Rate the last movie you saw

[Jack Brickman]

But half the shit in his post is inaccurate as it relates to Star Trek... its 7am here.. will respond in detail in a bit.

Please don't. :chuckles:

 

[JSS2306]

It's going down.

 

[TyGuy]

Is it me or is Gouri the JonfromVa of this movie thread? He is going against popular opinion of recent critically acclaimed films and arguing the shit against it:chuckles:. I do like how you brought up primer though. Now there is an excellent low budget sci-fi film that people should check out. For the life of me though I can't understand how one can think Man of Steel was very good to excellent and the Star Trek reboot is utter shit.

 

[Triumph36]

there isn't enough excitement itt about boyhood premiering in cleveland this weekend

 

[Chris]

there isn't enough excitement itt about boyhood premiering in cleveland this weekend

Looks okay.

 

[col63onel]

Saw Snowpiercer in theaters, Very good. 7.5/10.

Pretty good acting. Tilda Swinton was excellent. Very good pace. Decent character development. Cinematography was a bit underwhelming.

Cinema Sins will have a field day ripping it apart, though. More than a few times, I lamented how dumb the characters were.

 

[gourimoko]

I will not be out-geeked on the original Star Trek, so STFB, Gouri.

But by your own admission you don't even watch the show beyond TOS... so..?

You're inventing a backstory that wasn't provided and them criticizing them for not following the mandates of the backstory you invented.

Inventing? What are you talking about? They are at Starfleet Academy. I'm not inventing shit..

For one, you are placing the template of the modern U.S. Navy over Starfleet,

No I'm not, I'm responding to YOU doing that.. I think the comparison is silly as Gene Roddenberry went out of his way to make sure people understood in both TOS and TNG that Starfleet is "not a military organization."

To the extent there are other personnel, they could be on leave or scattered anywhere. They may not have trained together, may not be familiar with specifics regarding the ship in question, etc., and may not be able to be recalled as quickly. Many of them may not even be line officers. To point to what our Navy and naval personnel can do now as proof what Starfleet can and might do 200+ years in the future is kind of absurd.

But you are the one making the Naval comparisons.. You've done it 5 times. I never made this analogy until you started down that road and I simply responded. I think it's ridiculous that you make an argument, have someone counter it, then call the premise of the entire conversation absurd.

He was also a commissioned Starfleet Officer.

And what you ignored was that he wasn't the only commissioned officer there.

First, perhaps they took Spock precisely because he was an instructor who had very likely trained with many of those midshipmen.

We have no reason to believe he trained more personnel than anyone else. I mean it's asinine. There is no one else remaining to operate this ship? It's fucking stupid.

We don't know who else was available with recent starship experience, and it is entirely possible that even experienced line officers may be less familiar with some of the newer gizmos.

Ugh.. You just accused me of inventing a backstory, yet that's exactly what you've been doing this whole time. You're saying that experienced officers would be less likely to be familiar with the ships inner workings than cadets.. I think that's silly but either way, it's not presented in the film, nor has that ever been presented in Star Trek lore.

I can recall getting to my first unit...

Again, you make the Naval analogy, I then go along with it, then you dismiss the analogy as absurd -- and again you reassert it. Wtf?

Second, they are not "new recruits". They're not even recruits at all. They are, presumably, some of the absolute best and brightest in the entire Federation, being trained to become officers for Starfleet. Given the advancement of technology, I'd guess that simulators may be so advanced that they are almost indistinguishable from an actual ship in terms of performance of duties.

But you don't need to make that assumption. Kirks comments about the simulations at the academy as well as Wesley Crusher's, and Nog's all indicate that the simulations were not useful to create real-world experience. Your opinion flies in the face of Star Trek canon.

That is something that isn't as true with the current Navy.

This is the 8th or 9th time you've referenced the "current Navy" but you just said it was absurd to make these types of analogies. Lastly, Starfleet is not the Federation's Navy, so again the comparison kind of ends there. Picard has said, on more than one occasion, "we are not a military force, we are explorers." Half of the crew are scientists.

But with the degree of computerization in Starfleet, and the amount of money they likely had to fund a multi-planetary level Academy, my guess is that those midshipmen/cadets were doing a lot of shit indistinguishable from what they'd be doing on ship.

This shows you don't know your Star Trek.. :chuckles:

There is no money in the 23rd century. Human beings and Human culture had evolved to the point of no longer seeking wealth as the primary driving force of an individual lives. In other words, there is no money or wealth in the Federation by the time Kirk is alive. The concept is considered barbaric. No "money" was spent to build Starfleet Academy. And again, just watching the show would indicate to you that cadets coming out of the academy are not very good or experienced and there are many episodes that detail this exact point.

Just as one example, the Kobayashi Meru scenario itself was pretty much indistinguishable from a real bridge. And these young men/women had been training on that stuff for years. And again, I don't have to prove all that was the case. But you're the guy saying that it couldn't have happened that way, so you'd have to prove that what I'm describing couldn't possibly be true. And you can't do that because it is a fictional show with a backstory that is not fully shown.

So you just make some shit up and say "Well see, prove it wrong?" That's not very logical. But sure, I'll prove you wrong, with the Star Trek backstory.

During the Dominion War, Starfleet cadets used holographic projection to simulate countless battles with Jem'Hadar foot soldiers in ground combat as well as ship to ship combat. Nog and other cadets detail this in DS9. There are 3 episodes that discuss this. However, many of these cadets when forced into real combat shutdown in fear because they knew the simulations were not real and posed no danger (you cannot get hurt in a simulation, again Star Trek rules). Whereas, when faced with real combat, they were next to useless. DS9 contrasts this with Worf and O'Brien's (who never went to Starfleet Academy) characters who are battle hardened.

Plus, it is likely, or certainly at least possible, that they've all served some extended time on actual Starfleet ships as part of their training.

Dude you are just making shit up now. That is not how the Academy works. Wesley Crusher was noted several times as having had an advantage. There's a Season 2 episode of TNG where he goes and takes the Academy entrance exam and they discuss this point somewhat at length. After he fails the exam, Picard makes an exception and allows him to train onboard the ship, noting that he'd have a leg up on the cadets as they never get a chance to actually set foot on a starship.

For one of my summers,

No disrespect, but none of that is Star Trek. Again, you make the analogy to your time in the Navy while discounting the analogy above, and then continually making it when it suits your argument.. :chuckles:

Again, Starfleet is not the Navy, and Roddenberry was even upset at the militarization of the Starfleet uniforms, ship, and crew in ST2:TWoK.

I graduated from the Naval Academy, and while expecting midshipmen today to hop on and fully crew a modern combat ship with no other assistance other than a Captain and XO is preposterous,

But that's the entirety of my point.. it is preposterous.

I can tell you that the simulations alone on Star Trek were more advanced than anything we could even dream of,

I think you are confusing the eras of Star Trek. The simulations they had available in ToS would be similar to what we can do today. It's not TNG, and they don't have any form of holographic simulation in the 23rd century.

nd the Enterprise (NCC-1701) is far more automated than any combat ship we've got out there today. Starfleet is not the U.S. Navy. We're talking a setting more than 200 years in the future. The difference in training between now and 200 years ago -- before we even had a Naval Academy -- are massively different. Presumably, training philosophies and methods would see more qualitative improvements over the next 200 years, so just because crewing an entire ship isn't something modern midshipmen are trained to do does not mean that will hold true over the next 200 years.

But it's not true in STAR TREK. Again, you're acting as if Star Trek doesn't exist and doesn't have a backstory. It does! Everything you've said here is not a question that hasn't been addressed at length in numerous episodes AT THE ACADEMY!

How do we know that? How do we even know they still have high school, or if they do, exactly what is taught or how long you stay in?

Wesley Crusher for one. His entire character is that of a teenager who joins Starfleet.

Two, the crew of the USS Valiant. One of the crew members describes coming out of high school.

Three, Chief O'Brien. He describes coming out of high school and going straight into Starfleet without spending the time to go to the Academy and is thus not an officer.

Four, the half-Romulan, half-Human crewman in the TNG episode "The Drumhead" who also describes coming straight out of high school and going into Starfleet bypassing the Academy. Picard even asks him "why didn't you go to the Academy?"

You don't watch Star Trek.

Where was it ever stated that part of their training didn't include deployment with actual ships?

I can think of this being mentioned in numerous Star Trek episodes particularly in DS9 and TNG as I said in my earlier post.

And according to the actor who played Kirk in the reboot, Kirk was 25 at the time. Same age as Decatur when he became a captain. :chuckles:

Pretty sure Kirk was 26, but who's counting...

Completely accurate. How often did the Enterprise operate in multiple-ship fleets or formations?

Has nothing to do with the original point. The USS Farragut was actually already there, manned, and ready to go (original Kirk's first assignment). Again, you're not actually focusing on the MOVIE or STAR TREK, but trying to bring other things into it that have little to nothing to do with the actual backstory of the movie.

First, do even ATTEMPT to go all Star Trek geek on my or I will go Bela Oxmyx all over your ass.

Q-Tip, by your own admission you're not a Star Trek fan because you don't like TNG. To me, if you don't like TNG, then you don't like Star Trek.

They are automated to a much larger degree than any modern ships. Shit, in The Search for Spock, Kirk and a few officers stole the Enterprise and ran it themselves via automated system. Less than 10 people. It wasn't ideal, but there isn't even a remotely analogous capability on our modern ships.

And in the episode "The Ultimate Computer" Kirk is told he has been left with a complement of 45 people. He then remarks to the commodore "I CAN'T RUN A SHIP WITH 45 PEOPLE, WHO IS GOING TO RUN THE SHIP?!" Commander Data remarks to Picard in the episode "Remember Me" that the minimum compliment of the Enterprise-D was 150 people and in context this was considered ridiculously too small (shrinking universe, hard to explain, but it takes more people than that to operate the ship).

Of course it is. NCC-1701 Enterprise -- a Constitution class Starship -- had a crew of about 430. The sailing vessel USS Constitution had a complement of about 450 (knew those naval history classes would come in handy someday). That's almost perfectly analogous.

Ehh.. what? :chuckles: The USS Enterprise had a crew of 70 people, and a similar ship design (albeit smaller) and with the exact same name is featured at the beginning of Star Trek Generations. The Enterprise is not a battleship. The USS Constitution would be more comparable, in my mind, to the Enterprise-D not the original Enterprise.

In contrast, a modern aircraft carrier has a crew (not including air wing personnel) of over 3000. And using the complement of an aircraft carrier as the point of comparison is perfectly fair given that you chose a carrier to frame the entire discussion:

But I didn't use a carrier to frame this entire discussion, I actually stated exactly the classes of ships that I used, you simply chose to ignore that. Also, I'm not the one centering this conversation around the Navy as I think that is silly as fuck. You are.

Well, see this is the entire problem. Your source material is for shit. :chuckles: The Next Generation? That show was doomed as soon as they didn't kill off Wil Weaton's character in the first episode. Though Worf was cool.

...ST:TOS lasted for 3 seasons. I absolutely LOVE The Original Series. But let's be real for a second. The third season of TOS is almost unwatchable. It's horrid. Nothing about TNG is remotely as bad as "Spock's Brain." Simply nothing.... So you're holding 2 seasons of Star Trek over 26 seasons of Star Trek and saying what I have is less meaningful?

Voyager? (you should be ashamed of yourself) and DS9?? None of those even involve the same ship as in the original Star Trek, or the rebooted Star Trek based upon the original Star Trek.

Voyager and DS9 are great shows, especially compared to what is on TV today. Also those series actually go in depth into the questions you are asking about the Academy, as did TNG.

She was a cadet as well. And what's that with Spock banging a cadet anyway? Dude should have been court-martialed for that.

1) She wasn't a cadet. She graduated and had the rank of Lieutenant.
2) It was ridiculous that they had Spock fucking her.. It was.. just stupid as hell..

Most of the fleet was in a different system when the distress call came through, which is why they had to dispatch an unready Enterprise along with those other ships -- including the Farragut -- to Vulcan.

Again, makes no sense. We know there are always many ships between Earth and Vulcan (ST:TNG Best of Both Worlds, ST:First Contact). The Federation doesn't leave Earth and Vulcan defenseless.

The Farragut was also crewed by cadets.

Not much is known about who made up the majority of the crew, however the Farragut was not being commissioned at the star base whereas the Enterprise was. This would imply it already had a crew and was only there for repairs or refitting.

I took the movie as it was presented -- a reboot of the original Star Trek.

I did too, but your post has nothing to do with the movie.

None of the subsequent TV shows are relevant to me, and therefore, inconsistencies in tone, background, or whatever really don't matter.

But they should. The series and canon of the show creates the backstory you are choosing to ignore. If you want to discard the ST backstory that's fine, but don't tell me I'm "inventing" it when in reality you just don't know it. The later episodes touch on topics that predate the original Star Trek.

Also, according to Old Spock, the back story is relevant as the alternate time line is not created until the Narada enters that universe and destroys the USS Kelvin. Until that happened, the two universes are the same. So while it is a reboot, they aren't wiping away Star Trek history up to that point.

And as I said earlier, there are a great many episodes in the original series where the holes were bigger than the plot. I thought this movie was a very good reboot of the original show, with no more stretches of believability than we got the first time around. Actually, much fewer.

But you didn't even mention any of the holes in the plot that I discussed other than the fact that the Enterprise was manned by cadets and Kirk was instantly promoted to Captain. You even said both were preposterous, but for some reason wrote this long post refuting mine? Yet the only two points you talked about (that I mentioned at least), you apparently agree, are preposterous.

Again.. there are some ridiculous plot holes in this movie. Again, how about the supernova that threatens all life? Thia is the basis of their entire universe being created? How fucking stupid is this?

 

[gourimoko]

Is it me or is Gouri the JonfromVa of this movie thread?

Don't ever compare me to that fucking guy.

He is going against popular opinion of recent critically acclaimed films and arguing the shit against it:chuckles:.

Honestly, the only movies I've trashed in this thread that most people would probably disagree would be Amazing Spider-Man 2, Iron Man 3 (oh god..), Star Trek reboots (ass), and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Lion King 4).

But I generally LIKE the movies I see, but some of these movies are just bad. I think if you ask folks if they liked Cloverfield or Super 8 then you'd know if we'd like the same movies. You can probably guess whether or not I like either.. :chuckles:

I do like how you brought up primer though. Now there is an excellent low budget sci-fi film that people should check out. For the life of me though I can't understand how one can think Man of Steel was very good to excellent and the Star Trek reboot is utter shit.

Because of the exact reason Chris stated. When I walked into Man of Steel, I wanted to see an action movie. And that's exactly what I got. They didn't get anything wrong, the movie was about Superman. Lot's of folks don't really know WTF Superman is all about, but Man of Steel was pretty close. People would rather watch Batman, and that's cool too. But Man of Steel was a great reboot of Superman.

As far as Star Trek, it was garbage. As I told Chris, if I had walked in looking for an action movie and disregarded or was ignorant of the scientific missteps in the movie then I might like the lens flares and cameras thrown down hallways but personally I hated it.

A good Star Trek movie would be Wrath of Khan or First Contact.

 

["Boobie" Gibson]

there isn't enough excitement itt about boyhood premiering in cleveland this weekend

Looks okay.

Agree with both. I think the concept of the movie is fantastic, however. I'll definitely check it out.

 

[Triumph36]

Looks okay.

universally praised, the highest rated film of the modern era, & richard linklater = "looks okay" ??

Agree with both. I think the concept of the movie is fantastic, however. I'll definitely check it out.

if you like the concept, i'm assuming you've seen the 'before' trilogy? if not, do it.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Last 20 pages tl;dr.

Anybody see Lucy yet....

- Sent from my Galaxy s3 -

 

[MGMT]

I just watched The Place Beyond the Pines for the first time; I thought it was fantastic.

 

[Nicky]

I made yesterday a Kung Fu day.

Watched Kill Bill 1-2
and then out of pure Gordon Liu curiosity (because he's so bad ass), I found a movie that he was in. Didn't read the plot, I went in oblivious to True Legend. And um.... what a crappy story. Let's not mention the fact that Gordon Liu was in the film for maybe 3mins. I get it, he was older at this point.

The movie seemed to change stories 3x. It had potential, but they lost me. The fighting was good. Especially when they got to the Zui Quan (Drunken Fist), but that couldn't save it. I was throughly disappointed. 4.5/10

 

[Chris]

universally praised, the highest rated film of the modern era, & richard linklater = "looks okay" ??

if you like the concept, i'm assuming you've seen the 'before' trilogy? if not, do it.

It's not exactly a film I'd get "excited" for. But I do want to see it.

I'm just hoping I leave it with a good feeling and not a sad one.

 

[-Akronite-]

Last 20 pages tl;dr.

Anybody see Lucy yet....

The premise is enough to keep me away from theaters. So dumb.