Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 488
# 71
05-19-2013, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by thunderfoot006 View Post
Hmm... takes two people to have an argument. You are looking for one. I am not. Buh-Bye!
That's exactly my point. Thank you for going away, if you actually mean it (doubtful).
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,765
# 72
05-19-2013, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by kain9prime View Post
Give me a break... .
ok here is you a kit kat
Originally Posted by macronius View Post
This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 476
# 73
05-19-2013, 05:08 PM
I liked the new movie. It had some nice references to old trek (not just the parallels). And it had a definite trek theme, that you shouldn't throw away your humanity in an effort to protect or avenge.

And I liked the warp core. Some people might not like the 'modern' feel of some of it, but the future's bound to have conduits, pipes, and plates somewhere. Not a huge fan of the open-air tank storage areas, but I like the idea that there are larger compartments holding those bulk storage units, not just strict deck-lines all over the ship. Just thought having cavernous areas above all of it is a bit silly.

I found the movie thought-provoking. Which is why we like the cerebral stuff, isn't it? So action-packed but with interesting ideas isn't so bad. It made me think about the prime directive and warfare and stuff, even if it didn't have characters discuss it for minutes at a time.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 105
# 74
05-19-2013, 05:46 PM
I want that ship, the new one...the Dreadnought just looked awesome and I want it ingame

as for the movie, better than I expected. hadn't expected a certain individual to make an appearance which actually fit well with the storyline, and when he said "at great cost" and without ever knowing he was in it or what he would say, I knew in an instant that that would be his reply to Sulu's question. the thing that still annoys me is the engineering decks. wtf is with all the girders? and those uniforms....get rid of the hats and why did abrams just have to have a variation of mustafar in the form of a volcano, and then crashing a ship onto a planet...been there/done that, same with jumping of a cliff. still, it was good, but by the same token, I can't argue with the OP, but I see abrams as a mistake. Star Trek was never about "action", it was about issues and the "human condition" which these 2 newer movies don't have

aut vincere aut mori pro imperio
either to conquer or to die for the Empire

Last edited by warmonger360; 05-19-2013 at 05:51 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 337
# 75
05-19-2013, 06:30 PM
I like the new Trek movies, for what they are, not for uncomprimising nostalgia.
The core characters are well realized and the sum of its parts does bare an overarching theme or message.

These guys are young and just getting their feet wet. It's only natural that philosophical exploration take a back-seat to fast-paced action. Not to mention this is a movie and can't afford the luxury of serialized teleplay.

That said, my only beef is Abrams could've drawn from any number of worthy STO villains but settled for the one everyone, even the non-Trekkie, remembers.

With Star Wars on Abrams' plate, it's unlikely we'll see another Star Trek film anytime soon but they were good for what they were, imo.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,796
# 76
05-19-2013, 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by shaanithegreen View Post
I would argue that DS9 actually presents Roddenberry's ideals better than he did, by showing humanity, with all it's flaws, can still improve and struggle and have their better nature win out more often than not.
That's cool and all, but Roddenberry wouldn't have been keen on it.

Just like Roddenberry was publically critical of Nicky Meyer's work on the franchise after Roddenberry was taken out of the loop.

So yeah, Roddenberry wasn't keen on The Wrath of Khan. Not sure this thread's really on terra firma if it's purpose is to claim Gene wouldn't like the new direction of Trek. He didn't like a lot of the stuff Trek did that he wasn't directly involved in. From TWOK to TNG to DS9.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 97
# 77
05-19-2013, 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by assimilatedktar View Post
Considering that his ashes would be rotating at warp speed if he'd knew what is called "Star Trek" today, yes it is.
His ashes are rotating at warp-speed because he's not getting any revenue from STO. We all love Gene. That doesn't mean he wasn't a shill. Or that he didn't use Trek as a cash cow for decades.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33
# 78
05-19-2013, 09:49 PM

Well here is Gene talking about this very topic.

Last edited by bwleon7; 05-19-2013 at 09:52 PM.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM.