Star Trek Rotten Tomatoes Rating

[NCC74894A]

This is off thread, but that's a very sillly thing for the reviewer to say. If it's not the Enterprise (and let's face it, it is), then it's at least a ship of that type being built on the ground. And this is a story, not real life, so why have Kirk stare longingly at the Lexington? Or Constellation? Come on. Besides, we're all over that now. That "where was it built?" argument was soooo months ago.

I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?

Because

(1) Roddenberry/Berman-era Trek lore supposedly had it that starships in general, and the Enterprise in particular, were constructed in orbital shipyards (I say "supposedly" because I can't think of any canonical evidence of this offhand), and

(2) from a logistical standpoint it would seem to make more sense to assemble a ship that size in orbit, than to build it on a planet and have to launch it into space. There's also the potential for launch-related damages to consider, something NASA found out the hard way a few years ago with the shuttle Columbia.

 

[donners22]

My movie ratings:

1. STII-10/10
2. STFC-9/10
3. STIV-9/10
4. STNEM-8.5/10
5. STTMP-8/10
6. STVI-8/10
7. STIII-7.5/10
8. STINS-7/10
9. STGEN-6/10
10. STV-0/10

RAMA

I'm glad to see someone else as positive as I am.

 

[Augustus]

This is off thread, but that's a very sillly thing for the reviewer to say. If it's not the Enterprise (and let's face it, it is), then it's at least a ship of that type being built on the ground. And this is a story, not real life, so why have Kirk stare longingly at the Lexington? Or Constellation? Come on. Besides, we're all over that now. That "where was it built?" argument was soooo months ago.

I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?

Because

(1) Roddenberry/Berman-era Trek lore supposedly had it that starships in general, and the Enterprise in particular, were constructed in orbital shipyards (I say "supposedly" because I can't think of any canonical evidence of this offhand), and

(2) from a logistical standpoint it would seem to make more sense to assemble a ship that size in orbit, than to build it on a planet and have to launch it into space. There's also the potential for launch-related damages to consider, something NASA found out the hard way a few years ago with the shuttle Columbia.

True, and I always thought it was built in space too. But eh, in can be built in both. Nothing says you can't build a star ship using some combo of space and planet...

 

[M'Sharak]

This is off thread, but that's a very sillly thing for the reviewer to say. If it's not the Enterprise (and let's face it, it is), then it's at least a ship of that type being built on the ground. And this is a story, not real life, so why have Kirk stare longingly at the Lexington? Or Constellation? Come on. Besides, we're all over that now. That "where was it built?" argument was soooo months ago.

I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?

Because

(1) Roddenberry/Berman-era Trek lore supposedly had it that starships in general, and the Enterprise in particular, were constructed in orbital shipyards (I say "supposedly" because I can't think of any canonical evidence of this offhand), and

(2) from a logistical standpoint it would seem to make more sense to assemble a ship that size in orbit, than to build it on a planet and have to launch it into space. There's also the potential for launch-related damages to consider, something NASA found out the hard way a few years ago with the shuttle Columbia.

I'll just say here that the question was argued over a number of threads (including several not originally about that subject) at great length and with no small vehemence, and that it was never settled satisfactorily. I'll say further that I am not at all interested in reviving that argument in this thread or any other thread in this forum. Trek Tech would be an appropriate venue.

 

[NCC74894A]

I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?

Because

(1) Roddenberry/Berman-era Trek lore supposedly had it that starships in general, and the Enterprise in particular, were constructed in orbital shipyards (I say "supposedly" because I can't think of any canonical evidence of this offhand), and

(2) from a logistical standpoint it would seem to make more sense to assemble a ship that size in orbit, than to build it on a planet and have to launch it into space. There's also the potential for launch-related damages to consider, something NASA found out the hard way a few years ago with the shuttle Columbia.

I'll just say here that the question was argued over a number of threads (including several not originally about that subject) at great length and with no small vehemence, and that it was never settled satisfactorily. I'll say further that I am not at all interested in reviving that argument in this thread or any other thread in this forum. Trek Tech would be an appropriate venue.

Well, someone asked the question here, so I answered it here. Unless/until someone develops a way to prune stray "branches" from a thread and transplant them elsewhere without messing up the rest of the original thread, this sort of thing is just a fact of life on this or any other message board. Heck, for all I know I might have just started a hundred-post-long side discussion on the feasibility of doing just what I've suggested! Bwwwwahahahaha.....

 

[M'Sharak]

Well, someone asked the question here, so I answered it here. Unless/until someone develops a way to prune stray "branches" from a thread and transplant them elsewhere without messing up the rest of the original thread, this sort of thing is just a fact of life on this or any other message board. Heck, for all I know I might have just started a hundred-post-long side discussion on the feasibility of doing just what I've suggested! Bwwwwahahahaha.....

The capability to move posts from here to wherever does exist, in fact, but it's the sort of tool best used sparingly. I was just getting the word out (for those who may have missed it the first few times around) that we've been there, done that and got plenty of debris and closed threads to show for it.

 

[pookha]

I dunno - I've been watching this for forty-odd years and I'm hard-pressed sometimes to remember which century is which. They're all so much alike...

half the time tos didnt know


it really didnt get pinned down until the movies.

 

[Eddie Roth]

The capability to move posts from here to wherever does exist, in fact, but it's the sort of tool best used sparingly. I was just getting the word out (for those who may have missed it the first few times around) that we've been there, done that and got plenty of debris and closed threads to show for it.

