I for one, thought Gene Roddennbery couldn't write a good script to save his life. The stories and morals he wanted to convey were decent but his script writing skills were horrific. The timing and character development in the first 2-3 seasons of next gen were just absolutely laughable compared to the rest of the series. Gene should have only been a creative consultant and not had direct control over EVERYTHING which is what everyone finally figured out in the end. Even with the movies it worked out much better that way as is well known.
So when it comes to saying some people liked the Rick Berman star trek. I for one will say I defintely did. Once it got to Enterprise though, they really were just grasping at straws trying to come up with new ideas to keep people employed and really sucked it up good. Basically, if you want to sum up Enterprise, save maybe three episodes, the ship blows up completely and/or is nearly destroyed by some malevolent being with superior weapons and then in the next episode the ship is fine again and...repeat blowing up the ship again with new evil alien. Brannon and Berman simply ran out of steam and lost touch with their audience. And as some may argue, this began to happen sometime earlier especially with Voyager. DS9 was just on autopilot with the war so wasn't as easy to screw up.
Either way, star trek is simply a money making machine for Paramount now and will continue to be. Star Trek's previous feel is now gone forever. The new JJ star trek simply appeals to more people than the old trek did so it's here to stay.
I'll be frank here and say I like all of Trek. Even the JJ-version.
Each show in itself is good. There are many problems of conversion between TOs to TNG and even more from ENT to TOS, but seen separately, they're great.
Each show had good episodes and bad episodes. With some shows the bad part simply was predominant, doesn't matter. It's Trek. JJ-Trek ist just not the Trek we all grew up with, got used to.
It's like those nasty updates YouTube pulls every now and then. Complete rehauls that upset everyone who got used to the way it was. Everyone who uses YouTube after such updates only knows it that way. And in due time, even the elder ones begin to accept it as it is. You cannot change such rehauls.
In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
A force of terror in their own ranks..... Sounds like either Section 31 is taking a more agressive and prominent stance, or Gary Mitchell makes a more devastating appearance...
Cool, nice trailer. That one contains more stuff we hadn't seen yet. I was going to get the app for my tablet but, after seeing the issues people are having for it, I don't think I will.
Too bad about the video embedding being broken, but that's definitely good info for the bosses to have.
I've been leaning towards Gary Mitchell myself. But, I'm GLAD I don't actually know yet.
To a certain extent, the "secrecy" in the Into Darkness trailers is GOOD. It's like The Hobbit. I do NOT want to see Smaug in any of the trailers. I want to be blown into the back of my seat when I finally see it, not go "ooh, look, the scene from the trailer."
I do not expect anything more than mindless action, nonsensical plot, and overblown special effects from it, just like that 2009 abomination. The only thing Star Trek about the Abrams stuff is the name and his tendency to include old fanzine gags in the movies. That and he apparently actually looked in the original writers guide and pulled some action words (out of context) out of the character bios to base the characters on (though in the least compatible way possible).
Kirk is a good example. In the guide he is supposed to be the first JD they let into the academy because of favors his father cashed in, and was not supposed to be one that played by the rules or respected the authority of positions except when he absolutely had to. On the other hand he was not at all stupid and was perfectly capable of (mostly) following procedure and protocols to avoid making unnecessary trouble for himself when he had to. He is also supposed to be a very charismatic loose cannon that naturally attracts a following of the best people in their fields and inspires their loyalty; he does not use them as shills and pawns and leave them flapping in the breeze to dry like he did the Orion who he tricked into helping him with the test in the movie. Yet what happens all through the movie? He acts like a brainless jerk (while everyone inexplicably says how intelligent he is), openly and clumsily cheats and gets caught time and again, culminating in the court martial and Top Gun style 'call in the cadets to solve the problem the experienced officers cannot' nonsense. On top of that instead of attracting people and inspiring loyalty he is an incredibly obnoxious loner that everyone (except Bones) hates. Not something one would expect from any non-Abramsverse Kirk.
The other characterizations are the same way, a core of traits of the character that were all too often left out of the old series due to time and politics smothered by a wrapper of the worst Hollywood cliches about a character of the general type.
The 2009 move had the feeling of a script written by survey, a disjointed mashing together of the statistically most popular shticks without regard to what the whole comes out as. I hope the new one is better, but I seriously doubt it from the trailers.
I do not expect anything more than mindless action, nonsensical plot, and overblown special effects from it, just like that 2009 abomination. The only thing Star Trek about the Abrams stuff is the name and his tendency to include old fanzine gags in the movies. That and he apparently actually looked in the original writers guide and pulled some action words (out of context) out of the character bios to base the characters on (though in the least compatible way possible).
Kirk is a good example. In the guide he is supposed to be the first JD they let into the academy because of favors his father cashed in, and was not supposed to be one that played by the rules or respected the authority of positions except when he absolutely had to. On the other hand he was not at all stupid and was perfectly capable of (mostly) following procedure and protocols to avoid making unnecessary trouble for himself when he had to. He is also supposed to be a very charismatic loose cannon that naturally attracts a following of the best people in their fields and inspires their loyalty; he does not use them as shills and pawns and leave them flapping in the breeze to dry like he did the Orion who he tricked into helping him with the test in the movie. Yet what happens all through the movie? He acts like a brainless jerk (while everyone inexplicably says how intelligent he is), openly and clumsily cheats and gets caught time and again, culminating in the court martial and Top Gun style 'call in the cadets to solve the problem the experienced officers cannot' nonsense. On top of that instead of attracting people and inspiring loyalty he is an incredibly obnoxious loner that everyone (except Bones) hates. Not something one would expect from any non-Abramsverse Kirk.
The other characterizations are the same way, a core of traits of the character that were all too often left out of the old series due to time and politics smothered by a wrapper of the worst Hollywood cliches about a character of the general type.
The 2009 move had the feeling of a script written by survey, a disjointed mashing together of the statistically most popular shticks without regard to what the whole comes out as. I hope the new one is better, but I seriously doubt it from the trailers.
And its stuff like this I dont get. Its called an "Alternate Reality" for a reason. Thereby because of a different set of events and situations, can we not assume that there will be personality changes? I mean honestly do you believe you would still be the same person if a significant event in your life didn't happen/happen differently/etc? I in my own opinion thought that the Kirk portrayed in the 2009 was pretty accurate; a chauvinistic asshole, who was on the other hand brilliant and resourceful. Also then again as someone mentioned earlier, TOS barely HAD any sort of characterization, this film actually gave depth to them, and if you feel that way about the characters especially Kirk in this new film, then obviously they did something right.
Say what you want but the 2009 Star Trek film, damn near put blood back into the interest of Star Trek. People who I know didn't like ST before, went back to take a glimpse at the older stuff, The core of ST is there, it just may not be what the so called "real trekkies" envisioned.
And I believe this new film will be great. Already I see a reduction in lens flare; thats 2 stars by itself.
And its stuff like this I dont get. Its called an "Alternate Reality" for a reason. Thereby because of a different set of events and situations, can we not assume that there will be personality changes? I mean honestly do you believe you would still be the same person if a significant event in your life didn't happen/happen differently/etc? I in my own opinion thought that the Kirk portrayed in the 2009 was pretty accurate; a chauvinistic asshole, who was on the other hand brilliant and resourceful. Also then again as someone mentioned earlier, TOS barely HAD any sort of characterization, this film actually gave depth to them, and if you feel that way about the characters especially Kirk in this new film, then obviously they did something right.
Say what you want but the 2009 Star Trek film, damn near put blood back into the interest of Star Trek. People who I know didn't like ST before, went back to take a glimpse at the older stuff, The core of ST is there, it just may not be what the so called "real trekkies" envisioned.
And I believe this new film will be great. Already I see a reduction in lens flare; thats 2 stars by itself.
The only part of the alternate reality I can't get past is the Spock/Uhura relationship...
However, many people, including me, see JJ's movies as lacking something the first 10 movies had... something is missing...
Though I do like the reduced amount of lens flares...
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
The only part of the alternate reality I can't get past is the Spock/Uhura relationship...
However, many people, including me, see JJ's movies as lacking something the first 10 movies had... something is missing...
Though I do like the reduced amount of lens flares...
That sounds more like disappointment that Kirk failed to get the "hot black chick." Maybe some females like the more reserved man/hybrid/etc....
