129,264 Posts in 3,466 Topics - by 272 Members - Latest Member: masterarminas
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
1  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 22, 2013, 08:52:43 AM
So I'm guessing you're just using your selective memory when you said "So... anyone want to try defending that?"
Again, you aren't reading what I'm writing.
It may have been bad Trek to me, but it wasn't a bad movie.
I still stand by it being bad Trek.  It can be bad Trek and still be a decent stand alone movie.

Why do you find it so hard to understand that I can find parts of this movie to be undefendably bad and still not find the movie as a whole to be junk?

I swear, some of you guys seem to have franchise stockholme syndrome.  They neglect you so badly that you gratefully accept anything you can get and think they're doing you a favor.
2  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 21, 2013, 12:16:56 PM
When did you say you didn't hate it?
The very same post you are referencing:
As a stand alone movie, it wasn't bad.  I'd give it a C+. Better than the first one, and better than Nemesis actually.
And:
Well you went in expecting to hate it so shock of shocks you hated it. It was great.
On the contrary, I thought it was better as a movie than the first one.  Less gaping plotholes (were still several though), better pacing, etc.
I said it wasn't bad, and gave it a C+.  About the same I would give Oblivion (the one with Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman).  It isn't good, but it isn't awful either.  For another point of reference, I would say Iron Man 3 was a B-.

I'm not a complete ass, I'm quite capable of finding a movie watchable without having to say every single aspect of it was OMGAWESOMESAUCE!  I don't like the parts I specified.  I never said I disliked the entire movie as a whole.  It may have been bad Trek to me, but it wasn't a bad movie.

Some people either just didn't actually read what I wrote, or are suffering from selective memory.
3  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 20, 2013, 10:07:25 AM
You've already reviewed the movie. But it's obvious Edymnion is just looking for any excuse to hate it.
I like how everyone is saying I hated it when I clearly stated that I don't hate it several times, just that I don't think it was an awesome "best Trek evah!" movie.
Or that even after specifically saying that the plot holes were fairly minor compared to the first one, I'm still getting raked over the coals for daring to not like everything that happened.
Or that after being asked specifically what I didn't like about it, it all gets dismissed for being a point by point.

Its rather interesting being on the opposite side of the fanboi fence for change.

Boils down to this though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNy-ipksLUM
4  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 18, 2013, 07:02:46 PM
So you saw nothing wrong with that Khan.  That bland, watered down excuse for Khan that displayed none of the personality traits of the original.

Of all the complaints I've heard about the movie, none have called Cumberbatch's performance bland, water down, or lacking in personality. He's been pretty universally praised as the best individual thing about the film, in fact.

Desire for vengeance. Check.
Arrogance. Check.
Devotion to his people. Check.
Seductiveness of power. Check.
Ability to win people over to his cause. Check.
Superior skills, strength, and adaptability. Check.
Single-minded pursuit of goals, often to own detriment. Check.

I'm not seeing what traits of Khan's he was missing.
Where was his flair?  Even in Space Seed we were seeing him quoting classic literature, and pretty much every WoK Khan quote you can easily remember was him quoting literature.  Khan was more... I don't know a good way to say it, theatrical and sophisticated.  This one showed none of that.
Quote
Quote
You didn't question how McCoy went from "This technology is beyond me, I couldn't revive them without kiling them" to "Pop that canister and stick him in a medically induced coma" in only a couple of hours while in the middle of a high tension mission?

When has McCoy ever NOT complained or used hyperbole to describe any new situation he encounters? "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence." "Jim, I don't even know his anatomy." "I'm a doctor, not a(n) ______" His fear of transporters frying him. But when their backs are up against it, he always comes through. That's just his personality.
Yes, but in all of those instances he actually had time to do some research.  He didn't have that here, pretty much from the time they found the tubes to the time he was whipping that guy out of one to put Kirk in he was busy running around doing other things, like tending to the crew that were being blown up.

