Giant Space Drill (rant, spoilerish)

[GodThingFormerly]

...or parts of TMP (sorry TGT)...

There is absolutely no need to apologize. After all, it's not like you or anybody else at TrekBBS.com is even remotely equipped to pose an argument against ST:TMP so devastating that it would force me into the position of reevaluating my long-held opinion of the film.

TGT

 

[ancient]

Giant space drill, talking donut to the past, huge mutated V(oya)ger probe, extremely loud whale microphone from space, machine that makes a whole planet in ~.5 seconds, floating city...

All great storytelling props. They have no basis in reality, but they are still great Trek.

 

[Captain X]

What's more important is that Nero's space octopus has over 9000 tenticles, and they are all raping your childhood.

 

[Vance]

Again with the "You can't decide if you want to see this movie until you've seen this movie" defense, Timo?

 

[Vance]

There is absolutely no need to apologize. After all, it's not like you or anybody else at TrekBBS.com is even remotely equipped to pose an argument against ST:TMP so devastating that it would force me into the position of reevaluating my long-held opinion of the film.

It sucks and you're a horrible person for liking it! :P

 

[Gepard]

^

To be fair, I don't think even TGT could talk TGT out of liking TMP.

 

[M'Sharak]

^

To be fair, I don't think even TGT could talk TGT out of liking TMP.

Hey, I'd watch that.

 

[Ovation]

Again with the "You can't decide if you want to see this movie until you've seen this movie" defense, Timo?

How about "you can't decide if the movie is good until you've seen this movie"? Seems quite a few people (pro and con) have ignored this little element.

Oh, and a "space drill" is hardly the most absurd plot device ever seen on Star Trek (many have already been listed in this thread, so I won't repeat them needlessly).

 

[Vance]

How about "you can't decide if the movie is good until you've seen this movie"? Seems quite a few people (pro and con) have ignored this little element.

Because it's a fallacy. Why should I pay to go see a movie that doesn't yet appear to be good to me just to see if if really is a good movie or not. Honestly, do you see every single movie that exists? Because it's the logical followup to that statement.

Oh, and a "space drill" is hardly the most absurd plot device ever seen on Star Trek (many have already been listed in this thread, so I won't repeat them needlessly).

Again "It's not the worst ever" or "Trek has been more stupid" is not an excuse for really stupid stuff to appear in this movie.

 

[ancient]

Oh, and a "space drill" is hardly the most absurd plot device ever seen on Star Trek (many have already been listed in this thread, so I won't repeat them needlessly).

Again "It's not the worst ever" or "Trek has been more stupid" is not an excuse for really stupid stuff to appear in this movie.

I seems to me that if you think this is stupid, you probably think Trek is stupid period. Sort of like TGT. Actually, I guess he likes a few episodes of TOS and one of the movies. The one where nothing happens. Now there's an audience Abrams should be shooting for: the extremely picky ones that act like little Trek-Popes and have abridged their Trek Bible down to about 2 pages. :P

Oh yeah, anyway, this is nowhere near Trek's 'worst ever' by the looks of it. YMMV etc.

 

[Vance]

No, I think that in a 40 year franchise, there have been moments of stupid which have appeared at times which have, overall, not dampened my enthusiasm for the franchise as a whole. I do not see the point of revelling in these moments, nor do I wish to see them repeated ad absurdium as the vehicle that launches the franchise again.

 

[MANT!]

Well it wouldn't be the first time a "Space Drill" has been used in Trek...except it was called a particle fountain in the episode "Quality of Life" in TNG..

As long as technobabble isn't used extensively, it'll be entertaining...

 

[Timo]

Again with the "You can't decide if you want to see this movie until you've seen this movie" defense, Timo?

Uh, huh? Why should I care whether you or anybody else goes to see the movie?

For the purpose of these discussions, I don't really even have any interest in whether the movie is any good. All I discuss is the movie as an element in the fictional Trek universe. And here it certainly applies that the "objections" voiced are quite premature, because there is too much we don't know. The drill may turn out to be fairly logical, or then far more disastrous than currently seems, in terms of the fictional universe.

Whether that has an impact on the quality or enjoyability of the movie is a wholy different question. If you or anybody else feels that the fate of his or her moviegoing depends on the exact level of disastrousness of the drill bit, then please do. I won't. But I do want to point out that this exact level is not evident from the material released so far.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ovation]

How about "you can't decide if the movie is good until you've seen this movie"? Seems quite a few people (pro and con) have ignored this little element.

Because it's a fallacy. Why should I pay to go see a movie that doesn't yet appear to be good to me just to see if if really is a good movie or not. Honestly, do you see every single movie that exists? Because it's the logical followup to that statement.

You should demand your money back if you were actually TAUGHT logic. You don't have to pay anything. You don't have to see the movie. But you CANNOT properly decide if the WHOLE MOVIE (not the few snippets so far revealed) is good unless you've seen it. That is the ONLY point I was making.

Oh, and a "space drill" is hardly the most absurd plot device ever seen on Star Trek (many have already been listed in this thread, so I won't repeat them needlessly).

Again "It's not the worst ever" or "Trek has been more stupid" is not an excuse for really stupid stuff to appear in this movie.

Who said it was an excuse? It is an observation (there is a difference). And within the established context of the Trek universe, a "giant space drill" fits in nicely--again, based on the extremely limited information we have at the moment. So, again, it is too soon to UNEQUIVOCALLY declare it an example of "really stupid stuff". It may appear that way TO YOU, which makes it perfectly legitimate FOR YOU to be apprehensive about the quality of the movie. But to go from YOUR personal worries to making ABSOLUTE statements about "stupid stuff" or "the movie will suck" or other such statements displays your arrogant presumption (as your assertion that people looking forward to the changes in this movie "really hate Star Trek--I've responded to that particular gem in the other thread but the short answer is NO).

You are entirely free to like/hate/dread/look forward to this new movie. It doesn't call YOUR status as a fan in question. But it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that you are NOT coming to an evaluation of this film's merits (or lack thereof) with anything approaching objectivity (a quick perusal of your posts in this forum provides ample evidence of that). Forgive me if I don't give much weight to your OPINION, then.

 

[Vance]

It is my opinion, Ovation, based on the trailer and other pre-release information. But I'm not the one who takes it as a personal affront and is willing to hates the Bagginsis forevers that I don't think that the movie doesn't seem to be any damn good.

 

[Ovation]

It is my opinion, Ovation, based on the trailer and other pre-release information. But I'm not the one who takes it as a personal affront and is willing to hates the Bagginsis forevers that I don't think that the movie doesn't seem to be any damn good.

However, you (and others--most notably "Captain Robert April") have taken it upon yourself to decide that those who look forward to the changes "hate Star Trek" and cannot, therefore, be "fans". I see very little difference between the two positions (and I suspect your allegations of "hatred" are grossly exaggerated). I do see people dismissive of others who hold an opposite (or even different, if not opposite) opinion and that is unfortunate, if not unexpected in a forum of this nature. But the vitriol is not limited to one side of the debate and if there is "hatred", it is also not limited to one camp.

I don't know if the movie will be great/good/mediocre/bad/horrible. I plan to wait until I've seen it before judging it as, unlike you, I find what I've seen/read to be of interest to me AND I don't consider it sufficient to make a definitive assessment. I do not agree with those who dismiss objections to the look of the changes, or even those who consider plot points worrisome. I do find it difficult to accept "canon" as a major objection as it has been violated or ignored more times than I can count--but for those for whom it is sacrosanct, I can only suggest not seeing the movie. Clearly there will not be wholesale changes made to accommodate such complaints at this stage. Where I do react strongly is in instances where someone ELSE presumes to decide whether I am a fan. I will NOT let such presumption pass without comment as being a "fan" is entirely a personal choice and I do not take kindly the notion of self appointed guardians of "true fandom" attempting to judge my status as a fan (of anything--I have interests outside of Trek).

 

[Vance]

Uh, huh? Why should I care whether you or anybody else goes to see the movie?

I'm afraid you'll have to explain that one to me, since most of the 'defense' of this Movie is phrased in terms of 'you can't judge it until you see it' , 'you know you'll watch it anyway', and 'you're just a closed-minded bigot who hates change', and 'all the other Star Trek was stupid too'.

Not exactly fair defenses for a movie, which you yourself say, no one's actually seen.

And here it certainly applies that the "objections" voiced are quite premature, because there is too much we don't know. The drill may turn out to be fairly logical, or then far more disastrous than currently seems, in terms of the fictional universe.

And I've said, more than once, that the marketing for the movie at this point has, in my view, made me believe that this movie is complete and utter crap. That statement, alone, is what's personally offensive to a number of people here.

But I do want to point out that this exact level is not evident from the material released so far.

At this point, the marketing of the movie, and everything we know about it, has indeed been enough to warn me off seeing it in the theatres.

 

[Franklin]

Well, as long as we're picking things apart --
There actually are three other parts of the drill scene that bother me a bit.

First, upon rereading descriptions of the scene, Kirk is apparently able to grind the drill to a halt by simply emptying a Romulan hand weapon into it.

Second, Nero sends the "red matter" down anyway. When Chekov tells Spock what's going to happen, Spock orders a planet-wide evacuation of Vulcan, puts Chekov in command, and leaves the ship to rescue his parents and the Vulcan Council. OK. Apparently Spock isn't too stable in this movie. But this is ridiculous behavior under pressure. Needs of the many, and all that? And again, the transporter isn't working? He just can't communicate with his parents to find out where they are and beam them up? Instead, at this crucial time, he leaves his command for Mommy and Daddy?

Third, apparently the transporter now works (it was blocked before, that's why they used the shuttle), but they can't get a lock on Kirk and Sulu. Chekov runs from the bridge to the transporter room and is able to modify the transporter to beam them up just as they have fallen off the platform and are inches from crashing into Vulcan.

Is that how many of you read those sequences? Did they make you squirm in your chair a bit? It's all in the execution, and they're out of context, of course, but there's just something bothersome to me about those three sequences as they've been presented.

It could be a clinker scene in an otherwise well-executed story. But I can see why it has put some people off.

 

[Tyberius]

If Nero wants to implode Vulcan with a black hole why doesn't he just drop the singularity onto the planet from his space squid? It's not like Vulcan's lithosphere could stop the black hole from rapidly sinking to the core under its own weight.

TGT

Only went through a few pages of this, so maybe it has been addressed already; but I figure that the singularity can only be created inside the center of planet and not created outside and dropped.

(Of course in the 23/4th century, Romulans can create artificial singularities to power their starships, so this may not address all of the inconsistencies.)

ETA: Beaten to the punch

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well, as long as we're picking things apart --
There actually are three other parts of the drill scene that bother me a bit.

First, upon rereading descriptions of the scene, Kirk is apparently able to grind the drill to a halt by simply emptying a Romulan hand weapon into it.

Well in TOS a hand phaser on overload could blow up 5 decks, and in TNG a hand phaser at maximum and on wide bean could take out half of a building.

Second, Nero sends the "red matter" down anyway. When Chekov tells Spock what's going to happen, Spock orders a planet-wide evacuation of Vulcan, puts Chekov in command, and leaves the ship to rescue his parents and the Vulcan Council. OK. Apparently Spock isn't too stable in this movie. But this is ridiculous behavior under pressure. Needs of the many, and all that? And again, the transporter isn't working? He just can't communicate with his parents to find out where they are and beam them up? Instead, at this crucial time, he leaves his command for Mommy and Daddy?

I don't know about the other stuff but with the transporter wasn't the GSD suppoused to be shielded which means Spock could easily bean anywhere on Vulcan that wasn't the Drill.

Third, apparently the transporter now works (it was blocked before, that's why they used the shuttle), but they can't get a lock on Kirk and Sulu. Chekov runs from the bridge to the transporter room and is able to modify the transporter to beam them up just as they have fallen off the platform and are inches from crashing into Vulcan.

No comment.

Is that how many of you read those sequences? Did they make you squirm in your chair a bit? It's all in the execution, and they're out of context, of course, but there's just something bothersome to me about those three sequences as they've been presented.

It could be a clinker scene in an otherwise well-executed story. But I can see why it has put some people off.

Well you have a point but lets not condem that movie on a few possible bad scenes

(and I know you aren't condeming the movie that was just for those who are.)