Well, I didn't intend to hijack this thread with my question. Without having delved into the debate, I kind of suspected that it was one more "But in my imagination, they had always done it differently!" kind of whining.

Anyway, back to the critics. As I noted in a new thread (that I felt the issue warranted), the Broadcast Film Critics Association has given Star Trek a rating of 93 out of 100. Which is just amazing. Higher rating in fact than last year's summer breakout Iron Man (90) or eight-time Oscar winner Slumdog Millionaire (92).

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

15 Reviews now. Dang, will this thing ever get a negative one? *knocks on wood*

 

[Star Treks]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

15 Reviews now. Dang, will this thing ever get a negative one? *knocks on wood*

Almost certainly it will get several. It's virtually impossible for a film to get universal critical acclaim. The key is can it keep a very high score (anything over 80% would be fantastic) in the long run, once dozens and dozens of reviews come out? It's looking good!

 

[RAMA]

This is off thread, but that's a very sillly thing for the reviewer to say. If it's not the Enterprise (and let's face it, it is), then it's at least a ship of that type being built on the ground. And this is a story, not real life, so why have Kirk stare longingly at the Lexington? Or Constellation? Come on. Besides, we're all over that now. That "where was it built?" argument was soooo months ago.

I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?

Because

(1) Roddenberry/Berman-era Trek lore supposedly had it that starships in general, and the Enterprise in particular, were constructed in orbital shipyards (I say "supposedly" because I can't think of any canonical evidence of this offhand), and

(2) from a logistical standpoint it would seem to make more sense to assemble a ship that size in orbit, than to build it on a planet and have to launch it into space. There's also the potential for launch-related damages to consider, something NASA found out the hard way a few years ago with the shuttle Columbia.

1. Not strictly true, we have seen them assembled in space, but we also know the E-D was constructed on the ground.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/TNG-ParallelsDisplay.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/Utopia_Planitia.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/Galaxy_class_design_lab.jpg

2. Well starships don't have heat shields and they also have structural integrity fields and abundant anti-grav fields plus way more than enough raw power to escape gravity. Its really no problem to escape the atmosphere if they wanted to...as evidenced by Voyager sized ships landing and leaving atmosphere with no problem.

RAMA

 

[Devon]

(2) from a logistical standpoint it would seem to make more sense to assemble a ship that size in orbit, than to build it on a planet and have to launch it into space. There's also the potential for launch-related damages to consider, something NASA found out the hard way a few years ago with the shuttle Columbia.

Well to be fair, from a logistical stand point you probably should not put the command center top, front and center and make it the easiest target for the enemies, and then only build the thing with one escape route. But that's just me....

 

[M'Sharak]

I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?

Because

(1) <snip>

1. <snip>

RAMA

Was there a part of this post:

...

...

I'll just say here that the question was argued over a number of threads (including several not originally about that subject) at great length and with no small vehemence, and that it was never settled satisfactorily. I'll say further that I am not at all interested in reviving that argument in this thread or any other thread in this forum. Trek Tech would be an appropriate venue.

which was in any way unclear to you? Yes, I know that yours was one of those closed, but please drop it now. I'll convert your images to links, while we're at it.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Now Star Trek is in the Upcoming Movies list on RT's front page, so non-Trekkies can see that the critics are praising it.

 

[urbandk]

all your tomato are belong to us.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Now Star Trek is in the Upcoming Movies list on RT's front page, so non-Trekkies can see that the critics are praising it.

Great news. I am really excited about all the great press this film is getting. Between that and the previews looking so cool, I know alot of people who are not Star Trek fans as a rule but who want to see this film.

The target demographic!

 

[RAMA]

Because

(1) <snip>

1. <snip>

RAMA

Was there a part of this post:

...

I'll just say here that the question was argued over a number of threads (including several not originally about that subject) at great length and with no small vehemence, and that it was never settled satisfactorily. I'll say further that I am not at all interested in reviving that argument in this thread or any other thread in this forum. Trek Tech would be an appropriate venue.

which was in any way unclear to you? Yes, I know that yours was one of those closed, but please drop it now. I'll convert your images to links, while we're at it.

I didn't see that post, and the images weren't all that big (71 kb - 640 x 480 for the largest one). I never stretch screens.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

There is a good blend of character development and action in Star Trek which is why it will resonate so well with audiences.

I think this latest quote pretty much flies in the face of what a lot of the older fans are thinking.

Well to be fair, from a logistical stand point you probably should not put the command center top, front and center and make it the easiest target for the enemies, and then only build the thing with one escape route. But that's just me....

Except that's pretty much how they designed ships for many years, especially aircraft carriers, with the the superstructure way out on top! Granted, most CICs are buried in the heart of the ship, but why bother building those things up there in the first place!

RAMA

 

[indranee]

not a "lot". I've a feeling they're a fast dwindling bunch

 

[Sector 7]

I find it sad that the people who are going to be the most curmudgeonly and pissy about JJ Abrams' "Star Trek" are the Trekkies/Trekkers/Trekaholics/whatever the hell they call themselves now, the faithful who are so invested in their personal definitions of "Trek" that they miss the amazing magic trick that Abrams just pulled off. ... Here, finally, the property is being given all the support any fan could ever ask, and it seems like the hardcores have decided that they won't support it because it's not the "Trek" they know and love.

This guy really gets it!