The last music I liked was the 1900's and the Decemberists oh and the National. Before that SilverSun Pickups. But that's all old now isn't it? You know, I think my disconnect began when everyone (especially Yahoo) kept pointing out what the Kardashions were doing, wearing, **** etc... I think something snapped inside me gulliver. But a couple of you youngsters are giving me some faith and hope. Keep on Trekkin.
Yeah the Kardashians' popularity baffles me, their only claim to fame is that their father was part of the defense team in the OJ Simpson trial. They've never actually accomplished anything, at all.
Because we all like different things. Because we all have different views. The problem is we no longer tolerate different ideas and this is especially sad when talking about Star Trek fans.
My personal view is Star Trek is the TOS and TOS movies. I don't like TNG. I enjoyed DS9 and barely watch the other two series. If I had my way there would be no TNG...but the fact remains that TNG brought in a lot of new fans. A lot of people in this thread and on this website would not be here if it wasn't for TNG. I respect that. If Picard or Sisko or Janeway or even Archer is your captain and made you a fan of Star Trek...then welcome to the fandom.
The same needs to be done for the new movies. It's not what we have seen before because BY DESIGN it's not supposed to be what we seen before. Instead of shunning it and it's fans we need to be welcoming it into the fandom.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The last music I liked was the 1900's and the Decemberists oh and the National. Before that SilverSun Pickups. But that's all old now isn't it? You know, I think my disconnect began when everyone (especially Yahoo) kept pointing out what the Kardashions were doing, wearing, **** etc... I think something snapped inside me gulliver. But a couple of you youngsters are giving me some faith and hope. Keep on Trekkin.
Yeah the Kardashians' popularity baffles me, their only claim to fame is that their father was part of the defense team in the OJ Simpson trial. They've never actually accomplished anything, at all.
Well, and they conquered Bajor. Okay, that was apparently not very difficult and they didn't manage to keep it, but it's something, isn't it?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The amount of self serving hubris by some people is astounding. I mean really, the OP is really all that is wrong with hard core fans in general whether they are fans of star trek, star wars etc. It's as if the movie doesn't completely blow your mind or completely change your life in a radical fashion, it's simply bad and does not deserve to be called under the original title.
Seen it with the new Star Trek, seen it on a smaller scale with Eps 7 in SW and other shows.
It's entirely egotistical and pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Something which happened to me right after the end of ST:ID. Decided to get a bite to eat so walked across the parking lot to an IHOP. Yeah, I know. IHOP. But their burgers are decent most of the time. My wife and I were seated next to a group of people who had also just come from the film. They were discussing it. At some point my wife, who is the family expert on Star Trek lore, offered up her viewpoint on what the group was discussing. As one they stopped speaking and turned to look at her.
Utter silence for about fifteen seconds.
Then one of the group asked her a question. And another joined in. And so on. None of these people were over twenty five and all of them had only a passing familiarity with Star Trek. They knew of it but they knew nothing at all about it. Two hours later, we had made some new friends and turned some impulse viewers of the film into fledgling Star Trek fans. They were enthused to learn there was so much more than just the film. A few of them got rather excited when we mentioned STO. They came for the film and stayed afterwards because they met some people who liked Star Trek and were willing to share. I haven't run into any of them in game, but my wife says she has done so.
Anything which brings new people into Star Trek fandom is automatically something good. Without new fans, this thing will eventually fade. And then the naysayers will simply be shouting at the walls about, "How they killed MY Star Trek."
Never was yours in the first place. Belongs to all of us fans.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
While the JJ movies lacked substance, but so did Enterprise, most of Voyager and pretty much all of the other Trek movies (with a few obvious exceptions). There was also a time when TOS fans all but boycotted TNG for not being "real Trek" and the same thing happened to a lesser degree with DS9.
You don't have to like it, but it's asinine to argue that it isn't Star Trek because of that. Star Trek is different things to different people and at this point, it's going to be impossible for any new series, game or movie to make everyone happy.
Honestly.... when I compare the 2009 movie to TMP.... TMP SUCKS! It's boring, has scenes that are literally 10-15 minutes of staring at something... And despite it's length the story was refried and predictable. Seriously.. TMP was a retread of a TOS ep....
Anything which brings new people into Star Trek fandom is automatically something good. Without new fans, this thing will eventually fade. And then the naysayers will simply be shouting at the walls about, "How they killed MY Star Trek."
Never was yours in the first place. Belongs to all of us fans.
Yeah, one observation I've made about sci-fi is that you can tell how much life it has left by what percentage of it's fans are "purists". Purists think they're fans of the franchise, but usually reject new installments because the new thing is different. Why? A purist has their own idea as to what the franchise should be and that ideal often conflicts with what the creator of the franchise thinks.
While the JJ movies lacked substance, but so did Enterprise, most of Voyager and pretty much all of the other Trek movies (with a few obvious exceptions). There was also a time when TOS fans all but boycotted TNG for not being "real Trek" and the same thing happened to a lesser degree with DS9.
You don't have to like it, but it's asinine to argue that it isn't Star Trek because of that. Star Trek is different things to different people and at this point, it's going to be impossible for any new series, game or movie to make everyone happy.
Honestly.... when I compare the 2009 movie to TMP.... TMP SUCKS! It's boring, has scenes that are literally 10-15 minutes of staring at something... And despite it's length the story was refried and predictable. Seriously.. TMP was a retread of a TOS ep....
Anything which brings new people into Star Trek fandom is automatically something good. Without new fans, this thing will eventually fade. And then the naysayers will simply be shouting at the walls about, "How they killed MY Star Trek."
Never was yours in the first place. Belongs to all of us fans.
Yeah, one observation I've made about sci-fi is that you can tell how much life it has left by what percentage of it's fans are "purists". Purists think they're fans of the franchise, but usually reject new installments because the new thing is different. Why? A purist has their own idea as to what the franchise should be and that ideal often conflicts with what the creator of the franchise thinks.
I doubt even the most staunch Star Trek fan would consider TMP good.
but more to the point. I'm not a purist. But I am someone who's seen the trend left behind with movies like the 09 version. We get people who slip into Star Trek through those movies, find they either love, or hate the original Television series. that's what drives people into camps. One side believes the New Trek movies are the only ones that matter, the other sees both, likes one for the movie going experience, and the other for a more in depth experience to the Star Trek world.
Granted I started this at 0130 hrs today, and I was exhausted. that early me spoke my mind. I would love to embrace the trilogy into Star Trek, if it wasn't just the trilogy...because that's what is is, a trilogy. We've known for a while that the Star Trek movie line would most likely remain as a three movie experience.
People mentioned the old fans who protested TNG, well yea, and it's happening for this movie series as well. The main difference is, the Series lived on and moved further into the Star Trek franchise. this trilogy ends after the third movie. And to put it in even larger metaphorical sense. The Third movie is their way of saying "We acknowledge the issues, this is the last movie" it's not Directed by JJ, it's an attempt to close the series on a good note, after the (debatably) horribly mixed feelings "Into Darkness" was made and released. and even Into Darkness showed the true colors of what they were trying to do.
Star Trek started with Roddenberry's vision of a future humanity, with interesting tales to deliver to people, money was the thing needed to make that vision happen. The Movies are basically the opposite, the movies are entirely there not to bring people to Roddenberry's vision, but to make tons of money, that's it. They were made to piggy back on the established name (robocop, total recall, red dawn, ghostbusters) to make tons of freaking money, not "bring the franchise to the new age".
I guess that's why I'm one of the people who's so against these movies, not because I'm a purist, but because it is just not what Star Trek is.
I doubt even the most staunch Star Trek fan would consider TMP good.
Hi you just met one. I watch TMP a million times over than any JJ Junk. While the JJ fans is watching their new movie, I will be home watching the one that started it all.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
The problem isnt that the new movies are something "new". Its that they are desperately trying to be something innovative but failing horribly at the same time.
The story lines of the new movies are so bad one shouldnt really think about them. Inconsistencies and utter nonsense all over the place. Of course these shortcomings are hidden behind nice effects and explosions but they are there.
One example:
The Narada is traveling through a black hole into the past of a different quantum universe.
Now in the end of the movie another black hole is suddenly not another gateway to some other place but a deadly one which tears things up through increasing tidal forces.
This is in complete contradictory.
But i guess it makes sense in a universe where you can use red nail polish to create black holes.
The characters are unfortunately caricatures of the original ones. I think they should get rid of Spock's pointy ears because hes just as emotional as a human.
I dont even want to go into details here it would require way too much typing.
Alright one more example. Khan's blood that revived Kirk. Thats not "Science"-Fiction,its magic. Necromancy.
That being said if people like the new movies, good for them but the true spirit of Star Trek simply isnt there any more.
I also like Star Trek the Motion Picture. I would, in fact, rank it behind Generations, and First Contact, as my 3rd favorite Star Trek movie. Yes, it is slow but its scope is remarkable.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
No, it's not a contradiction. They didn't map out exactly how consistent the use of red matter was. It wasn't used to a precise effect the first time (the two ships ended up split apart by time, and apparently in a parallel universe). The second time it was used it continued to be inconsistent. It acted almost like Star Trek's version of Red Kryptonite.
So I'm not entirely sure why you think its use is consistent, controlled, understood or mapped out, when the plot of the film gives zero indication that any of that was the case.
But i guess it makes sense in a universe where you can use red nail polish to create black holes.
Red Matter Theory, is actual science btw. The Star Trek film takes it and uses it in ways that are completely fictional, but it's based on a lot more than red nail polish.
While the JJ movies lacked substance, but so did Enterprise, most of Voyager and pretty much all of the other Trek movies (with a few obvious exceptions). There was also a time when TOS fans all but boycotted TNG for not being "real Trek" and the same thing happened to a lesser degree with DS9.
You don't have to like it, but it's asinine to argue that it isn't Star Trek because of that. Star Trek is different things to different people and at this point, it's going to be impossible for any new series, game or movie to make everyone happy.
Honestly.... when I compare the 2009 movie to TMP.... TMP SUCKS! It's boring, has scenes that are literally 10-15 minutes of staring at something... And despite it's length the story was refried and predictable. Seriously.. TMP was a retread of a TOS ep....
Anything which brings new people into Star Trek fandom is automatically something good. Without new fans, this thing will eventually fade. And then the naysayers will simply be shouting at the walls about, "How they killed MY Star Trek."
Never was yours in the first place. Belongs to all of us fans.
Yeah, one observation I've made about sci-fi is that you can tell how much life it has left by what percentage of it's fans are "purists". Purists think they're fans of the franchise, but usually reject new installments because the new thing is different. Why? A purist has their own idea as to what the franchise should be and that ideal often conflicts with what the creator of the franchise thinks.
I doubt even the most staunch Star Trek fan would consider TMP good.
but more to the point. I'm not a purist. But I am someone who's seen the trend left behind with movies like the 09 version. We get people who slip into Star Trek through those movies, find they either love, or hate the original Television series. that's what drives people into camps. One side believes the New Trek movies are the only ones that matter, the other sees both, likes one for the movie going experience, and the other for a more in depth experience to the Star Trek world.
Granted I started this at 0130 hrs today, and I was exhausted. that early me spoke my mind. I would love to embrace the trilogy into Star Trek, if it wasn't just the trilogy...because that's what is is, a trilogy. We've known for a while that the Star Trek movie line would most likely remain as a three movie experience.
People mentioned the old fans who protested TNG, well yea, and it's happening for this movie series as well. The main difference is, the Series lived on and moved further into the Star Trek franchise. this trilogy ends after the third movie. And to put it in even larger metaphorical sense. The Third movie is their way of saying "We acknowledge the issues, this is the last movie" it's not Directed by JJ, it's an attempt to close the series on a good note, after the (debatably) horribly mixed feelings "Into Darkness" was made and released. and even Into Darkness showed the true colors of what they were trying to do.
Star Trek started with Roddenberry's vision of a future humanity, with interesting tales to deliver to people, money was the thing needed to make that vision happen. The Movies are basically the opposite, the movies are entirely there not to bring people to Roddenberry's vision, but to make tons of money, that's it. They were made to piggy back on the established name (robocop, total recall, red dawn, ghostbusters) to make tons of freaking money, not "bring the franchise to the new age".
I guess that's why I'm one of the people who's so against these movies, not because I'm a purist, but because it is just not what Star Trek is.
Sorry Star Trek is what Paramount SAYS it is. Star Trek grew past one man's vision A LOONNNNGGGG TIME ago. Anyone still holding on to that is basically looking at the world through rosy colored lenses and refuses to see the writing on the wall.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
My problem with JJ Trek is that the stories of James T. Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise have already been told, and told well enough to spawn numerous movies and 5 TV shows. With established personalities like these, I would think that those involved in the reboot would want to get them right.
Well... making Kirk into a juvenile delinquent and alcoholic who gets recruited into Star Fleet Academy from a bar fight, and emotional, irritated, or sometimes off the rails angry Spock who has a non pon farr relationship are the cardinal sins... not lens flair and special effects. The other supporting characters are fine, and Karl Urban as McCoy is golden. It would have been so much better if JJ picked a new ship and crew.
No, it's not a contradiction. They didn't map out exactly how consistent the use of red matter was. It wasn't used to a precise effect the first time (the two ships ended up split apart by time, and apparently in a parallel universe). The second time it was used it continued to be inconsistent. It acted almost like Star Trek's version of Red Kryptonite.
So I'm not entirely sure why you think its use is consistent, controlled, understood or mapped out, when the plot of the film gives zero indication that any of that was the case.
But i guess it makes sense in a universe where you can use red nail polish to create black holes.
Red Matter Theory, is actual science btw. The Star Trek film takes it and uses it ways that are completely fictional, but it's not based on red nail polish.
I was just going to comment on the Red Matter theory.....but in this game I always find it to be completely wasted as a device.
My problem with JJ Trek is that the stories of James T. Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise have already been told, and told well enough to spawn numerous movies and 5 TV shows. With established personalities like these, I would think that those involved in the reboot would want to get them right.
Well... making Kirk into a juvenile delinquent and alcoholic who gets recruited into Star Fleet Academy from a bar fight, and emotional, irritated, or sometimes off the rails angry Spock who has a non pon farr relationship are the cardinal sins... not lens flair and special effects. The other supporting characters are fine, and Karl Urban as McCoy is golden. It would have been so much better if JJ picked a new ship and crew.
I think Karl Urban was the best cast role of the entire series, and if Pine were a bit older, then he'd have been absolutely perfect as well....if he were just Kirk, and not the alcoholic manchild who is very distant from the role hes supposed to be portraying. but hey they say his father is dead, and that does notch things up a bit.
My problem with JJ Trek is that the stories of James T. Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise have already been told, and told well enough to spawn numerous movies and 5 TV shows.
Could you list the 5 tv shows that told the adventures of Kirk and Spock?
With established personalities like these, I would think that those involved in the reboot would want to get them right.
Here's a fun exercise in learning what the point of the reboot was about.
Take an hour or two of free time in the next couple of weeks. And try and write a Star Trek adventure/plot/idea revolving around Kirk, Spock and Bones. Something that happened in the first 5 year mission.
Do your best to "get them right."
Keep EVERY little bit of canon from previously established sources in mind. Make sure it's perfect and adheres to said canon.
Then post it in Ten Forward!
And watch us tear your creation to pieces for ... not being canon, and getting it completely wrong.
Then we'll talk about why writers and creators prefer retcons and reboots. Why they like having freedom, the ability to openly create their plots and develop their characters without having to worry about restraining boxes like canon and continuity.
Then maybe you'll understand why everyone from the latest team assigned to Rebirth the DC Universe and its icons like Superman and Batman and the Flash, alllllll the way up to the writers at Bad Robot, really like to work on sci-fi properties but do jump at the chance to break the chains of continuity when they can.
But first, please do write your own version of how to get Kirk and Spock right! I really think you need to be on the receiving end of the criticism that forums like this generate for Star Trek creations to truly understand why you've already gotten it wrong before you even started.
The problem isnt that the new movies are something "new". Its that they are desperately trying to be something innovative but failing horribly at the same time.
The story lines of the new movies are so bad one shouldnt really think about them. Inconsistencies and utter nonsense all over the place. Of course these shortcomings are hidden behind nice effects and explosions but they are there.
One example:
The Narada is traveling through a black hole into the past of a different quantum universe.
Now in the end of the movie another black hole is suddenly not another gateway to some other place but a deadly one which tears things up through increasing tidal forces.
This is in complete contradictory.
But i guess it makes sense in a universe where you can use red nail polish to create black holes.
The characters are unfortunately caricatures of the original ones. I think they should get rid of Spock's pointy ears because hes just as emotional as a human.
I dont even want to go into details here it would require way too much typing.
Alright one more example. Khan's blood that revived Kirk. Thats not "Science"-Fiction,its magic. Necromancy.
That being said if people like the new movies, good for them but the true spirit of Star Trek simply isnt there any more.
Actually it wasn't an alternate universe until Narada Destroyed the Kelvin. They actually went back in time to the PRIME universe and it didn't change until said ship was destroyed.
Much like Back to the future part 2 where Biff tannen goes back into the past, changes history with that Sports alminac and then creates the alternate reality Marty and Doc Brown come into, and it isn't fixed till Marty and Doc go back in time and destroy the very thing alternating reality.
Infact Daniels said they decided to allow that reality to exist when they could of easily sealed it off by simply destroying the Narada before the Kelvin is destroyed and time would of gone in the way we all know from the TOS.
Just some fun facts.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
They didn't map out exactly how consistent the use of red matter was. It wasn't used to a precise effect the first time (the two ships ended up split apart by time, and apparently in a parallel universe). The second time it was used it continued to be inconsistent. It acted almost like Star Trek's version of Red Kryptonite.
I am sorry but that is just a bad excuse for using science in a silly way.
Red Matter Theory, is actual science btw. The Star Trek film takes it and uses it in ways that are completely fictional, but it's based on a lot more than red nail polish.
There is no red matter theory.
The page you linked just made that name up.
Scientists found several very old stars lacking several metals, thats all. Thats no theory its a fact.
And the reason why these stars look red is because those stars have a very low temperature so they emit most of their light in the red/infrared spectrum. That doesnt mean that they are made of red matter.
So in the end red matter is indeed based on red nail polish.
My problem with JJ Trek is that the stories of James T. Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise have already been told, and told well enough to spawn numerous movies and 5 TV shows. With established personalities like these, I would think that those involved in the reboot would want to get them right.
Well... making Kirk into a juvenile delinquent and alcoholic who gets recruited into Star Fleet Academy from a bar fight, and emotional, irritated, or sometimes off the rails angry Spock who has a non pon farr relationship are the cardinal sins... not lens flair and special effects. The other supporting characters are fine, and Karl Urban as McCoy is golden. It would have been so much better if JJ picked a new ship and crew.
This sums up my thoughts.
Since JJ went to do the Star Wars movie. I wonder how those fans reaction would be. If he did the same treatment. Do a alternate reality of the first movie with the Death Star. Have Luke going around being drunk, not wanting to learn the force, being a delinquent, having making love to Leia, which later finds out that is his sister, then end up finding a way on his own at the end to win the day.
If JJ did a whole new ship and crew. I would have enjoyed it. Instead he made a horrible reboot.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Which page of the two I linked are you referring to?
Both.
The first one was talking about a star made of red matter. Which doesnt exist. See video explaination above what red dwarf stars are. The headline of that page mentioned red matter. You cant find any reference to it in the actual article.
The second link even says something about a red matter theory in the link description but there is again no reference to it in the actual article from 1994.
Star Trek started with Roddenberry's vision of a future humanity, with interesting tales to deliver to people, money was the thing needed to make that vision happen. The Movies are basically the opposite, the movies are entirely there not to bring people to Roddenberry's vision, but to make tons of money, that's it. They were made to piggy back on the established name (robocop, total recall, red dawn, ghostbusters) to make tons of freaking money, not "bring the franchise to the new age".
I guess that's why I'm one of the people who's so against these movies, not because I'm a purist, but because it is just not what Star Trek is.
Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about you have an idea as to what "Roddenberry's vision" was... but.... the reality seems to be different than what you imagine. This is the part where I get the urge to quote Zephram Cochran... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekeRswcbo5E
Now if only I could find the one where he talks about what he really wanted to get by inventing warp drive...
Actually it wasn't an alternate universe until Narada Destroyed the Kelvin. They actually went back in time to the PRIME universe and it didn't change until said ship was destroyed.
Much like Back to the future part 2 where Biff tannen goes back into the past, changes history with that Sports alminac and then creates the alternate reality Marty and Doc Brown come into, and it isn't fixed till Marty and Doc go back in time and destroy the very thing alternating reality.
Infact Daniels said they decided to allow that reality to exist when they could of easily sealed it off by simply destroying the Narada before the Kelvin is destroyed and time would of gone in the way we all know from the TOS.
Just some fun facts.
If you look at the Kelvin, it showed it was an Alternative Universe from the start. It was not in the Prime Universe, then started from there. As the Kelvin had too many features that wasn't TOS design. Thus making it not part of the Prime Universe. Paying attention to ship details is all the proof you need.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
If I have to put up with Enterprise being called Star Trek, you whiners can put up with the Kelvin Timeline being called Star Trek.
I have to put up with time travelling party-of-hitler aliens from Enterprise being at the forefront in STO, and do I show up on the forums pitching a fit over how much that storyline sucked and how it ultimately crippled any potential Enterprise had to stand on its own legs?
Only on occasion. For the most part I've gotten over it because there are some really strange people out there that seem to think Enterprise was somehow in some way a good part of Star Trek rather than the poison pill Rick Berman and Brannon Braga shoved down the franchise's throat until JJ Abrams brought Star Trek back to relevancy again.
I've had to put up with 1920's Chicago gangsters in ToS. I've had to put up with a fistful of Datas on another stupid holodeck episode of TNG. I've had to put up with Dr. Bashir and Chief O'Brien MacGuyvering their way into a Section 31 Operative's consciousness in DS9. I've had to put up with hyperlizards TRIBBLE in Voyager.
The sooner you get over the JJ Abrams films being part of Star Trek now and forever, the sooner we can get around to hating the new Star Trek television series because it's not Real(tm) Star Trek because of reasons and so forth.
Yeah the new trek films are much better than a LOT of the older trek stuff. The film from 09 is probably the third or fourth best of all the star trek films made so far. It was better than everything in enterprise and voyager without exception.
Wow really?
The new movies have better stories than Voyagers "Living witness" or "Distant Origin" for example?
Why are the new movies better? Because they have bigger and better explosions?
Or are they just cool because they promoted a cadet to captain.
DS9's "Valiant" is a perfect example why that should not have happened in the movie.
bimbo models who fight karate while freefalling and exploding with flares.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Comments
Yeah the Kardashians' popularity baffles me, their only claim to fame is that their father was part of the defense team in the OJ Simpson trial. They've never actually accomplished anything, at all.
My personal view is Star Trek is the TOS and TOS movies. I don't like TNG. I enjoyed DS9 and barely watch the other two series. If I had my way there would be no TNG...but the fact remains that TNG brought in a lot of new fans. A lot of people in this thread and on this website would not be here if it wasn't for TNG. I respect that. If Picard or Sisko or Janeway or even Archer is your captain and made you a fan of Star Trek...then welcome to the fandom.
The same needs to be done for the new movies. It's not what we have seen before because BY DESIGN it's not supposed to be what we seen before. Instead of shunning it and it's fans we need to be welcoming it into the fandom.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Well, and they conquered Bajor. Okay, that was apparently not very difficult and they didn't manage to keep it, but it's something, isn't it?
Seen it with the new Star Trek, seen it on a smaller scale with Eps 7 in SW and other shows.
It's entirely egotistical and pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Utter silence for about fifteen seconds.
Then one of the group asked her a question. And another joined in. And so on. None of these people were over twenty five and all of them had only a passing familiarity with Star Trek. They knew of it but they knew nothing at all about it. Two hours later, we had made some new friends and turned some impulse viewers of the film into fledgling Star Trek fans. They were enthused to learn there was so much more than just the film. A few of them got rather excited when we mentioned STO. They came for the film and stayed afterwards because they met some people who liked Star Trek and were willing to share. I haven't run into any of them in game, but my wife says she has done so.
Anything which brings new people into Star Trek fandom is automatically something good. Without new fans, this thing will eventually fade. And then the naysayers will simply be shouting at the walls about, "How they killed MY Star Trek."
Never was yours in the first place. Belongs to all of us fans.
yup. that's it in a nutshell.
/thread
My character Tsin'xing
I doubt even the most staunch Star Trek fan would consider TMP good.
but more to the point. I'm not a purist. But I am someone who's seen the trend left behind with movies like the 09 version. We get people who slip into Star Trek through those movies, find they either love, or hate the original Television series. that's what drives people into camps. One side believes the New Trek movies are the only ones that matter, the other sees both, likes one for the movie going experience, and the other for a more in depth experience to the Star Trek world.
Granted I started this at 0130 hrs today, and I was exhausted. that early me spoke my mind. I would love to embrace the trilogy into Star Trek, if it wasn't just the trilogy...because that's what is is, a trilogy. We've known for a while that the Star Trek movie line would most likely remain as a three movie experience.
People mentioned the old fans who protested TNG, well yea, and it's happening for this movie series as well. The main difference is, the Series lived on and moved further into the Star Trek franchise. this trilogy ends after the third movie. And to put it in even larger metaphorical sense. The Third movie is their way of saying "We acknowledge the issues, this is the last movie" it's not Directed by JJ, it's an attempt to close the series on a good note, after the (debatably) horribly mixed feelings "Into Darkness" was made and released. and even Into Darkness showed the true colors of what they were trying to do.
Star Trek started with Roddenberry's vision of a future humanity, with interesting tales to deliver to people, money was the thing needed to make that vision happen. The Movies are basically the opposite, the movies are entirely there not to bring people to Roddenberry's vision, but to make tons of money, that's it. They were made to piggy back on the established name (robocop, total recall, red dawn, ghostbusters) to make tons of freaking money, not "bring the franchise to the new age".
I guess that's why I'm one of the people who's so against these movies, not because I'm a purist, but because it is just not what Star Trek is.
Hi you just met one. I watch TMP a million times over than any JJ Junk. While the JJ fans is watching their new movie, I will be home watching the one that started it all.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
The story lines of the new movies are so bad one shouldnt really think about them. Inconsistencies and utter nonsense all over the place. Of course these shortcomings are hidden behind nice effects and explosions but they are there.
One example:
The Narada is traveling through a black hole into the past of a different quantum universe.
Now in the end of the movie another black hole is suddenly not another gateway to some other place but a deadly one which tears things up through increasing tidal forces.
This is in complete contradictory.
But i guess it makes sense in a universe where you can use red nail polish to create black holes.
The characters are unfortunately caricatures of the original ones. I think they should get rid of Spock's pointy ears because hes just as emotional as a human.
I dont even want to go into details here it would require way too much typing.
Alright one more example. Khan's blood that revived Kirk. Thats not "Science"-Fiction,its magic. Necromancy.
That being said if people like the new movies, good for them but the true spirit of Star Trek simply isnt there any more.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
No, it's not a contradiction. They didn't map out exactly how consistent the use of red matter was. It wasn't used to a precise effect the first time (the two ships ended up split apart by time, and apparently in a parallel universe). The second time it was used it continued to be inconsistent. It acted almost like Star Trek's version of Red Kryptonite.
So I'm not entirely sure why you think its use is consistent, controlled, understood or mapped out, when the plot of the film gives zero indication that any of that was the case.
Red Matter Theory, is actual science btw. The Star Trek film takes it and uses it in ways that are completely fictional, but it's based on a lot more than red nail polish.
Sorry Star Trek is what Paramount SAYS it is. Star Trek grew past one man's vision A LOONNNNGGGG TIME ago. Anyone still holding on to that is basically looking at the world through rosy colored lenses and refuses to see the writing on the wall.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Well... making Kirk into a juvenile delinquent and alcoholic who gets recruited into Star Fleet Academy from a bar fight, and emotional, irritated, or sometimes off the rails angry Spock who has a non pon farr relationship are the cardinal sins... not lens flair and special effects. The other supporting characters are fine, and Karl Urban as McCoy is golden. It would have been so much better if JJ picked a new ship and crew.
Member since December 2009
I was just going to comment on the Red Matter theory.....but in this game I always find it to be completely wasted as a device.
I think Karl Urban was the best cast role of the entire series, and if Pine were a bit older, then he'd have been absolutely perfect as well....if he were just Kirk, and not the alcoholic manchild who is very distant from the role hes supposed to be portraying. but hey they say his father is dead, and that does notch things up a bit.
Could you list the 5 tv shows that told the adventures of Kirk and Spock?
Here's a fun exercise in learning what the point of the reboot was about.
Take an hour or two of free time in the next couple of weeks. And try and write a Star Trek adventure/plot/idea revolving around Kirk, Spock and Bones. Something that happened in the first 5 year mission.
Do your best to "get them right."
Keep EVERY little bit of canon from previously established sources in mind. Make sure it's perfect and adheres to said canon.
Then post it in Ten Forward!
And watch us tear your creation to pieces for ... not being canon, and getting it completely wrong.
Then we'll talk about why writers and creators prefer retcons and reboots. Why they like having freedom, the ability to openly create their plots and develop their characters without having to worry about restraining boxes like canon and continuity.
Then maybe you'll understand why everyone from the latest team assigned to Rebirth the DC Universe and its icons like Superman and Batman and the Flash, alllllll the way up to the writers at Bad Robot, really like to work on sci-fi properties but do jump at the chance to break the chains of continuity when they can.
But first, please do write your own version of how to get Kirk and Spock right! I really think you need to be on the receiving end of the criticism that forums like this generate for Star Trek creations to truly understand why you've already gotten it wrong before you even started.
Edit: Deleted because I was wrong. My bad. TRIBBLE CBS and TRIBBLE TRIBBLE and TRIBBLE JJ Abrams and not in a fun way.
Actually it wasn't an alternate universe until Narada Destroyed the Kelvin. They actually went back in time to the PRIME universe and it didn't change until said ship was destroyed.
Much like Back to the future part 2 where Biff tannen goes back into the past, changes history with that Sports alminac and then creates the alternate reality Marty and Doc Brown come into, and it isn't fixed till Marty and Doc go back in time and destroy the very thing alternating reality.
Infact Daniels said they decided to allow that reality to exist when they could of easily sealed it off by simply destroying the Narada before the Kelvin is destroyed and time would of gone in the way we all know from the TOS.
Just some fun facts.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I am sorry but that is just a bad excuse for using science in a silly way.
There is no red matter theory.
The page you linked just made that name up.
Scientists found several very old stars lacking several metals, thats all. Thats no theory its a fact.
And the reason why these stars look red is because those stars have a very low temperature so they emit most of their light in the red/infrared spectrum. That doesnt mean that they are made of red matter.
So in the end red matter is indeed based on red nail polish.
This sums up my thoughts.
Since JJ went to do the Star Wars movie. I wonder how those fans reaction would be. If he did the same treatment. Do a alternate reality of the first movie with the Death Star. Have Luke going around being drunk, not wanting to learn the force, being a delinquent, having making love to Leia, which later finds out that is his sister, then end up finding a way on his own at the end to win the day.
If JJ did a whole new ship and crew. I would have enjoyed it. Instead he made a horrible reboot.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
It's not even close to being that simple. Scientists are still learning about black holes and what they are and how they work.
Well you've certainly changed my mind now! Thanks for the insight!
Which page of the two I linked are you referring to?
I can link you a few useful videos.
Black Holes: Crash Course Astronomy #33
Black Holes Explained – From Birth to Death
What if there was a black hole in your pocket?
The Last Star in the Universe – Red Dwarfs Explained
The videos should clear things up a bit.
Both.
The first one was talking about a star made of red matter. Which doesnt exist. See video explaination above what red dwarf stars are. The headline of that page mentioned red matter. You cant find any reference to it in the actual article.
The second link even says something about a red matter theory in the link description but there is again no reference to it in the actual article from 1994.
Now if only I could find the one where he talks about what he really wanted to get by inventing warp drive...
My character Tsin'xing
If you look at the Kelvin, it showed it was an Alternative Universe from the start. It was not in the Prime Universe, then started from there. As the Kelvin had too many features that wasn't TOS design. Thus making it not part of the Prime Universe. Paying attention to ship details is all the proof you need.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
I have to put up with time travelling party-of-hitler aliens from Enterprise being at the forefront in STO, and do I show up on the forums pitching a fit over how much that storyline sucked and how it ultimately crippled any potential Enterprise had to stand on its own legs?
Only on occasion. For the most part I've gotten over it because there are some really strange people out there that seem to think Enterprise was somehow in some way a good part of Star Trek rather than the poison pill Rick Berman and Brannon Braga shoved down the franchise's throat until JJ Abrams brought Star Trek back to relevancy again.
I've had to put up with 1920's Chicago gangsters in ToS. I've had to put up with a fistful of Datas on another stupid holodeck episode of TNG. I've had to put up with Dr. Bashir and Chief O'Brien MacGuyvering their way into a Section 31 Operative's consciousness in DS9. I've had to put up with hyperlizards TRIBBLE in Voyager.
The sooner you get over the JJ Abrams films being part of Star Trek now and forever, the sooner we can get around to hating the new Star Trek television series because it's not Real(tm) Star Trek because of reasons and so forth.
The new movies have better stories than Voyagers "Living witness" or "Distant Origin" for example?
Why are the new movies better? Because they have bigger and better explosions?
Or are they just cool because they promoted a cadet to captain.
DS9's "Valiant" is a perfect example why that should not have happened in the movie.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."