RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,359
Posts: 5,355,594
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 487
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 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 XI+

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 10 2013, 06:20 PM   #91
Paul Weaver
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Manchester
Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

No, it's not a remake.

Why not just see it now? If you're willing to fly Economy (shudder), you can get the 18:20 from JFK on Virgin, arrive nice and early Saturday morning, watch the film a couple of times, then hop on the 14:00 Sunday back to JFK, all for under $1000


They awoke Khan because Section 31 wanted someone to develop weapons? This was a WTF moment for me. Did I hear that right? Also 300 years old means he was exiled in 1959? Should've said 200 years.
"300 years" is about right. 250 years is more of a mouthful. 200 years is nowhere near when Khan was exiled.
Paul Weaver is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 06:33 PM   #92
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Kane_Steel wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
No.

He should have played exactly who he played.
Why?
Because I like him, and I like Khan.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 06:44 PM   #93
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Rogue Reviews thread [Oh, there'll be SPOILERS, no doubt]

In this thread will be put all of the review threads posted by people who:

A) Didn't bother to read the Announcement at the top of the forum, in which it was stated that all reviews (including links to published reviews) should be posted in the pinned Grading & Discussion thread.

B) Read the Announcement, but ignored or immediately forgot it

C) Felt they were too special for that and needed to have their own threads, and the mods could just lump it.

Also in here may go anything deemed unfit to be allowed to roam free in the wild.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 06:49 PM   #94
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

AntonyF wrote: View Post
I'm feeling dejected after watching the new movie yesterday, so had to come spew some thoughts. Because I have a feeling of disappointment.

I'm trying to work out where my mood changed. I was enjoying the movie SO frigging much. Then it jumped the shark, and I found my interest and excitement waned. And it came at the moment... where he says he's Khan.

I did cringe when it happened, but it seems that's when I started to switch off. I'm not sure why I'm so against it... other than we've been hearing it for two years. It's just such old news, and they've denied it again and again (Simon Pegg: "It’s not Khan. That’s a myth."). So this doesn't feel like a surprise, it feels like a trick. And it feels like an OLD trick, something we've heard about for years.

Then it just got more and more jump the sharky (if that's possible). Kirk 'dying', you know he won't die and they set up the tribble thing earlier clearly so no drama there. The old Spock dear god no... that was the worst point. It added NOTHING. We've launched the new Trek, no need for him there - and it's possibly the worst instance of deus ex machina I've seen.

And there were so many tears it was like an One Tree Hill episode.

But I don't known why they needed to do Khan. He could have been someone else. Cumberbatch is nothing like the old Khan and didn't try to be. Today I was thinking I wish he was another character. And wouldn't it have been cool if, in the pull back of 'caskets' at the end, they had a CGI-ed up 'old Khan' in one of them? i.e. same group, but this course of history someone else came out of the tube? Then they can have their cake and eat it. I just don't get the point of having Khan.

Stupid decisions like old Spock aside, I feel my major disappointment was this wasn't new. I have waited FOUR years for new Trek, I want new... yet we got more old characters, and not only that one that has been rumoured for seemingly ages.

So that leaves me feeling disappointed. They could have thrown off the shackles and done something fresh.
And awaaaay we go...
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 06:50 PM   #95
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Nibiru

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
So yes, the proper choice would have been to let nuSpock die there and keep the Abramsprise under water, because that way the culture would have been saved without a GOD coming down to them saving them.
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
ANY visible intervention is bad intervention. You cannot foresee the consequences.
You're conflating two very different issues. I don't think anyone is defending the idea of intentionally publicly interfering with a culture's development and imposing yourself or your belief system/values on them. Secrecy should be maintained at all costs unless it is impossible to do so. They're simply defending the idea that saving a species from extinction is more important than preserving their developmental isolation at all costs, especially when they won't have any more development if you do nothing.

The OP is saying it would be better to let a species die than to interfere to save them at all, even if you can save them in secret without exposing yourself. Bringing up evangelizing and colonization is a misrepresentation of people's arguments against the OP's comment, since no one is defending those things.

Now, obviously, raising the Enterprise from the water and exposing it to the natives to save Spock from the volcano is taking things further and violating the other less morally bankrupt non-interference clauses of the Prime Directive, but that's not what the OP was talking about in his final paragraph. I think you can make a perfectly rational argument (and indeed, Spock does exactly that) that sacrificing a single crew member who voluntarily chose to risk his life as a member of Starfleet and on this mission specifically in order to prevent the species being exposed to culturally contaminating advanced technology is a worthy cause.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
But if we sent out a distress call, and they'd react to it by blowing the asteroid up, that would be nice.
How is that not playing God by saying that species who have developed radio communications with enough power to reach deep space are more valuable and worthy of saving than species who have not?

If it all hinges on the species giving consent to be saved for you, then I'm sure there are ways of posing a hypothetical scenario about intervention to stop their demise to the leaders of the species in question without revealing too much information about who and what you are.

ConRefit79 wrote: View Post
What if the species later goes on to do evil like Borg or the Vadwar. You never know how they will develop. That's why they try not to interfere.
And what if they go on to eventually develop a method of saving the galaxy from the Borg or another species/event? What if they develop some beneficial technology or are amazingly successful peacemakers who end millennia of conflict among other species? You're absolutely right that there's no way to know how they will develop, but that's no excuse to only assume the negative.

Also, speaking of the Borg, they serve as a sort of cleaning crew for the galaxy. Every time a species or culture becomes too powerful or advanced, the Borg come in and assimilate or destroy them and essentially sweep them out of the way, thus allowing countless other less developed species to rise in their place where they previously might have been marginalized in their shadow or conquered by them. Now, as long as the Borg don't come to dominate the galaxy all by themselves, they might actually often serve a beneficial role for the development of younger species from time to time, much the same way a forest fire burns away old trees and brush but also enriches the soil and makes way for new trees and shrubs to grow. Now obviously, the older species aren't going to see it this way as they're assimilated and their demise is no less tragic, but it's all a matter of perspective.

Anyway, my point is, like you said, there's no way to predict the future outcome of saving a species from extinction. But where you think that means you should not interfere at all, I think the moral thing to do in the here and now, which is the only thing you can see and manipulate clearly, is to save a species from extinction if you have the capability to do so. Anything else is callous.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 06:57 PM   #96
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Nibiru [SPOILERS]

Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
I saw STID last night and have been musing on a few things, a couple of which deal with the planet of Nibiru at the start of the film.

If you've not seen the film, please turn back now.

Firstly, why is the Enterprise underwater? How many times has a ship successfully conducted observations and away missions from standard orbit? Why would they need to complicate the entire operation and risk exposing the ship to the inhabitants by taking it all the way through the atmosphere and then into the ocean? It baffled me.

Secondly, the crews actions on the planet (stopping the volcano) is in itself a violation of the Prime Directive, as they are interfering with the natural development of that species. As unpleasant as it may be to allow a race to die, had the Enterprise not been there the volcano would have erupted and that would be the end of them, by stopping the volcano they interruped the natural development of the native species--which is far worse than them just seeing a starship rise from the water.
And off we go...
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 09:25 PM   #97
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Spocks line *Major Major Spoilers*

'Anyway, maybe it came pretty close to farcical, but it didn't ruin the movie for this viewer.'

Seems like the definition of a successful popcorn movie is when it fails almost every conventional metric of being a good movie, and yet people still give it good reviews.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 09:26 PM   #98
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Spocks line *Major Major Spoilers*

No.

Is there a more vacuous phrase than "conventional metrics of being a good movie?" It's impressive sounding, but free of content.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 10 2013, 10:17 PM   #99
Grup
Lieutenant Commander
 
Grup's Avatar
 
Location: PA
First name basis [SPOILERS]

I think I mentioned this before but I don't think the bulk of the core characters should be on a first name basis yet.

An example being the 'WWSD' clip where Kirk is talking to Chekov and says he needs to beam 'Spock' back to the ship. He's talking to a subordinate and should refer to Spock as Commander Spock. There are a few other moments in the new clips and the first film where they refer to each other by name.

Kirk and Bones, when talking to each other are OK (IMO) to refer to each other by name. Their rank and friendship make this appropriate. The others have not known each other long enough to forgo addressing their superiors correctly. They need to work up to that familiarity. Again, IMO.

Just a little something that bugs me. lol
Grup is offline  
Old May 11 2013, 12:36 AM   #100
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Well, I hate most mindless action films, but I was on the edge of my seat for most of the second half.
It was that bad and you couldn't wait to leave?
Shazam! is offline  
Old May 13 2013, 12:19 AM   #101
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: For those who've seen movie: Cumberbatch character question [SPOIL

M wrote: View Post
Here are both of their faces morphed into one ...
Here's a morph of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. They look so incredibly alike.

__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is online now  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
too cool for rules?

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 06:38 AM.

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