The line I really wanted to hear in Into Dorkness:
"My name... is Khan."
(beat)
"That's nice. Khan who?"
(Remember that this Kirk wasn't "a stack of books with legs" at the Academy. As far as he's concerned, "Khan" is just a name fairly common on the opposite side of his home planet.)
I won't defend the idea of making Into Dorkness a remake of TWoK - that was a dumb idea. (And Khan squeezing Admiral Robocop's head while snarling, "You should have let me sleep!", caused me to respond, "Jeez, and I thought I was grumpy first thing in the morning!") However, its flaws, significant as they are, pale next to the sing-along by the campfire with the "marshmelons", Scotty hitting his head on a girder he'd ducked under just moments before, or Uhura with a bunch of paper books spread over her comms console because apparently in all those decades of working comms for starships (including three different Enterprises) she never actually learned even the rudiments of tlhIngan Hol, a language some folks here have studied for fun). I won't even touch the "God - starship" thing, or mind control via having people tell you what's bothering them, or having Kirk's defense attorney be Commander Worf's grandfather because there are only like seven people in the entire freaking Klingon Empire, because those are the really low-hanging fruit here.
And the '09 movie, I thought, captured the spirit of TOS pretty well, while at the same time separating the characters thoroughly (NuKirk, for instance, has the intellect and the impetuousness of Prime!Kirk, without Prime!Kirk's good upbringing or seasoning as a junior officer giving him some common sense to temper it). You really ought to pull that stick out long enough to sit down and give the flick a chance. You can always reinsert it later if it turns out you don't like the movie after all.
I won't defend the idea of making Into Dorkness a remake of TWoK - that was a dumb idea.
Not only that, but the related lines they 'shoe horned' into it was just ridiculous, such as Spock's 'Khaaaaan' scream: Khan had nothing to do with Kirk getting irradiated; it was evil Robocop who shot at the ship and misaligned the warp core. So how exactly is Khan suddenly responsible for Kirk dying?
It made zero sense and had a 'cringe factor' that went completely off the scales.
It will be a terrible movie just like the others. I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one. I'm waiting for a Star Trek movie to finally come out.
Wow with such certainty in future events why are you wasting time here? Vegas is calling.
Everyone has an opinion on the JJ Trek. Just this is mine of it. Some people hates it, some likes it. I respect other views of it. So in turn you should respect mine.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one.
Then how do you know anything about the quality of the movies?
Reminds me of my son's refusal for years to even try chocolate - don't know why, but somehow he got it into his head that chocolate was terrible. Then one day we managed to get a piece of it into his mouth. Ten seconds later - "Hey, this is good!" Surprised expression and everything.
Who knows, one day you might get off your high horse, watch the '09 movie, and find yourself saying, with an expression of surprise, "Hey, this is good!"
You should learn to respect other views of the movie. Instead of bashing them cause of it. We all don't see it the same as you do. Regardless you will always have some who hates the movie. I didn't bash you cause of your view. Or mentioned anyone in my response. So who is really on the high horse here?
As for the 09. I saw a few minutes of it. About up to the part where he was in the Academy. And saw where he rigged the test eating an apple looking like an fool. After that I stopped and deleted it from my DVR. Glad I didn't pay to see it at the movies or rent it. To me it was like watching a horrible low budget Spoof movie. Which I really hate those. So since then I called this series JJ Spoof Trek. And this series really is garbage. I'm not the only one who sees this. Just respect that.
What qualifies a good movie?
All depends on the viewer. So there isn't a set standard. I saw poorly rated movies most hated. And I enjoyed them. Many people hated the Star Trek TMP. I think it was epic. Some hates the TNG series of movies. I really loved them. So your answer to a good movie. The variables is unknown as it depends on the viewers.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
But the fatal flaw of JJTrek is that it's a reboot and a threat to everything "we" hold dear - our canon. If the Star Trek universe gets rebooted, it means all the stories we see, all the characters we knew, they all seem diminished, less relevant, because whatever they did is no longer relevant to the new stories.
It's a somewhat irrational feeling, since the old shows are still there to see if we wish to. And the chances t hat new stories would reference the old characters and events heavily wasn't that big.
Except that they threw us a bone with it being an ALTERNATE universe. Meaning everything that we know and love still exists and is relevant. In essence... Star Trek now has two branching timelines like Command & Conquer. The Prime universe would be like the Tiberium games and the Alternate would be the Red Alert games. Both still releveant, but do not affect each other.
The atttitude most people have is that the reboot movies overwrite what came before, essentially destroying the timeline. That is simply not true. Spock accurately described that things changed, and Uhura agreed, identifying the Alternate Reality. Also the fact that Prime Spock still existed means that whatever happened in the Alternate Reality had no bearing on the Prime Universe otherwise Prime Spock wouldn't have been there at all as his own personal history would have changed to reflect the native Spock.
Hell... Prime Spock even mentioned that in the Prime Universe, Kirk knew his father! And in Into Darkness, Spock warned them that Khan was a powerful foe.
