RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,670
Posts: 5,429,513
Members: 24,822
Currently online: 500
Newest member: The Great Duck


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 16 2011, 04:35 PM   #106
Sean Aaron
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Send a message via AIM to Sean Aaron Send a message via Yahoo to Sean Aaron
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Well, one of the most obvious would be the supernova thing. We know what a supernova is and does, and what they say the supernova is and does isn't consistent with that.

If you're really interested, there was an interesting article written on both the good and bad science of the movie: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-...nce-star-trek/
Well, there's plenty of ways to interpret the supernova line. It bothered me for about five minutes and then I decided that it was just a plot convenience and whatever.

The article was interesting, but honestly unless you're a physicist most of that stuff isn't going to register, so I don't see a problem here for the majority of the film-going public and I don't think it's a poor show by Trek standards.
Sean Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 04:36 PM   #107
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
What doesn't make sense is when they take something that is real science and they mess it up. This has happened often throughout Star Trek, just probably not as much in one outing.
I'm sorry I don't remember this movie being filled with a lot of "real science" moments, but I may not have as discerning an eye as you.

Care to highlight?
Well, one of the most obvious would be the supernova thing. We know what a supernova is and does, and what they say the supernova is and does isn't consistent with that.

If you're really interested, there was an interesting article written on both the good and bad science of the movie: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-...nce-star-trek/
the link wrote:
"Or maybe he was just whining for emphasis. He is McCoy, after all."
Sometimes this answer is enough for me, depending on context. And it need not be McCoy, either. Simply insert the name of any other Trek character (Worf, Sisko, Paris, Hoshi, etc) and it works, because hey, hyperbole has its casual uses, too.
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 05:06 PM   #108
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
Well, there's plenty of ways to interpret the supernova line. It bothered me for about five minutes and then I decided that it was just a plot convenience and whatever.

The article was interesting, but honestly unless you're a physicist most of that stuff isn't going to register, so I don't see a problem here for the majority of the film-going public and I don't think it's a poor show by Trek standards.
I never really said it was that much of a problem, and not really at all for a general audience. Also, I don't think it's really indicative of the quality of the movie. It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 05:11 PM   #109
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
Well, there's plenty of ways to interpret the supernova line. It bothered me for about five minutes and then I decided that it was just a plot convenience and whatever.

The article was interesting, but honestly unless you're a physicist most of that stuff isn't going to register, so I don't see a problem here for the majority of the film-going public and I don't think it's a poor show by Trek standards.
I never really said it was that much of a problem, and not really at all for a general audience. Also, I don't think it's really indicative of the quality of the movie. It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Orci and Kurtzman are pretty careless writers when it comes to that. Virtually all of the movies I've seen that they wrote had pretty bad blunders in them, reaching from every day knowledge to more complex science. They are not the only writers like that though.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 05:17 PM   #110
Sean Aaron
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Send a message via AIM to Sean Aaron Send a message via Yahoo to Sean Aaron
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Are you implying not a lot of thought went into it? I mean I don't think making physicists happy or realism would be top of the list when making a Star Trek or most other sci-fi/fantasy films; that doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of thought into the story, though.
Sean Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 05:20 PM   #111
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Are you implying not a lot of thought went into it? I mean I don't think making physicists happy or realism would be top of the list when making a Star Trek or most other sci-fi/fantasy films; that doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of thought into the story, though.
I think it does because all of the "problematic" stuff in the movie could have been solved with a bit more effort, some of it would have even looked better on screen.

The bad science article on trekmovie has some of these. The gamma ray burst for instance. Or time dilation near the black hole. That would have made for pretty awesome shots. Aaand it would have been more accurate.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 05:23 PM   #112
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
I'm sorry I don't remember this movie being filled with a lot of "real science" moments...
Of course not, it's Star Trek.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 06:06 PM   #113
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Are you implying not a lot of thought went into it? I mean I don't think making physicists happy or realism would be top of the list when making a Star Trek or most other sci-fi/fantasy films; that doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of thought into the story, though.
Yes, they didn't put that much thought into it for the reasons you suggest. Some writers go to great lengths to make sure their scientific or historical research is accurate, and some don't care. These decisions ultimately don't make much difference unless it extends into other areas of writing like the plot and characters. Those are probably debatable.

Personally, I like that attention to detail, and I admire it when I see it.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 06:39 PM   #114
Jon1701
Rear Admiral
 
Jon1701's Avatar
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: View Post
Dennis wrote: View Post
Mauve.

And then there's Mauve!
Lets try and lock down the shade shall we?

Wistfull Mauve?

Moonlight Mauve?

Almost Mauve?

I'm leaning towards Wistfull myself.


__________________
www.moviebreadbin.com
Movie reviews sponsored by that toupee that Patrick Stewart had sent over from London that time.
Jon1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 08:30 PM   #115
number6
Vice Admiral
 
Location: number6 has left the village through some inexpicable hole in the ground to head the corporation.
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

All I need to know: Will there be sombreros??
number6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 08:48 PM   #116
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Mauve ones.
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 09:24 PM   #117
Kosh Naranek
Captain
 
Kosh Naranek's Avatar
 
Location: Elwood P. Dowd's House
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

I personally hope for 2012! I would love a December release date. It would be like the movie was a b-day present for me.
__________________
"In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd from Harvey
Kosh Naranek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2011, 09:53 PM   #118
number6
Vice Admiral
 
Location: number6 has left the village through some inexpicable hole in the ground to head the corporation.
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

^and for Baby Jesus.
number6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2011, 01:55 AM   #119
Samuel T. Cogley
Vice Admiral
 
Samuel T. Cogley's Avatar
 
Location: Hold still, Jim.
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Cyke101 wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Sean Aaron wrote: View Post

I'm sorry I don't remember this movie being filled with a lot of "real science" moments, but I may not have as discerning an eye as you.

Care to highlight?
Well, one of the most obvious would be the supernova thing. We know what a supernova is and does, and what they say the supernova is and does isn't consistent with that.

If you're really interested, there was an interesting article written on both the good and bad science of the movie: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-...nce-star-trek/
the link wrote:
"Or maybe he was just whining for emphasis. He is McCoy, after all."
Sometimes this answer is enough for me, depending on context. And it need not be McCoy, either. Simply insert the name of any other Trek character (Worf, Sisko, Paris, Hoshi, etc) and it works, because hey, hyperbole has its casual uses, too.
Let me settle this debate for you gentlepersons (along with every other debate of this kind across the internet):

There are two camps. You may choose only one:

A) I enjoyed the [movie / episode / story], so the [plot hole / inconsistency / bad science] didn't really bother me that much.

...or...

B) I did not enjoy the [movie / episode / story], so the [plot hole / inconsistency / bad science] ruined the entire movie for me.

Camp B thinks it was the [plot hole / inconsistency / bad science] that ruined the [movie / episode / story], but that's not the real reason. The real reason is that the [movie / episode / story] failed to engage the individual viewer to the point where their suspension of disbelief rationalized away any potential 'flaws.'

Once you are in a camp, your decision has been made, and you will not be swayed. That is because the [plot hole / inconsistency / bad science] is not really the problem, so no amount of discussing the [plot hole / inconsistency / bad science] will ever make any difference.

You either enjoyed the [movie / episode / story] or you didn't. The rest follows naturally.

Copyright 2011 by Samuel T. Cogley. All posts are the property of the poster.
There you have it. Teh internets has been explained.

Any questions?
__________________
"If I didn't keep getting distracted by an avatar showing a sombrero'd dog getting his engineering hull penis substitute cut off I'd probably say that the above post was a point well made." - ITL
Samuel T. Cogley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2011, 03:23 AM   #120
Nerd unRage
Commander
 
Nerd unRage's Avatar
 
Location: Nerd unRage is in the house
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Sean Aaron wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Are you implying not a lot of thought went into it? I mean I don't think making physicists happy or realism would be top of the list when making a Star Trek or most other sci-fi/fantasy films; that doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of thought into the story, though.
My husband is a physicist and didn't seem to mind the "science" in the movie. It's science fiction after all, not the Science channel.
__________________
Sanity calms but madness is more interesting.
Nerd unRage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
abrams, director, trek xii

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 04:21 PM.

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