-
Love BSG, also love Trek, just saw the movie, Wow, thought it was great. Screw the timeline!! Thrill-ride of a film!!!!! :D
Is it true that Ron Moore was a script writer of Star Trek: 'The Next Generation'?
What anyone think of the film anyhow?
Are BSG fans also Trek fans? ;7
-
Yeah, Ron Moore worked on TNG. Was responsible for "Best of Both Worlds 1+2", IIRC. Later went on to be responsible for DS9. As for the new Trek film, there are two threads dedicated to it over in the General discussion board you might want to check out.
Are BSG fans Trek fans? Well, they can be. But BSG and Trek are far too different to make general statements about how much the fandom overlaps, IMHO.
-
Well, if you're a sci fi fan, there's really no way around trek - it's been around since forever in a lot of incarnations, and has become one of the first, if not the first association people have when sci-fi is mentioned. Personally I don't really like to compare, because BSG and Trek are two very different things (though I have to admit to preferring the nBSG series over anything trek's ever done). But as long as I don't expect Trek to be like BSG, I find it possible to enjoy it - at least the good bits of it.
-
just whatever happens to star trek and BSG plz someone shut down enterprise. that show is just awful. it's slowly killing science fiction.
-
Enterprise has been canceled for years.
-
That's how slowly it's killing it ;)
I will say this for Enterprise, there wasn't one single episode that was worse than the intro song.
-
the one thing worse than that show is the fact that the sci-fi channel is still showing it. along with all of those cheap miniseries' that are being spammed out on sci-fi. we need Firefly back
-
I will say this for Enterprise, there wasn't one single episode that was worse than the intro song.
Hey...I liked that song. :p
-
I liked the third season version, after they took out the choir and added in the drumline.
-
BSG fan and Trek fan here. Though I'm not really a fan of all Trek or all BSG... I liked the 1970s BSG, but I wasn't that big of a fan, and to be honest the show hasn't aged that well even though I loved it as a kid. I am a HUGE fan of the 2003 BSG, however.
Far as Trek, huge TOS fan, minor TNG fan, never saw enough DS9 to have an opinion, hated Voyager.
Someone mentioned Enterprise... while I didn't care for Enterprise at the start, I actually thought the show got really good once they ditched Berman and Bragga with their contrived, recycled storylines and got some good writing as well as multi-episode arcs. I really enjoyed seasons 3 and 4 of Enterprise, and I dare say I thought it was as good as Trek has been since TOS. It's just a shame all the viewers had been driven off by then. It was also an enormous shame the show ended the way it did. The two parter that was the second to last episode would've made a fantastic finale. Instead they let Berman and Bragga back to take a giant steaming crap on the show and ruin what had been done with it in seasons 3 and 4, killing off one of the major characters for no reason whatsoever and then turning the entire show into a TNG episode. I kind of wish the show had gone the full seven seasons, as the writing from seasons 3 and 4 combined with the lead-up to and start of the Terran-Romulan War could've made for some amazing TV.
As far as the new movie, no comments yet. Going to see it at the IMAX tomorrow afternoon at 1:45. :D
-
the new movie is horrible.
Silly illogical senseless movie for the transformer's loving teenie crowd. Terrible plot. Lame action in the second half.
Transformers was fun, I admit it. This one wasn't.
The whole explanation how and why things happen is just plain illogical, impossible, artificial and WRONG.
And when the action isn't fun anymore, nothing can save the movie.
And so many moments which are just not Trek. For example:
Making fun of Russians, Chekov is presented as a clownish nerd with an acent so bad the computer can't understand his voice commands. Indeed, that's understanding among nations.
or
Throwing Kirk (he's not Captain at this point) of the ship with a kick in the ass aka the escape pod because of mutiny above a planet full of monsters. THIS IS STAR TREK! Hell, why not exectue him right away?
It's just a terrible plot device to move the story. Up to this point, the movie was okay, everything after that is ****.
The good: The actors of Kirk, Spock, Uhura and best Mccoy (it's Karl Urban) are superb.
Eric Bana is also great as the villian. Saddly, that's the only good thing about the villian, even he can't turn the tide, this character comes right from "bad idea hell", not to mention the above mentioned illogical and impossible explanation of his motives.
And the finale is boring as hell.
-
I will say this for Enterprise, there wasn't one single episode that was worse than the intro song.
Hey...I liked that song. :p
'It's been a long road
Getting more Star Trek to appear
It's been a long road
Let's stretch the franchise for another year
And I can feel the change in my pocket now
Hopefully this job will pay
I've got a bucket of gravel here
And I'd just like to say
I've got fake laryngitis
I'll sing like Brian Adams
They've got cash, that I need
So I will sing anything
We're real low, in the polls
How can we improve these figures?
