The Undiscovered Country

[Lord Garth]

Remember this movie?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's a whole other fucking forum you guys can talk about Star Trek (2009) in. Use it. It's pretty dead now. So it's not like "the old days". You don't need to hide out here to talk about the film. Go over there.

Could you please move this tiresome debate about ST09 into its own thread on the correct board so that this thread can get back to something approaching the topic?

I echo this sentiment.

 

[Cryogenic]

Remember this movie?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's a whole other fucking forum you guys can talk about Star Trek (2009) in. Use it. It's pretty dead now. So it's not like "the old days". You don't need to hide out here to talk about the film. Go over there.

U mad, bro?

You apparently didn't notice how aggressively my earlier criticisms of the 2009 movie were handled in this very same thread. Nevertheless, you're correct. This thread should really return to TUC at this point.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I am very curious what the terms of the Khitomer Treaty were. I wonder if the Klingon Empire was forced to give up its subjugated worlds.

 

[Lord Garth]

I am very curious what the terms of the Khitomer Treaty were. I wonder if the Klingon Empire was forced to give up its subjugated worlds.

I would imagine so. I don't think the Federation would easily offer aid to an Empire that enslaves other worlds. And if the destruction of Praxis weakened them enough, the Klingons might've had to swallow their pride.

So even though there was no longer hostilities with the Klingons, I can imagine most of them still harbored a lot of resentment toward the Federation.

 

[NCC-73515]

Call someone and let them know what's about to happen? As we see happen earlier in the film, after Spock is marooned but before he goes to the outpost with Kirk, Starfleet apparently has no clue what the "lightning storm in space" at Vulcan signifies. Even the Vulcans are apparently perplexed. Only Kirk has put two and two together. Only Kirk seems to be able to infer anything. Spock had an opportunity to warn his people and get word out to the Federation in advance. He does nothing.



Because of the laws of physics? It can be smaller and denser, but only to a point, given how planets form and what they're typically made of. For what it's worth, the description on Memory Alpha describes Delta Vega as "slightly smaller than Earth".

what could he possibly say that they would believe? how would get them to do anything at all immediately?
you got the wrong deta vega there.
open a new thread in the appropriate forum if you really wanna continue this - back to topic!

Chang is my favorite Klingon of all time. His eyepatch, his uniform, his lines, and he was even better in Klingon Academy! I've watched everything I ran into that had Plummer in it just because of Chang, and I've liked everything so far (Remember and Exception are particularly good)!

 

[dupersuper]

He would care because Spock could potentially make it there and get help -- help for himself and help for the Federation.

No, I mean why would he know about the underground ice base? I imagine he left Spock there to see Vulcan die then slowly die himself.

I am very curious what the terms of the Khitomer Treaty were. I wonder if the Klingon Empire was forced to give up its subjugated worlds.

Krios is still fighting for their independence in the 24th century.

 

[Smellmet]

U mad, bro?

You apparently didn't notice how aggressively my earlier criticisms of the 2009 movie were handled in this very same thread. Nevertheless, you're correct. This thread should really return to TUC at this point.

You're just pissed that people had the cheek (how dare they!) to disagree with your views on ST09, which despite it's many plot holes that you've managed to thoroughly derail this thread discussing, remains a major box office hit and a fan favourite, and probably the nearest trek has come to delivering a classic movie since TWOK.

Why don't you just start a thread over in the appropriate forum and let this thread get back to TUC?

 

[Cryogenic]

You're just pissed that people had the cheek (how dare they!) to disagree with your views on ST09, which despite it's many plot holes that you've managed to thoroughly derail this thread discussing, remains a major box office hit and a fan favourite, and probably the nearest trek has come to delivering a classic movie since TWOK.

No. I think it just shows how many people are prepared to defend a hyper-commercial movie and then boast about it. Which you have just proven by trying to inject more animosity into this thread and alluding to the film's financial takings.

Why don't you just start a thread over in the appropriate forum and let this thread get back to TUC?

Try reading my last post again. I said this thread should revert to TUC. I guess you wanted, like so many Abrams defenders, to have the last word.

 

[BillJ]

I am very curious what the terms of the Khitomer Treaty were. I wonder if the Klingon Empire was forced to give up its subjugated worlds.

I doubt it, since they still had subjugated worlds in the 24th century. Krios from "The Mind's Eye" being one of them. The idea the Klingons would have to change who they are plays right into Kerla's fears in the film that they would "have to live on their knees".

 

[fireproof78]

Why don't you just start a thread over in the appropriate forum and let this thread get back to TUC?

Here, I did it for everyone: Star Trek 2009-11 years later

 

[Smellmet]

No. I think it just shows how many people are prepared to defend a hyper-commercial movie and then boast about it. Which you have just proven by trying to inject more animosity into this thread and alluding to the film's financial takings.



Try reading my last post again. I said this thread should revert to TUC. I guess you wanted, like so many Abrams defenders, to have the last word.

Or maybe they just like the movie and disagree with your posts.

 

[Cryogenic]

Or maybe they just like the movie and disagree with your posts.

Or maybe they're insular, disingenuous, smug fanatics that think mockery of another person's opinions in a separate location (a location other people have tried to assure me is "safe" for open discussion) is acceptable forum behaviour?

 

[fireproof78]

Or maybe they're insular, disingenuous, smug fanatics that think mockery of another person's opinions in a separate location (a location other people have tried to assure me is "safe" for open discussion) is acceptable forum behaviour?

Proof, please?

Heck, if you have an issue with me bring in to my PMs. I'm not above a good discussion. But, there has to be some mutual understanding, and calling people "smug" and "disingenuous" is, well, disingenuous to actual good faith discussion.

My door is always open.

 

[Cryogenic]

Proof, please?

Heck, if you have an issue with me bring in to my PMs. I'm not above a good discussion. But, there has to be some mutual understanding, and calling people "smug" and "disingenuous" is, well, disingenuous to actual good faith discussion.

You can't lecture people about something being "disingenuous to actual good faith discussion". Your own conduct is there in black-and-white in the thread. Poor form. Nothing has changed with Star Trek 2009 fanatics in eleven years.

 

[Lord Garth]

Or maybe they just like the movie and disagree with your posts.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not a fan of the 2009 Film. Sorry. And when I go into a thread about TUC, I expect to read about TUC. To go into a TUC thread and have it be 80% about ST 2009 is False Advertising. This thread title didn't say "Star Trek 2009 with some TUC sprinkled in!"

I have not seen the 2009 film in 10 years, I generally don't talk about it, and I'm not interested in it. The TOS Films on the other hand, I'm still interested in. I always re-visit them from time-to-time and that's what I'm interested in talking about.

Going on and on and on about a film that has nothing to do with TUC in a thread that's supposed to be about TUC is rude. Not everyone who clicks on a thread about Star Trek VI wants to talk about JJ. Consider me one of those people. I want to talk about Nick Meyer and Leonard Nimoy.

So it's not just people who like the film that are complaining about the way this thread has been hijacked.

 

[fireproof78]

I want to talk about Nick Meyer and Leonard Nimoy.

For this part I can't recommend enough Nimoy's book about making this film. So interesting to see him fill in those details.

 

[Smellmet]

Or maybe they're insular, disingenuous, smug fanatics that think mockery of another person's opinions in a separate location (a location other people have tried to assure me is "safe" for open discussion) is acceptable forum behaviour?

Wow. Just wow.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not a fan of the 2009 Film. Sorry. And when I go into a thread about TUC, I expect to read about TUC. To go into a TUC thread have it be 80% about ST 2009 is False Advertising. This thread title didn't say "Star Trek 2009 with some TUC sprinkled in!"

I have not seen the 2009 film in 10 years, I generally don't talk about it, and I'm not interested in it. The TOS Films on the other hand, I'm still interested in. I always re-visit them from time-to-time and that's what I'm interested in talking about.

Going on and on and on about a film that has nothing to do with TUC in a thread that's supposed to be about TUC is rude.

Not everyone who clicks on a thread about Star Trek VI wants to talk about JJ. Consider me one of those people. I want to talk about Nick Meyer and Leonard Nimoy.

Fine by me.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not a fan of the 2009 Film. Sorry. And when I go into a thread about TUC, I expect to read about TUC. To go into a TUC thread and have it be 80% about ST 2009 is False Advertising. This thread title didn't say "Star Trek 2009 with some TUC sprinkled in!"

I have not seen the 2009 film in 10 years, I generally don't talk about it, and I'm not interested in it. The TOS Films on the other hand, I'm still interested in. I always re-visit them from time-to-time and that's what I'm interested in talking about.

Going on and on and on about a film that has nothing to do with TUC in a thread that's supposed to be about TUC is rude. Not everyone who clicks on a thread about Star Trek VI wants to talk about JJ. Consider me one of those people. I want to talk about Nick Meyer and Leonard Nimoy.

So it's not just people who like the film that are complaining about the way this thread has been hijacked.

You'll find I was the person calling for the discussion to be moved to the appropriate forum.

 

[Lord Garth]

You'll find I was the person calling for the discussion to be moved to the appropriate forum.

I lost track of myself. I started responding with "It's not just fans of the film", then my mind immediately shifted toward You Know Who.

If he didn't post something as blatantly off-topic and explosive as "NuKirk committed genocide!", then this whole thing wouldn't have started. Something that sounded so out-of-space to me, I thought "Wait a minute... There's no way I could've possibly read that right. Did I?"

 

[BillJ]

Thread drift happens all the time around here.

 

[fireproof78]

Thread drift happens all the time around here.

A lot.

Hey, did you see what happened on Lower Decks referencing Kirk?