Dec 6, 2011, 10:06 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Jar Jar wasn't in SW..
SSgt Burton said:
Dec 6, 2011, 10:13 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Dec 6, 2011, 10:51 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Wait until Uncle George rectifies that.
Dec 6, 2011, 11:33 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
I heard that even made Oscar Wilde cringe.
Larry Young said:
Dec 7, 2011, 1:21 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
I never really liked the series. Always with their technical mumbo jumbo deux ex machina fixes to everything, yadda, yadda yadda. Haven't watched TOS... because, let's face it... the effects... and aliens... crickey. I only watched the movies... and even those, I didn't care for those that weren't with the original crew. My friend says they are horrible tv-upscaled with big funding movies where the Picard films are so much better. BOLLOCKS, I say. Better my ass. They just run around like headless chickens and suddenly have an illogical stupid answer to beating the problem and taking themselves way too seriously.
Dec 8, 2011, 10:36 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
I loved how so many viewers said they were happy that technobabble was out in this new Trek movie, even though the real issues as to why technobabble plagued the franchise still remains. And in some cases handled even worse.
Too Much Garlic said:
Red Matter. It creates a very non-black hole "black hole" thing that destroys things sometimes, sends ships through time and space sometimes, can consume a galaxy wide threatening super nove that's burned through many solar systems but will only consume one planet... sometimes.
Transwarp Beaming Equation. Adding in numbers to a console can change how the entire transporter functions. Out of transporter range? No longer a problem. Can't transport while in warp? No longer a problem. Can't transport through the shields? No longer a problem. Transwarp de-evolving humans into sexually starved lizards? No longer a problem.
I'm putting my money down that the Transwarp equation won't ever be used nor even referenced again.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to enter 34vc+9270 into Terminal so my battery life will last all year long on one charge and only takes three minutes to fully recharge. Because in JJ's self-proclaimed approach to Star Trek "We're doing it real" motto, that's how that works.
Dec 8, 2011, 6:18 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Seems to me the only time it destroyed things was when it was detonated inside an object, which makes sense since the structure's mass would create enough resistance against itself until it reached a critical breaking point.
No crazier than a Genesis torpedo that requires a dead planet to work...Sometimes.
can consume a galaxy wide threatening super nove that's burned through many solar systems but will only consume one planet... sometimes.
Im assuming that a transporter is based on mathematical equations, so why wouldn't a new equation allow for new functions?
Transwarp Beaming Equation. Adding in numbers to a console can change how the entire transporter functions.
The programs we use everyday are based on numbers and every once in a while a newer version of the program is available that can do things which the previous version couldn't do.
How is this any different?
Now if you'll excuse me...Im going to drill a hole through a giant boulder to create a Time Gate and see if it will transport me back in time.
Dec 8, 2011, 8:50 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Sometimes? They only used the Genesis device once, and nobody knew what would really happen if it detonated except that it would cause a lot of damage to anything close by. At least it did only what the film set it up to do, which was create a new planet.
DARTH SABER said:
You know what else allows a computer to run? Power and performance. Transporters need computers and power in order to run as well. I can't simply type in some equation into my old Apple II that will enable it to run Mac OS 10.7 sufficiently without any issues. The machine simply doesn't have the physical or technical means of doing it.
DARTH SABER said:
Last edited by Jeyl; Dec 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM.
Dec 8, 2011, 9:05 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Are you really talking physical and technical means about technology that doesn't even exist?
Dec 8, 2011, 9:22 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Hasn't stopped us yet. Hell, if anything I'd say that it counts as a sport on this forum.
Dec 8, 2011, 9:25 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Dec 8, 2011, 10:35 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Somewhat, but my main point here is about the fundamentals on how this nonexistent technology is treated in a long running franchise. For example, transporter range has always been a crucial element in how the transporters were worked, including not being able to beam through a vessel's shields. These self-imposed rules I believe gave this nonexistent technology a realistic edge to them. They could do wonderful things, but they were also very limited. Throwing all those limitations away is just... I don't know. Unfortunate.
Dec 8, 2011, 10:53 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
My thought was that they didn't need a dead planet for it to "work." The scientists knew that the Genesis Matrix would wipe out any and all existing life on the planet they used for their experiment.
DARTH SABER said:
So the need to find a completely lifeless planet arose from a moral standpoint (the creation of life, not the destruction of it), not a technical one (from a certain point of view).
And Genesis ended up "not" being used on a planet after all, but exploded in a nebula. It created its own planet, which ultimately ended up being unstable, and had magical powers of regeneration.
Anyway Star Trek II is not without its faults. However Star Trek II had the advantage of doing everything first, and doing it well. The great villain, the super destructo device, and the suicide mission and brilliant death scene.
This became the poorly cloned plot for Generations, Nemesis, and Trek '09.
About the transporter formula- it just seems like a cop out. "We can't transport onto a ship traveling at warp". "Oakey Dokey, here's your formula (from the future) to solve this incredibly huge freaking problem."
Why has this never been used (in the future) before? Why has it never even been mentioned before? What are the ramifications of giving information from the future to the past?
None of these questions are addressed, and certainly not answered because the writers didn't care. It is too convenient and a childish solution. There's no drama. It is as if the hero needs to get into an impossibly locked room, and lo and behold, someone has left the key in the door.
Totally agree with Jeyl that this "formula" will most likely never be mentioned again nor pose any kind of problem in subsequent films.
And the point is not about arguing technology that doesn't exist. The point is that the technology has established "rules" (the transpoter has a limited range, cannot transport through shields, cannot transport to a ship traveling at warp). The rules have been created throughout the writing of the series. These rules cannot be ignored or there is no point in having them in the first place. For instance if the transporter had a limitless range, you wouldn't need starships. That would be pretty boring wouldn't it? Space travel without spaceships?
It feels like the "rules" are being thrown out. That isn't clever writing, that is lazy writing.
(PS- yes I do know of some instances in which the transpoter's "rules" have been broken such as the climax of TNG's "Relics"; that isn't justification to breaking them again).
Dec 8, 2011, 11:21 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Yet the creators of DS9 have stated repeatedly that they wanted to get as far away fron Roddenberry's Star Trek as they could get away.
Dec 9, 2011, 5:18 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Mic, you fail.
And despite what you may think, they still stood by how transporters have worked in the past, including in TOS.
Also, getting away from "some" of Roddenberry's ideas of Star Trek isn't much of a bad thing either. While he certainly created that universe and laid the foundations for it, he was NOT one of it's best writers.
Dec 9, 2011, 12:33 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Just wondering. What will happen in the future when young Nero is born. Will he be hunted down and killed and will the Federation do a thing to prevent it... and how would Spock react to the request from Romulus to save their planet?
Dec 9, 2011, 2:20 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Funny how nobody at the end of the film seems to care about that one particular star that's going to explode and threaten the whole galaxy. Never thought our Star Trek heroes would be dumber than the characters from Futurama.
Too Much Garlic said:
Leela: Should we really be celebrating? I mean, what if the second garbage ball returns to earth like the first one did?
Fry: Who cares? That won't be for hundreds of years.
Professor Farnsworth: Exactly! It's none of our concern.
Fry: *That's* the 20th Century spirit!
Dec 10, 2011, 12:17 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
This was posted today by one of my favorite online reviewers called SF Debris. Even though the post is primarily focused on the Dominion War storyline from Deep Space Nine, he does talk about the many things that writers tried to do with Star Trek in order to do things differently both here, The Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise.
SF Debris on "The Dominion War"
He also does reviews on a lot of other shows including Red Dwarf, Doctor Who, Babylon 5 and some other user request specials. His review of Trek09 should be coming out this month, and he's already been dropping hints on what to expect.
Dec 11, 2011, 4:55 PM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Congratulations on being the most ill-informed Trek fan I've ever encountered.
Since I don't have to depend on the internet for my Star Trek knowledge because I lived it. Your links are meaningless.
Dec 12, 2011, 5:43 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
I certainly HOPE they deal with the ramifications of everything that old Spock has influenced this new timeline and what his changes actually start of both good and bad. He's a very dangerous paradox and it's rather surprising that the surviving Vulcan society, who are based on logic, accepts him just like that. He's actually just as dangerous to their present as Nero was. He may not destroy things quickly, but if he isn't careful... he can set events in motion, probably already have, that will result in even worse disasters than the original timeline went through.
SSgt Burton said:
+ if the galaxy found out about him being from the future... wouldn't he be haunted and hunted by everyone wanting to know their future and how to beat everyone else?
If the writers just ignore all these things, the dangers, the consequences and just goes on like normal... then true... then that's lazy writing. They set things in motion that needs dealing with.
Dec 12, 2011, 8:57 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
I'm suprprised we did not see old Spock mind meld with young Spock so that the younger one would have the memories of everything old Spock went through. That would be the only way to 'preserve' the original time line. It is a great philosophical idea to poder the fact that you lived your whole life just to come to the twilight of it and find out it's been re-booted. That a younger you will now grow up to be not quite you because his life has taken a drastic departure from yours. Olso that your remaining years in your 'now' past will play out quite differently as you begin to experience the unfolding of the new set of parameters.
Dec 12, 2011, 10:05 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
How? You say Deep Space Nine wanted to stay as far away from the original series as it could, and I present a little "official" video that I REMEMBER watching back when it first aired.
Mic, why is it when you say these things like this that I imagine you as a rural Baku preaching lessons like "We believe when you build a machine to do the work for the man, you take something away from the man." Not only does that reply not say anything, but it's also relying on something that is fundemantally flawed. You're human brain can't remember everything no matter what you've lived through. It can forget. And when you label Deep Space Nine as a series that tries to stay away from Gene Roddenberry's Original Series whenever it could, I think your brain forgot some details.
Trails and Tribbleations wasn't even Deep Space Nine's only foray in TOS terriroty. They had original characters like the major Klingon captains, many episodes involving the Mirror Universe and lots of chatter regarding Cestus III, Tholians ect. So generalizing that the people behind Deep Space Nine wanted to avoid TOS whenever it could is a very disingenuous comment to make.
Dec 12, 2011, 10:11 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
Not only that, it would have given NuSpock the oppertunity to know how much of an impact his mother had on his life in helping him cope with his human side without resorting to just "I'm proud of you".
After all, Picard kind of did the same thing with Spock in Unification.
Spock: You may know Sarek better than his own son does. My father and I never chose to meld.
Picard: I offer you the chance to touch what he shared with me.
*Spock mind melds with Picard, and a shot of emotion is seen*
That was good stuff.
Dec 12, 2011, 10:20 AM - re: Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
So many new opportunities... only complete morons would ignore them all and go for the same old boring no-consequence ridden action-blaster no-brainer adventure.
Vivek, Entertainment and Movie Talk
Last Post: 6 Days Ago, 10:23 AM
alienscollection.com, Replica Props
Last Post: Dec 24, 2013, 10:23 PM
mb1701d, Replica Costumes
Last Post: Aug 15, 2013, 12:29 PM
nickytea, Replica Costumes
Last Post: Jul 26, 2013, 2:33 PM