Quote
Where are you getting the idea that McCoy killed one of the Augments, btw? I don't recall that, and it would seem to explicitly go against the nonviolent message of the movie if true (an ironic message given the amount of violence, but it's there).
See previous issue.  He specifically said he didn't know how to take someone out of cryo safely because he had no idea how those tubes worked.  He had no time to study them, and then he pops one of them out in a few button presses.  Pretty sure when the doctor says "I can't do this without killing them" and then turns around and does it in a rush, that he's pretty much killed them.
Quote
Quote
Or how 72 super torpedoes went off in the belly of that ship without destroying it (badly damaged, but not destoryed).

Because they weren't super-torpedoes any more once they had there warheads ripped out on Earth and replaced by cryopods. The Enterprise crew could only replace them with conventional warhead from their own armory.[/quote]I may have misheard, but I'm fairly certain that when Carol and Bones were on the planetoid trying to open one of the torps up, they specifically said that the fuel tanks had been removed/modified to make room for the cryo-tube, not that the warheads had been removed.  Anyway, if the warheads had been removed, they wouldn't have blown at all.
Quote
Quote
Or fairly minor, but they specifically pointed out the Nibiru people (love that reference, btw) had barely invented the wheel, so why the hell was the Enterprise hiding in the ocean?  They could have easily stayed in orbit, its not like anyone would have seen them. They obviously had no trouble beaming people out of that volcano (and according to this movie logic, its apparently extremely hard to lock onto and beam someone up, but simple as pie to beam someone down 2 feet away from them), so why do a shuttle drop in the first place?  Just stay in orbit and beam the device down.
Rule of cool.
Rule of Cool doesn't apply when its also used as the Idiot Ball to drive the plot onwards.
Quote
For an in-universe explanation, if the Enterprise was in orbit, it still would have been visible to the people, and might have looked like a deadly comet or even a God to them given their primitive nature (we see them worshiping the Enterprise instantly after seeing it), much like Voyager became part of the mythology of that rapid time planet when it became caught in orbit. Originally the plan was not to have them see the ship at all, so that's why it was hidden underwater.

Also, the original mission was a planetary survey, not a rescue of the planet's inhabitants from a mega-volcano, so perhaps they were supposed to go underwater to get samples or observe the undersea lifeforms.
They could easily have kept the ship in the planet's shadow.  There would have been no way to detect it from the ground then.
Quote
Quote
And thats without getting into things like how apparently Cronos is about 15 minutes away from Earth at warp speed.

Who says? There was a cut between scenes, with Chekov now in his engineering uniform, so who knows how long it took to get there? Just because things flow a certain way in the movie for storytelling purposes doesn't mean there wasn't a gap.
They're 20 minutes away from Kronos at sublight (at least we have no indication that the shuttle had warp capability).  Dreadnaught shows up, Enterprise jumps to warp.  Cut to bridge where Carol is saying they still aren't safe.  "They can't touch us when we're at warp", queue the Dreadnaught catching up to them and knocking them out of warp so close to Earth they get caught in the gravity well.  Unless you want to say that the Dreadnaught decided to wait a couple days before giving chase, there was no edited time.  It was "On the klingon's doorstep, a few minutes at warp, back at Earth".
Quote
As far as telegraphing the resurrection with the blood, was there any doubt that Kirk was really going to die two movies in to a brand new franchise reboot? Of course he's coming back. However, if they hadn't telegraphed the scene with the blood, I guarantee that your complaint would have instead been to call it a last second deus ex machina with no set up, so it's a Catch-22.
No, there is a line between dues ex and telegraphing.  Its called good writing.  A skillful writer will work the foreshadowing into the story in such a way as to not make it blindingly obvious, but so that it will make sense once it is shown to you.

The early stuff with Khan's blood saving the girl was good.  Having Kirk stop mid-sentence with Khan just so Bones could say he was injecting blood into a dead tribble was bad.
5  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 17, 2013, 07:47:10 AM
So... anyone want to try defending that?

