StarTrek XI = 8.1/10 on IMDB and a 94% fresh on RottenTomatoes

[FarStrider]

Why send a 160 year-old Ambassador on a mission deep into enemy territory, with enough Red Matter to rearrange the universe when only a single drop is enough to collapse the supernova?

Maybe because Spock had been living on Romulus since at least 2368, and is trusted by the Romulan people?. . . maybe because he is the one who promised to do it?. . . and Vulcans live to be over 200. . .160 is not THAT old. . .

~FS

You forgot to address the second part of the question.

Because Red matter is more stable in large quantities. . .why do you think so much care was shown when extracting a single drop of it? Plus. . .it takes an extreme amount of heat to ignite it. . .a supernova, the core of a planet, a matter-antimatter explosion. . . it's containment field seemed safe enough. . .



~FS

 

[BillJ]

Because Red matter is more stable in large quantities. . .why do you think so much care was shown when extracting a single drop of it? Plus. . .it takes an extreme amount of heat to ignite it. . .a supernova, the core of a planet, a matter-antimatter explosion. . . it's containment field seemed safe enough. . .



~FS

Isn't that contradictory? If it takes an extreme amount of heat to ignite it, then it should be stable at lower temperatures. Whether it be in small or large quantities.

Should've left it at 'it's unstable in small quantities'. I might've bought that.

 

[FarStrider]

Isn't that contradictory? If it takes an extreme amount of heat to ignite it, then it should be stable at lower temperatures. Whether it be in small or large quantities.

Should've left it at 'it's unstable in small quantities'. I might've bought that.

I doubt you would have bought it in any circumstance. . . . . .why are we arguing over fictional matter. . .it's properties are what the writers needed it to be. . . just like any other fictional matter (*cough*proto matter *cough*) in the Star Trek Universe. . .


~FS

 

[BillJ]

. .why are we arguing over fictional matter. .


~FS

We're Star Trek fans... it's what we do.

 

[Captain Mike]

In case most of you don’t know …that is StarTrek XI rating and critical reception on the two biggest movie website EVER,

pls how do you top that?

Most films on IMDB are lucky if they score 7/10 ...rottentomatoes is even the worst, many great films dont even score up to 90% .

Am just kind of scared that star trek XII isn’t going to top that

Lately, people have figured how to make the sequels even better or just as good as the first. I think the less spoilers/speculation one reads, the better.

Lately, people have figured how to make the sequels even better or just as good as the first.

All one has to do is watch Transformers 2 to know this is non-sense.

It's not as if "Transformers" was that great to begin with but I was thinking more along the lines of the 80s and 90s when sequels were usually a heaping pile of shit. In the 2000s, sequels were taken a bit more seriously.

What Mirror universe are you from???...
What about the Terminator sequals. Along with James "Daniel Craig"" Bond in Quantum of Solice?
In others peoples views,...how about The Matrix ones?

 

[Bones2]

Just as said... You've got nothing. Every objection you bring up can be addressed by anyone who actually watched the film.

Oh, right. Sorry. Becase now you've said that I've realised it's actually one of the tightest and brilliant screenplays ever written, and easily the finest story in the Star Trek canon.

 

[number6]

Just as said... You've got nothing. Every objection you bring up can be addressed by anyone who actually watched the film.

Oh, right. Sorry. Becase now you've said that I've realised it's actually one of the tightest and brilliant screenplays ever written, and easily the finest story in the Star Trek canon.

Great deflection. Get back to me when you have something.

 

[Bones2]

I did earlier. Stop trying to be condescending.

 

[number6]

I did earlier. Stop trying to be condescending.

No you didn't. You suggested that people who liked this film are mindless and impressed with lens flares. How is that not condescending?
If that's the best you can do, you've got nothing.

 

[ralph]

Pegg said: "... Alex [Kurtzman] and Roberto [Orci] will write a lovely character piece, as well as a good sci-fi romp..."

Please, what does "character piece" mean?

 

[M'Sharak]

Pegg said: "... Alex [Kurtzman] and Roberto [Orci] will write a lovely character piece, as well as a good sci-fi romp..."

[Above quote recently appeared in TrekMovie article here, taken from a much longer interview at HollywoodChicago.com here. - M']

Please, what does "character piece" mean?

I think what he means is a story driven by the personality and/or back story of one or more of the main characters, as opposed to one which follows a straight-up action/adventure or other standard type of plot. However, since neither Pegg nor any of the other cast members have seen the script or been told any story details, I think Simon's probably improvising here in lieu of having any solid answer to give in response to the interviewer's question.

 

[ralph]

Thanks.

 

[Merky]

Just as said... You've got nothing. Every objection you bring up can be addressed by anyone who actually watched the film.

Why send a 160 year-old Ambassador on a mission deep into enemy territory, with enough Red Matter to rearrange the universe when only a single drop is enough to collapse the supernova?

This is probably one of the only things about this fandom that makes me lol, no offense. TOS is filled with scientific errors and continuity problems yet fans still make it a point to complain about how red matter doesn't fit into the "real world".

Star Trek is science "fiction". They could probably have an alien race that flies actual naval ships in space and get away with it because its science fiction. I think its been well established that trying to find explicit fact is like trying to justify Spock's existence which is already proven that it can not happen in the real world.

But why bother? He's there. We like him. No one complains.

It's a fun show that leads to ideas to be explored but hours shouldn't be wasted on the legitimacy of " how it doesn't make any sense ".

 

[BillJ]

Just as said... You've got nothing. Every objection you bring up can be addressed by anyone who actually watched the film.

Why send a 160 year-old Ambassador on a mission deep into enemy territory, with enough Red Matter to rearrange the universe when only a single drop is enough to collapse the supernova?

This is probably one of the only things about this fandom that makes me lol, no offense. TOS is filled with scientific errors and continuity problems yet fans still make it a point to complain about how red matter doesn't fit into the "real world".

Then you really don't understand the issue I'm having. Say an asteroid is headed towards Earth. A single nuclear device planted on it will divert it from hitting Earth... but we send someone up to the asteroid with a million nuclear devices.

It's not the Red Matter itself... it the way we see it used during the film that makes no sense.

 

[beamMe]

Why send a 160 year-old Ambassador on a mission deep into enemy territory, with enough Red Matter to rearrange the universe when only a single drop is enough to collapse the supernova?

This is probably one of the only things about this fandom that makes me lol, no offense. TOS is filled with scientific errors and continuity problems yet fans still make it a point to complain about how red matter doesn't fit into the "real world".

Then you really don't understand the issue I'm having. Say an asteroid is headed towards Earth. A single nuclear device planted on it will divert it from hitting Earth... but we send someone up to the asteroid with a million nuclear devices.

Redundancy.

 

[BillJ]

This is probably one of the only things about this fandom that makes me lol, no offense. TOS is filled with scientific errors and continuity problems yet fans still make it a point to complain about how red matter doesn't fit into the "real world".

Then you really don't understand the issue I'm having. Say an asteroid is headed towards Earth. A single nuclear device planted on it will divert it from hitting Earth... but we send someone up to the asteroid with a million nuclear devices.

Redundancy.

Which is why you send a back-up... not a million of them.

 

[beamMe]

Then you really don't understand the issue I'm having. Say an asteroid is headed towards Earth. A single nuclear device planted on it will divert it from hitting Earth... but we send someone up to the asteroid with a million nuclear devices.

Redundancy.

Which is why you send a back-up... not a million of them.

But they only had that one ship - and for once it wasn't named 'Enterprise'.

 

[BillJ]

Redundancy.

Which is why you send a back-up... not a million of them.

But they only had that one ship - and for once it wasn't named 'Enterprise'.

Never mind...

 

[Merky]

Why send a 160 year-old Ambassador on a mission deep into enemy territory, with enough Red Matter to rearrange the universe when only a single drop is enough to collapse the supernova?

This is probably one of the only things about this fandom that makes me lol, no offense. TOS is filled with scientific errors and continuity problems yet fans still make it a point to complain about how red matter doesn't fit into the "real world".

Then you really don't understand the issue I'm having. Say an asteroid is headed towards Earth. A single nuclear device planted on it will divert it from hitting Earth... but we send someone up to the asteroid with a million nuclear devices.

It's not the Red Matter itself... it the way we see it used during the film that makes no sense.

But the effects were pretty

The movie didn't make 380 million bucks on the legitimacy of red matter. It made 380 million bucks because it looked pretty. :P

 

[JarodRussell]

The movie didn't make 380 million bucks on the legitimacy of red matter. It made 380 million bucks because it looked pretty. :P

So I guess a movie that looks pretty AND makes sense is way too much to ask.