Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Star Trek Movie - SPOILERS - (was forum=21)Follow

#1 May 08 2009 at 2:18 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,477 posts
So I saw it tonight.


Was actually pretty good.

The whole time travel thing was hokey but let them diverge from the canon to make the movie how they wanted.

Otherwise the whole Romulan thing wouldn't have worked I guess.

Spock and Uhura as a thing was funny especially since Kirk was trying to pull in early on.

Leonard Nimoy being in it was a very pleasant surprise. Almost as much as Winona Ryder being Spock's mom.

I liked the assembling of Kirk's crew in a piecemeal fashion. Very well done.

When they attacked Earth and only Kirk's ship was there to help me and my friends were very much amazed. Seriously, like we wouldn't have some defenses.

Kirk did get beat up a bit to much, he should have been kicking more arse and there could have been some more riveting dialog and character development but overall a good movie.

They will definitely make another one if this weekends gate is good and I would for sure see it.


edit: added spoilers to the title just in case the blacked out |spoiler| text wasn't enough

Edited, May 8th 2009 6:54am by Horsemouth
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#2 May 08 2009 at 2:36 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,367 posts
Are those proper spoilers?

Would you give it a thumb up or down?
____________________________
"WHEN PASSENGER OF FOOT HEAVE IN SIGHT, TOOTLE THE HORN. TRUMPET HIM MELODIOUSLY AT FIRST, BUT IF HE STILL OBSTACLES YOUR PASSAGE THEN TOOTLE HIM WITH VIGOUR."
Armory
[wowsig]2225867[/wowsig]
#3 May 08 2009 at 2:43 AM Rating: Excellent
I see a nice Father / Son movie coming up this weekend.... that, some raid snacks, and down some raid bosses together, and the weekend will be perfect.
____________________________
Wahu - Disc Priest (main)
Get an Authenticator!!
#4 May 08 2009 at 2:53 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,477 posts
Quote:
Would you give it a thumb up or down?


I would for sure give it thumbs up.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#5 May 08 2009 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
***
1,175 posts
I had a ticket for my local theater this evening at the very first show on their new IMAX screen. They had some new theater bugs, started about 20 mins late and because of that, I got a free ticket to see any future IMAX showing! They'll be showing Transformers in IMAX, along with Harry Potter and Night at the Museum.

Anyway, I have a two word review for Star Trek and it's not a spoiler - BAD @$$. See it in IMAX if you can!
#6 May 08 2009 at 3:12 AM Rating: Good
*
170 posts
Quote:
Would you give it a thumb up or down?


I was truly shocked, this morning's paper reviewed it and gave it four stars!


Z
____________________________
What, me worry? Me have mana!
#7 May 08 2009 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Holy wrong forum, batman?

I'd ask an admin to move it to Movie,TV, Anime, Music.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#8 May 08 2009 at 3:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
876 posts
My guild leader went to the 12AM premiere at his local theater. I was quite jealous but I intend to see this movie the first chance I get.

I haven't been much of a trekkie (or trekker whichever) but slowly I have started to get hooked on it. Should be a good movie to get new people interested in the series.
____________________________
This is my signature, there are many like it but this one is mine.
__________________________________________________________________

Byntre Level 80 Nightelf Rogue
#9 May 08 2009 at 5:14 AM Rating: Good
Must see this... Must feed Star... Trek... HOMGZ I NEED THE STAR TREK NOW!

I grew up a trekkie and I'm not afraid to deny it. Over all. I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#10 May 08 2009 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Guru
**
503 posts
The One and Only ArexLovesPie wrote:
I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.
*nods* Kirk, Spock and Seven of Nine are the only character names I can come up with in regards to Star Trek. I don't watch it much and no I don't think Kirk and Spock are hot. -_-
____________________________
15 80s, I multibox.
#11 May 08 2009 at 7:08 AM Rating: Decent
LockeColeMA wrote:
Holy wrong forum, batman?

I'd ask an admin to move it to Movie,TV, Anime, Music.


yea, this so belongs in =5. There is already a thread there, but yea . . .
____________________________
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremash*ta | Dihydrogen Monoxide (it kills)
#12 May 10 2009 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,894 posts
azelia wrote:
*nods* Kirk, Spock and Seven of Nine are the only character names I can come up with in regards to Star Trek. I don't watch it much and no I don't think Kirk and Spock are hot. -_-


What? What about Scotty? Riker? Picard? Data? And I've never even heard of Seven of Nine.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#13 May 10 2009 at 2:27 PM Rating: Decent
*
50 posts
The new movie was great, especially being a fan from way back when.

Quote:
I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.


May not be a popular opinion as "Enterprise" didn't ever seem to do well, but, I always thought T'Pol was hot.

#14 May 10 2009 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
I give it

Screenshot


Best movie in awhile, this summer is pretty packed with movies I want to see.
____________________________
Content Manager
torhead.com | teratome.com | twitter.com/fewyn
#15 May 10 2009 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
The One and Only ArexLovesPie wrote:
I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.


Meh. My opinion about the addition of Seven of Nine is pretty well encapsulated in the MST3K spoof someone wrote of the press release upon her introduction:



Quote:
Tom exits. He re-enters immediately in suit and tie.

TOM: Ahem. Mesdames et messieurs, ladies and gentlemen, and producers
--
it is with the deepest urgency that I assemble you tonight, to
discuss a matter of great importance to us all: how to inflate
our sagging ratings.

[ Suddenly music, namely "Be Our Guest" from Disney's _Beauty and the
Beast_, swells. Cambot zooms in on Tom, who begins to sing:]

TOM: We... need... breasts, we need breasts
to allure and to impress;
to be bouncing in an epic -- dare I say it? -- jiggle-fest!
Our stories -- they're not gripping;
so our fan base has been slipping
and the suits are growing frantic, 'cause they need the
demographic
males eighteen to thirty-four -- they're not watching? Let's show
more!
Start an endless cavalcade of female flesh.
They'll tune in every night if the costumes are tight
to see some breasts, see some breasts, see some breasts.

