Saw Star Trek Last Night (DO NOT READ THIS)

Hey, apparently we're all supposed to have read the graphic stories that lead up to this movie. Somehow the Narada got ahold of Borg technology and integrated it into the ship. I shit you not.

~String
 
ElectricFetus said:
I can't wait to see them sodomize the 'next generation'
Click to expand...
Would it really be possible to make the 'Next De-Generation' any worse than it was ?

I mean - I guess they could do something like CGI-ing Steve Urkel in place of Wesley Crusher... ...but other than that...

:bugeye:
 
countezero said:
Look, you're missing the point.

What I'm saying is that there was no reason for 90 percent of the movie's action if all that was really necessary was to shoot off the drill, as Spock did toward the end, rather easily, I might add. Why attack Nero at all? Just shoot the drill bit off and watch him simmer.
Click to expand...

Look, I get it: You didn't like the movie. But quite frankly there comes a point where pointing out what you think were flaws in the plot just come off as nit-picking.
I can also understand the tendancy to do so. I absolutely {i]Hated[/i] "Starship Troopers", because in my opinion, it trashed the original novel. As a result I tended to do the same thing; I pounced on every problem I noted. Even things I probably would have let slide if I felt the movie had done a better job of capturing the book.
 
Janus58 said:
But quite frankly there comes a point where pointing out what you think were flaws in the plot just come off as nit-picking.
Click to expand...

Well duh.

Anybody who forks over their money to see a movie has, not only the RIGHT, but the obligation to pick it apart. These weren't just casual "oopses". They were blatant oversights that even a freshmen English literature student could have caught.

As he pointed out, NONE of these plot holes were needed to generate a great story. All of them could have been written out and/or substituted with other dramatic elements that would have worked JUST as well and closed up these gaping holes.

I liked the movie. Hell: I saw it TWICE! The movie did what it was supposed to: it made LOTS of money (and probably still will), but that doesn't excuse the laziness.

~String
 
countezero said:
Because it's dumb that's why.

(Not to mention, why would cadets gather in Iowa to go to San Francisco?)

Look, we're shown frame after frame of how desolate this place is, and then, there is a bar with a bunch of cadets in it and a captain, and what's more, there is a ship-building facility (that apparently you can just about walk right up to without being stopped).

Is it beyond the realm of possibility?

No, it's not.

Is it something small and stupid that could have been fixed, simply by having it happen AFTER Kirk left Iowa, say after a recruiter talked him into leaving?

Yes, it is.

It's sloppy, opportunistic writing.



See the above.



That's a neat way of saying you don't know.



It's a mining ship.

There would be no point to having it armed.

And setting aside for a moment that it had a ridiculous design, size and immensity of the crew (what did they all do?), you need to remember that it took on and bested at least two FLEETS of armed ships, designed for combat with crews trained for combat. That doesn't seem likely to me, regardless of the time difference.



But he missed the guys jumping out of the shuttle right?

Look, you're missing the point.

What I'm saying is that there was no reason for 90 percent of the movie's action if all that was really necessary was to shoot off the drill, as Spock did toward the end, rather easily, I might add. Why attack Nero at all? Just shoot the drill bit off and watch him simmer.



Nope, it worked just fine when Spock rammed the ship at the end. Thus, the movie isn't even following its own logic. Again, sloppy writing from another of Hollywood's so-called talents.



The crappy science I can deal with, it's plot holes the size of trucks that get to me. I hate them. And what's funny, is that most of them are unnecessary, if you really think about it. The only reason they had a "platform"



The problem is it was contrived. The movie could have followed the characters through the academy, seperately, and then really began with the entire crew being assigned to the Enterprise randomly. There was no need to fatalistically keep throwing everyone into their "destiny," a world used about dozen times in the movie.
Click to expand...

Well the movie had to capture both trekkies and regular fans (like myself) and people who know absolutely nothing about the show. Many movies sacrifice the story for a good fight scene. If there were hardly any action scenes people who don't care for star trek probably wouldn't even be encouraged to see it. In fact Steven Spielberg does it all of the time. As he said himself, discontinuity makes for a more exciting film. Like he did in Jurassic Park, by changing the scenery. Only people who really cared that much even noticed that he did it. I've only been watching Star Trek for a short while but the show always explains nonsense off with a stupid excuses, like the Q. This movie's stupid excuse was the future. Nero knew everything he needed to know about Spock and Kirk and red matter and black holes because he already knew it. How many movies don't have some kind of plot hole or bad science?
 
Tiassa said:
Recruiting.
Click to expand...

He was not recruiting.

Everyone there, sans Kirk, was already a cadet and in uniform. In other words, they had been recruited.

They were, apparently, in the middle of nowhere so they could board a shuttle to fly a few hundred miles to San Francisco. That makes absolutely no sense. Forget for a moment that they have transporters, why gather in Iowa? McCoy was there for no reason, too. He was from Kentucky. Why stop off in Iowa on the way to San Francisco? I took the "townie" reference to mean there was some kind of Federation installation there, but that doesn't make sense, either. I mean, I guess they "happened" to be building the Enterprise nearby, but that doesn't explain all the cadets. . .

Sloppy writing.

superstring01 said:
Hey, apparently we're all supposed to have read the graphic stories that lead up to this movie. Somehow the Narada got ahold of Borg technology and integrated it into the ship. I shit you not.

~String
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous.


superstring01 said:
As he pointed out, NONE of these plot holes were needed to generate a great story. All of them could have been written out and/or substituted with other dramatic elements that would have worked JUST as well and closed up these gaping holes.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Look, the whole thing about Nero's ship being bad-ass could have been solved by changing it to some super-advanced Warbird, and thus, Nero and his guys could have been some ultra-militant Romulans, bent on revenge. Again, small change. Makes more sense than the huge mining vessel with ridiculous drill nonsense. And how much cooler would it have been to have all the remaining Warbirds come back in time to destroy the federation?
 
Last edited:
countezero said:
He was not recruiting.

Everyone there, sans Kirk, was already a cadet and in uniform. In other words, they had been recruited.

They were, apparently, in the middle of nowhere so they could board a shuttle to fly a few hundred miles to San Francisco. That makes absolutely no sense. Forget for a moment that they have transporters, why gather in Iowa?

McCoy was there for no reason, too. He was from Kentucky. Why stop off in Iowa on the way to San Francisco?

Sloppy writing.
Click to expand...

Recruitment doesn't even make since in real life. When I went to perform in New York, we all had to meet at the LAX airport in LA then fly from LAX to the San Fransisco Airport so we could fly to New York. Why did we meet in LA why didn't we just meet in San Fransisco (they are both 3 hours away from where we lived)? Or even better why didn't we just fly to NY from LAX? Because that what the coordinators told us to do. They had their reasons. It may be convenient, but it's not like it's completely improbable either. It makes a lot sense for McCoy to be there if he's from Kentucky. Last time I checked Kentucky and Iowa are much closer than Kentucky and California.
You just want to hate. Saying silly things like McCoy and Kirk couldn't go to school together. :rolleyes:
 
I enjoyed it, but I also found it to be a raping of originality and of sound script writing.
 
Last edited:
countezero said:
If anybody wanted to enjoy this film, it was me. I grew up watching Trek and probably know more about it -- and can quote more useless trivia -- than I want my peers around me to know. That being said, I didn't like it. The film was contrived and preposterous. It also, essentially after an hour, was boring and predictable.

A decent review:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane
Click to expand...

I agree, this movie was an utter disrespect to Gene and Star Trek, they ruined it with Enterprise and now are looking to blame the franchises collapse on that, when infact it's the very real truth they changed Genes vision in Enterprise so that's why it failed in the first place, they'd already begun doing it in Voyager but Enterprise finished it off. They caused it!
 
Just occured to me- why didn't Nero go back in time and save the damn Romulan planet himself?!!!
 
Because it wasn't a time machine really, didn't it just happen by accident that they were able to go back into the past?
 
jmpet said:
Just occured to me- why didn't Nero go back in time and save the damn Romulan planet himself?!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think he knew how to get back. Apparently black holes are unpredictable considering how long they waited for Spock to come out.
 
Yep. They're unpredictable, which is why Spock came out AT EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE. Seriously, listen to what you say and realize that it's describing how poorly written this movie was.
 
I thought it was good, very entertaining. I have been a life-long trekkie, I even went to a convention and met Nichelle Nichols once in the 80's. It was much, much better than Nemesis.

The only thing I don't get it how could Vulcan be gone, how could Spock's mom die? They both existed many years later in the Star Trek universe.
 
spidergoat said:
I thought it was good, very entertaining. I have been a life-long trekkie, I even went to a convention and met Nichelle Nichols once in the 80's. It was much, much better than Nemesis.

The only thing I don't get it how could Vulcan be gone, how could Spock's mom die? They both existed many years later in the Star Trek universe.
Click to expand...

alternate time line when Nero went back in time. The old Spock came from a different time line. Old Spock was friends with a Kirk who's Dad didn't die. Old Spock never hooked up with Uhura. etc etc
 
Oh, that's cool. There is so much for trekkies to talk about now, the movie was very dense, I'm going to have to watch it over and over. There is always some controversy when a new Star Trek movie comes out, but eventually people come to love it.
 
Orleander said:
alternate time line when Nero went back in time. The old Spock came from a different time line. Old Spock was friends with a Kirk who's Dad didn't die. Old Spock never hooked up with Uhura. etc etc
Click to expand...

and the old "time line" is now dead, all of star trek before can be chucked in the garbage, they will provide us the replacement, with movie after movie perhaps even new tv shows based on the new time line, with slick 2000's styling and effects and all the depth of a kiddy pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top