STXII in 2012

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on December 7th, 2009, 12:15 am

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on December 7th, 2009, 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

My beef with Red Matter is that it was invented just for the movie, making up a new thing every time you need to do something causes need for more technobabble and ruins consistency within the Star Trek universe.  Red Matter was one of several lame plot devices that really needed some more thought, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next movie was just more not so well thought out plot devices to get things to happen.
EDIT: Wow, didn't notice some of the new posts since my last post. Here's my thoughts on Old Trek Fans being a "dying breed":
I think the reason there are fewer is because Star Trek has gone from TNG moral dilemmas to all PEW, PEW, etc.. A movie like Star Treks 1-6 could make money and have wide appeal, it just has to have a good balance to appeal to both audiences. For fans like me who value plot and logical sense over action, a movie like Star Trek XI is only worth watching once (and forgetting ASAP.) But I've seen Star Treks 2-6 multiple times each.

posted on December 7th, 2009, 1:24 am

The Undiscovered Country was a great work.  Moral quandary?  Check.  Cool fights?  Check.  Shakespeare?  CHECK!

posted on December 7th, 2009, 1:31 am

Not just Shakespeare, but Klingon Shakespeare!

posted on December 7th, 2009, 4:27 am

The problem with the "NEW" Star Trek for old Star Trek fans isnt the new look, it is the change of physical laws respectively the adding of new things like red matter. One of the best things on Star Trek was the most plausible technology etc. now it moves to be like other stuff. You think now they have no choice... but the storywriters add a new technology or physical law or something without a logical description. Its like looking a movie with knights who only have swords... they are hundrets against thousand they are probably lost...dead... but the hundrets go to their horses and take machine guns and grenades out of their bags.
It can be cool, funny, amusing... but it  will be no more knight-movie.

Plausible Technology? In Star Trek? Have we been watching the same show? Since when has any of the technology been plausible? The only thing realistic was the communicator, and that wasnt exactly a unique idea. Its not like the idea of portable long range communication devices were unheard of, the military had them.


Transporters have long since been proven impossible, as has FTL travel (Of course lame-arse excuses like Warp Bubbles, subspace, and "Heisenberg compensators" were made in the show, but that doesnt all of a sudden make it realistic.) Half the weapons are rediculous in power output, the use of Anti-matter is completely unrealistic, and while Voyager may be tops in Technobabble, there's plenty of it to go around in The Next Generation as well. DS9 got around that by being more focused on War and character drama. For the most part....

I didnt see anything done in Star Trek 2009 that hasnt been done a thousand times before as far as technobabble and science is concerned. However, it was certainly a far more entertaining movie than the vast majority of all of the other Star Trek movies, including Kirk Era movies. I find it laughable that the old-time Star Trek fans, of all people, are the ones to nitpick at things like Redmatter. That's just looking for an excuse to bitch. Have you been watching your own franchise for the past couple of decades?

posted on December 9th, 2009, 1:40 am

"A thousand times before" is exactly the problem, Star Trek is about "going where no one has gone before." Old Star Trek fans remember watching a show (which is still on sometimes) in which crap about red matter was occasional and overlooked in favor of questions about what we can do, but even more importantly what we should do.  It showed a better vision of the future (but still had its problems), that promoted thinking about how we can make parts of that future become a reality.  Maybe transporters are possible (unlikely I think), but if we just assume they aren't, we will obviously never invent them. Star Trek XI sure has action, but I doubt anyone will ever try to make the world a better place or think about the human condition because of it. I want entertainment that gives me something to think about while the pretty explosions go off.

posted on December 10th, 2009, 10:05 pm

The sad thing about that is that most people don't want to see things which make them think. They just want to be bombed with noise and effects, onedimensional protagonists and bad dialogues with the goal to sound artificially smart or cool. People love stupid entertainment and writers and producers love to deliver them because this is easier done than something intelligent.

posted on December 11th, 2009, 6:33 am

I enjoyed the new movie a lot, and watch it all the time on DVD. I wish STXII  would come out sooner but if it needs more time, then I'm fine with that. I was never really a fan of TOS or the TOS era until this movie. Maybe because it was before my time...  But overall, even if has a few flaws, I'm willing to overlook that for everything else this movie has.

posted on December 11th, 2009, 7:46 am

The Undiscovered Country was a great work.  Moral quandary?  Check.  Cool fights?  Check.  Shakespeare?  CHECK!

HERE HERE! 

The Undiscovered Country is by Far my Favorite Trek film of all time, a close second is the Wrath of Kahn and then Search For Spock... EPIC! And I tend to favor TNG and DS9... shame there was no DS9 full length motion picture dealing more intrinsically with the Dominion War.

posted on December 15th, 2009, 5:10 am

Lol ...


  The new Star Trek movie was a cash-cow.  Paramount has taken extensive hits lately for several reasons and it hemorrhaging money.  They needed a movie with a well-built fanbase and attraction to outside audiences as well.

Thus we get Star Trek: The Feature Film Video Game with 1 Dimensional Characters.

  My roommate and best friend worked for Paramount while the movie was being prepped for release.  He said that all the talk on the lot was that if the new Star Trek movie didn't get Paramount ready to deal with 2010 then the Studio was in extreme danger.  I mean ... all Trek nonsense aside, the movie was intentionally made to be more mainstream than the other Trek movies.

  But comparing this action flik to Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, or Voyage Home?  Please ... those movies were risky; they were bold; and they were character driven.  This new Star Trek movie relied on the fact that we all know who the characters are already.  It's a simple script device.  They knew that character development was not as necessary as before so they can replace all the actors with more attractive versions, hint at each character's "thing" in a short cut, and finally have each one deliver a one-liner to make all the Trekkies cream their pants.

  As an actor and a Trekkie working in the industry I was appalled by the gall they had to pretend like this movie was "done in the name of Trek fans".  It was an action snuff film.  The fucking Kirk actor was in "Fighting" ... C'MON!  He was as stiff as a board, he was boring, and JJ had him do 4 ledge-hangning scenes.

  DO YOU REALIZE THAT!?!?!?!?!?!

  4 COMPLETELY SEPARATE SCENES WHERE HE HANGS FROM A LEDGE.

  FFS.

  Even in bad action movies they know better than to do that............

posted on December 15th, 2009, 5:15 am

I've shown this before, but it fits so well here.

posted on December 15th, 2009, 2:35 pm

i like the wrath of kahn best then first contact as both featured villains with a story ie weve seen them b4

2 the bloke that said anti matter is unrealistic do some reading on the net and you will find that anti matter has been created alreay it is just far far far too expensive to produce in usefull amounts

posted on December 15th, 2009, 3:52 pm

The Onion news video about raging trekkies applies so well...After all, they are the only ones complaining (by and large. Check IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes reviews, critics or otherwise). And Trekkies wonder why their fanbase was getting increasingly smaller and non-profitable over the years? Even Star Wars worst movie did better than the collection of every Star Trek movie ever made.

Personally, i enjoyed the new movie. Love rewatching it too.

posted on December 15th, 2009, 3:53 pm

i like the wrath of kahn best then first contact as both featured villains with a story ie weve seen them b4

2 the bloke that said anti matter is unrealistic do some reading on the net and you will find that anti matter has been created alreay it is just far far far too expensive to produce in usefull amounts

That's why Anti-matter useage in Star Trek is unrealistic. Because Thermodynamics makes it USELESS as a power source and too expensive to use for anything else.

posted on December 15th, 2009, 3:54 pm

The Star Wars worst movie probably did better cuz there are a lot of children out there.... Meesaaa amused by 'tupid "jokes".

That's why Anti-matter useage in Star Trek is unrealistic. Because Thermodynamics makes it USELESS as a power source and too expensive to use for anything else.

It's a different universe - afterall, they have "nadion particles" and I don't hear anybody complaining about that. 

posted on December 15th, 2009, 3:59 pm

I've shown this before, but it fits so well here.

HA. That was awesome. Good clip Mal. And i liked the new movie, but thought that was hilarious (Was that a die-hard clip of the nakatomi plaza at one point?). And lol@ the random end. (What?!)