Star Trek into darknes

[KerbMav]

That was another problem that I had with the movie, was the tampering with the ship design. The original Enterprise was not equipped with torpedoes;

Also, photon torpedoes are (have to be) self-propelled and are simply launched like in a rail gun. There is no explosion like in a handgun or exhaust (until they activate outside of the ship) to damage the next torpedo, so there can be more than one torpedo loaded in a tube at the same time.

The 1701-D could obviously launch multiple torpedoes (a spread) simultanously and even if the 1701 could not do so, a rapid automated reload system is even used today in tanks. (The 1701-D even only load the torpedoes with the anti-matter in the tube, hence the ability to set different levels.)

The burial scene in the torpedo room in Wrath of Khan as well as the torpedo operation scene in Final Frontier might contradict this a little, but the location most likely takes place in a room designed to retrofit torpedoes for special use.

Lords of Kerbol, I feel so nerdy right now!

OT: The new Star Trek movies are popcorn cinema, the occasions they remind me of what Star Trek really is are few and hard to detect.

OBC: Sherlock ... ah, Benedict does a good job, I think. The new Khan is different from the old one:

Ricky-Khan was a genetically engineered human gone megalomaniac and wanted to rule the world (in the 1990s) due to his superiority complex - well, he was superior, genetically enhanced and all, but, yeah ... - and was exiled with his brethren on a sleeper ship, which is found by Kirk 250+ years later. He tries to take over the Enterprise in the TV-series as the first step to reattain his former glory and fights Kirk in the original movie because he got stranded by him on a remote world in the aftermath of the TV-episode, so it is more about vengeance in the original time line.

Benny-Khan is more along the perfect soldier theme, who was made an outcast and tries to fight for freedom for him and his family. Khan fights Kirk because Kirk fights Khan, tries to use and imprison him.

I do not remember if they ever mentioned him ruling "more than one-quarter of Earth's population, including regions of Asia and the Middle East." in the new movie, so maybe his backstory was changed (beyond the changes to the timeline due to the Romulans travelling back and attacking the Kelvin).

Fufact: Where the old series mispredicted the perfection of human genetic engineering to take place around 1990, the new movie tells us (acc. to wikipedia), that Khan was put in cryo sleep in around 1959.

[Awaras]

[[ Spoilers ]]

Oh, and the warp core was really well done too. http://i.imgur.com/GrrArhU.jpg

Because they filmed those scenes at the National Ignition Facility, a collection of Big Scary Lasers that hoped to achieve controlled nuclear fusion...

Edited March 31, 2014 by Awaras

[KerbMav]

Better than using a brewery at least ...

[Brethern]

I really hate to mention this but if they stayed true to Roddenberry's original idea every star trek tv series and movie would have been exactly the same. Shallow characters who existed only to solve science problems. At least JJ Abrams is willing to rock the boat and get lasting consequences in things.

[Vanamonde]

Shallow characters who existed only to solve science problems.

The original series did eps about the morality of the Cold War (A Private Little War), the nature of reality (The Menagerie), violence as a psychological trait of humans (Errand of Mercy), the integrity of putting others before self (Elaan of Troyius), the morality of power (Plato's Stepchildren), the senselessness of racism (Let that Be Your Last Battlefield), and that's just the stuff I can be bothered to list right now. First Trek is best Trek.

Meanwhile, Lucifer is constructing a 10th circle of Hell just to deal with the way Abrams turned Trek into dopey action movies about buffoonish characters.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Vanamonde

[vger]

I really hate to mention this but if they stayed true to Roddenberry's original idea every star trek tv series and movie would have been exactly the same. Shallow characters who existed only to solve science problems. At least JJ Abrams is willing to rock the boat and get lasting consequences in things.

Stargate SG-1. They NAILED the classic Trek formula and it had a huge following. The main difference is a stronger sense of continuity between the episodes. The rest is largely superficial (such as method of travel).

[Brethern]

The original series did eps about the morality of the Cold War (A Private Little War), the nature of reality (The Menagerie), violence as a psychological trait of humans (Errand of Mercy), the integrity of putting others before self (Elaan of Troyius), the morality of power (Plato's Stepchildren), the senselessness of racism (Let that Be Your Last Battlefield), and that's just the stuff I can be bothered to list right now. First Trek is best Trek.

Meanwhile, Lucifer is constructing a 10th circle of Hell just to deal with the way Abrams turned Trek into dopey action movies about buffoonish characters.

And what about character development? Everything you mentioned was the high and mighty federation rushing in and kirk acting macho and solving their problems. What about the knowledge that kirk was responsible for getting a crew member's fiance killed? All we see is him comforting her.

What about Spock in the naked time?

All we see is a vulcan saying a bunch of un vulcany things none of which ever come into play again.

It's not until Star trek enterprise and star trek 2009 that we learn that yeah hey. the vulcans are one of the most emotional beings in the galaxy Their logic persona exists because they would destroy themselves otherwise.

Stargate SG-1. They NAILED the classic Trek formula and it had a huge following. The main difference is a stronger sense of continuity between the episodes. The rest is largely superficial (such as method of travel).

The main difference is that we felt for the characters. O'Neill lost his son and his wife, the only reason why he's there is because he wanted to die in the original movie.

Daniel was there because he hit rock bottom. Lost everything and then he got an job from the airforce, found a place where he could fit in and then lost his wife. His entire reason for joining was to get her back.

If roddenberry wrote it we might have gotten his reason for being there in a offhand remark.

[Vanamonde]

And what about character development?

Granted, the style in those days was for every episode to return to the status quo so that they could be aired in any order in syndication. However,

It's not until Star trek enterprise and star trek 2009 that we learn that yeah hey. the vulcans are one of the most emotional beings in the galaxy Their logic persona exists because they would destroy themselves otherwise.

I'm really puzzled to hear you say this since that was a fundamental aspect of Spock's character and the Vulcan race in the original series. The series Enterprise did initiate the era, however, in which the portrayal of the Vulcans threw all that dignity into the dumpster and they behaved like petulant children all the time. And don't even get me started on reboot Spock as an instructor banging one of his academy students, because that's just disgraceful.

[Brethern]

Granted, the style in those days was for every episode to return to the status quo so that they could be aired in any order in syndication. However,

I'm really puzzled to hear you say this since that was a fundamental aspect of Spock's character and the Vulcan race in the original series. The series Enterprise did initiate the era, however, in which the portrayal of the Vulcans threw all that dignity into the dumpster and they behaved like petulant children all the time. And don't even get me started on reboot Spock as an instructor banging one of his academy students, because that's just disgraceful.

It's not worse than Kirk banging anything that has two matching chromosomes. I don't remember TOS that well but I do remember most of the character development only happened when it was a plot device.

[Accelerando]

Reboots are often pathetic because niche marketing is no longer common. The most important age demographic has dwindled down to being nothing but teenagers - the age group that is easiest to swindle. If you're not a teenager, you're not the target audience for practically anything. This is the same reason R and NC-17 films have become much more rare, whereas a couple decades ago, they made up the majority of blockbuster films.

Have you seen the recent series Star Crossed? I feel that this exemplifies perfectly, even better than the '09 Trek, exactly what you mean. Its premise is pretty much word for word the same as District 9, but differs in that it diverges into a storyline about a misguided resistance movement. But what strikes me most is that not only are the alien protagonists, the Atrians, carbon copies of human beings, but every single alien protagonist is a high school teenager.

I'm also getting the same vibes from that new serial The 100, where 100 teenage-looking youths are sent to post-apocalyptic Earth to restart society.

[CaptainKipard]

It's not until Star trek enterprise and star trek 2009 that we learn that yeah hey. the vulcans are one of the most emotional beings in the galaxy

Not really. TNG:Sarek already touches on that.

[Awaras]

Not really. TNG:Sarek already touches on that.

As well as TOS: "Amok Time"...

[vger]

I'm really puzzled to hear you say this since that was a fundamental aspect of Spock's character and the Vulcan race in the original series. The series Enterprise did initiate the era, however, in which the portrayal of the Vulcans threw all that dignity into the dumpster and they behaved like petulant children all the time. And don't even get me started on reboot Spock as an instructor banging one of his academy students, because that's just disgraceful.

I was cringing even when child Spock began pummeling another kid.

And yep, Spock alludes to the dark period of Vulcan's history numerous times, usually comparing it to humanity's social development. And the entire opening scene of Star Trek the Motion Picture is about this very thing. We are introduced to Kohlinar, which is more or less the Vulcan equivalent of a Zen or Buddha discipline, developed to bring about tranquility in the mind of the practitioner. In the monologue, it quite bluntly states that Vulcans would have wiped themselves out in a furious rage, had they not adopted their logic-based philosophy.

The main difference is that we felt for the characters. O'Neill lost his son and his wife, the only reason why he's there is because he wanted to die in the original movie.

Daniel was there because he hit rock bottom. Lost everything and then he got an job from the airforce, found a place where he could fit in and then lost his wife. His entire reason for joining was to get her back.

If roddenberry wrote it we might have gotten his reason for being there in a offhand remark.

That's mostly a sign of the age of the show. Traditional Sci-Fi didn't often focus on personal drama. It's only in recent years where that has taken more of the spotlight away from the 'dryer' points of such stories. Watch a few episodes of modern Dr. Who and then watch a few of the first doctor. Even the original Battlestar Galactica (which really isn't that old) when compared to the reboot has a very noticeable formula difference as it applies to the dramatic element. Pretty much every genre has been tip-toeing its way closer to soap opera in the past decade or so, probably catering to the modern audience's obsession with 'gossip' news and reality shows.

Edited April 2, 2014 by vger