What would Roddenberry think?

[EmperorTiberius]

Oh, one would definitely pick out "E" and "F" as the most different on that list - totally different characters and a setting a century removed from "A," "B," "C," or "D."



Unless, of course, one were ranking by entertainment value - then TMP would stand part as the least like Star Trek in general in that regard.

You don't look at one aspect, ie, characters, or entertainment value, you look at them as a whole when answering these types of questions. Like I explained above, nutrek has a completely different style that can be felt. It's very Star Wars-y. Again, I'm not seeing you guys/gals that support this giving any proof how it's similar to the rest of Trek.

 

[Tom Servo]

Oh, one would definitely pick out "E" and "F" as the most different on that list - totally different characters and a setting a century removed from "A," "B," "C," or "D."



Unless, of course, one were ranking by entertainment value - then TMP would stand part as the least like Star Trek in general in that regard.

You don't look at one aspect, ie, characters, or entertainment value, you look at them as a whole when answering these types of questions. Like I explained above, nutrek has a completely different style that can be felt. It's very Star Wars-y. Again, I'm not seeing you guys/gals that support this giving any proof how it's similar to the rest of Trek.

And you are not giving any proof that it is different.

Yes the new film had a bit of a different style then the other shows and films, and for good reason. For once, it was a totally different set of people working on it, not just the same core group with a few additions and subtractions here and there. The style of the new film was a bit faster paced, and a bit more action oriented then older Trek, but guess what, it needed to be. NuTrek could not be old Trek. It needed to give old Trek a kick in the ass, and thats exactly what it did, to great success I might add.

 

[number6]

Gene would have been thrilled to see Trek continue into the 21st Century.

This is a sentiment oft stated by the likes of Majel, Bob Justman, Leonard Nimoy and just about everyone else who actually knew the man. It is presumtious to think that GR's opinions would remotely coincide with some of the bile posted in this thread by people who claim to be fans of his vision.

 

[Nerys Myk]

QUOTE=Nerys Myk;3340268]

Which would be one of the problems. You see, she did not "discover the threat", or at least, it should have been impossible for her to "discover the threat". (Rather she didn't, she was oblivious to the threat it's only Kirk who put 2 and 15 and 326 togehter and came up with 6, which by sheer luck was the right answer, but that's another matter.)

Key word being helped

No, she didn't help at all, neither did Kirk, for that matter. Once Kirk finally convinces Pike that indeed something is going on, and they shouldn't just drop into the Vulcan system without a plan first, they drop into the Vulcan system without a plan - result being: NOTHING AT ALL! One of the many, many, many, many weak, no, horribly bad writing in this movie.[/QUOTE]So which is it? She and Kirk discover an "problem, compare notes and rush to the bridge to inform the Pike. Pike ignore their advice and discovers they right. Sounds like she did help,

Yeah Pike ( a secondary character) ignores the advise of Uhura and Kirk ( the leads) and is proven wrong. ( like that never happens in movies) Setting up a dramatic SFX shot and creating some drama, tension and danger. Instead you's want everthing to work out in a boring static undramatic way.

Then you must use it such a matter it makes sense. Not that it matters

Except that if there are so many, and so big plotholes in the movie it isn't dramatic, let alone drama, because you just look at the screen with dropped jaw going,

The box office says otherwise.

Excpet that the new Uhura is NOT more than a glorified telephone operator, quite the contrary, TOS Uhura was LESS a glorified telephone operator than the new Uhura. Which was rather the original point.

In most episodes she sat on her ass opening hailing frequencies and gave reaction shots. She rarely if ever was part of the plots resolution.

Yeah, I never said she did, quite the contrary, but . . . reading

. And why do you think that is? Because the character was above such things?

She didn't contribute, at all.

Did we see the same movie? Did you see two different movies? You've said she had a piece of the puzzle a few paragraphs up that combined with Kirks info gives them the clue that Nero is back. Thats not a contribution??

No, it's called Science Fiction. The goal is to entertain through the exploration of (potential) scientific concepts having an impact upon humanity and/or exploring present day humanity through the allegory of such.

A limited veiw of SF. One that Star trek used occasionally but not consistantly.

You can create scientific concepts that contradict present day idea in science as long as those ideas aren't ironclad facts. However, if you've got ironclad facts that we've seen with our very own eyes with only a telescope to help out, you don't get to contradict those.

Yes, you do. And you get to make up things like phasers, protomatter and dilithium.

1. Prove it.

Here is a thread about her.

2. If it's true, they didn't get their money's worth there, did they?

She's an advisor. They don;t get script approval or final edit.

Or...

3. They completely ignored her, which begs the question: what's the point of hiring her if you're just going to ignore her?

For "advise",hence the term advisor. She wouldn't be the first scientist Trek ignored because reality doesn't always make for interesting movies.

Actually, it WAS a typical super nova, because the movie never claimed anything different. Result being, it was a pile of shit. Even a hyper nova doesn't do Zwhat this super nova did, not even the most impressive subspace-based Star Trek nova can do what this movie claimed it did, as it defied all logic, as it could apparently obliterate a planet lightyears away, but a rinky dink little science vessel and a mere mining ship could pass through that very same shockwave that destroys planets without a scratch on them.

Didn't have to say it since it didn't behave as a typical Super Nova it can't be one. I guess science ships and mining vessels are tougher than you think.

And every movie that does, is a pile of shit, especially Science Fiction movies.

If so many people don't care about naming, they could have put in a few additional efforts and come up with something that doesn't sound like it came from an idiot to anyone with more than a little passing knowledge of science.

This ridiculous idea that just because a good chunk of the people are ignorant morons, you must write something that only ignorant morons can enjoy, is just pure ridiculousness

. It must be hard being so special and above the rabble.

And yes, the past Treks ALL had that sophistication. None of the names that you mentioned are ridiculous. Hell, most of the names you mentioned, would just be the human names for them, humans tend to do that; put names to things that fit their ideas. Like the Rihannsu, they have very different names for themselves.

it hey did those name would not have been used.

No where in any Star Trek episode or movie does it state or impy that "Vulcan" or "Romulan" are human derived. Thats fan conjecture to hide embarassement at the lack of sophisication the TOS writers had in naming them.

There is no race called "Rihannsu" in any Star Trek film or episode. It was made up by an author, probably for the above stated reason. I'm covinced she used the Celtic Goddess Rhiannon as its basis. After all Celtic myth is more sophisticated than Roman myth.

TOS trumps Trek Lit.

We do know, we can see it.

That would be you.

The why of the scene doesn't matter. What it represents DOES. And it COULD have worked in space, hell, with Earth as a backdrop it could have worked BETTER.

Except the the problem of Earthbound Iowa farm boy Jim Kirk being in space.

But that's besides the point.

To anyone who has a functioning brain, and likes to engage it during movies, IT DOES NOT RESONATE. On the contrary, you get the absolute disgust I feel when I see that because I understand the consequences of 23rd century Star Trek Earth being reduced to building on the ground.

Comments like this make me smile and then The fanatical rage at the heretics. All caps. The self importance. The condescension at us lesser beings. Keep living the sterotype

This is a Science Fiction movie. It's supposed to engage the brain. It's not supposed to give pretty pictures for ignorant morons to go "ooh" over.

It can do both. And this film did.

I've got plenty flair for drama.

Your too mired in "reality" and a sense of self importance for that, You lack the vision needed to create drama.

The supernatural force that made Nero put Spock on the same planet that held Scotty, and made Spock Jr put Kirk on that very same planet. You know, the explanation for the 'coincidence', "destiny is converging back on its original path."

The writers are supernatural? Coincidence is a writers stock and trade. They need characters in the right place to do what the plot requires. Time "righting" it self is a standard SF trope.

It was all but outright stated by Old Spock, and in a bit of cut dialog it was outright stated by Old Spock.

You hate the film so much you watch cut scenes>

That it teaches other things does not matter, that it is a military school is. And Wesley did NOT join Starfleet Academy at 15, quite the contrary. Just because he gets to take the entrance exam, doesn't mean he gets enter at 15.

Why not, he passed the test. Why take the test three years before he can attend?

ETA: Wasn't Wes onboard functioning as an acting Ensign and later an Ensign at Chekov's age? Before he even got to the Academy?

Go on, name ONE show in the entire sixties that dealt with Vietnam other than Star Trek. Just one.

Why are you fixated on Vietnam? Why not Civil Rights? The Sexual Revolution? The Counter Culture? The Space race Or any the other issue of the Sixites. Though I-spy had an episode acually set in Vietnam (rare at that time) featuring Trek guest star France Nuyen.

The simple fact ultimately is though; it does not matter. What Gene Roddenberry used Star Trek for, DOES. And the fact that this new pile of shit didn't even come in the neighborhood of trying to produce anything resembling this, is the problem.

I disagree. Star Trek was much more than a cause of the week show. Even Roddenberry knew you couldn't so that every single week. So he mixed it up.

You maybe, as a kid, as the enlightened few. The rest, not so much.

So now you're privy to the thoughts of every one who watched Trek in the 1960s? Where are you getting all this information? Is it better than those who lived it?

The aren't the characters we knew, they did not become the characters we knew. Quite the contrary, Kirk is an a-hole at the beginning and an a-hole at the end. Spock decided with his logic or contrary to his logic to start a relationship with one of his students, which is as far removed from the Spock we knew as we can get. And I can go on and on.

Kirk is an a-hole, just ask Nils Barris. He's smart ass, who's quck with the jokes. But he's aslo an intelligent, quck thinking man of action, like the guy in the movie.

Spock, Kirk, Scotty - same planet, coincidence? Nope. Listen to Spock's little speech, fill in the blanks, listen to the dialog they cut.

Quote it. I'm not planning to see it again till video. Though I do recall Spock being amazed Scotty was there.

Cut scene? Cut for a reason no doubt.

Of course not. Every documentary about Star Trek I've seen ever always talk about the human condition being explored, and present day events through allegory, not to mention Gene's documented secular humanism and him infusing this in Star Trek, and STXI didn't have anything even close to resembling that, but it doesn't run counter to that, nah, not at all.

I saw a story about two men, who were lost and directionless finding their place in the world. A very human condition.Not sure how much secular humanism he infused in TOS. TNG maybe.

Willful ignorance is worse that just ignorance. At the least the latter part has a chance to be remedied

.
Sorry, but I refuse to believe the hype and drink the kool-aide from Roddenberrys dog and pony show. I love the show and it idealism but I'm not accepting Roddenberry as a prophet or messiah.

So no quotes? Just Roddenberry filtered through 3-D Master.

Nope.

Talk willfull. Rose colored glasses and myopic vision.

I didn't claim to. All I said was that it fits with Star Trek "science". Where a sling shot around the sun or escaping a "black star" lets you travel in time. Where people from different planets can produce offspring. Where transporter accidents can split you in two or send you to an alternate reality.

They used no science at all. They just dropped buzz words

So its a Star Trek film then.

Wrong. None of those are contradicting cold hard facts, nor is doing nothing but dropping buzz words. Some events are improbable, and weak, but they don't contradict cold hard facts AT ALL, anywhere, even close. In fact, going faster than light in science is often viewed as immediate time travel to the past, so slingshot around a star, an additional gravitational and thus space-time bending object at FTL speeds, is actually quite reasonable as something that may cause you to travel through time.

So we can breed with lifeforms that evolved on a different planet?
Funky electrical storm combined with a transporter can send you to an alternate reality? So which cold hard facts support these?


So a the hole in space created by the red matter isn't a space-time bending object? The Narada and Jellyfish weren't FTL cabable?

I'm reading Physics of the Impossible. I haven't got to the time travel chapter yet. Maybe that will shed some light on the topic.

 

[Vance]

If Gene Roddenberry were alive today, I think he would be bloody pissed off and it wouldn't have a thing to do with Star Trek.

But, in all reality, I don't think he would have liked the new movie - albiet for different reasons that I would. Roddenberry (particulary the older incarnation) was very much a social elitist, and XI was very much 'food for the masses' type of entertainment. Everything would break down from there.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They used no science at all. They just dropped buzz words

So its a Star Trek film then.

Wrong. None of those are contradicting cold hard facts, nor is doing nothing but dropping buzz words. Some events are improbable, and weak, but they don't contradict cold hard facts AT ALL, anywhere, even close. In fact, going faster than light in science is often viewed as immediate time travel to the past, so slingshot around a star, an additional gravitational and thus space-time bending object at FTL speeds, is actually quite reasonable as something that may cause you to travel through time.

So we can breed with lifeforms that evolved on a different planet?
Funky electrical storm combined with a transporter can send you to an alternate reality? So which cold hard facts support these?


So a the hole in space created by the red matter isn't a space-time bending object? The Narada and Jellyfish weren't FTL cabable?

I'm reading Physics of the Impossible. I haven't got to the time travel chapter yet. Maybe that will shed some light on the topic

Decided to skip ahead in Physics of the Impossible.

Heres what Michio Kaku (Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York say about the "Slingshot Effect":

The Crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek IV the Voyage Home hijac a Klingon space ship and use it to whip around the sun like a slinghot and break the light barrier to wind up in the San Francisco of the [1980s] But this defies the laws of physics'

Earlier in a chapter on FTL he says:

...Others have said we whip around our own Sun in order to accelerate to the speed of light...
...by whipping around the stationary sun we wind up with the same velocity as that with which we started.

On the other hand in his chapter on black holes:

...If you could fall straight through a black hole, there would be another universe on the other side. This is called the Einstein-Rosin Bridge, first introduced by Einstein in 1935; its now called a wormhole.

So its possible that red matter created a wormhole between the "Prime Universe" and the "Abramsverse". And we know from TMP and DS9 a starship can survive inside a wormhole.

Me reading The Physics of the Impossible and this thread at the same time? Coincidence or DESTINY?????

 

[3D Master]

Decided to skip ahead in Physics of the Impossible.

Heres what Michio Kaku (Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York say about the "Slingshot Effect":

Originally Posted by Michio Kaku
The Crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek IV the Voyage Home hijac a Klingon space ship and use it to whip around the sun like a slinghot and break the light barrier to wind up in the San Francisco of the [1980s] But this defies the laws of physics'

Apparently the guy didn't watch the movie, as the slingshot around the sun does not make them break the light barrier, engaging the warp drive make them break the light barrier. But hey, watching a movie, difficult apparently.

Earlier in a chapter on FTL he says:

Originally Posted by Michio Kaku
...Others have said we whip around our own Sun in order to accelerate to the speed of light...
...by whipping around the stationary sun we wind up with the same velocity as that with which we started.

Except of course for that annoying problem that the sun isn't stationary, but hey, basic physics didn't seem to be necessary to write a book on physics.

Also, he's dead wrong, sling shotting around objects that are relatively speaking standing still in comparison to the craft performing the maneuver, can indeed increase your speed. They don't use slingshot maneuvers around planets to reach the speed and direction required for a probe to reach its destination for nothing.

On the other hand in his chapter on black holes:

Originally Posted by Micho Kaku
...If you could fall straight through a black hole, there would be another universe on the other side. This is called the Einstein-Rosin Bridge, first introduced by Einstein in 1935; its now called a wormhole.

He's also dead wrong. As black holes do not have an exit point, they just end in your complete erasure of even the smallest speck of matter or energy, crushed into infinite density - before it evaporates into a complex quantum reaction.

And a wormhole is not an Einstein-Rosin Bridge. An E-R Bridge is two black holes whose depth points connect together. The concept of a wormhole these days (although ultimately found its origin in the E-R Bridge thought experiment and is related to it) is quite a bit different.

So its possible that red matter created a wormhole between the "Prime Universe" and the "Abramsverse". And we know from TMP and DS9 a starship can survive inside a wormhole.

Me reading The Physics of the Impossible and this thread at the same time? Coincidence or DESTINY?????

Seeing as Nero's futuristic ship has no subspace FTL-sensors to speak of while even civilian ships have them in the 23rd century of the "Prime universe", it would not have come from the "prime universe" but from another parallel universe. One that makes just as much sense as the JJ Trek Wars - aka no sense at all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Gene would have been thrilled to see Trek continue into the 21st Century.

This is a sentiment oft stated by the likes of Majel, Bob Justman, Leonard Nimoy and just about everyone else who actually knew the man. It is presumtious to think that GR's opinions would remotely coincide with some of the bile posted in this thread by people who claim to be fans of his vision.

Succinct and eminently reasonable. The notion that GR would more likely react as if an aggrieved fanboy rather than similarly to the other professionals who were involved with the original Star Trek who have participated and/or spoken out on the film's behalf is bizarrely naive at best.

Of course, the likelihood is that Roddenberry's approval would have been actively courted throughout by the folks in charge of this movie.

 

[Chrisisall]

^ To be absolutely fair, Jerod...so did you.

I'm just kidding. I mean, we're all - including me, of course - just stating our opinion here, unless somebody has had contact with Gene on the Other Side and hasn't mentioned it.

Personally (and I mean, just PERSONALLY) I think Gene would have disliked the last movie as being contrary to the optimistic take on his future, although I see it as a good mix of DS9's mentality & his.
But NOTHING will ever be like TOS, that much is certain.

 

[JustKate]

How is the new movie not "optimistic"? I mean, I know bad things happen

Spoiler: sad things in STXI

(the death of Vulcan and most of the Vulcans)

, but bad things happen on TOS, too. And by the end of the movie, humankind (well, mostly humankind) comes to the rescue, the good guys win, the AQ is saved, etc., etc., etc. How is that not optimistic? How is it any more pessimistic than, say, "The Doomsday Machine," in which the planet killer eats entire star systems including populated worlds?

 

[Chrisisall]

How is the new movie not "optimistic"? How is it any more pessimistic than, say, "The Doomsday Machine," in which the planet killer eats entire star systems including populated worlds?

