*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 12

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Well, for one you would need Spock Prime to hand that knowledge over unasked. The knowledge of how to do it was discovered by the Enterprise crew in TOS, so it's unknown in this timeline.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

It's not explained well in the film, but as far as I remember from the comic it wasn't Romulus's own star that was going Supernova. It was a star in another system somewhere that instead of going supernova and then collapsing again kept growing larger as it engulfed more mass (first the planets in its own system) and then subsequent systems. Romulus just happened to be the first planet in its path. I think the implication was it would even eventually destroy Vulcan and Earth and maybe even the entire galaxy or at least quadrant. The fact that Spock collapsed it in time to save Vulcan and Earth but not Romulus only adds to Nero's rage.


They were even able to calculate where they would end up when jumping through time with that method. STIV made time travel seem like an established procedure one would find in a manual somewhere, but it's always easier just to open a wormhole or something.

Of course, STIV sort of disregards quantum mechanics and figures the crew could actually return to the future and to their specific quantum reality.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Sorry, dont buy it.

Nero has all the proof he needs, a plus the tehcnology of a ship FAR exceeding what the Romulans had at that point. I dont even think Romulus would even care where it came from.

And 25 years is a long time. Enough time to go to Romulas and return.

I cant get over this. To me, its simply stupid for Nero to sit and wait for so long.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

While I don't know what happened exactly, I believe Nero spent much of this time in Klingon Prison. This was cut from the film, but you can see bits of the escape in the trailers.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

For what purpose would Nero go to Romulus before the events of the film? To get Romulans involved in a war with loss of Romulan life? To have Vulcan enslaved before Spock Prime arrives? Nero can wipe out all Romulan enemies, get revenge on Spock Prime, and build a great Romulan empire if he simply waits for Spock Prime to reappear. Your suggested plan accomplished none of those things and risks Nero being overthrown/killed by those who want his technology for their own gain.

Showing up somewhere with advanced technology doesn't really help directly. If we sent back an aircraft carrier loaded with today's technology 100 years back, it would take decades before the technology could advance enough that they could replicate what was on that ship. Once the jets ran out of fuel and missiles/bombs it would no longer be that useful. Just because you have access to a computer in 1901 doesn't mean you could build one with the technology available in 1901. It certainly would speed up the development of the computer but it will still take a long time to develop the technology to build the components.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Yes, on Rura Penthe, and it will be on the DVD. I have to assume that that obvious large bite mark on Nero's head (that cut off the top of his ear) is from a Klingon targ.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

No, it's fun - that's why we do it.

And for the record, I "go with it" AND I "analyze it to death" - then, just for fun, I re-write it in my head, cause I'm a Trekkie, damn it, not a mundane!

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

ITA!

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

All I know is, if the timeline isn't set right, the Enterprise-E will never stop the Borg and the planet will end up borg-ified, end of story. No Capt. Archer, no Kirk, etc.
Nice going, Nero.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Yes but if the future from the point of Nero's influence is altered, then Picard may not command the Enterprise D and may never meet Q who would introduce the Borg to Humanity. So it's possible the events of First Contact may not happen and thus the Borg wreckage would not be in the Arctic and Archer may not be Catptain who may not have to deal with the Borgafied scientists who discover the Borg on Earth....

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Yeah - wasn't that in the message that Uhura decoded?

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I haven't actually read any of the posts in this thread, I just dropped in to state my opinion of the new Star Trek.

I gave up on the movie series after they blew up the Enterprise for the first time and started making jokes about their age. I continued to check out the films out of habit and curiosity, but the truth is they just made me feel sad. By the time Nemesis came around I had given up completely. Still haven't seen it and have no wish to.

So I welcome the idea of rebooting the original series with a new, younger cast. I think Paramount should have tried this reboot twenty years ago. I like the whole concept of the reboot and I quite like the new cast, particularly Chris Pine who has the makings of a proper Capt. Kirk. The guy who plays Spock needs a voice coach to teach him how to lower the timbre of his voice. Spock should not have a high soft voice.

The casting is right, but the performances are careless and thoughtless, the storytelling arbitrary and undisciplined, and the director is inattentive to the subtleties of characterization. The whiplash direction and constantly winking white lights are obnoxious. The film is over-produced and bombastic in tone. The people who made this movie are going through the motions, but they don't expect much from themselves or from each other.

Since time has been changed by Nero's intrusion into the past, anything is possible, or perhaps I should say justified. This is perturbing because it means Abrams and company can do anything they want with Star Trek. Instead of creating new adventures within the tried and true concept, expect them to change the concept as it suits them as the series progresses, putting more and more distance between the reboot and the original series. In other words, the original Star Trek is not respected. Fidelity is too inconvenient, and besides, it's takes more effort and thoughtfulness than Abrams and company are willing to exert. I'm sure that's fine with mass audiences.

I had such high hopes for this reboot.
The result is just disheartening.
I'm sure it will make a lot of money and spawn sequels.
So far as I'm concerned, the lights are on but nobody is home.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

There are things I liked about the film, but what I didn't like overwhelms what I did like.

1) The lame, old Spock, exposition about Red Matter, a Supernova destroying the Galaxy, and attempting to save Romulus was just brutal. Badly written and badly delivered. Listening to that monologue just left me with a " is that the best you fuckers can come up with" feeling.

The pretext for the existence of this alternate reality was so stupid that it reminded me of the "Spock's Brain" episode in the TOS.

2) The industrial plant look of the engineering deck sucked. It's supposed to be a futuristic Starship, but the Engineering deck looks like any 20th Century factory floor or chemical plant: right down to steel support pillars holding the roof up. Pathetic.

3) "Bones" McCoy is just a crotchety, unlikeable, whining asshole with none of the better qualities demonstrated by Deforest Kelley's original portrayal. The line where he said, "Dammit, I'm a Doctor not a Physicist" was just badly delivered and fell flat for me. It was supposed to be some sort of homage to Kelley's character but it had none of the force that Kelley had when he said similar lines.

4) The Uhura-Spock "romance" just felt forced, phony, and poorly developed.

5) The Starship Troopers feel at one point in the film didn't improve my impression that the writing was generally weak.

6) Nero's motivation has to be the weakest one yet for a Star Trek villain. What a Sad Sack. Any self-respecting Romulan from the TOS would have killed Nero out of pure disgust at his patheticness.

7) Spock ordering Kirk to be thrown off the ship and they actually do it. That was Bullshit. There is no way in hell that a Federation Starship's crew would deliberately strand a crew member on a barren planet, leaving him to fend for himself. That was one shitty way of creating the set up for the lame act that was shortly to follow.

Things I did like.

1) I thought Pine did a pretty good job as the young Kirk: especially in the latter half of the show. By the end, a person could see certain personality traits that reminded a person of the old Kirk.

2) I didn't mind the guy who did Spock either. I thought he did a passable job, even though he was incapable of doing any passable imitation of Nimoy's eyebrow raise. He also wasn't as capable of pulling off the cool, emotionless quality of Nimoy's portrayal: even when the situation the character was in was calling for it.

3) I thought some the humourous byplay was okay.

4) I thought the character interaction between Spock and Kirk was pretty good for the most part.

A buddy of mine wants to see this, so I'll be seeing it a second time. Maybe I'll have a better impression of the film on a second go around, but right now I'm mighty disappointed with the direction that Abrams took TREK in: a lot of action but with none of the social sensibilities or introspectiveness of the TOS.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Well to be fair, that is JJ Abram's style. I didn't notice any winking white lights but the bombastic tone and only television-depth characters should be familiar to those who saw Mission Impossible 3.


It is true, there is no scientific consensus that a black hole is a time machine -- only that some of the forces associated with a black hole might be associated with time.


The security chief ("cupcake") probably relished the opportunity to take his captain's order literally. But Kirk wasn't exactly left on a barren planet, he was sent to a class-M planet 14 kilometers from a Federation base.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Well there was the social message that it is good to boink green babes. And, don't hang around folks who diss your mother. So there's two messages in the film. Plus, the larger message that coworkers who may be annoying may have valuable contributions to make, if you put them in charge.

I think all in all, as far as reimaginings go, I liked Superman Returns better. (Technically not a reboot, but, since Superman Returns wasn't set in the late 1970s, it was pretty much a reinterpretation, much like this Trek is).

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The deus ex machina of a time distorting black hole isn't what bothered me. I have read a lot of Science Fiction in my life, so I have no trouble with dubious "scientific" creations. What bothered me was the lame set up to the creation of the deus ex machina. Condensed version follows.

You see, Kirk, there is this galaxy destroying Supernova about to go off. I, Spock, promised to single-handedly save Romulus from destruction by the Supernova. Dammit, Jim, the rest of the Galaxy can take care of itself; I'm off to save Romulus. In order to do so, I invented something called "Red Matter" which is cool but not nearly as much fun as my hallucinogenic "Green Matter" - some of which the writers of this movie must have been using when they gave me this idiotic exposition to deliver- but I digress. Anyway, I set off in my Space Cycle to save Romulus, but the Supernova has other ideas and beats me to the punch........At this point, I was so flabbergasted by the lameness of it all that I lost track of the rest of the alleged explanation.

What was even funnier is that Nimoy delivered the load of space garbage with such a note of incredulity that I got the impression even he thought the whole idea was a farce.



They stuff him into a pod and eject him with out any idea where he is going to land. He could have landed 1400 miles from the base for all they knew, because they weren't exactly aiming. Class M, or not, he lands in an inhospitable environment with little equipment and no weapons to defend himself. Ejecting him like that was tantamount to sentencing him to death, regardless of the existence of a base. They could have stopped for the few minutes it would have taken to transport him directly to the base, but the alleged writers of this movie needed a cheap ploy to set up their next scene, so they completely piss all over the idea that members of Star Fleet would act in a responsible and professional manner towards a colleague, regardless of what they thought of him. The "writers" of this movie chose to show Star Fleet officers and crew members as sleazy, potentially murderous, scumbags. That is what I call a job well done in rebooting the Star Trek Universe.......not.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Chuck I understand what youre saying I just dont agree with it.

Nero claimed he wanted Romulus to be free from Federation and other planet interference, hes got the tools to do it - his ship, its databases and technology.Having the Red Matter would be nice, but it doesnt guarantee victory either. Nothing does.

Neros ship isnt like anything Ive seen in the Trek universe, so how far into the future did he come from? 100 years after TNG? I dont know.

We're prob talking about a few hundred years from the time Nero shows up to when the sun explodes. It leaves a HUGE gap of time for Nero and Romulus to come up with multiple choices.

Having technology 100 years(for argument sake considering the time it took to understand and replicate the technology) ahead of everyone else along with cloaking technology - well thats a pretty good combination. I dont see how thats any more risky than parking your ship over each and every planet you need/want to destroy and being a sitting duck for who knows how many attacks ships while you drill into its core.

My problem is with what Abrams set up. It leaves too many possibilities and I see sitting around and waiting as the worst choice.

BTW to Richard Ws comments. I might be willing to give it another chance if they took a Spiderman2 route and hired a good writter, but we're stuck with the Transformers guys again. Its not my fathers Trek and its not mine either. I have the first 3 series and the movies I enjoy and Ill stick with those.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

There are two known states to a supernova.

1. Explosion that travels outward in a 360 arc blowing out the outer shell of the sun before it collapses into a dwarf or some form of quasar/neutron star.

2. The matter collapses into itself increasing spin and eventually aquiring theoretical infinite mass resulting in a black hole.

Apparently something went wrong with this star. It is reasonable to presume the general intent of Red Matter was to get the nova to collapse within itself and form a standard black hole.


I'm guessing you missed the part where the pod advised him to await pickup? I'd imagine that it'd come equipped with a homing device, given we do that today.

I'm finding a general common theme amongst the boards I've perused. The problem isn't the science upon which the movie is based, the problem is the viewers.

Pretty consistently the extremely negative complainers seem to either lack the general understanding of the well accepted scientific theories the movie uses, or choose to act as if they don't understand them in order to try to bash the movie.

It's really so prevelant that I'm extremely tempted to create a page dedicated to explaining Quantum Physics and Black Hole theory.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I really enjoyed this reboot of sorts. I find it more of a STar Trek "Infinities" if nothing else

(in case you don't know there was a series of comic books called STar Wars Infinities where they took the original plot of the OT of Star Wars and turned it on it's ear. Kind of like Abraham's Star Trek)

I enjoyed the main three performances. Bones was the top of the three in fact. Kirk on the bottom. It took me a while to get used to the New kirk but at the end I heard that old familiar swarmy kirk tone of voice and I sat back in my chair and said to myself "They did it right"

Of course there were some "Rocky Horror" Moments in the film:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I would love to see it again. A great film for the summer and one that would be seen over and over again in my house.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Ryan G

I have a basic understanding of how Supernovas occur and how Black Holes form. The suggestion that one Supernova can be galaxy destroying is lazy writing. Supernovas have occurred in our galaxy many times and not one of them has resulted in galactic destruction. The VFX in Abram's movie show Romulus being destroyed by what looks like an expanding gas shell. That suggests a common Supernova explosion where regular matter is blown off before the star collapses and forms either a quasar or neutron star. Can you point out any scientific principle that could result in a single Supernova causing a galaxy destroying event, before accusing me of being scientifically ignorant.

Regarding the pod message. I forgot that that occurred. It still doesn't obviate the fact that ejecting Kirk from the ship, in a pod, and stranding him was sleazy and showed Star Fleet officers and crew as vindictive and unprofessional lowlifes. If that kind of depiction of Star Fleet is Abram's intent then his version of Star Trek is the worst yet.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I agree that if they wanted to be scientifically accurate they simply should have said it was the radiation blast from a collapsed star (I forget the exact setup for it to happen) and show it more as a beam blast, which would look like an expanding shell when viewing at a planetary scale shown in the movie. It is just a bit of hyperbole (galaxy destroying when it is more of an area destroyer) based upon real science. I suppose every TV show where they "Zoom and enhance" to beyond HD resolution should be tossed out too along with every single action movie where a character falls/jumps 50+ feet and has no broken bones? Indiana Jones in a lead lined fridge thrown a mile or so just opens the door and walks away? Almost all movies play a little fast and loose with physics. It's funny you are willing to accept black hole time-travel created by a made up Red Matter and Warp drive but the galaxy destroying supernova, that goes too far.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Spock Prime was very clear that it was 129 years in the future from when he met Kirk on Delta Vega.

I completely disagree with your assessment of Nero's strategy and think your suggestion is the worst possible given the goals. Nero has a limited weapon stockpile and will very unlikely to be able to replicate them in 25 years. His ship can withstand any attack when over a planet he is destroying for the hour or so it takes as long as the Federation doesn't know what he is doing until it is too late. The Federation after those 25 years will not be a match for him as long as they don't know the Romulans are working on advanced technology. The Federation or Klingon Empire might just go for a first strike against Romulus to prevent them from developing it. You also have the Organians to deal with if you go to an all out interstellar war as opposed to a quick strike against all the homeworlds.

Going to Romulus is the most likely scenario to alter the future enough that Nero might fail. Once Nero has wiped out the Federation and likely the Klingon Empire for good measure, the Romulans will have all the time they need to develop his technology and take over the Alpha quadrant. If you want to advance technolgy of your enemy very quickly, go to war or seriously threaten war.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I'm gonna go way off topic again.

Driving in this morning, I heard Shatner's version of Mr. Tambourine Man on the radio (I listen to a weird station). When he got to the line, "my hands can't feel to grip", I flashed on the side affect clown hands that Kirk had.

Were the hands a small (miniscule, really) nod and tribute to Shatner by the writers? Or am I just over analyzing (which hasn't happened yet in this thread ).

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

can you point to a scientific principle that allows for "warp speed"? or traversable singularities?

why would you shackle the writers with so-called "current" science when it comes to the idea of a supernova-caused galactic event, but not when it comes to things like warp-drive and singularities that create permeable connections between otherwise remote points in spacetime?

maybe the supernova occurred in a dense open cluster and was part of a starburst event, and occurred in precisely the right circumstances to cause a cascade reaction in the nearby stellar cores that in turn resulted in some runaway nuclear/quantum event that threatened some or all of the galaxy. sure, we've never seen anything like that before, but then we've also never seen superluminal travel or a singuarity that acts like an open doorway between times and places...

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

what does any of this actually mean?

how does one distinguish a careless and thoughtless performance from a careful performance by an actor who has thought deeply about her character's motivations and history and internal struggles and movement through the story's narrative arc, but whose conclusions about all of those things are simply (and perhaps significantly) divergent from yours?

and what is "arbitrary" and "undisciplined" storytelling? are these descriptions of the psychology of the writers in their creation of the story? or are they objective and identifiable features of stories themselves?

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Or in this timeline the Borg are defeated by the Talaxians before they even make it to the Alpha Quadrant. Anything can happen.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Nice, it's the viewers and not a fault of the writers.

For the record, I loved this movie and have no desire to bash it.

I do think that the entire sequence, from ejecting Kirk to him and Spock transporting back is extremely weak. Waay too convenient to be...logical storytelling. I'm not talking about the Red Matter, I'm talking about kicking him off the Enterprise while cruising by at 30 MPH, where he lands, gets chased by a monster right into the arms of Spock!, who scares off said monster with fire. On a planet made of ice and snow, how often does a giant water dwelling monster see fire and know to be scared of it?. Anyway, Spock then acts as if he was expecting to see him there? No shock at seeing his old friend? No reaction at all, really, and yes, I know he's Vulcan.

And again, this is coming from someone who loved the movie and plans on seeing it again asap. That sequence of the movie was poorly done, IMO and not at all the fault of the viewers not comprehending scientific theory. Just because TOS and its offspring used illogical plot devices to tell the story doesn't mean this 'reboot' has to resort to that as well.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I think you just wrote the plot of movie #3 or #4 (since we wouldn't want Romulans in the next movie again).

"The crew of the Enterprise encounter the Romulan Empire for the first time and discover that they have technology from 100 years in the future!"

The plot hole of what Nero did during those 25 years could be very useful in a future film.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

You're reaching - REALLY, REALLY reaching! I think there's a 0.0000001 chance there's a connection...

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Warp Speed Engine Designed : Discovery News : Discovery Channel