Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby mosc » Tue May 12, 2009 2:12 pm UTC

keozen wrote:And on a spoiler POV, we need to list how many "nods" to previous Trek series and general Easter eggs we all spotted. I'll start:

Spoiler:
- Scotty has a Tribble in the research base in a cage. (annoyed me at first as I was thinking "Why aren't there millions of them" but then Scotty started complaining that all he had to eat was rations, therefore the tribble won't have been eating much and they need to eat a LOT for the fast breeding.
- During Kirk's Academic Suspension hearing when Spock stands from the auditorium he performs Picard's signiture "top pull down and straighten" thing (the "Other Picard Manoeuvre")
- Pike ends the film in a wheelchair
- Ok, i wouldn't have known this if it hadn't have been for an interview with Simon Pegg BUT, the Enterprise teleporter room assistant (sat next to Scotty all the time in there) is Christopher Doohan, James Doohan's son.
- Scotty was sent away to the research facility because he attempted to teleport Admiral Archer's Beagle and it never rematerialised, sound familiar anyone (Oh me yarm Scotty killed Porthos!).


You're forgetting all the dialog lines that were right out of the old movies:
Spoiler:
- Damnit Spock, I'm a Doctor not a physicist!
- I'm givin' her all she's got Captain!
- *pause* Fascinating.
- I don't believe in the no-win scenario
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.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Philwelch » Tue May 12, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

mosc wrote:You're forgetting all the dialog lines that were right out of the old movies:
Spoiler:
- Damnit Spock, I'm a Doctor not a physicist!
- I'm givin' her all she's got Captain!
- *pause* Fascinating.
- I don't believe in the no-win scenario


- I have been, and always shall be, your friend.
- Are you out of your Vulcan mind?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Jebobek » Tue May 12, 2009 6:12 pm UTC

Oh yea, they had a ton of dialogue that they just handed to the fans. What I'm personally interested in is little details and secrets that Keo pointed out.
Image

User avatar
hestia
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:17 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby hestia » Tue May 12, 2009 6:21 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:"Rogue terrorist not beholden to any government" has described every single Star Trek movie villain since Khan (though to be fair, the villains in Star Trek VI are obviously an amalgam of hardline Soviet tank generals in the coup against Gorbechev and Iran/Contra-era national security bigwigs working outside the law).
I'd like to read the paper myself, so I'll PM you. But I think that despite a few obvious and intentional parallels (Klingons = Soviets, Star Trek VI = Fall of Communism), it's not a perfect parallel. What real life threat did V'ger or Khan represent? Who were the Dominion supposed to be?


As the author of said thesis, I actually did not study the movies because big screen and small screen are very different creatures so honestly, I did not give the movie villains much thought. I will say though that I saw the Dominion as a government using terrorism and changing the battlefield. In my paper I rolled all terrorism in with the Dominion but looking back at it, especially watching Nero, there is a significant difference. The Dominion are the enemy we cannot see, therefore terrorists but as a government with expansionist goals, they separate themselves from Nero. Obviously the writers weren't thinking about this when they developed these characters, they are just representative of our fears.
NightStar wrote:
Chocceh wrote:Whatever way this thread turns out, Jesus is off-limits.


Tell that to Pontius Pilate.

User avatar
steewi
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:38 am UTC
Location: Tropical Nowhere

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spolers Starting at Page 2

Postby steewi » Wed May 13, 2009 5:58 am UTC

Zohar wrote:Did anyone else think the Romulan ship looked a bit like a shadow vessel?

Image

Image


Actually I thought Vorlons! And then later thought Vorlon/Shadow crossbreedwtf?!

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby podbaydoor » Wed May 13, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:And fuck, don't get me started on the possibilities of intrigue given reproductive variations; the sexual dimorphism evident in all Star Trek aliens is a further sign of the lack of thought that went into what aliens would be like.

Heh, that's one thing that's always bothered me. It can be explained away with the 'Aliens with Funny Foreheads' trope, where because of a low costuming budget they were stuck with minimal body alterations in order to create alien beings, and of course a human with a funny forehead is still human, so they wound up with humanoid races divided into two genders, just like humans!

