RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,953
Posts: 5,390,920
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 537
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 October 20 2013, 08:20 PM   #436
Mycroft Maxwell
Lieutenant Commander
 
Mycroft Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee USA
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

I watched it... was good up to the Qo'nos part, then everything seemed to go down the toilet.

Also the whole outrageous speed, ubertech, total disreguard for modern physics. Hell its not even a star trek movie, its an action movie with star trek names.
Mycroft Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 08:40 PM   #437
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Mycroft Maxwell wrote: View Post
I watched it... was good up to the Qo'nos part, then everything seemed to go down the toilet.

Also the whole outrageous speed, ubertech, total disreguard for modern physics. Hell its not even a star trek movie, its an action movie with star trek names.
Do you have the same complaint about the older movies and episodes that feature that same tech? In terms of tech, there's nothing in STID that hasn't been in Trek before. As for them being action movies: exception of 2 or 3 movies, they're all action movies with very light stories.

As much as I enjoy STID, I will say I think it was a misstep to reveal John Harrison to really be Khan. Not because "OMG REHASH!!!! RIP OFF!!!!", but because it was over too soon. Khan could have made two movies, easily.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:02 PM   #438
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Do you have the same complaint about the older movies and episodes that feature that same tech? In terms of tech, there's nothing in STID that hasn't been in Trek before.
Dunno about you, but the filmmakers seem to have a whole different idea of what warp speed is. It more or less resembles the Star Wars lightspeed where in that universe characters could easily escape their own galaxy. Having the Enterprise go from Kronos to Earth in a matter of seconds is some pretty serious speed right there. The odd thing is that they didn't intentionally go out of warp, they were broken out of it by the Vengeance firing at them. So they were gonna go further? Doesn't make much sense there.

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:14 PM   #439
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.
In TOS, the Enterprise was able to cover 990+ light years in a little over 11.5 solar hours at warp 8.4 ("That Which Survives").

I also think it maybe safe to assume that Starfleet's propulsion research took a different path as the wall display in Admiral Marcus' office shows a "transwarp" network.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:17 PM   #440
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Do you have the same complaint about the older movies and episodes that feature that same tech? In terms of tech, there's nothing in STID that hasn't been in Trek before.
Dunno about you, but the filmmakers seem to have a whole different idea of what warp speed is. It more or less resembles the Star Wars lightspeed where in that universe characters could easily escape their own galaxy. Having the Enterprise go from Kronos to Earth in a matter of seconds is some pretty serious speed right there. The odd thing is that they didn't intentionally go out of warp, they were broken out of it by the Vengeance firing at them. So they were gonna go further? Doesn't make much sense there.

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.
Star Trek V: Neutral Zone to the galactic center in less than a day. Star Trek VI: Earth to the Neutral Zone in a few hours. Enterprise: Earth to Qo'nos in four days, despite being older and slower engines.

The only constant speed in ST is the speed of plot.

BillJ wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.
In TOS, the Enterprise was able to cover 990+ light years in a little over 11.5 solar hours at warp 8.4 ("That Which Survives").

I also think it maybe safe to assume that Starfleet's propulsion research took a different path as the wall display in Admiral Marcus' office shows a "transwarp" network.
Makes sense. Doesn't even have to be because of the Kelvin. We know there's a shite tone of Borg junk left over on Earth in the past after First Contact, maybe besides Borg drones Starfleet uncovered propulsion data as well.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:34 PM   #441
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Do you have the same complaint about the older movies and episodes that feature that same tech? In terms of tech, there's nothing in STID that hasn't been in Trek before.
Dunno about you, but the filmmakers seem to have a whole different idea of what warp speed is. It more or less resembles the Star Wars lightspeed where in that universe characters could easily escape their own galaxy. Having the Enterprise go from Kronos to Earth in a matter of seconds is some pretty serious speed right there. The odd thing is that they didn't intentionally go out of warp, they were broken out of it by the Vengeance firing at them. So they were gonna go further? Doesn't make much sense there.

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.
Star Trek V: Neutral Zone to the galactic center in less than a day. Star Trek VI: Earth to the Neutral Zone in a few hours. Enterprise: Earth to Qo'nos in four days, despite being older and slower engines.

The only constant speed in ST is the speed of plot.
Except the two cases of STAR TREK V and ENT (which were crap) have always been criticized as being off. Just because they made those errors doesn't mean you should keep fucking up. I'm sure the writers didn't care for the logic in it though especially in STID, because what mattered to them was having the Vengeance crash in San Fransisco rather than some other world. As for TUC, didn't they leave that ambiguous on how long it took to rendezvous? At least there was clearly a passage of time.

My point is, the filmmakers should at least try to be consistent about how basic functions work in the ST universe. Having them intentionally break it, just because others either fucked up or intentionally broke it, doesn't mean it's totally okay to be inconsistent from then on. That's where I stand.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:52 PM   #442
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Warp speeds in TOS never made sense, anyway. Neither did warp speeds in any other incarnation on screen, whether TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, or any of the films. That is to say, every incarnation had examples of travel times at stated warp speeds, that were, even in the most favorable light, eyebrow raising.

Even the formula given in The Making of Star Trek was totally bogus. According to it, at warp 8 it would take 3 days just to go from Earth to Alpha Centauri, a ridiculously long time by Star Trek dramatic standards.

Star Trek has never placed consistency above all other factors. Why should it be held to that standard now?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:55 PM   #443
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post

Dunno about you, but the filmmakers seem to have a whole different idea of what warp speed is. It more or less resembles the Star Wars lightspeed where in that universe characters could easily escape their own galaxy. Having the Enterprise go from Kronos to Earth in a matter of seconds is some pretty serious speed right there. The odd thing is that they didn't intentionally go out of warp, they were broken out of it by the Vengeance firing at them. So they were gonna go further? Doesn't make much sense there.

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.
Star Trek V: Neutral Zone to the galactic center in less than a day. Star Trek VI: Earth to the Neutral Zone in a few hours. Enterprise: Earth to Qo'nos in four days, despite being older and slower engines.

The only constant speed in ST is the speed of plot.
Except the two cases of STAR TREK V and ENT (which were crap) have always been criticized as being off. Just because they made those errors doesn't mean you should keep fucking up. I'm sure the writers didn't care for the logic in it though especially in STID, because what mattered to them was having the Vengeance crash in San Fransisco rather than some other world. As for TUC, didn't they leave that ambiguous on how long it took to rendezvous? At least there was clearly a passage of time.

My point is, the filmmakers should at least try to be consistent about how basic functions work in the ST universe. Having them intentionally break it, just because others either fucked up or intentionally broke it, doesn't mean it's totally okay to be inconsistent from then on. That's where I stand.
Reboot: Means all it has to be in consistent within it's version of events. As such, STID is consistent with the tech shown in ST09.

They don't have match 1:1 all the inconsistent technical and minutia details from the prior Treks. It's a new universe, with its on set of rules.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 10:57 PM   #444
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

I'd be fine with that, if the films didn't insist on saying that they're connected to the older Trek. Heck, I would have definitely suggested making the 2009 film a complete reboot. As in no Nimoy or any other references to Trek that is known from 1966-2005. I would have made its own completely new universe with no ties.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 11:00 PM   #445
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.

And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot. It's as patented a Trek writer's move as having the transporter broken or unable to be used at the most inopportune moments just to heighten the drama.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 11:05 PM   #446
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Franklin wrote: View Post
For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.
I think Scott saying he'd only been off the ship one day kind of kills any argument about the travel time being anymore than a day or two tops.


And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot. It's as patented a Trek writer's move as having the transporter broken or unable to be used at the most inopportune moments just to heighten the drama.
Starships have moved at the speed of plot since 1966. Why should Abrams change that now?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 11:19 PM   #447
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

BillJ wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.
I think Scott saying he'd only been off the ship one day kind of kills any argument about the travel time being anymore than a day or two tops.
Whoops, you're right. Still, enough time could've passed off screen for everyone on the ship to get at least a nap and for Kirk to go below decks to get a chicken sandwich and a coffee.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 11:39 PM   #448
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Franklin wrote: View Post
For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.

And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot. It's as patented a Trek writer's move as having the transporter broken or unable to be used at the most inopportune moments just to heighten the drama.
The way it's done when they're going from Earth to Kronos, I could believe that a lot of time had passed on their journey because of the way scenes played out and you could assume a lot had happened between Spock's praising of Kirk's decision and him confronting Carol about her status on board. However, what disproves that is when they're heading back everything happens quickly without implying that much time had passed.

Besides, in the past a captain's log was all you needed to show that time had passed in their travels and at the same time keep the pace going.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 12:41 AM   #449
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

BillJ wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
It's a valid opinion if I see a picture of an actress in her underwear (apparently that's Carol Marcus?) and my first reaction is that she needs to eat a sandwich (seriously, she looks like a toothpick).
Are Americans now so use to only seeing other fat Americans (yes, I'm a fat American) that we no longer know what a healthy body looks like?
I wouldn't know what Americans know. I'm not American. I just happen to think the actress looks too thin.


FKnight wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
I've also stated that I intend to see STID. It's available "on demand" and so one of these days I'll sit down and watch it.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's going to take a hell of a lot to accomplish that. I honestly don't think Abrams et. al are up to the job. When it comes to Star Trek movies, I'm hard to please. The last ST movie that accomplished that was Star Trek IV.
Is this a serious post? You are flat out deciding to put off watching the movie and are making judgements about it, claiming you're willing to be proven wrong, yet actively refusing to watch it. Yes, "some day' you'll watch it. How about today since, today is the day you're posting opinions about it?
Unless I include smileys indicating I'm joking, or some other indicator of humor or sarcasm, yes, my post is serious.

We have ONE movie theatre in town, and it's not in one of the better-traveled areas. I don't drive, and there's no bus service that's close enough there to allow for a safe walk after dark. I'm not willing to risk being robbed or worse just so I can satisfy this forum's insistence that I should see these movies immediately, instead of waiting for a time when I can see them safely in my own home.

Secondly, I'm not much of a TV-watcher, either. I got out of the habit some years back and never really got back into it. I watch ONE show that's on daily (as in 5 days a week) and TWO shows that are on weekly. I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Therefore, you need to re-read my first post above (this time, while switching on your "reading comprehension"). I SAID I was going to watch this movie. But I will watch it at MY convenience, NOT yours.
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 01:21 AM   #450
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Timewalker wrote: View Post
...
FKnight wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
I've also stated that I intend to see STID. It's available "on demand" and so one of these days I'll sit down and watch it.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's going to take a hell of a lot to accomplish that. I honestly don't think Abrams et. al are up to the job. When it comes to Star Trek movies, I'm hard to please. The last ST movie that accomplished that was Star Trek IV.
Is this a serious post? You are flat out deciding to put off watching the movie and are making judgements about it, claiming you're willing to be proven wrong, yet actively refusing to watch it. Yes, "some day' you'll watch it. How about today since, today is the day you're posting opinions about it?
Unless I include smileys indicating I'm joking, or some other indicator of humor or sarcasm, yes, my post is serious.

We have ONE movie theatre in town, and it's not in one of the better-traveled areas. I don't drive, and there's no bus service that's close enough there to allow for a safe walk after dark. I'm not willing to risk being robbed or worse just so I can satisfy this forum's insistence that I should see these movies immediately, instead of waiting for a time when I can see them safely in my own home.

Secondly, I'm not much of a TV-watcher, either. I got out of the habit some years back and never really got back into it. I watch ONE show that's on daily (as in 5 days a week) and TWO shows that are on weekly. I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Therefore, you need to re-read my first post above (this time, while switching on your "reading comprehension"). I SAID I was going to watch this movie. But I will watch it at MY convenience, NOT yours.
FKnight appears to have understood perfectly well what you wrote (note the bits I've placed in bold above). The "reading comprehension" dig is more problematic, as it's a well-known way of trying to stay under the radar while calling someone stupid.

That won't fly here. Please don't repeat it.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak 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 12:54 AM.

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