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.
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.
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.
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.