Defending what? The movie? I loved it. I'd give it an "A" and will debate the plot points if you want. The Vengeance scale? So what? Starfleet and Section 31 built a big ship to challenge the Klingons. They've also built massive stations, so it's not like it's out of their league.
So you saw nothing wrong with that Khan.  That bland, watered down excuse for Khan that displayed none of the personality traits of the original.
And you didn't cringe at how poorly done the remade death scene was, didn't wince when they butchered classic lines (I could hear other people in my theater going "No... no no no" just before Spock yelled KHANNN!!!!).
You didn't question how McCoy went from "This technology is beyond me, I couldn't revive them without kiling them" to "Pop that canister and stick him in a medically induced coma" in only a couple of hours while in the middle of a high tension mission?
Or why they had to save Khan when it was simply augment blood they needed (which they could have harvested after they killed him, or even from the 72 other popsicles they had, especially since McCoy already killed one by opening him up anyway).
Or how 72 super torpedoes went off in the belly of that ship without destroying it (badly damaged, but not destoryed).
Or for that matter how they were supposed to fire the torpedoes at Cronos when they specifically said the fuel tanks had been traded out to make room for the cryo-tubes (when Marcus said he was aware that Khan's men were in them, so its not like he just didn't know they wouldn't have fired).
Or how Scotty could log a flight plan with Starfleet (he was in one of their shuttles), take a direct flight out to the super-secret construction grounds for a Section 31 dreadnaught, buzz around the top of it for a while, then just jump in with a bunch of shuttles coming from a ship in the opposite direction, and *NO ONE* noticed him?
Or that Khan killed the people at the start, attacked the klingons, stole a Federation ship, and then intentionally crashed said ship into the middle of downtown San Francisco, and all they did was put him back to cryo-sleep?  Ya know, the rest of starfleet seemed to be on board with just killing his ass just over the first 42 people, whats a few hundred thousand more (at least)?
Or fairly minor, but they specifically pointed out the Nibiru people (love that reference, btw) had barely invented the wheel, so why the hell was the Enterprise hiding in the ocean?  They could have easily stayed in orbit, its not like anyone would have seen them.  They obviously had no trouble beaming people out of that volcano (and according to this movie logic, its apparently extremely hard to lock onto and beam someone up, but simple as pie to beam someone down 2 feet away from them), so why do a shuttle drop in the first place?  Just stay in orbit and beam the device down.

And thats without getting into things like how apparently Cronos is about 15 minutes away from Earth at warp speed.

Now, like I said, it was better than the first movie.  At least it's central plot point didn't completely invalidate the entire point of the movie from the start, and it wasn't a big "Gotta save the universe" movie.  The pacing was better, and there were no "What the hell is this red matter crap?!?" moments, just more smaller ones.  And I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing the Caitian girls (at least I assume they were Caitians, no fur, but they did have the tails).  I just felt that it showed no respect for the source material, making it a bad Trek movie.  When they referenced Wrath of Khan, they didn't do it in a respectful manner, it felt more like pandering to me at best, or "lets make fun of this cheesy old thing" at worst.  Oh well, at least fixing the ship was more than "take the lid off the podium", even if Kirk's "death" had absolutely zero emotional impact (due in about equal parts to the constant grimace inducing attempt at aping the old lines, and the fact they telegraphed "augment super-blood cures everything!" so much that you couldn't help but see that coming from a mile away even without spoilers).

As a stand alone movie, it wasn't bad.  I'd give it a C+. Better than the first one, and better than Nemesis actually.
6  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 16, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
Well you went in expecting to hate it so shock of shocks you hated it. It was great.
On the contrary, I thought it was better as a movie than the first one.  Less gaping plotholes (were still several though), better pacing, etc.

As a Star Trek fan I found it quite insulting at times though.
7  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 16, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
So... anyone want to try defending that?
8  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 15, 2013, 02:31:33 PM
Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this one will actually have a coherent plot that isn't being driven by reasons to throw stripping ensigns, explosions, and lens flares on the screen every chance they get.  Maybe it will be well thought out, tell a fresh story that isn't a bland and "safe" summer blockbuster rehash that gets at least nominated for Best Picture, that gives us a fresh take on beloved characters instead of being a pandering mess.