But all that is meaningless, because of two reasons:
1) How many of the people hating the movies even bother to see them and notice these details.
2) (and more importantly) If that still means there won't be new movies in the old continuity, it's basically the same as being rebooted.
Trying to debate finer semantics when it's about emotional reactions will probably not achieve much. Certainly not if you don't have a receptive audience.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
[quote="jonsills;12918065" or Uhura with a bunch of paper books spread over her comms console because apparently in all those decades of working comms for starships (including three different Enterprises) she never actually learned even the rudiments of tlhIngan Hol, a language some folks here have studied for fun).[/quote]
One of my favorite things about the first JJTrek movie is that they made Uhura into someone that actually knows her sh*t and was useful in the movie because of that.
In the 60s, having a black woman on a starship bridge might have been revolutionary, but in the 2000s, we expect a bit more, and they delivered.
Of course, the scene was just there in the original movie for its comedic effect, we probably should not try to think more deeply about it.
It seems the older I become, the more problems like this I notice...
But all that is meaningless, because of two reasons:
1) How many of the people hating the movies even bother to see them and notice these details......Certainly not if you don't have a receptive audience.
Personally I 'wanted' to like the movies, but it was the 'details' that made me hate them.
For instance why would the Enterprise need to hide under the sea? Why not just remain in orbit?
Why is Spock interfering with the evolution of a planet (in direct conflict with the prime directive) and then getting all upset because the natives saw the Enterprise (which he states violates the prime directive...).
Why the need for 'musical captain chairs' regarding the enterprise? There are no less than 6 changes in command of the flagship over the course of the film: Kirk>Pike>Kirk>Sulu>Spock>Kirk> (God help the crew trying to understand who is actually in control of the ship!).
Why did Spock scream 'Khaaaan' when it was not Khan who missaliged the warp core which irradiated Kirk?
Why did they use the word 'decimated' in a dramatic context?
Why did evil Robocop tell Kirk to fire those torpedo's at Khans location if he new they had people in them? where would the fuel go? where would the warhead go? what would have happend if Sulu tried to fire them? What if he did not fire them all (there was alot of them after all) and half where left over? doesn't this throw a spanner in the works for evil Robocop?
Why did the obligatory 'hot girl' invite Kirk into her room just so she could get changed, and then tell him to turn around? how did this scene help develop the film at all apart from giving us all a chance to oogle the pretty girl (which was nice, but pointless all the same).
Why did the final dialogue make absolutely no sense at all? How does what was said constitute an Oath??
"When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain's Oath. Words I didn't appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again.
And those words: Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before. "
So the captains oath begins with "These are the voyagers of the starship enterprise"?? Really?
As you can see, I did watch the films. I wanted to the love the films. But the films themselves made me dislike them.
Yes sometimes things don't 'make sense' in the Trek universe, and there is often the use of 'plot devices' to overcome things that don't make sense. A few times in a film or episode? OK fine... but all the way through, one thing after another? it just begins to jarr.
What I posted above is only a fraction of the 'little details' that made me dislike the film. Will I go and see the next one?
Yes. Why? Because I am hoping it will be better than the first two. JJ has started to tone down on the lens flair making the 2nd film more watchable; perhap's he will hone his writing a bit more to make the 3rd film a bit more interesting and make a bit more sense.
Just to add on here, another thing that made literally no sense (pfftt, what else is new) was the engineering section. First off, why the HELL did they use a brewery as the set? It doesn't make the ship look high tech or futuristic, but rather makes it look like the entire thing runs on diesel.
Second is the scaling. The way the engineering section was portrayed in the film makes it impossible to fit in the drive section, and why the heck did they use concrete in it?
Then there is the issue of giving command of the federation's most advanced flagship to a guy who is about to get kicked out of the academy and hasn't even graduated.
2) (and more importantly) If that still means there won't be new movies in the old continuity, it's basically the same as being rebooted.
Sad but true. Abrams and Disney have both come up with some excuse or another for why 'the old stuff still matters' for the continuities they discarded (Abrams' 'alternate timeline' story is similar to Disney's 'Legends' thing, with the caveat that Legends technically didn't happen at all), but the underlying problem persists: Neither side had any intention of continuing the discarded universe/timeline, and just wanted to smooth things over.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
But all that is meaningless, because of two reasons:
1) How many of the people hating the movies even bother to see them and notice these details......Certainly not if you don't have a receptive audience.
Personally I 'wanted' to like the movies, but it was the 'details' that made me hate them.
For instance why would the Enterprise need to hide under the sea? Why not just remain in orbit?
Why is Spock interfering with the evolution of a planet (in direct conflict with the prime directive) and then getting all upset because the natives saw the Enterprise (which he states violates the prime directive...).
For a simple reason. A Vulcan not exploding that the natives probably didn't expect to explode and kill them has no real impact on their cultural development (other than it doesn't stop as they are all dead). Showing them a space ship and aliens - that is going to affect their culture.
Why did they use the word 'decimated' in a dramatic context?
Because people always get the actual meaning of this word wrong. Maybe in the 23rd century, its meaning has changed to what people actually use it for? (Like, shockingly, apparently some dictionary now describes literally meaning the same as figuratively, instead of the exact opposite.)
Why did evil Robocop tell Kirk to fire those torpedo's at Khans location if he new they had people in them? where would the fuel go? where would the warhead go? what would have happend if Sulu tried to fire them? What if he did not fire them all (there was alot of them after all) and half where left over? doesn't this throw a spanner in the works for evil Robocop?
They would probably all die as they collide with the planet. Regardless of whether it holds explosives or not. That would suck for Khan and would probably feel like neat vengeance to Robocop for Khan shooting up his fellow officers and blowing up Section 31. He's a bit of an as*hat.
Why did the obligatory 'hot girl' invite Kirk into her room just so she could get changed, and then tell him to turn around? how did this scene help develop the film at all apart from giving us all a chance to oogle the pretty girl (which was nice, but pointless all the same).
Well, if Captain Picard can use the Nexus to travel through time, why doesn't he stop Soran before anyone gets killed and just has him arrested as he boards the Enterprise? Maybe he could have even gone further back and save his nephew and uncle?
Why the heck did he think traveling to the last possible minute would be a good idea?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
But all that is meaningless, because of two reasons:
1) How many of the people hating the movies even bother to see them and notice these details......Certainly not if you don't have a receptive audience.
Personally I 'wanted' to like the movies, but it was the 'details' that made me hate them.
For instance why would the Enterprise need to hide under the sea? Why not just remain in orbit?
Why is Spock interfering with the evolution of a planet (in direct conflict with the prime directive) and then getting all upset because the natives saw the Enterprise (which he states violates the prime directive...).
For a simple reason. A Vulcan not exploding that the natives probably didn't expect to explode and kill them has no real impact on their cultural development (other than it doesn't stop as they are all dead). Showing them a space ship and aliens - that is going to affect their culture.
Why did they use the word 'decimated' in a dramatic context?
Because people always get the actual meaning of this word wrong. Maybe in the 23rd century, its meaning has changed to what people actually use it for? (Like, shockingly, apparently some dictionary now describes literally meaning the same as figuratively, instead of the exact opposite.)
Why did evil Robocop tell Kirk to fire those torpedo's at Khans location if he new they had people in them? where would the fuel go? where would the warhead go? what would have happend if Sulu tried to fire them? What if he did not fire them all (there was alot of them after all) and half where left over? doesn't this throw a spanner in the works for evil Robocop?
They would probably all die as they collide with the planet. Regardless of whether it holds explosives or not. That would suck for Khan and would probably feel like neat vengeance to Robocop for Khan shooting up his fellow officers and blowing up Section 31. He's a bit of an as*hat.
Why did the obligatory 'hot girl' invite Kirk into her room just so she could get changed, and then tell him to turn around? how did this scene help develop the film at all apart from giving us all a chance to oogle the pretty girl (which was nice, but pointless all the same).
Well, if Captain Picard can use the Nexus to travel through time, why doesn't he stop Soran before anyone gets killed and just has him arrested as he boards the Enterprise? Maybe he could have even gone further back and save his nephew and uncle?
Why the heck did he think traveling to the last possible minute would be a good idea?
2) (and more importantly) If that still means there won't be new movies in the old continuity, it's basically the same as being rebooted.
Sad but true. Abrams and Disney have both come up with some excuse or another for why 'the old stuff still matters' for the continuities they discarded (Abrams' 'alternate timeline' story is similar to Disney's 'Legends' thing, with the caveat that Legends technically didn't happen at all), but the underlying problem persists: Neither side had any intention of continuing the discarded universe/timeline, and just wanted to smooth things over.
As far as star wars goes, while officially legends did not happen, I've personally considered writing a fan fiction conclusion to wrap up all the loose ends that got left hanging, and in thinking of how to do that I realised that the old EU actually had an established force power that, with a little expansion, could be used to establish a multiverse just like trek has.
I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one.
Then how do you know anything about the quality of the movies?
I've seen the first two, and I have to say the film has some major 'quality control' issues.
For instance one of the lines stated by 'generic bad guy/evil robocop':
"If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
Really? our whole way of life is going to be changed by 10%?! MY GOD THAT SOUNDS AWFUL!... actually no it does not sound so bad...
How did that ridiculous line get through the editor, copywriter, director and all the other people who would have read it before it was filmed and shown to millions?
That's just one example of poor quality control in the films. Yes the original franchise used a lot of 'techno speak' language, but at least it could string a sentence together using the correct type of words.
Ahem. "Crack in the event horizon", anyone? I didn't know decimate originally meant to kill 10% of something until I saw it used in that context in a Ciaphas Cain novel, but I saw it used as a synonym for "destroy" several times before that, none of which involved Star Trek.
Once again, you're trying to judge the new films by a different standard
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one.
Then how do you know anything about the quality of the movies?
I've seen the first two, and I have to say the film has some major 'quality control' issues.
For instance one of the lines stated by 'generic bad guy/evil robocop':
"If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
Really? our whole way of life is going to be changed by 10%?! MY GOD THAT SOUNDS AWFUL!... actually no it does not sound so bad...
How did that ridiculous line get through the editor, copywriter, director and all the other people who would have read it before it was filmed and shown to millions?
That's just one example of poor quality control in the films. Yes the original franchise used a lot of 'techno speak' language, but at least it could string a sentence together using the correct type of words.
Ahem. "Crack in the event horizon", anyone? I didn't know decimate originally meant to kill 10% of something until I saw it used in that context in a Ciaphas Cain novel, but I saw it used as a synonym for "destroy" several times before that, none of which involved Star Trek.
Once again, you're trying to judge the new films by a different standard
So because you have a poor vocabulary and did not understand the word... this constitutes as a 'crack in the event horizon'?
Oke doke.
FYI: The term is derived (as far as I know) from Roman times when it was used to punish failing/unruly legions "Decimate them" would be used to kill 10% of the legion in order to bring them under control/teach them a lesson.
Anyhoo. No I'm not judging the film by a 'different' standard. As I said, Trek' is FULL of plot holes and things that don't make sense. It's just that the more recent films seem to have them in far more abundance. ('Seem's' being the operative word; I may well be wrong).
Read my earlier/later posts and you will see that I mention the accumulative effects of all the disparities that resulted in me not enjoying the films, rather than just 'one thing' that bothered me.
I refuse to judge any film before seeing it for myself. I don't listen to critics either.
That's what I said about Into Darkness. Now I listen to the critics.
Critics really shouldn't be the end all be all though, you really need to find one that you agree with most of the time which can be hard. I read reviews more to get my expectations in line than anything else, there've been plenty of movies where I've agreed with critics (xmen the last Stand, star trek nemesis, etc) but also plenty where I've strongly disagreed with critics (star wars the ripoff awakens).
But all that is meaningless, because of two reasons:
1) How many of the people hating the movies even bother to see them and notice these details......Certainly not if you don't have a receptive audience.
Personally I 'wanted' to like the movies, but it was the 'details' that made me hate them.
For instance why would the Enterprise need to hide under the sea? Why not just remain in orbit?
Why is Spock interfering with the evolution of a planet (in direct conflict with the prime directive) and then getting all upset because the natives saw the Enterprise (which he states violates the prime directive...).
For a simple reason. A Vulcan not exploding that the natives probably didn't expect to explode and kill them has no real impact on their cultural development (other than it doesn't stop as they are all dead). Showing them a space ship and aliens - that is going to affect their culture.
Why did they use the word 'decimated' in a dramatic context?
Because people always get the actual meaning of this word wrong. Maybe in the 23rd century, its meaning has changed to what people actually use it for? (Like, shockingly, apparently some dictionary now describes literally meaning the same as figuratively, instead of the exact opposite.)
Why did evil Robocop tell Kirk to fire those torpedo's at Khans location if he new they had people in them? where would the fuel go? where would the warhead go? what would have happend if Sulu tried to fire them? What if he did not fire them all (there was alot of them after all) and half where left over? doesn't this throw a spanner in the works for evil Robocop?
They would probably all die as they collide with the planet. Regardless of whether it holds explosives or not. That would suck for Khan and would probably feel like neat vengeance to Robocop for Khan shooting up his fellow officers and blowing up Section 31. He's a bit of an as*hat.
Why did the obligatory 'hot girl' invite Kirk into her room just so she could get changed, and then tell him to turn around? how did this scene help develop the film at all apart from giving us all a chance to oogle the pretty girl (which was nice, but pointless all the same).
Well, if Captain Picard can use the Nexus to travel through time, why doesn't he stop Soran before anyone gets killed and just has him arrested as he boards the Enterprise? Maybe he could have even gone further back and save his nephew and uncle?
Why the heck did he think traveling to the last possible minute would be a good idea?
Interesting points...
Any comments on the 'captains oath'?
I don't know if it would make a good oath, but maybe it'S the kind of "insert your ship's name / captain name" here. But I don't think the voyages beginning really works for an oath. That said, the christian credo starts with something like: " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.", and that is a kind of oath, isn't it?
It might be a longer oath.
"These are the voyages of the starship insert starship name here. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. I, <rank and and name>, swear to lead my crew and my ship to the best of my abilities and in accordance with Federation law and Starfleet regulations to help achieve this mission. I will obey the orders of my superiors and protect my crew and my starship from the dangers of this voyage, and take full responsibility for everything that happens during our fulfillment of this mission."
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one.
Then how do you know anything about the quality of the movies?
I've seen the first two, and I have to say the film has some major 'quality control' issues.
For instance one of the lines stated by 'generic bad guy/evil robocop':
"If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
Really? our whole way of life is going to be changed by 10%?! MY GOD THAT SOUNDS AWFUL!... actually no it does not sound so bad...
How did that ridiculous line get through the editor, copywriter, director and all the other people who would have read it before it was filmed and shown to millions?
That's just one example of poor quality control in the films. Yes the original franchise used a lot of 'techno speak' language, but at least it could string a sentence together using the correct type of words.
Ahem. "Crack in the event horizon", anyone? I didn't know decimate originally meant to kill 10% of something until I saw it used in that context in a Ciaphas Cain novel, but I saw it used as a synonym for "destroy" several times before that, none of which involved Star Trek.
Once again, you're trying to judge the new films by a different standard
So because you have a poor vocabulary and did not understand the word... this constitutes as a 'crack in the event horizon'?
His point was that the word has been used "wrong" so often that it now is basically the common interpretation of it, and the original meaning has been lost to the majority of people that use the word.
And we could get really obnoxious about this topic by entering the word in google and find out how it's used on the web and then provides examples, but I think that is best left as an exercise to the reader.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one.
Then how do you know anything about the quality of the movies?
I've seen the first two, and I have to say the film has some major 'quality control' issues.
For instance one of the lines stated by 'generic bad guy/evil robocop':
"If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
Really? our whole way of life is going to be changed by 10%?! MY GOD THAT SOUNDS AWFUL!... actually no it does not sound so bad...
How did that ridiculous line get through the editor, copywriter, director and all the other people who would have read it before it was filmed and shown to millions?
That's just one example of poor quality control in the films. Yes the original franchise used a lot of 'techno speak' language, but at least it could string a sentence together using the correct type of words.
Ahem. "Crack in the event horizon", anyone? I didn't know decimate originally meant to kill 10% of something until I saw it used in that context in a Ciaphas Cain novel, but I saw it used as a synonym for "destroy" several times before that, none of which involved Star Trek.
Once again, you're trying to judge the new films by a different standard
So because you have a poor vocabulary and did not understand the word... this constitutes as a 'crack in the event horizon'?
"Crack in the event horizon" is a reference to VOY, since you want to claim the JJ movies had "poor quality control". (In one episode, the Voyager is caught inside the event horizon of a singularity. The event horizon is a mathematical construct, the point at which the escape velocity from the singularity's gravity well is greater than the speed of light so that we cannot see any events inside that horizon from the outside. The solution in that episode was to find a crack in the event horizon so that they could escape. <rolleyes>)
Farm, I'm not "bashing different opinions" - I'm bashing the formation of opinions in ignorance. You can't judge the quality of something you refuse to try, any more than you can tell if you'd enjoy a particular foodstuff based on the name alone. ("Sweetmeats" sounds like a dessert treat, doesn't it?) Try watching the entire movie - that scene was intended to show us how cocksure and arrogant this version of Kirk is, before he starts to get it knocked out of him later. Hell, if I'd given up on Into Dorkness after that basic scientific error in the beginning as to what "cold fusion" is, I'd have missed a very nice allegory about the War on Terror and the extent some folks will go to in order to have the war they want.
Gees folks, don't hold back, tells us how ya really feel...
Anyway, nobody else wants to speculate on what the number '6' on the Franklin's Bridge hatch means?
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Gees folks, don't hold back, tells us how ya really feel...
Anyway, nobody else wants to speculate on what the number '6' on the Franklin's Bridge hatch means?
Deck number. The pics we've seen of the Franklin shows it to be roughly the size of the Defiant or NX.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
His point was that the word has been used "wrong" so often that it now is basically the common interpretation of it, and the original meaning has been lost to the majority of people that use the word.
Interesting point; two 'wrongs' may indeed make a 'right' in this case...
However; as I stated previously, it is erroneous to use this as the only example I gave regarding WHY I disliked the JJ films. As I said it was the accumulation of a number of issues that gave rise to me disliking them. I am not so jaded that I would discount the whole 'JJ' verse based upon the wrong usage of the word 'decimated'. That was just one brick in the wall.
Interesting, then the Bridge apparently isn't at the top of the primary hull.
Guess that would be another first for JJ-Trek. (and Trek in general)
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I refused to watch them, and I will do the same with this one.
Then how do you know anything about the quality of the movies?
I've seen the first two, and I have to say the film has some major 'quality control' issues.
For instance one of the lines stated by 'generic bad guy/evil robocop':
"If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
Really? our whole way of life is going to be changed by 10%?! MY GOD THAT SOUNDS AWFUL!... actually no it does not sound so bad...
How did that ridiculous line get through the editor, copywriter, director and all the other people who would have read it before it was filmed and shown to millions?
That's just one example of poor quality control in the films. Yes the original franchise used a lot of 'techno speak' language, but at least it could string a sentence together using the correct type of words.
Ahem. "Crack in the event horizon", anyone? I didn't know decimate originally meant to kill 10% of something until I saw it used in that context in a Ciaphas Cain novel, but I saw it used as a synonym for "destroy" several times before that, none of which involved Star Trek.
