SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Star Trek Movie Not To Be Missed

Page 5 of 12

Last »

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Star Trek Movie Not To Be Missed (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=151070)

Sailor Steve

05-12-09 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter (Post 1099895)

New vulcan emotions are acceptable now...

Haven't been able to see it yet, but Spock had plenty of emotions in the original pilot. It wasn't until the series took off that they made him more stoic.

goldorak

05-12-09 03:04 PM

Yes, this new film is FANTASTIC. Its not without problems, but this is the real STAR TREK. We have never been so close to the spirit of TOS as with this film. Kudos to Abrams. :D
I don't get why so many people hate this film, if you think about it take an original TOS episode, bring it to the silver screen and you get something along the lines of this film. Pure TOS bliss. :D

Aramike

05-12-09 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak (Post 1100183)

I wouldn't say "so many" people hate this film - it's received rave reviews and is making a load of cash.

The only people that seem to hate it are the fanboys who want to keep Star Trek for themselves, not realizing that Star Trek is dead if that's the result. :|\\

Skybird

05-12-09 03:26 PM

I have been invited to see it tomorrow. Actually, I tried to convince them to watch a different movie, but they were determined to see ST. So it seems I will need to find out myself tomorrow afternoon.

The good thing is I will not need to pay for it. That's at least something.

I expect a probability of 85,76% for a desaster, and 14,23% for a positive surprise. However, there is an accumulated 0,01% chance that a meteor impact, a traffic accident, heavy weather, street crime, riots or a sudden flooding will prevent us from reaching the cinema. In this possibility I put my trust.

Wolfehunter

05-13-09 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JALU3 (Post 1099908)

Of course the next line of that scene was from Spock:
"Get out of the chair."

I hate to say it however, given the success of BSG, and other more gritty space operas in recent history (including firefly/serenity), was it any suprise that this utopian ideal that was the goal has taken a back seat to the flawed humanity with more futuristic tech that was depicted? We know that Paramount had no love for us, or the franchise. I mean look at what they did to the set (destroyed it), the props (sold those that they could), and documentation (only G/god(s) knows what).
The sad unfortunate truth about Star Trek is that the ones with the money have seen a formula that appears to work, and hated the franchise previously, so took that formula and made of the fictional universe that we all grew into Trek in. Therefore, since the formula works they see a way to create the franchise in an image more akin to their money making schemes, rather than the intent of the creator of the franchise. We will get new fans into our community, and in many ways we will disagree with why they came. But they came, so let us give them a chair, punch, and give 'um a piece of cake (if it isn't a lie), and teach them of the heritage of what they will adopt as their own. Maybe then, they will see the errors of RST or ST2.0 (or whatever you want to call it), and come to appretiate the entirity of our passion for this fictional universe which Mr. Roddenberry so graciously left us to revel in.

I hate to burst your bubble, but as Bones would say: "She's dead Jim."

Ya I know she's dead. I saw parts of her ship flying in pieces. :arrgh!:

And I agree to your above statement. That is the mentality today. Gene gave us a vision that these companies are destroying for personal profit. Its all about money.

Kapitan_Phillips

05-13-09 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1100194)

The only people that seem to hate it are the fanboys who want to keep Star Trek for themselves, not realizing that Star Trek is dead if that's the result. :|\\

I'm a fanboy and I loved it.

owner20071963

05-13-09 08:21 AM

seen the movie which was great :up:
lets look forward to the Game,
Star Trek Online :yeah:
http://www.startrekonline.com/

Wolfehunter

05-13-09 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1100194)

I don't hate it and don't want it for myself. I like new fans joining.

I do remember saying I like the film except for a few things that were twisted.

Star trek is about its fans. Fans are what made star trek today. Paramount have given up on startrek many times in the past unless it can show them much profit. It because of us the crazy old fans why star trek exist today.

There is more to life than money. :03:

goldorak

05-13-09 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter (Post 1100474)

This is utter crap. TOS was always a space western, action all the way till the end. And people loved it, if they didn't no one would remember the series after the 1969 cancellation. The new generation, voyager, ds9 and enterprise are all politically correct and in many ways less star-trecky than the tos episodes were. This is the truth. :D
So bring back kick ass Kirk Spock and Bones. :up:

Wolfehunter

05-13-09 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak (Post 1100486)

This is true too. Jezz man I have to be careful to write stuff. Too much details write all at once. Still next generation wasn't as bad as the later versions. But your right to much censorship and politically correct.

Can you imagine today if they make a new Archie Bunker show? Can't happen. :nope:

Kratos

05-13-09 09:11 AM

Watched it last night, all i can say is http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/300/96683118.gif mind it took just over a hour and a half for him to say it :O:

Sonarman

05-13-09 09:24 AM

The expositional voiceover

I quite liked the film, I can see the western "wagon train to the stars" aspect noted by Goldorak but Star Trek was also inspired by the Horatio Hornblower series of novels who would always use cleverness, guile and bluff to win his way through situations, there wasn't much of that in evidence here.

I think they did a good job on the effects and introducing the characters with some funny lines, but the core story was rather poor and unmemorable. The expositional voice over by Nimoy in the middle of the film is characteristic of the poor writing normally seen in bad TV detective series it's always better to show not just tell.

However it is a good beginning with hopefully better to come, if I was CBS/Paramount I'd get a "real" SF writer to write the plot and let Orci/Kurtzman write the character's dialogue in the screenplay.

To me the real genius of the series is the openness of the format encompassing everything from comedy, courtroom drama, naval style space battles, morality tales etc, hopefully they will not let it become a "one-note" non-stop action piece, bring on the sequels and a new TV series asap.

Skybird

05-13-09 03:23 PM

Terrible.

Special effects alone do not make a good movie. Just calling a character "Spock" does not make Star Trek.

This is as good or bad as any random action movie. This is as good or bad as any random science fiction movie. Nothing that sets it apart from that mediocrity and lack of characteristic features.

Actually, I found the movie worse than I even feared or expected. My friends were split. One liked it, two hate it. We score 1-3 against it.

If I still would have any doubt that Star Trek after "Voyager" and even worse: "Enterprise" was dead, now I know for sure: a waggon of baby-faces shouting Juchee! while visiting the rollercoaster starshow in Disneyland. Melrose place in space. Types and characters like taken from any US-TV teenage daily soap.

Sometimes, resetting a series to start, could work: "Casiono Royal". sometimes it does not work at all: "Enterprise", and now: "Star Trek".

Even the title is completely lost.

Terrible.

nikimcbee

05-13-09 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1100761)

Terrible.

If I still would have any doubt that Star Trek after "Voyager" and even worse: "Enterprise" was dead, now I know for sure: a waggon of baby-faces shouting Juchee! while visiting the rollercoaster starshow in Disneyland. Melrose place in space. Types and characters like taken from any US-TV teenage daily soap.

Terrible.

I heard somebody else discribe the film in that way; Beverly Hills 90210 was there name for it.

I might go see it, there's nothing else going on:-?

Zachstar

05-13-09 06:34 PM

I loved it! It made Trek acceptable to everyone again and now trek gains new fans and new ideas that will continue it for quite a while yet.

You have to understand. Voyager killed Star Trek. And this movie make it very clear about how they have to write a backstory (A 4 part comic) showing how they created 2 treks to keep trek going.

What else were they going to do? The super weapons and tech gained from the delta quadrant would make the federation invincible. Enterprise filled a gap by having to rupture cannon (And even then they ran out of time to do more seasons)

With the new universe they are completely free to make use of new ideas to rewrite history. For instance in the new Star Trek era I am quite sure Spock Prime will warn the federation about the caretaker and voyager will not venture into the delta quadrant just yet. Q will not be able to trick Picard into letting the Borg know the federation is out there. And federation ships will end up with better arms much quicker.

So that Leaves the TOS era until the Star Trek Online in the new universe to do ANYTHING.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

Page 5 of 12

Last »

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page