|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote:On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:
-Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history.
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope?
|
I'm not going to state my side or opinions on the movie, other that from a pure spectator standpoint I enjoyed it, and say that you guys need to cool off a little. A good deal of these statements are unnecessarily venomous, and the name-calling that's going around is just silly :|
|
On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote:On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:
-Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history.
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. Show nested quote +I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism.
Why are you on a discussion board when you are completely unwilling to defend your viewpoints? You should be able to offer arguments. Instead all you offer is some kind of appeal to your own authority.
|
On June 05 2013 05:29 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote:On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:
-Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history.
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope? No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism. Why are you on a discussion board when you are completely unwilling to defend your viewpoints? You should be able to offer arguments. Instead all you offer is some kind of appeal to your own authority.
I guess all the lengthy posts I've had to type out over the last 2-3 pages just don't exist to you (or the biggest post near the top of the page you were quoting from). I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I've already explained things. Its not on me to get you to read or research things properly. Acting like someone else is responsible for your lack of willingness to think things through is just childish.
|
On June 05 2013 05:35 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:29 Crushinator wrote:On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote:On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:
-Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history.
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope? No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism. Why are you on a discussion board when you are completely unwilling to defend your viewpoints? You should be able to offer arguments. Instead all you offer is some kind of appeal to your own authority. I guess all the lengthy posts I've had to type out over the last 2-3 pages just don't exist to you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I've already explained things. Its not on me to get you to read or research things properly. Acting like someone else is responsible for your lack of willingness to think things through is just childish.
I have read your ramblings, believe me. I would like you to show me how the Klingons are a deep culture that only get a shallow portrayal in the movie. You don't have to do this, but you also don't have to treat me like you are all superior becuse apparently you took literature and writing in school. Also when you claim that the things they could have done are obvious, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask your for an example, when initially you provide none.
Maybe you don't understand how message boards work. This isn''t a place for you to have monologues, your fellow posters can and will reply to you with criticism. This seems to set you off into a rant about how they are not qualified to criticise you.
|
On June 05 2013 05:43 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:35 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:29 Crushinator wrote:On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote:On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:
-Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history.
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope? No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism. Why are you on a discussion board when you are completely unwilling to defend your viewpoints? You should be able to offer arguments. Instead all you offer is some kind of appeal to your own authority. I guess all the lengthy posts I've had to type out over the last 2-3 pages just don't exist to you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I've already explained things. Its not on me to get you to read or research things properly. Acting like someone else is responsible for your lack of willingness to think things through is just childish. I have read your ramblings, believe me. I would like you to show me how the Klingons are a deep culture that only get a shallow portrayal in the movie. You don't have to do this, but you also don't have to treat me like you are all superior becuse apparently you took literature and writing in school. Also when you claim that the things they could have done are obvious, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask your for an example, when initially you provide none. Maybe you don't understand how message boards work. This isn''t a place for you to have monologues, your fellow posters can and will reply to you with criticism. This seems to set you off into a rant about how they are not qualified to criticise you.
Wow, look at you trying to make it look like I'm the one with the "holier than thou" attitude when that's all you're coming with. Perhaps you do not understand how to read properly because quite literally you're making things up about me and what I've said at this point. When you do not respond with an actual point or when you state "umadbro" in some silly way, you're not discussing. There's a word for that and it starts with a "t".
You're acting like I owe you some sort of information even though its already been given. Your unwillingness to give the discussion the same level of thought and research that I am makes me unwilling to go way out of my way time and time again to find well-written explanations. When you give me nothing to respond to, of course I'm not going to respond to you.
A simple basic brief intro where they hear stories from cadets on the frontier about strange raids and maybe a very blurry video of an attack or something would be a very subtle way to start the klingon storyline which is highly speculated to be the plot for the third movie already planned. This is known as "foreshadowing".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of all the klingon culture episodes in TNG, here are 10 that go in depth about who Klingons are. This doesn't even touch what they went into in the movies or what Voyager or DS9 embellished upon. This list is a tiny portion of all the Klingon culture detailed throughout the various sagas.
Heart of Glory While we'd seen Worf, this was our first look at non-Federation Klingons in the TNG era. This episode showed us the Klingon cultural aspects of honor and warrior pride, and how, as in any culture, such aspects could be abused and twisted by the unscrupulous.
A Matter of Honor When Riker joins a Klingon ship as part of an exchange program, life aboard a Klingon vessel is seen for the first time in any Star Trek show. Riker is able to diffuse a dangerous situation using Klingon methods instead of Federation procedure, demonstrating the importance of cross-cultural thinking.
The Emissary The introduction of K'Ehleyr not only gave Worf more history, it also showed us the first Klingon female of the TNG era. Like her male counterparts, the half-Human K'Ehleyr was a strong, fearless fighter, but she also offered a feminine twist to the testosterone-heavy Klingon morality by demonstrating how a sharp mind can benefit a warrior just as well.
Sins of the Father Klingon traditions take center stage in this episode, as Worf tries to uncover the truth about his disgraced House. When it's uncovered that the truth about his father's innocence could threaten the stability of the Klingon Empire, Worf's sacrifice adds to the epic nature of Klingon intrigue, as well as giving him another layer of character depth.
Reunion The return of K'Ehleyr and introduction of son Alexander bring Worf to a tragic crossroads that has broad implications for the future of the Klingon Empire. Also introducing Gowron, this episode gives us a first-hand look at Klingon politics on the highest level and sets the stage for what's to come …
Redemption, Part I The TNG Klingon plotline moves from a low simmer to a full boil as the Klingon Empire splinters into civil war as Gowron is set to become Chancellor of the High Council. Featuring our first look at the Klingon homeworld of Qo'noS, this episode shows power struggles and cloak-and-dagger manipulation that could come straight out of a Shakespearean history play.
Redemption, Part II The resolution of the Klingon Civil War comes after great sacrifice and offers a good look at how Klingons wage war. The plot that has been building since "The Emissary" comes to a satisfying conclusion and Klingon culture is now a tangible, indelible component to the Star Trek legacy.
Birthright, Part II While the Civil War episodes showed the inner workings of Klingon politics on the highest levels, this episode allowed Worf to explore what makes one a Klingon: the thrill of the hunt, the pride of the warrior and how life as a captive is not worth living in Klingon culture.
Rightful Heir Klingon history and myth is the spotlight of this episode which focuses on the mystery of the returned Kahless, a legendary Klingon figure. A version of Kahless had appeared in the TOS episode "The Savage Curtain," but he was based on 23rd-Century Federation records.
Firstborn Worf's son Alexander reaches the critical age where he can take part in his first Rite of Ascension. Shedding yet more light on Klingon culture, "Firstborn" not only shows some intriguing ritual and ceremony, but also reveals how Klingon assassinations are staged, not to mention what can go wrong.
|
On June 05 2013 05:53 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:43 Crushinator wrote:On June 05 2013 05:35 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:29 Crushinator wrote:On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote: [quote]
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope? No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism. Why are you on a discussion board when you are completely unwilling to defend your viewpoints? You should be able to offer arguments. Instead all you offer is some kind of appeal to your own authority. I guess all the lengthy posts I've had to type out over the last 2-3 pages just don't exist to you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I've already explained things. Its not on me to get you to read or research things properly. Acting like someone else is responsible for your lack of willingness to think things through is just childish. I have read your ramblings, believe me. I would like you to show me how the Klingons are a deep culture that only get a shallow portrayal in the movie. You don't have to do this, but you also don't have to treat me like you are all superior becuse apparently you took literature and writing in school. Also when you claim that the things they could have done are obvious, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask your for an example, when initially you provide none. Maybe you don't understand how message boards work. This isn''t a place for you to have monologues, your fellow posters can and will reply to you with criticism. This seems to set you off into a rant about how they are not qualified to criticise you. Wow, look at you trying to make it look like I'm the one with the "holier than thou" attitude when that's all you're coming with. Perhaps you do not understand how to read properly because quite literally you're making things up about me and what I've said at this point. When you do not respond with an actual point or when you state "umadbro" in some silly way, you're not discussing. There's a word for that and it starts with a "t". You're acting like I owe you some sort of information even though its already been given. Your unwillingness to give the discussion the same level of thought and research that I am makes me unwilling to go way out of my way time and time again to find well-written explanations. When you give me nothing to respond to, of course I'm not going to respond to you. A simple basic brief intro where they hear stories from cadets on the frontier about strange raids and maybe a very blurry video of an attack or something would be a very subtle way to start the klingon storyline which is highly speculated to be the plot for the third movie already planned. This is known as "foreshadowing". This took about 5 seconds for me to think of and I was assuming that you also possessed the ability to easily come up with something small like that so I was rather dubious about whether your repeated request for an example was legitimate.
I think you have me mixed up with someone else, but whatever, I would like to stop interacting with you now.
|
On June 05 2013 05:53 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 05:43 Crushinator wrote:On June 05 2013 05:35 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:29 Crushinator wrote:On June 05 2013 05:16 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 05:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote:On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote:On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote: [quote]
I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. embellished-"umadbro" yet again There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope? No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism. Why are you on a discussion board when you are completely unwilling to defend your viewpoints? You should be able to offer arguments. Instead all you offer is some kind of appeal to your own authority. I guess all the lengthy posts I've had to type out over the last 2-3 pages just don't exist to you. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I've already explained things. Its not on me to get you to read or research things properly. Acting like someone else is responsible for your lack of willingness to think things through is just childish. I have read your ramblings, believe me. I would like you to show me how the Klingons are a deep culture that only get a shallow portrayal in the movie. You don't have to do this, but you also don't have to treat me like you are all superior becuse apparently you took literature and writing in school. Also when you claim that the things they could have done are obvious, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask your for an example, when initially you provide none. Maybe you don't understand how message boards work. This isn''t a place for you to have monologues, your fellow posters can and will reply to you with criticism. This seems to set you off into a rant about how they are not qualified to criticise you. Wow, look at you trying to make it look like I'm the one with the "holier than thou" attitude when that's all you're coming with. Perhaps you do not understand how to read properly because quite literally you're making things up about me and what I've said at this point. When you do not respond with an actual point or when you state "umadbro" in some silly way, you're not discussing. There's a word for that and it starts with a "t". You're acting like I owe you some sort of information even though its already been given. Your unwillingness to give the discussion the same level of thought and research that I am makes me unwilling to go way out of my way time and time again to find well-written explanations. When you give me nothing to respond to, of course I'm not going to respond to you. A simple basic brief intro where they hear stories from cadets on the frontier about strange raids and maybe a very blurry video of an attack or something would be a very subtle way to start the klingon storyline which is highly speculated to be the plot for the third movie already planned. This is known as "foreshadowing". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Out of all the klingon culture episodes in TNG, here are 10 that go in depth about who Klingons are. This doesn't even touch what they went into in the movies or what Voyager or DS9 embellished upon. This list is a tiny portion of all the Klingon culture detailed throughout the various sagas. Heart of Glory While we'd seen Worf, this was our first look at non-Federation Klingons in the TNG era. This episode showed us the Klingon cultural aspects of honor and warrior pride, and how, as in any culture, such aspects could be abused and twisted by the unscrupulous. A Matter of Honor When Riker joins a Klingon ship as part of an exchange program, life aboard a Klingon vessel is seen for the first time in any Star Trek show. Riker is able to diffuse a dangerous situation using Klingon methods instead of Federation procedure, demonstrating the importance of cross-cultural thinking. The Emissary The introduction of K'Ehleyr not only gave Worf more history, it also showed us the first Klingon female of the TNG era. Like her male counterparts, the half-Human K'Ehleyr was a strong, fearless fighter, but she also offered a feminine twist to the testosterone-heavy Klingon morality by demonstrating how a sharp mind can benefit a warrior just as well. Sins of the Father Klingon traditions take center stage in this episode, as Worf tries to uncover the truth about his disgraced House. When it's uncovered that the truth about his father's innocence could threaten the stability of the Klingon Empire, Worf's sacrifice adds to the epic nature of Klingon intrigue, as well as giving him another layer of character depth. Reunion The return of K'Ehleyr and introduction of son Alexander bring Worf to a tragic crossroads that has broad implications for the future of the Klingon Empire. Also introducing Gowron, this episode gives us a first-hand look at Klingon politics on the highest level and sets the stage for what's to come … Redemption, Part I The TNG Klingon plotline moves from a low simmer to a full boil as the Klingon Empire splinters into civil war as Gowron is set to become Chancellor of the High Council. Featuring our first look at the Klingon homeworld of Qo'noS, this episode shows power struggles and cloak-and-dagger manipulation that could come straight out of a Shakespearean history play. Redemption, Part II The resolution of the Klingon Civil War comes after great sacrifice and offers a good look at how Klingons wage war. The plot that has been building since "The Emissary" comes to a satisfying conclusion and Klingon culture is now a tangible, indelible component to the Star Trek legacy. Birthright, Part II While the Civil War episodes showed the inner workings of Klingon politics on the highest levels, this episode allowed Worf to explore what makes one a Klingon: the thrill of the hunt, the pride of the warrior and how life as a captive is not worth living in Klingon culture. Rightful Heir Klingon history and myth is the spotlight of this episode which focuses on the mystery of the returned Kahless, a legendary Klingon figure. A version of Kahless had appeared in the TOS episode "The Savage Curtain," but he was based on 23rd-Century Federation records. Firstborn Worf's son Alexander reaches the critical age where he can take part in his first Rite of Ascension. Shedding yet more light on Klingon culture, "Firstborn" not only shows some intriguing ritual and ceremony, but also reveals how Klingon assassinations are staged, not to mention what can go wrong.
For the record, you just listed 10 hours worth of Star Trek (which you describe as a tiny fraction) and are upset that they didn't include that level of depth in a 2 hour movie. I too am done reading your posts.
|
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 01:53 Hryul wrote: i'm going to have dinner but please elaborate in detail what you think is this big glaring plothole that your years of experience in the movie industry showed you? Especially what should Carol Marcus be/not be and how is it a problem with the newly created timeline? Same for Khan.
I'm just asking this for those of us, like me, don't have this in detail experience in the movie industry and thus a viewing standard like flat-earth-theorists. Basically all the major complaints stem from either technological inconsistencies or from problems with the timeline change. Biggest ones include: - Transwarp Beaming: The whole point of the transporter technology in Star Trek is that it has a finite range and beaming over is a very complicated process that simply won't work if you have too much motion or aren't close enough to ensure proper re-materialization at your destination. If a transporter is fail-proof and has no range, why even bother with Starships? We'd essentially have Stargate. yes, yes and yes. it bothered me both times when I saw it. 5 minutes and 1 cut from earth to Kronos without any kind of sensor array between them. Klingons would have invaded earth already.
Also: bah, stargate. From "ooh, whosh" to "i'ma build da most mighty spaceships in da milky way" in ~20 years.
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -The Marcus Family: Little to nothing is known about anyone other than Carol Marcus in the original storyline. The problem is according to the new storyline, her father is a very prominent figure in Section 31 (a super-secret society much like the KGB were) and in starfleet. In the old storyline, he's so insignificant that most hardcore trekkies believe he wasn't even in starfleet. Also given his age, he has lived most of his life long before the temporal event occurred and so these huge changes to what used to be an insignificant character seem unnecessary. Carol was supposed to be a sort of "sweet farm-raised girl who turned out to be a genius with great vision". She was the gem of her family. Now we're supposed to believe there's suddenly a whole family involvement even though those sorts of decisions would've been made decades before the Romulan time event occurred. The whole point of Carol Marcus was not just a love interest for Kirk, but also to portray Einstein's struggle with the utilization of the atom bomb technology that he helped create for a good portion of his live. This was a very deep meaning to Carol's character and now that she's basically a female Tony Stark with even less memorable characteristics other than being just a girl for Kirk to flirt with, most of the community was not pleased. Smaller than that, its also strange Carol is suddenly British-accented as well... just doesn't make any sense.
Haha. Einstein and the atomic bomb never gets old. In this sense Volta is responsible for the electric chair. What a nonsense and very un star-trek-like because it a) makes scientific research per se dangerous and b) takes the responsibility out of the hands of the ones that (ab)use it(i.e. military). + Show Spoiler +Also IMO: Voy:Jetrel did a far better job at displaying this than WoK
Carol was supposed to be a sort of "sweet farm-raised girl who turned out to be a genius with great vision. - this really bothers me. I have never seen the english version and I don't know what she was supposed to be. It was never mentioned what her father was and I don't care what hardcore trekkies (or book writers for that purpose) think about her. As it stands she seems to be a really smart scientist in both timelines. Obv. Something in the timeline changed the field of her interest. + Show Spoiler +It may even be that she grew up on a fucking farm in the old one because her mother went back to Oklahoma after she divorced from the Admiral. I don't know. and I don't care. thus also her dislike of the military. b/c daddy issues and bad military made mommy cry.
I never overloaded her with expectations. And I viewed her as a rather onedimensional character: herp derp military don't touch my equipment. But I may use your ships. Thanks.
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -Khan: Khan was created during the Eugenics War period in the late 20th century and ruled over almost a quarter of all of Earth (Asia and Middle Eastern regions to be more specific). He was a bloody murder who caused the war the killed over 30 million people and almost plunged humanity into a 2nd Dark Age. After being defeated, he and his people decided to take off from Earth in sleeper ships to find new worlds to rule and new life to conquer. Given that he has already had his entire life, you have to wonder why his ethnicity suddenly changed from a darker-skinned Asian-descendent with a hispanic accent to a british-accented caucasian. The other huge problem is that he seems to have turned into some action-packet berserker like X-Men's "Juggernaut" instead of the super-intelligent warlord that played the entire world for saps and very nearly won. Khan was supposed to be Hitler's story on steroids and that is not what we got. Far more story is necessary for such a deep character to be properly shown. Its probably not even possible to do it within the length of 1 single film. This whole lifetime happened hundreds of years before the temporal event, it makes no sense. For those of you who don't know the production side of this film (as I was part of the crew), we very nearly had Benicio Del Torro for the role of Khan but he turned away at the last second for some other drama movie. Many people think he would've been a far more believable Khan.
Yes, he should look more like an Indian (from India) than someone from the uk. But also Montalban was Mexican not Indian. I give them the artistic freedom, you obv not. + Show Spoiler +Or some forced after the event explanation: He brightened his skin and underwent facial surgery so he isn't recognized easily. Because Marcus sure had an warrant for him.
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history.
Oh, don't forget that atrocity of an explanation from Ent with the augments. Which is even worse with Klingons like Kor who were featured both in TOS and DS9. Guess what: I like the look of the new Klingons better.
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: There are other smaller gripes that are more actor-related or writing-related similar to the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan which I didn't find particularly problematic but when he didn't have the proper character shown on screen (maybe directed to do so, maybe not his fault), that's where I drew a line. The whole point of an actor is to emulate accents, be put in tons of make-up and carefully-designed costumes so that you play your part. A very clear Khan role was already written in the history of the 20th century in both timelines which was not adhered to. Lets go into the others though:
Obv. Cumberbath is problematic because he has the wrong skin color
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -McCoy and Chekov (and to a lesser extent, Scotty and Sulu): They were a major portion of many plots and were a core dynamic within the bridge crew of the Enterprise and Enterprise-A. Seeing these 2 beloved characters reduced to a quick line taken directly from "most memorable quotes" from their TV show characters on IMDB or something really irked a lot of people. In this storyline, the familiar head officers seem like they wouldn't even speak to each other if they weren't assigned by starfleet to that ship. There's almost no synergy between them that existed and that was important if you wanted to understand how close these people were.
Ok, they changed the interaction between the various crew members to a degree. We had 2 movies for 7 (now 8)crew characters. Abrams twisted it and took a different approach. Artistic liberties I guess.
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -Writing: The writing is pretty bad. They're trying to rush a lot of things that need to be drawn out and they're costing themselves in the process. For one thing space travel is not instant. In all other Star Trek TV shows and movies, there is considerable emphasis on the time spent in transit. Help is not usually that close, its a few days or even weeks away in some cases. Communications only have finite ranges and transporters and sensors have even smaller ranges. Slowing it down like that and emphasizing the reality of being in space and not zooming around across the galaxy within minutes allows you to insert scenes that develop the characters more. For example, they're trying to shove this whole Uhura and Spock romance down our throats and most people aren't buying it. The Uhura and Spock thing worked in the TV shows and later in the movies because it was set up over 80 episodes and 8+ movies! You can't throw stuff like that into a storyline that's only existed for 2 movies. A smart writer would set this sort of thing up in these films so you're already quite familiar with it when they finally do start adding those scenes in.
TOS had 6 movies. i'm also not 100% satisfied with the writing: Much more on the first one. Kirk gets thrown off board onto an ice planet were he finds exactly the two persons he needs to find and is teleported back onto the ship with magic technology from the future. deus ex machina at its finest. Let alone the red ice monster. Or one character quits the enterprise at the right moment to be sent to the Dreadnought and save the enterprise. But on the other hand I'm glad they don't search for god in the center of the universe.
One problem is that Abrams made 2 fast paced movies which quite naturally leads to less "in depth" character development. So not all characters get the same screen time. But let's be honest: Neither Uhura nor Sulu nor Chekhov got any real in depth character development in the series at a reasonable rate. They just sit there and say "yes captain". Abrams now replaced Bones with Uhura to have a sort of reboot of the triangle Kirk-Spock-Bones to Kirk-Spock-Uhura. I found especially the relation between Spock and Uhura and Spock's reaction to (repeated) death well executed given the screen time they had. (Otherwise you have to open Pandora's box with talking about the pacing of the movie)
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -Fanwank: There's too much homage in the film and it actually chokes it in my opinion. I already mentioned that most of the beloved bridge crew are insignificant now and are reduced to next to no scenes and lines that are only single quips taken directly from nostalgic quotes. The "KHAAAAN" scream was amongst those things that make us fans facepalm so hard in this one. Its so obvious you want to include the popular meme that TWOK's "KHAAN" scream from Kirk became, but then they threw it in with a corny "JUST KIDDING HE'S OK" plot point to make things worse! The other obvious pander was when "John Harrison" became Khan. He didn't have to be Khan, he could've been anyone! Its your "new timeline" right? So why Khan? It feels like they were trying to pander so much to memorable lines and scenes that they ended up creating nothing but a big jumbled mess.
Maybe. But on the other hand this was much better than Nero who was just "Spock must suffer".
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: As much as I wrote here, this barely scratches the surface. If you follow or know of any of the major Trek communities, you'd see that this movie was not received very well by a vast majority of people. Most found it the same as I did; entertaining but nothing special to rave about. It was basically just an action-packed special effects show as we expected. Needless to say, the community as a whole is rather glad to be rid of Abrahms to Star Wars and already the facebook pages, email accounts etc of Jonathan Frakes and the casts/writers of the TV shows are being blown up with requests for them to take over again.
Yes please bring back the Xindi or Battleship Voyager with its transphasic torpedoes. /sarcasm.
I'd rather want some fresh blood that takes the next step in the development. The problem is: voy:Endgame ruined a lot. But I also think that Star wars is better suited for Abrams than Star Trek for his kind of moviemaking.
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote:Once again I'll state that you're free to like whatever you want and yes I realize this is griping about a movie which is just silly, but I've felt like the quality of things have been slipping quickly lately and I'm starting to get ticked at the lack of originality, talent, storytelling and Big Money basically ruining things as of late in the entertainment industry. Here in LA, most all actors, musicians or production crew will tell you that these sentiments are widespread throughout the cinema-creating community and only the top guys with all the money and influence seem to only want to figure out how they can make the cheapest product with decreasing regard for standards to make the biggest bucks. Its very unfortunate, but that's how things are here in Hollywood. TL;DR Show nested quote +you dont have to be a hardcore fan to realize its labeld Star Trek, but there is hardly any Star Trek in there
nonetheless, I enjoyed it. ^ this Well, searching for the body of a dead crew member on a new formed planet to unite him with his mind which is in another crew member is better
But I already mentioned this a few pages before: I think the writers touched a very up to date problem with the bombing of foreign territory. Are they allowed to kill a terrorist who will very likely strike again on foreign territory. What about a process? conviction? Threat of war? The writers dodged one point because Khan flees to a "deserted" region. I would have loved a conflict between the threat of a war and the bombing of innocent (klingons). Oddly enough Kirk is not Obama and decides to enter foreign territory. (Which again shows that Kirk didn't learn his lesson in the Kobayashi maru test.)
Also Admiral Marcus had a reason to build this super dreadnought because he feels like war is soon to come and he wants to strike first thus heating up the conflict.
Khan on the other hand wants "his crew" back. We know he would go for world domination the moment he gets them but the desire to be united with his crew and thus his people is very understandable for a man stranded in the wrong time.
It may not be TNG level, but the questions/motivations are there nonetheless.
|
I would agree with your assessments there Hyrul. I guess a lot of the smaller gripes could indeed be dismissed as "creative leeway".
The Carol Marcus "sweet girl" thing came from the story's origin. Remember that Star Trek was originally conceived as "a western in space" because westerns were kind of "the big thing" back then, not sci-fi. In westerns you have a rough-around-the-edges kind of lead character with some sort of "sweet lil thang" for a serious love interest even though they're sort of a ladies man. This also though, it a rather small gripe where basically we're left to make our own conclusions and that's something I tend to dislike in stories because I'm not sure I'm making up the right stuff to go there.
The one redeeming thing I found in this is that they did leave it open-ended so maybe.... JUST MAYBE they'll try again in a sequel and we'll get a rendition that's more well-received amongst the admittedly anal-retentive Trekkie community.
Klondikebar wrote: For the record, you just listed 10 hours worth of Star Trek (which you describe as a tiny fraction) and are upset that they didn't include that level of depth in a 2 hour movie. I too am done reading your posts.
Call me cold, but I really couldn't care less. I don't write for people like you who add nothing and who obviously have no real interest in the conversation, but would rather try to be an ass for the sake of being one. As stated, a more subtle intro would've been nicer than just a senseless slaughter scene. The point was there is far more to klingons than them just being some ruthless barbarians but that is quite obviously VERY far over your head. I'm not going to dumb myself down any farther so its probably best you just stop reading or responding to anything pertaining to this.
|
To be honest... Even after having seen most of the "klingon" episode of TNG... I mostly wondered.. How did this brutish, stubborn and overly honour bound race ever manage to get anything done. I guess many people feel the same way.
|
Furthermore Klingons most often did not demonstrate honour, when their lives, power or the victory was at stake (Duras family, betraying Worf, the real Gowron risking to lose the Dominion war just for the sake of fortifying his power, lurking cloaked in debris to ambush rescue missions, etc.).
I don't know why someone who watched Chaos Trek 1.0 can criticize Chaos Trek 2.0. Do you want Mark Lenard again to play both Spock's father and a Romulan Commander? Do you remember the pacing in Balance of Terror? In the end, a BoP decloaked and had 30 seconds to shoot but didn't, because the script says: 'Hey, Enterprise heroes have problems with phaser banks. It wouldn't be fair to let the fight continue, because the Enterprise would just blow up and the series comes to an end.'
Yeah, I prefer Abrams fighting scenes, to classic fighting scenes in that regard!
I didn't like retarded TNG politcs either. Well, let's make a treaty with a species let by a military dictatorship and hand them over Federation colonies. Yeah, we brave Starfleet retard captains always brake our rules (Picard, Sisko, Janeway), but the Maquis is an absolute atrocity. Let's fuck them over every time they try to stand up.
Do you know Benjamin Maxwell? The Captain who started an own war with a Nebula-Class vessel. When they catched him, retarded Picard said: 'Well, you will be court-martialled, but to ensure your honour and pride, blabla, I will let you return to the U.S.S. Phoenix. I just trust that you and your crew of a few hundred war-criminals, who will all be immediately dismissed from Starfleet once they turn themselves over deliberately to the next Starbase, won't try escape. No, I'm not a moron, I'm educated and morally superior.'
JUST JAIL HIM!
Concerning Cumberbatch looks, I just assume he was surgically altered, so he won't be recognized. That works. Klingon looks don't work, but that's a classy Chaos Trek 1.0/.2.0 problem.
On June 05 2013 07:38 Hryul wrote: Oddly enough Kirk is not Obama and decides to enter foreign territory. (Which again shows that Kirk didn't learn his lesson in the Kobayashi maru test.) WRONG!. Obama is a villain compared to Kirk. Obama presses a button and kills people. Kirk refuses to do so and is on-location and is doing the things himself, not judging from a remote location. What lesson? Kobayashi Maru in Abrams Trek is a non-completed topic which accompanies the crew. There's not much time for philosophy in a mission. What lesson? He decided to hack the test, because it was supposed to let him lose. So in a way, the testers cheated before him. Kirk proves how to fight for the correct, necessary solution given the circumstances and win, albeit costly, but win.
|
On June 05 2013 02:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 01:43 Hryul wrote:On June 05 2013 01:39 LegalLord wrote: Sometimes I get the feeling that hardcore Star Trek fans are impossible to please. I just think that among all people there is a group of nay-sayers who will critizise everything new you give them unless it is the joker. Take as an example the really underrated "phantom menace". . . + Show Spoiler +Yes i know irony doesn't work out well on the internet. FWIW, The Phantom Menace IS underrated. It's a mediocre film, but it gets treated as if it's the worst movie ever created - C&C4 in its degree of disappointment. You're right, Phantom menace is a decent film compared to attack of the clones. But if that is that measuring stick, then most movies are...
And yes, it's reputation as awful comes not from being the worst movie ever but from being the most disappointing one.
|
Thought it was a great movie.
The last 5 pages of this topic of a couple of hardcore trekkies argueing about how it should have been more in depth and accurate is sad. It's a 2 hour movie..not a TV series. The ONLY point I can agree with you that was a little weird was Khan going from Earth to Kronos. Although didn't Scotty say something about them taking his new Transwarp technology and giving it to monsters like Khan? Or something like that?
Anyways, isn't this supposed to be a reboot? :S Just because it wasn't identical to the series doesn't mean it was bad.
|
Haha, reverse engineering at its best. I already wondered how you got to the conclusion that she was the "sweet lil thing". I guess that was lost over the 50 years and one ocean that lies in between me and TOS
Point is, most of the movies had more or less logical flaws and consistency over all 5 series is an even greater issue. I guess suspension of disbelief worked better for those who don't know the biography of Khan in and out.
@Ian: They "set" that up in the first movie. Scotty developed it in the future, then time-traveling Spock gave the formulas to the "young" Scotty to bring them back onto the Enterprise. It was later classified but found its way to Khan through the hands of Adm. Marcus.
|
Someone pls tell me wat the point of spock talkin to his future self was... He acted just like he wud have done anyway imo from there on...
|
I was a little confused, the movie was cool and action-y but, uh, where was the plot.
|
On June 07 2013 22:43 SushilS wrote: Someone pls tell me wat the point of spock talkin to his future self was... He acted just like he wud have done anyway imo from there on...
pad the audience #s
On June 07 2013 23:07 ticklishmusic wrote: I was a little confused, the movie was cool and action-y but, uh, where was the plot.
It was a reference movie. It's like family guy; make some references to old and treasured past-times or mainstream memes. (The Vulcan hand thing: can you do it?)
|
movie was soooo bad.
i think everyone who watched TNG in their youth should stay away from this movie. its a disgrace.
i would say nothing if this was just some new scifi movie.
some funny WTF moments.
scotty flying to the secret base and just sneak in with his shuttle ... this is so bad i cant find words. beaming through half of the galaxy oooooooooooooooook !
bad admiral wants to destroy a planet for one person, no questions asked ?!? lol
kirk talkin to scotty on earth with his communicator but is still in klingon space big fight directly in front of earth but no other starship is there, not even earth defences or anything, no 2 ships of starfleet (what fleet? there is apparently only enterprise and the bad enterprise) battle in front of earth and no one knows hit . cooome ON ! spock talking to other spock .. comeon how bad of a writer do you have to be..
nah this movie is pathetic. abrams and his writers are pathetic.
i dont know whats so hard, just look at the last star trek TNG movies, cast good actors and push the story FURTHER!!!! instead they take bad actors (look all like kids) and trying to make the same movies again only different !!?!?!?
|
this movie was excellent . . . ive never really liked star trek and with all the nerd stigmata around it, it forced me away. Excellent film!
|
|
|
|