Or maybe it'll be another glorified Michael Bay film where everything is hyper-militarized as an excuse to show lots of fight scenes and sex instead of that whole "to boldly got where no man has gone before" thing, while Spock cracks smartass comments.

Comes out tomorrow, so we'll just have to wait and see.
9  Everything Else / Silver Screens and Boob Tubes / Re: Why Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises Sucked on: May 15, 2013, 07:58:43 AM
Umm you saw Batman Beyond right? I know you did you have it in your avatar.  Do you remember the pilot episode where Batman stops being Batman?  Not only that but he lets a younger character take on the cowl in the very same show...just like in DKR.
You mean when he has a heart attack in the middle of a bust and is forced to use a gun to get out, where he realizes that he is physically incapable of preforming the job anymore?  And how he still kept everything and when he found someone who could handle it started teaching the new guy everything he knew?

Yeah, because thats exactly the same as flying off to Paris to live happily ever after with Catwoman and leaving all the gear behind for random strangers to find.
10  Everything Else / Silver Screens and Boob Tubes / Why Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises Sucked on: May 14, 2013, 08:39:28 PM
Came up in another thread where it wasn't appropriate to elaborate, so figured I'd start a new one to elaborate.

Now, I liked Batman Begins.  It was a good movie.  Its not the gritty remake part I don't like, its the poor character adaptions and gaping plot holes in especially the last two that I don't like.

Dark Knight:
1) The Joker.  Oh everybody goes on about how great Heath Ledger was, and while I will agree he played the part well, it was how they cast the Joker that I disagreed with.  If I had to point to only one adaption of the Joker and say "Him, thats him.  That is the Joker", it would be Mark Hamill's.  Coming in second would be, goofy and campy as it was, Cesar Romero's.  You see, I like the Joker as being the Clown Prince of Crime.  If he isn't laughing and cackling like a madman, its just not the Joker.  Ledger's version was too low key, too reserved, and frankly just too damned sane to be the Joker.  This simply isn't a villain you should do if you don't plan to go all the way with him.  What we got in Dark Knight was just some nutcase in facepaint that came up with a new story about how he got the scars every time he mentioned them (which was entirely too frequently, it just got repetitive listening to him pull yet another story out of his butt).

2) Too much science fiction.  Batman has great toys, I get it.  Thing is, for a gritty reboot, Batman Begins at least made sure that the stuff he had was grounded in reality.  You could almost believe that this was possible.  Dark Knight though?  Oh joy, we've got 3D bat-sonar through cell phones, we've got electric memory cloth glider cape, we just had gadget after gadget that simply don't and can't work in the real world.  And no, "its Batman" or "its a comic book movie" is not justification for it when the entire premise of the reboot was to make it realistic.

3) Wasted villains.  This one goes for both sequels (although they pulled it off well in the first one), but I'll list it here.  I don't know why every blasted Batman movie has to have multiple villains (well, I know why, because of Catwoman and Penguin working so well the first time around), but this one was particularly bad.  You could have cut Two-Face out of the movie entirely and it wouldn't have changed a darned thing.  Not only has Joker been reduced to some nutcase in face paint, but they bring in a heavy hitter like Two-Face more than half way through just to off him a short while later.

Dark Knight Rises:
1) How is Batman walking?  I mean, I was excited at the start of this thing because it was showing what would actually happen to a man who tried to be Batman.  Within a couple of years his body would be so utterly destroyed by the constant abuse that you wouldn't be able to move.  The doctor flat out says he has no cartilage left in his knees.  Then he puts on some powered bat-armor that lets him move easier, I can live with that.  Except that when he gets his back broken and thrown down a hole with no bat-suit.  Even aside from the questionable at best excuse that he just slipped a disk and was able to recover from that down there, it wouldn't rebuild his cartilage.  All the best medicine money could buy couldn't do that, which is why he needed the bat-armor.  Except that now he's jumping chasms like a rabbit, how the hell did his knees miraculous repair themselves?  Through the miracle of low budget chiropracty?

