Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > So much for the Star Trek Movie

So much for the Star Trek Movie (Page 12)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 04:30 PM
 
I get it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Most movies are 2.35:1, with a few exceptions. Makes sense that HD would be 2.35:1 instead of 16:9.

Edit: Nevermind. Moot point.
You'd be surprised at how many movies are 1.85:1, especially comedies.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 06:43 PM
 
I think the bad guy was a miner, with a mining ship. He stuck with what he knew.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Most movies are 2.35:1, with a few exceptions. Makes sense that HD would be 2.35:1 instead of 16:9.

Edit: Nevermind. Moot point.
Most action movies are 2.35. The 1.85 format was made specifically for comedies as the shots aren't as wide and you can focus more on faces.

It is up to the director which aspect ratio films use. I prefer 1.85 for everything. The dark night looked better to me when the IMAX scenes kicked in and scaled to 1.85.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 09:58 PM
 
I prefer 1.85 as well, but most directors think the 2.35 ratio gives the film a more "epic" look.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 10:23 PM
 
Wider screens hint at "really wide" presentations, like Cinerama. When you have both a very wide presentation AND the proper curvature to the screen, you kick in all sorts of peripheral vision sensations that make the brain feel like it's "there," and enhance realism. Of course no matter what anamporphic aspect ratio you use, it'll still be projected onto a flat screen unless you're doing an IMAX film, so more screen width just means more area to fill up with interesting stuff and keep the mics out of.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 07:26 AM
 
With regards to Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
You didn't pay attention. They said ON SCREEN that the Klingons would be able to tell that they were using a Universal Translator and they didn't know in advance what the Klingons would ask. They modified a torpedo to use stuff from probes that study gaseous anomalies because for some reason the ships sensors couldn't do what they needed them to-and the torpedo needed to track the Bird of Prey. And Spock kind of knew that things could go badly and, being intelligent, planned for that contingency. It was all very consistent with the ST canon and history.
You missed a really good glitch. Check the beginning of the movie, a log entry by Captain Sulu on the Excelsior. They have just returned from an extended mission cataloging gaseous anomalies in the Beta quadrant. Oops -- that torpedo they later prepped on Enterprise using that gas equipment. Left over from the research mission. The mission that took place on a different ship.

------------------------

I've finally watched the new Star Trek. And I'm going to side with the minority here. The movie was so bad it's hard to know where to start. So this is in somewhat random order.

The idiots who designed the bridge on the Enterprise series didn't die with the series. It's a working location - but with flashing lights everywhere. Flashing should be reserved for something that needs attention, but lights & icons blinked everywhere. Plus those EPS conduits that sometimes appeared on the bridge supplying immense power to something overhead during warp. Except the bridge is on A deck at the very top of the saucer section.

Well on the new 1701 Enterprise, the bridge has plenty of flashing (but routine) lights, plus added glaring lights pointed at the crew rather than the consoles. Glaring lights are present in other locations too, like escape shuttles. Oh, good thing the Kelvin had about 30 shuttlecraft handy. Which carried ~800 people to safety, or 25+ per shuttle. Guess all the escape pods had been removed to make room for so many shuttlecraft.

Er, why does the Kelvin have a crew of 800? The Enterprise 1701 averaged 140, it wasn't until the TNG Galaxy class that they approached 1,000 people. Since that included family members for long-duration missions, the actual crew count was probably around 500. The Kelvin must have been the biggest ship in Starfleet at the time. Without nacelles.

Note to those who think the Kelvin carried family. I didn't see any - only the one pregnant woman who wasn't in uniform. Because she was off duty.

Ok, the Kelvin. Saucer section - check. Upper hull with deflector on front, shuttle bay on back - check. Saucer section contains impulse engines (illuminated red areas on saucer rear) which were on at all times, even when the ship was not moving forwards. Ship moved forward when they ... activated the deflector on the lower hull. Said deflector was facing backwards, and is not a propulsion device.

Weapons remained available for fire after main power went down. Ship rammed into enemy vessel, at which point the antimatter containment failed vaporizing everything within sight to the tune of a few hundred gigatons. No wait, it looked like nothing more than a chemical explosion. Good thing too, since the shuttles (which did have warp nacelles) were taking their time to escape on minimal thrusters.

Star Trek tries not to contradict known science. The audience isn't supposed to be uneducated, or experts at ignoring basic problems. ST isn't supposed to be a fantasy movie, which is allowed to contradict. But ...

Red Matter which turns into small black holes when ignited, or in contact with normal matter or something. Why do we have to drill a hole to a planet's core to drop it in? Drop a small black hole on the surface, it will fall through the planet like vacuum. No need to make a hole for it, it makes it's own.

Also, a quantum singularity is likely to take years to grow, until it finally swallows a planet. To swallow Vulcan that fast, it would need an initial mass substantially greater than the planet - otherwise the surface would fall in starting at 1-2 gees. Terribly slow on a planetary scale.

A supernova in the future threatens the galaxy, especially Romulus. So after it blows, the Federation preps some insta-black-hole-juice to cancel the supernova. It will take about 150,000 years for the shockwave to traverse the galaxy, but will only be a radiation problem for planets within the first 100 lightyears or so. Also there is the problem that collapsing the stellar remnant after it blows does nothing to the shock wave. That wave is already expanding away at a fraction of lightspeed, and is long gone. Better also ignore another problem - supernova often leave a black hole remnant anyway.

Such a shockwave would only vaporize Romulus if it were their own star. Even if it were their star, and Spock got to the star before it blew (story dialog all says Spock responded after) there is the problem that turning the star into a black hole will destroy Romulus anyway. Freezing definitely, when the sunlight goes away.

Why is an aged ambassador charged with a solo mission on this? Wouldn't a regular starship crew respond? Spock was mustered out some time back. A regular starship crew might even have a ship with nacelles instead of rotating rings.

Mr. Romulan got word of his wife being dead, and spent a lot of time plotting to get Spock. So he shows up at the supernova shockwave to intercept Spock - the supernova that just happened. Wait - did Mr. Romulan travel back in time already, and what we saw was his second unplanned trip? Or did Spock show up years late, looong after Romulus got blown away? The time sequence here doesn't fit the plot.

Bridge crew behavior. Yes, they're recruits for story reasons. But they regularly leave their posts in time of crisis to argue or console individuals off the bridge. Uhura especially, who didn't call for a relief to assume her post before any of her departures. Discipline must have been a serious problem in the Academy.

Other Vulcans picking on Spock in school. While young Spock might have repressed emotions, the pure-vulcan children would not have. There is no motivation for them to try and make a fellow student crack - no logical benefit. Human children do such things for herd instinct and emotions.

Cardassian beverages available in a bar on Earth. Expanding Federation exploration didn't encounter the Cardassians until a century later - DS9 was on the frontier. A changed timeline shouldn't move star systems around.

Corvette fell off a cliff with momentum remaining. It should have followed a parabola, continuing to move away from the cliff face until it hit bottom. Instead, it kept a constant distance. Didn't look right.

They're building big space ships on Earth now, in atmosphere. This is likely to introduce all kinds of stress issues, plus falling danger for the construction crew. In Star Trek, ships are built in orbit. First in Earth orbit, later at the Utopia Planitia shipyards near Mars. The changed timeline could alter that - but the revised timeline makes reference to the NX-01 Enterprise, which was built in orbit.

Transwarp transport to a moving vessel. Even if we grant Scotty having built the hardware before obtaining the correct equation, how did they target a moving ship at a huge distance? They'd need a long range subspace telescope array to get that kind of accuracy.

Kirk was ejected from Enterprise in an escape pod. Guess those entered service since the Kelvin incident. Why was the escape pod ejected from a port docking hatch? That's a personnel port. And wouldn't the transporter make more sense? Transporters were working again since they damaged the drill head.

The Enterprise exited warp in Titan's atmosphere. An equivalent volume of atmosphere had to be deflected out of the way to make room for the ship (and it's approach path). Considering how fast it arrived, displacing the atmosphere that fast would have made a fabulous explosion. Big enough that a good amount would have exceeded Titan's escape velocity as superheated plasma. Possibly compressed to fusion conditions. Not a very discreet arrival - the light would be visible on Earth at night. During the day if it reached fusion conditions.

There was more, I lost track of how many things grated. Not just contradicting existing Star Trek - this was basic stuff mostly independent of past story lines. No attention to believability, give the audience drama & pretty lights. It is scary that so many people liked it - scary for our real-world future.
( Last edited by reader50; Oct 7, 2009 at 08:14 AM. Reason: typos, remembered more nits)
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:32 AM
 
The Excelsior was not the only ship cataloging gaseous anamolies; they were farther out than Enterprise in Undiscovered Country, cataloging another area. On to the new film:

The TOS Enterprise had a crew of something over 400, not "140." And the BIG crew for the Kelvin was one of the tip offs that this particular timeline was NOT the original timeline; there were a LOT of things that were different, including the Cardassian drinks being available on Earth, indicating that this was a very different place from the one we were already familiar with.

Construction of a ship on Earth? The TOS Enterprise was "built at the San Francisco Naval Shipyards and assembled in orbit" (per "The World of Star Trek" and the Franz Josef "Star Fleet Technical Manual"), so showing the assembly of the ship ON the ground isn't that big a deal-especially if this is a very different timeline. They may have sectioned the completed ship and then assembled it in orbit, or they may have had more interesting techniques to allow them to put the whole thing into orbit without damage. Different realities mean different capabilities.

Vulcan kids picking on others? One has to develop the emotions fully to suppress them, and there is plenty of cannon about "less than logical" behavior by both underage and not too well schooled Vulcans. It works, it fits with established stories (Amanda even mentions the others teasing Spock in "Journey to Babel"), and it helps demonstrate Spock's dilemma.

The supernova was GOING to blow and went off before it was predicted to, wiping out a series of systems including Romulus. Spock was on his way when it detonated, not in consultation.

Lots of "huh?" so-called science in the story, sure, but only the really extreme stuff was played fast and loose with. The Corvette that Kirk drove off the cliff was going slowly enough (sideways!) that he could get out without major injury, so its arc over the edge was not so fast that it would necessarily fall in an obvious parabolic path. The Enterprise could have warped to just outside Titan's atmosphere so as to NOT make any obvious signs of its arrival. And remember, it's FANTASY wrapped up in shiny paper that "looks" scientific, so these oddities are just that.

I get the impression you went in with the expectation that you wouldn't like the movie, and then spent the whole time cataloging what was "wrong" with it. I just can't watch a movie that way. The overall experience was GREAT for me, with the occasional "WTF?" being something to discuss with fellow fans later, not something that would interrupt the flow of the story. I'm sorry you couldn't just sit and watch, and then judge the experience rather than the combination of story telling and editorial compromises needed to put the movie on the screen. It would have been more fun, even if it still didn't "make a lot of sense."

Yeah, I'm a die-hard fan of the whole franchise, warts, Ferengi and all...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 10:09 AM
 
It just bugged me that Spock never fixed the timeline. It was a MESS.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 10:55 AM
 
In regards to reader, I have a hard time believing people would think this movie was so great if it hadn't had the Star Trek branding. I'm also sad so many people don't care about coherent plots.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:24 AM
 
Yeah, I don't even remember if I posted or not in this thread, but here's what I thought (possibly again)

It was a terrible movie that did a lot of things well. The actors were all great, the sets were great, the overall tone of the movie was also great... but the plot was terrible, the bad guy was terrible and the whole thing made almost no sense if you stopped for even a second to think about it. It was a fun way to kill 2 hours, but was more or less just fan service.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 12:03 PM
 
I wish people would put more THOUGHT into a plot. Ever since Armageddon, the plots on movies have taken a back seat to special effects.

I mean really, it's a TIME TRAVEL movie. If you're a "bad guy" and get thrown back in time, send a message to Spock that says "do not open until 2365" and be done with it.

*sigh*

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 02:55 PM
 
For one thing, the bad guy thought Spock didn't care, so it wouldn't matter what he knew. For another, the bad guy wasn't very smart. If you're going to slam people for not putting thought into things, you should put some... thought into it....
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 02:59 PM
 
Yes, indict us for one flaw in our reasoning compared to the movie's veritable laundry list.

Personally, I thought Nero was just a generic bad guy. That's why he wasn't "very smart."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
You missed a really good glitch. Check the beginning of the movie, a log entry by Captain Sulu on the Excelsior. They have just returned from an extended mission cataloging gaseous anomalies in the Beta quadrant. Oops -- that torpedo they later prepped on Enterprise using that gas equipment. Left over from the research mission. The mission that took place on a different ship.
No, most Starfleet vessels carry a complement of various scientific equipment, including probes. Enterprise especially would be carrying the latest equipment seeing how it is the flagship of the entire fleet, and is designed for exploration.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 03:10 PM
 
I'll also reiterate my sentiments about the new Star Trek movie; it could have just easily have not been a Star Trek movie. Could've just called it Independence Day 2: More Independent. However, "Star Trek" gets more tickets sold.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 03:13 PM
 
I agree with that. Better reviews, too.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 03:45 PM
 
Another thought: City on the Edge of Forever. It was IMPERATIVE they set the timeline straight, even if it was for their own reasons. However, why the HELL doesn't Spock or the E or someone go back and fix things? The screwed up timeline probably did more damage than the death of Edith Keeler.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I'll also reiterate my sentiments about the new Star Trek movie; it could have just easily have not been a Star Trek movie. Could've just called it Independence Day 2: More Independent. However, "Star Trek" gets more tickets sold.
The same could be said for most of the Trek movies over the years. Just like any other Sci-fi movie, except the characters are ones we already know.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, indict us for one flaw in our reasoning compared to the movie's veritable laundry list.


Personally, I thought Nero was just a generic bad guy. That's why he wasn't "very smart."
Arguably, he was blinded by grief. It's as good an explanation as any other for his lack of intelligence/perspective (except that it's tiredly similar to the season of Voyager with the same concept).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
However, why the HELL doesn't Spock or the E or someone go back and fix things? The screwed up timeline probably did more damage than the death of Edith Keeler.
I can think of several possible answers to this:
1. Who says they won't? When you have a time machine, you don't have to hurry to get this stuff done. I smell a sequel!
2. Maybe it was never imperative, they just thought they should try it since they had a chance. Now the horse is already out of the barn, and talking about closing the door is a waste of breath.
3. Maybe they realize that "fixing" the past is a lot harder than it sounds, and they're worried about the very real risk that attempting to "fix" such a large change will make things worse and not better.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're giving us crap for one 'poorly thought out' point, in comparison to the movie's slew of problems. I might point out we're not the professional writers here, either, so I think you can cut us some slack.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Arguably, he was blinded by grief. It's as good an explanation as any other for his lack of intelligence/perspective (except that it's tiredly similar to the season of Voyager with the same concept).
See that's the problem. The point of the reboot was to be fresh. This character was anything but.

(Note: I do believe I heard it mentioned somewhere that scenes that fleshed out Nero were cut – such as explaining what he did for 20 years in the past while Dawson Kirk grew up)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:40 PM
 
How are they supposed to fix the past? It's not like the can just hop in the DeLorean, set the target date to "Moments before Kirk's father died," take down Nero and then kick back.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:51 PM
 
You have to realize that when it comes to time travel in this new Star Trek, they are now keeping with the current scientific thought on time travel. If you were able to go back in time, that very act just created a new timeline. You can not alter the timeline you're on. You can't go back in time and then return to when you left. Once you leave your timeline, that's it. You're now stuck on the new timeline you created. That's why there was no attempt to restore the original Star Trek timeline.
Vandelay Industries
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:51 PM
 
Yeah, that's fine with me.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're giving us crap for one 'poorly thought out' point, in comparison to the movie's slew of problems. I might point out we're not the professional writers here, either, so I think you can cut us some slack.
I was giving crap to one post, the one right above mine. The suggestion in that post was easily worse than the actual movie.

See that's the problem. The point of the reboot was to be fresh. This character was anything but.
I agree, the villain was weak. That doesn't mean all the other criticisms are valid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I was giving crap to one post, the one right above mine. The suggestion in that post was easily worse than the actual movie.


I agree, the villain was weak. That doesn't mean all the other criticisms are valid.
No, you're right, the entire thing is debatable, doubly so because so much of it is taste.

I admit I am more critical of the movie because I think it's poor science-fiction. As far as I'm concerned, the only Star Trek part that really irked me was the seemingly random Uhura/Spock relationship, but I don't think it damaged the movie in any way.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
You have to realize that when it comes to time travel in this new Star Trek, they are now keeping with the current scientific thought on time travel.
... there's current scientific thought on time travel? I always thought that was strictly a sci-fi/fantasy concept.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:13 PM
 
Bah. That time with the multiple Worfs and the Enterprise-D from the Borg alternate timeline was so much cooler.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Bah. That time with the multiple Worfs and the Enterprise-D from the Borg alternate timeline was so much cooler.
But not enough miniskirts
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:47 PM
 
Fine, we'll get Worf a miniskirt.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:48 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:55 PM
 
I think their intention was that it was a unisex, shorts style uniform. But no, it's a mini skirt.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 06:02 PM
 
Ha! I forgot about the man-skirts.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 06:04 PM
 
I think they were atoning for the mini skirts of the 60s.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Ha! I forgot about the man-skirts.
They're called "manny-skirts"

I think it would have been sporting if they "atoned" by making the boys wear skirts, but then had the girls wear something even more revealing. Maybe that's what the next spin-off will be all about... Starfleet's Next Top Model or some such
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 07:54 PM
 
@ghporter's reply:
Enterprise 1701 constructed on Earth - conceded, partly. It was built in SF but assembled in orbit in the original continuity. Which would solve the stress issues and a lot of construction crew safety concerns. In the 2009 movie, you can see it entirely constructed on the ground before being moved up to a station.

Crew complement of 430 - Conceded. The 140 I recall is the Voyager complement. This still does not explain why the Kelvin had such a large crew - the timeline incursion began with the arrival of the Romulan mining ship. Everything up until then should be recognizable, and the Kelvin was way too large for the time. With too many shuttles.

The Excelsior gaseasous anomaly mission. For background, the original plan was for Sulu to be the Enterprise helmsman once again in Star Trek 6. After having gotten command of the Excelsior at the end of Star Trek 5. George Takei objected, that it was unrealistic for him to be busted back to a low rank. So he was shown commanding the Excelsior. I suspect the writers moved the gaseasous anomaly mission to follow Sulu, but that it was originally going to be an Enterprise mission. The writers forgot to finish sorting the change out.
General:
Originally Posted by ghporter
I get the impression you went in with the expectation that you wouldn't like the movie, and then spent the whole time cataloging what was "wrong" with it.
Quoted from Glenn, but my answer is a general one. This is incorrect - I was concerned they'd trash Star Trek, but went into the movie hoping for the best. I was hoping it would address most of the problems that crept into later Star Treks. So that if we did restart with fresh actors, at least subsequent movies & series would return to realism. Reduced fantasy element, improved story content, believable sets.

Later Star Treks suffered from loss of Gene Rodenberry's Believability Factor - covered heavily in the book "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield. Older SciFi shows used banks of blinking lights with no obvious purpose, no labels on controls or indicators, weird music, and no attention to a comprehensible story.

GR realized that even in SF, you first and foremost have to be telling a good story. Despite the fantastic future setting, dramatic rules apply and people need to act. Anyone viewing should believe they were seeing a working ship in a future century. The characters would not go around explaining things to each other that they'd all learned in school. Viewers could figure out work habits by observing.

Objects and methodologies should look realistic for their time. ie - control consoles were planned out, with labels on the controls. Control usage, and which station controlled what, should be consistent over time. The helm console should not be firing torpedoes if you have a separate weapons station. This happened in Star Trek II btw.

At one point during the original series production, an inexperienced director (inexperienced with Star Trek) decided at one point Scotty would press a particular button on the bridge. James Doohan objected, pressing that button would destroy the ship. The director got a funny look, and kept trying to talk James Doohan into pushing that particular button.

By contrast, Star Wars went the other way. When filming was to begin in the Millennium Falcon, Harrison Ford asked how to fly the ship. Which controls did what, so what motions should he go through? George Lucas didn't know the answers - no one had given any thought to how the bridge worked. And of course, nothing was labeled. Not even a blinking red light, which should have been labeled "Impending Shield Failure".

By the time of the movie ST-II, this problem crept into Star Trek. It gradually got a foothold in the series too, as interfaces got steadily less realistic. Example below.



This is the navigation console (right side of main console) - the helm controls are on the left side. There are entire banks of lights/buttons, with at most each bank being labeled cryptically as a "RETRV MODE". Rocker switches above the array are unlabeled. Major red indicator lights blink on left, but have no labels. One light is red in each button bank, but it is in the same position in each - apparently a cosmetic touch rather than functional. At least the station has a recognizable POWER button on bottom center labeled PWR. Right where the operator might rest their elbow. Hope they don't do that often.



The 2009 bridge proved difficult to get a shot of - the camera keeps going ultra-close to the faces. Most controls appear to be touchscreens, with lots of gratituitous activity unrelated to the station's function. Plus those reading lights, to throw glare down on self-illuminated screens. From what little can be seen of Sulu's panel, labels are once again unrealistically missing. Frequently used controls (throttle on far left) should be located close at hand. The infrequent controls should be the far ones.

Back to the crew. Gene Rodenberry didn't want any "grunts" on the ship - it was to be all professional officers. A starship isn't full of military conscripts, these are professional careerists. In the 2009 movie, our 3- to 4-year cadets are close to graduation but act like freshly arrived cadets. They wander away from their stations when they please, give erratic reports, argue with orders, forget rank titles, and generally look unprofessional. I have not attended any military-like academies, but this isn't at all like what gets drilled into real cadets.

Then we have the engineering space. A real space ship breaks interior space into compartments to limit decompression. The doors can hold pressure, and there will be emergency bulkheads if more is needed. Compartments also limit damage if the ship is hit, or something blows inside. With a large open space, any damage takes out the whole facility. As someone else commented, the engine room looks like a brewery. Complete with vats that have ... rainwater inclines on top. Gravity can't be trusted on a ship - tanks should be rounded. And rain is infrequent.

Other things. Scotty beamed into a coolant line. Those are a lot like a towel - it gets wetter and wetter the more it dries. Coolent gets hotter the more it cools the engines. He beamed into a return line (before the circulating pump) which should be dang hot because the ship is at high warp in an emergency. Instead, it is at a comfortable temperature and flowing fairly slowly. No injury results

It didn't feel like a real spaceship, or real officers working within one. No attention to believable technical detail in a science fiction movie. And an insult to my intelligence. Normally when observing people in a professional setting, the more you know, the more details that make sense.

Instead of solving any of the problems that were plaguing Star Trek later on, this movie made them worse. The plot line, rather than being tidied up to close obvious holes allowed in previous movies, accepted far more holes than before. Which we are supposed to ignore in order to savor all the action. Plus closeup actor faces.

I was hoping for so much more.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:03 PM
 
The last page of this thread reads like a scene from Big Bang Theory.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
In regards to reader, I have a hard time believing people would think this movie was so great if it hadn't had the Star Trek branding.
So, so wrong.

My girl friend was prepared to hate it based on the Star Trek name alone. Never mind the fact that she hates science fiction in general (I don't blame her given the general quality of what passes for scifi). She unequivocally loved it.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
The last page of this thread reads like a scene from Big Bang Theory.
I think the characters in BBT would laugh at this thread. Sheesh.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
The last page of this thread reads like a scene from Big Bang Theory.
No, and I would like to mathematically demonstrate the distinction between this thread and that show to which you refer.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
The last page of this thread reads like a scene from Big Bang Theory.
That would make reader Sheldon then.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
That would make reader Sheldon then.
That name always reminds me of "When Harry Met Sally".

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I was concerned they'd trash Star Trek, but went into the movie hoping for the best. I was hoping it would address most of the problems that crept into later Star Treks. So that if we did restart with fresh actors, at least subsequent movies & series would return to realism. Reduced fantasy element, improved story content, believable sets.
<snip>
I was hoping for so much more.
The whole "believability" thing was a pipe dream considering the hype behind the film from the start. I agree that it would have been a really good thing for a return to science-based, people-oriented stories, but what we got was instead a "mostly people oriented, gee whiz" story. It was about LOOKING new and different without trashing the existing ST background. They did "OK" on that last, and it was sure pretty, but you're right-this was no "City on the Edge of Forever." I went in hoping that it simply didn't tank, and wound up liking it because it was a pretty fast roller coaster of a film with good characterizations, if not a rock-solid story.

Like many others, I'm thinking "this is a start," much the way we all thought when we saw the pilot for TNG. "That's how we're starting? Oh well, let's see what happens when they have their feet wet." And TNG wound up with some really good episodes-quite a few, in fact.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
... there's current scientific thought on time travel? I always thought that was strictly a sci-fi/fantasy concept.
Sure there is. Quantum mechanics is used to explain the theory of time travel and its many paradoxes.

Science and Trek Experts Weigh In On The New ‘Star Trek’ Movie | TrekMovie.com
Vandelay Industries
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Back to the crew. Gene Rodenberry didn't want any "grunts" on the ship - it was to be all professional officers. A starship isn't full of military conscripts, these are professional careerists.
...normally

I have not attended any military-like academies, but this isn't at all like what gets drilled into real cadets.
...normally

The movies aren't about the ship and crew acting normally during mundane everyday tasks. And for good reason, that would be boring. The reason people watch movies is to see characters reacting to extraordinary conditions that strain them (and their training) far enough that they act out.

Then we have the engineering space. A real space ship breaks interior space into compartments to limit decompression. The doors can hold pressure, and there will be emergency bulkheads if more is needed. Compartments also limit damage if the ship is hit, or something blows inside. With a large open space, any damage takes out the whole facility. As someone else commented, the engine room looks like a brewery. Complete with vats that have ... rainwater inclines on top. Gravity can't be trusted on a ship - tanks should be rounded. And rain is infrequent.
Star Trek has always had gravity on board, and it's always had wide open areas that look more like a cruise ship than a space ship. Because it's not set on a space ship, it's set on a star ship. They make this distinction because they don't want to be crawling around in a 22nd century Das Boot, and they never have. Their "compartments" have always been flimsy slide-away doors (which for all the audience of this movie knows, are simply in the open position). It's a little late to start complaining about these things now.

Other things. Scotty beamed into a coolant line.
Stop right there, how do you know it wasn't a drinking water line? Or a sewage line?

It didn't feel like a real spaceship, or real officers working within one. No attention to believable technical detail in a science fiction movie. And an insult to my intelligence. Normally when observing people in a professional setting, the more you know, the more details that make sense.
It hasn't felt like a real spaceship from day one. It wasn't really science fiction from the start, it was a western, set in space. Wide open spaces are Star Trek's bread and butter. Officers leaving their posts are downright expected (the first 3 people in command of the whole ship go down to every strange new planet they find, with a team of other people who commonly die on the mission? Really?). If anything, I would say this behavior in the movie is downright necessary, to stay true to the franchise.

I was hoping for so much more.
Apparently, much more than Star Trek has ever been. Methinks you're remembering the old Star Trek through BSG-colored glasses.

Just my 2¢
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 01:37 AM
 
Frankly, the lack of a decent motivation for the villain bothered me a lot more than arrangements of buttons on the consoles, the number of people on the Kelvin, conduits on the bridge, and all that other crap you're complaining about (how did you even notice that stuff? Everything moved so fast that there was hardly ever any time to take in the scenery).

Also, how did this thread suddenly become active again all of a sudden? The movie was months ago.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 03:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Also, how did this thread suddenly become active again all of a sudden? The movie was months ago.
Feels like the time of the year that the DVD would get released...
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 04:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Other things. Scotty beamed into a coolant line.
Stop right there, how do you know it wasn't a drinking water line? Or a sewage line?
It's a water line, bridge dialog refers to the pump as a water turbine. Not sewage since there were no extra ingredients. One pipe label says it is "Inert Reactant" which suggests chemical plant or reactor. There is a large-text label on one section which says "Coors Light" for all I can tell. Couldn't get a clean look.

If you want to tell for sure, you can try to get a shot of the enlarged barcode UPC stickers placed on the line here and there. Translate the barcode into numbers, and we can see if it's Gallon distilled coolant water, or 12oz beer.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 09:41 AM
 
The use of water as a reaction-engine reaction mass is pretty common in a number of fission/fusion rocket engine designs. Also "heavy" water is used in fusion reactor concepts as a combination coolant and reactant-sometimes with "regular" water being the coolant which becomes heavy water by exposure to free neutrons released by the fusion reaction. Yes, all "in theory," but solid theory.

The real reason for the "beaming into the pipe" bit was a bit MORE tension and a LOT of humor.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum 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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2