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

[RoJoHen]

Janeway is a fucking nutcase compared to the new Uhura.

[trek_futurist]

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?

[archeryguy1701]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[trek_futurist]

BillJ wrote:

---

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.

[RoJoHen]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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?

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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.

[RoJoHen]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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.

[nightwind1]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

No.

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.

[archeryguy1701]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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.

[trek_futurist]

snowman1701 wrote:

---

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.

[nightwind1]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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.

[RoJoHen]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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.

[trek_futurist]

snowman1701 wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[nightwind1]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

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.

[RoJoHen]

And again, time travel through blackholes is based on current scientific theory.