What really bothers me, though, is how casually interspecies romance is taken. So...if you're a female human and you fall in love with a humanoid alien male, do you just assume that he's going to have a Tab A to your Slot B and the accompanying hormones to make the experience satisfying? It's that easy?
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Wed May 13, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

In TNG it's explained that all humanoid races are science-fictionally descended from a single race of ancient humanoids.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby podbaydoor » Wed May 13, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

I...see.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Yakk » Wed May 13, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

Time Travel is exceedingly dangerous.

Not because it changes time -- changing things is dangerous, but not as dangerous as Time Travel.

Time Travel changes things _until you cannot time travel any more_.

And it does so retroactively.

If you want to save the universe in a single-stream model, you need to suppress Time Travel. And if that involves the loss of entire planets in your past history, 'fixing' it isn't worth generating another perturbation in the 'one history' that might end up with all of reality being destroyed.

Using this model, people do choose to 'fix' history -- but 'fixing' history isn't always the wise choice. Instead you stop the changing of history (regardless of how much it was already changed), because the chaos caused by time travel in general is worse than the chaos in specific instances.

And note that they didn't have access to time travel in this movie. Even the 'bad guys' ended up doing time travel accidentally.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed May 13, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:What really bothers me, though, is how casually interspecies romance is taken


I always dug the interspecies romances for the humanoid aliens, solely because of the laughs other science fiction has tossed over the years. Think of Fry going "Why couldn't she be the good kind of mermaid, with the fish on top and the human on the bottom?!" or of a Klingon chick being all "Is it in yet? Why don't you punch me a bit, maybe I'll feel something then". But sure! Fine! Why not, logical sex sounds like a BLAST!

Philwelch wrote:In TNG it's explained that all humanoid races are science-fictionally descended from a single race of ancient humanoids.


I did not know this. Catch me up, so First Contact was just because humans were way behind the far superior Vulcans? And how did Klingons get up and running?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Wed May 13, 2009 6:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Philwelch wrote:In TNG it's explained that all humanoid races are science-fictionally descended from a single race of ancient humanoids.


I did not know this. Catch me up, so First Contact was just because humans were way behind the far superior Vulcans? And how did Klingons get up and running?


Watch the TNG episode "The Chase".
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Yakk » Wed May 13, 2009 10:54 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Philwelch wrote:In TNG it's explained that all humanoid races are science-fictionally descended from a single race of ancient humanoids.


I did not know this. Catch me up, so First Contact was just because humans were way behind the far superior Vulcans? And how did Klingons get up and running?
It is at the archaeological level. As in, some random precursor civilisation seeded (this part of?) the galaxy with humanoid life, or maybe code in the DNA that leads to humanoid life.

Thus creating a large number of intelligences that pop up around the same time, and can interbreed.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
hestia
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:17 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby hestia » Thu May 14, 2009 12:37 am UTC

Interbreeding isn't always easy though. In Voyager it is mentioned that interbreeding between Klingons and humans is difficult, though not impossible. I imagine the discussion of it has simply not come up terribly often in the episodes.
NightStar wrote:
Chocceh wrote:Whatever way this thread turns out, Jesus is off-limits.


Tell that to Pontius Pilate.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Thu May 14, 2009 1:21 am UTC

According to "The Chase", these aliens didn't seed humanoids, they seeded life, with the same basic genetic code. Their gene-fu was good enough to ensure that roughly similar forms (intelligent humanoids) would arise in many parts of the galaxy much later.

I always assumed that interspecies breeding required some biotech help, and as for whether or not they'd even be able to have sex, and how that would influence the relationship...I've just kind of assumed it's generally known that it's been done with certain races, and for the ones it hasn't been tried on, well,l you just boldly come go.

I wonder how Riker was planning to get it on with that nongendered alien, though.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Thu May 14, 2009 5:04 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:According to "The Chase", these aliens didn't seed humanoids, they seeded life, with the same basic genetic code. Their gene-fu was good enough to ensure that roughly similar forms (intelligent humanoids) would arise in many parts of the galaxy much later.


Yes, thank you. That's why I said "science-fictionally descended" rather than just "descended", because there's some science fiction involved in the explanation.

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I always assumed that interspecies breeding required some biotech help


Trip and T'Pol on Enterprise had that problem, though they also faced opposition from space racists.

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I wonder how Riker was planning to get it on with that nongendered alien, though.


People think Kirk was a skirt chaser, but man, nothing close to RIker.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

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 Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby keozen » Thu May 14, 2009 9:13 am UTC

Yeah you've got to love the in-cannon explanation for why most aliens have 2 arms 2 legs and are kinda human shaped. Nothing to do with the budget of the show at all, he he he.

Well, I watched the film again last night (for the third time) and it still stands up well. I'll be waiting until a DVD release to see it again now but I'm still gleefully happy.

In fact I've thrown myself back into the community over at the forums for Star Trek online as that seems to be shaping up well recently too.

It's a good time to be a Trekkie.
Image

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sprocket » Thu May 14, 2009 6:53 pm UTC

Mega D wrote:While I enjoyed the movie overall, I felt like most of the attempts at humor were pretty feeble.
SSEEEEERIously, which may be at least the #2 reason I didn't lurve the film. Humor is Serious Business!
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby frezik » Fri May 15, 2009 2:15 pm UTC

I just realized that this is technically an odd-numbered Trek movie. The curse has been broken in the right direction!
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Mother Superior » Fri May 15, 2009 8:46 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
DreadArchon wrote:Federation planets apparently have no ground-to-space defenses. None.


Why should they?

In case some crazy Romulan tries to destroy your planet? It's a wild shot, I know, but you never know...

As for fan-references:

Kirk eating an apple as he takes the Kobayashi Maru-test
"Wiktor-Wiktor"
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat May 16, 2009 3:49 am UTC

frezik wrote:I just realized that this is technically an odd-numbered Trek movie. The curse has been broken in the right direction!

Nemesis already did it the other way.

Anyway, I watched it again today. Some very good parts I picked up on--the Spock-Uhura thing that caught me by surprise last time was actually well foreshadowed. (In particular, their pre-Enterprise scene makes much more sense.) One thing I'm surprised nobody's claimed is a reference yet is Olsen's death. Obvious redshirt kill.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
StupendousYappi
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: Charleston, SC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby StupendousYappi » Sat May 16, 2009 9:33 pm UTC

I dragged my typical-teen sister who was visiting to come see with me (even though I am surrounded by engineers, none of them was a Trekkie, which left me extremely disappointed). She reluctantly agreed only after seeing the trailer and verifying that it had "hot guys". Anyway, she ended up enjoying it immensely. I thought it was good - in a very generic way. The dialogue was witty, the casting was precise (I think I have a crush on young Spock; my sister, of course, preferred the Captain), the special effects were stunning, etc. However, it fails in the same that Nemesis did, with its cookie-cutter villain (must we ALWAYS have the Sinister Looking Evil Guy Bent on Destroying Everything to have conflict in a Star Trek film?), superfluous action scenes, and uncreative plot. With that said, I'm happy for its successes. I'm hoping it will help to revive the franchise...and hopefully lead to better films.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby headprogrammingczar » Sat May 16, 2009 10:43 pm UTC

This movie definitely confirms JJ Abrams is better at writing for TV-length features (like Cloverfield, which was an hour and a half).
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Sat May 16, 2009 10:46 pm UTC

StupendousYappi wrote:must we ALWAYS have the Sinister Looking Evil Guy Bent on Destroying Everything to have conflict in a Star Trek film?


Yes.

Because the first time they tried that, it was awesome.

And his name was KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun May 17, 2009 6:18 am UTC

Most of the stuff I liked or didn't like has already been mentioned, SO I'll make a few comments that no one else has yet.

I saw this in classic IMAX yesterday, and my ears are still ringing from all the explosions and ships zooming through space and whatnot. I've seen quite a few IMAX movies in my time, including The Dark Knight and Operation Red Flag. Star Trek was definately the loudest though, and it was loud most of the time. As much as I like good sound, I think the IMAX super-duper-surround sound was a bit over-kill.

I really liked the design of the ship weapons shown, the phaser emitters that looked like they were based on real life military lasers designs especially. And the fact that they were used for point defense! Have phasers ever been used against torpedoes or other missiles in the series? I can't recall if they were.
Also int he vein of making the universe a little more realistic-ish, the Enterprise actually had stairs instead of just elevators and crawlspaces.

On the other hand, all those weird supports in many of the interior areas of the ships that were shown didn't seem to make much sense.

The fact that Nero was just a space miner with a futurtastic mining ship I thought was also pretty good, lots of golden age SF showed asteroid miners being used militarily pretty well, as have more recent SF writers like Niven and Alistair Reynolds, and I thought it gave the Star Trek universe a bit more depth.

There was one really cringe worthy moment for me, and that was the exchange when Sulu is taking the enterprise to warp for the first time and Spock-lar said 'Have you disengaged the external inertial dampener' or whatever and Sulu was like 'oh right...duh'. That seemed strained.

Finally, I know some one else didn't like the throttle on the new consoles, I thought it was a good way to maintain a bit of the Ships at Sea feel since they replaced the old-school ship of the line style combat with something more dynamic.
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

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun May 17, 2009 1:23 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Have phasers ever been used against torpedoes or other missiles in the series? I can't recall if they were.

Not to my knowledge.
The fact that Nero was just a space miner with a futurtastic mining ship I thought was also pretty good, lots of golden age SF showed asteroid miners being used militarily pretty well, as have more recent SF writers like Niven and Alistair Reynolds, and I thought it gave the Star Trek universe a bit more depth.

The comics also reveal that the Romulan military (just as pissed as he was after their planet blew up) outfitted him with some extras. An odd revelation, as I was perfectly willing to accept that 150 years of technology would be enough of an advantage.
There was one really cringe worthy moment for me, and that was the exchange when Sulu is taking the enterprise to warp for the first time and Spock-lar said 'Have you disengaged the external inertial dampener' or whatever and Sulu was like 'oh right...duh'. That seemed strained.

Maybe a little bit. I thought it was more of a technobabble gag, as "external inertial dampener" essentially means "parking brake". It also showed off that everyone really was just a cadet.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Moo
Oh man! I'm going to be so rebellious! I'm gonna...
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:15 pm UTC
Location: Beyond the goblin city
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Moo » Sun May 17, 2009 1:43 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:One thing I'm surprised nobody's claimed is a reference yet is Olsen's death. Obvious redshirt kill.
Well, Moo & Keo sort of did :)
Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
Hawknc wrote:FFT: I didn't realise Proverbs 9:7-8 was the first recorded instance of "haters gonna hate"

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby DreadArchon » Sun May 17, 2009 8:32 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:The comics also reveal that the Romulan military (just as pissed as he was after their planet blew up) outfitted him with some extras. An odd revelation, as I was perfectly willing to accept that 150 years of technology would be enough of an advantage.

He might have had some sort of fabricator, but I would be prepared to believe that even future miners won't necessarily have hundreds upon hundreds of armor-and-shield-piercing guided torpedoes just laying around.
Last edited by DreadArchon on Sun May 17, 2009 8:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun May 17, 2009 8:41 pm UTC

With replicators and raw materials, presumably you wouldn't need them. But yeah, it does make some sense.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Alder
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:20 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Alder » Sun May 17, 2009 10:32 pm UTC

Moo wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:One thing I'm surprised nobody's claimed is a reference yet is Olsen's death. Obvious redshirt kill.
Well, Moo & Keo sort of did :)

That is excellent. :D
Plasma Man wrote:I might have to get rid of some of my breadbins.

Kulantan wrote:I feel a great disturbance in the Fora, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and then kinda trailed off to a grumble.

User avatar
Jadestone
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 2:31 am UTC
Location: Everywhere

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Jadestone » Mon May 18, 2009 9:52 pm UTC

I went, and I really enjoyed it. I am not fully a Trekkie yet but I am trying, I have borrowed my friend's DVDs and am working through them, though I didn't finish a lot before I got to the movie. We dressed up for it! My friend even borrowed a phaser from another friend of hers, it was very fun.

I did not really like Spock's relationship with Uhora (spelling here?). It kind of undermined the fact that he was supposed to be emotionless--or attempting to be.


But maybe I'm just jealous ;)
Kokopelli for President

"Life's a beach. Then you die." -Terry Prattchet

"We are all of us alone in this world."

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby headprogrammingczar » Mon May 18, 2009 11:09 pm UTC

Jadestone wrote:But maybe I'm just jealous ;)

Don't worry, everyone secretly wishes they were Zachary Quinto.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
Jadestone
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 2:31 am UTC
Location: Everywhere

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Jadestone » Tue May 19, 2009 12:22 am UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:
Jadestone wrote:But maybe I'm just jealous ;)

Don't worry, everyone secretly wishes they were Zachary Quinto.


I'd rather be the one kissing him :)


But I wouldn't mind being him either I suppose, even though I am female.
Kokopelli for President

"Life's a beach. Then you die." -Terry Prattchet

"We are all of us alone in this world."

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby GhostWolfe » Tue May 19, 2009 12:46 am UTC

Jadestone wrote:I did not really like Spock's relationship with Uhora (spelling here?). It kind of undermined the fact that he was supposed to be emotionless--or attempting to be.
I think that might have been the point to some extent. That no matter how much he wanted to, he could never truly deny his true nature. Kinda like his father telling him: yes, I am capable of feeling love, and so should you.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue May 19, 2009 12:50 am UTC

DreadArchon wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:The comics also reveal that the Romulan military (just as pissed as he was after their planet blew up) outfitted him with some extras. An odd revelation, as I was perfectly willing to accept that 150 years of technology would be enough of an advantage.

He might have had some sort of fabricator, but I would be prepared to believe that even future miners won't necessarily have hundreds upon hundreds of armor-and-shield-piercing guided torpedoes just laying around.


Asteroid mining pretty much consists of blowing up rocks and throwing the pieces around (I.E. towards a refinery or other point of use) I'd bet advanced, futurtastic mining drones wouldn't need much help making some big booms.

Although I did wonder if the surviving Romulan military hadn't of wanted to dot heir part avenging the death of their homeworld.
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

User avatar
Sarr
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:34 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sarr » Tue May 19, 2009 1:25 am UTC

*Re-emerges from Lurk to rage*

I'm probably gonna get some flak for this, so all power to forwards shields.

I. Utterly. Hated. It.
Completely and utterly loathed the thing. It felt badly strung together with horribly done plot devices, too many characters that got little to no development, pathetic attempts at humor the whole way through, Sylar-Spock bugged me to no end, as did Spock/Uhura
Spoiler:
they blew up Vulcan, what the frak


I realize alot of people enjoyed it, and are looking forwards to the rest of the reboot... enjoy. I, for one, will not be partaking.
Rakysh wrote:Basically, xkcd is basically for punching into submission the dumb frat guy in your brain.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5181
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Felstaff » Tue May 19, 2009 6:27 am UTC

Sarr wrote:too many characters that got little to no development

J.J. Abrams' is a fan of characterisation-on-the-run which I think is a rather brutish, but effective device. Kirk had 30 seconds of stealing his step-dad's car and BAM! he's a cool, rebellious teen. Kid Spock had one altercation with some Vulcan bullies and BAM! he's a conflicted mixed-race child.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
benjhuey
Posts: 3328
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:35 am UTC
Location: A collection of rocks

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby benjhuey » Tue May 19, 2009 9:37 am UTC

I am by no means a Trekkie. I know just enough to catch most of the fan nods. That being said, I enjoyed the film.

A few things that irked me a little:
Spoiler:
  • James' early car scene. That was just over the top. Yes, we get it, he's rebellious. He could have also made the film much shorter by jumping out of the car a half second later. What is he? Twelve? I've seen rebellious twelve-years-olds; few can handle cars that well.
  • Scotty is missing a single equation to make beaming while in warp possible. Future Spock gives it to him and he immediately understand it. It's plugged into a computer and works without incident. Right.
  • For that matter, general lack of computer assistance for basic things. They definitely posses advanced AI, but stylus point-and-click beaming? This one I can forgive, though; it's not so much a problem I have with the plot as it is a simple neglect of a more likely future scenario. I mean, if I wanted realism, I wouldn't see a sci-fi movie with faster-than-light travel, amirite?
  • When the Enterprise traverses through ship debris after it warps to Vulcan. It dodges the larger chucks, and I will assume it can handle the small stuff, but for some reason they didn't have to worry about anything between those two extremes pummeling the ship. Considering how "populated" the are looked with the scrap, I'd figure the thing would take a few more hits than it did. Of course, I am neglecting "shields" and whatnot, but still.
  • Lens flare. Seriously, what the fuck?

Also, space battles == scary as shit. I never really thought of it before, but to have the section of ship you're standing in erupt into flame for no apparent reason will not give you happy dreams. (Excluding the bridge, you may have no idea if or when something is going to hit, much less where it's going to hit.)
多么现在棕色母牛?

User avatar
Amarantha
Posts: 1638
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Amarantha » Tue May 19, 2009 11:42 am UTC

The first Star Trek eps I really watched were a handful of random eps of TNG. Most of these had plots that involved a temporal anomaly that they fixed with a tachyon beam. I put that down to coincidence - I just happened to have seen 2-3 random eps with similar plot devices (the plots themselves differed in various other ways). But I went to visit my folks and it came on the telly and my Mum was like, "What's this?" So I jokingly said, "Oh, that's Star Trek. Every week they have a temporal anomaly and fix it with a tachyon beam." She decided to watch it out of curiosity, and lo and behold, that was exactly what happened :P So I joke about that being the only plot of Star Trek, and I don't really mean it. But it did make me wonder why they didn't use a tachyon beam to like go back and save Spock's mum or something. I realise not doing so was essential to the concept of an AU reboot, but it did kinda feel unfinished for me. Apart from that, I quite liked it, for what it was. I can imagine hardcore Trekkers might not like it, but I think it'll bring in a new generation of fans who might then rediscover the older stuff.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Kizyr » Tue May 19, 2009 2:12 pm UTC

I just realized I hadn't replied on this thread yet...

Well, I'll just give a summary: I really, really loved it. I've been a Trek fan most of my life (since I was 10). I grew up watching TNG, my favorite series is DS9, and I'm probably one of the very few who really liked Enterprise (it had its highs and lows, but did a lot of really interesting things). I followed off-and-on Voyager, and have more familiarity with TOS through the movies than the actual series.

Anyway... I really liked the 'reboot' of the series, for many reasons. My basic summary:

The good:
  • Action sequences--in space (the first 10 minutes with the USS Kelvin), on-the-ground, and in between (orbital skydiving!)
  • The casting--particularly Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty
  • How Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekhov retained the best parts of their original character
  • How Kirk, Spock, and Uhura got a much-needed upgrade to their characters
  • Occasional lines and events that called back to the series ("Are you out of your damn Vulcan mind?", Sulu's hand-to-hand combat, Chekhov's trouble with Vs, the redshirt on the orbital skydive)
  • Leonard Nimoy
The bad:
  • The main villain, Nero, for supposedly being worse than Khan Singh, has really lousy motivations
  • The interaction between Spock and Uhura
  • Angle-shots, shaky-cameras, and lens flare. I hate these three techniques, yet why do directors insist on using them? I thought Battlefield: Earth proved how completely awful angle-shots can be.
The confusing:
  • "Did that just really happen?"

For a couple spoiler-laden points and questions:
Spoiler:
Time travel is definitely a trope, and I get real tired of it since it always turns out to be a "giant reset button" at the end--the Sci-Fi equivalent of a dream sequence. So, when Vulcan got destroyed, I fully expected them to end up 25 years in the past by the end and undo it all. Actually, when they were about to be sucked into the black hole near the end, that's when I though it would happen (did anyone else think this?).

So, when the credits rolled, I was pretty surprised. I gotta credit J.J. Abrams for turning a trope around and using it to his advantage.

Oh, and I never liked Vulcans anyway.

KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Moo
Oh man! I'm going to be so rebellious! I'm gonna...
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:15 pm UTC
Location: Beyond the goblin city
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Moo » Tue May 19, 2009 2:19 pm UTC

Kizyr's pretty much summed up my opinion of the film (except the cinematographic elements; I just don't notice that kind of thing and have no opinion). You're the first person I've heard share my criticism on the fact that the villain is just a pissed off miner.
Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
Hawknc wrote:FFT: I didn't realise Proverbs 9:7-8 was the first recorded instance of "haters gonna hate"


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests