One last nitpick of this movie was shields. The enterprise had it's shields working through the whole movie. Yet enemy fire always impacted the hull. It was like this for every ship. The movie would have done itself a favor had it never even mentioned any form of energy shielding throughout the whole movie since you never got to see any of it in use.
QuoteOne last nitpick of this movie was shields. The enterprise had it's shields working through the whole movie. Yet enemy fire always impacted the hull. It was like this for every ship. The movie would have done itself a favor had it never even mentioned any form of energy shielding throughout the whole movie since you never got to see any of it in use.
Exactly like Star Wars. It's one of my biggest pet peeves of the movies.
If the Enterprise had a full-on battle with the Narada, it would have been blown to tiny pieces.This is star trek were talking about. Couldn't they do the normal thing and like scan the narada and pour over the data looking for a weakness and exploit it. That way it'd be like normal trek with a huge ass space battle with the little federation getting ripped up to ****, but still wins because they exploited the "weakness". Would've been much cooler.
That way it'd be like normal trekThis movie was miles better than "normal trek".
QuoteOne last nitpick of this movie was shields. The enterprise had it's shields working through the whole movie. Yet enemy fire always impacted the hull. It was like this for every ship. The movie would have done itself a favor had it never even mentioned any form of energy shielding throughout the whole movie since you never got to see any of it in use.
Exactly like Star Wars. It's one of my biggest pet peeves of the movies.
USS EnterpriseHit play. Rinse repeat.
beam-free-all [check]
Battles were graphically splendid, but barely got any more tactical than "fire all weapons" o_O
This aspect of normal trek would have made an official battle between the narada and the enterprise great. Unfortunately the movie didn't have that many starship battles."small thermal exhust port right below the main port" comes to mind.
There was one major opportunity the enterprise had to scan the narada and that was when it first encountered it. Both ships were just sitting there while the drill was getting disabled. Just scan the ship and chekov would be like, captain, i see a weakness in the other ship's design. Non vaguely explain where it is and make a battle possible later on in the movie.
It wouldn't even have to be a destructive weakness. Just like a design flaw of the narada where a portion of the vessel has it's power grid exposed or something. In trek a whole bunch of times you do have smaller federation ships take on much bigger targets.
One thing they got right I think with the Kelvin though is the sheer difficulty of destroying a starship. It doesn't sink, and it doesn't burn, which is how you destroy ships. Stuff like Star Wars, B5, and earlier Treks liked to make stuff explode flashily. That's not how it's going to end. You'll see something more like Starlancer and what happened to the Kelvin. It would be very difficult to stop a well-compartmented ship.
One thing they got right I think with the Kelvin though is the sheer difficulty of destroying a starship. It doesn't sink, and it doesn't burn, which is how you destroy ships. Stuff like Star Wars, B5, and earlier Treks liked to make stuff explode flashily. That's not how it's going to end. You'll see something more like Starlancer and what happened to the Kelvin. It would be very difficult to stop a well-compartmented ship.
This aspect of normal trek would have made an official battle between the narada and the enterprise great. Unfortunately the movie didn't have that many starship battles.
There was one major opportunity the enterprise had to scan the narada and that was when it first encountered it. Both ships were just sitting there while the drill was getting disabled. Just scan the ship and chekov would be like, captain, i see a weakness in the other ship's design. Non vaguely explain where it is and make a battle possible later on in the movie.
It wouldn't even have to be a destructive weakness. Just like a design flaw of the narada where a portion of the vessel has it's power grid exposed or something. In trek a whole bunch of times you do have smaller federation ships take on much bigger targets.
The movie had many moments of horrendous techno babble. Black holes for time travel and a super nova that threatens the galaxy....uuugghh :ick:
The phasers looked weird. Instead of beams they looked more like tracers. :mad:
The comic is set eight years after the film Star Trek Nemesis. Federation and Romulan tensions have generally subsided, with Spock the official Federation ambassador to the Romulans. Data is still alive and has become captain of the Enterprise-E after successfully imprinting his memories onto the prototype android B-4. Jean-Luc Picard is now Federation ambassador to Vulcan, Geordi La Forge has retired to develop his own ships, and Worf is a General in the Klingon Empire.:wtf:
The galaxy is threatened by the Hobus star, which will become a supernova. Spock proposes that the Romulans transport the precious mineral Decalithium to Vulcan, where it can be converted into red matter capable of turning the star into a black hole, therefore ending its threat. The senate opposes Spock, but he finds a comrade in Nero, the leader of the miners. Nero witnessed Hobus consume a planet first-hand and offers to secretly transport Decalithium, noting it would be better than doing nothing and then leaving his wife and unborn son to die. Nero's ship, the Narada, is attacked by the Remans, but the Enterprise rescues them and escorts them to Vulcan with Decalithium taken from the Reman ships. On Vulcan, the council opposes Romulan use of red matter, infuriating Nero; he vows if Romulus is destroyed, he shall hold them accountable.
Nero returns to Romulus to discover Hobus has gone supernova and destroyed his home world. Driven mad by his loss, he attacks Federation Olympic class hospital ships that have arrived to give aid, believing they have come to claim his people's territory. He beams surviving Romulan senators onto his ship and kills them for not listening to Spock, and then claims the Praetor's ancient trident, the Debrune Teral'n, which is the greatest symbol of Romulus. He and his crew then shave their heads and apply tattoos to signify their loss. Nero goes to the Vault, a secretive Romulan base, and has the Narada outfitted with Borg technology to begin a rampage against his enemies.
With the supernova expanding, Spock decides to deposit the red matter weapon. He takes the Jellyfish, a ship developed by La Forge that can withstand extreme environmental conditions. The Narada goes about destroying and assimilating Federation, Klingon and Cardassian ships alike, wounding Worf and damaging the Enterprise in the process. When Spock successfully destroys the supernova, the Narada appears to attack when the black hole flings it and the Jellyfish back in time, leaving Picard and the crew of the Enterprise as witnesses to Spock's sacrifice.
None of it explains why he didn't just destroy the star himself.
Really? What was wrong with it? It seems like it makes the movie make a lot more sense...Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. It's pretty much all fine. Although, come to think of it:
The comic is set eight years after the film Star Trek Nemesis. Federation and Romulan tensions have generally subsided, with Spock the official Federation ambassador to the Romulans.Yeah, no problems there. The whole Scimitar incident would probably be a good thing in the long run, politically speaking.
Data is still alive and has become captain of the Enterprise-E after successfully imprinting his memories onto the prototype android B-4. Jean-Luc Picard is now Federation ambassador to Vulcan, Geordi La Forge has retired to develop his own ships, and Worf is a General in the Klingon Empire.Not too bad. Data having preserved his katr- er... memory engrams and therefore slowly overriding B-4's personality like some sort of horrible virus. Terrifying, but I can deal. Data's awesome, after all. Everything else... well, nothing too much to fret over.
The galaxy is threatened by the Hobus star, which will become a supernova. Spock proposes that the Romulans transport the precious mineral Decalithium to Vulcan, where it can be converted into red matter capable of turning the star into a black hole, therefore ending its threat.Wait... what?
Nero witnessed Hobus consume a planet first-hand and offers to secretly transport Decalithium, noting it would be better than doing nothing and then leaving his wife and unborn son to die.Yeah, 'cause it's not like he's got a giant spaceship than could, y'know, carry his family. Nah, OHS guidelines, no family allowed on-site. Rules is rules.
Nero returns to Romulus to discover Hobus has gone supernova and destroyed his home world. Driven mad by his loss, he attacks Federation Olympic class hospital ships that have arrived to give aid, believing they have come to claim his people's territory.Sure, you say it was a hospital ship, I say it was biological warfare!
Nero goes to the Vault, a secretive Romulan base, and has the Narada outfitted with Borg technology to begin a rampage against his enemies.It's a wonder that Romulan Bases can be kept secret when every common mining foreman seems to know exactly where to find them. And good thing Borg tech is easy to use, though. Plug'n'play, and all that.
With the supernova expanding, Spock decides to deposit the red matter weapon. He takes the Jellyfish-Jellyfish? Jellyfish?
Quote from: StupidThe galaxy is threatened by the Hobus star, which will become a supernova. Spock proposes that the Romulans transport the precious mineral Decalithium to Vulcan, where it can be converted into red matter capable of turning the star into a black hole, therefore ending its threat.Wait... what?
Quick question: My Memory is a bit hazy, but did Nero have the capability (i.e. the red matter) to destroy the sun prior to intercepting Spock? I thought his motivation was more "Now that I have the red matter, I'm going to implode your planet, kill the Federation, and then make sure that pesky star doesn't blow up". Not exactly logical, but Romulans are not required to be.
Still doesn't explain why Nero, who is now over a hundred years back in time before the supernova didn't just turn the star into a black hole.
It's not like he didn't have 20 years to sit around thinking up a better plan than "Piss off Spock"
I don't know what happens after TNG, but I'm curious about some tidbits in this topic.
- How did the Romulans gain access to Borg technology? What of Federation?
- What happened to the Borgs?
- What is Android B-4 and how can Data still be alive after what happened in Nemesis? The "evil copy" did not have Data's memories or personality.
- How the hell is Spock even still alive? How old do Vulcans live?
By now everyone has a little bit of Borg tech. The Fed has Seven of Nine working in the Daystrum institute. How the Romulans got it too isn't explained but I'd guess through a mixture of spying and salvaging battle sights.What kind of ships the Feds have at this time? Was the Narada a borg-hybrid from the get-go or did it become one after Nero salvaged one of their secret bases to equip Narada?
A slow death definitely looks better than the flashy kind. :drevil:
Any real attempt at incorporating what happens in this movie into the rest of the Star Trek canon offends my sensibilities. This movie was so much better than anything else produced under the name "Star Trek,"
Yes. Yes, I am. Star Trek was dated and moldy, and the previous films all insisted on tip-toeing around an outdated attitude instead of allowing the concept to evolve. It took someone who wasn't burdened by reverence for the canon to make it relevant and exciting again. Don't get me wrong; I was raised on TNG and I enjoy some of the movies, but this was the only Star Trek movie that kicked ass just as a movie, and not as a Star Trek museum piece. It's so far out of the league of everything before it, I personally don't see how there's even any contest.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you completely. The movie relies on our familiarity with TOS. If you could actually find someone who had never heard of Trek and knew nothing about it they'd probably find the movie a jumbled mess. Characters are introduced with very little explanation or backstory because we're already supposed to know who they are.I have plenty of friends who've never watched Star Trek in their lives and who thought this was one of the most exciting movies they've seen in ages. The reason it works is because the original Star Trek has become such a deeply ingrained cultural icon that one really only needs not to live under a rock to catch enough of the references. If they attempted the same thing with a more obscure show, familiarity would be more of an issue.
I didn't mind the movie but that's precisely because I knew what came before it.
I think trying to compare them is pointless. Star Trek '09 is a reimagined, redefined story that takes the original premise and goes in an entirely different direction with it than the rest of Star Trek. There's just so many differences between regular Trek and this that they really don't even fall into the same category. It's like trying to compare the original Battlestar Galactica with the new one; they're just so different that any comparison is patently impossible.I can compare the old and new BSGs; the old one was terrible and the new one was one of the greatest television shows of all time. I wouldn't go that far with Star Trek, but I still think J. J. Abrams' take on it is better than the other movies.
I have plenty of friends who've never watched Star Trek in their lives and who thought this was one of the most exciting movies they've seen in ages. The reason it works is because the original Star Trek has become such a deeply ingrained cultural icon that one really only needs not to live under a rock to catch enough of the references. If they attempted the same thing with a more obscure show, familiarity would be more of an issue.
Which is why I said it would require finding someone who didn't know Trek. They do exist you know. :pOh I certainly agree that plot accessibility is not a feature unique to this new movie, but what's changed is that J. J. Abrams didn't pander to the loyal Star Trek fan base that expects every installment to emulate the campiness of the original series, whose polished, pristine aesthetic of the future is really a product of its time. Kahn might be understandable to someone who doesn't know the back story, but I think its stiltedness probably won't be, considering that even some of us who do know Star Trek find it irritating. Just by incorporating the little details of speech and environment that we've come to expect from any compelling universe, futuristic or otherwise, this movie made itself fully accessible to the general public, and to those of us who would like a little maturity in our science fiction.
The same applies to Wrath of Khan though. Sure people who haven't seen the show won't know the backstory with Khan but how much do you need to know that wasn't explained by Khan anyway?
I can compare the old and new BSGs; the old one was terrible and the new one was one of the greatest television shows of all time. I wouldn't go that far with Star Trek, but I still think J. J. Abrams' take on it is better than the other movies.
A few of the shots were gorgeous, and I really liked the general direction of the art style (including all the lens flare), but I wanted more swooping establishing shots and a bit less jumpy editing.Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.
According to writer Roberto Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which Prime Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be "as impressionistic for a general audience." The idea was that Spock saw the planet's destruction through "a telescope or some other type of measuring device," but showing it that way on-screen "isn't very cinematic." However, Orci himself prefers to think of Delta Vega as being in close orbit of Vulcan
Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.
QuoteAccording to writer Roberto Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which Prime Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be "as impressionistic for a general audience." The idea was that Spock saw the planet's destruction through "a telescope or some other type of measuring device," but showing it that way on-screen "isn't very cinematic." However, Orci himself prefers to think of Delta Vega as being in close orbit of Vulcan
Lazy, lazy writing. I can see why they did it but I don't respect it.
Seriously? I mean, what is wrong with the old Tarkin approach? Why not have Spock on Nero's ship, watching it from Nero's side as Starfleet makes a futile attempt at saving the planet? (Personally, I would have put Spock into a lifepod with disabled comm systems and put that lifepod in orbit around the planet or something like that.)
fanboiArguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.
But an approach like this practically guarantees that once people had a few days to think about the film, their opinion will worsen dramatically. This will hurt the franchise in the long run, IMHO. It is possible to write a movie that is internally consistent and doesn't suffer from the fridge logic effect (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic) and at the same time is thrilling and exciting. In Star Trek's case, the writing staff got a little overexcited at times, and seemed to believe that following the rule of cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) to the letter would be a good substitute for good writing.
In some ways, this reminded me of the second Mission Impossible, which was constructed to provide a scaffolding to stitch the action setpieces together. In this case, I'm fairly certain the writers had a checklist with things they wanted to show, and then constructed a plot around those things.
So, saying that the movie moved fast enough to cover those plotholes sounds a lot like you're damning it with faint praise.QuoteAccording to writer Roberto Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which Prime Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be "as impressionistic for a general audience." The idea was that Spock saw the planet's destruction through "a telescope or some other type of measuring device," but showing it that way on-screen "isn't very cinematic." However, Orci himself prefers to think of Delta Vega as being in close orbit of Vulcan
Lazy, lazy writing. I can see why they did it but I don't respect it.
Seriously? I mean, what is wrong with the old Tarkin approach? Why not have Spock on Nero's ship, watching it from Nero's side as Starfleet makes a futile attempt at saving the planet? (Personally, I would have put Spock into a lifepod with disabled comm systems and put that lifepod in orbit around the planet or something like that.)
What a cunning rebuttal, sir! I shall henceforth no longer lend my support to such frivolous and easily dashed claims. Certainly, you have shaken my very outlook on life. I tip my hat to you, sir.*Snip*fanboi
Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things. :yes:
Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things. :yes:
lol.... I just remembered how stupid that was. XDA few of the shots were gorgeous, and I really liked the general direction of the art style (including all the lens flare), but I wanted more swooping establishing shots and a bit less jumpy editing.Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.
I know, he had some praise in there too. It's the fact that he keeps going.
But he was criticizing the plot holes/technobabble. Did you read his post?
I know, he had some praise in there too. It's the fact that he keeps going.
Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things. :yes:
Huge plotholes, no doubt about that, but the film was also hugely enjoyable, best I've seen since The Dark Knight.
Although I overall disliked the film, I must disagree with Mikes on that point. I thought the acting was consistently strong-to-excellent. Quinto/Spock in particular was good.
I don't know what happens after TNG, but I'm curious about some tidbits in this topic.
- How did the Romulans gain access to Borg technology? What of Federation?
- What happened to the Borgs?
- What is Android B-4 and how can Data still be alive after what happened in Nemesis? The "evil copy" did not have Data's memories or personality.
- How the hell is Spock even still alive? How old do Vulcans live?
and from having a supernova somehow threatening the galaxy.
that is just a whole new plateau of stupid.
If you introduce a certain kind of technology... then it has to work a certain way without any too obvious "contradiction".Forgive me but, have you watched an episode from any Star Trek series? They introduce more nonsensical, bull**** technology than the average Brookstone catalog.
If you introduce a certain kind of technology... then it has to work a certain way without any too obvious "contradiction".Forgive me but, have you watched an episode from any Star Trek series? They introduce more nonsensical, bull**** technology than the average Brookstone catalog.
The "oh no we are sucked into a black hole! Lets go to warp! Oh we are on warp! (:rolleyes:) what now? Lets throw out the warpcore right along with any kind of logic and escape with an explosion! woot!" would be just one prime example for that. It comes down to world building and consistency. If you introduce a certain kind of technology... then it has to work a certain way without any too obvious "contradiction".
Well, you kinda need a warp core to stay at warp speed.
I guess it's arguable that the warp core exploding could throw the ship away really fast. On a movie-logic level it works fine for me.
I guess it's arguable that the warp core exploding could throw the ship away really fast. On a movie-logic level it works fine for me.
Physically, it doesn't: the warp drive works by manipulating the spacetime metric by the application of negative energy density (in real life) or subspace (in Star Trek jargon.) Lose the warp core, you lose the warp field, and no amount of exploding will probably be able to make up for that, just because you're going from a warp engine to a reaction engine.
I was disappointed to see such an old trope being employed. But that scene looked decently cool and worked well for me. It's not one I'd really nitpick at.
Well, you kinda need a warp core to stay at warp speed.
More to the point however is that their utter disregard of "believability" extends to entirely "non-sci" fi concepts, like characters, their actions, fate and their motivations as well as chance itself... 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.The thing is, I almost completely disagree with your fundamental assertion here. I fail to see any of this massive "disregarding of believability" when applied to the movie's characters or plot progression, or at least not nearly on the sort of scale you're implying. You know what that ice planet scene was? A plot contrivance. You know, that device that's been used in every story ever written to some degree or another. Kirk and Old Spock needed to meet, so Old Spock wound up on the same ice planet Kirk was exiled to. Kirk and Old Spock needed a way back to the Enterprise, so Scotty happened to be at the outpost. It happens, it's done, the movie rolls on. Honestly, I didn't spend more than thirty seconds thinking about the relative plausibility of any of these events, either while watching the movie or afterwards, and I can't see at all why they'd bother anyone all that much. A story's progression in a limited time frame often necessitates the use of chance, and provided the writers are keeping me entertained in general, I'm usually willing to grant certain implausibilities to them. This one was certainly far less than I've granted to other writers in the past. So unless you can provide some more concrete examples, I'll feel free to dismiss your statement as digging nits out so hard that you're drawing blood. :p
Once you cross that line.... you basically go into "lala" land, no matter if your movie happens to be sci-fi, fantasy or real-life drama.
And yes... that's pretty much how i started feeling after the whole Kirk/Ice-Planet/Spock/Scotty desaster which appeared to be the point where the writers started not to care about anything anymore really.
Believability of Science and Believability of characters are two entirely different things. The new Star Trek doesn't seem to care about either however and that is the reason it outright sucks.
If it was just screwy science then i frankly wouln't even mind all that much, as long as the plot wasn't entirely based on that "screwy science" and kept rubbing in your face just how stupid it was (Fringe i'm looking at you, but that s a different story heh ;) ).
I fail to see any of this massive "disregarding of believability" when applied to the movie's characters or plot progression, or at least not nearly on the sort of scale you're implying.
I was really put off by the two-man boarding operation on the Narada. The movie fell victim to villain decay - the henchmen were unable to perform in a situation where they really should have, making it clear that our heroes survived only due to their character shields.That was among the weakest parts of the movie IMO. I don't know about other people, but massive gunfights in which not a single good guy dies and every villain gets killed just throw me straight out of the story and into cynic mode.
they detonated the warp core to seal a subspace tear in Insurrection. Perhaps this was a similar situation.
Yep. I view this as a Star Trek : The Motion Picture vs Wrath of Khan situation. The first movie was all about creating the demand, the second is where they actually do something good with it.
I fail to see any of this massive "disregarding of believability" when applied to the movie's characters or plot progression, or at least not nearly on the sort of scale you're implying.
Kirk is sent to a planet and lands 18 miles from a Fed base (probably not a chance but still pretty stupid). On the way he gets chased by a monster who just happens to be attacked just as he's about to be caught by a bigger monster who just happens to decide to leave dinner behind and chase after the hors d'oeuvre instead. He then just happens to hide in a cave which Spock, with an entire world to choose from, just happens to be hiding in.
The worst thing about it is that there was no need for it. They could have simply had Spock be at the base to begin with, unconscious perhaps. When abandoned on the ice world it's exactly what he should have headed for anyway. There are numerous ways that Spock could have gotten Kirk aside for the bit of exposition he had to give and the movie could have moved on without that entire bit of rampant stupidity.
All encounters with Ancient Gurus must by necessity take place in a cave, and so the plot must bend in every way required to allow said encounters to take place. It's Storytelling 101. :p
But seriously, yes, it was completely contrived for the sake of plot/atomsphere, but as I said, so very many elements in movies and stories in general are. Let's go back to the beginning of the film, where the autopilot on the Kelvin happens to fail just before Kirk Senior was about to get down to the hangar and escape with his wife. Or how McCoy managed to drag along an unauthorized, clearly-sick cadet onto the fleet's flagship without anyone stopping to ask for credentials. Even something as generally acclaimed as Lord of the Rings, which I count as my favorite book, has at least a half-dozen moments I can think of that featured such meetings of convenience. (Tom Bombadil's not one, but two dei ex machina?) The way I see it, elements like that are part and parcel of telling a story, and I'm generally willing to give the writer plenty of leeway to use them as necessary in order to keep the plot moving. If I weren't so willing, I'd have a difficult time enjoying some of my favorite books and movies nearly as much as I do, which seems a hefty price to pay.
Mikes, calling things 'utter crap' is probably not a great way to make your points. It rubs people the wrong way, and that irritation is going to make it less likely that they'll listen to your real, important arguments.
I say this with my mod hat off - just unsolicited personal opinion.
while happily blundering through a pre-existing world like a bull in a china shop.That analogy doesn't work anymore, but we get what you're saying anyway. :p
Nope, Lord of the Rings is not without flaws and one could even say that Tolkiens writing and pacing of the story especially took quite some patience at times.My reference to Tolkien's writing was purely mechanical in nature; I certainly didn't mean to imply any sort of relation between world-building at all. But as far as world-building goes, as you said, there isn't a great deal of need (or room) to build a world with a 40-year established background in a 2-hour movie, even if said world will differ from what came before from here on out. And again, I'd disagree with your assertion that the creative staff had a "lack of understanding" of pre-existing Trek, because what I got out of the film was a great deal of knowledge of and respect for what had come before. There were any number of little Easter eggs and cameo references, the world as a whole felt like what we knew of the Trek universe at that time, the original crew's personalities were allowed to evolve to match their original series versions, and most importantly of all, the core spirit of what "Star Trek" really means was left intact. What I saw in the film managed to take the best parts of what had come before and present them in a refreshingly new fashion for a whole new generation of fans, and I think they succeeded spectacularly in that goal.
However, frankly, i would be ashamed to even name an outstanding achievement in worldbuilding like Tolkiens in the same sentence with utter crap like that ...
And as Battuta mentioned, saying something like "It was all crap" does absolutely nothing for anyone. That statement is your opinion. In my own opinion, I saw very little about the movie that I'd call "crap." Obviously, our opinions differ, and as opinions about a subjective fictional work, neither of us can be objectively correct or incorrect. If you want to try to break things down in a more point-by-point fashion, I might be interested in playing along, but I don't see anything to be gained in attempting to argue against vague generalities.
Agreed.
The writing in general threw me out of the story a little too often.
I was really put off by the two-man boarding operation on the Narada. The movie fell victim to villain decay - the henchmen were unable to perform in a situation where they really should have, making it clear that our heroes survived only due to their character shields.
All encounters with Ancient Gurus must by necessity take place in a cave, and so the plot must bend in every way required to allow said encounters to take place. It's Storytelling 101. :p
pretty much all your questions are answered by that prequel comic thinger.
- Nero's ships doesn't look like it's romulan or designed for mining. Neither from the inside or the outside
it's a mining ship base which has become a testbed for romulan-adapted borg nanite technology.
- of what use are shrapnel torpedos to a mining ship that had a super-mining beams?
romulan-adapted borg weaponry, looks really cool.
- Supernova threatening the Galaxy?
Was a rapidly expanding anomaly, ate matter and the thing grew extremely rapidly, eating entire systems
- Romulans knew their sun was going nova - why didn't they evacuate or initiate some preventive mesures of their own?
it wasnt their sun, they didn't think it was a threat, and didn't listen to Nero and Spock when they told them to evacuate
- Drilling a hole to the center of the planet? no earthquakes, no lava, no nothing?
the earthquakes (vulcanquakes) were why the federation dispatched ships in the first place
- the ship that Kirks father was on survived for a good couple of minutes when attacked by Neros ships. A vulcan and Federation fleet of newer ships destroyed in 30 seconds?
the captured borg nanites in the Narada's structure adapt to new threats. Also, Nero most likely wanted the Kelvin alive so he could figure out where the hell he was
WTF? It was their Sun! Not evacuating was a move of utter retardation.
I also thought the movie was full of plot holes, but it's kind of growing on me. And the Narada doesn't look like a mining ship any more because it assimilated a bunch of future Federation and Romulan vessels.
I also thought the movie was full of plot holes, but it's kind of growing on me. And the Narada doesn't look like a mining ship any more because it assimilated a bunch of future Federation and Romulan vessels.
Wait WHEN did the Narada get borg tech and how?
- It's just a mining ship wit ha small crew. To completely overhaul a massive ship, you'd need more than a dozen people. And you need a lot of time and quiet.
- If it got Borg tech before going back in time, it's too stupid. Why would the romulans test borg tech on a mining ship, and not a warship? When would it have time to get new tech if it was supposed to chase Spock immediately? Why would anyone give Nero borg tech in the first place?
- If it got borg tech after going back in time it again makes no sense. Where did it get it? Some secret research base? How did they know if it was a secret research base? How come nobody reacted to an attack on a secret research base? Since when are miners experts on adapting borg technology? How could they possibly stay hidden? Etc..
I told you. Every attempt they make at explaining only makes things worse. They just keep digging hte hole deeper.
The movie and the novel clearly have some inconcistencies between themselves.Actually its pretty bang on...a lot of the questions you're asking are answered in the graphic novel. You may not like the answers but thats how they explained it. Frankly its hard to argue a point about exploding anomalous sci-fi star thingy being lame or not...it most likely is but it really doesn't matter.
it wasn't going to chase Spock immediately, 4., there was a sympathetic Romulan officer at the base, 5, yes, it's a secret research base, and the people at the base were Romulan naval officers sympathetic to Nero.
Maybe you should read the comic instead of poking nonsensical holes at it. Nero blamed the Federation for the destruction of his homeworld. The base crew (including any defenders) presumably AGREED with him. They were united by their rage at the tragedy.
As for the rest, no idea. Like I said, I agree with you that the movie's full of plot holes. It puzzles me as to why you're calling me dumb when I'm largely on your side.
But I dislike the degree of preconception you're employing here, since you clearly just want the comic to be dumb. Attack the movie and its flaws, not a straw-man.
- Supernova threatening the Galaxy?No. Fail. The fact of the matter is that this plot point, indeed the entire driving-force behind the villian's motives, was so utterly stupid that it voids the rest of the movie. I've seen many, many low-IQ events in films. Some astonishingly stupid, logic-defying, reality-voiding attempts at story. But this... this level of mind-****ing debasement of our intelligence, it makes The Core look like credible scientific thesis. The fact that this plot was composed and written by mature, trained adults just makes it sadder. A supernova that will engulf the entire galaxy. They wouldn't have bought that **** in the ****ing 60's, man!! What the ****! And the worst part is that they didn't even try to justify it. Rather than stand by their ****-for-brains idea, they only referred to it in passing as if they were trying to slip it by us. To that, I'd just like to say a nice, big, sloppy **** you to whoever ejaculated this train-wreck of a plot onto the page.
Was a rapidly expanding anomaly, ate matter and the thing grew extremely rapidly, eating entire systems
The fact that someone could believe the comic closes the plot holes but does it in a way that doesn't stop it or the movie from being poor will never occur to him.
I wouldn't disagree with that. The movie did have massive plot holes. The comic closes those. My statement was aimed at Trashman's assertions that it didn't close them even though he hasn't actually read the comic.
I think everybody knew this would happen. The hardcore fans would be all upset while the people who were actually there to watch the movie wouldn't mind these background things.
But people in the movie and the comic don't behave any more moronically than in any other part of Star Trek. That's not where the problems lie.
I wouldn't disagree with that. The movie did have massive plot holes. The comic closes those. My statement was aimed at Trashman's assertions that it didn't close them even though he hasn't actually read the comic.
And who told you that? Please, save your baseless accusations for yourself.
I had it a few weeks ago, skimmed trough it and it was crap. It just opens more plot holes.
But people in the movie and the comic don't behave any more moronically than in any other part of Star Trek. That's not where the problems lie.
Alas, they do behave more moronic. A lot more moronic.
Congratulations on proving me wrong on the whole didn't read it thing. :rolleyes:
You complain about plot holes and are proved wrong about all of them. You might not like the explanation but they are consistent with the universe. Lazy, crappy explanations, yes. But that doesn't make them a plot hole in the comic and movie taken as a whole, no matter how often you assert that it is.
Especially when you're acting this way towards people who are repeatedly agreeing with you.
You're being judgmental, argumentative, and stubborn about a comic you've NEVER EVEN READ.Did you even read what he posted?
Which makes you look like a nutcase.
And who told you that? Please, save your baseless accusations for yourself.
I had it a few weeks ago, skimmed trough it and it was crap. It just opens more plot holes.
Did you even read what he posted?
And Kara, a lot of the plot holes in the movie are left wide open when you take the comic into consideration.
Did you even read what he posted?
You're being judgmental, argumentative, and stubborn about a comic you've NEVER EVEN READ.
Which makes you look like a nutcase.
He said he'd skimmed it rather than reading it. The fact that he hadn't read it is obvious from the fact that he asks questions about its content earlier on in this thread.
the ridiculous hack they had doing it.You are calling Simon Pegg a ridiculous hack? :wtf:
Scotty was a stand-up comedian pretenting to be Scotty, Chekov was Chekov, Sulu was Sulu... ), the the effects cool ( although i couldn't see much of them because of the camera movements ).In defense of Simons performance, I wonder if that was down to the writing of the film - not the actor?
The camera movement sucks ass...bigtime, a suggestion to the director of the next movie:I don't entirely disagree with you - but maybe I can at least give a reason for this, and it is having read a statement by the director that he wanted the film to be very - for lack of a better term - fast. Rather than slow paced smooth movements and visuals you can cope with, he went for ""oh-my-god-what's-going-on-I'm-really-here-oh-crap"... 'O Vision" which works to an extent as I certainly felt a few surges of adrenaline during the more action packed sections, but it can be a bit OTT sometimes.
if you strap the camera on the back of a monkey that's suffering from a motorical disfunction, then for fraks sake, don't give the monkey speed or other stimulating dope.
Scotty was a stand-up comedian pretenting to be Scotty, Chekov was Chekov, Sulu was Sulu... ), the the effects cool ( although i couldn't see much of them because of the camera movements ).In defense of Simons performance, I wonder if that was down to the writing of the film - not the actor?
The camera movement sucks ass...bigtime, a suggestion to the director of the next movie:
if you strap the camera on the back of a monkey that's suffering from a motorical disfunction, then for fraks sake, don't give the monkey speed or other stimulating dope.
I don't entirely disagree with you - but maybe I can at least give a reason for this, and it is having read a statement by the director that he wanted the film to be very - for lack of a better term - fast. Rather than slow paced smooth movements and visuals you can cope with, he went for ""oh-my-god-what's-going-on-I'm-really-here-oh-crap"... 'O Vision" which works to an extent as I certainly felt a few surges of adrenaline during the more action packed sections, but it can be a bit OTT sometimes.
That said, I'm being picky, I still loved the film.
The camera work would have been less irritating if it hadn't been paired with an incredibly bombastic and loud soundtrack.
Needed more BSG feel, not this...generic orchestral noise.
In some scenes i had the feeling that all this BSG-fying was a bit to much.
The inside of the Kelvin, all scenes on Earth where the kadets get assigned to their ships a.s.o..
It looks like a refinery or some other industrial structure, it didn't has the typical Star Trek look i expected.
I suppose the only bit of non-canon that still kind of irks me is the fact that whilst the Federation knew who the Romulans were during the start of Kirks captaincy, they didn't know what the Romulans looked like, even the Vulcans didn't know they were an offshoot of their own race, that fact was revealed to Kirk and Spock during TOS, later in their careers, and yet, in the movie, this was a perfectly accepted fact.
Didn't ruin the movie in any way, was just something that occurred to me at the time.
Heh probably ;)
the Enterprise didn't originally have beam phasers, for example, in the first 2 series, it had little 'light ball' phasers that looked very similar to how photon torpedoes now look (though, in truth you rarely see the Enterprise fire because of SFX costs in the early series, the hand phasers were chosen as beams because you could just 'point and act' without little impact charges or anything), in that respect, Star Trek is more accurate than Enterprise.
2 is demonstrably false, though. At least one of the writers is a huge Trek continuity junkie who read all the novels in addition to watching the various series.
the moment with the enterprise warping in and delivering the massive, precisely targeted phaser salvo and destroying all the romulan torpedoes was pretty awesome
Exactly. If you look at the comic and the movie together they haven't actually done anything that is impossible in the Trek universe. A lot of stuff that is implausible perhaps, especially when it comes to character motivations, but nothing that actually goes against the universe.
They were tracking the launches and projectiles prior to the warp and had precise data for where to shoot on arrival. The fleet, on the other hand, went in blind and was engaged at extremely short range, as was the Kelvin. Boxer versus a puncher. The Federation ship will only have an advantage as long as it stays away. (Which given the more recent vintage of the Narada was probably impossible.)
Exactly. If you look at the comic and the movie together they haven't actually done anything that is impossible in the Trek universe. A lot of stuff that is implausible perhaps, especially when it comes to character motivations, but nothing that actually goes against the universe.
That doesn't say much, given that pretty much everything is possible in the Trek universe. The only law it follows in the one of plot convenience.
ST has enough technobabble already. Did they REALLY need to introduce new stuff? Like that red matter and black hole time-travel?
That explanation doesn't hold water, sorry.
What's preventing other frederation ships from tracking the missiles from warp? How do you know the Enterprise tracked them prior to warp?
Also, they are missiles - they change their flight path, they don't travel in a straight line. So long-term prediction is pretty much useless here.
And finally, we have computers and radars powerful enough to lock on, track and direct fire on missiles within a second right now.
Federation ships shouldn't have trouble shooting down missiles the second they arrive.
Q randomly showed up and made a bunch of plot inconsistencies to piss off Star Trek nerds. He thought it would be funny.
Q randomly showed up and made a bunch of plot inconsistencies to piss off Star Trek nerds. He thought it would be funny.I'm actually hoping for Q to show up in the sequel, and set everything straight.
The first assertion is not borne out by evidence in the movie. They do not.
The second is irrevelant.
The third is also irrevelant; the Kelvin was putting out a lot of fire but did not appear to be connecting so something was obviously not working. Most likely some form of directed jamming was involved, as available evidence is that up until the Enterprise drops out of warp by surprise and hits the missiles everyone the Narada engaged was either expected or did not open fire immediately.
Wrong.
They are missiles. You actually can see them turn a bit in the movie.
The second is not irrelevant. We know extremely powerful computers exist in ST. So o claim they cannot lock onto missiles is downright stupid.
And the third is very relevant. From the moment Kirks old man took over command and the battle resumed, to the point where the Kelvin was destroyed - minutes passed. How can the already damaged Kelvin survive for 5 minutes if NOT by shooting down missiles? IIRC, you can actually see it shooting down 1 or 2.
What were the 'Time Police' doing during all of this, I wonder?
Simple: it's a ****ing spaceship. With only one person aboard, in what is presumably the most well-protected part of the ship, it's very hard to stop. The saucer section and the way the ship was oriented served to shield its engines from the Narada, it was apparently well-compartmentalized, and it is in space. You can't sink it and it doesn't burn. Absent the two greatest killers of ships, things become vastly more difficult.
Q randomly showed up and made a bunch of plot inconsistencies to piss off Star Trek nerds. He thought it would be funny.I'm actually hoping for Q to show up in the sequel, and set everything straight.
Speaking of which, they really should have had a TNG movie with Q. They missed a great opportunity there.
Okay, hold on, the Kelvin definitely shot down several of the Narada's missiles. That was a plot point - it saved the shuttles by destroying missiles heading for them.