do the new engineering spaces look like terrestrial power plants? The first time they did it, on the Kelvin, I was completely thrown on how the guy who'd been on the ship was suddenly in a warehouse. There's just no design connection at all between the bridge and engineering. It doesn't feel like they're different parts of the same ship. It feels like filmed a few scenes in a power plant because they couldn't afford to build enough sets. You know, oddly enough, I liked Engineering as a power plant. It made sense to me. I've always thought Engineering in the past looked too "clean" or something. That power plant look seemed more realistic. However, I thought Scotty in the water tubes was just silly. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ratman_tf on February 15, 2010, 03:39:38 PM The movie is so boring and disjointed, that I find myself nitpicking small stupid things, because the big things are too megastupid to even bother about. Like criticizing the wardrobe of a bum.
For example. During the Kobiyashi Maru. We get that it's Kirk and an homage to Wrath of Kahn! Do we really need to see Chris Pine crunch and slobber all over an apple while JJ Abrams comes to your very theater to nudge you in the ribs with his elbow and wink? This movie tried way too fucking hard. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kail on February 15, 2010, 05:30:04 PM Why isn't the moon being sucked up into the black hole? Never mind! As far as I know, this is realistic. Gravity is determined by mass and distance, and since neither of those change when an object collapses into a black hole (unless it loses some mass during it's collapse), it's gravitational pull doesn't change much outside it's former surface area. It's when you get closer to the centre that it starts getting weird. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on February 16, 2010, 05:14:51 AM For example. During the Kobiyashi Maru. We get that it's Kirk and an homage to Wrath of Kahn! Do we really need to see Chris Pine crunch and slobber all over an apple while JJ Abrams comes to your very theater to nudge you in the ribs with his elbow and wink? During this part I thought to myself, "Kirk is an asshole who deserves to be thrown out of Star Fleet". He hacked a system to succeed at an important test. It's not winning when you cheat, but we are meant to side with him because he's the lead character. Or even the scene where young Kirk drives a car over a cliff. WTF was the point of that scene? "Oh, that young Kirk is quite the rapscallion! Grand theft auto and property damage is a great lead in for becoming a military officer!" (Yeah, I know it happens in RL, but usually because the person turns themselves around, not because the universe determines them to be right all the time.) Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sir T on February 16, 2010, 05:42:25 AM During this part I thought to myself, "Kirk is an asshole who deserves to be thrown out of Star Fleet". He hacked a system to succeed at an important test. It's not winning when you cheat, but we are meant to side with him because he's the lead character. Oh they did that in the movie? That idea came from a trek novel, believe it or not. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on February 16, 2010, 06:45:57 AM 2) My impression was that they were on another planet. Probably the equivalent of Mars for Vulcan. Nero stranded him so he could watch and Nero was free to leave and do his own thing. He wanted Spock to survive everything that was going to happen so he'd live with pain. I'll grant the possibility for most of those, but not this one. Vulcan was the size of Earth's moon in the sky, and Spock could clearly see what happened to it. Venus and Mars are just bright points of light viewed from Earth -- and Earth looks the same viewed from either of them. Why isn't the moon being sucked up into the black hole? Never mind! Gravity is determined by mass and distance, and since neither of those change when an object collapses into a black hole (unless it loses some mass during it's collapse), it's gravitational pull doesn't change much outside it's former surface area. The red matter caused Vulcan to implode. For that to occur, it must have added mass, which would have disturbed anything orbiting the planet. During this part I thought to myself, "Kirk is an asshole who deserves to be thrown out of Star Fleet". He hacked a system to succeed at an important test. It's not winning when you cheat, but we are meant to side with him because he's the lead character. Oh they did that in the movie? That idea came from a trek novel, believe it or not. It's a key character point in Wrath of Kahn. The problem with how they did that scene that Pine's Kirk was such a cocky ass about it. Shatner's Kirk would've played it straight, seemingly all innocence, with a smirk and a twinkle in his eye the whole time. I also felt the reaction from Spock and the academy was overblown. If the purpose of the Kobayashi Maru is to see how a cadet responds to a no-win situation, Kirk had already taken it twice and provided an answer. Not to mention that reprogramming the sim is also an answer. In Kahn, he mentions he was "given a commendation for original thinking." Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on February 16, 2010, 06:55:11 AM Yeah that bit was played wrong and the reaction was written wrong. If the whole point of the test was dealing with a no-win situation why the hell do they have people retake it again and again? Like you said if Kirk had been at least acting innocent during the test he wouldn't have come across as a total prick. There were a few character changes like Scotty that worked with the actors playing them and just made sense. Spock being somewhat more emotional was believable as an adolescent coming to grips with his shared heritage even if it was 'Spock' rather than Spock.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: 01101010 on February 16, 2010, 08:03:26 AM Quote It's a key character point in Wrath of Kahn. The problem with how they did that scene that Pine's Kirk was such a cocky ass about it. Shatner's Kirk would've played it straight, seemingly all innocence, with a smirk and a twinkle in his eye the whole time. This was an easter egg for all the trekkies to get their "ah ha! I get that reference!" moment. The way my mom described it when she was reviewing the movie was that she knew the reference and it tied the movie down to ToS more - though I knidly disagreed being that it was over-the-top and unnecessary since Khan was not even know at this time to Kirk. I let the cocky assholish nature that Pine played in that scene go since it felt like it fit with the rest of the "rebel without a cause" attitude the director gave him to play with. Sure, Shatner would have played it more coy, but Shatner's Kirk had a different childhood and different circumstances shaped them. Quote I also felt the reaction from Spock and the academy was overblown. If the purpose of the Kobayashi Maru is to see how a cadet responds to a no-win situation, Kirk had already taken it twice and provided an answer. Not to mention that reprogramming the sim is also an answer. In Kahn, he mentions he was "given a commendation for original thinking." Again, the whole Khan thing relates to the "other" reality. Playing with time and reality afforded this movie, IMHO, way too many liberties to walk around in clownshoes spraying the audience with silly string. Kirk being able to take it more than once I can justify since I reroll in almost every pc game I have played. First time was to observe the situation, second time was to try to tweak something to see if that works, third time - well when all else fails, change the system to fit your desired outcome. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand the thought process. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Khaldun on February 16, 2010, 09:50:42 AM Taking it more than once always made sense to me if the point is to make you face the no-win scenario. The first time you don't believe that it's no-win, the second time you still don't believe--maybe there's some way to make it work, and then finally you face it and learn whatever Starfleet thinks you need to learn. This especially makes sense if they mix the test randomly into other simulator exercises where you are in fact learning how to win or beat the scenario.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ard on February 16, 2010, 10:04:10 AM I really should not dip into this thread, but I do want to remind you guys that this really is not the same Kirk that took the test in ToS. This actually is a much cockier Kirk that grew up completely without his father, which was also part of the point of the car scene (as dumb as it was), and pretty much everything he did throughout starfleet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 16, 2010, 10:35:19 AM I really should not dip into this thread, but I do want to remind you guys that this really is not the same Kirk that took the test in ToS. This actually is a much cockier Kirk that grew up completely without his father, which was also part of the point of the car scene (as dumb as it was), and pretty much everything he did throughout starfleet. The same goes for spock as well post-vulcan. The uhura thing is a little romulan sure but vulcans aren't celibate anyways and it's believable enough. Everything after vulcan explodes is completely fine with me. Here you have a younger spock than when the series started and he is immediately hit by the near destruction of his entire race. That's not exactly something you can recover from, in fact while vulcans pride themselves on logic, this event would probably shake their faith in that dogma. Bones/scotty/chekov/uhura/sulu are all basically the same characters but in this timeline both kirk and spock are very different people. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Polysorbate80 on February 16, 2010, 10:56:54 AM in this timeline both kirk and spock are very different people. Kirk has to be different; I don't think anyone could try to reprise shatner-kirk without drifting into parody at some point. Spock, well...it wouldn't be parody, but nimoy-spock is still too iconic. Not letting a little reinvention occur would hamstring the actor. Plus Spock wrasslin' with his emotions is usually entertaining. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Raguel on February 16, 2010, 12:05:50 PM My problem with that scene is that from Wrath of Khan, I got the impression that while Kirk cheated, he just changed the scenario from "impossible to beat" to "extremely difficult, but doable". This Kirk made it brain dead easy to pass. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on February 16, 2010, 01:29:54 PM This Kirk is not subtle - see the car off the cliff, the idiotic, doomed bar fight. He's a complete cunt in the beginning of the movie, and even after "beating" the Kobiyashi Maru, is not ready for the burdens of leadership even though he thinks he is. By the end, he's willing to work with a guy who tried to torpedo his entire Starfleet career because he's matured a little. But he's not the old Kirk - he's going to be more impetuous and more overconfident. The lack of a father figure in this timeline had that significant an impact on him.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on February 16, 2010, 02:13:14 PM Come to think of it, I really liked Kirk until he got on board the Enterprise. He was an engaging character on Earth, and I could actually empathize with him at certain points. But the moment he set foot on the Enterprise, he was completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Riggswolfe on February 16, 2010, 02:35:51 PM Or even the scene where young Kirk drives a car over a cliff. WTF was the point of that scene? "Oh, that young Kirk is quite the rapscallion! Grand theft auto and property damage is a great lead in for becoming a military officer!" (Yeah, I know it happens in RL, but usually because the person turns themselves around, not because the universe determines them to be right all the time.) This scene actually makes sense when you get the whole context, which you don't in the movie because a large part of it is edited out. So, here's the context:: 1) The car was his dad's car. 2) His stepdad had just kicked his brother out of the house. (That's the teenager Kirk drives past and waves at.) 3) His stepdad had essentially taken that car as his own which Kirk resented. Unfortunately, they edited out the entire part of the scene where you see the stepdad kick out the brother and the stuff about the importance of the car is, I believe, in the script (and definitely in the movie tie-in novel) but isn't represented onscreen. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Reg on February 16, 2010, 02:57:48 PM Wow, knowing that makes a huge difference. How stupid of them to leave that scene in without any context.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Evil Elvis on February 16, 2010, 03:16:43 PM Context or not, it was a lame scene.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kail on February 16, 2010, 05:02:54 PM The red matter caused Vulcan to implode. For that to occur, it must have added mass, which would have disturbed anything orbiting the planet. Not really a significant amount of mass, automatically. As far as I can recall, they sort of handwaved the whole thing, but there wasn't much of an indication that the people carrying this thing around were toting several hundred thousand tons of matter. In theory, you can get black holes down to very small (milligram) masses (theoretically, down to planck mass), the idea being that you can drop it into a gravity well, it falls to the centre, and then the planet (or whatever) falls into it. Might take a while to get started since it's going to have an extremely small radius, but once it does get started, it's going to get bigger fast. Not to say they weren't toting around hundred thousand ton masses in some kind of Star Trek brand gravity negating jar, but unless there's an actual reference to the mass of this stuff, I'm inclined to assume that it weighs less than a mountain (and shifting a mountain on earth does not send the moon crashing into us). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Polysorbate80 on February 16, 2010, 08:32:41 PM Black holes as small as you're talking about would evaporate almost instantaneously. I R not scientist enough to know what size hole would be needed to be stable long enough to be dropped from orbit, fall into the center of a planet and then consume it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Azaroth on February 16, 2010, 08:42:17 PM Shit, if you can teleport interstellar distances, why built starships at all? For DOITDOITDOIT and FIREEVERYTHING!!!!!!!! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Kail on February 16, 2010, 09:48:07 PM Black holes as small as you're talking about would evaporate almost instantaneously. I R not scientist enough to know what size hole would be needed to be stable long enough to be dropped from orbit, fall into the center of a planet and then consume it. According to Wikipedia, the idea behind Red Matter is that it creates a black hole when it's mixed with "nuclear matter" so it wouldn't have to stay live for the duration of it's fall, they could just "detonate" it when it got to the centre of the planet. You'd theoretically only need an extremely short lifespan since the pressure would be feeding a ton of mass to it faster than it would evaporate. But yeah, I haven't done the math or anything. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Ubvman on February 16, 2010, 11:47:51 PM According to Wikipedia, the idea behind Red Matter is that it creates a black hole when it's mixed with "nuclear matter" so it wouldn't have to stay live for the duration of it's fall, they could just "detonate" it when it got to the centre of the planet. You'd theoretically only need an extremely short lifespan since the pressure would be feeding a ton of mass to it faster than it would evaporate. But yeah, I haven't done the math or anything. Why even bother sending it to the core of the planet at all? A black hole big enough to destroy a planet at the core, would destroy the whole place just as fast from the surface. If I remember one of my Carl Sagan books, a black hole "detonated" at the surface would burrow straight to the center of the planetary mass, overshoot it and bounce back and forth in a super-fast internal orbit - all the while vacuuming up material. The science doesn't matter, Nero could have just nuked Vulcan and Earth from orbit and ended the movie in like 20 minutes. Instead, we had him wasting vital time unnecessarily drilling to the core, waiting for the Enterprise to show up. Like someone else said above, the movie has so many gaping plot holes, nit-picking on minor stuff like this is like criticizing the fashion sense of a bum. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on February 17, 2010, 06:52:44 AM You guys are funny.
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Stormwaltz on February 17, 2010, 06:57:53 AM You guys are funny. Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well you're... you're ugly! So there! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Sheepherder on February 17, 2010, 10:45:50 AM You guys are funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4jz00EelbkTitle: Re: Star Trek Post by: Draegan on February 17, 2010, 12:20:07 PM You guys are funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4jz00Eelbk:why_so_serious: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: UnSub on February 17, 2010, 06:12:19 PM By the end, he's willing to work with a guy who tried to torpedo his entire Starfleet career because he's matured a little. Are you talking about Spock here? Because Kirk got him removed as Captain. Kirk screwed over Spock as well. It wasn't maturity, it was because the universe (script) decreed that Kirk was right. However, they saved the Earth, so medals all round! :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: HaemishM on February 18, 2010, 07:17:13 AM Yes, I'm talking about Spock. He got him removed as Captain, and could have had him confined to quarters, unable to offer any help. Instead, he takes him on as the second man in a 2-man away team. He doesn't shut Spock out, he gives him a place on the team. An immature douche would have just cut Spock off completely.
I'm hardly saying Kirk was the height of maturity in the situation, but he did realize he couldn't do it all alone, whereas the Kirk at the beginning didn't believe that. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: 01101010 on February 18, 2010, 08:42:57 AM Yes, I'm talking about Spock. He got him removed as Captain, and could have had him confined to quarters, unable to offer any help. Instead, he takes him on as the second man in a 2-man away team. He doesn't shut Spock out, he gives him a place on the team. An immature douche would have just cut Spock off completely. I'm hardly saying Kirk was the height of maturity in the situation, but he did realize he couldn't do it all alone, whereas the Kirk at the beginning didn't believe that. And you also have the underlying tie with Nero being the direct cause of the death of a parent for each of them. Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on February 19, 2010, 02:00:18 PM During this part I thought to myself, "Kirk is an asshole who deserves to be thrown out of Star Fleet". He hacked a system to succeed at an important test. It's not winning when you cheat, but we are meant to side with him because he's the lead character. Oh they did that in the movie? That idea came from a trek novel, believe it or not. The idea came from Wrath of Khan, an establishing line to frame Kirk the problem-solver (as evidenced by what happens immediately following the scene in which he explains how he won to Saarek). It was further explored in the book Kobayashi Maru where Kirk, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu were marooned on a shuttle where the author explained how each solved the test (I liked Scotty's solution most). But how Kirk cheated in the book is different from the movie. I won't bore anyone with the details since it was a retcon of a retcon which will probably never be explored again. But suffice to say I liked the book's treatment far more than the movie's. At the same time, people often overlook the fact that was brought up both in this move and Khan, that this was the third time he took the test. People want to bitch about him cheating at the test when the real complaint should be about him gaming a system entirely set up as a psychological evaluation tool. He should never have been allowed to captain a ship when it's anathema to him that he could lose at all, like exists outside of reality. That mentality only works when you want the can-do-no-wrong hero of the 50s and 60s. Or Wall Street :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Slyfeind on February 20, 2010, 03:47:45 AM Oh man, I LOVE the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru), particularly the first sentence:
"The Kobayashi Maru is a test in the fictional Star Trek universe." As opposed to the REAL Star Trek universe! Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: NowhereMan on February 20, 2010, 11:01:48 AM Reading the Wiki account of Kirk's cheat from that novel I liked it more too :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Venkman on February 21, 2010, 05:47:50 AM Scotty's test wasn't well explained there in my opinion, and the author didn't properly convey the irony of it all. Scotty only won a few rounds because of stuff he tried that he himself said were impossible, in published articles. And he was as disinterested in the test as Kirk was shown to be in the JJ Abrams version. The narration of it really conveyed it well. Whereas the other three went through big descriptions of how they got to and into the Neutral Zone, Scotty's was all "Yea, we went to this part of space, some warning about it, some Klingon got all up in my shit, and then <insert pages of Trek-ish tech engineer solutions". Like a big puzzle for him.
Anyway, at his review hearing, they're going through his antics, they find an article that shows that it should have been impossible. Then the the Admiral reads the name of the author of that article. He finally turns to Scotty and asks: "Do you even want to be on the command track"? (or something like that). Which of course Scotty said no, because he was forced down this path by his family. My favorite particular tactic was firing photon torpedos at the extact intersection points at a bunch of Klingon ships, causing a cascade failure of all the shields and their ships. I think that was the exact thing that Scotty wrote should be impossible, but here I'm a bit fuzzy. Anyway, I also thought Sulu's solution was as a propos for the character as Kirk's. Chekov's just showed he wasn't ready for the test, much less command (too emotional). Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Tannhauser on February 21, 2010, 10:17:14 AM I've always looked at it from the Academies point of view. Here's this test we have run thousands of times in order to observe each cadet's approach to it. Then along comes one cadet whose approach is to 'change the conditions of the test'. Clearly he'd be caught 'cheating'. But he was willing to risk his career to beat a bullshit test because he wants to win SO BAD.
Instead he got a commendation for original thinking. /nerd out Title: Re: Star Trek Post by: Margalis on November 10, 2010, 04:36:44 PM Watched it last night.
God it was awful. The plot made no sense whatsoever, it was a million contrived coincidences strung together. A lot of the acting was downright terrible. Any how many times did a guy hang from a ledge? That was like the go to suspenseful situation - hey let's have a guy perched over the edge of a ledge holding on by his nails again! So many things took me out of the movie. Kirk has an iPhone with a standard ringtone and rocks out to the Beastie Boys? What? Also it had basically none of the Star Trek spirit to it. A lot of people do not like Gene Rodenberry's vision because it is constricting and something other than pew pew lasers and that's all this movie was. It had the trappings of Trek but not the heart. It had no imagination and no high-mindedness. One thing about Trek is that it has always portrayed a humanity that strives for higher ideals, tells classic SF stories and has some wits about it. Even dreck like ST 5 had an interesting premise and some thought behind it. This was just Luke and Han fighting the Death Star with a Trek veneer. The enemy ship looked cool. That's pretty much all I can say about it. |