• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Trek (SPOILERS)

"Star Trek does the Orion Slave Women" might just give all of those Trekkers a seizure or something. :eek:

The movie isn't going anywhere soon. There's time for BBQs and the movie. I'll likely wait until the ticket price goes down (meaning it would move to the cheaper theater) or, much more likely, untl around December or so when it's out on DVD. Or on HBO, or whatever.
 
hypatia said:
:LOL: I figured that much, Trek has always been a bit careful about that.

So, edit out the words "and sex" from my post, and I've basically go the right picture here? :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Trek movies have rarely been sci-fi hardcore heavy, that was saved for the series. There is enough time travel, causality and black hole stuff here to keep us geeks happy, although nothing new or revolutionary.

For me, it worked because the characters are intact, well respected by cast and writers, and it was damn good to see them all on screen again. The crucial Kirk, Mcoy and Spock interplay was also there. The film had more of a sense of adventure than any of the films since Star Trek VI, my personal fave.

Nero was hardly Kahn, but then which Trek villains are ?

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!
 
Last edited:
The story was a Trek story. Convenient in all the right places. Contrived where it should be, and (in some parts) completely unbelievable, yet cool enough to say, "yeah, ok, I'm going along for the ride."

I guess I don't look at Trek and say, "hmmm, yes. GOOD storylines."

For me, you have different types of narratives: character-based, setting-based, story-based. This was character-based, imho. And because the characters felt strong to me, I didn't mind the above mentioned story issues.

I think nailing most of the elements (characters/special effects/humor/emotion, etc) will overcome a less than "uber" story/narrative.

Whereas something like Wolverine, I felt lacked too much in character AND story and that was a bit less forgivable in my opinion.

Hyp, I think it depends on what you like in stories. If you need a good, story that is really hard-core narrative-driven, this isn't the movie. But, I don't ever seem to recall Trek movies/shows every really being stellar on the storylines. That was more a B5 thing, imho (along with the amazing characters, etc.)

If you love good characterization and are willing to give and take, then you may like it. I had to see it in a theater because I really wanted to experience the special effects above all. It was a GREAT in-theater movie, imho. I don't think it will be as "sparklie/awe-inspiring" on DVD as it would in a really big theater with the whole atmosphere, etc. Just my experience. =)
 
darth_librarian said:
Yeah, but Trek movies have rarely been sci-fi hardcore heavy, that was saved for the series. There is enough time travel, causality and black hole stuff here to keep us geeks happy, although nothing new or revolutionary.

For me, it worked because the characters are intact, well respected by cast and writers, and it was damn good to see them all on screen again. The crucial Kirk, Mcoy and Spock interplay was also there. The film had more of a sense of adventure than any of the films since Star Trek VI, my personal fave.

Nero was hardly Kahn, but then which Trek villains are ?

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!
Click to expand...

Hello everyone it's For the One, :vulcan:
I haven't dipped into this area of the pool in a while, I hope it's warm.
The Star Trek movie: :thumbsup: I personally give the movie 5 stars. I thought Karl Urban as Bones McCoy (who played Eomer in The Lord of the Rings) did the most amazing 'spot on' performance of the docter I've ever scene. WOW! If he doesn't get a oscar nod for that performance there is no justice in this world, seriously. :thumbsup:

In case if anyone in the world is wondering I am a Trekie, GEEKS UNIT!!! But no I don't dress up in those costumes and makeup. I was born in 1968 and I was raised on the reruns of classic Trek. I tried very hard to keep a open mind when I went to see the new film. WAY MEGA COOL MOVIE BY THE WAY!!!! :klingon:

I noticed immediately that many Trekkies will see some very major continuity issues, but all you Trekkers out there don't get your shirt in a knot.
I can explain it all away easy enough. Okay here we go.
The continuity issues are as follows, followed by a brief explaination:
1.) The ship looks almost like Star Trek The Motion Picture in many ways, some what futuristic beyond the classic series.
2.) The warp engine sounds different.
3.) The warp is different.
4.) The hand weapons are dual use laser gun/phasers.
Now all of these are easy to explain away:
>The Sulliban War introduced technology we weren't suppose to have yet, due to being from way in the future beyond Next Generation even.
>The Borg tech left on Earth also inspired a much more accelerated rate of technological advancement.

Now for the not so easy to explain away.
1.) Christopher Pike is too old. In 'Managerie' & 'The Cage', Pike is obviously a young man. Also In 'Minagerie', a obviously older then the recent film 'Spock', is with a young Pike, hmmmm.
>To explain this obvious owps the writers could at the end of a new Star trek tv or film series run; have Pike find a fountain of youth. Only to end up being horribly scared in time for the 'Minagerie' episode. BUMMER....
2.) San Francisco yards orbiting Earth was were Enterprise was built not on the surface.
>The Sulliban and Xindi Wars may have altered this, for safety reasons they may have constructed this new advanced prototype on the surface.
3.) The first Enterprise Captain was Robert April not Christopher Pike despite popular belief.
>Do to the recent time travel Romulan events, Captain Pike was picked over Captain April to man the new Enterprise.
4.) Why doesn't Spock just go around the sun and save Vulcan and his mom.
> Who knows maybe he thinks he's getting to old to fight such powerful foes.
Maybe he's affraid of altering time even further creating a even worse time parodox,
who knows. I'm sure if it's allowed to have a spin off, Vulcan while eventually be brought back, so everyone with a big hole in their heart can breath easy again.

THERE SEE, WITH A LITTLE CLEVER WRITING IT'S ALL FIXED. NO CONTINUITY GAPS!!! :) All is well in the world. Like I said THE MOVIE ROCKS, GIVE IT A CHANCE, all you Trekies out there. This thing can work. Go see it, embrace the fun.

***Darth Librarian: I'm with you I love Star Trek VI, I also love Star Trek II & Kahn is still the best baddie.
However, when you said that, "Nero was hardly Khan", I think it's important to understand were the director is coming from here. The director was probably trying to achieve a new approach. The bad guy in the new Star Trek is the every day man, the guy next door. Ordinarily he would have probably been a nice guy.
***SPOILER ALERT***
Then his whole world is ripped apart and everyone he loves; and a kind of maddness, fueled by rage and the desire for vengence takes over. He's not a real warlord, just a Romulan Captain who lost his family & home world. Thus he seems very passive at first after his initial attack on the USS Kelvin Federation warship, almost like he had appeased his rage and now he was calm again. The meeting with the Captain of the USS Kelvin reignites his fury when the Cpt. says,"Who are you to attack a Federation Vessel?" Bringing out the beast within the once docile man. He's just a man in pain, who just so happens to be in a very powerful ship. :) Just food for thought. PEACE OUT.
 
Last edited:
Good points there, the effects of the whole Enterprise series and the temporal cold war have not really been considered by fans when arguing about this..

Also, Enterprise crucially introduced bare-ass into Trek well before this apprently misogynistic film:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Harbinger_(episode)

And nicely done it was too.

Back to the geekery, one of the movie writers, Robert Orci I think stated in an AICN talkback that the scans of Nero's ship taken by the Kelivn and saved on their shuttles allowed the Federation to develop at a technologically quicker rate.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)#Continuity

The technical difference between this new Enterprise and the one from the other timeline is also denoted by its difference in size and crew capacity:

http://gizmodo.com/5253324/how-big-is-the-new-enterprise-compared-to-the-old-one?skyline=true&s=i

Although i'm sure the writers just wanted to make it begger and better ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chilli: I wondered how much personalities would change for this new movie. Kirk pretty much has to be what most would consider to be a younger version of the same basic guy, I assumed. Spock looked more emotional in the previews that a vulcan ever would be (but the vulcans in Enterprise did, as well). But Kirk, of course, must be Kirk. And Kirk came up with some "creative" solutions, it was part of his personality.

Spock, on the other hand, was his personality basically "reset" for this movie? Did the Vulcans not become a society that supresses all emotion except at one moment in life, for mating purposes? Is his human half stronger? The previews I've seen make me wonder if the old character of Spock simply proved inconveniently unemotional, and so was abandoned. I do hope that's just the usual preview-skewed perception. I really hated the emotionalism of the vulcans in Enterprise as well. It was such an interesting, and defining, character aspect.

I'm sure to find out it will be worth renting on DVD. I don't miss big screen special effects, though they are fun when you've got them. For that I can always see "Earth". :)
 
Chilli said:
One movie comes to mind here.

Star Trek. :p .. which does not have no female skin, but does have more male skin than female skin. While we get a glimpse at Uhura's underwear, Kirk is in his undies throughout the whole scene.

I can, also, off the top of my head, think of several other movies that have more male nudity than female nudity, or only male nudity.

The Piano
Goodbye Lenin
American History X
Click to expand...

X Men Origins: Wolverine
Innerspace
Demolition Man
All the Terminator films
 
Chilli said:
One movie comes to mind here.

Star Trek. :p .. which does not have no female skin, but does have more male skin than female skin. While we get a glimpse at Uhura's underwear, Kirk is in his undies throughout the whole scene.

I can, also, off the top of my head, think of several other movies that have more male nudity than female nudity, or only male nudity.

The Piano
Goodbye Lenin
American History X



I've heard this point before, and love it dearly.

The 1970s looked futuristic beyond the classic series. :LOL:



Indeed it did - with the key difference that Enterprise actually did suck in this respect. The decon chamber - zuh??

I'm not sure I would call Enterprise's handling of sexuality misogynistic. I'd mostly just call it 12.
Click to expand...


fortheone responding- Your line Chilli :
"I've heard this point before, and love it dearly. The 1970s looked futuristic beyond the classic series." :LOL:

:vulcan:It appears you love my line dearly because of it's counterdiction? Actually in retrospect, I think you misunderstand what is being said here, (I'm smiling while I'm writing this response, to your response and in a chipper mood by the way). You see the '60' classic Star Trek Enterprise ship was not as fancy and didn't have quite as high tech a look. The ship in the new movie was far more advanced and closer to the Motion Picture movie technologically. Which by the way I explained away do to the Sulliban, Xindi & Borg time line interferances, so it is not a rant. :vulcan: :thumbsup: Chilli I awesome, (and I could be wrong), your laughing because you think that calling something in the past 'futuristic' is funny and an oximoron. But actually it's a 60s show and a 70s movie, based largely on the distant future yet to be. So my statement is still solid, but I'm glad you found it humurous. :) :rommie: Heeeee hah hah heee. :LOL:

I do have to agree on your decon chamber comment Chilli, that was an obvious attempt to show very sexual situations on the 'Enterprise' show. Also the 'Enterprise' 2000's series actually showed T'Pol totally naked leaving very little to the imagination behind a bedding sheet in one episode and sex in a shower in another, (with commander Tucker). Sooooooo yeah Enterprise pushed many lines hard core. Much more so then the classic series or any of the others for that matter. Save maybe DS9s alternate universe episodes.

Just a point of interjection here: Why did the 90's feminists have such a huge problem with the mini skirts on the original 60's show? I found it made the women look quite sexy not cheap. Aren't they going a little over board? SHIELDS UP!!!


Chilli & Galahad what is the deal with Hollywood's male nudity 80's-2000s? Movies like: The new X-Men 'Wolverine Origins', Full Mounty,The Piano, Goodbye Lenin, American History X, Innerspace, Demolition Man, Terminator movies, etc... This is rediculous, thank God I didn't take my Nephew or Nieces to see Wolverine, dang.....

Chilli your qoute to Darth Librarian "I'm not sure I would call Enterprise's handling of sexuality misogynistic. I'd mostly just call it 12."
In large part the frirst season of 'Enterprise' was spent largely distrusting T'Pol but that I feel was because she was Vulcan not so much her sex. But other episodes did bring in sexual contact with women that ended badly like the episode Rajiin and Unexpected. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/ENT/episodes/index.html?season=1
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/ENT/episodes/index.html?season=3
Just food for thought. :)


***Heh what's up Galahad long time no see!!!***
 
Last edited:
All the wank formerly found in this thread is now in the Rants forum. Any new wank to enter this thread will go there too. :p
 
On Spock...

Spock is very logical, but they play up the "child of two worlds" bit. They have a great scene where he is bullied by some other Vulcan kids (which in and of itself was pretty funny,) but he obviously struggled with his half human/half Vulcan self.

I've always considered Spock (and most Vulcans) to be logical and devoid of emotion to a certain extent. I think there is always a button somewhere you can really push and get a reaction, but in doing so, you're waking the dragon, so to say. I've never considered Vulcans to be incapable of emotion, but rather they repress it in order to keep that dragon "caged." I remember watching episodes in which Spock was pushed/pressed or otherwise manipulated into emotional feeling and he was a force to be reckoned with.

Considering that this likely took place before the series (on the canon-timeline,) Spock probably hadn't fully embraced his Vulcan side yet, so the humanity in him slips out, but you also see him realizing that logic might be the best road for him. I don't want to really say too much (don't want to ruin things!)

I honestly can't think of anyone who could have pulled off younger Spock in the same way Zachary Quinto did. He really nailed it, imho. And I recall seeing him at a convention where fans asked him if he watched Leonard Nimoy's version. He said, "no, I've talked to Leonard and we both kind of agree that it might be best to bring another's interpreation of Spock to the big screen." As it turns out, it's a damn good interpretation, imho.

Anyway, sorry for rambling! I still do hope you go see it on the big screen. :)

As for all the physics . . . I have to go with Captain Mal here. "Need you to use captain dummy talk, Kaylee..."
 
for the one said:
Hello everyone it's For the One, :vulcan:
I haven't dipped into this area of the pool in a while, I hope it's warm.
The Star Trek movie: :thumbsup: I personally give the movie 5 stars. I thought Karl Urban as Bones McCoy (who played Eomer in The Lord of the Rings) did the most amazing 'spot on' performance of the docter I've ever scene. WOW! If he doesn't get a oscar nod for that performance there is no justice in this world, seriously. :thumbsup:

In case if anyone in the world is wondering I am a Trekie, GEEKS UNIT!!! But no I don't dress up in those costumes and makeup. I was born in 1968 and I was raised on the reruns of classic Trek. I tried very hard to keep a open mind when I went to see the new film. WAY MEGA COOL MOVIE BY THE WAY!!!! :klingon:

I noticed immediately that many Trekkies will see some very major continuity issues, but all you Trekkers out there don't get your shirt in a knot.
I can explain it all away easy enough. Okay here we go.
The continuity issues are as follows, followed by a brief explaination:
1.) The ship looks almost like Star Trek The Motion Picture in many ways, some what futuristic beyond the classic series.
2.) The warp engine sounds different.
3.) The warp is different.
4.) The hand weapons are dual use laser gun/phasers.
Now all of these are easy to explain away:
>The Sulliban War introduced technology we weren't suppose to have yet, due to being from way in the future beyond Next Generation even.
>The Borg tech left on Earth also inspired a much more accelerated rate of technological advancement.

Now for the not so easy to explain away.
1.) Christopher Pike is too old. In 'Managerie' & 'The Cage', Pike is obviously a young man. Also In 'Minagerie', a obviously older then the recent film 'Spock', is with a young Pike, hmmmm.
>To explain this obvious owps the writers could at the end of a new Star trek tv or film series run; have Pike find a fountain of youth. Only to end up being horribly scared in time for the 'Minagerie' episode. BUMMER....
2.) San Francisco yards orbiting Earth was were Enterprise was built not on the surface.
>The Sulliban War may have altered this, for safety reasons they may have constructed this new advanced prototype on the surface.
3.) The first Enterprise Captain was Robert April not Christopher Pike despite popular belief.
>Do to the recent time travel Romulan events, Captain Pike was picked over Captain April to man the new Enterprise.
4.) Why doesn't Spock just go around the sun and save Vulcan and his mom.
> Who knows maybe he thinks he's getting to old to fight such powerful foes.
Maybe he's affraid of altering time even further creating a even worse time parodox,
who knows. I'm sure if it's allowed to have a spin off, Vulcan while eventually be brought back, so everyone with a big hole in their heart can breath easy again.

THERE SEE, WITH A LITTLE CLEVER WRITING IT'S ALL FIXED. NO CONTINUITY GAPS!!! :) All is well in the world. Like I said THE MOVIE ROCKS, GIVE IT A CHANCE, all you Trekies out there. This thing can work. Go see it, embrace the fun.

***Darth Librarian: I'm with you I love Star Trek VI, I also love Star Trek II & Kahn is still the best baddie.
However, when you said that, "Nero was hardly Khan", I think it's important to understand were the director is coming from here. The director was probably trying to achieve a new approach. The bad guy in the new Star Trek is the every day man, the guy next door. Ordinarily he would have probably been a nice guy.
***SPOILER ALERT***
Then his whole world is ripped apart and everyone he loves; and a kind of maddness, fueled by rage and the desire for vengence takes over. He's not a real warlord, just a Romulan Captain who lost his family & home world. Thus he seems very passive at first after his initial attack on the USS Kelvin Federation warship, almost like he had appeased his rage and now he was calm again. The meeting with the Captain of the USS Kelvin reignites his fury when the Cpt. says,"Who are you to attack a Federation Vessel?" Bringing out the beast within the once docile man. He's just a man in pain, who just so happens to be in a very powerful ship. :) Just food for thought. PEACE OUT.
Click to expand...

Without sounding too harsh, there is NO NEED to explain why the Enterprise, Warp, the Transporters, and Phasers look different. Its a reboot. A relaunch. A fresh coat of paint on an old franchise. They get to change physical appearances without an explaination from cannon.

And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE don't try to explain these changes by using Star Trek: Enterprise. Have you no soul?

:)
 
Alluveal said:
On Spock...

Spock is very logical, but they play up the "child of two worlds" bit.
Click to expand...

I think that might be important for future productions though. Due to events in the film, Spock has much stronger reasons for being polarised. On the one hand he has the need to preserve what remains of the one world... and yet on the other hand he has discovered an earlier appreciation for the home he still has. He has also lost the most influential part of his human heritage. So I think deep down in his repressed emotions he realises how important both sides of his cultural background are to him.

I honestly can't think of anyone who could have pulled off younger Spock in the same way Zachary Quinto did. He really nailed it, imho. And I recall seeing him at a convention where fans asked him if he watched Leonard Nimoy's version. He said, "no, I've talked to Leonard and we both kind of agree that it might be best to bring another's interpretion of Spock to the big screen." As it turns out, it's a damn good interpretation, imho.
Click to expand...
I believe Pine and Urban in particular took a similar approach (although obviously Urban couldn't talk to Kelly).

As for all the physics . . . I have to go with Captain Mal here. "Need you to use captain dummy talk, Kaylee..."
Click to expand...
Incidentally, I've heard two theories given about the supernova that attempt to reconcile it with physics. There's one that is in the Trek prequel comic that mirrors my own idea (that it wasn't just the magnitude of the explosion that threatened the galaxy but the nature of the energy released...that it was causing a chain reaction in local stars that specifically threatened the Romulan Star Empire).

In Star Trek: Countdown, the official comic book prequel to Star Trek, the star which went supernova and destroyed Romulus was called the Hobus star. It is explained that the Hobus supernova was unlike any previously seen: as the supernova grew, it converted mass into energy, which increased its power and allowed it to expand. As a result, its threat reached beyond the Hobus system and potentially the entire galaxy.
Click to expand...

The other theory is that the threat to the galaxy was more political than literal... as the Romulan Star Empire was going to suffer most at the hands of this event, the thinking was it could cause them to act out of fear/spite and take on the Federation to level the playing field.

Combining these two ideas makes it a little more plausible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 53 (members: 1, guests: 52)

Share this page

Back
Top