|
Wandle Cax posted:If anyone can make the slightest amount of sense of this sentence I would love to hear it. What a meaningless puff of a comment. It's a setting rather than a set continuity. There are Klingons and the Enterprise and a Starfleet but it's not behoven to choices made a few decades earlier. A good analogy of this is probably Inglourious Basterds - it uses the "setting" of WW2 without being behoven to the continuity of how the war concluded, and still made an interesting film out of it.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:People care because this is yet another case of whitewashing, and it's especially damning because it's on a franchise that used to be the leader in having people of color in roles that broke boundaries. Isn't having a character that's literally Space Genghis Khan in itself a bit racist?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:The ony really good Star Trek movies are Wrath of Khan, Abrams' Star Trek and Galaxy Quest so that's not a big surprise. I thought Undiscovered Country was pretty decent as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Voyage Home rules, you dummies. I know that and I don't even like Star Trek. Voyage Home is a Back To the Future ripoff without the added implications of "what if going back in time changes the future substantially" and is mostly used as an excuse for "well what if Star Trek...was in the present [of 1986]?"
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:Entertaining, but the plot makes no sense. It's carried purely by the characters and actors. He loses his home world because Spock hosed up for whatever reason, so he decides to go back in time and destroy Spock's homeworld, and then help conquer the Federation for the Romulans because he's a Romulan patriot or something (that's the only bit I never really got, but based on his actions you could infer that he digs his planet a lot).
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:Trekkin' Trekkin, What a Long Strange Trip It's Been
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Who is Benedict Cumberbatch and why should I be excited he is in Modern Space Action Movie? He plays a snarky rear end in a top hat in the BBC's Sherlock (guess who) and is providing the voice of Smaug in the Hobbit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:
That's been a general consensus here for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Wait, what are you serious? Yeah, in The Scifi thread people have said that "some of his stuff is interesting but he has a nasty habit of attempting to condone incest/the like".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I have no idea what the demographics of Star Trek moviegoers are, and whether your random teen on the street is more likely to have seen TOS or the new stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:How horrible would a 'Walking Dead in Space' show be? Isn't that basically Firefly but with more Reavers? AlternateAccount posted:So am I an alpha-grade sperglord if the idea of the Enterprise being able to chill underwater like it's no big deal bothers the fuckin PISS out of me? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:If structural integrity fields are so good, the ship should never get damaged. But it does, so there's limits to how far it can hold the ship together.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The big issue isn't that they'd be incapable of making a starship that can fly in an atmophere and go underwater, it's that they didn't. They very clearly made one that's meant to stay in space, which is obvious just looking at it, and no matter what century, when you do ridiculously stressful things with something that you're not meant to do, they tend to fall apart. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:
That's what TOS was, though. I mean, the concept of "a captain and his crew chartering the great unknown" is about the closest thing outside of Doctor Who to the old pulp serials, even/especially if they include some theme on the nature of man (HG Wells' The Time Machine dealt with class issues, as one example).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:
That's really ironic considering the type of people that inhabit Wookiepedia/the EU.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Yeah, they can do anything they want, and it can be as retarded as they like. Oh, so they launched the main power source to escape a black hole last movie, welp ANYTHING GOES! This is like people posting the dinghy air drop from Temple of Doom to justify the nuclear fridge landing from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, as if one dumbass thing that beggars credulity justifies another. No, it just means both are silly and render any verisimilitude of danger as arbitrary as the smegmatron particles that bounce off the main dessert dish. Explain to me again why a literal bubble of space time and a ship going faster than light isn't "silly and renders danger arbitrary" but a ship going underwater is?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Please, read The Making of Star Trek. And not just because this is a thread about a Star Trek movie, it's a good general resource about designing a science fiction world from the ground up. A good production makes their design features follow some semblance of internal reasoning and forethought; of course is all arbitrary on a certain level because it's all fiction, but once the rules are set you treat them as if they're real and that gives the whole thing the weight of consistent logic. And just like an airplane doesn't look like a truck because they operate in entirely different mediums under entirely different rules of force and thrust, neither should a starship and a submarine. Handwaving these simple principles away with space magic is a hack solution for lazy producers to get from point A to point B, and point B is usually baysplosions. You're right, let me think about the rules about a spaceship in Star Trek: 1. It is constantly under pressure by various forces which in the audience's day to day life would be almost certainly lethal. 2. To counteract this, a force field is put in place which makes it so the ship can survive these dangerous situations. Now, let's look at a ship underwater. 1. It is constantly under pressure by various forces which in the audience's day to day life would be almost certainly lethal. Now, how can a ship survive underwater? Oh, I know: 2. To counteract this, a force field is put in place which makes it so the ship can survive these dangerous situations. ---------- Doesn't seem that hard at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Jesus Christ, so was the entirety of ST Nemesis among literally thousands of other horrible examples. First "just turn off your brain and enjoy the space pewpew", now popular=quality equivalency arguments? When did I fall into the mirror universe? The amount of apologizing done for this film that's virtually never tolerated elsewhere in this forum is mindblowing. Please, tell me more about how I need to turn off my brain to conceptualize a ship going 20 feet underwater 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
BulletRiddled posted:I've always heard of the "even numbered Trek film" thing, but I watched Star Trek 5 a few nights ago and it was really good, and now I'm watching First Contact and it's awful. Apparently everything I've ever been told about this series is wrong. The only good even numbered Treks are II and VI, which surprise are both directed by the same guy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I think you forgot Voyage Home. If you didn't forget it then you're quite wrong Voyage Home felt like -and was- a bad Back to the Future ripoff. It was also horribly jarring going from Wrath of Khan to that to Undiscovered Country. I'm actually struggling to remember any moments that would seem interesting to someone who hadn't first seen it when they were 8 years old.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Darko posted:It's well directed, still humorous, paced well, and has good performances from the cast. Why wouldn't you like it? The entire premise seems a bit silly, even for space pulp. It has an environmental theme which seems horribly dated today, and really a lot of it seemed to just bring the typical Trek status quo back instead of what Khan had given us. Plus like I said, I didn't see it until about a year or so ago and I had seen it (mostly) before seeing TOS itself. e: DFu4ever posted:And yet in my experience The Voyage Home seems to be, by far, the most popular of the Star Trek films with people who aren't into Star Trek. It's 'the whale one' and even non-nerds can quote some of the memorable moments from it. That might be true in the 80's/90's but now I doubt you'd get the same reaction. It's a new ball game. computer parts fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:If memory serves, wasn't Shatner pretty negatively vocal about the 2009 film? Yeah, but that's probably only because he was originally supposed to be in the film with Nimoy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Hopefully this means Star Trek 3 can get away from the JJ's Mystery Box Marketing Engine BS that taints everything. Of course he'll probably kill of Kirk at the end of 2 or something... Yeah, I mean the last time a main TOS Trek cast member was killed in a sequel movie, it was terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:E- Ah crafty bastard specified TOS. Nevermind. To be fair Generations could be considered either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Nah I want to see Gosling as some sort of villain. I think he's got that dark streak and would make for an awesome bad guy Waltz can be Tarkin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Not to burst any fantasy casting bubbles, but Disney pretty much outright stated that it's going to be a sequel to the original trilogy, and that if any characters return, they will most likely be played by the same actors (Hamill for instance) Time to see if they can out-do Tron: Legacy in terms of "young descendant of the original protagonist saves the day to become the new star of the films".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Also, you know, those shots seem to show it starting from above the atmosphere, where there is no air to make gliding a thing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdkCpnGMyGw
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Most of the people who have a problem with Trek 09 have a problem with it because it conflicts with their idea of what Trek should be, not with what it actually is. TOS Trek is basically Doctor Who but with a larger ship (on the outside), if anything ST09 dumping the reliance on 'canon' was basically the best way to get back to that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:To break the kinds of barriers that TOS did, it would've been a transgender Muslim and a Chinese man. Nah, just have Kirk be gay. A mainstream series gay protagonist -let alone one from a popular science fiction franchise - is something that still hasn't been done yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Ramming your ship into a giant space acorn to save dozens of people does seem like a surefire way of landing a spot in valhalla. I guess we now know what God needed with a starship.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
I too lament when black females are given a lead role.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:How is she a lead character? She didn't do anything. She does at least as much as McCoy. In terms of people "doing stuff" last movie it roughly goes Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and then Spock again anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:What exactly is Starfleet's official status anyway? I always felt like there was ambiguity over this, since on the one hand they try to make it sound like they're an exploration and research outfit, and yet on the hand they clearly fulfil the functions of a military force. Apparently all research ships, medical ships, warships etc fall under the same umbrella. How truly it must have sucked to be an exobotanist on some hapless Miranda peacefully sorting through alien plants one second only to have your ship vectored to Wolf 359 the next because hey buddy: we are one big happy (star)fleet! Eh, it sounds more like the Enterprise is in the military scouting wing of Starfleet, not a pure research vessel. I guess the best analogy is if the Royal Society was officially part of the Royal Navy, but still let people like Cook go out and scout the world (so the Royal Navy could then go in and colonize).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Warping in a solar system is said to be generically dangerous in TMP, though they never really say why and its only ever mentioned when it adds tension anyway. Mind, this is when half impulse could get you past Jupiter in a minute or so. Well, that went out the window with the big warp scene to Vulcan in the last movie anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the aliens at 1:32 are? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
The fact that the Federation is apparently based on Earth is a good enough reason why Earth is targeted so much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Nero also interpreted that failure as deliberate malice. He's a space-truther. At the same time, he's exactly the same as those Neo-Confederates who went back in time to give AK47s to Southerners.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
That doesn't seem terrible, honestly. I mean Cumberbatch being literally Khan is kind of a downer but the rest of it sounds pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:as an example: Why does Nero drill into the surface to drop the red stuff rather than just throw it at the planet? To increase the rate of absorption. If you've seen the dynamite scene in Armageddon, same idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:
Congrats on making the Star Trek equivalent of "The internet is full of racists, deal with it.  "e: AlternateAccount posted:
It's scientifically stupid to have a FTL drive. It's scientifically stupid for travel through time. It's scientifically stupid to come back to life exactly how you are after dying of radiation poisoning and having your body shipped off to a planet. computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 21:35
|
|
"You're just upset because you take Star Trek too seriously"