# Star Trek Movie.  (Contains Spoilers)



## arnisador

_Star Trek _was great! I was expecting less, but it was exciting, the characterizations were very good (esp. Kirk, Spock, and, to my great surprise, Simon Pegg as Scotty), the action and tension and villain were all well done, and overall I really enjoyed it. I didn't mind the reboot.


----------



## jarrod

i heard it was fun & watchable.  i'll pass, thank you.

jf


----------



## stickarts

Thanks for the review! I can't wait to see it!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So far, everything I've seen says its good.  My only issue is the tossing of 40 years of canon/history.  This is a reboot, an alternate time line, not a prequel.  Clean slate could be a good idea, and will let them go where they need to go without being handcuffed. But, I liked the familiar universe.


----------



## ShelleyK

I forgot to post about my experience watching the movie.

I actually liked it a LOT!  There was some great humorous scenes.  The actors played each character almost to the "T", right down to facial expressions and mannerisms.
There was so much action going on that  I want to go a 2nd time so I can catch the little things that I missed!


----------



## Kacey

It was interesting - but even with the alternate time line, there were some serious disconnects in terms of ages of the characters - but it did appear that the screen writers have read at least some of the better novels.


----------



## arnisador

Bob Hubbard said:


> So far, everything I've seen says its good.  My only issue is the tossing of 40 years of canon/history.  This is a reboot, an alternate time line, not a prequel.  Clean slate could be a good idea, and will let them go where they need to go without being handcuffed. But, I liked the familiar universe.



Yeah, I'm big on continuity too, but I think they're making the right move here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

On the plus side, tossing our Vger and Enterprise (and good chunks of TNG and DS9) is good!


----------



## Scott T

Bob Hubbard said:


> On the plus side, tossing our Vger and Enterprise (and good chunks of TNG and DS9) is good!


Uh, Bob, since the timelines, apparently, split at the destruction of the Kelvin, Enterprise is still canon in this new universe as it takes place about 70 years before


----------



## Bob Hubbard

****


----------



## Scott T

Bob Hubbard said:


> ****


LOL! That was a very succinct response, my friend


----------



## arnisador

The canon has bifurcated--starting with the Kelvin, there are two canons (cana?).


----------



## jarrod

what the hell are you people talking about?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

see the movie. or read the synopsis. LOL!


----------



## jks9199

jarrod said:


> what the hell are you people talking about?


Well... without seeing it or reading the synopsis yet...  Just going by the ads and trailers...

They've obviously moved away from the accepted Trek "history" in how the crew of the Enterprise meets or comes together.  'Cause they were different ages in the original series...  Sulu can be seen as something of Kirk's protege in the original series, and Chekov wasn't even there during the first season...


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

I saw it and here is what I thought.

Acting was good noone seemed stiff however everyone's catchphrase is said quite alot can get annoying. The cast looks like younger versions of the original. The ships look amazing and you can see the director spent time in showing them off. 

The plot had a wrath of Khan type of plot while using the building on the characters origins. 

The movie seems to me to be kid friendly did not see anything too violent or racy. I think the movie is best viewed as Star Trek with a bigger budget,better CGI, And strong acting skills compared to its tv counterpart. The only person who I felt was a bit Cardboard was the villian. It seemed he belongs more on a tv show Star Trek or the older Star trek movies then this one. 
The movie at some points move a little slow and sometimes you want more action but it is still entertaining and much better than Wolverine.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Just back from the theatre now. 

First i need to whine a bit... 

WTF? I pay $10 plus $357 for popcorn and pop, then i have to sit through 6 minutes of commercials, and another 12 minutes of previews. Just show the movie, that's what I'm paying for!! That's on top of the guy who comes in and asks everyone to move in, so people coming late can get in. No, I got here an hour ago so i could get good seats, kiss my *** if you think I'm given them up because some joker couldn't get here early!!

As for the movie? Good, 8 out of 10. Entertaining. I can say all sorts of how this doesn't fit, or thats incorrect, or in episode X this happened or in book 62 Y happened, but I won't. I went there to see an entertaining Scifi movie, and thats what I got.


----------



## arnisador

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> The ships look amazing and you can see the director spent time in showing them off.
> 
> The plot had a wrath of Khan type of plot


 
Agreed! Certainly it and WoK are among the very best of the series.



> I think the movie is best viewed as Star Trek with a bigger budget,better CGI, And strong acting skills compared to its tv counterpart.



I'll buy this--at least, higher acting standards.



> The only person who I felt was a bit Cardboard was the villian. It seemed he belongs more on a tv show Star Trek or the older Star trek movies then this one.



Here I disagree! I thought Eric Bana hit just the right tone.


----------



## Matthew McMullen

I saw the movie last night and I loved it and so did the rest of the family.  I think it was very well done and I like the idea of it being an alternate timeline it gives the writers a bit more freedom and hopefully they will do wonderful things with it.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh

Saw the movie Friday.
If you go to the movie looking for things to pick apart, you'll find plenty there.
On the other hand, if you went looking to see references to the old series and familiar things, you'll find plenty of that, too.

I'll try to avoid spoilers as much as I can in the following.

*Good Things *(IMHO):
The guy who played young McCoy nailed it. It was obvious he studied the part and the actor who defined it.

The guy who played young Spock pretty much looked the part, although he seemed to be supressing a smile (and failing) through much of the movie.

The "Main Seven" each got their time in the celluloid sun, as it were.

Plenty of action.

Starfleet female personnel still wear mini-skirts.

Kirk is still the #1 horndog in the galaxy, and his penchant for alien babes is apparantly unabated.

