RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,123
Posts: 5,401,184
Members: 24,744
Currently online: 600
Newest member: rachaela3

TrekToday headlines

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


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, 06:06 AM   #376
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....

nightwind1 wrote: View Post
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.
I should also point out that Roddenberry stole the idea for Tomorrow is Yesterday from producer Bob Justman.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:07 AM   #377
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
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.
And another one of my points goes sailing right over your head.

You're making generalizations based on the fact that you and your posse didn't enjoy the new movie. Your encompassing statements are just as faulty if not more so, based on the the success of the movie, than everyone elses.

And really, the concept of introducing Star Trek to new people/ generations is accurate. Did you see how successful the new movie was? Do you really believe that the current group of Trekkies pulled that off (though, if they did, that would blow your original premise out of the water). I mean, Trekkies couldn't even get Nemesis up to $50M. How is the new Trek getting almost $258M is it wasn't getting lots and lots of new people interested?

Either your premise is faulty... or you and your friends are the last intelligent hope for a humanity that's about to stupid itself into extinction. Help us futurist, you're our only hope!
__________________
"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 online now  
Old December 23 2011, 06:07 AM   #378
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

RoJoHen wrote: View Post
And again, time travel through blackholes is based on current scientific theory.
As far as I know, relativity still paves the way for the best time travel theory available.

Current does not mean right. A theory is, after all, merely a theory. But those based on relativity, followed closely with holographic universe (the implicate order) theory, seem the most interesting and reputable.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:09 AM   #379
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

So now you're the authority on which scientific theories are appropriate for basing stories on?
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:10 AM   #380
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....

RoJoHen wrote: View Post
So now you're the authority on which scientific theories are appropriate for basing stories on?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:10 AM   #381
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

I swear to God, this p'tahk reminds me so much of James Dixon, from the old FIDONET and USENET boards. If it wasn't Dixon's version of Treknology and canon, it wasn't shit.

Wonder whatever happened to that bastard?
nightwind1 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:17 AM   #382
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
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.
And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen! The reason Star Trek 2009 sucked: They took liberties with a fictional chain of command! The bastards!!

Also, to go along with your gripe that old Trek used scientific advisors... I hate to break it to you, but new Trek did too. And she apparently knows sciencey stuff too.
__________________
"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 online now  
Old December 23 2011, 06:18 AM   #383
MasuPu'a
Lieutenant
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
MasuPu'a wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

Unbearable to people with short attention spans who need an explosion every 10 minutes to maintain interest.
Says the person who thinks that Nemesis determines whether someone is a real Trek fan or not. That movie was nothing but explosions and pointless battles. Case in point; that ridiculous dune buggy chase scene.
In reality the film was about 25 minutes of action, the rest was exposition, character development and plot movement.

Star trek 2009 on the other hand, was the complete opposite. It seems to me that 'character scenes' if we can call this pitiable attempt at acting, character scenes, were gap fillers between the films real motivation, action, explosions and retarded humor that wasn't funny at all.
"pitiable attempt at acting, character scenes, were gap fillers between the films real motivation, action, explosions and retarded humor that wasn't funny at all."

Wow, that describes Nemesis to a T.

Character development? What character development? Unless character regression counts, where we see Picard engage in a pointless dune buggy race. Troi still the most useless character on the ship, her sad attempt at being a functional crewmember resulting from a vile psychic rape scene (again, another pointless scene). Oh, and Picard decides to beam over to Shinzon's ship personally because "it's something he has to do." Not because it's the most logical decision, no Picard makes a stupid decision based on a stupid reason.

It reminds me of Firefly, when Mal had been captured and tortured by Niska, and was fighting Niska's heavy. Zoe and Co. come up and see the badly injured captain fighting for his life, and Zoe tells the crew to back off because this is 'something the captain has to do.' Mal immediately shouts, "No, it's not." So Zoe shoots the heavy...because that was the sensible thing to do.

Plot movement; the plot plods along with Shinzon shitting around for no reason. Supposedly this guy has a deadline for medical reasons, but decides to invite Picard over for a face-off, then has dinner, then farts around some more for no reason. Because he has all the time in the world

All of the actors looked as if they were tired of making Trek films. The movie was filled with plot holes (like I'm supposed to expect that a slave caste of mutants who spend their entire lives mining can build the most advanced warship with a perfect cloak, along with a doomsday device, and no one suspects a thing...what did they build this thing out of, rocks? And if they were shipping in mass amounts of expensive materials where did they get the money? And how did the rest of the Romulans not notice?). And I love the cop-out at the end. Like, they didn't even have the balls to kill of Data for good. No, we get a loose thread at the end that insinuates that someday, Data will be back. So maybe that's your character development right there. Data blows himself up and is reincarnated.
MasuPu'a is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:22 AM   #384
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
RoJoHen wrote: View Post
So now you're the authority on which scientific theories are appropriate for basing stories on?
Seriously. Science fiction is way more intense than I realized.

Now, let's use relativistic physics to explain why Tom Paris turned into a lizard when he went too fast!
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:25 AM   #385
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....

RoJoHen wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
RoJoHen wrote: View Post
So now you're the authority on which scientific theories are appropriate for basing stories on?
Seriously. Science fiction is way more intense than I realized.

Now, let's use relativistic physics to explain why Tom Paris turned into a lizard when he went too fast!
This is the one question I'm waiting for trek_futurist to answer with scientific theory!

What is the plausible scientific theory for humans turning into lizards after hitting infinite speed?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:26 AM   #386
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
You're making generalizations based on the fact that you and your posse didn't enjoy the new movie.
No. just because a number of people are not stating their opinions, does not mean they don't exist. I have spoken with them, and a lot of people who hated this film do not chime in on forums like this.

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
And really, the concept of introducing Star Trek to new people/ generations is accurate.
Okay let's not beat around the bush anymore. I am a generation Y'er.

And as such I have, in the course of my life, taken notice of how demographics don't really matter with this generation as it did with previous ones, primarily because you are dealing with a multitude of mediums for one, and secondly with a tendency for a lot of people of my generation to go out and see just about anything, as long as it is hyped, action packed and filled with colorful bombast. And you would be surprised at how many of these people want nothing to do with star trek. They do not recognize this as a star trek movie, they recognize it as a summer blockbuster in the same basic category as transformers and other films of a similar ilk. THAT is why this film 'did well'. But in the abstract it failed miserably.

Because the vast majority of people who saw this film didn't have anything substantial to say about it after they saw it. There was no analysis of it, no dialectical exchanges between scholars on it, no observation of character analysis (because the characters sucked). And this is actually unprecedented in star trek history. Never before this has a star trek film generated so much 'omg that was colorful, loud and wow, btw who's coming with me to see transformers next weekend?' than this one did. Most of the reviews praising this pile of junk do not explain what they are actually praising. It is pathetic.

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
Did you see how successful the new movie was? Do you really believe that the current group of Trekkies pulled that off
It was film goers who mainly care about summer block busters. It had nothing to do with star trek and everything to do with consumption of pop corn and soda by the increasingly fat masses.

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
I mean, Trekkies couldn't even get Nemesis up to $50M. How is the new Trek getting almost $258M is it wasn't getting lots and lots of new people interested?
This is not a discussion of financial success, it is a discussion of what constitutes real trek. Justin bieber makes a lot of money too, does that make him the most talented musician ever? Hardly anywhere close to it.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are two breeds of people, those who need to be catered to, and have things handed to them in a colorful, loud bombastic package, or else they reach boredom very quickly (I.E those with pathetically short attention spans) and those who do not see numbers as indicative of anything, but more the abstract philosophical principles as being the heart of a movement.

Star trek has always been a niche market. A fringe development. Transforming it into something that will please the masses is just ripping its essence away from it and sequestering it to generic science fiction filmdom. It doesn't mean anything when it is a mass market development to the degree the latest film was. Which is not to say that it did not have some degree of mass appeal before, but it was always a amalgam of attracting the fringe and the masses in fairly equal numbers. Star trek 2009 attracted mainly the summer blockbuster going masses, primarily because it was not star trek, but starship troopers with the star trek moniker.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:30 AM   #387
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....

Have you ever done any research as to why TOS used the brightly colored uniforms and all the blinky lights? It was to sell color TV's. NBC was owned by TV manufacturer RCA at the time.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:31 AM   #388
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Trust me, the studios wanted all the Trek films to be blockbusters. They weren't going for a niche market. The guys at NBC, Paramount and UPN weren't look for niche TV shows either.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now  
Old December 23 2011, 06:32 AM   #389
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
Have you ever done any research as to why TOS used the brightly colored uniforms and all the blinky lights? It was to sell color TV's. NBC was owned by TV manufacturer RCA at the time.
Blinky lights are made by science, so it's fine. Plus, the colored uniforms represent the tolerance of colored people and other minorities.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 06:32 AM   #390
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
Trust me, the studios wanted all the Trek films to be blockbusters. They weren't going for a niche market. The guys at NBC, Paramount and UPN weren't look for niche TV shows either.
You mean they were making Star Trek to make money and not to enlighten the feeble masses? I'm shocked!
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ 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 07:05 PM.

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