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.

(New York Daily News)   Star Trek XII - Set phasers to beaming and embrace the franchise's new prime directive: Make it smart, keep it moving and don't sweat the past   (nydailynews.com) divider line 146
    More: Spiffy, Star Trek, Make It, Zachary Quinto, Michael Giacchino, Uhura, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Dr. McCoy  
•       •       •

3524 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 May 2013 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 11:10:08 AM  

yves0010: The TNG ones were just as good as the TOS movies in my eyes


Oh come on. I grew up with TNG too but what TOS movie had more ridiculous plotholes than Generations? Picard's in the Nexus, can go anywhere at any time and instead of going back to when he first met the bad guy and sending him away he goes to 5 minutes before the sun destroying rocket launches and brings an octogenarian with him. And Nemesis, gleefully telling the Prime Directive to eat a dick as they're shooting at some primitive race from a  dune buggy. The asshole race in Insurrection who wouldn't share their planet's life saving radiation and Picard siding with them because he wants some ass. Etc.
 
2013-05-14 11:14:11 AM  

yves0010: Made mention in the movie itself. When talking to Captain Pike, who challenged him to have a command in 4 years, he said he would do it in three years. He spent three years in the academy


He was talking about years of service, not years in the Academy. That would be farking retarded.
 
2013-05-14 11:16:56 AM  
...and if the script is any indication it's


You could be an officer in four years, have your own ship in eight.
 
2013-05-14 11:17:58 AM  

Mugato: yves0010: The TNG ones were just as good as the TOS movies in my eyes

Oh come on. I grew up with TNG too but what TOS movie had more ridiculous plotholes than Generations? Picard's in the Nexus, can go anywhere at any time and instead of going back to when he first met the bad guy and sending him away he goes to 5 minutes before the sun destroying rocket launches and brings an octogenarian with him. And Nemesis, gleefully telling the Prime Directive to eat a dick as they're shooting at some primitive race from a  dune buggy. The asshole race in Insurrection who wouldn't share their planet's life saving radiation and Picard siding with them because he wants some ass. Etc.


How about the fact that in Insurrection, the "asshole" race banned the antigonist from their planet and he wanted revenge on them and stealing their life giving radiation was his way of getting back at them. Nemesis wasnt perfect but that was due to a lot more then just crappy parts. Plus, Picard has broken Starfleet orders on more then one occasion including the Prime Directive. Generation's ending seems to fit in perfectly when you think about it. Picard going back to where he first meets the bad guy would of altered to much and seemed out of place if he just imprisoned him right then and there. Knowing that he is the reason but can not prove it makes Picard look bad and wrongfully imprisoning an innocent. The only big issue with Generation is the Bridge falling.
 
2013-05-14 11:18:40 AM  

sprag: Wellon Dowd: So you're expecting 24-year-old Kirk to be the same as 34 or 54-year-old Kirk?

Nope, but a real person would be a vast improvement.   There were no qualities in the 24yo version of Kirk that would allow him to grow into the legend that he's surely to become.  Being an ass isn't a legendary quality.  He was a one dimensional character and the writers bent the universe around so he could become a captain and start down that road.

I'm pretty sure that pushing someone and catching them before they fell while saying "Saved your life" would get you promoted to admiral in that universe...


Are you sure?
www.yalibnan.com

Also, having already seen Into Darkness, I can tell you that those plot points about him being promoted way beyond his abilities, being a total ass, and using his crew as his soundboard to check his ideas are addressed quite, quite quickly.
Having said that, Benedict Cumberbatch easily steals the whole movie, and turns it from a 2.5/4 to an easy 3.5.

/YMMV
 
2013-05-14 11:20:34 AM  

Mugato: yves0010: Made mention in the movie itself. When talking to Captain Pike, who challenged him to have a command in 4 years, he said he would do it in three years. He spent three years in the academy

He was talking about years of service, not years in the Academy. That would be farking retarded.


Would assume that Starfleet has a different way of teaching then today. We see that they have a better educational system then we do by this time. We have seen young kids learning what is now college material in lower schools. So the academy could easily be setting some of these cadets up for command right out of school.
 
