Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > OT: [spoiler] Star Trek XI - worst ST movie ever?

Reply
Thread Tools

OT: [spoiler] Star Trek XI - worst ST movie ever?

 
 
jt august
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <1izoij3.1y4wkru2x7nzgN%(E-Mail Removed) >,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> However this new movie had all too many moments where I was going "WTF?
> Is this a kid's cartoon?".


Well, with professional credits of various tasks including Lost, MI3,
Cloverfield, Armageddon, Avatar: The Last Airbender and Shrek (see his
IMDB profile), that kind of result could be expected.

jt
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michelle Steiner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <1izoiov.12gprovxirpabN%(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> It order to enjoy fantasy and science fiction even the scientifically
> impossible must be portrayed in a 'realistic' manner in order to
> allow the viewer to suspend belief and immerse one's self in the
> story.


There's a guy, who claims to have a PhD, on the "Heroes" newsgroup who
is all upset and bothered because time travel there is not depicted in a
manner consistent with the hypotheses of Stephen Hawking and Richard
Feynman.

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michelle Steiner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
jt august <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The new ST movie seems to me will be just flat out fun.


It is. But until you realize that it is a reset, going off into an
alternative universe, you'll be puzzled. (Well, I guess that I just
avoided that puzzlement for you.)

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michelle Steiner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <1izofty.1bm5c7k15h89viN%(E-Mail Removed) z>,
(E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Hmmm... what did you like about it?


Just about everything.

> The daft moments didn't bother you?


The only thing that bothered me was Kirk's happening to stumble into the
same ice cave that Spock Prime happened to be in. Too much of a
coincidence.

> By and large I actually liked the characters - I just felt their was
> barely any character development for all but Kirk and Spock


Well, yeah; the movie was about them, after all. Besides, what
character development had there been in the TV series or other movies?

> and even then it was _extremely_ rushed and shallow.


All I can say is that I disagree.

-- Michelle

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Moore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <3wsOl.997$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Wes Groleau <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
> > really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
> > it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
> > going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!

>
> If it were scientifically credible, it wouldn't be star trek.
>
> Transporter believable? Not to anyone who believes E = M * C^2


Wes, what do you think plasma conduits are for? As long as you have
a 'wire' that can handle the amperage required by any technology, who
cares what E is? You're good to go!

> Or to anyone who can guess within five orders of magnitude the computing
> power necessary to capture the location and state of every atom in a
> human body in a few seconds, or the bandwidth to reproduce that
> configuration at a distance.


Let me recommend Star Trek The Next Generation Technical Manual by Rick
Sternbach and Michael Okuda, 2 well known ST designers, 1991. It's the
best book of pseudo-scientific jibberish I've ever read!
<http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Gene...bered/dp/06717
04273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242228820&sr=8-1>

Pages 102 through 108 contain a comprehensive outline of transporter
operation, including a millisecond-by-millisecond log of the 5.000
second complete process.

As to computing power, on p49 it notes the LCARS core is based on Faster
Than Light (FTL) nanoprocessor units. Main memory of the TNG Enterprise
exceeded (excuse me, will exceed when it's built in the future) 630
megaquads!

> How about the way they say that warp factor N means N^2 times the
> speed of light. Then they say maximum sustainable speed is warp six.
> Speed of light times 36 ? So the trip from earth to the nearest star
> would take seven weeks, two years to the next nearest.....


Actually, warp factor is not currently N^2. After The Original Series,
Gene Roddenberry decide they needed to recalibrate the warp factor. It
had to be 'accelerated' enough to allow reasonably quick star-to-star
travel, but slow enough to prohibit quickly crossing the galaxy (or
there'd have been no ST Voyager).

From p55 of the TNG Tech Manual, there is a graph of the correlation
between the speed of light (c) and warp factor. Below are the
approximate equivalences taken by manually interpolating the non-linear,
semi-logarithmic graph:

Warp Times Speed
Factor of Light
------ --------
1 1
2 10+
3 30
4 100
5 230
6 400
7 600
8 1000
9 1300
10 infinite, and unattainable

Warp 9.2 is the safe starship maximum speed. Q traveled at warp 9.9999+.
The Traveler from the episode 'Where No One Has Gone Before' traveled at
Warp 9.9999999996. Sternbach produced an Excel spreadsheet with all
these calculations, but it was never published.

Richard Nixon Voice:ON/
I am NOT a Star Trek Fan Boy;
I have never BEEN a Star Trek Fan Boy;
I don't even know what a Star Trek Fan Boy LOOKS like.
Richard Nixon Voice:OFF/

> And if it had a creative plot, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
> Out of 100 episodes in the original series, about ninety
> of them were the same two stories with the names changed.
> (The other ten were pretty good though)


Are you saying TOS was repetitive?!? Just because you can download
numerous clips of McCoy saying 'He's dead, Jim!'
<http://www.wavsource.com/tv/star_trek_dead.htm> does NOT mean it was
repetitive!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
jt august <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <1izofty.1bm5c7k15h89viN%(E-Mail Removed) z>,
> (E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > I just felt their was
> > barely any character development for all but Kirk and Spock - and even
> > then it was _extremely_ rushed and shallow.

>
> This has been typical of much of Star Trek. Many characters in ST:TOS
> were shallow. Then there was the first season and a half of ST:TNG.
>
> jt


It got a lot deeper after season one which I liked Maybe later
seasons of ST-TNG and most of DSN and Voyager spoiled me.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
Michelle Steiner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <1izofty.1bm5c7k15h89viN%(E-Mail Removed) z>,
> (E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... what did you like about it?

>
> Just about everything.
>
> > The daft moments didn't bother you?

>
> The only thing that bothered me was Kirk's happening to stumble into the
> same ice cave that Spock Prime happened to be in. Too much of a
> coincidence.


I also liked how they were in danger from a giant beast one minute, then
the next they're somehow safe walking on the surface. Does waving a
fiery stick around send all creatures running on the entire planet?

Plus I swear if I see one more time travel plot in ST I'll scream.

> > By and large I actually liked the characters - I just felt their was
> > barely any character development for all but Kirk and Spock

>
> Well, yeah; the movie was about them, after all. Besides, what
> character development had there been in the TV series or other movies?


Oh come on - what about later seasons of TNG and almost all of DSN and
Voyager? Or do you mean only TOS and it's movies? I suppose there was
less character development there. But I've become used to it after later
ST spinoffs.

> > and even then it was _extremely_ rushed and shallow.

>
> All I can say is that I disagree.
>
> -- Michelle


To each their own
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
Michelle Steiner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <1izoiov.12gprovxirpabN%(E-Mail Removed) >,
> (E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > It order to enjoy fantasy and science fiction even the scientifically
> > impossible must be portrayed in a 'realistic' manner in order to
> > allow the viewer to suspend belief and immerse one's self in the
> > story.

>
> There's a guy, who claims to have a PhD, on the "Heroes" newsgroup who
> is all upset and bothered because time travel there is not depicted in a
> manner consistent with the hypotheses of Stephen Hawking and Richard
> Feynman.


LOL. Well there's a failure to suspend belief if ever I heard one.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
jt august <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <1izoiov.12gprovxirpabN%(E-Mail Removed) >,
> (E-Mail Removed) (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > > You do know the Federation and Star Ships are fiction?

> >
> > It order to enjoy fantasy and science fiction even the scientifically
> > impossible must be portrayed in a 'realistic' manner in order to allow
> > the viewer to suspend belief and immerse one's self in the story.

>
> That would be known as "suspension of disbelief." And it does not
> require reality to be achieved. I site the original Star Wars Trilogy
> for an open example. A planet cannot blow up as instantly as was shown
> in the first movie and the explosion would be so clean. The way the
> ships zip about each other so maneuverably could not be achieved as
> shown. And for a ship to enter a restricted zone and then land away
> from the ground base without setting any alarms could never happen. Yet
> all these and much more occurred quite fluidly and naturally in all
> those movies.
>
> But here is the kicker: Star Wars is Science Fantasy. So the viewer
> can believe such things could happen in the Star Wars Universe and thus
> thoroughly enjoy the films.
>
> Well, Star Trek is equally Science Fantasy. Going backwards in time
> simply by spinning counter clockwise around the sun instead of
> clockwise. Entering into warp drive while still in 1980's Earth's
> atmosphere. Changing a nebular into a star with a "class M" planet with
> an instant eco-system. Some alien intelligence upgrading a very simple
> space probe launched in the 70's into something super high tech and as
> big as the moon that in turn worships us as its God.
>
> All these sample plot points require complete suspension of disbelief.
> Yet these movies draw audiences not only with each movie, but many
> repeat viewers in theater, on home video, on various broadcast
> presentations and of course at numerous fan conventions. The reason is
> not that they are presented in a way that is realistic, but in a way
> that is coherent to the story. Coherency is the real throttle point for
> a successful suspension of disbelief.
>
> That said, if you want something realistic, stick to documentaries. The
> new ST movie seems to me will be just flat out fun. I'm looking forward
> to seeing it.
>
> jt


Hmmm... you're not getting me at all. I didn't say it had to be
realistic with a scientific basis. I said it should be portrayed in a
realistic looking manner - i.e. not so silly it doesn't allow for
suspension of belief (which I well know having done speech and drama for
over ten years). If you can't buy into the fantasy the story simply
isn't going to work.

I'm sorry - some things are just so massively dumb you cannot suspend
belief. If in one fantasy universe dragons cannot roar loud enough to be
heard on the other side of the world, and one suddenly does - that jolts
the viewer out of the story and immersion is lost. It doesn't matter a
damn what the real world is like. Just as stars behaving like real stars
in ST forever, and now suddenly they don't. Not only don't they - they
behave in ways even a 12 year old knows they can't. It's not that stars
are not behaving as they do in the real world. It's that ST has always
treated them in a realistic manner. That's the key here. ST isn't about
magical D&D fantasy. It's about very close to reality fantasy. Liberties
are taken - of course. But it's always been close to reality. Not wildly
apart.

You are right to being up coherency of which there is very, very little
in this film. I don't like being treated like an idiot - and this film
does that. I say again it doesn't have to make real world sense - it
just has to make sense in the ST universe, and it doesn't.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Kahn Genet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
Davoud <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote some nonsense that I didn't read. I've
> kill-filed him long since.
>
> J Brockley wrote:
> > You do know the Federation and Star Ships are fiction?

>
> There's the deal. Critics and viewers love the new ST movie. SF isn't
> for everyone, however. Some lack the imagination for it and expect it
> to adhere strictly to General Relativity, etc. NOT!
>
> That's why this form of entertainment is also called "escapist;"
> healthy minds need to escape every-day reality from time to time. Those
> who can't suspend disbelief and escape for a couple of hours from time
> to time are likely to end up like Jamie.
>
> Such people are to be pitied. They can't read Shakespeare (spoiler:
> Romeo and Juliet, Iago, Lear - all _fictional_ characters) or the
> marvelous fictitious history found in the Old Testament (spoiler: there
> was no bondage in Egypt, no Moses, no wandering in the Sinai). They
> can't watch SNL or Snow White or any of that. Sad, indeed. One wonders
> what Jamie & his ilk do for a life - other than write nonsense for
> Usenet.
>
> Davoud


You're a moron and to be pitied for a failure to get what I was saying
on a truly _epic_ scale. FYI - my favourite series of books:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Wizards>

Another favourite:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamora_Pierce#The_Song_of_the_Lioness>

And one more: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night%27s_Dawn_Trilogy>

Some favourite TV shows: Doctor Who (any series), Farscape, any ST.

Some favourite games: Cystalis, Legend of Zelda, Phantasy Star, Baldurs
Gate (and all related games and sequels).

I mean - to paraphrase a certain a certain Friends character
(embarrassingly I used to like that show): could you BE more ****ing
wrong about me?

Here is what you need to do right now: killfile me FOREVER and I will do
the same. Because are too stupid to ever interact with me ever again.
You offend my intelligence so much I almost feel ill.

*plonk*

(and yes - this massive prick hit a nerve in a BIG ****ing way)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting 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 Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Am I the only person who didn't like the new Star Trek movie? Sky King Computer Support 0 05-11-2009 02:34 PM
Re: Am I the only person who didn't like the new Star Trek movie? walter Computer Support 1 05-11-2009 02:16 PM
Re: Am I the only person who didn't like the new Star Trek movie? Bucky Breeder Computer Support 0 05-11-2009 01:31 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: THE STAR WARS TRILOGY, STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES, SEASON ONE, and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 09-27-2004 09:08 AM
Question - Star Trek movie box sets Fire3Sky DVD Video 5 08-11-2004 07:53 PM



Advertisments