RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,142
Posts: 5,433,943
Members: 24,935
Currently online: 476
Newest member: Uhura's legs

TrekToday headlines

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 28 2013, 05:13 AM   #91
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther. It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "Greatest-ever or one of the greatest ever"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
Awwww, that's cute! But.... from this very board:

A+ 135 20.03% A 153 22.70% A- 94 13.95% B+ 75 11.13% B 54 8.01% B- 23 3.41% C+ 35 5.19%


Better luck next time though!
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 05:16 AM   #92
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority.
I assume by "putrid" you mean to imply "morally corrupt or evil." Are you really suggesting that STiD "fanboys" are evil?

You claim these people are liars and offer no evidence of their indiscretions. In fact, you represent the truth with such inaccuracy that one could accuse you, you know, being a liar--or, at the very least, a hypocrite.

For one thing, the so-called "gushers" represent a very small portion of the fan base. The attacks on The Vocal Minority are neither exclusive nor imperative to them. Some partake; some don't. The chant emanates from all those (gushers and non gushers) who've grown weary of The Vocal Minority's bullshit.

They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther.
And all those you've deemed victims have never been ridiculed or attacked and are certainly not considered by anyone as part of The Vocal Minority.

It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards...
To what kind of writing standards do you refer? Some writing standards are used as a personal guideline. They are purely subjective and have no relevance to anything or anyone else. Other writing standards serve as a rulebook indicating the proper form and etiquette of writing. For example, one such rule might dictate or suggest a proper use of "further" and "farther."

I fail to see how either of these apply.

Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
Please. Enlighten us.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 05:26 AM   #93
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
In fact, you represent the truth with such inaccuracy that one could accuse you, you know, being a liar--or, at the very least, a hypocrite.
One could, perhaps, but actually making such an accusation is generally considered poor form, and would be better eschewed.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 05:33 AM   #94
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Somewhere someone's future SAT vocabulary score is getting a boost.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 07:39 AM   #95
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
So, basically, they're actually being respectful of a lot of the details that were for Kirk by the authors of the books. Details that have more or less fallen into accepted fanon.

Why do those bastards hate Trek Fans!
Why do those bastard Trek Fans hate the writers?

I have never gotten an inkling that Orci & Kurtzman hate me, and that's all that matters.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 11:58 PM   #96
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

The article is about as inaccurate as the rest of the articles that reference the Star Trek Vegas poll of the 100 or so that attended that one panel. As usual, they cherry pick and play up the negative responses while ignoring the fact that the poll they reference ha already been shown as not being how most Star Trek fans feel about STID. Most don't rate it near the top (like I do) - but most do seem to rate it squarely in the middle (6th or so.); so it's far from the worst of the franchise, etc.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 12:20 AM   #97
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
The best thing Paramount can do is ignore us because some of us will never be happy.
Meh. It would be a valid defense against the kind of fan who goes ballistic over trivial minutiae: "Kirk would never part his hair that way! They've murdered Trek and are raping its corpse!"

When you're talking about more glaring things like "transwarp beaming" (which raise rather large questions like what exactly would you need starships for when you can teleport across interstellar distances) or hiding starships on the bottom of the ocean (which the creators obviously knew was a dumb call as they actually tried to lampshade it in the dialogue), it's more than just a picky minority who find fault with every little thing. As stuff like that mounts up you're eventually just really talking about junk cinema, pure and simple.

Which in other contexts wouldn't be that bad. If Into Darkness had been a Lost in Space movie, it would've been a triumph. The context does affect the reception.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigSnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 12:30 AM   #98
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
The best thing Paramount can do is ignore us because some of us will never be happy.
Meh. It would be a valid defense against the kind of fan who goes ballistic over trivial minutiae: "Kirk would never part his hair that way! They've murdered Trek and are raping its corpse!"

When you're talking about more glaring things like "transwarp beaming" (which raise rather large questions like what exactly would you need starships for when you can teleport across interstellar distances) or hiding starships on the bottom of the ocean (which the creators obviously knew was a dumb call as they actually tried to lampshade it in the dialogue), it's more than just a picky minority who find fault with every little thing. As stuff like that mounts up you're eventually just really talking about junk cinema, pure and simple.

Which in other contexts wouldn't be that bad. If Into Darkness had been a Lost in Space movie, it would've been a triumph. The context does affect the reception.
Explain to me why showing a new technology based on a previously seen technology is wrong and why hiding a starship under an ocean is dumb.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 12:42 AM   #99
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Explain to me why showing a new technology based on a previously seen technology is wrong
If your new technology makes the basic premise of your whole setting and franchise -- adventuring in a starship -- completely redundant, it is probably a bad idea. (It doesn't help that it also completely breaks the internal consistency of depicting that technology in the timeframe one is supposedly "re-booting." But even that's a problem that pales in comparison.)

and why hiding a starship under an ocean is dumb.
Um, because a starship has all of space to hide in? Where it's designed to be and wouldn't be discernible as anything other than a bright dot from below? Whereas it is not designed to be under the ocean? And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever land, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere? How many more do would you like?

(I know the point of the hiding-under-the-ocean thing was to have occasion for the conflict between Kirk and Spock that gets resolved in the final act. But there's a term for having to contrive stupid behaviour on the part of your characters to generate such conflict... it is called Bad Writing.)
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigSnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 12:52 AM   #100
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever land, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere?
"Tomorrow is Yesterday". The Enterprise is identified as a UFO against blue sky.

It can withstand wormholes, nebulas, giant amoeba and other space anomalies, but would "break apart" just by entering atmosphere?

it is called Bad Writing
It is called Great Movie Blockbuster Writing.

If your new technology makes the basic premise of your whole setting and franchise -- adventuring in a starship -- completely redundant
When I was in New York, people tried to encourage me to use the subway trains, to get from place to place, but I much preferred to walk a different avenue each day, and check out all the sights and shops between my hotel and my destinations. I was on vacation; my time was my own.

Transwarp beaming, even if it became more predictable and safe, would not replace starships undertaking exploration and scientific research. It's about the journey, not the destination.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Therin of Andor; September 29 2013 at 01:06 AM. Reason: more
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 12:57 AM   #101
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote:
(which raise rather large questions like what exactly would you need starships for when you can teleport across interstellar distances)
That question has been answered by several people and in various ways. For example, how do you know where you're teleporting to?
__________________
Thank you very much for your concern, sir, but he does not need your religion, he has science and socialism and birthdays.
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 12:59 AM   #102
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote: View Post
And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever land, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere?
"Tomorrow is Yesterday". The Enterprise is identified as a UFO against blue sky.
Where, however, it only spends a brief amount of time. Generally speaking, you would nevertheless agree that long spells in atmosphere = bad for starships the size of the Enterprise, right? (Voyager in fact made a specific point about this by giving its starship the then-never-before-seen ability to land in atmospheres.)

In fact, the creators agree. Hence the thrilling sequence at the end of STID where the Enterprise is about to break up on reentry if Kirk doesn't save it. Which, I know this is gauche but still, some might say was perhaps slightly inconsistent with the ship being able to hide on the bottom of oceans.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigSnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:05 AM   #103
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
It can withstand wormholes, nebulas, giant amoeba and other space anomalies, but would "break apart" just by entering atmosphere?
I would actually say the canon explanation for this is pretty consistent on the grounds of spaceships being designed for space, and equipped to handle space-related hazards, whereas the attempts to discard it because SQUEEEE are rather more questionable.

It is called Great Movie Blockbuster Writing.
I'm honestly not arsed if you like the movie. It's cool to like processed sandwich spread, too; it's just not cool to claim it is caviar and denounce the rest of us as snobs when we tell you that is not the case.

Set Harth wrote:
That question has been answered by several people and in various ways.
I am sure it has. Unfortunately there is a difference between an answer and a good answer. How do you know where you're transporting to, for instance? Anything from telescopy to satellites to robot ships would suffice. You just flat-out would not need a ship like Enterprise.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigSnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:09 AM   #104
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Explain to me why showing a new technology based on a previously seen technology is wrong
If your new technology makes the basic premise of your whole setting and franchise -- adventuring in a starship -- completely redundant, it is probably a bad idea. (It doesn't help that it also completely breaks the internal consistency of depicting that technology in the timeframe one is supposedly "re-booting." But even that's a problem that pales in comparison.)
The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future. Once it gets perfected it's possible that Starships as a mode of transportation might become obsolete. But that doesn't need to happen anytime soon. There also might be bugs in the tech that might render it impractical on a large scale.

and why hiding a starship under an ocean is dumb.
Um, because a starship has all of space to hide in? Where it's designed to be and wouldn't be discernible as anything other than a bright dot from below? Whereas it is not designed to be under the ocean? And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever landed, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere? How many more do would you like?
The first one makes sense. I forget if there was a reason in the film why they were in the ocean.

The second one. I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.

Where is it stated the the Enterprise would break apart when entering an atmosphere? It worked fine in the atmosphere of Earth in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" and managed to get out of Earth's atmosphere without any trouble.

This is a ship with shields and antigrav ability. A little atmosphere and gravity is water off ducks back.

Other ships like the Bird of Prey, the Voyager and the Vulcan ship from First Contact didn't seem to have any problems with atmospheres.

The only reason the Enterprise has transporters is landing the ship every week would have been expensive SFX wise. So "design wise" it could land if the budget allowed it.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:19 AM   #105
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future.
A future in which it was never seen before an Abrams film either, because previous creators were smarter than to effectively break the setting and premise by introducing it.

The first one makes sense. I forget if there was a reason in the film why they were in the ocean.
It looks cool when they come out, and Zoe Saldana looks hella sexy in a wetsuit. Far as I can tell, those are the reasons.

(And they're understandable reasons, just insufficient ones. I hear tell space is a pretty reliable source of cool visuals, and you don't need an ocean sequence to put Zoe Saldana in a sexy outfit.)

I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.
It is stated incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon that a ship the size of the Enterprise cannot and does not land. Yes, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" notwithstanding. The nacelle-and-saucers design not being particularly aerodynamic or grav-friendly would be a pretty good reason.

Have this here Voyager featurette on the topic if you don't believe me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBhLOrzFs4g

The Bird of Prey can because it is small and aerodynamic. Voyager can because it is -- relative to the Enterprise -- likewise. Voyager made a big deal out of how it was a ship that could land, unlike larger starships that could not land.

And again: when not tempted by cool sea visuals and Zoe Saldana in a wetsuit, the creators of STID agree with this. That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere. Breaking canon is one thing, but they couldn't even manage it self-consistently.

There is again a term for that. It is Bad Writing.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigSnake; September 29 2013 at 01:31 AM.
BigSnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 07:37 AM.

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