TREK XI - Images, Footage, Trailers, Enterprise, Discussion, etc. Thread (WARNING: SPOILERS)

[Dalek]

I'd liked to have seen an alternative timeline where the federation falls in an alternative, changed timeline, and how would this have affected the characters we knew. 'Cause this story doesn't make sense unless you read a comic most moviegoers didn't even hear about, and even then the plotholes aren't really repaired, they merely have some planks over them so you don't break your ankle in them. Might have as well gone for something radically different - if the whole point of creating an alternative timeline was to have total freedom to do what you want, why go for a slightly different federation? I say, tear it down, bring on chaos and destruction, and see how our previously optimistic heroes fare in this totally different setting. Alas, we got the "must read the comic to make even a little sense", more-of-the-same-but-now-in-MTV-style version. Which is why I'm still not happy with this movie, and never will be.

That's already been done. It's called the Mirror Universe. I think they changed enough. If they did what you are proposing, it would not have been Star Trek at all.

Actually, it is Star Trek. If it's got the main characters in (Kirk, Picard, Sisko, take your pick), its Star Trek. Although I wouldn't want to watch a Mirror Universe "movie". In my view, thats pushing the boundaries too far.

[newman]

Oook.. so the mirror universe has been done, whereas this..
I got news for you, pal. The story where Kirk, Spock, and the gang merrily go on where no one has gone before has already been done. I wasn't proposing to do the same thing as the mirror universe, but even if I was, those few episodes can't really compare to 5 series worth of establishing one timeline - it wasn't covered all that much for it not to be interesting. And if you're reinventing everything, why not really go different, not just same ol' with the old trek feeling gone.

[undedavenger]

Hopefully when JJ (if he does) makes the next film, he'll have learnt a few lessons and made it more...Trek. Hopefully.

JJ and the principle cast are signed for three films total already. Like it or not, this is Star Trek from now on, I guess.

[undedavenger]

Oook.. so the mirror universe has been done, whereas this..
I got news for you, pal. The story where Kirk, Spock, and the gang merrily go on where no one has gone before has already been done. I wasn't proposing to do the same thing as the mirror universe, but even if I was, those few episodes can't really compare to 5 series worth of establishing one timeline - it wasn't covered all that much for it not to be interesting. And if you're reinventing everything, why not really go different, not just same ol' with the old trek feeling gone.

IMHO, this movie went too much in the Star Wars direction as it was. To make the humans battling the evil alien empire has been done thousands of times in thousands of movies. Why do we pesky humans always have to be the underdogs? Is the world such a cynical place that we cannot imagine a democratic earth-centered alliance of worlds? Must we undervalue ourselves at every turn.

I say, leave it be. While the new movie didn't exactly hit the spot the way a GOOD TNG sequel would have, it was good enough that I look forward to the next film. Let's see how it plays out.

[Dalek]

To newman: So what you're proposing is like the events between the Mirror TOS and Mirror TNG/DS9 except its the UFP instead of the Empire? Maybe I'd see that...but then it would just be a variation of the Terminator: Salvation movie. They fail to save everthing and everything gets a bit of a nuke.

To unded: Think about it: yes, it's the new stadium but it doesn't mean he can't improve on his work. He might make new shuttles or tone the lens flare down a bit. I don't care, as long as it gets marginally closer to TOS. I will always love TOS for changing the planet and shaping everything that isn't JJ.

And use the Modify button, it's your friend.

[JimmyB76]

Like it or not

i'll choose "not" lol

[undedavenger]

We're talking about an advanced society that powers it's ships with matter/anti-matter reactors, and has technologies like teleportation. I don't care if it's TOS era or TNG era, such a society MUST be able to power a ship that's 700m long - that's not an issue for me.
What is an issue is that someone goes back in time, destroys the Kelvin, and 25 years later the constitution class has doubled in size? What's wrong with this picture..

Actually, I don't think they confirmed if the JJPrise runs on matter/antimatter in the film. Maybe after the Kelvin, they went to a different power source. I could really care less how big the ships are and how many crew they have. It might actually cut down on the chances of the "Giant ship threatens earth" stories we have seen too often. The only way the size matters is in relation to other objects in space. After all, the US has aircraft carriers that house thousands of personnel with "walking space". An 800-crew spacecraft in the 23rd Century is not all that unfeasible.

And dalek: the lens flares almost gave me a headache. One or two is realistic. Covering half the screen with them was ridiculous.

[Dalek]

Yet the TOS Constitution only had 450 crew members? Based on the size of the windows, I don't see the Kelvin being bigger than a normal Constitution.

[undedavenger]

Like it or not

i'll choose "not" lol

Then I feel for you. Being a Trek fan going forward will be pretty uneventful. I don't particularly care for the change of direction either, and would rather they had been imaginative, and actually written a good movie post-nemesis. There was a lot of art in this film, but no creative substance to speak of. I mean, the Enterprise escapes the black hole by ejecting the warp core? Now THAT'S never been done before. They're wrapping old ideas in a shiny new wrapper. The next film needs a real, original plot that has not been done a thousand times.

Point is, this is Star Trek now, fans should concentrate on moving it forward based on creativity and characters. A bunch of CGI models and sets are really not all that important, are they?

[Dalek]

Like it or not

i'll choose "not" lol

Then I feel for you. Being a Trek fan going forward will be pretty uneventful. I don't care for the change of direction, and would rather they had been imaginative, and actually written a good movie post-nemesis. There was a lot of art in this film, but no creative substance to speak of. *****SPOILER*****I mean, the Enterprise escapes the black hole by ejecting the warp core?*****SPOILER***** Now THAT'S never been done before. They're wrapping old ideas in a shiny new wrapper. The next film needs a real, original plot that has not been done a thousand times.

Dammit, there goes that bit of suspense. And sarcasm never translates well on interwebs.

[Kirk]

Dalek, this thread is going to have spoilers in it. The thread title says it all.

[Dalek]

Yeah, but at least some people tried to hide them. I knew that I should be careful in these spoiler shark infested waters but at least some interwebs peoples try to cover things up.

[undedavenger]

Not to be a jerk Dale, but I steered clear of these forums until I saw the movie. I'd recommend that to anyone. And since you quickly and accurately perceived the sarcasm, I'd say it translated perfectly. This thread is for candid discussion of the new film, is it not? And the film has been out for a week and a half. When is it acceptable to discuss the plot? After it's been on DVD for a few years?

Anyway, back on topic.
Star Trek has always been different from other sci-fi franchises. That's why it is distinctive and successful. The problem with Star Trek for the last decade is that George Lucas came out with his new Star Wars films, and virtually every sci-fi franchise or film (except possibly BSG) has used them as a template, including Trek. First Contact was the last good Trek film, and it came out thirteen years ago.

This new movie looks good, but it uses the same recycled plotlines and Star Wars aesthetics that caused Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemesis to sink the franchise. This movie is doing well, but will the next one do well if it recycles more overused plot devices. What Star Trek needs is not a new start, but imagination. I think Gene Roddenberry would endorse that concept.

[Kirk]

Actually, the original BSG pretty much followed in Star Wars' footsteps.
Edit: added video reference

[undedavenger]

I was referring to the new BSG, although i seems to take a lot of inspiration from the TMP era of Trek.

[JimmyB76]

guys can we get back ontopic to discussion of the movie pls?

thx

incidentally

Dammit, there goes that bit of suspense. And sarcasm never translates well on interwebs.

Dalek, this thread is going to have spoilers in it. The thread title says it all.

as Kirk mentioned, the title contains "WARNING: SPOILERS" in all caps, in the title...
if you have not seen this movie and do not want to run into any spoilers, please do not view this thread...
if you choose to view this thread, please do not complain about people posting spoilers...

[Shadowknight1]

Okay, so I'm definitely seeing one of the biggest complaints being that the Enterprise has to save Earth yet AGAIN.  In that, we definitely agree.  Though I'm glad they dropped the whole "The Enterprise is the only ship in the whole galaxy that can do a damn thing" convenience, I want something new.  The Enterprise's mission is to seek out new life.  Let's see that for the next movie.  I think that's what they're probably planning.  This movie followed the typical super-emergency that can justify everyone being where they're supposed to be.  IMO, that's why the original theme music didn't show up until the end of the movie.  They weren't there yet.

And I for one don't want to see re-hashes of old stories.  Let Khan lie.  Steer clear of the Sigma Draconis region.  Stay away from Apollo.  Though the Planet Killer would be cool, save that for at least a while so we don't have two movies in a row about things killing worlds.

Also, to put the Enterprise debate in perspective, the NCC-1701-A was 288.6 meters in length and had something around 400 crew give or take.  The USS Enterprise CVN-65 aircraft carrier is 342 meters in length and has a crew of around 3000.  See the problem here?  An aircraft carrier that's been in service for almost 50 years is bigger than a 23rd century super advanced starship.  Whereas the new Enterprise is around 725 meters in length and contains around 1000 crew.  Sounds more reasonable to me.

And another thing, Pike said, "Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes.  He saved eight hundred lives."  Not crewmen.  Lives.  People.  There's nothing precluding the possibility that there weren't some passengers or what have you aboard.  They didn't necessarily have to be crew.  Also, I believe that most Federation starships have had the capacity to almost double or triple the required crew complement if they need to house refugees.  Again, makes sense when you think about it....logically.

Oh, and apparently George Lucas likes the new film.  From the New York magazine: "I liked Star Trek growing up and I?ve seen the new one," Lucas told us, shortly before taking off at warp speed in the opposite direction. "It?s good. I liked it." But, we wondered, was there anything he?d have changed about the movie? "No, because I would never do a Star Trek."  Thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy for that.

This pic from gizmodo shows what they believe to be the proper scaling of the new E: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/enterprise-vs-bsg3.jpg  Hmmm...still would get it's clock cleaned by a Star Destroyer.

[Nebula]

hmm IMO I would match the two ships shuttle bay doors to get the size...

[Darkthunder]

The Galaxy Class has a crew compliment of just over 1000 people. That includes the crews families. Although we've also heard it said, that the Galaxy Class is capable of holding upto "6000 troops".

[Shadowknight1]

hmm IMO I would match the two ships shuttle bay doors to get the size...

Not the best idea since the shuttlebay of the new E is pretty big compared to the 1701 and the A, what with the "racks" of shuttles.