Re: Star Trek

Astroninja Studios wrote:
DorkmanScott wrote:

I don't know much about Trek, but I'm fairly certain that invoking Wesley Crusher is not the way to resolve an argument.

Which is kinda my point.  Wesley Crusher throws everything out the window.  Keep in mind we're talking about a gosh golly gee-whiz youngster who ends up becoming an insufferable asshole, and then eventually a SPACE DEMI-GOD. 

...and people want to complain about Kirk being promoted to captain destroys the sanctity of Trek?

As I understand, people hated it when all of that took place with Wesley Crusher, too, and did not accept it as earned. It seems to me only consistent, then, that they should hate it when a similar series of implausibilities is applied to Kirk.

If they let Kirk get away with it but not Wesley, or vice versa, then you'd have an argument here.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

127

Re: Star Trek

My broader point is that Star Trek fandom by and large tends to have rose colored glasses when it comes to its own logic. 

Trey is largely right about Battlefield comissions.  They are far more common than one would think.  Keep in mind, Kirk was promoted to acting Commander by Cpt. Pike himself, BECAUSE he was the only one who figured out the signal.  The same Cpt Pike who pulled his record and saw a near genius IQ in Kirk, and after Kirk fulfilled his goal to finish SF Academy in 3 years, vs 4.

Looking at the weight of ALL of these things, I too, if I were in Pike's position, place an exceptionally talented graduate as the #2 in charge while Im away, under the leadership of an even more intelligent and seasoned Officer (Spock, in this case)

Point being, they're are plenty of logic gaps to rightly criticize, (the black hole thing is laughable to me) but that is the least of my issues.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Welcome to the boards!

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Eddie, I both like and respect you. Y'know, from afar. But seriously, the movie I went to see was called "Star Trek." It was not called "Read Captain Pike's Mind." Everything you pointed out would have made perfect sense if it'd actually, y'know, happened in the movie. At the very least, Orci and Kurtzman are guilty of demanding that their audience spend time sussing out the motivation of a character who's on screen for roughly a fifth of the film and who basically has only three scenes, yet who drives the entire plot with decisions that might indeed make sense in his mind but that are depicted in the film as being about as rational as a sushi sandwich.

In the end, though, I'm whipping out Occam's Razor for this one. Is this script actually far more clever than it seems, with lots of subtext and a refreshing overestimation of the audience's intelligence? Or is it the cinematic equivalent of connect-the-dots? I vote dots.

(Now's one of those times when I feel compelled to remind everyone that I really, deeply like the film despite its jaw-droppingly hideous flaws.)

And as to the brewery thing that Mayhew reminded me of … meh. On the one hand, yes, it's conspicuously a brewery, and that's lame. But on the other hand, engineering spaces in previous Star Trek depictions have looked about as engineering-y as my childhood best friend's finished basement rec room. A for effort, C+ for execution.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I don't think it's fair to say 'Oh, it was just the moon.' Praxis blew up, which caused the need for immediate evacuation from the home world of Kronos. This evacuation, assisted by the Federation, was what precipitated the Klingon Empire's joining of the Federation (although in some limited capacity, apparently).

They were relocated, as the 'Kronos' seen in TNG and DS9 looks quite different from the Kronos seen in Enterprise episodes such as the pilot.

And my point is, this was done MERELY to serve the plot of the movie. One could make all the same arguments about the destruction of Praxis and the evacuation of Kronos as you can the destruction of Vulcan (and the destruction of Romulus in the Prime timeline, by the by).

The destruction of Vulcan was not done merely to show that OMG ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN, it was done to set the new timeline on a clearly different path than it was on before. As we've already seen, Amanda's death caused Sarek to tell Spock that he married Amanda because he LOVED her. Recall that in the Prime timeline, Spock believed that his parents did not love each other, which led him to not pursue any romantic entanglements (aside from Uhuru, whom we can assume he was supposed to be dating at the academy, and then broke up with before they were assigned to the Enterprise; and let's not talk about Saavik).

But aside from that, the destruction of Vulcan means that the timeline can't just slide back into following the previous timeline, but is going to lead into a radically new direction. I'd bet anything that the next Trek film is going to have to deal with Vulcan survivors.

So to classify it as 'for shits and giggles' is incredibly unfair to the writers.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

131

Re: Star Trek

Jeff, I'm not saying its the cleanest of story points, Im just saying its the least offensive.  I love the film too, in spite of its many flaws.  There's tons of fuzziness abound.  But on the whole I enjoyed the movie a great bit.  But the Pike thing didnt irk me in the same way.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

In all this discussion, I'm surprised no one brought up the three things that bug me the most about this movie.
1. Why the hell does Kirk fly the Enterprise toward a black hole? So they can destroy a ship that is doomed anyway? That seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do, and no one questions it.
2. They blow up the warp core, or whatever it was, to escape said black hole, which means it's explosion is way more powerful then the supernova we saw get sucked into a black hole made from a speck of red matter, while this one was made from a huge ass ball of the stuff. And why did no one think to drop one on Nero? Why don't they have these things in their missiles? Holy shit.
3. Why the hell is Nero's ship so heavily armed? It's a mining barge. How many mining barges can you think of that have missile launchers, or even weapons of any sort? And he has an ass ton of them, enough to wipe out fleets.

"ShadowDuelist is a god."
        -Teague Chrystie

Thumbs up Thumbs down

133

Re: Star Trek

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Now's one of those times when I feel compelled to remind everyone that I really, deeply like the film despite its jaw-droppingly hideous flaws.

And that's my opinion as well.

Brian will never understand this - that's okay, there are many things Brian will never understand - but for me, see...when I was a kid  we had this nifty sportscar...   

Sure, the backseat was too small and it got terrible mileage and didn't even have an iPod dock.   But once a week we'd all get in and take it for a spin, just 'cause it was fun. 

Then somebody's grandmother got hold of it and every Sunday for thirty years she carefully drove it to church at five miles below the speed limit while listening to important social issues being discussed on talk radio.    I'd see it go by sometimes and think, well okay, if that's what you want to do with it, but I ain't getting in.

But then she sold it to that Abrams kid, and while I'm not wild about that new paint job he put on it, at least he ain't afraid to mash that accelerator. 

Turns out that thing can still haul ASS.   

And that's good enough for me.

Re: Star Trek

*tear*

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Why are we being mean to Brian? He's being an unmitigated ubernerd, but come now. We invoked Ents earlier and expected rightly that everyone gets the reference. This is a safe place.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Just a wild-ass guess from a guy who doesn't know anything from anything?

We're being mean to Brian 'cause we know he's tough enough to give it right back.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

We make fun of Brian cause it's fun. Let's not lose this.

Last edited by Gregory Harbin (2010-04-21 23:19:15)

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

"Let's not lost that?" Way to spell, bad speller guy.

Wow. You're right. Making fun of people is fun. I guess that's why they call it that.

EDIT: Damn. You had to come along and correct your own typo and thus rob me of my mockery. Curse your nimble fingers!

Last edited by Jeffery Harrell (2010-04-21 23:20:21)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

139

Re: Star Trek

Gregory Harbin wrote:

I don't think it's fair to say 'Oh, it was just the moon.' Praxis blew up, which caused the need for immediate evacuation from the home world of Kronos. This evacuation, assisted by the Federation, was what precipitated the Klingon Empire's joining of the Federation (although in some limited capacity, apparently).

They were relocated, as the 'Kronos' seen in TNG and DS9 looks quite different from the Kronos seen in Enterprise episodes such as the pilot.

Greg, with all due respect, you have got to stop reading into things and then talking about it like it's incontrovertible fact. Nowhere in Star Trek is it ever said, implied, or hinted that the Kronos we see after the events of Star Trek VI is an entirely different planet. That's perfectly valid speculation, sure but so is a bunch of other possibilities, and you're writing about it like we saw the entire process from start to finish.

And look, before anybody starts, this isn't about nitpicking Star Trek, it's about mistaking assumptions for facts and then behaving as if those assumptions are gospel that anyone else is an idiot to disagree with.

The reality of it is around the beginning of TNG, which was also the time Star Trek VI was produced, Roddenberry and the rest thought they were going to make the Klingons a member of the Federation and the events in VI are obliquely about setting that up. But further on they decided they didn't want the Klingons to be members, just allies and kind of retconned the whole thing, but never really went back and explained what happened with that whole "evacuating the home planet" idea. For all we know, Kronos is still liveable in the TNG era, it just has shitty weather all the time. My point being is that there are any number of possibilities as to the rest of the story, don't assume that your interpretation is the only possible one.

Re: Star Trek

Brian, nothing you said affected the point I've been making since the beginning, which is that it's crap to complain that Vulcan was blown up. It's crap to expect that a new Star Trek series wouldn't do some bold things with the continuity. It's crap to expect that we get another 'Star Trek: Insurrection' where nothing of any import happens anywhere near any of the planets we care about.

Yes, you can geek out and speculate as much as I can, but the storyline of Star Trek VI was HOLY CRAP KRONOS IS EFFED. Which was a bold departure from the position of strength the Klingon Empire was in before.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

141

Re: Star Trek

I understand your point of view just fine, Trey. I just disagree with it. Last time I checked, reasonable people could do that.

Of course, you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you had ever really bothered to listen to any of the shows the old lady listened to. Or actually watched her drive more than once for part of her commute all those years.

Dorkman, I do find this double standard amusing, if frustrating. I think it's because the Star Trek nerd is such an old and cherished cliche in our society, that it somehow gives license to people who are otherwise immense nerds themselves some kind of moral superiority that they can dispense like they're the varsity quarterback in an after school special.

142

Re: Star Trek

Gregory Harbin wrote:

Brian, nothing you said affected the point I've been making since the beginning, which is that it's crap to complain that Vulcan was blown up. It's crap to expect that a new Star Trek series wouldn't do some bold things with the continuity. It's crap to expect that we get another 'Star Trek: Insurrection' where nothing of any import happens anywhere near any of the planets we care about.

Yes, you can geek out and speculate as much as I can, but the storyline of Star Trek VI was HOLY CRAP KRONOS IS EFFED. Which was a bold departure from the position of strength the Klingon Empire was in before.

I know that, Greg, I was making an entirely different point.

I happen to agree with you. I like the fact that they blew up Vulcan, as I said in the commentary. But that's not what my post was about.

Re: Star Trek

If I was judging this I would say Brian is winning. It's like Battle Royal, except Battle Brian.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I'm wearing my Team Brian baby-doll tee shirt.

And nothing else.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

145

Re: Star Trek

Thank you, guys.

Rest assured, when I launch my own utopian interstellar Federation, you guys can be the ambassadors to the pleasure planet.

Re: Star Trek

BrianFinifter wrote:

I think it's because the Star Trek nerd is such an old and cherished cliche in our society, that it somehow gives license to people who are otherwise immense nerds themselves some kind of moral superiority that they can dispense like they're the varsity quarterback in an after school special.

Awww. See, now you're making it not fun anymore.

BrianFinifter wrote:

When I launch my own utopian interstellar Federation, you guys can be the ambassadors to the pleasure planet.

I hope this doesn't mean you're dropping Mike as 'ambassador' to your 'pleasure' 'planet.'

Last edited by Gregory Harbin (2010-04-21 23:48:50)

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

If I promise to put on some pants, can we have a group hug?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

148

Re: Star Trek

Listen, in all seriousness, I don't mind playing the role to an extent. There are aspects of it that I think are fun and funny and hey why not. Nobody should take themselves all that seriously.

But there is a line between having some good natured back and forth and fending off a literal virtual crowd of people each taking their best shot, all the while dismissing you as a cliche not deserving of respect and ridiculing what has been very important to you. And in the process, dismissing very real and valid criticisms you have with a very flawed movie.

Now, I'm a big boy and can handle whatever you bitches throw at me, cause let's be honest, you guys are bitches. Doesn't mean I'm going to like every moment of it. That's all.

EDIT: Oh, and Mike is totally going to be the Supreme Commander of the Fleet. Don't ask don't tell that shit, bitches.

Last edited by Brian (2010-04-22 00:05:10)

Re: Star Trek

Hey, that's prejudiced again!

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I have a favorite book. I'm not telling any of you what it is. No, it's not "Dune" or "Lord of the Rings" or anything like that. But it's a novel, and it's as much a sci-fi novel as it is anything.

I've owned two copies of this book in my life. The first was a totally unremarkable paperback that I picked up on impulse when I was in my late teens or early twenties, something like that. I had no expectations, and I read the book, and I absolutely fell in love with it. Everything about it, the characters, the arc, the whole damn thing, I just adored it. The end made me cry, for god's sake.

That paperback's long gone, but the copy I have now is a hardcover. I got it at a used book store, serendipitously. It cost me $2.99. I know, cause the price tag is still on the cover. It's not ancient or anything; I think it was printed in the early 90s. But it has this smell.

I've probably read that book — that actual physical copy, I mean — thirty times over the years. It's to the point where I can pick it up, flip to a random page and just sink right into it.

It means a lot to me, that book. It sounds kinda dumb, I guess, but there it is.

The author wrote a sort-of sequel, some years later. Not a direct continuation of the story, but a sort of intersecting story. Some of the same themes are there, and the protagonist of the first book appears as a character in the second. And it's good, but … it's just not the same. I like it, I've got a copy, but it's not on the same level.

The author's been threatening to complete the trilogy for years. I kinda hope he doesn't. Not because I don't want to read it; I'll read anything the guy writes. The last novel he published was really pretty crappy by his standards, but it was still a fun read, well above par for science fiction these days. But I kinda don't want to read a third book in this particular series, 'cause in a way I don't want that one character from my favorite novel to show up again. The arc he/she went through — it's complicated — in the first book was so perfect, and resonated so deeply with me, that nothing else is necessary, and nothing else could possibly live up.

If that much-promised, and even titled, novel materializes, I'm gonna read it. Because how could I not. But at the same time, I can't really imagine how it could end well for me. So the best-case scenario is that maybe this third book will never be written, and I'll never have to read it, and I'll never be disappointed by it.

If that sounds like a stupid amount of thought to put into a damn book, it is. And if it sounds like an irrational emotional investment in a freakin' novel, yeah, it's that too.

But it's how I feel.

What I'm sayin' here, Brian, is that I feel you.

Thumbs up Thumbs down