2) Bane.  Much like the Joker above, I don't know what that was on screen, but it wasn't Bane.  Sure he's a big strong guy, but at that point he might as well had some scales on him and been Killer Croc.  Like the Joker, Bane is not a character you do half way.

3) Alfred abandons Bruce.  No, uh uh.  I don't care how bad it gets, but Alfred does not walk out on Bruce.  Its Alfred, abandoning Bruce in his hour of need.  Thats the second worst "do you even know anything about the characters you're writing for?" moment in the movie, we'll get to the first in a bit.

4) Bruce and Talia.  Okay, Talia is in disguise early on, thats fine.  Except when she's naked and bouncing on Bruce and the camera clearly shows that she's got a tattoo or a brand of the League of Shadows on her.  Bruce spent YEARS training with that organization, and was almost a full fledged member.  He would have known what that symbol meant, but he's still surprised at who she is?  I mean, I could buy him not realizing it was Talia, but not realizing she's a LoS agent?  Its like Senator McCarthy seeing someone with a sickle and hammer tattoo and not realizing the person might be Russian.

5) All of Gotham's police are in the sewer?  Okay, lets assume they really were stupid enough to send every last cop down into the sewers, and that for some reason in all those months none of them managed to dig their way out.  You've got a bunch of people confined to a small area virtually in the dark for months.  How in the world are they strong enough to come charging out at the end of the movie?  Not like they had a gym down there, or even room to run laps.  These guys were barely managing to not starve to death thanks to people slipping them food, and this went on for months.  Most of these guys should have needed stretchers to get out of there on.

6) Where was... the entire rest of the world?  I mean, even if we assume that this Batman is literally the only super-hero in the world (no Superman, no Green Lantern, no anybody else in the DC Universe), where was the US military?  You get somebody holding a city ransom with the threat of a nuke and letting millions of people go feral, and *NOBODY* responded to that?  Governments do not work that way, you have one guy threaten a nuke and take control of one of the largest, most densely populated cities in the country, for months, and nobody did anything to stop him?

7) Wasting time.  Towards the end, Batman is back in town, somehow.  He walked out of that hole as Bruce Wayne, one of the richest and most influential men on the planet that was recently feared dead in what was possibly the biggest terrorist attack in world history that was STILL GOING ON, and yet he managed to get all the way back to the US with no money apparently without anyone ever realizing who he was (remember, worldwide ninja assassins that watch everything?).  And when he gets to Gotham they keep drumming how the nuke is going to go off very soon and that every minute counts, yet he stops to spend probably half the day squirting lighter fluid on the bridge just so he can warn the hyper-competent ninjas that he's back in town?

8 ) The gravest sin of all, the one that proved to me that they had no respect at all for the property they were dealing with (even after ruining the Joker and Bane), Batman fakes his own death and hangs up the cowl to run away to Paris to bang Catwoman.  Leaving Gotham completely undefended.  Batman does not give up, he does not walk away, he does not quit.  This Batman faked his own death just so he could go live in France.  What the hell?  And no, there is no real indication that anyone ever intended Robin to become the next Batman.  Nobody told him what was going on, its only that he managed to stumble into the Batcave at the end all by himself that it even comes up.  Even then, Bruce spent years training with the greatest ninjas and assassins in the world to be good enough to be Batman, and had the Wayne fortune to back him up.  This guy has nothing but whatever backup suits and gear is in the Bat Cave, assuming he can figure out how to use any of it and assuming he doesn't get killed the first time he tries to go out in any of it.

They were internally inconsistent, they were inconsistent between themselves, they managed to screw up iconic Batman villains to the point that had they not slapped makeup on them they wouldn't have been recognizable, and they gutted the core traits that actually make Batman Batman.  These movies sucked.  They were nothing but mindless eye candy that immediately abandoned the idea of being a realistic and gritty reboot and jumped straight back into having all sorts of high tech gadgets, except where those gadgets would actually be used to keep the villains more correct.  Batman gets top secret military hovering ships, but Bane doesn't even get to shoot up on steroids?

That wasn't Bane, that wasn't the Joker, and that wasn't Batman.
11  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 14, 2013, 07:52:49 PM
Thanks. That tells me all I need to know.

Kinda invalidates everything he says, doesn't it?
I'm sorry, but there are only two Jokers IMO.  Casar Romero and Mark Hamill.  I like the *Clown* Prince of Crime.  If he's not laughing and cackling like a madman, he's not the Joker.

I'd be happy to pick Dark Knight and Dark Knight rises apart, but that would be for another thread.
12  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 12, 2013, 02:52:40 PM
Can you imagine if they reused an iconic villain like the Joker in a new Batman movie after he was so awesome in the 80s Batman? As if. The movie would totally bomb at the box office and be hated by critics and fans alike. Tongue
Don't have to imagine it, I saw Dark Knight.
The butchered the character.  Sure, Ledger acted well, but the role they had him playing was *NOT* the Joker, it was just some idiot in face paint.  But what can I say, IMO everything after Batman Begins was crap.  The first one was awesome, after that, they just failed miserably in my book.

And I would say that Into Darkness is at it's core just a remake.  They change up the intro a bit to shoe-horn Khan in years earlier than he should of been, but then degrades into "Kirk and Company fight Khan on board a stolen starship, have a big fight, and Kirk/Spock sacrifices himself in the engine room to give the ship enough power to escape destruction".  Khan, the villain that was almost too much for even the seasoned Enterprise crew, going up against them as rookies.  I'm sorry, but I just don't think Khan will be anywhere near as powerful of a villain in a storytelling perspective as the first time around, specifically because they cut out all of his background (no Space Seed, no being stranded by Kirk on a dying world, etc).

The fact they are basically following the overall plot of the first Wrath of Khan just seems like a slap in the face to me.  Of everything they could have done, they immediately resort to pulling out Khan and cribbing half the plot from the original line?  Wasn't the entire point of this reboot to get away from the originals?  I mean, I'm not happy with how NuTrek behaves, thats obvious.  But I was more willing to give it some wiggle room because they were telling new stories (even if they were rather brainless stories with plot holes big enough to pilot the Narada through), but when they start screwing around with the original movies material?  Come on man, I turned the other cheek the first time, so they're going to hit the other one now?
13  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 10, 2013, 07:56:47 AM
*Chuckles* Knowing paramount it was some dolt in the marketing department.  I mean how often do you see a trailer that gives away all the good parts.
Yeah, but I wouldn't call it being a Khan rehash a "good part".
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm definitely going into this one with low expectations.
14  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 07, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
he's make Trek a little to Warsie.
I would disagree, but I do so on the grounds of comparing it to the original Star Wars.  If you meant to compare his work to the prequals, then I agree.

The original Star Wars were not science fiction so much as they were space fantasy.  If we want to go with the strict definition that science fiction is simply anything with more advanced technology than we have today, then the Dark Knight trilogy was Science Fiction, as is Spiderman.  No, those weren't science fiction because the advanced elements were simply window dressing, they weren't actually important to the story being told.  You could quite easily retell Star Wars as a medieval period piece with it's swords, dark knight, evil king, farm boys, and render each "planet" as simply a nation or port of call, Odysseus style.  Seeing as how Lucas admits he was basically copying the Hero With a Thousand Faces monomyth, that makes sense.  While it is cliched and predictable, the fact he did it with a space twist (which hadn't been done before) made it fresh.

NuTrek didn't do any of that.  NuTrek dismissed the technology as window dressing, but it didn't really back it up with anything to compensate for it.  There was no underlying message like ToS usually had (even if it was a bit hamfisted at times), and the tech didn't play as big of a role as it did for TNG or DS9.  It was really a very simple story that re-used old plot devices in the exact same ways, and was just all around sort of there.  It looked cool, it had plenty of hot half-naked chicks and explosions, but it had no soul.

Now granted, I can rattle off several Trek Prime movies that were equally bad (Nemesis immediately springs to mind), but they had something that NuTrek doesn't to fall back on.  They have series behind them that can give the kind of character depth, technological footing, and multi-layered backgrounds that make Trek Trek.  NuTrek only has the one (about to be two) movies that don't even pretend to be intelligent and focus on just being a generic summer blockbuster movie.

Really, the problem isn't so much with Trek, or Abrams, or the reboot in general.  The problem is with the production houses.  Its an old pattern that keeps playing out.  Companies start to stagnate, so they invest some money in risky new properties.  Most of them go belly up in short order, a rare few managed to catch fire and become popular.  The company sees that they have a hit on their hands and forget that the reason its popular is because it was different and risky, and instead start trying to cash in on it by making sure they can attract as many people as possible to their new cash cow (which usually means they dumb it down into the ground).  People start getting bored of the now bland and "safe" product, and the cycle starts again.  Thing is, the companies have started to catch onto this cycle, and are trying to force the reboots without actually going back and providing the risky new stuff, and are instead trying to keep pushing the same tired old safe money maker content all over again under a shiny new label.

I see that very clearly with the spoiler info for Into Darkness.  They "rebooted" Trek, and as soon as they saw the first one make money what did they do?  Wide open universe of possibilities, and what do we get?  They immediately go the safe route and remake Wrath of Khan.

So yeah, maybe you did mean NuTrek was like the Star Wars prequals.  "Safe", "focus group approved", "appeal to the lowest common denominator" movies designed to milk a cashcow franchise for a few more dollars.  I would definitely agree with you if thats what you meant.
15  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: May 06, 2013, 03:55:13 PM
Jesus, does anyone even care how big the fucking enterprise is anymore?
The passage of time does not diminish the absurdity of scale.
16  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Star Trek Into The Light Speculation (spoilers for Into Darkness) on: May 03, 2013, 01:49:58 PM
So, Star Trek XIII speculation.

Warning, this will have some spoilers for Into Darkness in it.  Stop reading now if you don't at least know who the villain really is.

.
.
.

Okay, since Into Darkness is just Wrath of Khan II: Electric Boogaloo, I'm speculating that the next movie will play off the current title and continue the story along.  Since we will have finished off Khan, time to rip off Search for Spock as we attempt to bring Kirk back to life.  Only this time around, perhaps they'll be using the Genesis Device on the remains of Vulcan to put it back together, considering the first time around it was powerful enough to create an entire planet from a nebula, piecing Vulcan back together shouldn't be too much of a stretch, right?  And along the way genesis device + augment blood + Captain Kirk's corpse = Augment Kirk, now with 20% more cowboy diplomacy.
17  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: April 25, 2013, 09:28:41 AM
As for the spoilers, I am greatly disappointed that with everything they could have done, its a glorified rehash.
18  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: April 25, 2013, 09:07:34 AM
I didn't read the complete spoiler, so I may miss something. But the idea that Section 31, as a secretive organization, maintains huge starships is absurd. Oh well, the CIA may have some battleships out there on Earth's oceans that we don't know of... Anyway, it seems that overblown "secret ops" fan fiction has finally found its way to the big screen.

BTW, welcome back, Bond (although I was away much of the time too Shocked)
Without getting spoilery, it makes sense though.
Section 31 is the secret "protect the Federation at any cost" group.  They would have course been all over the wreckage of the Narada.  One world destroying threat barely stopped, the Klingons getting pushy, and access to future tech, would make sense that they would be in better position to come out of the shadows a bit more than they did in Prime.
19  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: April 23, 2013, 10:38:58 AM
Except that Abrams said outright, that the ship changed in size. He didn't say he wanted the ship to be a different size after the fact, he said that ship changed size in the movie. There were two different scale sheets being passed around, someone screwed up, it was too late to re-render those scenes. Simple as that.
Yes, but you have to realize I hated that movie and am completely unwilling to cut it any slack.
20  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: April 21, 2013, 09:55:55 PM
Like it or not, it still counts. Unless you want to throw 99% of what we know about the Trek franchise out the window?
Director commentary and "what we wanted to do" only gets to count when it is not directly contradicted by on-screen evidence.

Gene himself could rise from his grave and say he always intended for Vulcans to be bright fushia in color but couldn't afford that much makeup every episode.  Wouldn't change the fact that Spock had a normal fleshtone.
21  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: April 17, 2013, 03:16:56 PM
Holy crap, the new Connie was already bigger than a freaking Galaxy class, and now they're shoving something in there that dwarfs even that?

I feel sorry for the Borg when they show up.  By that time the Federation will be able to fit an entire cube into one of their cargo bays.

The ship was resized part way through the movie. There was a miscommunication, and it was to late to go back and re-render those scenes. It's actually about the size of the Connie Refit.

Could you source that please Ive heard other people say it but I cant find where.

It was mentioned in the commentary for the movie.
Then it doesn't really count.
Directors can say they meant X or Y, but when Z is on the screen, Z is what happened.
22  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: April 16, 2013, 01:44:47 PM
Holy crap, the new Connie was already bigger than a freaking Galaxy class, and now they're shoving something in there that dwarfs even that?

I feel sorry for the Borg when they show up.  By that time the Federation will be able to fit an entire cube into one of their cargo bays.
23  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Trek Universe, New Genres? on: March 29, 2013, 07:26:01 PM
Ugh, I remember a scene from TNG that had Riker and Troi sitting in one of their quarters going over duty rosters, and I swear I remember Riker mentioning crew rotations after their last starbase stop, but damned if I can find it on Google, and I can't remember what else happened that episode to dig it out of my DVDs.  If I didn't just dream that, then it could be seen as evidence that "normal" crewmen don't have permanent ship assignments, and just get rotated from ship to ship as needed.  Maybe its only the commissioned officers that get the stability of semi-permanent posts, while the non-comms like O'Brien get shifted around more frequently.  Memory Alpha states that Miles had served on a half dozen starships.  Granted he saw a lot of combat experience during the Cardassian War, so maybe he really did just have that many shot out from under him.

Another mention that sticks out at me was the episode where they were pressuring Riker to leave the Enterprise and command his own ship.  Riker had, to my knowledge, been picked by Picard as a first officer for the first time in his career, and had only served in that position for a couple years before they started offering him his own command.

I also recall hearing from a fan at one point how it was fairly unrealistic that the TNG crew would serve together on the same ship as long as they did, that normally you'd only be there for one tour of duty, and get reassigned to a new ship if/when you re-upped.  I don't know how true that is, just one of the random things floating around in my brain.

So it would seem that the long "everybody stays together forever" postings of most Trek main characters is more an artifact of the show structure as opposed to a representation of the normal duty shifts of Starfleet.
24  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Trek Universe, New Genres? on: March 29, 2013, 12:23:48 PM
Necro me up, Scotty.

What about a ship based show that doesn't focus on the ship, but a single protagonist crew member?  We know that crew members rotate on and off of various ships over their career, pretty much every main Trek character has at least off-hand mentions of previous ships they served on.  What if we focused on one person who would actually change ships every so often, follow the career of just that one guy/gal?
25  Star Trek / General Trek Discussion / Re: Star Trek XII news thread possible $$$$spoilers$$$$. on: March 28, 2013, 05:28:11 PM
It's sort of a general point of view, but it seems like Insurrection was the start of a slide away from deeper plots, into action sequences all over the place. Abrams movies are just the furthest extent of that.
If anything, I think I've just about come to the realization that I don't like Star Trek movies anymore.

I am just so tired of seeing big "gotta save the universe!" stuff.  Its one reason why I actually rather liked Insurrection.  It didn't feel like a Trek movie, it felt like an overgrown episode.  I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old, but the constant high rush of explosions and sexiness and nonstop action is just really boring to me now.  I want to slow it down, really get to know the characters, watch them grow and evolve.

I mean, I still find that type of sci-fi movie enjoyable, I'm really waiting for Pacific Rim to come out (live action Neon Genesis Evangelion?  Yes please!), but thats because I know going in that I just want to see big robots punching monsters and looking cool.  I don't expect any kind of depth to it, and a big "lets save the world!" movie is fine when its the only one.  Seeing the same crew save the world/galaxy/universe a half dozen times gets so utterly old.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49