Star Trek

[Dazzle1]

For those who have watched the 3 original series a question:

Are the JJ Abrams movies good or bad?

Personaly I think they are as bad as ST the Motion Picture.

 

[girlsmiley]

I thought Star Trek was really good.

I haven't seen Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

[Hosebloke]

First ever episode , they are in a mine and are getting attacked by floating pizza's .
Love the original series

 

[LWulf]

On technical merit, the JJ Abrams pictures were very good.

As far as casting, meh. not too bad, though I think the idea that Spock was as old as Kirk was reaching a little, but that Scotty or Chekov were as young (or old) as Kirk? That was rewriting the ST universe.

As far as the script, it was utter trash.

As far as "ST the Motion Picture", It was a bit of a giggle, true, but at least the casting was correct and the script fit neatly into the ST universe.
Heck, it wasn't as bad as Serenity (which was written by the same writer of it's series, but Joss rewrote just about the whole "Firefly" universe with "Serenity").

 

[marshalt]

I haven't see the second one, but the first one was horseshit.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

The problem with discussing technical merit is that virtually no one these days has any experience of what great cinematography was when the originals of Dracula, or Hell Angels (Howard Hughes), or the original Mannequin (with Spencer Tracy) or Sunset Booulevarde, were made.

The technical aspects of working with today's equipment may well mean that JJ Abrams handled things quite well in a modern context, but there are a lot of perceptions about visuals that are 'trained' in our sort of 'eye culture.'

For instance, any sports program you watch today will have extreme close-up shots in excess duration compared to the full-field view. And this 'appears' to be 'better,' but it means you won't actually see the 'run of play' at all. It sort of caters to an ADHD mindset in the viewer.

The floating pizza episode of the original tv series was so good because of the flow of the storyline and what expectations were built up in the viewer who was watching it for the very first time. (In other words, the run of play). Everything you watch in movies today follows a totally predictable pathway.

The difference between an original Star Trek tv episode and a current Star Trek motion picture is that one was entertaining science fiction and suspense - and the other is Orwellian propaganda for people already on cultural drugs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Latest great sci fi to get Michael Bay'ed for the herds of fucking retards here in Murikuh.

It's like all the faces and looks are right....but there isn't any Star Trek in there.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

For those who have watched the 3 original series a question:

Are the JJ Abrams movies good or bad?

Personaly I think they are as bad as ST the Motion Picture.

The Abrams movies are amazing.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

I really liked the JJ Abrams 1st one. I went to theaters w/other Trekkie friends with a lot of doubt already condemning it, but was pleasantly surprised w/the alternate 'Star Trek' universe. He nailed TOS characters perfectly.

I haven't seen 'Into the Darkness' yet.

What surprises me most about TOS critics is how they judge or bad mouth the special effects of TOS. How can you do that when Roddenberry's TOS was in the 60s, on a shoestring budget in danger of being cancelled, and the technology simply wasn't available?

I think Gene Roddenberry would be very happy w/the new Star Trek. Changes had to be made to keep it alive, yet I thought it was as true to TOS as you can get.

On technical merit, the JJ Abrams pictures were very good.

As far as casting, meh. not too bad, though I think the idea that Spock was as old as Kirk was reaching a little, but that Scotty or Chekov were as young (or old) as Kirk? That was rewriting the ST universe.

As far as the script, it was utter trash.

As far as "ST the Motion Picture", It was a bit of a giggle, true, but at least the casting was correct and the script fit neatly into the ST universe.
Heck, it wasn't as bad as Serenity (which was written by the same writer of it's series, but Joss rewrote just about the whole "Firefly" universe with "Serenity").

If I remember ST character correctly, Vulcans live much longer than humans. Spock was still fairly young in Vulcan age when the old Kirk died.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What surprises me most about TOS critics is how they judge or bad mouth the special effects of TOS. How can you do that when Roddenberry's TOS was in the 60s, on a shoestring budget in danger of being cancelled, and the technology simply wasn't available?

I think Gene Roddenberry would be very happy w/the new Star Trek. Changes had to be made to keep it alive, yet I thought it was as true to TOS as you can get.
.

I disagree....ST was NEVER about special effects and technology to make a great space flick/shot...it wasn't really about space, that just happened to be the setting.

ST has and always will be about the human condition, and the great ethical/moral conflicts that come with it, that's what made ST so fucking good......now its' about the special effects budget drawing in the "Owe my balls!" crowd....

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I disagree....ST was NEVER about special effects and technology to make a great space flick/shot...it wasn't really about space, that just happened to be the setting.

ST has and always will be about the human condition, and the great ethical/moral conflicts that come with it, that's what made ST so fucking good......not its' about the special effects budget....

Which is what makes the Abrams movies so good.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which is what makes the Abrams movies so good.

Hua??? No it's what makes them bad...they are action flicks set in spacey future that looks like ST, they are not Sci Fi, they are not ST.


OH LOOK IT'S JJ SR!!!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Hua??? No it's what makes them bad...they are action flicks set in spacey future that looks like ST, they are not Sci Fi, they are not ST.

What makes them so good is they combine cutting edge effects with a great story line.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What makes them so good is they combine cutting edge effects with a great story line.

That is more action flick than Star Trek....put them on a diff set you know what you have?

https://encrypted-tbn2.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfebADcJMRblF-S8RkIp1YCxqceROxEH38xUdj1AsTbtENyT8EGw

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That isn't very Star Trekish....put them on a diff set you know what you have?

https://encrypted-tbn2.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfebADcJMRblF-S8RkIp1YCxqceROxEH38xUdj1AsTbtENyT8EGw

So it's not Star Trek if it isn't done on a shoestring budget with 1960's effects?

 

[run_silent]

That is more action flick than Star Trek....put them on a diff set you know what you have?

https://encrypted-tbn2.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfebADcJMRblF-S8RkIp1YCxqceROxEH38xUdj1AsTbtENyT8EGw

I am a Star Trek fan. The original had hits and misses as did all the spin offs. I like the the new stories because they are filling in the background .

 

[BotanyBoy]

So it's not Star Trek if it isn't done on a shoestring budget with 1960's effects?

No it isn't star trek anymore when the effects become more important than the story, and the story must have a certain amount of moral/ethical dilemma involved beyond "Bad guy go BOOOM~~!!" .

I don't even think the prime directive or the temporal directive were even mentioned in JJ's ST.....WTF???

That was like Kirk's biggest monster...the prime directive...do we help these people b/c I feel it's right thing? Or do I take the non interference position?

Picard had an even bigger time with that little issue several times...

Janeway....stranded her crew and shit on the prime directive to save the Ocompa from the Kazon, because it was the RIGHT thing to do, and the aftermath of that choice.

Sisko...Religious emmasary to one world, political to another, a loyal Starfleet officer and for the first time a FATHER....DS9 brought a whole slew of conflict with that ball of shit....

What's jj got? hmm??? Bad guy go boom!!!!BAYSPLOSIONS!!!! When he should have taken 2 min before doing this to ask...

I know the Roddenberry fans would have appreciated it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I am a Star Trek fan. The original had hits and misses as did all the spin offs. I like the the new stories because they are filling in the background .

I enjoy the fan service part of it....I really do...but it just doesn't feel like Trek to me in the sense it didn't present a tough choice situation that engaged me like (most) of the other shows/books/movies did.

Which was the meat and tater's of the whole ST experience for me.

Pleed your case for humanities existence!! ...how would you?

What if you had to fight and possibly kill your #1 N word, but most likely get stomped in order to help him? Would you have the balls?

What if you had to chose between your crew and your only child?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No it isn't star trek anymore when the effects become more important than the story, and the story must have a certain amount of moral/ethical dilemma involved beyond "Bad guy go BOOOM~~!!" .

I don't even think the prime directive or the temporal directive were even mentioned in JJ's ST.....WTF???

That was like Kirk's biggest monster...the prime directive...do we help these people b/c I feel it's right thing? Or do I take the non interference position?

Picard had an even bigger time with that little issue several times...

Janeway....stranded her crew and shit on the prime directive to save the Ocompa from the Kazon, because it was the RIGHT thing to do, and the aftermath of that choice.

Sisko...Religious emmasary to one world, political to another, a loyal Starfleet officer and for the first time a FATHER....DS9 brought a whole slew of conflict with that ball of shit....

What's jj got? hmm??? Bad guy go boom!!!!BAYSPLOSIONS!!!! When he should have taken 2 min before doing this to ask...

I know the Roddenberry fans would have appreciated it.

Who said the effects were more important than the story?

The Prime Directive is the premise of the opening scene of the new movie. Kirk has to decide if he should violate it in order to saves Spock's life. You're not ragging on a movie you haven't actually seen, are you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Who said the effects were more important than the story?

The Prime Directive is the premise of the opening scene of the new movie. Kirk has to decide if he should violate it in order to saves Spock's life. You're not ragging on a movie you haven't actually seen, are you?

Of curse not!! I downloaded that shit as soon as it was available.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

Sorry to leave the thread abruptly. I lost power when a nasty ion storm passed over. Scotty had to restart the engines, Spock rebooted the ship's computer, and Uhura reestablished communications. Power is now restored.

