*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 13

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

I wonder is Kirk playing "Sabotage" on the car radio was a nod to this:

YouTube - William Shatner "Sabataage"

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

You said it yourself: he's Vulcan, and has had nearly 200 years to learn to control his emotion. I thought he displayed just the right (and/or sufficient) reaction: I thought I did see the glimmer of a smile at seeing his old friend, but being Vulcan he wouldn't then launch into bear hugs and back-slapping with lots of yabbering, would he?

Nero only affects events after he entered this timeline, i.e. from the date of Kirk's birth and the Kelvin's destruction onwards. So everything that happened in Enterprise still does in this revised timeline, and indeed is alluded to with Scotty's reference to Admiral Archer's prize beagle. So it ironic that in the rebooted timeline, one of the 'lesser-regarded' series continues as canon, whilst the events of TOS, TNG and DS9 might never happen (VOY too of course, but I'm not too fussed about that...)

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

How long do you guys think this rebooted movie franchise will run?

I'm no die-hard Trekkie, and don't have many strong opinions on what should or shouldn't be done with Star Trek.

Based on the trailer and strong reviews, I came in expecting to like this movie a lot - but was really surprised at how bad it was.

Pretty good casting and acting, but totally brain-dead script, IMO. Remove the character recognition, and it would have been 100% uninvolving and senseless.

I think this iteration will have a fair to middling run of 2-3 movies, and then Star Trek will gradually fade away from popular culture. By then, it will have had a run of what - 50 years? Pretty impressive time-span, but it's time to move on - the well has more than been squeezed dry.

I hope I'm wrong, and they manage to come up with a coherent story the next time around - but where do they go from here? The Klingons? In terms of the Trek universe, what can they do that we haven't already seen before?

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

I don't think Star Trek will ever fade from popular culture. And this iteration of Trek can continue indefinitely if future films are as terrific as this one is. I have seen it 3 times in IMAX already and it gets better with each viewing. Keep 'em coming!

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

Star Trek wont fade away, until we stop watching TV shows and movies as entertainment. It has about as much chance of fading as Bond, or even Sherlock Holmes...i dare say.

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

Hey, has anyone seen the fan film Of Gods and Men? I just watched it the other night, and I mention it because it has many similar plot points to the new movie:

(I will put in spoilers just in case anyone hasn't seen the Abrams film yet)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

There were others, too, which I thought of while watching, but they escape me now. It's an entertaining film, although no one will confuse it with a studio feature. For those who don't know, it was directed by Tim Russ and features Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Alan Ruckman, Tim Russ, Chase Masterson, JG Hertzler, Ethan Phillips, Grace Lee Whitney and many other
Trek alumni.

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

I only just yesterday had an opportunity to view the new "Star Trek".

Overall, I liked it.

I liked the SFX ...
I liked the energy ... (Although I thought I was viewing "Bourne Supremacy" there for awhile ...)
I liked the new cast ...
I liked the dozens of references to past episodes and movies ...
I even liked the *concept* of a fresh start to the franchise while maintaining the continuity of the previous series and movies: After all, the original Spock is there including the timeline that he represents. That part is *brilliant*.

What I absolutely *hated*, though, was the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Spock's mother, the new NCC-1701 bridge (I was hoping to see the one built for the ST:ENT ep "In a Mirror Darkly". That one looked futuristic *and* familiar all at the same time.)

I've run through this thread and noted that some here are having the same problem that I'm having with the movie. And there's no question that there are gaping holes in Nero's backstory and motivation. (I'm about to download the Star Trek Countdown series to my iPhone to see how much of that is made clearer by the official prequel story.)

But Ya' know what? I had a hell of a lot of fun viewing this movie! And it *did* feel like Star Trek to me. So ... Bring on the sequels!!

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

the alcubierre warp drive is an old idea, and whatever manner in which it might be based on "scientific principle" is exactly the same way that a galaxy-destroying supernova is based on "scientific principle".

look, "expanding space behind a moving object" is science that is about as principled as "a confluence of quantum stellar and cosmological conditions that amplifies the energy output of a supernova by 1000 orders of magnitude".

general relativity is a good theory of gravity, but so is the standard model of the other three fundamental forces; no one has yet been able to integrate them, though, so it's an open question whether einstein's idea of "gravity is geometry (or topology)" will even turn out to be "correct".

but whatever - it still smacks of absurdity to accept radically speculative physics like the alcubierre drive (not to mention traversable wormholes), but to reject galactic supernovae out of hand as somehow unprincipled.

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

I don't think Trek will ever fade way from popular culture. One of the reasons I believe this is because much of the technology introduced in TOS (cell phones and CDs/DVDs excluded, of course ) is still more advanced than much of what we have today. I think that this is intriguing, and IMO will be what will allow it to have staying power for many, many years -- perhaps perpetually.

BTW, I realize the concept of the transporter was not introduced in TOS, but I do think that most people associate that technology with Trek -- rather than, say, The Fly (1958). Scientists in Australia (and perhaps elsewhere) have successfully teleported energy about one meter, although this may have been increased somewhat over the past year or two. I don't believe we will ever be able to teleport matter across continents. This to me is part of the everlasting appeal of (again IMO) a show that will never fade away. It feeds people's imaginations, and I think that this is something we as humans will always desire in a television program.

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

The two who wrote Star Trek, Orci and Kurtzman, attended an event last night after a screening of the film and during the Q&A session aftwrwards, they address the most common questions and issues the fans had with this film. Such as the WTF moment of Spock and Uhura, why Nero was waiting for 25 years, Kirk and the Corvette, where Momma Kirk was, etc.

It's a cool read. and this site also has a link to the podcast of the event that had more info then the article. I hope it explains the Supernova part. If you have a free few minutes, give it a read. It explains much and many of the answers were cut from the film. Doooh!:

Trek scribes speak, complaints addressed – UPDATED Darth Mojo

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

Nelson,

Thanks for that link! That *does* explain quite a bit.
The bottom line is that the explanation for "the 25 year wait" just *had* to be in the movie! Also, the "eddies and backwash" explanation for the "Spock Prime"/Kirk meeting would have made a lot of old time Trek fans very happy. Let's hope both of these scenes make it to the DVD (edited back in; not just provided in a supplements area.)

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

You're welcome Joseph!

Yes, it will be cool if these cut scenes will re-inserted into the film on DVD and BD. Since Abrams felt those scenes were not needed, it will be interesting to see how the DVD/BD will be designed. I think he cut the film down for length because he felt a movie shouldn't be longer then 2 hours. They could use branching to re-insert all those scenes that fill in the holes for the Special Longer Version. So the disc could have both theatrical and longer version. Sounds like a Star Trek movie from 1979...

I just downloaded the podcast into my iPod. Let's see if there's more info there!

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

Me neither. While it'll wind down over time, anyone who is reading probably won't live long enough to see it completely forgotten. And that comes from someone who, beyond this movie, couldn't care less about Trek.

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

I liked it, but didn't love it. I didn't feel it was true to the spirit of the original. There were moments I felt were a bit dumbed down. It just didn't have the sophistication of the original series. It was like "Star Trek" on crack. The frenetic camerwork and editing, rather than pulling me in, often had the opposite effect on me.

That said, I did like most of the cast, particularly Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, and Simon Pegg. Chris Pine was good, but I didn't feel he was quite right as Kirk. Pine made me appreciate Shatner and what he did on "Star Trek" in a way I never have before. As hammy as Shatner's acting can be, he is SO intelligent and articulate and speaks in such a proper, clipped manner. Pine couldn't quite pull that off.

And the whole Uhuru-Spock relationship I thought was just silly. Really? Uhuru and Spock were once lovers? And there was no hint of that in the three years of the original series or any of the previous films. Huh. Oh, and Vulcan in TOS isn't the ORIGINAL Vulcan planet. I see. And what the hell was up with the casting of Pike? He was a good ten years older than he was in the original series.

But I liked it. Actually, my favorite scenes were probably with the child Spock early in the film. And the interaction between the characters was well done. I loved the intense arguments on the bridge when Spock was captain.

So I did like it. I may buy the Blu-Ray. But I wouldn't pay to see it again in the theater.

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

Bad choice on Abrams part to cut scenes based on film length at the sacrifice of a more cohesive story.

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

You're almost correct, but you're forgetting that this is the 21st century and we're dealing with Paramount.

So....
1) Theatrical re-release of extended cut around September 2009
2) BluRay release of ORIGINAL theatrical version in time for Christmas 2009 with cut scenes as extras.
3) Special Edition BluRay release of extended cut mid 2010.
4) Box set with seamless branching of both versions, new documentary, 6-inch model of the Enterprise, and ticket to the sequel around 2011.


(The sad part is that I'd probably buy three out of four...)

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

Sounds good to me Brian!

Seriously, I'd love to see an extended cut with some of the deleted scenes re-inserted. I thought the movie was excellent, and easily could have sat there for another 30/40 minutes.

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

I don't recall anything in the movie that suggests this. What scene did this happen?

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

I think you're completely missing the gravitas of the situation here. The whole point is that Nero has completely and irrevocably altered the TOS timeline by destroying Vulcan. At the very least, as the conversation on the bridge indicates, he's started an alternate parallel "quantum" timeline. Technically, it starts when he encounters and destroys the Kelvin, but whatever.

The movie was not trying to imply that the Vulcan in the TOS series is the result of Spock's Vulcan colony and that they just took to calling the planet they colonized "Vulcan".

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

Yep that was the original Vulcan that was destroyed. They may call their new colony Vulcan as well, but it is NOT the planet where Amok Time in the TOS occured or the events at the end of Search for Spock movie. That was the original Vulcan, which in this quantum reality was destryed.

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

Im thinking it is INDEED the very planet from Amok Time, despite the fact it has a blue sky!

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

On another topic, trekmovie posted a link to Gizmodo that has an article with a graphic comparing the sizes of the new Enterprise to the TMP Enterprise, the Galactica and Rebel Blockage Runner from Star Wars and the real International Space Station.



I think they got this totally wrong. If you look at the windows on the TMP Enterprise and the 2009 version, then the window sizes would be huge on that new ship!

Here's the link to Gizmodo. The image there can be enlarged quite a bit:

Gizmodo - How Big Is the New Enterprise Compared to the Old One? - Enterprise

edit, I just realized the article calls the new Enterprise, the ISS. Sounds like they're implying it's the Mirror Universe ship!

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

I did a quick google search, but I didn't find any evidence of the length of the new Enterprise other than what Gizmodo claims (without any real citation).

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

I.S.S. = International Space Station, the first diagram on the chart.

I've seen several official mentions of the ships scale, but they're all quite large and within some reasonable range of that chart.

The chart comes from Bad Robot itself btw.

Does it make sense? No. Does anything about the design of the new Enterprise make sense? No.

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

Doh! I should have looked closer, of course, International Space Station. What else would it be but the International Space Station....

Of course this is a fictional space ship in a fictional universe. Call it an occupational hazard for me. I do design work and develop things in CAD, so I have a sense of scale. And that new ship's size just looks wrong in that drawing.

The new bridge doesn't look that much bigger then the TMP bridge, yet the dome on the top of the saucer is nearly twice the size of the TMP dome as drawn in that chart.

Zack, I thought that chart was drawn by Gizmodo staff. (?)

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

That's what I thought as well.

The only thing I read as a source was they claimed the length of 725.35 meters came from someone who worked for Bad Robot. But that doesn't really make it official, does it?

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

Oh it looks like it was Gizmodo's image? When I read it originally a day or two ago something implied the image was sent to them, but they've updated it since then. (they originally had the new galactica on there in the wrong scale)

At any rate, there have been multiple mentions of the ships size. Here's a VFX article where they say the ship is 2000ft long. (Nero's ship is 6 miles long btw) That's a little smaller than gizmodo's quote but still far larger than the old ships.

Reinventing Star Trek's VFX | Film & Video

Apparently a magazine has of quote of 900 meters long. They likely haven't given it an exact scale, they just know it's big and don't care for further clarification. Or maybe that's how it was and they kept getting asked and decided on 725.35 meters.

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

Everything about that new Enterprise looks out of proportion from looking at that drawing. The TMP 1701-A looks like it was designed by someone who at least had an inkling about creating a plausible looking design.

The new one just looks like it was designed with the "as long as it looks cool" mindset. The TMP ship has the engine support pillars placed in a logical position and everything about the ship looks in proportion to all other parts. It is a nice, compact, design. The new one looks like a sprawling city suburb: huge, ungainly, and inefficient.

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

Come on, that's a bit harsh because from a real world design and technical mindset, not much from any of the Enterprise designs (from TOS to today) makes sense.

The engine supports on the new E are in about the exact same spot that they were in on TOS E. I thought that is what most fans wanted, throwbacks to TOS that is. Since the majority of the bulk and weight of the new engines appear to be towards the front, what is really wrong with the supports being in that position?

I personally don't mind the new design, in fact I love it. I bought the toy just so I could have a model of it. This is the first time I have bought any Trek merchandise (other then DVDs) in probably 15 years. There is a company, forget the name, that is making a higher quality 10" model that I plan on buying when it comes out. Can't explain why but, I think this is my favorite Enterprise design, looks meaner and more powerful then the others.

I also don't care how big or small the ship is. I find it funny and kinda sad how many are arguing over the scale on trekmovie.com. The only thing that kinda bugs me is, if the ship is suppose to be so huge then the port hole on the neck would be a few stories high. But, the pod Kirk is ejected in was the exact same size as that port hole and, it seemed to be a small, one man pod that was just big enough for Kirk. If you go by that and this ship is smaller so that the port hole seems right, then the cargo bay is too small when compared to the port hole (from the shot that showed the cargo bay having 2 stories of shuttle crafts). So, either way they go, something will not be right when it comes to scale. So, I really could care less if the ship is a mile long or only 300 meters, I just wish the filmmaker would decide on a scale and follow it through out the movie (although, to be fair, this is not the first Trek movie or show to have contradicting scales).

In the end though, I really could care less and I don't care if the ever fix the scale issues as long as the sequels are as much fun as this movie was. The movie is still a helluva lot of fun weather the E is 300 or 900 meters long.

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

I'll concede your point about the majority of the mass appearing to be towards the front, so maybe having the engine supports so close to the front of the nacelles is not as big a mistake as I first thought. The TOS E supports still seem to be set further back along the nacelles length than on this new ship.

I still think the nacelles on this new ship look weirdly out of proportion. Maybe it is the shape of them that gives me that perception. The fifties feel to the design of the front of the nacelles also make me think that Abrams and crew should have just finished the job and added giant Cadillac style fins at the back, along with some bullet-shaped tail lights.

I'm just nitpicking. Although, it doesn't bode well for this new iteration of ST when the writing and design sense of the 60's series is superior in every way. It still annoys me how Abrams and his crew of idiots turned Scotty's engineering deck into a Twentieth Century chemical plant. The appearance of that deck was so ugly and out of place that its success in taking me out of the film was second only to the Kirk's ejection out of the ship and his meeting with Ancient Spock, who proceeded to spout some of the worst exposition I have ever heard in a TREK film.