PDA

View Full Version : New Star Trek



abachler
05-12-2009, 07:50 PM
Did it rock, did it suck, or was it just meh...

cpjust
05-12-2009, 09:04 PM
It's kind of hard to say. It mostly rocked, but there were some stupid things about it, like the "red matter". If they have the "Tox Uthat" in the 27th century that can stop all nuclear reaction in a star, then how can they have "red matter" which is even more powerful in the 24th century?
Then there's that huge monster on the ice moon that had the big hairy monster in it's mouth, but let it go to chase after Kirk, which would hardly even be an appetizer for it.
Then there's the matter of introducing yet another stray time-line into the Star Trek universe...
Also, why is Chekov in Star Fleet if he's only 17? Shouldn't he still be in High School? Who does he think he is - Wesley Crusher or something?

MK27
05-13-2009, 07:03 AM
I've only gone to a movie theatre twice this century and this won't be the third time, but Star Trek is a great "franchise" and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion about this opinion:

It seems to me that the original Star Trek was "ground breaking" in a lot of ways, eg, was socially progressive and presented a (somewhat) utopian, exotic dream for humanity. But by re-telling the same story using the same characters and universe forty years later, this "progressive" dimension has been totally lost, and the dream seems much less utopian and just plain -- plain. It barely looks like it's in the future at all, it's no longer exotic but familiar, etc, etc. In other words, do people think the managers of the franchise (who inherited it, in essence) are devoid of the vision of their predecessors and only "manage" to keep the same old same old -- a formula which is well liked enough to still generate some interest?

@cpjust: the science in Star Trek has never been taken seriously and I believe is even treated as a joke. There's a next gen episode where the planet's surface is "-350 degrees centigrade" which by that point I was well enough into high school to recognize that this is below absolute zero.

cpjust
05-13-2009, 10:23 AM
The ideals of Star Trek are still alive & kicking (although, this latest movie seemed to be more of a parody like Galaxy Quest). Star Trek shows a future where crime, hunger & disease are all but eliminated and where people are evolved enough to not require money to do their jobs... Star Trek takes controversial issues such as treatment of prisoners or insane or violent individuals in a way that doesn't just involve killing them or locking them up for years. The Fedoration will stick to their principles, even when they know it would put them in danger.

abachler
05-13-2009, 03:54 PM
@cpjust: the science in Star Trek has never been taken seriously and I believe is even treated as a joke. There's a next gen episode where the planet's surface is "-350 degrees centigrade" which by that point I was well enough into high school to recognize that this is below absolute zero.


Star Trek communicators == cell phones
Borg links == bluetooth headsets
star trek medical injectors == hypo's

and a host of other gadgets that were inspired by 'Treknology'

The new movie introduced nothing that is even remotely plausable. oooo red matter.

ಠ_ಠ
05-13-2009, 04:32 PM
Red matter == LHC

dra
05-13-2009, 07:08 PM
I've only seen the occasional episode from time to time on TV, so I'm not a Star Trek fan by any means. I wouldn't know how well it embodies the "soul" of the series or whatever, but as a Sci-Fi movie in general, I think it was exceptionally well done.

Snafuist
05-14-2009, 02:51 AM
The ideals of Star Trek are still alive & kicking (although, this latest movie seemed to be more of a parody like Galaxy Quest). Star Trek shows a future where crime, hunger & disease are all but eliminated and where people are evolved enough to not require money to do their jobs... Star Trek takes controversial issues such as treatment of prisoners or insane or violent individuals in a way that doesn't just involve killing them or locking them up for years.

Star Trek shows a future where people are not only treated equally (which at least in the general case is a good thing), but actually are equal: a society consisting of people who roughly share the same amount of intellect. There are neither dumb nor exclusively bright people (and only a few disabled ones). Apart from minor interests, everyone shares the same values and goals with each other, the only difference being what they have previously learned, i.e. their abilities. Choosing a different set of goals will make you a social outcast, and as there are only a few opposing views, the only thing that ties people together is a common enemy, such as the vast space, the Borg or some other kind of threat.

This reminds me of the North American culture, and in fact this utopia must seem appealing to people who can relate to the American Dream. I must confess that even for me it bears some kind of complacency, but I wouldn't want to live in the Star Trek universe.



The Fedoration will stick to their principles, even when they know it would put them in danger.


This is also true for the Borg. I think, the only real difference between the Fedoration and the Borg is the way they dress up.

I like the series, though.

Greets,
Philip

MK27
05-14-2009, 04:04 AM
Star Trek takes controversial issues such as treatment of prisoners or insane or violent individuals in a way that doesn't just involve killing them or locking them up for years.

Yes, I remember that from The Wrath of Khan. Kirk's policy always seemed to be that the phaser should only be something that gets fired as a last resort, if at all. He was very compassionate with the ladies, also.



This is also true for the Borg. I think, the only real difference between the Fedoration and the Borg is the way they dress up.


The borg were supposed to be a "dark shadow" or evil twin in this sense, I think. Fortunately, only the Federation worships the True God and not a false heathen idol -- or no god at all.

cpjust
05-14-2009, 06:42 AM
Star Trek shows a future where people [...] actually are equal: a society consisting of people who roughly share the same amount of intellect. There are neither dumb nor exclusively bright people (and only a few disabled ones).

Not quite. Obviously the people in Star Fleet (which is what the show mostly focuses on) can't be dumb, otherwise they'd flunk out of the academy. But Dr. Bashir was actually retarded when he was a kid, until his parents genetically altered him to be super smart...
I'm sure there would also be a lot of other people on Earth that aren't too bright either, otherwise who would do all the crappy jobs?

The Brain
05-14-2009, 07:20 AM
Star Trek movie rocks. It has sex, violence, and guns and hot chicks and a lot of ass kicking. Even spock beats the hell out of kirk. He almost ends up banging the black chick as well.

MK27
05-14-2009, 07:28 AM
Even spock beats the hell out of kirk. He almost ends up banging the black chick as well.

Yes, in the original series, whenever Spock gets it up this is a sign of some magical influence, and he is unleashed as a the platonic epitome of demonic sex/virility. The usual lust about (Kirk), who needs no magical influences, then just looks like an impotent old leacher.

I heard Leonard Nimoy interviewed recently, and he talked about getting invited to the white house where Barack Obama walked up and gave him that that "hang ten"ish vulcan gestural greeting, then said "Live Long and Prosper" when they parted.

happyclown
05-20-2009, 05:39 AM
I've just come back from seeing Star Trek. :D

I think it's between meh and rock.

SPOILER below
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ulhura kissing Spock seconds after his mum dies felt inappropriate. Then when they kissed the second time, while Kirk was waiting to be transported onto the Romulon ship - that was just awkward.

The guy that played Spock was perfect for the role. All the casts were good, except for Ulhura and Checkov. Ulhura's face was too thin, compared to the original, who had a rounder face. Young Checkov looked like he was on drugs. Way too animated, almost cartoonish, he looked like a little boy. The original Chekov was serious, not much animation at all.

But Old and young Spock talking face to face...doesn't that break some time travel paradox?

Not enough battle between the ships, not enough special effects.

7/10 :D

EDIT: And how can a ship take minutes to get freakin sucked into a black hole? And the ships don't even break up! What is up with that?

abachler
05-20-2009, 01:37 PM
But Old and young Spock talking face to face...doesn't that break some time travel paradox?


Yes, temporal loops unroll, so even the fact that the old and new spock existed in the same time frame woudl be a paradox. The tensor fields in super strign theory would simply correct the situation by seekign the least power state. This is typically why time travel does nto appear to be occuring, since from our frame of reference, the loop woudl unroll more or less instantaneously. While it may be possible to create a situation where a loop is the lowest energy state, such highly stressed regions can probably only exist inside black holes. Therefore, in the context of humans travelling back in time, time travel is not possible.




EDIT: And how can a ship take minutes to get freakin sucked into a black hole? And the ships don't even break up! What is up with that?

Well, once you throw known physics out the window and start doign things like warp drive, theres no limit on anything, so i suppose its possible to imagine that the inertial stabilizers can hold the ship together against black hole level forces.

Personally I think the franchise is dead, it just isnt dead yet.