Hmmmm... point taken, Kate!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Oh, one would definitely pick out "E" and "F" as the most different on that list - totally different characters and a setting a century removed from "A," "B," "C," or "D."



Unless, of course, one were ranking by entertainment value - then TMP would stand part as the least like Star Trek in general in that regard.

You don't look at one aspect, ie, characters, or entertainment value, you look at them as a whole when answering these types of questions.

Yep, then it's definitely 24th century Trek that doesn't fit.

How is the new movie not "optimistic"?

It comes across as a great deal more optimistic than shows like DS9, simply because it suggests that the future will not be...stiff and mannered.

 

[Chrisisall]

t comes across as a great deal more optimistic than shows like DS9, simply because it suggests that the future will not be...stiff and mannered.

You'd have never made it in 19th Century England, wanker.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Decided to skip ahead in Physics of the Impossible.

Heres what Michio Kaku (Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York say about the "Slingshot Effect":

Originally Posted by Michio Kaku
The Crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek IV the Voyage Home hijac a Klingon space ship and use it to whip around the sun like a slinghot and break the light barrier to wind up in the San Francisco of the [1980s] But this defies the laws of physics'

Apparently the guy didn't watch the movie, as the slingshot around the sun does not make them break the light barrier, engaging the warp drive make them break the light barrier. But hey, watching a movie, difficult apparently.




Except of course for that annoying problem that the sun isn't stationary, but hey, basic physics didn't seem to be necessary to write a book on physics.

Also, he's dead wrong, sling shotting around objects that are relatively speaking standing still in comparison to the craft performing the maneuver, can indeed increase your speed. They don't use slingshot maneuvers around planets to reach the speed and direction required for a probe to reach its destination for nothing.




He's also dead wrong. As black holes do not have an exit point, they just end in your complete erasure of even the smallest speck of matter or energy, crushed into infinite density - before it evaporates into a complex quantum reaction.

And a wormhole is not an Einstein-Rosin Bridge. An E-R Bridge is two black holes whose depth points connect together. The concept of a wormhole these days (although ultimately found its origin in the E-R Bridge thought experiment and is related to it) is quite a bit different.

So its possible that red matter created a wormhole between the "Prime Universe" and the "Abramsverse". And we know from TMP and DS9 a starship can survive inside a wormhole.

Me reading The Physics of the Impossible and this thread at the same time? Coincidence or DESTINY?????

Seeing as Nero's futuristic ship has no subspace FTL-sensors to speak of while even civilian ships have them in the 23rd century of the "Prime universe", it would not have come from the "prime universe" but from another parallel universe. One that makes just as much sense as the JJ Trek Wars - aka no sense at all.

where do you teach physics and where did you get your degree?

Kaku's bonifides from the wiki:

At the National Science Fair in Albuquerque, N.M., he attracted the attention of physicist Edward Teller, who took Kaku as a protégé, awarding him the Hertz Engineering Scholarship. Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University with a B.S. degree in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972, and held a lectureship at Princeton University in 1973.

Harvard. Berkeley. There's a couple safety schools.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

where do you teach physics and where did you get your degree?

Kaku's bonifides from the wiki:

At the National Science Fair in Albuquerque, N.M., he attracted the attention of physicist Edward Teller, who took Kaku as a protégé, awarding him the Hertz Engineering Scholarship. Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University with a B.S. degree in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972, and held a lectureship at Princeton University in 1973.

Harvard. Berkeley. There's a couple safety schools.

Game, set and match.

 

[Deckerd]

Pfft! Nerdy physicists have been winding people up for years writing theoretical papers about light speeds and black holes. The trick is to enjoy them for what they are, not take them as anything other than fanciful.

 

[xortex]

I wonder what they would think of Space:1999. It's all surreal and supernatural. It's called dramatic liscence. check out the Twilight Zone science.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

He would hate STXI for going against everything that Star Trek stood for, and rightly so.

You got a list?

For one thing, he would be furious with Uhura being involved with Spock instead of Kirk.

 

[VulcanVixen]

You know, I'm not quite fond of the Star Trek Spin-offs myself, though, I do believe they did a good job with keeping the new movie on the same track as TOS; albeit the whole "alternate reality" concept they had going was a bit eh?

 

[Nerys Myk]

He would hate STXI for going against everything that Star Trek stood for, and rightly so.

You got a list?

For one thing, he would be furious with Uhura being involved with Spock instead of Kirk.

Why? Uhura and Spock flirted in TOS. Uhura and Kirk, not so much.