news Star Trek Into Darkness named 'worst Star Trek film'

[adrynalyne]

They do?  News to me.  And even if so, how is such a minor quibble of production an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Oops, we farted in space, might as well pull out the lightsabers and resort to supernaturalism.

 

I'm not saying it wasn't influenced by the climate of the day, whales were all the rage.  Good sci-fi always strives to change a couple things and then ask, what happens. (ie reality has a liberal bias)  They just stretched it a bit to make the extinctions (a very real issue) come home to roost much further in the future than our minds can cope with.

You and Dot are claiming the latest movie was bad because it doesn't follow science.

 

NONE of them do.  So if there is an issue now with other things, like breaking orbit and "falling", then yeah they must accept that sound in space is somehow good 'Trek'.  That is a far worse break from science than the idea of breaking orbit.

[Dashel]

You and Dot are claiming the latest movie was bad because it doesn't follow science.

 

NONE of them do.  So if there is an issue now with other things, like breaking orbit and "falling", then yeah they must accept that sound in space is somehow good 'Trek'.  That is a far worse break from science than the idea of breaking orbit.

He is, I'm just saying that it did have a lot of bad science.  Sure, you can be an ass and nitpick over the last 50 years but the majority have paid more than a passing glance towards the science, moreso than any franchise I can think of.  You still haven't answered why you are so wound up on the sound thing.  When has that ever been an issue, unlike say, the inside FX team completely not communicating with the external FX team during the 'fall'?  It stinks of a movie made for cut trailer moments.  

 

Its not even about science at that point, but simple consistency.  The third Batman movie had its share of plot issues too, yet was still an enjoyable movie.

[Dot Matrix]

Dot Matrix watches Star Trek for scientific value.

I'm a realist. There's a fine line to science fiction. When a film/TV show insults people's intelligence, and makes me go "WTF", it's a complete turn off. It's the same reason Star Trek: Voyager is complete ****. It wasn't real. You simply wouldn't have a spaceship travelling years from home week after week, and have it looking fresh out of drydock.

 

Basically it boils down to storytelling. You can have excellent science fiction, without insulting your audience. Battlestar Galactica did it. Star Trek: Enterprise did it. LOST did it. Stargate: SG-1/Atlantis/Universe did it. Heck even 2009's Star Trek did it, but Into Darkness was a utter failure from the start. Why was the Enterprise underwater, when it could have remained in orbit? It would have saved a shuttle, and your crew from getting wet. We had Khan beam from Earth to Kronos, yet we can't have Spock beam down from orbit? Why was Khan all of a sudden a different man from what canon has already set? Why is the Enterprise crew tumbling around inside the ship, when supposedly artificial gravity was offline?

 

See what I mean? You shouldn't have people picking things apart like this.

[adrynalyne]

He is, I'm just saying that it did have a lot of bad science.  Sure, you can be an ass and nitpick over the last 50 years but the majority have paid more than a passing glance towards the science, moreso than any franchise I can think of.  You still haven't answered why you are so wound up on the sound thing.  When has that ever been an issue, unlike say, the inside FX team completely not communicating with the external FX team during the 'fall'?  It stinks of a movie made for cut trailer moments.  

 

Its not even about science at that point, but simple consistency.  The third Batman movie had its share of plot issues too, yet was still an enjoyable movie.

I am hung up on it because you can't call a movie on bad science when bad science abounds in all of them. "Nevermind that they all had bad science in them, but this one right here sucks due to bad science."

Sounds silly doesn't it?

[xWhiplash]

I'm a realist. There's a fine line to science fiction. When a film/TV show insults people's intelligence, and makes me go "WTF", it's a complete turn off. It's the same reason Star Trek: Voyager is complete ****. It wasn't real. You simply wouldn't have a spaceship travelling years from home week after week, and have it looking fresh out of drydock.

 

Did you just say Star Trek Voyager is complete **** because it was not real?

 

Geez there would only be one episode of the show if you wanted realism.

 

After they had one battle, would you really WANT to see them in a broken ship dying every week due to severely damaged life support?

[Nogib]

WHY do people like First Contact so much?  It was terrible (though Insurrection was far worse).  Just none of the TNG movies were that good at all.  Damn you Rick Berman.

[Dot Matrix]

Did you just say Star Trek Voyager is complete **** because it was not real?

 

Geez there would only be one episode of the show if you wanted realism.

 

After they had one battle, would you really WANT to see them in a broken ship dying every week due to severely damaged life support?

Of course. It would only be natural. How is that a ship can be stranded from home, and be completely clean... Not a broken console, not a dead light bulb, not even a frayed carpet. Seasons 2-7 of Voyager should have been like Season 3 of Enterprise. Season 1 started off great... Worrying about power consumption, all the way down to conserving their torpedo complement. But that apparently did not last long, and quickly made for an unconvincing story.

[adrynalyne]

Of course. It would only be natural. How is that a ship can be stranded from home, and be completely clean... Not a broken console, not a dead light bulb, not even a frayed carpet. Seasons 2-7 of Voyager should have been like Season 3 of Enterprise. Season 1 started off great... Worrying about power consumption, all the way down to conserving their torpedo complement. But that apparently did not last long, and quickly made for an unconvincing story.

Ever wondered why Enterprise made it four seasons and Voyager seven?

 

Because nobody wants to watch a busted-ass ship limp around for an hour.

[Dot Matrix]

Ever wondered why Enterprise made it four seasons and Voyager seven?

 

Because nobody wants to watch a busted-ass ship limp around for an hour.

Enterprise was cancelled because UPN felt that committing suicide was much better than being on air.

[adrynalyne]

Enterprise was cancelled because UPN felt that committing suicide was much better than being on air.

I am sure many viewers felt like committing suicide after watching it.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

I have to disagree; I thought it was a good movie and a good Star Trek movie.

[Dot Matrix]

I am sure many viewers felt like committing suicide after watching it.

You can disagree all you want, but Enterprise had EXCELLENT storytelling. It was convincing. It was real. What happened in one episode, had ripple effects in the next, and the next, etc. There was no magic reset button that was pressed week after week.  

[PeterTHX]

Of course. It would only be natural. How is that a ship can be stranded from home, and be completely clean... Not a broken console, not a dead light bulb, not even a frayed carpet. Seasons 2-7 of Voyager should have been like Season 3 of Enterprise. Season 1 started off great... Worrying about power consumption, all the way down to conserving their torpedo complement. But that apparently did not last long, and quickly made for an unconvincing story.

 

When you're traveling endlessly through space how do you keep a crew of 140 people busy?

 

CLEANING UP THE SHIP.

 

Bad parts are taken care of by replicator technology.

 

Not a stretch of the imagination in the very least.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Basically it boils down to storytelling. You can have excellent science fiction, without insulting your audience. Battlestar Galactica did it. Star Trek: Enterprise did it.

Are you suggesting that Star Trek: Enterprise had better storytelling and science fiction elements than the JJ Abrams films?  :huh:

[Dot Matrix]

When you're traveling endlessly through space how do you keep a crew of 140 people busy?

 

CLEANING UP THE SHIP.

 

Bad parts are taken care of by replicator technology.

 

Not a stretch of the imagination in the very least.

Unless they had a room sized replicator, that still doesn't explain why the ship was in such pristine condition week after week. Sorry. You can't replicate whole consoles, new warp coils, etc. with those food terminals.

[Dot Matrix]

 

Are you suggesting that Star Trek: Enterprise had better storytelling and science fiction elements than the JJ Abrams films?  :huh:

 

Yes.

[adrynalyne]

Unless they had a room sized replicator, that still doesn't explain why the ship was in such pristine condition week after week. Sorry. You can't replicate whole consoles, new warp coils, etc. with those food terminals.

Use your imagination....

[adrynalyne]

When you're traveling endlessly through space how do you keep a crew of 140 people busy?

 

CLEANING UP THE SHIP.

 

Bad parts are taken care of by replicator technology.

 

Not a stretch of the imagination in the very least.

Time stops once the episode is over...

;)

They have no time to clean or repair!

If we want to get into realism....how come (and this applies to each and every Trek series)...each episode never starts at the point in space it was in, in the last episode? 

--Maybe life went on without us viewing?  Maybe, just maybe they fixed their ship in that time?

How come a civilization that has machines that can create food out of raw elements, transport someone, or travel FTL is not allowed to fix their ship quickly in time for the next episode?

[theyarecomingforyou]

You can disagree all you want, but Enterprise had EXCELLENT storytelling. It was convincing. It was real. What happened in one episode, had ripple effects in the next, and the next, etc. There was no magic reset button that was pressed week after week.  

Now I know you're just trying to wind people up!  :laugh:

 

Yes.

Well, you've just lost ANY credibility you might have previously had.

[adrynalyne]

Unless they had a room sized replicator, that still doesn't explain why the ship was in such pristine condition week after week. Sorry. You can't replicate whole consoles, new warp coils, etc. with those food terminals.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Replicator

"One of the first replicators seen by Humans was the one seen by the crew of Enterprise when they had their ship repaired in the mysterious repair station."

 

Now imagine, other civilizations can be as advanced or more advanced and repaired their ships as they moved along.  Nobody really wants to watch that though (except you), so that part is left to the imagination.

[Dot Matrix]

 

How come a civilization that has machines that can create food out of raw elements, transport someone, or travel FTL is not allowed to fix their ship quickly in time for the next episode?

Limited resources, limited power, etc.

 

The Galactica had the resources of an entire fleet, and not even that could prevent the ship from falling apart at the seams. Voyager was ONE ship, with finite resources, lost in space, and in battles with the Borg week after week. The Borg can decimate entire armadas, yet let this one ship slip by. Not buying it.

[adrynalyne]

Limited resources, limited power, etc.

 

The Galactica had the resources of an entire fleet, and not even that could prevent the ship from falling apart at the seams. Voyager was ONE ship, with finite resources, lost in space, and in battles with the Borg week after week. The Borg can decimate entire armadas, yet let this one ship slip by. Not buying it.

The idea that you would buy any of it (Star Trek) is a little disturbing.

[PeterTHX]

Limited resources, limited power, etc.

 

The Galactica had the resources of an entire fleet, and not even that could prevent the ship from falling apart at the seams. Voyager was ONE ship, with finite resources, lost in space, and in battles with the Borg week after week. The Borg can decimate entire armadas, yet let this one ship slip by. Not buying it.

 

The Galactica had primitive weapons and communications, an entirely different FTL method, and you want to compare it to Starfleet/Voyager tech?

 

Also if you watch all the confrontations with the Borg, they never had a direct ship-to-ship battle like in THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS or Q*WHO. The closest was a brief skirmish with a tactical cube in UNIMATRIX ZERO which blew up the Delta Flyer and damaged Voyager, and they were nearly assimilated by a Borg sphere that was destroyed by "One" who was the product of Borg and 29th century Starfleet tech.

 

If you actually watched the series you didn't pay very much attention to it.

 

Also TNG established replicator technology was used for many other things than just making food. In fact, replicators were used for everything *but* food on Voyager, that's why they had Neelix as cook.

[redfish]

Lol, nothing against humpback whales; it just seemed "out of place" for a Star Trek movie. I mean, kinda like a Hollywood, liberal agenda. 

 

How is a liberal point of view out of place from Star Trek? Have you ever seen the TNG episode where a 20th century businessman is unfrozen and Picard has to lecture him on how the world doesn't need greedy people like him anymore? Everything about Star Trek, from the pilot episode of TOS reflects a culturally liberal view: that people of the present day are small minded and irrational, and we'll all be better in the future by applying science to our every day lives, but do so while still being compassionate and emotional and loving and not relying too much on logic and reasoning and rules like Spock. Star Trek comes out of the 60s!

 

I tend to dislike The Voyage Home because its just silly on so many levels. But then I also think The Wrath of Khan is cheesey and has bad writing. So I'm out of touch with most of the Trek fan base.

 

 

You can disagree all you want, but Enterprise had EXCELLENT storytelling. It was convincing. It was real. What happened in one episode, had ripple effects in the next, and the next, etc. There was no magic reset button that was pressed week after week.  

 

What happened in one episode had ripple effects in the next, and the atmosphere of the show did feel real. But it really had weak dialogue, recycled plots, overuse of bad plot devices like time travel, bad aliens like the Xindi, bad character writing, like Archer, who was overemotional about everything and acted like a baby, and Vulcans acting out of character just to make the show more interesting. In the end, I found it much less inspiring and much more forgettable than than the previous series.

[Raa]

I actually thought Insurrection was an excellent movie.

Yeah, I think someone's got a chip on their shoulder looking at that list...