STID realistic?
- Thread starter Grendelsbayne
- Start date
I've been telling people that for years...
Actually, he was STANDING on a piece of rock in a POOL of magma, a rock which does not appear to have been "floating" at all. More importantly, Spock -- unlike our Jedi friends -- was wearing a full body protective suit which in both background materials and the novelization are described as capable of protecting him from just about anything; when they beamed him back on board the Enterprise, that suit was on fire.
A. NuSpock was flailing around on a piece of hardened lava in a river of magma. It wasn't an artificial raft, but he still used it as a raft.
You don't seem to have much familiarity with Star Trek either.
Unless the Enterprise hit the water at three times the speed of sound, a million tons of displaced water would have no real effect except to raise their sea level about half a millimeter.
I'm also pretty sure they noticed the ship LEAVING the water.
I should hope so.
... is exactly what was going through Scotty's head as he was running through that hangar.
Only if the volcanic vent is in physical contact with that body of water and conditions are conducive to the kinds of chemical reactions that would produce, say, sulfuric acid and posphoric acid. In a small body of water, these can reach relative high concentrations.
An ocean, however, is not a small body of water.
Last edited:
My impression is that Kirk's repeated interference in TOS (A Piece of the Action, The Apple, A Private Little War, etc) were later panned by historians as really bad ideas, either because everyone ended up getting killed in the end, or because the Federation ended up bogged down in intractable socio-political quagmires every single time.
Successive generations of Starfleet captains are now taught to believe that the unintended consequences of doing something can often be even worse than doing nothing.
Going back to DC comics (again): That's pretty much how it played out. Most of Kirk's actions ended up coming back to bite him in the ass in some way or the other and he was generally seen as a problem child.
^ That seemed to be the whole point of the episode, actually. Jameson's interpretation of the Prime Directive was the same as Kirk's, but there's a bit of fridge horror as you realize that the logical consequence of Kirk arming the second faction means they'll be killing each other by the truckload from here on in. The Federation is therefore at least indirectly responsible for the aftermath.
I think the fact that Kirk lied was what really set off Pike. Prime Kirk and Picard broke the PD on several occasions, but they accepted whatever consequences because they truly believed what they did was the right thing to do, so they took responsibility. nuKirk didn't do that, and I can understand that's something that would disappoint a lot of admirals, and as we learned from Picard the first duty of every officer is the truth.
He got busted down a rank for the lie, not for violating the Prime Directive. At least that's how it played to me when I watched the film.
That's what I said. Hence my referencing Prime Kirk and Picard not getting demoted, because they owned their decisions, so Starfleet probably looked at those occasions as "hey, Captain's prerogative, and we might have done the same thing".
Except aiding a war if an entirely different thing from saving people from extinction, something I don't recall Prime Kirk ever having to deal with. Picard in "Pen Pals" argues it's no different, that if we start doing one thing then we should start saving others from war, slavery, ect. He has a point, but a natural disaster that natives can't handle is very different from a situation where others have a choice. Picard even mentions that in "Too Short a Season" that the native general had a choice to call for peace, so it's as much his fault for keeping the war going as Jameson's for aiding it.
I never belittled the people who like the movies. I said the movies are dumb. I never said the fans were dumb.
And I don't appreciate being called a liar when I ask people to explain things I either didn't notice or didn't interpret correctly. It would be really nice if some of you would cease this "Timewalker doesn't like the Bestest Star Trek Movie Ever, therefore everything she says about everything is WRONG!!!" attitude.
It's my OPINION that the Abrams movies are bad. Unless I'm convinced otherwise (and I'm offering people here the chance to convince me otherwise, in a constructive, non-insulting way), my opinion will not change.
I'm familiar with the forms of Star Trek that matter to me. For the rest, I either ignore it or ask for explanations.You don't seem to have much familiarity with Star Trek either.
That's an incomplete description of the premise of A Private Little War. The Klingons were arming their side in order to attain dominance of the planet. If it weren't for Kirk arming the Hill People, the Klingon-allied tribes would have wiped the Hill People out. Kirk saved the Hill People from being the certain victims of genocide.
The Klingon Empire shares at least as much responsibility for the bloodshed on Neural as the Federation does, and actually more.
See? This is why people stopped taking your criticism seriously long time ago. Instead of arguing the facts, you retreat into passive-aggressive land, and shift the topic to intention, tone, or volume. This ain't the playground. Nobody is going to hold your hand and tell you everything is all right and your opinion is special and worthy. If you want it to be taken seriously, you have to defend it. With facts, reasons, and arguments. If you can, that it.
I have no interest in changing your opinion, especially since you dismiss everything that contrasts with your already-formed prejudice, and repeat the same old arguments again and again, as if nothing was ever said to you. My only interest here is in showing that your opinion is misguided and poorly thought, mostly for the education of others and my own amusement.
Not really, since you seem to ignore established facts in the old canon when then interfere with your ability to hate on the movie.I'm familiar with the forms of Star Trek that matter to me.You don't seem to have much familiarity with Star Trek either.
Ah. As opposed to the people who said, "Prime Universe Star Trek is dead. Get over it."
So how about this: I've seen the Abrams movies. I think they're bad. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. Get over it.
And naturally, you know which forms of Star Trek matter to me. Every one of them, how, and why.Not really, since you seem to ignore established facts in the old canon when then interfere with your ability to hate on the movie.I'm familiar with the forms of Star Trek that matter to me.You don't seem to have much familiarity with Star Trek either.
What "facts" have I ignored? I assume you are referring to Uhura's mild flirting with Spock - and that somehow becomes a valid reason for nuSpock engaging in PDA while on duty, and nuUhura acting like a petulant idiot (as in the argument in the shuttle when she, nuSpock, and nuKirk were going down to the Klingon planet) - "You insisted on saving those people - but you didn't care if you died! You're MY BOYFRIEND - what about MEEEEEE! You don't care about MEEEEEE!!!"
That's the sort of thing I'd expect to see in a sitcom or soap opera. I wouldn't expect it of a professional Starfleet officer.
Not to mention that Kirk made it sound like their choices were either arming the Hill People or possible all out war with the Klingons. I mean in that case both choices suck and it looks like they went with the one they thought sucked the least.
So I'm watching this and really wondering: can you in fact furnish an actual example of Timewalker "belittling the fans" of nuTrek? I haven't seen every single thing she's posted here but that in fact does look like a false complaint from what I have seen. I am of course hopeful that you don't equate persistently disagreeing with the fans, however wrong or poorly-formed you believe her opinion to be, to amount to "belittling" them?
I'm also curious as to what this statement means to you. Do you believe it portrays the Board as a mature setting in which people should be expected to behave maturely? I'm fairly new here, so I'm just trying to understand.
Last edited:
I remember feeling that their "romance" in the 2009 film was very off putting, but eventually I thought I could roll with it and see where it goes. Where it went in STID is something I very much disliked and only reinforced my belief that this pairing doesn't work and should just be dropped immediately, especially since it made Uhura a much less appealing character where she is not only bringing unnecessary baggage on an away mission but that she blatantly dismisses her captain with the "no, just give me one second!" As a captain, I would have snapped at her for such insubordination. It's the kind of behavior I expect from a typical summer blockbuster featuring a badly written romance subplot, not Star Trek.
I have a feeling nothing will change for the next film, and that we might get Frat Boy Kirk despite the ending of STID, still get Emo Spock and her whiny girlfriend. Sulu and Chekov will have nothing to do other than say "coordinates set, sir", wasting the hired talent. Scotty improved though, so I hope they keep him relatively straightforward and less the comic relief. Bones, I just hope gets more to other than frown and spout out metaphors. Would be refreshing to see him relaxed like how Kelley was as the warm gentle country doctor.
It comes down to one's expectations of Trek. I remember the TOS where Kirk shagged his way across the galaxy, solved problems with fist fights, where Scotty started bar brawls over slurs against a spaceship and where he once tried to drink an invading alien under the table.
Some seem to latch onto "stack of books with legs" and mentally minimize Kirk's womanizing, who focus Scotty's repairing the ship and censor out the scenes that make Trek appear goofy to them - they want a serious space adventure. But those things IMO (and seemingly in Abrams' people's opinions too) added colour to the show and it's characters.
Some seem to latch onto "stack of books with legs" and mentally minimize Kirk's womanizing, who focus Scotty's repairing the ship and censor out the scenes that make Trek appear goofy to them - they want a serious space adventure. But those things IMO (and seemingly in Abrams' people's opinions too) added colour to the show and it's characters.
I always thought of the "stack of books with legs" thing to simply refer to the younger Kirk, not actually representing the Kirk we see in TOS. I actually like that idea better than Frat Boy Kirk. He's younger, more serious and determined, does everything by the book, scores the highest points on every test in the Academy's history. Then he takes on the Kobayashi Maru scenario and despite everything he's been trained to do and what he knows, he can't win the program. He tries it a second time, loses again. This is what ultimately breaks and molds him into the man he grows up to be. He changes the conditions just so he could have a chance (rather than just change the settings to the point he CAN'T lose as seen in nuTrek). This is what makes him learn to be more flexible, that sometimes not everything can be accomplished by the book. The beginning of a legend.
Would that kind of story have worked as a studio tentpole summer blockbuster? Maybe not, more likely a flashback episode on a TV series.
Would that kind of story have worked as a studio tentpole summer blockbuster? Maybe not, more likely a flashback episode on a TV series.
Similar threads
