Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 259 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:33 
User avatar
Honey Boo Boo

Joined: 28th Mar, 2008
Posts: 12328
Location: Tronna, Canandada
Anonymous X wrote:
Yes, the film is full of inconsistencies and leaps of logic for nerds to pick over, but heck, it's a summer blockbluster movie for flip's sake.


Interesting list. Not quite to the level of 'in episode 4f22, we see Itchy play Scratchy's ribcage like a xylophone, and he strikes the same rib twice yet it produces two clearly distinct notes' either.

_________________
Image
"I don't found you example of air conditioning vibrations very silly because the music started long time ago by punching bones into a rock."
I don't understand how up the bum can be nice for a guy. Its not nice for girls (makes you feel like your having a poo over n over once the initial nice bit goes away) -MissEdwood

Collection DeadJournal You may remember me as 'Branch-me-do'
Youtube Channel!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:45 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 29832
Whilst a lot of that list was extreme nerdery (not that there's anything wrong with that) he makes good points about why the hell the Narada, a mining ship, was so heavily armed that it shredded the Kelvin. Also, where did it go for 25 years, and why wasn't everyone surprised to see Romulans? Not that it matters much, but they are good points.

Oh and I like the Enterprise being built on Earth.

As for the coincidences of the crew coming together, that felt like destiny to me. Like it's an elastic, self-healing timeline, that always ends up at roughly the same place despite the rearrangement of the details. Plenty of history of that in SF.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:46 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 14162
It must be a bit of a curse to be like that, I'll bet he just tutted his way through the whole film, the joyless fool.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:51 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 29832
Maybe not. I spotted a number of the things he points out, but I didn't harm the film for me. Trek has never been huge on continuity and I think most fans are comfortable of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:56 
User avatar
Lupine member

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48970
Location: Nottingham
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Trek has never been huge on continuity and I think most fans are comfortable of that.

He obviously didn't get the latest memo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:21 
User avatar
Honey Boo Boo

Joined: 28th Mar, 2008
Posts: 12328
Location: Tronna, Canandada
Anyone played the terrible tie-in game on Xbox Live?

The menu (in which a gorgeously rendered Enterprise comes blasting out of warp) is the best part.

The rest is a horrendously sub-par top-down deathmatchy shooter just like Space War was almost half a century ago. With the added fun of the screen scrolling so you can't see enemies until you've nearly crashed into them!

The designers will undoubtedly be hung, drawn and quartered by Trekkies, while the Enterprise is the star of the Federation side, the Federation 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are the least convincing 'Star Trek-like' ships ever... or until you see the Romulan ships. One is the Narada, fair enough... but the Romulan 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are similarly indistinct 'black shard' shaped things. As opposed to, say, the Romulan warships seen in the old Star Trek (but then, I suppose, that never happened yet, etc etc etc).

But yes, it's shit, in the worst Ocean Software tradition.

_________________
Image
"I don't found you example of air conditioning vibrations very silly because the music started long time ago by punching bones into a rock."
I don't understand how up the bum can be nice for a guy. Its not nice for girls (makes you feel like your having a poo over n over once the initial nice bit goes away) -MissEdwood

Collection DeadJournal You may remember me as 'Branch-me-do'
Youtube Channel!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:57 

Joined: 31st Mar, 2008
Posts: 6091
I didn't read all of that list. Yeah, there are a lot of inconsistences that I also noticed whilst watching the film, but it's an awesome film nevertheless so I couldn't give a shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:07 
User avatar
Sitting balls-back folder

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 8617
I've been studiously not bothering to suggest going to see it - only to have my girlfriend say at the weekend, out of the blue, "Do you want to go and see Star Trek? Everyone says it's good."

Crikey.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:08 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 62624
Location: Your Mum
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Whilst a lot of that list was extreme nerdery (not that there's anything wrong with that) he makes good points about why the hell the Narada, a mining ship, was so heavily armed that it shredded the Kelvin. Also, where did it go for 25 years, and why wasn't everyone surprised to see Romulans? Not that it matters much, but they are good points.

I believe these questions were answered in the pre-film comic.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:14 
SupaMod
User avatar
Everybodys gilf

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 45658
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years? It's not hard to imagine even makeshift weapons being shockingly effective against the technology 80 years ago. I imagine you could quite happily take down a 1920s-era battleship with modern RPGs, for example.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:16 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 62624
Location: Your Mum
Craster wrote:
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years? It's not hard to imagine even makeshift weapons being shockingly effective against the technology 80 years ago. I imagine you could quite happily take down a 1920s-era battleship with modern RPGs, for example.

Yes, but probably not with a modern oil rig.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:17 
SupaMod
User avatar
Everybodys gilf

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 45658
No, but an angry man with an oil rig could quite happily weld some RPGs on the outside.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 0:28 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2046
Craster wrote:
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years?

I did some quick research ( :nerd: ), and Nero went back in time 154 years (from 2387 to 2233), and Old Spock arrived in 2258, so he travelled back 129 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:58 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 7495
Location: Cardiff
Craster wrote:
No, but an angry man with an oil rig could quite happily weld some RPGs on the outside.


Pft, RPG's would never take a battleship out in a million, billion years. They're huge, could shred a rig in a broadside and they only went out due to their slow vulnerability to air attack, and later, concerted missile attack. Despite that as long as the magazines aren't hit they can take a lot of dam...

Ah. Wait. It was one of those conversations wasn't it? Um, sorry.

(Takes nerd hat off, slithers away)

_________________
"Peter you've lost the NEWS!"

Bored? Why not look at some pretty pictures on my photography blog? Here: http://petetakespictures.com

Come & See My Flickery Pics Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nervouspete/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:01 
SupaMod
User avatar
Everybodys gilf

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 45658
Also, as we discussed, the Enterprise wasn't a battleship. It was an armed cruise liner.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:02 
User avatar
Honey Boo Boo

Joined: 28th Mar, 2008
Posts: 12328
Location: Tronna, Canandada
It was a heavy cruise (line)r, yes.

_________________
Image
"I don't found you example of air conditioning vibrations very silly because the music started long time ago by punching bones into a rock."
I don't understand how up the bum can be nice for a guy. Its not nice for girls (makes you feel like your having a poo over n over once the initial nice bit goes away) -MissEdwood

Collection DeadJournal You may remember me as 'Branch-me-do'
Youtube Channel!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:22 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 7495
Location: Cardiff
Craster wrote:
Also, as we discussed, the Enterprise wasn't a battleship. It was an armed cruise liner.


What? A Q-Boat?! Not if Picard can help it!

Ha ha ha!

Sorry, that's the nerdiest joke I've ever made.

_________________
"Peter you've lost the NEWS!"

Bored? Why not look at some pretty pictures on my photography blog? Here: http://petetakespictures.com

Come & See My Flickery Pics Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nervouspete/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 0:28 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 62624
Location: Your Mum
Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:28 
User avatar
Honey Boo Boo

Joined: 28th Mar, 2008
Posts: 12328
Location: Tronna, Canandada
Oh but it messed with the precious canon by suggesting "our" Spock is now forever trapped in the other timeline. Also that the Enterprise shuttle bay was 500 times bigger than shown on TV.

_________________
Image
"I don't found you example of air conditioning vibrations very silly because the music started long time ago by punching bones into a rock."
I don't understand how up the bum can be nice for a guy. Its not nice for girls (makes you feel like your having a poo over n over once the initial nice bit goes away) -MissEdwood

Collection DeadJournal You may remember me as 'Branch-me-do'
Youtube Channel!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:46 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 26068
Location: Kidbrooke
Grim... wrote:
Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?


Out next year.

_________________
I've got a bad feeling about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:12 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 10th Mar, 2009
Posts: 343
Curiosity wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?


Out next year.

And it's got Benedict Cumberbatch in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:35 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 62624
Location: Your Mum
metalangel wrote:
Oh but it messed with the precious canon by suggesting "our" Spock is now forever trapped in the other timeline.

That's not messing with the canon, is it?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:59 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
No it isn't. That Spock disappears to an alternate timeline at a very late point in his life, at a time beyond the broadcast end of the last Star Trek series, then that's totally fine.

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:55 
User avatar
SavyGamer

Joined: 29th Apr, 2008
Posts: 7062
I just recently completed my watch of DS9, which was preceded by TNG and TOS. I'd seen plenty of episodes of all three when I was younger, but a lot of it was over my head, and I never watched them from beginning to end, in order.

I think DS9 is the best, I definitely enjoyed the strong character arcs, them getting very creative with the format, and the emphasis on Politics, War and Theology, in addition to the explorations of Science, Philosophy and Ideology that you get in most of Star Trek.

I've moved onto Enterprise now (only a few episodes in), which has a very neat premise a few cool twists, but it's obviously Trek dumbed down. It's kind of like a half step towards the JJ Abrams movies. It feels like it's missing a lot of the attention to detail and thematic depth that makes Trek special, but has decent action. It feels like there's a fair bit of tension between trying to tie into the wider continuity and still be it's own thing.

Characters seem fairly shallow so far, even if there's good performances from most of the main cast.

My original plan was to finish Enterprise before Discovery starts, but I doubt I'll make it now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:23 
User avatar
SAVE OUR PLANES 2019

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9358
Interesting reading contemporaneous 2009 posts from people here regarding JJ Abrams' Trek "reboot" and subsequent attempts.

For me, as I've said before, I thought the films were wafer-thin, lighter-than-air flimsy shite (akin to a sort of 'Star Trek for the under fives' extremely lavish CBBC production); nothing short of a complete trashing of the franchise. (Don't even get me started on Into the Darkness or Simon Pegg being cast as Scotty and the worst faux accent since Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.... I give it 3 out of 1000).

I find it hard to believe that in retrospect, anyone thinks these films stand up well as against the original series and (some) of the original movie spin offs, most notably Wrath of Khan (of course), which Abrams pillages shamelessly with awful results, and The Voyage Home come to that. IMO, they really have not aged well; the shine has come off double quick, whereas the enduring durability of the original could not be more contrasting. :(

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:44 
User avatar
I'm a computery guy!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 32440
I was a huge Trekkie in my teens, but I haven't bothered to watch the second or third reboot movies. I just can't call up the enthusiasm.

Looking forward to the new series though. Proper TV Trek! Bring it on!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:50 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 26068
Location: Kidbrooke
LewieP wrote:
I just recently completed my watch of DS9, which was preceded by TNG and TOS. I'd seen plenty of episodes of all three when I was younger, but a lot of it was over my head, and I never watched them from beginning to end, in order.

I think DS9 is the best, I definitely enjoyed the strong character arcs, them getting very creative with the format, and the emphasis on Politics, War and Theology, in addition to the explorations of Science, Philosophy and Ideology that you get in most of Star Trek.

I've moved onto Enterprise now (only a few episodes in), which has a very neat premise a few cool twists, but it's obviously Trek dumbed down. It's kind of like a half step towards the JJ Abrams movies. It feels like it's missing a lot of the attention to detail and thematic depth that makes Trek special, but has decent action. It feels like there's a fair bit of tension between trying to tie into the wider continuity and still be it's own thing.

Characters seem fairly shallow so far, even if there's good performances from most of the main cast.

My original plan was to finish Enterprise before Discovery starts, but I doubt I'll make it now.


Wot no Voyager?

_________________
I've got a bad feeling about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:55 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 62624
Location: Your Mum
I loved the first new Trek movie. Liked the third one too, especially the bit with the classical music.

I'm sort-of looking forward to Discovery, but I've never really been that into Star Trek. Except when I being the captain in Bridge Commander, of course.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:02 
User avatar
SavyGamer

Joined: 29th Apr, 2008
Posts: 7062
Yeah I was planning on skipping Voyager for now, I watched a bit of it back in the day, and I thought it was pretty weak compared to TNG.


Regarding the Abrams movies, I did think the first one did succeed at the character and relationship stuff, as well as the action. This somewhat made up for how dumbed down, superficial and generic a lot of the other aspects were. I had kind of hoped that this would have set the stage for them doing a good job with the subsequent films. They already had a lot of the hard work down in terms of cast, chemistry, look and feel, but not only did they fail to build into anything more interesting thematically, they also didn't really do much with the characters. Into Darkness was particularly bad imo, because instead of continuing with interesting character dynamics, they just reheated all the character threads and tension from the previous movie.

A lot of people seem to think that the third one is better, and it isn't as bad as the second, but it was still super forgettable, and in my view cemented the fact that they're obviously not interested in doing proper Trek stories with these movies.

It's a shame, because they have nailed all the superficial elements, they're just pathologically averse to doing anything approaching challenging for the audience. I just dread the movie series inevitably losing steam, then they decide to do TNG reboot movie(s).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:21 
User avatar
SAVE OUR PLANES 2019

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9358
LewieP wrote:
Yeah I was planning on skipping Voyager for now, I watched a bit of it back in the day, and I thought it was pretty weak compared to TNG.


Regarding the Abrams movies, I did think the first one did succeed at the character and relationship stuff, as well as the action. This somewhat made up for how dumbed down, superficial and generic a lot of the other aspects were. I had kind of hoped that this would have set the stage for them doing a good job with the subsequent films. They already had a lot of the hard work down in terms of cast, chemistry, look and feel, but not only did they fail to build into anything more interesting thematically, they also didn't really do much with the characters. Into Darkness was particularly bad imo, because instead of continuing with interesting character dynamics, they just reheated all the character threads and tension from the previous movie.

A lot of people seem to think that the third one is better, and it isn't as bad as the second, but it was still super forgettable, and in my view cemented the fact that they're obviously not interested in doing proper Trek stories with these movies.

It's a shame, because they have nailed all the superficial elements, they're just pathologically averse to doing anything approaching challenging for the audience. I just dread the movie series inevitably losing steam, then they decide to do TNG reboot movie(s).


I think that's a good, fair summary (IMO), albeit I still don't understand why people didn't recognise just how flimsy and bad these films were at the time of their release - only in retrospect and in the cold light of day.

I know Star Trek is hardly the only franchise to suffer from incredibly duff cgi-heavy and story-lite reboots (*cough* Terminator, Alien, Star Wars 4-6), but it's disappointing nonetheless. Maybe reboots in general are just a bad fucking idea full stop? :shrug:

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 259 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chinese Hackers, Morse, Pod People, Vogons and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.