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  
•       •       •

3639 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Sep 2012 at 5:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





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