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

[The Overlord]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

But spock prime can use his time ship for the same purpose! Thus, I say to you, this is a useless plot device. And an insult to the intelligence of anybody who can count to 10.

EDIT: Please learn to properly use the quoting system instead of creating these incoherent strings. All I am doing is quoting, did no editing at all to this except adding this comment. Did not edit the quote tags at all.

I'm pretty sure you misused the quoting system, not me. My quotes were fine, your's were not.

And you still haven't addressed my complaints about Shinzon or Nemesis as a whole.

[trek_futurist]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

No, he doesn't. He has a ship that is really fast and carries Red Matter.

It makes no sense at all that they can travel back and forth in time using all kinds of techniques (slingshot effect for example) but spock prime would not take this option to effect the time line in nero and spock primes future, thus arbitrarily creating a series of useless plot devices!

How the hell can red matter cause planets to explode at the same time as creating a black hole that is really a time portal? Makes no sense at all. There is zero attempt at explanation of this.

[King Daniel]

Vulcan was crushed and sucked into the black hole. It didn't "blow up". Shielded starships fared better. Not difficult to comprehend.

As for time travel, that can be applied to EVERY SINGLE episode and movie in Trek. Even Nemesis - why didn't they go back and undo that? What about Voyager - why wasn't the timeline repaired after the events of "Timeless" and "Endgame"?

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

It makes no sense at all that they can travel back and forth in time using all kinds of techniques (slingshot effect for example) but spock prime would not take this option to effect the time line in nero and spock primes future, thus arbitrarily creating a series of useless plot devices!

How the hell can red matter cause planets to explode at the same time as creating a black hole that is really a time portal? Makes no sense at all. There is zero attempt at explanation of this.

Then this is true of every single episode and movie of Trek: solve the problem by time travel. Why didn't Picard use time travel to stop Shinzon? Why didn't Kirk use time travel to stop Khan?

The Red matter creates black holes not explosions. Black holes ( more specifically wormholes) have been theorized as being able to create "time portals" and gateways to other Universes. Its also a common SF trope.

[Balrog]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

They outline (their opinions why they didn't like the movie too), (opinions) that most of you (do not hold).

Fixed it for ya'...

1-(as I pointed out already) The main characters are completely OUT of character.

Opinion

2-The human race is suppose to have gotten over its insipid ways by then, and the kirk character is suppose to be an enlightened individual, not a petty 30 year old idiot with a chip on his shoulder and a lust for power (don't even tell me the TOS was not enlightened compared to this idiot we saw in this film).

Revisionist history by the Great Bird himself. Go back to TOS and you will see that is not true.

3-The film was nothing but shallow bombast, literally. The so called 'plot' WAS the filler. And those of you who have the arrogance to compare this to the wrath of khan are simply delusional. TWOK was an amazing movie, this does not compare on any level to that master piece.

This isn't even a criticism. It's a rant at best, and flamebaiting at worst. Next!

4-There is no one to like here. Where is kirk again? All I see is some idiot with an arrogant disposition walking around, acting no better than people of today. That might fit in with some genre films, but not star trek. Star trek was never about humans being exactly the same as they are now, it was about them being BETTER than they are now so we would have something to inspire us to the future.

Opinion. And again, it is influenced by Roddenbery's revisionist history of what TOS and Trek was.

5-The completely DUMB writing that spurts out everywhere all over this movie. To say the film 'is not perfect' is a complete understatement. The characters motivations make absolutely no god damned sense at all. They are like little kids trying to fight their way out of a cardboard box and shredding the box and every bit of logic with it into pieces. The idiocy of nero's actions, the idiocy of spocks actions, the complete overall idiocy of imposter kirk, you have to be of a very short attention span to not suspend disbelief in the face of this pure idiocy. And once again, getting promoted from cadet to captain during a training mission is COMPLETELY STUPID AND SHOULD RUIN THE PREMISE OF THE ENTIRE MOVIE TO ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN!

And again, a rant - not a criticism. And more flame-baiting.

At least Nemesis made some degree of sense from an x-y-z perspective. At least the characters motivations for doing things weren't 'uh just cause i uh felt like it duh'.

Good. I'm glad you enjoyed NEM. Truly.

I did not.

Star trek 2009 is NOT a star trek movie, it is a movie for people who hate star trek, to insult the real essence of star trek with. It is pure garbage for the masses and people with short attention spans who will just as easily like transformers and twilight.

Your opinion.

[Balrog]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

I found the characters of TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 modernized, civilized, evolved and in keeping with the ideals of the original star trek vision for humanity.

Was Sisko being the modernized, civilized and evolved piece of humanity you espouse them to be in "In the Pale Moonlight"? Was Janeway in "Equinox"?

[RoJoHen]

As for the characters behaving "out of character," I think we're forgetting that these people are younger than we ever saw them in the show. When we first met Kirk, he was already in command of the Enterprise. Here, we're meeting him as a teenager. We're also meeting him in an alternate timeline, a timeline where he didn't have his father around to influence his development. OF COURSE he's going to act like a different person.

I would also argue that Star Trek has never been about "exploring new worlds." It's about using the sci-fi setting to explore the human condition, and I think ST09 did a great job of that! We got to explore Kirk's development from a drunken farmboy to a cadet at the Academy to someone who was put in a very difficult situation and had to take command of a starship. We got to explore it through Spock, from his relationship to his father, to the death of his mother and the destruction of his world. Spock and Sarek, in the prime universe, had a very uneasy relationship. I very much hope that, in this new timeline, we get to explore their relationship from a different angle, now that Amanda is gone.

Yes, there was a lot of silly action, and Nero's motivations may not have made perfect sense, but to say that the movie lacked the spirit of Star Trek is, quite frankly, wrong.

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

1-(as I pointed out already) The main characters are completely OUT of character.

Since Star Trek 2009 takes place seven to ten years prior to Star Trek: The Original Series this would stand to reason. Are you the same person you were seven to ten years ago? Would you even be remotely the same person if someone had brutally murdered one of your parents?

trek_futurist wrote:

---

No, they are what made star trek popular and what was DEFINITELY and WITHOUT A SHRED OF DOUBT lacking in the thing called star trek 2009.

What made Star Trek popular was the uncanny chemistry between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley and to a lesser extent Stewart and Spiner. What makes the reboot tolerable is that Pine, Quinto and Urban seem to have some chemistry working together. Everything else is simply window dressing... tasty window dressing but window dressing nonetheless.

[Nerys Myk]

TOS was an action adventure show that occasionally gave us a "feel good" message by the final act. A message usually proceeded by fisticuffs and gunfire. If they could have afforded explosions every week, we would have them too.

[trek_futurist]

In order to create a space/time portal, like the one witnessed in DS9, that we know as a 'wormhole' you have to have two points of the curvature of space/time meeting and effectively lessening the distance between two points. But in DS9, with the bajoran wormhole, it was space you were traversing, not time. But the same parameters apply. Both are based in relativity, and have potential for logical scientific explanation even in a fictional universe based on scientific principles. This red matter/black hole/time portal non-sense does not!

[trek_futurist]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

TOS was an action adventure show that occasionally gave us a "feel good" message by the final act. A message usually proceeded by fisticuffs and gunfire. If they could have afforded explosions every week, we would have them too.

Every single episode of TOS had a philosophical or scientific message of some kind. Stop trying to revise history please.

[JarodRussell]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Every single episode of TOS had a philosophical or scientific message of some kind. Stop trying to revise history please.

The philosophical and scientific messages have been highly overinterpreted. Star Trek is a campy children's show from the 60s. But the children are grown ups now and still like it, so they try to find deep substance in the show where none is.

[RoJoHen]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

In order to create a space/time portal, like the one witnessed in DS9, that we know as a 'wormhole' you have to have two points of the curvature of space/time meeting and effectively lessening the distance between two points. But in DS9, with the bajoran wormhole, it was space you were traversing, not time. But the same parameters apply. Both are based in relativity, and have potential for logical scientific explanation even in a fictional universe based on scientific principles. This red matter/black hole/time portal non-sense does not!

Nitpicking time travel in Star Trek is one of the most ridiculous things a person could do. Even the characters have admitted they have no idea how it works!

[trek_futurist]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

As for the characters behaving "out of character," I think we're forgetting that these people are younger than we ever saw them in the show.

So that justifies starfleet cadets acting like complete imbeciles with knee jerk reactions to everything?

RoJoHen wrote:

---

When we first met Kirk, he was already in command of the Enterprise. Here, we're meeting him as a teenager. We're also meeting him in an alternate timeline, a timeline where he didn't have his father around to influence his development. OF COURSE he's going to act like a different person.

A different person, meaning a complete imbecile? If TOS taught us anything, it's that people with alcohol problems would have gotten help long before they would be able to go on this series of mis-steps. Yes, there was the bar fight in trouble with tribbles, but it did not alter the central characters, or their moral approach to other humans and other species.

RoJoHen wrote:

---

I would also argue that Star Trek has never been about "exploring new worlds." It's about using the sci-fi setting to explore the human condition, and I think ST09 did a great job of that!

When? Where?

RoJoHen wrote:

---

We got to explore Kirk's development from a drunken farmboy to a cadet at the Academy to someone who was put in a very difficult situation and had to take command of a starship.

Kirk is the exact same person at the end of this film as he was in the beginning. An obnoxious, arrogant idiot. How he orders the destruction of nero's ship despite the fact that it was a sitting duck is ample evidence of that. This arrogant idiot does not deserve command of a starship! He is not kirk, he is an imposter.

[Nerys Myk]

Pretty sure he was called "Kirk" in the script.