Let's kill one, of the cast
I've got fake (I've got fake)
Fake Laryngitis...
:P
-
What tomfoolery is this? Its obvious they are mutually exclusive conditions. You would need to be some freak on nature not constrained by the laws of physics to be fans of both.
-
<--- Is a freak of nature ;)
-
I will say this for Enterprise, there wasn't one single episode that was worse than the intro song.
Cause TOS had an absolute sing-along classic. :p
-
Depending on the availability of Bulldog clips.... :nervous:
-
Love BSG, hate Trek. No offense to anyone out there, that's just my opinion.
Keep in mind BSG brought a whole new bunch of fans. I used to never watch anything on the sci-fi channel until one of my friends put BSG season 1 on my ipod. I ended up loving the show just because of its perfect mix of qualities.
I just hate the idea of aliens, and BSG actually had the existence of AI make sense. It also concentrated on the military life and featured a lot of explosions, which appeals to another massive fan base without turning most of them off with aliens and unexplanable beings. It also makes you love the characters because they are so well thought up, so it became a drama as well.
I tried watching other sci fis, couldn't stand them. Just saying that there are some fans like me out there who don't really like sci fi much but BSG is just the perfect show for them.
And was anyone surprised by the amount of hate messages on the memorial wall on the sci fi site? I really didn't think anyone had much to hate about the show if they had seen it. Its name does come off a little spacey though, but that couldn't have caused all that hate.
-
I also love BSG (ok, worship), and hate Star Trek. Just never been able to get into it like I have other sci-fi. That being said, I'll also agree that BSG's audience is much more diverse than just the sci-fi crowd. My middle-aged librarian mom, and her coworkers, all watched and loved BSG. The most surreal moment I had was going to the library my mom worked at, and seeing her animatedly discussing the final BSG episode with one of her coworkers. BSG had the quality of being a superb character drama, that just happened to be set in a sci-fi setting. Star Trek is really just pure sci-fi. Not that that's bad, and not that Star Trek is bad either; it's just not for me. However, I'm still going to see the movie. :D
-
Exactly. By omitting Aliens (and technobabble) and concentrating on character stories, BSG, and Firefly before it, had a greater potential to draw in people who didn't like SciFi than Trek ever did, IMHO.
-
And so many moments which are just not Trek. For example:
Making fun of Russians, Chekov is presented as a clownish nerd with an acent so bad the computer can't understand his voice commands. Indeed, that's understanding among nations.
The original show, of course, was far above stereotyping Chekov or using him as comic relief based on his nationality. He was never given the appearance of being an awkward nerd, say, by following Spock around like a puppy dog, or trying to pick up space-hippy chicks. And, of course, we'd never see humor coming out of a ridiculously exaggerated accent preventing him from properly pronouncing words like "victor" or, I don't know, "vessels." In the phrase "nuclear vessels," for instance.
Why, the original Chekov was a model of a mature and entirely serious depiction of a non-american culture. I'm sure the original Chekov would be the very first person to go so far as to say that understanding among nations was "a russian inwention."
-
OK I watched the movie 5 times before it struck me like a freight train. The screw ups the writers made. As you all know IM OLD And a big sci fi
fan so with this in mind I do know what Im talking about. Lets start with the old series.. James T. Kirk had an OLDER Brother where is he?
Another is the attack by the future romulan rogue on Klingon destroying 47 cap ships this puts the klingon threat level to 0 which makes most of
the old episodes non existant now. Oh now Vulcan dont exist so the episode where Spock and Kirk go there for the right of pum fa where he fights kirk does not happen now. OHHH and as far as the movies go In search for spock dont exist because Vulcan and his mother dont exist..
So the movie left me with one big mind FRAK to figue out..Oh tuvok on voyager dont exist either...
-
It's a new timeline created by Nero's interference. Anything could happen.
-
There were some scenes with Kirk's brother shot, but they were all cut during editing (except for one, when young Kirk passes him on the road in the stolen car, but they redubbed his name in that one).
-
I'm not sure why so many people are having trouble understanding this is an alternative timeline - they even said so in the movie. That means that our original trek timeline is still intact - trek holds to the theory that every choice ever possible does happen, in parallel quantum realities. We were simply witness to a different reality now. It was basically done so JJ can do whatever the hell he pleases without worrying about upsetting the already established trek timeline. Doesn't mean Tuvok or Vulcan still don't exist in the TNG universe we saw before.
-
Why does anything remotely related (or not) get posted in Diaspora? This is not a related topic, putting "battlestar" in the title does not make it related.
/rant
-
Spock should have started growing a goatee near the end, that would have rocked.
-
Why does anything remotely related (or not) get posted in Diaspora? This is not a related topic, putting "battlestar" in the title does not make it related.
/rant
(http://i40.tinypic.com/295pftc.png)
-
This does probably belong in GenDisc, but I think a merge would be a bit confusing at this point.
-
It's because we like to have our own community here.
I'd say the larger hard-light community doesn't appeal to a number of diaspora fans, so we keep ourselves here.
-
But...there's no difference!
-
Why does anything remotely related (or not) get posted in Diaspora? This is not a related topic, putting "battlestar" in the title does not make it related.
Yeah, cause the thread in Gen Dis did so well. :p
It's not worth merging it at this point anyway.
-
I'm specifically interested in a high quality BSG game, not a good quality space combat sim. That means that I look here and occasionally at BTRL, and that's it. So, it's nice to have a community that can wander a little off topic, staying within sci-fi bounds (I use other forums for different hobbies and my profession). A little light hearted chat does no harm - those who are not interested in Trek, in this case, can just ignore the thread.
Personally, I thought it was great. My wife and 8 year old son loved it too. Making it a new timeline was momentarily cringeworthy, its been done in Trek so many times already (and SG1), but it was done well and was ingenious in giving Abrams a complete free hand in new stroies, not having to worry about established canon at all. they can focus on high quality story telling for a more sophisticated and educated audience and simultaneously make it more appealing to the Trekkie bashers. I'd give it a good 9/10. The only thing I didn't like was Scottie's assistant, who was in there for the same reason as the Ewoks and JarJar.
-
I also don't see what the problem is with having discussions that aren't necessarily about Diaspora, but at least connect to BSG...this is the only HLP forum I visit, so the sense of community is appreciated. Anyways, I ended up seeing the movie, and thought it was pretty good; granted, I know so little about Star Trek, I needed my Trekkie friend to explain some things to me. I still don't like most of the television shows, but I'd certainly go see another movie like this. And BSG is still far superior.
-
personally I think that the new timeline could actually make things more interesting. if they do decide to make a series or more movies from this i will gladly be the first in line for the premiers
-
you don't need a parallel universe to do a successful reboot StarTrek.
(ironic isn't it, I post this in a BSG place which definitely needed one :lol:)
You could just place the setting some years after Nemesis (a period which lacks any old villain: Borg dead, Cardassians still rebuilding their home, Kligons allied, Romulans a lot more friendly after Nemesis, Dominion far away) and do a complete reboot there, by traveling to other galaxies, having a very hostile alien race come out from somewhere (again, another galaxy), political troubles in the Federation, WHATEVER!!!
But I guess you need a new universe to pull off stupid jokes like beaming into a water pipe, having StarWars monsters and mentors ( just look at ObiWan Pike and Joda Old-Spock, not to mention the Farm Boy Hero Kirk :ick:) as well as thrill-seeking teens going to war while beating the crap out of fellow teens on the bridge of a giant space warship that looks like a Oil Refinery inside :mad:
-
you don't need a parallel universe to do a successful reboot StarTrek.
(ironic isn't it, I post this in a BSG place which definitely needed one :lol:)
You could just place the setting some years after Nemesis (a period which lacks any old villain: Borg dead, Cardassians still rebuilding their home, Kligons allied, Romulans a lot more friendly after Nemesis, Dominion far away) and do a complete reboot there, by traveling to other galaxies, having a very hostile alien race come out from somewhere (again, another galaxy), political troubles in the Federation, WHATEVER!!!
But I guess you need a new universe to pull off stupid jokes like beaming into a water pipe, having StarWars monsters and mentors ( just look at ObiWan Pike and Joda Old-Spock, not to mention the Farm Boy Hero Kirk :ick:) as well as thrill-seeking teens going to war while beating the crap out of fellow teens on the bridge of a giant space warship that looks like a Oil Refinery inside :mad:
Not if they wanted to attract new fans. Some Neo Next Generation wouldn't have done squat compared to the reboot even if it were a better film.
-
Not if they wanted to attract new fans. Some Neo Next Generation wouldn't have done squat compared to the reboot even if it were a better film.
Not necessarily, depending on how it's done; if you set it sufficiently far in the future - say, 100 or even more years after the picard era, you'd be justified in changing a lot of things. With proper marketing you could sell that as the new trek for a wider audience. Personally I'd have preferred then this constant revisiting of the past - Kirk did his bit for king and country, surely others can have a go? Thing is, prequels and reboots are trendy now, and that's what they wanted this new trek to be so they went for a prequel.
