Re: Star Trek

Okay, I've listened to it now (without watching at the same time, which is really rare for me). It starts out as the pointless argument that I figured it was, but gets better once everyone calms down a little.

Rebooting the series by creating a new timeline was ingenious. But the film is basically fan fiction with all the trimmings, and Kirk is Mary Sue.

Oh, and I totally am a racist. Short people got no reason to live.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Star Trek

Short people got.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I think "ingenious" is exactly the right word for it. Like or dislike it, I think we can all agree that Orci and Kurtzman's approach was damn clever.

And speaking as somebody who's five-foot-seven on a humid day, fuck yoooooooooooou.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

It occurs to me that, as Trey explained the connections between the Wild Wild West and Star Trek TV shows in your WWW commentary, there is an interesting comparison to be made between Star Trek (2009) and the Wild Wild West movie.

- Based on buddy adventure TV show but played more for laffs
- Turned into odd-couple wunza movie + hot ethnic chick (one's a scrapper; one's a scientist)
- The scrapper is named Jim; the scientist has a weird name
- Hot ethnic chick is of zero value in resolving the plot
- One of the main characters has lost his family to the villain's evil scheme
- Villain is played with American accent by non-American
- Gratuitous anti-racism notes in the story
- Thanagarian Snare Beast
- Guy in wheelchair
- Scientist character comes face to face with "himself"
- Villain captures the heroes' boss and tries to destroy their homeland
- Climactic fist fight on vehicle with precarious footing

If only Spock and Kirk dressed up as women at some point, that would clinch it.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Star Trek

Thanagarian Snare Beast: well played.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I think Zarban just described every movie ever.

Last edited by Gregory Harbin (2010-05-12 23:13:58)

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

182

Re: Star Trek

Yup.    X-Men also fits most of those criteria...

Re: Star Trek

Silly Trey. Nobody in X-Men was named "Jim." Your thesis is wholly untenable. Untenable!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

184

Re: Star Trek

You are forgetting that in Issue #207 it was revealed that Wolverine's full name is Jim Wolverine.   So that totally counts.

185

Re: Star Trek

Wolverine's real name is actually James....so there you go.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

186

Re: Star Trek

Holy crap.   The universe just got all weird on me.

Sorry, weirdER.

Re: Star Trek

Ah, but are the comic books canonical in the context of the movies?

That is the nerdiest sentence I've ever typed.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

188

Re: Star Trek

well, as was just demonstrated - in a most unsettling fashion - even when one attempts a lame joke about a comic character, it will actually turn out to be freakin' true according to  some issue or other.

I hereby dub this the  The Stokes-Doty Everything Becomes Canonical Eventually Hypothesis

Re: Star Trek

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Ah, but are the comic books canonical in the context of the movies?

That is the nerdiest sentence I've ever typed.

He's named 'James' in the Young Wolverine part of 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine,' so, it's movie canon.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Just came across an old episode of SGU (The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe) with Phil Plait, the bad astronomer, talking about the merits of the astronomical science in Trek.

Here's a direct link, his interview is a few minutes in, maybe fifteen or twenty. (My Quicktime window is all black, so I can't tell.)

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Found a online copy of Roddenberry original pitch for star trek to compare and contrast with.

http://startrekpropauthority.blogspot.c … ch-11.html

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I'm not a big fan of the Star Trek franchise. I'm more a Star Wars fan (There are only 3 movies!). However, even though Star Trek was aimed at people like me, I absolutely hated it. Transformers 2 angered me more than I thought any movie ever could. Star Trek comes close. I have to go with Brian in most of the niggles regarding the movie. Plus, I think I have an allergic reaction to Abrams. He's like my Kryptonite.

Zoe Saldana, whether by limit of acting ability or by direction, always plays the same character. She is always the chick with an attitude. Avatar, The Losers, Star Trek - essentially they are all the same character. Couldn't we have a less contentious Uhuru? She seems to be written just to argue with Kirk. Shouldn't that be Bones' job?

And they blew up Vulcan and most of Starfleet! What?

And why parachute down to a suspended drill when you can just launch torpedos at it?

My summation is the movie is little more than someone dangling shiny keys in front of a baby. Lens flares anyone?

Last edited by insideoutcast (2010-11-05 16:16:08)

Where Geek Meets Goth

Re: Star Trek

Having recently rewatched this, I was struck by something in Spock's narration. How can a supernova pose a threat to a galaxy? That's what Spock says, that a star will go supernova and 'threaten the galaxy' - huh? He then says that he promised to save Romulus, and then when en-route the supernova's wave destroyed Romulus.

This to me doesn't really work as a set up. Stars don't just go supernova overnight. The Romulans would have foreknowledge long before that destructive wave hit their planet and, logically, would have moved their population off world. I suppose you could argue that they didn't do so because they thought Spock would solve the problem, but it doesn't seem intelligent not to have some sort of back-up plan. Especially since Spock's timing is so off. What was his plan, to wait until after the star had gone supernova before creating the black hole - isn't that cutting it close? Also, where was this star? Because it's clearly not in the same system as Romulus, because without their own star the planet would be screwed anyway. So how many light years away was the star? Why didn't they evacuate the planet in between the star going supernova and the wave hitting their planet? Maybe the line 'then the unthinkable happened' is meant to hang a lantern on the improbability of the whole thing.

And the years haven't really changed how I feel about Nero and his murky motivation, or the tasteless destruction of Vulcan and billions of its inhabitants. I still find Nero's anger towards Spock to be entirely misplaced given what we are shown in the film. I chalk this up mainly to the fact that the writers were looking to recapture that Khan dynamic.

Also, I noticed that there are parts of the film where it seems like the characters have all read the script and know what's just happened. Kirk and Sulu give appropriate sad faces and seem to know Spock has lost his mother, seconds after it's happened and without even knowing who the blip on Chekov's monitor was.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

For those interested in an analysis of this reboot from a hardcore Star-Trek fan perspective, I stumbled on the final episode from the Hollywood Saloon, who did a mammoth 4.5 hour discussion, going over a ton of the history of the movies, analysis of the tie-in Countdown and Nero comics for the reboot, and finally a near scene-by-scene discussion of what works/doesn't.

It's interesting to see how much of the plot-issues were addressed in the comics but left out of the movie, and in general I agree with the analysis that the reboot really betrays a lot of what I love about Star Trek, while still being a pretty entertaining movie on it's own terms. http://hollywoodsaloon.com/podcast/STAR_TREK_ZER0.mp3

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

Teague wrote:

Short people got.

No reason.....

(two years late but still)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

HE RALLIES

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

197

Re: Star Trek

bullet3 wrote:

It's interesting to see how much of the plot-issues were addressed in the comics but left out of the movie, and in general I agree with the analysis that the reboot really betrays a lot of what I love about Star Trek, while still being a pretty entertaining movie on it's own terms. http://hollywoodsaloon.com/podcast/STAR_TREK_ZER0.mp3

Star Trek: The Motion Picture also betrayed a lot of what we loved about Star Trek, without the entertaining part smile

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

It's funny you mention that, because I just watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture for the first time last week, expecting to hate it, and I actually really, really dug it. I can completely see where people wouldn't like it as it really doesn't have a lot of character work, but what it is, is a genuinely good honest to god hard-sci-fi flick.

I really miss the idea of just having a bunch of scientists working together to try and logically figure out a solution to a problem. No need for random space battles thrown in for no reason. I actually think there's a lot of great sci-fi concepts at play, the special-effects are genuinely gorgeous, I love the Goldsmith score. Frankly, even if it's flawed, The Motion Picture is way more ballsy and admirable than the reboot, which just aims for blockbuster action over ideas. I think it's very fair to say that the reboot is Space Opera, not Science Fiction, and I think that's an unfortunate step down. There's plenty of Sci-Fi action movies already, I'd rather they aimed for something different/more-sophisticated.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

199

Re: Star Trek

I wish there was less 'epic space battle bigsplosion' scenes and more '5 people in a room figuring stuff out' stuff in todays movies. 

Example:

There's a room with 5 people. 2 of them injured, the rest dressed as some sort of a rescue unit. The injured guys wake up and see the rescue squad looking like statues. The computers are frozen, there are sparks and smoke suspended in the air. Time appears to stand still. But it's not, it's just slowed down a lot. Somehow the '2 survivors' experience time differently than the world around them. Seconds are years for them. The 'frozen' guys are probably there to help but by the time they do what they came to do the survivors will be dead for decaades. The 2 guys have to figure out how this happened and find a way out of the situation.

I'd like to see more of that.

(BTW: If anyone knows the title of the movie/tv show ep where this idea comes from let me know. It sounds a bit Twilight Zone-ish but I'm pretty sure I stole that from some kind of 60's scifi movie)

EDIT: That might be it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_T … 64_film%29

Last edited by Lamer (2012-07-18 00:48:46)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Star Trek

I know there's an episode of Sg-1 kinda like that.

EDIT: My bad, Atlantis: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0709231/

Edit to the edit: Although really, every second episode of SG-1 and Atlantis includes some sort of time dilation gimmick.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-07-18 00:56:51)

ZangrethorDigital.ca