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. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    Janeway is a fucking nutcase compared to the new Uhura.
     
  2. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    I care more about the fate of Bele And Lokai than I care about any of these imposters in this movie.

    Kirk is the same adolescent idiot at the end of this movie as he is in the beginning of it. How can anyone contest this? He's a god damned moron.

    The scene between Imposter spock and Imposter kirk in which kirk apparently provokes spock so easily is pathetic, and an insult to even average intelligences.

    The fact that the writers ask you to suspend disbelief in the face of kirk being promoted so easily to the captaincy should, logically speaking, make you laugh at them. But instead you suck it up like it's candy. Because star trek never set any precedent that takes its command structure seriously, really?

    Star trek used viable scientific principles based on relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, holography, etc.

    How can anyone in their right mind contest that that version of trek is far more scientifically defined than this one?
     
  3. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    I won't make any bones about it... I'm just taking the piss out of this thread. This thread really isn't going anywhere I'm just getting my jollies out of being an uncooperative ass now.
    Why would they want to milk this particular name some more? Trek was dying. The TV shows were failing, the last movie bombed insanely badly. Why, in the wide, wide world of sports would they want to try and milk a cow that's been sucked dry? If this was just about milking a name, this was a horribly risky route to go.

    So? Based on one of your previous posts, you and I are more or less the same age.... at most, a year's difference in one direction or the other. I started off on the previous stuff as well, and I enjoyed them. And I enjoyed this movie. The few friends I had of my age who also liked Star Trek all mostly enjoyed the new movie. I also had several friends get into Star Trek because of the new movie.

    Don't make assumptions about the young. It's unbecoming.
     
  4. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    At least it was explained as a terraforming mechanism, and outlined how you got from A to Z. In this movie they basically start out with Z and expect you to just suck on it like a teething ring.
     
  5. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    And red matter was a mechanism by which a blackhole was created. How is that any less scientifically plausible than a 4-foot tall torpedo terraforming an entire planet?
     
  6. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    The Genesis device was essentially, "we will drop this magic bomb on a massive rock in space and it with grow an atmosphere within a few minutes". It exists only to give the bad guy a pop-gun that makes a big bang, much like thalaron radiation in Nemesis.
     
  7. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    Because if your planet had just been destroyed and your mother murdered, you'd totally be fine with someone saying you never loved her.
     
  8. nightwind1

    nightwind1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Des Moines, IA
    No, they didn't want Roddenberry's MISTRESS as second in command.

    Watch Trek Nation sometime. And read Inside Star Trek.
     
  9. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    The guy not only just had his entire species wiped out, he also got to watch his mom die. Why exactly wouldn't he be easy to piss off?
    How many of the other movies don't force you to suspend disbelief? The only difference is that you don't like this movie, so of course this particular case is going to be a Big Fucking Deal (TM) compared to the others.

    I certainly won't try to pretend the new movie is good material to base a scientific paper off of. But when you look at the other scientific made-up crap that fills the other 10 movies and 5 series, I think this movie fits in just fine. :)
     
  10. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    I am not the one bringing age into it, you are. The people who sit there talking about 'bringing trek to a new generation' for example.

    very few of my friends find this film appealing or intellectually stimulating. And these are mostly within the age range of 18-25.

    I have friends who are older than me, but they are generally not into star trek.

    The point of this is that it is absurd to make all encompassing statements that the 'younger generation' will all just sit back and let this movie teethe them like babies who love bombast because its bright and colorful.
     
  11. nightwind1

    nightwind1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Des Moines, IA
    Yes, in fact, he was lying. Do your research.
     
  12. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    You're very good at putting words in people's mouths.

    There really is no middle ground with you, is there? You hated this movie, and you know people who hated this movie, therefore it is obviously terrible and everybody who does like it is clearly a retarded infant.

    On the flip side, I know plenty of people who thought this movie was great. They weren't going in to be intellectually stimulated. They were going into it to be entertained. That's what movies are for. They are entertainment.

    You know a lot of people who like TOS and TNG. I know a lot of people who think they're boring and cheesy. Neither group is wrong. It's just their opinion.
     
  13. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    The difference is that star trek, prior to this, never asked you to just shut out command structure as being meaningless when it comes to promotion. It was a weak attempt at moving the non-existent plot along. And bob orci should be ashamed of himself for not thinking of something better.

    No, star trek always had science advisors and was based in reputable scientific principles. Your obvious lack of science knowledge is being revealed now.

    Just because they made up certain things based on known principle does not mean they were not basing it on known principles still.
     
  14. nightwind1

    nightwind1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Des Moines, IA
    I see no reason for Roddenberry to steal half of Alexander Courage's royalties for the theme music, either, but that's what he did.

    He also created the IDIC pendant so he could have something new to sell from Lincoln Enterprises, then thought up some way to work it into the series.

    He rewrote MANY scripts other writers had done first, just so he could grab royalties and fees from them.

    He was banging Nichelle Nichols from before the series started, all the way through the end of the series, even while he was married to his first wife, and then Majel.

    Roddenberry created a great series, but he was a VERY flawed human being.
     
  15. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    And again, time travel through blackholes is based on current scientific theory.
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I should also point out that Roddenberry stole the idea for Tomorrow is Yesterday from producer Bob Justman.
     
  17. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    And another one of my points goes sailing right over your head.

    You're making generalizations based on the fact that you and your posse didn't enjoy the new movie. Your encompassing statements are just as faulty if not more so, based on the the success of the movie, than everyone elses.

    And really, the concept of introducing Star Trek to new people/ generations is accurate. Did you see how successful the new movie was? Do you really believe that the current group of Trekkies pulled that off (though, if they did, that would blow your original premise out of the water). I mean, Trekkies couldn't even get Nemesis up to $50M. How is the new Trek getting almost $258M is it wasn't getting lots and lots of new people interested?

    Either your premise is faulty... or you and your friends are the last intelligent hope for a humanity that's about to stupid itself into extinction. Help us futurist, you're our only hope!
     
  18. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    As far as I know, relativity still paves the way for the best time travel theory available.

    Current does not mean right. A theory is, after all, merely a theory. But those based on relativity, followed closely with holographic universe (the implicate order) theory, seem the most interesting and reputable.
     
  19. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    So now you're the authority on which scientific theories are appropriate for basing stories on?
     
  20. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    :guffaw:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page