Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Fail, Star Trek, Star Trek 2, lens flares, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, J. J. Abrams  
•       •       •

3657 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Sep 2012 at 5:16 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report