Topic 'Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness' in forum 'Anime/Sci Fi' - dslreports.com

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 24 May 2013 21:25:18 EDT

darcilicious posted : Finally got to see this today (GXL 70' screen with 7.1 sound and in 3D) and LOVED it. Good solid ENTERTAINMENT.

Agree that Benedict Cumberbatch was well cast and did a GREAT job on the part -- I can hardly wait to get this on bluray.

I also LOVED how Spock got to try his hand at kicking some ass ;) And even though I knew $fontbg Kirk wouldn't stay dead and I figured out in advance how he would be revived $Fontbg, I still got teary-eyed there.

Honestly, it was a fun movie, I enjoyed the plot/character tie-ins to the original timeline and I'm glad I splurged to go to the "best" theatre...
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 11:44:02 EDT

footballdude posted :

said by Packeteers:

more likely the people who designed the prosthetic and makeup would not license it for this new movie - so they had to come up with something that didn't resemble a STNG Klingon.

The real explanation is that the director of the movies thought it would look cool so they changed how Klingons looked from the series. The characters pretended not to notice.
--
�I had to adjust my halo as I was machine-gunning hogs.� - Ted Nugent

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 09:31:56 EDT

Packeteers posted : more likely the people who designed the prosthetic and makeup would not license it for this new movie - so they had to come up with something that didn't resemble a STNG Klingon.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 09:01:15 EDT

BigSensFan posted :

said by Snakeoil:

(spoiler)

I thought he did an ok job as Khan. But then again, divorcing foreknowledge about a previous awesome Khan, I'd say he did an excellent job at it.

The Klingons were ok as well. Did they ever explain the reason behind why they Klingons had such a drastic change in appearance from the STOS to STNG and Beyond?

They explained that in one of the Series (forget which one). Basically the Klingons had the ridges until they tried to integrate the genetically altered human DNA (from the Eugenics period) into their own. The human DNA took control and caused the forehead ridges to disappear for awhile
--
"The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning." ~ Adlai E. Stevenson

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 08:57:03 EDT

footballdude posted :

said by Snakeoil:

The Klingons were ok as well. Did they ever explain the reason behind why they Klingons had such a drastic change in appearance from the STOS to STNG and Beyond?

Enterprise tried to explain it with some sort of genetic manipulation.
--
�I had to adjust my halo as I was machine-gunning hogs.� - Ted Nugent

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 06:37:26 EDT

Snakeoil posted : $fontbg When old Spock was telling young Spock about how Khan would kill anyone he deemed inferior, I "heard" the Dr. Who theme song, and Dr Who talking about how awesome he thought humans were. In other words: DR. Who Vs Khan.
$Fontbg

I thought he did an ok job as Khan. But then again, divorcing foreknowledge about a previous awesome Khan, I'd say he did an excellent job at it.

The Klingons were ok as well. Did they ever explain the reason behind why they Klingons had such a drastic change in appearance from the STOS to STNG and Beyond?
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 05:23:34 EDT

Alpha Phoenix posted : Let's get this thread back on topic. How sexy is Uhura? :p

I think Benedict Cumberbatch played an EXCELLENT villain; VERY sinister Khan. I'm so used to seeing him as Sherlock, so this was a big departure for me. He looked pretty good looking in Star Trek. In Sherlock, he usually looks so.... frowzy looking.
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Tue, 21 May 2013 01:40:11 EDT

Rook008 posted : In my opinion, the basic reason we're not going past Earth orbit is money.
There are more than enough people in the space program (and outside of it) who wouldn't care about the dangers of a long range mission, and there are enough ideas and technology to make it happen.
NASA sends probes instead of people because they can afford it.
--
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Mon, 20 May 2013 15:30:25 EDT

captokita posted :

said by Packeteers:

http://thespacereporter.com/2013/05/russia-retrieves-mice-lizards-from-space-in-preparation-for-mars-mission-all-are-d ead/

That article's title is misleading, and flat out wrong. Not ALL of the animals were dead, and they can't say if the ones that did die, died because of the trip, or because of the equipment failure on the craft. Hardly a valid finding on humans in space.

quote:
going to the Moon took mankind to that eras engineering limits. Mars will take humans well beyond their own natural evolutionary limits.

We had REASON to go to the moon, to be the first ones there, and necessity is the mother of invention. Until we have a similar "need" there is no real reason for us to push to it. We used to want to be the best in the world when it came to sciences and space, notsomuch now. That's a shame. We abandoned our shuttle program without a replacement in place, and now rely on the Russians to get our asses to the ISS, which is a equally shameful. We should be wanting the world coming to US to get to space.

quote:
Biosphere was a failure, the ISS was a failure - both prove humans cannot survive beyond our planet long enough to do anything useful without a MAJOR technological breakthrough that our current technologists can only fantasize about in our fiction.

Don't know about Biosphere so I can't comment on that, but ISS is a failure? It's still going up there is it not? Still have people manning it do we not? How do you consider that a failure? Perhaps not living up to its potential, but it's far from a failure.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:39:50 EDT

Snakeoil posted :

quote:
I think the tide may be turning in that regard as humans are getting less xenophobic with each passing year. the fastest growing religion on the planet right now - is no religion at all. the internet helps bind humans together as a single collective consciousness, better equipped to assimilate alien concepts. we seem less wrapped up in our own human exceptionalism. the religious right may continue to make the most noise, but it's the silent majority that will ultimately determine Earth's fate.

I find this true with government/politics. Remove that and religion and it's amazing at how well people can function together and get along.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:37:50 EDT

Snakeoil posted :

quote:
This is true, but like the ocean crossers of old, they likely knew it would be a one-way trip, if they ever made it. That's not a reason to NOT do it. But can you imagine the media storm if such a mission were proposed?

Sad at how things have changed. Back in the days of tall ships, people would celebrate the expedition, and many would invest in it, despite the risks. Today, the press would endlessly rant about the "waste of human life and resources" on the trip.

I've read of an idea of way stations, between earth and Mars. Places where the astronauts could get out and "stretch their legs". Also have read about an idea that would have supplies and equipment sent to Mar's orbit/planet. That could be assembled in the early stages by robots, then later stages by Astronauts.

Granted, something like that is a long term project. The financing could come from private and public sectors, and from many countries. Sorta like how the ISS was built.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:06:20 EDT

Alpha Phoenix posted : It's not only about being xenophobic. It's about our maturity level, and our greed and savagery as a species. We kill our own kind for greed and hatred, and destroy our lands for greed and profit. You really think we are ready to interact with an advanced extra-terrestrial species??? If I was an advanced being, I would look at humans as a blight. As it is right now, human beings are a cancer on this world. We take and suck resources dry, but don't really contribute back anything positive to the planet.
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:24:11 EDT

footballdude posted :

said by trparky:

The fan boys need to get off their high horse already. Things are never going to be like they once were, get over it. So I'm going to say that again... I'm happy to have just about anything Star Trek related!

So you have low standards. Be proud!!!
--
�I had to adjust my halo as I was machine-gunning hogs.� - Ted Nugent

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Mon, 20 May 2013 07:19:40 EDT

Packeteers posted : I think the tide may be turning in that regard as humans are getting less xenophobic with each passing year. the fastest growing religion on the planet right now - is no religion at all. the internet helps bind humans together as a single collective consciousness, better equipped to assimilate alien concepts. we seem less wrapped up in our own human exceptionalism. the religious right may continue to make the most noise, but it's the silent majority that will ultimately determine Earth's fate.

It's far more realistic we will get some indiscernible but artificial alien transmission - generations before any actual alien technology (probe) or aliens show up in the flesh. this means humans may go a century knowing we are not alone in the universe before meeting a single ET, so we will collectively be much better prepared for it. It's only been a couple of years that we are surveying tiny sections of the night sky to confirm the highest concentrations of "goldilocks" planets to point our electronic ear at.

»www.extremetech.com/extreme/1560···be-fixed

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 23:45:33 EDT

Alpha Phoenix posted : I also believe that the maturity level, savagery, and greedy, self-serving, and violent nature of human being makes us not fit to really deal with advanced extra-terrestrial lifeforms at this point in our evolution. We simply aren't mature enough as a species to handle it. Fear, paranoia, propaganda, violence, greed, abduction and testing, trying to concur and take advantage of new worlds and civilizations, etc... :uhh:

We don't even have our own shit together as a species, and we want to go and find more advanced lifeforms? For God's sake, look at we do to our own kind, and our planet!
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 22:48:04 EDT

Packeteers posted : I believe there is a cover up going on with the ISS regarding the health of astronauts staying on the ISS over 6 Months, or the duration of a one way trip to Mars. NASA and other space agencies would be talking a lot more about humans in space, but they already know it's not good for you health, so they let politicians talk out of their ass like going to Mars in 20 years is a done deal.

»thespacereporter.com/2013/05/rus···re-dead/

going to the Moon took mankind to that eras engineering limits. Mars will take humans well beyond their own natural evolutionary limits. Biosphere was a failure, the ISS was a failure - both prove humans cannot survive beyond our planet long enough to do anything useful without a MAJOR technological breakthrough that our current technologists can only fantasize about in our fiction.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:34 EDT

captokita posted :

said by Packeteers:

humans soon die in space without artificial gravity and shields. without gravity our bones become thin and brittle and we lose too much muscle mass and suffer circulatory and digestive problems. sure there are plenty of centrifugal force simulated gravity designs on the drawing board, but we still have not tested any of them on humans, or even on mammals.

SOON die? People have lived on the ISS for quite some time and none (to my knowledge) have died up there. Sure, it takes it's toll on the body, and in that you're right, it would EVENTUALLY be very bad for you.

quote:
space beyond earth's atmosphere/magnetosphere is storms of subatomic particles and a wide spectrum or dangerous high energy radiation, as well as extremes of heat and cold. this is one of many reasons why any human trip to mars under the best of technologically feasible circumstances, can still only be one way, as you'll already be half dead by the time you arrive.

This is true, but like the ocean crossers of old, they likely knew it would be a one-way trip, if they ever made it. That's not a reason to NOT do it. But can you imagine the media storm if such a mission were proposed?

quote:
personally i doubt we will send humans to mars till 2050 - if our current rovers on Mars have showed us anything, it's that there is nothing worthwhile to see or do up there. more likely we may find something useful to do on our relatively close Moon, like setup a base and hopefully test new long range human safe travel technologies that have yet to be realized.

Doubt 2050 is doable, possible, but I highly doubt it. Nothing worthwhile? There are things robots can do, but there are more things a human can do, through observation, that the robots simply can't. The fact it's unexplored by man MAKES it worthwhile.

quote:
there is also world economics - humans can only afford to spend a limited amount of resources on space travel unless there is something profitable or defensive - like nudging an approaching killer asteroid. science and national pride is not enough to pay the bills - just look at our current ISS (SkyLab update) as it's virtually bankrupt now that it's finally finished.

Yeah, money is an issue, but I don't see the world EVER being as one as told in Star Trek. A noble thought, but it will NEVER happen, short of some outside force showing up demanding it.

quote:
this is why we should continue to focus creative energy and imagination on sending more robots and remote sensors into space, as that's the one area of human technological prowess that is mature enough to still be useful while out there, and maybe just maybe our AI buddies will find something that truly inspires humans to go visit in the flesh.

I agree partly with this, but again, there is only so much a robot can do. A robot won't see that little thing off to the side of vision, and go investigate.

What I believe needs to be done, either privately, or publicly (NASA) is the following:

1: Building upon the ISS to give it hangar capabilities for construction purposes. There you can build your gravity generator, and your next-generation spacecraft. Utilize solar energy for initial engines, as in space, you don't need blasting power, but more "bursts" to control direction.

2: Manned base on the moon: Going from the ISS to the moon would be easier on fuel and resources than launching a craft from Earth, where most of the fuel is expended on launch. You shuttle parts from Earth to ISS, then shuttle them from ISS to the moon. Construct a base with it's own hangar, and things can then be manufactured there as well. THEN you can make your next step.

3: Build space station in Mars orbit. You can do a land-based base at the same time, but it would make more sense to have a stopping point to get supplies to/from first. Lather, rinse, and repeat from here further out.

How such a plan can be funded, well, I'm not into the money ideas, but I still believe there is something out there we need to find, perhaps it's a rare plant on Mars that cures cancer? Maybe it's not on Mars at all, but further out? Perhaps it's intelligent life that is waiting for us to make that leap. Which could be good OR bad, depending on their reaction to us.

The only thing is we have to realize that many people will likely DIE in these endeavors, and that cannot stop us from doing it. I would hate to see an accident ground a program for years like the shuttle accidents did. There's being cautious, then there's being OVERLY cautious.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 19:23:37 EDT

Packeteers posted : it's not just propulsion or space warping technology that's needed.

humans soon die in space without artificial gravity and shields. without gravity our bones become thin and brittle and we lose too much muscle mass and suffer circulatory and digestive problems. sure there are plenty of centrifugal force simulated gravity designs on the drawing board, but we still have not tested any of them on humans, or even on mammals.

space beyond earth's atmosphere/magnetosphere is storms of subatomic particles and a wide spectrum or dangerous high energy radiation, as well as extremes of heat and cold. this is one of many reasons why any human trip to mars under the best of technologically feasible circumstances, can still only be one way, as you'll already be half dead by the time you arrive.

personally i doubt we will send humans to mars till 2050 - if our current rovers on Mars have showed us anything, it's that there is nothing worthwhile to see or do up there. more likely we may find something useful to do on our relatively close Moon, like setup a base and hopefully test new long range human safe travel technologies that have yet to be realized.

there is also world economics - humans can only afford to spend a limited amount of resources on space travel unless there is something profitable or defensive - like nudging an approaching killer asteroid. science and national pride is not enough to pay the bills - just look at our current ISS (SkyLab update) as it's virtually bankrupt now that it's finally finished.

this is why we should continue to focus creative energy and imagination on sending more robots and remote sensors into space, as that's the one area of human technological prowess that is mature enough to still be useful while out there, and maybe just maybe our AI buddies will find something that truly inspires humans to go visit in the flesh.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:13:16 EDT

Snakeoil posted :

quote:
It's not that we're scared venture out, it's that with our current level of technology, we'd die before we ever reached a planet that was safe for us to explore personally, or die before we get back. The distance is just far too great to send manned spacecrafts out there with our current level of technology. Until we can get warp capability, or learn how to fold space like worm holes/quantum tunneling, it's just not feasible right now.

How many died journeying by foot across the land of this planet?
How many vessels were lost at sea when man started exploring the oceans?

For example, I saw a part of the documentary film called Kon Tiki. It was a few researchers trying to prove that ancient man could have and did use rafts to cross the pacific.

Same thing, IMO, applies to space. Use the existing tech of today, and head out. They'd have to develop a light weight smelter, so they could work ores found in asteroids, as well as a well to manufacture electronics in space. They'd have to grow their food, and use plant based protein, or maybe even insect based.

I read a few old school sci-fi books. A few of them tapped upon the idea of "Generation" ships. A Generation ship is one that is sent out on a deep space trip knowing full well that they will never see Earth again. Their descendants might, but they wont. Such trips take thousands of years, if not longer. That is how we need to think. Not small scale ships, like we are familiar with, but large self sufficient vessels that can gather what resources they need from planets or asteroids.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 15:47:03 EDT

Alpha Phoenix posted :

said by Snakeoil:

I saw the new Trek this morning. There was only about 10 people at the 12:15 3d showing.

I wept when I saw the term "Star Trek" on the screen. Which is typical, because I know we are doomed to die on this planet, and we'll never go beyond the moon with a manned mission. All because we are afraid of the risks.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying. When the early explorers ventured out, did they worry about the risks and dangers? Or did they accept them, and went out to explore?
But yet, here we sit, bound on earth like timid little mice, sending machines to do what we should be doing.
Hence why I weep, because I know that our fears and cautions will keep us prisoner on this planet, and we will die here. Instead of boldly going where no man [screw the PC crap] has gone before.

It's not that we're scared venture out, it's that with our current level of technology, we'd die before we ever reached a planet that was safe for us to explore personally, or die before we get back. The distance is just far too great to send manned spacecrafts out there with our current level of technology. Until we can get warp capability, or learn how to fold space like worm holes/quantum tunneling, it's just not feasible right now.
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 15:44:10 EDT

Alpha Phoenix posted :

said by captokita:

said by Wily_One:

Yes it's entertainment but don't you expect characters that you know and love to be what they're supposed to be?

heh, then you're REALLY gonna love this movie.... =)

But in honesty, it's a reboot, so it doesn't matter what you expect a character to be like, because it's not the same. You need to disconnect from old trek, and embrace new trek as something different.

+1
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 15:24:01 EDT

Snakeoil posted : there is that, or trouble with super powered tribbles.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 14:39:40 EDT

Krisnatharok posted : I believe that was Spock in the new movie.

Bones did have the "dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not... [weapons specialist, I think]" line though.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 13:57:01 EDT

sivran posted : I want to know if Chris Pine did his own rendition of The Shatner Scream.
--
Think Outside the Fox.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 13:42:27 EDT

Packeteers posted : so... will Kirk have super human powers in time for movie 3 :D

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 13:21:12 EDT

Krisnatharok posted : My only problem was that the plot was Gore Verbinski-style predictable.

$fontbg Kirk is irradiated and dying? Before he even went into the warp core chamber, I knew what was planned for him given Khan's blood. $Fontbg

But that's a minor sticking point, and other than that, the plot was good, especially the twists given who was the worse nemesis.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 10:54:12 EDT

Snakeoil posted : I like the reboot of the Star Trek series.

And, IMO, playing it fast and loose with the tradition allows them new room to explore, instead of being stuck on an established path.

$fontbg For example, if they decide to do a new Star trek series on TV, maybe they could do a Captain Sulu version. As the kinda sat "captain" Sulu up in the second movie. And Sulu fans have waited nearly forever to see him get his own ship/show/movie. But that might something that gets explored if and when they do a Star Trek 3.
$Fontbg
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 09:51:39 EDT

trparky posted : The issue that the new Star Trek movie is having is that there a bunch of "fan boys" that expect everything to be the same as it was years ago. Am I going to offend people with that statement? Yes, but I don't care.

I walked into both movies knowing full well that they weren't going to be like what Star Trek used to be. I wasn't at all expecting it to be. What I got was a Star Trek-like experience. Am I happy? Yes! I'm happy to have just about anything Star Trek related!

It was years, seriously YEARS since we had a Star Trek movie on the big screen and about half a decade since we've had a new Star Trek series on TV.

And why is that? I hate to break it to you guys, but when someone comes along with a new idea that no matter how little or how large of a break away from traditional Star Trek, the "fan boys" go and condemn it. What do you expect is going to happen? That's right, no more Star Trek.

It happened with Enterprise. Fan boys condemned it and that resulted in the show being cut short. It was a good show, though at times it was poorly executed, but it did have promise. But again, the fan boys stepped in and once again killed it.

The fan boys need to get off their high horse already. Things are never going to be like they once were, get over it. So I'm going to say that again... I'm happy to have just about anything Star Trek related!
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 09:02:18 EDT

Snakeoil posted :

said by Rook008:

Cumberbatch is a terrific actor, but I've only seen him in Sherlock, which is one of the best TV shows ever.

3rd best, maybe 4th best ;)

Luther, Copper, and Orphan Black. Damn, why does the BBC seem to do better TV then it's American cousins?
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 02:53:43 EDT

Fir_Na_Tine posted : Saw it in Imax 3D tonight, visually awesome 3D was done very well. I liked it better than 2009. I'm a fan of Star Trek and like JJ's story line. I like that everything is different and not the same. He's just making it his own.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sun, 19 May 2013 02:34:51 EDT

Packeteers posted : it seems you are not the only one skipping this movie out of distain for what JJ has done to this franchise;

»www.deadline.com/2013/05/star-tr···nd-imax/ (sales are running behind the first trek reboot movie)

said by Wily_One:

I will not be supporting the JJ version of Trek. Will anyone notice or care? No.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 23:05:03 EDT

Rook008 posted : Cumberbatch is a terrific actor, but I've only seen him in Sherlock, which is one of the best TV shows ever.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 22:44:50 EDT

Krisnatharok posted : A little predictable towards the end, but Cumberbatch and Saldana stole the show with their acting. Everyone else was meh.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 22:42:49 EDT

Rook008 posted : I kind of agree with the basics of what you're saying. I wanted to see how Kirk and the crew started out when I saw the first Star Trek reboot. But instead I got time travel and an altered timeline, so it wasn't the Kirk and crew that I wanted to see. Why even include the names of the original crew if almost everything about them can be changed? Don't get me wrong, the movie was entertaining, it just wasn't what I wanted it to be.

And I'm not what anyone would consider a huge Trek fan.

I'll wait for the BluRay release for the new Trek movie.
--
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 16:45:13 EDT

Snakeoil posted : I saw the new Trek this morning. There was only about 10 people at the 12:15 3d showing.

I wept when I saw the term "Star Trek" on the screen. Which is typical, because I know we are doomed to die on this planet, and we'll never go beyond the moon with a manned mission. All because we are afraid of the risks.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying. When the early explorers ventured out, did they worry about the risks and dangers? Or did they accept them, and went out to explore?
But yet, here we sit, bound on earth like timid little mice, sending machines to do what we should be doing.
Hence why I weep, because I know that our fears and cautions will keep us prisoner on this planet, and we will die here. Instead of boldly going where no man [screw the PC crap] has gone before.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 11:01:58 EDT

darcilicious posted :

said by captokita:

said by Wily_One:

Yes it's entertainment but don't you expect characters that you know and love to be what they're supposed to be?

You need to disconnect from old trek, and embrace new trek as something different.

But that would mean giving up his INTEGRITY!! I mean, this is IMPORTANT stuff!!
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 09:56:02 EDT

darcilicious posted :

said by Wily_One:

said by darcilicious:

I guess I just don't take my entertainment that seriously :D

Yes it's entertainment but don't you expect characters that you know and love to be what they're supposed to be?

So... did you love or hate the rebooted Battlestar Galactica then?
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Sat, 18 May 2013 02:39:27 EDT

captokita posted :

said by Wily_One:

Yes it's entertainment but don't you expect characters that you know and love to be what they're supposed to be?

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 23:24:22 EDT

Wily_One posted :

said by darcilicious:

I guess I just don't take my entertainment that seriously :D

Yes it's entertainment but don't you expect characters that you know and love to be what they're supposed to be?

If you go to see a Batman movie, you expect to see Batman. While plots can change and minor details vary, Batman is not Batman if his parents weren't murdered when he was a child, is now a tormented soul living two identities who is also wealthy enough to afford all the cool tech for his alter-ego, and so on.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 23:07:56 EDT

captokita posted : Just back from seeing it, and it was an overall decent film.

Sure, the film had problems, and plenty of annoying lens-flare which was to be expected, but I came out of it feeling it was worth the price of admission.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 22:13:20 EDT

older dog posted : The movie was very enjoyable in IMAX 3D
I left the theater with a big grin and a smile all the way home.

$23 for a medium soda and the movie is not small change to me but I came away feeling I got my money’s worth.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:06:18 EDT

seaquake posted :

said by BigSensFan:

2. Every time I see Peter Weller I can only picture him as Robocop

I have the same problem. When he showed up on Enterprise and just a few years ago on Dexter, I instantly had his monotonic robocop lines pop into my head.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 16:40:23 EDT

footballdude posted :

said by Wily_One:

I could go on... The bottom line is Abrams changed shit just because he wanted to change it. The occasional "nods" to us long-time Trek fans does not mask his contempt for us. JJ-Trek is not Star Trek, it's just another sci-fi action movie with familiar character names slapped on.

I feel the same way. Naming someone Kirk doesn't make him Kirk, one of the iconic and lasting characters in SciFi history. The great thing about the original Star Trek was the interaction of the strong characters. It's pretty much impossible to recreate that with different actors.

I'll still see the movie, eventually. But I honestly don't consider it Star Trek. It would have been better if they had just gone forward a few hundred years into unknown territory where they could write new stories with new tech and new characters. But that would require talent. They tried that once with Next Generation but ended up retelling a whole lot of stories from the original show.

Everyone wants to tie into the success of the original, but change it to suit their tastes. No one seems to want to venture out on their own. I gave Voyager props for trying, though I found that show unwatchable. Still, success is out there if someone has enough artistic integrity to seek it. It's not likely that will come from Hollywood, though.
--
�I had to adjust my halo as I was machine-gunning hogs.� - Ted Nugent

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 16:08:49 EDT

darcilicious posted :

said by Wily_One:

But I will still have my integrity.

I guess I just don't take my entertainment that seriously :D
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 16:05:09 EDT

Grimm posted : *Yawn*

There's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:02:47 EDT

Wily_One posted : Yes the "alternate timeline" excuse can only extend so far, which is one of the reasons I disliked JJ-Trek '09. It just doesn't make any sense.

Because Kirk's father died, Kirk turned out different - OK that I can accept.

But because Kirk's father died Spock now openly shows emotion with Uhura?

Because Kirk's father died Sulu is an inept helmsman and Scotty is a manic clown?

I could go on... The bottom line is Abrams changed shit just because he wanted to change it. The occasional "nods" to us long-time Trek fans does not mask his contempt for us. JJ-Trek is not Star Trek, it's just another sci-fi action movie with familiar character names slapped on.

I will not be supporting the JJ version of Trek. Will anyone notice or care? No. I'm sure this will be another blockbuster, just ensuring more to come. But I will still have my integrity.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:33:47 EDT

BigSensFan posted :

said by BonezX:

said by Packeteers:

the destruction of planet Vulcan and deaths of all it's inhabitants probably had a bit more to do with the divergence ;)

the first action in a timeline that is different then another is usually the divergence point, kirks father dying was the first effect of the divergence point which would be the time warp itself, everything else after that would be part of that timeline.

The singularity with the ships coming out is the divergence point
--
"The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning." ~ Adlai E. Stevenson

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:29:06 EDT

BonezX posted :

said by Packeteers:

the destruction of planet Vulcan and deaths of all it's inhabitants probably had a bit more to do with the divergence ;)

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 13:11:04 EDT

Wily_One posted : There's nothing wrong with the way you worded your post, I knew exactly what you were saying. Sorry if I was too subtle, but my cough was one of derision at the JJ-verse.

I have seen every Star Trek movie on the day it opened, including '09 JJ-Trek. I will not be seeing Into Darkness.

Re: Star Trek: 5/17/2013 Into Darkness

Fri, 17 May 2013 10:57:57 EDT

trparky posted : I had to come up with some way to differentiate it from the first Star Trek movie, ie. The Motion Picture. Was it a bad way? Maybe.