Tell me exactly whats missing. Because as I see, he did well with what he had, got rid of the unnecessary, made contemporary what was needed and gave a pretty good movie. And also another thing; if TWOK is going to be constantly used as a comparison then, people might as well give up right then and there. I'll admit that was a great movie, but as we see time and time again, you cant replicate that level of nostalgia. Can JJ make a film that'll literally be TWOK, giving you the same feelings? Nope. But can he make a film just as great and on the same level as TWOK? Yes he surely can. People just need to give it a chance.
Like really, can JJ do any worse than the "Killer Bs?"
And one added thing, I will wholeheartedly admit that JJ is a hit and miss feck up. I for one didnt care for Lost and thought him a dumbass, but I digress.
That sounds more like disappointment that Kirk failed to get the "hot black chick." Maybe some females like the more reserved man/hybrid/etc....
Tell me exactly whats missing. Because as I see, he did well with what he had, got rid of the unnecessary, made contemporary what was needed and gave a pretty good movie. And also another thing; if TWOK is going to be constantly used as a comparison then, people might as well give up right then and there. I'll admit that was a great movie, but as we see time and time again, you cant replicate that level of nostalgia. Can JJ make a film that'll literally be TWOK, giving you the same feelings? Nope. But can he make a film just as great and on the same level as TWOK? Yes he surely can. People just need to give it a chance.
Like really, can JJ do any worse than the "Killer Bs?"
And one added thing, I will wholeheartedly admit that JJ is a hit and miss feck up. I for one didnt care for Lost and thought him a dumbass, but I digress.
No, but the whole idea of a Vulcan in an emotional/romantic relationship... I feel like Guinan in the TNG episode 'Yesterday's Enterprise,' "It's not right!"
I've yet been able to put what's missing into words, it's something subliminal to me, a feeling, there's something about the first 10 movies that draws me back, I've watched the failure of ST:V more than JJ's first Star Trek movie, I kid you not, because nothing draws me back to JJ's movie, the only thing I watch it for is the VFX and the music... have yet to see Into Darkness, but from the trailers, it looks like your every day action movie these days... I haven't used TWOK by itself, but what most people wanted from what I saw years ago, is a TOS movie in the regular Star Trek universe... some even wanted a post-Voyager movie...
Despite the differences, in Voyager, DS9 and even Enterprise, something about those incantations drew me back... despite being new and different, they still drew me back... for some reason JJ's hasn't...
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
No, but the whole idea of a Vulcan in an emotional/romantic relationship... I feel like Guinan in the TNG episode 'Yesterday's Enterprise,' "It's not right!"
But without that, Spock wouldn't have even been born in the first place.
The who principle of the butterfly effect is that even the smallest changes can have far reaching implications much further out.
Indeed, and we don't know where that effect takes place. Look at the Kelvin, it's far more advanced than the TOS Primeverse ships, so the reality split must have taken place at a far earlier stage.
I think that is more down to all the people from varies trek shows that have gone back in time than Nero.
I think there was an episode of voyager where they specifically said technology in the 21st century was more advanced than it should be, but it was already part of their timeline now so they couldn't change it.
I think that is more down to all the people from varies trek shows that have gone back in time than Nero.
I think there was an episode of voyager where they specifically said technology in the 21st century was more advanced than it should be, but it was already part of their timeline now so they couldn't change it.
Yeah I remember that one, the 1990s/Relativity gone rogue two part episode.
But yeah something must have happened further along for the Kelvin to seem more advance than the Primeverse ships, or it was simply a design choice by the directors. Either way, the Narada's overuse of missiles, obviously had a profound effect on the development of the Enterprise and starship weaponry in general; ergo the increase use of defensive turrets/flak cannons. Which is fine and dandy, but I would like to see more particle beam-age in Into the Darkness lol.
ADD: Actually I just had a thought. What if those flak cannons that were on the Kelvin (and Enterprise) weren't pulse cannons at all, but perhaps guass cannons/rail guns? This would effectively put the ships in the Altverse in the league as those from the Primeverse.
But to the topic, I agree, this must be a timeline where most of the time traveling before/during the TOS era must have had some sort of cascade effect.
hm.. I just rewatched the Kelvins downing. The cannons shoot phaser-like beams, they seem to progress more like the beams from the Stargate Ori ships, though, but are still clearly beam cannons.
But the Enterprise fires bolt-like pulses that behave in speed and trajectory much like the gauss cannons (not even like pulse phasers), which are obisously more effective against torpedos.
hm.. I just rewatched the Kelvins downing. The cannons shoot phaser-like beams, they seem to progress more like the beams from the Stargate Ori ships, though, but are still clearly beam cannons.
But the Enterprise fires bolt-like pulses that behave in speed and trajectory much like the gauss cannons (not even like pulse phasers), which are obisously more effective against torpedos.
Fair point. I dont know. I'm thinking that because they are near the speed of light but slower, they are look like they are being stretched, or distorted, but then again they are consistent with a particle beam cannon shooting its being, then suddenly cut off. More like when you're running what then shut off the pipe; theres still a stream of it going. In that case they are still beam cannons as opposed to pulse cannons.
So you could be right. Then again, like I aid could be an artistic choice....but even still they had to have taken into account the tech during that time. Even still, I actually like the tech during this verse; to me it makes sense (disbarring the galactic transporter lol,) Their ship weapons can actually hit multiple targets at once! ;P
Say what you want but the 2009 Star Trek film, damn near put blood back into the interest of Star Trek. People who I know didn't like ST before, went back to take a glimpse at the older stuff, The core of ST is there, it just may not be what the so called "real trekkies" envisioned.
There is a reason why they did not like ST before.
I know these people too, great movie (2009) they say, but they are not waiting for another one, nor have they interest of having it around for another 50 year or so.
Exactly, this is an alternate reality, not the Roddenberry reality, looking exactly like BSG, and I not like it.
There is a reason why they did not like ST before.
I know these people too, great movie (2009) they say, but they are not waiting for another one, nor have they interest of having it around for another 50 year or so.
That is a very valid point. The draw of Star Trek is largely dependent on its rich background and that it was the first of its kind on TV, a highly innovative trail-breaker that sparked the imagination of millions. Abrams turning it into just another mindless action flick is doing it a big disservice that is turning away old fans but not attracting many new ones, just casual watchers that will flock to any new action flick that comes by without looking back.
I am not saying there was nothing at all good in the 2009 movie. Abrams did bring back some of the character background that was kind of lost in the day to day scramble of TV production and added in some of the better Fannon elements from some of the novels as well (the Enterprise landing in the water thing in Decent into Darkness was done in several novels too, the theory was that the support of the water would allow the ship land and not tip over or worse). The problem is the excruciating clumsiness of how he did it. There are Web pages out in the wild going into detail about it and I will not go into a blow-by-blow here but a few of them are worse than the rest.
Why did he have to come up with an entirely new race of Romulans that have no resemblance at all to any of the other Romulans in look or outlook? Also what possible reason did he have for coming up with an entirely different (and silly looking to boot) technology for them? He could have just as easily have used 'standard' Romulans or some other race entirely since the ones in the move do not have any attachment to the mainline ones which makes the use of the name meaningless. If there was something in the story that made that necessary it would still be ok, but done as it was it just gives a strong impression that he does not know anything at all about Romulans.
What was the change simply for the sake of change new Federation technology for? It added nothing to the plot, had none of the practicality of the original tech, and just looked silly and overdone like the art deco retrofuturistic stuff of the 1950's sci-fi tech. Everything had to have unnecessary moving parts for no reason other than to "look cool" from the toy store flipping hand "phasers" to the arms of the villains flying sand burr to Spock's ludicrous gyroscope of a ship. The oversize flying brewery of an Enterprise with turbine engines in space and bristling with Star Wars blasters did not help any either. It is not a game stopper but another sizable strike against the movie that also just gives the impression that Abrams did not know if he was doing Star Trek, Star Wars or Flash Gordon.
Starfleet is supposed to be a military or at least semi-military organization yet in the movie it was a disorganized mess with no discipline, structure, or traditions at all. It is like a random bunch of gangs with their leaders arbitrarily assigning rank based on favors, whim, and charisma with no resemblance to a modern military organization whatsoever. They flush the academy of cadets to crew ships that should already have crews and send them into an unknown but presumed highly dangerous situation to get killed instead of finishing their training and replacing personnel killed or promoted on the line; talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. They have fistfights between 'officers' and conveniently obtuse rules to determine who runs the ship and ignore rank entirely, putting cadets in the top officer positions over more experienced personnel for instance. This one is almost a gamestopper on its own, and again it serves to give the impression that Abrams has no clue whatsoever about what he is doing.
Continuity is a major problem in the movie too. Ignoring the considerable continuity gaffs between mainline Trek and the movie that cannot be explained by the timeline branching, the movie is not even consistent with itself from scene to scene. For example Spock orders full warp speed to the assembly point yet about a half hour or more later he orders Kirk marooned on a planetoid "along their current line of travel" and from the visuals it would have to be in orbit around Vulcan to get a view of the planet as a full disc like it is shown. And the movie was chock full of those gaffs. Again it strengthens the impression that Abrams does not know what he is doing so strongly that it overpowers the immersion a movie is supposed to have.
I can understand the need for an alternate timeline where there is more freedom to do things with the plot, but it can be done and still stay true to the spirit of Star Trek from before the Killer B's drudged it out to dull a technobabble infested procedural show. Abrams came up with a good enough lightweight science-fantasy SFX fest on its own, but presenting it as Star Trek made it offensive to the Trek fanbase, especially since it signaled a direction change that meant that decent Trek would be even more unlikely to ever be produced again.
A more interesting and Trek-like way of splitting the timeline off instead of the overused epic fantasy style they did it in would have been to take one or two of the TOS episodes, put the movie cast in "older" makeup and redo a snippet from the recognizable episode where something happened but the crew did not remember or notice it in the original timeline but had enough repercussion to cause the split on the movie side and then have the movie stuff go from there with the cast in their normal 'current' makeup. There are plenty of TOS episodes where they could get such a lead in from and the irony would not be lost on the fans (who are not idiots like Paramount seems to think) and may even spark more interest in the original show. They could have even cleaned up some of the original footage and used that instead as the lead in and imply that it was such a massive change that the crew even look different and it could have worked. If they absolutely had to do cameos with the original cast they could easily have worked them in as other characters, like Nimoy could have been the patriarch of Spocks clan or whatever (they showed the matriarch in the series but never a patriarch).
Okay, I know all the Trekkers/Trekkies and general sci-fi nerds (e.g., we SFM types) out there are going to be obsessing about this final trailer.
The key question: What the HELL is that ship facing off against the Enterprise? In some respects it resembles a Galaxy class, only with much, much larger warp nacelles. The size ratio between that ship and the Enterprise is roughly the same as between a Galaxy and a Connie, as I recall (based upon the models in the staff room on the Ent-D, and various comparison diagrams). Logically it ISN'T a Galaxy, though, unless the JJ-verse is REALLY mucking around with basic timeline elements.
So if it's not a Galaxy or its equivalent (e.g. some future ship come back to the past...again), what is it? Maybe the UFP decided that the response to Nero having appeared with a ship that completely decimated an entire task force would be to make larger cruisers, rather like the TNG response to the Borg threat was to create the Sovereign class?
Posts
So when it comes to saying some people liked the Rick Berman star trek. I for one will say I defintely did. Once it got to Enterprise though, they really were just grasping at straws trying to come up with new ideas to keep people employed and really sucked it up good. Basically, if you want to sum up Enterprise, save maybe three episodes, the ship blows up completely and/or is nearly destroyed by some malevolent being with superior weapons and then in the next episode the ship is fine again and...repeat blowing up the ship again with new evil alien. Brannon and Berman simply ran out of steam and lost touch with their audience. And as some may argue, this began to happen sometime earlier especially with Voyager. DS9 was just on autopilot with the war so wasn't as easy to screw up.
Either way, star trek is simply a money making machine for Paramount now and will continue to be. Star Trek's previous feel is now gone forever. The new JJ star trek simply appeals to more people than the old trek did so it's here to stay.
Each show in itself is good. There are many problems of conversion between TOs to TNG and even more from ENT to TOS, but seen separately, they're great.
Each show had good episodes and bad episodes. With some shows the bad part simply was predominant, doesn't matter. It's Trek. JJ-Trek ist just not the Trek we all grew up with, got used to.
It's like those nasty updates YouTube pulls every now and then. Complete rehauls that upset everyone who got used to the way it was. Everyone who uses YouTube after such updates only knows it that way. And in due time, even the elder ones begin to accept it as it is. You cannot change such rehauls.
On, I also found this one:
http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-the-video-game-available-april-23-2013
[edit]: nevermind. embedding works. just messed up the tags.
Join our fancy Discord Server!
Too bad about the video embedding being broken, but that's definitely good info for the bosses to have.
Join our fancy Discord Server!
In any event, I'll see it.
To a certain extent, the "secrecy" in the Into Darkness trailers is GOOD. It's like The Hobbit. I do NOT want to see Smaug in any of the trailers. I want to be blown into the back of my seat when I finally see it, not go "ooh, look, the scene from the trailer."
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Hope it was a battlestar galactica trailer.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Kirk is a good example. In the guide he is supposed to be the first JD they let into the academy because of favors his father cashed in, and was not supposed to be one that played by the rules or respected the authority of positions except when he absolutely had to. On the other hand he was not at all stupid and was perfectly capable of (mostly) following procedure and protocols to avoid making unnecessary trouble for himself when he had to. He is also supposed to be a very charismatic loose cannon that naturally attracts a following of the best people in their fields and inspires their loyalty; he does not use them as shills and pawns and leave them flapping in the breeze to dry like he did the Orion who he tricked into helping him with the test in the movie. Yet what happens all through the movie? He acts like a brainless jerk (while everyone inexplicably says how intelligent he is), openly and clumsily cheats and gets caught time and again, culminating in the court martial and Top Gun style 'call in the cadets to solve the problem the experienced officers cannot' nonsense. On top of that instead of attracting people and inspiring loyalty he is an incredibly obnoxious loner that everyone (except Bones) hates. Not something one would expect from any non-Abramsverse Kirk.
The other characterizations are the same way, a core of traits of the character that were all too often left out of the old series due to time and politics smothered by a wrapper of the worst Hollywood cliches about a character of the general type.
The 2009 move had the feeling of a script written by survey, a disjointed mashing together of the statistically most popular shticks without regard to what the whole comes out as. I hope the new one is better, but I seriously doubt it from the trailers.
And its stuff like this I dont get. Its called an "Alternate Reality" for a reason. Thereby because of a different set of events and situations, can we not assume that there will be personality changes? I mean honestly do you believe you would still be the same person if a significant event in your life didn't happen/happen differently/etc? I in my own opinion thought that the Kirk portrayed in the 2009 was pretty accurate; a chauvinistic asshole, who was on the other hand brilliant and resourceful. Also then again as someone mentioned earlier, TOS barely HAD any sort of characterization, this film actually gave depth to them, and if you feel that way about the characters especially Kirk in this new film, then obviously they did something right.
Say what you want but the 2009 Star Trek film, damn near put blood back into the interest of Star Trek. People who I know didn't like ST before, went back to take a glimpse at the older stuff, The core of ST is there, it just may not be what the so called "real trekkies" envisioned.
And I believe this new film will be great. Already I see a reduction in lens flare; thats 2 stars by itself.
The only part of the alternate reality I can't get past is the Spock/Uhura relationship...
However, many people, including me, see JJ's movies as lacking something the first 10 movies had... something is missing...
Though I do like the reduced amount of lens flares...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
That sounds more like disappointment that Kirk failed to get the "hot black chick." Maybe some females like the more reserved man/hybrid/etc....
Tell me exactly whats missing. Because as I see, he did well with what he had, got rid of the unnecessary, made contemporary what was needed and gave a pretty good movie. And also another thing; if TWOK is going to be constantly used as a comparison then, people might as well give up right then and there. I'll admit that was a great movie, but as we see time and time again, you cant replicate that level of nostalgia. Can JJ make a film that'll literally be TWOK, giving you the same feelings? Nope. But can he make a film just as great and on the same level as TWOK? Yes he surely can. People just need to give it a chance.
Like really, can JJ do any worse than the "Killer Bs?"
And one added thing, I will wholeheartedly admit that JJ is a hit and miss feck up. I for one didnt care for Lost and thought him a dumbass, but I digress.
No, but the whole idea of a Vulcan in an emotional/romantic relationship... I feel like Guinan in the TNG episode 'Yesterday's Enterprise,' "It's not right!"
I've yet been able to put what's missing into words, it's something subliminal to me, a feeling, there's something about the first 10 movies that draws me back, I've watched the failure of ST:V more than JJ's first Star Trek movie, I kid you not, because nothing draws me back to JJ's movie, the only thing I watch it for is the VFX and the music... have yet to see Into Darkness, but from the trailers, it looks like your every day action movie these days... I haven't used TWOK by itself, but what most people wanted from what I saw years ago, is a TOS movie in the regular Star Trek universe... some even wanted a post-Voyager movie...
Despite the differences, in Voyager, DS9 and even Enterprise, something about those incantations drew me back... despite being new and different, they still drew me back... for some reason JJ's hasn't...
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
But without that, Spock wouldn't have even been born in the first place.
The who principle of the butterfly effect is that even the smallest changes can have far reaching implications much further out.
I think there was an episode of voyager where they specifically said technology in the 21st century was more advanced than it should be, but it was already part of their timeline now so they couldn't change it.
Yeah I remember that one, the 1990s/Relativity gone rogue two part episode.
But yeah something must have happened further along for the Kelvin to seem more advance than the Primeverse ships, or it was simply a design choice by the directors. Either way, the Narada's overuse of missiles, obviously had a profound effect on the development of the Enterprise and starship weaponry in general; ergo the increase use of defensive turrets/flak cannons. Which is fine and dandy, but I would like to see more particle beam-age in Into the Darkness lol.
ADD: Actually I just had a thought. What if those flak cannons that were on the Kelvin (and Enterprise) weren't pulse cannons at all, but perhaps guass cannons/rail guns? This would effectively put the ships in the Altverse in the league as those from the Primeverse.
But to the topic, I agree, this must be a timeline where most of the time traveling before/during the TOS era must have had some sort of cascade effect.
But the Enterprise fires bolt-like pulses that behave in speed and trajectory much like the gauss cannons (not even like pulse phasers), which are obisously more effective against torpedos.
Fair point. I dont know. I'm thinking that because they are near the speed of light but slower, they are look like they are being stretched, or distorted, but then again they are consistent with a particle beam cannon shooting its being, then suddenly cut off. More like when you're running what then shut off the pipe; theres still a stream of it going. In that case they are still beam cannons as opposed to pulse cannons.
So you could be right. Then again, like I aid could be an artistic choice....but even still they had to have taken into account the tech during that time. Even still, I actually like the tech during this verse; to me it makes sense (disbarring the galactic transporter lol,) Their ship weapons can actually hit multiple targets at once! ;P
Exactly, this is an alternate reality, not the Roddenberry reality, looking exactly like BSG, and I not like it.
There is a reason why they did not like ST before.
I know these people too, great movie (2009) they say, but they are not waiting for another one, nor have they interest of having it around for another 50 year or so.
That is a very valid point. The draw of Star Trek is largely dependent on its rich background and that it was the first of its kind on TV, a highly innovative trail-breaker that sparked the imagination of millions. Abrams turning it into just another mindless action flick is doing it a big disservice that is turning away old fans but not attracting many new ones, just casual watchers that will flock to any new action flick that comes by without looking back.
I am not saying there was nothing at all good in the 2009 movie. Abrams did bring back some of the character background that was kind of lost in the day to day scramble of TV production and added in some of the better Fannon elements from some of the novels as well (the Enterprise landing in the water thing in Decent into Darkness was done in several novels too, the theory was that the support of the water would allow the ship land and not tip over or worse). The problem is the excruciating clumsiness of how he did it. There are Web pages out in the wild going into detail about it and I will not go into a blow-by-blow here but a few of them are worse than the rest.
Why did he have to come up with an entirely new race of Romulans that have no resemblance at all to any of the other Romulans in look or outlook? Also what possible reason did he have for coming up with an entirely different (and silly looking to boot) technology for them? He could have just as easily have used 'standard' Romulans or some other race entirely since the ones in the move do not have any attachment to the mainline ones which makes the use of the name meaningless. If there was something in the story that made that necessary it would still be ok, but done as it was it just gives a strong impression that he does not know anything at all about Romulans.
What was the change simply for the sake of change new Federation technology for? It added nothing to the plot, had none of the practicality of the original tech, and just looked silly and overdone like the art deco retrofuturistic stuff of the 1950's sci-fi tech. Everything had to have unnecessary moving parts for no reason other than to "look cool" from the toy store flipping hand "phasers" to the arms of the villains flying sand burr to Spock's ludicrous gyroscope of a ship. The oversize flying brewery of an Enterprise with turbine engines in space and bristling with Star Wars blasters did not help any either. It is not a game stopper but another sizable strike against the movie that also just gives the impression that Abrams did not know if he was doing Star Trek, Star Wars or Flash Gordon.
Starfleet is supposed to be a military or at least semi-military organization yet in the movie it was a disorganized mess with no discipline, structure, or traditions at all. It is like a random bunch of gangs with their leaders arbitrarily assigning rank based on favors, whim, and charisma with no resemblance to a modern military organization whatsoever. They flush the academy of cadets to crew ships that should already have crews and send them into an unknown but presumed highly dangerous situation to get killed instead of finishing their training and replacing personnel killed or promoted on the line; talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. They have fistfights between 'officers' and conveniently obtuse rules to determine who runs the ship and ignore rank entirely, putting cadets in the top officer positions over more experienced personnel for instance. This one is almost a gamestopper on its own, and again it serves to give the impression that Abrams has no clue whatsoever about what he is doing.
Continuity is a major problem in the movie too. Ignoring the considerable continuity gaffs between mainline Trek and the movie that cannot be explained by the timeline branching, the movie is not even consistent with itself from scene to scene. For example Spock orders full warp speed to the assembly point yet about a half hour or more later he orders Kirk marooned on a planetoid "along their current line of travel" and from the visuals it would have to be in orbit around Vulcan to get a view of the planet as a full disc like it is shown. And the movie was chock full of those gaffs. Again it strengthens the impression that Abrams does not know what he is doing so strongly that it overpowers the immersion a movie is supposed to have.
I can understand the need for an alternate timeline where there is more freedom to do things with the plot, but it can be done and still stay true to the spirit of Star Trek from before the Killer B's drudged it out to dull a technobabble infested procedural show. Abrams came up with a good enough lightweight science-fantasy SFX fest on its own, but presenting it as Star Trek made it offensive to the Trek fanbase, especially since it signaled a direction change that meant that decent Trek would be even more unlikely to ever be produced again.
A more interesting and Trek-like way of splitting the timeline off instead of the overused epic fantasy style they did it in would have been to take one or two of the TOS episodes, put the movie cast in "older" makeup and redo a snippet from the recognizable episode where something happened but the crew did not remember or notice it in the original timeline but had enough repercussion to cause the split on the movie side and then have the movie stuff go from there with the cast in their normal 'current' makeup. There are plenty of TOS episodes where they could get such a lead in from and the irony would not be lost on the fans (who are not idiots like Paramount seems to think) and may even spark more interest in the original show. They could have even cleaned up some of the original footage and used that instead as the lead in and imply that it was such a massive change that the crew even look different and it could have worked. If they absolutely had to do cameos with the original cast they could easily have worked them in as other characters, like Nimoy could have been the patriarch of Spocks clan or whatever (they showed the matriarch in the series but never a patriarch).
Join our fancy Discord Server!
The key question: What the HELL is that ship facing off against the Enterprise? In some respects it resembles a Galaxy class, only with much, much larger warp nacelles. The size ratio between that ship and the Enterprise is roughly the same as between a Galaxy and a Connie, as I recall (based upon the models in the staff room on the Ent-D, and various comparison diagrams). Logically it ISN'T a Galaxy, though, unless the JJ-verse is REALLY mucking around with basic timeline elements.
So if it's not a Galaxy or its equivalent (e.g. some future ship come back to the past...again), what is it? Maybe the UFP decided that the response to Nero having appeared with a ship that completely decimated an entire task force would be to make larger cruisers, rather like the TNG response to the Borg threat was to create the Sovereign class?
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro