If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... - Page 13

Nerys Myk · December 21 2011, 08:08 PM

JarodRussell wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

TOS was an action adventure show that occasionally gave us a "feel good" message by the final act. A message usually proceeded by fisticuffs and gunfire. If they could have afforded explosions every week, we would have them too.

Every single episode of TOS had a philosophical or scientific message of some kind. Stop trying to revise history please.

The philosophical and scientific messages have been highly overinterpreted. Star Trek is a campy children's show from the 60s. But the children are grown ups now and still like it, so they try to find deep substance in the show where none is.

It was not a camp childrens show ( at least the version marketed and shown in America. Might be different in "L'Europe". )

RoJoHen · December 21 2011, 08:09 PM

At what point did Kirk have an alcohol problem? Getting in a bar fight doesn't make someone an alcoholic.

You keep calling him an imbecile? What exactly did he do that makes you think that? Yes, he was a bit obnoxious. And yes, he was a bit arrogant. He's practically a kid! Destroying Nero's ship? That's your evidence? Nero was a genocidal mass-murderer guilty of destroying an entire planet and nearly destroying another. He gave Nero the chance to surrender. Nero didn't take it. Under the circumstances, Nero was not worth trying to save.

King Daniel · December 21 2011, 08:09 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

TOS was an action adventure show that occasionally gave us a "feel good" message by the final act. A message usually proceeded by fisticuffs and gunfire. If they could have afforded explosions every week, we would have them too.

Every single episode of TOS had a philosophical or scientific message of some kind. Stop trying to revise history please.

No.

But, seriously, you've had nothing to say about ST09's messages, which I spelled out way back on page one. Nor my subsequent posts, where I backed up my assertations about Gene Rodenberry's revisionism and Trek's flawed continuity with links and quotes.

BillJ · December 21 2011, 08:10 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

If TOS taught us anything, it's that people with alcohol problems would have gotten help long before they would be able to go on this series of mis-steps. Yes, there was the bar fight in trouble with tribbles, but it did not alter the central characters, or their moral approach to other humans and other species.

I'm really beginning to question whether you've seen TOS or not. Scotty was an alcoholic, see By Any Other Name or The Tholian Web and McCoy was borderline.

King Daniel · December 21 2011, 08:11 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

In order to create a space/time portal, like the one witnessed in DS9, that we know as a 'wormhole' you have to have two points of the curvature of space/time meeting and effectively lessening the distance between two points. But in DS9, with the bajoran wormhole, it was space you were traversing, not time. But the same parameters apply. Both are based in relativity, and have potential for logical scientific explanation even in a fictional universe based on scientific principles. This red matter/black hole/time portal non-sense does not!

Read this: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/041130a.html

Black holes were previously used for travel through space and time in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"

BillJ · December 21 2011, 08:17 PM

KingDaniel wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

In order to create a space/time portal, like the one witnessed in DS9, that we know as a 'wormhole' you have to have two points of the curvature of space/time meeting and effectively lessening the distance between two points. But in DS9, with the bajoran wormhole, it was space you were traversing, not time. But the same parameters apply. Both are based in relativity, and have potential for logical scientific explanation even in a fictional universe based on scientific principles. This red matter/black hole/time portal non-sense does not!

Read this: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/041130a.html

Black holes were previously used for travel through space and time in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"

Well, in Tomorrow is Yesterday it isn't travel through the black hole that causes the time travel, it's the forces required to pull away from it that did.

horatio83 · December 21 2011, 08:17 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

A different person, meaning a complete imbecile?

PIKE: Because I looked up your file while you were drooling on the floor. Your aptitude tests are off the charts, so what is it? You like being the only genius-level repeat offender in the midwest?

Just to provide some facts.

One can discuss whether Kirk wouldn't be a more complex character if he had some of those traits prominent in the first season of TOS and the Meyer films.
One can discuss whether the Tattoomulans should have been less one-dimensional.
One can discuss whether the movie sacrificed thematic depth at the cost of action and pacing.

But going off the deep end, calling Kirk an imposter or an imbecile, is not an actual discussion, it s a stupid rant without substance. Nothing against polemics but not on such a low level.

trek_futurist · December 21 2011, 08:26 PM

Santa Kang wrote:

Pretty sure he was called "Kirk" in the script.

And that means?

trek_futurist · December 21 2011, 08:27 PM

horatio83 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

A different person, meaning a complete imbecile?

PIKE: Because I looked up your file while you were drooling on the floor. Your aptitude tests are off the charts, so what is it? You like being the only genius-level repeat offender in the midwest?

Just to provide some facts.

One can discuss whether Kirk wouldn't be a more complex character if he had some of those traits prominent in the first season of TOS and the Meyer films.
One can discuss whether the Tattoomulans should have been less one-dimensional.
One can discuss whether the movie sacrificed thematic depth at the cost of action and pacing.

But going off the deep end, calling Kirk an imposter or an imbecile, is not an actual discussion, it s a stupid rant without substance. Nothing against polemics but not on such a low level.

If imposter kirk presented substance of any kind, I would be the first to discuss it.

trek_futurist · December 21 2011, 08:29 PM

BillJ wrote:

KingDaniel wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

In order to create a space/time portal, like the one witnessed in DS9, that we know as a 'wormhole' you have to have two points of the curvature of space/time meeting and effectively lessening the distance between two points. But in DS9, with the bajoran wormhole, it was space you were traversing, not time. But the same parameters apply. Both are based in relativity, and have potential for logical scientific explanation even in a fictional universe based on scientific principles. This red matter/black hole/time portal non-sense does not!

Read this: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/041130a.html

Black holes were previously used for travel through space and time in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"

Well, in Tomorrow is Yesterday it isn't travel through the black hole that causes the time travel, it's the forces required to pull away from it that did.

And at least they provided some scientific background or explanation for it, even if it was just theoretical. There is no such thing in star trek 2009.

horatio83 · December 21 2011, 08:30 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

horatio83 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

A different person, meaning a complete imbecile?

PIKE: Because I looked up your file while you were drooling on the floor. Your aptitude tests are off the charts, so what is it? You like being the only genius-level repeat offender in the midwest?

Just to provide some facts.

One can discuss whether Kirk wouldn't be a more complex character if he had some of those traits prominent in the first season of TOS and the Meyer films.
One can discuss whether the Tattoomulans should have been less one-dimensional.
One can discuss whether the movie sacrificed thematic depth at the cost of action and pacing.

But going off the deep end, calling Kirk an imposter or an imbecile, is not an actual discussion, it s a stupid rant without substance. Nothing against polemics but not on such a low level.

If imposter kirk presented substance of any kind, I would be the first to discuss it.

Kirk is capitalized like any name and he is not an imposter just cause you say so. If your posts provided any substance I would be the first one to discuss with you.

trek_futurist · December 21 2011, 08:31 PM

KingDaniel wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

In order to create a space/time portal, like the one witnessed in DS9, that we know as a 'wormhole' you have to have two points of the curvature of space/time meeting and effectively lessening the distance between two points. But in DS9, with the bajoran wormhole, it was space you were traversing, not time. But the same parameters apply. Both are based in relativity, and have potential for logical scientific explanation even in a fictional universe based on scientific principles. This red matter/black hole/time portal non-sense does not!

Read this: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/041130a.html

Black holes were previously used for travel through space and time in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"

Star Trek the motion picture featured a wormhole, not a black hole. And it was a worm hole of relative space, not relative time.

Chemahkuu · December 21 2011, 08:34 PM

He means the black hole Voyager 6 fell into, not the warp imbalance wormhole the Enterprise engines created, nitwit.

trek_futurist · December 21 2011, 08:38 PM

Chemahkuu wrote:

He means the black hole Voyager 6 fell into, not the warp imbalance wormhole the Enterprise engines created, nitwit.

That was not described as a time portal! Please educate yourself more.

And didn't someone say it was NOT okay to name call on this forum?

I have not called a person a name once and this person gets away with it? Talk about bias.

Nerys Myk · December 21 2011, 08:39 PM

trek_futurist wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

Pretty sure he was called "Kirk" in the script.

And that means?

That character is Kirk.

December 21 2011, 08:09 PM	#182
RoJoHen Awesome Location: Wherever life takes me	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... At what point did Kirk have an alcohol problem? Getting in a bar fight doesn't make someone an alcoholic. You keep calling him an imbecile? What exactly did he do that makes you think that? Yes, he was a bit obnoxious. And yes, he was a bit arrogant. He's practically a kid! Destroying Nero's ship? That's your evidence? Nero was a genocidal mass-murderer guilty of destroying an entire planet and nearly destroying another. He gave Nero the chance to surrender. Nero didn't take it. Under the circumstances, Nero was not worth trying to save. __________________ I am the Quintessential Admiral. Get ready to grow your EQUINOX BEARD!

December 21 2011, 08:34 PM	#193
Chemahkuu Vice Admiral Location: United Kingdom	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... He means the black hole Voyager 6 fell into, not the warp imbalance wormhole the Enterprise engines created, nitwit.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US