If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SlashFilm)   The new Star Trek film will be subtitled "Into Darkness", which is just where the franchise has been since JJ "Lens Flare" Abrams took over   (slashfilm.com) divider line 306
    More: Fail, Star Trek, Star Trek 2, lens flares, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, J. J. Abrams  
•       •       •

3637 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Sep 2012 at 5:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-08 01:48:35 PM
Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.
 
2012-09-08 01:51:34 PM
I liked the last new Star Trek film, so I'm pretty sure I'll like this one.

/You can keep crying about the franchise or whatever.
 
2012-09-08 01:56:37 PM
Next subby will complain that Ron Moore ruined the BSG franchise with bad editing.
 
2012-09-08 01:59:55 PM
Stop whining, submitter. Nobody likes a whiner.
 
2012-09-08 02:30:52 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: I liked the last new Star Trek film, so I'm pretty sure I'll like this one.

/You can keep crying about the franchise or whatever.


As a long-time Star Trek fan, I can tell you that I really liked the Abrams movie. It was MUCH better than I was expecting.
 
2012-09-08 02:36:06 PM

Shostie: The My Little Pony Killer: I liked the last new Star Trek film, so I'm pretty sure I'll like this one.

/You can keep crying about the franchise or whatever.

As a long-time Star Trek fan, I can tell you that I really liked the Abrams movie. It was MUCH better than I was expecting.


That's not going to stop the haters who were mad that the new movie was popular.
 
2012-09-08 02:52:04 PM
The new Star Trek was fine. A significant number of the previous movies were far, far worse. I'm looking at you especially, Nemesis and Insurrection.
 
2012-09-08 02:53:11 PM
Oh, and V.
 
2012-09-08 02:57:46 PM

Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.


And The Motion Picture.
 
2012-09-08 03:12:04 PM

Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.


But nothing tops the pile of suck that was Final Frontier.
 
2012-09-08 03:22:19 PM

GAT_00: Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.

But nothing tops the pile of suck that was Final Frontier.


I'd argue Generations can fit that bill just fine.
 
2012-09-08 03:22:36 PM
Whether you approve of Abrams Trek or not, "Into Darkness" is a pretty shiatty, generic subtitle.

/so were Nemesis and Insurrection. They lost their mojo in naming the films after Undiscovered Country.
//Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.
 
2012-09-08 03:25:13 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.


What does it mean when I'm both?
 
2012-09-08 03:27:16 PM

GAT_00: FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What does it mean when I'm both?


Seriously. I liked Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock just as much as I like Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in those same roles. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CO-EXIST, PEOPLE!!
 
2012-09-08 03:35:00 PM

GAT_00: FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What does it mean when I'm both?


Seriously. I've been a Star Trek fan since before anyone ever dreamed of a "Next Generation" (always poser Trek to me) and now I'm a "nuTrek" fan?

Yeah right. Abrams' Trek is far more close to the spirit of REAL Trek than Berman & Braga ever sniffed.
 
2012-09-08 03:38:32 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again:

There are a lot of Trekkies who decided to hate Abrams' Trek as soon as it was announced. They were calling it Trek Babies and stuff. They were so emotionally invested in hating the new movie that they refused to allow themselves to enjoy it, and now they've become so determined to hate it that they refuse to admit that just maybe they're being sort of retarded fanboys.

New Trek is better than most all of "old Trek." Doesn't make me a new fan, makes me not an insane one.
 
2012-09-08 03:44:00 PM
When was this Orwellian decision made that somehow the last ST movie hurt the franchise's popularity and future? I realize some people didn't like it, but it was undeniably successful.
 
2012-09-08 03:44:11 PM

Confabulat: GAT_00: FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What does it mean when I'm both?

Seriously. I've been a Star Trek fan since before anyone ever dreamed of a "Next Generation" (always poser Trek to me) and now I'm a "nuTrek" fan?

Yeah right. Abrams' Trek is far more close to the spirit of REAL Trek than Berman & Braga ever sniffed.


I'm actually rewatching DS9 right now, so I'm getting a kick out of how I'm nuTrek, whatever the fark that means. Hell, you can't properly enjoy the new movie without knowing all the references.
 
2012-09-08 03:45:28 PM
Also, Leonard Nimoy liked this so-called "nuTrek" enough to take a substantial role. He refused to even show up for Generations.

Which one sounds more like a real Trek movie to you?
 
2012-09-08 03:45:56 PM

GAT_00: I'm actually rewatching DS9 right now, so I'm getting a kick out of how I'm nuTrek, whatever the fark that means. Hell, you can't properly enjoy the new movie without knowing all the references.


Just did a rewatch about a month ago. Really enjoyed it all over again.
 
2012-09-08 03:46:37 PM

DamnYankees: When was this Orwellian decision made that somehow the last ST movie hurt the franchise's popularity and future? I realize some people didn't like it, but it was undeniably successful.


It's an angry nerd thing. They still can't stand it that they were wrong and the new movie was popular with audiences and critics alike. When they are sure something is going to suck and it doesn't, they don't always know how to deal with it.
 
2012-09-08 03:46:53 PM
Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.
 
2012-09-08 03:50:13 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.


You keep being an angry nerd. You still won't convince anyone.
 
2012-09-08 03:51:56 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.


And you keep on hating the new movie for no reason other than it's new.

DamnYankees: GAT_00: I'm actually rewatching DS9 right now, so I'm getting a kick out of how I'm nuTrek, whatever the fark that means. Hell, you can't properly enjoy the new movie without knowing all the references.

Just did a rewatch about a month ago. Really enjoyed it all over again.


I'm rewatching everything, I just started with DS9.
 
2012-09-08 03:52:33 PM

Confabulat: FirstNationalBastard: Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.

You keep being an angry nerd. You still won't convince anyone.


What have I said in this thread that's angry, or that was intended to convince anyone of anything?

Just that "Into Darkness" is as shiatty a subtitle as Nemesis or Insurrection, or even Final Frontier.

You're the one posting 50 times trying to convince people of something.
 
2012-09-08 03:54:41 PM
The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.
 
2012-09-08 04:28:32 PM

KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.


Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.
 
2012-09-08 04:32:05 PM
I went into with the expectation of hating the movie, and I liked it. So, I shall go in with expectation of liking the next movie, and I shall probably hate it.

So it goes.
 
2012-09-08 04:43:24 PM

SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.


SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

 
2012-09-08 04:49:39 PM

FirstNationalBastard: What have I said in this thread that's angry, or that was intended to convince anyone of anything?


FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.


What was your point of this statement?
 
2012-09-08 04:56:48 PM

KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.


yes. Obviously my pointing out that how I feel about something is my decision and not yours makes me a whiner. How silly of me.
By the way, the huge gaping flaw in your argument?
Takei himself had absolutely zero problem with Cho as Sulu. If the man who originated the character wasn't making an issue, why in space would anyone else?

(citation)
 
2012-09-08 05:08:35 PM

SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

yes. Obviously my pointing out that how I feel about something is my decision and not yours makes me a whiner. How silly of me.
By the way, the huge gaping flaw in your argument?
Takei himself had absolutely zero problem with Cho as Sulu. If the man who originated the character wasn't making an issue, why in space would anyone else?

(citation)


Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.
 
2012-09-08 05:22:12 PM
My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.
 
2012-09-08 05:29:47 PM
I don't understand the hate for the new Trek. You'd think that JJ Abrams built a starship and used it to slingshot around the sun, traveling to 1965 where he blinded Gene Rodenberry with lens flare then proceeded to sodomize him to death, erasing the original series from existence.

I can enjoy both, thanks to a transporter accident that split me into two separate people.
 
2012-09-08 05:30:06 PM
I was going to make a sarcastic comment about how the new Star Trek was obviously such a step down from the cinematic glory of Insurrection, but it looks like it's already been taken care of.

It's an unfortunate reality that actors age, and can't keep playing the same roles forever. While you can make the argument that Star Trek should have just died a quiet death, the only other options were either a reboot or a new tv series. A whole new crew and setting would never fly introduced in a movie without an establishing series.
 
2012-09-08 05:32:30 PM

KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.


So how well exactly did you personally know Roddenberry to know for certain he wouldn't have enjoyed different interpretations of his characters? Did you also know them well enough to know for certain that he wouldn't have wanted his wife to play a fun character? Especially considering Roddenberry died in '91 and Lwaxana as a character appeared in the show at least 4 times before his death. Somehow I think if he disapproved of the character he wouldn't have had her on the show.
 
2012-09-08 05:33:53 PM
1. Take a bunch of actors and dress them in those laughably silly Star Trek uniforms.
2. Write a stupid plot.
3. ???
4. Profit!
 
2012-09-08 05:34:37 PM
Say what? The new Star Trek was the best Star Trek film to date.
 
2012-09-08 05:35:40 PM
As a long-time Star Trek fan, I can say with certainly that I thought the last movie was a steaming pile of targ poop. And I was honestly expecting to enjoy it--this is not "they're changing the thing I like and it's gonna suck grumblegrumblegrumble" whining--I really felt the franchise needed a reboot. But not this one.

I don't want a Trek universe without Vulcan. And you can take tongue-in-cheek WAY too far, which they did; as much as I love Joss Whedon, I don't love Whedon-esque dialogue and characters in my Trek.

Finally, the set looked like the set of the Lost in Space reboot--all shiny and round and silly.
 
2012-09-08 05:36:09 PM
Eh, it's high budget fanfic. There's tons of low budget fanfic that is muuuuuch better than Captain Lensflare. Of Gods and Men, for instance. If you're going to spend millions of dollars to make a theater quality Star Trek, make sure the writing is tight and if you're using source material that your usage is correct.
 
2012-09-08 05:38:05 PM

rickycal78: KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.

So how well exactly did you personally know Roddenberry to know for certain he wouldn't have enjoyed different interpretations of his characters? Did you also know them well enough to know for certain that he wouldn't have wanted his wife to play a fun character? Especially considering Roddenberry died in '91 and Lwaxana as a character appeared in the show at least 4 times before his death. Somehow I think if he disapproved of the character he wouldn't have had her on the show.


As the years went on, the character became sluttier and sluttier. I have seen every episode of Deep Space Nine, except the ones where that character appeared. I tried to watch one and I was physically sickened by the way she carried herself. I cringe when I even hear her voice as the computer.
 
2012-09-08 05:41:57 PM
As opposed to the Picard and Data fanfictions called "Generations", "Insurrection", and "Nemesis"?

Sorry, fellow Trekkies, the franchise had hit a rut and wasn't going anywhere. Voyager, Enterprise, and those three TNG films were stale and boring. Star Trek needed an injection of something fresh and new. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted or what you think ST should always be.

/also still better than Star Trek V and The Motionless Picture
 
2012-09-08 05:42:07 PM

Confabulat: FirstNationalBastard: What have I said in this thread that's angry, or that was intended to convince anyone of anything?

FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What was your point of this statement?


He comes into any thread about the new Star Trek and starts sh*tting all over it. It's his "thing."
 
2012-09-08 05:42:11 PM
the new star trek movie was better than all of the TNG movies.
 
2012-09-08 05:42:14 PM

KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended.


George Takei is gay. I don't think Sulu was ever considered gay. Neil Patrick Harris is gay but plays a womanizer on TV. Interestingly there is often a difference between a role and the person playing them, which certainly must come as a relief to the people close to the guy who played Pinhead in all those movies.

But then I think your tongue is firmly in cheek.
 
2012-09-08 05:45:44 PM

KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

yes. Obviously my pointing out that how I feel about something is my decision and not yours makes me a whiner. How silly of me.
By the way, the huge gaping flaw in your argument?
Takei himself had absolutely zero problem with Cho as Sulu. If the man who originated the character wasn't making an issue, why in space would anyone else?

(citation)

Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.


You sound like the Transformers GEEWUNers who constantly biatch and cry about how every series after G1 isn't exactly like G1.
 
2012-09-08 05:46:17 PM
img52.imageshack.us

/Haters gonna hate
 
2012-09-08 05:48:06 PM

awfulperson: As a long-time Star Trek fan, I can say with certainly that I thought the last movie was a steaming pile of targ poop. And I was honestly expecting to enjoy it--this is not "they're changing the thing I like and it's gonna suck grumblegrumblegrumble" whining--I really felt the franchise needed a reboot. But not this one.

I don't want a Trek universe without Vulcan. And you can take tongue-in-cheek WAY too far, which they did; as much as I love Joss Whedon, I don't love Whedon-esque dialogue and characters in my Trek.

Finally, the set looked like the set of the Lost in Space reboot--all shiny and round and silly.


Vulcan's still around in the Prime universe. That's the beauty of alternate timelines/multiverses, veerything you obsess over in one of them is still aorund.

/"I hate this version because the frog is a bullfrog when in the original it was clearly a tree frog!"
//NNNEEEEEERRRRRRRRD
 
2012-09-08 05:48:07 PM
None of the films hold up that well compared to the better TNG episodes.

That said, I can't imagine something like "The Inner Light" translating well to film.
 
2012-09-08 05:49:44 PM

MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.


I like you when you stay on this tab and this tab only.
 
2012-09-08 05:50:23 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

yes. Obviously my pointing out that how I feel about something is my decision and not yours makes me a whiner. How silly of me.
By the way, the huge gaping flaw in your argument?
Takei himself had absolutely zero problem with Cho as Sulu. If the man who originated the character wasn't making an issue, why in space would anyone else?

(citation)

Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.

You sound like the Transformers GEEWUNers who constantly biatch and cry about how every series after G1 isn't exactly like G1.


When I was a kid, a transformer was something you plugged into a European outlet so you could use your standard electronics.

I've never seen a show about them. Although, there were the movies with the kid from Even Stevens and those were highly entertaining. I have them all on BluRay.
 
2012-09-08 05:51:31 PM

Bhruic: My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.


He was actually promoted to first officer, then exiled, then captain (but again, still acting captain), then captain.

//still unheard of, but details matter
 
2012-09-08 05:52:00 PM
Hey subby, pretending you didn't like the movie isn't going to convince the rest of us that you're the smartest guy in the room.
 
2012-09-08 05:54:41 PM
Darkness?

So it stars charlie murphy?
 
2012-09-08 06:01:15 PM
Whatever you think of JJ's Star Trek, this belongs here.

cdn.screenrant.com

And lets hope the Into Darkness title means there will be less Flair.

www.photoinduced.com

Aggrees...
 
2012-09-08 06:03:26 PM

Confabulat: GAT_00: FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What does it mean when I'm both?

Seriously. I've been a Star Trek fan since before anyone ever dreamed of a "Next Generation" (always poser Trek to me) and now I'm a "nuTrek" fan?

Yeah right. Abrams' Trek is far more close to the spirit of REAL Trek than Berman & Braga ever sniffed.


Had some minor nits with the nuTrek, but pretty much THIS.
 
2012-09-08 06:04:40 PM

KingoftheCheese: As the years went on, the character became sluttier and sluttier. I have seen every episode of Deep Space Nine, except the ones where that character appeared. I tried to watch one and I was physically sickened by the way she carried herself. I cringe when I even hear her voice as the computer.


notsureifserious.jpg

I loved that old slutbag. Cougar with a heart of gold, she was. The only episode I couldn't take was the one with little Aleksander and all the fake laughing. A-HA-ha-ha!
 
2012-09-08 06:04:51 PM
Am I the only one who thoroughly enjoyed Voyager? This is Zoolander and The Village all over again.
 
2012-09-08 06:08:44 PM
You know what's a stupid title "The Empire Strikes Back"

Say it out loud a few times. Stupid! Just as dumb as "Attack of the Clones"

So Star Trek 2 could be called "Star Trekkin' Through the Daisies" but it doesn't affect the quality of the movie!
 
2012-09-08 06:10:48 PM

awfulperson: KingoftheCheese: As the years went on, the character became sluttier and sluttier. I have seen every episode of Deep Space Nine, except the ones where that character appeared. I tried to watch one and I was physically sickened by the way she carried herself. I cringe when I even hear her voice as the computer.

notsureifserious.jpg

I loved that old slutbag. Cougar with a heart of gold, she was. The only episode I couldn't take was the one with little Aleksander and all the fake laughing. A-HA-ha-ha!


I don't joke around about Star Trek. It played a major part in my development as a young teen. The first time I ever pleasured myself was to Jadzia Dax in that episode where she and Worf went to Risa and she wore that very sexy, yet conservative, one piece swimming suit. She was not only beautiful, but she was smart and modest. Star Trek needed more female characters like her.
 
2012-09-08 06:12:02 PM

KingoftheCheese: It played a major part in my development as a young teen.


That's kind of sad.
 
2012-09-08 06:13:02 PM

Hetfield: KingoftheCheese: It played a major part in my development as a young teen.

That's kind of sad.


As sad as enjoying Voyager thoroughly?
 
2012-09-08 06:13:30 PM
Grew up on TOS and Next Generation, loved several of the movies, also loved the Star Trek reboot. Subby needs to pull the stick out methinks.
 
2012-09-08 06:14:43 PM

awfulperson: KingoftheCheese: As the years went on, the character became sluttier and sluttier. I have seen every episode of Deep Space Nine, except the ones where that character appeared. I tried to watch one and I was physically sickened by the way she carried herself. I cringe when I even hear her voice as the computer.

notsureifserious.jpg

I loved that old slutbag. Cougar with a heart of gold, she was. The only episode I couldn't take was the one with little Aleksander and all the fake laughing. A-HA-ha-ha!


Good god, there are actually people that enjoyed that character?
 
2012-09-08 06:15:54 PM

KingoftheCheese: Hetfield: KingoftheCheese: It played a major part in my development as a young teen.

That's kind of sad.

As sad as enjoying Voyager thoroughly?


He said sad, not sick.
 
2012-09-08 06:21:55 PM

KingoftheCheese: Hetfield: KingoftheCheese: It played a major part in my development as a young teen.

That's kind of sad.

As sad as enjoying Voyager thoroughly?


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-08 06:29:36 PM

KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.


Embarrassing to you maybe. As I've previously stated, I make the decisions about what I do and do not enjoy. That's not and has never been anyone else's job.
 
2012-09-08 06:40:06 PM
It was better than The Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis, 95% of Voyager, and about 90% of Enterprise.

The only thing I enjoyed since First Contact was some of the Mirror Universe Enterprise episodes, and those are hilariously hammy fan-service episodes that are nearly impossible to fark up.

/Liked the idea of the Temporal Cold War, not so much on the execution.
 
2012-09-08 06:46:40 PM

coeyagi: Bhruic: My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.

He was actually promoted to first officer, then exiled, then captain (but again, still acting captain), then captain.

//still unheard of, but details matter


He got promoted to acting first officer, then acting captain. Stupid, but under battle conditions, I suppose theoretically possible. What I was talking about is the permanent promotion he received at the end of the movie. Sure, he's the "hero", but that gets him reinstated as a cadet, or potentially graduates him ahead of time, it doesn't make him graduate immediately into a captain's position.
 
2012-09-08 06:47:07 PM
FTA
That awkward period when you know a film will have a sequel but you don't know it's name.

IS IT? IS IT REALLY AWKWARD? DOES IT MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE AND FIDGETY WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF A MOVIE THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET, YOU MEME-SPEWING DIMWITTED PLEONASTIC GARBAGE-SPEWING HEMHORROID ON THE HAIRY ASS OF SOCIETY?
 
2012-09-08 06:47:40 PM
I'll just leave this here.

Rotten Tomato rankings:

Star Trek TMP - 47%

Star Trek II - 90%

Star Trek III - 77%

Star Trek IV - 84%

Star Trek V - 21%

Star Trek VI - 83%

Star Trek Generations - 48%

Star Trek First Contact - 92%

Star Trek Insurrection - 56%

Star Trek Nemesis - 38%

Star Trek (2009) - 95%
 
2012-09-08 06:47:47 PM

I Like Bread: FTA
That awkward period when you know a film will have a sequel but you don't know it's name.

IS IT? IS IT REALLY AWKWARD? DOES IT MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE AND FIDGETY WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF A MOVIE THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET, YOU MEME-SPEWING DIMWITTED PLEONASTIC GARBAGE-SPEWING HEMHORROID ON THE HAIRY ASS OF SOCIETY?


Feel better?
 
2012-09-08 06:49:42 PM

SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.

Embarrassing to you maybe. As I've previously stated, I make the decisions about what I do and do not enjoy. That's not and has never been anyone else's job.


And that's the way it is. I enjoy all The Star Trek iterations, just not as much as B5 and BSG.
 
2012-09-08 06:50:30 PM

I Like Bread: FTA
That awkward period when you know a film will have a sequel but you don't know it's name.

IS IT? IS IT REALLY AWKWARD? DOES IT MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE AND FIDGETY WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF A MOVIE THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET, YOU MEME-SPEWING DIMWITTED PLEONASTIC GARBAGE-SPEWING HEMHORROID ON THE HAIRY ASS OF SOCIETY?


Are...are you okay?
 
2012-09-08 06:52:29 PM

coeyagi: MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.

I like you when you stay on this tab and this tab only.


Actually, he's pretty nice when off the Politics tab.
 
2012-09-08 06:54:08 PM

I Like Bread: FTA
That awkward period when you know a film will have a sequel but you don't know it's name.

IS IT? IS IT REALLY AWKWARD? DOES IT MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE AND FIDGETY WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF A MOVIE THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET, YOU MEME-SPEWING DIMWITTED PLEONASTIC GARBAGE-SPEWING HEMHORROID ON THE HAIRY ASS OF SOCIETY?


And here I thought I was the unstable one in the thread.
 
2012-09-08 07:04:40 PM
could just be a working title
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-08 07:08:59 PM
I swear if this movie sucks i'm killing a few red shirts.
 
2012-09-08 07:11:20 PM

MeinRS6: Next subby will complain that Ron Moore ruined the BSG franchise with bad editing.


What ruined the new BSG was the lack of an idea how to end it.
 
2012-09-08 07:13:28 PM
 
2012-09-08 07:34:23 PM
I'm working on a JJ Abrahms TV project right now.

Hate lens flares? Blame the director of photography.
 
2012-09-08 07:35:27 PM
Man, KotC. I kind of want to make out with you right now.
 
2012-09-08 07:43:17 PM

Shostie: Man, KotC. I kind of want to make out with you right now.


I don't blame you.
 
2012-09-08 07:46:12 PM

Bhruic: He got promoted to acting first officer, then acting captain. Stupid, but under battle conditions, I suppose theoretically possible. What I was talking about is the permanent promotion he received at the end of the movie. Sure, he's the "hero", but that gets him reinstated as a cadet, or potentially graduates him ahead of time, it doesn't make him graduate immediately into a captain's position.


Yeah, it would have been a much stronger scene if there'd been a short montage of him rising through the ranks in an exceptionally quick amount of time, rather than just "A day ago you were a cadet on the verge of expulsion, but you did OK in a crisis, so now we're making you captain of the Federation flagship!". I don't normally mind plotholes (the whole thing with him and spock coincidentally being marooned on the same planet within thirty seconds walk of each other didn't bother me), but the otherwise-decent film just ends on that pointless "WTF?" moment.
 
2012-09-08 07:46:25 PM
FARK, I am disappoint. The entire thread and no Winter references?

/too obscure?
//deafening screams
///aaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
2012-09-08 07:48:31 PM
If you can watch the kobayashi maru scene and say that this new movie was as good as, or even in the same spirit as the franchise, you are wrong. Assholes in space is about as far from star trek as you can get.

All the 'dense' screen filled images of prequel star wars and none of the heart of star trek.

Though I only hate it because it was successful.
 
2012-09-08 08:00:31 PM

rorypk: If you can watch the kobayashi maru scene and say that this new movie was as good as, or even in the same spirit as the franchise, you are wrong. Assholes in space is about as far from star trek as you can get.

All the 'dense' screen filled images of prequel star wars and none of the heart of star trek.

Though I only hate it because it was successful.


I'm extremely grateful to Roddenberry for creating Star Trek and making it successful, but it doesn't need to be held hostage to his memory forever. It's awesome and fun, but not sacred. It needs to change to survive. DS9 was viewed as rather sacrilegious, but is one of the best iterations of the universe.
 
2012-09-08 08:01:45 PM
King of the Cheeto Dust more like.

There are some things about people's private lives that mankind was not meant to know.
 
2012-09-08 08:12:41 PM

Kittypie070: King of the Cheeto Dust more like.

There are some things about people's private lives that mankind was not meant to know.


:(

Brace yourself for this one: it was all fake.
 
2012-09-08 08:14:16 PM

Erix: DS9 was viewed as rather sacrilegious, but is one of the best iterations of the universe


DS9 In the Pale Moonlight, Sisko does wrong, but feels conflicted about it. Shows character and conscience. If the nuKirk were in the same situation, he would've said f the romulans while cranking some sick tunes on his nokia.

You can change everything about Star Trek if the underlying message is about exploration and human growth. The new movie had no heart at all. If it's just jocks in space, what's the point?
 
2012-09-08 08:19:10 PM

KingoftheCheese: The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.


I think Demora would like a say.
 
2012-09-08 08:22:44 PM

rorypk: Erix: DS9 was viewed as rather sacrilegious, but is one of the best iterations of the universe

DS9 In the Pale Moonlight, Sisko does wrong, but feels conflicted about it. Shows character and conscience. If the nuKirk were in the same situation, he would've said f the romulans while cranking some sick tunes on his nokia.

You can change everything about Star Trek if the underlying message is about exploration and human growth. The new movie had no heart at all. If it's just jocks in space, what's the point?


There were plenty of jocks in space episodes, and plenty of movies that don't really touch on exploration and human growth. How does ST:II tackle these subjects? I'm still going to say ST:2009 was good, since it was establishing a new cast and a new universe, and while it might not have been groundbreaking, it did these things well.
 
2012-09-08 08:25:28 PM

GAT_00: I'm actually rewatching DS9 right now, so I'm getting a kick out of how I'm nuTrek, whatever the fark that means. Hell, you can't properly enjoy the new movie without knowing all the references.


i actually just got Mrs. Knarf to start DS9 a couple of weeks ago, i will freely admit that i guilted her into doing it and she has the whole "star trek ewwww" mentality.

But you know WHY she tried it, other than the fact that she adores me? she liked the new movie. suck on that haters!

/she's loving it BTW
//I win!
 
2012-09-08 08:27:17 PM

Erix: How does ST:II tackle these subjects?


The entire movie was about personal growth, essentially the expansion of the human experience. There was a genesis device as the plot point. Kirk had to come to terms with death, the true final frontier. You'd need to experience to understand I guess.

Was the new Star Trek really establishing a new universe?
 
2012-09-08 08:29:44 PM
Does anyone else think Benjamin Cumberbatch looks like an alien?

Every picture of him seriously creeps me out.
 
2012-09-08 08:31:29 PM

ModernLuddite: Does anyone else think Benjamin Cumberbatch looks like an alien?

Every picture of him seriously creeps me out.


Benedict?
 
2012-09-08 08:37:44 PM

DBrandisNC: I'm working on a JJ Abrahms TV project right now.

Hate lens flares? Blame the director of photography.



Maybe true for "real" lens flare, not all of it that was added in post.
 
2012-09-08 08:38:28 PM

SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.

Embarrassing to you maybe. As I've previously stated, I make the decisions about what I do and do not enjoy. That's not and has never been anyone else's job.


You're an idiot. This guy has been trolling you for hours.

It's like when I sit down with my friends who are massive Star Wars fans and defend the character of Jar-Jar Binks. Think about it.
 
2012-09-08 08:39:37 PM

KingoftheCheese: Kittypie070: King of the Cheeto Dust more like.

There are some things about people's private lives that mankind was not meant to know.

:(

Brace yourself for this one: it was all fake.


i'm ashamed to say i realized this little nugget of truth only halfway into your posts, still laughed my ass off.
+1 Internets to you for your excellent execution!
 
2012-09-08 08:41:26 PM
i22.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-08 08:45:43 PM

DamnYankees: When was this Orwellian decision made that somehow the last ST movie hurt the franchise's popularity and future? I realize some people didn't like it, but it was undeniably successful.


I'm too lazy to look it up, but I could've sworn Fark was all over the previous Star Trek movie when it came out. Fark does stupid shiat like that a lot. I also recall this site being all over the Spider-Man movies until the 3rd film came out.
 
2012-09-08 08:50:45 PM
As long as there is a superfluous ice monster scene, I'm in!
 
2012-09-08 09:04:56 PM

Relatively Obscure: The new Star Trek was fine. A significant number of the previous movies were far, far worse. I'm looking at you especially, Nemesis and Insurrection.


Really? Your gonna call out Insurrection before undiscovered Country?
 
2012-09-08 09:06:38 PM

isabps: Relatively Obscure: The new Star Trek was fine. A significant number of the previous movies were far, far worse. I'm looking at you especially, Nemesis and Insurrection.

Really? Your gonna call out Insurrection before undiscovered Country?


Yes, because of SANITY.
 
2012-09-08 09:11:46 PM

isabps: Relatively Obscure: The new Star Trek was fine. A significant number of the previous movies were far, far worse. I'm looking at you especially, Nemesis and Insurrection.

Really? Your gonna call out Insurrection before undiscovered Country?


2/10 just for sheer bravery
 
2012-09-08 09:16:32 PM
I was just wondering if the fact that JJ's Enterprise is twice the size of the orriginal Enterprise, if JJ is compensating for something?
 
2012-09-08 09:17:21 PM

KingoftheCheese: The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.


Assuming you're actually being serious:

1. Sulu the character was straight.

2. If you're actually worried about this, well, in NuTrek, may I remind you that the actor playing Spock is gay.
 
2012-09-08 09:18:24 PM
Where is Mud?
Whar Mud?
Want See Mud.
 
2012-09-08 09:18:30 PM

ModernLuddite: Does anyone else think Benjamin Cumberbatch looks like an alien?

Every picture of him seriously creeps me out.


Have they announced who he's playing yet? Last I heard he was going to be Gary Mitchell, but I'm guessing that's not happening.
 
2012-09-08 09:20:03 PM
Brick-House
Whatever you think of JJ's Star Trek, this belongs here.


I prefer the version with added shakycam: 
www.clusterfake.net
 
2012-09-08 09:20:28 PM
2, 6, 4, Reboot, First Contact, and then lump the rest of the NG movies into one pile of ass. Honestly the reboot would probably beat out 4 and 6 if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor with the original cast members.
 
2012-09-08 09:22:33 PM

The Voice of Doom: Brick-House
Whatever you think of JJ's Star Trek, this belongs here.

I prefer the version with added shakycam: 
[www.clusterfake.net image 370x185]


Fuk, that just hurts the eyes...
 
2012-09-08 09:26:16 PM

Brubold: 2, 6, 4, Reboot, First Contact, and then lump the rest of the NG movies into one pile of ass. Honestly the reboot would probably beat out 4 and 6 if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor with the original cast members.


I think I can agree with that.

/although I might honestly put 4 above 6, despite the fact that it was an unapologetic comedy instead of a regular Star Trek film.
 
2012-09-08 09:27:28 PM

Brick-House: The Voice of Doom: Brick-House
Whatever you think of JJ's Star Trek, this belongs here.

I prefer the version with added shakycam: 
[www.clusterfake.net image 370x185]

Fuk, that just hurts the eyes...


Yeah, I had to scroll it out of view to type my last post. That was just dickish.
 
2012-09-08 09:31:34 PM

Erix: Brubold: 2, 6, 4, Reboot, First Contact, and then lump the rest of the NG movies into one pile of ass. Honestly the reboot would probably beat out 4 and 6 if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor with the original cast members.

I think I can agree with that.

/although I might honestly put 4 above 6, despite the fact that it was an unapologetic comedy instead of a regular Star Trek film.


Search for Spock was good and First Contact sucked.
 
2012-09-08 09:33:32 PM

Mugato: Erix: Brubold: 2, 6, 4, Reboot, First Contact, and then lump the rest of the NG movies into one pile of ass. Honestly the reboot would probably beat out 4 and 6 if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor with the original cast members.

I think I can agree with that.

/although I might honestly put 4 above 6, despite the fact that it was an unapologetic comedy instead of a regular Star Trek film.

Search for Spock was good and First Contact sucked.


Yeah I hate the odd number OS movies so much that I forgot to even put them on my list. So I have to disagree about Search for Spock. That was a terrible sequel to the best movie in the franchise IMO.
 
2012-09-08 09:36:02 PM

MeinRS6: Next subby will complain that Ron Moore ruined the BSG franchise with bad editing ending.



FTFY
 
2012-09-08 09:37:17 PM

Mugato: Erix: Brubold: 2, 6, 4, Reboot, First Contact, and then lump the rest of the NG movies into one pile of ass. Honestly the reboot would probably beat out 4 and 6 if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor with the original cast members.

I think I can agree with that.

/although I might honestly put 4 above 6, despite the fact that it was an unapologetic comedy instead of a regular Star Trek film.

Search for Spock was good and First Contact sucked.


Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen. At least they actually acknowledged the continuity of the show by having Picard act upon his prior experience with the borg.
 
2012-09-08 09:38:40 PM
www.clusterfake.netwww.clusterfake.netwww.clusterfake.netwww.clusterfake.netwww.clusterfake.netwww.clusterfake.net

/knows how to kill a ST thread :)
 
2012-09-08 09:39:04 PM

Brubold: Mugato: Erix: Brubold: 2, 6, 4, Reboot, First Contact, and then lump the rest of the NG movies into one pile of ass. Honestly the reboot would probably beat out 4 and 6 if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor with the original cast members.

I think I can agree with that.

/although I might honestly put 4 above 6, despite the fact that it was an unapologetic comedy instead of a regular Star Trek film.

Search for Spock was good and First Contact sucked.

Yeah I hate the odd number OS movies so much that I forgot to even put them on my list. So I have to disagree about Search for Spock. That was a terrible sequel to the best movie in the franchise IMO.


That's ok, most of them don't deserve to be on the list at all.

But I honestly don't hate ST:1 nearly as much as everyone else seems to. It had an epic feel to it that was largely missing from most of the later movies. And the bald chick was hot.
 
2012-09-08 09:41:37 PM

KingoftheCheese: Brace yourself for this one: it was all fake.


Man, you've been on a roll today. Second thread I've seen you in and both had me laughing. Loved the Dax stuff.
 
2012-09-08 09:41:50 PM

Erix: Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen. At least they actually acknowledged the continuity of the show by having Picard act upon his prior experience with the borg.


First Contact was the only decent TNG movie.

/which says a lot about TNG
 
2012-09-08 09:43:13 PM

Misconduc: [www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185]

/knows how to kill a ST thread :)


misKHAAAAAAAAAANNNduc!
 
2012-09-08 10:02:55 PM

fusillade762: I'll just leave this here.

Rotten Tomato rankings:

Star Trek TMP - 47%

Star Trek II - 90%

Star Trek III - 77%

Star Trek IV - 84%

Star Trek V - 21%

Star Trek VI - 83%

Star Trek Generations - 48%

Star Trek First Contact - 92%

Star Trek Insurrection - 56%

Star Trek Nemesis - 38%

Star Trek (2009) - 95%


Why can't they all be as good as The City of the Edge of Forever...
 
2012-09-08 10:05:24 PM

isabps: Relatively Obscure: The new Star Trek was fine. A significant number of the previous movies were far, far worse. I'm looking at you especially, Nemesis and Insurrection.

Really? Your gonna call out Insurrection before undiscovered Country?


Um. Yes. Waaaaaay before.
 
2012-09-08 10:07:45 PM

Brubold: So I have to disagree about Search for Spock. That was a terrible sequel to the best movie in the franchise IMO.


Search for Spock had the first of the badass Klingons, the first appearance of the Bird of Prey, Kirk stole the Enterprise, Kirk destroyed the Enterprise, Kirk's pussy son got killed...Trek 3 had a lot going for it.


Erix: Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen. At least they actually acknowledged the continuity of the show by having Picard act upon his prior experience with the borg.


Not really. In the last episode with the Borg, Picard befriended a Borg drone and turned him back into the collective, ignoring the opportunity to plant a virus that could have destroyed them. He should have been court martial-ed for that shiat.
 
2012-09-08 10:09:22 PM

Mugato: Erix: Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen. At least they actually acknowledged the continuity of the show by having Picard act upon his prior experience with the borg.

Not really. In the last episode with the Borg, Picard befriended a Borg drone and turned him back into the collective, ignoring the opportunity to plant a virus that could have destroyed them. He should have been court martial-ed for that shiat.




First Contact was like.. Die Hard Picard.
 
2012-09-08 10:17:57 PM

Shostie: ModernLuddite: Does anyone else think Benjamin Cumberbatch looks like an alien?

Every picture of him seriously creeps me out.

Have they announced who he's playing yet? Last I heard he was going to be Gary Mitchell, but I'm guessing that's not happening.


Hard to say if that was tactical trolling on Karl Urban's part or not. No it hasn't been announced. It's still a year to the movie but it's quite impressive someone hasn't leaked that details. It's what everyone wants to know. At least for now the breast-beating about white-washing Khan has simmered down.

Do you know who probably does know? Stephen farking Hawking. Because according to Dara O'Briain Benedict Cumberbatch told him top secret Start Trek stuff whilst hanging out enjoying margaritas with him this weekend.

/Wish my life was that cool
//Benedict Cumberbatch is a sexy biatch
 
2012-09-08 10:25:06 PM
It's not a subtitle. The title is "Star Trek Into Darkness". You know, like it's some kind of star trek into darkness.
 
2012-09-08 10:30:19 PM

Mugato: Brubold: So I have to disagree about Search for Spock. That was a terrible sequel to the best movie in the franchise IMO.

Search for Spock had the first of the badass Klingons, the first appearance of the Bird of Prey, Kirk stole the Enterprise, Kirk destroyed the Enterprise, Kirk's pussy son got killed...Trek 3 had a lot going for it.


Erix: Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen. At least they actually acknowledged the continuity of the show by having Picard act upon his prior experience with the borg.

Not really. In the last episode with the Borg, Picard befriended a Borg drone and turned him back into the collective, ignoring the opportunity to plant a virus that could have destroyed them. He should have been court martial-ed for that shiat.


I said they acknowledged the continuity, not that they didn't fark it up. This is Star Trek; I don't really expect a huge respect for it.
 
2012-09-08 10:31:07 PM

Mugato: Erix: Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen. At least they actually acknowledged the continuity of the show by having Picard act upon his prior experience with the borg.

Not really. In the last episode with the Borg, Picard befriended a Borg drone and turned him back into the collective, ignoring the opportunity to plant a virus that could have destroyed them. He should have been court martial-ed for that shiat.


He would have, but he didn't have Jeff Goldblum's Mac Powerbook...
 
2012-09-08 10:32:27 PM

if_i_really_have_to: Shostie: ModernLuddite: Does anyone else think Benjamin Cumberbatch looks like an alien?

Every picture of him seriously creeps me out.

Have they announced who he's playing yet? Last I heard he was going to be Gary Mitchell, but I'm guessing that's not happening.

Hard to say if that was tactical trolling on Karl Urban's part or not. No it hasn't been announced. It's still a year to the movie but it's quite impressive someone hasn't leaked that details. It's what everyone wants to know. At least for now the breast-beating about white-washing Khan has simmered down.

Do you know who probably does know? Stephen farking Hawking. Because according to Dara O'Briain Benedict Cumberbatch told him top secret Start Trek stuff whilst hanging out enjoying margaritas with him this weekend.

/Wish my life was that cool
//Benedict Cumberbatch is a sexy biatch


I want Benedict Cumberbatch's life.
 
2012-09-08 10:39:03 PM
What the main villain, The Darkness, might look like:
slafmma.com
 
2012-09-08 11:14:30 PM
Really wish they would do a TV series with it. It's not like the actors are busy
 
2012-09-08 11:25:00 PM

Misconduc: [www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185][www.clusterfake.net image 370x185]

/knows how to kill a ST thread :)


You must be a red shirt, because I am pretty sure there are folks who want you dead right now.
 
2012-09-08 11:44:09 PM

Erix: Sure, Search for Spock was ok, but First Contact was fine if you took out the borg queen revisionist fanboys who suddenly don't like First Contact based upon Red Letter Media reviews.


Fixed.
 
2012-09-08 11:53:52 PM
Worst title since "Attack of the Clones".
 
2012-09-08 11:58:35 PM
Just wanted to note that this shirt showed up in my mailbox today.
 
2012-09-09 12:11:43 AM

fusillade762: I'll just leave this here.

Rotten Tomato rankings:

Star Trek TMP - 47%

Star Trek II - 90%

Star Trek III - 77%

Star Trek IV - 84%

Star Trek V - 21%

Star Trek VI - 83%

Star Trek Generations - 48%

Star Trek First Contact - 92%

Star Trek Insurrection - 56%

Star Trek Nemesis - 38%

Star Trek (2009) - 95%


You know you could be spending your time inflating your girlfriend to the correct psi.
 
2012-09-09 12:12:28 AM
Don't mind the lens flare or the shakycam. Those are just gimmicks. The movie itself was pretty well done. I'm actually bummed out that Nimoy is not going to be in the second one, because I felt he added a certain weight to the first that makes the movie feel distinguished, kind of the balance to all the chaos
 
2012-09-09 12:18:51 AM
Here's my beef with Star Trek (2009): it wasn't Star Trek, but just an action/adventure movie.

Star Trek is message heavy, using the lens of science fiction to usually examine a contemporary social issue or they are a morality plays. I think that's why a lot of people don't like it -- it can be preachy -- but I think most trekkies would agree that the best Star Trek episodes and movies fit into these two categories.

The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

An unrelated objection I had with the movie is that there were too many winks and nods to the trek fans as a way for the filmmakers to insist that they had seen all of the previous Star Trek movies. For example, we didn't need a rehash of the Kobayashi Maru. Nor did we need the transparent aluminum formula gag from Trek 4 redone.

And lastly, I think all trekkies would agree that time travel has become way too overdone with Star Trek, and that's the premises of this movie.
 
jvl
2012-09-09 12:26:00 AM

MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.


And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you troll the start of the thread.

/ Improbable coincidences, gaping plot holes, convenient plot devices, casual genocide, and lens flare
 
2012-09-09 12:26:23 AM

DamnYankees: When was this Orwellian decision made that somehow the last ST movie hurt the franchise's popularity and future? I realize some people didn't like it, but it was undeniably successful.


You run the risk that if you don't maintain the fan base, all you are left with is: "big budget action film: In Space"

A deteriorating fan base means harder times getting new films produced, which means fewer fans, which means...
 
2012-09-09 12:30:13 AM

Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.


The Motion Picture's problems stemmed from the story line being less Star Trek like and the fact that they rushed post production (can't remember why and I'm too lazy to google it). Really though it wasn't a bad movie. I rather enjoyed it.
 
2012-09-09 12:34:45 AM

Erix: I'm extremely grateful to Roddenberry for creating Star Trek and making it successful, but it doesn't need to be held hostage to his memory forever. It's awesome and fun, but not sacred. It needs to change to survive. DS9 was viewed as rather sacrilegious, but is one of the best iterations of the universe.


If you really think about DS9, it's not so much sacrilegious, but more of a reaction to the flaws with TNG (and I say that as someone who loved TNG), specifically: 1) technology often being the solution -- on DS9 a running theme was that nothing on the space station ever worked; 2) the crew all being incredibly congenial -- for the first few seasons of DS9 you had the tension between the Starfleet and Bajoran crews; and 3) whatever happen on one episode had no effect on subsequent episodes -- DS9 was heavily serialized and constantly evolving.

That being said, the show was still classic Roddenberry, using the lens of science fiction to examine contemporary issues or examine issues of morality. Probably the most popular episode of the series, "In the Pale Moonlight," is a typical Star Trek morality play. And other favorites are also right out of the Roddenberry playbook, such as "Far Beyond the Stars" and "The Visitor."
 
2012-09-09 12:35:01 AM

jvl: MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you troll the start of the thread.

/ Improbable coincidences, gaping plot holes, convenient plot devices, casual genocide, and lens flare


Well, outside of Scotty winding up in what, the sewer system, and the inability of 23rd century science to heal Pike, whatever the heck was done to him, it was an OK Galaxy Quest remake.
 
2012-09-09 12:36:58 AM

thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.


I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.
 
2012-09-09 12:38:40 AM
aapdp.org
 
2012-09-09 12:42:21 AM

Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.


Yeah, that one Voyager episode about Janeway and Chachotay evolving into things before they ever reached the planet turned me off to the whole series.
 
2012-09-09 12:44:06 AM

cfreak: Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.

The Motion Picture's problems stemmed from the story line being less Star Trek like and the fact that they rushed post production (can't remember why and I'm too lazy to google it). Really though it wasn't a bad movie. I rather enjoyed it.


The fundamental problem with The Motion Picture is that it's all plot. It's not about any of the characters -- Decker gets more character development than Kirk! . It's just about a giant cloud destructive cloud headed to earth.

Trek II is so good and loved because it's a serious examination of Kirk and advances his character. Similarly, First Contact is the best TNG movie because it does the same thing with Picard.
 
2012-09-09 12:48:29 AM

thornhill: Erix: I'm extremely grateful to Roddenberry for creating Star Trek and making it successful, but it doesn't need to be held hostage to his memory forever. It's awesome and fun, but not sacred. It needs to change to survive. DS9 was viewed as rather sacrilegious, but is one of the best iterations of the universe.

If you really think about DS9, it's not so much sacrilegious, but more of a reaction to the flaws with TNG (and I say that as someone who loved TNG), specifically: 1) technology often being the solution -- on DS9 a running theme was that nothing on the space station ever worked; 2) the crew all being incredibly congenial -- for the first few seasons of DS9 you had the tension between the Starfleet and Bajoran crews; and 3) whatever happen on one episode had no effect on subsequent episodes -- DS9 was heavily serialized and constantly evolving.

That being said, the show was still classic Roddenberry, using the lens of science fiction to examine contemporary issues or examine issues of morality. Probably the most popular episode of the series, "In the Pale Moonlight," is a typical Star Trek morality play. And other favorites are also right out of the Roddenberry playbook, such as "Far Beyond the Stars" and "The Visitor."


The first couple of seasons had some brutally bad episodes ("Move Along Home," for example), but yeah, the conflict between the crews, and especially the conflicts among the Bajorans and with the Maquis, gave a sharper edge than previous Treks. i was a big fan of how they slowly developed the Dominion conflict. Some of the "funny" episodes with the Ferengi, not so much.
 
2012-09-09 12:48:59 AM

thornhill: cfreak: Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.

The Motion Picture's problems stemmed from the story line being less Star Trek like and the fact that they rushed post production (can't remember why and I'm too lazy to google it). Really though it wasn't a bad movie. I rather enjoyed it.

The fundamental problem with The Motion Picture is that it's all plot. It's not about any of the characters -- Decker gets more character development than Kirk! . It's just about a giant cloud destructive cloud headed to earth.

Trek II is so good and loved because it's a serious examination of Kirk and advances his character. Similarly, First Contact is the best TNG movie because it does the same thing with Picard.


Trek 2 is one of the best, because it refers to the consequences of a TOS episode. But wasn't the female doctor the one who switched bodies with Kirk in TOS?
 
2012-09-09 12:50:56 AM
cdn.screenrant.com
I've watched Star Trek since the first episode aired
and I've loved it.

That last movie sucked. Sorry, it just sucked.
Star Trek is dead until Abrams lets go of it.

/she was cute though...
 
2012-09-09 12:52:54 AM

Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.


First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.
 
2012-09-09 12:57:04 AM

Gunther: Bhruic: He got promoted to acting first officer, then acting captain. Stupid, but under battle conditions, I suppose theoretically possible. What I was talking about is the permanent promotion he received at the end of the movie. Sure, he's the "hero", but that gets him reinstated as a cadet, or potentially graduates him ahead of time, it doesn't make him graduate immediately into a captain's position.

Yeah, it would have been a much stronger scene if there'd been a short montage of him rising through the ranks in an exceptionally quick amount of time, rather than just "A day ago you were a cadet on the verge of expulsion, but you did OK in a crisis, so now we're making you captain of the Federation flagship!". I don't normally mind plotholes (the whole thing with him and spock coincidentally being marooned on the same planet within thirty seconds walk of each other didn't bother me), but the otherwise-decent film just ends on that pointless "WTF?" moment.


Wasn't there a line early on where Pike says, "you can be a captain in four years"? Did he mean, "you can be a captain in four years, unless you get suspended and there's a crisis and you sneak onto the ship and you manage to con your Vulcan superior office into freaking out during a mission; then, it's a lot easier."
 
2012-09-09 01:00:18 AM

thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.


There's a lot of magical devices in Star Trek: Warp drive, Photon Torpedoes (Seriously, how much damage can be caused by massless particles), Teleportation, and food replicators.
 
2012-09-09 01:03:27 AM

thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek.


originals.clzimages.com
 
2012-09-09 01:05:38 AM
www.intarnet.us

(but in all seriousness the new movie was great and the rest of trek can go fark itself with the exception of DS9)
 
2012-09-09 01:06:08 AM

fusillade762: Star Trek III - 77%


Highest of the odd-numbered Trek movies pre-2009, as it should be. "Search for Spock" is a really underrated movie, it's one of my personal favorites of the films.

rorypk: Erix: How does ST:II tackle these subjects?

The entire movie was about personal growth, essentially the expansion of the human experience. There was a genesis device as the plot point. Kirk had to come to terms with death, the true final frontier. You'd need to experience to understand I guess.

Was the new Star Trek really establishing a new universe?


Spock has to deal with the death of his mother and the destruction of his homeworld. The most he ever had to face in the Prime Universe was his father eventually succumbing to a mental disorder (that he wasn't around to see and barely mentioned except at the beginning and end of "Unification Part II", and his half-brother wrestling an alien before being vaporized by a photon torpedo (and he died, yes, but that was reset pretty quick).

That's the beauty of alternate timelines/universes, it doesn't have to be exactly like the original. Marvel, DC, and Transformers figured this out a long time ago.
 
2012-09-09 01:07:14 AM

simplicimus: Yeah, that one Voyager episode about Janeway and Chachotay evolving into things before they ever reached the planet turned me off to the whole series.


Bullshiat. If you really watched the show you would have remembered it was Paris and Janeway.
 
2012-09-09 01:07:48 AM

simplicimus: thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.



Um

upload.wikimedia.org

Just saying

/hot linkage
 
2012-09-09 01:08:48 AM

Erix: But I honestly don't hate ST:1 nearly as much as everyone else seems to.


It didn't have to be a bad movie -- if you edited it down to the bits that contained plot or dialog or action it might work. Unfortunately they didn't do that, and the Enterprise spends so long slowly floating past a cloud and into a mechanical sphincter that you'll think it's some sort of Trek-releated screensaver built in to your TV.
 
2012-09-09 01:09:17 AM

peterthx: simplicimus: Yeah, that one Voyager episode about Janeway and Chachotay evolving into things before they ever reached the planet turned me off to the whole series.

Bullshiat. If you really watched the show you would have remembered it was Paris and Janeway.


I stand (or actually sit) corrected. Anyway, that episode was crap.
 
2012-09-09 01:13:04 AM

simplicimus: jvl: MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you troll the start of the thread.

/ Improbable coincidences, gaping plot holes, convenient plot devices, casual genocide, and lens flare

Well, outside of Scotty winding up in what, the sewer system, and the inability of 23rd century science to heal Pike, whatever the heck was done to him, it was an OK Galaxy Quest remake.


They couldn't heal Pike in the Prime Timeline's 23rd century, either. And Nero broke Pike's spine to make him open his mouth for the creature to go in.
 
2012-09-09 01:14:43 AM

simplicimus: peterthx: simplicimus: Yeah, that one Voyager episode about Janeway and Chachotay evolving into things before they ever reached the planet turned me off to the whole series.

Bullshiat. If you really watched the show you would have remembered it was Paris and Janeway.

I stand (or actually sit) corrected. Anyway, that episode was crap.


"Threshold" was the episode, pretty bad. But a breeze compared to episodes like Spock's Brain or The Way To Eden or Code of Honor.
 
2012-09-09 01:15:02 AM

Mole Man: simplicimus: thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.


Um

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x340]

Just saying

/hot linkage


Well, that's why I prefer B5. There's basically only one magic device, the hyperspace gateways. And the organic ships. And the telepaths. Wait, let me enter the room again.
 
2012-09-09 01:15:45 AM

evilwhiteguy: [www.intarnet.us image 600x530]

(but in all seriousness the new movie was great and the rest of trek can go fark itself with the exception of DS9)


The only captain cooler than Captain Sisko . . .

originals.clzimages.com

was Mirror Captain Sisko.
 
2012-09-09 01:18:19 AM
abagond.files.wordpress.com

"I wanna be in a movie..." ;_;
 
2012-09-09 01:20:40 AM

thornhill: I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science.


Dilithium crystals? Really? You just go with that, huh. Red matter is magic but dilithium crystals, why they're all over the galaxy, everyone knows that.

Hey how about we modulate the shields' polarity to deflect the enemy's photon array! That's science(-y sounding)!

Star Trek has about as much to do with real science as Han Solo yammering about parsecs.
 
2012-09-09 01:22:09 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: simplicimus: jvl: MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you troll the start of the thread.

/ Improbable coincidences, gaping plot holes, convenient plot devices, casual genocide, and lens flare

Well, outside of Scotty winding up in what, the sewer system, and the inability of 23rd century science to heal Pike, whatever the heck was done to him, it was an OK Galaxy Quest remake.

They couldn't heal Pike in the Prime Timeline's 23rd century, either. And Nero broke Pike's spine to make him open his mouth for the creature to go in.


Pike in TOS was considerably more Fubar.
 
2012-09-09 01:22:42 AM

simplicimus: thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.

There's a lot of magical devices in Star Trek: Warp drive, Photon Torpedoes (Seriously, how much damage can be caused by massless particles), Teleportation, and food replicators.


You're being insanely nitpick.

Warp Drive or faster than light travel is a plot device of all science fiction so that the characters can go to alien worlds.

Photon Torpedoes is just a name for a futuristic propelled explosive device.

Teleportation is another common plot device of science fiction so that you don't have to waste time having characters spend a lot of time in shuttles.

Food replicators are an example of good science fiction. The idea is that in the future we're going to have vending machines capable of preparing meals -- and people are already trying to do this with 3D printers, which are a type of replicator. The writers obviously got a bit carried away with it having the ability to rearrange matter, but that's the fun of sci-fi.
 
2012-09-09 01:23:56 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 800x300]

"I wanna be in a movie..." ;_;


That would be cool. But how much of the Decker family can we kill off?
 
2012-09-09 01:25:42 AM

simplicimus: Keizer_Ghidorah: simplicimus: jvl: MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you troll the start of the thread.

/ Improbable coincidences, gaping plot holes, convenient plot devices, casual genocide, and lens flare

Well, outside of Scotty winding up in what, the sewer system, and the inability of 23rd century science to heal Pike, whatever the heck was done to him, it was an OK Galaxy Quest remake.

They couldn't heal Pike in the Prime Timeline's 23rd century, either. And Nero broke Pike's spine to make him open his mouth for the creature to go in.

Pike in TOS was considerably more Fubar.


They could have grown him new skin, or made his skin and flesh heal faster after removing the burned flesh, or whatever else their advanced medical science can do. But in the land of TV and film, whether medicine works or not is subject to the laws of plot.
 
2012-09-09 01:29:04 AM

thornhill: The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.


What about Charlie X?
 
2012-09-09 01:30:45 AM

simplicimus: Keizer_Ghidorah: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 800x300]

"I wanna be in a movie..." ;_;

That would be cool. But how much of the Decker family can we kill off?


Wouldn't have to include Decker, necessarily. But considering that it's still out there and will eventually go through the most densely populated portion of the Alpha Quadrant, the Federation will have to deal with the Doomsday Machine at some point.

Actually, a lot of TOS elements are still likely chugging along without change: the Botany Bay, the giant energy-eating amoeba, the evil energy being captive around a collapsed star. And planets that the Enterprise was first to visit, like Argo and the Guardian of Forever's world, wouldn't have been affected by Nero's actions.
 
2012-09-09 01:31:10 AM
I loved the new movie and still watch it when I'm in the mood for something fun. As others have said, it was true to the spirit of the original series and a lot of fun. It is right up there with the best movies in the series. Quite frankly, it redeemed the franchise and I can't wait until next year to see the new one.

If you didn't like the new movie, how did you feel about the last two Next Gen movies? When you were watching Data's butt be used as a flotation device, did you think to yourself "At least there's no lens flare."
 
2012-09-09 01:34:53 AM
Anybody else read the comic books they've been publishing? They're mostly retellings of TOS episodes in the new universe, with variations that veer from minor to extreme because, new universe. They're sort of surreal reading to me; I know those stories so well seeing them altered and with different faces on the characters makes me feel a little like I dropped in a parallel universe myself.
 
2012-09-09 01:36:14 AM

HighOnCraic: thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek.

[originals.clzimages.com image 400x300]


Did you watch the show? The shape shifters that referred to themselves as "the founders" genetically engineered servent races, and to ensure obedience, programed those races to think of them as gods (not all that different than how Kings and Emperors in Earth's past claimed to be God's representative on Earth). Despite calling themselves gods, the founders could be killed by conventional weapons as well as infected with viruses.
 
2012-09-09 01:39:31 AM

thornhill: You're being insanely nitpick.

Warp Drive or faster than light travel is a plot device of all science fiction so that the characters can go to alien worlds.

Photon Torpedoes is just a name for a futuristic propelled explosive device.

Teleportation is another common plot device of science fiction so that you don't have to waste time having characters spend a lot of time in shuttles.

Food replicators are an example of good science fiction. The idea is that in the future we're going to have vending machines capable of preparing meals -- and people are already trying to do this with 3D printers, which ...


Yeah, I know I'm a nitpicker about this stuff. I'm a big fan of Dune, cause there's only two magic things: Everything derived from the Holtzman equation (shields, foldspace, Glowglobes, etc.) and melange.
 
2012-09-09 01:42:39 AM
Subby the term used behind closed doors @ Paramount(possibly picked up from Starlog) during the Last Epoch was "Trek Fatigue". Anything J.J. does adds new value to what once was a very old dog. 
 
2012-09-09 01:43:05 AM
I'd certainly call the Guardian of Forever a magic device.
 
2012-09-09 01:43:23 AM

simplicimus: thornhill: You're being insanely nitpick.

Warp Drive or faster than light travel is a plot device of all science fiction so that the characters can go to alien worlds.

Photon Torpedoes is just a name for a futuristic propelled explosive device.

Teleportation is another common plot device of science fiction so that you don't have to waste time having characters spend a lot of time in shuttles.

Food replicators are an example of good science fiction. The idea is that in the future we're going to have vending machines capable of preparing meals -- and people are already trying to do this with 3D printers, which ...

Yeah, I know I'm a nitpicker about this stuff. I'm a big fan of Dune, cause there's only two magic things: Everything derived from the Holtzman equation (shields, foldspace, Glowglobes, etc.) and melange.


Maybe through Children. Once you get to God Emperor, which was still Frank, your premise goes to shiat.
 
2012-09-09 01:44:05 AM

thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.


They're gods in every way that matters. And you're forgetting all the other godlike beings such as the Prophets of Bajor, which are acknowledged in-universe as gods and are worshipped as such by many characters on DS:9.

thornhill: The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.


Even ignoring all the other times psychic powers have popped up (heck, the pilot episode of TOS was about someone developing godlike psychic powers) and just focusing on Betazoids and Vulcans, both of those races display psychic powers that are essentially magic. The betazoids in particular can sense the emotions of completely alien life forms from enormous distances across the vacuum of space.

I'm not picking on Star Trek here, just saying it's no more scientific a show than the average TV sci-fi series is. It's no better or worse than Babylon 5, Stargate or Farscape. It's significantly less realistic than Battlestar Galactica, and that show had actual angels show up.
 
2012-09-09 01:44:59 AM

thornhill: HighOnCraic: thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek.

[originals.clzimages.com image 400x300]

Did you watch the show? The shape shifters that referred to themselves as "the founders" genetically engineered servent races, and to ensure obedience, programed those races to think of them as gods (not all that different than how Kings and Emperors in Earth's past claimed to be God's representative on Earth). Despite calling themselves gods, the founders could be killed by conventional weapons as well as infected with viruses.


Apollo, in "Who Mourns For Adonis", was a god. No supercomputer, no handheld devices, no technobabble abilities, not a highly-evolved being. He was presented as an actual god.

The Squire of Gothos was revealed to be a Q in a TNG novel.
 
2012-09-09 01:46:22 AM

thornhill: HighOnCraic: thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek.

[originals.clzimages.com image 400x300]

Did you watch the show? The shape shifters that referred to themselves as "the founders" genetically engineered servent races, and to ensure obedience, programed those races to think of them as gods (not all that different than how Kings and Emperors in Earth's past claimed to be God's representative on Earth). Despite calling themselves gods, the founders could be killed by conventional weapons as well as infected with viruses.


Jimmy James: Well, beam me up, Slappy!
Dave Nelson: Actually, that's Scottie.
Jimmy James: Geek test!

Let's not take it so seriously.

/Technically, to the Vorta and the Jem'hadar, the Founders were gods.
//And to the Bajorans, the wormhole aliens were gods.
///So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.
///You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
 
2012-09-09 01:51:32 AM

bhcompy: simplicimus: thornhill: You're being insanely nitpick.

Warp Drive or faster than light travel is a plot device of all science fiction so that the characters can go to alien worlds.

Photon Torpedoes is just a name for a futuristic propelled explosive device.

Teleportation is another common plot device of science fiction so that you don't have to waste time having characters spend a lot of time in shuttles.

Food replicators are an example of good science fiction. The idea is that in the future we're going to have vending machines capable of preparing meals -- and people are already trying to do this with 3D printers, which ...

Yeah, I know I'm a nitpicker about this stuff. I'm a big fan of Dune, cause there's only two magic things: Everything derived from the Holtzman equation (shields, foldspace, Glowglobes, etc.) and melange.

Maybe through Children. Once you get to God Emperor, which was still Frank, your premise goes to shiat.


How so? Leto II is a worm, which is melange. And he he is Paul's son.
 
2012-09-09 01:53:05 AM

GratuityIncluded: fusillade762: I'll just leave this here.

Rotten Tomato rankings:

Star Trek TMP - 47%

Star Trek II - 90%

Star Trek III - 77%

Star Trek IV - 84%

Star Trek V - 21%

Star Trek VI - 83%

Star Trek Generations - 48%

Star Trek First Contact - 92%

Star Trek Insurrection - 56%

Star Trek Nemesis - 38%

Star Trek (2009) - 95%

Why can't they all be as good as The City of the Edge of Forever...


Just was watching TOS remastered today on Netflix. Assignment Earth followed by Spock's Brain. No matter how good a show is some times you get Season 1 TNG and Spock's Brain.
 
2012-09-09 01:56:53 AM
img266.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-09 01:58:27 AM

Confabulat: Also, Leonard Nimoy liked this so-called "nuTrek" enough to take a substantial role. He refused to even show up for Generations.

Which one sounds more like a real Trek movie to you?


Shatner did Generations. Nimoy did Reboot Trek.

Advantage: Nimoy.
 
2012-09-09 02:04:28 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: Confabulat: Also, Leonard Nimoy liked this so-called "nuTrek" enough to take a substantial role. He refused to even show up for Generations.

Which one sounds more like a real Trek movie to you?

Shatner did Generations. Nimoy did Reboot Trek.

Advantage: Nimoy.


Shatner killed his character. Nimoy did not.
Advantage Shatner.
 
2012-09-09 02:32:44 AM

simplicimus: Shatner killed his character. Nimoy did not.
Advantage Shatner.


...with the most pointless Trek death since Tasha Yar?
 
2012-09-09 02:37:37 AM

simplicimus: bhcompy: simplicimus: thornhill: You're being insanely nitpick.

Warp Drive or faster than light travel is a plot device of all science fiction so that the characters can go to alien worlds.

Photon Torpedoes is just a name for a futuristic propelled explosive device.

Teleportation is another common plot device of science fiction so that you don't have to waste time having characters spend a lot of time in shuttles.

Food replicators are an example of good science fiction. The idea is that in the future we're going to have vending machines capable of preparing meals -- and people are already trying to do this with 3D printers, which ...

Yeah, I know I'm a nitpicker about this stuff. I'm a big fan of Dune, cause there's only two magic things: Everything derived from the Holtzman equation (shields, foldspace, Glowglobes, etc.) and melange.

Maybe through Children. Once you get to God Emperor, which was still Frank, your premise goes to shiat.

How so? Leto II is a worm, which is melange. And he he is Paul's son.


Infinity Duncan Idahos, for one
 
2012-09-09 02:38:11 AM

KingoftheCheese: The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.


Looks like you hooked a few. Don't know why such a thing is entertaining, but it worked, so hooray for that.
 
2012-09-09 03:06:09 AM
Actually since watching the new film a few times I have gone back and watched films 1 to 6 and am now working my way through the original series. Kirk in the series is a much more likeable person and a much better Starship captain than he ever was in the movies. He really is a hero character in the vain of Horatio Hornblower and constantly puts the crew and ship ahead of his own interests and or safety.

By Wrath of Kahn he has become an angry old man with a dozen chips on his shoulder. It's actually a bit sad. That said I like all the movies, they don't suck nearly as much as everyone says, not even Final Frontier. Undiscovered Country is by far the best of them and has the most sensible and interesting plot.

There is nothing wrong with the new movie, it is fresh and exciting and will hopefully keep the franchise going for many years. My only real gripe would be that Uhura doesn't feel like the same character. The others are pretty good, there are times when Pine is facing away from the camera and you's swear the dubbed Shatners voice in.

My fear however is that it will not be possible to keep getting the new actors together as they are not tied to the franchise the way the old ones were.

Looking forward to the next one anyway and anything that follows it.
 
2012-09-09 03:20:18 AM
There there, 'mitter. It'll be okay. Sit down and have another bottle of Klingon BloodWHINE
 
2012-09-09 03:21:38 AM

Type40: Actually since watching the new film a few times I have gone back and watched films 1 to 6 and am now working my way through the original series. Kirk in the series is a much more likeable person and a much better Starship captain than he ever was in the movies. He really is a hero character in the vain of Horatio Hornblower and constantly puts the crew and ship ahead of his own interests and or safety.

By Wrath of Kahn he has become an angry old man with a dozen chips on his shoulder. It's actually a bit sad. That said I like all the movies, they don't suck nearly as much as everyone says, not even Final Frontier. Undiscovered Country is by far the best of them and has the most sensible and interesting plot.

There is nothing wrong with the new movie, it is fresh and exciting and will hopefully keep the franchise going for many years. My only real gripe would be that Uhura doesn't feel like the same character. The others are pretty good, there are times when Pine is facing away from the camera and you's swear the dubbed Shatners voice in.

My fear however is that it will not be possible to keep getting the new actors together as they are not tied to the franchise the way the old ones were.

Looking forward to the next one anyway and anything that follows it.


Kirk's change works, though. By "Wrath" he's become an admiral, been put into a desk job, and has realized that he's no longer young and that he made a mistake accepting promotion. Then he discovers that an old foe has returned bent on vengeance and that an old flame had his son and didn't tell him. At the end he faces the loss of his best friend, after revealing he's never faced a situation similar because he always changed the rules. For the next two films he deals with the fallout of all of that plus new trials with the death of David and the destruction of the Enterprise, not to mention being a fugitive.

Then Shatner took the director's chair for V...
 
2012-09-09 03:29:19 AM

Type40: Actually since watching the new film a few times I have gone back and watched films 1 to 6 and am now working my way through the original series. Kirk in the series is a much more likeable person and a much better Starship captain than he ever was in the movies. He really is a hero character in the vain of Horatio Hornblower and constantly puts the crew and ship ahead of his own interests and or safety.

By Wrath of Kahn he has become an angry old man with a dozen chips on his shoulder. It's actually a bit sad. it.


GODDAMN IT!

K-H-A-N

Right there in the opening credits of Star Trek II.

/grrrrr
 
2012-09-09 03:36:12 AM

Bhruic: My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.


I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch, disregarding the blinding lens flare every 8 seconds. Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created, not a re-imaging of it. Same reason I thought the Enterprise series sucked. The Star Trek movie was another summer blockbuster kind of deal that you forget about a week after you watch it. At least for me. People are certainly allowed to disagree.

I will say that the guy they got to play McCoy (can't remember his name off-hand) did a spectacular job. Much better than anyone else in the cast in my opinion, including Zachary Quinto(sp?). He looked like a great Spock, but he wasn't a believable version of Spock. McCoy felt like McCoy.
 
2012-09-09 03:36:14 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: As opposed to the Picard and Data fanfictions called "Generations", "Insurrection", and "Nemesis"?

Sorry, fellow Trekkies, the franchise had hit a rut and wasn't going anywhere. Voyager, Enterprise, and those three TNG films were stale and boring. Star Trek needed an injection of something fresh and new. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted or what you think ST should always be.

/also still better than Star Trek V and The Motionless Picture


Here's a thought: Maybe they should've left well enough alone. Leave 'em wanting more, as it were.

/It works for Joss Whedon...though he'd rather give them more...
 
2012-09-09 03:40:08 AM

IlGreven: Keizer_Ghidorah: As opposed to the Picard and Data fanfictions called "Generations", "Insurrection", and "Nemesis"?

Sorry, fellow Trekkies, the franchise had hit a rut and wasn't going anywhere. Voyager, Enterprise, and those three TNG films were stale and boring. Star Trek needed an injection of something fresh and new. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted or what you think ST should always be.

/also still better than Star Trek V and The Motionless Picture

Here's a thought: Maybe they should've left well enough alone. Leave 'em wanting more, as it were.

/It works for Joss Whedon...though he'd rather give them more...


I'd rather have the franchise end on a bang than the whimpers of Enterprise and Nemesis.
 
2012-09-09 03:44:32 AM

Bolan: Bhruic: My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.

I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch, disregarding the blinding lens flare every 8 seconds. Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created, not a re-imaging of it. Same reason I thought the Enterprise series sucked. The Star Trek movie was another summer blockbuster kind of deal that you forget about a week after you watch it. At least for me. People are certainly allowed to disagree.

I will say that the guy they got to play McCoy (can't remember his name off-hand) did a spectacular job. Much better than anyone else in the cast in my opinion, including Zachary Quinto(sp?). He looked like a great Spock, but he wasn't a believable version of Spock. McCoy felt like McCoy.


Karl Urban. Who was reportedly the biggest Trek geek on the set.
 
2012-09-09 03:45:43 AM

Brick-House: I was just wondering if the fact that JJ's Enterprise is twice the size of the orriginal Enterprise, if JJ is compensating for something?


Being the Trek nerd that I am, my head almost exploded when Pike tells Kirk that his father saved "Over 700" lives or something to that effect. Nice to know the little crappy ship George Kirk was on had almost as many people as an Excelsior Class starship.

/nerdrage
 
2012-09-09 03:45:55 AM

IlGreven:
/It works for Joss Whedon...though he'd rather give them more...


Like Firefly and Dollhouse?
 
2012-09-09 03:46:42 AM

peterthx: Type40: Actually since watching the new film a few times I have gone back and watched films 1 to 6 and am now working my way through the original series. Kirk in the series is a much more likeable person and a much better Starship captain than he ever was in the movies. He really is a hero character in the vain of Horatio Hornblower and constantly puts the crew and ship ahead of his own interests and or safety.

By Wrath of Kahn he has become an angry old man with a dozen chips on his shoulder. It's actually a bit sad. it.

GODDAMN IT!

K-H-A-N

Right there in the opening credits of Star Trek II.

/grrrrr


Dammit I'm a Doctor not a spellchecker.
 
2012-09-09 03:47:23 AM

MadCat221: Bolan: Bhruic: My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.

I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch, disregarding the blinding lens flare every 8 seconds. Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created, not a re-imaging of it. Same reason I thought the Enterprise series sucked. The Star Trek movie was another summer blockbuster kind of deal that you forget about a week after you watch it. At least for me. People are certainly allowed to disagree.

I will say that the guy they got to play McCoy (can't remember his name off-hand) did a spectacular job. Much better than anyone else in the cast in my opinion, including Zachary Quinto(sp?). He looked like a great Spock, but he wasn't a believable version of Spock. McCoy felt like McCoy.

Karl Urban. Who was reportedly the biggest Trek geek on the set.


Wait, what? He was an even bigger Trek geek than Simon Pegg?
 
2012-09-09 03:56:19 AM

MadCat221: Bolan: Bhruic: My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.

I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch, disregarding the blinding lens flare every 8 seconds. Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created, not a re-imaging of it. Same reason I thought the Enterprise series sucked. The Star Trek movie was another summer blockbuster kind of deal that you forget about a week after you watch it. At least for me. People are certainly allowed to disagree.

I will say that the guy they got to play McCoy (can't remember his name off-hand) did a spectacular job. Much better than anyone else in the cast in my opinion, including Zachary Quinto(sp?). He looked like a great Spock, but he wasn't a believable version of Spock. McCoy felt like McCoy.

Karl Urban. Who was reportedly the biggest Trek geek on the set.


Karl Urban, thank you. He was brilliant as McCoy. I didn't find anyone else believable, just him.
 
2012-09-09 03:59:24 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Kirk's change works, though. By "Wrath" he's become an admiral, been put into a desk job, and has realized that he's no longer young and that he made a mistake accepting promotion. Then he discovers that an old foe has returned bent on vengeance and that an old flame had his son and didn't tell him. At the end he faces the loss of his best friend, after revealing he's never faced a situation similar because he always changed the rules. For the next two films he deals with the fallout of all of that plus new trials with the death of David and the destruction of the Enterprise, not to mention being a fugitive.


It works, I'm just saying it's sad to see the brilliant young guy turn into the bitter old guy, It's like seeing the dangerous years played out for real. I suppose he gets some salvation at the end of six.
 
2012-09-09 04:22:05 AM

Type40: I suppose he gets some salvation at the end of six.


And then a bridge falls on him or something.
 
2012-09-09 04:30:54 AM

Erix: awfulperson: KingoftheCheese: As the years went on, the character became sluttier and sluttier. I have seen every episode of Deep Space Nine, except the ones where that character appeared. I tried to watch one and I was physically sickened by the way she carried herself. I cringe when I even hear her voice as the computer.

notsureifserious.jpg

I loved that old slutbag. Cougar with a heart of gold, she was. The only episode I couldn't take was the one with little Aleksander and all the fake laughing. A-HA-ha-ha!

Good god, there are actually people that enjoyed that character?


There was a paperback novel I have, somehwere, 'Q-in-Law', featuring Lwaxanna and Q. Q decides to flirt with her, something about showing Picard how worthless Love is, or something. Q even gave her his power.. and she still had it, when she figured out he was manipulating her. Vengeance was.. imaginative.
 
2012-09-09 04:54:22 AM
The whole destruction of the planet Vulcan as a plot device was a major turnoff to me.
New Star Trek is like New Coke. They'll film with the current crew until either the movie public gets tired or the actors get too greedy.
Then reboot, rinse repeat. Honestly, this is the first time I don't really care if they do a Star Trek sequel or not.
 
2012-09-09 05:13:55 AM
For the record. I do not hate "Star Trek: A Generic Space Movie" just because it's popular. I hate it because it's a Mary Sue.

Remember that episode of "Reboot" where Enzo wanted to be smarter than everybody else. In a classic twist of irony the CPU didn't make Enzo smarter just made everybody else dumber than him. Essentially JJ Abrams made the entire known universe dumber to make Cadet James Kirk look good.
 
2012-09-09 06:52:54 AM
I didn't love the JJ.Trek, but it still wasn't as pussy as Next Gen. Original Series is fried gold. Next Gen was a liberal circle jerk. DS9 was hardcore. Voyager at least had 7of9 and her awesome titties. Enterprise...the less said the better, but at least it had goddamned Sam Beckett. Also that vulcan whore T'Pol
 
2012-09-09 06:54:49 AM

KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.


you're the one whining.
 
2012-09-09 08:38:49 AM

thornhill: Here's my beef with Star Trek (2009): it wasn't Star Trek, but just an action/adventure movie.

Star Trek is message heavy, using the lens of science fiction to usually examine a contemporary social issue or they are a morality plays. I think that's why a lot of people don't like it -- it can be preachy -- but I think most trekkies would agree that the best Star Trek episodes and movies fit into these two categories.

.


The entire concept of Star Trek (and Star Wars) is that it wears its preachiness on its sleeve so that even the dimmest bulb can figure out what they are trying to complain about. Most ST fans, I think, like SW fans, fall in love with the universe that surrounds them and ignores the stilted nature of the often hamfisted writing and plotting. I know I would check in on Star Trek every few episodes and say: Yep, they're still biatching at me. All through ALL of the series. I remember watching "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" when I was 10 (it was in syndication) and thinking "damn, that was farking stupid."

/prefers Doctor Who
//low preachiness
 
2012-09-09 08:47:13 AM
whizbangthedirtfarmer:

/prefers Doctor Who
//low preachiness

Low preachiness? Are you including Torchwood? Anything since Harkness?
 
2012-09-09 09:05:21 AM

robohobo: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

/prefers Doctor Who
//low preachiness

Low preachiness? Are you including Torchwood? Anything since Harkness?


Aside from a few stories here and there, like the Ganger storyline recently, Doctor Who lately has been largely free of trying to address social issues via sci-fi metaphors and has concerned itself with more with making sure there are dinosaurs. On a spaceship.

/Although Voyager DID get there first, I have to admit
//The back story to both episodes is actually pretty similar now that I think about it
 
2012-09-09 09:09:29 AM

Mad_Radhu: robohobo: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

/prefers Doctor Who
//low preachiness

Low preachiness? Are you including Torchwood? Anything since Harkness?

Aside from a few stories here and there, like the Ganger storyline recently, Doctor Who lately has been largely free of trying to address social issues via sci-fi metaphors and has concerned itself with more with making sure there are dinosaurs. On a spaceship.

/Although Voyager DID get there first, I have to admit
//The back story to both episodes is actually pretty similar now that I think about it


I loves me some dinosaurs on a spaceship. Also teleportation.

/ I mean, we're on a spaceship with dinosaurs. Why wouldn't there be a teleport?
 
2012-09-09 09:20:26 AM

robohobo: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

/prefers Doctor Who
//low preachiness

Low preachiness? Are you including Torchwood? Anything since Harkness?


Nope, I've stayed away from Torchwood. I was just talking about Who specifically, which just presents things as they are. You can like them or not, but there is only an optimistic belief in the general good of people as an underlying basis for the show. Otherwise, for the most part, they've been quite content at letting you enjoy sci-fi stories.
 
2012-09-09 09:26:02 AM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: robohobo: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

/prefers Doctor Who
//low preachiness

Low preachiness? Are you including Torchwood? Anything since Harkness?

Nope, I've stayed away from Torchwood. I was just talking about Who specifically, which just presents things as they are. You can like them or not, but there is only an optimistic belief in the general good of people as an underlying basis for the show. Otherwise, for the most part, they've been quite content at letting you enjoy sci-fi stories.


Oh, I agree. There's been a good deal of shiat I don't agree with, but yes, for the most part, good sci-fi. Amazingly shiatty fx/low-grade film and all.

/ Jenna-Louise Coleman, hottest companion yet
//if only she's skank out like previous porno whore
 
2012-09-09 09:40:27 AM

Gunther: Bhruic: He got promoted to acting first officer, then acting captain. Stupid, but under battle conditions, I suppose theoretically possible. What I was talking about is the permanent promotion he received at the end of the movie. Sure, he's the "hero", but that gets him reinstated as a cadet, or potentially graduates him ahead of time, it doesn't make him graduate immediately into a captain's position.

Yeah, it would have been a much stronger scene if there'd been a short montage of him rising through the ranks in an exceptionally quick amount of time, rather than just "A day ago you were a cadet on the verge of expulsion, but you did OK in a crisis, so now we're making you captain of the Federation flagship!". I don't normally mind plotholes (the whole thing with him and spock coincidentally being marooned on the same planet within thirty seconds walk of each other didn't bother me), but the otherwise-decent film just ends on that pointless "WTF?" moment.


That's what sealed it for me. I ignored the lens flares. I rolled my eyes at the "Red Matter" crap. I forgot about the 0.5 Dimensional villain. I suspended my disbelief that Spock would be thrust into the First Officer role on the Flagship right out of being a teacher at the academy. I forgave just how bright and shiny and toyish the ship was. I was sad, but in full acceptance at the loss of Vulcan; it wasn't very important to me. (heck, no single planet is important to me in Star Trek beyond perhaps Bajor. The show was set in starships, not planetside, after all.) The way that the Enterprise was able to survive the battle with the enemy without being obliterated, like what appeared to be an entire fleet of Federation ships, was intentionally ignored - which took a great deal of effort, but TNG had the battle at Wolf 359 and the Borg and I got my geek on and nailed that suspension of disbelief!

But the Federation allowing Kirk to keep command of a starship immediately after being a Cadet is where I gave up trying to suspend my disbelief. I am really hoping that shiat doesn't stick, and there's something between LensFlare1 and LensFlare2 that explains Kirk getting trained with long term command, having a few adventures and then getting the command permanently.

If we were talking about a Firefly type situation or a Starjammers type situation then I would be quite fine with Kirk getting command right away. Neither of them are bureaucratic/militaristic organizations like Starfleet - Captain Mal didn't need to file regular reports or follow galactic law at all times, and there was no threat that some outside force would give his ship to someone else and he would be expected to leave it without a fight. You've also got the diplomatic and bureaucratic nightmare that would be the command of a starship which Starfleet just couldn't entrust to a raw Cadet.

So that's where the movie lost me.
 
2012-09-09 09:51:41 AM

Techhell: But the Federation allowing Kirk to keep command of a starship immediately after being a Cadet is where I gave up trying to suspend my disbelief.


That was pretty retarded. I understand they felt they had to end the movie with Kirk in the captain's chair but they could have slipped in a "three years later..." card. That was almost as stupid as the Enterprise being built in Kirk's back yard in Iowa.
 
2012-09-09 09:54:12 AM

thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.


Who/what was Apollo then?
 
2012-09-09 09:58:47 AM

brb5f: Who/what was Apollo then?


Kind of a dick, actually.
 
2012-09-09 11:30:39 AM
You can call it "Star Trek: Late For Dinner" for all I care, I still will never view another JJ Abrams abomination...
 
2012-09-09 11:53:54 AM

mark12A: You can call it "Star Trek: Late For Dinner" for all I care, I still will never view another JJ Abrams abomination...


Meanwhile, the rest of us will have fun watching the new film. So... you win, I guess.
 
2012-09-09 12:21:54 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: IlGreven: Keizer_Ghidorah: As opposed to the Picard and Data fanfictions called "Generations", "Insurrection", and "Nemesis"?

Sorry, fellow Trekkies, the franchise had hit a rut and wasn't going anywhere. Voyager, Enterprise, and those three TNG films were stale and boring. Star Trek needed an injection of something fresh and new. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted or what you think ST should always be.

/also still better than Star Trek V and The Motionless Picture

Here's a thought: Maybe they should've left well enough alone. Leave 'em wanting more, as it were.

/It works for Joss Whedon...though he'd rather give them more...

I'd rather have the franchise end on a bang than the whimpers of Enterprise and Nemesis.


...to which I say, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING. You're much more likely to be in a bigger hole after a new movie than be out of the hole.
 
2012-09-09 12:37:12 PM

thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek.


The Q, the Traveler, Nagilum, the creature they actually mistook for God in the center of the galaxy, the "gods" from the episode Justice, the wormhole aliens (which were the actual gods of a religion), the resurrection (clone) of Kahless (who is basically Klingon Jesus)... the list could go on. It depends on what your definition of a god is, but there are quite a lot of godlike things on Star Trek, and a lot of aliens or entities that were worshipped as gods that actually existed.
 
2012-09-09 12:44:59 PM

Andric: Meanwhile, the rest of us will have fun watching the new film. So... you win, I guess.


They need someone to fill those theatres with the B-films.
Are you going to see Sarah Palin's next epic too?
 
2012-09-09 12:56:54 PM

bhcompy: simplicimus: bhcompy: simplicimus: thornhill: You're being insanely nitpick.

Warp Drive or faster than light travel is a plot device of all science fiction so that the characters can go to alien worlds.

Photon Torpedoes is just a name for a futuristic propelled explosive device.

Teleportation is another common plot device of science fiction so that you don't have to waste time having characters spend a lot of time in shuttles.

Food replicators are an example of good science fiction. The idea is that in the future we're going to have vending machines capable of preparing meals -- and people are already trying to do this with 3D printers, which ...

Yeah, I know I'm a nitpicker about this stuff. I'm a big fan of Dune, cause there's only two magic things: Everything derived from the Holtzman equation (shields, foldspace, Glowglobes, etc.) and melange.

Maybe through Children. Once you get to God Emperor, which was still Frank, your premise goes to shiat
How so? Leto II is a worm, which is melange. And he he is Paul's son.

Infinity Duncan Idahos, for one


Gholas are clones, so not exactly magic. Although the "Hi, I'm Duncan Idaho. Oops, I'm dead again" did get tedious.
 
2012-09-09 01:09:17 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7316083/79243267#c79243267" target="_blank">KingoftheCheese</a>:</b> <i>The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.</i>

Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.

I don't think you understand how characters and the actors who play them work.
 
2012-09-09 01:15:47 PM

dmars: Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.


I don't know about Gandalf. Ever seen him with a woman? Or just a bunch of guys?
 
2012-09-09 01:17:51 PM

simplicimus: dmars: Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.

I don't know about Gandalf. Ever seen him with a woman? Or just a bunch of guys?


Hah, Gandalf could be gay so could Sulu, wouldn't bother me any, but just because they are played by homosexual actors doesn't make the characters gay
 
2012-09-09 01:35:10 PM

dmars: simplicimus: dmars: Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.

I don't know about Gandalf. Ever seen him with a woman? Or just a bunch of guys?

Hah, Gandalf could be gay so could Sulu, wouldn't bother me any, but just because they are played by homosexual actors doesn't make the characters gay


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'll see you Georger Takei and raise you Neil Patrick Harris.
 
2012-09-09 02:12:55 PM

simplicimus: dmars: simplicimus: dmars: Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.

I don't know about Gandalf. Ever seen him with a woman? Or just a bunch of guys?

Hah, Gandalf could be gay so could Sulu, wouldn't bother me any, but just because they are played by homosexual actors doesn't make the characters gay

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'll see you Georger Takei and raise you Neil Patrick Harris.


Now I am just confused. Love me some NPH, yes we know he is gay playing a straight character, not sure where you are going with this.

If they rebooted the series would they have to choose another gay actor just cause the first one is gay even though the character is straight. The is what the OP of the post I replied to was indicating
 
2012-09-09 02:20:35 PM

dmars: simplicimus: dmars: simplicimus: dmars: Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.

I don't know about Gandalf. Ever seen him with a woman? Or just a bunch of guys?

Hah, Gandalf could be gay so could Sulu, wouldn't bother me any, but just because they are played by homosexual actors doesn't make the characters gay

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'll see you Georger Takei and raise you Neil Patrick Harris.

Now I am just confused. Love me some NPH, yes we know he is gay playing a straight character, not sure where you are going with this.

If they rebooted the series would they have to choose another gay actor just cause the first one is gay even though the character is straight. The is what the OP of the post I replied to was indicating


Don't be confused, I'm agreeing that the actor's sexual orientation has nothing to do with the character he or she plays. IIRC, the guy who played Will on Will and Grace was straight.
 
2012-09-09 02:53:54 PM

simplicimus: dmars: simplicimus: dmars: simplicimus: dmars: Just because Takei is Gay doesn't mean Sulu is gay. Just because Ian McClellan is gay doesn't mean Gandalf is gay.

I don't know about Gandalf. Ever seen him with a woman? Or just a bunch of guys?

Hah, Gandalf could be gay so could Sulu, wouldn't bother me any, but just because they are played by homosexual actors doesn't make the characters gay

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'll see you Georger Takei and raise you Neil Patrick Harris.

Now I am just confused. Love me some NPH, yes we know he is gay playing a straight character, not sure where you are going with this.

If they rebooted the series would they have to choose another gay actor just cause the first one is gay even though the character is straight. The is what the OP of the post I replied to was indicating

Don't be confused, I'm agreeing that the actor's sexual orientation has nothing to do with the character he or she plays. IIRC, the guy who played Will on Will and Grace was straight.


Right. And John Barrowman "wasn't gay enough" to get the role.
 
2012-09-09 03:00:42 PM

dmars: I don't think you understand how characters and the actors who play them work.


Man KingoftheCheese's Troll is living well on to it's second day. He should get like a Troll medal.

/trekker
//loved the new movie
///thought KOTC's posts were f-ing hilarious
////long live slashies!
 
2012-09-09 03:03:35 PM
I love old Trek, from TOS to DS9 (Cant stand Voyager) and I liked what Enterprise was trying to be. I love Generations and First Contact, though admit the flaws of both. Actually they all have flaws. But I love the new Star Trek.
 
2012-09-09 04:24:11 PM
KingoftheCheese: Kittypie070: King of the Cheeto Dust more like.

There are some things about people's private lives that mankind was not meant to know.


:(

Brace yourself for this one: it was all fake.


d1ck.
 
2012-09-09 04:30:47 PM

Techhell: Gunther: Bhruic: He got promoted to acting first officer, then acting captain. Stupid, but under battle conditions, I suppose theoretically possible. What I was talking about is the permanent promotion he received at the end of the movie. Sure, he's the "hero", but that gets him reinstated as a cadet, or potentially graduates him ahead of time, it doesn't make him graduate immediately into a captain's position.

Yeah, it would have been a much stronger scene if there'd been a short montage of him rising through the ranks in an exceptionally quick amount of time, rather than just "A day ago you were a cadet on the verge of expulsion, but you did OK in a crisis, so now we're making you captain of the Federation flagship!". I don't normally mind plotholes (the whole thing with him and spock coincidentally being marooned on the same planet within thirty seconds walk of each other didn't bother me), but the otherwise-decent film just ends on that pointless "WTF?" moment.

That's what sealed it for me. I ignored the lens flares. I rolled my eyes at the "Red Matter" crap. I forgot about the 0.5 Dimensional villain. I suspended my disbelief that Spock would be thrust into the First Officer role on the Flagship right out of being a teacher at the academy. I forgave just how bright and shiny and toyish the ship was. I was sad, but in full acceptance at the loss of Vulcan; it wasn't very important to me. (heck, no single planet is important to me in Star Trek beyond perhaps Bajor. The show was set in starships, not planetside, after all.) The way that the Enterprise was able to survive the battle with the enemy without being obliterated, like what appeared to be an entire fleet of Federation ships, was intentionally ignored - which took a great deal of effort, but TNG had the battle at Wolf 359 and the Borg and I got my geek on and nailed that suspension of disbelief!

But the Federation allowing Kirk to keep command of a starship immediately after being a Cadet is where I ...


But everything else that was far more unbelieveable was fine? You people are really bizarre about what you accept in your future-set outer space movies involving time travel, aliens, and space ships shooting lasers at each other.
 
2012-09-09 07:16:26 PM
My big problem with the Trek reboot was the Enterprise interiors. Big sets--with no crew (engineering). Little sets--packed with crew (bridge). And the sewage treatment plant that was engineering--all for one joke? Bad choice, low replay value.

The whole 'alternate reality' thing, a few minor changes in the script, blow up some other planet that is not Vulcan, and suddenly it can fit with cannon. Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams? Cannon and continuity IS BRANDING! How hard is that to understand? Maintaining the brand sells more copies of older properties-Paramount should want that.

Blowing up cannon/continuity/branding is dangerous, and can kill a potential franchise (looking at YOU Dark Shadows).

Oh, and all Star Trek time travel that does not involve Joan Collins dying is bad Star Trek.

MNSHO.
 
2012-09-09 07:24:41 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-09-09 07:39:10 PM

Gunther: thornhill: There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

They're gods in every way that matters. And you're forgetting all the other godlike beings such as the Prophets of Bajor, which are acknowledged in-universe as gods and are worshipped as such by many characters on DS:9.

thornhill: The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.

Even ignoring all the other times psychic powers have popped up (heck, the pilot episode of TOS was about someone developing godlike psychic powers) and just focusing on Betazoids and Vulcans, both of those races display psychic powers that are essentially magic. The betazoids in particular can sense the emotions of completely alien life forms from enormous distances across the vacuum of space.

I'm not picking on Star Trek here, just saying it's no more scientific a show than the average TV sci-fi series is. It's no better or worse than Babylon 5, Stargate or Farscape. It's significantly less realistic than Battlestar Galactica, and that show had actual angels show up.


Also, from "Bread and Circuses"

MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper.

SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.

UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.

KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.

MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.

SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.

KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.

CHEKOV: Aye, sir.
 
2012-09-09 07:40:32 PM

Rhypskallion: My big problem with the Trek reboot was the Enterprise interiors. Big sets--with no crew (engineering). Little sets--packed with crew (bridge). And the sewage treatment plant that was engineering--all for one joke? Bad choice, low replay value.

The whole 'alternate reality' thing, a few minor changes in the script, blow up some other planet that is not Vulcan, and suddenly it can fit with cannon. Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams? Cannon and continuity IS BRANDING! How hard is that to understand? Maintaining the brand sells more copies of older properties-Paramount should want that.

Blowing up cannon/continuity/branding is dangerous, and can kill a potential franchise (looking at YOU Dark Shadows).

Oh, and all Star Trek time travel that does not involve Joan Collins dying is bad Star Trek.

MNSHO.


It's CANON, not cannon. And in an alternate universe/timeline you can do what you want. Marvel, DC, and Transformers have been doing it for years. The Ultimate Marvel series is a different universe than the 616 universe we're most familiar with. Transformers has a ton of universes: Generation 1/Beast Wars/Beast Machines; Marvel comics; IDW comics; Dreamwave comics; Robots in Disguise; the Unicron Trilogy; Kiss Players; Bayformers; Animated; Aligned (War for Cybertron, Fall of Cybertron, Exodus, Exiles, Prime).

Trek 2009's events have no effect on the Prime Timeline. It's its own universe with its own future ahead of it where anything old can happen new and anything new can happen.
 
2012-09-09 09:11:41 PM

Rhypskallion: Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams?


Because they are dangerous and can kill people.
 
2012-09-09 09:20:05 PM

Relatively Obscure: Rhypskallion: Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams?

Because they are dangerous and can kill people.


celebslists.com

But she was great in "Deathtrap."
 
2012-09-09 11:30:01 PM

Rhypskallion: Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams?


Why is working with so-called "canon" important or necessary? Answer: it isn't. At all. These are fictional stories, made up of fictional characters and set in fictional locations. Anyone can write anything to continue a series, and nothing anyone writes undoes anything that came before, if you'd like to ignore it. Look at me: I say there are only 3 "Star Wars" films, the last coming in 1983 - there, see how easy that was? The whole idea of "canon" is stupid, and the sooner you and your fellow basement dwellers realize that, the sooner you can get back to enjoying books and movies for what they're meant to be: just stories.

Abrams blowing up ST canon was the best thing he could have done for that tired-out series. Now that it has fresh air and a fresh start, the possibilities are endless. Making another "traditional-style" Star Trek film would have been the easy, cowardly way to go - and hardly anybody save the Trekkies would have wanted to see it.
 
2012-09-09 11:36:22 PM

karmachameleon: Rhypskallion: Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams?

Why is working with so-called "canon" important or necessary? Answer: it isn't. At all. These are fictional stories, made up of fictional characters and set in fictional locations. Anyone can write anything to continue a series, and nothing anyone writes undoes anything that came before, if you'd like to ignore it. Look at me: I say there are only 3 "Star Wars" films, the last coming in 1983 - there, see how easy that was? The whole idea of "canon" is stupid, and the sooner you and your fellow basement dwellers realize that, the sooner you can get back to enjoying books and movies for what they're meant to be: just stories.

Abrams blowing up ST canon was the best thing he could have done for that tired-out series. Now that it has fresh air and a fresh start, the possibilities are endless. Making another "traditional-style" Star Trek film would have been the easy, cowardly way to go - and hardly anybody save the Trekkies would have wanted to see it.


Canon is important when you're working within an already established universe. If you don't want to be constrained by Star Trek canon, then don't write a Star Trek story. That's pretty simple and straightforward. If a bunch of Star Trek movies are written that are inconsistent with each other, then what's the point of them all being Star Trek? That's just laziness in not wanting to develop a new framework, but also not wanting to be bothered with consistency.

Now, I personally don't mind the whole series being rebooted for many of the same reasons you stated. But saying that canon is pointless is ridiculous.
 
2012-09-09 11:51:14 PM

thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.


Betazoids can communicate telepathically with other Betazoids as well.
 
2012-09-09 11:54:08 PM

Rhypskallion: Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams? Cannon and continuity IS BRANDISHING!


pdxretro.com
 
2012-09-10 12:18:18 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.

Betazoids can communicate telepathically with other Betazoids as well.


IIRC Betazoids are telepathic like Lwaxana. Deana was only empathic because she was half Betazoid.

Also BTW canon is fine and all but you can not pretend Star Trek is slavishly devoted to canon. Klingons looked like humans with Fu Manchu mustaches because they didn't have the budget to make them look better. They invented a canon after ST:TMP to explain it away which is fine. The only problem with sticking to canon is when say communication devices which look super futuristic when you are in the 60's but are super dated when you are in the 2000's but then you have to make a prequel to TOS and have to make their communication devices not seem to be super dated.
 
2012-09-10 12:29:13 AM
i.imgur.com

"So light takes about 8 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun, but your rocket launcher here can send a rocket from the Earth to the Sun in about 8 seconds. Is that right?"

"This isn't Earth and that isn't the sun."

"Right, so we're on some planet that's an 8 second rocket ride from the star it orbits."

"Yes."

"Yeah, this is definitely better than the new Star Trek movie."
 
2012-09-10 12:38:20 AM

Erix: Canon is important when you're working within an already established universe. If you don't want to be constrained by Star Trek canon, then don't write a Star Trek story. That's pretty simple and straightforward. If a bunch of Star Trek movies are written that are inconsistent with each other, then what's the point of them all being Star Trek? That's just laziness in not wanting to develop a new framework, but also not wanting to be bothered with consistency.

Now, I personally don't mind the whole series being rebooted for many of the same reasons you stated. But saying that canon is pointless is ridiculous.


Canon is just a fictional device, like any other. It can be used, or it cannot be used. It's no more "important" than any other device. Long series of excellent stories have been told without regard for canon - see James Bond. Star Trek itself has no consistently applied canon - compare the look of the old show to the look of the movies with the original cast. Compare movie 1 to movie 6, or movie 9.

How would you make a new Star Trek movie while sticking to canon? Hiring the original crew - whoever is still alive - and using old sets and film stock for canon's sake? Times change, people age, technology advances. In light of that, canon is a futile exercise. Star Trek is decades old, and after a while trying to keep things "consistent" leads to a creaky ship. Better to wipe the slate clean and start over, and starting over allows all sorts of luxuries in terms of direction and style, making canon even more pointless.

Canon is best ignored. Almost nothing compares well to an ideal notion of canon.
 
2012-09-10 04:12:58 AM

Rhypskallion: My big problem with the Trek reboot was the Enterprise interiors. Big sets--with no crew (engineering). Little sets--packed with crew (bridge). And the sewage treatment plant that was engineering--all for one joke? Bad choice, low replay value.

The whole 'alternate reality' thing, a few minor changes in the script, blow up some other planet that is not Vulcan, and suddenly it can fit with cannon. Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams? Cannon and continuity IS BRANDING! How hard is that to understand? Maintaining the brand sells more copies of older properties-Paramount should want that.

Blowing up cannon/continuity/branding is dangerous, and can kill a potential franchise (looking at YOU Dark Shadows).

Oh, and all Star Trek time travel that does not involve Joan Collins dying is bad Star Trek.

MNSHO.


Because if they actually had to pay attention to cannon, they couldn't have been so lazy. The Enterprise being built on the ground? The cadet getting command over senior officers? The fact that a starship from the future hung around in space undetected for decades and didn't run out of any fuel or supplies? The Romulan that looked nothing like any Romulan, ever? The destruction of Vulcan? The loss of Spock's mother? The size of the Enterprise? The size of George Kirk's crew? They didn't even try and get into the neighborhood of cannon. That's just the crap I can think of off the top of my head and I only saw the movie once back when it came out.
 
2012-09-10 04:27:21 AM

Bolan: Rhypskallion: My big problem with the Trek reboot was the Enterprise interiors. Big sets--with no crew (engineering). Little sets--packed with crew (bridge). And the sewage treatment plant that was engineering--all for one joke? Bad choice, low replay value.

The whole 'alternate reality' thing, a few minor changes in the script, blow up some other planet that is not Vulcan, and suddenly it can fit with cannon. Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams? Cannon and continuity IS BRANDING! How hard is that to understand? Maintaining the brand sells more copies of older properties-Paramount should want that.

Blowing up cannon/continuity/branding is dangerous, and can kill a potential franchise (looking at YOU Dark Shadows).

Oh, and all Star Trek time travel that does not involve Joan Collins dying is bad Star Trek.

MNSHO.

Because if they actually had to pay attention to cannon, they couldn't have been so lazy. The Enterprise being built on the ground? The cadet getting command over senior officers? The fact that a starship from the future hung around in space undetected for decades and didn't run out of any fuel or supplies? The Romulan that looked nothing like any Romulan, ever? The destruction of Vulcan? The loss of Spock's mother? The size of the Enterprise? The size of George Kirk's crew? They didn't even try and get into the neighborhood of cannon. That's just the crap I can think of off the top of my head and I only saw the movie once back when it came out.


Give me a break

Star Trek continuity errors (yes there are six parts)

If anything, the new movie was falling in line with Trek's grand tradition of never really making a lot of sense.
 
2012-09-10 04:39:27 AM

Confabulat: Bolan: Rhypskallion: My big problem with the Trek reboot was the Enterprise interiors. Big sets--with no crew (engineering). Little sets--packed with crew (bridge). And the sewage treatment plant that was engineering--all for one joke? Bad choice, low replay value.

The whole 'alternate reality' thing, a few minor changes in the script, blow up some other planet that is not Vulcan, and suddenly it can fit with cannon. Why is 'working with cannon' so hard for creative teams? Cannon and continuity IS BRANDING! How hard is that to understand? Maintaining the brand sells more copies of older properties-Paramount should want that.

Blowing up cannon/continuity/branding is dangerous, and can kill a potential franchise (looking at YOU Dark Shadows).

Oh, and all Star Trek time travel that does not involve Joan Collins dying is bad Star Trek.

MNSHO.

Because if they actually had to pay attention to cannon, they couldn't have been so lazy. The Enterprise being built on the ground? The cadet getting command over senior officers? The fact that a starship from the future hung around in space undetected for decades and didn't run out of any fuel or supplies? The Romulan that looked nothing like any Romulan, ever? The destruction of Vulcan? The loss of Spock's mother? The size of the Enterprise? The size of George Kirk's crew? They didn't even try and get into the neighborhood of cannon. That's just the crap I can think of off the top of my head and I only saw the movie once back when it came out.

Give me a break

Star Trek continuity errors (yes there are six parts)

If anything, the new movie was falling in line with Trek's grand tradition of never really making a lot of sense.


Yes, they have always had issues sticking with their own facts, anyone who has watched any of the shows or movies know this. I can pick out errors in every movie (How about the bootjet scene where they go like 70 levels up in the Enterprise A even though that's more than the Enterprise E has). The point is that the newest movie was made as a typical big-budget blockbuster loaded with crap. Like Transformers. The driving a restored Corvette through the desert listening a several hundred year old song and then diving out at the last second? That was some serious Michael Bay garbage right there.

I would be fine with a good movie that took on a new/alternate universe but was still a good Trek movie. But the movie was too stupid for me to enjoy. It felt like Bad Boys in space.
 
2012-09-10 05:53:35 AM
Just a reminder. Popularity does not assures quality.

/or is it ensures?
 
2012-09-10 06:30:21 AM

Freschel: Just a reminder. Popularity does not assures quality.

/or is it ensures?


Just go with whatever your spellcheck tells you. Just remember to make it singular.

If it's called "Into Darkness", where will Abrams put the lensflare?
 
2012-09-10 08:13:07 AM

karmachameleon: Canon is best ignored. Almost nothing compares well to an ideal notion of canon.


It's called internal consistency and it's not that hard to stick to if you have writers that put even a small amount of effort into what they're doing.
 
2012-09-10 08:50:27 AM

Yeah..... not overdone at all . . . .

www.shawcomputing.net



I liked the movie, but for me the lens flare was like a giant zit on the face of an otherwise hot chick.
 
2012-09-10 09:50:03 AM

Bolan: I would be fine with a good movie that took on a new/alternate universe but was still a good Trek movie. But the movie was too stupid for me to enjoy. It felt like Bad Boys in space.


You're acting like Star Trek is high cinema. It isn't
 
2012-09-10 10:00:09 AM
Nicely done trollmitter.
 
2012-09-10 10:51:04 AM

bhcompy: Bolan: I would be fine with a good movie that took on a new/alternate universe but was still a good Trek movie. But the movie was too stupid for me to enjoy. It felt like Bad Boys in space.

You're acting like Star Trek is high cinema. It isn't


No but there was an old saying that went something like; Star Wars was a good sci-fi movie. Star Trek made people want to join NASA. Was it some kind of on-high Science Fiction? No, but the movies and series, whether good or bad didn't typically go for the cheap thrill rides of a summer blockbuster. You can really see the change with Voyager and Enterprise. They shoved a hot chick in a tight suit to try and appeal to the sex factor. That crap wasn't prevalent on the earlier series. Just like the worst Star Trek movies still had the actors that made the works famous. The new one was as many handsome or popular actors they could shove in and relying more on special effects than story. That was never what Star Trek was about. It was just another 'tune out and enjoy the pretty pictures' kind of movie that you're better off not thinking too hard about. Good if you like that kind of thing, bad if you expect more from something with the name "Star Trek" attached to it.
 
2012-09-10 11:13:47 AM

SpectroBoy: Yeah..... not overdone at all . . . .

[www.shawcomputing.net image 650x969]


I liked the movie, but for me the lens flare was like a giant zit on the face of an otherwise hot chick.


nitpick all you want about the visual style. I am a 40 year old like long trekkie. I dress up in my starfleet uniform and go to cons. i have a TNG com device that makes neat com noises. I am a ST nerd fo sho.

The latest trek film was farking amazing, it re-invigorated a stale franchise, the actors were pitch perfect and it was just a fantastic film.

Which is why is it currently the top rated trek film.

//suck it, haters.
 
2012-09-10 12:09:54 PM
Never give up. Never surrender.
 
2012-09-10 12:10:45 PM

Mugato: karmachameleon: Canon is best ignored. Almost nothing compares well to an ideal notion of canon.

It's called internal consistency and it's not that hard to stick to if you have writers that put even a small amount of effort into what they're doing.


I think that all 5% who didn't like this movie post to Fark. The rest of us who aren't encumbered with mental nonsense like worrying about "internal consistency" across hundreds of TV shows and movies - that would be 95% of us who have normal, regular lives - recognize it for the good film that it is.
 
2012-09-10 12:12:24 PM

Bolan: Because if they actually had to pay attention to cannon, they couldn't have been so lazy. The Enterprise being built on the ground? The cadet getting command over senior officers? The fact that a starship from the future hung around in space undetected for decades and didn't run out of any fuel or supplies? The Romulan that looked nothing like any Romulan, ever? The destruction of Vulcan? The loss of Spock's mother? The size of the Enterprise? The size of George Kirk's crew? They didn't even try and get into the neighborhood of cannon. That's just the crap I can think of off the top of my head and I only saw the movie once back when it came out.


Serious question: do you recognize that the vast majority of audiences don't care about minutia like that?

Sacred cows are serious business.
 
2012-09-10 12:21:54 PM
The JJ Abrams film was the most successful Trek film of all time. Even when you adjust for inflation, it beats Wrath of Khan and First Contact.
 
2012-09-10 12:42:32 PM

Bolan: They shoved a hot chick in a tight suit to try and appeal to the sex factor. That crap wasn't prevalent on the earlier series


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-09-10 01:44:44 PM

gadian: Of Gods and Men, for instance.


Is this a written fic? Do you have a link?

/I like new Star Trek and old Star Trek and honestly don't give a fark
//Destroying Vulcan did piss me off tho'
 
2012-09-10 01:52:22 PM

karmachameleon: I think that all 5% who didn't like this movie post to Fark. The rest of us who aren't encumbered with mental nonsense like worrying about "internal consistency" across hundreds of TV shows and movies - that would be 95% of us who have normal, regular lives - recognize it for the good film that it is.


Yeah, why do movies have to make sense and stuff? What's with all this "writing" shiat? All this thinking bullshiat is overrated. Did someone throw out "basement dweller" yet? Because basement dweller, eggheads!
 
2012-09-10 02:24:06 PM

Bolan: They shoved a hot chick in a tight suit to try and appeal to the sex factor. That crap wasn't prevalent on the earlier series.


O'Rlly!?!?!?

I think maybe you need to take off your rose colored glasses . . .

(remember to adjust for 1960's TV standards....)

1.bp.blogspot.com

breakfastwithspock.files.wordpress.com

upload.wikimedia.org

Maybe a little '60s "toe"
www.artofwei.com



www.missfidget.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

So quit your biatchin and admit the new movie was excellent.
 
2012-09-10 02:25:44 PM
also, evil Uhura was teh exiest Uhura. I think they should have made that her permanent uniform.



breakfastwithspock.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-10 02:28:02 PM

Bolan: They shoved a hot chick in a tight suit to try and appeal to the sex factor. That crap wasn't prevalent on the earlier series.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-10 02:49:10 PM

Freschel: Just a reminder. Popularity does not assures quality.

/or is it ensures?


The funny part is that the people hyping how well reviewed and how much money Trek '09 made are the exact ones who would shiat a brick if you tried to tell them that Justin Bieber makes fun music, and that according to record charts and money made, he's a better artist than their favorite obscure band.


SpectroBoy: Bolan: They shoved a hot chick in a tight suit to try and appeal to the sex factor. That crap wasn't prevalent on the earlier series.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 485x624]


Damn.
 
2012-09-10 02:56:41 PM

Mugato: karmachameleon: I think that all 5% who didn't like this movie post to Fark. The rest of us who aren't encumbered with mental nonsense like worrying about "internal consistency" across hundreds of TV shows and movies - that would be 95% of us who have normal, regular lives - recognize it for the good film that it is.

Yeah, why do movies have to make sense and stuff? What's with all this "writing" shiat? All this thinking bullshiat is overrated. Did someone throw out "basement dweller" yet? Because basement dweller, eggheads!


This movie made as much sense as any other Star Trek movie. But have it your way - I hope you like disappointment. You will never again see another "traditional" Star Trek.
 
2012-09-10 03:03:58 PM

Confabulat: GAT_00: Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.

But nothing tops the pile of suck that was Final Frontier.

I'd argue Generations can fit that bill just fine.


Know what? I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with GAT_00 on this one. Final Frontier was absolutely horrible.
 
2012-09-10 03:08:10 PM

KingoftheCheese: The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.


George Takei is gay; Hikaro Sulu is not.
 
2012-09-10 03:09:28 PM

KingoftheCheese: The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.


