Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Kizyr » Thu May 21, 2009 8:21 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:What, his planet was destroyed, and he wants revenge? Call it 10 billion people killed? That isn't a good motivation?
Sir_Elderberry wrote:I dunno, I think "my planet has been destroyed, and the guy who promised he could stop it turned out not to be able to do shit", for someone who's already hated Vulcans most of their life, is a pretty decent motivation.

It's something that opens up too many questions when he's sent back in time. If you're sent back in time before the destruction of your home planet, with a bunch of the stuff that could've saved your home planet if it got there in time, well... you'd go and save your home planet. Or at least warn them. Sitting for 25 years (or in a Klingon prison camp maybe) so that you can get revenge on something that you're in a position to prevent seems... guided by arbitrary standards.

Not to mention that he seemed pretty damn crazy as soon as he went back in time, even before stewing for 25 years (in a Klingon prison camp maybe). As soon as he confronted the USS Kelvin, he came in guns-blazing and ready to kill the captain in cold blood. 25 years later, nothing really changed (hell he even tried the same thing with Pike, just adding some torture beforehand).

This is one of the reasons I really dislike whenever time travel is brought up--there are too many "but why didn't you just do X?" questions that come up. But I'm willing to overlook it and just assume Nero's another thinly-developed arch-villain, and the main focus of the story is on the Enterprise crew.

Yakk wrote:
Kizyr wrote:The interaction between Spock and Uhura
Anything in particular?

Moo got this one the same way I would've put it... After we'd been built up to believe that Spock wanted to be wholly Vulcan (acknowledging his human side, but still sticking to all-logic-no-emotion) all of a sudden he has a (reciprocal) love interest. That it mainly came out right in front of Kirk also makes it look like the main purpose was to make Kirk a bit jealous.

Although Moo's link is making me re-think this all...

Jesse wrote:
Kizyr wrote:Angle-shots, shaky-cameras, and lens flare. I hate these three techniques, yet why do directors insist on using them?
It's kind of an Abrams thing, it is pretty much what he does in everything he's ever directed. Also, explain what you mean by angle shots, because most shots are taken from some kind of angle, and I'm asuming you don't hate all low-angle shots ever.

I mostly hate them when they're overused, although mild use still irritates me. Usually they grate on me when it's somewhere around 30º or more. (Clear example: when Spock was standing before the [literally] high council, about to reject their invitation, the camera came in on a very low angle shot to the left.)

StupendousYappi wrote:
Kizyr wrote:...Oh, and I never liked Vulcans anyway.

So you've been secretly wishing for the destruction of their homeland? You evil man, what did the Vulcans ever do to you??
I've always admired the Vulcans :)

Well... .... .....the only way I can adequately explain this is in-character.

Since the day after Cochran made first contact, the Vulcans did nothing but hold us back. No matter how many human advances were made in warp engine design, they kept coming back with "no, you're not ready" over and over again. It's like a parent wanting to keep their 23-year old child at home after he's already finished college and started working. Really, I always figured they were just jealous--it took them centuries between developing warp drive and spacefaring, so naturally they figure "us stupid humans" couldn't possibly do it any faster. So they set us back to avoid invalidating their assumption that Vulcans are superior to everyone... hiding behind logic and deception...

Which gets me on another thing... how much Vulcans flat out lie. They always pull the same crap, saying that they're incapable of lying, but then demonstrating their sheer mastery over misleading you to believe something completely contrary to the truth. They might not lie, but they're experts at deception--which, to me, is the same damn thing. (They still have the audacity to get upset at the destruction of the P'Jem Sanctuary, despite the fact that they were using it to spy on Andoria in clear violation of their own treaties! What more proof do you need of their deceptive nature?)

If you ask me, we're far better off without them. I say we shut down every Vulcan consulate in the world and force them all to leave this planet. The less interference, the better. Human hands built the first warp engine, and human hands can continue it--and a hell of a lot faster if we didn't have to deal with the Vulcans constantly putting us down.

Terra Prime!
Terra Prime!
Terra Prime!


And, yeah, sure it's sad that their home planet got destroyed. But you won't see me too upset. They were bound to piss off the wrong species somewhere down the line.
~Kizyr
Image

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Fri May 22, 2009 12:41 am UTC

OK, OK, OK. Three things here:

1. It's really weird, scary, and creepy that you so readily jump to an "in-character" perspective of someone from the Star Trek universe.
2. Can we just pretend Enterprise never happened?
3. Even if Enterprise *did* happen, the Vulcans you're talking about are the Vulcans before the Syrannite reformation. The Vulcans of the TOS era, and to an even greater extent the TNG and post-TNG era, are invariably honorable members and positive contributors to the Federation.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
thatguy
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:25 am UTC
Location: MPLS
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby thatguy » Fri May 22, 2009 2:03 pm UTC

Best. Conversation. Ever.

Chai Kovsky wrote:Thatguy, you are my Big Damn Hero!
Thank you! You win the day!

AvalonXQ
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby AvalonXQ » Fri May 22, 2009 6:29 pm UTC

I really liked the Uhura / Spock interaction, but part of that is because I saw the original Trek on DVDs. Which meant I saw the flirting scene in Charlie X. Which meant it was obvious from me that there has ALWAYS been an attraction there.
I was really happy that they played with it some more.

As for the earlier criticism about all of the Trek races being too much like humans: that's not accurate at all. Trek has dealt with a LOT of races that are incredibly alien. Races of pure energy, silicon-based life forms, beings we were only able to interact with on a basic mathematical or physical level. Also, many physical species with little curiosity, or little desire for either war or exploration.
But MOST relevant interactions are going to be with other class-M-dwelling oxygen-breathers with either a curious or warlike bent. That's because those are the races that will coexist with us, that will want to either form alliances with us or fight us, that have technology that is useful and possibly compatible with ours, and that are competing with us for space and resources.*
For an excellent explanation of why this is true, read David Brin's second uplift trilogy -- which assumes an abundance of intelligent life of every possible and impossible form, and why the human protagonists mainly only have to interact with body-bound oxygen-breathers like themselves.

*There IS a given explanation, as was mentioned earlier, as to why in our galaxy such creatures look mainly humanoid.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Sat May 23, 2009 4:57 am UTC

AvalonXQ wrote:I really liked the Uhura / Spock interaction, but part of that is because I saw the original Trek on DVDs. Which meant I saw the flirting scene in Charlie X. Which meant it was obvious from me that there has ALWAYS been an attraction there.
I was really happy that they played with it some more.


An attraction on Uhura's part. On Spock's part? Doubtful.

In any case, the movie clearly establishes that Uhura is a cadet, and Spock is an Academy instructor. Which means no canoodling is allowed! Spock having an affair with Uhura is out of character, but Spock betraying his obligations as a Starfleet officer and Academy instructor is absurd.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Kizyr » Sun May 24, 2009 8:36 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:OK, OK, OK. Three things here:

1. It's really weird, scary, and creepy that you so readily jump to an "in-character" perspective of someone from the Star Trek universe.
2. Can we just pretend Enterprise never happened?
3. Even if Enterprise *did* happen, the Vulcans you're talking about are the Vulcans before the Syrannite reformation. The Vulcans of the TOS era, and to an even greater extent the TNG and post-TNG era, are invariably honorable members and positive contributors to the Federation.

1. Weird? I think the word you're looking for is "awesome". (If you think jumping into character here is odd, you probably don't want to take a look at the Civ4 PBEM thread under Games.)
2. Considering how many alternate realities/timelines there are, you can pick any one you'd like, really. But, after this movie, Enterprise is the only series left unscathed! (If you'd like, though, we can take the Mirror Universe as canon, where the Terran Empire conquered the Vulcans instead of allowing us to become subservient.)
3. Fair point... But, I'm not a fan of the Federation anyway, so "positive contributers to the Federation" isn't necessarily a good thing in my mind. (I could go on with my thoughts on the Syrannite Reformation, but... I think it'd require more 'in-character' silliness.)

Ok, back to reality now...

Philwelch wrote:In any case, the movie clearly establishes that Uhura is a cadet, and Spock is an Academy instructor. Which means no canoodling is allowed! Spock having an affair with Uhura is out of character, but Spock betraying his obligations as a Starfleet officer and Academy instructor is absurd.

I hadn't thought of the superior officer issue before... I'd have to agree, though--it does take it out of the realm of improbable into impossible.

The most likely explanation I can think of now is that it was entirely one-sided, and Spock really had no feelings for Uhura. I can't remember the movie well enough to recall if there are any scenes where Spock clearly demonstrates reciprocal affection for Uhura. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon May 25, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Er, Star Trek has always had fraternization between the ranks. Picard never told Crusher, "No, I'm your captain." Spock never raised the issue with Chapel. Riker and Troi. Worf and Troi. (Troi gets around.)

Hey, there was an entire TNG episode focusing on Picard maintaining a relationship with a new crew member.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Mon May 25, 2009 12:58 am UTC

Spock never did anything with Chapel other than asking her nicely to fix him some soup once. Kirk was very careful about not canoodling with Yeoman Rand.

Although yes, that's one of the weirder things about TNG and so forth. But there's still a difference between canoodling with your superior officer and canoodling with your Academy instructor!
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby GhostWolfe » Mon May 25, 2009 1:11 am UTC

Perhaps it was understood that they liked each other, but that nothing could come of it (what, with her being a cadet and him being a vulvan and all), but that Uhura decided that the situation warranted a change in the rules? *handwavey*

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Belial » Mon May 25, 2009 1:33 am UTC

GhostWolfe wrote:him being a vulvan and all


Commence horrifying star-trek alien porn.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon May 25, 2009 1:43 am UTC

Well, I'll admit that Kirk/Rand and Spock/Chapel didn't go anywhere, but nowhere is it stated that they wouldn't have been allowed. Again, I'll cite TNG.

I think the easiest handwave, if this really bugs you, is that they were not having a relationship more than that of teacher and student until the Narada shows up and the Academy gets shoved out there. At which point, Uhura decided to start making out with Spock, and Spock (in a state of higher emotionality than usual) decided, hey, why not.

And we don't know when he was her instructor. For all we know, Spock was Uhura's instructor her freshman year, and now he isn't, so they can canoodle as much as they like.

EDIT: Fixed a point that made no sense.
Last edited by Sir_Elderberry on Mon May 25, 2009 1:45 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Yakk » Mon May 25, 2009 1:43 am UTC

Ears shouldn't look like that.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby GhostWolfe » Mon May 25, 2009 3:35 am UTC

Belial wrote:
GhostWolfe wrote:him being a vulvan and all

Commence horrifying star-trek alien porn.

Well, that's just down right embarrassing :oops:

In my defence, I've done 2 days worth of work this morning and it's only lunchtime. Not much time left for typing in between all that.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby aireoth » Mon May 25, 2009 4:21 am UTC

Good Movie, decent Star Trek, couple issues. Mostly I had a problem with the script, the plot holes where massive (how the hell does a supernova threaten the Galaxy!? Also, how crappy are your sensors and astronomical scans if the unthinkable happens and Romulus is destroyed, in the ST universe they should know precisely when it would destroy the planet, and shouldn't be a surprise.) It all comes down to poor script, mashing the characters together in a cosmic coincidence, and providing poor motive and explanation for the story. Overall, Nero was the weakest character by far, followed by Spock (Emo Spock, really?) and then Uhura and Jim. Best characters, Bones and Scotty, though the little Imp thing was dumb, Sulu was decent and so was Checkoff. Sadly scenes with Spock made me feel like I was watching a WB tv series, and Uhura was pathetic in a pitiful way that I just ignored her when she was on screen. The however it was prettiest Sci-Fi to date, despite overuse of lens flare.

As a movie: 8/10
As Star Trek: 7/10 (better then Generations and V-Ger, not as good as First Contact or Kahn)

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon May 25, 2009 4:26 am UTC

aireoth wrote:how the hell does a supernova threaten the Galaxy!?

Uh, it made Nero go back in time and attempt to destroy the Galaxy's least evil political body. It also threatened to destabilize the geopolitical (cosmopolitical? astropolitical?) situation and bring about massive war. So, yeah. Don't assume he's being strictly literal.

