| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Werthead on this one, the new Treks had so many logic holes it drove me crazy. The limitless transporter is a good example. Even a through away line that stated the tech wasn't stable and could put you in the void or in another quadrant would have be fine, but they don't. They introduce events that should have huge ripple effects and pretend that everything is self contained within the current story. Who cares about canon at that point?Plotholes and Star Trek have been a tradition since 1966. Abrams' are more obvious because of the general power creep that's been going on with the setting for decades.
indeed, this is what keeps me going in this thread. There's way too much "the original series(es) had problems, but this stuff is just BAD" nonsense going on to take anyone critiquing new trek even remotely seriously.
Face it. Youre hating just has hard with just as many long winded and poor justifications as original series fans did to next Gen did to ds9 did to voyager did to enterprise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.That's not a problem. The issue is that at its core STAR TREK presents a vision of the future that is utopian, peaceful and rooted in diplomacy and avoiding war. The reason for that is made clear in DEEP SPACE NINE when we finally see a full-scale, all-out interstellar war which lasts for years and the results are apocalyptic, but handled with weight and gravity.
Forgetting the entire borg and weird worm eating Muppets, aren't you?
You can update that view for modern audiences and riff off other inspirations and ideas, but what you can't do with the franchise is completely ignore or destroy that core set of values. Levelling San Francisco, slaughtering millions of people, and then not even addressing that is a problem. Destroying Vulcan and killing billions of people and not addressing that is a problem. Having the Enterprise have the consistency of toilet paper and get blown to pieces every movie but then be absolutely fine is a problem.
Again, saying it's wrong when it happens in the new movies is casting a blind eye to what happened in other movies. This is hardly the first time the enterprise blew up, but you are treating it as if it's jjs fault and he used a time machine to make it happen in other movies.
If you look at STAR TREK VI, that movie is all about avoiding war. That doesn't mean you can't have some exciting battle sequences and well-rooted moments of characterisation along the way, but ultimately the film (and the franchise) is about the value of life and preventing bloodshed. The new Abrams movies, on the contrary, seem to revel in bloodshed, explosions and death but then not exploring the consequences of that in any adult or meaningful way.
Suvs in space, enterprise taking out the klingon sisters and cheering afterwards, etc, kirk enjoying the f$*+ out of killing khan, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.
|
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
I wouldn't know. As I said, I came into the JJ films with only the most general understanding of what Star Trek is, never having watched a minute of the show or any of the previous movies. I can still call out something incredibly stupid when I see it. Also, again as I have said, that was one of the least stupid parts of that movie.
Forgetting the entire borg and weird worm eating Muppets, aren't you?Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.That's not a problem. The issue is that at its core STAR TREK presents a vision of the future that is utopian, peaceful and rooted in diplomacy and avoiding war. The reason for that is made clear in DEEP SPACE NINE when we finally see a full-scale, all-out interstellar war which lasts for years and the results are apocalyptic, but handled with weight and gravity.Not to mention that DS9 basically copied, generally poorly, whatever B5 did the season before.
Oh, and that was a show that handled interstellar war with actual weight a gravity. See Londo and G'Kar, or Marcus, or Garibaldi, etc.
indeed.
I kept hoping the series would stop copying but then it was too late.
I wouldn't know. As I said, I came into the JJ films with only the most general understanding of what Star Trek is, never having watched a minute of the show or any of the previous movies. I can still call out something incredibly stupid when I see it. Also, again as I have said, that was one of the least stupid parts of that movie.and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
do yourself a favor- don't watch any more star trek anything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgetting the entire borg and weird worm eating Muppets, aren't you?Star Trek is undergoing the kind of change that any show MUST undergo when it's been around as long as Dr. Who.... reinventing itself for a new audience raised in a different time, with a very different set of worldviews.That's not a problem. The issue is that at its core STAR TREK presents a vision of the future that is utopian, peaceful and rooted in diplomacy and avoiding war. The reason for that is made clear in DEEP SPACE NINE when we finally see a full-scale, all-out interstellar war which lasts for years and the results are apocalyptic, but handled with weight and gravity.Not to mention that DS9 basically copied, generally poorly, whatever B5 did the season before.
Oh, and that was a show that handled interstellar war with actual weight a gravity. See Londo and G'Kar, or Marcus, or Garibaldi, etc.
indeed.
I kept hoping the series would stop copying but then it was too late.
While I agree that seasons 2-4 of B5 was great, season one was bad and season 5 was terrible. And while there are similar themes through out DS9 and B5, I think DS9 was the stronger show overall.
In the Pale Moon Light was a better episode showing the harsh truth of what someone is willing to do in a war to survive than anything ever done in B5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
I was under the impression that it wasn't Khan, but Admiral Renegade who had placed them there as part of his scheme to both start a war and bury the evidence that he had anything to do with the Augments.
One wonders however if leaving them in stasis with no plans to ever revive them is any better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.I was under the impression that it wasn't Khan, but Admiral Renegade who had placed them there as part of his scheme to both start a war and bury the evidence that he had anything to do with the Augments.
One wonders however if leaving them in stasis with no plans to ever revive them is any better.
It's not really any worse that what Kirk (unintentionally) put them through in the original timeline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really any worse that what Kirk (unintentionally) put them through in the original timeline.and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.Yeah. When the bad guy deciding to hide his friends inside nuclear missiles (and is later surprised that failed to keep them safe), and that's not remotely the dumbest part of the movie, you know you are headed into a really dumb summer blockbuster.That's manifestly false based your comments, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool nerds to hate them for things that are just as much part of the other Trek movies or only exist in your complaints, have at it.You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.I was under the impression that it wasn't Khan, but Admiral Renegade who had placed them there as part of his scheme to both start a war and bury the evidence that he had anything to do with the Augments.
One wonders however if leaving them in stasis with no plans to ever revive them is any better.
Not intentionally. Kirk had put them on Ceti Alpha with a world to settle, but safely contained from the rest of the universe with no access to starfaring technology. Perhaps he should have checked on them, but planets spontaneously exploding usually doesn't happen that often outside of the DC Universe. If things had gone to plan they would have lived full lives... as dirt farmers perhaps, but lives nonetheless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that seasons 2-4 of B5 was great, season one was bad and season 5 was terrible. And while there are similar themes through out DS9 and B5, I think DS9 was the stronger show overall.In the Pale Moon Light was a better episode showing the harsh truth of what someone is willing to do in a war to survive than anything ever done in B5.
In my opinion B5 clearly pushed DS9 to become better and as a result watchers of both shows benefited.
I could go over the long story of how Season 5 wound up the way it did, but that's not the point. B5 avoided Trek's reset button syndrome and that gives it two stars in my rating alone. DS9 was not nearly as bad with Reset Syndrome as the other Trek shows before and after. It took some lessons from B5 about making story arcs and put them to some use.
I really don't care much about rating one show over the other but I'm glad to have had both and if I had to sacrifice one of the other Trek shows to have had DS9, I would not have hesitated to push any of the others out the window.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not intentionally. Kirk had put them on Ceti Alpha with a world to settle, but safely contained from the rest of the universe with no access to starfaring technology. Perhaps he should have checked on them, but planets spontaneously exploding usually doesn't happen that often outside of the DC Universe. If things had gone to plan they would have lived full lives... as dirt farmers perhaps, but lives nonetheless.
Wrath of Khan (which I love, but seriously) comedy:
The Reliant can scan the surface of a world and detect life signs- granted, they somehow can't tell that it's multiple multicelluar lifeforms- even if the augments hadn't been there, the Ceti Eels would have been.
They cannot tell that the star system they have flown to across interstellar space is down a planet.
No one in Starfleet seems to realize that Kirk stranded some folks in the Ceti Alpha system, and that maybe they could be looked into when a ship is flying by anyway.
Just plain shoddy record keeping!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, clearly space magic is involved.
How else does Kahn remember a man he never met?
I guess the same way that man remembered him first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have it on good authority that Khan got stuck waiting for Chekov to finish using the bathroom on the Enterprise, and that's why they recognize each other/have beef.
They had bathrooms??? I always thought they took their dumps down the chute where Kirk tossed the exploding phaser.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They just beam any waste matter directly out of your body.I have it on good authority that Khan got stuck waiting for Chekov to finish using the bathroom on the Enterprise, and that's why they recognize each other/have beef.They had bathrooms??? I always thought they took their dumps down the chute where Kirk tossed the exploding phaser.
no comment
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible, sad news. Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov in the new movies, has passed away following a car accident at his home :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A true loss. Horrid way to go, and so freaking young.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anton's name was added to the To Absent Friends memorial at Earth Spacedock if you play Star Trek Online. (At least on the test server.)
And this isn't just a case of "We added Anton's life years and an optimistic quote to the first page of the flavor text." When I say "Cryptic added Anton Yelchin to the memorial," I mean "The graphics design team made the memorial taller and added 'Anton Yelchin' under 'Leonard Nimoy' and 'DeForest Kelley.'"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am so hoping this does not disappoint. I have liked the other two films so far (not that I had seen a lot of Star Trek before seeing the first film). Isn't there a new TV series coming out soon?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am so hoping this does not disappoint. I have liked the other two films so far (not that I had seen a lot of Star Trek before seeing the first film). Isn't there a new TV series coming out soon?
Interesting....
George Takei calls decision to make Star Trek’s Sulu gay 'really unfortunate'
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Takei said he’s glad they’re adding a gay character to the Star Trek canon — but would prefer they didn’t fundamentally change a player from the original series. Takei officially came out in 2005, and has spent the past decade as an advocate for LGBT rights. But he also respects what Gene Roddenberry created with the original series (with Sulu played as a straight character), and actually asked the film’s creative team not to make the change.
I could be misremembering, but I don't recall any time from the original series or the movies where it was explicitly noted that Sulu was straight. I think the idea that "straight" = "default" is one we should fight against, even if that idea was pervasive when TOS was created. We don't have to interpret the work through the lens of the time it was created. And unless someone can point me toward a time where it was explicitly demonstrated the Sulu was straight, then in my mind he will have always been gay, and we just didn't know until now.
Takei's opinion in the linked article was interesting. Speaking as a straight dude, I don't think it invalidates the character as established in TOS to make movie Sulu gay. I guess Takei disagrees, but whatever, he's just they guy who originated the role. ;)
Apparently the Star Trek: The New Voyages website is under construction, but I loved the way Of Blood and Fire (two parter, episodes 4 and 5, I think) established that Captain Kirk's nephew is into dudes, and same sex marriage is so accepted in the Federation that Kirk might think his nephew's too immature to marry someone, but the spouse's sex just isn't the issue. Hey, wait, there's a Wikipedia page!
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I thought I recalled an original episode where Uhura was flirting with Sulu a bit. I don't think it ever was a kiss or anything, but if my memory is right, there was definitely some languid stares. I don't recall if Sulu reciprocated or not. Might have been in Naked Time when he was shirtless and fencing...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sulu's orientation was never established before, so establishing one doesn't retcon anything.
The fact that no orientation was established means that establishing one is not a retcon. Your edit (which is what I read in the first place and responded to) does not change my response one iota, nor does it remotely invalidate my response.