Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Lazar » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:30 pm UTC

That's… different. I'm sure this trailer wasn't at all influenced by Guardians of the Galaxy.

I'm moderately encouraged by the fact that Simon Pegg co-wrote the screenplay, and that he's expressed a preference for a more exploration-focused story – but on the other hand, it's hard to avoid the impression that this, too, will be a rollicking, ship-destroying actioner. And dear Lord do I hate it when a trailer opens with a producer credit.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5378
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby mosc » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:36 pm UTC

Do they all carry insulin pump-like gismos full of Khan's blood now in case of accidental death?
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Lazar » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:46 pm UTC

No, they're contractually obligated to forget all technological advances. Otherwise the E-E would have been totally OP in Nemesis with that magic armor from the Voyager finale.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:47 pm UTC

Well, I suspect that people unhappy with the last film will be busy imploding with rage after seeing that trailer. For what it's worth, I wonder if they've played up the action quotient for the trailer. I can't see this film being The Voyage Home Mk II but I can't quite see it being Trek and Furious either. And they're off Earth now at least.

Though I saw one person say they're worried it looks like Insurrection with motorbikes. What a horrible thought.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Lazar » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:38 am UTC

Turns out Simon Pegg wasn't so fond of the trailer either. Pretty strong stuff, coming from the lead writer. I… guess that's encouraging?
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby charliepanayi » Sat May 21, 2016 8:44 am UTC

New trailer (with a slightly less bombastic tack this time):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWIGFiGrlA
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

rmsgrey
Posts: 3145
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby rmsgrey » Sat May 21, 2016 2:52 pm UTC

As long as it's better than Trek Into Darkness...

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby charliepanayi » Sat May 21, 2016 4:24 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:As long as it's better than Trek Into Darkness...


And The Motion Picture/Search for Spock/The Final Frontier/Generations/Insurrection/Nemesis.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Lazar » Sat May 21, 2016 8:00 pm UTC

You know, I've discovered that the famous even-odd rule, which was seemingly broken by Nemesis, actually works perfectly if you include Galaxy Quest:

Spoiler:
TMP: bad
TWOK: good
TSFS: bad
TVH: good
TFF: bad
TUC: good
GEN: bad
FC: good
INS: bad
GQ: good
NEM: bad
ST09: good
STID: bad
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby charliepanayi » Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:23 pm UTC

Some very sad news. Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov in the new films, has passed away at the age of 27 :(
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:23 pm UTC

Sad indeed, at such a young age. (At any age, as with the first and second Monsieur LeClerc twins, but for a comparatively young or quite young actor in their prime, to use British character/actor examples that come to mind...)

The Reboot Universe will already have to honourably say goodbye to Elder!Spock from the original timeline, but it'd be hard to justify the complete absence of navigator/acting-engineer Chekov. Perhaps an early transfer to the USS Reliant, and even to command it?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Lazar » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:57 pm UTC

Yeah, that is sad. I'm guessing that they'll be a little more open about it and acknowledge that his character died between movies.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5378
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby mosc » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:34 am UTC

The movie's pretty good. I didn't hate any part of it.

I guess the villain's motivation is a little incomprehencible and some of the "we're all old friends" stuff seems a little pre-mature but it's fun and more star-trek like than previous movies.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:55 pm UTC

More Star Trek-like is reassuring, because from the trailers it looks like Guardians of the Galaxy.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby keozen » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:50 am UTC

Yep, much more "Trek Like" and specifically "TOS Like".

References and callbacks are all in there but handled very well as they're actually written with a point in the structure.

Not much else I can really say without spoiling things but it was great.

Ohh & the Sulu being openly gay thing that caused drama. Handles beautifully in that it really wasn't a "thing" at all, just a background detail presented in no other way than a casual "person going about their life" thing. No big banners no LOOK WE'RE DOING A THING just presented as a normal thing as it should be that you could easily miss if you weren't looking and it makes the entire outrage look even more stupid than it already looked.
Image

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Zohar » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:15 am UTC

Saw it today. Theater's AC was busted and the sound was great, but it was bearable. As for the movie, it was all right. I agree that they definitely tried to be a bit more old-school Star Trek, though there was still much silliness and some really bad writing
Spoiler:
Like, for the final act, when they're on the (pretty awesome) space city, why not just teleport bad guy to space? Or Kirk to bad guy? Also, bag guy's standing military was pretty amazing already, his weapon seemed like a much less effective tool than what he had already.


Speaking of Sulu, I think they also tried to include a polyamorous relationship in there, but I'm not 100% sure.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby pogrmman » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:40 pm UTC

I saw it today. It's OK.

When I first saw the enemies, I thought they were bringing back the Hirogen from Voyager...

I really wish they had developed more on the enemy's backstory, instead of just a few lines at the end. That would've made it a much better move. I did like that they included some stuff from Enterprise though.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Diadem » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:50 pm UTC

I found the movie pretty mediocre all around. Neither the story nor the characters ever really caught my interest, everything was just too superfluous. I also really don't see how people call this more like Star Trek than the previous two movies. I feel like they are moving further and further away, becoming basically generic action movies.

I rewatched some DS9 this weekend. DS9 just spends so much more time on character development then these movies. Even in the last season, when we've known all the characters for years, they still spend lots of screen-time on dialogue, developing these characters even deeper. As a result you really care about what happens to them. With the new movies, this just never happens.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Zohar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:54 pm UTC

I think it makes more sense to compare these movies to the older movies, not to a TV show that has a lot more time to develop a storyline. As for how is it different? I agree that not by much, but they at least tried to give the crew the semblance of working a science/exploration mission, instead of pew-pewing all the time.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Diadem » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:21 pm UTC

That's true. They did start out with that. I just felt that it gave way to pretty generic action stuff way too quickly.

And comparing a TV show with a movie is dangerous, you're right. And I'm not saying that should have developed their characters as well as DS9 does by the 7th season, because that's obviously not possible in a movie. But there's plenty of movies that do character development well, it's not impossible.

Thinking about it, the problem may be that all the characters are Mary Sues. They are all perfect beings without flaws. Which means they are boring and static. They can't change during the story. Is the Kirk at the end of the movie different from the Kirk at the start of the movie? Not really. There's this small subplot of him wondering if he wants to become an admiral or stay a captain, but that's not really a deep change. The same is true for all the other characters.

Now go back to DS9. Just in the first episode Sisko is shown to be a deeply flawed commander. He's still living in the past, unable to let go of his deceased wife, he's very hostile towards Picard (whom the audience already knows and loves) in a situation where he's clearly being unreasonable, and he doesn't even want the command in the first place. All the other characters have issues to. Kira hates the federation, Bashir is a child, etc. Then the series works on resolving these issues, and thus character development happens, and as a result we start caring for these characters.

This is really storytelling 1.0. Which makes it baffling that so many major movies still fail so utterly at it.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Zohar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:28 pm UTC

I mostly agree with you - whatever efforts they went through to give the characters flaws (Spock is incompetent in social situations and can't manage human relationships well, Kirk can't handle authority) have been almost completely resolved by this point and not a lot of conflict exists. I think a good comparison would be Guardians of the Galaxy or The Force Awakens. Both of them, though I feel TFA does a better job, introduce complex characters who undergo an actual story arc while also having awesome adventure elements and action sequences.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18648
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

I found this entertaining, but ultimately pretty drab. It was a moderate action film set in the Star Trek universe, that's about it. Full of plot holes and action sequence silliness, somewhat redeemed by characters I enjoy and spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace. Altogether pretty mediocre, and pretty transparently anti-Brexit.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Zohar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:00 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:pretty transparently anti-Brexit.

?? I really didn't see that, nor do I think that was a determining factor. The screenplay rewrite by Pegg & Jung started in January 2015, shooting took place between June-October 2015, with a few extra scenes shot in March 2016 (basically the scenes with the base commander). On the other hand, the referendum only started popping up on Google Trends in February 2016 (also when the xkcd N&A thread started).

I really can't see how Brexit could have impacted the script. Editing, maybe, but I find that doubtful, and they can't put new lines in people's mouths through editing.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18648
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:33 pm UTC

The whole 'our unity is what makes us strong'. Brexit was up for a vote over the dates you gave, but has been a discussion point for quite some time.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10203
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

Oh, I suppose. I kind of overlooked that as generic good guy tropes combined with star trek idealism, but yeah, there's a definite parallel there.

I agree about the lack of actual development. Kirk deciding to run a space station instead of a ship would be something of a change, but of course, he decided not to do that. And honestly, it wasn't very convincing that he would. Leaving aside the meta-reason of "they're gonna flog these sequels until the money piñata stops dropping stuff", Kirk doesn't really give any reasons why he'd want to do that.

I also can't help but wonder at how much they talk about science and exploration, but end up with their own ship in a fireball time and time again. It seems to undercut the message of Starfleet. I mean, how many ships do you have to lose to enemy action before you start thinking, "huh, maybe we SHOULD consider a different approach. Maybe more militaristic"?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, I suppose. I kind of overlooked that as generic good guy tropes combined with star trek idealism, but yeah, there's a definite parallel there.

I agree about the lack of actual development. Kirk deciding to run a space station instead of a ship would be something of a change, but of course, he decided not to do that. And honestly, it wasn't very convincing that he would. Leaving aside the meta-reason of "they're gonna flog these sequels until the money piñata stops dropping stuff", Kirk doesn't really give any reasons why he'd want to do that.

I also can't help but wonder at how much they talk about science and exploration, but end up with their own ship in a fireball time and time again. It seems to undercut the message of Starfleet. I mean, how many ships do you have to lose to enemy action before you start thinking, "huh, maybe we SHOULD consider a different approach. Maybe more militaristic"?

Wouldn't that depend on the timeline between sequels? Like if they lose ships every year, that's very questionable. But if it's just random terrorism/banditry, then no big deal.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby pogrmman » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

I really wish there was more development of the characters. That's why I liked the first new Star Trek that they did. It had at least some development of Nero's character.

Character development is why, IMO, DS9 was the best series of Star Trek.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10203
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:54 pm UTC

Dunno. I'm gonna look at what we know of new trek, I guess.

2009 Star Trek:

2238 - Kirk is born aboard USS Kelvin. It 'splodes. Fastforward to him hitting enlistment age.

2258 - Main timeline of series. Starfleet's available ships(38-40) are briefly seen, then all explode. Next, Vulcan Explodes. Stuff happens, culminating in the bad guy exploding, and the Enterprise exploding part of itself to ride shock waves out of a black hole while giving the middle finger to physics. Note that the adversary is literally a mining ship. Oh, and if memory serves, I think old Spock's ship explodes too. I can't think of any pictured starships that *didn't* explode.

2259 - Into Darkness. Volcano explodes, strangely not destroying the Enterprise. Kirk is sacked for this. Khan makes the headquarters explode, because 9-11, and Kirk makes HIS ship explode. Ship-wise, the Venegance and the Enterprise are the two main ships here, and both mostly explode. The Enterprise explodes slightly less, because of technobabble.

2260* - Star Trek Beyond. Everyone aggressively explodes at each other.

*Going by wiki dates, but actually seems inconsistent here. Some things say it's a year, some say three. I have no idea. It's trek, inconsistencies will get worse than this.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Zohar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:20 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:The whole 'our unity is what makes us strong'. Brexit was up for a vote over the dates you gave, but has been a discussion point for quite some time.

I mean, yes, it's been something people talked about for a long while, but I don't think they did so particularly seriously. Again, you can look at Google Trends in the UK for an indication of this - there's virtually no discussion of "referendum" before 2016 (except for the Scotland referendum in 2014). The same pattern exists if you look for "European Union" or "Europe". The "Brexit", "Out Campaign" and "In Campaign" subreddits were created in May 2015, so I suppose there could be some influence there but that seems really unlikely to me. Not to mention the movie came out a month after the referendum, so there's certainly no use trying to convince people to vote one way or another.

And, of course, unity and unification has often been a recurring theme in Star Trek. It's called the United Federation of Planets for a reason. I distinctly remember Seven of Nine talking (in 1997, almost 20 years ago) about the nature of the federation and it's mission to unite planets, and how similar that is to the Borg. This is not an out-of-the-blue topic for Star Trek. It's basically the entire premise of the Spock-Kirk relationship, that they grow closer together bla bla bla.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby pogrmman » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Dunno. I'm gonna look at what we know of new trek, I guess.

2009 Star Trek:

2238 - Kirk is born aboard USS Kelvin. It 'splodes. Fastforward to him hitting enlistment age.

2258 - Main timeline of series. Starfleet's available ships(38-40) are briefly seen, then all explode. Next, Vulcan Explodes. Stuff happens, culminating in the bad guy exploding, and the Enterprise exploding part of itself to ride shock waves out of a black hole while giving the middle finger to physics. Note that the adversary is literally a mining ship. Oh, and if memory serves, I think old Spock's ship explodes too. I can't think of any pictured starships that *didn't* explode.

2259 - Into Darkness. Volcano explodes, strangely not destroying the Enterprise. Kirk is sacked for this. Khan makes the headquarters explode, because 9-11, and Kirk makes HIS ship explode. Ship-wise, the Venegance and the Enterprise are the two main ships here, and both mostly explode. The Enterprise explodes slightly less, because of technobabble.

2260* - Star Trek Beyond. Everyone aggressively explodes at each other.

*Going by wiki dates, but actually seems inconsistent here. Some things say it's a year, some say three. I have no idea. It's trek, inconsistencies will get worse than this.


It does seem like it should be much longer than only a year between the second and third movies. Can they seriously build a new Enterprise that fast? Also, why would they trust the brand-new version to Kirk, who seems to have a habit of getting them destroyed...

Also, at the start of the new one, Kirk talks about how they are 3 years into their 5 year mission, which began at the end of Into Darkness, so presumably it takes place in 2262.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10203
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

Yeah, that's the specific reference that's 3 years.

People getting pressed into command in the original, in the wake of the fleet being destroyed, seems plausible, but yeah, after that, it seems as if his competency as a Captain isn't really questioned much. I mean, he gets questioned over saving lives at the beginning of the second movie, but not for getting his ship repeatedly blown up. That seems odd.

And certainly, all the conflict revolves around militaristic confrontation. We definitely aren't seeing exploration, etc as a primary theme of the movies themselves. Yeah, both 2 and 3 open with a little clip of non-battle stuff, but both go extremely poorly, and neither are a good example of how being non-militaristic is a successful strategy.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:06 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I can't think of any pictured starships that *didn't* explode.


Technically, the mining ship implodes. Also, I don't recall Spock's ship exploding, I believe it is still intact at the end of the movie. though if anything *did* happen to it, it probably imploded along with the mining ship.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10203
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:45 pm UTC

Fair, anything black hole'd implodes, rather than explodes. But I recall there being fireballs anyways. Eh, it's cinematic physics.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby charliepanayi » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

Star Trek Beyond aka Beastie Boys Save the Universe

I thought it was pretty good, nothing amazing, but I like the characters in these new films and it moves along at a fair old clip. The tributes to Nimoy and Yelchin were touching as well.

Spoiler:
Saw the whole revelation about Krall coming a mile off, pretty much from the moment they mentioned that abandoned ship's captain by name. He was a pretty bland villain really, like Nero in the 2009 film. Cumberbatch's character in Into Darkness was great, it's just a shame they were daft enough to make him Khan.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

maybeagnostic
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:It does seem like it should be much longer than only a year between the second and third movies. Can they seriously build a new Enterprise that fast?
I am amazed there was only supposed to be a year between the first and second movie. They apparently rebuilt nearly all of Starfleet in that time- not only all those ships but they managed to replace the personnel as well after most active duty members along with academy instructors and all their senior students got wiped out.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby pogrmman » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:22 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
pogrmman wrote:It does seem like it should be much longer than only a year between the second and third movies. Can they seriously build a new Enterprise that fast?
I am amazed there was only supposed to be a year between the first and second movie. They apparently rebuilt nearly all of Starfleet in that time- not only all those ships but they managed to replace the personnel as well after most active duty members along with academy instructors and all their senior students got wiped out.


I really don't get how that happened either: I mean that is a TON to do in a year!

rmsgrey
Posts: 3145
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:25 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:As long as it's better than Trek Into Darkness...


Having seen it last night, I think it's better than Trek Into Darkness. The biggest thing for me is that, for the first time, I came out of the theater thinking that Kirk deserved to be in command of a Starship.

I also liked that several characters had visible arcs - Kirk finding himself, Spock wrestling with how to honour Ambassador Spock - and the core Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship(s) from the original Star Trek got developed too. And then Uhura and Scotty also got major parts, in a marked contrast to how the older movies treated the supporting bridge crew.

I enjoyed spotting the easter egg of the Yorktown name - the original Yorktown in Star Trek was one of the 12 Constitution class Starships around for TOS (in the original pitch, the Enterprise was named the Yorktown, and the ship itself appears in IV when it's disabled by the probe).

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:40 am UTC

Zohar wrote:(Spock is incompetent in social situations and can't manage human relationships well,

Tell him it's a "non-optional social convention"... ;)

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5378
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby mosc » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:00 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I enjoyed spotting the easter egg of the Yorktown name - the original Yorktown in Star Trek was one of the 12 Constitution class Starships around for TOS (in the original pitch, the Enterprise was named the Yorktown, and the ship itself appears in IV when it's disabled by the probe).

Course the Enterprise-A from the previous chronology was also named the Yorktown prior to it's re-commisioning (mattering on which nerd you trust).
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3145
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek: To Infinity and Beyond

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:I enjoyed spotting the easter egg of the Yorktown name - the original Yorktown in Star Trek was one of the 12 Constitution class Starships around for TOS (in the original pitch, the Enterprise was named the Yorktown, and the ship itself appears in IV when it's disabled by the probe).

Course the Enterprise-A from the previous chronology was also named the Yorktown prior to it's re-commisioning (mattering on which nerd you trust).


There are three versions of that story - one is that the disabled Constitution class Yorktown got salvaged, refitted and renamed; another that a replacement Yorktown was under construction but got renamed; a third that a new build Starship with some other name got renamed Enterprise late in construction...


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests