The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
It would definitely make for a more fun and lively discussion! Civility can be fun. It's the enjoyment from seeing how others view the Star Trek movie. A little faith goes a long way.
J.
but prime spock has now seen that messing with time isnt as easy as it seems .
he has the whole selar mess to know this.
and one thing year of hell showed the fans is that sometimes trying to
"fix" time just makes things worse.
even in city things might not have been totally the same as they were before.
for instance a person died that was not supposed to have died.
one could go back trying to fix things and potentially make things even worse.
to save his mother and his planet would prime spock be justified even if it ment the loss of even more planets??
I think Kirk's insubordination worked with the new Kirk character, the one that has grown up a different life than the one we saw in TOS. Plus the ready room concept was more of a TNG thing, I remember Bones getting down right insubordinate with Spock a number of times in TOS.
To be honest, I liked what I saw of Ryder, but her time on screen was so short I don't know if I could make a solid opinion one way or the other. To me Cross's performance was the weakest of all.
While I agree that the Nero motivation was weak I think it served its purpose of advancing the plot to set up the the new timeline. I sort of wished that they left the scene in where he was captured by the Klingons for 25 years to explain the gap. I'm not really down with the future guy idea, tough it might have worked.
The prime timeline still exists, that's the beauty of this movie. Creating a strict prequel would have caused to many problems and would have unfairly chained the filmmakers hands when it came to what they could do and canon. This way everyone wins.
Sheesh, I think you missed a lot of the movie if you are disappointed in the fans liking it. Can you honestly tell me that no Trek movie up to this point hasn't had plot holes? That they all had Rodenberry's vision? I say no my good sir or madam. Look at DS9 and the Dominion war, tons of ships getting blown up. TNG and the Borg, including FC, kind of bleak right? Fighting and action has always been part of Trek, how could anyone have missed that?
To me this movie captures the spirit of Trek better than all of the TNG movies, and better than most of the TOS movies. The sequel will probably show it better because this movie had to use valuable time setting up the crew and circumstances.
yeah, 'tis all good but you do need a bit of a thick skin in TNG though. might as well let 'em know that right away, John
You don't need a thick skin, you just need not to be thin skinned, different thing altogether.
yeah, 'tis all good but you do need a bit of a thick skin in TNG though. might as well let 'em know that right away, John
A
Amaris
Guest
perhaps. at least, you need a tight leash on your temper
'cos, you know, whoever goes down there for the Trek thread is eventually going to get sucked into the other ones. at least, we need to be thankful election season's gone.
At first I read that as needing an Irish temper, to which I replied, "check!".
J.
I've noticed that a lot of people on this board who criticize the movie do so because of the way it messes with the Star Trek universe. To be honest, isn't this the sort of nitpicking that makes Star Trek fans so easy to ridicule?
Now there are plenty of people on this board, as well, who have listed faults with the film's plotting, or direction, or acting. I disagree with them, yet I found it a lot easier to read these criticisms then it is to read about people who are upset about Vulcan being destroyed or that the Enterprise isn't close enough to the original or anything of these other cosmetic changes.
If you don't like the movie because Pine sucked, or the story didn't make sense, or the dialogue was awful, okay! I disagree with you, but at least you're criticizing the movie itself. If you're criticizing it because it's not your idea of Trek or because you can't accept the changes that have been made whether it be to the Trek universe or the uniforms or the ship, I encourage you to sit back and put all those things aside and just watch the movie!
Now there are plenty of people on this board, as well, who have listed faults with the film's plotting, or direction, or acting. I disagree with them, yet I found it a lot easier to read these criticisms then it is to read about people who are upset about Vulcan being destroyed or that the Enterprise isn't close enough to the original or anything of these other cosmetic changes.
If you don't like the movie because Pine sucked, or the story didn't make sense, or the dialogue was awful, okay! I disagree with you, but at least you're criticizing the movie itself. If you're criticizing it because it's not your idea of Trek or because you can't accept the changes that have been made whether it be to the Trek universe or the uniforms or the ship, I encourage you to sit back and put all those things aside and just watch the movie!
perhaps. at least, you need a tight leash on your temper
'cos, you know, whoever goes down there for the Trek thread is eventually going to get sucked into the other ones. at least, we need to be thankful election season's gone.
At first I read that as needing an Irish temper, to which I replied, "check!".
J.
I've been told I have Irish "roots" as well! you keep it well under control, John. my hat is off to ya!
if you're going to claim this film isn't TOS-like per se; it would help if you actually WATCHED a TOS episode, as the NCC-1701 has NEVER had a 'ready room' on ore near the bridge, ever.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I'm not sure why I'm adding my two cents but ah, well.
I've been a lifelong fan of Trek. I've loved it when it was just a money making venture that happened to explore the Cold War or the social topic in space in the guise of science fiction. I loved it when it was filled with acting that ranged from excellent to mediocre, campiness, torn shirts, and no effort to be truly scientific. I loved it when it matured into something that, unfortunately, became a religion to some, acting that ranged from excellent to bad, efforts to invoke science that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, when the concepts ranged from the sublime to the moronic, and when the writers couldn't figure out how thing should work even within the same series. I've even loved Trek when the characters (from TOS through the movies to Enterprise) committed crimes (stealing ships, assassinations, destruction of planetary biospheres, etc) to suit themselves or some higher purpose.
That being said, I loved this movie. After watching it, I was planning to rewatch TMP to experience again the reveal of 1701-A. I was planning on which of my favorite TOS novels I'd reread and in what order. The reason? The movie captured the two things that were best about ST once you got past the (sometimes screwed up) technology, effects, plotholes, etc: the crew and the sense of adventure shared by the crew and the audience.
If you want to argue about utopias, humanity becoming the "New Man" or the like, remember that this was tacked onto TOS after it went off the air. TOS was about adventure and people facing it together (it was about making money principally but let's forego that for now). The plots were "drawn from the headlines" and the crew acted as people tend to do in real world situations: 1) they screwed up and muddled through, 2) they excelled, or 3) some combination of the above. Seems like there was a movie that came out May 9, 2009, that basically had that as the theme. If that doesn't fit within retroactively applied visions of TOS, or the (occasionally hamfisted) efforts to mold subsequent series in that image, oh well.
I've been a lifelong fan of Trek. I've loved it when it was just a money making venture that happened to explore the Cold War or the social topic in space in the guise of science fiction. I loved it when it was filled with acting that ranged from excellent to mediocre, campiness, torn shirts, and no effort to be truly scientific. I loved it when it matured into something that, unfortunately, became a religion to some, acting that ranged from excellent to bad, efforts to invoke science that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, when the concepts ranged from the sublime to the moronic, and when the writers couldn't figure out how thing should work even within the same series. I've even loved Trek when the characters (from TOS through the movies to Enterprise) committed crimes (stealing ships, assassinations, destruction of planetary biospheres, etc) to suit themselves or some higher purpose.
That being said, I loved this movie. After watching it, I was planning to rewatch TMP to experience again the reveal of 1701-A. I was planning on which of my favorite TOS novels I'd reread and in what order. The reason? The movie captured the two things that were best about ST once you got past the (sometimes screwed up) technology, effects, plotholes, etc: the crew and the sense of adventure shared by the crew and the audience.
If you want to argue about utopias, humanity becoming the "New Man" or the like, remember that this was tacked onto TOS after it went off the air. TOS was about adventure and people facing it together (it was about making money principally but let's forego that for now). The plots were "drawn from the headlines" and the crew acted as people tend to do in real world situations: 1) they screwed up and muddled through, 2) they excelled, or 3) some combination of the above. Seems like there was a movie that came out May 9, 2009, that basically had that as the theme. If that doesn't fit within retroactively applied visions of TOS, or the (occasionally hamfisted) efforts to mold subsequent series in that image, oh well.
Yes, that's exactly it! I see the flaws in the movie but I'm at fourth viewing because it does have the ST spirit. Hell, I could say that even the flaws are part of the ST spirit
A
Amaris
Guest
perhaps. at least, you need a tight leash on your temper
'cos, you know, whoever goes down there for the Trek thread is eventually going to get sucked into the other ones. at least, we need to be thankful election season's gone.
At first I read that as needing an Irish temper, to which I replied, "check!".
J.
I've been told I have Irish "roots" as well! you keep it well under control, John. my hat is off to ya!
It's a high level of willpower. I can keep my Irish temper in check, but I can't resist fried potatoes and corn bread. Curse that Irish cook in me!
/throws chairJ.
It's a high level of willpower. I can keep my Irish temper in check, but I can't resist fried potatoes and corn bread. Curse that Irish cook in me!
J.
Irish, huh? So what about booze?
And anybody who watches TOS knows that Kirk has a history of insubordination. It's completely in character.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's a high level of willpower. I can keep my Irish temper in check, but I can't resist fried potatoes and corn bread. Curse that Irish cook in me!
J.
Irish, huh? So what about booze?
Oddly enough, I don't drink!
J.
Me neither--I quaff!
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
