ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek XI

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Jun. 18 2012, 5:55 pm

I can agree with the last part of that !

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 6:04 am

few people really want a return to flat line mono personalities characters living in a universe where nothing exciting happens other then ordering earl gray tea from a food synthesizer and weekly aliens with the guess forehead/nose application.


Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 9:19 am

Quote: AtoZ2 @ Jun. 21 2012, 6:04 am

>

>few people really want a return to flat line mono personalities characters living in a universe where nothing exciting happens other then ordering earl gray tea from a food synthesizer and weekly aliens with the guess forehead/nose application.

>

>


Utter blasphemy! GBUG (Grace be upon Gene), the ST vision has been irreparably harmed and strayeth from The Great Bird's prophecy of a moneyless, hot alien chick boinking, ethical, and conflict free future! Repent lest you fall away into JJ's darkness and share in his comeuppance.


LOL


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

BrotherofShran01

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23344

Report this Jun. 21 2012, 6:20 pm

Quote: Treknoir @ Jun. 21 2012, 9:19 am

Quote: AtoZ2 @ Jun. 21 2012, 6:04 am

>

>

>few people really want a return to flat line mono personalities characters living in a universe where nothing exciting happens other then ordering earl gray tea from a food synthesizer and weekly aliens with the guess forehead/nose application.

>

>

 

 

Utter blasphemy! GBUG (Grace be upon Gene), the ST vision has been irreparably harmed and strayeth from The Great Bird's prophecy of a moneyless, hot alien chick boinking, ethical, and conflict free future! Repent lest you fall away into JJ's darkness and share in his comeuppance.

LOL


 


I love the nu Star Trek, and STL, trek sister. Come and join me. Check your profile for the yellow STL link.


 

I always party at Starbase 63!

Starbase

A.J.Dembroski

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Jun. 28 2012, 1:11 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 23 2012, 3:08 pm

Quote: cochrane2063 @ May. 23 2012, 3:04 pm

>

>

>The old Kirk didn't even seem to try that hard. As opposed to the new Kirk, who kept falling over Uhura and lost to a guy WITHOUT EMOTIONS!!! Rediculous.

>

Spock, and ALL Vulcans do INDEED have emotions.


 


I may be wrong in my interpretation here, but based on a few things I've seen (most notably Serek (TNG S3, E23)) it seems to me that Vulcan emotions are far more potant than Humans, and the logic discipline is born of a need (rather than simple desire) to keep those emotions in check. 


 


By this interpretation, I'd say discipline, not logic, is the primary differenciating trait of the Vulcan, with logic being a cultural value, rather than a genetic trait.

WarpGirl9

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 69

Report this Jul. 03 2012, 3:03 pm

I've been watching Trek since TOS was on the air, and I don't mean re-runs.  So I'm not a "new" Trekkie.  I personally loved the movie.  I've realized for some time that if Star Trek was going to be brought back to life it needed something new.  ENT was on to something when they went backwards to the early days of Starfleet.  Abrams clued in on that but also knew that characters unknown to the world outside of Trekkies would not fill seats in a movie theaters.  So he used the old beloved TOS characters.  Instantly recognizable and loved even by those who are not Trekkies.  But he couldn't just retell old stories or try to stuff new stories into the timeline.  he had to break out of the timeline.  I feel that it showed respect to the original material, that he didn't try to screw with it.  Nothing that we have loved for our whole lives is gone. It's still there.  But now the old characters we grew up with are free to explore new adventures.


I have to agree about the science, Star Trek science was never real.  Sure, like Jules Vern, some of the tings in Trek may have set the stage for real sciene that came later, or may still come... but that was never it's purpose.  The science of Trek was to entertain.  The fact that some of that FICTION has born fruit in the real world is nothing short of amazing and testament to human effort.  But it was and is fiction.


Anything I can think of to put here would most likely get me banned

randy kerr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 425

Report this Jul. 03 2012, 4:00 pm

i love all startrek shows.

guide_X

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 34

Report this Jul. 06 2012, 9:02 am

Quote: cochrane2063 @ May. 13 2012, 9:51 pm

>There was nothing wrong with the name 'red matter'. If it were a made up name, it wouldn't mean as much to the audience, red matter is simple enough to keep track of, as there's a lot of stuff going on in this movie.

>This movie is quite a bit better than TMP in a lot of ways, but think about it, would you rather be watching the pounding lense flairing action and underwear that ST09 offers you, or would you rather engage in true sci fi situations that tmp at least attempts to offer you, while ST09 isn't attempting to put you in a sci fi situation, but more attempting to keep you gripped to your seat or keep your heart pounding and such.

>During TMP, you must really think about what's going on, what came before, and what is to happen twords the end of the story. While in ST09, it's almost like the story isn't as important as the pace of the movie, and the fight scenes, space battles, lense flair, etc.

>The science was garbage. Previous Trek did a better job (although still not a good job) at explaining science away to a point that the audience might believe. ST09 doesn't really attempt to explain anything, which is fine sometimes, like in LEXX, but this is Star Trek, which historically has been a mixture of bad science mixed with technobable in ST09, your just left to wonder. My biggest beefs are probably the long distance transport, and the jettisoning your warp core while at warp (and not exploding). Besides, remember what happened in Insurrection where Riker jettisoned the core? Big explosion, a lot of damage (and that was a "better" ship). I totally get what the op is saying. He's not saying previous trek had perfect science, however it did a better job than this trek does, at least in previous trek they tried.

>I don't completely agree about the Ship. Yes, the inside is riddiculous, the bridge makes you go blind with lense flair, and highly lit ipad displays,  and yes, engineering doesn't look right at all. The creative team clearly didn't have a vision or mental energy to come up with the proper engineering, or bridge really. Even the walkways, and other parts of the ship seemed lacking. Hopefully they do a better job in the next movie in these respects. However, the exterior of the ship is clearly better than the ships of the past. While the nacells look oddly huge, it doesn't bother me too much. There's no way you can even come close to these new special effects and production values in previous Treks, ST09 is a clear winner. And that goes for the Starship design as well. I like the old models, and even the old special effects, but they don't really stand up to the new ones. I also really like the Kelvin, and the whole beginning sequence in the movie.

>The plot holes were a great many, I couldn't keep up on all of them, and possible ones. The alternate timeline stuff only compounds the list of possible, sending you on a larger hunt of nitpicking, then giving up. I threw my hands up at some point, wondering if the writters are the same writters from Mega Python vs Gatoroid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fglIHKaeas4.
The soundtrack was also slightly troubling. 

>

>I just saw Star Trek (2009) for the first time, and I can't understand why people like it. Sure, its better (in my opinion) than TMP or TSFS, but those aren't exactly high standards (for me). I thought the science (even for Trek) was garbage, that the Enterprise was hideous inside and out (especially engineering), and that the plot had more holes than the fabric of spacetime after red matter (THAT'S THE BEST NAME THEY COULD COME UP WITH???) is released. Am I insane, or am I right?

>

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jul. 08 2012, 1:58 pm

Quote: DammitJim6200 @ May. 14 2012, 8:29 am

>Not all science in Star Trek is garbage, my dear..Tachyons are real..our cell phones came from TOS and it is possible to establish a warp field with the right amount of energy, matter and anti-matter combustion is possible, but some of us were  mad at how careless Abrams was, dosen't matter what we like, it matters how he much he got wrong.


Dude, really???


"Tachyons are real"?????? a tachyonic particle is a hypothetical partical that always moves faster then ligh.So as long as they arer hypothectical they artent real.


"it is possible to establish a warp field"......sorry but thats not true either.Yes there are a number of theroies thast suggest it may be possible, but so far it hasnt been done.


Modern Cell phones may be modeled after tos comunicators, but that doesnt msake an argumernt for real scirnce in trek


 


Photobucket

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum