*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

Well, I think it might have been a tad contrived that the writers chose to turn Khan into a bitter man for the movie. but it was in keeping with the character since he blamed Kirk for Marla's death by leaving them on Ceti Alpha. Khan wasn't that bad a man, he was a ruthless man who wanted to lead people under his rule.

I think this level of back story just wasn't there for Nero. The feeling for him wasn't as well developed on screen, so he comes off more 2 dimensional then Khan did. (Not everyone will read the comic book version or novelization)

 

[todd s]

The one thing that kinda of irked me with Trek 2. I just find it hard to believe the Reliant crew would mistake Ceti Alpha 4 for Ceti Alpha 5. Its not like they were on the wrong block. I assume technology in the future would know the difference of planets and their locations.

 

[SilverWook]

Didn't Khan say the orbit shifted after Ceti Alpha 4 blew up? Still, you'd think there would be a pop-up warning or something in the computer mentioning Khan's "colony" being in the system. (Not to mention an entire planet being missing.)

And Chekov should have remembered something long before seeing the name "Botany Bay" on a belt buckle!

Still a damn good Trek movie though.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Yeah the only weakness of ST2. A long range scan would have shown the composition of that system had fundamentally been altered or that the Enterprise had been there before. The only real gaffe that ST2 has.

Star Trek(2009) still irks me with Delta Vega being so close to Vulcan and the transwarp beaming. Much like the transwarp drive from ST3, it is something that will never be addressed again I bet. If they have such transporters, who needs starships?

 

[todd s]

I guess Federation ships aren't equipped with Tom Tom or Garmin GPS systems.

 

[Malcolm R]

The remake was better than I expected, but JJ's fetish for lens flares and shaky-cam detracted from the enjoyment of the film.

And I've never understood the point of having shields on starships, as they are always compromised by the slightest impact. Seems like they're just a waste of energy that would be better served by being diverted to other systems (engines, weapons).

 

[SilverWook]

IIRC, Transwarp pops up a couple times on TNG and Voyager.

I would suspect the energy requirements of Transwarp beaming would make it impractical for everyday use. That, and Scotty materialized inside a coolant pipe. The next time, some poor redshirt could end up inside a bulkhead!

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Well Transwarp drive was fairly well covered over the coarse of the various series, with it ultimately being considered unattainable. As it should be. They never explained the idea behind it very well on screen, but it works like this; Transwarp drive is essentially the point where your speed is so great you would occupy all points of the universe simultaneously. Far too powerful an idea for the show to work with and still be dramatically satisfying.

Transwarp beaming, I take to be something very different. If we reason out the simplest explanation, it wouldn't be anything more than the ability to transmit the transporters particle stream over subspace.

 

[SilverWook]

So that has nothing to do with the Borg's Transwarp conduits then?

I'm pretending a certain episode of Voyager about breaking the Transwarp barrier and mutating into amphibians never ever happened though.

 

[Jose Martinez]

Guess which movie made the National Board of Review's Top Ten of 2009?

http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=2009

 

[todd s]

Another small nitpick (wouldn't be Trek without nitpicking). Why did most of the ship look sleek and modern. While engineering looked like a rundown factory from the present?? Including the shuttle bay.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Originally Posted by todd s

Another small nitpick (wouldn't be Trek without nitpicking). Why did most of the ship look sleek and modern. While engineering looked like a rundown factory from the present?? Including the shuttle bay.

Does the body of your car look anything like the engine?

 

[Win Joy Jr]

IIRC, this was covered in the novelization, which was released prior to the movie release.

Originally Posted by Lou Sytsma

Yeah the only weakness of ST2. A long range scan would have shown the composition of that system had fundamentally been altered or that the Enterprise had been there before. The only real gaffe that ST2 has.

Star Trek(2009) still irks me with Delta Vega being so close to Vulcan and the transwarp beaming. Much like the transwarp drive from ST3, it is something that will never be addressed again I bet. If they have such transporters, who needs starships?

 

[Lou Sytsma]

If the explanation was not in the movie then the issue remains.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

The fact that Delta Vega was so close to Vulcan to see its destruction has always irked me.

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by todd s

Another small nitpick (wouldn't be Trek without nitpicking). Why did most of the ship look sleek and modern. While engineering looked like a rundown factory from the present?? Including the shuttle bay.

Much like how the Titanic was a modern vessel in every discernible way, but the engine room was dark and gritty. Plus, the Trek engine room sequence was filmed in a brewery.

 

[Ockeghem]

^^^

In a very odd way, that's almost appropriate given what happens to Scotty when they first beam in. (I did say odd way. )

 

[SilverWook]

The Kelvin's lower levels looked old and shopworn, (which makes sense as it was supposed to be an older ship) but the corresponding Enterprise decks looked "new" enough to me.

I was finally getting into my Buck Rogers tv series set over the weekend, and there were a couple of chase scenes in something that looked like a brewery or a power plant.

The view of Vulcan from Delta Vega may just be dramatic license. Much like Spock's mindmeld images are from a third person point of view.

 

[Carlo_M]

Agree on the discussion about the "innards" vs. the sleek exterior look being appropriate.

Take the new Apple iMacs ... sleek and sexy as all get-out on the outside. Ever open one up? Looks just like every other computer's innards, very industrial looking.

To me it heightens the reality of it. The outside can and should look sleek, but the inside is still a representation of the requisite set of machinery.

 

[PaulDA]

Originally Posted by SilverWook ).