Once again, you're trying to judge the new films by a different standard
So because you have a poor vocabulary and did not understand the word... this constitutes as a 'crack in the event horizon'?
His point was that the word has been used "wrong" so often that it now is basically the common interpretation of it, and the original meaning has been lost to the majority of people that use the word.
And we could get really obnoxious about this topic by entering the word in google and find out how it's used on the web and then provides examples, but I think that is best left as an exercise to the reader.
Indeed, until this thread my understanding was that to decimate something was to destroy the vast majority of it, as that is the only way I've seen and heard it used.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
"Crack in the event horizon" is a reference to VOY, since you want to claim the JJ movies had "poor quality control". (In one episode, the Voyager is caught inside the event horizon of a singularity. The event horizon is a mathematical construct, the point at which the escape velocity from the singularity's gravity well is greater than the speed of light so that we cannot see any events inside that horizon from the outside. The solution in that episode was to find a crack in the event horizon so that they could escape. <rolleyes>)
Yes I was aware of this during my response. You shall find that I also noted that there are 'many' plot holes in Trek' which are used to develop the story line. And that I had no problem with this. My problem is that the 'JJ' movies had so many (one after the other) that is became a chore to watch.
Now some (or many) may disagree with me on that (I'm sure transparent aluminium is not really necessary, nor is saving whales (if you have a simple device called a 'recorder'). Buy hey that's Trek!
I have no problem with 'silliness', just try and make it all fit together in a coherent fashion.
Perhaps I have 'retro' goggles on. But I did not find the constant lens flare and contrary plot lines to be very 'trek'. In essence they turned the 'silliness' factor up to '11'.
To re-iterate: everybody is entitled to their opinion, and I am not saying you are 'wrong' for liking the JJ films. I'm just saying the do not 'fit in' with the Trek' universe that I know and love. That does not make me 'right' either.
I have a distinct feeling that a MASSIVE Probe that has just traveled across the universe looking for the whales, would have been able to tell the difference between a recording and an actual answer from living creatures.
Let alone that it would have probably been able to scan for those same living creatures on the planet.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Indeed, until this thread my understanding was that to decimate something was to destroy the vast majority of it, as that is the only way I've seen and heard it used.
I don't know if it's because I'm English or because we had to take Roman history as part of classes; but I have always 'known' what the word means. I have only ever seen it used in the 'wrong' way in a very few books and films (such as into the darkness) which is why I brought it up.
I am not attempting to be pretentious - I actually thought this was a major flaw that most people would have seen themselves.
If 'decimated' is now widely used as a term to describe something else; then I apologise for my remarks, and it would appear that it is me who is wrong. Therefore I retract any and all disparaging comments regarding the word.
Comments
"My name... is Khan."
(beat)
"That's nice. Khan who?"
(Remember that this Kirk wasn't "a stack of books with legs" at the Academy. As far as he's concerned, "Khan" is just a name fairly common on the opposite side of his home planet.)
I won't defend the idea of making Into Dorkness a remake of TWoK - that was a dumb idea. (And Khan squeezing Admiral Robocop's head while snarling, "You should have let me sleep!", caused me to respond, "Jeez, and I thought I was grumpy first thing in the morning!") However, its flaws, significant as they are, pale next to the sing-along by the campfire with the "marshmelons", Scotty hitting his head on a girder he'd ducked under just moments before, or Uhura with a bunch of paper books spread over her comms console because apparently in all those decades of working comms for starships (including three different Enterprises) she never actually learned even the rudiments of tlhIngan Hol, a language some folks here have studied for fun). I won't even touch the "God - starship" thing, or mind control via having people tell you what's bothering them, or having Kirk's defense attorney be Commander Worf's grandfather because there are only like seven people in the entire freaking Klingon Empire, because those are the really low-hanging fruit here.
And the '09 movie, I thought, captured the spirit of TOS pretty well, while at the same time separating the characters thoroughly (NuKirk, for instance, has the intellect and the impetuousness of Prime!Kirk, without Prime!Kirk's good upbringing or seasoning as a junior officer giving him some common sense to temper it). You really ought to pull that stick out long enough to sit down and give the flick a chance. You can always reinsert it later if it turns out you don't like the movie after all.
Not only that, but the related lines they 'shoe horned' into it was just ridiculous, such as Spock's 'Khaaaaan' scream: Khan had nothing to do with Kirk getting irradiated; it was evil Robocop who shot at the ship and misaligned the warp core. So how exactly is Khan suddenly responsible for Kirk dying?
It made zero sense and had a 'cringe factor' that went completely off the scales.
Everyone has an opinion on the JJ Trek. Just this is mine of it. Some people hates it, some likes it. I respect other views of it. So in turn you should respect mine.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
You should learn to respect other views of the movie. Instead of bashing them cause of it. We all don't see it the same as you do. Regardless you will always have some who hates the movie. I didn't bash you cause of your view. Or mentioned anyone in my response. So who is really on the high horse here?
As for the 09. I saw a few minutes of it. About up to the part where he was in the Academy. And saw where he rigged the test eating an apple looking like an fool. After that I stopped and deleted it from my DVR. Glad I didn't pay to see it at the movies or rent it. To me it was like watching a horrible low budget Spoof movie. Which I really hate those. So since then I called this series JJ Spoof Trek. And this series really is garbage. I'm not the only one who sees this. Just respect that.
What qualifies a good movie?
All depends on the viewer. So there isn't a set standard. I saw poorly rated movies most hated. And I enjoyed them. Many people hated the Star Trek TMP. I think it was epic. Some hates the TNG series of movies. I really loved them. So your answer to a good movie. The variables is unknown as it depends on the viewers.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
But all that is meaningless, because of two reasons:
1) How many of the people hating the movies even bother to see them and notice these details.
2) (and more importantly) If that still means there won't be new movies in the old continuity, it's basically the same as being rebooted.
Trying to debate finer semantics when it's about emotional reactions will probably not achieve much. Certainly not if you don't have a receptive audience.
One of my favorite things about the first JJTrek movie is that they made Uhura into someone that actually knows her sh*t and was useful in the movie because of that.
In the 60s, having a black woman on a starship bridge might have been revolutionary, but in the 2000s, we expect a bit more, and they delivered.
Of course, the scene was just there in the original movie for its comedic effect, we probably should not try to think more deeply about it.
It seems the older I become, the more problems like this I notice...
Yep, that seems like a completely impartial attempt at viewing the movie.
Personally I 'wanted' to like the movies, but it was the 'details' that made me hate them.
For instance why would the Enterprise need to hide under the sea? Why not just remain in orbit?
Why is Spock interfering with the evolution of a planet (in direct conflict with the prime directive) and then getting all upset because the natives saw the Enterprise (which he states violates the prime directive...).
Why the need for 'musical captain chairs' regarding the enterprise? There are no less than 6 changes in command of the flagship over the course of the film: Kirk>Pike>Kirk>Sulu>Spock>Kirk> (God help the crew trying to understand who is actually in control of the ship!).
Why did Spock scream 'Khaaaan' when it was not Khan who missaliged the warp core which irradiated Kirk?
Why did they use the word 'decimated' in a dramatic context?
Why did evil Robocop tell Kirk to fire those torpedo's at Khans location if he new they had people in them? where would the fuel go? where would the warhead go? what would have happend if Sulu tried to fire them? What if he did not fire them all (there was alot of them after all) and half where left over? doesn't this throw a spanner in the works for evil Robocop?
Why did the obligatory 'hot girl' invite Kirk into her room just so she could get changed, and then tell him to turn around? how did this scene help develop the film at all apart from giving us all a chance to oogle the pretty girl (which was nice, but pointless all the same).
Why did the final dialogue make absolutely no sense at all? How does what was said constitute an Oath??
"When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain's Oath. Words I didn't appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again.
And those words: Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before. "
So the captains oath begins with "These are the voyagers of the starship enterprise"?? Really?
As you can see, I did watch the films. I wanted to the love the films. But the films themselves made me dislike them.
Yes sometimes things don't 'make sense' in the Trek universe, and there is often the use of 'plot devices' to overcome things that don't make sense. A few times in a film or episode? OK fine... but all the way through, one thing after another? it just begins to jarr.
What I posted above is only a fraction of the 'little details' that made me dislike the film. Will I go and see the next one?
Yes. Why? Because I am hoping it will be better than the first two. JJ has started to tone down on the lens flair making the 2nd film more watchable; perhap's he will hone his writing a bit more to make the 3rd film a bit more interesting and make a bit more sense.
I hope so!
Second is the scaling. The way the engineering section was portrayed in the film makes it impossible to fit in the drive section, and why the heck did they use concrete in it?
Then there is the issue of giving command of the federation's most advanced flagship to a guy who is about to get kicked out of the academy and hasn't even graduated.
Sad but true. Abrams and Disney have both come up with some excuse or another for why 'the old stuff still matters' for the continuities they discarded (Abrams' 'alternate timeline' story is similar to Disney's 'Legends' thing, with the caveat that Legends technically didn't happen at all), but the underlying problem persists: Neither side had any intention of continuing the discarded universe/timeline, and just wanted to smooth things over.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Because people always get the actual meaning of this word wrong. Maybe in the 23rd century, its meaning has changed to what people actually use it for? (Like, shockingly, apparently some dictionary now describes literally meaning the same as figuratively, instead of the exact opposite.)
They would probably all die as they collide with the planet. Regardless of whether it holds explosives or not. That would suck for Khan and would probably feel like neat vengeance to Robocop for Khan shooting up his fellow officers and blowing up Section 31. He's a bit of an as*hat.
Well, if Captain Picard can use the Nexus to travel through time, why doesn't he stop Soran before anyone gets killed and just has him arrested as he boards the Enterprise? Maybe he could have even gone further back and save his nephew and uncle?
Why the heck did he think traveling to the last possible minute would be a good idea?
Interesting points...
Any comments on the 'captains oath'?
As far as star wars goes, while officially legends did not happen, I've personally considered writing a fan fiction conclusion to wrap up all the loose ends that got left hanging, and in thinking of how to do that I realised that the old EU actually had an established force power that, with a little expansion, could be used to establish a multiverse just like trek has.
Ahem. "Crack in the event horizon", anyone? I didn't know decimate originally meant to kill 10% of something until I saw it used in that context in a Ciaphas Cain novel, but I saw it used as a synonym for "destroy" several times before that, none of which involved Star Trek.
Once again, you're trying to judge the new films by a different standard
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
So because you have a poor vocabulary and did not understand the word... this constitutes as a 'crack in the event horizon'?
Oke doke.
FYI: The term is derived (as far as I know) from Roman times when it was used to punish failing/unruly legions "Decimate them" would be used to kill 10% of the legion in order to bring them under control/teach them a lesson.
Anyhoo. No I'm not judging the film by a 'different' standard. As I said, Trek' is FULL of plot holes and things that don't make sense. It's just that the more recent films seem to have them in far more abundance. ('Seem's' being the operative word; I may well be wrong).
Read my earlier/later posts and you will see that I mention the accumulative effects of all the disparities that resulted in me not enjoying the films, rather than just 'one thing' that bothered me.
Critics really shouldn't be the end all be all though, you really need to find one that you agree with most of the time which can be hard. I read reviews more to get my expectations in line than anything else, there've been plenty of movies where I've agreed with critics (xmen the last Stand, star trek nemesis, etc) but also plenty where I've strongly disagreed with critics (star wars the ripoff awakens).
It might be a longer oath.
"These are the voyages of the starship insert starship name here. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. I, <rank and and name>, swear to lead my crew and my ship to the best of my abilities and in accordance with Federation law and Starfleet regulations to help achieve this mission. I will obey the orders of my superiors and protect my crew and my starship from the dangers of this voyage, and take full responsibility for everything that happens during our fulfillment of this mission."
And we could get really obnoxious about this topic by entering the word in google and find out how it's used on the web and then provides examples, but I think that is best left as an exercise to the reader.
Farm, I'm not "bashing different opinions" - I'm bashing the formation of opinions in ignorance. You can't judge the quality of something you refuse to try, any more than you can tell if you'd enjoy a particular foodstuff based on the name alone. ("Sweetmeats" sounds like a dessert treat, doesn't it?) Try watching the entire movie - that scene was intended to show us how cocksure and arrogant this version of Kirk is, before he starts to get it knocked out of him later. Hell, if I'd given up on Into Dorkness after that basic scientific error in the beginning as to what "cold fusion" is, I'd have missed a very nice allegory about the War on Terror and the extent some folks will go to in order to have the war they want.
Anyway, nobody else wants to speculate on what the number '6' on the Franklin's Bridge hatch means?
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Deck number. The pics we've seen of the Franklin shows it to be roughly the size of the Defiant or NX.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Interesting point; two 'wrongs' may indeed make a 'right' in this case...
However; as I stated previously, it is erroneous to use this as the only example I gave regarding WHY I disliked the JJ films. As I said it was the accumulation of a number of issues that gave rise to me disliking them. I am not so jaded that I would discount the whole 'JJ' verse based upon the wrong usage of the word 'decimated'. That was just one brick in the wall.
Guess that would be another first for JJ-Trek. (and Trek in general)
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Indeed, until this thread my understanding was that to decimate something was to destroy the vast majority of it, as that is the only way I've seen and heard it used.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Yes I was aware of this during my response. You shall find that I also noted that there are 'many' plot holes in Trek' which are used to develop the story line. And that I had no problem with this. My problem is that the 'JJ' movies had so many (one after the other) that is became a chore to watch.
Now some (or many) may disagree with me on that (I'm sure transparent aluminium is not really necessary, nor is saving whales (if you have a simple device called a 'recorder'). Buy hey that's Trek!
I have no problem with 'silliness', just try and make it all fit together in a coherent fashion.
Perhaps I have 'retro' goggles on. But I did not find the constant lens flare and contrary plot lines to be very 'trek'. In essence they turned the 'silliness' factor up to '11'.
To re-iterate: everybody is entitled to their opinion, and I am not saying you are 'wrong' for liking the JJ films. I'm just saying the do not 'fit in' with the Trek' universe that I know and love. That does not make me 'right' either.
Let alone that it would have probably been able to scan for those same living creatures on the planet.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I don't know if it's because I'm English or because we had to take Roman history as part of classes; but I have always 'known' what the word means. I have only ever seen it used in the 'wrong' way in a very few books and films (such as into the darkness) which is why I brought it up.
I am not attempting to be pretentious - I actually thought this was a major flaw that most people would have seen themselves.
If 'decimated' is now widely used as a term to describe something else; then I apologise for my remarks, and it would appear that it is me who is wrong. Therefore I retract any and all disparaging comments regarding the word.