I disagree....ST was NEVER about special effects and technology to make a great space flick/shot...it wasn't really about space, that just happened to be the setting.

ST has and always will be about the human condition, and the great ethical/moral conflicts that come with it, that's what made ST so fucking good......now its' about the special effects budget drawing in the "Owe my balls!" crowd....

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying what you think. I understand the basis for ST and Roddenberry's original intent - neither the ST universe nor true Trek fans have lost sight of that. In fact, that's the singular most important reason ST should remain true to itself. Loyal fans and those who cater to those fans will not let that happen. And that's why so many Trekkies are so sensitive to anything Star Trek.

What makes them so good is they combine cutting edge effects with a great story line.

Yep.

I am a Star Trek fan. The original had hits and misses as did all the spin offs. I like the the new stories because they are filling in the background .

I like the fill ins too. The new ones have answered some questions I've had since I was a kid.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Of curse not!! I downloaded that shit as soon as it was available.

So you selectively forgot the first 20 minutes of the film.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

i might go see the new one... don't know yet

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you selectively forgot the first 20 minutes of the film.

Not at all...

 

[LWulf]

but was pleasantly surprised w/the alternate 'Star Trek' universe. He nailed TOS characters perfectly.

I'd disagree. Kirk was a "shoot from the hip" sort of character, yes, but he wasn't a vindictive, self opportunist. That's how I see JJ's version as being, actually, all of JJ's universe seem out for themselves only. He portrayed Spock as being virtually unhinged, Chekov looked like he was on "uppers" and he definitely wasn't a "go to" guy...

What surprises me most about TOS critics is how they judge or bad mouth the special effects of TOS.

I haven't seen anybody who did, but if they were alive at that time, then shame on them! Younger people who, obviously, weren't around at the time I tend to make excuses for. They were spoon fed years of great special effects and green screens and can't imagine that that technology was rather "recent". Then again, most kids my age (when I was a kid) scoffed at F/X from old serials like Flash Gordon (because of strings, etc). Likewise special effects at that time was in it's infancy, and should have been respected for what they were.

I think Gene Roddenberry would be very happy w/the new Star Trek. Changes had to be made to keep it alive, yet I thought it was as true to TOS as you can get.

I would disagree on this, but without summoning the dead, we'll never know.

If I remember ST character correctly, Vulcans live much longer than humans. Spock was still fairly young in Vulcan age when the old Kirk died.

True, but my reasoning for questioning the age of Spock in JJ's movie, is; In TOS, Spock served with Captain Pike (presumably there were other commands he was under as he worked up in the ranks) until he was second in command of the Enterprise. He would have also go to Starfleet training, etc etc.

In JJ's bizzaro alternate universe, Spock has gone to starfleet (for training), worked up in the ranks, and had become a star fleet instructor in all of about 2-5 years??? Okay, he's Vulcan and could have done the fast track but it is still a "LITTLE" reaching. The problem as I see is is simply this; Hollywood has a limited amount of people to use to cast for roles. Also, they do tend to swing everybody as young as they can because "that's what young people who go to movies want to see; young actors".
I personally feel Spock was 20-40+ years older than Kirk. Physically, they would look the same age, but emotionally, I would expect Spock would be ...more mature, meaning JJ's script was shite.

But even with some of the spin off TV series, I think they have a bit of a paradox in the scripts for time lines. For instance, (I forget the exact numbers) I think Spock's father is still alive after 500-700 years. (Who knows how old he was in TOS, and he was still alive and kicking in TNG. This sets a precedent on how old Vulcans can become. It was implied (or stated) he had more than one wife (three?) after Amanda. or you could use T'pau who was an old woman in TOS and a young woman in ST:E. (which is also a timeline error, because it has been suggested that Capt Archer was about 30 years before Capt Kirk and that they knew each other. But if T'pau looks 50-60+ human years older, then about 500 years have passed between ST:E and TOS)

However, the idea was stated, in various series, that Surak (father of modern Vulcan logic and reasoning) lived (implied (legendary)) many generations ago.
Then in ST:E, they said ~1000 years ago, which, for a Vulcan would mean maybe 2-3 generations ago??
"Generations" is a subjective term because it depends on how old a Vulcan becomes before they grind out another generation. Now, Vulcans mate every 7 years, yet Spock didn't have any siblings nor 1/2 brothers/sisters. This suggests that Vulcans don't have large families despite their longevity. So, I'm guessing a generation is ~200-300 years.

Unfortunately, I notice little nuance details like this which, for me, spoils the enjoyment.