Author Topic: Star Trek  (Read 22497 times)

Offline SiriuslyCold

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11577
  • inter cathedra et pulpitum reae culpae est
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2009, 02:30 »
What I didn't like :

3. How can Kirk be made the captain of the flagship so fast since Enterprise is the most important starship in existence.

see here


uh oh another trek fan crawls out of the woodwork

Offline redryder

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2009, 21:57 »
Just watched it at Filmgarde@Bugis today. Cinema was almost empty.

To me the biggest loophole was why need to drill into the planet core if you are going to release a blackhole? A blackhole would simply swallow anything.

Still, as a trek fan who used to watch TOS repeats on Channel 5 in the 80s, I watched the movie with a big grin on my face throughout.

Things I didn't like -

1) too much coincidence for Kirk to simply meet Spock and Scotty on the ice planet
2) Scotty's ewok alien
3) Zachary Quinto's Spock was too much like Sylar in Heroes.


Offline armoury

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6625
  • The lunatic is on the grass...
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2009, 16:50 »
To me the biggest loophole was why need to drill into the planet core if you are going to release a blackhole? A blackhole would simply swallow anything.

I think that it was necessary to implode the planet.  If it was off-centre, the planet would 'time-travel' just as Nero's ship and Spock Prime's ship did.

Quote
Things I didn't like -
3) Zachary Quinto's Spock was too much like Sylar in Heroes.

Duh!  Did you expect him to look completely different?  I thought he looked very similar to Nimoy, actually, especially the shot of him in profile when he first beamed down to Vulcan.  If anything, I thought the biggest difference is that he didn't speak quite as deliberately as Nimoy's Spock did, but perhaps that can be explained that in this new timeline, Spock is a bit more emotional (hence his affair with Uhura) whereas Spock Prime, even in his youth, was more controlled.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 17:34 by armoury »
There is no dark side of the moon really.  Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Offline DJQ

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7280
  • PLINIUS The Heart Of Music
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2009, 17:14 »
well said.  ;)
ProJect Q.

Offline yellowhandman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4667
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2009, 17:16 »
Finally saw the film on Saturday.

I need to explain my background - I've been a Trek fan since I was 12, i.e. 25 years. I can still explain how a warp drive works, and I can pretty much tell you the story of every TOS and TNG episode, although I never bothered to learn Klingon (not good with languages). I used to own a Star Trek captain's uniform (TOS version). I was one of the founders of the only registered Star Trek fan club ever in Singapore, as in we actually got ourselves registered with Registrar of Societies.

The film I saw on Saturday was a fun summer movie. It had some nice references to the old Trek that made me smile, and there were some really good performances (Quinto as Spock, Urban as McCoy) that really echoed the original actors without being impersonations. It was great to see Nimoy again. Ultimately I appreciate the effort that Abrams & co. made to be respectful to the original, while updating and revamping the look and feel of Trek.

But at the end of the day, what I saw on Saturday was not Star Trek.

It was an exciting summer blockbuster that used the characters, background and icons of Trek, but it wasn't Star Trek.

Star Trek has been, and always should be, about more than just action. It should say something about the human spirit and the ability of that spirit to overcome adversity and to grow - to be better than what we seem to be, or what we fear we may be. This film had none of that.

In the end, this Spock does grow, to accept his human side more - in fact, too much for my liking, because I just can't accept the unnecessary Spock-Uhura pairing. But what bothers me is that Kirk doesn't grow at all - he's just a lucky/bold/arrogant fellow who is in the right place at the right time. Despite all the jokes and criticisms of William Shatner over the years, that was not what Kirk was about in TOS. If anything, the character that is most like the 'real' Kirk is George Kirk, at the beginning of the film - decisive, but not foolhardy, reckless or overly full of himself.

I accept that this is the young Kirk, and that he could grow into the Kirk I'm talking about. But then this film should have shown how he grew, not (as it did for me) wondering how Starfleet could entrust the Enterprise immediately into the hands of this young punk.

In fact, I wonder why everyone on the Enterprise just seems to follow this Kirk, despite the fact that he's basically a jerk - he sneaks back on the ship, provokes the then-Captain Spock into a violent response, and then suddenly everyone starts following his orders? Huh, this is Starfleet discipline? In the first place, how could Spock get away with just marooning his First Officer (as appointed by Capt Pike) because he disagreed with him?

In the end, would I recommend this film? Yes, even to fellow diehard Trekkers. And definitely to people who previously thought that Trek was silly and boring. Because anyone who sees this film will have a good time.

But it's not Star Trek. Not enough, anyway. It's like there was a transporter accident, and they only transported up the body of the person, but not the soul.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 17:23 by yellowhandman »
GLORY GLORY MAN UNITED! GO LAKERS! FORZA FERRARI!

Offline redryder

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2009, 17:28 »
Hi yellowhandman!

As our resident trek expert, could you explain something to me? I roughly remember how the transporter works from TNG - it stores your molecular information and then recreates you on the other side right? Has it even been addressed in any of the TV shows or movies why people in the Trek universe don't use this technology to resurrect crew members who were killed in accidents or in battle? After all, the computer must have a backup copy of your data from the last time you transported.

I remember episodes where Kirk and Riker clones were created by transporter accidents so the technology is there. I can understand the ethical concerns (same as cloning), but it would seem warranted for resurrecting people who died in the line of duty.

Offline redryder

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2009, 17:31 »
I think that it was necessary to implode the planet.  If it was off-centre, the planet would 'time-travel' just as Nero's ship and Spock Prime's ship did.


Things I didn't like -
3) Zachary Quinto's Spock was too much like Sylar in Heroes.

Duh!  Did you expect him to look completely different?  I thought he looked very similar to Nimoy, actually, especially the shot of him in profile when he first beamed down to Vulcan.  If anything, I thought the biggest difference is that he didn't speak quite as deliberately as Nimoy's Spock did, but perhaps that can be explained that in this new timeline, Spock is a bit more emotional (hence his affair with Uhura) whereas Spock Prime, even in his youth, was more controlled.

I'm not referring to looks, but the way he acted. Quinto's spock seemed like a closet serial killer, seething with anger under the surface. Not too far of a stretch from his Sylar character. Maybe its just me, but I really hated Heroes and that must have biased me against Quinto.

Offline yellowhandman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4667
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2009, 17:35 »
Hi yellowhandman!

As our resident trek expert, could you explain something to me? I roughly remember how the transporter works from TNG - it stores your molecular information and then recreates you on the other side right? Has it even been addressed in any of the TV shows or movies why people in the Trek universe don't use this technology to resurrect crew members who were killed in accidents or in battle? After all, the computer must have a backup copy of your data from the last time you transported.

I remember episodes where Kirk and Riker clones were created by transporter accidents so the technology is there. I can understand the ethical concerns (same as cloning), but it would seem warranted for resurrecting people who died in the line of duty.

One reason is that the stored transporter patterns decay over time. No idea why, because you'd think they'd have much better data storage technology than what we have nowadays, but that 'fact' has been mentioned before in the 'canon' (referring to the movies, TV shows and assorted novels). I suspect the reason may be that it takes tremendous energy to maintain the transporter pattern, so it can only be sustained reliably for the duration of the transport.

During transport, the transportee's pattern is stored in the 'pattern buffer' (actual Trek technology term). Like the buffers in real computers, these are temporary storage. Presumably the data size of a transporter pattern is so huge that they can't maintain enough storage capacity to store copies of everyone. In contrast, replicators are basically transporters producing stored patterns, but those are relatively simple patterns compared to a living sentient being (with brainwaves, etc). I have no idea (although I do wonder) whether a replicator can replicate - for example - a dish of live drunken prawns, since those are living organisms.

The other one why you can't do this is that it would result in really stupid stories if nobody dies.  ;D

BTW there's no real contradiction with those episodes where the transporter creates duplicates of people, because in those episodes the copies are created close in time to the original transport. But there is a HUGE problem with the episodes where characters escape from the holodeck, which essentially functions on replicator technology. Those are impossible to reconcile, even in terms of Trek's internal 'science', but they make for good stories, so who cares?

Actually the above illustrates my point - the best Star Trek is about stories that serve as vehicles for asking questions about life, being human, personalities, individual character etc. That's what some of those holodeck or transporter episodes did.

For example, in TOS's 'The Enemy Within' where Kirk is split into a good and bad Kirk - in the end, he realises that the two halves need to merge, because good Kirk can't be decisive without the ruthlessness that resides in bad Kirk. It's a statement/message about the human nature, i.e. we need our good and bad sides to balance one another out, yin/yang.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 17:43 by yellowhandman »
GLORY GLORY MAN UNITED! GO LAKERS! FORZA FERRARI!

Offline armoury

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6625
  • The lunatic is on the grass...
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2009, 17:40 »
I roughly remember how the transporter works from TNG - it stores your molecular information and then recreates you on the other side right? Has it even been addressed in any of the TV shows or movies why people in the Trek universe don't use this technology to resurrect crew members who were killed in accidents or in battle? After all, the computer must have a backup copy of your data from the last time you transported.

My vague recollection of this is that there isn't enough memory to actually store the entire imprint of a person, or something technobabble like that.  Which admittedly then flies in the face of the TNG episode where some affliction/virus the doctor was suffering from (Pulaski, not Crusher) was reversed by using the information from the last time she transported to 'filter it out' or something like that.

Also, I guess one other fudge is the transporter doesn't recreate matter, it disassembles you, shoots you down (or up) and reassembles you.  If you're dead, are you suggesting they take a block of cheese and remould it into the person?  Or reanimate the dead body based on old patterns?  

Must say, you've got me thinking about these inconsistencies, but let's face it, it's all science fiction and technobabble anyway, if it can be done it can be done, if it can't be done it can't, and whether it can or can't, depends on the requirements of the storyline.

Hey, Gold FM is playing the original TOS theme!  Dang, now spoiled by that idiot Tim Oh's voiceover...
There is no dark side of the moon really.  Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Offline armoury

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6625
  • The lunatic is on the grass...
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2009, 17:42 »
One reason is that the stored transporter patterns decay over time. No idea why, because you'd think they'd have much better data storage technology than what we have nowadays, but that 'fact' has been mentioned before in the 'canon' (referring to the movies, TV shows and assorted novels). I suspect the reason may be that it takes tremendous energy to maintain the transporter pattern, so it can only be sustained reliably for the duration of the transport.

The other one is that it would result in really stupid stories if nobody dies.  ;D

Ah, that sounds about right too.

Having said that, Scotty beamed himself into a transporter beam pattern and survived from the TOS era until the TNG era, as shown in the TNG episode "Relics".  Can't remember how they addressed the issue of power, though.

But the bottom line is, they'll make the tech do whatever they want that suits the story.  And resurrection capability would be a no-no.
There is no dark side of the moon really.  Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Offline yellowhandman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4667
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2009, 17:46 »
Also, I guess one other fudge is the transporter doesn't recreate matter, it disassembles you, shoots you down (or up) and reassembles you.  If you're dead, are you suggesting they take a block of cheese and remould it into the person?  Or reanimate the dead body based on old patterns?  


The official explanation (i.e Star Trek Technical Manual by Michael Okuda) is that the transporter doesn't actually transport matter. It just scans and destroys it, sends the pattern to the other end, where the pattern is used to reconstruct the transportee from a pool of matter stored in the ship, i.e. yes, you're right, it's turning a block of 'cheese' into a person.

Quite a scary thought, if you think of it. And yes, there's no explanation why you can't just scan and send the pattern, while leaving the person intact, resulting in two (or more) copies.

GLORY GLORY MAN UNITED! GO LAKERS! FORZA FERRARI!

Offline redryder

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2009, 17:59 »
Actually I can't even take credit for the question. I watched a youtube video of Shatner dissing J J Abrams, and he also gave an idea of how he would resurrect Kirk (who died in Generations). Shatner basically said that he would the transporter to do it, which then led me thinking why don't they do it for everyone who dies?

Speaking of techno-babble, TNG was absolutely chock full of it. There were some good episodes where they explored philosophy and ideas, but also too many rubbish episodes where some weird science techno-rubbish saves the day. TOS was where character, fun and a sense of adventure were the defining elements.

I never watched DS9 and Voyager and gave up on Enterprise after 2 seasons. Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home is my favourite movie, more so than Khan.

Offline redryder

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2009, 18:02 »
When I was watching the reboot last weekend, the cinema patrons were really irritating. When Chekov first did his "nuclular wessels" joke it was funny and nostalgic. But after that, every single time Chekov appears or talks the whole cinema laughs at his accent for no good reason. It was beyond irritating.  >:(

Offline armoury

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6625
  • The lunatic is on the grass...
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2009, 18:02 »
Actually the above illustrates my point - the best Star Trek is about stories that serve as vehicles for asking questions about life, being human, personalities, individual character etc. That's what some of those holodeck or transporter episodes did.

Well said.   Another interesting TOS story, "A Private Little War" IIRC, showed these aliens who hated each other because one group was white/black, whilst the other was black/white, i.e. both were humanoids, with one half black and the other half white, but mirror-image of each other.  Looks ridiculous to us, but obviously a commentary on racism generally amongst human beings.  And how things got out of hand because the Klingons started supplying weapons to one side, then the Federation supplied weapons to the other to 'balance things out'.  All very topical in the 60s, with the USA and USSR conducting their proxy wars throughout the Third World by arming different countries.

Speaking of techno-babble, TNG was absolutely chock full of it. There were some good episodes where they explored philosophy and ideas, but also too many rubbish episodes where some weird science techno-rubbish saves the day. TOS was where character, fun and a sense of adventure were the defining elements.

I never watched DS9 and Voyager and gave up on Enterprise after 2 seasons. Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home is my favourite movie, more so than Khan.

VOY was even worse than TNG for technobabble.  DS9 actually had relatively little.  You really should watch DS9 if you're into serious drama as well -- one episode, "In The Pale Moonlight", is absolutely brilliant and one of my favourites: it explores the whole concept of "the ends justify the means".
There is no dark side of the moon really.  Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Offline yellowhandman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4667
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2009, 18:03 »
Actually I can't even take credit for the question. I watched a youtube video of Shatner dissing J J Abrams, and he also gave an idea of how he would resurrect Kirk (who died in Generations). Shatner basically said that he would the transporter to do it, which then led me thinking why don't they do it for everyone who dies?

Speaking of techno-babble, TNG was absolutely chock full of it. There were some good episodes where they explored philosophy and ideas, but also too many rubbish episodes where some weird science techno-rubbish saves the day. TOS was where character, fun and a sense of adventure were the defining elements.

I never watched DS9 and Voyager and gave up on Enterprise after 2 seasons. Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home is my favourite movie, more so than Khan.

Oh, definitely there were rubbishy technobabble episodes. But there were also episodes where, even though the technobabble saves the day (because otherwise the episode can't end), in between there was a lot of great character stuff. For example, in 'Ethics', Worf breaks his spine and in the end it gets repaired by some experimental procedure, but in between themes of suicide, honour and friendship are explored. Good episode, and even then not one of the best.
GLORY GLORY MAN UNITED! GO LAKERS! FORZA FERRARI!