Just seen the Star Trek Movie

Grant Lamontagne · **Reply #60 on:** May 20, 2009, 08:15:56 PM

Yes, no, maybe and sideways...

There are inconsistancies- there are supposed to be inconsistancies. They said that it's an alternate time line, which is a concept that no Trek fan can insist is not plausible. After all, how many times have they mucked with their own timeline, whether it's picking up whales from hundreds of years earlier, to meeting up with evil versions of themselves (you can tell they are evil, they have beards!

) to having Worf and Sisco somehow end up back in the old Tribble episode!

I find it somewhat liberating really, because it allows the writers to explore different options rather than trying to rehash the story over and over and make sure that every inconsistency be addressed somehow.

Terminator is another one like that- they keep mucking with the timeline, but they also keep pointing out that the timeline is mutable, subject to change. Certain things (like Judgement Day) are going to happen, but the circumstances by which they happen can change, as can the timing. Linear film writing is a dying art, and I'm glad for it!

Def

Gareth · **Reply #61 on:** May 21, 2009, 12:57:30 AM

Quote

(you can tell they are evil, they have beards! )

Now hang on, I have a beard and in no way could you say I'm.......

....OK I take your point.

Mike, Lord of the Spammers! · **Reply #62 on:** May 21, 2009, 07:27:04 AM

So do I, nd everyone know's i'm an Angel

cliosguy · **Reply #63 on:** May 21, 2009, 07:29:20 AM

you got that wrong buddy, youre Micky I AM Angel

Mike, Lord of the Spammers! · **Reply #64 on:** May 21, 2009, 07:30:18 AM

Quote from: cliosguy on May 21, 2009, 07:29:20 AM

you got that wrong buddy, youre Micky I AM Angel

Sorry, my bad

sardauker · **Reply #65 on:** May 21, 2009, 01:56:01 PM

Quote from: Grant Lamontagne on May 20, 2009, 08:15:56 PM

Yes, no, maybe and sideways...

There are inconsistancies- there are supposed to be inconsistancies. They said that it's an alternate time line, which is a concept that no Trek fan can insist is not plausible. After all, how many times have they mucked with their own timeline, whether it's picking up whales from hundreds of years earlier, to meeting up with evil versions of themselves (you can tell they are evil, they have beards! ) to having Worf and Sisco somehow end up back in the old Tribble episode!

I find it somewhat liberating really, because it allows the writers to explore different options rather than trying to rehash the story over and over and make sure that every inconsistency be addressed somehow.

Terminator is another one like that- they keep mucking with the timeline, but they also keep pointing out that the timeline is mutable, subject to change. Certain things (like Judgement Day) are going to happen, but the circumstances by which they happen can change, as can the timing. Linear film writing is a dying art, and I'm glad for it!

Def

I can agree about the alternate timeline, really, even I don't like it and I can't understand how Kirk's father death could change Spock career.
but...
I don't agree making Scott a clown.
I don't agree Spock becoming bipolar and schizophrenic, just to make Kirk rule the Enterprise.
I don't a agree a black hole being a time tunnel. It's an error the good Gene had never done. A BH is a dense star, you can't go across it. there are wormholes, in ST, for that.
I don't agree on ice monsters unable to walk on ice.
I don't agree on Kirk finding Spock alone on a planet (so near to Vulcano to watch it collapsing? why didn't the ice planet fall in the gravity pit itself?) without even looking for him. I don't agree on a campfire made of logs on a planet with no wood.
I don't agree in teleporting someone from Saturn to Earth, when teleport for 30+ year was know to work in 40000km limit. I can agree in the brand new transwarp teleport, though.
I don't agree on a ship escaping a black hole with pulse engines and a core expulsion (no MT pun intended).

Abrams forgot what made ST good: science consistence, continuity, and action for the plot, not plot for the action.

Medic82 · **Reply #66 on:** May 21, 2009, 03:50:39 PM

Quote from: sardauker on May 21, 2009, 01:56:01 PM

Quote from: Grant Lamontagne on May 20, 2009, 08:15:56 PM
Yes, no, maybe and sideways...

There are inconsistancies- there are supposed to be inconsistancies. They said that it's an alternate time line, which is a concept that no Trek fan can insist is not plausible. After all, how many times have they mucked with their own timeline, whether it's picking up whales from hundreds of years earlier, to meeting up with evil versions of themselves (you can tell they are evil, they have beards! ) to having Worf and Sisco somehow end up back in the old Tribble episode!

I find it somewhat liberating really, because it allows the writers to explore different options rather than trying to rehash the story over and over and make sure that every inconsistency be addressed somehow.

Terminator is another one like that- they keep mucking with the timeline, but they also keep pointing out that the timeline is mutable, subject to change. Certain things (like Judgement Day) are going to happen, but the circumstances by which they happen can change, as can the timing. Linear film writing is a dying art, and I'm glad for it!

Def

I can agree about the alternate timeline, really, even I don't like it and I can't understand how Kirk's father death could change Spock career.
but...
I don't agree making Scott a clown.
I don't agree Spock becoming bipolar and schizophrenic, just to make Kirk rule the Enterprise.
I don't a agree a black hole being a time tunnel. It's an error the good Gene had never done. A BH is a dense star, you can't go across it. there are wormholes, in ST, for that.
I don't agree on ice monsters unable to walk on ice.
I don't agree on Kirk finding Spock alone on a planet (so near to Vulcano to watch it collapsing? why didn't the ice planet fall in the gravity pit itself?) without even looking for him. I don't agree on a campfire made of logs on a planet with no wood.
I don't agree in teleporting someone from Saturn to Earth, when teleport for 30+ year was know to work in 40000km limit. I can agree in the brand new transwarp teleport, though.
I don't agree on a ship escaping a black hole with pulse engines and a core expulsion (no MT pun intended).

Abrams forgot what made ST good: science consistence, continuity, and action for the plot, not plot for the action.

+1 dude

cliosguy · **Reply #67 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:17:49 PM

Quote from: sardauker on May 21, 2009, 01:56:01 PM

Quote from: Grant Lamontagne on May 20, 2009, 08:15:56 PM
Yes, no, maybe and sideways...

There are inconsistancies- there are supposed to be inconsistancies. They said that it's an alternate time line, which is a concept that no Trek fan can insist is not plausible. After all, how many times have they mucked with their own timeline, whether it's picking up whales from hundreds of years earlier, to meeting up with evil versions of themselves (you can tell they are evil, they have beards! ) to having Worf and Sisco somehow end up back in the old Tribble episode!

I find it somewhat liberating really, because it allows the writers to explore different options rather than trying to rehash the story over and over and make sure that every inconsistency be addressed somehow.

Terminator is another one like that- they keep mucking with the timeline, but they also keep pointing out that the timeline is mutable, subject to change. Certain things (like Judgement Day) are going to happen, but the circumstances by which they happen can change, as can the timing. Linear film writing is a dying art, and I'm glad for it!

Def

I can agree about the alternate timeline, really, even I don't like it and I can't understand how Kirk's father death could change Spock career.
but...
I don't agree making Scott a clown.
I don't agree Spock becoming bipolar and schizophrenic, just to make Kirk rule the Enterprise.
I don't a agree a black hole being a time tunnel. It's an error the good Gene had never done. A BH is a dense star, you can't go across it. there are wormholes, in ST, for that.
I don't agree on ice monsters unable to walk on ice.
I don't agree on Kirk finding Spock alone on a planet (so near to Vulcano to watch it collapsing? why didn't the ice planet fall in the gravity pit itself?) without even looking for him. I don't agree on a campfire made of logs on a planet with no wood.
I don't agree in teleporting someone from Saturn to Earth, when teleport for 30+ year was know to work in 40000km limit. I can agree in the brand new transwarp teleport, though.
I don't agree on a ship escaping a black hole with pulse engines and a core expulsion (no MT pun intended).

Abrams forgot what made ST good: science consistence, continuity, and action for the plot, not plot for the action.

well seems like im better of downloading this one

DannyZRC · **Reply #68 on:** May 21, 2009, 09:13:49 PM

no you aren't clios, GO SEE IT IN THE THEATERS.

the bad stuff will still be bad on the small screen, but the awesome won't have the same punch.

I loved the movie, but they definitely had a more TOS sense of science than TNG. still a great time at the theatre.

nuphoria · **Reply #69 on:** May 21, 2009, 09:47:32 PM

I'm a huge trekky but really don't see what's wrong with making a different movie. It's entertaining, it's pretty good sci-fi and it's on the big screen. That's all good by my standards.

I don't expect timeline perfection and it certainly wasn't without it's faults, but as a stand alone film, it's great. If it has to be judged by the standards of every other star trek film or tv show then it will inevitably fall short in some ways, but perhaps it excels in others. The more new sci-fi for me to watch, the better

PS: I didn't like the Scotty character at all

Mike, Lord of the Spammers! · **Reply #70 on:** May 21, 2009, 10:04:45 PM

I think that's the point, this new film will drag in veiwers who wouldn't be seen dead watching an old Star Trek movie because of the geeky connotations

cliosguy · **Reply #71 on:** May 21, 2009, 11:04:17 PM

Quote from: DannyZRC on May 21, 2009, 09:13:49 PM

no you aren't clios, GO SEE IT IN THE THEATERS.

the bad stuff will still be bad on the small screen, but the awesome won't have the same punch.

I loved the movie, but they definitely had a more TOS sense of science than TNG. still a great time at the theatre.

im usualy pro go to the movies, but honestly i was never a fan so im not really that interested

appletree_man · **Reply #72 on:** May 22, 2009, 12:30:06 AM

Quote from: Medic82 on May 21, 2009, 03:50:39 PM

Quote from: sardauker on May 21, 2009, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: Grant Lamontagne on May 20, 2009, 08:15:56 PM
Yes, no, maybe and sideways...

There are inconsistancies- there are supposed to be inconsistancies. They said that it's an alternate time line, which is a concept that no Trek fan can insist is not plausible. After all, how many times have they mucked with their own timeline, whether it's picking up whales from hundreds of years earlier, to meeting up with evil versions of themselves (you can tell they are evil, they have beards! ) to having Worf and Sisco somehow end up back in the old Tribble episode!

I find it somewhat liberating really, because it allows the writers to explore different options rather than trying to rehash the story over and over and make sure that every inconsistency be addressed somehow.

Terminator is another one like that- they keep mucking with the timeline, but they also keep pointing out that the timeline is mutable, subject to change. Certain things (like Judgement Day) are going to happen, but the circumstances by which they happen can change, as can the timing. Linear film writing is a dying art, and I'm glad for it!

Def

I can agree about the alternate timeline, really, even I don't like it and I can't understand how Kirk's father death could change Spock career.
but...
I don't agree making Scott a clown.
I don't agree Spock becoming bipolar and schizophrenic, just to make Kirk rule the Enterprise.
I don't a agree a black hole being a time tunnel. It's an error the good Gene had never done. A BH is a dense star, you can't go across it. there are wormholes, in ST, for that.
I don't agree on ice monsters unable to walk on ice.
I don't agree on Kirk finding Spock alone on a planet (so near to Vulcano to watch it collapsing? why didn't the ice planet fall in the gravity pit itself?) without even looking for him. I don't agree on a campfire made of logs on a planet with no wood.
I don't agree in teleporting someone from Saturn to Earth, when teleport for 30+ year was know to work in 40000km limit. I can agree in the brand new transwarp teleport, though.
I don't agree on a ship escaping a black hole with pulse engines and a core expulsion (no MT pun intended).

Abrams forgot what made ST good: science consistence, continuity, and action for the plot, not plot for the action.

+1 dude

+2

I'm Still Bison · **Reply #73 on:** May 22, 2009, 04:56:35 AM

All I want to know is;is being a redshirt still the kiss of death?

Grant Lamontagne · **Reply #74 on:** May 22, 2009, 06:02:16 AM

Yes.

There's one part where Sulu, Kirk and a guy in a red uniform dive out of the Enterprise and streak through the atmosphere (oddly enough, not burning up) and while Kirk and Sulu make it safe and sound, the nameless guy in the red uniform disappears in a puff of smoke!

Def