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  
•       •       •

3638 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
 
2012-09-10 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.
 
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 »






Report