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

[trek_futurist]

The Overlord wrote:

---

No offense, but you seem far too forgiving of Nemesis and other Trek movies many people consider bad (not too many people think Star trek V is a good film) and are far too harsh on Star Trek 11.

Exactly how are Nemesis and Star Trek V good films, how are the plot holes in those movies forgivable?

I don't think star trek V is a good film by any stretch of the imagination (the humor in it was terrible). I was just pointing out that it, at the very least, employed some attempt at storytelling and philosophical message, instead of a jumble of scenes designed to distract the viewer from the fact that they ware watching a special effects extravaganza (I know there were no amazing effects in star trek V but you nonetheless get my point).

[King Daniel]

nightwind1 wrote:

---

:g uffaw::guf faw:

There's a reason it's called technoBABBLE, you know.

Here's how they came up with it.

[Cyke101]

Satyrquaze wrote:

---

Ohh... I got one!

If the majority of your posts thusfar on this BBS are inhumane, divisive, rude, unenlightened, and intolerant while you talk copiously about how "your" Star Trek is about humanism, intelligence, and tolerance you are not a Star Trek fan.

I'm going to make this my sig one day.

[horatio83]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

I don't think star trek V is a good film by any stretch of the imagination (the humor in it was terrible). I was just pointing out that it, at the very least, employed some attempt at storytelling and philosophical message, instead of a jumble of scenes designed to distract the viewer from the fact that they ware watching a special effects extravaganza (I know there were no amazing effects in star trek V but you nonetheless get my point).

In my opinion "Who Mourns for Adonais?" made the point far better than TFF. I perceive it as a simple point and not even as a dense theme so I wouldn't call it a philosophical message.
I would agree though that TFF had more potential to be good. While the script was not perfect its main issues were production problems and I think that with ST09 it is the other way around, great production, mediocre script.

[trek_futurist]

horatio83 wrote:

---

In my opinion "Who Mourns for Adonais?" made the point far better than TFF. I perceive it as a simple point and not even as a dense theme so I wouldn't call it a philosophical message.
I would agree though that TFF had more potential to be good. While the script was not perfect its main issues were production problems and I think that with ST09 it is the other way around, great production, mediocre script.

Exactly. Star trek 2009 was not a bad film to LOOK AT but as a life long admirer of profound dialog and decent script writing, I was frustrated through out the entire thing.

And I still can never get past how easily Imposter kirk was promoted to captain. That is just not logical in a 23rd century starfleet setting, alternate time line or not, unless of course it's the mirror universe time-line where evil bastards will do anything to increase their rank overnight.

[trek_futurist]

I will say this though,the one thing I actually did like about it was the presence of Leonard Nimoy. But I wish he would have protested the horrid dialog in some places and the rank discrepancy and bad characterizations. If these things were dealt with adequately, I may not have ended up hating this movie so much.

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

There is a book called 'the physics of star trek' which I recently had the pleasure of reading, and in it the author, a prominent physicist, compares the physics and science of star trek to 'real life' physics and concludes that, not only does star trek (meaning TNG, TOS and VOY mainly) get the science right, but has predicted certain scientific phenomenon that has come to pass. So I see your statement as being fallacious, unless it is referring to that once in a while error of specifics.

I read it and the other ______of Star Trek books years ago. I think it came out almost 20 years ago. Had it been written today it would include chapters about the science in the new movies. No doubt covering time travel ( as seen in the new film), black holes/wormholes, alternate realities, Many Worlds Theory and perhaps the possible ways Red Matter works.(is it a form of exotic matter?)

The ______of Star Trek books tend to pander to the Trekkie market and use Trek as a platform to introduce the topic they cover to Trekkies and others who might otherwise pass on the subject. Often they work backwards show how science was inspired Trek rather showing how Trek was inspired by science.

The "science" behind phasers was gee we need a raygun. A raygun that can do everything the script calls for.

The transporter was just a way to get the story from one point to another quickly and cheaply. Just some handwaving about molecules was mostly what TOS said about.

Dilithium, (as used in Trek) made up.

The idea that humans and alien could produce offspring also impossible. The idea that they even look remotely like humans is also absurd.

Need I go on?

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

I will say this though,the one thing I actually did like about it was the presence of Leonard Nimoy. But I wish he would have protested the horrid dialog in some places and the rank discrepancy and bad characterizations. If these things were dealt with adequately, I may not have ended up hating this movie so much.

He did it because he loved the script.

[King Daniel]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

He did it because he loved the script.

Indeed. He'd turned down several prior offers to reprise his role as Spock before JJ Abrams and Bad Robot came along.

[BillJ]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

He did it because he loved the script.

Yeah, apparently he came out of retirement to do it.

[trek_futurist]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

I read it and the other ______of Star Trek books years ago. I think it came out almost 20 years ago. Had it been written today it would include chapters about the science in the new movies. No doubt covering time travel ( as seen in the new film), black holes/wormholes, alternate realities, Many Worlds Theory and perhaps the possible ways Red Matter works.(is it a form of exotic matter?)

The ______of Star Trek books tend to pander to the Trekkie market and use Trek as a platform to introduce the topic they cover to Trekkies and others who might otherwise pass on the subject. Often they work backwards show how science was inspired Trek rather showing how Trek was inspired by science.

The "science" behind phasers was gee we need a raygun. A raygun that can do everything the script calls for.

The transporter was just a way to get the story from one point to another quickly and cheaply. Just some handwaving about molecules was mostly what TOS said about.

Dilithium, (as used in Trek) made up.

The idea that humans and alien could produce offspring also impossible. The idea that they even look remotely like humans is also absurd.

Need I go on?

I believe the release date of this book is at least 5 years after TNG ended. There are a a few old technical manuals from TOS which precede my own birth by many years, perhaps you are referring to these. Anyway, here is one of many amazing paragraphs from this book, reminding one of just how close the star trek writers (with help from their science advisors) got it.

'Finally, the Star Trek writers added one more crucial component to the matter-antimatter drive. I refer to the
famous dilithium crystals (coincidentally invented by the Star Trek writers long before the Fer-milab engineers
decided upon a lithium target in their Antiproton Source). It would be unthinkable not to mention them, since they
are a centerpiece of the warp drive and as such figure prominently in the economics of the Federation and in
various plot developments. (For example, without the economic importance of dilithium, the Enterprise would
never have been sent to the Halkan system to secure its mining rights, and we would never have been treated to
the "mirror universe," in which the Federation is an evil empire!)
What do these remarkable figments of the Star Trek writers' imaginations do? These crystals (known also by their
longer formula— 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide) can regulate the matter-antimatter
annihilation rate, because they are claimed to be the only form of matter known which is "porous" to antimatter.
I liberally interpret this as follows: Crystals are atoms regularly arrayed in a lattice; I assume therefore that the
antihydrogen atoms are threaded through the lattices of the dilithium crystals and therefore remain a fixed
distance both from atoms of normal matter and one another. In this way, dilithium could regulate the antimatter
density, and thus the matter-antimatter reaction rate.
The reason I am bothering to invent this hypothetical explanation of the utility of a hypothetical material is that
once again, I claim, the Star Trek writers were ahead of their time. A similar argument, at least in spirit, was
proposed many years after Star Trek introduced dilithium-mediated matter-antimatter annihilation, in order to
justify an equally exotic process: cold fusion. During the cold-fusion heyday, which lasted about 6 months, it was
claimed that by putting various elements together chemically one could somehow induce the nuclei of the atoms
to react much more quickly than they might otherwise and thus produce the same fusion reactions at room
temperature that the Sun requires great densities and temperatures in excess of a million degrees to generate.
One of the many implausibilities of the cold-fusion arguments which made physicists suspicious is that chemical
reactions and atomic binding take place on scales of the order of the atomic size, which is a factor of 10,000
larger than the size of the nuclei of atoms. It is difficult to believe that reactions taking place on scales so much
larger than nuclear dimensions could affect nuclear reaction rates. Nevertheless, until it was realized that the
announced results were irreproducible by other groups, a great many people spent a great deal of time trying to
figure out how such a miracle might be possible.

Since the Star Trek writers, unlike the cold-fusion advocates, never claimed to be writing anything other than
science fiction, I suppose we should be willing to give them a little extra slack. After all, dilithium-mediated
reactions merely aid what is undoubtedly the most com-pellingly realistic aspect of starship technology: the
matter-antimatter drives. And I might add that crystals—tungsten in this case, not dilithium—are indeed used to
moderate, or slow down, beams of anti-electrons (positrons) in modern-day experiments; here the antielec-trons
scatter off the electric field in the crystal and lose energy.
There is no way in the universe to get more bang for your buck than to take a particle and annihilate it with its
antiparticle to produce pure radiation energy. It is the ultimate rocket-propulsion technology, and will surely be
used if ever we carry rockets to their logical extremes. The fact that it may take quite a few bucks to do it is a
problem the twenty-third-century politicians can worry about.'-Lawrence M. Krauss, The physics of Star Trek

[trek_futurist]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Indeed. He'd turned down several prior offers to reprise his role as Spock before JJ Abrams and Bad Robot came along.

I thought that was more about money than anything else (for example, his refusal to appear in Generations, which necessitated them recruiting James Doohan to reprise his role as Scotty).

[trek_futurist]

BillJ wrote:

---

Yeah, apparently he came out of retirement to do it.

Because the price was right.

Does that mean he didn't love the essence of what Star trek was? Of course not.

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

I thought that was more about money than anything else (for example, his refusal to appear in Generations, which necessitated them recruiting James Doohan to reprise his role as Scotty).

Nimoy turned down Generations because he wanted Spock's lines rewritten.

[Herkimer Jitty]

I love how there's a Star Trek Vision.

Even though Roddenberry had no intention of creating a vision for a world of Morally Superior Supermen Who Go Out Of Their Way To Lecture About Those Backwards 20th Century Neanderthals when he pitched The Cage.

More to the point, I think a future where human flaws have been eradicated is a nightmare dystopia, myself. Without anything to work against, there will be absolutley nothing to drive us. I think that dynamic forces drive human change and development, and that to supress ourselves in the name of evolution and progress is tantamount to a neutering.

Let's not forget, this isn't a thread about ST09, trek_futurist. You've spent 17 pages evading and double-talking this by talking down on the movie, meandering from the writing to the production design to the acting to the writing to the science. Prove. To me. That people who like that movie aren't real trek fans. You're the OP after all. The responsibility falls on you to back that shit up, or say "oops, my bad, I was kind of a dick, guys."