2013-05-14 11:27:02 AM  
Regardless of whatever issues I might end up having with this new trek movie, I hope it does well. If it does well, CBS will be more inclined to do Blu Ray versions of DS9 (and voyager.. ick) and maybe even a new Show to ride the wave of popularity. Here's hoping.
 
2013-05-14 11:28:09 AM  

sprag: jayhawk88: Something something Lens Flare.

Maybe I'm just getting old and crusty, but nerds are really starting to annoy me. They'll worship at alters of their own making for classic books/movies/TV shows, whine and moan about how Something should be filmed like so or Another should be done like this,  lament how BSD sci-fi is dying and Oh! won't someone come and give us a new, fresh and exciting take on Whatever...and the minute someone does they descend like a flock of vultures to tear it apart for not being exactly like the original.

The problem with the reboots isn't that they're different.  The problem is that they are not anything like the originals, except for the names.  The 2009 Star Trek was, like another poster pointed out, Generic Space Adventure Movie with the Star Trek names pasted on to increase ticket sales.

Most of the TNG movies had the same problem -- see Plinkett's version of "TV Picard vs Movie Picard".

It would be the same thing if one were to remake ST:TMP with Star Wars characters -- The feel is wrong because the characters are not behaving in a way which is consistent with the universe in which they were created -- so their behavior makes no sense.  In 2009 Star Trek they try to make sure that a ton of character traits are given lip service (Kirk living in Iowa, McCoy's nickname of "bones", etc) but they're throwaway one-liners so the writers can say they're being true to the original characters.

Take TOS Kirk vs 2009 Kirk.  Sure, TOS Kirk likes the ladies, but he was more than that -- he had internal conflicts (ST:2's growing old, ST:6's racism, things like honor, duty, concern for his crew, etc) and he used McCoy and Spock as sounding boards to make the "right" decision.   He is a multidimensional character, even within the popular stereotype.

Now, the 2009 Kirk can be described in one word:  douchenozzle.   He's arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered and a snowflake's wet dream:  he gets promoted from recruit to captain in a period of 20 minutes.  Would this Kirk give a toss about a crewman that's turned into a dodecahedron and then crushed?  Nope, he'd have a cutesy one liner, and then there'd be an explosion.

A franchise universe is more than just the names and the technology.   The characters are what makes the universe interesting and they were totally chucked out with the reboot which is why people thinks it sucks.


They're taking certain character concepts and running in different directions with it. The characters are similar. They're not supposed to be the same. The writers, the actors, and the societal conception of the Star Trek universe has changed in 20 years.

So it's going to be different.

You're also conflating a series of shows, and movies using a series as a base, with a movie which has no such backing. Movies don't have the time to interlay such complex relationships as a series, since a movie has to fit everything in a tight 2 hour package. A series just has a lot more time to devote to things.

It's like grousing that a movie is different than a novel.

Now, the 'tested well so sure make him a captain!' Thing was hack writing. I can see the attempt, that he rose to command through being willing to act decicively and pull it off when it was most needed, but still hacked.

Other than that? It had cold logical Spock. It had many of the required basics for the characters to come together and function how they do. It was a great summer movie, same as the originals.
 
2013-05-14 11:28:44 AM  

yves0010: Generation's ending seems to fit in perfectly when you think about it. Picard going back to where he first meets the bad guy would of altered to much and seemed out of place if he just imprisoned him right then and there. Knowing that he is the reason but can not prove it makes Picard look bad and wrongfully imprisoning an innocent


Picard watched Soren destroy another star already. All he had to do was throw Soren in the brig, go to that star he watched explode and gather the evidence. Face it, it's a huge farking plot hole. Not to mention the gas powered rocket that blew up a star in less than a minute but that's not even that important.


yves0010: How about the fact that in Insurrection, the "asshole" race banned the antigonist from their planet and he wanted revenge on them and stealing their life giving radiation was his way of getting back at them


Yes but it was established that the radiation could be shared, the Bakuu or however you spelled it, would still benefit from it. But they said "fark off", even though it would have meant helping billions of people. And it wasn't even their native planet, they were squatters. And in a planet of immortals, what's a 12 year old doing there?

 

yves0010: Picard has broken Starfleet orders on more then one occasion including the Prime Directive


Never for something as trivial as finding yet another ridiculously convenient other Data. And he would never fire on a primitive species and he would never ride around in a farking dune buggy unless there was a sponsorship from Argo involved.

Dude, I'm not happy about it but the TNG movies were shiat. I defy anyone to tear apart the TOS movies as easily.
 
2013-05-14 11:36:07 AM  

yves0010: Kirk always broke Starfleet rules, first known offense was the Kobayashi Maru (seen in Wrath of Kahn) which he was rewarded a medal for Original Thinking. He also broke it when stealing the Enterprise in Search for Spock.


He broke the rules but the story didn't glorify it.  The sole purpose of the dialogue about the Kobayashi Maru Test was to later contrast with Spock's sacrifice given that Kirk had no answers to a problem he couldn't cheat out of.  It wasn't some defining Kirk kick-ass moment; it was his past coming back to bite him and leading directly to Spock's death.  Sacrificing Spock might have been the only solution, but it was a character flaw in that it never occurred to Kirk to give the order (or ANY order for that matter) because he never took in good faith the one test in the Academy that was intended to teach cadets how to make difficult decisions.

As for stealing the Enterprise, it led to the flagship's destruction and his demotion in spite of saving the world.  As it is it's apparent he clung to his command post by Saving the Whales.

The huge difference between Kirk and most renegade sci-fi protagonists is that Kirk lives in a world where his impulsive decisions have consequences, and despite his outward cockiness he's well aware of when he crosses the line.  His decisions to go rogue, while often right, don't automatically result in happy endings and comeuppance to his doubters.  It's his way of getting out of impossible situations where he basically picks his poison, which is why he's considered an excellent commander.  He doesn't break the rules just to be some sort of smug asshole, which is more than can be said for a lot of protagonists in pop culture these days.
 
2013-05-14 11:59:34 AM  

Mugato: James Tiberius Kirk was a 23rd century Human Federation Starfleet officer. As a Starfleet cadet, he was instrumental in the defeat and death of Nero, a Romulan bent on the obliteration of the United Federation of Planets. As a result, he was commissioned directly to the rank of captain and appointed as commanding officer of the service's flagship, the USS Enterprise.


This makes me cry...and hate. Sci fans and especially trek fans just wont swallow that shiat.
 
2013-05-14 12:29:51 PM  

dragonchild: He broke the rules but the story didn't glorify it.  The sole purpose of the dialogue about the Kobayashi Maru Test was to later contrast with Spock's sacrifice given that Kirk had no answers to a problem he couldn't cheat out of.  It wasn't some defining Kirk kick-ass moment; it was his past coming back to bite him and leading directly to Spock's death.  Sacrificing Spock might have been the only solution, but it was a character flaw in that it never occurred to Kirk to give the order (or ANY order for that matter) because he never took in good faith the one test in the Academy that was intended to teach cadets how to make difficult decisions.

As for stealing the Enterprise, it led to the flagship's destruction and his demotion in spite of saving the world.  As it is it's apparent he clung to his command post by Saving the Whales.

The huge difference between Kirk and most renegade sci-fi protagonists is that Kirk lives in a world where his impulsive decisions have consequences, and despite his outward cockiness he's well aware of when he crosses the line.  His decisions to go rogue, while often right, don't automatically result in happy endings and comeuppance to his doubters.  It's his way of getting out of impossible situations where he basically picks his poison, which is why he's considered an excellent commander.  He doesn't break the rules just to be some sort of smug asshole, which is more than can be said for a lot of protagonists in pop culture these days.


That's an excellent explanation of Kirk as a character, his behavior in the movies, and why the TNG movies fell short because they didn't develop any of the characters in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, the makers of ST09 and STID--and Paramount itself--don't get any of this at all.
 
2013-05-14 12:44:24 PM  
Man I hate modern nerds.

You should all shut up and be damn grateful that comic books and science fiction/fantasy movies are getting made in such abundance. You make up a small fraction of the population. The vast majority of people in the world have no idea what happened in Iron Man #167 and why the most recent Iron Man movie is blasphemy. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY cares.

If you want your beloved stories and characters and whatnot made into multimillion dollar productions you are going to have to accept that they will be made accessible for a wider audience.  Otherwise stick to reading fan-fiction and STFU.
 
