Star Wars & Sc-Fi Talk

K

kyanges

Junior Member
Just saw Star Trek yesterday, and it was pretty good. The issues with the film I had were:

Like the first, it utterly fails in delivering any decent moral exploration that Trek is known for. Like the first, it's got at least a couple massive Science and technology related plot holes. Like the first, it's just explosions, and shouting and crying. So much crying in this film. I'm not sure which main character didn't cry.

Worse than the first, the villain is just a little underwhelming. None of the characters, aside from Kirk, really had an arc.


(Spoilers)

-Khan's transwarp beaming device was a one shot from Earth to Qo'nos/Kronos. What? And why is there only one of these awesome devices?
-Spock Prime makes an appearance for no good reason.
-The role reversal in the ending apparently offended not just knowledgeable Trek fans, but also newer audience members who saw what was coming just by virtue of those references scenes being so popular outside of Trek circles already. (ex: KHAAAAAAAAN!!!, Spock dies, etc.) I wasn't so offended as just a little bored, since I saw what was coming a mile away. This really only applies to the ending.


(End spoilers)


Other thoughts:
-I wanted to see how classic events were altered in the new timeline, and this delivered.
-For whatever reason the writers didn't think this already apply to Into Darkness, but the next Trek has all the excuses it needs now to completely stop referencing classic Trek, and just explore its new universe. It absolutely must do this.
-The action was well handled.
-So much crying.
-Character interaction carries the film like last time.
-Still don't see what Uhura likes in Spock
 
Last edited:
P

Player 0

Junior Member
AssassinsMace said:
Just in case someone misunderstood my angle the new crew would be dropped into the Abrams universe but at the same date in time they were in not back to the time where the movies are set. So that way the whole universe would have changed with a different history. The Federation might be near extinction or the Jem'Hedar might have taken over a large portion of the alpha quadrant or Khan may have created his own empire of super humans.
Click to expand...

Again what would be the point?

We've barely established anything in Abrams' universe as is let alone a century forward in its timeline.

What would be the point since nothing is established and no canon has been built up as a framework from which this kind of complex story telling needs to be set up, you've got nothing even remotely like that in the Abrams films and can only rely on recycling rather than innovating. Again it still just makes more sense to work with either the old established universe or actually put some effort into fleshing out the new one, something that is quite simply beyond Orci and Abrams who treat scripts as a means to frame action sequences that they can masturbate to.

You can have more canon-building in the opening segments of Balance of Terror or Errand of Mercy than all of Abrams' filmography put together.
 
P

Player 0

Junior Member
kyanges said:
Just saw Star Trek yesterday, and it was pretty good. The issues with the film I had were:

Like the first, it utterly fails in delivering any decent moral exploration that Trek is known for. Like the first, it's got at least a couple massive Science and technology related plot holes. Like the first, it's just explosions, and shouting and crying. So much crying in this film. I'm not sure which main character didn't cry.

Worse than the first, the villain is just a little underwhelming. None of the characters, aside from Kirk, really had an arc.


(Spoilers)

-Khan's transwarp beaming device was a one shot from Earth to Qo'nos/Kronos. What? And why is there only one of these awesome devices?
-Spock Prime makes an appearance for no good reason.
-The role reversal in the ending apparently offended not just knowledgeable Trek fans, but also newer audience members who saw what was coming just by virtue of those references scenes being so popular outside of Trek circles already. (ex: KHAAAAAAAAN!!!, Spock dies, etc.) I wasn't so offended as just a little bored, since I saw what was coming a mile away. This really only applies to the ending.


(End spoilers)


Other thoughts:
-I wanted to see how classic events were altered in the new timeline, and this delivered.
-For whatever reason the writers didn't think this already apply to Into Darkness, but the next Trek has all the excuses it needs now to completely stop referencing classic Trek, and just explore its new universe. It absolutely must do this.
-The action was well handled.
-So much crying.
-Character interaction carries the film like last time.
-Still don't see what Uhura likes in Spock
Click to expand...

Each point you made can be turned into a rant unto itself, not the least of which being why if the galaxy is in this state of constant war why hasn't it broken into a massive feeding frenzy of unending warfare between the great powers, in the 90s and the TOS series they explained this by virtue of great power parity and balance of power that actually makes logical sense.

The only thing worth saying at this point is the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman writing style is much like the joke about Braga and Berman, they're like the Pakleds of screenwriterings

"We look for themes, themes that make money"

But using the word theme seems too generous i'm sure you guys get my point, they're just throwing anything at the audience that'll make money, its more like a script written for and by focus groups, i have a strong suspicion after looking up interviews with Orci in the run up to the film that the crying was meant to convey the seriousness of the situation and character development none of which was present because bad writing can't convey that no matter how many types of bullshit forced emotion you put in there.

Its practically pavlavian, either in the sense that the writers think they fix their mistakes and get audience to have the required reaction by showing them pre-processed visual signals of their choice, or in the sense that this is actually how they process emotions and thoughts, because i honestly can't see how anyone who has any grasp of how to write or just basic human nature could possibly think that this is how you're supposed to make a movie.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Player 0 said:
Again what would be the point?

We've barely established anything in Abrams' universe as is let alone a century forward in its timeline.

What would be the point since nothing is established and no canon has been built up as a framework from which this kind of complex story telling needs to be set up, you've got nothing even remotely like that in the Abrams films and can only rely on recycling rather than innovating. Again it still just makes more sense to work with either the old established universe or actually put some effort into fleshing out the new one, something that is quite simply beyond Orci and Abrams who treat scripts as a means to frame action sequences that they can masturbate to.

You can have more canon-building in the opening segments of Balance of Terror or Errand of Mercy than all of Abrams' filmography put together.
Click to expand...

The way Hollywood thinks they're not going to go back to the original universe because they would see it not in-line with the movies. I sort of think Abrams ruined Star Trek from now on regarding television series in the future. If we go through a rehash of history with the Abrams universe it'll just be another Enterprise series. That didn't work and they even changed history for their show too. Into Darkness did not live up to how much they thought they were going to make this weekend. By what I'm reading of fan reviews they're more upset than happy with this installment. So the only way to stay within the Abrams universe for a TV show and satisfy the unhappy fans base is to bring back the familiar but not rehash history. Because right now if Abrams is given control over the TV series he's not going to appease the fan base if he continues with what he's been doing with Star Trek movies. Personally I wouldn't want to watch a Star Trek that was all about relationships between crew members.

I'm a fan of Star Trek. I'm also a fan of football but I'm not like some football fans that have every statistic memorized. So if I understand correctly the Vulcans played a major role in the direction of the Federation. Since Abrams basically wiped out the Vulcans, I imagine the Federation in the future will be quite different from the original. That's why I'd suggest having a starship crew from the original universe from the time at the end of the TV series run and transferred them over to the Abrams universe at the same point in time they came from. That crew would be in the same boat as the fans having known the original universe now having to explore a whole new one and may even be in conflict with the Abrams universe Federation.

Reliving the past even it's an altered one like Abrams created is why I look at the Star Wars movies since the original as lesser. There's still some restrictions and you're bound to conflict with them. In the Enterprise series they saw Romulans before Kirk's encounter in Balance of Terror where supposedly that was the first human visual contact with a Romulan. It's going to be a given the new series is going to be set in the Abrams universe unless fans quickly grow tired of the Abrams angle and they again reboot the movies or TV series. But rebooting is essentially going to bring up the same problems people have with Abrams angle. So the only way to avoid being restricted like with Star Wars and have news stories to explore completely unrestricted is to avoid any sort of reliving the past. The Abrams universe is here to stay and I don't think the original is at all coming back.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Abrams like it or not made his Trek in line with the traditions via use of a well know trek plot device the alternate time line. What you are going to see now is a splintering among us fans. Abramsverse will get another movie at the moment I see nothing that indicates a new tv show in the works. It will rise and survive in the same way that the Traditionalverse will their outlet in the form of Star Trek online and the like. Activivision and the like are the evolution. television is dead. The rise of the internet, on demand and interactive global computer gaming are where the next Trek will emerge. And guess what Star Trek foresaw it. The holodeck, on your lap in your hands, on your desk and everywhere.
 
P

Player 0

Junior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Abrams like it or not made his Trek in line with the traditions via use of a well know trek plot device the alternate time line. What you are going to see now is a splintering among us fans. Abramsverse will get another movie at the moment I see nothing that indicates a new tv show in the works. It will rise and survive in the same way that the Traditionalverse will their outlet in the form of Star Trek online and the like. Activivision and the like are the evolution. television is dead. The rise of the internet, on demand and interactive global computer gaming are where the next Trek will emerge. And guess what Star Trek foresaw it. The holodeck, on your lap in your hands, on your desk and everywhere.
Click to expand...

It will survive, but it won't be memorable, beyond how awful it is, it'll be remembered in the same manner as Tim Burton's Batman, but even that would be too generous since Burton's aesthetics are memorable in their own right and this was just bland and generic and of its 'period', it'll quickly be forgotten because superficiality is its only saving grace, people will still be talking about TOS, TNG and DS9 because there was actual thought, love, creativity, imagination and passion going into that, not how much more money can we squeeze from recycled intellectual property.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That player is your opinion and you are open to it. I hated deep space nine I was not a fan of the two B's. The recycled scripts and seemed to be more interested in mass producing spin offs. That said for the record not everything in Trek was original either. You mentioned "The Balance of Terror" look for a movie called " Enemy Below".
 
P

Player 0

Junior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
That player is your opinion and you are open to it. I hated deep space nine I was not a fan of the two B's. The recycled scripts and seemed to be more interested in mass producing spin offs. That said for the record not everything in Trek was original either. You mentioned "The Balance of Terror" look for a movie called " Enemy Below".
Click to expand...

I never said anything about Trek being original, Trek's strength was taking the setting and canon as being intellectually serious and capable of such, something Abrams totally lacks, doing something original or doing something derivative really doesn't matter as much as doing it well, something Abrams hasn't been able to accomplish in anything beyond superficial action sequences.

Berman and Braga weren't as bad as Abrams, but yes they were bad, the real strength behind Trek came from Michael Pillar, Ronald D Moore and Ira Steven Behr, among others, who were the true creative strength behind the 90s era treks, Voy had good points with characters like Tuvok, Seven and the Doctor, but otherwise was an utter bore, ENT was terrible and the successes of season 4 was too little too late.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Bringing back a Piece of history.

Well this may not be about a new movie or TV show But it is part of it. The Shuttle Galileo has landed in a place of deserved honor.

[video]http://www.space.com/21008-star-trek-galileo-shuttlecraft-to-land-at-space-center-houston-video.html[/video]

'Star Trek' Shuttlecraft Galileo Warps to Houston Museum This Year
by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff WriterDate: 07 May 2013 Time: 01:34 PM ET

Schneider has been planning to donate the Galileo to a place like Space Center Houston since he began the restoration.


Officials from the space center are "honored" to receive the donation, said Space Center Houston spokesman Roger Bornstein.

"It's really an honor to have one of the crafts [from the original 'Star Trek' series] on display and hopefully connect another generation of kids with a career in space, math or science," Bornstein told SPACE.com.

Schneider won the Galileo at an auction in 2012. Since October, he and his wife, Leslie Schneider, have been working to restore the spacecraft responsible for shuttling the crew of the Starship Enterprise to and from the surface of planets.

"[The spacecraft] NEW YORK — A science fiction relic from "Star Trek" has found its final frontier … in Houston.

The original Shuttlecraft Galileo from the 1960s science fiction TV series is bound for Space Center Houston to be placed on public display near the heart of the American manned-spaceflight program, SPACE.com has learned. The museum is the official visitor center for NASA's Johnson Space Center, the home of NASA's astronaut corps and Mission Control.

"I think a NASA facility is the embodiment of manned space travel," said Adam Schneider, the "Star Trek" superfan responsible for the restoration. "This is the beginning of [Space Center Houston's] entrée into how fictional visions of space travel led to the actual thing occurring."
was in abysmal condition for a long time, and I'm known as the guy who gets spaceships and restores them," Schneider told SPACE.com. "I kind of felt it was a bit of a public interest to bring it back to life."

Currently, the Galileo is in the final stages of restoration at Master Shipwrights — a boat refurbishment shop in Atlantic Highlands, N.J., Although Schneider has restored spaceship miniatures, he didn't think he had the expertise to do this refurbishment himself, so he enlisted the help of the shop owner, Hans Mikaitis and his team of professionals to restore the Galileo.

For the most part, the restoration has been carried out using plans created by fans on the Internet. Schneider and his Galileo restoration partner Alec Peters have interviewed Trekkies from all over the country to get their input on the refurbishment.

Most of the pieces of the Galileo had to be replaced. The original metal frame is still used in Schneider's final version, but the wood of the ship was rotted out by years of neglect.

Large set pieces like Galileo were not built to be maintained, Schneider said, but he wants to be sure that his restoration lasts.
"Not only is it going to be cosmetically good, but from a structural point of view, from a quality-of-finish point of view, from a quality-of-wood point of view and from an ability to move it safely without damaging it, it has never been in better shape," Schneider said.

Galileo’s presence at Space Center Houston could create a whole new generation of "Star Trek" fans who are only used to seeing computer-generated images and not actual models, Schneider said.

"I'm hoping that it will reinvigorate some of the appreciation for the artistry of the original show," Schneider added.
Click to expand...


The Model is the Actual life size prop used form the TOS it's one of Two major Trek History objects Currently under restoration for donation. The other is the Bridge set of the Enterprise D.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I read a couple interesting tidbits recently. Levar Burton was reported to have heard JJ Abrams say that he wanted only his Star Trek to be remembered which ruffled Burton's feathers. Then I read recently that apparently George Lucas said he was not involved in Episode VII. In Hollywood that can be code that he's been pushed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top