Star Trek: Beyond


Movies

101 to 150 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Black Dougal wrote:
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.
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:
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.
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
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.
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.

and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.

The Exchange

Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
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.
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.
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
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?

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.


Krensky wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
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?

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.


Lord Snow wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
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.
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.
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.
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.

do yourself a favor- don't watch any more star trek anything.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
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?

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.
Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
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.
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.
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.

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.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
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.
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.
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.

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.
Imbicatus wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
You really didn't pay attention to either film then, did you?
I paid attention to both films far more than you did, apparently.
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.
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.
and yet it was genius when it was done in tng.

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.

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.
Imbicatus wrote:


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.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
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!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, clearly space magic is involved.

How else does Kahn remember a man he never met?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:


How else does Kahn remember a man he never met?

Quite the khanundrum.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, he is the Übermensch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

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.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
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.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
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.

They just beam any waste matter directly out of your body.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
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.
They just beam any waste matter directly out of your body.

no comment

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They switched to beaming out waste in TNG.

In TOS, they still had s~&!ters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:


How else does Kahn remember a man he never met?

I have my ways.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

They switched to beaming out waste in TNG.

In TOS, they still had s$!@ters.

Not according to the blueprints!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:


How else does Kahn remember a man he never met?
Quite the khanundrum.

Couldn't resist could you ;)

Sovereign Court

Well new trailer and stuff aren't really promising. I just have one question.

Am I crazy or am I looking at them using Enterprise NX-01 to fight?


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 :(

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RIP :(

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow! That's horrible!!!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

;_;

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope something like this happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A true loss. Horrid way to go, and so freaking young.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sounds like he stopped to get his mail on the way out and put the car in neutral instead of park.

RIP

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Anton's SUV was on a recall list because people couldn't tell if the vehicle was in park or neutral and would sometimes roll.

Liberty's Edge

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.
Sara Ran wrote:
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?

Yes, January 2017.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Sara Ran wrote:
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?
Yes, January 2017.

It is still only going to be available on CBS's pay platform, right?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting....

George Takei calls decision to make Star Trek’s Sulu gay 'really unfortunate'


Aberzombie wrote:

Interesting....

George Takei calls decision to make Star Trek’s Sulu gay 'really unfortunate'

Linked article wrote:
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!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here Sulu was gay from the start, it just never came up because it is completely normal to be gay in that century. Simon Pegg gave a beautiful rebut.

Liberty's Edge 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...


I think Takei does not like his character now being gay because it doesn't matter. There was no reason at all to ever say the character's orientation as it had no bearing on the stories. Suddenly retconning it is just silly. Who really likes retcons, especially ones that don't matter?

Edit: Re-read it. The younger one is gay. I made a mistake there. I can see that takei doesn't want an omage really, as this one has already slapped him in the face with that future katana thing after he had an argument during the TOS days of not wanting sulu to be a stereotype. But really, he says he basically does not want them altered and wants them to be true to the originals. If you want to change someone, make a new character.

Honestly I hated Star Trek into Darkness. There was barely a story at all and was just a total mess. the "khan" character was totally pointless and there was no reason to call him Khan, as it had no bearing at all. Also when Nimoy-spock said Khan was the greatest enemy they ever faced, or whatever, that is totally wrong. I would sooner put the squire of gothos, the doomsday machine, and several others as massively more dangerous. Also at the beginning, Spock was telling kirk not to break the prime directive WHILE he was breaking the prime directive himself. Kirk stole a cultural relic for no reason whatsoever and it had no bearing at all on the story, and could have been easily removed as a useless scene. I double face palmed when I heard the phrase "Cold Fusion bomb" to freeze the volcano, as that is not how cold fusion is theorized to work. They could have easily said cryo bomb if they wanted a science term that means cold and frozen. If you also pay attention to the story, there is no reason for that Kirk to be a captain as he is terrible at commanding authority. Spock had no reason to be in a relationship. They turned an iconic character from Wrath of Khan into a sex object. Oh and at the end, making Kirk's sacrifice totally pointless, magic revive blood which will thus cure death and make the threat of war pointless as they can cure death. heck, Khan's plan made no sense at all in this movie and relies heavily on kirk being a complete moron. I'm also so annoyed that this Khan can take a phaser blast while Kirk beat him with a pipe in the old tv show. Khan was peak human physical pefection, not some supernatural BS. I don't think Abrams knows how eugenics works.

Remember as well, this movie is a sequal not a remake. It is still connected to the original movies via "old spock." The other universe still exists though, due to time lines existing like Mirror Mirror.

They took a well known space opera and turned it into a generic bland action movie that is the equivalent of shoving popcorn in your face while someone jingles keys in your face. All flash, no substance.

Watch Wrath of Khan, then watch into darkness. I mean REALLY watch the movies. Pay attention to the sequence of events and the dialog. Just in case, I suggest also watching the episode Khan came from.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sulu's orientation was never established before, so establishing one doesn't retcon anything.


Belle Sorciere wrote:
Sulu's orientation was never established before, so establishing one doesn't retcon anything.

Note the edit.


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.


Maybe I am using recon incorrectly. I have always known it as going back and changing or adding something that was never there before.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Simon Pegg on Sulu being gay and why he disagrees with Takei

Sovereign Court

Jaçinto wrote:
Maybe I am using recon incorrectly. I have always known it as going back and changing or adding something that was never there before.

When was it established in the new trek that Sulu was straiht? Must have missed it.

101 to 150 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Star Trek: Beyond All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.