Also, does that mean it was a betrayal to cast Zachery Quinto to play Spock, considering that Leonard Nimoy is heterosexual?
 
2012-09-10 03:10:22 PM
I've been watching ST forever. Gave up somewhere in the middle of VOY. Paris and Janeway turning into a mated pair of lizards was the final straw. TOS movies were good for the most part, excepting 1 and 5. TNG movies were OK at first but became unbearable at the end.

Face it fans. The patient was sick and life support systems were down. Why not a reboot and a chance to establish a new canon? One of the coolest episodes of TOS was the one with the alternate universe where Spock gets a beard and Uhuru's uniform was sexier than ever. I remember after seeing it that I would have loved to see more episodes of that universe. Well, now's our chance. To be sure, it's not that radical of a change and frankly I just can't get all that worked up over things like Vulcan being destroyed or forehead aliens having a different forehead in the new universe.
 
2012-09-10 03:12:21 PM

KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.


You do realize that the actors aren't actually the characters, right? There's this thing called "acting".
 
2012-09-10 03:15:34 PM

Hetfield: Am I the only one who thoroughly enjoyed Voyager? This is Zoolander and The Village all over again.


The problem with Voyager is that I didn't care for enough of the characters. They had B'Elanna, Tuvok, and The Doctor but Janeway, Neelix, and Chakotay were annoying and Paris and Kim were completely flat.
 
2012-09-10 03:16:55 PM

Persnickety: I've been watching ST forever. Gave up somewhere in the middle of VOY. Paris and Janeway turning into a mated pair of lizards was the final straw. TOS movies were good for the most part, excepting 1 and 5. TNG movies were OK at first but became unbearable at the end.

Face it fans. The patient was sick and life support systems were down. Why not a reboot and a chance to establish a new canon? One of the coolest episodes of TOS was the one with the alternate universe where Spock gets a beard and Uhuru's uniform was sexier than ever. I remember after seeing it that I would have loved to see more episodes of that universe. Well, now's our chance. To be sure, it's not that radical of a change and frankly I just can't get all that worked up over things like Vulcan being destroyed or forehead aliens having a different forehead in the new universe.


What it needed was a rest... a good, decade long rest.

Doctor Who was a decent example of bringing back a show after a nice long rest with everything intact instead of letting some hack have at it and say LOL REIMAGINING!!111111POTATO
 
2012-09-10 03:24:38 PM

Bolan: You can really see the change with Voyager and Enterprise. They shoved a hot chick in a tight suit to try and appeal to the sex factor. That crap wasn't prevalent on the earlier series.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com 

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com 

Yeah, they never did that.
 
2012-09-10 03:40:59 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Persnickety: I've been watching ST forever. Gave up somewhere in the middle of VOY. Paris and Janeway turning into a mated pair of lizards was the final straw. TOS movies were good for the most part, excepting 1 and 5. TNG movies were OK at first but became unbearable at the end.

Face it fans. The patient was sick and life support systems were down. Why not a reboot and a chance to establish a new canon? One of the coolest episodes of TOS was the one with the alternate universe where Spock gets a beard and Uhuru's uniform was sexier than ever. I remember after seeing it that I would have loved to see more episodes of that universe. Well, now's our chance. To be sure, it's not that radical of a change and frankly I just can't get all that worked up over things like Vulcan being destroyed or forehead aliens having a different forehead in the new universe.

What it needed was a rest... a good, decade long rest.

Doctor Who was a decent example of bringing back a show after a nice long rest with everything intact instead of letting some hack have at it and say LOL REIMAGINING!!111111POTATO


are you seriously trying to say that the new who is NOT a reimagining?

just like the new trek, you get fans of the old who talking about what a travesty matt smith or the chick that played rose was, or how companions shouldn't want time lord cock, or how river sucks balls. come on, dude. this is niche hard core fan stuff here.

the new trek was awesome. sorry you don't think so, but making more money and being higher rated than any other trek film ever made should shut you up. it won't because that stuff doesn't matter to the "hardcore fan". oh well.
 
2012-09-10 04:11:36 PM

frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: Persnickety: I've been watching ST forever. Gave up somewhere in the middle of VOY. Paris and Janeway turning into a mated pair of lizards was the final straw. TOS movies were good for the most part, excepting 1 and 5. TNG movies were OK at first but became unbearable at the end.

Face it fans. The patient was sick and life support systems were down. Why not a reboot and a chance to establish a new canon? One of the coolest episodes of TOS was the one with the alternate universe where Spock gets a beard and Uhuru's uniform was sexier than ever. I remember after seeing it that I would have loved to see more episodes of that universe. Well, now's our chance. To be sure, it's not that radical of a change and frankly I just can't get all that worked up over things like Vulcan being destroyed or forehead aliens having a different forehead in the new universe.

What it needed was a rest... a good, decade long rest.

Doctor Who was a decent example of bringing back a show after a nice long rest with everything intact instead of letting some hack have at it and say LOL REIMAGINING!!111111POTATO

are you seriously trying to say that the new who is NOT a reimagining?

just like the new trek, you get fans of the old who talking about what a travesty matt smith or the chick that played rose was, or how companions shouldn't want time lord cock, or how river sucks balls. come on, dude. this is niche hard core fan stuff here.

the new trek was awesome. sorry you don't think so, but making more money and being higher rated than any other trek film ever made should shut you up. it won't because that stuff doesn't matter to the "hardcore fan". oh well.


"Justin Bieber selling more records and making more money than Tom Waits (or Jethro Tull, or good band of your choice) ever did should shut you up."

Use that argument in a music thread and see how well it goes over.
 
2012-09-10 04:56:51 PM
It's interesting that when it comes to Star Wars prequels, everyone points to RedLetterMedia's Plunkett reviews and says "See? This review is spot-on! You should watch this long review to understand why I hate this movie!"

And then with Star Trek (2009) nobody says a word about RedLetterMedia's Plunkett review... Because he actually liked it and explains in depth why it's a good movie.

Cite your reference when they support your side. Ignore them when they don't. Nice plan.
 
2012-09-10 04:57:03 PM
Kill Spock and resurrect him in the same movie.

Yeah, that's how Hollywood does it new and fresh.
 
2012-09-10 05:13:17 PM

ZeroCorpse: It's interesting that when it comes to Star Wars prequels, everyone points to RedLetterMedia's Plunkett reviews and says "See? This review is spot-on! You should watch this long review to understand why I hate this movie!"

And then with Star Trek (2009) nobody says a word about RedLetterMedia's Plunkett review... Because he actually liked it and explains in depth why it's a good movie.

Cite your reference when they support your side. Ignore them when they don't. Nice plan.


While I don't think that the prequels are perfect movies by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think they were as terrible as most people say and they definitely weren't as nonsensical and riddled with plot holes as Star Trek. I'm sure there's a reason why the Red Letter Media guys fellate the new Star Trek and hate on the prequels and I'm sure it's money driven.
 
2012-09-10 05:23:29 PM

Kurmudgeon: They need someone to fill those theatres with the B-films.
Are you going to see Sarah Palin's next epic too?


Er... what?
 
2012-09-10 05:30:37 PM

Andric: Kurmudgeon: They need someone to fill those theatres with the B-films.
Are you going to see Sarah Palin's next epic too?

Er... what?


You don't like what he likes; therefore you must be a stupid conservatard.
 
2012-09-10 05:58:12 PM

Techhell: Gunther: Bhruic: He got promoted to acting first officer, then acting captain. Stupid, but under battle conditions, I suppose theoretically possible. What I was talking about is the permanent promotion he received at the end of the movie. Sure, he's the "hero", but that gets him reinstated as a cadet, or potentially graduates him ahead of time, it doesn't make him graduate immediately into a captain's position.

Yeah, it would have been a much stronger scene if there'd been a short montage of him rising through the ranks in an exceptionally quick amount of time, rather than just "A day ago you were a cadet on the verge of expulsion, but you did OK in a crisis, so now we're making you captain of the Federation flagship!". I don't normally mind plotholes (the whole thing with him and spock coincidentally being marooned on the same planet within thirty seconds walk of each other didn't bother me), but the otherwise-decent film just ends on that pointless "WTF?" moment.

That's what sealed it for me. I ignored the lens flares. I rolled my eyes at the "Red Matter" crap. I forgot about the 0.5 Dimensional villain. I suspended my disbelief that Spock would be thrust into the First Officer role on the Flagship right out of being a teacher at the academy. I forgave just how bright and shiny and toyish the ship was. I was sad, but in full acceptance at the loss of Vulcan; it wasn't very important to me. (heck, no single planet is important to me in Star Trek beyond perhaps Bajor. The show was set in starships, not planetside, after all.) The way that the Enterprise was able to survive the battle with the enemy without being obliterated, like what appeared to be an entire fleet of Federation ships, was intentionally ignored - which took a great deal of effort, but TNG had the battle at Wolf 359 and the Borg and I got my geek on and nailed that suspension of disbelief!

But the Federation allowing Kirk to keep command of a starship immediately after being a Cadet is where I ...


Well, in a case of multiple universes/timelines, there is the idea that infinite universes create infinite possibilities. Had the Romulan ship go through the black hole a split second later or earlier, another universe would have existed where maybe Kirk and Spock would not have met on the ice planet. As improbable as all of the plotholes were, it was this, highly improbable universe, that JJ chose to lens-flaringly highlight in his entertaining interpretation.
 
2012-09-10 06:23:54 PM

Confabulat: New Trek is better than most all of "old Trek."


For that matter "New Trek" is more like "Original Trek" than most of the rest of "Old Trek." I, for one, welcome our return to cheesy action, hot green chicks, and a prodigy-genius captain who gets in barfights.

Remember, TOS contained space gangsters, psychic romans, and Mudd. Zephram Cochrane had sex with a glowing haystack. There might have been Nazis at one point. And lest anyone forget, Tribbles.
 
2012-09-10 06:42:35 PM

Mugato: I'm sure there's a reason why the Red Letter Media guys fellate the new Star Trek and hate on the prequels and I'm sure it's money driven.


Assuming that anyone who holds a viewpoint different to yours is only holding it for dishonest reasons is incredibly childish.
 
2012-09-10 06:51:24 PM

Bolan: I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch ..... Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created


You... don't like cheesy plothole-filled crap... but want something like what Roddenberry created? I don't even know where to begin. The Original Series was so cheesy and full of holes that it won several "Best Swiss" awards at international cheese-tasting events.
 
2012-09-10 07:00:56 PM

Bolan: The driving a restored Corvette through the desert listening a several hundred year old song and then diving out at the last second? That was some serious Michael Bay garbage right there.


Meh, that sounds like something Kirk would do. Except there should have been a girl involved. And maybe he could have punched a dinosaur and taken a belt of scotch before defeating the police with his common-sense ingenuity.

If you want a trek-dork nit to pick with that scene, TOS makes it quite clear that Kirk can't drive an automobile in one of the space-gangster episodes. Obviously, that can't be true if young Kirk can outrun flying robot police in a 'vette.
 
2012-09-10 08:22:44 PM

raygundan: Bolan: I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch ..... Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created

You... don't like cheesy plothole-filled crap... but want something like what Roddenberry created? I don't even know where to begin. The Original Series was so cheesy and full of holes that it won several "Best Swiss" awards at international cheese-tasting events.


"But it was the GOOD cheesy! The rose-colored glasses cheesy! It was first, that makes it automatically the best! My Transformers friends agree, right guys?"
"GEEWUN! TRUKK NOT MUNKY! POKeFORMERS! RUINED FOREVER!"
"See?"
 
2012-09-10 09:25:48 PM

raygundan: If you want a trek-dork nit to pick with that scene, TOS makes it quite clear that Kirk can't drive an automobile in one of the space-gangster episodes. Obviously, that can't be true if young Kirk can outrun flying robot police in a 'vette.


Different time stream. One in which Kirk did not have a step-father with a classic car collection.
 
2012-09-10 10:59:08 PM

Fish in a Barrel: raygundan: If you want a trek-dork nit to pick with that scene, TOS makes it quite clear that Kirk can't drive an automobile in one of the space-gangster episodes. Obviously, that can't be true if young Kirk can outrun flying robot police in a 'vette.

Different time stream. One in which Kirk did not have a step-father with a classic car collection.


Ooo, fair point.
 
2012-09-10 11:56:47 PM

therecksays: FuryOfFirestorm: thornhill: Gunther: thornhill: The other major characteristic of Star Trek is that it tries to be an accurate depiction of the future, that there is an explanation for how everything works that's grounded in some sort of real science -- it's why the shows always had science advisors on staff. Magical red matter is not Star Trek.

I agree with your other characteristic, but not this. Star Trek has always been really, really bad at science. It's full of psychic powers, gods, misunderstandings of basic scientific tenets and nonsensical technobabble. Voyager on its own did more to set back public understanding of evolution than the Creation museum.

First off, Voyager wasn't Star Trek. Let's just get that clear.

I disagree that Star Trek was really bad at science. Obviously it played fast and loose with stuff when it served the plot, but I cannot think of another movie or TV show that attempts to be as accurate.

There are no gods on Star Trek. There are the Q that are Omnipotent, but that's the "fiction" part of sci-fiction.

The only major instance of "psychic powers" on the show are the betazoids, but there powers are limited to sensing emotion, as well as the Vulcan mind meld.

Betazoids can communicate telepathically with other Betazoids as well.

IIRC Betazoids are telepathic like Lwaxana. Deana was only empathic because she was half Betazoid.

Also BTW canon is fine and all but you can not pretend Star Trek is slavishly devoted to canon. Klingons looked like humans with Fu Manchu mustaches because they didn't have the budget to make them look better. They invented a canon after ST:TMP to explain it away which is fine. The only problem with sticking to canon is when say communication devices which look super futuristic when you are in the 60's but are super dated when you are in the 2000's but then you have to make a prequel to TOS and have to make their communication devices not seem to be super dated.


I could have sworn there was a TNG episode where Troi spoke with her mother with telepathy.
 
2012-09-11 12:51:35 AM
What's the point? It will never make any money anyway.

/see previous thread about movie maths
 
2012-09-11 02:01:26 AM
raygundan 2012-09-10 06:51:24 PM

Bolan: I disliked the new movie just because it was so filled with plotholes and ridiculously cheesy crap that it made it hard to watch ..... Call me a hater, but I like Star Trek to actually be based on what Roddenberry created

You... don't like cheesy plothole-filled crap... but want something like what Roddenberry created? I don't even know where to begin. The Original Series was so cheesy and full of holes that it won several "Best Swiss" awards at international cheese-tasting events.


Brain and BRAIN!!!! How the f*ck does BRAIN WORK?????

:D

I absolutely LOVE Theiss' costuming work.
 
2012-09-11 08:37:14 AM

FuryOfFirestorm:
I could have sworn there was a TNG episode where Troi spoke with her mother with telepathy.


Betazoids can send and receive thoughts. Her mother can effectively speak with anyone telepathically. There was, however, an episode where Deanna "entered" her mother's mind and found out about her (deceased) sibling.

Oh, and Troi is her last name, making her mother a "Troi" too. ;)
 
2012-09-11 11:00:34 AM

Persnickety: One of the coolest episodes of TOS was the one with the alternate universe where Spock gets a beard and Uhuru's uniform was sexier than ever. I remember after seeing it that I would have loved to see more episodes of that universe. Well, now's our chance.


You should check out the series of Mirror Universe novels. They pick up from where that episode left off, and cover the next century or so in that universe.
 
2012-09-11 04:56:05 PM
Trek or not trek or whatever. setting all that aside, that movie was so fing stupid it made me feel bad that I participated in the wasting of the light they used to project it.

/Every scene, every single one, was taken straight out of another movie. In some of them they didn't even change the lines.
//WTF was the ship full of water?
 
2012-09-11 06:50:05 PM

ds615: Trek or not trek or whatever. setting all that aside, that movie was so fing stupid it made me feel bad that I participated in the wasting of the light they used to project it.

/Every scene, every single one, was taken straight out of another movie. In some of them they didn't even change the lines.
//WTF was the ship full of water?


I'm sure you can show us a list of every scene in Trek 2009 and which movie each scene was from. Right?
 
Displayed 306 of 306 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report