RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,618
Posts: 5,426,248
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 354
Newest member: 8 of 9

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


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 29 2013, 04:38 AM   #121
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote: View Post

Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)
Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.
Except that it eliminates any reason for Starfleet to exist, no. But since it does, prior creators did not do so. Wisely.
Does it? As someone mentioned so far its a one way trip. Its great for transport but what about Starfleet's other duties? They arent exclusively in the transportation business.

Scotty's transwarp beaming seems to work quite reliably.
Well it's two for two. Though attempt one did have a hiccup.

As it had to. Very quickly. Because canonically that is not where starships are supposed to be.
Which doesn't mean they can't spend time in an atmosphere

Promotional material does not count.
That is rather conveniently selective of you, and kind of doesn't make me feel like you're engaging the conversation in good faith, to be honest. But here,
It been a long held rule that promotional material is not canon. Canon is filmed Trek authorized by the copyright holder. Books, both fiction and non fiction are not canon. Even TAS isn't canon.



[
URL="http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/11/a-scientist-explains-why-the-enterprise-cant-go-underwater/"]have some science.[/URL]

Note in particular something he says that I think is very worth paying attention to:

I suppose you could technobabble your way out of any criticism like this with structural integrity fields and blah, blah, blah, but come on - that's the sort of thing that eventually killed the TNG-era run of Trek. If we're already at that point two movies into the reboot, we're in real trouble.
You won't like this, but blog entries with quotes from a scientist aren't canon either. I asked for in-universe evidence that a starship can't operate in an atmosphere. That they would break apart trying to enter the atmosphere. The "incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon" evidence you mentioned.

The statement you quoted seems to want to dismiss the pseudo-science in Star Trek, though in a selective manner. If we are tossing out "structural integrity fields" why not transporters, universal translators, artificial gravity and warp drive too? It's a house of cards really.

This quote made me chuckle

Matt Jefferies' original design was a true spaceship, and all the design elements were focused around a ship harnessing powerful and dangerous forces to travel between stars.
I'm not sure how much thought Jeffries put into the Enterprise's space worthiness. It's basically a mash-up of the two prevalent space ship designs of the 50s and 60s: the rocket and the saucer. And as others wiser than me have pointed out the struts the nacelles sit on might as well be Papier Mâché. It's a good looking design from a visual standpoint but I'm wary of it's engineering.

This scientist argument rests on Trek's ships being built with 21st Century technology. No futuristic metals, no shields, no structural integrity fields, no anti grav tech... well you get the idea. We do know that the Delta Flyer and the NX-01 managed to survive the atmospheric pressure of gas giants. Which even at higher altitudes might have more pressure than the Nibiru ocean.

And "bad ass digest" just isn't a source I can take seriously. Which is petty of me, I know.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:45 AM   #122
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Would it change your mind if you discovered that "Bad Ass Digest" is peer reviewed?
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:48 AM   #123
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Opus wrote: View Post
Would it change your mind if you discovered that "Bad Ass Digest" is peer reviewed?
By other Asses or other Bad Asses?
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:55 AM   #124
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Reviewed by Geeks, Nerds and Poindexters who are considered the most "Bad Ass" by their peers.

IOW, not bad asses...
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:58 AM   #125
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Opus wrote: View Post
Reviewed by Geeks, Nerds and Poindexters who are considered the most "Bad Ass" by their peers.

IOW, not bad asses...
My GNP index is off the scale. I might be a Sheldon.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 05:07 AM   #126
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Khan444 wrote: View Post
plynch wrote: View Post
Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV
No, NONE of the MOVIES were focused on exploration, sorry to disappoint you. TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially. The TV SHOWS were about exploration and discovery. You can do that in a twenty plus episode season better than a two hour movie. The films have always been geared more towards a mass audience, so this is nothing new.
Well TMP actually is one of the higher grossing Trek movies, so it was a financial success. I suspect that has to do with the Trek name more than the movie itself. It wasn't regarded that fondly, hence the drastic departure in tone with The Wrath of Khan.

But Khan444 is right, none of them focused on exploration and philosophy was often thinner than their episodes. Ironically enough, I felt The Wrath of Khan was one of the philosophically strongest movies, and yet it was also the most action-packed.

In terms of giving me more to think about, in my opinion, STiD beats The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. This is just my opinion, however.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 05:18 AM   #127
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Khan444 wrote: View Post
plynch wrote: View Post
Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV
No, NONE of the MOVIES were focused on exploration, sorry to disappoint you. TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially. The TV SHOWS were about exploration and discovery. You can do that in a twenty plus episode season better than a two hour movie. The films have always been geared more towards a mass audience, so this is nothing new.
Probably why I rarely rewatch the movies. I would argue TMP does. IV is not exploration per se, but a sci-fi concept (the probe) and dealing with the unknown rather than a kewl-bad-guy; TFF was venturing out and dealing with a mystery even if it was executed weirdly; INS had a mustache-stretching bad guy, but an interesting premise and a moral dilemma.

Also, even if it were "nothing new," I don't think that makes it ok.

At least with me.

I'm just hard-pressed why -- even if you like big effects-y, smash-mouth, ephemeral blockbuster movies -- you would give STID more than like a B-. Or why you would take issue with those who can't love it. It just seems that flawed to me.

(And I love TWOK by the way -- I'm not opposed to action.)
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 05:44 AM   #128
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
It been a long held rule that promotional material is not canon.
This seems to be news to virtually every canon Trek publication and source, Memory Alpha included, all of which state landing ability as a special trait of Intrepid- and Nova-class ships. I suppose there will be a reason they don't count either?

Nevertheless I'll give you this much: I overstated in saying that starships could not enter atmosphere, as they can for brief periods of time, and I'll give you that the "explicit" references I alleged in canon are on the whole more implicit... probably because nobody foresaw having to actually explain why starships couldn't hang out on the bottom of oceans.

None of that, however, remotely begins to rescue the undersea sequence. And I daresay I still find your treatment of "canon" rather selective.

You won't like this, but blog entries with quotes from a scientist aren't canon either.
I'm not expecting the opinion of science to be "canon." Just for it to be relevant to something that actually aspires to be science fiction. My contention is that the Abramsverse Trek does not so aspire, because it's effectively interchangeable popcorn cinema and not science fiction. And if you don't find the opinions of scientists on scientific subjects relevant, then I'm sorry to say that it's hard to take stuff like this:

This scientist argument rests on Trek's ships being built with 21st Century technology. No futuristic metals, no shields, no structural integrity fields, no anti grav tech...
... all that seriously. It's precisely the kind of over-convenient and undercooked technobabble he was warning you about, and he's correct that it's a big part of what weighed down and eventually did in TNG-era Trek.

There are actually multiple even worse problems with that opening sequence, like the idea of "freezing" a volcano with a "cold-fusion" bomb. I do not think "cold-fusion" means what the writers think it means...

Basically, when you find yourself having to explain away severe problems like this, you are in the position of defending Bad Writing. If you enjoyed the film despite this, that's your business, it's not my function to lecture you about what you should and shouldn't like. But people should not be trying to say -- as was my initial point -- that these are just the gripes of a few over-obsessive fanboys, because they aren't. Whether you're able to squint past them or not, things like this really are just major, major script flaws, and you don't have to be an obsessive fanboy to see that.

In the interests of leavening this with a little positivity, I'll give Abrams this much: he at least understood that it might be a good idea if Trek films did have action and tried to be visually thrilling. Not everything Trek Used To Do was nearer-my-God-to-thee, and it was particularly problematic that the weight of established style and sentimentality eventually strangled pre-Abrams-Trek's ability to perceive what thrilling action could look like even when it tried. A kick in the pants and a stylistic shake-up was overdue.

It's just a shame from my standpoint that he jettisoned intelligence and coherency in favour of that criterion. It lost him a lot of credibility that he didn't have to lose, and I've seen that Abrams is capable of doing thrilling action, intelligence and character development all in the same frame. That he chose not to do so with his Star Trek efforts seems like a waste of a great opportunity and an amazing cast, but hey, that's me.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 06:21 AM   #129
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
This seems to be news to virtually every canon Trek publication
There are no "canon" publications. There are official publications that interpretation "canon". And their interpretations are just... interpretations.

Memory Alpha included,
A public wiki, editable by anyone who registers for a Log-in.

I daresay I still find your treatment of "canon" rather selective.
As is yours.

But people should not be trying to say -- as was my initial point -- that these are just the gripes of a few over-obsessive fanboys, because they aren't.
And your proof?
__________________
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 29 2013, 06:37 AM   #130
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake'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
As is yours.
Forgive me if I don't find "I know you are but what am I" a particularly persuasive debating gambit, sorry man.

And your proof?
Um, it's the point of everything I've said up until now. I'm not going to repeat it all, if you can't see my point, you can't. That's okay.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 06:52 AM   #131
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
It been a long held rule that promotional material is not canon.
This seems to be news to virtually every canon Trek publication and source, Memory Alpha included, all of which state landing ability as a special trait of Intrepid- and Nova-class ships. I suppose there will be a reason they don't count either?
There are no canon Trek publications or sources. Canon is determined by the copyright holders and their appointed caretakers. Its not my rule. Its the rule of the people who own Star Trek. Send a letter to CBS if you don't like it.

Nevertheless I'll give you this much: I overstated in saying that starships could not enter atmosphere, as they can for brief periods of time, and I'll give you that the "explicit" references I alleged in canon are on the whole more implicit... probably because nobody foresaw having to actually explain why starships couldn't hang out on the bottom of oceans.
That's how Canon works. It unknown till is known. As of the latest film a Starship can hang out at the bottom of the ocean. Though is not recommended, especially by Chief Engineers.

None of that, however, remotely begins to rescue the undersea sequence. And I daresay I still find your treatment of "canon" rather selective.
Again, its not my "treatment", its CBS's and before that it was Paramount's. As fans we don't get a say in what's canon. It not in our purview.

You won't like this, but blog entries with quotes from a scientist aren't canon either.
I'm not expecting the opinion of science to be "canon." Just for it to be relevant to something that actually aspires to be science fiction. My contention is that the Abramsverse Trek does not so aspire, because it's effectively interchangeable popcorn cinema and not science fiction. And if you don't find the opinions of scientists on scientific subjects relevant, then I'm sorry to say that it's hard to take stuff like this:
If we were discussing real life science I'd listen to a scientist, but were discussing a show that has always played fast and loose with science and makes stuff up. Trek only aspires to science when it fits the plot. It's not alone in that when it comes to filmed science fiction. Its not hard SF. Most SF films are "popcorn cinema". They are not mutually exclusive.

This scientist argument rests on Trek's ships being built with 21st Century technology. No futuristic metals, no shields, no structural integrity fields, no anti grav tech...
... all that seriously. It's precisely the kind of over-convenient and undercooked technobabble he was warning you about, and he's correct that it's a big part of what weighed down and eventually did in TNG-era Trek.
Which why I like TOS and NuTrek better. There's very little technobabble. Things happen and we figure there's a reason why without needing to hear any babble about it. We are free to speculate on the why but we don't need the characters to tell us.

There are actually multiple even worse problems with that opening sequence, like the idea of "freezing" a volcano with a "cold-fusion" bomb. I do not think "cold-fusion" means what the writers think it means...
Then you should concentrate on those rather than the ship being underwater.

Basically, when you find yourself having to explain away severe problems like this, you are in the position of defending Bad Writing. If you enjoyed the film despite this, that's your business, it's not my function to lecture you about what you should and shouldn't like. But people should not be trying to say -- as was my initial point -- that these are just the gripes of a few over-obsessive fanboys, because they aren't. Whether you're able to squint past them or not, things like this really are just major, major script flaws, and you don't have to be an obsessive fanboy to see that.
Sorry, but the ship under the ocean is not bad writing or a flaw. Because in that case we are dealing with the unknown. We have no idea what the technological limits of the Enterprise are. There are no manuals or specs we can refer to. We can't assume that just because we haven't seen the ship do something it can't so that thing. Given the level of technology demonstrated in past series and films its not out of the question the ship could submerge in an ocean.

So, I'd go with the cold-fusion thing next time you want to discuss bad science in Star Trek films.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 06:56 AM   #132
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Which why I like TOS and NuTrek better. There's very little technobabble.
In the latter case, only until it comes time to explain the writing decisions.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 07:05 AM   #133
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Which why I like TOS and NuTrek better. There's very little technobabble.
In the latter case, only until it comes time to explain the writing decisions.
Its what fans do. We've been rationalizing writing decisions in Trek and just plain making stuff up to explain it for nearly 50 years. This did not start in 2009.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 07:05 AM   #134
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Promotional material does not count. That was just some hey look at this hand waving trying to prove Voyager was "different".
Yep. I almost mentioned "Planet of the Titans", a proposal for TMP, in which we were to learn that, at the end of the 5YM, the Enterprise saucer had separated and softlanded on a planet, and was considered lost for a decade. IIRC.
Are you sure about that? The summaries of the POTT treatment all refer to Kirk being "subjected to an electrochemical shock to his brain which brings on erratic behavior culminating in his commandeering a shuttle craft toward an invisible planet. He vanishes without a trace and Spock orders the Enterprise home."

McQuarrie did some saucer separation drawings, but he admitted that a number of of drawings for the project were blue sky pieces because they were working without a script (hence the asteroid starbase, etc.).
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010

Last edited by Maurice; September 29 2013 at 09:49 AM.
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 09:39 AM   #135
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
Forgive me if I don't find "I know you are but what am I" a particularly persuasive debating gambit, sorry man.
None of us have a hope of persuading you into liking the movie. But you have been as selective as we have been. Your refuting of the Enterprise being able to enter the atmosphere being just one point.

Maurice wrote: View Post
Are you sure about that?
I'm sure that one version of a movie proposal concerned the softlanding of the saucer, and the passage of time, yes. If not "Planet of the Titans", then one of the many other proposals on the table.
__________________
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
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 08:55 AM.

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