2013-05-14 01:01:20 PM  

Jaws75: Unfortunately, the makers of ST09 and STID--and Paramount itself--don't get any of this at all.


No, they think that replacing James T. Kirk with Poochie was a great idea. Because it's so hip and now, like what all the kids are into these days.
 
2013-05-14 01:29:08 PM  
I thought ST 2009 was great, except for that ice monster.  I just kept thinking "Gungan Sea in Phantom Menace" the entire time Kirk was running from that thing.  And then he ran into the cave Spock was in.

This one has Cumberbatch, who at the very least is good making the stuff he says sound awesome.
 
2013-05-14 01:31:01 PM  

Egoy3k: Man I hate modern nerds.


You'll get over it.

Egoy3k: If you want your beloved stories and characters and whatnot made into multimillion dollar productions you are going to have to accept that they will be made accessible for a wider audience.


There's a difference between an adaptation and taxidermy.
 
2013-05-14 01:36:34 PM  
Just repeat to yourself: "its just a show, I should really just relax"images.publicradio.org
 
2013-05-14 01:59:32 PM  
I wonder how many of these threads there are going to be this week.
 
2013-05-14 02:25:36 PM  

Egoy3k: Man I hate modern nerds.

You should all shut up and be damn grateful that comic books and science fiction/fantasy movies are getting made in such abundance. You make up a small fraction of the population. The vast majority of people in the world have no idea what happened in Iron Man #167 and why the most recent Iron Man movie is blasphemy. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY cares.

If you want your beloved stories and characters and whatnot made into multimillion dollar productions you are going to have to accept that they will be made accessible for a wider audience.  Otherwise stick to reading fan-fiction and STFU.


Deal.

So uhhh... when should I expect the wave of cancellation announcements?
 
2013-05-14 02:32:19 PM  
A lot of sandy vaginas in here today.

It's a cool summer movie, with ships, and hot chicks and explosions.

/Or would you like more vampire and wrestling shows on Syfy?
 
2013-05-14 03:03:26 PM  

dragonchild: yves0010: Kirk always broke Starfleet rules, first known offense was the Kobayashi Maru (seen in Wrath of Kahn) which he was rewarded a medal for Original Thinking. He also broke it when stealing the Enterprise in Search for Spock.

He broke the rules but the story didn't glorify it.  The sole purpose of the dialogue about the Kobayashi Maru Test was to later contrast with Spock's sacrifice given that Kirk had no answers to a problem he couldn't cheat out of.  It wasn't some defining Kirk kick-ass moment; it was his past coming back to bite him and leading directly to Spock's death.  Sacrificing Spock might have been the only solution, but it was a character flaw in that it never occurred to Kirk to give the order (or ANY order for that matter) because he never took in good faith the one test in the Academy that was intended to teach cadets how to make difficult decisions.

As for stealing the Enterprise, it led to the flagship's destruction and his demotion in spite of saving the world.  As it is it's apparent he clung to his command post by Saving the Whales.

The huge difference between Kirk and most renegade sci-fi protagonists is that Kirk lives in a world where his impulsive decisions have consequences, and despite his outward cockiness he's well aware of when he crosses the line.  His decisions to go rogue, while often right, don't automatically result in happy endings and comeuppance to his doubters.  It's his way of getting out of impossible situations where he basically picks his poison, which is why he's considered an excellent commander.  He doesn't break the rules just to be some sort of smug asshole, which is more than can be said for a lot of protagonists in pop culture these days.


That is a nice explantion of Kirk.

I enjoyed the reboot/remake or whatever Star Trek movie, but I am still pissed on how they handled Kirk on becoming Captain. That felt like a cop out imo. Bones is probably the best casted character in that movie too.
 
2013-05-14 03:08:57 PM  
I like how they finally got up to Star Trek 12. So very Tired. As the old Simpsons joke goes.
 
2013-05-14 03:26:01 PM  
Man, I give up on ST threads.  Same derp, different day.
 
2013-05-14 03:33:47 PM  
"screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Roberto Orci"

aka the same ass-crew responsible for Transformers.

Star Trek is dead to me.
 
2013-05-14 03:59:32 PM  

Madbassist1: As a result, he was commissioned directly to the rank of captain and appointed as commanding officer of the service's flagship, the USS Enterprise. This makes me cry...and hate.


Yes. I would have liked it better if the scene following the Kobayashi Maru  took place 3 years later with Kirk as third in command behind Spock and Spock still pissed at him for beating him at his test on an Enterprise that had been in service for a few years already. And then, later in the movie, have old Spock mention that Kirk's dad was one of the original designers for the Enterprise which, in an altered time line, could explain why the Enterprise looked different and was launched at later stardate. But old time Trekies are the only ones who would notice or care.
 
2013-05-14 04:21:27 PM  
All these inconsistent "facts" about the universe don't matter as much as the entertainment value of the product. The reason is that anything can be rationalized away by space wizards or some other plot device. The real thing is that the movies suck for the same reason that the Transformers movies suck. Instead of telling a story with a real meaning and subtext, the entire first movie was a contrived excuse to show off special effects.

The first movie was so cringe worthy that I spent most of the time playing around with my tablet instead of actually watching. I don't care if they make Kirk a woman in this stupid timeline, just give a story that captures my attention. Believe it or not things blowing up gets really old and loses its appeal if there isn't real suspension of disbelief built on interesting and complicated characters.

What it means for trek to "be true to its roots" isn't that they get the names right, but that they tell stories too taboo for the media in an easier to watch format. It is really what I like about TOS, where the Klingons were the Soviets and the Feds were NATO. They had great episodes with philosophical content, and THAT is what made them good. So, this is what I wanted from the 2009 incarnation but all I got was transformers in space.
 
2013-05-14 04:41:32 PM  
So many rose-colored glasses being worn in this thread.

The deepest TOS ever got was City On The Edge of Forever, written by Harlan Ellison, who Gene Roddenberry hated because he wrote stories that added depth to the karate-chopping, green-biatch-banging hero. Kirk was James Bond in Space and the Federation to be a monument to all that is good in humanity. I'd write further but it's just so sickeningly, one-dimensionally utopian it bores me to death.

Now take that James Bond character and give him daddy issues. Take your coldly logical Vulcan and make him suffer an immeasurable loss. Oh, and take the walking pair of tits and give her an actual personality. Look, I'm interested again.
 
2013-05-14 04:48:35 PM  

I Like Bread: So many rose-colored glasses being worn in this thread.

The deepest TOS ever got was City On The Edge of Forever, written by Harlan Ellison, who Gene Roddenberry hated because he wrote stories that added depth to the karate-chopping, green-biatch-banging hero. Kirk was James Bond in Space and the Federation to be a monument to all that is good in humanity. I'd write further but it's just so sickeningly, one-dimensionally utopian it bores me to death.

Now take that James Bond character and give him daddy issues. Take your coldly logical Vulcan and make him suffer an immeasurable loss. Oh, and take the walking pair of tits and give her an actual personality. Look, I'm interested again.


You dont know what you're talking about.

flanker27del: It is really what I like about TOS, where the Klingons Comms were the Soviets and the Feds Yangs were NATO.


Sorry, couldnt resist.
 
2013-05-14 04:59:55 PM  
Never liked the Federation for that exact reason. Too much is right with the world. No money, no vices, nothing. Everyone else is warmongering and petty but Federation? nah! That's one thing I liked about DS9: the federation got some character with Section 39 and all the underhanded shiat they do. They seemed more human

Not saying that ANY of the original material is Shakespear, just that the movies are a pointless, story-less waste of film. For all of its "excitement" the first one wasn't even that entertaining. Shait, when I tried to watched it was with the rifftrax commentary and even then it was barely passable. If thats the type of movie you want, great, but I can't spare a fark for any of it, much less $9 for a movie ticket.
 
2013-05-14 05:02:51 PM  

flanker27del: Never liked the Federation for that exact reason. Too much is right with the world. No money, no vices, nothing. Everyone else is warmongering and petty but Federation? nah! That's one thing I liked about DS9: the federation got some character with Section 39 and all the underhanded shiat they do. They seemed more human

Not saying that ANY of the original material is Shakespear, just that the movies are a pointless, story-less waste of film. For all of its "excitement" the first one wasn't even that entertaining. Shait, when I tried to watched it was with the rifftrax commentary and even then it was barely passable. If thats the type of movie you want, great, but I can't spare a fark for any of it, much less $9 for a movie ticket.


It's section 31 and my name is Sloan...

rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-14 05:38:47 PM  

Madbassist1: You dont know what you're talking about.


Did you watch a different Star Trek than I did? I guess so, since some guy being promoted to Captain really fast is totally a bogus premise that insults your intelligence, but I suppose slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time, or aliens that can access your memories by touching your face, is kosher because it "fits in the universe"...?

I had a classmate in college who was 15 years old. Ask me which of the above examples I find the least preposterous. TOS has probably been responsible for more idiotic sci-fi tropes than any other franchise. God bless JJ for trying to make something palatable out of it.
 
2013-05-14 05:48:26 PM  

Bslim: Star Trek is dead to me.


Was it ever alive?
 
2013-05-14 05:56:13 PM  

I Like Bread: TOS has probably been responsible for more idiotic sci-fi tropes than any other franchise.


But it did lead to an increase in support for space exploration, by repeatedly telling us that space is just jam-packed with hot alien babes who are (for some reason) anatomically-compatible with humans, and eager to be taught about this Earth emotion called "love."
 
2013-05-14 05:56:28 PM  

I Like Bread: Madbassist1: You dont know what you're talking about.

Did you watch a different Star Trek than I did? I guess so, since some guy being promoted to Captain really fast is totally a bogus premise that insults your intelligence, but I suppose slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time, or aliens that can access your memories by touching your face, is kosher because it "fits in the universe"...?

I had a classmate in college who was 15 years old. Ask me which of the above examples I find the least preposterous.
The deepest TOS ever got was City On The Edge of Forever, written by Harlan Ellison, who Gene Roddenberry hated because he wrote stories that added depth to the karate-chopping, green-biatch-banging hero. Kirk was James Bond in Space and the Federation to be a monument to all that is good in humanity. I'd write further but it's just so sickeningly, one-dimensionally utopian it bores me to death.

   God bless JJ for trying to make something palatable out of it.

You're moving your goalposts. I am saying you're pulling this whole paragraph out of your ass.


The deepest TOS ever got was City On The Edge of Forever, written by Harlan Ellison, who Gene Roddenberry hated because he wrote stories that added depth to the karate-chopping, green-biatch-banging hero. Kirk was James Bond in Space and the Federation to be a monument to all that is good in humanity. I'd write further but it's just so sickeningly, one-dimensionally utopian it bores me to death.


and this?

TOS has probably been responsible for more idiotic sci-fi tropes than any other franchise.

Here's some other idiotic things star trek is responsible for.

I bet 500 bucks your favorite show can't say that, asshole.
 
2013-05-14 05:59:00 PM  

flanker27del: Never liked the Federation for that exact reason. Too much is right with the world. No money, no vices, nothing. Everyone else is warmongering and petty but Federation? nah! That's one thing I liked about DS9: the federation got some character with Section 39 and all the underhanded shiat they do. They seemed more human


Like them or not, that was the whole purpose of creating the Star Trek series in the first place. It was a post-scarcity, utopian society. It's a theoretical human ideal which can only be realized in the distant future - or fiction set in the distant future.

A future where humanity has largely wised up enough to learn how to control the worst aspects of our nature. Also where technological breakthroughs have made many human concerns moot. When your civilization has both effectively unlimited energy AND the ability to freely transpose matter and energy into whatever forms they want then no one will go hungry any more and even greed will be affected.
 
2013-05-14 06:03:16 PM  

I Like Bread: Did you watch a different Star Trek than I did? I guess so, since some guy being promoted to Captain really fast is totally a bogus premise that insults your intelligence, but I suppose slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time, or aliens that can access your memories by touching your face, is kosher because it "fits in the universe"...?


Well yes, exactly. If you can't grasp that concept then it'd little use to try to explain basic storytelling and internal consistency to you.
 
2013-05-14 06:03:38 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: ....

It's section 31 and my name is Sloan...

[rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com image 768x576]


meredithandtimwatchstartrek.files.wordpress.com

Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak
 
2013-05-14 06:04:32 PM  
Bacontastesgood


Mugato: I really don't get the hate for Trek 3.

Yeah, for me it's 2nd place after Wrath of Khan. They farking killed David, which was crucial to show how ruthless the klingons were. Christopher Lloyd was awesome. The bird of prey was awesome. They blew up the old ship.

I like the film as well -overall-, but the loss of the Enterprise was a huge misstep. It was done to casually, with no respect or weight. A mistake the ST people would make again with the loss of Kirk.
 
2013-05-14 06:08:37 PM  

OnlyM3: I like the film as well -overall-, but the loss of the Enterprise was a huge misstep. It was done to casually, with no respect or weight


I disagree with that, the whole crew looking on as the ship burned in the atmosphere and the score. Kirk was almost shaken by that as with his son's death.  I don't see how it could have been done better,
 
2013-05-14 06:10:17 PM  

flanker27del: Representative of the unwashed masses: ....

It's section 31 and my name is Sloan...

[rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com image 768x576]

[meredithandtimwatchstartrek.files.wordpress.com image 500x379]

Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak


Best character of Star Trek ever.

/Hot
 
2013-05-14 06:11:39 PM  

mongbiohazard: .....

Like them or not, that was the whole purpose of creating the Star Trek series in the first place. It was a post-scarcity, utopian society. It's a theoretical human ideal which can only be realized in the distant future - or fiction set in the distant future.

A future where humanity has largely wised up enough to learn how to control the worst aspects of our nature. Also where technological breakthroughs have made many human concerns moot. When your civilization has both effectively unlimited energy AND the ability to freely transpose matter and energy into whatever forms they want then no one will go hungry any more and even greed will be affected.


I thought the series was created to get their message across. The setting was just a constraint and not a central point. I mean, look at how awful VOY turned out when they focused on the setting. Instead of telling stories about racial tension involving Earth species, they could tell the same stories with aliens and the message would get through. No network wants the kind of controversy generated by taboo subjects, so writers make stuff up.
 
2013-05-14 06:14:26 PM  

demonfaerie: Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak

Best character of Star Trek ever.

/Hot


Garek was badass. Although I think Int the Pale Moonlight would have been even better if Sisko were the one to plant the bomb on the Romulan senator's ship, impressing Garek with how far Sisko turned to the dark side.
 
2013-05-14 06:14:35 PM  
Can't we all just agree to live together in a Utopian wonderland???11!!!!11!!!1!1!!111

/Bring me my Tranya!
 
2013-05-14 06:17:55 PM  

Mugato: Garek was badass. Although I think Int the Pale Moonlight would have been even better if Sisko were the one to plant the bomb on the Romulan senator's ship, impressing Garek with how far Sisko turned to the dark side.


Nobody was better. Really liked it when he convinced Worf to sponsor his application to Starfleet.
 
2013-05-14 06:19:16 PM  

flanker27del: Representative of the unwashed masses: ....

It's section 31 and my name is Sloan...

[rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com image 768x576]

[meredithandtimwatchstartrek.files.wordpress.com image 500x379]

Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak


True, I still think they missed the boat by not having an episode where it's Sloan vs. Garak.  Now that would have been epic.
 
2013-05-14 06:41:48 PM  

Mugato: demonfaerie: Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak

Best character of Star Trek ever.

/Hot

Garek was badass. Although I think Int the Pale Moonlight would have been even better if Sisko were the one to plant the bomb on the Romulan senator's ship, impressing Garek with how far Sisko turned to the dark side.


Maybe, but Sisko never even thought about going that way until is happened. Garak slowly showing him that war makes a person do horrible things for a better outcome. Garak even sided with the Federation to help his people, and at the same time help kill them. I wish there was more episodes of Garak, and they didn't try to hook him with a Dukat's daughter.

Representative of the unwashed masses: flanker27del: Representative of the unwashed masses: ....

It's section 31 and my name is Sloan...

[rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com image 768x576]

[meredithandtimwatchstartrek.files.wordpress.com image 500x379]

Sloan was a poor substitute for Garak

True, I still think they missed the boat by not having an episode where it's Sloan vs. Garak.  Now that would have been epic.


That would of been, and they could still do it in Epic form.

Would love a Star Trek miniseries staring Garak.
 
2013-05-14 06:42:28 PM  

sprag: Now, the 2009 Kirk can be described in one word: douchenozzle. He's arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered and a snowflake's wet dream: he gets promoted from recruit to captain in a period of 20 minutes. Would this Kirk give a toss about a crewman that's turned into a dodecahedron and then crushed? Nope, he'd have a cutesy one liner, and then there'd be an explosion.


I... can't make sense of this.  New Kirk is a douchenozzle.  Old Kirk is a douchenozzle.  There are a lot of things you could poke fun at in the new Trek movie, like the engine-room scene or Abrams' obsession with red spheres-- but the characters are fairly true-to-form.  They're not carbon-copy duplicates, because nobody can chew scenery like Shatner-- but his character has always been a brilliant, young, promoted-too-fast, loyal, shoot-from-the-hip womanizing douchebag who was inexplicably given command of a starship.  New Kirk hasn't had time to worry about getting old yet *because he isn't getting old yet.*  I think he would care about a dodecahedron crew member, just like old Kirk would.... but I also think BOTH of them would toss off a one-liner followed by an explosion.  Old Kirk would have put on a leotard and done space-judo to relax afterwards, though, so at least we've been spared that. That's Trek's thing.  It's cheeseball space opera wrapped around simple analogies to current events (racism in TOS, terrorism in the reboot movie)....

...to me.  It's something else to you, I guess.  It's a big world, and we all get our own opinions.  I really liked the first one, and am looking forward to seeing this one.  I'm sorry it hasn't worked out as well for your tastes.

The characters are what makes the universe interesting and they were totally chucked out with the reboot which is why people thinks it sucks.

This is where we differ the most.  To me, it seems like the characters are the primary thing they HAVE faithfully carried over-- and I watched TOS in its entirety right before the first reboot movie came out just to compare things.  The biggest differences are that the emotionless guy now has a terrible tragedy to struggle with-- Vulcans were always at their most fascinating when the secret-rage-filled-murderous-emo-inside backstory that drove their historical effort to suppress emotions came up, and this is likely to happen more often now-- and Uhura, who has a personality now.  I guess you could say Uhura isn't a faithful character translation because of that... but she wasn't really much of a character in TOS.  The universe is somewhat different, but the characters feel faithful to me.  If Young Kirk has too much swagger and confidence and not enough introspection, ask yourself "what kind of man would TOS Kirk have been before his swagger and confidence got him into some trouble?"  Nobody becomes brash, confident, AND introspective until their brash confidence gives them something to introspect about.
 
2013-05-14 06:46:59 PM  

demonfaerie: Garek was badass. Although I think Int the Pale Moonlight would have been even better if Sisko were the one to plant the bomb on the Romulan senator's ship, impressing Garek with how far Sisko turned to the dark side.

Maybe, but Sisko never even thought about going that way until is happened. Garak slowly showing him that war makes a person do horrible things for a better outcome. Garak even sided with the Federation to help his people, and at the same time help kill them. I wish there was more episodes of Garak, and they didn't try to hook him with a Dukat's daughter


Yeah but Sisko having ethical issues with all the things they were doing to make the operation happen, arguing with Garek about what they should and should not do  and then at the end being the one who actually did something that Garek didn't even do, I think would have been even more dramatic but the episode was awesome either way.
 
2013-05-14 06:52:43 PM  

RexTalionis: The reboot Star Trek are big, dumb movies. But they're entertaining for what they are and I'll keep watching it.


Exactly why I'm not going to be watching them. I don't watch big, dumb movies. As far as I'm concerned, grown adults overgrown children (seriously, when did we decide being a mature adult was bad?) who pay money to see crap like Transformers (and that's what JJ has turned Trek into) should be ashamed of themselves.

Seriously, Star Trek used to be something that at least tried to not be fluff. If you're going to make big, vapid, spacy movies, please don't pretend they're in any way Star Trek movies.
 
2013-05-14 07:02:39 PM  
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Abrams TreK:
  Ironman, meets Twilight, in SPAAAAAACE

let's face it fellow Trekkies, it's over
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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