If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

[Kemaiku]

He means the black hole Voyager 6 fell into, not the warp imbalance wormhole the Enterprise engines created, nitwit.

That was not described as a time portal! Please educate yourself more.

And didn't someone say it was NOT okay to name call on this forum?

I have not called a person a name once and this person gets away with it? Talk about bias.

It was never clarified in the film that it wasn't also displaced in time, the novel of the film implies the probe was thrown centuries into the past. The "black hole" in question would also have been close to or even at the edge of our solar system, possibly some short lived event, so we already have a precedant of this phenomena, naturally occuring even, as far back as 1979 (2273).

 

[Robert D. Robot]

That character is Kirk.

In namesake only.

I've noticed that you seem to have a very idealized view of what Trek is, but it doesn't really match the reality of what we've seen on screen over the last forty-five years.

"trek_futurist has an illusion, and you have reality. May you find your way as pleasant!"

 

[JarodRussell]

I am reminded of some nighttime scene where a group of somewhat patient, rational adults are trying to calm and reason with a frantic child who wants to challenge and debate them as he demands that they acknowledge that there ARE ghosts in his closet....

And on and on....

and on......

Is that where the adults laugh at the kid and then the pedophile steps out of the closet?

 

[trek_futurist]

That character is Kirk.

In namesake only.

I've noticed that you seem to have a very idealized view of what Trek is, but it doesn't really match the reality of what we've seen on screen over the last forty-five years.

So star trek was philosophically void, scientifically void, morally void, spiritually void, ideologically void all this time and 'we' didn't know it? For the record I have not been alive 45 years. But long enough to know that what you just said is non-sense.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I am reminded of some nighttime scene where a group of somewhat patient, rational adults are trying to calm and reason with a frantic child who wants to challenge and debate them as he demands that they acknowledge that there ARE ghosts in his closet....

And on and on....

and on......

Is that where the adults laugh at the kid and then the pedophile steps out of the closet?

Hmmm.... I don't remember for sure. Might be the one where the tree eats the kid after the clown doll tries to strangle him....

 

[RoJoHen]

In namesake only.

I've noticed that you seem to have a very idealized view of what Trek is, but it doesn't really match the reality of what we've seen on screen over the last forty-five years.

So star trek was philosophically void, scientifically void, morally void, spiritually void, ideologically void all this time and 'we' didn't know it?

It's not one or the other. Star Trek has been full of philosophy and science and morals, but it's also been full of plotholes, technobabble, explosions, and crazy battles.

 

[The Dominion]

He means the black hole Voyager 6 fell into, not the warp imbalance wormhole the Enterprise engines created, nitwit.

That was not described as a time portal! Please educate yourself more.

And didn't someone say it was NOT okay to name call on this forum?

I have not called a person a name once and this person gets away with it? Talk about bias.

It was never clarified in the film that it wasn't also displaced in time, the novel of the film implies the probe was thrown centuries into the past. The "black hole" in question would also have been close to or even at the edge of our solar system, possibly some short lived event, so we already have a precedant of this phenomena, naturally occuring even, as far back as 1979 (2273).

I was going to say, it would be reasonable (especially in the Trek universe) to assume that the blackhole it fell into was some weird anomaly that popped up in it's way.

 

[BillJ]

For the record I have not been alive 45 years. But long enough to know that what you just said is non-sense.

Just like your alcoholic remark...

Montgomery Scott was willing to take a derivative of a Klingon nerve gas "...it merely deadens certain nerve inputs to the brain" to mix with Scotch in The Tholian Web. Scott was looking for a "higher-high", which is indicative of someone with a substance abuse problem.

This man was in charge of handling anti-matter which could cause the ship to go ka-blooey with a single misstep.

Somehow you've missed the fact that Star Trek: The Original Series was full of flawed humans.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I've noticed that you seem to have a very idealized view of what Trek is, but it doesn't really match the reality of what we've seen on screen over the last forty-five years.

So star trek was philosophically void, scientifically void, morally void, spiritually void, ideologically void all this time and 'we' didn't know it?

It's not one or the other. Star Trek has been full of philosophy and science and morals, but it's also been full of plotholes, technobabble, explosions, and crazy battles.

Of course this is true... for every Devil in the Dark there is a space cutie in a short skirt out crusin' the stars looking for a good brain!...

 

[trek_futurist]

I've noticed that you seem to have a very idealized view of what Trek is, but it doesn't really match the reality of what we've seen on screen over the last forty-five years.

So star trek was philosophically void, scientifically void, morally void, spiritually void, ideologically void all this time and 'we' didn't know it?

It's not one or the other. Star Trek has been full of philosophy and science and morals, but it's also been full of plotholes, technobabble, explosions, and crazy battles.

I have to defend the techno-babble as being scientifically rooted. It is not just made up jargon, especially since TOS and TNG had science advisors on hand to help with that process.

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.

 

[BillJ]

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.

And your comparing one two-hour film against seven hundred episodes and ten feature films. It simply could never hope to compare.

 

[Kemaiku]

It was never clarified in the film that it wasn't also displaced in time, the novel of the film implies the probe was thrown centuries into the past. The "black hole" in question would also have been close to or even at the edge of our solar system, possibly some short lived event, so we already have a precedant of this phenomena, naturally occuring even, as far back as 1979 (2273).

I was going to say, it would be reasonable (especially in the Trek universe) to assume that the blackhole it fell into was some weird anomaly that popped up in it's way.

More than likely, maybe a microwormhole that opened in the Kuiper region as the probe was passing by and opened out randomly near the Machine homeworld, or perhaps an artificial spatial opening they created.

 

[trek_futurist]

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.

And your comparing one two-hour film against seven hundred episodes and ten feature films. It simply could never hope to compare.

NONE of the other films were philosophically or scientifically void.

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.

 

[horatio83]

Yeah, vampires from the dark side of the moon taking over the Romulan empire was such a Spinozian theme.

 

[BillJ]

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.

The funniest thing about your argument is that Star Trek 2009 and Nemesis hit some of the same philosophical notes about nature vs. environment in a persons development. They may disagree about the outcome but are hitting the same points just the same.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So star trek was philosophically void, scientifically void, morally void, spiritually void, ideologically void all this time and 'we' didn't know it?

It's not one or the other. Star Trek has been full of philosophy and science and morals, but it's also been full of plotholes, technobabble, explosions, and crazy battles.

I have to defend the techno-babble as being scientifically rooted. It is not just made up jargon, especially since TOS and TNG had science advisors on hand to help with that process.

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.

Their science advisors were often over ruled for the sake of drama and needs of the story. ST09 was no different. Though It's "reboot" is based on Many Worlds Interpretation. And as mentioned before the "black hole" used to travel in time is also based on scientific theory.

Made up stuff: Phasers, transporters, dilithium, viable human alien hybrids.....

 

[Nerys Myk]

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.

The funniest thing about your argument is that Star Trek 2009 and Nemesis hit some of the same philosophical notes about nature vs. environment in a persons development. They may disagree about the outcome but are hitting the same points just the same.

What was Spock's line? "Commanding a starship is your first, best destiny."

 

[BillJ]

Their science advisors were often over ruled for the sake of drama and needs of the story. ST09 was no different. Though It's "reboot" is based on Many Worlds Interpretation. And as mentioned before the "black hole" used to travel in time is also based on scientific theory.

Made up stuff: Phasers, transporters, dilithium, viable human alien hybrids.....

I'm not even sure he knows what he's arguing at this point.

 

[horatio83]

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.

The funniest thing about your argument is that Star Trek 2009 and Nemesis hit some of the same philosophical notes about nature vs. environment in a persons development. They may disagree about the outcome but are hitting the same points just the same.

Indeed, NEM seems to entertain the idea of free will whereas ST09 seems to entertain the idea of fate.
But what about a slightly different reading, NEM say that Picard would not have ended up as Shinzon did if he were in his shoes and ST09 says that Kirk ends up as Kirk even if a nasty Rommie kills his daddy. In other words, human subjectivity, the essence of Kirk and Picard, is basically independent of external circumstances. I like this reading not because it is really accurate but because it shows that from one angle free will and fate are not opposites but coincide.

 

[BillJ]

Indeed, NEM seems to entertain the idea of free will whereas ST09 seems to entertain the idea of fate.

Thinking about it a little more I think both films promote the idea of fate. Shinzon may have come up under far different circumstances than Picard but he still rose to be a powerful leader of men. Only the morality of the two characters are different.