Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: butter_pat_head on May 07, 2009, 03:53:39 pm

Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: butter_pat_head on May 07, 2009, 03:53:39 pm
(delurking)

I just got back from watching the film and I can say that 3 different types of people will emerge from the cinema:

1.  Those who have never (or hardly) watched Trek before, they will have enjoyed themselves,
2.  Those who know Trek quite well and could nitpick the film to death, but still enjoyed it cause they new to switch their brains off just after sitting down.

and 3.  NERD RAGE!!!!!11

TBH I'm borderline 3.  It was worth the £6.odd I paid to see the film, but not the price they'll ask for the DVD/BD once they release it.

Theres a decent amount of humour in there, but most of the time I guess the reason I got it was because of my Trek knowledge.  I don't know why they didn't use the Enterprise design they had for the 2008 promo shots (you know the ones I mean).  The Vulcanoids
Spoiler:
get to re assert their physical superiority over humans
,   Simon Pegg
Spoiler:
Throws the entire Trek rulebook on beaming out of the window, while still managing to squeeze off nearly every one of Scotty's classic lines
and warp drive is now
Spoiler:
Star Wars hyperdrive but with a cannon shot SFX instead
which wasn't bad but why not have the twinkle?

The music?  Too much of it if you ask me.  Should have gotten Horner to do it (I didn't stay to watch the credits so for all I know he probably did).  Some nice nods to music from TOS but that main theme......

Oh, and all you hard-line number 3s out there, don't worry about the film effecting the official continuity, cause
Spoiler:
They pretty much dismiss the entire film as a alternate dimension anyway, so that means that to beam at warp BOTH ships have to be going the same speed and be at nominal distances from eachother.

But just a reminder, It's still a decent film, if you remember to put your brain into neutral for the duration.

I'm off to re-subscribe to alt.startrek and watch the fireworks fly...
(relurking)
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Snail on May 07, 2009, 03:57:50 pm
Simon Pegg is in the film. Which means it's cool.
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Nuke on May 07, 2009, 05:41:06 pm
i find her posts rather amusing. i think shatner would agree.

i tell you this much, the first mother****er who posts a spoiler without spoiler tags will get monkeyed/post deleted/thread lockage.

and for good measure
Back to the topic.

(http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1123/whyds9isthebesttrekki3.gif)
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Demitri on May 07, 2009, 06:51:42 pm
I just got back from watching the film and I can say that 3 different types of people will emerge from the cinema:

1.  Those who have never (or hardly) watched Trek before, they will have enjoyed themselves,
2.  Those who know Trek quite well and could nitpick the film to death, but still enjoyed it cause they new to switch their brains off just after sitting down.

and 3.  NERD RAGE!!!!!11

Went to see the film today and would classify myself by above criteria as a 2. Definitely enjoyable, but trek fan boys will no doubt be unimpressed!
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Unknown Target on May 08, 2009, 12:50:05 am
I'm a huge fanboy and I loved it. They made a bunch of in jokes and yet still kept the movie fresh and exciting, and different in a good way. Thoroughly enjoyable.
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Turambar on May 08, 2009, 01:07:36 am
I am with UT, it was a fun movie and the guy they got to be Bones did a perfect job, the plot does make some sense (it didnt hurt my brain, and i was sober) and the use of technobabble as a plot device (as annoyed butter) is excuseable, since it's Star Trek and that's what it's ****ing for dammit.  They even had Kirk acting like Shatner at the very end, it was entertaining.
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Ace on May 08, 2009, 02:26:22 am
They made an... entertaining Star Trek movie?

That... that... means that Gene Roddenberry is spinning in his grave!

Simon Pegg was a little too over the top in some bits.

Spoiler:
However the worst travesty in the film is that the poor Orion cadet was probably killed in that fleet.  :sigh:

- Saving you from the Wrath of Nuke ;)
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Nemesis6 on May 08, 2009, 04:46:18 am
Is Star Trek the one with the big glowy circle thing?

(http://boomercharged.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/facepalm4.jpg)
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Dilmah G on May 08, 2009, 04:54:52 am
LOL!
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Charismatic on May 08, 2009, 01:01:09 pm
Quote from: Yahtzee
Fans are clingy, complaining dip****s who will never, EVER, be grateful for anything that you do.
Couldn't be more true.

Incidently, why not buy a Zero Punctuation t-shirt?

I like the "Press X to not die" one, personally. :P

I watched it twice to find the 'press x to not die' refrecne and didnt see it.
But yeah the vid was funny.

Kudos on the gissing gif.

And awesome link to the summary of all St movies. I liked it and it was accurate.
Title: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: übermetroid on May 08, 2009, 04:06:00 pm
Saw it, like it, can't wait to see more.

Actually, I am now thinking how the future events will play out.  Whale probe, Khan, ect....
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Goober5000 on May 08, 2009, 11:05:17 pm
Thread split.

Well, I just got back from the movie and I am torn.  It was fun to watch, and there were many moments that I enjoyed, but I basically feel betrayed as a fan.  They basically shredded the existing continuity and then crapped all over it.  And the worst thing is that they can't pass it off as a harmless alternate timeline, because they present it as the actual timeline produced as a direct result of events in the timeline we knew up until now.

The Good:
Spoiler:
1) The characterization was excellent.  I thought the new cast members did a good job of reinterpreting the roles from the original actors without coming across as knockoffs.
2) The special effects.  Nuff said.
3) That Orion redhead.
4) Shout-outs to things that fans will pick up on.  Admiral Archer & his beagle, Archer-era uniforms on the Kelvin, Morn, fencing, Spock on Romulus, all the classic McCoy & Scotty lines, Pike & the wheelchair, and more that I probably forgot.
5) Leonard Nimoy.

The Bad:
Spoiler:
1) They destroyed Vulcan?  W.T.F.  First of all, six billion people is the single worst Star Trek death toll ever.  Star Trek is not Star Wars; people are not statistics; they're supposed to mean something.  And they never stopped the action to consider the ramifications of such an act.  With a minor detour for some Spock-angst, they kept right on going.
2) Continuity.  Shout-outs (see #4 above) are not a substitute for actual coherence.  A timeline change was a terribly bad idea in retrospect; they should have kept the general outlines and gone with a reinterpretation, not an outright rewrite.  They completely threw out any post-Academy pre-Enterprise story for Kirk, including some major character-building events on other ships.  How on earth does Captain Pike justify a field promotion from cadet to first officer?  How does Starfleet justify an official promotion from cadet to captain?  How does the movie justify hand-waving a bunch of cadets straight to bridge officers?  How are Kirk, McCoy, Uhura, and Sulu all in the same class at Starfleet Academy?  This film took way too many shortcuts.
3) Nero.  Second-worst Star Trek movie villain ever, above only Shinzon.  He was a one-dimensional "my planet was blown up by natural forces, so I'll blow up yours" plot token.
4) Too much action at the expense of plot.  Action is definitely a plus (see especially First Contact) but shouldn't detract from character development or story development.
5) The music.  Thoroughly unmemorable; I can't recall any of the newly composed stuff, which is a first for any Star Trek movie for me.

Ugh.  Just writing that makes me angry.  I think I might detox tomorrow by watching Wrath of Khan.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Ashrak on May 09, 2009, 01:30:37 am
i found it brilliant, now they can make a new series aswell :) since the old timeline nolonger matters w00t w00t
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: blackhole on May 09, 2009, 11:28:23 am
There is no way in hell the fans would have been able to like this movie. Because they are fans.

IMO from the trailers I've seen and the positive reviews, its a movie I might actually go to the theater to watch. Those space battle scene clips were like orgasm injected directly into the brain.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Scotty on May 09, 2009, 01:04:08 pm
Quote from: Yahtzee
Fans are clingy, complaining dip****s who will never, EVER, be grateful for anything that you do.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Turambar on May 09, 2009, 01:21:32 pm
There is no way in hell the fans would have been able to like this movie. Because they are fans.

IMO from the trailers I've seen and the positive reviews, its a movie I might actually go to the theater to watch. Those space battle scene clips were like orgasm injected directly into the brain.

i am a fan, and i like the movie.  theory destroyed.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: The E on May 09, 2009, 01:42:34 pm
i am a fan, and i like the movie.  theory destroyed.

+1 that statement.

Although I agree with Goober's second point about the utter strangeness of Starfleet personnel decisions, the film as a whole worked and was totally satisfying. (seeing Phasers used defensively? Awesome. Sulu? Awesomer.)
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Unknown Target on May 09, 2009, 03:05:56 pm
Yea, Goob I'm going to have to disagree with you - I didn't find the alternate timeline to be that taxing on my fan nerves. That, and the movie creators have repeatedly said that the two universes exist in parallel, this one simply "split off" from the main one.

Also, you know what I'm really happy about? They got rid of/lessened the role of "phaser beams". The hand-held phasers, while they look like TOS movie phasers, fire bolts, as do the cannons on the starships; it's a much more thrilling visual effect, and unless they were used like beam cannons a la Freespace, phaser beams were always pretty hokey and nerdy IMO.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: an0n on May 09, 2009, 03:55:22 pm
It is ****ing awful on every level.

And not even just for Trek fans.

It is unremittingly ****ing horrible in every regard. Be it having Nokia product placement slammed into your face 12 minutes in, the constant lens flares on every-****ing-thing, the ****ty dialogue, the complete inability to create characters anyone gives a **** about, destroying what should be deeply emotional scenes with ****ty music and piss-poor execution, the fact that no shot is filmed more than 2ft from any character's face, the need to switch to a shot of a spaceship every 30 seconds, the fact that every single shot (without exception) is a rainbow of glossy colours and pretty lights, the complete lack of any true violence, Uhura being the most prominent female with a whole 5 minutes of screen time, Nero's lameass and poorly constructed motivations and horrifically simplistic backstory... It's just awful.

I hate this move almost as much as King Arthur, King Kong and Episode 3.

And the **** on the ice planet...? Hell, why not just give him a ****ing Tauntaun and have him kill the big Yeti creature with his lightsabre?

Speaking of which, when the bigger alien comes along and eats the Yeti thing - what possible ****ing reason could they have had for thinking that the best creature design for an alien on an ice planet would be based around lizards and spiders? C'z as you're all aware, those creatures do amazing in cold environments.

The entire film is just an unrelenting onslaught of cheap, tacky bull**** and fancy effects.

You remember Superman Returns and how ****ty that turned out to be? It's that. They might as well have cast Brandon Routh as Kirk and let him rape another movie franchise into the ground.

And if you're a fan, it's worse than if you're just a regular moviegoer. Because they've clearly packed in just enough to pretend like they know what the **** was going on in the franchise prior to this reboot, and they've pandered to you just enough to gain the support of the fanbois as they girlishly scream at every backreference to classic Trek - but then they go right the **** ahead and kill the entire spirit of everything that went before.

You wanna start fresh - then start fresh. Don't start fresh and then pansy the **** out and take just enough backsteps to whore to the old fanbase for the sake of marketing and box office figures.

It's just another in a long line of movies made purely for profit and to whore out old ideas to new idiots with sparkly CGI and and overly pretty (98% male) cast.

I'd rather take a rake to the face than watch that **** again.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: BloodEagle on May 09, 2009, 04:28:32 pm
It is ****ing awful on every level.

And not even just for Trek fans.

It is unremittingly ****ing horrible in every regard. Be it having Nokia product placement slammed into your face 12 minutes in, the constant lens flares on every-****ing-thing, the ****ty dialogue, the complete inability to create characters anyone gives a **** about, destroying what should be deeply emotional scenes with ****ty music and piss-poor execution, the fact that no shot is filmed more than 2ft from any character's face, the need to switch to a shot of a spaceship every 30 seconds, the fact that every single shot (without exception) is a rainbow of glossy colours and pretty lights, the complete lack of any true violence, Uhura being the most prominent female with a whole 5 minutes of screen time, Nero's lameass and poorly constructed motivations and horrifically simplistic backstory... It's just awful.

I hate this move almost as much as King Arthur, King Kong and Episode 3.

And the **** on the ice planet...? Hell, why not just give him a ****ing Tauntaun and have him kill the big Yeti creature with his lightsabre?

Speaking of which, when the bigger alien comes along and eats the Yeti thing - what possible ****ing reason could they have had for thinking that the best creature design for an alien on an ice planet would be based around lizards and spiders? C'z as you're all aware, those creatures do amazing in cold environments.

The entire film is just an unrelenting onslaught of cheap, tacky bull**** and fancy effects.

You remember Superman Returns and how ****ty that turned out to be? It's that. They might as well have cast Brandon Routh as Kirk and let him rape another movie franchise into the ground.

And if you're a fan, it's worse than if you're just a regular moviegoer. Because they've clearly packed in just enough to pretend like they know what the **** was going on in the franchise prior to this reboot, and they've pandered to you just enough to gain the support of the fanbois as they girlishly scream at every backreference to classic Trek - but then they go right the **** ahead and kill the entire spirit of everything that went before.

You wanna start fresh - then start fresh. Don't start fresh and then pansy the **** out and take just enough backsteps to whore to the old fanbase for the sake of marketing and box office figures.

It's just another in a long line of movies made purely for profit and to whore out old ideas to new idiots with sparkly CGI and and overly pretty (98% male) cast.

I'd rather take a rake to the face than watch that **** again.


I approve this message. For whatever that's worth.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: butter_pat_head on May 09, 2009, 06:24:46 pm
seeing Phasers used defensively? Awesome.

I kinda thought it nice to see ST fit some proper projectile PD turrets along with the regular beam Phasers on the USS Kelvin.  As for the Enterprise's phaser bolts?  Those kinda things only belong in two places, The Wrath of Khan and the DS9 era USS Defiant!  The Shields in this film are about as useful as those on a Imperial class star destroyer and I'm pretty sure that Gene Roddenberry specifically stated that the ships in Star Trek must not look like they were rocket propelled (hence the differences on the Enterprise's nacelles between TOS seasons 1 and 2).

Well, again I say the film was still not a bad one.  Certainly better than Nemesis in some aspects.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Nuke on May 09, 2009, 06:45:46 pm
are you kidding, nemesis was mega lame
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: an0n on May 09, 2009, 08:23:03 pm
Shinzon was a far better villain than Nero.

At least he had valid reasons for the **** he did.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Nuke on May 09, 2009, 10:30:47 pm
shinzon, and his ship were both pretty badass. my problem with nemesis is that it was too slow and seemed to wussify a veteran crew. but mainly it recycled elements from things that had already been done before in trek. for example it seemed they introduced a wrath of khan style space battle (a long drawn out tactical battle between 2 crippled ships) to keep people from getting bored while they explore moral quandaries regarding the ancient nature vs nurture debate.

i cant compare the new movie to nemesis until i see it, of course. so im waiting for some geek with a hat cam to record it off the movie screen and put it up on pirate bay so i can watch it. i just know that nemesis is like very low on the list of my favorite star trek movies/shows.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: an0n on May 09, 2009, 10:35:12 pm
Already done, dude.

DEViSE release. It's a little askew, but it's a pretty damn good 0-day cam rip.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: General Battuta on May 10, 2009, 01:40:57 am
I went in prepared to be really impressed; the trailers had me amped up.

I'm afraid to say I'm now in agreement with Goob and an0n.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Lt.Cannonfodder on May 10, 2009, 02:41:51 am
i cant compare the new movie to nemesis until i see it, of course. so im waiting for some geek with a hat cam to record it off the movie screen and put it up on pirate bay so i can watch it. i just know that nemesis is like very low on the list of my favorite star trek movies/shows.
Wait, you are going to watch a big screen movie with big part of it's appeal relying on the stunning visual and sound effects as a blurry, shaky, skewed and poor resolution avi some jackass recorded on a backwater theater? You are kinda missing the whole point you know  :P
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Black Wolf on May 10, 2009, 05:42:24 am
Ugh. So torn. I share the general belief that as a film, it was good. Lots of action, occasional proper funny bits, people actually dying and whatnot. But so many things were just wrong with it. I know it's a reboot and I know that the second time around it'll be better, once they've gotten rid of all the exposition and the getting of the crew together, but still... was a solid film, but a very weak Star Trek.

Oh, and yeah, anon's right about the dialogue. I remember wincing more than a time or two. A lot of the actors were able to rise above the lines they had to say, but still...

Echoing what seems to be a fairly common sentiment around the internet, the new McCoy was awesome, but the new Uhura was pretty rubbish. What the hell was the deal - She refuses to tell Kirk her first name for three years, and he never just looks her up or something? I'll accept that as maybe a ref to the fact that she only had one name in TOS, but why did they have to pair her off with Spock? I'd've been happier to see nothing significant done with Uhura until the next movie that shoehorn her into the script in an odd and totally off character way.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Kosh on May 10, 2009, 06:16:06 am
Quote
It was fun to watch, and there were many moments that I enjoyed, but I basically feel betrayed as a fan.  They basically shredded the existing continuity and then crapped all over it.  And the worst thing is that they can't pass it off as a harmless alternate timeline, because they present it as the actual timeline produced as a direct result of events in the timeline we knew up until now.


I also disagree. When the moment that romulan ship and spock went back through time they created a branch in the timeline that goes off in another way. The trek universe we grew up with still exists, but the alternative is what the re-booted trek will focus on (since they pretty much ran out of ideas for the original timeline). 


EDIT: Yeah, and I forgot to mention that this was one of the most awesome movies I've seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: Locutus of Borg on May 10, 2009, 08:18:17 am
Ugh. So torn. I share the general belief that as a film, it was good. Lots of action, occasional proper funny bits, people actually dying and whatnot. But so many things were just wrong with it. I know it's a reboot and I know that the second time around it'll be better, once they've gotten rid of all the exposition and the getting of the crew together, but still... was a solid film, but a very weak Star Trek.

Oh, and yeah, anon's right about the dialogue. I remember wincing more than a time or two. A lot of the actors were able to rise above the lines they had to say, but still...

Echoing what seems to be a fairly common sentiment around the internet, the new McCoy was awesome, but the new Uhura was pretty rubbish. What the hell was the deal - She refuses to tell Kirk her first name for three years, and he never just looks her up or something? I'll accept that as maybe a ref to the fact that she only had one name in TOS, but why did they have to pair her off with Spock? I'd've been happier to see nothing significant done with Uhura until the next movie that shoehorn her into the script in an odd and totally off character way.

Black Wolf, I'm frightened.

The next movie will be about Kahn (that's my guess)

I wanted to scream at the end of the movie. Yes, ti was a good contained film; but it didn't make sense. I feel that, even though a lot of things you hear on Star Trek are made up, they make sense in-universe when explaining things.

There were some things in this movie that just made me want to scream.

- Jettisoning a rebelious crewmember?
- Coincidently finding Spock on Hoth?
- A supernova which can destroy the galaxy (yes he said it)
- Nero has to destroy Spock's homeworlds because...Spcok got caught in traffic in the 24th century? 
- Uhura + Spock = WTF have you ever watched TOS?
- Star Wars-y weapons (bolts not beams)
- Hyperspace!
- The Ferengi-dar with Scotty
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie
Post by: The E on May 10, 2009, 08:31:58 am
Black Wolf, I'm frightened.

The next movie will be about Kahn (that's my guess)
The same way that this movie was about V'Ger?

Quote
I wanted to scream at the end of the movie. Yes, ti was a good contained film; but it didn't make sense. I feel that, even though a lot of things you hear on Star Trek are made up, they make sense in-universe when explaining things.

There were some things in this movie that just made me want to scream.

- Jettisoning a rebelious crewmember?
- Coincidently finding Spock on Hoth?
- A supernova which can destroy the galaxy (yes he said it)
- Nero has to destroy Spock's homeworlds because...Spcok got caught in traffic in the 24th century? 
- Uhura + Spock = WTF have you ever watched TOS?
- Star Wars-y weapons (bolts not beams)
- Hyperspace!
- The Ferengi-dar with Scotty

Not much to say about this. You are right in most cases, BUT:
Uhura+Spock was one of the best things in this Film for me (Just as Arwen deciding to leave was in LOTR), because I did not expect it.

As I said, I liked this film, but then I am not that married to Star Trek canon as other people are. When I went into this film, I was hoping for a fun Sci-Fi flick that would do interesting and new things with the Franchise. I was not disappointed. YMMV wildly, of course.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 09:28:54 am
If you're not a Trek fan, and you like this movie based on it's own individual merits, then you're a ****ing retard who doesn't deserve the power to shape the entertainment industry inherent in your being allowed to buy a ****ing ticket.

It was actually worse than Phantom Menace in terms of pure cinema, so get ready for an absolute cluster**** of bull**** and faggotry when every half-capable director decides that after that sack of crap movie they won't touch the franchise with a ****ing barge pole.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: The E on May 10, 2009, 09:41:49 am
If you're not a Trek fan, and you like this movie based on it's own individual merits, then you're a ****ing retard who doesn't deserve the power to shape the entertainment industry inherent in your being allowed to buy a ****ing ticket.

As opposed to your not shaping the industry by NOT buying a ticket?
What would a Star Trek film have to do to be worthy not only of YOUR money, but also be successfull enough to make making another one a good business proposition?

Quote
It was actually worse than Phantom Menace in terms of pure cinema, so get ready for an absolute cluster**** of bull**** and faggotry when every half-capable director decides that after that sack of crap movie they won't touch the franchise with a ****ing barge pole.

In your not-so-humble opinion. Please try to remember that your opinion may or may not equal mine, and that your opinion isn't more credible or more true because it's you saying it.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 10:01:10 am
You're right, mine's worth more because I know what I'm talking about. Everyone is not a special little butterfly whose opinions are as equally valid as everyone else's. Because most people are just idiots.

When you've watched Citizen Kane and hundreds of subtitled foreign movies - and rewatched movies you've hated just so you can "give the cinematography a second chance" - then maybe you can attempt to patronize me.

Till then, I remain singularly right.

What would a Star Trek film have to do to be worthy not only of YOUR money, but also be successfull enough to make making another one a good business proposition?

Have a plot that didn't involve a mining foreman being magically sent back in time by a blackhole, stealing a bleeding-edge shuttlecraft from his race's most hated enemy, somehow using his incredible knowledge of advanced mining techniques to hack said shuttle's systems and learn how to operate the doomsday weapon inside.

And let's not forget that his solution to the whole "a supernova blows up my world 200 years in the future" situation wasn't to go and use the blackhole machine to actually destroy the star before it became a supernova, but instead to try and annihilate the tiny handful of people who'd gone and tried to save Romulus.

Then there's the small matter of a Romulan mining foreman having such an intimate understanding of the mechanics of blackhole-based time travel as to be able to predict the exact time and location Spock's shuttle would be thrown out.

Or that he felt the need to spend an hour drilling into the core of Vulcan before deploying his blackhole machine, because clearly a blackhole is only effective when thrown into the core of a planet. Which, incidentally, we've apparently decided is made of solid rock and not a seething mass of boiling liquid magma which would be entirely impossible to 'drill'.

Or maybe you'd prefer we discuss the small matter of how a single drop of the blackhole goo managed to destroy the entirety of Vulcan, and yet hundreds of litres of it only managed to create a blackhole just large enough to destroy the mining ship which was actually all-but-in-orbit of Earth at the time.

Any of those things, in my humble opinion, might have been somewhat of a small mistake.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: The E on May 10, 2009, 10:25:43 am
You're right, mine's worth more because I know what I'm talking about. Everyone is not a special little butterfly whose opinions are as equally valid as everyone else's. Because most people are just idiots.

When you've watched Citizen Kane and hundreds of subtitled foreign movies - and rewatched movies you've hated just so you can "give the cinematography a second chance" - then maybe you can attempt to patronize me.

Till then, I remain singularly right.

Hmm. So, you've watched movies. So have I. But where I watch movies to be entertained, you seem to have higher standards. Fair enough.
Oh, and since I can not prove the validity of your statement (just as you cannot prove my lack of cinema experience), your opinion still remains your opinion, NOT some sort of unassailable fact.
All I said was that this movie entertained me. That I didn't feel like I had just wasted time and money watching it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 10:31:06 am
I disagree.

I think you were entertained to lax standards based around the general suckery of modern big-budget cinema. What you perceived as entertainment was the equivalent of having a bar of chocolate mushed into your brain. It wasn't healthy. It wasn't nutritious. It wasn't carefully crafted from the freshest, finest ingredients. It was a soup of ingredients mixed together in a vat in a factory somewhere, stamped out in bars by the million and injected into your skull alongside enough sugar to make you smile and drool for two hours.

THAT is my biggest problem with this movie. That people will watch it and completely ignore the lack of a coherent plot because at least it was pretty and **** kept blowing up.

It's a ****ing awful movie and if all it takes to gain your favour is some pretty colours and attractive people blowing **** up, you might as well skip the DVD release and just get some weed and softcore sci-porn and save me the trouble of having to listen to every dumbass mother****er whine on about how "it's got so much action! :D "
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: The E on May 10, 2009, 10:39:31 am
Look, when I want to spend a few hours of (relatively) mindless fun with my friends, I'll hit the cinema (And if you can say that time spent with people you like is time wasted with a straight face, you fail). When I want to be deeply, richly entertained, I'll grab a book. Or get a few people together for some Pen&Paper RPing. I certainly do not look to big cinematic releases when I'm on the hunt for deeply engaging plotlines or characters (Or Logic). If any of those are present, it's a welcome bonus, but I do not expect to see them in a movie made for the PG-13 crowd.

So, yeah. All I expected from this (and any other big movie) was a bit of brain candy. I got what I was looking for.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Scorpius on May 10, 2009, 12:25:25 pm
I grew up on Star Trek and I thought it was good to see that the reboot was done well.  This gives the franchise a chance to redeem the Star Trek name because I believe that it was Star Trek (and the people it attracts) that made people dislike sci fi in the general culture.

 For example: whenever I tried to get people to watch Battlestar Galactica, they would often say: "Its not like Star Trek is it?" I had to assure them that it was nothing like Star Trek and even then they refused to watch it on the merrits of the fact it was sci-fi. (hell I couldn't even get my girlfriend to see it because of the fact it had the Star Trek name.)

I think this is a good attempt at making Sci-fi palatable again.

And is anyone surprised that an0n so emphatically disagrees with the general consensus?
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 12:44:07 pm
No, this goes beyond my general auto-trolling.

Movies are one of the few things I know and care enough about to consider them a 'hobby' or an 'interest'.

Like I said, I'll sit and watch all the foreign language films that show up at the Toronto film festival. I'll buy the DVDs that only ever barely achieve cult status. I'll make note of the directing and lighting as I'm watching Zombie Strippers. If something... Like with 9 - the movie about the little post-apocalyptic ragdolls. When I heard about that, I went and watched the original no-dialogue short that it's to be based upon.

I watch movies. All movies. Any movies.

I bought Starship Troopers 2 and have seen the third one three times - and I can sit and go "Well, it's poorly executed, but if they'd had a little more money and a stronger cast this could've been pretty good."

But Star Trek is very visually pretty and just plain bad in every other regard.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: General Battuta on May 10, 2009, 12:52:48 pm
I agree with an0n. They could have put together a credible, internally consistent plot, a la The Dark Knight. Instead, we got this mess.

Even Leonard Nimoy was saddled with a bunch of awful exposition.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Scotty on May 10, 2009, 01:49:49 pm
Quote
I bought Starship Troopers 2 and have seen the third one three times

These movies, and the first are an abomination unto the book Starship Troopers.  Having read the book, and having read many books, my opinion is now the only one anyone anywhere should give a damn about.  Don't argue with me, you're wrong.  (sound familiar?)

an0n, best thing I think you could do right now would be to f*ck off and let the people who aren't hate-filled auto-trolls legitimately have intelligent conversation.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 01:57:40 pm
Yeah, except I've read Starship Troopers, Forever War, Man Plus, the original 6 Dune books and more classic scifi than you've ever heard of, so I'm actually also more of an authority on those than you mooks too.

And my point about Starship Troopers is that they didn't even try to adhere to the books. They took the general concept of the universe and decided to play out as a satirical tale on the nature of military fascism.

It's also worth noting that the third movie drags the franchise more back towards the book, with the advent of the Marauder powered armour which - in the books - were what made the Mobile Infantry mobile.

Sucks to be you.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Scotty on May 10, 2009, 02:11:15 pm
Quote
And my point about Starship Troopers is that they didn't even try to adhere to the books.

Are you kidding?  Rico signs up, proceeds to screw up, gets punished, bugs hit Buenos Aires with a meteor, MI gets its ass kicked on Klendathu, then they start with lesser planets.  The only things missing from the movie are power armor, a true feel for the length of the war, and the ethical/moral deliberations.  It does try to adhere.  However, it also adds a little romance between Rico and Dizzy, and Rico and Carmen (in the books, the first is a guy with a paragraph to his name, and Carmen isn't interested).

Which brings me back to Star Trek.  It didn't even try to adhere to the books (I mean, really, they turned it into an alternate reality setup.  Where the hell is that in the main story of the books?).  New backstories, different technologies, jumping the cadets to bridge crew (roughly analogous to cutting the length, see above).  The two movies are almost the same in what they followed and what they didn't.  The Uhura and Spock thing is almost the same as the Rico and Carmen little flick.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 10, 2009, 02:23:54 pm
an0n, best thing I think you could do right now would be to f*ck off and let the people who aren't hate-filled auto-trolls legitimately have intelligent conversation.
Actually, an0n made some legitimate criticisms of the movie.  I share many of them.  He used Starship Troopers as an example of films he's watched and compared them to Star Trek.  I have no idea why you're going off on this epileptic fit, but you need to calm down. 

Quote
The only things missing from the movie are power armor, a true feel for the length of the war, and the ethical/moral deliberations.  It does try to adhere.
Actually, it doesn't.

The book is essentially an essay on the merits of a militaristic state and how a military fighting force should be organized.  The movie satirizes all of that.  'Adhering to the book' does not mean copy/pasting the book's plot.  It means actually adhering to the book's message as well.

In fact, the very idea that it leaves out power armor and the moral/ethical deliberations which made the book what it is means it doesn't adhere.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 02:29:29 pm
Quote
And my point about Starship Troopers is that they didn't even try to adhere to the books.

Are you kidding?  Rico signs up, proceeds to screw up, gets punished, bugs hit Buenos Aires with a meteor, MI gets its ass kicked on Klendathu, then they start with lesser planets.  The only things missing from the movie are power armor, a true feel for the length of the war, and the ethical/moral deliberations.  It does try to adhere.  However, it also adds a little romance between Rico and Dizzy, and Rico and Carmen (in the books, the first is a guy with a paragraph to his name, and Carmen isn't interested).

Which brings me back to Star Trek.  It didn't even try to adhere to the books (I mean, really, they turned it into an alternate reality setup.  Where the hell is that in the main story of the books?).  New backstories, different technologies, jumping the cadets to bridge crew (roughly analogous to cutting the length, see above).  The two movies are almost the same in what they followed and what they didn't.  The Uhura and Spock thing is almost the same as the Rico and Carmen little flick.

You did read the book, right?

It had virtually nothing to do with the war itself. The entire point of the book was to illustrate army life, and the feeling of being just a cog in the machine, used to fight a war you didn't really give a crap about. It was allegory for life in the contemporary US military - the plot being just a backdrop - it was used as a vehicle to convey the moral and philosophical points about the army and the benefits to the state it brings. Kinda mini-communism, imo.

And, infact, is similar to Forever War in a lot of respects - though that focuses more on the return to society after deployments than the actual military construct. Sorta more social than political.

Anyways, THAT'S what I meant about it not trying to adhere to the book. The book was about army life, and expanded that into a society based around the principles of the army to try and better convey it's political and philosophical messages. Then the movie went "Well, let's focus on the society more than the individual..." and decided to explore the larger implications of the book's ideals, parody them to make such ideas look foolish and jab at fascist beliefs, and then relegate Rico's plight to that of a simple action-oriented drama.

Which it did well, imo. And continued to do so throughout all three movies, despite gaping flaws in execution in the later two movies. They did what they set out to do, and I can appreciate the value in that even if they were hardly Oscar-worthy. They weren't a masterpiece, but they each knew what they were and simply did the best they could therein. The plots are solid, people's motivations are correct and apt, it's just they got ****ed by budget constraints and the original comic-parody which the first movie pinned onto the franchise as a tool to make the fascism look silly.

Star Trek, on the other hand, is just a cluster**** of confused goals and ideals wrapped in lens flares, CGI and hype.

It not only raped the established universal constants of the Trekverse without substituting them with anything of equal or greater value, but then proceeded to pack the sobbing, violated remains with so many cheap studio tricks, incoherent plot devices, ****ty character motivations and simplistic market-whoring bull**** that the film becomes little more than some kind of bastardized expression of post-modernism around a 1960's scifi theme.

With lens flares.

So many lens flares.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Nuke on May 10, 2009, 07:45:01 pm
i cant compare the new movie to nemesis until i see it, of course. so im waiting for some geek with a hat cam to record it off the movie screen and put it up on pirate bay so i can watch it. i just know that nemesis is like very low on the list of my favorite star trek movies/shows.
Wait, you are going to watch a big screen movie with big part of it's appeal relying on the stunning visual and sound effects as a blurry, shaky, skewed and poor resolution avi some jackass recorded on a backwater theater? You are kinda missing the whole point you know  :P

well its better than waiting several months for it to come out on dvd. we dont exactly have a movie theater here. and id like to see it while its still fresh so i can participate in the discussion of it.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 10, 2009, 08:31:55 pm
Quote
And my point about Starship Troopers is that they didn't even try to adhere to the books.

Are you kidding? 

Technically, no, they didn't, as Vervohoven (or however you spell his damn name) went on record as saying he was depressed by the book and stopped reading a chapter in.

However, an0n, stop talking. You're already wrong. You were wrong before you opened your mouth in fact. See, naming a movie after an existing franchise carries certain expectations. (As has been touched on in this thread.) These were never met. The movie is not a brillant political satire. The director admitted that he'd never read enough of the book to even get to that point of the message; so it's not a satire, it's the trainwreck it looks like. The book's message is not pro-military but anti-disarmament, and also explicitly anti-communist (Heinlein literally stated at one point communism is okay for the Bugs because they're evolved for it, but humans aren't). The movie also of course missed other central themes of the book about how a good military force is built and what its function is.

So, go back and read it again. And check your damn facts about the production team.


As for the Trek movie, I'm afraid I share some of Goob's revulsion. You can't blow that planet up. That planet isn't optional dammit. It was badly handled as well. This smells like an effort to give the franchise the BSG treatment. DS9 already did that, and did it better.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Turambar on May 10, 2009, 08:48:59 pm
I think the Federation will turn out acting a lot differently without Vulcan's moderating influence.  Also, since 10,000 isn't enough to sustain a viable population, perhaps the Vulcans might try to reconcile with the Romulans a lot sooner in this alternate timeline.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 08:56:12 pm
However, an0n, stop talking. You're already wrong. You were wrong before you opened your mouth in fact. See, naming a movie after an existing franchise carries certain expectations. (As has been touched on in this thread.) These were never met. The movie is not a brillant political satire. The director admitted that he'd never read enough of the book to even get to that point of the message; so it's not a satire, it's the trainwreck it looks like. The book's message is not pro-military but anti-disarmament, and also explicitly anti-communist (Heinlein literally stated at one point communism is okay for the Bugs because they're evolved for it, but humans aren't). The movie also of course missed other central themes of the book about how a good military force is built and what its function is.

So, go back and read it again. And check your damn facts about the production team.

Explain to me how any of that counters anything I said.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Lt.Cannonfodder on May 10, 2009, 11:03:05 pm
well its better than waiting several months for it to come out on dvd. we dont exactly have a movie theater here. and id like to see it while its still fresh so i can participate in the discussion of it.
Ah, my bad then.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Knight Templar on May 10, 2009, 11:35:32 pm
You know, I'm enough of a realist to be able to ignore lens flares if they're coming from shiny ships shooting shiny lasers at things.  I still can't get enough of cool space ships in cool space battles (there weren't nearly enough in this movie, hell even most of the ship-to-ship action scenes were them sitting there shooting, from different  angles)

But most people who've critiqued the film in this thread have  been entirely correct.

I realize it is JJ Abrams' take on Star Trek, so it's going to be ****ed up-implausible like Alias, and explodey shiny like Terminator 3. That's fine. But so much fail took it to a new level.

For me, the lack of a coherent message really broke the movie for me. Through the course of the film, despite being filled with great actors, none of them were really tied up in anything to deliver any kind of evocative message. Kirk's dad died, so he's a rebel. Great, that's cool. He also never exhibits fear, so we know he's never afraid of failing. No emotional investment there. Spock, who is repeatedly shown to be taken to the brink of emotional outburst after being goaded re: his heritage, is only upset about his planet for a full three minutes, and then goes back to being Spock as if nothing really happened. Everyone else fell into minor roles that didn't really carry with them anything.

The clearest message I could find is that of "choice" ; the whole "destiny vs. free will" thing which is superlatively highlighted in the clearly visible alternate universe (which lacks anyone with a goatee =\  ) but the film did nothing to show how to apply that. Instead, they only referred to it in passing with Kirk going from being a rebel without a job, to a rebel on a spaceship. If the ability to carve out your own destiny is the message, Kirk's example implies the best way to go about this is to be a complete dick to everyone until they back down and let you take control. While for various contrived plot reasons, Kirk was right in the end, his methods would fail without the series of deus ex machinas.

Other than that, you have a villain with highly questionable motives, the Romulan star inexplicably blowing up, "Real" Spock somehow thinking a blackhole was the best solution, and the ensuing time travel (sans whales this time) **** up.

This is to say nothing of various other Trek inconsistencies ("Cardassian Sunrises" circa 2260, transporters at warp, giant spiky talon death star mining ships - with decks that  you have to jump between, black hole physics et al, the lines they made Leonard Nimoy say, etc.)

For a stand-alone movie, it was nothing more than a gutless action-flick with a good cast. For Trek Canon, it was worse than Nemesis. The Art Dept. should be praised (again, don't really care about lens-flares; we are looking through the narrating lens of a camera after all) as everything looked clean, crisp and cool. The cast should move on to new and better things. Abrams should stick to his own creative devices and not try to superficially reboot cult franchises. More Orion slave girls should be in film. And naked.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 10, 2009, 11:58:05 pm
I'm curious as to what Abrams thinks the word 'slave' actually means...

Anyways, it's pretty established that Orion slave girls are actually a mix of whores and manipulative *****es - and yet he decided to just paint some ***** green and stick her in her undies for no ****ing reason other than to make fanbois go "OMG! ORION SLAVE GIRL!"
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Knight Templar on May 11, 2009, 03:11:33 am
I'm curious as to what Abrams thinks the word 'slave' actually means...

Anyways, it's pretty established that Orion slave girls are actually a mix of whores and manipulative *****es - and yet he decided to just paint some ***** green and stick her in her undies for no ****ing reason other than to make fanbois go "OMG! ORION SLAVE GIRL!"

I guess it was supposed to imply both A) Abrams has watched at least 1 episode of Star Trek before and B) Not all Orion Slave Girls are slave girls. Some of them are just Orion girls. aka down-ass green *****es.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 11, 2009, 09:27:53 am
Explain to me how any of that counters anything I said.

Your interpretation is invalid based on insufficent analysis and evidence. Go home kid.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: General Battuta on May 11, 2009, 12:00:13 pm
I'm fairly certain an0n is correct that the Starship Troopers movie was a broad satire of the book. Verhoeven never finished reading it (or so I have heard) because he was so disgusted with the content.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 11, 2009, 12:22:44 pm
Yep.

According to various interview at the time (and possibly the DVD commentary - I forget) he read a bit and - being Dutch and therefore a coward - he decided it was stupid and too contrary to his bull**** liberal ideals.

The movie was originally just a random scifi movie, but they decided to tack on the Starship Troopers name a bit before they started shooting, changed just enough to make it vaguely fit, and then Verhoeven mashed in more parodying of the themes in the book just to be a douche.

And to quote the hallowed wiki:

Quote
Heinlein avoids any significant discussion of the details of the political system's functioning, reserving his attention, instead, for questions of why someone might choose to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Thus, my mini-communism comment.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: BloodEagle on May 11, 2009, 04:51:51 pm
It's raining fire outside.  :lol:
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Swifty on May 11, 2009, 11:23:02 pm
After watching SNL Weekend Update guest starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Leonard Nimoy, I expected the response I'm seeing in this thread to be prevalent on the Trek boards.

But actually, most of the Trek boards I've visited seemed to absolutely adore it save for these types of people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM).

Favorite line from the movie:

"Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives, including your mother's and yours. I dare you to do better."
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Turambar on May 11, 2009, 11:58:35 pm
"Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives, including your mother's and yours. I dare you to do better."


that one was in the trailer.  I prefer the classics, such as "I'm giving it all she's got Captain!!"
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 12, 2009, 12:14:58 am
I'd've preferred a plot worthy of the immense marketing budget.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Turambar on May 12, 2009, 12:18:34 am
I'd've preferred a plot worthy of the immense marketing budget.

Why don't you start making some indie films, show the studios what real art is.

I'll contact you when I get the billions of dollars I'll need to properly invalidate and remake the Star Wars prequels.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 12, 2009, 12:22:54 am
I actually intend to, if I ever have money.

But given my previous and persistent epic failure to not suck at life, the idea is currently being superceded by my "kill myself" plan.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Black Wolf on May 12, 2009, 12:34:37 am
I actually intend to, if I ever have money.

But given my previous and persistent epic failure to not suck at life, the idea is currently being superceded by my "kill myself" plan.

You're not allowed to contemplate suicide online and have "Emo Hunter" as your custom text.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 12, 2009, 12:53:17 am
Sure I am.

Being mildly suicidal doesn't make me emo in a cultural or even an emotional sense.

My life is pointless and without any real hope of ever improving. And that's not an appraisal based on depression, it's a simple fact. So given the choice of continuing to try and fail and have to put up with my family for the next 40 years before a heart attack kills me, or sawing off my hand and dying while attempting to replace it with a ****ty mechanical one I'm gonna build over the course of the next year - I choose the latter.

I'm not whining for attention, or writing ****ty poetry. I'm just making a perfectly legitimate choice.

And, no, I don't want any pathetic ****ing mewlings trying to convince me not to do it. If my mind could be changed by the patronising bull**** given on an internet forum by children, I'd cut my throat right the **** now on general principle.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: General Battuta on May 12, 2009, 12:55:52 am
Gentlemen, the topic? You can take this to PM.

an0n, if you desire no patronising bull****, then provoke no patronising bull**** - keep the suicide plans to IRC.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 12, 2009, 12:57:10 am
I was trying not to - but I do still kinda want a mild sense of awe at how badass it'll be if I manage to replace my left hand with a robotic one without any outside help.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Mr. Vega on May 12, 2009, 01:18:23 am
You'd be better off with a simple hook.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Mr. Vega on May 12, 2009, 01:22:00 am
Hell, go for a peg leg if you have no desire to live. Got nothing to lose. And the casket viewing would be hilarious as long as they left the hook and leg on.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Knight Templar on May 12, 2009, 01:42:04 pm
**** that. Graft a Desert Eagle to your forearm. That'd be badass.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Rick James on May 12, 2009, 07:45:17 pm
**** that. Graft a Desert Eagle to your forearm. That'd be badass.

(http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u43/Galan007/Saintkillers.jpg)

"Not enough gun..."
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Black Wolf on May 13, 2009, 06:06:47 am
Gentlemen, the topic? You can take this to PM.

If derailing was against the rules, Gen Disc would have 4 topics left open.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Mika on May 13, 2009, 08:12:13 am
Thanks for busting that bubble. I have read reviews that the movie could be good, but the recent memory of the fiasco called Watchmen surfaced (and the dent it made to my wallet also) and I was sceptical. I seriously thought that the reviewers had either all lost their minds or had been bought to review that movie any higher than 2 or 2.5 stars of five. Looks like this is another case of that.

Besides, am I the only one here who doesn't know anything about Star Trek?
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Lt.Cannonfodder on May 13, 2009, 08:27:04 am
Or maybe just go and see it for yourself. The new trek seems to polarize people a lot: the other half loves it and the rest hate it.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: General Battuta on May 13, 2009, 08:32:43 am
Gentlemen, the topic? You can take this to PM.

If derailing was against the rules, Gen Disc would have 4 topics left open.

I'm in no danger of jumping all over it and locking it or anything, but I think we can agree a thread on an0n's suicide plans should maybe be discouraged.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: StarSlayer on May 13, 2009, 10:25:21 am
**** that. Graft a Desert Eagle to your forearm. That'd be badass.

Wrong, the proper thing to graft is obviously a chainsaw
(http://pictures.deadlycomputer.com/d/9956-3/250px-Bruce_Campbell_Army_of_Darkness.jpg)

Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Turambar on May 13, 2009, 11:31:27 am

Besides, am I the only one here who doesn't know anything about Star Trek?

other than iamzack, it's possible you are
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Knight Templar on May 13, 2009, 11:32:08 am
**** that. Graft a Desert Eagle to your forearm. That'd be badass.

Wrong, the proper thing to graft is obviously a chainsaw
(http://pictures.deadlycomputer.com/d/9956-3/250px-Bruce_Campbell_Army_of_Darkness.jpg)



And a Bruce Campbell mask to your face, clearly.

 
Gentlemen, the topic? You can take this to PM.

If derailing was against the rules, Gen Disc would have 4 topics left open.

I'm in no danger of jumping all over it and locking it or anything, but I think we can agree a thread on an0n's suicide plans should maybe be discouraged.

If you're taking it that seriously, you're either 1) being trolled. duh. or 2) fail to realize that nothing you could say would change his mind, and are a terrible human being for not alerting helpful authorities.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: General Battuta on May 13, 2009, 12:02:55 pm
If you're taking it that seriously, you're either 1) being trolled. duh. or 2) fail to realize that nothing you could say would change his mind, and are a terrible human being for not alerting helpful authorities.

Huh? I'm not taking anything seriously...hardly threatening lockage or anything (so no danger of being trolled). I'm fine with an0n's lulz.

And at no point have I attempted to talk him out of it, nor do I intend to.

It's all good, man. Don't worry too hard.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Flaser on May 13, 2009, 03:56:50 pm
...am I the only one who thinks that most of ST went downhill somewhere in the middle of TNG?

It originally had people like Fred Saberhagen, Frederik Pohl witting the episodes.... clever, truly clever people, who could really ask clever, clever questions. Granted Rodenberry was a mad utopist, but given that he was living in a madhouse - that Cold War America - his madness has a purpose to it, a counterforce to all the gun-ho idiocy that his world was immersed in.

BTW: I'm glad an0n is contributing again. He's the one True Troll who actually makes clever comments meant to infuriate you, whereas the rest is just spouting inflammatory but stupid gravel.

As to killing yourself: please tell me you're joking! You'd ****ing hack yourself up in a basement to achieve some dubious honor that only geeks would take seriously? Hell, just switch on a TV, and see the bastards who truly ****ed you and your life get their golden parachutes as they jump out of the flaming wreck that used to be your great nation...
...no, just no. If you go out, at least have the guts to do it guns blazing, blasting the guys who truly trapped you.

Here, an instruction manual:
Going Postal (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=%201200727401&sr=8-2), by Mark Ames.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: MR_T3D on May 13, 2009, 06:08:34 pm
**** that. Graft a Desert Eagle to your forearm. That'd be badass.

Wrong, the proper thing to graft is obviously a chainsaw
(http://pictures.deadlycomputer.com/d/9956-3/250px-Bruce_Campbell_Army_of_Darkness.jpg)



1. you have 2 arms, why not both?
2. derailing things is cool.  I don't want see that cable shows about trains that don't derail :headz:

And a Bruce Campbell mask to your face, clearly.

 
Gentlemen, the topic? You can take this to PM.

If derailing was against the rules, Gen Disc would have 4 topics left open.

I'm in no danger of jumping all over it and locking it or anything, but I think we can agree a thread on an0n's suicide plans should maybe be discouraged.

If you're taking it that seriously, you're either 1) being trolled. duh. or 2) fail to realize that nothing you could say would change his mind, and are a terrible human being for not alerting helpful authorities.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: BloodEagle on May 13, 2009, 08:29:31 pm
...am I the only one who thinks that most of ST went downhill somewhere in the middle of TNG?

No.  In fact, I think that the trend (as of late) to bring Star Trek further away from its Utopian Idealism is what's causing the degradation of proper trekkism in said series.  Everything after Generations (movie-wise) was downhill.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Knight Templar on May 13, 2009, 08:33:49 pm


BTW: I'm glad an0n is contributing again. He's the one True Troll who actually makes clever comments meant to infuriate you, whereas the rest is just spouting inflammatory but stupid gravel.


I'm starting to think the only reason why y'all suck him off so much is that you're afraid of getting H4)(0r3DzZZz. Except the man hasn't even done anything exciting lately. The Iamzack photos had potential but died pretty quick.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: iamzack on May 13, 2009, 08:34:50 pm
He didn't even post the one full of underage girls and boys and me and turambar in our undies on the forum. He just linked it in irc. *tsk*
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 14, 2009, 12:18:50 am
If you're taking it that seriously, you're either 1) being trolled. duh. or 2) fail to realize that nothing you could say would change his mind, and are a terrible human being for not alerting helpful authorities.

/me gives KT a cookie

If anything anyone ever said managed to change my mind, then they'd've had to have come up with some angle I hadn't considered. And the very fact that I was too stupid to see it would just make wanna kill myself more.

Put simply, I view other people as inferior filth.

Also, my mind is built to react in violent extremes when it realises someone's outsmarted it.

Essentially, it's like a fighter plane. As soon as it realises someone's got a lock it throws all sanity out the window, banks, dives and goes into a dangerously out of control spin to try and evade.

It's why no-one ever 'knows' me. As soon as someone demonstrates an ability to predict my actions, it registers as a danger and my defence mechanisms kick in by changing my personality. I withdraw from the potential conflict, and then charge back into the fray with different tactics and operational parameters.

Fun times.

Also, don't tell them that ****. They're stupid enough to ****ing do it.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 14, 2009, 12:20:10 am
He didn't even post the one full of underage girls and boys and me and turambar in our undies on the forum. He just linked it in irc. *tsk*

I didn't post them on this forum.

Warpstorm would apparently **** you pretty hard though. General consensus was that your face was "kinda meh" but you'd still get your colon pounded.

EDIT: http://warpstorm.com/index.php?topic=36947.0
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Janos on May 14, 2009, 10:02:51 am


BTW: I'm glad an0n is contributing again. He's the one True Troll who actually makes clever comments meant to infuriate you, whereas the rest is just spouting inflammatory but stupid gravel.


I'm starting to think the only reason why y'all suck him off so much is that you're afraid of getting H4)(0r3DzZZz. Except the man hasn't even done anything exciting lately. The Iamzack photos had potential but died pretty quick.

i don't get the anon fanboyism either
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Mr. Vega on May 15, 2009, 01:58:28 am
Things aren't boring when he's around.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2009, 02:40:32 am
I bring the fun in. :D

And then I hit people with it till they cry.  :drevil:

And then the admins take it away again and give me a timeout. :(
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: Ashrak on May 15, 2009, 04:29:12 am
yeah iv got a timer ticking.
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2009, 04:36:34 am
I already got banned for saying 'faggotry' or some ****.

Whiney ****ing faggots.

It's not even like there's any gay people on HLP to get offended, but God forbid anyone not be a super-liberal or an ultra-fundie-but-still-polite-retard...

BRING BACK SHRIKE! BAN EVERYONE! POST MORE FETISH PORN!
Title: Re: Non-Onion Discussion of New Star Trek Movie [[[SPOILERS!!!]]]
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2009, 06:52:36 am
It's not even like there's any gay people on HLP to get offended

Actually, there are. And they have been offended by past examples of this kind of comment.

Anyway since no one is talking about trek. Locked.