[ Cambot pulls back, revealing Crow and Mike -- both clad in suits and
ties. Crow is bobbing his head in time, and then begins to sing.]

CROW: Skimpy clothes, negligees,
push-up bras and bustiers;
bosoms bare will swell our share and make our Neilsen ratings
raise;
Bosoms big, bosoms small, but huge breasts are best of all
Our show will be better rated if the cast is well-inflated!
Push 'em up, push 'em out --
What's the fans' big fuss about?
Don't they want the show to be a big success?
So the script's sub-par -- hey, it's got Pon Farr!
If you're stressed, you're repressed
and you don't like heaving chests;
but we love breasts; we need breasts; show some breasts.

TOM: [mournfully]
Our ratings should be bitchin', but we can't beat the
competition;
though we used to lead the Neilsens with aplomb.
TNG once was king of syndication;
on UPN, _Star Trek_'s almost a bomb.
DS9 is going; to keep the cash cow's green milk flowing
we have to boost the new show's ratings some damn way.
And from on high there came the revelation:
[peppy again]
if you want the Neilsen rank up, put Kate Mulgrew in a tank top!

MIKE: Lots of breasts, lots of breasts
-- heck, why bother with the rest?
just appeal with fervent zeal to the old infantile complex.
We need tits, we need ass
write good scripts? -- nah, that won't pass!
To increase the Neilsen talley, shoot on location: Silicone
Valley.
Screw the fans; they're too snide -- just buy space in _TV
Guide_;
turn the show into a titillation-fest.
Publicize that, too (five covers ought to do)
and show some breasts, lots of breasts, heaving breasts.

[Cambot zooms in on Tom again; Mike and Crow vanish from our POV.]

TOM: Here's to breasts, here's to breasts
may they lead us to success
Because our jobs are on the line and we're becoming mighty
stressed.
So each day we tell our chiders
this stuff really worked for _Sliders_
as we cater to the fevered lust for breasts un-cantilevered...

[ Cambot pulls back, revealing Mike and Crow wearing padded bras. They
make feeble attempts to high kick in unison. It isn't pretty.]

TOM: Tit by tit, bun by bun
'till we're back to number one
But until then with the ratings we're obsessed.
If things get more unglued...
why, then we'll just film nude!
Come on, breasts; save us, breasts; here's to breasts!
Oh, please, see our breasts!

Streamers fall from the ceiling. Crow gives one last attempt at a high
kick and falls over. Mike's falsies spill out onto the countertop.


I pretty much gave up on the whole franchise around that time and never looked back.

I admit, sometimes the trailers for the new movie look kinda cool, but I'm still not sold on the idea of re-casting iconic characters and plugging them into a action-flick medium when that's never what Star Trek was supposed to be about. So I guess maybe I'll grab it on DVD someday, when I'm bored.

(And good luck getting that song out of your head anytime soon.)

Edited, May 10th 2009 6:25pm by Ambrya
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're gay, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky gay deception!" --Sue's Corner
#16 May 10 2009 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
83 posts
Just to clarify the reason there was no earth defense's relates to the pat in the movie where captain pike was taken prisoner.
____________________________
Lightfoots lvl 80 Paladin
#17 May 10 2009 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,477 posts
Quote:
Just to clarify the reason there was no earth defense's relates to the pat in the movie where captain pike was taken prisoner.


I remembered that part but still you never leave the castle empty.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#18 May 10 2009 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,894 posts
I didn't like that they created an alternate universe to The Original Series.

Sure, they can go ahead and sculpt the story in the sequels the way they want now, but it's not the same. The characters we know from the series and old movies continue on in their own dimension while this new storyline takes place in another one.

And I didn't like that the space scenes were so quick and violent. I only saw phaser beams being used twice or so, despite being a trademark weapon. The old movies had better spaceship fight scenes, but Abrams' succeeded in making the ships more solid and massive, though. You could feel the size of the ships as they entered and left warp, flew around and fired at each other.

That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships and the Earth being left completely defenseless in the process. And the Vulcans apparently have no planetary defenses, despite having been around for many years and having quite a number of known enemies.

And finally, I wish directors would get a grip and not keep on following in the footsteps of the later Bourne and Bond movies with their close-up melee combat scenes. Watching that sh*t on a bigass screen gave me a headache. Sure, handheld cameras are cool and all, but does the camera guy have to stand in the middle of the fight, trying to film both opponents at the same time while apparently suffering from a bad case of the shakes? And at one point two of the characters are firing their sidearms almost directly at the audience, resulting in some pretty amazing colors and blinking effects. It felt like my brain was about to curl up and die from the contrast.

As a sci-fi action movie, I'll give it good rating despite the bullsh*t camera angles and the lack of proper spaceship fights. Special effects were in the top, so that's a very big plus. As a Star Trek movie, I'll give it less, because while it updates a very outdated and "old school" franchise, it didn't keep with the original storyline. They might as well have called it Star Fight and gone with a completely different cast, because I didn't bond with a single character - well, that's not true, I bonded with Nimoy - due to the whole "this is an alternate reality, omgz" plot.

For a prequel to work, you need to have some sort of relation to the following movies. Imagine if George Lucas had sat down and created A Phantom Menace with it taking place in a different reality where Anakin doesn't become Darth Vader. I wouldn't be able to bond with that either, because I've seen the old movies first and the newer movies should lead up to the old ones, not create new storylines.

It's also why I had a hard time accepting the new Batman and Bond movies. Didn't help that the Bond movies were absolute crap either.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#19 May 11 2009 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,879 posts
It was a decent enough action movie - I think the Onion summed it up best - http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

Not being a Trekky I don't mind that they completely rewrote the canon to create a new Star Trek universe for them to exploit.

Now, just for fun, the geek argument -

Quote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships


Yes, how unrealistic that a ship with technology 100 years more advanced that was designed to strip mine planets could so easily destroy a bunch of ships that were only 5% of its size - you know, just how it'd be unrealistic that a modern battleship would be able to take out the entire British Royal Fleet from the year 1900.

As for the old space battles being more excited - lol - they were about as exciting as watching two mages stand toe to toe and then try to beat each other to death with Brewfest mugs.
#20 May 11 2009 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,225 posts
I came out of the movie and wondered a couple of things:

1) What happened to the black holes? You've got one in the neutral zone and one where Vulcan was so surely they'll destabilize the universe pretty quick?

2) Isn't it a bit daft to put the "don't let a phone ruin a movie" advert for Orange on just before the movie? I mean, the whole premise of the advert is that re-envisioning a movie is a bad idea and what's this Star Trek thing about? It's re-envisioning the whole Star Trek series - old characters, old timeline, new plot, new premise.

Apart from that, I loved it.
____________________________
Firelox

#21 May 11 2009 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,894 posts
rusttle wrote:
Not being a Trekky I don't mind that they completely rewrote the canon to create a new Star Trek universe for them to exploit.


I'm not a Trekkie either, but I still think it's bullsh*t when you make a prequel that takes place in another dimension. I mean, what the hell?

rusttle wrote:
Quote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships


Yes, how unrealistic that a ship with technology 100 years more advanced that was designed to strip mine planets could so easily destroy a bunch of ships that were only 5% of its size - you know, just how it'd be unrealistic that a modern battleship would be able to take out the entire British Royal Fleet from the year 1900.


There's a difference. The mining vessel isn't a battleship. And the mining vessel was attacking entire PLANETS.

Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?

The mining vessel in the movie is larger and I'm assuming it has more advanced shielding. That doesn't mean you can't use the brain a wee bit. They're able to beam through the shields and into the ship, right? Okay, beam a huge freakin' bomb into the ship and GTFO. Problem solved.

I'm sure whatever country our truck from earlier decided to attack would send a bomb of some kind against it. Let's see, what arsenal did we possess in 1909? Dynamite was invented in 1866-67 by Nobel. I guess a stick of dynamite would just bounce right off that baby, huh? Hmm, in the 18th century the Howitzer cannon was invented. I wonder what a cannon capable of firing shots up to a mile would do to our truck.

rusttle wrote:
As for the old space battles being more excited - lol - they were about as exciting as watching two mages stand toe to toe and then try to beat each other to death with Brewfest mugs.


Didn't say they were more exciting, but they weren't so hectic and the camera guy didn't suffer from Parkinson's. You had time to notice the details, like in Star Wars. It gave it a feeling of being an actual fight. In the new movie, regardless of how much the shield is up, ships get blown to pieces. You see debris everywhere, decks are being ripped apart and some guy on the bridge still yells "Shields at 31%, Captain!" 31% what? 31% chance of working? Or does it only block 31% of the damage? How can a shield be at 31% when clearly the ship is being shot to sh*t?

Point is, I don't need to be bombarded with visual and audible stimuli for the entire duration of the battle scenes. If the shield is at 31%, it's okay to show that the phases go *pew* on the shield and bounce right off. I don't need debris and explosions to make the experience great. Less is sometimes more.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#22 May 11 2009 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
****
7,477 posts
Mazra wrote:
rusttle wrote:
Not being a Trekky I don't mind that they completely rewrote the canon to create a new Star Trek universe for them to exploit.



I'm not a Trekkie either, but I still think it's bullsh*t when you make a prequel that takes place in another dimension. I mean, what the hell?


I agree more with rusttle on this. If they had gone with a strict Star Trek cannon approach it would have been to hard to folow for non-Trekkies and they also would have been too constrained it what they were allowed to do creatively with the movie.

Mazra wrote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships and the Earth being left completely defenseless in the process. And the Vulcans apparently have no planetary defenses, despite having been around for many years and having quite a number of known enemies.


I have to agree. Future tech aside I still find it hard to swallow.

As for the shields at 31%, in the older shows didn't that mean they still worked but the ship just kind of shook around a bit from the impact and the actors would hold on to something and act like they had seizures?

edit:quote failure

Edited, May 11th 2009 2:33pm by Horsemouth
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#23 May 11 2009 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,677 posts
Leodis wrote:
I came out of the movie and wondered a couple of things:

1) What happened to the black holes? You've got one in the neutral zone and one where Vulcan was so surely they'll destabilize the universe pretty quick?


Gravity's effect moves at the speed of light. It will destabilise the galaxy, sure, but Space is Big, and they'll have minimal effect at range, even after they reach there.
____________________________
Beohrn -- 85 druid
Brandmanen -- 85 Hunter

"Skill is a measure of how fast a player can turn experience into competence." -- Anedris, EJ forums
"The warrior acts, the fool reacts"

Please pardon the ego, it keeps getting stuck in doorways. I'm working on it.
#24 May 11 2009 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
Does it from behind...
Avatar
*****
13,048 posts
Mazra wrote:
I wonder what a cannon capable of firing shots up to a mile would do to our truck.

Er, probably not much from a mile away. Would take a couple seconds (probably more than 5) for the shell to land; either the truck would have to be stationary, or it would have to not steer at all.

Were it closer, yeah; duh. Howitzers were generally used to break up troop formations and hit stationary objects, though. Because ground troops don't move at 40+ MPH.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#25 May 11 2009 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,894 posts
Horsemouth wrote:
As for the shields at 31%, in the older shows didn't that mean they still worked but the ship just kind of shook around a bit from the impact and the actors would hold on to something and act like they had seizures?


Yes. It meant that the strength of the shield was at 31%. The charge on the battery, if you will. The more pressure was put on the shield, the more power it needed in order to hold, thus draining the shield "batteries" faster. Once it reached 0% the hull would take the pounding. In the movie you hear that the shield is still holding, because someone mentions that they won't be able to handle another hit, yet, the ship is already shot to pieces. Oh, great shield. I'm guessing they went for a sort of buffer approach where the shield absorbs some of the damage, meaning it can handle several hits instead of just one, but it still gets beat up.

Horsemouth wrote:
I agree more with rusttle on this. If they had gone with a strict Star Trek cannon approach it would have been to hard to folow for non-Trekkies and they also would have been too constrained it what they were allowed to do creatively with the movie.


Why use the Star Trek universe if they want to cater to the non-Trekkies? Strip the Star Trek theme and you've got your basic sci-fi movie. Kid has father issues due to father dying early, kid learns resonsibility, kid befriends former enemy. I mean, if you gave it a high school theme instead and slapped some cheesy songs on it, you could sell the rights to Disney Channel for big bucks.

In my opinion, this movie is a great sci-fi movie that someone dipped in the Star Trek theme bucket in order to sell it to the massive Star Trek fanbase out there. They might as well have called it Star Wars and claimed that it was the alternate reality of the events taking place in Episode 5, Return of the Empire. Would have made just as much sense to me. Ooh, the Empire invented a huge mining vessel that drills holes in planets in order to implode them with liquified Force.

If you haven't seen the old movies, or found the old movies dull, you probably wouldn't care. Hell, if the movie had better special effects, you might just like it over the cheesy humor and mediocre acting in the original, but for a fan like me, it would make about as much sense as if they had called the movie Star Trek and claimed that it was an alternate reality of the events taking place before the television series.

In simpler words, if you've seen the show Lassie, imagine if someone redid the show, but used a pitbull terrier instead and justified it with alternate realities. Yeah.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#26 May 11 2009 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
****
7,477 posts
Quote:
this movie is a great sci-fi movie that someone dipped in the Star Trek theme bucket in order to sell it to the massive Star Trek fanbase out there


Plus since their is a large amount of existing thematic and conceptual work is all ready done the movie's creators don't have to do that either.

Hollywood doesn't really put much thought into movies Maz.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#27 May 11 2009 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,894 posts
Theophany wrote:
Er, probably not much from a mile away.


And from ten feet away?

What pisses me off the most is that the various people behind the movie use pretty much this excuse about the alternate reality thing:

Horsemouth wrote:
If they had gone with a strict Star Trek cannon approach it would have been to hard to folow for non-Trekkies


How? How would it be any different from what they created now? They could've made the movie canon and still made it easy to understand. I fail to see how non-Trekkies would just sit there and stare at 120 minutes of special effects and action without understanding any of it. The things in the movie that aren't canon have no impact on the understanding of the Star Trek universe but rather on how the story unfolds.

To me, creating this story in an alternate reality was pointless, because all in all it just gave them the opportunity to blow up a planet that shouldn't have been blown up and kill a guy who shouldn't have been killed. It's not like they used this alternate reality to completely redo the entire Star Trek franchise. Tricorders are still tricorders, phasers are still phasers.

Besides, it's a prequel. It's supposed to be an introduction to the next movies. By definition it would have to be explanatory, because normally you'd watch the prequel first. This is the movie where we are presented the cast of the following series and movies. People who have never heard of Star Trek should be able to see this movie and get a basic understanding of who's the bad guy and who's the good guy.

I can only hope that Peter Jackson doesn't follow in these footsteps when he creates The Hobbit.

"Oh, we wanted to cater to the non-LOTR fans, so we created this anomaly within the story which actually splits the dimensions, creating an alternate reality in which Saruman is a cyborg, the Shire gets blown up and Frodo dies halfway through Mordor, leaving Sam to finish the job instead. This should make the LOTR universe easier to understand for non-fans."

Smiley: dubious

Horsemouth wrote:
and they also would have been too constrained it what they were allowed to do creatively with the movie.


God forbid a director should have to live with boundaries. You know what gives complete creative freedom? Not using an existing brand for your production. You might have a harder time selling tickets, but you wouldn't have upset fans to deal with either.

If JJ Abrams can't create a movie within boundaries, he's a sh*tty director. I've seen his movies and watched his television shows and I know that he's not. So what the hell went wrong?

Edited, May 11th 2009 10:30pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#28 May 11 2009 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
2,590 posts
Mazra wrote:
"Oh, we wanted to cater to the non-LOTR fans, so we created this anomaly within the story which actually splits the dimensions, creating an alternate reality in which Saruman is a cyborg Decepticon, the Shire gets blown up and Frodo dies halfway through Mordor, leaving Sam to finish the job instead. This should make the LOTR universe easier to understand for non-fans."


Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Moon Guard (Alliance) & Wyrmrest Accord (Both Factions)
#29 May 11 2009 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
Does it from behind...
Avatar
*****
13,048 posts
Mazra wrote:
Theophany wrote:
Er, probably not much from a mile away.


And from ten feet away?

From ten feet away I'm just gonna guess that a gatling gun would rape the sh*t out of a howitzer.

You know, the whole firing a hundred rounds a second thing might put a few holes in stuff. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#30 May 11 2009 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
*
129 posts
Mazra wrote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships and the Earth being left completely defenseless in the process.


If you're interested, you can look up the series of four comic books they released to lead up to the movie - they're called Star Trek: Countdown, and it's basically the story of the stuff that Spock was telling Kirk in the mind-meld. Part of what they explain is that after the destruction of Romulus, the mining ship is retrofitted with some technology that was reverse-engineered from the Borg, which is what made it so formidable. I'm not sure which came first - the movie, or this little backstory, but some part of me believes that someone wrote this to fill in the plot holes after the movie was finished. :P

My feeling on the movie is: I think it injected some fresh blood in to the franchise. Sure, they could have written the same plot with completely different characters and not made it a Star Trek movie at all, but this is hardly the first time that a series or franchise has been "re-imagined" in order to bring in as broad an audience as possible (Battlestar Galactica comes to mind).

I consider myself a Trekkie, but in my opinion the franchise has been stale for years. They can't make any more movies with the Next Generation cast; they wrote most of the characters off the ship in previous movies and other canon. Enterprise was a flop and got lambasted by the fan base for messing with continuity too often. You could put together a whole new crew, a whole new ship, set it within the same time frame as any of the other shows or movies but in a different location (thus preserving canon by simply avoiding it), but then calling it "Star Trek" is even more of a stunt than it was for this movie.

One way that Star Trek differs from Star Wars is that it (Trek) has a lot more material that the canon is based on. Star Wars had three movies and a handful of other media (books, games, etc.), so making the prequels was less troublesome from a continuity perspective. Trek has multiple shows with multiple seasons, movies, comic books, etc., and legions of fans that know all of it backwards and forwards. If they wrote a scene in which Kirk sneezed, some dude somewhere is going to pull up some obscure reference to why it never should have happened.

At one point in the film, Kirk tells future-Spock that going back in time and changing history was "cheating." So, yeah, I think the filmmakers knew that. But I also think that this gives them a lot more creative license for sequels or whatever else comes next. They can keep the iconic characters, keep their personalities and relationships, but give them new adventures without completely trampling everything people know about Star Trek.
____________________________
In the beginning, God sighed, cracked his knuckles and said, "Welp. Better get started." And there was Monday.
#31 May 11 2009 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
**
809 posts
Mazra wrote:
And finally, I wish directors would get a grip and not keep on following in the footsteps of the later Bourne and Bond movies with their close-up melee combat scenes. Watching that sh*t on a bigass screen gave me a headache. Sure, handheld cameras are cool and all, but does the camera guy have to stand in the middle of the fight, trying to film both opponents at the same time while apparently suffering from a bad case of the shakes?


This is my only real complaint. Bond movies I didnt mind this way, but this was Warp speed beyond Bond movie hash.

OrionsByte wrote:
If they wrote a scene in which Kirk sneezed, some dude somewhere is going to pull up some obscure reference to why it never should have happened.


ROFL (sad, but true)

OrionsByte wrote:
At one point in the film, Kirk tells future-Spock that going back in time and changing history was "cheating." So, yeah, I think the filmmakers knew that. But I also think that this gives them a lot more creative license for sequels or whatever else comes next. They can keep the iconic characters, keep their personalities and relationships, but give them new adventures without completely trampling everything people know about Star Trek.


This is my overall feeling of the movie. I've not the time to read/scour dozens of dozens of novels just to bicker with a Star Trek movie story that -did- claim to be "historically" true, if they were to make one.

My list of arguments/counter-arguments:

1- Vulcan philosophy is thru non-violence and diplomacy. Despite it's impracticality, I have no expectation they would have any militarized fleet/defenses.

2- Earth forces are where? Heard Cpt. Pike mention it, and no idea wth that's about. "Never leave the castle empty" sounds about right. /boggle

3- Black holes not more destructive? Being "artificially" created, I chalk it upto artistic license. Hell, they did it for ST3/4 (the Genesis Device) ...

4- Kobyashi Maru ... where's Kirk's award for "creative thinking"? Alternate realities heh ... not everything's quite the same :P
____________________________
"...for he suffers the worst fate he can know, and that is to know that he dies."
#32 May 11 2009 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Mazra wrote:
...everything that has been rattling around in my brain that I've been unable to put into words about the concept behind this new (theoretically) Star Trek movie...


Yeah, what Mazra said. Thank you, Mazra, for finally expressing what has been troubling me about this "re-imagining" of the Star Trek franchise since the day I learned about it.
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're gay, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky gay deception!" --Sue's Corner
#33 May 11 2009 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
2,590 posts
Well, I'm heading out to go have dinner and then see the movie, so I suppose I'll be able to voice an opinion on it when I get back.

*crosses fingers for awesomeness*
____________________________
Moon Guard (Alliance) & Wyrmrest Accord (Both Factions)
#34 May 11 2009 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,255 posts
What Orionsbyte said.


Azaza wrote:
1- Vulcan philosophy is thru non-violence and diplomacy. Despite it's impracticality, I have no expectation they would have any militarized fleet/defenses.

2- Earth forces are where? Heard Cpt. Pike mention it, and no idea wth that's about. "Never leave the castle empty" sounds about right. /boggle

3- Black holes not more destructive? Being "artificially" created, I chalk it upto artistic license. Hell, they did it for ST3/4 (the Genesis Device) ...

4- Kobyashi Maru ... where's Kirk's award for "creative thinking"? Alternate realities heh ... not everything's quite the same :P


2)Earth had a nigh impenetrable(somehow, I get the feeling I spelled that incorrectly) defensive grid. Phaser emplacements on the ground, a space station, etc. No single ship should have been able to defeat it, so they made the tactical mistake of not planning that someone would find a way around it. Totally plausible.

3)Black holes are only as destructive as the amount of matter that's in them. Look up micro-singularities and the LHC. Many scientists believe that even if artificial singularities are created by the device, they'd do little to no damage to the earth despite being within the planet itself. So the science of that portion is actually pretty sound.

4)Perhaps his father, who was alive in the original, had something to do with his award?

Mazra wrote:
rusttle wrote:
Quote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships


Yes, how unrealistic that a ship with technology 100 years more advanced that was designed to strip mine planets could so easily destroy a bunch of ships that were only 5% of its size - you know, just how it'd be unrealistic that a modern battleship would be able to take out the entire British Royal Fleet from the year 1900.


There's a difference. The mining vessel isn't a battleship. And the mining vessel was attacking entire PLANETS.

Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?

The mining vessel in the movie is larger and I'm assuming it has more advanced shielding. That doesn't mean you can't use the brain a wee bit. They're able to beam through the shields and into the ship, right? Okay, beam a huge freakin' bomb into the ship and GTFO. Problem solved.

I'm sure whatever country our truck from earlier decided to attack would send a bomb of some kind against it. Let's see, what arsenal did we possess in 1909? Dynamite was invented in 1866-67 by Nobel. I guess a stick of dynamite would just bounce right off that baby, huh? Hmm, in the 18th century the Howitzer cannon was invented. I wonder what a cannon capable of firing shots up to a mile would do to our truck.


Earth's defensive grid was offline or otherwise set to not attack the ship because Nero overrode it with Captain Pike's command codes. They didn't have the option to zerg the ship because the fleet was elsewhere. At best, they had a half dozen ships fighting against the thing. Surely a guy with a gatling gun could defeat a dozen guys on horseback. Especially considering the rate at which technology is advancing nowadays. Innovations are coming faster and faster.

I actually have more trouble with the whole beaming thing because you aren't able to beam through shields without knowing the modulation, but take it as you will.


Wikipedia wrote:
Visuals in LCARS displays and various accounts by characters imply that shields operate by emitting a layer of energy distortion containing a high concentration of gravitons around the object (such as a ship or city) to be protected. Shield energies can be emitted from a localized antenna or "dish" (such as a ship's navigational deflector) or from a network of "grid" emitters laid out on the object's surface (such as a ship's hull).

Shields can be lessened by repeated attacks, and can go offline completely. Prolonged exposure to hazards weakens the shields and may eventually cause them to collapse.[1][2] Shields may not be effective against certain types of weapons. For example, until upgrades to Starfleet shield technology, shields were completely ineffective against the phased polaron weapons of Dominion ships.


Shields are often thought of as multiple overlapping layers emitted from multiple emitters. 31% shields means that about 31% of the emitters are online, or those online are emitting only 31% strength. When the shields take a hit, pressure is exerted upon them, damaging emitters and often harming the stuff below them, especially the structural integrity field. The ship doesn't have to be actually damaged. What happens is that often, all that is keeping the ship together in places due to the extreme stresses placed upon them is the SIF. When it takes damage, some things just kinda...fall apart. So when the field emitters fail due to damage to the surrounding shields, the ship takes some damage.

There's actually an episode of DS9 where the SIF fails in a part of the station and some bulkheads rip open with no external damage.


Edited, May 11th 2009 9:23pm by Poldaran
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#35 May 11 2009 at 9:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
2,590 posts
Okay, just got back (and since this is the Star Trek thread and not the "OMG Kate's dinner was amazing" thread I shall focus on the movie).

First, I would like to say that it seemed an awful lot like some Uhura/Spock shippers got together for a communal fanwank, and decided that it would make a really good movie. Myself, I'm not too happy with Spock as the woobie. (Yeah, three links. Beat that, Poldaran.)

That said, it's not a bad movie--in fact it's quite good, but it did seem as though those not raised on Star Trek might have a bit of trouble really getting everything that was going on. It was more like a plot twist than an original plot, but then it was advertised as a prequel so I suppose that's fair (and calling it a prequel rather than a revision probably helped bring the fans in).

What interests me most is where they plan to go with this next. It's pretty clear that they set this up for sequels, but they've got a couple ways of doing that, and I am hoping that they go with a tv series, at least at first, rather than sticking to sequel movies. The Star Trek universe really can't support the high level of stress that would be needed to keep movies coming one after the other--they had to blow up a freaking planet to get the desired effect this time--but it does lend itself very well to a sitcom in space with lasers and the occasional alien. With this "new" timeline they have the chance to create a new series with "familiar" characters, and given how overwhelmingly positive the responses have been (95% on Rotten Tomatoes), I doubt they'd have trouble attracting viewers. They could do it, and do it well.

If, on the other hand, they choose to stick to movies for their sequels, I don't see it going well. Not that they shouldn't ever make more movies--its simply that the amount of action required to keep a movie interesting doesn't seem to mesh well with the amount of character development needed to make the audience feel invested in the characters. A tv series would solve the problem by allowing the character development to occur without cutting into explosion time--I think that's the only thing that kept the Next Generation movies from being completely horrible.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
____________________________
Moon Guard (Alliance) & Wyrmrest Accord (Both Factions)
#36 May 12 2009 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
**
370 posts
Horsemouth wrote:
Quote:
Just to clarify the reason there was no earth defense's relates to the pat in the movie where captain pike was taken prisoner.


I remembered that part but still you never leave the castle empty.


This was also addressed:

early on they referred to most of the fleet being involved in some miltary action or other. When they thought vulcan was suffering some natural disaster, every available ship was sent there, including those like the enterprise that were finished in a hurry, because they thought they needed to evac 6 billion people. when they showed up, they were wiped out by the romulans, leaving the enterprise the only survivor since they were 5 min behind due to sulus mess up. So there were no military ships, and earth's static defense grid was presumably deactivated by the codes they got from Pike. I thought this was handled fine.
#37 May 12 2009 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
224 posts
Saw this over the weekend.

My opinion: Had it just been a Star Trek movie, with new characters, not tied to existing ones (aside from the inevitable cameo), it'd have been a great movie. As it stands, it was good, but fell short of great.

As for casting:

Kirk wasn't Kirk. He had all of the the cocky overconfidant bull-headedness, but not the presence. Came across more of a dick than anything else. Sure, Shatner's Kirk was hot-headed at times, but he was grounded too. None of that here. They may blame that on the changes to his upbringing, but it just came off as awful to me.

Sylar as Spock did well, although there were quite a few times he seemed to break character. Overall not a bad job.

Scotty was horribly under-used, and came off as a goofy sidekick. His pet Jawa/Hairless Ewok/thing didn't help, although I'm sure it made some of the kiddies giggle. COuld have been used better.

Sulu was OK. They really stressed his bad-ass fighting skills over everything else - which I only remember coming into play in a couple episodes of the original series. Nothing glaringly bad here, just a bit under-developed.

Chekov was trying too hard, and it showed. His speech in the original was a little goofy, but not to the extent they played it up here. Had they left it at just the "recognition" gag, and not stretched it out as the most defining aspect of his character, he would have come across better, IMHO.

Uhura would have been fine, aside from the whole Spock thing, which seemed more creepy than anything else.

McCoy was by far the best of the bunch. He sure didn't look the part, but he had the mannerisms and speech down *cold*. Definitely my favorite of the new cast.

As for plot, it really seemed like they took a few too many shortcuts to add "action". The whole ice planet chase as the most glaring example of this. (Also never saw a precedent for spacing someone for insubordination...that really seemed to come out of left field)

"Red Matter". Really? Couldn't come up with any sort of actual...you know...NAME for the stuff? Hell, this is fracking STAR TREK - they practically invented giving stuff ludicrous names! Here, I'll try: "Tachyon-compressed Nano-Scale Phlebonium", "Unstable Schwartzian Hydro-Molecular Compound" - See? Not that hard!

Spock's smarter than to fly around the galaxy with about a million times more than what he needed, too. Especially considering what the stuff was capable of.

The Romulan ties Nero claimed to have seemed...forced. He really didn't look, act, or otherwise seem to *be* a Romulan, at least so far as Romulans have been portrayed thusfar. Neither did his subordinates.

No Klingons. At all. =(

I did like the new/old phasers with the flip-around stun/kill bits. Almost steampunk-ish.
#38 May 12 2009 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,879 posts
Quote:
There's a difference. The mining vessel isn't a battleship. And the mining vessel was attacking entire PLANETS.


The mining vessel was designed to strip mine planets so no big deal.

Quote:
Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?


Horrifically bad analogy - you're talking a single man versus an entire ship. Think of that old sci-fi movie in which an aircraft carrier is accidentally sucked into WWII right before the bombing of Pearl Harbor - the captain and his officers note that they could easily change the results of the war, not just stopping the attack, but taking out the entire Japanese fleet.

This is on par with Star Trek - recall that the mining ship's missiles were practically one-shotting the Federation ships just as a modern fighter's anti-ship missiles could easily one-shot a WWII vessel.

Quote:
The mining vessel in the movie is larger and I'm assuming it has more advanced shielding. That doesn't mean you can't use the brain a wee bit. They're able to beam through the shields and into the ship, right? Okay, beam a huge freakin' bomb into the ship and GTFO. Problem solved.


LOL - I take it that this is the first time you've ever watched a Star Trek movie (and that you've never seen any of the multiple TV series) as you'd of known that you can't teleport stuff through shields, otherwise, everyone would be doing that to each other every fight.

Quote:
I'm sure whatever country our truck from earlier decided to attack would send a bomb of some kind against it. Let's see, what arsenal did we possess in 1909? Dynamite was invented in 1866-67 by Nobel. I guess a stick of dynamite would just bounce right off that baby, huh? Hmm, in the 18th century the Howitzer cannon was invented. I wonder what a cannon capable of firing shots up to a mile would do to our truck.


Yawn - ridiculously unfair analogy again unless we assume that the truck in question must be a thousand feet tall and a mile long in which case, yeah, the stick of dynamite isn't going to have much effect against it.
#39 May 13 2009 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
658 posts
isyris wrote:
the woobie


First: /snicker

Second: My summer just flashed before my eyes. I'm going to be stuck reading that website for weeks.

I don't know whether to thank you or hate you.

:)
____________________________
Be who you are and say what you feel, for those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

-Dr. Seuss
#40 May 13 2009 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,255 posts
Laecy wrote:
Second: My summer just flashed before my eyes. I'm going to be stuck reading that website for weeks.


Welcome to the world of Tvtropes. We all read it. It takes over your life. Run while you still can.


Protip: It's too late. You're trapped now.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#41 May 13 2009 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?


There was this novel published by Harry Turtledove called "The Guns of the South". The plot is simple: Time Travelers from the 21st century go back to 1865 before Lee surrendered and gives him and the Army of Northern Virginia AK-47s. They then proceed to completely mop up the North.

Superior technology always prevails in a battle.

Technology grows at an exponential rate, and we're talking 129 years of difference. Think of how far computers have come in the past 10 years. Multiply that by 13.

Now, think about it. We're talking a moving, armored truck with a high velocity machine gun on it, against soldiers on horseback with a six shooter and a Winchester bolt action rifle. The psychological advantage is huge, not to mention superior maneuvering and incredibly superior firepower. The only way to take it out would be to either use a damn cannon on it or get close enough to plant some TNT.

Now, in the new film's case, they have shields. Think about how advanced anything we know of today would be 129 years in the future.

If I remember, the ship was undone by the Red Matter, not by the Enterprise. Therefore, the mining truck in your analogy would only be undone if somehow it overheated and the ammo case for the Gatling gun blew and ruptured the fuel line, creating a gas explosion.
____________________________
"Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible c*** : me."
#42 May 13 2009 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Ok I saw it. And now I'm going to bitch a bit, but first I want to preceed with the fact that I liked it very much. Yes its different from the original series, and that is ok with me. It was a completely different take, and that's ok when it works, and this did.

Now first of all, I agree that the lack of shields was annoying. In the original/NG/DS9/etc there were shields, things hit the shields, they flickered etc. Now its one thing for an advanced futuristic ship to have weaponry that can bypass shields, but why is the guy calling out the shielding and why is it being depleted if they're going right through it? Now that wasn't too bad.

But what was really bad is when the enterprise leaves warp right in the rubble of all the ships that got shot to crap and the first thing they do is put up their shield. Smart right? Then why the heck do their shields not push the debris away and prevent it from scouring their warp nacelle? I swear its like the shields simply didn't exist.

Oh and speaking of shooting through shields. It bothered me too that this mining vessel was kicking the ass of an entire fleet of federation ships. Being a mining vessel it shouldn't have been so strong. They should have had the guy hijack a remaining Romulan warbird or something.

Also about the earth being defenseless. Sure the guy may have found a way to bypass emergency sensors and automated defenses, but there sure as hell should have been plenty of other ships around. Earth is the center of Starfleet! I mean it'd be like a submarine getting past all of the SONAR systems into San Francisco harbor then popping up here I am! And _nobody_ being around to say 'hey what is that Russian sub doing with the big red welding beam!'

Heck look when the Borg made it to the Solar System, that was pretty damn awesome and handled much better.


Ok anyways, that being said, the people they cast were great. The guy who played Spock, to me, was as good or better than Leonard Nimoy. The guy who played Kirk was a little over the top on brashness, I wish they had had him tone that down just a little. I loved that they had the Kobiashi Maru scene in there from original canon, but he shouldn't have been so nonchelant about it. That's not Kirk.

I also liked the new look for Romulans. It fits, to me, even better than the original portrayal of them.
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#43 May 13 2009 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
BillyRayValentine wrote:
Quote:
Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?


