New Star Trek movie

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Capt. Harlock »

I don't understand what the Prime Directive has to do with the movie in question. Nor how it relates to even the question I posed?

BTW, The Prime Directive *only* applies to civilizations that have not yet developed faster-than-light space travel.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by E »

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

1) The slaughter of six billion sentients without an attempt to fix the timeline. In all other time-travel episodes of Star Trek, no effort is spared to restore things to the way they were or should be.

1) Bad guy kills, good guys stop him. I'm okay with that for matching the artist's original vision.
2) Timeline... how do you know that isn't/wasn't/wouldn't be the natural order of time? Time paradoxes are tricky animals at best. (How do we know he didn't invent transparent aluminum?)
3) Aspects of quite alot of elements in every movie after STTMP have been documented as not being in line with the artist's original vision. If one adhere's closely to that argument, one should reject Star Trek II-XI.
4) I am reminded of a story where characters in an alternate timeline argue with the heroes, that restoring the timeline is not in their own best interest because they and everyone they know, will no longer exist. Except for Spock & bad guys (see my post above re Spock), this was the right and only timeline for every single character. Actually, at some point the timeline may've become irreversable and made itself part of Spock's memory.... *ack* time paradoxes... you can't win, you can't lose.
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
2) The re-invention of Kirk as a punk with no discipline. (e.g. He did NOT have the right to destroy a classic Corvette.)

Which episodes alluded to anything different? He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either. Would it be that surprising he could steal something for immature reasons as a what, 12 year old kid?. While that may not be mine and isn't your interpretation of a possible young Kirk in an alternate timeline, I don't see anything against GR's vision of Kirk's un-alternated timeline youth either. The undisciplined youth is turned around by military service and becomes a hero is an old and not invalid storyline.

Us old farts suffer from "fill-in-the-blank-itus." We've filled in many blanks with our imaginations or filled them in with non-cannon material from books for so long, they've become personal "canon" and we auto-reject any other interpretation. We rail against it, but often fail to step back and realize, there really was nothing that said it wasn't so (methinks I am speaking mainly to myself in this paragraph!).
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Capt. Harlock »

He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either.
Not entirely correct. Go back and review "The Search For Spock". Reasons are given. ("The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many".)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by E »

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either.
Not entirely correct. Go back and review "The Search For Spock". Reasons are given. ("The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many".)
That was emotion/loyalty, not a valid reason. Had it been a valid reason, he wouldn't have been rifted in IV (and of course the reason that is all that happened to him is because he saved the whales, I mean the Earth before facing the whalesong, I mean music *grin*).
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
User avatar
Southernland
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:51 pm

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Southernland »

5 out of 11 

~Liked Spock (old and new)
~Like Bones, Uhuru, Chekov and Kumar  (LOL) sorry Sulu
~Disliked Scotty, didn't need to be (ie shouldn't have been Pegg)  He was a distraction.  go and kill some Zombies for godsake!
~Disliked the little ewok thingy attached to Scotty
~Disliked the water theme park aka Scotty's appearence on the enterprise
~Liked the whole alt future/present concept
~Liked the drill and the exterior of the romulan ship
~Loved the guy in the red jumpsuit dying   LOL  as soon as he jumped...
~Got really confused over when they were inside/outside the romulan ship aka the game of frogger between levels
~Felt the setup between youg kirk A..wipe and super Kirk space cadet was whiplash fast
~Always hate that in space (so far as space fleets are concerned) there is an up and a down... lets face it with no real points of reference wouldn't you fly your ship "upside down" just to be different?
~Liked the aliens on the whole, except the green chick and the afore mentioned Ewok.
~er okay wasn't super impressed by the "monsters' on the iceball either.  was sure the second one was a baby cloverfeild*
~Liked Intro, birth and death etc
~Liked the Spock Uhuru relationship


Rollover below for spoiler

*Startrek vs the Cloverfeild Monster you saw it here first!
¡¡ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq oʇ ƃuıoƃ ɯɐ ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
Joram
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:40 am

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Joram »

ORIGINAL: ShadowB

I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.

Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:

- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.
- Phasers look more like energy bolts than beams: small shock, bolts are neither better nor worse.
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view. Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).
- The destruction of Vulcan and Kirk's new past: the former might've been going overboard a bit, but honestly I know little about their original backgrounds.

Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.

You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise). My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.

Spoilers - blah blah blah - if you've read this far without reading the spoilers already, I'd be amazed!


Anyway. I wasn't a big fan of the movie though there were parts I liked. McCoy was brilliant I thought and nearly saved the movie for me . I especially disliked the whole Uhuru and Spock thing. It was just way too, i don't know the exact word, contrived maybe. It's like she thought, hey your planet just blew up, let's kiss!! [8|]
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: Joram
Spoilers - blah blah blah - if you've read this far without reading the spoilers already, I'd be amazed!
...I especially disliked the whole Uhuru and Spock thing. It was just way too, i don't know the exact word, contrived maybe. It's like she thought, hey your planet just blew up, let's kiss!! [8|]
That's exactly what I thought!! Completely pointless and would be considered bad taste irl.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Mobius »

Spoilers!

Speaking of contrived.
What about the whole - "Spock you are too emotionally compromised to command as Nemo killed your mother. You want to cooly follow the orders of rejoining the fleet."
Kirk on the other hand just wants to go against those orders and get Nemo, the #$@! that killed his father.

All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Spoilers!

Speaking of contrived.
What about the whole - "Spock you are too emotionally compromised to command as Nemo killed your mother. You want to cooly follow the orders of rejoining the fleet."
Kirk on the other hand just wants to go against those orders and get Nemo, the #$@! that killed his father.


don't know, kind of disagree

Spock wasn't following orders, that was his idea

but on the other hand, Kirk didn't even know his father, so how much emotion did he have, about it

my issue, would be, how as a mineing ship that is not all that much in the furture, be so much better then "major" combat Fleets, heck of a lot of firepower for a ship that wasn't a combat Ship

Image
User avatar
hadberz
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Moncks Corner, SC

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by hadberz »

If I understand correctly the prequel comics fill in the "how did that happen" blanks. Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/17/exclusi ... ic-series/

AMD Ryzen 9800X3D
MSI MPG X870E CARBON
32 GB G-Skill Model DDR5 6400
Sapphire Nitro X 9070 XT 16GB
AOC Q27G3XMN 2560X1440 180 Hz
Dell G2724D 2560x1440 165Hz
Samsung 990 Pro 4TB M.2 NVMe
Win 11 Pro
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Capt. Harlock »

Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.

"Close enough"? Consider, among many points, this one: the TOS episode "Journey to Babel" now cannot happen.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by E »

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.

"Close enough"? Consider, among many points, this one: the TOS episode "Journey to Babel" now cannot happen.

...And now poor Spock will never have his brain stolen!

"'Brain' and 'brain,' what is 'brain'?"
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
User avatar
AcePylut
Posts: 1487
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:01 am

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by AcePylut »

Here you go...

Every TOS episode...

http://www.joost.com/3a3rsl0/t/Star-Tre ... nal-Series



You simply can NOT beat the "going to an alternate universe" special effects of "Mirror Mirror"
User avatar
PunkReaper
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:27 pm
Location: England

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by PunkReaper »

full episodes or just clips?
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by JudgeDredd »

I don't really understand what the fuss is about. I was brought up with the original series always sitting down with the rest of the family to watch Kirk and his mob go where no man has gone before. I didn't get into TNG or any of the others and I thought the film was not only good, I thought the characters were well placed and did a good job of portraying who they were meant to portray...little things like Jim Kirk at the end coming onto the Bridge and saying "Bones"....just the way Shatner said it...and then there was Kirk sitting on the captains chair, leg crossed over the other, like Shatner himself done. I liked the fact they changed Spock by showing his human side...something that I always thought was missing in tos. Bones was excellent and Scotty was a nutter, just like he always was.

As usual there were some dodgy bits, like the aforementioned sexual assault on Spock after his sudden and mamoth loss! WTF??

I not only enjoyed it, I thought, regardless of the alternate universe mumbo jumbo, that it was fairly faithful to the original characters.
Alba gu' brath
MVMASOFT.COM
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 5:58 pm

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by MVMASOFT.COM »

I wonder what would happen if someone would try to deconstruct Warhammer 40000 like this.
A game for 12 year old kiddies.
MVMASOFT.COM
530-554-4835
User avatar
ilovestrategy
Posts: 3614
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by ilovestrategy »

I just saw it. I liked it. And I've been watching Star Trek since the early 70's. 
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Image
battleground
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:23 am

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by battleground »

being brought up on star trek (and 2001) i enjoyed it greatly.   my only concern was the refinery look of the interior of the ship which is totally at odds with the exterior.    it appears filmed in some type of powerplant with simple consoles just placed around it.   i don't think a starship will have concrete floors.   I think all the actors got their characters spot on.   too bad no Flanagan at the academy hounding Kirk!
Tim
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Nikademus »

"Finigan"

[;)]
User avatar
Arctic Blast
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:58 am
Contact:

RE: New Star Trek movie

Post by Arctic Blast »

Finally got a chance to see this over the weekend...really liked it! My only complaint was the preview for the horrid looking GI Joe movie, which took my inner child behind the woodshed and beat the living crap out of him.
Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”