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

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by trek_futurist, Dec 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Whether I agree with how they used time travel or not, the way they presented it is the most accurate based on current scientific theories. A lack of scientific accuracy is one of the things you say you hate about the new film.

    Your stances are very much in contradiction to the information we have about the film in particular and Star Trek in general.
     
  2. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    In reality the film was about 25 minutes of action, the rest was exposition, character development and plot movement.

    Star trek 2009 on the other hand, was the complete opposite. It seems to me that 'character scenes' if we can call this pitiable attempt at acting, character scenes, were gap fillers between the films real motivation, action, explosions and retarded humor that wasn't funny at all.
     
  3. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
     
  4. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    The writers of Star Trek made some shit up to make their ships fly. A physicist came along 30 years later and makes up some other shit on how he pretends it would work. You're giving them way more credit than there is to be had.
    Which brings up an excellent question. If these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, seperate from the prime universe characters, why care about them acting differently at all? What's at stake? What's the point of getting your knickers in a twist about it? It's really stupid.
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
     
  6. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Then why make the movie? It's really REALLY stupid.
     
  7. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    For the same reason that Roddenberry made Trek, to make money.
     
  9. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    To get a new generation of people interested in Star Trek by going back to its roots yet allowing it to take its own path. And guess what: it worked!

    It's really not that complicated.
     
  10. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    If you missed it, then perhaps you're the one with ADD and are easily distracted by explosions.

    Bitchy and menstrual? That's how you interpret Uhura's character in the film? Okay.:eek: Not to keen on women with a mind of their own I guess.

    Kirk is a directionless boy at the start of the film. By film's end he had found his direction and purpose. Yes, he's still a cocky SOB at times, but that part of who Kirk is (thanks to Shatner's take more than what GR put on the page)

    Spock suffers great loss not only a parent but an entire world.
     
  11. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    Past trek gave lip service to science, dropped in a few real terms, made up some that sounded real and ignored what inferred with the plot. Current trek is doing the same.
     
  12. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    I think you missed my point..... entirely...... but just so we're clear on what I think you're trying to say now... because you don't care for these characters, they shouldn't have made the movie. Ok, I'm sold. Why did it ever take me so long to see the light?
     
  13. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Other than shooting down the wild assertions of trek_futurist, this thread had little entertainment value.
     
  14. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    I'm impressed at how long it's gone on without actually accomplishing anything.
     
  15. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    It's roots were not

    1-Unscientific stupidity with no explanation (I.E red matter)

    2-Characters that it is pointless to care anything about because they are idiots with developmental disorders.

    3-Nothing but explosions and arrogant characterizations

    4-Product placement that is so overt it's shameless

    The point is, if the writers wanted to start over with a completely alternate dimensional set of variables that doesn't mean a damned thing either way in relation to the prime universe or whether or not one should care if imposter kirk gets eaten by a snow monster or not, why not just write a completely new film with your own characters that have nothing to do with the star trek universe?

    Because they wanted to milk the name some more. And because they are not as talented as some of you are led to believe. Their writing sucks.

    And for your information most of the people I know who are my age or younger, even teenagers, who are star trek fans are not turned onto star trek by this 2009 travesty. They are turned onto it by having an internet connection and netflix and watching TOS and TNG.

    Stop insulting the intelligence of the young. It's unbecoming. And it's what JJ and bob orci did with this garbage movie.
     
  16. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Let's see. Doctor Crusher, jadzia dax, Captain janeway, tasha yar, command kira. All of these women are far better portrayals of respectful womanhood than imposter uhuru.
     
  17. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
     
  18. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    Again, all of these things are your opinion. I know lots of people, young and old, Trekkies and non-Trekkies, that loved the hell out of this movie.

    Yes, Red Matter is a silly plot device. But who cares? The movie isn't about Red Matter. The movie is about these characters coming together and realizing that they make an awesome team

    Yes, they absolutely wanted to milk the name. And why did they go this route? Because DS9, Voyager, and ENT were becoming increasing less popular among Star Trek fans. Creating a new series with new characters would not have been the right thing to do.

    The writers aren't as talented as we are led to believe? What does that even mean? I love the way you assert your opinion as if it is scientific fact.

    Lots of people loved this movie. Lots of people didn't. Neither group is anymore right than the other. It's fucking entertainment. It's all subjective.
     
  19. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Out of my brain on the 5:15
    Not seeing a difference between them and Uhura. All have had moments similar to Uhura's in this film.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2011
  20. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    The Genesis device is also a silly plot device...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page