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

[trek_futurist]

snowman1701 wrote:

---

The writers of Star Trek made some shit up to make their ships fly. A physicist came along 30 years later and makes up some other shit on how he pretends it would work. You're giving them way more credit than there is to be had.

Which brings up an excellent question. If these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, seperate from the prime universe characters, why care about them acting differently at all? What's at stake? What's the point of getting your knickers in a twist about it? It's really stupid.

Then why make the movie? It's really REALLY stupid.

[trek_futurist]

[QUOTE=BillJ;5471065]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Based on what you've written in this thread, you have no clue what you're talking about either. So it all evens out.

The difference between past trek and imposter trek is that past trek worked with science, I.E relativity (which, contrary to your belief, is still the most applicable version of how time travel may be possible) not against science, as bob orci and company seek to do.

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Then why make the movie? It's really REALLY stupid.

For the same reason that Roddenberry made Trek, to make money.

[RoJoHen]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Then why make the movie? It's really REALLY stupid.

To get a new generation of people interested in Star Trek by going back to its roots yet allowing it to take its own path. And guess what: it worked!

It's really not that complicated.

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

I keep forgetting that hollywoods idea of 'lead' for women is them acting all bitchy and menstrual while being swooning with affection for some guy. So in that sense you are right.

But seriously, what am I missing here? I don't see any depth at all in these characters. You people have to be making this stuff up, there is nothing involved in these characters, nothing developmentally viable (kirk is the same at the end of the film as in the beginning). Nothing to make me care whether they live or die.
Another thing is, if these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, separate from the real prime universe characters, why care about them at all? What's at stake? What's the point? It's really stupid.

If you missed it, then perhaps you're the one with ADD and are easily distracted by explosions.

Bitchy and menstrual? That's how you interpret Uhura's character in the film? Okay. Not to keen on women with a mind of their own I guess.

Kirk is a directionless boy at the start of the film. By film's end he had found his direction and purpose. Yes, he's still a cocky SOB at times, but that part of who Kirk is (thanks to Shatner's take more than what GR put on the page)

Spock suffers great loss not only a parent but an entire world.

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Past trek gave lip service to science, dropped in a few real terms, made up some that sounded real and ignored what inferred with the plot. Current trek is doing the same.

[archeryguy1701]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Then why make the movie? It's really REALLY stupid.

I think you missed my point..... entirely...... but just so we're clear on what I think you're trying to say now... because you don't care for these characters, they shouldn't have made the movie. Ok, I'm sold. Why did it ever take me so long to see the light?

[BillJ]

Other than shooting down the wild assertions of trek_futurist, this thread had little entertainment value.

[RoJoHen]

BillJ wrote:

---

Other than shooting down the wild assertions of trek_futurist, this thread had little entertainment value.

I'm impressed at how long it's gone on without actually accomplishing anything.

[trek_futurist]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

To get a new generation of people interested in Star Trek by going back to its roots yet allowing it to take its own path. And guess what: it worked!

It's really not that complicated.

It's roots were not

1-Unscientific stupidity with no explanation (I.E red matter)

2-Characters that it is pointless to care anything about because they are idiots with developmental disorders.

3-Nothing but explosions and arrogant characterizations

4-Product placement that is so overt it's shameless

The point is, if the writers wanted to start over with a completely alternate dimensional set of variables that doesn't mean a damned thing either way in relation to the prime universe or whether or not one should care if imposter kirk gets eaten by a snow monster or not, why not just write a completely new film with your own characters that have nothing to do with the star trek universe?

Because they wanted to milk the name some more. And because they are not as talented as some of you are led to believe. Their writing sucks.

And for your information most of the people I know who are my age or younger, even teenagers, who are star trek fans are not turned onto star trek by this 2009 travesty. They are turned onto it by having an internet connection and netflix and watching TOS and TNG.

Stop insulting the intelligence of the young. It's unbecoming. And it's what JJ and bob orci did with this garbage movie.

[trek_futurist]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

Bitchy and menstrual? That's how you interpret Uhura's character in the film? Okay. Not to keen on women with a mind of their own I guess.

Let's see. Doctor Crusher, jadzia dax, Captain janeway, tasha yar, command kira. All of these women are far better portrayals of respectful womanhood than imposter uhuru.

[Nerys Myk]

[QUOTE]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

It's roots were not

1-Unscientific stupidity with no explanation (I.E red matter)

All incarnations of Trek have these, why single out ST09?

2-Characters that it is pointless to care anything about because they are idiots with developmental disorders.

Meaning what exactly? That they are flawed?

3-Nothing but explosions and arrogant characterizations

Might wanna get that ADD checked out. Might want the doc to check for blackouts too.

4-Product placement that is so overt it's shameless

Seriously?

[RoJoHen]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

It's roots were not

1-Unscientific stupidity with no explanation (I.E red matter)

2-Characters that it is pointless to care anything about because they are idiots with developmental disorders.

3-Nothing but explosions and arrogant characterizations

4-Product placement that is so overt it's shameless

Again, all of these things are your opinion. I know lots of people, young and old, Trekkies and non-Trekkies, that loved the hell out of this movie.

Yes, Red Matter is a silly plot device. But who cares? The movie isn't about Red Matter. The movie is about these characters coming together and realizing that they make an awesome team

The point is, if the writers wanted to start over with a completely alternate dimensional set of variables that doesn't mean a damned thing either way in relation to the prime universe or whether or not one should care if imposter kirk gets eaten by a snow monster or not, why not just write a completely new film with your own characters that have nothing to do with the star trek universe?

Because they wanted to milk the name some more. And because they are not as talented as some of you are led to believe. Their writing sucks.

And for your information most of the people I know who are my age or younger, even teenagers, who are star trek fans are not turned onto star trek by this 2009 travesty. They are turned onto it by having an internet connection and/or netflix and watching TOS and TNG.

Stop insulting the intelligence of the young. It's unbecoming. And it's what JJ and bob orci did with this garbage movie.

Yes, they absolutely wanted to milk the name. And why did they go this route? Because DS9, Voyager, and ENT were becoming increasing less popular among Star Trek fans. Creating a new series with new characters would not have been the right thing to do.

The writers aren't as talented as we are led to believe? What does that even mean? I love the way you assert your opinion as if it is scientific fact.

Lots of people loved this movie. Lots of people didn't. Neither group is anymore right than the other. It's fucking entertainment. It's all subjective.

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Let's see. Doctor Crusher, jadzia dax, Captain janeway, tasha yar, command kira. All of these women are far better portrayals of respectful womanhood than imposter uhuru.

Not seeing a difference between them and Uhura. All have had moments similar to Uhura's in this film.

[BillJ]

The Genesis device is also a silly plot device...