RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,354
Posts: 5,502,961
Members: 25,121
Currently online: 613
Newest member: MsMarrielle

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 23 2011, 05:40 AM   #361
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Janeway is a fucking nutcase compared to the new Uhura.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:48 AM   #362
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

I care more about the fate of Bele And Lokai than I care about any of these imposters in this movie.

Kirk is the same adolescent idiot at the end of this movie as he is in the beginning of it. How can anyone contest this? He's a god damned moron.

The scene between Imposter spock and Imposter kirk in which kirk apparently provokes spock so easily is pathetic, and an insult to even average intelligences.

The fact that the writers ask you to suspend disbelief in the face of kirk being promoted so easily to the captaincy should, logically speaking, make you laugh at them. But instead you suck it up like it's candy. Because star trek never set any precedent that takes its command structure seriously, really?

Star trek used viable scientific principles based on relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, holography, etc.

How can anyone in their right mind contest that that version of trek is far more scientifically defined than this one?
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:48 AM   #363
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

RoJoHen wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
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.
I won't make any bones about it... I'm just taking the piss out of this thread. This thread really isn't going anywhere I'm just getting my jollies out of being an uncooperative ass now.
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
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.
Why would they want to milk this particular name some more? Trek was dying. The TV shows were failing, the last movie bombed insanely badly. Why, in the wide, wide world of sports would they want to try and milk a cow that's been sucked dry? If this was just about milking a name, this was a horribly risky route to go.

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.
So? Based on one of your previous posts, you and I are more or less the same age.... at most, a year's difference in one direction or the other. I started off on the previous stuff as well, and I enjoyed them. And I enjoyed this movie. The few friends I had of my age who also liked Star Trek all mostly enjoyed the new movie. I also had several friends get into Star Trek because of the new movie.

Don't make assumptions about the young. It's unbecoming.
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:50 AM   #364
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
The Genesis device is also a silly plot device...
At least it was explained as a terraforming mechanism, and outlined how you got from A to Z. In this movie they basically start out with Z and expect you to just suck on it like a teething ring.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:52 AM   #365
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
The Genesis device is also a silly plot device...
At least it was explained as a terraforming mechanism, and outlined how you got from A to Z. In this movie they basically start out with Z and expect you to just suck on it like a teething ring.
And red matter was a mechanism by which a blackhole was created. How is that any less scientifically plausible than a 4-foot tall torpedo terraforming an entire planet?
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:54 AM   #366
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
BillJ wrote: View Post
The Genesis device is also a silly plot device...
At least it was explained as a terraforming mechanism, and outlined how you got from A to Z. In this movie they basically start out with Z and expect you to just suck on it like a teething ring.
The Genesis device was essentially, "we will drop this magic bomb on a massive rock in space and it with grow an atmosphere within a few minutes". It exists only to give the bad guy a pop-gun that makes a big bang, much like thalaron radiation in Nemesis.
__________________
"...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 offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:54 AM   #367
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post

The scene between Imposter spock and Imposter kirk in which kirk apparently provokes spock so easily is pathetic, and an insult to even average intelligences.
Because if your planet had just been destroyed and your mother murdered, you'd totally be fine with someone saying you never loved her.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:55 AM   #368
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Pretty sure the "cerebral" thing is a bit of a myth as well.
No.


Santa Kang wrote: View Post
The pilot was well received by the executives. They did have problems with some of the casting (Like GR casting his then mistress) and the character of Spock. Who, ironically would be the shows break out character.
They didn't want a woman as second in command. More evidence of intolerance for minorities.
No, they didn't want Roddenberry's MISTRESS as second in command.

Watch Trek Nation sometime. And read Inside Star Trek.
nightwind1 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:55 AM   #369
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
The scene between Imposter spock and Imposter kirk in which kirk apparently provokes spock so easily is pathetic, and an insult to even average intelligences.
The guy not only just had his entire species wiped out, he also got to watch his mom die. Why exactly wouldn't he be easy to piss off?
The fact that the writers ask you to suspend disbelief in the face of kirk being promoted so easily to the captaincy should, logically speaking, make you laugh at them. But instead you suck it up like it's candy. Because star trek never set any precedent that takes its command structure seriously, really?
How many of the other movies don't force you to suspend disbelief? The only difference is that you don't like this movie, so of course this particular case is going to be a Big Fucking Deal (TM) compared to the others.

Star trek used viable scientific principles based on relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, holography, etc.

How can anyone in their right mind contest that that version of trek is far more scientifically defined than this one?
I certainly won't try to pretend the new movie is good material to base a scientific paper off of. But when you look at the other scientific made-up crap that fills the other 10 movies and 5 series, I think this movie fits in just fine.
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:55 AM   #370
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
So? Based on one of your previous posts, you and I are more or less the same age.... at most, a year's difference in one direction or the other. I started off on the previous stuff as well, and I enjoyed them. And I enjoyed this movie. The few friends I had of my age who also liked Star Trek all mostly enjoyed the new movie. I also had several friends get into Star Trek because of the new movie.
I am not the one bringing age into it, you are. The people who sit there talking about 'bringing trek to a new generation' for example.

very few of my friends find this film appealing or intellectually stimulating. And these are mostly within the age range of 18-25.

I have friends who are older than me, but they are generally not into star trek.

The point of this is that it is absurd to make all encompassing statements that the 'younger generation' will all just sit back and let this movie teethe them like babies who love bombast because its bright and colorful.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 05:57 AM   #371
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
The female first officer myth was debunked long ago. NBC didn't like Majel Barrett not the idea itself.
Where do you people get this non-sense?

Gene Roddenberry himself cited many of these cases of network prejudice. Was he lying? And who are you to say he wasn't?
Yes, in fact, he was lying. Do your research.
nightwind1 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:00 AM   #372
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post

The point of this is that it is absurd to make all encompassing statements that the 'younger generation' will all just sit back and let this movie teethe them like babies who love bombast because its bright and colorful.
You're very good at putting words in people's mouths.

There really is no middle ground with you, is there? You hated this movie, and you know people who hated this movie, therefore it is obviously terrible and everybody who does like it is clearly a retarded infant.

On the flip side, I know plenty of people who thought this movie was great. They weren't going in to be intellectually stimulated. They were going into it to be entertained. That's what movies are for. They are entertainment.

You know a lot of people who like TOS and TNG. I know a lot of people who think they're boring and cheesy. Neither group is wrong. It's just their opinion.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:01 AM   #373
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
How many of the other movies don't force you to suspend disbelief?
The difference is that star trek, prior to this, never asked you to just shut out command structure as being meaningless when it comes to promotion. It was a weak attempt at moving the non-existent plot along. And bob orci should be ashamed of himself for not thinking of something better.

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
I certainly won't try to pretend the new movie is good material to base a scientific paper off of. But when you look at the other scientific made-up crap that fills the other 10 movies and 5 series, I think this movie fits in just fine.
No, star trek always had science advisors and was based in reputable scientific principles. Your obvious lack of science knowledge is being revealed now.

Just because they made up certain things based on known principle does not mean they were not basing it on known principles still.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:01 AM   #374
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
horatio83 is another who needs to read Inside Star Trek. It counters alot of the spin GR produced over the years.
How do you know the writer of that book is not, as you describe it, 'spinning'?

Basically it's a matter of hearsay and who you choose to trust. I see no reason for Roddenberry to lie. He has every reason to keep the network execs on his side, and lying would not achieve this.
I see no reason for Roddenberry to steal half of Alexander Courage's royalties for the theme music, either, but that's what he did.

He also created the IDIC pendant so he could have something new to sell from Lincoln Enterprises, then thought up some way to work it into the series.

He rewrote MANY scripts other writers had done first, just so he could grab royalties and fees from them.

He was banging Nichelle Nichols from before the series started, all the way through the end of the series, even while he was married to his first wife, and then Majel.

Roddenberry created a great series, but he was a VERY flawed human being.
nightwind1 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:02 AM   #375
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

And again, time travel through blackholes is based on current scientific theory.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen 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 07:20 AM.

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