What impact did it have on the story?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
None, that's not what I'm looking at or observing for.
We all enjoy this show for different reasons. IDIC.
The beams are always 100% steady, and unlike using a laser pointer, for example. So they're still not realistic.
Star Trek beam phasers have always been incredibly unrealistic. Bolts are at least portrayed in a vaguely plausible fashion.
When a computer controls the targeting and emission, you should expect 100% steadiness.
When a person does it, it feels fake as eff. That's another reason why I prefer Bolts from Small Arms used by people. It's far more realistic to not be able to hold a constant laser beam steady. And asking a person to stand there holding your phaser steady is asking to get shot in return. Remember, you need to shoot & scoot. People have that advantage when going into a fire fight against other people.
Bolts are my preference for Small Arms when it comes to people.
Beams are far better for machines to wield or infinite length beam sabers.
These are the Voyages would have been a far better finale if done in the style of Living Witness, with an extended run time
You don't find dead European languages superior?
The hardest part with that is the inconsistency of how phasers are portrayed in Trek.
Every single show and sometimes individual episodes within a show are their own timeline.
Meyer referred to that in his talk the other day as "the waterboarding scene," conceding that in retrospect it was...regrettable. IIRC, he was responding to a question about what he'd do differently in his past films, given what he knows now.
I like it.Why stop there?
Maybe every scene is a different timeline.
That would explain why Kirk looks different in some of his fight scenes.
Interesting. Good for him.
I understood what they were going for, but when you hear her (a Vulcan) start screaming like that...you realize how violating it is.
A black eye on an otherwise wonderful character.
Well, generally speaking I'm not against characters in films doing awful things, including generally "sympathetic" characters.
But there's the matter of context. Cruelty for exploitative purposes in action movies and similar fluff is something I don't like for the most part, and Star Trek is at bottom nothing but feel-good comfort food.
But there's the matter of context. Cruelty for exploitative purposes in action movies and similar fluff is something I don't like for the most part, and Star Trek is at bottom nothing but feel-good comfort food.
Only those scenes are in an alternate timeline. Other scenes are also a different timeline.Why stop there?
Maybe every scene is a different timeline.
That would explain why Kirk looks different in some of his fight scenes.
Every single word of dialogue is in its own timeline. Shatner was never good at moving from one timeline to the next so that's why Kirk. Talks. Like This!
Suck on THAT, Dr. Strange!
This would help explain the "floating timeline" theory of James Bond films. 
0:18.
0:18.
Similar threads
- Locked