That said, I wouldn't mind it in this prequel format either, if the story wasn't so extremely weak and full of plotholes, reducing the movie to a loose collection of fancy CGI sequences featuring overdesigned and overlit stuff at every corner.
-
That would have been a harder sell though. Kirk and Spock are iconic, it has the ability to draw in the crowds based off that alone. Captain *** of the NCC-1701M doesn't do that for the franchise.
1) People are in general familiar with Kirk and the Enterprise, and they will see this as a possibly sussessful reboot just like the recent Batman movies. They expect to be able to watch the film not needing to know the "verse". The TMP era had the benefit of having a large fanbase but also being standalone. You could watch the TMP movies without having watched the series and still enjoy them. There isn't some massive learning curve for everyone.
2) Let's say they did do a post DS9 or Voyager movie. It wouldn't be pick up and run with it for the general movie going population. At least not without a massive marketing campaign. The TNG movies were able to pull it off somewhat since TNG was fairly popular, but anything post TNG is just going to be to unfamiliar for most movie goers. Even if they made an excellent post DS9 movie, it might energize the fan base but it won't be some massive hit across the population like LotR or Batman.
Now I'm not arguing this from a fan perspective but a business one, this gamble paid off for Paramount big time. I know plenty of folks who would have had piss all interest in some post DS9 movie who loved this one. I can appreciate the sentiment of them taking a giant dump on your canon, I've seen my favorite franchise revamped for selling four year olds toys and the Force turned into parasites in your blood stream :P But at least your revamp was written for adults.
In addition you need to think of what this does to the franchise as a whole, which lets be honest has been struggling in recent years. A movie that garnered this much attention will be high test fuel for future projects. Sure you might have had to eat a Big Mac now but there is a pretty good chance that it will pay for prime rib later.
-
it may be A BIT harder to sell but not that much.
A post Nemesis story would never had to reference anything in a way that could scare of new fans. You could go in any direction possible, from Soap to war story to classic Boldly going. You could even do a StarTrek BSG, you could do anything.
Even making a teen movie.
But you pointed out two very important things.
1.) It payed off big time. Which sucks. They are already making a sequel which could be better or could be even worse. But it won't return to what made Trek great in the past.
2.) You have a point. It could even be worse than it is now. Thanks for reminding me of Episode 1. :)
-
I enjoyed the movie so I'm a potential from now on. Subsequently I positively hope that several reimagined ol' shows are gonna be made; for the sake of the SCIFI industry.
PS: FYI, I'm also a non reimagined Pink Panther fan; had to say it
-
I like it, but I've never seen any of the actual ST eps, the movie appeals to the actual next generation though I admit.
-
It's a new timeline created by Nero's interference. Anything could happen.
Indeed... including breaking with the tradition of clear character motivations and believable plots and instead offering an action thrillride with "plotholes of fortunate convenience" galore.
The problem of the movie isn't that it creates a new timeline... it's that it constantly requires the viewer to make huge leaps of faith within the new timeline.
It really got out of hand in the 2nd half of the movie ... the first half was actually quite good... so i guess you could indeed say they got it "half right" LOL.
After this movie the real question won't be whether Trek Fans may also be BSG fans, but whether Trek fans can still be Trek fans.
So Kirk got stranded on a barren ice-planet... , despite it being just a wee bit untypical for Spock or any Starfleet officer to make such a decision, even when emotionally distressed, it was quite fortunate really, because it allowed the producers to re-use some clone of their previous cloverfield movie monster to chase Kirk around to the ohs and ahs of the audience. So now Kirk is stuck on an ice Planet? Well yes... but fortunately , out of all the places he could have landed, he landed within walking distance of the one cave that future "old Spock" choose as his living quarters as he was abandoned on the same planet. Yah well, so now Spock and Kirk are stuck on the same planet right ? Well yes... but fortunately there is also a Federation outpost within walking distance, which is fortunately crewed by Scotty, who in the future was fortunately able to figure out how to beam people across interstellar distances, which is really fortunate, because fortunately Spock brought Scotty's formula from the future so they can beam themselves back to the Enterprise which is currently in warp. Fortunately this technology will propably be forgotten if there ever is another movie because otherwise the Federation would have a tactical and strategic advantage that would allow them to quickly take over the whole universe with little resistance.
Know what i mean ?;) It has nothing to do with the timeline switch... it is simply a very very very badly constructed plot that has holes in it all over.
It's constructed like a 5 year olds ramblings, but nothing you could call a "well made plot" with a straight face.
As someone else aptly put it: It's like they had some kinda committee that got told what was gonna happen next and then had to come up with whatever bull***** reason they could think of to make it happen.
Aright! So next.. we need Kirk to fight a monster! That will be cool right!?
Yeah well, but he s on a ship!
Ok we got to get Kirk off the Ship!
Lets have Spock space him!
Woha cool! Lets do it!!
Wait, how does he get back to the ship?
Well he can totally meet Spock there ! From the future! and Scotty will beam him back!
Wait, Scotty is there too ?
Well of course! How else are they gonna get beamed back to the ship ?
WARGGRAHGRAGRL ??????
-
I agree with all that. My remark about timelines wasn't meant to justify the poor writing.
-
I agree with all that. My remark about timelines wasn't meant to justify the poor writing.
Ah i hope ya didn't think i was attacking/flaming you there. In that case i'd owe you an apology.
It's more like your remark gave me an excuse/a tagline to rant about all the things that annoyed me in the movie ;) (lol)
As far as the old show goes... i know at least one person who got their PHD in literature by writing about Shakespearian influences in Star Trek.
The old Star Trek quite often tackled with classic themes and moral questions and it mostly featured logical plots with believable character motivations as well...
... it certainly didn't appeal to everyone (not to me particularily either - sure, i watched it now and then, but never really cared that much) ...
... but in retrospect one has to appreciate that it wasn't just a silly action thrillride without any point at all and plotholes big enough to fly the Enterprise through.
-
My very short opinion:
It is a good movie...on the level of J.I.Joe for kids. Otherwise it is among the worst stories I have ever seen. It totality screwed up decades of startrek series and all that without ANY good reason.
With more words:
The good part: CGI was very nice...Oh! Did I say was...my mistake...I wanted to say it WOULD have been if not for the idiot director. The best action scenes were rendered meaningless and unenjoyable by the insane cut and the shaky camera movement (movement? the camera must have bounce during the shots like a rattle in the hand of an insanely hysterical baby!). For example the first battle... could have been epic if you could see at least 1 second straight action. The longest cut must have been like, lets see, 3-4 frames long? Maximum 8, but definitely not longer. I tried to follow the battle by the SOUND dammit! I know what happen ONLY because later in the story one character explains it to another.
The actors were OK, dramaturgy nice, CGI is excellent. Story is a crap (well, MegaCrap!), cut is a disaster. Something I would buy on blueray ONLY for the sake of FullHD screenshots, but definitely NOT for watching it over and over again. One time was just more than enough. I hope I can forget this story soon, and shake off its effect on me.
-
The actors were OK, dramaturgy nice, CGI is excellent. Story is a crap (well, MegaCrap!), cut is a disaster. Something I would buy on blueray ONLY for the sake of FullHD screenshots, but definitely NOT for watching it over and over again. One time was just more than enough. I hope I can forget this story soon, and shake off its effect on me.
Conerning the CGI... is it just me or does the new Enterprise look like (as i heard it said elsewhere) a pregnant guppy lol ?
Aside from the phenomenal failures of the plot pointed out above that annoyed me to no end, there seemed to be something very wrong about the basic shape of the new ship as well.
CGI "quality/fidelity" only takes you so far if the basic shape of the ship looks somehow hilarious lol.
I mean... THIS! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aON_SnlcPA4 would have been a design that would have done the original from ToS some justice - and that's a fan project mind you... yet, it would have looked several orders of magnitude "cooler" than the "pregnant guppy" they presented us with. lol ;)
-
As a non Trekkie the only glaring hole I noticed was the "Spock going back in time" thing. And that was a BIG hole. About the camera movement though, I'm a real fan of fast moving camera.
-
As a non Trekkie the only glaring hole I noticed was the "Spock going back in time" thing. And that was a BIG hole.
As a Trekkie, I can inform you that that sort of thing happened at least once a season and in at least two of the previous movies. Nothing to blink at. :p
-
I see, I see ;)
-
it's that it constantly requires the viewer to make huge leaps of faith within the new timeline
(...)
it is simply a very very very badly constructed plot that has holes in it all over.
It's constructed like a 5 year olds ramblings, but nothing you could call a "well made plot" with a straight face.
That's what I was saying all the previous pages ago :lol:
The second half has more plotholes than actual plot.
-
I thought it was a good movie.
True, it had some big plotholes etc, but I enjoyed watching it, there were bits where you laughed, cried, and punched the air, which is what a movie needs, I suspended belief with Star Trek years ago, that's what Fantasy is all about, so I'd find it kind of off saying 'this imaginary story is inconsistent with another imaginary story', that'd feel odd.
I hear they are making a sequel, what would, of course, make this super-awesome would be for the Federation, without the pacifist influence of Vulcan
, to turn expansionist, and for Spock to grow a little goatee beard, then it'd not only make an awesome movie, but also satisfy those who crave for continuity with the old series ;)
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
I thought it was a good movie.
