Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

star trek 11

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Jakeman, Jul 27, 2007.

  1. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    delete duplicate
     
  2. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I saw it last night. I'm pretty critical of movies and even I found it enjoyable. I did have some issues with a few plot points, and I definitely felt I was missing a lot of the "inside" jokes, that I'm sure other more diehard fans of the original series would pick up on. That being said, its worth the price of admission. It didn't offend any of my Star Trek sensibilities. Many episodes of TNG definitely forced me to suspend my disbelief a lot more.

    It is nowhere near the juggernaut of something like The Dark Knight, both in terms of plot and just plain "cool", but it spanks 90% of the summer blockbuster crowd of the past few years.

    Go and see it Jake or torrent or whatever. Definitely worth your time.
     
  3. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well Dark Knight is a special case. A well made movie with a well written story that was well acted. What I liked about it was that the story was king, you forgot that Batman and the Joker and Two-Face are comic book characters. Take the comic book aspect away and it would still have been a great movie, and frankly I was surprised it didn't garner a Best Picture nomination.

    Speaking of Best Picture though, Slumdog Millionaire was very deserving. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it highly.

    We now return you to our regularly scheduled Star Trek discussion...
     
  4. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I totally agree. On all counts. Dark Knight was most definitely a unique movie and Slumdog, although not my favorite genre, was well deserving of the award.
     
  5. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    What is this I hear about a long range transport in the movie? I heard they transported from Titan to Earth? Ridiculous. Anyone who knows their trek knows that the maximum transport range is 40,000 kilometers. The distance between Titan and Earth is approximately 1.2 billion kilometers.

    Said plainly, you can't transport between planets because they are too far apart. You need to be in orbit.

    Hardcore treks might recall the concept of subspace transporters which have much longer range, but that technology isn't even perfected in the TNG time frame. Nope, this can't be explained away within the established technology of the trek universe.
     
  6. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Yeah I hate it when they alter an arbitrary number associated with a fictional technology that in any case violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and therefore cannot exist anyway.

    Oh that's right, transporters are equipped with "Heisenberg Compensators." Yep, not at all nebulous.

    I like Star Trek too but let's not mistake the "science" in Trek for actual science, something that hardcore Trekkers seem wont to do. Things like molecular transportation (as it is portrayed in Trek) and time travel are theoretically impossible, yet in Trek it's no harder than driving to the store. It's called suspension of disbelief.

    As far as cheating the established fictional technology, no less than Rick Berman, writer for the TNG series and two of the movies, admitted that they did it when the story required it. Especially with the transporters.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  7. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Please stop talking to me. I can't handle it. :(
     
  8. harleyb

    harleyb Peasant

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    9
    Market Rating:
    0
    While it irks me when I need to extend my suspension of disbelief to accept previously-unconscionable "science," it pains me much more greatly when things happen that just downright don't make sense to anyone with the smallest amount of logic in their brains. Why in the heck did Harold use a robo-katana? They have goddamn phasers! And the "space jump" itself? C'mon! Why not just launch a photon torpedo at the drill?

    And the drill blocking all communication and transporters? Sure, I'd be a dick to say that it doesn't make scientific sense, but I'm more pissed off because it makes the plot that much weaker. It's simply a plot device that they didn't put ANY effort into developing.
     
  9. SpocKirk

    SpocKirk Forum Moderator and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    25
    Market Rating:
    0
    ...you don't fence with a katana anyway. his training has no bearing to the actual fighting he does on the drill.
     
  10. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    As you wish.
     
  11. SpocKirk

    SpocKirk Forum Moderator and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    25
    Market Rating:
    0
    I watched it again with my mom for mother's day. I remembered another problem I had with the movie, the stupid lens flares they show everywhere.
     
  12. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    In my perusing of the internet I am seeing lots of arguments like this:

    person A - this plot device makes no sense.

    person B - it's fiction, it doesn't have to make sense.


    Yes you are entitled to create plot devices that make no sense. And your point is?
     
  13. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
  14. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    The movie has been out for a month. I decided to go back and check the IMDB reviews again and discovered something very interesting:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/usercomments

    I skimmed all 95 pages of reviews (942 reviews). By default these reviews are sorted by "Best" which appears to be a function of usefulness ratings ("X out of Y people found the following comment useful"). It's not chronological.

    This isn't a statistical computer analysis, but after browsing all of the reviews I came up with these general groupings in the data set:

    Subset: pages 1-21 (first 210 reviews)
    Voter turnout: very high
    Review rating: useful
    Opinion of movie: 90% dislike to very negative

    Subset: pages 22-90 (reviews 211 - 900)
    Voter turnout: very low
    Review rating: not useful (but low voter turnout)
    Opinion of movie: 90% like to very positive

    Subset: pages 91-95 (reviews 901 - 942)
    Voter turnout: moderate
    Review rating: not useful
    Opinion of movie: mixed (50% love it, 50% hate it)

    So basically most of the reviews give the movie a positive rating, but almost all of those positive reviews are "not useful." The vast majority of "useful" reviews give the movie a negative rating.

    This is a very different distribution than what existed in the set of reviews leading up to the movie's release. 1) Before the movie's release there was about the same ratio of positive to negative reviews (when you count those that were deleted), but the "useful" ratings were reversed... the positive reviews were rated as useful and the negative reviews were rated as not useful. Now the negative ratings are considered the most useful. 2) There is also a difference in voter turnout... before release the positive reviews had a high turnout. Now the positive reviews have a very low turnout as if people aren't reading them or don't care to vote. It's the negative reviews that are getting the most attention now unlike before.

    The significant change here is that the negative reviews are now the most useful which is a complete reversal from reviews before the movie's release. This isn't a subtle shift either. It's a marked difference... a roughly 10%/90% split that has been turned on its head.

    What does this information mean? It is often argued that these "usefulness" ratings are nothing more than democratic votes of agreement or disagreement with the review in question. If you subscribe to that argument then you can conclude that the vast majority of voters (those reading reviews, not necessarily making their own) liked the movie before its release (agreeing with positive reviews), and that the vast majority now dislike the movie after its release (agreeing with negative reviews). Of course this conclusion is open to interpretation about the meaning of usefulness ratings. Also consider that both sides can astroturf.
     
  15. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Ok I just watched the movie. I would rate the movie as awful.

    Criticisms:

    1) There was strange attention paid to the fact that everything is different now. It was as if everyone knew what their lives would have been in the unaltered universe and they know they have been changed in contrast to that. It was necessary to relay the concept of the alternate universe to the audience, but the delivery was really awkward. It's like they couldn't think of a way to demonstrate the concept so they just came out and said it.

    2) An emotional Spock with a girlfriend? That is totally inconsistent with the Spock character. It is as if the Spock from the alternate universe decided to side with his humanity unlike the original Spock. This is unfortunate because the Spock character was originally designed to provide a dispassionate and rational perspective. Now there is no such character. As a result the crew is very one dimensional.

    3) While most of the Trek universe has made passing references to the rebelliousness of youth, this movie was nothing but, and for that reason it was awkward. The movie lacked the maturity that I have come to expect from Star Trek.

    4) Not counting the abortion that was Nemesis, this is the first Trek movie to have no redeeming sociopolitical message. The best message I was able to extract from the movie is that we should all strive to serve something higher than ourselves. It was pretty generic. The movie also lacked the feelings of hope and wonder that underlie most Trek.

    5) The villain was very one dimensional. Needed much more development.

    6) Plot holes galore. There were so many unexplained things in the movie... which isn't necessarily a bad thing except that the unexplained things had inconsistencies and holes in themselves which begs an explanation.

    7) Lots of bad plot devices that made no sense. It's like the writers had a bunch of cool scenes in mind which they patched together with very little effort.

    8) There was no development for the Uhura / Spock relationship. As far as I could tell it was a relationship based on sympathy which turned physical. Pretty disappointing.

    9) There were a lot of token alien races with no introduction or background which is unusual in Star Trek. It felt more like Star Wars in that sense.

    I am glad I didn't pay money for this movie.
     
  16. harleyb

    harleyb Peasant

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    9
    Market Rating:
    0
    I'm still wondering why they need a gigantic whirling-blade apparatus to process all their water. "Starfleet only drinks the finest puréed water!"
     
  17. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Maybe it was a turbine for power generation. Yeah, a little weird.
     
  18. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    10) Sarek would never openly admit his feelings. But even if you dismiss the history of his character, the open admission of love is completely at odds with his vulcan nature. And Sarek is 100% vulcan so he has no excuse.

    Vulcans in this universe are portrayed as closet humans in a way which is unfortunate and lacking dimension.
     
  19. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    I'm gonna try my hand on the startrek.com forum again. Hopefully they don't eat me alive again:

    http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?;act=ST;f=6;t=33335807;r=1

     
  20. Wiezzen

    Wiezzen Peasant

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Jake, I think you might expect too much from movies. I haven't seen the new Star Trek myself, but I heard from several people (including my parents who were old Trekkie fans) that it was a good movie and worth the watch.

    Also, I liked Star Trek Nemesis :(
     

Hitometer: 53,555,734 since 1995