RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,582
Posts: 5,515,105
Members: 25,155
Currently online: 592
Newest member: Sebastian DT

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 22 2011, 12:51 AM   #241
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

The Overlord wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

And your comparing one two-hour film against seven hundred episodes and ten feature films. It simply could never hope to compare.
NONE of the other films were philosophically or scientifically void.

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.
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).
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:57 AM   #242
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

nightwind1 wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.
:g uffaw::guf faw:

There's a reason it's called technoBABBLE, you know.
Here's how they came up with it.
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:01 AM   #243
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Satyrquaze wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:07 AM   #244
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

NONE of the other films were philosophically or scientifically void.

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.
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).
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.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:15 AM   #245
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

horatio83 wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post

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).
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 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:34 AM   #246
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

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.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:36 AM   #247
Santa Kang
Fleet Admiral
 
Santa Kang's Avatar
 
Location: North Pole,Qo'noS
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

I have to defend the techno-babble as being scientifically rooted. It is not just made up jargon, especially since TOS and TNG had science advisors on hand to help with that process.

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.
Their science advisors were often over ruled for the sake of drama and needs of the story. ST09 was no different. Though It's "reboot" is based on Many Worlds Interpretation. And as mentioned before the "black hole" used to travel in time is also based on scientific theory.

Made up stuff: Phasers, transporters, dilithium, viable human alien hybrids.....
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
Santa Kang is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:36 AM   #248
Santa Kang
Fleet Admiral
 
Santa Kang's Avatar
 
Location: North Pole,Qo'noS
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Santa Kang is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:56 AM   #249
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
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.
Indeed. He'd turned down several prior offers to reprise his role as Spock before JJ Abrams and Bad Robot came along.
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 01:57 AM   #250
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
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.
Yeah, apparently he came out of retirement to do it.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now  
Old December 22 2011, 01:59 AM   #251
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Their science advisors were often over ruled for the sake of drama and needs of the story. ST09 was no different. Though It's "reboot" is based on Many Worlds Interpretation. And as mentioned before the "black hole" used to travel in time is also based on scientific theory.

Made up stuff: Phasers, transporters, dilithium, viable human alien hybrids.....
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?
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 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 02:01 AM   #252
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
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.
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 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 02:03 AM   #253
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
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.
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.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 02:06 AM   #254
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now  
Old December 22 2011, 02:11 AM   #255
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

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."
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
nemesis, philosophy, science, star trek (2009 film)

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.