Familiar standard things from the old series (i.e., the Vulcan neck pinch, the Vulcan mind meld, "Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a physicist!", and things like that).

Uhura's character looks to be set up to show more depth in the sequels. The actress reminds me of a young Robin Givens (circa "Head of the Class", not the Mike Tyson era). Her relationship with one of the other of the Seven could be interesting.

Reboot rather than just a prequel. With a reboot, some of the main characters could be killed off without harming the established continuity. Changes can be made without violating canon.

*Things which I didn't care for*

A third year cadet is promoted to captain of the Starfleet flagship? I know he performed a great service, and was worthy of commendation, but a captaincy? _C'mahhhhn!_

Checkov's actor did well on the accent (although we didn't get to hear him talk about "nuclear wessels"), but didn't have the right look. The guy looked as though he would've been better cast as Jimmy Olson.

Klingons fly birds-of-prey, not warbirds (I know- pick, pick)

Diverging timeline or not, the people on the Kelvin should have not known much about Romulans. 

There was no need to shoot Kirk out in an escape pod, as the Enterprise has a brig. 

Trapped on an ice planet, chased by a hungry predator, having no weapons, Kirk certainly would've run. But he would not have screamed like a wussie. 

The guy who played Scotty was too shrill and frantic. I always pictured him as an enlisted man who came up the hard way. That may not be the way that canon describes his history, but it's the impression he made on me. Sort of like that tough master sargeant type who helps the snot-nosed young lieutenant to not get himself and the others killed. BTW, hated the goofy hat in the first scenes with him.

*All in all-*

I really enjoyed this movie. I don't know if I'll see it again before it comes out on DVD, but I'll definitely buy it when it does. I'll also recommend the movie to all the Trek fans I know (an embarassingly large number).


----------



## JDenver

Forgettable.  Nothing spectacular.  Average acting, average writing, and in some spots, cliche Hollywood shmook.

Star Trek actually trumps my all time worst example of 'one-up-ism', which belonged to Titanic.  In Titanic, it WASN'T ENOUGH that the ship was going down, they had to have a villain with a gun roaming around.

Star Trek beats that.  The Romulan ship, literally turning into a blackhole, STILL has to get blasted with photons by the Enterprise.  

?!?!?!?!?!? 

It's ridiculous past the point of sense or even fun.  Really average movie all around.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Well my opinion is that it was excellent!  Even great and really breathed life into the series!


----------



## ShelleyK

JDenver said:


> Star Trek beats that.  The Romulan ship, literally turning into a blackhole, STILL has to get blasted with photons by the Enterprise.
> 
> ?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> It's ridiculous past the point of sense or even fun.  Really average movie all around.



Nooo the romulan ship was time warping again and they had to blow up the ship in order to activate the red matter to create the black hole.


----------



## ShelleyK

Soooo did anybody find the Tribble in the movie???
I know where it is!!


----------



## arnisador

No, I missed it!


----------



## Ken Morgan

ShelleyK said:


> Soooo did anybody find the Tribble in the movie???
> I know where it is!!


 
What? Where?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well, Shatner wasn't in it, so I know it's not on his head......


----------



## Omar B

Wait, I saw it 3 times and missed the tribble?  How is that possible?  So give, where is it?

As for the movie itself, things went against canon but as explained it's it's own timeline so the Trek I love has not been hurt.  I do love it by the way, saw it on Friday then went to the drive in tonight and watched it twice in a row from my comfy car packed with snacks.


----------



## Nomad

Loved it.  Great reboot; the writing on this one opens things wide for any sequels without having to worry about the prior series "history".  

Excellent casting, though they did feel a little too much like they were doing impressions of each of the original characters throughout (especially McCoy).  Hopefully they'll get more confident in the next one and start owning the characters themselves.


----------



## Ken Morgan

I had to cheat, because I didn't know the answer to where the tribble was and Shelley hasn't answered!! From Wiki

"A tribble also appears on Montgomery Scott's desk at the Starfleet outpost at Delta Vega in the 2009 movie _Star Trek_. Before that time, tribbles had been described as having been considered a dangerous menace to other planets' environments, so much so that transporting them off their native home could incur a lengthy prison sentence. The much anticipated tribble in Star Trek XI is in the scene where Kirk first meets Scotty on the ice planet. You can distinctly hear it cooing throughout their first conversation."


----------



## ShelleyK

Sorry I missed the post asking me where it was!!


----------



## Ken Morgan

ShelleyK said:


> Sorry I missed the post asking me where it was!!


 
No need to apologize but not knowing the answer was driving me nuts!!


----------



## JDenver

ShelleyK said:


> Nooo the romulan ship was time warping again and they had to blow up the ship in order to activate the red matter to create the black hole.



Really?  But when they dropped the red matter into the planet it worked all on it's own without need for 'activation'.  I think I remember that correctly.

Plus, would warping actually save them at all?

Oh god, now I'm getting way too into the technical stuff!!


----------



## ShelleyK

If I remember correctly the red matter was in a container that had a bomb or something like that in it to detonate and activate the red matter...They did warp but I think that the blast from shooting the core coils or whatever it was that shot from the ship helped to propel them far enough that they were out of the gravity pull of the black hole...

Oh God I sound like a Trekkie nerd dont I???  LOL


----------



## shesulsa

I was wondering ... would the devices detonated "in" the black hole actually fill/invert/negate the black hole?  Would the explosion essentially fill it or would the explosion be sucked into the black hole?

And ... if the black hole didn't survive, wouldn't the effect we saw on screen be, essentially, a "big bang" of sorts?  And right here in our own freakin' galaxy???  Seems like that would lay waste all life on Earth.  

But I really don't know much about astrophysics, I'm just poking at possibilities, so if anyone here knows, feel free to enlighten me/us.

:spock:


----------



## shesulsa

Oh, and extra points for the STG (Star Trek Geek) who can name the hybrid grain the tribbles nibbled away in the series.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

quadrotriticale

tastes a bit lke Quinoa.


----------



## shesulsa

Bob Hubbard said:


> quadrotriticale
> 
> tastes a bit lke Quinoa.



Give that man a box of Mars bars and a bottle of Kaopectate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Rofl!


----------



## Empty Hands

shesulsa said:


> I was wondering ... would the devices detonated "in" the black hole actually fill/invert/negate the black hole?  Would the explosion essentially fill it or would the explosion be sucked into the black hole?



While I greatly enjoyed this movie, they left physics bruised and bleeding on the floor, even for a _Star Trek _movie.

First, the black holes were generated using what couldn't have been more than a few grams of "red matter", or a few hundred kilos for the whole set.  Thus, any black hole generated would have at most the mass of a few hundred kilos.  Such a black hole would be very, very small, and would rapidly evaporate.  It probably couldn't consume a planet, or even consume enough to sustain itself.  

If you were to try to detonate something inside or just outside a black hole, it would have no appreciable impact on the hole itself.  The mass of the explosion would be consumed just like anything else.  Active massive black holes are very energetic places, with plasma and x-rays and such out the wazoo.  Nothing you could detonate off a starship would have any effect.  It would just be consumed.

That is assuming it could even be detonated at all, another pet peeve.  If the _Enterprise _was being pulled backwards into a black hole despite going faster than the speed of light (they said they were at warp) then they would be inside the event horizon.  The tidal forces at such a close distance to the black hole would cause massive gravity changes over very short distances.  Basically, the _Enterprise_, everyone in it, and the exploding cores would be very, very long spaghetti.  Even after that then, considering they were already going faster than the speed of light inside the event horizon, then no explosion, no matter how energetic, could possibly accelerate them enough to escape.  At that point, conventional physics and chemical reactions should be non-functional anyway.



shesulsa said:


> And ... if the black hole didn't survive, wouldn't the effect we saw on screen be, essentially, a "big bang" of sorts?  And right here in our own freakin' galaxy???  Seems like that would lay waste all life on Earth.



Black holes evaporate and release energy through Hawking radiation very, very slowly.  A supermassive black hole like the one in the middle of our galaxy would take several lifetimes of the Universe to evaporate.  A small one would evaporate much more quickly, but even then, it only has as much energy to release as it has consumed.  If the black holes had the mass of the Romulan mining ship and a few hundred kilos of "red matter", then that is all the energy it would have to release - which would occur slowly anyway.  Thus, no big bang.

The real big bang did come from a singularity similar in conception to a black hole, but with two big differences.  First, it had the total mass of the entire universe contained within - a lot more than a starship, or even a galaxy or two.  Second, unlike standard black holes, this singularity exploded and released all that energy simultaneously.   This doesn't happen with regular black holes.

Well, thanks for letting me geek out and vent.  Probably more than you wanted to hear.


----------



## shesulsa

Empty Hands said:


> While I greatly enjoyed this movie, they left physics bruised and bleeding on the floor, even for a _Star Trek _movie.
> 
> First, the black holes were generated using what couldn't have been more than a few grams of "red matter", or a few hundred kilos for the whole set.  Thus, any black hole generated would have at most the mass of a few hundred kilos.  Such a black hole would be very, very small, and would rapidly evaporate.  It probably couldn't consume a planet, or even consume enough to sustain itself.
> 
> If you were to try to detonate something inside or just outside a black hole, it would have no appreciable impact on the hole itself.  The mass of the explosion would be consumed just like anything else.  Active massive black holes are very energetic places, with plasma and x-rays and such out the wazoo.  Nothing you could detonate off a starship would have any effect.  It would just be consumed.
> 
> That is assuming it could even be detonated at all, another pet peeve.  If the _Enterprise _was being pulled backwards into a black hole despite going faster than the speed of light (they said they were at warp) then they would be inside the event horizon.  The tidal forces at such a close distance to the black hole would cause massive gravity changes over very short distances.  Basically, the _Enterprise_, everyone in it, and the exploding cores would be very, very long spaghetti.  Even after that then, considering they were already going faster than the speed of light inside the event horizon, then no explosion, no matter how energetic, could possibly accelerate them enough to escape.  At that point, conventional physics and chemical reactions should be non-functional anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Black holes evaporate and release energy through Hawking radiation very, very slowly.  A supermassive black hole like the one in the middle of our galaxy would take several lifetimes of the Universe to evaporate.  A small one would evaporate much more quickly, but even then, it only has as much energy to release as it has consumed.  If the black holes had the mass of the Romulan mining ship and a few hundred kilos of "red matter", then that is all the energy it would have to release - which would occur slowly anyway.  Thus, no big bang.
> 
> The real big bang did come from a singularity similar in conception to a black hole, but with two big differences.  First, it had the total mass of the entire universe contained within - a lot more than a starship, or even a galaxy or two.  Second, unlike standard black holes, this singularity exploded and released all that energy simultaneously.   This doesn't happen with regular black holes.
> 
> Well, thanks for letting me geek out and vent.  Probably more than you wanted to hear.



Pun intended, but truly fascinating.  Black hole physics is beyond me and WAY, WAY over my head.  Geekness appreciated and ah ... we're not worthy.  

:bow:


----------



## Empty Hands

shesulsa said:


> Pun intended, but truly fascinating.  Black hole physics is beyond me and WAY, WAY over my head.  Geekness appreciated and ah ... we're not worthy.
> 
> :bow:



LOL!  I'm just a biologist, I really don't know anything about this stuff.  I just like to read a lot.


----------



## jim777

I saw it Sunday with the Mrs. and kids, and everyone loved it  I thought it was a great flick, and can easily see myself eventually watching it many more times. I thought all the actors were great as well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I saw it today.  Being the purist I am, i expected to be disappointed.  I was quite surprised to enjoy it.  I liked it.  I'll be getting the dvd when it's out.


----------



## Nomad

Empty Hands said:


> While I greatly enjoyed this movie, they left physics bruised and bleeding on the floor, even for a _Star Trek _movie.


 
Um... it's called "suspension of disbelief"  Keep in mind that above all else, this was an action movie intended as summer entertainment. 

Why, the odds of Kirk being marooned on the right planet after his aborted mutiny within a couple of miles (at best) of where Spock just happened to be hiding in a cave are alone astronomical... dang... now you've got me doing it.

Star Trek, like most good science fiction series, has always played fast and loose with science, and with coincidence as well.


----------



## Empty Hands

Nomad said:


> Um... it's called "suspension of disbelief"  Keep in mind that above all else, this was an action movie intended as summer entertainment.



Well sure.  However, you have to play Suspension of Disbelief right.  I can accept warp speed or transporters, as impossible as they might be, because they've been established and follow the rules conveyed by the universe of the story.  However, the Suspension is lost when something else jumps out as being off when it hasn't been established by the story.  Like if Kirk suddenly cast a fireball at one of his foes.  Casting a fireball is about as likely as warp speed, but it's easier to accept warp speed in a Star Trek movie because it has been established in that universe.  Similarly, I would get annoyed if Gandalf pulled out a Glock to blast the Balrog with.

That said, I'm sure the black hole elements didn't bother the average moviegoer.  They annoyed the hell out of me though when something like warp speed doesn't because it hasn't been accounted for in the story.


----------



## arnisador

Nomad said:


> Why, the odds of Kirk being marooned on the right planet after his aborted mutiny within a couple of miles (at best) of where Spock just happened to be hiding in a cave



...within walking distance of Scotty...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

You could assume that the intent was for Kirk to make it to the outpost. The finding Spock bit was just creative license.

The more I think about the movie, the more I like it.  It felt like "Trek", abet an alternate timeline version, but close enough to the original to feel comfortable.  The actors did a good job of giveing the younger-version feeling to the old characters.


----------



## Ken Morgan

When Kirk is walking on the ice planet, I kept thinking back to Hoth, and expecting Kirk to stumble onto an AT-AT, or a Tauntaun. Now that would be so cool. Oops, so sorry wrong Universe.


----------



## matt.m

Not the biggest Trek fan.  However, I do dig the original series and the 1st 4 movies.  You know though when someone nit picks how "Science isn't followed correctly"  well its just a movie.  I mean look at Star Wars, 12 parsecs is supposed to be how fast the Falcon can go.  I have never seen a parsec that is distance be a speed.  Oh well, it is just a movie.


----------



## shesulsa

Ken Morgan said:


> When Kirk is walking on the ice planet, I kept thinking back to Hoth, and expecting Kirk to stumble onto an AT-AT, or a Tauntaun. Now that would be so cool. Oops, so sorry wrong Universe.


OMG I thought the same thing! :lfao:


----------



## celtic_crippler

Loved it. I've seen it twice so far and will probably go back again this weekend.


----------



## arnisador

Ken Morgan said:


> When Kirk is walking on the ice planet, I kept thinking back to Hoth, and expecting Kirk to stumble onto an AT-AT, or a Tauntaun. Now that would be so cool. Oops, so sorry wrong Universe.



I found images of Hoth very distracting myself in that scene. They could've done all that without the ice, and that would have been better.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Took the day off and caught it with the missus this afternoon -- terrific. I'm a big-time fan, but not a Trekker/Trekkie, so I have no problem looking past canon. The alternate timeline is fun. If they have sequels, they can do a lot of things with the TOS concept up to the time of the movies.

Kirk is not Shatner. I'm glad Pine didn't do too many Shatnerisms. McCoy, however, is a ringer. I know that Nimoy really liked Zachary Quinto for the Spock, and he brought a lot to the character. The love affair between Spock and Uhura will be interesting.

I liked Sulu, but I wasn't reminded in the slightest of Takei's performance, except the interest in swords was in TOS. Chekov was hysterical.

Did anyone else catch the nod to the Enterprise prequel series? Scotty had a transporter accident with Admiral Archer's prize Beagle.

It's not the old Star Trek -- that's for sure, but they're obviously committed to building a strong bond between Kirk and Spock, which is at the heart of TOS. And it is an actual big budget Hollywood blockbuster.

Big thumbs up here.


----------



## AoCAdam

When I went to see it I had no expectations, I never watched Star Trek ever except catching glimpses of it when flipping through the channels. After I left the movie I was very happy I went to see it. I thought it was really good and would recommend it to all of you.


----------



## Omar B

You don't have to recommend ... we already saw it.  LOL


----------



## MA-Caver

It sounds much like the rebooting of James Bond as I just watched Quantum Of Solace for the first time last night and really like the new grittier Bond, zero to fewer gadgets (against canon), not as suave with the ladies (against canon), hair and face messed up after a fight/chase (against canon), the opening sequence now is the closing sequence (the walking into a white circle and shooting at the screen canon) etc. 

So it's reasonable to assume a reboot of Trek would do the same. One thing I think die hard fans *should* be grateful for is that they didn't just go a whole new round of character replacement, kept the same names, races, etc. Imagine if Spock were actually Andorian? Uhura was Chinese and Sulu was African and so on. Or totally new people, totally new enterprise. They could and WOULD do it. But they DIDN'T!


----------



## Gordon Nore

MA-Caver said:


> So it's reasonable to assume a reboot of Trek would do the same. One thing I think die hard fans *should* be grateful for is that they didn't just go a whole new round of character replacement, kept the same names, races, etc. Imagine if Spock were actually Andorian? Uhura was Chinese and Sulu was African and so on. Or totally new people, totally new enterprise. They could and WOULD do it. But they DIDN'T!



What I think is clever about this reboot is that it's an alternate time line. I'm trying to imagine what this holds for future films. Vulcan is gone, and Vulcan race is numbered at a few thousand according to older Spock. Younger Spock is isolated from a people that rejected him. I assume Romulus is gone too, so who holds the balance of power in the quadrant? Who are the new bad guys?

One of the taglines of the film was, _This isn't you father's Trek._ I find that quite funny because my father's Trek is my Trek. My father didn't actually watch TOS -- I did as a little boy when it first aired.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Changes in the TimeLine:
- Vulcan is gone, as are most Vulcans.  So, no T'Pring, no Wedding, no Kohlinar for Spock.
- Spock.  His mothers dead, yet he appears to have a good relationship with his father. No estrangement? Hooking up with Uhura? Fascinating. There were hints in TOS of affection between the two, but very subtle. Much of TOS Spock was built from his battle between is 2 halves. This Spock, seems more conflicted, yet more likely to embrase IDIC in himself.
- Kirks dad died. Kirk rather than grow up idolizing his dad, never knew him. Instead of a star student, he was a street tough in Iowa. So, no Kodos. Still, much of the TOS Kirk is there.  Kirk never served as a midshipman on the Farragut. No Cloud Creature.
- Pike. He never took the Enterprise to Talos 4. So no illusion should he be crippled.
- Romulas is still there, but only for 120 years.  There will probably not be Reunification, Spock will most likely not befriend Pardek, and Picard will not goto Romulas seeking Spock.

I don't like the new Enterprise. It's a fracking Tardis. Engineering is a maze of 19th century plumbing. Gone is the elegant facility (that actually fit in the hull) from TOS, and TNG.  It's like thy designe it after a 20th century battleship.  The bridge also seems cluttered, though I dig the viewscreen/window. 

I did like the green chick though.  LOL!


----------



## arnisador

I too thought the bridge looked a bit cluttered! The insides of Engineering and such worked for me, though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I thought Willy Wonka in engineering.


----------



## Ken Morgan

And the winner of the biggest ST geek goes to....



Bob Hubbard said:


> Changes in the TimeLine:
> - Vulcan is gone, as are most Vulcans. So, no T'Pring, no Wedding, no Kohlinar for Spock.
> - Spock. His mothers dead, yet he appears to have a good relationship with his father. No estrangement? Hooking up with Uhura? Fascinating. There were hints in TOS of affection between the two, but very subtle. Much of TOS Spock was built from his battle between is 2 halves. This Spock, seems more conflicted, yet more likely to embrase IDIC in himself.
> - Kirks dad died. Kirk rather than grow up idolizing his dad, never knew him. Instead of a star student, he was a street tough in Iowa. So, no Kodos. Still, much of the TOS Kirk is there. Kirk never served as a midshipman on the Farragut. No Cloud Creature.
> - Pike. He never took the Enterprise to Talos 4. So no illusion should he be crippled.
> - Romulas is still there, but only for 120 years. There will probably not be Reunification, Spock will most likely not befriend Pardek, and Picard will not goto Romulas seeking Spock.
> 
> I don't like the new Enterprise. It's a fracking Tardis. Engineering is a maze of 19th century plumbing. Gone is the elegant facility (that actually fit in the hull) from TOS, and TNG. It's like thy designe it after a 20th century battleship. The bridge also seems cluttered, though I dig the viewscreen/window.
> 
> I did like the green chick though. LOL!


----------



## Omar B

MA-Caver said:


> It sounds much like the rebooting of James Bond as I just watched Quantum Of Solace for the first time last night and really like the new grittier Bond, zero to fewer gadgets (against canon), not as suave with the ladies (against canon), hair and face messed up after a fight/chase (against canon), the opening sequence now is the closing sequence (the walking into a white circle and shooting at the screen canon) etc.



That's a misconception.  You may think of the new Bond movies of going against canon.  In fact it is canon.  We got the first book realized on screen in Casino Royal and we got a Bond who acted very much like the literary Bond in QOS.  

Go back and read the books, it's all the movies that have been wrong and started wrong by starting with Dr No, then doing the stories out of order, removing the connective tissue between them so they seem like stand alone stories, introducing gadgets (which is stated many times that Bond hates).  Bond is gritty, Bond hates gadges, Bond does get messed up (and tortured a lot, read CR or Moonraker for torture and grit examples), it's the movies that never got the character right and people seem to think that the caracature on screen is what Fleming, Amis, Gardner, Benson, Faulks, Higson and Westbrook wrote.  Hell, even Fleming himself said that the Bond on film is a caracature of his character, so all you are saying is against canon is actaully finally in keeping with canon.

So far the best adaptations have been CR which should have been followed by Live And Let Die (where he follows Vespers betrayal to the US) but that ship has sailed.  Or On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the best adaptation in the series which should have been followed by You Only Live Twice which came many years before it.


----------



## arnisador

Having read Casino Royale, I'd agree that the movie's Bond was closer to the book's Bond than, say, the Bond of Roger Moore's era.


----------



## Omar B

Yeah, people seem to think that the smooth lady's man who never mussed his suit is Bond.  That's a misconception by the movies wanting to be a high style representation of the British gentleman.

Bond's a guy who you would be scared of.  He's a cold blooded killer with a cruel face (as described by Fleming) who will to go any length to get the job done.  His father was an agent, so was his uncle, he was orphaned at 11 and raised in boarding school paid for by the government because of his father's honorable service.  He will do anything asked of him because the way he sees it he owes his life to his Queen.

I'm glad they actually even touched upon that in CR if only briefly.  But yeah, most fans of the Bond movies have a totally wrong impression of who the character is.


----------



## astrobiologist

Watched the movie twice...  Going back for number three soon.

Loved it.  Still loving it.

I'm a trekkie, so it is hard to accept the change, but the film is awesome and fits the Star Trek envisioned by Gene Rodenberry.  I think if he were still alive, he would be proud of this new film.


----------



## Omar B

Nothing fits ST like an alternate time line.  The more I think about it the more (like you) I think Gene would love it.

I can't wait till they start doing the ST novels based on this time line, I wonder how they'll set them apart from the established universe?


----------



## Archangel M

Something about space combat in sci-fi that I have questioned..from Star Trek to Star Wars is the "dog fighting" style of ship to ship combat. I would think that with the ranges that real space combat would occur at that there would be a lot of long range combat. 

I recall a sci-fi story somewhere where ships spent weeks/months/years trying to avoid missiles that were following them through space. All the missile had was small maneuvering engines and had to maintain enough velocity to catch up. The explosive did the rest. Energy weapons at stellar ranges couldnt remain focused enough to damage much of anything.

In the new ST..Kirk jumping from cadet to Capt. of a starship offended my "military realisim" sensibilities.

And if Nero came back through time, why didnt he just go and destroy that star that was going to kill his planet?


----------



## Omar B

What I never got in the ST universe was how come they never use nukes?  High yield, pretty easy to make considering they talk about their mastery of the atom, and I think it would be way more efficient that their photon torpedoes.  Or plain old machine guns or rail guns mounted to the ships instead of phasers.  Or how about using the transporter more tactically.  When you have an enemy's sheild down from shelling them why not beam a small yeild nuke into their engine room?


----------



## Ken Morgan

What always got/gets me is the fact that the flagship of the Federation always seems to get its *** kicked in battle, shields down, phasers down, come on its the flagship, surely it can take more of a beating that that??!!  It should have some smaller escorts with it and it should be able to kick ***.

Im not even going to touch on the fact that senior bridge officers are beaming down on dangerous missions, they did their time doing that ****, let the Junior officers do that dangerous stuff!! 

Then you have a small ship like the Defiant, now thats a cool realistic ship that buzzes around doing lots of damage. Id much rather have fleets of Defiants then Enterprises. 

Dont even get me started on cloaking technology and treaties against it with the Romulians!!


----------



## Empty Hands

Archangel M said:


> Something about space combat in sci-fi that I have questioned..from Star Trek to Star Wars is the "dog fighting" style of ship to ship combat. I would think that with the ranges that real space combat would occur at that there would be a lot of long range combat.



Yes!  Space combat is almost always unrealistic.  The few I've seen that are somewhat realistic has been Babylon 5 and the new Battlestar Galactica.  Both actually show that ships will keep travelling in the same direction when their engines fail.  Or that you can pull an easy 180 while flying just using maneuvering jets.  Also, I liked it that BSG had guns, not ray guns.



Omar B said:


> What I never got in the ST universe was how come they never use nukes?  High yield, pretty easy to make considering they talk about their mastery of the atom, and I think it would be way more efficient that their photon torpedoes.  Or plain old machine guns or rail guns mounted to the ships instead of phasers.  Or how about using the transporter more tactically.  When you have an enemy's sheild down from shelling them why not beam a small yeild nuke into their engine room?



Exactly.  You're telling me that you have to fly around manually aiming your lasers?  Or manually lay down flak barrages and point defense?  Even right now we have computer control of these things.  Or that like you say nukes never seem to exist (except in BSG).  I think trek, as well as some other Sci-Fi, tries to explain the lack of projectile weapons in that shields are supposed to be completely effective against them.  Sort of like Dune where guns became relics because personal shields were so effective against them.  Still.


----------



## Archangel M

and what about realistic chairs + seat-belts for gods sake. You would think that standing at your station and getting tossed around a few times would result in some safety measures.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Star Trek ship combat is based on WW1 battleship combat. Star Wars, BSG and B5 is based on WW2 Carrier combat with some WW1 ship2ship mixed in.

Antimatter is more boom than nukes.

Good guys never fly around shields up, weapons hot. Klingons don't either, but we're faster getting it up than Feddies.

TREK_Tech vs BSG_Tech: all Trek ships have low yield shields against micrometeors and space dust. They would easily defend against inertial-mass weaponry such as bullets. BSG depend on armor plating, not energy shields for protection. Most BSG ship2ship combat requires multiple hits to chew through the armor to expose weak spots for explosive rounds to do maximum damage.


----------



## ShelleyK

BTW  There is an R2-D2 in the movie too!  Im gonna have to go and watch again!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ShelleyK said:


> BTW  There is an R2-D2 in the movie too!  Im gonna have to go and watch again!


Crap.   And I forgot to watch for the Shatner-Hat (Tribble toupee) LOL!


----------



## Archangel M

I think "realistic" space combat would be a long range game of sensors and missiles. Who ever "sees" the other guy first will launch. It may take a long time for the weapon to reach them and then it would be a game of countermeasures and counter launches.

I dont see a realistic need or even the possibility of "dogfighting" in space. Even here on Earth the game has been to engage at longer and longer distances...I see that concept accelerating  manifold in a space scenario.


----------



## arnisador

Archangel M said:


> In the new ST..Kirk jumping from cadet to Capt. of a starship offended my "military realisim" sensibilities.



Same here.


----------



## Rich Parsons

arnisador said:


> Same here.


 
Yes the story line could have easily had him already in the academy and with rank and then assigned the position of First officer or Captain.


Remember that the highest rank officer on a ship is a Captain even is (s)he is only a Lieutenant. 

If you look at the Original Series stripes on the sleaves, Kirk had three for Commander and Spock had three but the middle one is half the width so a Lt Commander. 

Bones and others had two, while some had one and a half width and others only had one. 

While Yeoman (* Read Hot Blonde who brought pad onto set for Kirk to sign *) did not have officer rank.


----------



## JDenver

My friend just said the most succinct thing about the Star Trek film - 

'a soulless corporate construction bent on reviving an exhausted franchise'.

That sums it up for me.


----------



## Archangel M

.....something else that comes to mind. With all our tech starting to point to unmanned drones, I see the manned "space fighter" as a bit of an anachronism. I see more of a futuristic battleship/missile frigate affair with long range unmanned sensor probes to extend sensor ranges. Being able to track and hold targets at extreme long range with beam weapons would be out IMO. Of course combat range will be limited by weapons, but I would think that long range would be the norm. Hell most of our current fighter aircraft are launching missiles at multiple targets over the horizon.

Of course if we are sticking to our known society in the future (Star Trek) thats one thing. If we are talking about a society "long long ago in a galaxy far far away" I guess all bets are off because they may have developed differently than we have.....


----------



## Omar B

Ken Morgan said:


> What always got/gets me is the fact that the flagship of the Federation always seems to get its *** kicked in battle, shields down, phasers down, come on its the flagship, surely it can take more of a beating that that??!!  It should have some smaller escorts with it and it should be able to kick ***.
> Im not even going to touch on the fact that senior bridge officers are beaming down on dangerous missions, they did their time doing that ****, let the Junior officers do that dangerous stuff!!
> Then you have a small ship like the Defiant, now thats a cool realistic ship that buzzes around doing lots of damage. Id much rather have fleets of Defiants then Enterprises.
> Dont even get me started on cloaking technology and treaties against it with the Romulians!!



Actually during the Dominion war (mostly covered in DS9) the federation started equipping more ships as war ships again rather than scientific vessels.  Remember, Enterprise D was a Galaxy class ship meant for exploration.  After that one was destroyed in ST generations the Enterprise E was a Sovereign class which was basically a gunship.  But yeah, I get what you are saying, where are the small fighters watching it's back?  The only small craft they had were the shuttles and those were basically mini-vans.

That's why Defiant was always my favorite ship.  It's by federation standards over powered, over gunned, too small a crew.  That ship is all kick-***.

That's why I like Stargate SG1.  They treat space travel in a more realistic military fashion.  and yes there are seat belts.

Oh, cool federation warships-
Defiant Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Defiant_class
Promethious Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Prometheus_class
Akira Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Akira_class
Sabre Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Saber_class
Sovereign Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sovereign_class


----------



## elder999

Archangel M said:


> .....something else that comes to mind. With all our tech starting to point to unmanned drones, I see the manned "space fighter" as a bit of an anachronism. I see more of a futuristic battleship/missile frigate affair with long range unmanned sensor probes to extend sensor ranges. Being able to track and hold targets at extreme long range with beam weapons would be out IMO. Of course combat range will be limited by weapons, but I would think that long range would be the norm. Hell most of our current fighter aircraft are launching missiles at multiple targets over the horizon..


 
You'd be surprised at the real research that's being done in the direction of a "manned space fighter," as well as a few other things in like vein......


----------



## Archangel M

elder999 said:


> You'd be surprised at the real research that's being done in the direction of a "manned space fighter," as well as a few other things in like vein......


 
I'm betting its more of an "orbital fighter" than a true deep space combat craft. With orbital air transport on the boards I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Sukerkin

*Angel*, probably the best depiction in literature of Sci-Fi space combat is found in the Honor Harrington series of books.  

In my bones I'm a Naval Officer who never made it into the recrutiing office (thanks dad ) and was 50 years too late anyhow for the 'proper' era of sea warfare.  The combat in the Harrington series is 'ships of the line' in space - broadsides, bow and stern chasers, armour, decoys, drones, 'shields' that are a consequence of the propulsion systems etc.

Wonderful stuff.

Unlike the re-imagining of Star Trek.  Big thumbs down from this life long fan.  Bad writing hidden by lots of noise, flash, quick cuts and short skirts.  Nonsensical decisions made by characters and characters that act 'out of character' almost before they're established.  Typical, hollow, Hollywood popcorn fodder.  My missus loved it :shrugs:.

Even with the technology there was stuff I hated and things that were changed for no good reason ... but I shall not rant on what was wrong for despite all the flaws it was an enjoyable couple of hours.  Karl Urban nailed Bones perfectly.  Syler made a great Spock as I expected he would (other than all the unnecessary and against regulations snogging going on with Uhura).  The 'new' Chekov and Sulu lacked the charisma and charm of the 'originals' and Kirk should be thrown into the Grand Canyon after that Stingray (destroy property, defy authority ... yeah I know, movie rules)!

All it did achieve is allow them to start from scratch with characters that are familiar but in an alternate universe (i.e. it wasn't just temporal shift which is how come you could have two Spocks).  Hopefully things will improve and the next movie might have some plot and a moral centre.


----------



## Omar B

Oh, a David Weber fan I see.  Good stuff man.  BOLO!


----------



## Archangel M

Im a David Drake fan myself.


----------



## jks9199

Gordon Dickson also wrote some pretty good & realistic space combat.  And, for that matter, future combat.  He actually explains why, in a future with FTL travel, etc., the military is still fighting with weapons that aren't very different than what we've got today...


----------



## girlbug2

David Weber learned everything he knew about writing space operas from Lois McMaster Bujold. I highly recommend her books to any Weber fans.

Oh, ahem. This thread is about Star Trek. Loved it. I wish Michael Bey would take a lesson from JJ Abrams about how to build characters in a film that appear to have more than two dimensions. I might pay full movie price for Transformers if Abrams were directing.


----------



## Omar B

Hurt me girl!  I'm a big fan of Bayhem, but then my criteria for judging a director might be different.  With JJ the camera moves way too much (kinda like Greengrass in the Bourne movies) as well as bad lighting and lens flares everywhere.  Bay might overload on action and concentrate less on characterization, but he's very much of the John Ford school where every frame of film looks good.

But hey, different strokes, I've heard a lot of people hate Bay for various reasons.  I once had a date with this chick who's an NYU film student and we watched Transformers at my house and she was blown away by his style and knowledge of lighting.  We ended up watching Bad Boys 2 after at her request.

But yeah, back to science military fiction.  I'm a big fan of the Bolo series, I think those are great, also any sort of space battle that clsoely follows how a naval battle would work.  But then, anything with military I love, I'm a huge Clancy nerd.


----------



## astrobiologist

Btw, the space jump that we saw executed in the film, that is a little less sci-fi and a little more science fact...  Or at least it is coming in our future.

I almost interned for a company called Orbital Outfitters.  They have a small venture called Space Diver which is aiming to beat the current HALO (high altitude - low oxygen) skydiving record, set in 1960, of 102,000 feet by jumping at 120,000 feet.  Then they're working towards sub-orbital dives, and, after that, hopefully, LEO! (Low Earth Orbit).  The idea is awesome!  Sounds like fun!  If we can properly do this it would provide an extra level of safety for travelers getting to orbit (if they need to abandon the launch ship they can jump out and return to the ground).

A guy named *Eli Thompson*, who hosted a discovery channel show called "Stunt Junkies", may be the first person to jump for Space Diver.

Check out: http://www.orbitaloutfitters.com/SpaceDiver.html


----------



## Rich Parsons

astrobiologist said:


> Btw, the space jump that we saw executed in the film, that is a little less sci-fi and a little more science fact...  Or at least it is coming in our future.
> 
> I almost interned for a company called Orbital Outfitters.  They have a small venture called Space Diver which is aiming to beat the current HALO (high altitude - low oxygen) skydiving record, set in 1960, of 102,000 feet by jumping at 120,000 feet.  Then they're working towards sub-orbital dives, and, after that, hopefully, LEO! (Low Earth Orbit).  The idea is awesome!  Sounds like fun!  If we can properly do this it would provide an extra level of safety for travelers getting to orbit (if they need to abandon the launch ship they can jump out and return to the ground).
> 
> A guy named *Eli Thompson*, who hosted a discovery channel show called "Stunt Junkies", may be the first person to jump for Space Diver.
> 
> Check out: http://www.orbitaloutfitters.com/SpaceDiver.html




Not that the idea is not cool because it is.

I just thought HALO stood for High Altitude - Low Opening so people would not see the planes and also would not see the chutes. 

With HAHO is used for Spec Ops and other type missions where the noise of an opening chute would or could be a problem. 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO_jump for both definitions. And as always use the links for real quotes and source verification.


----------



## Archangel M

HAHO (High Altitude High Opening) also allows the operator with an airfoil chute to "fly" a considerable distance to target. This allows the operator to be delivered a long (and confusing for the enemy) and surreptitious distance from the aircraft.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Archangel M said:


> HAHO (High Altitude High Opening) also allows the operator with an airfoil chute to "fly" a considerable distance to target. This allows the operator to be delivered a long (and confusing for the enemy) and surreptitious distance from the aircraft.




I saw something on this on TLC or Discovery  or, about the SEALs and their usage of this. As I cannot remember the name of the show or channel I jumped to WIKI where the resources quote some SEAL info and sites. 

Of course it is not limited to SEALs, I just had that as my source.


----------



## jks9199

Military special forces make use of HAHO and HALO jumps for a variety of tactical and strategic purposes.  That includes SEALs, Army Special Forces, and others.

The training is pretty intense; Discovery, National Geographic, or the Military Channel occasionally runs a kind of short series about the training; I think it's like 4 or 8 1-hour episodes, and follows one group through HALO training.  One of the things they do is use what amouns to a giant silo with a HUGE fan to practice free-fall maneuvers.  I WANT ONE!!! It looks like it's a ball!  (Unless, of course, your career rides on successful developing the skills...)


----------

