RE: New Star Trek movie

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: New Star Trek movie

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: New Star Trek movie

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/26/2009 9:38:11 PM

RedArgo

Posts: 524
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Illinois
Status: offline

From watching the preview I would have never guessed that was GI Joe. It looks positively awful. I hope my kids don't want to see it.

(in reply to Arctic Blast)

Post #: 121

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/27/2009 2:44:58 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

"Finigan"

Yep, that's him. That was a great episode; "me back, I think me back is broken" Finigan-excellent trick, and old "Jimmy boy" fell for it.

I agree it is too bad that he is not included in this new film, but I will see it anyway.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 122

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/27/2009 8:32:27 AM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.

Dude! I hear ya! I was trying to figure out what movie this could possibly be and thought "NOOOOOOOOOO" when the GI JOE title came up!

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Arctic Blast)

Post #: 123

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/27/2009 10:14:31 PM

Arctic Blast

Posts: 1168
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.

Dude! I hear ya! I was trying to figure out what movie this could possibly be and thought "NOOOOOOOOOO" when the GI JOE title came up!

That seemed to be pretty much the universal response in the theater, too. Most of the people were around my age (so they probably played with GI Joe or at least are aware of it from childhood)...when the title came up, there was kind of this collective "WHAT?!" and looks of horror.

_____________________________

Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 124

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/29/2009 5:16:05 PM

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I only made it a little ways into the new star trek movie before I couldn't take it anymore. I was getting too bored and irritated by it. Instead, I watched Outlaw Josey Wales and it was really good with some fresh, creative story telling. I like Clint Eastwood and I'll be sure to avoid anything to do with star trek after this experience. I hope there are other Clint Eastwood movies I haven't seen yet.

_____________________________

Korsun Pocket

(in reply to Arctic Blast)

Post #: 125

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/31/2009 10:24:02 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

I hope there are other Clint Eastwood movies I haven't seen yet.

Gran Torrino is a fairly new one. It is a very good movie-a drama, but with some LOL points.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)

Post #: 126

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/31/2009 11:26:39 PM

RedArgo

Posts: 524
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Illinois
Status: offline

Hey Judge,

I thought this message seemed familiar. You are being quoted by a spam bot. You should be proud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: E RPM SOFT.COM

Well, who's the lucky bugger...going to the cinema this afternoon...yippeeee....to see....Hannah Montana! WTF!?

Sometimes it sucks being a dad!

Post #: 127

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/1/2009 7:25:15 AM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Nice. As if any of my posts are worth repeating!

(in reply to RedArgo)

Post #: 128

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/4/2009 9:22:43 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

My nostalgic TV memories are in the 60's. By the 1980's "stupid" became the latest entertainment fad. Westerns were out, miltary themed shows were out. Hippie cops who wanted to take it to the man were in. Dedicated left leaning doctors were in. Dirtbag lawyers were in. See LA Law. Stephen King was in, and everybody knew businessmen and government agents from "the shop" were the real villians. Soldiers were either neo nazis in league with corporate fascists if they were officers, or a bunch of dumb asses if they were stupid enough to join up as enlisted men.

Science Fiction went from classic Ray Bradbury to idealistic liberal scientists who struggled in vain to save mankind from the evil American military industrial complex.

Star Trek; the Next Generation brainwashed a whole generation. Liberals in space. We had only to reach out and understand the Klingons. The Borg were evil, but they were also victims. Every drone was once a peace loving "citizen of the Universe" until they were assimilated. But there are no homeless on Borg cubes. The drones are happy to serve the collective. The only real villians are the Ferengi, stupid capitalists with bad teeth, like rednecks.
On board Enterprise the best and the brightest are science officers. The lowly enlisted crewmen serve only the interests of the federation, and are happy to change the sheets after Klingon mating rituals for no pay.

Spies don't bother with commies or stinking savages from Arabia anymore. Jack Bauer started out working for a liberal black president, the only honest guy among a sea of crooked Republicans and and whack job Generals. He can torture people because he's a liberal, and liberals are always right. Everything they do is for the betterment of mankind. And in the end, it's always some American businessman who is behind the terrorist plot, the muslims are merely unknowing tools.

And to think there are some people who think Hollywood is full of communists. Why, that's just crazy talk.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Doggie)

Post #: 129

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/5/2009 5:21:22 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
just lost the plot with all the spin offs. I didn't watch one episode of Enterprise or Babylon 5 nor Deep Space 9. The only one I kind of got on with was Voyager and even then, it just seemed a spin off.

Whoah, sorry man but lumping Babylon 5 in there with the rest is practically a crime. B5 is not a Star Trek spin-off, though you could argue that DS9 was a B5 spin-off. Anyway, if you haven't seen a single episode of B5 rent the DVD collection and watch at least Seasons 1-4 and then report back. Ok, you've got your assignment.

Erik, that is dead right.

I was actually part of the "V" and original Babylon 5 topics back on GEnie. J. Michael Straczynski took us dozen or so "irregulars" from concept to production in those years. It was great being able to see a television series being developed from start to finish like that.

Straczynski brought the concept, characters, and plotline of Babylon 5 to Paramount and was turned down, but DS9 went into development soon afterward and actually released before Babylon 5. Straczynski, as a long time screenwriter, was livid about the similarities in Deep Space 9 and Babylon 5 down to even some of the character names. Of course, Paramount never got the in-depth plotlines (wheels within wheels), so Deep Space 9 was never as good as Babylon 5, but one often sees them lumped together as Trek based space station series even though Babylon 5 was not.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 130

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/5/2009 5:28:02 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: E
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?"

Wasn't there something called a Prime Directive? Not to interferes in the natural development a civilization? Yet going back in time and changing events potentially changes the natural development of all civilizations.

Who does really discover transparent aluminum?

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? The bad guys didn't pledge allegiance to the Prime Directive. Not to mention the alternation of the timeline, by the bad buys, occurred before the birth of key characters. But had the good guys been the one's to go against it in the movie, you need only watch some TOS to realize they almost always threw it aside (although sometimes they'd give it the nod and rationalize doing so).

(*** spoiler alert ***)

There are also plot holes. Anyone familiar with the Nerdvana Annihilation theory will know that Spock, knowing before hand that the Romulans would go back in time to both capture the time machine and destroy Vulcan, would go further back in time to make sure this did not happen.

Spock could also likely prevent the people of Romulus from their future fate, as could the bad guy Romulans in the film. Given the option to either destroy Vulcan or save Romulus, which is the more likely and more logical conclusion for the Romulans?

Then again, perhaps Spock can't. If Vulcan was destroyed in the past, as in the film, one would not have it available in the present or future to travel back and stop the events in the present universe, ergo Romulus and Vulcan would stay destroyed even if Spock wanted to change it. That assumes that Spock does not find another way to travel back through time, and we know he likely will. In any case, the Romulans would likely save Romulus first and make this point moot.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 6/5/2009 5:33:12 PM >

(in reply to E)

Post #: 131

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/6/2009 1:37:33 PM

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Wow you really get into the star trek stuff. I think it would just put me to sleep.

_____________________________

Korsun Pocket

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 132

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/6/2009 2:00:22 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Wow you really get into the star trek stuff. I think it would just put me to sleep.

Not so different from wargaming... it's all mental masturbation.

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)

Post #: 133

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/12/2009 6:19:12 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

I thought the movie was pretty good, but not perfect by any means. They tried to faithfully show how the characters got together for the TV series, but there were very implausible story line elements. To me the most eggregious was making a cadet first officer of the E. Somehow, this just doesn't seem logical, especially given the situation in the story when it happened. Then immediately commissioning him as a starship captain? Sure seems like the beaurocracy would make him serve a few years before that happened. I would think he would have to be a communications specialist, propulsion engineer, head of security, or something before being promoted to first officer. Instead, he goes straight to the head of the line. Sorry, don't buy it, even though he's supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Once you see the movie, this will probably make more sense.)

The characters were relatively true to form and looked remakably like the original cast, well, as much as could be expected. My wife, who's NEVER seen much of the original series now wants to see all the episodes, corny as they will seem to be now. Let's face it, cardboard controls and plywood walls don't compare to what is done today, and the old external shots are just plain cheesy.

Some of the visual effects in the movie were quite stunning due to the increase in computer graphics over the years. The outside shots of the space ships all looked as if they were real, with very few detectable flaws.

To me, the biggest downside was the gratuitous violence/action. Obviously there had to be some, indeed, perhaps even quite a lot, but it was almost never ending once the action sequences got started. Don't get me wrong, I like that sort of thing, but it could have been toned down a little with more character development substituted.

But, I think it was certainly worth the money and would probably be fine for all those except the die hard trekkies who will find many, many errors and odd juxtapostions with the timeframes, characters, etc. So, if you can get to a cheap matinee, I'd go for it.

(in reply to E)

Post #: 134

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/12/2009 8:23:34 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

They tried to faithfully show how the characters got together for the TV series,

Actually, no they didn't, and there's the rub. It was made clear in the movie that we now have a different timeline. Literally from Kirk's birth, things have changed. All bets are off. Things might turn out as they did in the original TV series -- or they might not. The episodes "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time" will certainly be different.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 135

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/13/2009 5:17:24 AM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

They tried to faithfully show how the characters got together for the TV series,

Actually, no they didn't, and there's the rub. It was made clear in the movie that we now have a different timeline. Literally from Kirk's birth, things have changed. All bets are off. Things might turn out as they did in the original TV series -- or they might not. The episodes "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time" will certainly be different.

Why focus on the potentially negative? Try the potentially positive! ...Maybe "Spock's Brain" or "And the Children Shall Lead" or "The Way to Eden" will be different!!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 136

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/13/2009 9:45:25 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

Why focus on the potentially negative?

"Vulcans do not speculate."
--Spock, from TOS

Because it is not "potentially negative", it is certainty. The two episodes I mentioned cannot, repeat cannot, happen as they did if we accept the events of the movie.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to E)

Post #: 137

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/14/2009 5:45:40 AM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

Why focus on the potentially negative?

"Vulcans do not speculate."
--Spock, from TOS

Because it is not "potentially negative", it is certainty. The two episodes I mentioned cannot, repeat cannot, happen as they did if we accept the events of the movie.

"There are always possibilities"
--Spock, from TOS

How do you know that XII will not erase XI and restore the timeline? It's Sci-fi... ANYTHING can happen. Heck, death doesn't even count in Sci-fi!

Even if your two episodes are erased, the erasure of the three I mentioned would more than balance the scales. In fact that's a 3 to 2 tip in favor of positive! It's all good.

(not to mention Star Trek XI cannot REALLY erase the episodes on your DVD's... so you can still keep your episodes intact no matter what JJ Abrams does)

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 138

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/21/2009 5:41:33 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

"There are always possibilities" --Spock, from TOS

Agreed, and logical.

quote:

How do you know that XII will not erase XI and restore the timeline? It's Sci-fi... ANYTHING can happen. Heck, death doesn't even count in Sci-fi!

I suspect that may be so.

quote:

Even if your two episodes are erased, the erasure of the three I mentioned would more than balance the scales. In fact that's a 3 to 2 tip in favor of positive! It's all good.

It doesn't work that way. TV series are great because of the great episodes. Amok Time and Journey to Babel are top five episodes. Eliminating them will not be balanced by eliminating some of the worst episodes. One can always not watch the bad episodes.

For the premise to work, one has to say that Star Trek (2009) and its sequals will be equal to or better than Amok Time, Journey to Babel, and anything else eliminated from the TOS space/time continuum. I don't believe that will be the case.

(in reply to E)

Post #: 139

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/21/2009 8:07:23 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Well, for me, the whole problem has been making movies out of the original Star Trek series in the first place. It's kind of like what happened when people like Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, Steve Martin and Jim Carrey decided they were funny, went off to be movie stars, and have never made me so much as smile, let alone laugh, since their early TV days. Look what happened to the Beatles when John decided he was Jesus, George became Gandhi, and Paul convinced himself he was cute?

The original series had a certain campy charm and magic to it - seeing Bill Shatner trying to be some bizarre combination of John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Errol Flynn was kicky enough in itself.

You just can't recreate that by pandering to it. "Oh, here we have the original Star Trek idea and characters. Let's write a screenplay that will make that into a hugely entertaining (and, therefore, profitable) movie - shoot, even a series of movies."

Never worked for me. This last movie? I had just met a sweet young thang who showed even more signs of promise than Kobe Bryant's fourth-quarter game. She apparently decided that, in order to get to the place where I would be willing to sustain her in the life to which she would like to be accustomed, she should let me take her to see this movie.

I was never so bored in all my life. Then, we went back to my place and went to bed.

It's not every day you have to retract "I was never so bored in all my life" and replace it with a new episode that bored you even more...

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 6/21/2009 8:09:55 PM >

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 140

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/21/2009 10:08:01 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders

quote:

"There are always possibilities" --Spock, from TOS

Agreed, and logical.

quote:

How do you know that XII will not erase XI and restore the timeline? It's Sci-fi... ANYTHING can happen. Heck, death doesn't even count in Sci-fi!

I suspect that may be so.

quote:

Even if your two episodes are erased, the erasure of the three I mentioned would more than balance the scales. In fact that's a 3 to 2 tip in favor of positive! It's all good.

It doesn't work that way. TV series are great because of the great episodes.

And TV series are crappy (and cancelled) because of the crappy episodes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders
Amok Time and Journey to Babel are top five episodes.

But in context, all they did was solidify what was already there. The momentum was there before those second season episodes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders
Eliminating them will not be balanced by eliminating some of the worst episodes. One can always not watch the bad episodes.

Their loss would be more than offset by eliminating the episodes that brought the show down and/or killed it. There are just-as-good, and even better episodes to carry the loss of the Vulcan-centric episodes.

TV series are a perfect example of the adage "1,000 atta' boys are erased by 1 oh sh*t."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders
I don't believe that will be the case.

It may not be, but there are always possibilities... for instance I did not believe there was anyway for me to avoid hating the the 2009 movie.

As an aside, Memory Alpha now refers to the new movie timeline as Alternate Trek and the original as Prime Trek.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 141

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/21/2009 10:15:16 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E
TV series are a perfect example of the adage "1,000 atta' boys are erased by 1 oh sh*t."

And TV is a constant flow of 1,000 "oh ****s" followed by maybe one "attaboy."

Maybe. And the odds are getting longer.

quote:

I did not believe there was anyway for me to avoid hating the the 2009 movie.

That's like having a head-on collision with Tyra Banks. Why would you want to avoid it?

quote:

As an aside, Memory Alpha now refers to the new movie timeline as Alternate Trek and the original as Prime Trek.

Makes you wanna puke like a poisoned dog, don't it?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to E)

Post #: 142

RE: New Star Trek movie - 6/21/2009 11:09:57 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: E
TV series are a perfect example of the adage "1,000 atta' boys are erased by 1 oh sh*t."

And TV is a constant flow of 1,000 "oh ****s" followed by maybe one "attaboy."

Maybe. And the odds are getting longer.

That's another reason I don't watch broadcast TV. I let everyone else sift the wheat from the chaff, and then I watch on DVD.

quote:

I did not believe there was anyway for me to avoid hating the the 2009 movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
That's like having a head-on collision with Tyra Banks. Why would you want to avoid it?

As I don't watch broadcast TV, I don't know who that is. My point was that I did like the movie, in spite of expecting the worst.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

As an aside, Memory Alpha now refers to the new movie timeline as Alternate Trek and the original as Prime Trek.

Makes you wanna puke like a poisoned dog, don't it?

Not sure of your drift there... I just found it interesting that "they" didn't consider the movie "canon." The movie reminded me of how I ended up enjoying Enterprise, as a "purist" I merely had to pretend the series was an alternate universe and found it enjoyable overall. The movie flat out is an alternative universe (timeline), so it's all good. Oh sure, there are a million ways to poke holes in it, but the same can and has been said about all Trek to date. I thought it was a fun movie. Sort of an alternative "Trek-lite" aimed at younger generations, but with enough of the original referenced to give it a little dual quality (like the original Batman TV show did... one action level for the kids, one parody level for the adults).

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 143