Also, how crappy are your sensors and astronomical scans if the unthinkable happens and Romulus is destroyed, in the ST universe they should know precisely when it would destroy the planet, and shouldn't be a surprise.

They knew exactly when it was going to happen. The only way to avert it was with Spock's red-matter thing that the Vulcans knew how to use. So Spock tells Romulus to hang tight, he'll brb. He gets to Vulcan and everyone argues about it. They spend too long doing it. He's late. Romulans are pissed.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon May 25, 2009 8:44 am UTC

Moo wrote:
Chen wrote:I'd be interested to know WHY Spock and Uhura got together in this reality. What difference due to the Kelvin being destroyed actually caused Spock to be attracted to this human woman in this reality but NOT in the original series reality?
According to a great Trek fan friend of mine (you know who you are, if you have better citations please post), Spock and Uhura is canon but wasn't shown (maybe due to racial issues at first).
Uhura also met Kirk at that bar. If that happened in the original universe, it probably went differently. Call me crazy, but I don't think Spock was the driving force in that relationship.
Kirk probably wasn't the only part of Star Fleet made different by the time travel either.

I've seen the movie once so far, and I liked it, but it didn't feel very Star Trek. (Could be the lack of matte gray and beige tones. and high budget... I mostly got into TNG, seen some of TOS with my grandma, and bits of DS9 and Voyager)

The red matter looked pretty ridiculous. Why did only the first black hole send stuff back in time? or are there even more universes now? Shouldn't sending red matter into a black hole be a problem.
Image

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby DreadArchon » Mon May 25, 2009 8:35 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Why did only the first black hole send stuff back in time? or are there even more universes now?
I think that not just anything could survive the trip through the hole. Nero and Spock Prime had fancy future ships that could handle it; the Enterprise would just have been smashed. Kirk actually said something about this to Nero at the end of the movie.


Shouldn't sending red matter into a black hole be a problem.
The red matter is the black hole.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue May 26, 2009 1:38 am UTC

DreadArchon wrote:
Shouldn't sending red matter into a black hole be a problem.
The red matter is the black hole.

Now you're just trying to confuse me. Although I guess if the ship is protected from the black hole with science, then the red matter in the ship would be safe too.

Was all that stuff invented with this movie, or has any of it been seen before?

Which of the older Star Trek movies are good?
Image

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Kizyr » Tue May 26, 2009 1:51 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Which of the older Star Trek movies are good?

Wrath of Khan (II) and Voyage Home (IV) are my favorites. Many people also like The Undiscovered Country (VI). (I also put First Contact on par with Wrath of Khan.) KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Orca
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:44 am UTC
Location: Sea

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Orca » Tue May 26, 2009 3:42 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Which of the older Star Trek movies are good?


The general rule of the even numbered ones( are good) is the way you want to go.

I think the red matter being sucked into the blackhole would just destabilize it and make the blackhole even bigger/have a larger gravitational pull. If one bead makes a normal one, wouldn't the entire thing make a supermassive one?
If you start an argument over whether "they" "them" and "their" can be used as gender neutral singular pronouns, in this thread, I will do terrible, terrible things to you.
-Belial

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue May 26, 2009 4:01 am UTC

Orca wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:Which of the older Star Trek movies are good?


The general rule of the even numbered ones( are good) is the way you want to go.

I think the red matter being sucked into the blackhole would just destabilize it and make the blackhole even bigger/have a larger gravitational pull. If one bead makes a normal one, wouldn't the entire thing make a supermassive one?

Really, since you don't make things into black holes without making them really small or really heavy in real life, and the red matter doesn't seem to do either, I don't think we can speculate as to how it "actually" works. It just seems that red matter + energy = black hole.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue May 26, 2009 6:22 am UTC

Okay, so far this is still the best explanation I've found so far.

Also I'll look into seen Wrath of Kahn, and some of the others. (Maybe the internet has them legally somewhere... Imdb has most of TOS full episodes)
Image

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Mother Superior » Tue May 26, 2009 7:38 am UTC

Orca wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:Which of the older Star Trek movies are good?


The general rule of the even numbered ones( are good) is the way you want to go.


The first one isn't bad, it's just very long, but it does have the most sci-fi-y plot of all the movies. There's nothing particularly wrong with three, it's just not spectacular like Wrath of Khan, or silly but funny like four. Avoid five at all cost, including danger to your own life. Six is effin' great, and may be my own personal favourite. Seven is also good, eight is brilliant, nine is mediocre and ten never happened.
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby aireoth » Tue May 26, 2009 6:04 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
aireoth wrote:how the hell does a supernova threaten the Galaxy!?

Uh, it made Nero go back in time and attempt to destroy the Galaxy's least evil political body. It also threatened to destabilize the geopolitical (cosmopolitical? astropolitical?) situation and bring about massive war. So, yeah. Don't assume he's being strictly literal.


It is still poor writing, Spock says a star went nova threatening the galaxy, all they had to do was add one or two words, such as 'destabilize' or 'stability' and implying that Nero was the concern is ridiculous, when Spock acted to save Romulus he had no idea the events of the movie would unfold, and nothing in the narration of the mind meld implies he is taking into account Nero's time travel as the threat otherwise he would have lead that his actions where the threat, not the nova. Maybe the writers are implying that as well, however I doubt it, the two that wrote this aren't really bright, just look at Transformers.

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
Also, how crappy are your sensors and astronomical scans if the unthinkable happens and Romulus is destroyed, in the ST universe they should know precisely when it would destroy the planet, and shouldn't be a surprise.

They knew exactly when it was going to happen. The only way to avert it was with Spock's red-matter thing that the Vulcans knew how to use. So Spock tells Romulus to hang tight, he'll brb. He gets to Vulcan and everyone argues about it. They spend too long doing it. He's late. Romulans are pissed.


Umm, where does he say the Vulcan's argued? He merely says something to the effect of 'while I was on my way, the unthinkable happened.' as I said, and still believe, this movie is poorly written and scripted, and that is its worst flaw. I can invent explanations for many things that happen in movies, and use implied evidence, however he's Spock, he would likely be strictly literal, and the way he says it implies the Nova would have consumed the entire Galaxy, not just destabilize the politics.

In the end I (and the people I was with) came to the same conclusions as you, except the Nero time travel bit as I think its to far fetched, still the way its written not only implied to me it was the Nova, but to the ten people I was with as well, all with university degrees and many in English.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Tue May 26, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

aireoth wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:
aireoth wrote:how the hell does a supernova threaten the Galaxy!?

Uh, it made Nero go back in time and attempt to destroy the Galaxy's least evil political body. It also threatened to destabilize the geopolitical (cosmopolitical? astropolitical?) situation and bring about massive war. So, yeah. Don't assume he's being strictly literal.


It is still poor writing, Spock says a star went nova threatening the galaxy, all they had to do was add one or two words, such as 'destabilize' or 'stability' and implying that Nero was the concern is ridiculous, when Spock acted to save Romulus he had no idea the events of the movie would unfold, and nothing in the narration of the mind meld implies he is taking into account Nero's time travel as the threat otherwise he would have lead that his actions where the threat, not the nova. Maybe the writers are implying that as well, however I doubt it, the two that wrote this aren't really bright, just look at Transformers.


When we say that a potential confrontation or nuclear standoff "threatens the world", we do not literally mean that the nuclear weapons involved could physically destroy the planet Earth. I see no reason why "the galaxy" can't hold a similar meaning—indeed, that's how I interpreted Spock's line.

Maybe your brain is working overtime looking for scientific inconsistencies? In which case—welcome to Star Trek, we have FTL travel, artificial gravity, and transporters. Now sit back and enjoy a fun movie.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

plsander
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby plsander » Tue May 26, 2009 7:54 pm UTC

benjhuey wrote:A few things that irked me a little: [spoiler]
  • Scotty is missing a single equation to make beaming while in warp possible. Future Spock gives it to him and he immediately understand it. It's plugged into a computer and works without incident. Right.


A nod to Scotty gifting Transparent Aluminum in The Voyage Home? Just without the mouse shtick.

plsander
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby plsander » Tue May 26, 2009 7:55 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:What really bothers me, though, is how casually interspecies romance is taken. So...if you're a female human and you fall in love with a humanoid alien male, do you just assume that he's going to have a Tab A to your Slot B and the accompanying hormones to make the experience satisfying? It's that easy?


Like on Babylon 5? -- Ivanova's dance in "Acts of Sacrifice"

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Kizyr » Tue May 26, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

plsander wrote:
benjhuey wrote:A few things that irked me a little: [spoiler]
  • Scotty is missing a single equation to make beaming while in warp possible. Future Spock gives it to him and he immediately understand it. It's plugged into a computer and works without incident. Right.

A nod to Scotty gifting Transparent Aluminum in The Voyage Home? Just without the mouse shtick.

I was wondering if I was the only one making that connection. I thought it was hilarious how Spock did this. (Although, wasn't Bones the one who was actually present during that scene?)

plsander wrote:Like on Babylon 5? -- Ivanova's dance in "Acts of Sacrifice"

"Next time, we do it my way." KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue May 26, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

Yeah. Spock was busy talking to Kirk about whether or not he liked Italian. (He does.)
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Philwelch » Wed May 27, 2009 12:24 am UTC

Kizyr wrote:
plsander wrote:
benjhuey wrote:A few things that irked me a little: [spoiler]
  • Scotty is missing a single equation to make beaming while in warp possible. Future Spock gives it to him and he immediately understand it. It's plugged into a computer and works without incident. Right.

A nod to Scotty gifting Transparent Aluminum in The Voyage Home? Just without the mouse shtick.

I was wondering if I was the only one making that connection. I thought it was hilarious how Spock did this. (Although, wasn't Bones the one who was actually present during that scene?)


Yes. Bones voiced his concerns with this plan, but Scotty reassured him, "How do we know he didn't invent the thing?"
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Durinthal
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:46 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Durinthal » Thu May 28, 2009 10:35 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
aireoth wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:
aireoth wrote:how the hell does a supernova threaten the Galaxy!?

Uh, it made Nero go back in time and attempt to destroy the Galaxy's least evil political body. It also threatened to destabilize the geopolitical (cosmopolitical? astropolitical?) situation and bring about massive war. So, yeah. Don't assume he's being strictly literal.


It is still poor writing, Spock says a star went nova threatening the galaxy, all they had to do was add one or two words, such as 'destabilize' or 'stability' and implying that Nero was the concern is ridiculous, when Spock acted to save Romulus he had no idea the events of the movie would unfold, and nothing in the narration of the mind meld implies he is taking into account Nero's time travel as the threat otherwise he would have lead that his actions where the threat, not the nova. Maybe the writers are implying that as well, however I doubt it, the two that wrote this aren't really bright, just look at Transformers.


When we say that a potential confrontation or nuclear standoff "threatens the world", we do not literally mean that the nuclear weapons involved could physically destroy the planet Earth. I see no reason why "the galaxy" can't hold a similar meaning—indeed, that's how I interpreted Spock's line.

Maybe your brain is working overtime looking for scientific inconsistencies? In which case—welcome to Star Trek, we have FTL travel, artificial gravity, and transporters. Now sit back and enjoy a fun movie.

According to the prequel comic, the star that went supernova actually fed off of any matter it consumed, growing in strength as it expanded; thus it was a literal threat to the galaxy.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby SecondTalon » Thu May 28, 2009 2:09 pm UTC

That.. doesn't make any sense. I mean, it'd be hella strong in an atmosphere, with all this matter flying around. But space is mostly empty, with the occasional stray atom flying around here and there.

The reaction would basically need to be so fuel efficient as to be nearly self-sustaining to make it to another star, much less threaten a galaxy.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Mega D
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Mega D » Thu May 28, 2009 2:35 pm UTC

It was good enough for that movie "Supernova". Although borrowing from that movie isn't a great endorsement of Star Trek's writing.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Angua » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:23 am UTC

I too was annoyed by the Spock/Uhura thing, but it could be mainly because I've always had a crush on Spock since I was small (even tried to do the purely logical thing for a while, but is hard when you're 10 :) ) Did anyone else notice Kal Penn in the background in the seen with Nero talking to the Enterprise bridge? I was disappointed that nothing more came of that (though my mother and I may have mis-identified him).

I loved it though :)
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Kizyr » Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:30 am UTC

Angua wrote:I too was annoyed by the Spock/Uhura thing, but it could be mainly because I've always had a crush on Spock since I was small (even tried to do the purely logical thing for a while, but is hard when you're 10 :) ) Did anyone else notice Kal Penn in the background in the seen with Nero talking to the Enterprise bridge? I was disappointed that nothing more came of that (though my mother and I may have mis-identified him).

You're not the only one; I noticed him, too (as did the two other guys with me). I kept waiting for the camera to pan back so I could get a better look. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
SpazzyMcGee
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:36 am UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby SpazzyMcGee » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:21 am UTC

I read an online version of the first portion of Star Trek: Countdown and I was EXTREMELY disappointed by the blatant violation of physics. This wasn't your run of the mill transporters disassembling and then reassembling matter, hearing explosions in space, or coming up with crazy stuff like red matter... no... I got ticked at the fact the Spock was observing a star light years away in real time with an optical telescope. Not only that put apparently this star's supernova shockwave will travel faster than light. It would take YEARS for the supernova to effect any other star system!

Coming up with crazy technologies is one thing. Having natural phenomena violate physics like a cheap city dock "working girl" is completely another.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:16 am UTC

I watched it again... not a lot in that movie made a whole lot of sense.

Why did they get on a space ship, if all establishing shots point to StarFleet academy being on earth?
Why were the Romulans mining from space, how does a giant laser-drill help with that as well as disrupt all communications in the area, and why is it capable of drilling to a planets core?
Why didn't Scotty seem to notice any of Vulcan getting destroyed? Why was he even in that extremely improbable location?
Image

User avatar
Yubtzock
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm UTC
Location: Breslau/Wrocław

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Yubtzock » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:28 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:I watched it again... not a lot in that movie made a whole lot of sense.

agreed, but:
Why were the Romulans mining from space, how does a giant laser-drill help with that as well as disrupt all communications in the area, and why is it capable of drilling to a planets core?

Imagine yourself as a Spaceship constructor and owner of a spaceship producing company. Would you rather mine on earth and send minerals/whatever to space or simply mine them into space? The latter might be more cost-efficient when constructing a spaceship, which cannot be build on a planet and then take off, because its too big. It does not change the fact that planets-core-deep-mining-tool is a bit of fantasy, but so are beaming-up technology and funky red matter.
Why didn't Scotty seem to notice any of Vulcan getting destroyed? Why was he even in that extremely improbable location?

Good point. Seems like a plot hole or deus ex machina.

User avatar
Moo
Oh man! I'm going to be so rebellious! I'm gonna...
Posts: 6438
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:15 pm UTC
Location: Beyond the goblin city
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Moo » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:59 am UTC

It's a research station that he'd been "banished" to for losing Archer's prize beagle; and it's cold as all hell so why would he be outside watching the sky? And that question mark is not the condescending type but a "how about this, do you think it works?" kind.
Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
Hawknc wrote:FFT: I didn't realise Proverbs 9:7-8 was the first recorded instance of "haters gonna hate"

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:47 am UTC

What is he researching? Just kind of seems like if he's going through the trouble of being all the way out there, something oughta beep if a near by planet implodes.
Yubtzock wrote:
Why were the Romulans mining from space, how does a giant laser-drill help with that as well as disrupt all communications in the area, and why is it capable of drilling to a planets core?

Imagine yourself as a Spaceship constructor and owner of a spaceship producing company. Would you rather mine on earth and send minerals/whatever to space or simply mine them into space? The latter might be more cost-efficient when constructing a spaceship, which cannot be build on a planet and then take off, because its too big. It does not change the fact that planets-core-deep-mining-tool is a bit of fantasy, but so are beaming-up technology and funky red matter.
I really can't say what's most efficient when gathering space minerals, or how a giant laser might factor into that. Still wondering why it needed to be powerful enough to cut through a planet in what seems like a fairly short amount of time.
Image


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests