Slashdot Mirror
Reviews: Star Trek
The movie is a total reboot. And yes, it features time travel. While normally this is a giant red flag, in this case I don't think it's too bad. Especially when you want to make giant, universe-altering changes without pissing off the continuity nerds.
Star Trek starts off with a big action sequence that holds no surprises. You'll immediately notice a few dramatic stylistic changes in the camera work. This movie owes more to the pseudo-documentary style of Firefly or BSG than the traditional pristine look of the last few decades of Trek. Space is pretty silent (although it somehow gets noisier as the movie continues), and they even do the cool thing of making sure that everything in space doesn't share the same Z-axis. Minor, but I love it. The intro ends with an emotional note that resonates strongly; it could have been cheesy but it works. So, they reboot the universe. We get some Kirk/Spock back story, and some brief moments at the academy. Wacky events occur, leaving most of our familiar characters aboard the Enterprise. We witness each of them rise to their known rank and positions. It's all very wink-wink. Occasionally a bit overly cutesy, but ultimately fun. I found the scoring a little weak (Abrams uses the same composer for everything), but many of the sound effects echo the original sources. The effects are just great: I would expect nothing less than perfect, and I got it. I particularly liked the Vulcan architecture. Yes, the new bridge looks like an Apple Store, but the glass and white looks modern. It might not age that well, but it's cool. The costumes look forward and backward at the same time. We have mini-skirts on the bridge and familiar color coding. It all works. The Enterprise itself feels HUGE inside. Engineering isn't just a room with a console; it's massive. It has weight. I love it.
I'm not going to go into the story. It's convoluted, but frankly it's really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.
So, let's talk about the most important thing: the characters. They basically nailed everyone. Uhura and Bones are used a lot in the early bits. Chekov and Sulu each have a few nice moments. Scotty shows up late in the game and steals almost every scene he is in. But as the movie goes on, it becomes almost entirely Kirk and Spock, which really is how it should be.
More so than anyone else, Kirk is an impression. But ya know what? I buy it. The Kirk we knew is older. This one is younger with bigger balls and swagger. This kid will chase the skirt instead of just knowing she will come to him. I could certainly see someone thinking they took Kirk too far, but I buy it. He has charisma and some great lines.
Quinto's Spock is great. I resisted the urge to make Sylar jokes (mostly). He's reserved, subtle, and when the need arises, emotional. It works. He's the best casting in the film. Since Nimoy gets to reprise old Spock, we're given the ability to stack the two Spocks up right against each other. And it's just great. I totally buy it.
Eric Bana is the big bad. He seems almost totally superfluous. He does just fine, but I just don't care either way. This movie is about our heroes. Bana's Nero could have been a robot or an entity or whatever. He's a plot device used to press the universe reboot button, and to give us a ticking clock.
Two of the "humorous" sequences go a bit far. You'll know them when you see them. It's like they were inserted to keep 12-year-olds giggling. I expect this in a Disney film, but I wish I didn't see them here. Another action sequence in the middle serves no purpose except letting us have a giant monster chase Kirk. Abrams probably wanted to toss some work to his Cloverfield monster-making buddy.
But here's the thing: Star Trek is entertaining. It has problems, of course. It won't make everyone happy. But by the time Scotty gets into the story, there are so many moments of unbridled joy that you can't help but feel giddy. I don't know if Abrams will stick around or if this cast will be back for more, but if they are, I know I'll be in the theater again. And you should be there too. Now. You're a carbon-based life form who reads Slashdot. You owe it to yourself.
The Onion News Network has an informative brief piece on this entitled Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'.
My work here is dung.
This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise. That being said, I have a few qualms:
1. The villain was lame. He was a nobody with stupid motivation. Could it happen? I suppose... but come on! Such small fish. (Forgive me, I'm just looking for a deeper plot.. not just a crappy summer action flick.
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
3.There was a moment when young spock had kirk by the neck. I seriously expected him to slice open kirk's head with his finger.
All in all, I loved this movie, and anxiously await the next in this version of the franchise, but please please please don't forget the parts of star treck that make it so awesome (and not star wars), and balance it well with action!
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?
Star Trek was always known for its strong story telling. Sure, it was sometimes campy and over the top. But the series was built on story. The action was just the frosting.
That was something that Berman never realized. He kept playing down the story in exchange for more action, more outlandish events, more of that adrenaline squeeze. Except that he was bad at it. I mean, really, really bad. Stinking up the screen bad. (Hey look: MACOs! Amazing how those guys never got any screen time, isn't it? Or how about the time Riker used a joystick to save the day? I know, let's have Picard fight himself! Or put 7 of 9 in a fight pit with a WWE wrestler! Yeah, those were great times. *cough*)
Now you're telling me that JJ doesn't suck at it. Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?
Star Trek stood on its own two feet for 40 years. It was challenged by the networks, challenged by the box office, and challenged by its own actors. Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?
Instead we have a summer blockbuster. And like all summer blockbusters, it will be forgotten by next summer. It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Screw the MPAA! I have ideals!
...
OMG Star Trek movie!
That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears. Why didn't casting QA catch that?
Table-ized A.I.
Singularly.
Is misspelling it a part of the joke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylar
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
It's Nimoy not Nemoy.
There are 16 colons in that review! 16! At least eight of them should be periods, another six should be hyphens. I'll give him two. :)
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but man that's distracting.
For "Transcendent Man", overwhelming Singularity-related ethical concerns means it has to be "pirated". This, not so much.
I'm a hard-core Trekker and have been dreading the oft-rumored "Star Trek: 90210" about the Academy days of the TOS crew. But Abrams managed to skirt most of the major pitfalls of introducing the characters during their early years. I was grinning like a fool during the tie-ins to the old series. And, for the first time in years, I was at a movie where the crowd actually applauded at the end of the show and hung around to enjoy the credit music. Pretty darned cool.
After reading this review (and laughing/blowing milk straight out my nose - don't ask), I think this is the perfect non-spoiler-non-biased-perfectly-opinionated review I have seen on Slashdot in years. I'm happy to see that JJ is able to nail Trek perfectly, and Taco is right - the characters make the film, and it is all about Kirk and Spock.
As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.
Thanks JJ for making it real again!
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
This is an odd-numbered Star Trek movie, right? Aren't the odd-numbered flicks generally crappy?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I am a continuity nerd, you insensitive clod!
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Is that a Singularity researcher?
The Singularity will hit before the next one! Afterwards, the whole series will seem silly.
Kirk would break the rules if they needed to be broken and was willing to admit when humanity was the less advanced, the less civilized. Granted, a lot of this was in later material but still.
Picard on the other hand was always right and the rules were everything. Also intresting to note, Spock/Vulcans were in many ways the superior race in TOS. This was comepletly lost in TNG. All human with only a half human and a human robot thrown in. Lesser racial mix with it being very clear that all the TNG crew was from north america or europe.
No, TNG was TOS-light.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Nothing gets better than Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra! That episode was STUPENDOUS. If this is one eighteenth as good as that, I'll be OK.
The latest Trek was OK as a pure fantasy action flick, but I had some problems with just how over-the-top they went for the younger crowd (caveat: I'm a 37-year old Trekkie and a former Naval officer). I'm not talking about "canon" material, but rather the fanciful way in which they handed the keys of the Federation flagship to an academy midshipman after a 24-hour tour of duty. Kirk has always been - and always will be - a swaggering action-oriented character, but he also picked up leadership and wisdom along his carer - skills he would have learned during his progression through Starfleet as an Ensign, Lieutenant, Commander, etc. So at the end of the movie when they promoted Kirk from midshipman to Captain, I couldn't stifle a laugh...
Abrams played with time travel between season 2 and 3 of alias. I think as a plot device it had potential, but failed. I can't imagine that it will be any more effective in Star Trek, given the track record of dismal failure. Given that this is supposed to be new, it would be nice if they moved from the stuff that didn't work.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So... what's so bad about Berman (and Braga)? They, like Jobs with Apple, milked the franchise for everything it was worth, while the "fans" let it happen. And it wasn't just them... the actors too didn't stay true to character. Why would the TNG cast make Nemesis? Its like they intentionally wanted to kill the genre.
(Go Commander Koennig!!)
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Damit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a carpenter.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Instrumental plot device, but otherwise not really explained. It just is.
... And so it comes to this.
Prepare comment servers for crash
So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?
right at the Time Travel part.
Coupled with the previews, It just smells lame.
Let me guess. They blew up the ship at the end.
That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears.
Moe Stooge did have pointy ears . . . until Curly bit them off.
He gave Moe fair warning, though, by first barking repeatedly, and then shouting, "Oh? A wise guy, eh?"
Tyson had the ear biting down, put couldn't master the barking.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I went with my best friend (a hard core Trekkie geek), and my fiancee (has never seen a Star Trek movie or episode, and doesn't like seeing weird bumpy headed aliens). And they both enjoyed it. My fiancee may even agree to watch some earlier ones. I (somewhere in between those extremes), also enjoyed it, although there were some issues. But I have very good suspension of disbelief abilities.
I don't think its to bad
My eyes! My eyes!
Trolling is a art,
Well, at least I hope that's the case. Won't know until I see it tonight.
When the movie was first announced I groaned and said "Why? For the love of Christ, why?" Trek is dead to me and Berman and his crew spent a long time killing it. But then I started hearing more and more positive buzz, not from the marketing droids but fan reviews, people who would be just as happy to complain an weep bitterly if it sucked.
This is the same pattern that held true for Watchmen. I anticipated failure from the moment it was announced and planned on not seeing it. Then the fanboys got to see early cuts and holy shit, surprise, it's actually good. I went and was very entertained.
Not every movie needs to be high art, some can succeed admirably just by being really frickin' funny and entertaining. Something like a Galaxy Quest ain't a Schindler's List but it is a warm-hearted comedy wrapped up inside a giant geek in-joke.
I wonder if Hollywood will ever accept the idea that it's not just enough to throw crap on the screen, you need a good script and good actors to make it work. Dark Knight, Iron Man, Watchmen, good movies. Hulk, Wolverine, anything with Nicholas Cage, bad movies.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
And my wife will tell you, I scream 'F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it.
Which wouldn;t bother her so much if you weren't in the movie theater. :-D
If I were her lawyer, that'd be the first article in the divorce papers. ;-) I tease. Mostly.
Look, I enjoyed Star Trek. TOS and TNG and the first half of DS9 were great. A couple of the films were good, too. I even bought the After Dark Star Trek screen savers way back when. Haven't seen the new movie yet. When the TV franchise began to dumb down, I walked away. End of story. This emotionalism over it all... just never understood that. Same with BSG. Enjoyed it, but was unsatisfied by the finale. Oh well. I just switch to some other signal on my awesome home entertainment complex.
the continuity nerds.
Never got that, either. ST-TOS wasn't exactly a paragon of continuity. Who cares about continuity with a reboot? And spare me talk of Roddenbery's vision. There's plenty of other visions out there. Go read some E.E. Smith books. The Lensmen would completely own Starfleet. ;-)
So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?
From my understanding, Star Trek's interpretation of end result of transhumanism/singularity is the Borg.
As reasons why the Federation does not implement such technology is really up for debate. Of course I have not seen the new movie yet so I cannot say whether or not this addresses such an issue.
Or for that matter, explain why the Borg don't just sent a cube back in time to blow up earth during the time of the dinosaurs or something reasonable like that.
I mean if they thought Earth was a threat enough to sent a cube to destroy it in present time that warped back in time after it had been weakened, why not just sent a cube back before the federation was really around.
Unless its one of those Terminator plots where the Federation is really the source of the Borg... So they had to sent the cube back knowing it would be destroyed in order for some borg piece to be around so that they are created sometimes in the future.
Gawd.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Loved the movie, went and saw it last night. Abrams has a whole new timeline to follow and it's bittersweet. On one hand, you're giving up the familiar, but on the other, you're getting some new adventure. I sure hope this same crew does another movie!
As for Rick Berman, the guy needs to be banned from ever writing another Trek movie. He has the capability of taking a good thing and fucking it up for everyone...
http://www.allometry.com
Unless they accept this as a BSG-esque re-envisioning of ST as was done with Battlestar Galactica.
This Trek movie features an Uhura-Spock relationship NO other episode of Trek i know of refers to.
Kirk served on Farragut, and did not simply get medevaced by a friend doctor/physician and ascend to command. This kirk might have been from Mirror, Mirror. So...
As i stated in my yesterday journal about this (yeh, i got lucky last Saturday and 5 friends along with me at a bar got 5 tickets (one each) to see it):
"Canon is Canon, so, i personally consider this Trek movie as an alternate universe event, similar to Trek's "Mirror, Mirror", and Deep Space Nine's "In a Mirror, Darkly"...."
Kirk's fathers' ship, and this new Enterprise featured a stunning weapons array unlike any in most other Trek episodes/films, so this was just some grab/reach for special WOW effects.
Annoyingly, the engineroom looked and felt more like an industrial cracking facility. At least we got to see beams, pillars, columns/stancions and more. But, the waterpipe swim was kinda lame, and by all rights should have been fatal if not injurious.
Nothing in the canon Trek suggests nor directly fits some of the Kirk-Spock events on the bridge. Sulu from the time we've known of him, had NO deficiencies in his helmsmanship of the Enterprise, so i was mildly torqued that he would commit the error they put in the film.
The transporter capabilities were well ahead of the canon TOS tech, and to me, everything IN this movie says, "ALTERNATE TIMELINE! ALTERNATE TIMELINE". Not that that is bad, it's just devious or subterfuge to foist it on the existing and new fans to fill seats.
I won't spoil the details around Vulcan and Romulus, but canon Trek episodes i recall say NOTHING about what happened in this movie. I don't care what novels say, and don't consider them canon unless they fit with episodes or don't introduce convoluted/inexplicable anomalies.
The pace of the film was too damned fast. That i saw it in imax was not impressive in the least mainly because i was in front row, seat 4 from left, and felt like a turtle or worm, neck swiveling to and fro to see things. imax and theatre designers are pretty stupid to insist on inserting "revenue-generating" seats that close to the screen. New screen geometry is needed, or ripping out the super-close seats is called for. I *might* go back an pay to watch this movie, but will wait for a few more days for things to thin out so i can almost guarantee myself a good, center seat.
But, since i *did* like the film as i'd almost immediately told myself "ALternate UniWerse", it was watchable. Hard-core Trek fans will probably seethe, hiss, and feel let down. Probably...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Just who is its audience?
Remember the mini? Talking about a car here. It was a very cheap model, tiny but because of its price and low operating costs it had a market. Then it was re-invented and the result was a very small, expensive car, expensive to maintain.
Basically, the designers of the new car ignored the audience that bought the original for its cheap price and instead aimed for another audience that over time either bought the mini to vamp it up or as a status symbol. It worked, to a degree. The new mini is NOT the same hit the original was. Same happened with the CV2 or ugly duckling.
Re-invent your product for a new audience and you risk alienating the old.
Star Trek has been re-invented so many times the last and the first series have nothing in common. No true TOS fan can love TNG. TNG can be accepted as its own series with its own values, but it ain't trek. The entire atmosphere is different. TOS is humanity exploring a universe as yet unknown in which they are far from the most powerful race even on board their own ship. They rarely if ever return home. TNG the federation is a near absolute power and humanity is sold as being beyond all its past troubles. It is now the care taker of the universe and decides what is right or wrong. No doubt for picard, no grey areas, no bending the rules. When danger happens he has enough power to be able to hold a converence about the issue. It is the United Nations rather then a frontier man.
The rest of the series, well. TOS has the first interracial kiss on american tv. What exactly was Enterprises claim to fame? An intro that neatly skipped other countries contribution to space exploration and proof that it is cold in space.
But each series has it fans, even each movie.
But this review seems to think that the special effects being perfect, the acting, the music matters to a TOS fan. They don't. We didn't like TOS because of its amazing special effects, or because Shatner is such a wonderful actor or its amazingly varied music or whatever, we became fans because it showed us a future that was more then just anger, despair and fear.
Perhaps later series never really stood a chance either. By the time TNG came around the world had changed. It was very much a show of its age. The US near all powerfull and invulnerable, able to decide what treaties to follow and what not.
It leaves TOS as a unique series, not because of its qualities but of the note it struck in those who watched it. They who complain about Shatners acting ability or rubber suited monsters just don't get it. They see a wobbly ashtray when they don't smoke, we see a gift from our child and the love that is in it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
To be honest the movie was pretty good and I had a great time. However, afterwards I couldn't help but feel a little dirty. It's a great action flick, but at the same time pretty much ignores the heart of Star Trek.
not SWOLLEN colons... ass in swollen parts of speech...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Trekkie = passe 70's term. Conjures up plastic spock ears and pocket protectors.
Trekker = Enlightened fan of star trek fiction universe with life.
I am the latter...you are obviously the former. ;0
What's Harlan Ellison up to these days? He'd be a complete PITA to work with, but you know the screenplay would be in some damn capable hands.
(If you ever get the chance, check out Stephen King's non-fiction book "Danse Macabre". It has the story of Ellison's involvement with the first ST movie, and it's classic. It's in a footnote that takes up an entire page.)
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
...their eyes red, their faces wet. Shaka, when the walls fell. Shatner and Nimoy, at passover.
The Borg are not xenophobic. They do not wish merely to crush their enemies or protect themselves. They wish to incorporate other races' biological and technological distinctiveness into the Collective. Destroying Earth before it gives rise to the Federation and thus is a threat to the Borg is a response to fear, one the Borg do not feel.
... And so it comes to this.
Here's my own review, for what it's worth:
Within about 10 minutes I knew that Star Trek was back, and that this film is exactly what the franchise needs: some life breathing in to it - and who better to provide a new direction than J. J. Abrams, the co-creator of the hit series Lost.
This is not a complete reboot or re-imagining but a prequel set just before the original series from the 1960s. It features a new cast taking up the original roles of Kirk, Spock and the crew.
As the film opens we're placed in the middle of a space battle and straight away stylistic differences are apparent. The feel is much more gritty and realistic. When a hole is ripped in the ship, as well as the usual exterior shot this time we're shown the crew member's view as they are violently blown out of the ship, followed by the cold silence and emptiness of space. Camera work is sometimes of the cinéma vérité style often used today (e.g. with the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) which adds to the realism but can be a little headache inducing on the big screen.
The sets and props from the original series would look out of place today so things have been updated visually. It's a fairly believable and realistic looking future based on the technology of today - so in place of the dials and buttons of the sixties series we have flat black touch screens; The Enterprise interior, instead of being multi-colour and angular is now clean and white with simple curved lines.
As this is set before the original series it's nice to see that the characters are not their usual calm, professional and mature selves and are unrefined, undeveloped and rough around the edges. Kirk is like an immature teenager and angry at the world. Spock has not yet fully given up his emotions. Sulu is having trouble getting to grips with the ship's controls.
Zachary Quinto is superb as Spock... as many have said, it's as if he was born to play the part.
I'd heard good things about Simon Pegg's portrayal as Scotty but in truth his screen time is minimal and limited to the odd one or two mildly amusing one liners, not too dissimilar to the Scotty of the original series and films. His odd ewok-like alien sidekick was completely pointless, no doubt an attempt to add comic relief and appeal to younger viewers as with Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars, and the humour grates just as much.
There are no complaints with the casting for the rest of the crew. McCoy, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were all completely believable and worthy to take the places as the younger versions of the original crew.
Story wise, the back story regarding characters is great. For me this would almost be enough, but there is also a non-too-original plot involving yet another super-villain hell bent on destroying the earth. (Why is it they always go for the earth anyway - doesn't that seem a bit earth-centric? Wasn't it established pretty early on that the federation already existed long before the earth joined? Anyway... moving on...).
The plot reminded me a lot of the last Star Trek film - Nemesis - which also involved a rogue Romulan (OK, technically a Reman) who tried to destroy Earth. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to that film it would have been wise to come up with a completely different plot, but fortunately it doesn't spoil things too much.
The plot also doesn't make a lot of sense. The villain - Nero - travels back in time to avenge the destruction of his home planet after the older Spock fails to save it. If he's travelled back in time though, why not attempt to avoid the future destruction of his home planet instead of going after Spock? And why go after someone who was only trying to help? You could put all this down to him being a maniac I suppose, but it just doesn't seem that credible, even for a Star Trek film involving time travel and warp drives and all the rest.
One thing that surprised me was that it stuck to canon at all. Some differences can be explained by rift in the timeline (time t
If you're asking how does it address black holes, it just uses one as a plot device and doesn't go much into it. If you're asking how does it address the speedup in improvements to technology, it doesn't at all. I think you're asking the latter, but I'm not sure why you would be expecting that subject to be addressed in this movie.
"Before I begin... it all made a disappointing kind of sense, as these three guys have never met a contrived and incoherent plot they didn't love."
so you don't like Abrams and it sounds like you went in wanting it to suck
"The science is woeful. I know we have to cut movies some slack, Star Trek was noted for being pretty accurate with the real-world science they used, but that's certainly not the case here."
WHAT? Granted some gadgets or ideas made their debut in Star Trek and later inspired people to make them a reality, but I don't think much of Star Trek is based on reality. They have always played free and loose with science. If a writer has a scene in mind, they will invent the science that makes that scene possible no matter how far fetched.
"He and the writers have only a passing familiarity with basic stuff like the command structure of a starship."
I'm curious where you got YOUR familiarity with the command structure of a STARSHIP. Starfleet was always a quasi-military organization from the beginning, so a strict adherence to military custom and chain of command should not be expected.
"There's a same-sex romantic relationship between two main characters, that I thought was highly implausible and unbelievable, for two major reasons."
Because homosexuality has been "cured" in the 24th century. are you a republican?
"The portrayal of the Vulcans was pretty inconsistent...another Vulcan elder smiled at one point."
I recall Sarek and several other Vulcans cracking half-smiles and smirks in other episodes and movies.
"Simon Pegg does the best he can as Scotty, but writing that role as comic relief was a terrible mistake."
i almost wonder if you watched the same Start Trek as me. Scotty cracking wise in the face of disaster or while making a miracle happen was also fairly common.
"Only hardcore fans will even notice those changes, so it's like a secret little 'Up yours' to the fans. The fans that he claims he doesn't need. The same fans that kept Star Trek going for the last 40 years."
taking this a little personally here. The sad truth is that a reboot is required after 40 years because the original cast and those who came after have so mangled the entire concept. The other sad truth is if Star Trek had never come back after the cancellation of TOS (no movies, no spinoffs) and Abrams had wanted to make a big movie loosely based on some cool old TV show, the movie would be just as big a hit without the hardcore fans...
Can someone just enjoy watching Star Trek without being a Trekkie? Yeah, I've watched them all (except Enterprise) but it's just a TV show, not part of my identity.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I was asking about technology. I appreciate your reply. Good luck in what you do, and see you on the other side!
Unless its one of those Terminator plots where the Federation is really the source of the Borg... So they had to sent the cube back knowing it would be destroyed in order for some borg piece to be around so that they are created sometimes in the future.
Actually.. that's pretty much the only way to explain it.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
In the first three paragraphs, the author makes all three of the most common English errors: to/too, its/it's, and then/than. Praise Bob, I'm glad he didn't screw up there/they're/their; that would have been too much to bear/bare (haha).
But seriously, if you're going to submit a lengthy bit of prose to a popular website, please ask someone with a high-school understanding of English to proofread it for you. Everyone knows that Slashdot keeps no such talent on the payroll, so you shouldn't expect editing from the "editors."
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
To do list for Windows
Thank god for that! This movie might actually be good!
They reverse the polarity, engage the deflector arrays and Kirk gives a dramatic command to "fire". Standard stuff really.
May the Maths Be with you!
And Taco pretty much nailed it. Very good review and astonishingly spoiler-free.
Yes, this is one of the better ST movies, maybe even the strongest ever, very much worth to watch.
Some possible explanations:
> Why would *ambassador* Spock be flying that ship?
Because Spock was in contact with the Romulan Empire, in whose domain the star was lying.
> What happend to these black holes afterwards?
Small black holes do not live very long. The smaller, the shorter they exist.
> How could Spock see Vulcan from that Ice planet, but it has no effect on that ice planet at all?
Several, possible explanations: a) It could effect the planet, but that doesn't mean the planet has to blow up the next second or so. It might take time.
b) The black hole created by red matter could create a black hole of practically no mass by itself. It consumes the mass of the planet, resulting in a black hole with the mass of the planet consumed. This would not affect the ice planet itself.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
I am pro-Singularity.
I just reduced my 401(k) contribution.
They seem to have gone out of their way to stuff as many nostalgic moments in this movie as possible. And they wrote a ridiculous storyline just to put Leonard Nimoy on-screen.
Imagine how much worse Star Wars Episode I would have been, if Lucas made a big deal about Ben Kenobi and Yoda meeting for the first time. That's basically what they did in this Star Trek movie. Hopefully the next movie will stand more on its own.
...are too emotional... =(
You obviously know your Trek, but I'm a bit confused by many of your criticisms. Everything that happens from the moment Nero's ship appears in the past, prior to Kirk's birth, can depart from the known history of Starfleet without contradicting one bit of canon. Spock and Uhura's romance? That doesn't break with canon. They aren't saying there was always a romance. They are simply saying there is NOW a romance. Same with Kirk's service on Farragut, and the events that happened to Romulus. The movie makes it clear that the future that you saw DID happen, but is no longer GOING TO happen.
I think that the official word is that this DOES create an alternate universe, due to quantum branching, but that's mostly just the creators covering their butts.
There are some inconsistencies, of course, like the technology on Kirk's Father's ship; but I think overall this movie tried harder to fit into canon then most STAR TREK episodes themselves did.
Why, in my day we had to battle giant spiders on our way to school......
Gene Roddenberry mus be rolling in his grave. The Trek universe is not about blowing out some shit. Between the bad acting, the absence of exploration or a trace of humanist values, it only remains the will of a corporation to introduce the product to a younger audience used to brainless plots and action.
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
... admitting that you are a Trekkie is not a mark of shame ...
Unless you're one of those really obsessive fans who insist on "trekker".
Yes you can be a huge fan without being a Trekkie. I am.
I admit that I enjoy Star Trek very much, but I will not call myself a Trekkie. It's not because I don't love the show, but because I have too much respect for those true Trekkies, and I don't want to shame them by trying to put myself in the same category as those truely inspirational fans.
A Trekkie can name every character ever to appear on the show
A Trekkie has dressed up at least once as a Star Trek Character (and not just for Haloween)
A Trekkie would know the answer to this question, so please enlighen us with an answer....
Why do you yell "F**k you" to Rick Berman? I know he took over for Mr. Rodenberry, and the show has not been the same since, but is that the only reason? Please help inform this fan!
Obviously the movie had its flaws and I can't address a lot of those questions. However, I do distinctly remember that when Kirk is trying to convince Pike and crew that the lightning storm is actually Romulans, he described the attack on the day of his birth and said that the Romulan ship was "never seen again" (until now)....So I don't know where the hell they were, but that would explain the Federation not going after them (in addition to the Romulans' obvious technological advantage).
I'm always positive; it's my nature.
"On these pages, admitting that you are a Trekkie is not a mark of shame: it's more like adcarbon based life formmitting that you are a carbon based life form..."
And some would say "but i AM ashamed to be this carbon-based life form".
carbon based life form
I do not know if this Cdr Taco statement was intended profundity; so I will take it to have several layers of meaning. G.R. seemed to be focused on providing a vision of a possible 'good' future (not the tech, but the society). While I enjoy the dark stuff (Blade Runner), the picture of a people that are not fundamentally self-serving at best or simply evil at worst, is a good image.
I need another dose of the GR style of ST to, once again, not be ashamed to admit that I am a "carbon based life form" Looking forward to this flick.
I'm not going to go into the story: it's convoluted, but frankly its really not the key to this movie:
If so, I'm not sure I care about it. If TOS series had just been another fix for the adrenaline junkies, I never would have become a fan. If all they've done is accumulate the usual special effects and actions sequences and slap the Star Trek brand on it, I'll stay at home and read the latest Stirling.
the characters: they basically nailed everyone
see, explicit sex is exactly what i thought was missing in all the previous start trek movies.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
so you don't like Abrams and it sounds like you went in wanting it to suck
For a Trekkie, ANY Star Trek is better than no Star Trek.
Still... Any Trekkie knows that there are Final Frontiers and Nemesis' out there.
If a writer has a scene in mind, they will invent the science that makes that scene possible no matter how far fetched.
That is Star WARS, not Star TREK. Midichlorians and that shit. Trek HAS rules. Some even resemble actual science.
I'm curious where you got YOUR familiarity with the command structure of a STARSHIP. Starfleet was always a quasi-military organization from the beginning, so a strict adherence to military custom and chain of command should not be expected.
Try this new thing - it's called "The Internets".
I hear that there is a shitload of information compiled by the fans and creators alike.
"Only hardcore fans will even notice those changes, so it's like a secret little 'Up yours' to the fans. The fans that he claims he doesn't need. The same fans that kept Star Trek going for the last 40 years."
taking this a little personally here. The sad truth is that a reboot is required after 40 years because the original cast and those who came after have so mangled the entire concept. The other sad truth is if Star Trek had never come back after the cancellation of TOS (no movies, no spinoffs) and Abrams had wanted to make a big movie loosely based on some cool old TV show, the movie would be just as big a hit without the hardcore fans...
OK. This one is pure bullshit.
Reboots are a tool for lazy writers who can't be bothered with doing some actual writing and/or imagining.
So, instead of doing something new and creative they take something old and just slap a coat of brand new actors and special effects on it.
As for Star Trek never coming back and JJ remaking something else that no one watched or liked (no fans) but it was still cool - that is a nice big claim with big manly pair of balls on it.
I'd like to see you prove his magical powers - but that is kinda like claiming that an elephant could kill a man by cumming into his mouth.
Kinda not really provable, isn't it now?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Enterprise vs Imperial Star Destroyer. Which spaceship would win?
The PRS Dauntless, of course.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
You agreed to marry a woman who has never even seen Star Trek??? What the blazes is wrong with you, man!
She must be great in the sack, eh?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You insensitive clod.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
^ What he said. The movie (and Spock in particular) was very blatant, very direct, in stating that it was an alternate timeline. They made a very specific point to even bring it up in the dialog of the movie that this was not part of the timeline of TOS and all that followed it, but rather split off. So, if anyone wants to think of this as not being part of the original timeline... Good! The producers didn't want you to, heh.
Community Manager - Bigfoot Networks
Counting FAIL.
I hope everyone here realizes that no matter who made the film, who played the characters, and what the plot involved, there would still be 5000 comments on Slashdot complaining about how terrible it was. I'm a younger fan and I really enjoy Star Trek. I've seen every episode of every show, and I'm reasonably fluent in a lot of the "extra stuff" like the comics and novels. While I'm already familiar with the franchise, this new movie material may just be the kick in the pants that Star Trek needed. I know a few people that want to see this movie, despite not having seen a single TOS episode. Despite what your fanboy idiocy might tell you, this is a very good thing. Because of this movie, Star Trek is not yet dead, Jim. tl;dr: I think it's about time you old farts stopped bitching about kids on your grass.
...so that he doesn't have to watch what they've done to his vision and legacy.
TNG was the last great trek that had his blessing. This movie is nothing like TNG.
I suppose you could quibble over the definition of "great", but DS9 had Gene's blessing before he died, and I'd say that was a pretty damned good series.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Holes? How about the fact that no navy in the known universe is going to make a captain of a kid right out of the acadamy AND give him the fleet flagship to boot. I don't care how many planets he saves.
"Great job, Ensign Kirk. You're now Lieutenant Kirk. Report to the Yorktown."
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Just to counter your comment on the science.
Most of the series were logial in their application of science, transporters were limited by sensor range, warp drive worked based on real world theories of FTL (disproven recently), they used terms like dark matter and protons/gravitons/etc.. correctly and alot of the phonemon mentioned exist as theoretical ideas.
The film seemed to ignore science, we had "red matter", "lightening storms in space" aparently a ship can survive being in the middle of a black hole for a couple of minutes with no problems. Transporters can work over infinite distances, and little logical errors abounded. During their trip out they make a point of saving it will take three minutes, yet a more advanced ship from the future seems to make the same journey in a day.
I liked the movie but between saying f*** you to the ten years of star trek tv shows I grew up with and the complete inattention to the science or sticking with rules the film creates just annoyed the hell out of me. I'd rather they let the whole franchise have fizzled out than that film.
That the name "Nichelle Nichols" creates, in just my typing it?
I used to watch CARTOON Star Trek, in '73. Just to get more of that woman.
Tough luck, Betty and Veronica.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I'm going to see it tonight. This is the first Star Trek movie ever to have been made, and there have never been any TV shows.
That's what I'm choosing to believe because everything else is either incredibly dated, unremarkable or just plain bad.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
As usual, Smidge207 stole this review from someone else and should be modded down accordingly.
> Unless they accept this as a [...] re-envisioning of ST
God, I hope so!
> as was done with Battlestar Galactica.
God, I hope not!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
And CHILL like Bill (Shatner), teh Interstellar Assimilated Jew! - Nimoy is still strictly shtetl.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
It's "Roddenberry". Who can forget such an OBVIOUS double-entendre for Penis and Testicle?
Or is it an "In-yer-End-oh"?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
...so I may be the Senior here. (kudos to RAH!)
I fully admit to smoking the Trek crack since 1966. Hard habit to break!
And I know it led me to enlist in the Air Force and end up at Edwards AFB in 1976. My clearance and job allowed me to get up close and personal with the real first spacecraft to be named Enterprise.
So, TOS really meant a lot, especially at that time. The other cool thing was that my proximity to L.A. allowed me to see Star Wars 3 days after it premiered. Did not suck.
In spite of that, I am not fanatic about the Trek. Of the series, I prefer TOS and Voyager. Of the movies, I think I'm in the majority with 2, 4, 6, and 8. Everything else was not-so-good.
I'm going this weekend to see the new movie. I think it has a chance. I'd like to see 2 sequels that are even better. I think the first 3 Raiders movies were uniformly good, if for different reasons. There's no reason Abrams can't turn out 3 good movies. Hey, Judd Apatow hasn't really served up a turd yet, so this is doable.
As for a future TV series, I don't know. Might seem too much like Galaxy Quest. Then again, if this movie and possible sequels get giant box office numbers, it may be a foregone conclusion.
I am my own gestalt.
It's an OK movie. If it weren't "Star Trek", it would probably rank with The Chronicles of Riddick.
Annoyances:
Maybe someday there will be a David Weber SF movie, one that makes military sense. This isn't it. It's a mediocre space opera.
The above post was stolen from an IMDB comment. Scroll down and you'll see that Smidge207's post is practically identical to the Star Trek comment except for the references to gay sex and homosexuality. Smidge207's "reviews" are always plagiarized and should be modded down. The other review that he posted in this thread was taken from a Rotten Tomatoes user.
This is basically a cheesy action movie. A very well done cheesy action movie. Mixing it with the Star Trek universe gave it a bit more heft, but it is still a cheesy action movie.
Although don't get me wrong, I like cheesy action movies and this is a good cheesy action film with a bunch of Star Trek humor thrown in to boot. If you are up for that, this movie is worth watching. And particularly, the visuals in the movie are quite good, so watching it on a big screen will definitely add to it. The dialog is quipy funny.
I definitely enjoyed the film, but I also left rather disappointed. The people creating the film are obviously highly skilled. They could create stunning visuals and they could write amusing dialog. But they didn't seem to really care about the universe they were writing about. To me, it really seemed to have no heart and only a passing consideration for the universe it was operating within (and mostly just to use it for humorous affect). As far as the Star Trek universe goes, the holes in the movie were pretty bad. The movie didn't even seem to be consistent within its 'own' universe. As with most cheesy action movies, this is unfortunately (IMO) pretty normal.
OKAY NOW FOR SPOILERS COMMENTS, RANTS, AND GENERAL COMPLAINTS
I JUST SAID ***SPOILERS***.
DON'T READ FARTHER AND THEN COMPLAIN THAT YOU'VE READ SPOILERS. IF YOU DO (AND I NOTICE) YOU WILL JUST GET LAUGHTER BACK.
And not the 'heh' or 'hah-hah' sort of laughter but the 'Bawahahahaha, you read past all those really annoying capital letters and still got mad and fell for my evil plot...' sort of laughter.
I'm a miner and a foreign ambassador is trying to save my planet by turning a sun going super nova into a black hole. Hmmm, he didn't get there in time. hmm, but it couldn't have been the sun in my planet's solar system because a black hole there would have just wasted the planet anyway. hmmm, so it must have been light years away, but there wasn't any time to evacuate the planet? or anything else in those years?, hmm, they were just instantly toast anyway? hmm, cough, well never mind, lets keep the plot moving.
Okay so this guy failed to save my planet killing my wife, children and, well, the whole planet. What should I do? What should I do? Well, kill the guy, of course! That bastard! what was he thinking trying to save my planet!. It's a good thing my entire crew (and I have an awful lot crew for a mining ship, but whatever) thinks this is a good enough idea to go along with it instead of, I don't know, helping survivors and locking me up in loony bin somewhere.
Oops, I got sucked into that black hole he created too late. Good thing the gravity in that black whole didn't crush me like a grape. Also, it's a good the guy I'm trying to kill got sucked into it too, so I can keep trying to kill him. "Hey crew, you're still with me on this right?".
I just realized that instead of being crushed like a grape by that black hole, I got sent back in time. Cool, here comes an old Federation Star Ship, let's waste 'em for, um, kicks? and I'm just in a bad mood anyway. Crew? you guys still good right? It's a good thing my mining vessel has sooo much fire power too. Those asteroids and planets often fight back pretty hard when I mine them. It's also a good thing my mining crew is made up of gun toting warriors that live for attacking military vessels instead of, um, mining.
And just as an aside, it's also pretty nifty that my ship has such a cool evil looking shape to it, to go along with all the fire power. Because when you're mining, you need a bunch of spiky things sticking out the front and your ships to look like the bad guys from Babylon-5.
Sweet, I just caught that guy that failed at trying to save my planet. I don't feel like killing him now though. What should I do?, What should I do?. I know!, I'll use the stuff he's got that can turn a sun into a black hole to save my planet by turning that sun into a black hole in this time period, long b
So you never got past 'to boldly go' in the intro?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Not a cliche or anything.
Since I've found the majority of the movies "problematic" the reviews that this one is a little different intrigue me. Will I like it more than the rest while the people I'm with like it less?
This movie is what Gene Roddenberry would have done if he had the budget and technology available for it.
I believe the eugenics wars serves as the explanation for why the Federation has never reached a singularity. Paranoid fear of modifying itself too much has prevented the singularity.
Want some Trek Cheese? How about in TNG movie when Riker tells the computer to go on manual pilot and a joystick pops up out of the floor?
I know, I know, I'm horrible - but although I enjoy some StarTrek I don't care enough for it to go outside to see it. I'd rather stay inside with my lego jawa's
Ave Molech Setting
> Most of the series were logial in their application of science
Sure Whatever you say.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I kept getting a Star Wars feeling from this. When Kirk is hanging from the drill platform I was waiting for him to use The Force to pull his lightsaber to him. There were the multiple exotic locations, the emphasis on action, and there was even a medal ceremony at the end.
It was entertaining and leaves some interesting places for sequels but I'm unhappy that the odds of any of the TNG, DS9 or even Voyager characters to appear any more are very low (I still think a film with all the characters thrown together would have been fun).
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Sure Eric Bana is the worst thing since, well, Eric Bana... but I buy it.
CV-6!
Now get offa my lawn!
(Okay, I'm a 19yo sorta-pacifist, but I always wanted to type that...)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
If I could mod him down or mod you up for pointing out the theft, I would!
I had a sucky sig.
Obviously, this is only for those who have seen it...
My friend was asking me, and I don't get it either...
Nero captures Spock when he comes through... He wants Spock to see the destruction of Vulcan... So instead of strapping him down in front of a viewscreen, making him watch them fire the weapon, and watching Spock's reaction to this catastrophic event.... He strands him on a nearby planet where he's able to safely watch... And oh, by the way, there's a Starfleet outpost handy if he needs to make contact and get a ride somewhere.... ?
I loved the movie, don't get me wrong.
Explain, though? Please? Someone?
I had a sucky sig.
So, how's Anderson v. Sagdiyev coming along in the court system?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
.
After reading that and knowing that the casting was to appeal to the younger crowds, just for some reason, Varsity Blues and this (foo-fighters) comes into mind...
Nichelle Nichols would have been in the movie in a cameo as Uhura's grandmother were it not for the writers' strike.
-=Steve=-
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
It was actually pretty good. As a standalone movie, it's a little confusing; I feel like the viewer needs knowledge of the Star Trek Canon in order to appreciate what this movie is doing. I've seen some of the original series, but I don't know my Trek backstories. Someone who knows Star Trek is likely going to enjoy this a lot more than someone who knows nothing. Going in, the newbie would have no idea who Vulcans or Romulans were, what Starfleet is, or who anyone outside of the famous Enterprise crew is, and by the end of it, they still might not know as much as they want to.
This could be a good springboard for anyone who wants to explore the original series. It's definitely not any sort of one-shot entertainment. And because it's a universe reboot, I kind of look forward to what they do with this now open alternate continuity.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
The kobayashi maru scene was too over the top. Why advertise that you're cheating?
This story was Trek canon already, it's just being retold.
How could Spock see Vulcan from that Ice planet, but it has no effect on that ice planet at all? What happend to these black holes afterwards?
Well since they would have the same mass as the things they devoured, I imagine they would continue along in their orbits. Black holes don't magically have more gravity than other things of the same mass, it's just more concentrated. Although the radiation released as all the matter fell into the hole would probably destroy all life in the solar system.
Why, if they could beam over to the romulan ship, did they not beam over a few photon torpedoes?
They wanted to save Captain Pike.
But now there is no crew available except a bunch of trainees.
You think a crew of 50-year-olds like the other Trek movies makes more sense? Actual armies and navies are filled with guys in their 20s and even teens; why not Starfleet?
Why didn't the federation use that 25 year gap to attack the Romulans or at least ask WTH after the first ship was destroyed?
Who says they didn't? We didn't see what happened during that time. But the Romulans would be as clueless as the Federation, since they weren't in contact with Nero either.
Why the hell were the black holes actual HOLES anyway? Why would *ambassador* Spock be flying that ship? How could a sun going nova threaten the *galaxy*?
Yeah, those probably don't make sense. But I think the most egregious plot hole was them beaming from the ice planet to the Enterprise which had left the system and traveled quite some distance at warp speed. If they can beam across interstellar distances, why use warp drives at all? Beaming is so much faster.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
> Why do you yell "F**k you" to Rick Berman?
The feeling I got was that Berman was responsible for the dilution of the Trek franchise. Capitalizing on the fanbase created by TOS, the first few movies, and the first few seasons of TNG, he started a campaign of maximizing Trek's presence on the screen, replacing what used to be (mostly) the exploration of ideas with what became (mostly) formula, as long as it maximized screen time. There was always technobabble and contrived drama in Star Trek, going clear back to the old series, but like a property owner who subdivides, packs in as many families as possible and then refuses to maintain the property, he seemed intent on maximizing return with little thought towards quality or creativity. What amazes me is that the fans let him get away with it for as long as he did.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You think a crew of 50-year-olds like the other Trek movies makes more sense? Actual armies and navies are filled with guys in their 20s and even teens; why not Starfleet?
I'm not the OP, but actually yeah, I do think it would make more sense to have more mature bridge crews. Armies that routinely face physical combat are younger because they have physical strength, speed, resiliency and other advantages because of their youth. Tactical commanders are ofter older. On a starship, experience and sound mental abilities are more important than physical ones, especially for those highest up in the chain of command (which is what the main characters are), so it would make sense to have the more seasoned officers in those positions, rather than a bunch of cadet n00bs - that's like retiring Captain Picard because Wesley Crusher is there to take over. It was also a bit difficult for me to believe that almost every single advanced officer in Starfleet happened to be on duty and indisposed with the rest of the fleet at the time of the crisis.
I'm always positive; it's my nature.
I have no plans to see this movie. J.J. Abrams already has enough money, and he doesn't need any of mine.
No "JJAbrams Nested Box". You know what I mean. The "Lost" like "OOO! look its a Box! What's in the box! What's in the box! Lets open the box! HEY IT'S ANOTHER BOX!! What's in that box! What's in that box!, ETC.
Although It does have a "Berman Time Paradox". On the other hand, it's a VERY GOOD "Berman Time Paradox".
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
How does it address the fact that the Federation was dumb enough to build starships at the bottom of a gravity well?
No, midichlorians are crappy quick science. A better explanation would have been special quantum interactions with the brain of the force user which while selection for such structures is genetically influenced it also can pop up randomly because of the nature of said interaction.
Uhura x Spock...
I just don't see that happening, even with an altered timeline.
I certainly do agree that Kirk's practically instant ascent to Captain was ridiculous, but Pike was plenty old, First Officer Spock was older than the rest and I think it's plausible that the other bridge positions (navigator, helmsman, communications officer) would be filled by younger officers.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Yup :)
Besides I vaguely remember all the star trek episodes and definitely vaguely remember a series finale where Captain Bristow has to stop a big red matter ball from turning a whole city into zombies.
This is what I've come to expect from a Trek-saturated community; endless bickering about some insignificant minutiae that, in the end, has nothing to do with nothing.
Take this film for what it is: a pure joyride
Have I missed anything? It's got it all, and I was happy to be taken on such a fantastic ride. I almost expected the theater to start moving-about like a giant simulator... I was drawn in.
I'm not one to shell-out over ten bucks to watch a restored antique... I was there to witness something new and interesting, and I found it in Star Trek.
Now let's just take it in, accept that we're moving on and look forward to see what's next. Looking back will only bring us pain.
Whatever we say here won't make a pair-of-fetid-dingo's-kidneys difference about that anyway.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Unless its one of those Terminator plots where the Federation is really the source of the Borg... So they had to sent the cube back knowing it would be destroyed in order for some borg piece to be around so that they are created sometimes in the future.
That is Exactly what happened
Transporters can work over infinite distances.
Aye- this is actually a terrifying weapon with apparently absolutely no defense.
In regular star trek- you had to get close to use transporters-- only "super-advanced" alien races could teleport at long distances (this was seen even in TOS).
But given an effective long distance teleporter you could lay waste to planets and they wouldn't even know where the hell it was coming from or be able to defend against it.
I would say the movie ignored basic logic as much as science.
In the real world, 25 years is a helluva long time. People's attitudes change a lot during that time.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I suspect parent post was referring to the Singularity in the Star Trek Countdown comics..
Eric Bana and Nimoy end up within it at the end of the comic prequel...
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
There was no Bristow. You meant Captain Braxton I guess.
But I don't recall any such red matter ball or zombie city..
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
"It all works. The Enterprise itself feels HUGE inside. Engineering isn't just a room with a console; it's massive. It has weight. I love it." - above posting.
"I actually like the look of the engine room. I just find it funny that it is the Budweiser refinery." - seen on the net.
Let's head on down for some beer!!! Red shirts taste test the latest home brew just in case it's toxic! Now we know why engineering wears red shirts.
What the heck was that uselessly funny scene with Scotty being beamed into one of the machines!!! Very funny yet a bit stupid how they played it out...
Love how Kirk hits his head on the shuttle craft bulkhead the moment he walks onto a federation ship for the first time as an adult!
Also loved an interview with Nimoy: "Nimoy, 78, chuckled when asked about possibly reuniting on-screen with William Shatner, the original James T. Kirk actor who doesn't appear in the new voyage. Nimoy said Shatner told him, "Now we're even" in regard to appearing in the Trek prequel after Shatner cameoed without Nimoy in 1994's Star Trek: Generations, which featured the death of Kirk." - Vancouver Sun
Time for that beer now! Beer Alert!!!
Some funny and strange videos with Shatner and Star Trek.
Later explanation to the midichlorians is crappy quick quasi-science. Midichlorians themselves are just a plot device Lucas pulled out of his unimaginative ass.
Lets face it already - the guy is a hack who got lucky with 3 things: Star Wars, being friends with an actual "genius director-producer" like Spielberg and stumbling onto Harrison Ford.
Naming used for the technology is a good hint that someone during the writing process actually said "Hey, hold on for a second. How exactly would this thing work?".
That is why Star Wars ships have "reactors" which is about as descriptive as "engine", and Star Trek ships has a "warp core", which... ok... let me quote this:
On Federation starships, the warp core usually consists of a matter/antimatter reaction assembly (M/ARA) utilizing deuterium and antideuterium reacting in a crystal matrix which produces a maximum output of 4,000 teradynes per second. (VOY: "Drone") Lithium crystals were used until sometime between 2265 and 2266 when they were replaced with dilithium crystals.
Also... "Blasters" and "phasers" - can you guess just from their names which one has multiple modes of firing and which one just shoots?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Not Braxton. Also, not captain at all.
As for the red matter ball and zombie city...
And who was it that invented all that?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
know where and when to find Spock?
Romulus is destroyed in the future. Some romulan guy blames Spock, and when he is thrown back in time he wants to destroy Vulcan so Spock can feel his pain ... but HELLO - BACK IN TIME - he is thrown back to a point where Romulus IS NOT DESTROYED - instead of running around destroying planets, why the hell doesn't he head home and tell them to start evacuating *duh*
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The didn't have the technology or money to make fantastic special effects 40 years ago.
And as for not watching it, that doesn't matter - because they have still destroyed the last 40 years, whether he watches it or not.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"Somebody likes plumbing too much. "
Yah, they definitely went overboard with the pipes. But I thought this might have been an attempt at a homage: In the TOS, the corridor sets were basically featureless, except they would have random occasional orange piping. You generally couldn't see it on TV, but reportedly these pipes were often stenciled "GNDN", which stood for "Goes Nowhere Does Nothing" -- an in-joke by the set design crew. I think that might have inspired the plumping fetish. But they took it too far. I also thought of a brewery at one point.
And the scene with Neo-Scotty in the gratuitously transparent, gratuitously serpentine water pipes can only be described as laughable. I was laughing quite hard, but in the "at it, not with it" sense. I couldn't help thinking of that scene in Galaxy Quest where Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver encounter the hallway full of crushing platforms, which was included just because the script of one episode featured such a thing.
Weaver: What is this thing? I mean, it serves no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway. No, I mean we shouldn't have to do this, it makes no logical sense, why is it here?
Allen: 'Cause it's on the television show.
Weaver: Well forget it! I'm not doing it! This episode was badly written!
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
They also did a good retro-explanation of what her role was on the bridge, which gave her a bit more substantial job than just saying "hailing frequencies open, captain," and yet consistent with the original.
So, yes, I'd say that for the sub-subcult of Trek fans that consists of Nichelle Nichols fandom, this is indeed a film to see.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1) Make the usual formula film that appeals the the lowest common denominator around the world only exploiting the minimum elements to justify using the franchise. Include a few cameos from the old if anything so those actors can help promote the film.
2) Append to the formula a fan/geek consultant to remove the unforgivable elements and fabricate excuses.
3) Scatter references to fan favorites to raise their nostalgia level every few minutes in order to overpower their defenses.
Action movie set in the future. Not science fiction.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Time travel was only there as an excuse to use Nimoy. There was no reason the entire crew had to be together at the end. The story would be much more interesting if the crew members had crossed paths, then gone separate ways, with the audience knowing they meet up again later.
Is Kirk supposed to be purely an action figure? He seems to have no interest in in star fleet, or space exploration, or anything philosophical. In fact, I don't think there was anything remotely philosophical in the entire movie. There was not much of a story either. I suppose we are supposed to ouu and ahh over seeing the original characters, and the special effects.
The movie was little more than one action scene after the next, and a series of extremely implausible meetings, and an equally implausible series of field promotions.
"oh that? it's the water blender. you wouldn't want too big of chunks of water in the cooling system. good thing i got you out scottie."
Hmm, to me that implies that the officers that fill those positions are interchangeable; in order to have younger officers in those positions as a normal practice, there would need to be a relatively high turnover rate as the people in those positions age and rotate with younger crew members. Considering that in all of the shows the bridge crew has been roughly the same for 3-7 years (with limited exceptions), this type of turnover seems unlikely (of course this is also due to the requisite format of a serial story).
I have always thought of the bridge crew as one cohesive team where he relationships between the members need to be developed so they know that they can all count on each other in the face of high stress and crisis. They need to be able to monitor each other and keep each other in check -- something that is difficult if you don't really know who you are dealing with. The bridge crew is responsible for the lives of all crew members, and to have a junior officer screw up could have deadly consequences. For this reason, it seems like it would make more sense to have a relatively stable group where each member is has the experience and proven skill set to manage the ship in a disaster, something that I think would be in the hands of higher-ranked officers.
I'm always positive; it's my nature.
And as the last negative point, they also changed the iconic 'Space...the final frontier' speech. Two small changes - 'continuing mission' to 'on-going mission', and 'strange new life' to 'strange new lifeforms' - but they add nothing to the speech, and merely serve to again show that nothing is sacred when JJ Abrams is at the helm.
Both of these wording changes came from the version of the speech Leonard Nimoy did at the end of Star Trek II.
End of Line.
And as my wife will tell you, I scream "F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it.
Anyone who bristles at the mention of Rick Berman's name is good in my books. You can judge much about a man's character (and reviews) based on such things.
Now I have to go watch this film rather than muck around with torrents.
-FL
Warp time to Vulcan did come as a shock. Vulcan is obviously at least a few light years away, and the Federation of this time would presumably have been using TOS warp factor scales... meaning that it just doesn't add up.
Transporting to/between ships in warp is possible in the later series (post TOS, as the movie implis it would be) but range still seems to be limited to roughly a few light seconds (perhaps the distance to the moon from Earth) which would make it difficult to catch a ship warping out of a system.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I suppose everyone's trying to avoid posting spoilers, but doesn't anyone else think the single biggest problem with the movie is that they BLEW UP VULCAN!?!?! (If /. supported BLINK, I'd add that too.) I mean really, casual genocide of one of the most important races in Trek? WTF?
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
On the styling: someone's been watching way too much BSG; Starfleet ships are not supposed to look steam powered. That engine room was ridiculous.
On canon: Robert April, call your agent.
On prequels: WTF is wrong with going forward with the 24th century? I took about five minutes to come up with the following idea for a new series, which I hereby place into the public domain: in the Voyager finale, Janeway brought working transwarp back from the Delta Quadrant, making it feasible to visit other galaxies for the first time. Put the epic multi-year arcs on hold for a while and go back to the roots, one ship, episodically exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, one per week. (Unfortunately it can't really be called "Star Trek: Andromeda", as that would confuse the fuck out of everyone, but I'm sure they can come up with a suitable name.)
Or do something about Section 31, or something about Romulan politics, or something about the Mirror Universe. There are forty years of continuity here to play with, I fail to see why they're so eager to throw them away and start over.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
After watching the movie, I must say I rally liked it, and liked the concept of reboot and how it was done.
btw, I have the working title for the next one: "Star Trek II: The wrath of Portos"
I doubt Nurse Chapel would have been so actively pursuing Spock if he and Uhura were involved, and in Amok Time he would have sought out Uhura's comfort. And it was pretty clear in Plato's Stepchildren that by season 3 Uhura was admiring Kirk from afar.
Considering that Spock apparently was in a teaching role at the academy his relationship with a cadet was not professional and should have violated ethics standards, so was not particularly believable. Weakens his moral high ground in the Maru incident. That and Uhura at different times had interest in Kirk and Scotty - do they have to hook her up with everyone? One could say that the timeline was different and Spock and Uhura only hooked up in the new one but it's a bit of a stretch since there's no obvious reason the loss of one starship would change academy romantic hookups much.
Was anyone else bothered by the fact that Kirk was marooned on that ice world, conveniently close to where Spock was marooned, which in turn was a planet just close enought to Vulcan that it looked like a sister world or moon in orbit?!?!? Or was that some hitherto unmentioned ice moon of Vulcan's that I was unaware of....? Or maybe Spock has really, really, really good telescopic vision...? That is almost the only part of the movie right now that I can't quite swallow.
Yes, we know at least one more with the new cast is planned. But I am convinced there is another needed.
Didn't anyone else notice the timeline paradox they've introduced into the Star Trek storyline? This one is massive, and will take two more flicks to fix.
It so isn't dead. Just the plotlines. Keep the effects coming, and I'll keep buying tickets, J.J. What, am I gonna keep spending money on Bond movies and Angelina's next show-off? C'mon.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
There's a same-sex romantic relationship between two main characters, that I thought was highly implausible and unbelievable, for two major reasons. I can't say any more without revealing the identity of the characters, but you'll know it when you hit it.
I just saw the movie yesterday and I don't remember this. Which characters are you referring to???
At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me