STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

[AnyStar]

i know i'll get bashed for saying this but idc. i agree with everything the blogger said.

[The Comedian]

BriGuy wrote:

---

A massive starship being built on the ground?

A civilization which can control gravity and which can turn matter to energy, squirt it thousands of miles, and turn it back into matter, can build a starship anywhere they damn well please.

This is the FUTURE...and yeah, by that time, they can also dig big honking holes in Iowa that are not there now.

[BriGuy]

The Comedian wrote:

---

A civilization which can control gravity and which can turn matter to energy, squirt it thousands of miles, and turn it back into matter, can build a starship anywhere they damn well please.

This is the FUTURE...and yeah, by that time, they can also dig big honking holes in Iowa that are not there now.

Maybe they should have kept with long-standing Trek tradition and build it in a cave, then.

Any time a Trek episode goes underground I have to work to keep my eyes from rolling.

Technology or not, it just makes more sense for a space vessel to be built in space. I'm sure they'd have the technology to enable that as well. The only reason I can see for why it's on the ground is so Kirk can roll up and stare at it from his motorcycle - another coincidence.

Maybe the canyon was a crater from WW3.

[Dusty Ayres]

Came across this picture on the site itself, endemic of the thinking of this blogger:



Which makes me wonder if this blogger can even write a script to save his life.

[Shazam!]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Which makes me wonder if this blogger can even write a script to save his life.

Why would that matter either way?

[AnyStar]

if its a craft that has nothing built in to ever even land on a planet, why would they build it there? how will it take off?

i can certainly understand components being manufactured on earth, then ferried to orbit for assembly, but to build the whole thing on ground is only usefull for over-ambitious camera shots...

[Starbreaker]

Well, he's certainly not saying anything people haven't said before. Let them go back to their awful fan-fiction about Captain Rodeo and the Discovery in the 28th century.

[Tomalak]

BriGuy wrote:

---

From engineering to bridge via turbolift in 1.5 seconds. (I know, speed of plot)

It's a turbolift.

[Aragorn]

BriGuy wrote:

---

Maybe it's this "love it or we'll call you names" mentality that is silencing discussion.

There's a middle ground between that and the Captain Robert April, The Wormhole, MattJC, xortex types. You just probably won't find it on here.

Shazam! wrote:

---

Why would that matter either way?

The flaw with this line of thinking is that if you can't say anything bad about something you aren't a part of or can do yourself, by that same standard you can't say anything good about it either.

[Harvey]

BriGuy wrote:

---

A glass window on the bridge.

Transparent aluminum, of course. Really, though, having an actual window on the front of the bridge seems rather handy if the viewscreen goes out. If anything, it's an improvement.

I can't really defend the engineering 'set,' though. It served its purpose in the movie, but the (prohibitively expensive, apparently) concept art for what was originally proposed for engineering was much better.

The blogger in the OP is really off the hinge, though. Abrams' movie had some legitimate flaws, but claiming that it did everything it could to change the characters from the ones the geeks knew and loved is a stretch. I'm about as big a geek as they come, and I had serious reservations before seeing the movie, but I could certainly recognize the characters that I've loved for two decades.

[M'Sharak]

Aragorn wrote:

---

There's a middle ground between that and the Captain Robert April, The Wormhole, MattJC, xortex types.

Damn it, Aragorn, I've asked you not to do that, and more than once. Cut it out.

Aragorn wrote:

---

You just probably won't find it on here.

Wrong - there's plenty of middle ground, and plenty of room for people to be critical of the movie or of aspects of it; just look around the forum. Perceived flaws and shortcomings are being pointed out and discussed all the time, and mostly in a perfectly civil and even friendly manner.



As for the blog entry cited in the OP, the main thing I notice about it is that there's nothing it has to say which hasn't already been said dozens of times over; much of the content could have been written even before the movie came out, and some of it isn't about this movie at all (why is he talking about First Contact or Generations, for crying out loud?) It's unfocused, his conclusions aren't all that solid, and as a review, it relies far too much on by-the-numbers sloganeering and one-size-fits-all put-downs. ("Something right out of a Sci-Fi Channel original movie" - yeah, there's an original and scathing critique.) Finally, the date-stamp is telling. Why did he wait until four months after the movie went into general release to post this? Could it be he realized that there just wasn't anything very special about the review?

[Dusty Ayres]

Shazam! wrote:

---

Why would that matter either way?

Because most of these so-called 'fans' think that they can. But instead of shutting up and just doing so, they vent their spleens online everyplace they can-possibly because they know and fear that if they did write one and submit it, it might be rejected (even though they did everything they were supposed to do in order to submit it.)

Thus, articles like this, all of which bring to mind the old saying 'Those who can, do, and those who can't, review'. Or in this case, bitch like babies needing their bottles. As one poster put it, they hate success, and they are also resentful because it wasn't their success, but somebody else's.

[Devon]

BriGuy wrote:

---

Technology or not, it just makes more sense for a space vessel to be built in space.

It also makes sense not to have your command center the most obvious and easiest target on the ship either, but C'est le vie.

The only reason I can see for why it's on the ground is so Kirk can roll up and stare at it from his motorcycle - another coincidence.

How is this a "coincidence?"

[RoJoHen]

BriGuy wrote:

---

Maybe the canyon was a crater from WW3.

Or, ya know, a quarry. We have those in the midwest NOW.

[Devon]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

Or, ya know, a quarry. We have those in the midwest NOW.

I live within 10 miles of one here in Indiana. The High School I attended was within a couple of miles of it. Whenever they blasted through it you could feel a rumble within a few miles that feel like tremors or small earth quakes. Certainly the structure inside the quarry as seen in the film is obviously man made, and just looked just like those of quarries.