Results 211 to 240 of 362
Thread: New Star Trek Movie
-
2009-05-17, 08:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Toronto
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
I saw the movie with some of my smartest friends. I thought it was decent and enjoyed it, but I doubt I'll see it again. As always, it was fun to point out all of the innacuracies after it was over.
Step 1: Get workers to make goods for you.
Step 2: Sell the goods for a higher amount than what you pay the workers.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
Thanks to Mortugg for my current avatar, and for this steampunk version:
Spoiler
-
2009-05-17, 09:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- North Vancouver
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
the new starterk movie is asome
Avatar by Elder Tsofu
-
2009-05-17, 10:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Beneath an infinite sky
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Well, hypothetically, if I recall my grade school astrophysics (which consisted of the one book we had at the library, mind you) right, a rapidly rotating collapsing body that maintains its angular momentum would form a toroidal singularity, rather than a point singularity. Since we don't exactly know at all what's on the other side of such a black hole, this could conceivably be stretched to permit transit, after a fashion, leading to the theorized "black hole as wormhole" concept or like form of travel, time or otherwise. As a practical matter, the "after a fashion" bit is because you still have to overcome the minor problem of successfully transiting and escaping a body so dense that light itself cannot pass, and that leaves aside the very likely fact that there is almost certainly no "other side" to consider. On the other hand, I suppose the USS Kelvin finding a mysterious dusting of atomic debris and a flash of Hawking radiation would have been a bit anti-climactic.
I saw it today. I rather liked it, though I'll admit that Kirk being raced straight from Cadet to Captain at the end bothers me a little (over Spock, no less), and even excepting that most of his graduating class got wiped out around Vulcan, I cannot help but wonder how that's going to look to the rank and file. On the other hand, Starfleet's never made any pretention about being a fully military organization; if anything, their pretentions have been a touch in the opposite direction, up to and including putting large families on the Galaxy class to discourage risk-taking and loudly insisting to all that will listen that they're purely a peaceful and exploratory institution that just happens to have warships as powerful as any of their counterparts. I also can't help but wonder what happened to all of the colonies you would expect Vulcan to have founded off-world if there are only something like the cited 10k left, or what happened to Robert April, or Sulu with a katana instead of epee or rapier, or...well...we'll leave that aside. I thought that there were several nice touches, like Uhura being assigned to the Farragut, the unfortunate demise of Porthos, the red-shirt being the odd one out when Kirk and Sulu went after the drill on Vulcan, the shuttle design, and so forth. I actually half-expected them to reveal in the camera pan that the shuttle that brought the Kelvin's captain over the Nero's ship was named Galileo, no less. ^_^Last edited by Meltemi; 2009-05-17 at 10:29 PM.
Ruya Perist, Flight from Ironheart
Teira Feiwright, Lost and Clueless
I am me, you are you.
We’re totally different, separate persons.
But even so, what if we have just one thing in common?
-
2009-05-17, 11:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Re: New Star Trek Movie
I liked how Spock said "live long and prosper" to those council guys at the academy as if it was a threat. I mean when you can turn a wish for a good life into a defiant threat, you know you are awesome.
-
2009-05-18, 02:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
No one is really quite sure. At all. This isn't like gravity where we're pretty darn sure, but not quite. Or anti-matter, where we're kinda, like 90% sure. This is one of those things where we're really not sure. But the leading theory among "smart people" at the moment is that you could conceivably go back in time via a black hole. *shrug.* It's what my science-smart friend from Carnegie Mellon said after the movie to a friend who raised your exact same question.
I am continuing to have a social life. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Serious-Jedi-Me-Avatar by RTG0922. Thanks. Cat-assassin-avatar by onasuma, who I was too dumb to thank. Thanks for that too!
-
2009-05-18, 03:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Actually, according to a friend of mine who is writing her thesis about black holes, the only thing links time travel with them is, that some black holes are apparently so dense, that their gravity could bend time (well, every object that has a gravitational field does that, but it's usually neglible). However, the gravity of such a phenomenon would rip you to shreds before you could observe if you really went back in time (or to the future).
Originally Posted by Dervag
-
2009-05-18, 04:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: New Star Trek Movie
You need to take the following in consideration:
1-Nero is the comander of a mining ship.
2-Said mining ship has enough firepower to curb stomp entire fleets.
3-Said mining ships also has resources and tools to survive all by itself for 25 years in federation space whitout being detected or needing to dock for maintenance.
4-It also includes interrogation tools.
5-All in all it actually threatened the whole federation by itself.
So clearly since it has super heavy fire power, resistance, durability and interrogation labs, it's not much of a stretch that they have some super advanced physics lab inside that would allow them to discover when and where Spock would pop up.
-
2009-05-18, 06:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Apparently there were some deleted scenes suggesting that the Narada got crippled with the Kelvin rammed it, and Nero and his crew then spent the next 25 years as "guests" of the Klingon government on Rura Penthe. This raises all sorts of other questions, though, like why didn't the Klingons spend those 25 years ripping the Narada apart for every single bit of tech they could get off it? In fact, they must have REPAIRED the thing for Nero and his crew to be able to get away in it!
-
2009-05-18, 06:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Gender
-
2009-05-18, 09:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: New Star Trek Movie
One assumes that the Narada's crew would have the sensor data from just prior to them going into the black hole, so they'd have some details on what was happening with Spock's ship. They'd likely have a bit of information on Spock's ship, such as mass and engine output, seeing as they were working with him. They'd also have details on the black hole itself, such as how strong the pull of it was. The rest is extrapolation, all they'd need is a computer.
-
2009-05-18, 10:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
I would point out that Star Trek technology includes an understanding of the structure of spacetime far greater than our own. As best as I can determine, their warp drive wouldn't even work without their using such an understanding to fold the spacetime immediately around their ship like a silly paper hat. Therefore, I'll grant them a pass on being able to transit a wormhole successfully.
I saw it today. I rather liked it, though I'll admit that Kirk being raced straight from Cadet to Captain at the end bothers me a little (over Spock, no less), and even excepting that most of his graduating class got wiped out around Vulcan, I cannot help but wonder how that's going to look to the rank and file.
And James Kirk is the (telegenic) guy who just saved the Earth from destruction at the hands of a ruthless alien enemy. Even Spock himself is likely to admit that he would not have saved Earth if not for Kirk, and if he doesn't the bridge recorder will. Spock was headed somewhere completely different.
If Kirk had failed, homo sapiens would have been in nearly as bad a fix as the Vulcans, and the Federation would have lost both its greatest research labs and the heart of its military in less than a week. But Kirk succeeded by taking command of a starship. He probably never should have had that command, but no one can argue with the results.
________
At the same time, the Federation's leadership (senior politicians and admirals) are going to be taking a lot of flak from the general public. They failed to protect Vulcan, and except for a great deal of luck they would have failed to protect Earth. So one way they can draw public attention away from their own failure is to promote success, make Kirk out to be even more of a hero than he already was, and give him a prominent position that maximizes his "media darling" status.
At least, that's my explanation for Kirk getting Enterprise. Make sense?
________
I also can't help but wonder what happened to all of the colonies you would expect Vulcan to have founded off-world if there are only something like the cited 10k left, or what happened to Robert April, or Sulu with a katana instead of epee or rapier, or...well...we'll leave that aside.
On top of that, a fencing epee would have been a rather silly weapon to carry into a serious fight, even a serious swordfight in any case. A longer, straight-bladed sword makes more sense in that context.
_______
I'm not sure I'd call it a threat, but it was a great example of defiance. The tone I got from it was "You disgust me, I will have no part of this, goodbye."
_______
Nero knew where Spock was at the time hewent in, and he could make a pretty good estimate of how long it would take Spock to get sucked into the hole. Not a great one, but... it was all he really had to work with. He needed to capture Spock if he wanted a weapon capable of destroying planets, rather than merely damaging them. Even if he'd had to cope with a measurement error of a few years either way, that would be good enough.
Also, it's possible that when you enter the hole doesn't matter nearly as much as the mass of your ship, which "side" you enter from, and a number of other factors much better known to Nero.
-
2009-05-18, 03:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Paraphrasing Spock: Nero's ship got sucked in first, so it emerged 25 years earlier. So yes, entrance time seems to be the only factor important to when you appear in the past. Like I said before though: It makes no sense. Since the black holes mass increases the longer it's existing space-time should actually be MORE bent is you enter later and thus send you to a point in history that is further away from the one you started at.
-
2009-05-18, 06:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Spock said something along the lines of "what was a few seconds for me was twenty-five years for Nero." That doesn't give us any insight into why that should be true.
Maybe the mass of the ship matters. Maybe the "warp factor" the ship's drive is at when it transits the wormhole matters. Maybe the other endpoint of the wormhole moves closer to the first endpoint in time as the hole forms fully, and eventually the two holes wind up superimposed on each other at the same time, collapsing into a "true" black hole that you can't sail through.
The key unifying point here is that we don't know. All we really know is that the Star Trek universe has a wide range of technologies for manipulating the shape of spacetime, including several established mechanisms for time travel. They know more than we do, and we don't have a good sense of the upper limit on what they're capable of.
So this is a case where I'm willing to grant the writers a pass. Given the basic improbability (that a ship with a warp drive we know manipulates spacetime) can pass through a wormhole and travel backwards in time by entering a black hole, we have no idea how this phenomenon works or how well understood it is in the Star Trek universe in the 2380s. According to what we know about physics, it shouldn't be possible at all. So if it is possible then it requires physics and engineering knowledge we don't have and don't understand well enough to define limits on.
That is not to say that "anything's possible." But I see no compelling reason to assume Nero can't predict Spock's emergence point, given that he knows a fair amount about Spock's ship, Spock's trajectory before entering the hole, and the method Spock used to go through.
-
2009-05-19, 12:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Alvin, TX
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Saw the movie. Loved the movie. Some random thoughts:
1. While a retractable katana was pretty cool, I too would have liked to see some sort of fighting rapier/epee/calvery sword instead...just because.
2. However, seeing the Red Shirt buy it, combined with the retractable parachutes made up for it. Also liked the whole Ultimate Halo jump.
3. No problem here with a Romulen mining ship being armed. Would have been more irked if it HADN'T have been. And as it was, it seemed to me that using missles made mroe sense than having rows and rows of disruptors. Maybe it's just all those years of playing MOO and MOO2 (In those games missles are better for the cheaper ships you build; the advance ships generally have mroe beam weapons).
4. Black hole for time travel? meh, no sillier than slingshotting the sun to achieve not only timetravel, but controlable timetravel.
5. The main thing that got to me is something I haven't noticed on this thread yet; Spock maroning Kirk on the planent was out of character at best, and a court marshal offense at worst. The ship's brig would have been the logical choice for the obrderline insubordination Kirk was showing. The only reason to send him to the planet was...the plot required it for him to meet Spock Prime.
6. I hadn't read anything about the movie before going to see it, so as soon as it was clear it would be time travel I was a little unnerved, but i liked the way it was handled. A clever way to molify the Trekers who wouldn't be able to STAND any changes to canon as well as taking the series in a new direction. For a Star Trek fan like me who isn't married to the series, it was an interesting study in how a single event can change so many things.You say "Cheesy" like it's a bad thing.
-
2009-05-19, 12:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Dinosaur Museum aw yisss.
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Saw it yesterday - went on a 4 hour round-trip roadtrip to do so. I liked it, though I think I would've liked it more if I'd seen all the other movies first, like I wanted to.
I've gotta say, if you want to reboot an old and well-loved series, there're worse ways of doing it than explicitly creating an entire alternate universe for it.
By the way,Spoileranyone think the Spock-Uhura thing might've been a nod to the "first interracial kiss on US TV" (which apparently was only about the 3rd)?
edit: My Boy has an inquiry: Why was a mining ship armed up the wazoo, and why was that hugefriggingmongous Lovecraftian monstrosity only manned by about 8 people?Last edited by Serpentine; 2009-05-19 at 05:28 AM.
The Iron Avatarist Hall of Fame!
Prizes(Un)Official Best Playground Avatarist Competition
----
Also, buy my stuff! T-Shirts too!
-
2009-05-19, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
5. The main thing that got to me is something I haven't noticed on this thread yet; Spock maroning Kirk on the planent was out of character at best, and a court marshal offense at worst. The ship's brig would have been the logical choice for the obrderline insubordination Kirk was showing. The only reason to send him to the planet was...the plot required it for him to meet Spock Prime.
Personally, I was surprised Spock Prime was even on that planet. I would have thought Nero would keep Spock Prime on his ship, show him his planet being destroyed, and relish the look on his face. Maybe monologue a bit as he's doing it.
-
2009-05-19, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Gender
-
2009-05-19, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
Last edited by Flame of Anor; 2009-05-19 at 11:40 AM.
-
2009-05-19, 02:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
It is still a mining ship. Most of it's functions are probably automated. This thing has a tiny crew.
I am continuing to have a social life. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Serious-Jedi-Me-Avatar by RTG0922. Thanks. Cat-assassin-avatar by onasuma, who I was too dumb to thank. Thanks for that too!
-
2009-05-19, 07:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Alvin, TX
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Well, Spock was already really annoyed at Kirk for cheating at his test. He had just lost his mother and most of his species. Kirk also managed to sneak onto the starship in the first place and has at least one friend who was willing to help him. Firing him out onto another planet seems plausible for an emotionally roiled Spock who wants nothing to do with Kirk and is looking for the easiest way to get rid of him.
But doing such a common sense and logical step would have prevented Kirk from meeting Spock Prime, not to mention being chased by the slimy spider/dino critter. Or meeting Scotty and his mutant Ommpa Loompa buddy.You say "Cheesy" like it's a bad thing.
-
2009-05-19, 07:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Alvin, TX
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Personally, I was surprised Spock Prime was even on that planet. I would have thought Nero would keep Spock Prime on his ship, show him his planet being destroyed, and relish the look on his face. Maybe monologue a bit as he's doing it.
My Boy has an inquiry: Why was a mining ship armed up the wazoo, and why was that hugefriggingmongous Lovecraftian monstrosity only manned by about 8 people?
Again, this is stuff they didn't put in the film--supposedly the Narada was retrofitted with some military hardware by a few surviving Romulan scientists. Can't help but feel that leaving out a lot of this explanation did the film no favours!
Besides, it makes sense to me that the ship would be huge to move more ore, and that it would be armed becuase 1. Space pirates and 2. It's a romulan ship
Still loved the film though. Not like Star Trek has ever been exaclty hard sci-fi.You say "Cheesy" like it's a bad thing.
-
2009-05-19, 08:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Midwest, USA
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Yeah, considering it's from the future, I'm sure there's plenty of automation (even putting aside any comic info). Also, we only saw the "bridge crew" mostly. We don't know how many crew it actually had.
As for armament; consider how relatively slow it was. Yeah, it, but that was mostly surprise. Pirates are probably not eliminated, and Romulans are quite paranoid. Also, the only thing we see could conceivably be really suped-up mining charges. (Yes, I know, comic, but I'm going with others that I've seen put this forward as an explanation that doesn't need the comics, but doesn't explicitly conflict.) The shape, while weird, could work for basically wrapping around asteroids and slowly ripping them apart.Spoilercaught Old Spock's ship
-
2009-05-20, 02:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
The thing that got me, though, is why the ship had so much completely empty space inside. It makes sense to build the ship as small as possible to save on costs, particularly for something that's designed as a commercial mining vessel, yet they built it about 10 times larger than necessary and designed it to look like the offspring of Cthulhu and a Mack truck? Didn't make a great deal of sense. Although it DID look majorly cool as it came out of the singularity at the beginning of the film!
-
2009-05-20, 02:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Two Words: Cargo Capacity. There's no sense in building a cargo ship that doesn't have giant empty spaces inside. That's what a cargo ship is.
Originally Posted by Lord Magtok
-
2009-05-20, 03:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Also: In the prequel comic it is shown that Nero's ship is able to attack while being cloaked. One has to wonder why he never used that move in the movie. Seriously, he's shown to destroy a dozen Kilngon ships that way, one would think that during that time he could take on the whole federation armada, if he just used that technology.
-
2009-05-20, 10:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
We never see him fight a whole fleet at once. For all we know, he did cloak to destroy the (six? seven?) Federation ships that arrive at Vulcan ahead of the Enterprise. Or to destroy the (forty-something?) Klingon warbirds mentioned in that transmission in the movie.
He's more interested in destroying planets than killing ships, so his ability to cloak and fight entire fleets isn't all that relevant to his strategy unless he is attacked by a fleet in a situation where cloaking is practical.
Besides, his shields are tough enough that it takes a truly catastrophic impact to cause any serious damage to his hull; he can shrug off the best 23rd century technology has to offer except under extreme conditions.
-
2009-05-20, 11:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Well I liked it, the noise and action levels very different from previous Trek films, but good. The scene where the cadet fleet each went to warp was gloriously BANG BANG BANG (not a film to sleep through).
What did annoy was Spook's ship. It moved like a Star Wars craft and sounded like a Star Wars craft. I suspect some crossover of effects people who should have been roundly beaten on.
-
2009-05-20, 12:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
Re: New Star Trek Movie
Although its already been said, I just assumed that the mining ship used mining charges and the fact that it was huge and had advanced tech solved all other problems.
Also... next time the world is at stake you do not beam over a couple of people to stop them. You beam over an assult team if your really concerned about that one life. As many heavily armed people as possible. If you think maybe possibly killing one person is an acceptable risk to save the planet you beam over a nuke. Or five. And laugh.
Also where were earth's defenses? You think they could have shot down the drill at least. Even if they had to fire antiques.
-
2009-05-20, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: New Star Trek Movie
They needed to send Spock; no one could stop Kirk from going. They should have sent enough redshirts to back them up, you're absolutely right. And a nuke, once they got Pike, Kirk, and any surviving redshirts off.
On the other hand, for all we know they were planning to do exactly that; Nero went into warp drive almost immediately after the loss of the drill, which would have made beaming a nuke onboard very difficult.
But the real key to the raid wasn't so much to rescue Pike as it was to capture Spock-Prime's ship and the black hole-creating "red matter."
Also where were earth's defenses? You think they could have shot down the drill at least. Even if they had to fire antiques.
-
2009-05-21, 01:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: New Star Trek Movie
This movie was fairly terrible if you actually expected any sort of real quality. The plot was thin and full of holes (most of which have been discussed to death already), and the characters were all completely one dimensional. It was frustrating how shallow they all were. Instead of creating empathy through character developement and showing you their personalities, they just used the situations to try to make you like them and allowed one trait become their whole personalities. Kirk's the jocular bad ass, Spock is cold and logical. Who cares? They're bland, uninteresting, and generic. Don't even get me started on the dialogue. It was like a bad fan-fiction (I realize the phrase "bad fan-fiction" is redundant.) "I bet you're feeling really emotional right now!"
I wish I could unwatch this movie. Actually, I'm loathe to even call it a movie. It is in fact an insult to all serious film. However, no one wanted to watch a film. They wanted green women, explosions, and nostalgia. This thing was just a giant checklist of memorable lines and characters. Beam me up, Scotty? Check. Live long and prosper? Check. The words logical, illogical, and emotional? Check. Check. Check. Check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check. Please let me just die before anyone says any of those words again!
Despite this, I completely understand why most of you enjoyed this movie. It was full of high fructose nostalgia. That's okay. We all have a weakness for childhood memories.Last edited by Lawless III; 2009-05-25 at 03:45 AM.