True, it had some big plotholes etc, but I enjoyed watching it, there were bits where you laughed, cried, and punched the air, which is what a movie needs, I suspended belief with Star Trek years ago, that's what Fantasy is all about, so I'd find it kind of off saying 'this imaginary story is inconsistent with another imaginary story', that'd feel odd.
I hear they are making a sequel, what would, of course, make this super-awesome would be for the Federation, without the pacifist influence of Vulcan
, to turn expansionist, and for Spock to grow a little goatee beard, then it'd not only make an awesome movie, but also satisfy those who crave for continuity with the old series ;)
There was a thread a while back asking what the Federation needs to do to be more militarily effective, I said they should all grow goatees with a link to that pic. Suffice to say the OP unfortunately did not see the cunningness of that plan.
-
If Starfleet wanted to be more militarily effective, they should use stop using wimpy phasers and start using powerful molecule-destroying disruptors, replace photon torpedoes with antimatter torpedoes, use power armor, and recruit more redshirts to be used as plot armor for the main characters.
-
Photon torpedoes are antimatter torpedoes, and phasers do destroy molecules. The difference between a phaser and a disruptor isn't actually all that clear to me (outside of Starfleet Command.)
-
I don't think there is a lot of difference, apart from the fact that Disruptors are more 'nasty' in Technojargon term, but they do seem to work on the same theory. I've heard tell that Phasers are more efficient against things like shields than Disruptors are (Which led to the Federation Victory in the Klingon War), though that may have been FASA, and hence, non-cannon, and, of course, the fact that disruptors tend to fire bolts of energy, whereas phasers tended to fire streams as far as SFX were concerned.
-
Starfleet could still use more disposable redshirts to protect the people with useful skills from being killed. Redshirt = walking plot armor.
-
Ensign Expendable and Lieutenant Plotdevice, as we used to call them ;)
Basically, if they were unknown, and on an away team, they were usually pretty much screwed.
-
I'm more sort of wondering if the question should be "Are Trek fans now Confused about Whether They Should Be Star Wars Fans as Well?"
In a few ways, I found myself thinking back to Attack of the Clones (I'd rather not have been able to do that).
-
Ensign Expendable and Lieutenant Plotdevice, as we used to call them ;)
Basically, if they were unknown, and on an away team, they were usually pretty much screwed.
As soon as the third guy doing the skydive mentioned how excited he was, I noticed his shirt colour
-
As soon as the third guy doing the skydive mentioned how excited he was, I noticed his shirt colour
oh yeh... and of course they gave all the detonators to that guy too so Kirk and Sulu had to wrestle with Romulans and then blow the drill up with weapons fire after Sulu got to show off his Sword... :wtf: thinking of it... that scene was a huge sign of things to come in the rest of the movie LOL [/spoilers]
-
Yep. Only the cheapest of movies employ complications and reversals. You can tell the good ones because everything always goes smoothly and according to the heroes' plans.
-
OMG.. he used sarcasm! Nooooo...
-
Yep. Only the cheapest of movies employ complications and reversals. You can tell the good ones because everything always goes smoothly and according to the heroes' plans.
But the complications and reversals usually make a smidgeon of logical sense.
-
It's a new timeline created by Nero's interference. Anything could happen.
Indeed... including breaking with the tradition of clear character motivations and believable plots and instead offering an action thrillride with "plotholes of fortunate convenience" galore.
The problem of the movie isn't that it creates a new timeline... it's that it constantly requires the viewer to make huge leaps of faith within the new timeline.
It really got out of hand in the 2nd half of the movie ... the first half was actually quite good... so i guess you could indeed say they got it "half right" LOL.
After this movie the real question won't be whether Trek Fans may also be BSG fans, but whether Trek fans can still be Trek fans.
So Kirk got stranded on a barren ice-planet... , despite it being just a wee bit untypical for Spock or any Starfleet officer to make such a decision, even when emotionally distressed, it was quite fortunate really, because it allowed the producers to re-use some clone of their previous cloverfield movie monster to chase Kirk around to the ohs and ahs of the audience. So now Kirk is stuck on an ice Planet? Well yes... but fortunately , out of all the places he could have landed, he landed within walking distance of the one cave that future "old Spock" choose as his living quarters as he was abandoned on the same planet. Yah well, so now Spock and Kirk are stuck on the same planet right ? Well yes... but fortunately there is also a Federation outpost within walking distance, which is fortunately crewed by Scotty, who in the future was fortunately able to figure out how to beam people across interstellar distances, which is really fortunate, because fortunately Spock brought Scotty's formula from the future so they can beam themselves back to the Enterprise which is currently in warp. Fortunately this technology will propably be forgotten if there ever is another movie because otherwise the Federation would have a tactical and strategic advantage that would allow them to quickly take over the whole universe with little resistance.
Know what i mean ?;) It has nothing to do with the timeline switch... it is simply a very very very badly constructed plot that has holes in it all over.
It's constructed like a 5 year olds ramblings, but nothing you could call a "well made plot" with a straight face.
As someone else aptly put it: It's like they had some kinda committee that got told what was gonna happen next and then had to come up with whatever bull***** reason they could think of to make it happen.
Aright! So next.. we need Kirk to fight a monster! That will be cool right!?
Yeah well, but he s on a ship!
Ok we got to get Kirk off the Ship!
Lets have Spock space him!
Woha cool! Lets do it!!
Wait, how does he get back to the ship?
Well he can totally meet Spock there ! From the future! and Scotty will beam him back!
Wait, Scotty is there too ?
Well of course! How else are they gonna get beamed back to the ship ?
WARGGRAHGRAGRL ??????
What about the huge leaps of faith over things like warp engines, transporters, energy shields, a society where almost everyone is so altruistic and well educated, where so many alien species happen to have the same basic anthropology, dimensions and weight as humans... The original and franchised series of Star Trek needed every bit as much "willing suspension of disbelief" as the film. The difference was that the film was much more entertaining, lavished with much more care, and din't have to clumsily ram home some moralistic plattitudes like the final episode of BSG did.
-
Hey! I LIKED the finale!
-
There IS a difference between SCIENCE-fiction or even Fantasy stories, and some colorful mescaline hallucination. This "story" was closer to the later. :P
ANY kinda make-believe story is NOT believable if there are obvious and painful inconsistencies in the whole story, not to mention the extra irrational character behavior. Make-believe IS a make-believe because you CAN imagine yourself into the story. THIS movie was not even close to that.
Conclusion: it is a sh*t. Some Donald duck comics has 10 times deeper art in them than this "story".
-
Hey! I LIKED the finale!
So did I, a lot,
right up to the bit with head 6 and Head Baltar walking through New York. We got the point when they reached pre-historic Earth. It didn't need to be sign-posted that humanity is now repeating the cycle. Indeed, it was so lengthily, clumsily and heavily done that it was insulting.
-
Everyone's a director these days.. :rolleyes:
You've pretty much missed the point of those last few minutes.
If anything, it was a statement that anything can happen and this time the cycle may not repeat itself. "Repeat any complex system enough times, and sooner or later something extraordinary will happen". Nah, the ending worked just right for me.
-
Well, I see the ending a different way from you, but that's beside the point. What I was getting at was that I liked the film, and all the more so for the lack of the "moral of the week" style of the Trek TV series and their previous films. It was a simple, rip-roaring joy-ride, and didn't pretend to be anything more.
-
...so, you suggest, that it is impossible to make a film to be a "joyride" and a great story at the same time? Well... it seems this two just cant be in the same movie in the last decade. What is weird, that in the old times directors somehow managed to do that. Perhaps that generation died out without passing the secret to the next generation.
-
...so, you suggest, that it is impossible to make a film to be a "joyride" and a great story at the same time? Well... it seems this two just cant be in the same movie in the last decade. What is weird, that in the old times directors somehow managed to do that. Perhaps that generation died out without passing the secret to the next generation.
Not at all, but I don't think Trek has ever been well endowed with great stories. I just don't think it's fair to say the film was inferior in its story to earlier Trek - think of The Motion Picture, Trek V, Nemesis, all the endless holodeck series episodes, most of Enterprise, DS9 before the Dominion war started, and most of the original Star Trek series; they were just awful. Only a few episodes of the assorted series stood tall like The Wrath of Khan in their production values, and none of the earlier films were "clever", including Kahn - there were just a handful of episodes that left you thinking that you'd seen anything new. Trek is not what you watch for sharp, new or intelligent sci-fi - it's sci-pulp, entertaining in it's own right, but not of high quality writing.
-
Well... I see your point. From that point of view you are absolutely right.
:)
I still have 3 complains: epileptic camera movement (instead of "epic"), too many miracles, and the selfconsistency was shot in the balls few times.
-
too many miracles, and the selfconsistency was shot in the balls few times.
This really is where my major complaints lays.
It has nothing to do with the nature of science-fiction or fantasy.
A warp drive for instance is introduced to us a device that works a certain way, just as a fantasy story might introduce magic that functions in specific ways. Suspension of disbelief does the rest.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy is about world building, which just might happen to include technology and magic. Good science fiction / fantasy however will aim to be consistent within its own created universe/world .
Any kind of "suspension of disbelief" a well crafted world may create, really goes out of the window once the story starts contradicting itself and/or begins to be driven largely by huge coincidences without any kind of underlaying reason at all. The new Star Trek movie sadly is nothing less than a disgrace in my eyes - to movies in general, not just Star Trek, comparing it to previous Trek movies is totally uneccessary - because you can not even really apply the labels of "good or bad story" to it... it's a disjunct disfuntional mess that has more in common with the ramblings of an infant than with anything resembling a coherent story.
I would content that anyone arguing along the lines of "anything goes/is possible" because uh ... its science fiction!!!" ... sadly... really didn't understand the concept of "sciene fiction" in the first place.
For starters: It's not a cheap excuse to deliver an utterly crappy story that doesn't make any kind of sense at all ... and pretend its "allright" because it's "Science Fiction".
-
Very well said, Mikes. EXACTLY my point! Thank you for phrasing it for me...I was just too
coward modest to say out this plain and loud. :D
-
Fair piont, Mike, but isn't it something that Trek has always been guilty of? Just think of all the time paradox episodes they've done where everything gets reset to normal at the end of the episode.
-
Fair piont, Mike, but isn't it something that Trek has always been guilty of? Just think of all the time paradox episodes they've done where everything gets reset to normal at the end of the episode.
The reason the new movie outright sucks has nothing to do with the beliavability of its science, but rather with the believability of its characters and their motivations/actions.
That is a major difference.
The believability of the "science" in science fiction can be stretched quite a bit, as long as one stays at least somewhat consistent within the world one presents.
But characters, their actions and their motivations... well, once you stop caring about making that believable, your plot basically dissolves into incoherency and becomes a random selection of scenes that just happen to be presented in that order because the producers decided it to be that way, not because there is any kind of coherent or consistent storyline to follow.
And for me this is where any kind of "tension" or "suspension" evaporates instantly and gets replaced by eyerolling. As far as making movies goes, it's simply lazy and sloppy.
Once you cross that line.... you basically go into "lala" land, no matter if you talk about science-fiction, fantasy, or whatever. ;)
-
To strengthen the arguments of Mikes: I can not enjoy any story with totally irrational characters and inconsistent events. Even the dumbest cartoon shall pass those criteria to fall into the "watchable" category.
Some minimal causality is required in story telling, all the characters (insane-evil included) shall follow their own motivations and have some personality.
I don't want to go into detailed arguing again, but it is very hard to find some areas where this movie had not had serious problems.
-
It sucked, BASTA!
Also, they just completely lost their main character, the ship. In StarTrek, the vessel was always it's own character, an important asset of the story. Even the DS9 station was one, that's something the franchise always pulled off.
Not so here. The Enterprise is just a vehicle. Some car.
-
I never liked Star Trek until I saw the recent movie about it. It amazed me :D
-
Pervert... :P
-
Pervert... :P
How so :P
Im a sucker for pretty graphics :lol:
-
That is OK... CGI was fine. Pretty much the only thing I was satisfied in this movie.
-
If Starfleet wanted to be more militarily effective, they should use stop using wimpy phasers and start using powerful molecule-destroying disruptors, replace photon torpedoes with antimatter torpedoes, use power armor, and recruit more redshirts to be used as plot armor for the main characters.
I think they should stop using wimpy phasers and start using assault rifles loaded with old-fashioned 5.56x45 rifle ammunition. Frequency match THIS, Borg scum!
-
If they're going to use projectile weapons, they should skip gunpowder and go right to coilguns with internal inertial compensators to handle the massive recoil.
-
I did already point out that photon torpedoes are antimatter torpedoes, right?
Anyway, screw that ****. Starfleet has transporter guns that beam bullets through walls - but for some reason they were dropped in favor of 'regenerative phaser rifles'.
-
The rifle with the transporter on it was a homebrew mod. The rifle itself was never so equipped originally, as transporters also don't work in the environment in which the rifle would be required.
-
Well Starfleet and the Federation aren't exactly well-known for making decent infantry weapons. They don't even have infantry, just security teams.
-
The rifle with the transporter on it was a homebrew mod. The rifle itself was never so equipped originally, as transporters also don't work in the environment in which the rifle would be required.
If I recall the episode summary properly it was based on a Federation prototype design.
-
Correct, the rifle itself was meant to be used on planets like the one where Data went to evacuate human colonists because the Sheliak were on their way. However, to the best of my knowledge, the prototype design did NOT include a micro-transporter on the barrel originally.
-
Whilst I understand that Trek will be talked about in this thread, I think it has become far too much Trek, and not enough BSG IMHO