Star Trek (Spoilers)

Topics which don't fit comfortably in any of the other forums go here. Spamming is not tolerated.
Forum rules
- Please use the forum attachment system for jam images, or link to the CG site specific to the Jam.
- Mark threads containing nudity in inlined images as NSFW
- Read The rules post for specifics

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Dracomax on Tue May 12, 2009 12:32 pm

spoilers....

Rkolter wrote:
Komiyan wrote:
IVstudios wrote:The only part I really thought was stupid was the very end where [SPOILER] they kept the Enterprise RIGHT NEXT to the black hole forming in the Romulan ship so they could shoot at it pointlessly.
Haha yeah, it was like they got too distracted by the sight to actually realise they were stood next to a goddamn black hole.


Haven't seen the movie yet, but I just know this scene will bug the crap out of me.

It almost certainly will.

But i can see some justification--Nero had already gone through a black hole once, kirk had never been in command, and spock was not on the bridge. Therefore, making sure that Nero's ship got blowed up before leaving could probably be justified. after all, 1 ship versus the planets of the federation isn't all that big a trade.

My problem is the way they got out of it.
ImageImageImage
You and TRI are the crazy mad ones.~Cope
Give a man a fire, keep him warm for a day; set a man on fire, keep him warm for life.~unknown
User avatar
Dracomax
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: in a defective ficional universe

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Theamazingsquad on Wed May 13, 2009 1:50 am

yeah- shouldnt an explosion powerful enough to counter the pull of a black hole be enough to tear apart a small (relatively) ship.

i really enjoyed it though. you reckon they could spin it into a decent tv show? would thte actors/ producers want to?
http://theamazingsquad.comicgenesis.com

Studying Architecture. Going to go to Art school instead
Comic slowly returning from Haitus
Life is grand.
User avatar
Theamazingsquad
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:36 am
Location: Ballymena, N. Ireland

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Komiyan on Wed May 13, 2009 3:43 am

Theamazingsquad wrote:i really enjoyed it though. you reckon they could spin it into a decent tv show? would thte actors/ producers want to?

I would completely love this, but I see them sticking to blockbuster movies just for the profit, really. I'd love to be wrong though!

I've been watching through Deep Space 9 and I'm at the 6thseason and very much enjoying it, even if I do occasionally fall asleep when there's more than one Bajoran on screen at any time.
Image
Image
User avatar
Komiyan
HOLD ON TO YOUR INTERNETS!!
 
Posts: 2726
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 11:35 am
Location: Hrmph.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Joel Fagin on Wed May 13, 2009 5:52 am

A TV show would be a terrible idea. There's nothing you could do episode in and episode out that would be new. Everything close enough to Federation space in this era is already completely played out.

Although... Kahn would make a good villain for a bit if you let him take over a planet and get some military resources behind him. He's still floating around in this timeline somewhere.

- Joel Fagin
Image
User avatar
Joel Fagin
nothos adrisor (GTC)
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:15 am
Location: City of Lights

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Numskull on Thu May 14, 2009 12:56 pm

movie was good will see it again
Numskull
Newbie
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Tynan on Thu May 14, 2009 2:35 pm

This is entirely going to be a movie series, though if a smart producer makes a spinoff then yay we'll see more trek on the teevee.

My fav Deep space nine was with Q, it was fanriffic.
"You hit me!"
User avatar
Tynan
A REAL ADVEEEENTURERRRRRRR
 
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:02 pm
Location: Adventuring

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Rkolter on Thu May 14, 2009 8:23 pm

Ok, just got back from seeing Star Trek: Reboot (or whatever the tag line is)

I give it 4.5 stars out of 5. I did not have the problem some folks had with not being worried for the characters - from the point that the writers had them talking about Alternate Realities, I realized that all bets were off. While I'm glad none of the big characters died, I was at the edge of my seat throughout.

I also have no problem with them turning this into a TV series - as an alternate reality, the only things that are still likely to happen are those things that would occur regardless of the existance or non-existance of the life of Star Trek. Like say, the supernova in 130 years that caused all this trouble. I think you could make an excellent series out of this.

I have several major science rants about the movie, and a particularly bad "Duh...." moment. Yeah yeah, I like my science rants; most of these could have been fixed without hurting the story.

1) If warp drive won't get you away from the black hole and you are tearing your ship apart, creating a detonation strong enough to throw your ship away from the black hole will not help. It will... tear your ship apart.

2) Sitting there shooting at a ship literally embedded in a black hole is dumb. It's in a black hole. What more can you possibly do to it?

3) If I was on Vulcan and someone was cutting a hole in my planet with a giant drill, I might not send a distress message saying that the planet is experiencing seismic vibrations. I might instead logically say something about the attack.

4) It is not, strictly speaking, necessary to cut a hole to the core of a planet to drop a black hole in it. It would be far better to drop the black hole onto the planet, and have it burrow through the planet, oscillating back and forth.

5) If you drill a hole to the core of the planet, the liquid core of the planet, pressurized to a few million atmospheres pressure and superheated to boot, will erupt out of the hole in the largest and most violent volcano you have ever, ever seen. Really, if you want to fuck with Vulcan, that's a much worse way to die.

6) A tiny black hole won't eat a planet that quickly. There's a limit based on the size of the black hole's "mouth" for lack of a better term. Even a ship-sized black hole like later occurs would take years to eat the planet, not minutes.


But, none of these really detracted too much from the movie. I loved it. Go see it. Maybe more than once.
Image Image ImageImage
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
User avatar
Rkolter
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
 
Posts: 16405
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Rkolter on Fri May 15, 2009 4:50 am

Heh, oh yeah -

If you are embedded in a black hole strong enough to hold the enterprise in place with it's warp engines at full strength, most likely you'll be torn apart by tidal forces, and not able to carry on a communication with Captain Kirk about how you'd rather see Romulus die than be rescued.

And the Enterprise? Yeah, not experiencing any tidal forces until after the ship that was "filling up" the black hole got sucked all the way in? That's not how black holes work.

Mmm... oh, and black holes are spheres, not two dimensional flat disks that you can see half a ship on each side of.

I love Star Trek. :D
Image Image ImageImage
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
User avatar
Rkolter
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
 
Posts: 16405
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Komiyan on Fri May 15, 2009 5:08 am

Tynan wrote:"You hit me!"

"Picard never hits me!"
Image
Image
User avatar
Komiyan
HOLD ON TO YOUR INTERNETS!!
 
Posts: 2726
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 11:35 am
Location: Hrmph.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Guildmaster Van on Fri May 15, 2009 5:44 am

Tim wrote:I should have liked Wolverine more.

Yes, the Sniktbub movie should have been likeable.
It just shows you how hard they're trying to kill the character.

Tynan wrote:The Weapon X team (Deadpool) needed more screen time.

Given how they ruined Dudepeel in that movie, I wholeheartedly disagree. More screentime would have resulted in more fail.

Tynan wrote:The Ugly:
The elongation of eyes to make them seem extraterrestrial *alien doctor at birth*.

I thought she was purdy, and I was overall impressed by the aliens in the film (Who look like aliens, and not humans with chin putty and glitter glue). Then again I tend to think like Lobo: "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly stick it where no man has stuck it before!"


Also, lol@everyone in the thread bitching about the black hole in the film when all we know about black holes is pretty speculative anyway.
The Star Trek movie was pretty win - the Kirk character was completely reinvigorated as a bigger and louder asshole (Awesome), McCoy was perfect, and I was out of my seat when Cho's Sulu whipped out a katana. Not so much for the fact Sulu was wielding a katana, but for the fact I can't look at Cho without seeing Harold. The only character I disliked was Quinto's Spock. He played the part well enough, but he doesn't give the same life to Spock that Nimoy does.
User avatar
Guildmaster Van
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:17 pm
Location: El Quebeco

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Rkolter on Fri May 15, 2009 6:04 am

Guildmaster Van wrote:Also, lol@everyone in the thread bitching about the black hole in the film when all we know about black holes is pretty speculative anyway.


Nah. Not really. We may have never imaged one directly, and the whole question of what a singularity is, and what happens at it, is open for debate. But don't let that fool you into thinking we don't have a pretty solid concept of black holes, certainly enough to do better than a two-dimensional hole you can explode your way away from without injury while talking to someone sitting on a ship literally embedded in the hole. C'mon.

Then again though, that IS the essence of Star Trek - all their episodes had wrong science. The movie felt perfectly in place with the original show in that respect.

Guildmaster Van wrote:The only character I disliked was Quinto's Spock. He played the part well enough, but he doesn't give the same life to Spock that Nimoy does.


Well... Nimoy is the soul of Spock, really. Nimoy is so Spock that he's never really been able to be anyone else. Nimoy = Spock pretty much forever. Given THAT, Quinto did a heck of a job taking ownership of the character.

I liked Quinto's take on young Spock. But I don't see this young Spock evolving into the original spock. Must be that alternate realities thing.
Image Image ImageImage
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
User avatar
Rkolter
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
 
Posts: 16405
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Guildmaster Van on Fri May 15, 2009 6:24 am

Rkolter wrote:Nah. Not really. We may have never imaged one directly, and the whole question of what a singularity is, and what happens at it, is open for debate. But don't let that fool you into thinking we don't have a pretty solid concept of black holes, certainly enough to do better than a two-dimensional hole you can explode your way away from without injury while talking to someone sitting on a ship literally embedded in the hole. C'mon.

Then again though, that IS the essence of Star Trek - all their episodes had wrong science. The movie felt perfectly in place with the original show in that respect.


I'm not going to try to out-science you, Ryan, because I'd never win a million years. My point was more along the lines that the highly speculative nature of quantum physics gives writers free license to come up with the own creative, albeit wrong, interpretations, like your second point. I think that details like that are unimportant when compared to the story itself - like getting caught up on superhero origin stories which are grossly ridiculous (Hulk, Fantastic Four, etc). For all we know Star Trek exists in a parallel universe to our own where black holes work differently than in our own :P Works of science fiction should be appreciated as such - fictional science.
User avatar
Guildmaster Van
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:17 pm
Location: El Quebeco

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Rkolter on Fri May 15, 2009 7:09 am

Yeah, I know that in my heart you have to suspend your disbelief for science fiction movies. And I do... that's why I like Star Trek.

Yet, I really think that sci-fi movies should hire a scientist to advise them. It wouldn't be expensive - scientists come awfully cheap and are often looking for extra income. Ten grand? Twenty? That's nothing in a hundred million dollar movie.

The reason being that the same cool movie could have had more scientifically realistic effects, and people would unbeknownst to them, come out of the theater knowing more than when they went in. Right now, there are a hundred thousand people who "know" black holes are two dimensional disks because of this movie. And that galls me.

They could have done the whole clearly as a sphere, and it'd have looked JUST AS COOL. If they'd known. They could have had the bad guy ripped apart in the end by tidal forces. That'd have been AWESOME. If they'd known. A sudden molten iron volcano erupting from Vulcan would have been KICK ASS, and the black hole would have made an awesome effect falling through a fountain of molten iron. If they'd known.

*sigh*

It was still a great flick. Best Star Trek in a long, long while. I'd almost given up on the franchise.
Image Image ImageImage
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
User avatar
Rkolter
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
 
Posts: 16405
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Heart on Fri May 15, 2009 10:55 am

Rkolter wrote:Yet, I really think that sci-fi movies should hire a scientist to advise them. It wouldn't be expensive - scientists come awfully cheap and are often looking for extra income.


Don't forget that scientists would love to have their names in the end credits of a Star Trek movie. :D
User avatar
Heart
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:45 pm
Location: under the floorboards.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby IVstudios on Fri May 15, 2009 11:01 am

Rkolter wrote:Ok, just got back from seeing Star Trek: Reboot (or whatever the tag line is)

4) It is not, strictly speaking, necessary to cut a hole to the core of a planet to drop a black hole in it. It would be far better to drop the black hole onto the planet, and have it burrow through the planet, oscillating back and forth.


Another thing I wondered about: I think it's safe to assume Vulcan is roughly Earth-sized, so wouldn't it have taken the better part of 2 days for the red matter to reach the planets core in free-fall instead of the few seconds it took in the movie?
Image
User avatar
IVstudios
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 3614
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:52 am
Location: My little office

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Nanda on Sat May 16, 2009 12:46 pm

Just got back from seeing it. Didn't care for it. Pretty much for all of the reasons I thought I might not - though I really did try to go into it with an open mind, especially since so many people I trust the opinions of really seemed to like it - but ultimately, that's not my Kirk, and that's not my Spock. Not saying it was a bad movie, but it didn't really impress me as far as action/scifi films go in general, and I simply wasn't buying it as an actual Star Trek movie. I don't see why this needed to be done in the first place, honestly. I hate this whole remake trend (because that's what it was, a remake. I don't want to hear about "alternate universes," it's a complete cop out.)
Image Image
User avatar
Nanda
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 4268
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:06 am
Location: Peeking out of the closet.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Rkolter on Sat May 16, 2009 1:27 pm

IVstudios wrote:Another thing I wondered about: I think it's safe to assume Vulcan is roughly Earth-sized, so wouldn't it have taken the better part of 2 days for the red matter to reach the planets core in free-fall instead of the few seconds it took in the movie?


You're thinking of a human's terminal velocity.

For something with a 100 square foot cross section, falling from about 300 miles up all the way down to the core, and assuming Vulcan is like Earth, terminal velocity would be about 1/2 mile a second. That's (give or take) 3 and a half hours.

Of course, something that dense would simply keep falling, passing through the planet, blowing out the other side, zooming out several thousand miles, before finally coming to a stop, and falling back towards the planet again.

Repeat lots and lots. And lots. And lots.
Image Image ImageImage
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
User avatar
Rkolter
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
 
Posts: 16405
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Dracomax on Mon May 18, 2009 8:29 am

Nanda wrote:Just got back from seeing it. Didn't care for it. Pretty much for all of the reasons I thought I might not - though I really did try to go into it with an open mind, especially since so many people I trust the opinions of really seemed to like it - but ultimately, that's not my Kirk, and that's not my Spock. Not saying it was a bad movie, but it didn't really impress me as far as action/scifi films go in general, and I simply wasn't buying it as an actual Star Trek movie. I don't see why this needed to be done in the first place, honestly. I hate this whole remake trend (because that's what it was, a remake. I don't want to hear about "alternate universes," it's a complete cop out.)

Um, no. it wasn't a remake. A remake implies that another movie with the same plot more or less exactly, or the same name, was produced at one point. King kong was a remake. THis was a prequel. much like producing the Hobbit would be a prequel to the lord of the rings.
ImageImageImage
You and TRI are the crazy mad ones.~Cope
Give a man a fire, keep him warm for a day; set a man on fire, keep him warm for life.~unknown
User avatar
Dracomax
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: in a defective ficional universe

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Killbert-Robby on Mon May 18, 2009 9:22 am

Also, I think anyone who's such a big fan of Star Trek, you know, should be more supportive of the alternate universe copout.
Image
User avatar
Killbert-Robby
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 6876
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:28 am
Location: in the butt

Re: Star Trek (Spoilers)

Postby Dracomax on Mon May 18, 2009 9:45 am

There's at least 4 alternate universes in canon now.
ImageImageImage
You and TRI are the crazy mad ones.~Cope
Give a man a fire, keep him warm for a day; set a man on fire, keep him warm for life.~unknown
User avatar
Dracomax
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: in a defective ficional universe

PreviousNext

 

Return to Off Topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron