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 13)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 10:03 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.
My guess is that someone recently downloaded the BluRay rip that is making the rounds...

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
So, so wrong.
More like wrong in one case.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
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.
Considering this is terrible science-fiction, no wonder she liked it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
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.
Sewage is water-carried wastes, in either solution or suspension, that flow away from a community. Also known as wastewater flows, sewage is the used water supply of the community. It is more than 99.9% pure water (wikipedia).

I'm sure there are a dozen components of (futuristic) sewage treatment plant designs that would be filled with harmless inert water "reactant" that would be going to and coming from reactions with other perfectly injury-free "reactants."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
More like wrong in one case.

Considering this is terrible science-fiction, no wonder she liked it.
Ya I have to agree. The reason most people who don't like sci-fi liked it is because the story was really bad sci-fi AND in general it made little sense.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
Ya I have to agree. The reason most people who don't like sci-fi liked it is because the story was really bad sci-fi AND in general it made little sense.
It also has lens flares. You can't ignore the allure of hundreds of lens flares.
"…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
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
It also has lens flares. You can't ignore the allure of hundreds of lens flares.
Actually i gotta say I really liked that part. At first i thought it was a bit much but then i realized it gave it a unique look. The shows and movies have always played with lighting in different ways and this was just another attempt at something interesting.

I watched some old TOS recently and there was lots of lens flares also and warm lighting also.

In TNG it was all washed out, nobody has shadows on the enterprise sets and it is really bland and florescent looking.

In Star Trek Generations they experimented with the exterior elements lighting the inside of the ship. Before they never did this as it was always a blue-screen with effects added later. They went a bit overboard when they lit the set of 10 forward with the orange sun outside but it was a good attempt.

DS9 for me was the best though as they always put the lights behind bars and grids on the ceiling creating shadows everywhere and on everyones face. Really interesting to look at for me.

Voyager was just dark and bland. Enterprise was a mix of everything but with lights shining often in the camera and blinding you a bit. Not terribly consistent.

I have to say again that a LOVED the last Star Trek movie for everything but the story and nero. I was so interesting to look at from an Art Direction standpoint I was mesmerized by every set and camera angle. The only thing i didn't care for was the Enterprise Engine Room which looked like a beer brewery
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 03:38 PM
 
Re: The bridge. I said it before and I'll say it again:

Every time I saw the bridge I thought of a toothbrush or shaver commercial, with the light blue overly lit background and fake pretty people scientists.

P.S. They liked the lens flares so much that they repeated it in the Fringe episode which had Spock in it.


Originally Posted by jokell82 View Post
My guess is that someone recently downloaded the BluRay rip that is making the rounds...
Wow. And the disc isn't even out yet. I wonder where it came from.

BTW, Star Trek just ended its stint in theatres a few days ago. It hit $257.7 million domestic, which is just a shade under Jaws and puts it at 47th place all time, ahead of Monsters, Inc. However, The Hangover beat it, and is still going at $275 million, and Star Trek didn't even make the top 100 for worldwide receipts.
( Last edited by Eug; Oct 8, 2009 at 03:51 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 04:05 PM
 
Wasn't this the first Star Trek movie with intentional product placement? I really, really hate the idea of Nokia inventing the communicator.
"…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
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I really, really hate the idea of Nokia inventing the communicator.
The Nokia Communicator.

It would be unfortunate if they were credited with the invention. In reality, the TOS production people thought of the idea - which inspired the real-world invention of the pager and cell phone.

There was product placement in Star Trek 4, but it was consistent with the time period. A complete lack of present-day products would have looked odd. It was mentioned in the commentaries on the movie Antz that producers experimented with fake brands for the food items in the picnic area. Test viewers found the fake brands too distracting from the story line, so the producers stuck with real brands.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Re: The bridge. I said it before and I'll say it again:

Every time I saw the bridge I thought of a toothbrush or shaver commercial, with the light blue overly lit background and fake pretty people scientists.
So pretty much exactly like the original enterprise from the 60's except they used plastic and LCD's instead of plywood and window decals.

A job well done
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 08:54 PM
 
Nah, the original 60s version was just bland. The new one looks like they went out of their way to imitate those TV commercials.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 01:49 AM
 
For a reboot, it was quite decent.

Half the problem with doing a reboot is that the die hard fans will always find something to complain about. Be it the actors, the design, or the timeline.

Was it entertaining? Oh yes.

Was it mostly faithful? Oh yes.

Was it full of weird plot holes when you spend hours thinking about it? Oh yes.

Were the constant flairs distracting? Oh yes.

Will you all probably go buy it/ rent it? Probably.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ View Post
For a reboot, it was quite decent.

Half the problem with doing a reboot is that the die hard fans will always find something to complain about. Be it the actors, the design, or the timeline.

Was it entertaining? Oh yes.

Was it mostly faithful? Oh yes.

Was it full of weird plot holes when you spend hours thinking about it? Oh yes.

Were the constant flairs distracting? Oh yes.

Will you all probably go buy it/ rent it? Probably.
I consider myself to be a die hard Trek fan (have all the series on DVD, all the movies, etc), and will buy this one on Blu-Ray next month when it comes out.

What you listed above is stuff I've been doing with all the shows and movies for years. It's fun (to me, anyway) to pick apart the plot holes. Some shows were easier to do it with than others.

I have to say that if the producers of DS9 were the same ones that produced all the other TNG-era series the job of nitpicker would have been a LOT harder. Kudos to them for caring enough to try to maintain internal consistency and continuity. Voyager really suffered because of a lack of that.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 10:58 AM
 
Voyager suffered from having the plot of Lost in Space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Voyager suffered from having the plot of Lost in Space.
And apparently now the Stargate series has caught it. I had no idea that show was so contagious.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 11:58 AM
 
You know what the worst part about Voyager is? The last episode was exactly what you thought it would be after watching the first episode. (They get home)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 12:06 PM
 
I think they pretty much gave up by that point and were like, "Fine, they get home, THE END."
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 12:13 PM
 
The best part is the futility of the first season. "Here come 12 attempts to get home you know are doomed to fail." Uh, thanks?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I think they pretty much gave up by that point and were like, "Fine, they get home, THE END."
I would have much preferred to see Voyager get home at the end of season six, and then spend the last season dealing with the aftermath, and without any of the communications contact with Starfleet that we saw from seasons 4 onward.

Think about it. Their families back home having no contact/no idea what happened to them for six years, assuming they are gone forever, and moving on with their lives... and then suddenly, their loved ones are back after six years? Plenty of opportunities for some good stories there. And if not a full season, then a half season at least.

But... that would have required too much continuity on the part of the writing staff.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
I would have much preferred to see Voyager get home at the end of season six, and then spend the last season dealing with the aftermath, and without any of the communications contact with Starfleet that we saw from seasons 4 onward.
See? That's a good idea.

My solution would have been to decide to start a life in the Delta Quadrant – but further – to decide to start an extension of Starfleet there. That means settling a planet, building a headquarters, first contact, alliances, territory, your choice – only more constructive because you're not constantly leaving everyone behind every couple of weeks.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 01:37 PM
 
I like Voyager.
"…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 9, 2009, 01:38 PM
 
There's a surprise.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 02:10 PM
 
Never did like Enterprise.
"…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
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
I would have much preferred to see Voyager get home at the end of season six, and then spend the last season dealing with the aftermath, and without any of the communications contact with Starfleet that we saw from seasons 4 onward.
I ran across a blurb once that the producers had considered that. Return at the beginning of Season 7, then let things play out at home for the rest of the season. There were pending legal charges for the Maquis 1/3 of the crew for example. Plus we never did determine if 7of9 was really a crew member (no rank). Other things would have turned up too.

They decided against it, and I can't seem to find the info now.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 04:06 PM
 
All charges were dropped against the Maquis when the Cardassians joined the Dominion.

They dealt with those issues in the two part Voyager book.
"…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
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I ran across a blurb once that the producers had considered that. Return at the beginning of Season 7, then let things play out at home for the rest of the season. There were pending legal charges for the Maquis 1/3 of the crew for example. Plus we never did determine if 7of9 was really a crew member (no rank). Other things would have turned up too.

They decided against it, and I can't seem to find the info now.
I remember reading that also. Would have been much better if they did do it that way.

The problem with Voyager was not the "lost in space" theme as it could have worked. The problem was the reset button at the end of every episode. In all the other series at the end of the episode they set course for a spacedock and got cleaned right up and were back fresh for next week. Sadly Voyager did the same with their endless supplies of shuttles, 2 delta flyers and endless supply of weapons and parts. I remember how ridiculous i found it when they gained all sorts of new borg technology that made weapons and shields 100x more powerful but by the end of the episode they couldn't move fast enough to get all that "yucky borg technology" off voyager. Heck even the "Transwarp coils" they scored ran out after a while. Guess the replicators were out of order and no way they can make one of their own. The ship was always clean and in good order, everyone was comfortable, holodecks open for business.

If they had done is like Battlestar with the ship falling more and more apart and people getting more and more at wits end it would have been much better.

I think the problem also was they used stock footage of the ship a lot so if it constantly decayed or changed it would have been expensive or they just needed to put more effort into it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
More like wrong in one case.
I hardly think that was a singular case. May I remind you that it's current tomato rating is 95%, making it one of the top rated movies of this decade?

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 10:26 PM
 
I liked Star Trek, but I will point out Galaxy Quest got 90%.

P.S. Star Trek has the most positive reviews I've ever seen on Rotten Tomatoes, at 259. Many movies have a higher average rating, but none have that many positives cuz less reviewers saw the movie. For example, Up got 97%, but only 232 positives.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2009, 12:23 AM
 
I liked ALL the Star Trek series, some more than others. Enterprise was fresh and came up with some interesting stuff-but it was rocky because so many people argued that they were "violating cannon" when in fact the writers were actually WRITING the background for cannon ST. The ONLY episode of Enterprise I didn't like was the "final" episode, with the TNG tie-in-it should not have ever been thought of, let alone written and filmed. It violated everything the stories before it had built, and disappointed just about every fan. Bad job, B&B.

TNG was kind of gooey to start, but once they got their footing, they made some good shows, and they were almost all worth the hour it took to watch them. DS9 too, but with lots more interesting and dark stuff. Voyager didn't "reset" at the end of every episode; far from it. They went through long story arcs where they had to deal with rationed power and food, no warp drive for extended periods, and so on. It would have been hard to maintain a "space faring storyline" if they couldn't now and then get back underway and on course for Earth. A lot of the Borg stuff they accumulated turned out to not be benign, and so instead of keeping all of it on the ship, they dumped it to keep from having MORE problems. The transwarp coils were an example of "less than generousness" by the Borg; there was something about them that made them unstable or something without Borg presence... In any case it was a lot more logical than the several Q-oriented Voyager episodes, which turned out to just be silly and fun ('cept for the Q civil war stuff).

Basically, if you're after hard science in SF, stick with Babylon 5 and put up with the extended soap opera orientation of the 5 year storyline. If you're after adventure in SF clothing, Star Trek is your show, whatever the title. Just don't expect super-super science fiction week after week on any network program; advertisers and networks don't get it and won't go with it. Look at TOS. Look at Firefly and its exceptionally good stories and no real solid "science" in the fiction.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2009, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Voyager didn't "reset" at the end of every episode; far from it. They went through long story arcs where they had to deal with rationed power and food, no warp drive for extended periods, and so on.
Oh right i remember those 2 parter episodes.

Remember how the holideck power wasn't "compatible" with the rest of the ship so it was a free for all use but "rationed replicated food" which really just gave them an excuse to write Nelix and the kitchen in.

They mentioned in 2 episodes that they had 28 torpedos left but shot plenty off throughout the 7 years. The sets never degraded and only got upgraded such as the astrometrics and the outta nowhere new colour warp drive core after season 2.

The only one who actually changed rolls and rank was Tom paris and he always sat in the same place. Nobody ever died except when they wanted to write out Kes. Heck the writers even hinted they were working on a name for the Dr for all of 1st season and then it got to a point where it took so long that it was embarrassing so they just kept it Dr.

I liked the fact that it has strong female rolls and i'm watching the re-runs daily but most of it is really bland and poorly written.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2009, 01:53 AM
 
Harry Kim and Naomi Wildman died. The current characters are from a parallel universe.

Seska died. Mr. Suter died (one of my favorite characters.)
"…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 10, 2009, 02:01 AM
 
Also, the crew was constantly bartering for new supplies. That probably included raw materials for building/manufacturing torpedos, shuttle crafts, etc. If you think about it, the crew must be flying for months with nothing to do. They probably spend their time fixing everything just to keep themselves occupied.

By the way, Year of Hell is one of my favorite episodes in all of Trek.
"…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
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2009, 04:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Harry Kim and Naomi Wildman died. The current characters are from a parallel universe.

Seska died. Mr. Suter died (one of my favorite characters.)
Ya i remember how Kim and naomi died, convient the same epside had exact replacements. Remember Data died too but left an exact copy

The writers said they wished they had killed Seska and the kayson a year sooner as somehow they always seemed to leapfrog ahead of voyager on its course home and viewers were sick of them.

So ya, no main characters died, even kes they found a way to bring back even though she shouldn't live that long and they wrote her out.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2009, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
It also has lens flares. You can't ignore the allure of hundreds of lens flares.
I possibly work for the company responsible for those lens flares. The code for the After Effects/FCP plugin that did those might be in my documents folder on my work machine.

I apologize, in advance.
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?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2009, 05:21 AM
 
In advance? That movie was months ago - your damage is done. That would be kind of like Captain Nero saying "apologies in advance!" after blowing up Vulcan.

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 11, 2009, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
In advance? That movie was months ago - your damage is done. That would be kind of like Captain Nero saying "apologies in advance!" after blowing up Vulcan.
I apologize in advance of formally admitting anything.
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?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2009, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
I hardly think that was a singular case.
Neither do I, but that's all you had. And like I said, that doesn't mean it was good sci-fi.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
May I remind you that it's current tomato rating is 95%, making it one of the top rated movies of this decade?
That's true, but it seems to have been graded as a pure popcorn flick. Not sure I'd characterize the back log of Star Trek titles in a similar manner.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2009, 01:42 PM
 
Apparently not your fault goMac (but it would have been cool if it was).

Warning: J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek Will Blind You -- Vulture

Says Abrams:

"I know what you're saying with the lens flares. It was one of those things ... I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, 'Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many' ... There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors. Certain sizes were too big ... literally, it was ridiculous. It was like another actor in the scene ... So it was this ridiculous, added level of pain in the ass, but I love ... [looking at] the final cut, [the flares] to me, were a fun additional touch that I think, while overdone, in some places, it feels like the future is that bright.


Actually, I do like it for some scenes, but yeah, it was way too much.

P.S. Don't know if this has been posted yet, but: Gag reel
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2009, 02:27 PM
 
Yeah, I agree with Abrams that the lens flares weren't a bad idea by themselves. It's just that when you have 12 of them running the entire height of the screen at once, it becomes a bit much.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2009, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but: Gag reel
Well, that was quick.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corporation."

Here's another (slow) link.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2009, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Apparently not your fault goMac (but it would have been cool if it was).
We sold him the software that helped draw out the lighting on the lens flares. Trust me, his secretary calls us all the time.

But watching the film, I can definitely see some of our lens flares. We also sold him the software that does the transporter effect in the new film.

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/prod...t-factory-pro/
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/prod...de-particular/
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?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
And like I said, that doesn't mean it was good sci-fi.
Now that is just a bunch of chinstroking.

For the record the only good scifi that has been made is 2001. Everything else has been scifi as a background setting to movies of various quality.

So yes, Star Trek is a good movie in SPITE of being SciFi and in SPITE of being Star Trek.
( Last edited by reader50; Oct 14, 2009 at 01:23 AM. Reason: fixed broken quote tag)

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Now that is just a bunch of chinstroking.

For the record the only good scifi that has been made is 2001. Everything else has been scifi as a background setting to movies of various quality.

So yes, Star Trek is a good movie in SPITE of being SciFi and in SPITE of being Star Trek.
Yep. Everything else has been "science fantasy" at best. At very rare best...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Now that is just a bunch of chinstroking.

For the record the only good scifi that has been made is 2001. Everything else has been scifi as a background setting to movies of various quality.

So yes, Star Trek is a good movie in SPITE of being SciFi and in SPITE of being Star Trek.
Moon was good sci-fi.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Now that is just a bunch of chinstroking.
Hmmm.... Yes... *strokes chin*

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
For the record the only good scifi that has been made is 2001. Everything else has been scifi as a background setting to movies of various quality.
Fine, we'll call it science fantasy. This is not something I'm largely attached to, nor important to what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
So yes, Star Trek is a good movie in SPITE of being SciFi and in SPITE of being Star Trek.
And that's exactly why the fact that everyone loves this movie is so meaningless. If you see sci-fi and Star Trek as a bad thing, of course you're going to love a movie that does a terrible job of being the former while excelling at being a popcorn movie.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by jokell82 View Post
Moon was good sci-fi.
I haven't seen that one yet; it is actually science fiction, or is it just better science fantasy than the norm?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 11:25 AM
 
You guys are splitting hairs (like true geeks).

Star Trek is sci-fi with good action and dialogue and lots and lots of plot holes and little attempt for a deeper message. ie. It's just lighter sci-fi, done well.

P.S. My favourite sci-fi flick of the year was District 9.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
You guys are splitting hairs (like true geeks).

Star Trek is sci-fi with good action and dialogue and lots and lots of plot holes and little attempt for a deeper message. ie. It's just lighter sci-fi, done well.

P.S. My favourite sci-fi flick of the year was District 9.
I liked District 9 quite a lot myself; the story was actually far more engrossing than the story in Star Trek.

But splitting hairs is not what I'd call differentiating between "science fiction" and "science fantasy." Science fiction uses not just plausible but genuine scientific material, and posits something about the society and culture related to some sort of advance in or application of that science; a great example is Azimov's "Caves of Steel." 2001 was science FICTION because the only stuff that was not SOLIDLY based in real science that was nearly achievable science in 1965 was the aliens' technology.

Science fantasy is what you get when you blur the line between technology and magic. Star Wars is most definitely science fantasy, especially with people bopping back and forth in hyperspace, and with folks with special "powers" battling it out with those powers. Star Trek is fantasy with very well wrought technological garb, especially since the whole technological foundation of the show was intended to further storytelling on TV in the 1960s. It had to look good, and the stories were exceptionally important and most were very well done, but it was and is fantasy.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2009, 10:53 PM
 
The genre is called science fiction. You'll just have to get used to that fact, cuz that's what it is.

And your own personal definition makes no sense anyway. Quite frankly, it's not as if I find 2001 any more plausible than District 9. Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. The human science in 2001 is better, but the rest of it is just as mumbo-jumboish as many other sci-fi flicks.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2009, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I think they pretty much gave up by that point and were like, "Fine, they get home, THE END."
I actually laughed when that happened. Seven seasons to get home, and BAM a big old "The End".

I like Voyager if only because it took Trek out of its usual spaces and give the writers much more freedom.

Its just unfortunate that Voyager didn't push things a bit further. I too was annoyed by 1) Destroying of a shuttlecraft every ep 2) Killing a crewman every ep 3) After season one people stopped caring about torpedoes. They just let them fly.
     
 
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 04:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2