On May 20 2013 07:19 Flicky wrote: I'm not a massive Star Trek fan and I like these movies. I don't like to rag on small plot points and whatnot but one thing confused me (small spoiler)
iirc, the movie is set in 2259. This would make the creation of the whole super-human people be in 1959. I mean it doesn't ruin the movie or anything like that at all, it just stuck out to me as a little odd. Eh, not important, but Spock did say that he'd already done something with killing people to get his crew back. I don't know the history of this universe but I figured it was meant to be ours.
It should be ours. And this is one among others that don't add up.
Kirk also had 4 panels (Captain) on his shoulders while under attack from Harrison in the meeting room. But he had 3 (Commander) in the turbo lift because he was just degraded.
On May 19 2013 18:38 BillClinton wrote: What is missing most in the new star trek movies is the philosophy. I can watch TNG again and again, the in-depth going ideas never end to inspire your mind. In the new star trek movies I can hardly find any seemingly unresolvable moral dilemmata.
How about the question of terrorists who flee to territory of an enemy force? Do you risk war by chasing? Do you send unmanned drones long range torpedos? Granted, the script avoided one of the questions by stating that the region is "deserted" but others are still there.
Basically it's the "kobayashi maru" question twisted with a terrorist instead of innocent (?) civilians. But Kirk had no reason to believe that the criminal he was after would stop bombing federational territory.
Just because Jean Luc doesn't hold a speech about it doesn't mean it isn't there
Edit: Just to be clear: Adm. Marcus stated that the situation was already heated with the klings attacking(?) fed ship.
I liked the movie but I felt that the change of tone at the beginning between fun/dark was a bit off. But bonus to cumberbatch. He did a great job. He is better - at everything.
I thought the better point was of preemptive war. You believe war is inevitable in the future, so you prepare for it and attack first in order to gain an advantage, thus increasing the chance that war occurs. It's escalating to war for the sake of having a better chance of winning the war, not for a clear political/territorial objective.
Unfortunately, it actually happens in human history.
Obviously the movie didn't spend much time on it, but it's still there and worth thinking about.
I agree that the new movies don't go as far as TNG in terms of opening philosophical questions, but really neither did the original Star Trek.
On May 20 2013 07:19 Flicky wrote: I'm not a massive Star Trek fan and I like these movies. I don't like to rag on small plot points and whatnot but one thing confused me (small spoiler)
iirc, the movie is set in 2259. This would make the creation of the whole super-human people be in 1959. I mean it doesn't ruin the movie or anything like that at all, it just stuck out to me as a little odd. Eh, not important, but Spock did say that he'd already done something with killing people to get his crew back. I don't know the history of this universe but I figured it was meant to be ours.
On May 19 2013 18:38 BillClinton wrote: What is missing most in the new star trek movies is the philosophy. I can watch TNG again and again, the in-depth going ideas never end to inspire your mind. In the new star trek movies I can hardly find any seemingly unresolvable moral dilemmata.
How about the question of terrorists who flee to territory of an enemy force? Do you risk war by chasing? Do you send unmanned drones long range torpedos? Granted, the script avoided one of the questions by stating that the region is "deserted" but others are still there.
Basically it's the "kobayashi maru" question twisted with a terrorist instead of innocent (?) civilians. But Kirk had no reason to believe that the criminal he was after would stop bombing federational territory.
Just because Jean Luc doesn't hold a speech about it doesn't mean it isn't there
Edit: Just to be clear: Adm. Marcus stated that the situation was already heated with the klings attacking(?) fed ship.
I liked the movie but I felt that the change of tone at the beginning between fun/dark was a bit off. But bonus to cumberbatch. He did a great job. He is better - at everything.
I thought the better point was of preemptive war. You believe war is inevitable in the future, so you prepare for it and attack first in order to gain an advantage, thus increasing the chance that war occurs. It's escalating to war for the sake of having a better chance of winning the war, not for a clear political/territorial objective.
Unfortunately, it actually happens in human history.
Obviously the movie didn't spend much time on it, but it's still there and worth thinking about.
I agree that the new movies don't go as far as TNG in terms of opening philosophical questions, but really neither did the original Star Trek.
On May 20 2013 07:19 Flicky wrote: I'm not a massive Star Trek fan and I like these movies. I don't like to rag on small plot points and whatnot but one thing confused me (small spoiler)
iirc, the movie is set in 2259. This would make the creation of the whole super-human people be in 1959. I mean it doesn't ruin the movie or anything like that at all, it just stuck out to me as a little odd. Eh, not important, but Spock did say that he'd already done something with killing people to get his crew back. I don't know the history of this universe but I figured it was meant to be ours.
I'd pay money (instead of downloading a cam version haha) to watch the Red Skull lead the Klingons in a war with Captain America and the Federation. That'd be so tits.
On May 20 2013 07:19 Flicky wrote: I'm not a massive Star Trek fan and I like these movies. I don't like to rag on small plot points and whatnot but one thing confused me (small spoiler)
iirc, the movie is set in 2259. This would make the creation of the whole super-human people be in 1959. I mean it doesn't ruin the movie or anything like that at all, it just stuck out to me as a little odd. Eh, not important, but Spock did say that he'd already done something with killing people to get his crew back. I don't know the history of this universe but I figured it was meant to be ours.
It should be ours. And this is one among others that don't add up.
that stardate 2259 doesn't actually mean 2259. The years don't have to align like that if they don't want them to. Stardate could be 2000+ years in the future depending on when they decide to have switched to the new date counting method. OFC that is a huge cop out answer, and I suspect they didn't plan it that way, haha.
On May 19 2013 18:38 BillClinton wrote: What is missing most in the new star trek movies is the philosophy. I can watch TNG again and again, the in-depth going ideas never end to inspire your mind. In the new star trek movies I can hardly find any seemingly unresolvable moral dilemmata.
How about the question of terrorists who flee to territory of an enemy force? Do you risk war by chasing? Do you send unmanned drones long range torpedos? Granted, the script avoided one of the questions by stating that the region is "deserted" but others are still there.
Basically it's the "kobayashi maru" question twisted with a terrorist instead of innocent (?) civilians. But Kirk had no reason to believe that the criminal he was after would stop bombing federational territory.
Just because Jean Luc doesn't hold a speech about it doesn't mean it isn't there
Edit: Just to be clear: Adm. Marcus stated that the situation was already heated with the klings attacking(?) fed ship.
I liked the movie but I felt that the change of tone at the beginning between fun/dark was a bit off. But bonus to cumberbatch. He did a great job. He is better - at everything.
I thought the better point was of preemptive war. You believe war is inevitable in the future, so you prepare for it and attack first in order to gain an advantage, thus increasing the chance that war occurs. It's escalating to war for the sake of having a better chance of winning the war, not for a clear political/territorial objective.
Unfortunately, it actually happens in human history.
Obviously the movie didn't spend much time on it, but it's still there and worth thinking about.
I agree that the new movies don't go as far as TNG in terms of opening philosophical questions, but really neither did the original Star Trek.
On May 20 2013 07:19 Flicky wrote: I'm not a massive Star Trek fan and I like these movies. I don't like to rag on small plot points and whatnot but one thing confused me (small spoiler)
iirc, the movie is set in 2259. This would make the creation of the whole super-human people be in 1959. I mean it doesn't ruin the movie or anything like that at all, it just stuck out to me as a little odd. Eh, not important, but Spock did say that he'd already done something with killing people to get his crew back. I don't know the history of this universe but I figured it was meant to be ours.
I didn't think about that but it certainly is a a question worth thinking about. I do hope they expand on these questions in the upcoming movies and don't simply brush it off as "meh, happens". (dead klingons!)
The movie was lots of fun, with just enough nerd fan service to keep me happy. It was incredibly predictable though, but that didn't necessarily mess with my enjoyment.
On May 20 2013 08:43 Blackrobe wrote: Just got back.
Very much a straight forward summer action flick, "Star Trek" version.
7/10.
Watched it today and could not agree more. Though I really disliked the 3D in it overall. I think a crisp and clear picture without 3D I would have enjoyed more - except for the scene in the beginning, that was pretty good.
Admiral Marcus uses the dreadnaught teleporter to TP his daughter off the ship right after leaving warp. 20min later Khan wants to TP his crew off but can't because the shields are up (something we all know stops TPing).
So are we just supposed to assume that the shields were down during warp and that they were so caught off guard by the Dreadnaught that they didn't put them back up (even after like 2min...) allowing Marcus to TP his daughter off, yet when they engaged the Khan controlled ship they happen to put it back up at some point?
I'm assuming this is what happened but I really wish they would have explained it away with a single line. They explain so many other things with 1 line. This is one situation where it would have been useful to have somebody on the bridge say as he is TPing his daughter "our shields went offline during warp!" or have Khan say something like "I see you've put your shields back up." Anything. It stood out like a sore thumb to me the 2nd time I saw this movie because both TP scenes are very big.
does anyone know the name of the song that played near the beginning and in the credits that was like a mix of the main theme but had those really definitive 2 major 1 minor chords by the orchestra? not really sure how else to describe it but those 3 chords were so good
On May 20 2013 07:19 Flicky wrote: I'm not a massive Star Trek fan and I like these movies. I don't like to rag on small plot points and whatnot but one thing confused me (small spoiler)
iirc, the movie is set in 2259. This would make the creation of the whole super-human people be in 1959. I mean it doesn't ruin the movie or anything like that at all, it just stuck out to me as a little odd. Eh, not important, but Spock did say that he'd already done something with killing people to get his crew back. I don't know the history of this universe but I figured it was meant to be ours.
It should be ours. And this is one among others that don't add up.
that stardate 2259 doesn't actually mean 2259. The years don't have to align like that if they don't want them to. Stardate could be 2000+ years in the future depending on when they decide to have switched to the new date counting method. OFC that is a huge cop out answer, and I suspect they didn't plan it that way, haha.
actually they are much more true to the original series then hard core trekkies give them credit + Show Spoiler +
The reference to him being almost 300 years old is does push it back to 1959....but that was his birth. and that was what the original series reference it as......the Eugenics Wars were from 1992 to 1996. Truth be told the original series screwed it up. Abrams is just continuing it because of the hardcore trekkies will freak
On May 20 2013 12:42 FinestHour wrote: hmm its not that one it had like those 3 chirds by the low brass that was really menacing and really defined, but sounded so good
On May 20 2013 12:42 FinestHour wrote: hmm its not that one it had like those 3 chirds by the low brass that was really menacing and really defined, but sounded so good
Which scene or part of movie?
i remember most clearly it was during the credits, right at the end of the movie when the names were flashing along with the planets and the space background before the credits turned black
I suppose that had some impact, but not much. We really don't know enough about Pike to care. We see a little of him in ST and again in ST: ID so there is little to base an emotional connection to Pike. He does not really figure much in the OS, either, from what I recall. A couple of episodes only, I think. One of which is him as an old man in a wheelchair. I believe the episode has to do with rejuvenation where Pike tries to become young again - TNG does a similar episode - but I can't really remember.
Killing a character from the original Universe may have worked, if they had picked someone else. Someone who actually consistently figures in the original Universe and was known and cared about - even if only by Trek fans.
If you didn't care about Pike, then it's odd. He was a likeable character with sufficient screen time and acting as a buffer between Kirk's crew and the Federation administration.
On May 20 2013 11:27 On_Slaught wrote: I'm not the most up to date on star treck technology, but in order to avoid a pretty obvious plot hole, this is what happened right:
Admiral Marcus uses the dreadnaught teleporter to TP his daughter off the ship right after leaving warp. 20min later Khan wants to TP his crew off but can't because the shields are up (something we all know stops TPing).
So are we just supposed to assume that the shields were down during warp and that they were so caught off guard by the Dreadnaught that they didn't put them back up (even after like 2min...) allowing Marcus to TP his daughter off, yet when they engaged the Khan controlled ship they happen to put it back up at some point?
I'm assuming this is what happened but I really wish they would have explained it away with a single line. They explain so many other things with 1 line. This is one situation where it would have been useful to have somebody on the bridge say as he is TPing his daughter "our shields went offline during warp!" or have Khan say something like "I see you've put your shields back up." Anything. It stood out like a sore thumb to me the 2nd time I saw this movie because both TP scenes are very big.
Went to see this movie yesterday and although the movie is fun (and more fun then ST2009) it is still not real Star Trek. That and lots of plot wholes and stupid scenes make it a fun action flick and not a SF story.