Another SPOILER /kicking the cr@p out of this film
****************************************
Coming back to the scene of the Enterprise jettisoning it's warp cores.
Leaving aside the minor fact the shockwave ought to have turned the ship inside out,
(epecially as we've seen the structual integrity severely compromised i.e the cracks in the bulkheads and view screen)
In the time between the jettisoning and the detonation, WHAT is powering the Warp drive, as this was all that was keeping the Enterprise from being sucked in?
And I'm sorry, but that supernova idea was bull.
A neighboring star blows up and the shockwave's powerful enough to destroy Romulus (and presumably Remus too).
Rewind to TNG's Tin Man. At the last moment Gomtuu knocks the Enterprise something like 4 billion km away from Beta Stromgrem before it goes supernova, (put into perspective, this is roughly where Neptune orbits our sun) and guess what, the Enterprise barely felt the shockwave.
Generations however, establishes a star collapsing does have enough power to obliterate it's inner planets at any rate.
Veridien 3 and 4 being class M planets, you'd theorise they'd be a similar distance from their sun as Earth or Mars is from ours.
These two events and outcomes make sense. Basic physics, as a shockwave expands the energy it holds dissipates the further it travels, just like an Earthquake.
So powerful enough to destroy it's own system, certainly. A neighboring system? Doubtful.
Thoughts on the new "Star Trek" movie
Moderator: thunderchero
I hope no Corvettes were actually harmed in the making of this film
Not the main point of my comments, but as a classic car lover I would hate to think that just because they've got the money, that Paramount would waste such a great classic car.
Most of you know that TOS was my favourite Star Trek series ever and as such I was prepared to really hate this film
What made TOS great for me more than any other individual aspect, was the interaction between the characters and the often (and IMO intentional) hammy acting, so how could you possibly attempt to make a film with a younger version of these characters and make it acceptable to a TOS fan?
I'm not saying that it was great, but somehow I really enjoyed this film and it's a real surprise to me that they pulled it off.
If Paramount are going to take us down an alternative reality, however, will they retain all of the actors from this film?
Scotty was the least acceptable to me BTW.
For a long time I have been hoping that CGI would progress to the point where we could have CGI versions of the original actors from TOS that would appear indistinguishable and would move and talk just like the original characters, so that we could have some more TOS, but I guess that either no ones thought of it (unlikely), no one has the will to do it (probable), or our technology just isn't up to it (possible).
Either way, this was a reasonable alternative for me and I would probably enjoy a series based on this film more than Next Gen (one of my least favoured Star Trek series).
I guess that it doesn't wreck cannon and BTW does anyone think that it gives us some new ships?
For anyone who hasn't seen it I hope you enjoy it.
Regards
Pigman
Not the main point of my comments, but as a classic car lover I would hate to think that just because they've got the money, that Paramount would waste such a great classic car.
Most of you know that TOS was my favourite Star Trek series ever and as such I was prepared to really hate this film
What made TOS great for me more than any other individual aspect, was the interaction between the characters and the often (and IMO intentional) hammy acting, so how could you possibly attempt to make a film with a younger version of these characters and make it acceptable to a TOS fan?
I'm not saying that it was great, but somehow I really enjoyed this film and it's a real surprise to me that they pulled it off.
If Paramount are going to take us down an alternative reality, however, will they retain all of the actors from this film?
Scotty was the least acceptable to me BTW.
For a long time I have been hoping that CGI would progress to the point where we could have CGI versions of the original actors from TOS that would appear indistinguishable and would move and talk just like the original characters, so that we could have some more TOS, but I guess that either no ones thought of it (unlikely), no one has the will to do it (probable), or our technology just isn't up to it (possible).
Either way, this was a reasonable alternative for me and I would probably enjoy a series based on this film more than Next Gen (one of my least favoured Star Trek series).
I guess that it doesn't wreck cannon and BTW does anyone think that it gives us some new ships?
For anyone who hasn't seen it I hope you enjoy it.
Regards
Pigman
-
smallaxe0217
- Ensign
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:00 am
Spoilers within, but if you've come this far in the thread, you've probably already seen the movie.
I enjoyed reading all the comments here, both the ones for and against the movie, and I can understand where most everyone is coming from in their post. I'm not hating on anyone's position on the movie, but I believe that what you think about it depends on what you think about Star Trek on a whole.
Someone said that this movie was more "real" than the others. "Real" is kind of relative when you think about red matter destroying planets, and people beaming onto starships at warp speed and all of that, but I understand the sentiment. Most of the Star Trek series before this had this kind of "fairy tale" feel to it, as if it was completely visionary and escapist. Considering the utopian vision that GR had, that was understandable. Even if stuff were to happen, it would all be fixed at the end, or if it wasn't fixed it would be some great sacrifice with extra meaning ('cept for Tasha Yar). When I think about it more, I realize that in all of the previous series, the real star/main character of Star Trek was the Star Trek universe, not the characters in the universe. What everyone cared about was canon and what had happened/what was happening in that canon, more than who it had happened to and how they reacted to it. For example, what made First Contact so good to me was that we got more insight on Picard and how he felt about the Borg after his assimilation, how it clouded his judgement and how he overcame it. That kind of character analysis is a key reason why that was the most successful TNG film...as opposed to Insurrection which was all about the plot of what was happening to those aliens and how Starfleet would save them, blah blah. That was a TNG episode bloated to film length, and the characters served the plot.
For too long, Star Trek has been a universe where the characters serve the plot. If you're a Trekkie to whom canon and Gene's vision is the end-all-be-all, then that is ok; but the hard truth is that Trekkies of that mindset are the minority and they can't financially support the extension of the franchise. They can (and do) support conventions, fan fiction, reruns of the existing series, Birth of the Federation websites (yeah yeah!) and all those other true fan ventures, but they can't justify the expense of creating new material if they are the only ones who are interested in watching it. Far be it from me to defend The Man at Paramount but I can understand his logic too. The best way to create new material is to attract new viewers, and you can't attract new viewers with the old stuff. It's 40 years old, and whoever would have been attracted would be there already. Using CGI images of the Old crew...well, I can tell you that I would not have watched that movie. People grow old, people die, people move on, life is like that.
However, JJ managed to flip the switch. Whether you loved or hated the movie, I think that the key thing is that people are discussing the characters, how they reacted to what happened, how they dealt with it, how it changed them, etc. He made it more relevant to today's world. The best way I can describe it is that in the other series/movies, I felt like I was watching a fable/vision, entertaining but far-fetched; for the new Star Trek, I felt like I was watching something that could REALLY HAPPEN someday. I can't put my finger on what caused the difference, but I know it's there.
The box-office results will speak for themselves. I agree that these guys are better suited for a movie franchise than a TV series franchise, but trust me: as long as they focus on the characters and not the plot, then Star Trek is gonna do great.
I enjoyed reading all the comments here, both the ones for and against the movie, and I can understand where most everyone is coming from in their post. I'm not hating on anyone's position on the movie, but I believe that what you think about it depends on what you think about Star Trek on a whole.
Someone said that this movie was more "real" than the others. "Real" is kind of relative when you think about red matter destroying planets, and people beaming onto starships at warp speed and all of that, but I understand the sentiment. Most of the Star Trek series before this had this kind of "fairy tale" feel to it, as if it was completely visionary and escapist. Considering the utopian vision that GR had, that was understandable. Even if stuff were to happen, it would all be fixed at the end, or if it wasn't fixed it would be some great sacrifice with extra meaning ('cept for Tasha Yar). When I think about it more, I realize that in all of the previous series, the real star/main character of Star Trek was the Star Trek universe, not the characters in the universe. What everyone cared about was canon and what had happened/what was happening in that canon, more than who it had happened to and how they reacted to it. For example, what made First Contact so good to me was that we got more insight on Picard and how he felt about the Borg after his assimilation, how it clouded his judgement and how he overcame it. That kind of character analysis is a key reason why that was the most successful TNG film...as opposed to Insurrection which was all about the plot of what was happening to those aliens and how Starfleet would save them, blah blah. That was a TNG episode bloated to film length, and the characters served the plot.
For too long, Star Trek has been a universe where the characters serve the plot. If you're a Trekkie to whom canon and Gene's vision is the end-all-be-all, then that is ok; but the hard truth is that Trekkies of that mindset are the minority and they can't financially support the extension of the franchise. They can (and do) support conventions, fan fiction, reruns of the existing series, Birth of the Federation websites (yeah yeah!) and all those other true fan ventures, but they can't justify the expense of creating new material if they are the only ones who are interested in watching it. Far be it from me to defend The Man at Paramount but I can understand his logic too. The best way to create new material is to attract new viewers, and you can't attract new viewers with the old stuff. It's 40 years old, and whoever would have been attracted would be there already. Using CGI images of the Old crew...well, I can tell you that I would not have watched that movie. People grow old, people die, people move on, life is like that.
However, JJ managed to flip the switch. Whether you loved or hated the movie, I think that the key thing is that people are discussing the characters, how they reacted to what happened, how they dealt with it, how it changed them, etc. He made it more relevant to today's world. The best way I can describe it is that in the other series/movies, I felt like I was watching a fable/vision, entertaining but far-fetched; for the new Star Trek, I felt like I was watching something that could REALLY HAPPEN someday. I can't put my finger on what caused the difference, but I know it's there.
The box-office results will speak for themselves. I agree that these guys are better suited for a movie franchise than a TV series franchise, but trust me: as long as they focus on the characters and not the plot, then Star Trek is gonna do great.
The worst thing about this reboot isn't that the film is bad. We've had a lot of bad Trek movies. The worst thing is that now, since the vast majority love it, we will never have true Star Trek again. The most we can hope for is fan films like "Of Gods and Men". All we'll get from Hollywood now is more of this same garbage.
-
captaindusk
- Commander
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:00 am
Ok I've watched the movie a 2nd time this evening and I gotta say it's really getting better and better. At the first cinema visit I missed this certain feeling I get every time while watching Trek or specially playing BotF. But seeing ST XI again REALLY brought back this feeling for me. I think it's the same with Star Trek XI as with some good music albums. You really start to enjoy it after some times you heard it. I'm looking forward to the Star Trek future. And if you consider the fact that ST XI already had the best starting weekend of any Star Trek movie (related to treknews.de) the future may be bright.
-
KrazeeXXL
- BORG Trouble Maker
- Posts: 2323
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:00 am
- Location: the 36th Chamber
Could someone explain to me please what a Klingon Warbird is? I know they had an issue in TOS as the model for a Romulan Ship disappeared and for this reason they simply taken the Klingon model and developed some story about that the Romulans stolen it or something. (if I remember right)
But what is a Klingon warbird? Never heard of it as yet and I don't know how's it gonna look like. And the Klingons lost 37 of them so they seem to have a lot of them. (I hope Worfs grand-grand-grand-you-know-what-I-mean wasn't onboard in one of them)
Seems that you and I have adapted quickly captaindusk. For the next movie I wish lesser pan shots and blur in action scenes. Because I like to see everything. And they doesn't generate a feeling of action in me. F.e. like in AvP2... bah don't like these wiggly filming - seems like everydone does it atm - I hope it will came out of fashion in short time. But on the other side ST invented it so it seems that I have to live with it at the end
But what is a Klingon warbird? Never heard of it as yet and I don't know how's it gonna look like. And the Klingons lost 37 of them so they seem to have a lot of them. (I hope Worfs grand-grand-grand-you-know-what-I-mean wasn't onboard in one of them)
some ppl say the moment of death should it be, toocaptaindusk wrote:the future may be bright
Seems that you and I have adapted quickly captaindusk. For the next movie I wish lesser pan shots and blur in action scenes. Because I like to see everything. And they doesn't generate a feeling of action in me. F.e. like in AvP2... bah don't like these wiggly filming - seems like everydone does it atm - I hope it will came out of fashion in short time. But on the other side ST invented it so it seems that I have to live with it at the end
Krazee....I've no idea what a klingon warbird is, and this isn't the first time we've had a cryptic mention of such a ship.
ENT: Broken Bow, the Vulcans made some claim about their intervention being all that kept the Klingons sending a squadron of Warbirds to attack Earth after the incident with Klaang.
As for the TOS issue, if I remember right, they wanted to use Romulan BOP's but the model was damaged/destroyed and as they didn't have the money to make another they used the Klingon D7 and came up with the idea of the Klingon/Romulan alliance where the Romulans got some decent warp technology and the Klingons got Cloaking technology.
Though another source indicated that the Producers having only just maade the D-7 model wanted to 'get their money's worth' out of it and used it for The Enterprise Incident.'
However, in TOS-R they used CGI for the Enterprise Incident to replace one of the D-7's with a Romulan BOP.
ENT: Broken Bow, the Vulcans made some claim about their intervention being all that kept the Klingons sending a squadron of Warbirds to attack Earth after the incident with Klaang.
As for the TOS issue, if I remember right, they wanted to use Romulan BOP's but the model was damaged/destroyed and as they didn't have the money to make another they used the Klingon D7 and came up with the idea of the Klingon/Romulan alliance where the Romulans got some decent warp technology and the Klingons got Cloaking technology.
Though another source indicated that the Producers having only just maade the D-7 model wanted to 'get their money's worth' out of it and used it for The Enterprise Incident.'
However, in TOS-R they used CGI for the Enterprise Incident to replace one of the D-7's with a Romulan BOP.
I saw "Star Trek" today ...... 
Scratch that. I can easily comprehend how the tasteless public and youth, who have been force-fed a constant diet of Hollywood CGI garbage for the past 10-15 years would like this movie, in comparison to the lesser-quality garbage they usually consume. What I don't understand is how "Star Trek" fans or adults with any taste would like this movie.
Was Insurrection terrible? Yes.
Was Nemesis terrible? Yes.
Was Star Trek itself, headed by Berman & Braga, on a slippery slide into the abyss? Yes.
Are those excuses to make a movie like THIS? Not in my book. Let's itemize the finer points, shall we?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
A
H
E
A
D
Plot - Utter mess. It was all over the place, it tried to do far too much and did none of it very well. Didn't establish most of the characters as people you cared about, didn't tell a compelling story, didn't draw you in. It was basically a 2-hour theme park ride which did nothing more than provide an excuse to throw millions of dollars of CGI in your face and careen from one lame & tired cliched plot element to the next.
Writing - Ranged from amateurish to godawful. See above re: cliche. How many more people can we dangle off cliffs? First 5 minutes of the movie, let's have a woman in labor! Let's make a maniacal bad guy to chase, who wants to personally taunt one of the main characters, and here's a twist - let's have him extract information by sticking alien bugs in someone's ear WAIT I mean mouth! (Next time -- nose perhaps? KHHHAAANNNN!!!) Let's make romulans jump through the air like they're freaking T-1000's! Random blue alien as corny comic relief, why not? It worked for Phantom Menace right? Let's have a Vulcan Starfleet captain maroon a crewmember on an ice planet infested by killer monsters -- just cause he FEELS like it! That will be HARDCORE!
Acting - Mixed bag at best. Bones was all right... I can't think of any other acting praise offhand. It's hard to know whether to blame actors, writers, or directors for the mess that defined the characters in this movie.
Science - Abysmal! I never knew black holes could make you go back in time without turning you into thin spaghetti! All the time travel methods that have been used in Star Trek, and they had to create one that made no sense at all! Maybe Vulcan just went back in time too? In pieces of course. Red matter? Sure why not! Apparently Abrams wasn't content with the Red Sphere on Alias, he wanted to use it again in "Star Trek"! Spock watches the collapse of Vulcan in the sky while he's sitting on Delta Vega? Wow, I didn't know Delta Vega was a moon of Vulcan!
Accuracy - At best, dodgy. At worst, a travesty to all of Star Trek. I wouldn't know where to begin.
Some monkey acquiring the rights to Star Trek and creating a hackneyed, amateurish, comical mess of CGI and cringeworthy dialogue which runs roughshod over 40+ years of Star Trek history, doesn't mean I have to accept it or call it Star Trek, and I won't. I wash my hands of Abrams and his extremely popular travesty. Star Trek still exists as it was, and will continue to exist to me and to many other fans. Hey Abrams -- get "Lost."
This is precisely correct. I really cannot comprehend how so many people like this movie.Martok wrote:The storyline was poor, the writing was bad, and the acting was just as stiff & awkward as it sometimes was in the previous series/films....but without even the fun camp/cheese that helped make Trek enjoyable.
Scratch that. I can easily comprehend how the tasteless public and youth, who have been force-fed a constant diet of Hollywood CGI garbage for the past 10-15 years would like this movie, in comparison to the lesser-quality garbage they usually consume. What I don't understand is how "Star Trek" fans or adults with any taste would like this movie.
Was Insurrection terrible? Yes.
Was Nemesis terrible? Yes.
Was Star Trek itself, headed by Berman & Braga, on a slippery slide into the abyss? Yes.
Are those excuses to make a movie like THIS? Not in my book. Let's itemize the finer points, shall we?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
A
H
E
A
D
Plot - Utter mess. It was all over the place, it tried to do far too much and did none of it very well. Didn't establish most of the characters as people you cared about, didn't tell a compelling story, didn't draw you in. It was basically a 2-hour theme park ride which did nothing more than provide an excuse to throw millions of dollars of CGI in your face and careen from one lame & tired cliched plot element to the next.
Writing - Ranged from amateurish to godawful. See above re: cliche. How many more people can we dangle off cliffs? First 5 minutes of the movie, let's have a woman in labor! Let's make a maniacal bad guy to chase, who wants to personally taunt one of the main characters, and here's a twist - let's have him extract information by sticking alien bugs in someone's ear WAIT I mean mouth! (Next time -- nose perhaps? KHHHAAANNNN!!!) Let's make romulans jump through the air like they're freaking T-1000's! Random blue alien as corny comic relief, why not? It worked for Phantom Menace right? Let's have a Vulcan Starfleet captain maroon a crewmember on an ice planet infested by killer monsters -- just cause he FEELS like it! That will be HARDCORE!
Acting - Mixed bag at best. Bones was all right... I can't think of any other acting praise offhand. It's hard to know whether to blame actors, writers, or directors for the mess that defined the characters in this movie.
Science - Abysmal! I never knew black holes could make you go back in time without turning you into thin spaghetti! All the time travel methods that have been used in Star Trek, and they had to create one that made no sense at all! Maybe Vulcan just went back in time too? In pieces of course. Red matter? Sure why not! Apparently Abrams wasn't content with the Red Sphere on Alias, he wanted to use it again in "Star Trek"! Spock watches the collapse of Vulcan in the sky while he's sitting on Delta Vega? Wow, I didn't know Delta Vega was a moon of Vulcan!
Accuracy - At best, dodgy. At worst, a travesty to all of Star Trek. I wouldn't know where to begin.
Yep. Here's a better question. If he wanted to make such an "alternate timeline" and dark universe, why not just make a movie set in Star Trek's mirror universe? Could be a lot of reasons, but I'd be willing to bet that one of the reasons is that he is so unfamiliar with Star Trek canon to even know that the mirror universe exists.Martok wrote:Perhaps worst of all, Abrams' version of the Trek universe feels almost....dystopian. (And a certain something happening to a certain planet definitely didn't help that image.) What the bloody f****** hell happened to Roddenberry's vision of a bright future??!!
That's a bit extreme. But maybe what you mean is that you wash your hands of "Star Trek." Note I've used quotes to refer to this movie, the "Star Trek" which Abrams has painted for us with his kindergarten fingerpaint set. I certainly wash my hands of THAT, and I don't even acknowledge it as an actual Star Trek movie. It's not a reboot or alternate universe, because it didn't even get THAT right, or do THAT justice. It's just a travesty and slap in the face to what Star Trek is. It's an April Fool's joke 6 weeks late.Martok wrote:Gah. I wash my hands of Star Trek for good.
Some monkey acquiring the rights to Star Trek and creating a hackneyed, amateurish, comical mess of CGI and cringeworthy dialogue which runs roughshod over 40+ years of Star Trek history, doesn't mean I have to accept it or call it Star Trek, and I won't. I wash my hands of Abrams and his extremely popular travesty. Star Trek still exists as it was, and will continue to exist to me and to many other fans. Hey Abrams -- get "Lost."
TurboC, you summed up all I'm feeling and expressed it better then I could Thank you. I am just so sad to think that there will never be REAL Star Trek again. Anything that comes from now on will just be more of this garbage. 
I don't know how I will live knowing that not only is Trek dead, but these uncaring people will keep parading its corpse around while everybody says, "This is great!". I hope pocket books keeps writing real ST stories, that is the only way Trek will live on... well and fan movies.
I don't know how I will live knowing that not only is Trek dead, but these uncaring people will keep parading its corpse around while everybody says, "This is great!". I hope pocket books keeps writing real ST stories, that is the only way Trek will live on... well and fan movies.
Last edited by eber3 on Sun May 24, 2009 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
The more I think of this film the more comicly terrible the script writing becoms IMO.
The 'Children's crusade' idea of sending most of Starfleet Academy out in a bunch of ships and kiling them off...they weren't that desperate when the Borg parked over the Earth in Best of both Worlds ffs.
And the Enterprise arriving at Vulcan....erm did they not fit sensors or something? Again not hard to determine there was a debirs field ahead and avoid it.
And then when they do jump out of warp what does that remind me of....?
Oh wait, Han Solo, Millenium Falcon, and a debris field that was what Princess Leah had called her home (I forget it's name) before some big bad arsed planet destroying machine had rocked up and totalled it.
Turbo C: 'Wow, I didn't know Delta Vega was a moon of Vulcan!'
On that basis, I didn't realise that Vulcan was then in fact at the edge of the Galaxy then...
@ Turbo C ... I suspect the Mirror would have shattered if J.J proposed to do that with their universe
Or better yet, thrown him into an Agonizer until he realised what a pillock he really is
On that note, I'm booking a holiday, a nice tour of the Alpha/beta Quadrands, destinations including Vulcan and Romulus (latter pending my getting past Romulan customs without incident )
The 'Children's crusade' idea of sending most of Starfleet Academy out in a bunch of ships and kiling them off...they weren't that desperate when the Borg parked over the Earth in Best of both Worlds ffs.
And the Enterprise arriving at Vulcan....erm did they not fit sensors or something? Again not hard to determine there was a debirs field ahead and avoid it.
And then when they do jump out of warp what does that remind me of....?
Oh wait, Han Solo, Millenium Falcon, and a debris field that was what Princess Leah had called her home (I forget it's name) before some big bad arsed planet destroying machine had rocked up and totalled it.
Turbo C: 'Wow, I didn't know Delta Vega was a moon of Vulcan!'
On that basis, I didn't realise that Vulcan was then in fact at the edge of the Galaxy then...
@ Turbo C ... I suspect the Mirror would have shattered if J.J proposed to do that with their universe
Or better yet, thrown him into an Agonizer until he realised what a pillock he really is
On that note, I'm booking a holiday, a nice tour of the Alpha/beta Quadrands, destinations including Vulcan and Romulus (latter pending my getting past Romulan customs without incident
)LOL. Yes, "comical" is a good adjective. My sister liked the movie, so at first I thought maybe I was being too harsh, maybe it had to sink in more, maybe I was stuck in the past etc. But the more I digest the movie and think about the various parts of it, the more I just laugh openly.stardust wrote:The more I think of this film the more comicly terrible the script writing becoms IMO.
Haha that's true! Other than Enterprise crewmembers, Kirk's entire graduating class is dead now!stardust wrote:The 'Children's crusade' idea of sending most of Starfleet Academy out in a bunch of ships and kiling them off...they weren't that desperate when the Borg parked over the Earth in Best of both Worlds ffs.
Well, I file that under "technosquabble." One could say that maybe their sensors were blinded or just inferior somehow... There were a lot of those types of things which my other friend (who attended the movie with me) noticed, but I gave a lot of the technical stuff a pass (at least the stuff for which I could create a plausible counterargument) as I was too busy cringing at everything else.stardust wrote:And the Enterprise arriving at Vulcan....erm did they not fit sensors or something? Again not hard to determine there was a debris field ahead and avoid it.
Ha, another good call, I didn't make that particular connection. There were quite a few points in the theater where I was pretty sure I had sat down to a bad Star Wars prequel... mainly after Luke... I mean Kirk was being chased by monsters on Hoth... I mean Delta Vega!stardust wrote:And then when they do jump out of warp what does that remind me of....? Oh wait, Han Solo, Millenium Falcon, and a debris field that was what Princess Leah had called her home (I forget it's name) before some big bad arsed planet destroying machine had rocked up and totalled it.
Yep, Delta Vega must be an ice/rock planet which travels between the Vulcan system and the Galactic rim! "Completely unmanned" according to TOS... are they questioning Scotty's masculinity? (I definitely question it, after watching "Scotty" giggle like a schoolgirl in the new transporter room.)stardust wrote:Turbo C: 'Wow, I didn't know Delta Vega was a moon of Vulcan!' On that basis, I didn't realise that Vulcan was then in fact at the edge of the Galaxy then...
My friend said it best actually, which I deem the quote of the day: "'Delta Vega' must just be Starfleet code for any planet where you are marooning someone."
-
Dr_Breen
- Commodore
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:00 am
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
- Contact:
i just saw the movie in cinema.
i have to admit that it is different to what we know from star trek. it's more star wars like. there's fights in bar's, evil superior strangelooking opponents, fast spacebattles and lot's of new alieans just to name a few examples
i don't know where i read it but somebody wrote that this step was necessary for paramount as they wanted to make star trek more open to the public. to get more viewers.
during the films pause after about an hour i was already wondering how this could be put together with the rest of trek we know, but i think it can.
i like this quote:
even though i missed the "good world vision" from roddenberry a little i think this movie is trek as well.
it just showed the trek universe from a different view.
the old films used to show routined working crews while this one showed some ppl who were allocated to some ships within a few moments as they recieved this distress call from vulcan. Chekov is 17! you can't expect from a 17 year old to quote Moby Dick like picard or Shakespeare like chang in ST 6 (6 is my favourite). that would really ring hollow
the script was quite a mess i have to agree. they just built in some compleetly unrealistic elements. red materia, singularities wtf??
i bet most "nontrekies" didn't understand a thing why they had this big ship there blowing up all these little ships.
i have to admit that it is different to what we know from star trek. it's more star wars like. there's fights in bar's, evil superior strangelooking opponents, fast spacebattles and lot's of new alieans just to name a few examples
i don't know where i read it but somebody wrote that this step was necessary for paramount as they wanted to make star trek more open to the public. to get more viewers.
during the films pause after about an hour i was already wondering how this could be put together with the rest of trek we know, but i think it can.
i like this quote:
did they know they were going to be blown up by a superior romulan mining ship? in tng the borg already blew up several fed ships before so i wouldn't send any more ships as well. btw i am sure they didn't just send cadets there. i bet they sent those who were about to be assigned to a ship within the next weeks anyway. remember the kobayashi maru test tests your commanding abillity it's not a test you're going to take in your first degree.stardust wrote: The 'Children's crusade' idea of sending most of Starfleet Academy out in a bunch of ships and kiling them off...they weren't that desperate when the Borg parked over the Earth in Best of both Worlds ffs.
even though i missed the "good world vision" from roddenberry a little i think this movie is trek as well.
it just showed the trek universe from a different view.
the old films used to show routined working crews while this one showed some ppl who were allocated to some ships within a few moments as they recieved this distress call from vulcan. Chekov is 17! you can't expect from a 17 year old to quote Moby Dick like picard or Shakespeare like chang in ST 6 (6 is my favourite). that would really ring hollow
the script was quite a mess i have to agree. they just built in some compleetly unrealistic elements. red materia, singularities wtf??
i bet most "nontrekies" didn't understand a thing why they had this big ship there blowing up all these little ships.
Public BotF / EF2 Teamspeak 3 Server: 83.169.13.55
I agree with TurboC, Stardust and most of all Solon. Even though i am not from USA, im from Argentina (south america), i can understand what Solon said and completly agree with him.
If you put aside all the tiniest-biggest errors who had detailed Stardust and TurboC, i think it`s a nice popcorn-movie, with all that means.
Live long and prosper Star Trek... by the hands of those who are left and remain with Roddenberry, after the Movie brainwashes.
If you put aside all the tiniest-biggest errors who had detailed Stardust and TurboC, i think it`s a nice popcorn-movie, with all that means.
Live long and prosper Star Trek... by the hands of those who are left and remain with Roddenberry, after the Movie brainwashes.
Live long and propser
So...now what?
Where are we heading from that movie?
They are rewritting Star Trek so what can we expect the book writters to do....stick with the ORIGINAL Roddenberry vision or go with Abrahms'?
They better come up with an explanation that this movie comes from an alternate universe (and not creating a different timeline) of some sort...not the one we're familiar about. If they do that, then probably it will be better accepted. There was too many unanswered questions.
Where are we heading from that movie?
They are rewritting Star Trek so what can we expect the book writters to do....stick with the ORIGINAL Roddenberry vision or go with Abrahms'?
They better come up with an explanation that this movie comes from an alternate universe (and not creating a different timeline) of some sort...not the one we're familiar about. If they do that, then probably it will be better accepted. There was too many unanswered questions.