There was this novel published by Harry Turtledove called "The Guns of the South". The plot is simple: Time Travelers from the 21st century go back to 1865 before Lee surrendered and gives him and the Army of Northern Virginia AK-47s. They then proceed to completely mop up the North.

Superior technology always prevails in a battle.



Um, lots of AK-47s. Military guns. They didn't give them an oil platform. liiiittle difference. Here, go beat a band of invading Romans with this here cell phone, it's superior technology! like 10x more years advanced than the mining ship compared to the federation!
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#44 May 13 2009 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
****
9,575 posts
digitalcraft, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
BillyRayValentine wrote:
Quote:
Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?


There was this novel published by Harry Turtledove called "The Guns of the South". The plot is simple: Time Travelers from the 21st century go back to 1865 before Lee surrendered and gives him and the Army of Northern Virginia AK-47s. They then proceed to completely mop up the North.

Superior technology always prevails in a battle.



Um, lots of AK-47s. Military guns. They didn't give them an oil platform. liiiittle difference. Here, go beat a band of invading Romans with this here cell phone, it's superior technology! like 10x more years advanced than the mining ship compared to the federation!


It's a mining ship designed to strip-mine entire planets and utterly massive. Presumably some of the armaments are to fight off pirates who might be interested in whatever heavy metals it has or reworked mining tools, but it's not exactly unreasonable to take "things used to blow apart large mountains" and then turn them into weapons. It's not getting sent back in time with a cell phone, it's getting sent back in time with a walking mecha out of Metal Gear and dropped in the War of 1812; huge, redundant systems, some armaments to discourage pirates (keep in mind it was at least powerful enough to force Spock's ubership to surrender) and enough raw mass to dwarf any real opposition.

If you want a plothole/annoyance, my personal one is that they didn't think to use the phasers as a point defense system in the first battle until it was too late (saving the shuttles, not the ship). That might have been a configuration/software issues I suppose, but it did but the hell out of me... mostly because point defense systems sound and are quite awesome. Overall I really enjoyed the movie, though.

Oh, and Simon Pegg really nailed Scotty. I wish he'd been in more of the movie.
____________________________
Nomepunter

Forum Rules
Guide to Macros
Warrior FAQ

Don't worry - I'm smarter than you.
#45 May 14 2009 at 11:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,255 posts
RPZip wrote:
Oh, and Simon Pegg really nailed Scotty. I wish he'd been in more of the movie.


This. I don't think that there's another actor out there who would have made a better Scotty.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#46 May 15 2009 at 2:53 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
658 posts
Poldaran wrote:
Welcome to the world of Tvtropes. We all read it. It takes over your life. Run while you still can.


Protip: It's too late. You're trapped now.




O.O


I thought I was an internet veteran. I thought I'd seen what there was to see. I had a co-worker who was a big fan of 4chan, so I thought I could "been there done that" just about anything.

I was very wrong.
____________________________
Be who you are and say what you feel, for those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

-Dr. Seuss
#47 May 15 2009 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,255 posts
Laecy wrote:
Poldaran wrote:
Welcome to the world of Tvtropes. We all read it. It takes over your life. Run while you still can.


Protip: It's too late. You're trapped now.




O.O


I thought I was an internet veteran. I thought I'd seen what there was to see. I had a co-worker who was a big fan of 4chan, so I thought I could "been there done that" just about anything.

I was very wrong.

Wave goodbye to any work you planned to get done today. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#48 May 15 2009 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
***
2,919 posts
Mazra wrote:
For a prequel to work, you need to have some sort of relation to the following movies. Imagine if George Lucas had sat down and created A Phantom Menace with it taking place in a different reality where Anakin doesn't become Darth Vader. I wouldn't be able to bond with that either, because I've seen the old movies first and the newer movies should lead up to the old ones, not create new storylines.


There's a prequel and then there's a prequel. 'Fire walk with me' is a prequel to the Twin Peaks series, but if you'ld watch it before having seen the series, you'll just ruin the series for yourself. I don't recall this movie ever being promoted as a prequel though, I sure as heck didn't enter the theater expecting one.

Yes, they pretty much changed the entire Star Trek universe, to be honest it was about the only thing left to do. Creating a prequel that would truly fit in with the continuity could have been made, would it have been a better movie, who knows? Everyone knows what happened with Star Wars, I hope everyone realises how lucky we were Lucas wasn't involved or all we'ld see were moronic chases on ice planets and idiotic sidekicks, granted they were in this movie too, but thankfully only briefly.

There are several problems with the movie: why all that red materia? why no real defense of Earth that can be triggered if necessary (and can't be turned off just by entering a code a mere space ship captain knows)? why that idiotic chase on that ice planet, for that matter why marooning a federation citizen when there are tranquilizers and jails?

All in all, a very enjoyable movie though. And it's good to see that they kept the tradition of the redcoats going!


Edited, May 16th 2009 10:05am by Zieveraar
____________________________


#49 May 15 2009 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,255 posts
Zieveraar wrote:
for that matter why marooning a federation citizen when there are tranquilizers and jails?


Because Spock was in a terrible emotional state and decided to be a dick. As seen later, he really isn't in any state to be in charge. Smiley: nod

Zieveraar wrote:
All in all, a very enjoyable movie though. And it's good to see that they kept the tradition of the redcoats going!


Red SHIRTS, friend. Redcoats are something else entirely. Smiley: wink

Edited, May 16th 2009 1:54am by Poldaran
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#50 May 16 2009 at 12:05 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,919 posts
Quote:
Zieveraar wrote:
All in all, a very enjoyable movie though. And it's good to see that they kept the tradition of the redcoats going!


Red SHIRTS, friend. Redcoats are something else entirely. Smiley: wink

Edited, May 16th 2009 1:54am by Poldaran


Oh yeah, a stupid mistake to make!

I blame the movie "Zulu" for that mistake Smiley: grin

Edited, May 16th 2009 10:27am by Zieveraar

Edited, May 16th 2009 10:35am by Zieveraar
____________________________


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
Karlina, Rukkuss, Anonymous Guests (33)