Rate the last movie you saw

[Toph]

Don't ever compare me to that fucking guy.

:chuckles:

 

[SixPACK]

Ended up watching (some of) Insidious 2 last night on Netflix with the girl. Fucking stupid. Not scary. Acting was awful.

I will give it a 2/10 only b/c one of the loud noise "scare" parts my dog woke up from his sleep and farted on her.

 

[The Oi]

I loved Cloverfield.

 

[gourimoko]

I loved Cloverfield.

Jesus Christ.......

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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

...what?

Look, this is the entire core of almost every particular point that has been argued, so I'll address it up front so I repeat myself as little as possible later.

This movie was expressly stated to be a reboot of the original Star Trek show and characters. That original show was different in tone and content from the subsequent shows, which not only contained a lot of different material, but also were set (in general) 100 or so years in either the future or past from Star Trek. Because they were expressly doing a reboot of the original franchise, I don't think this movie can fairly be bound by anything outside that original series. Even if they were somehow bound by that, the 100 year or so gap means that a shitload of things could have been vastly different, including training, manning, what that Academy was like, etc.. To me, it seems ludicrous on its face to argue that "this is what the Academy was like when Wesley Crusher when through it, so that is what it must be like when Kirk went through it." The Academy may have changed massively in that 100 years. And because the original Star Trek mentioned almost nothing about the Academy, the folks doing the reboot pretty much were writing on a blank slate in creating their Academy.

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."

Whatever Gene Roddenberry intended people to understand about Starfleet in Star Trek (by which I'm referring to the TV series of that name), it was clearly presented in fact as a military organization. For starters, everyone had standard U.S. Navy military ranks. Why on earth (or elsewhere) would the show do that if it truly didn't want people to think they were military? It may not have been consistent with Roddenberry's vision, but he didn't always get what he wanted in term of how things were portrayed on the show. So in addition to all the Ensigns, Lieutenants, Lieutenant Commanders, Commanders, Captains, and Admirals, we saw that when Kirk did something wrong, he was court-martialed which is by definition a process that applies only to the military.

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.

That's just wrong. You were the one who first addressed the plausibility of cadets running Navy ship by arguing (in post #4327) that:

Imagine an aircraft carrier operated by a bunch of young teenagers and twenty-somethings, from the top-down.

I only raised naval comparisons in post #4339, in response to you bringing up aircraft carriers.

Ugh.. You just accused me of inventing a backstory, yet that's exactly what you've been doing this whole time. 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.

I don't believe that anything post Star Trek is relevant to a reboot of Star Trek, for all the reasons I stated initially. Including the in-canon passage of time between Star Trek and TNG where a lot of things may have changed. And since Kirk barely mentioned the Academy himself, the movie need only be internally consistent in its depiction of the Academy and cadets. If I can offer up examples of how it could be plausible that aren't contradicted by the movie, that's enough.

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.

Not sure it's worthwhile going down this rabbit hole, but since you brought your Navy friend into the discussion, I suppose it's relevant....

Anyway, your statement isn't true. As I stated previously, modern ships have a ton of manual labor/skilled trades jobs that simply cannot be simulated. There is absolutely no way for midshipmen to learn how to perform those tasks in an academic environment, which is one thing that makes it preposterous to have cadets entirely crewing a carrier. But on a starship, you don't need a bos'n's mate to handle the lines when the ship is departing or arriving at a berth, or rigging a highline for ship-to-ship transfers. On a starship, the equivalent tasks are all controlled by a computer, which can be simulated in an academic environment. That's the whole point of this tangent -- that given the computer control/automation of a starship of Kirk's Enterprise, it would actually be possible to train midshipmen/cadets with hands-on operation of a starship. They're not going to have the knowledge of a fully-trained and experienced officer, but in terms of manning the stations, there is nothing in the movie suggesting that senior cadets are not trained that way. Quite the opposite, in fact. And again, even "in canon", who is to say that was not true at the time of Kirk's Enterprise even if it wasn't true 100 years later?

You don't watch Star Trek.

Star Trek was a particular TV show that I watched a ton. Star Trek: The Next Generation and all those others were different TV shows, so I can certainly be a fan of Star Trek without being a fan of every other show to which that name was attached.

...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?

Well, this is the whole point, isn't it? To me, a reboot of the original series is bound by the original series only, with some license to vary from that given that it is a reboot rather than simply a retelling of the exact same story/stories. It would be a very odd "reboot" of the original series to say it is also bound by all the subsequent series as well. Maybe that's what you wanted/preferred, but that is not what the makers of those movies said they were going to do. If you don't like their decision, fine. But given that is what they said they were going to do, I don't think it's accurate to tell the rest of us we're wrong for judging it on the express terms it was presented.

In other words, yes. The three years are all that matters, and the 26 mean zippo.

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.

They may well be, though I couldn't bring myself to watch Voyager after reading a fawning review about the bun hairstyle of the Captain. But they are different shows from the original.

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.

You're inventing it for purposes of this movie. There is nothing in the movie saying that the things you describe are true. For the most part, the things you are describing occurred "in canon" 100 or so years in the future, and you are asserting that they must have been the same 100 years before. That is you inventing specific facts that did not exist, whereas I'm just pointing out possibles explanation that aren't precluded.

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.

I think Star Trek history up to that point -- as shown in the original series -- left a ton of open space that could be filled in by a movie without violating anything major. That includes fleshing out the Academy, etc.. So in terms of actual contradictions between the original Star Trek series and the reboot, I don't see that many. At least, no more than there were in the original series anyway.

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,

No I didn't. Where are you getting that from? The only time I've used "preposterous" was with respect to midshipmen entirely crewing a modern naval warship, but I also explained why it would be easier on the Enterprise. Here's exactly what I said, and please point out to me where I called either "preposterous".

The crew they put together were essentially midshipmen because that was all they had available. That would be a huge stretch on a modern ship but much less so when a ship is as automated as the Enterprise was.

The part that did seem like the biggest stretch to me was that Kirk got promoted to Captain after the fighting was over. Seems quite a jump. On the other hand, they also established that most of the Fleet was wiped out, so you didn't exactly have a huge cadre from which to draw. And while our modern military places a huge emphasis on seniority and experience, including mandatory time in grade requirements, that is not true historically, when someone who demonstrated great leadership or talent might be promoted very quickly. Even in U.S. Naval history, Stephen Decatur was promoted to the permanent rank of Captain at the age of 25. While it still seems a stretch to me, I could buy it if you assume that Starfleet is more willing to promote based on meritorious service without emphasis on time in grade requirements. And if that's the case, Kirk's performance as captain of the Enterprise was certainly meritorious.

Where's the "preposterous" in there?

but for some reason wrote this long post refuting mine?

Wait a minute. Are you actual berating someone else for writing a long-overly detailed post about a relatively minor issue? I mean, dude....

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?

This really circles back all the way to the original point. Star Trek, as initially conceived by Roddenberry, was a bit different than what actually ended up on-air as the original Star Trek. If I want to read hard SF, I'll read Greg Bear, Frederick Pohl, Larry Niven, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc.. I'm not going to get that from watching the original Star Trek, which had all sorts of stuff that wasn't scientifically correct or had a pretty decent "cheese" factor. I mean, "The Trouble with Tribbles" is considered on of the best episodes that show ever did, and it wasn't exactly serious. And that's the series that was being rebooted. To me, the key thing in a reboot is that you get the characters right, and for the most part, they did. The core relationships (excluding Uhura/Spock, which I didn't like), were great as well. I thought Pine made a very convincing young Kirk, and the rest of them were easily recognizable without being Jim Carrey-ish impressions of the originals. Though I have to say that "The Wrath of Farrakhan" skit was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

[video=youtube;5H0_pK4gZ-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H0_pK4gZ-0[/video]

I thought the movie captured very well the fun of the original show -- like I could really see the old guys doing basically the same stuff, only with the characters being younger and therefore, less-polished/mature. I thought they nailed that but did make Spock a bit too emotional. As I said, at its best, the original show did touch on some deeper issues, and did so very well. I'd like to see them try that in a third movie.

 

[MattyFos.]

You guys need to learn not to argue with gouri... he's more passionate, versed and knowledgeable on EVERYTHING than you are. I personally love reading his posts because it's like reading a Wikipedia page on a topic. I just wish he would put it in layman's terms.


I disagree with gouri on lots of things and rather than arguing I just don't comment because I don't want to get my ass kicked in a 20 page debate

 

[gourimoko]

...what?

Look, this is the entire core of almost every particular point that has been argued, so I'll address it up front so I repeat myself as little as possible later.

This movie was expressly stated to be a reboot of the original Star Trek show and characters. That original show was different in tone and content from the subsequent shows, which not only contained a lot of different material, but also were set (in general) 100 or so years in either the future or past from Star Trek. Because they were expressly doing a reboot of the original franchise, I don't think this movie can fairly be bound by anything outside that original series.

Again, this makes no sense. The "reboot" happens IN the movie, when the Narada attacks the Kelvin, so by your own logic the original series and none of Star Trek that happened after Kirk was born would be applicable; this would include the entire Original Series. So you're basically saying that the only thing that counts is what happened prior to this event. But we do know what happens prior to that event, there is a Star Trek series that takes place prior to Kirk called Enterprise.

In Enterprise, they address the topic of whether or not Starfleet is a military organization; and they've stated numerous times it is not. Instead, it is based around the Vulcan Science Academy's Space Exploration program, which has structure similar to the military but is expressly positioned against that of being a militarized force. It's purpose is primarily exploration, science and diplomacy. Not defense, and never offense.

Even if they were somehow bound by that, the 100 year or so gap means that a shitload of things could have been vastly different, including training, manning, what that Academy was like, etc.. To me, it seems ludicrous on its face to argue that "this is what the Academy was like when Wesley Crusher when through it, so that is what it must be like when Kirk went through it." The Academy may have changed massively in that 100 years. And because the original Star Trek mentioned almost nothing about the Academy, the folks doing the reboot pretty much were writing on a blank slate in creating their Academy.

It's not a blank slate. The continuity of Starfleet Academy is maintained from Enterprise to Voyager; again, you just don't know about it because you don't watch Star Trek.

Whatever Gene Roddenberry intended people to understand about Starfleet in Star Trek (by which I'm referring to the TV series of that name), it was clearly presented in fact as a military organization.

No it wasn't. This is straight-up false. Roddenberry went out of his way to suggest that the need for a military force in the 23rd century had long since passed. That instead, there was a fleet of vessels that explored the galaxy, acted in a diplomatic fashion, but much like the "merchant marine" (his quote, not mine) could defend themselves if required.

In the notes regarding the first Star Trek episode with Capt. Pike "The Cage," Roddenberry explains why he doesn't want to use additional ranks, insignias, or standard uniforms -- because "it's too military." Roddenberry, for whatever reason, felt that in the future, the military as we know it would not exist.

As far as how this is portrayed in TOS. It goes both ways. I can recall numerous instances of Kirk saying "We're not soldiers, we're explorers" but I can also remember (in the best episodes, especially in "A Private Little War") where he says "I'm a solider not a diplomat!"

The reason for the discrepancy is that Roddenberry didn't write or direct all the episodes; there were many writers who would submit stories for the show, and often times these were the best (my personal favorite episodes).

However, and for clarity sake. This was addressed during the pre-production of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. When Nicholas Meyer was brought on and given instructions by Roddenberry to specifically demilitarized his story, because (and this is in Meyer's memoirs, the notes on the movie, and even on the DVD as I recall) Roddenberry stated that Starfleet is not a military organization in our traditional sense. It should not be portrayed as such. Meyer thought this concept was absurd, citing the use of weapons, rank, and numerous other military references.

They ultimately ended up going to Paramount to lobby their cases but Paramount sided with Meyer. You notice a stark contrast between tone, style, and setting from The Motion Picture and TWoK. The uniforms, insignia, etc. You'll also notice how militarized the movie had become. This is also evident in Meyer's Undiscovered Country as well.

So in Meyer's Star Trek, yes Starfleet is a military organization; but from Roddenberry's mouth it is not.

For starters, everyone had standard U.S. Navy military ranks. Why on earth (or elsewhere) would the show do that if it truly didn't want people to think they were military?

Because Roddenberry compared Starfleet to the Merchant Marine. Not that it is an extension of that service, but that it's function is not to serve in a military capacity. Many of the crew onboard are civilians, this is true throughout Star Trek.

There is no doubt that Roddenberry did not intend or wish to portray Starfleet as a military organization. He went out of his way in the first 3 seasons of TNG to make this point clear; which was something he could not do on TOS, again, for the aforementioned reasons.

It may not have been consistent with Roddenberry's vision, but he didn't always get what he wanted in term of how things were portrayed on the show. So in addition to all the Ensigns, Lieutenants, Lieutenant Commanders, Commanders, Captains, and Admirals, we saw that when Kirk did something wrong, he was court-martialed which is by definition a process that applies only to the military.

Again, I agree there are references and one can look and see only what one wishes to see. But there are also explicit statements to the contrary that Starfleet is not and never has been "the military." Again, from Roddenberry. Also, in Enterprise (predating TOS), where they explain that Starfleet is an extension of the United Earth Diplomatic Corps. The militarization of Starfleet happened when MACOs (Earth military) were somewhat incorporated into Starfleet for defensive purposes; but this certainly wasn't the primary function of the organization.

I only raised naval comparisons in post #4339, in response to you bringing up aircraft carriers.

All I said was that cadets wouldn't be running a ship, to which you thought to provide detailed analysis saying that I was wrong yet you agreed it was "preposterous." I still don't know whether or not you agree that it's an absurd plot point.

I don't believe that anything post Star Trek is relevant to a reboot of Star Trek, for all the reasons I stated initially. Including the in-canon passage of time between Star Trek and TNG where a lot of things may have changed. And since Kirk barely mentioned the Academy himself, the movie need only be internally consistent in its depiction of the Academy and cadets. If I can offer up examples of how it could be plausible that aren't contradicted by the movie, that's enough.

The movie's own stated self-consistency is that when Spock went back in time, at the moment the Narada and Jellyfish came through into the 23rd century (remember, Spock isn't coming from TOS time, he's coming from VOY time as he is Ambassador Spock) he created an alternate reality.

Now, I already explained why that in itself is stupid as fuck (you're not saving your own future, you're just avoiding it). But you ignore that and say "well it's a reboot, so I can say ANYTHING that sounds plausible and it's valid." But this is false. It's false because you don't understand that there is canon that predates TOS (VOY/DS9/ENT all touch on pre-Kirk era topics). So again it is not self-consistent, that's total bullshit.

It might be consistent with what you know, which is minimal (only relating to TOS), but don't discount the vast majority of Star Trek just because you didn't watch it.

Anyway, your statement isn't true. As I stated previously, modern ships have a ton of manual labor/skilled trades jobs that simply cannot be simulated. There is absolutely no way for midshipmen to learn how to perform those tasks in an academic environment, which is one thing that makes it preposterous to have cadets entirely crewing a carrier.[ But on a starship, you don't need a bos'n's mate to handle the lines when the ship is departing or arriving at a berth, or rigging a highline for ship-to-ship transfers. On a starship, the equivalent tasks are all controlled by a computer, which can be simulated in an academic environment. That's the whole point of this tangent -- that given the computer control/automation of a starship of Kirk's Enterprise, it would actually be possible to train midshipmen/cadets with hands-on operation of a starship. They're not going to have the knowledge of a fully-trained and experienced officer, but in terms of manning the stations, there is nothing in the movie suggesting that senior cadets are not trained that way. Quite the opposite, in fact. And again, even "in canon", who is to say that was not true at the time of Kirk's Enterprise even if it wasn't true 100 years later?

1) It's nonsense for you to say cadets can man a ship in the 23rd century when Star Trek canon has said that they cannot in the 24th century. I already said this and you flat out ignored this. The topic of cadets running a ship has been done at least 3 times in Star Trek (twice in DS9, once in TNG). In the DS9 episodes, the ship is falling apart, the crew is totally incapable of handling the pressures of space travel and the severity of their situation. Discipline and structure on the ship begins to devolve into something less than desirable.

They can't handle it from a technical standpoint (they have no idea how to repair anything), a command standpoint (everyone is the same age with the same experience, who is right?), or an emotional standpoint (no older mature person who has been there to tell them it'll be okay).

I honestly cannot fathom your position. It's absurd really.

2) Let's take your comment about automation into account. Well, I can tell you a bit about system automation... It takes an experienced person to maintain a complex computer system. A fresh graduate (I have a few on my staff) is 1/10th as useful as a seasoned programmer or technician. Literally, there is no comparison. To say that you could bring fresh graduates into my office and have them run the place, I'd laugh in your face. But there's no heavy lifting, and they SHOULD IN THEORY be able to use unit testing, and automation, and standard practices to solve most business logic problems. But alas, the real world doesn't work that way - and experience counts.

Again, I think your position is flawed.

Star Trek was a particular TV show that I watched a ton. Star Trek: The Next Generation and all those others were different TV shows, so I can certainly be a fan of Star Trek without being a fan of every other show to which that name was attached.

Star Trek: TNG is Roddenberry's true vision, he's said so many times. I actually like both TOS and TNG equally. But as I said, don't say "this is Star Trek," when you don't know Star Trek. Go to a convention and tell them that TNG isn't Star Trek.

Also, notice I called myself a "trekker" and not a "trekkie." I also identify with TOS moreso than TNG, because I prefer the cowboy, beat'em hero in Kirk. It's fun. It's also what I grew up on. But at the same time, I recognize that Star Trek includes shows that I don't like, including Enterprise or Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Such is life. But I'm not going to say "oh, that doesn't count because I didn't watch it or like it.. so only what I saw or liked matters."

Well, this is the whole point, isn't it? To me, a reboot of the original series is bound by the original series only, with some license to vary from that given that it is a reboot rather than simply a retelling of the exact same story/stories. It would be a very odd "reboot" of the original series to say it is also bound by all the subsequent series as well.

Sounds like you weren't paying attention to Abrams or Spock in the movie. They explain the reboot IN THE MOVIE. IT's not a pure reboot. Ambassador Spock is FROM the TNG/DS9/VOY timeline; he went into an alternate timeline (for what reasons?) by travelling backwards. This is scientifically accurate (as you can't true go back in time) but logically stupid. Spock knows you can't go back in time (I know, they do it all the time), and he explains WHY you can't go back in time (it's not your past, but someone else's (young Spock)).

Also Abrams says on the DVD that the Narada was built using Borg technology and that this timeline for Star Trek will use the Narada's technology; therefore, the technological gap between this 23rd century and Spock's 24th century will be closed extremely rapidly.

So no, from their perspective, Voyager is not the future, it is the past. This was explained IN THE MOVIE BY SPOCK, and also on the DVD.

It isn't a "reboot" and no you Q-Tip can't just make up stuff that "sounds plausible."

Maybe that's what you wanted/preferred, but that is not what the makers of those movies said they were going to do. If you don't like their decision, fine. But given that is what they said they were going to do, I don't think it's accurate to tell the rest of us we're wrong for judging it on the express terms it was presented.

Now I think you neither watched the movie, listened to the commentary track, or researched what the reboot was all about. They took time in the movie to explain Ambassador Spock's appearance in the movie. It's not a reboot, it's actually, technically, a sequel.

In other words, yes. The three years are all that matters, and the 26 mean zippo.

Wrong, according to Spock the time fissure happened prior to Kirk's birth, so TOS didn't happen in that universe yet. So you're knowledge of TOS would have no more value than my knowledge of TOS+all of Star Trek.

They may well be, though I couldn't bring myself to watch Voyager after reading a fawning review about the bun hairstyle of the Captain. But they are different shows from the original.

Sexist much? Damn I hope you don't have any daughters bro...

You're inventing it for purposes of this movie. There is nothing in the movie saying that the things you describe are true.

Dafuq are you talking about, Amb. Spock explains to Kirk that he is not young Spock's future, but ANOTHER Spock from a possible future timeline. Amb. Spock CREATED the timeline we're watching, and it is in his FUTURE timeline, not PAST. You cannot actually go back in time, and that was the point of this entire conversation; that's what Amb. Spock is explaining to Kirk/Spock, that it isn't his past. This isn't a prequel IN THE MOVIE, it's a SEQUEL, IN THE MOVIE.

For the most part, the things you are describing occurred "in canon" 100 or so years in the future, and you are asserting that they must have been the same 100 years before.

Bro, Enterprise happened in the 22nd century not the 23rd. You're wrong here. In cannon, Archer and his story still happened. ST:First Contact STILL happened. Picard MUST exist, because if he didn't the Narada couldn't have been built. So, no... that's not true.

That is you inventing specific facts that did not exist, whereas I'm just pointing out possibles explanation that aren't precluded.

I'm not inventing anything I'm literally quoting you Star Trek references that you are unaware because you wanted to engage me in a "deeper analysis of the movie." Again, if we're going to talk ST then everything you've said up to this point is WAY off-base and just flat out wrong.

I think Star Trek history up to that point -- as shown in the original series -- left a ton of open space that could be filled in by a movie without violating anything major. That includes fleshing out the Academy, etc.. So in terms of actual contradictions between the original Star Trek series and the reboot, I don't see that many. At least, no more than there were in the original series anyway.

Again, you didn't watch any of the shows that mentioned things that predate TOS, or the 5 seasons of a show that predates TOS.

No I didn't. Where are you getting that from? The only time I've used "preposterous" was with respect to midshipmen entirely crewing a modern naval warship, but I also explained why it would be easier on the Enterprise. Here's exactly what I said, and please point out to me where I called either "preposterous".

How about in the quote you left out??

"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,"

Where's the "preposterous" in there?

Err.. it's the last word in the bolded sentence above.. :chuckles:

Wait a minute. Are you actual berating someone else for writing a long-overly detailed post about a relatively minor issue? I mean, dude....

Berating? I'm not berating you at all... First off, you should know I would berate you as an individual, I respect you as a poster so that would be beneath us both. I often sound impassioned but that is the nature of internet arguments. I assure you, I am quite chill.

I'm simply pointing out that you're arguing in circles. You said you don't want to apply a Naval analog to ST, but then you wrote many paragraphs doing just that.

I said a long time ago, Starfleet is not the Navy, and any comparisons between the two organizations would be limited.

This really circles back all the way to the original point. Star Trek, as initially conceived by Roddenberry, was a bit different than what actually ended up on-air as the original Star Trek. If I want to read hard SF, I'll read Greg Bear, Frederick Pohl, Larry Niven, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc.. I'm not going to get that from watching the original Star Trek, which had all sorts of stuff that wasn't scientifically correct or had a pretty decent "cheese" factor. I mean, "The Trouble with Tribbles" is considered on of the best episodes that show ever did, and it wasn't exactly serious. And that's the series that was being rebooted. To me, the key thing in a reboot is that you get the characters right, and for the most part, they did. The core relationships (excluding Uhura/Spock, which I didn't like), were great as well. I thought Pine made a very convincing young Kirk, and the rest of them were easily recognizable without being Jim Carrey-ish impressions of the originals. Though I have to say that "The Wrath of Farrakhan" skit was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

I don't see how you could say this though. The characters were all wrong.

See, that's my problem with your point of view (although you are entitled to it). I don't care what they do with the characters for the most part. So long as the movie on the whole is good. I didn't care if they kept up with canon, that had nothing to do with any of my earlier posts. I don't give two shits about that, but you brought it up.

Again, you said they got the characters right.. but they didn't. Kirk was never described as having been a petulant bastard the way he is in the reboot. Spock would rather die than act so foolish, and Sarek would never say he "loved" his wife. Bones was good, but Scotty was turned into a joke, a running gag. That wasn't his character in the slightest. Also, Pike and Kirk's relationship wasn't accurate at all.

So no, they didn't get the "characters right." Again, your Star Trek is way way off. But again, 0% of this has to do with why I didn't like the movie.. We're just shitting about ST.

I thought the movie captured very well the fun of the original show -- like I could really see the old guys doing basically the same stuff, only with the characters being younger and therefore, less-polished/mature. I thought they nailed that but did make Spock a bit too emotional. As I said, at its best, the original show did touch on some deeper issues, and did so very well. I'd like to see them try that in a third movie.

TOS' best episodes were entirely centered around deep moral issues. Also Kirk was a man, a man's man, not some punkass kid. Pine's character to me does not make me say "this guy is tough, don't fuck with Kirk!" I look at him and say "I could take this fucking guy, c'mon... get him off the screen already."

I wish they had cast someone a bit older and more capable of the role.. but whatever.

Again, before anybody says "uhhh... he doesn't like it cuz it's not like the show," tl;dr, I'm just arguing Star Trek with Q-Tip.. disregard this post if that's all you've gathered.

 

[SixPACK]

I am absolutely loving this.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

YES! STAR TREK FIGHT!

[video=youtube;AphxyjrH4SE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AphxyjrH4SE[/video]

 

[gourimoko]

YES! STAR TREK FIGHT!

[video=youtube;AphxyjrH4SE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AphxyjrH4SE[/video]

This episode ("Amok Time") is better than both movies combined.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

This episode ("Amok Time") is better than both movies combined.

Gouri attacks with a patented Kirk Leg Drop™!

Does the challenger have anything left?

 

[The Oi]

 

[gourimoko]

Gouri attacks with a patented Kirk Leg Drop™!

Does the challenger have anything left?

"Journey to Babel"

Another great episode.. The guy he's kicking is a fake Andorian who was sabotaging negotiations. It was also Sarek's first episode (as Sarek)..

Still, better than both movies.

p.s.
I know my motherfucking Star Trek... If I were you I'd bet 200 quatloos on Gour ASAP.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

"Journey to Babel"

Another great episode.. The guy he's kicking is a fake Andorian who was sabotaging negotiations. It was also Sarek's first episode (as Sarek)..

Still, better than both movies.

p.s.
I know my motherfucking Star Trek... If I were you I'd bet 200 quatloos on Gour ASAP.

 

[SixPACK]

The best part of this whole video is I am assuming Zelda or Kermit the Frog giving the ol' "firing the gun at the camera" in the background.