Star-Trek

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm by no means a sci-fi person, and I make fun of DallasEast all the time for being a damn trekkie, but that movie looks like it's going to be awesome

can't get over Harold being in the movie, but regardless, the previews are cool for this movie

[theogt]

It has a 93% on rotten tomatoes with over 100 reviews counted.

That's absurdly high for this type of movie. It has to be good, like genre-defining good.

[kmp77]

I can't wait! Taking off a little early tomorrow to go check it out :) Good reviews so far so hopefully it'll be good.

[Joe Rod]

can't get over Harold being in the movie, but regardless, the previews are cool for this movie

Well, with Kumar going to work at the White House he had to get a new series anyway.

[Kangaroo]

Even better my new Boss is taking most are group for lunch tomorrow

:nana::nana:

[the kid 05]

pretty damn good just got back from an employee showing, alot of details were paid attention to. very good id give it an A

[ScipioCowboy]

It has a 93% on rotten tomatoes with over 100 reviews counted.

That's absurdly high for this type of movie. It has to be good, like genre-defining good.

I disagree...but maybe I simply don't know what classifies as "good" anymore.

The movie had a strong beginning but faded towards the end, in my opinion.

It was certainly entertaining, but it lampooned any sense of series continuity by invoking the ol' parallel universe ruse.

[CowboyMike]

Got home a little bit ago from seeing it. I've been a trekker since I was a little kid.

All I can say is wow wow wow WOW WOW WOW!!! Everyone must see this movie.

[ChldsPlay]

pretty damn good just got back from an employee showing, alot of details were paid attention to. very good id give it an A

Employee showing? Not much advance since it started showing before that. I was surprised that I was underwhelmed by the movie. I'm not sure why. The fact that there were only about 15 people in the theater didn't help the atmosphere much. That and the speakers sucked when things got loud. The only thing I can really stick my finger on is that the music didn't seem to fit what was happening on screen very well so I didn't get too sucked in...so yeah, I blame the music.

[Sam I Am]

I've been a Star Trek fan since around 1980. Though the only series that I really liked was the original and TNG. I did watch Voyager some, but since around 2000, I just don't watch many TV series anymore. I haven't seen all the movies, but I will see this one.
It has a 93% on rotten tomatoes with over 100 reviews counted.

That's absurdly high for this type of movie. It has to be good, like genre-defining good.
I would have though Star Trek had already defined a genre. :)
I disagree...but maybe I simply don't know what classifies as "good" anymore.

The movie had a strong beginning but faded towards the end, in my opinion.

It was certainly entertaining, but it lampooned any sense of series continuity by invoking the ol' parallel universe ruse.
You sound like a trekkie. From everything I've heard, trekkies are the ones that are most critical of the movie.

[ConcordCowboy]

Can't wait.

http://www.reelmovienews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/star_trek_03_1024.jpg

[theogt]

I would have though Star Trek had already defined a genre. :)The genre's pretty much been dead for years.

[Yeagermeister]

I know it's supposed to be a reboot of the genre but from what I have seen in trailers Gene Rodenberry is turning over in his grave over this movie. It is nothing close to what he created. Well except for Kirk bedding every female he comes across. :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

Kind wished they would have did one with the crew from Star Trek enterprise...a rated R one so we could see more T'pal and somehow work it in so Seven of Nine winds up on the ship getting Vulcan pressure treatments from T'Pal.:D

[Yeagermeister]

Kind wished they would have did one with the crew from Star Trek enterprise...a rated R one so we could see more T'pal and somehow work it in so Seven of Nine winds up on the ship getting Vulcan pressure treatments from T'Pal.:D

PERV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[Sam I Am]

The genre's pretty much been dead for years.

Then it would have been a rebirth. Like those idiot bell bottoms almost came back in vogue about two years ago. :ralph:

[theogt]

Then it would have been a rebirth. Like those idiot bell bottoms almost came back in vogue about two years ago. :ralph:Okay, let's settle on "re-defining."

[BrAinPaiNt]

PERV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

You know you would love it as well.

[Yeagermeister]

You know you would love it as well.

I never said I wouldn't :D

[Rogah]

I have seen some Star Trek episodes and movies and I enjoy them well enough but I am certainly not, like, one of the obsessive fans who will have a conniption if Kirk says something in the movie that contradicts something he said in Original Series Episode 36, Scene 3 or anything along those lines... having said that...

I saw the movie, I enjoyed it, it wasn't perfect but well worth the price of admission. A casual action movie fan would enjoy this film and I recommend it for anyone looking for 2 hours worth of sci-fi eye candy with an enjoyable storyline. I have no idea if a super-duper Star Trek megafan would or wouldn't enjoy it.

[iceberg]

I'm by no means a sci-fi person, and I make fun of DallasEast all the time for being a damn trekkie, but that movie looks like it's going to be awesome

can't get over Harold being in the movie, but regardless, the previews are cool for this movie

just got back from seeing it for a team event.

best star trek movie to date.

[Bob Sacamano]

just got back from seeing it for a team event.

best star trek movie to date.

I have a feeling Harold was surprisingly good in this movie?

[tomson75]

When the teaser came out I thought it looked pretty good. When the trailer came out I thought it looked awful.

I've never really been a fan of Star Trek, but the reviews I've read have been overwhelmingly positive. Enough so that I might actually have to watch it.

[Bob Sacamano]

When the teaser came out I thought it looked pretty good. When the trailer came out I thought it looked awful.

I've never really been a fan of Star Trek, but the reviews I've read have been overwhelmingly positive. Enough so that I might actually have to watch it.

if the movie ends up being anything as exciting as the trailor, I'll be a happy man

I haven't looked forward to seeing a movie since "The Dark Knight", incidentally I didn't see that until it came out on DVD

[CowboyMike]

I know it's supposed to be a reboot of the genre but from what I have seen in trailers Gene Rodenberry is turning over in his grave over this movie. It is nothing close to what he created. Well except for Kirk bedding every female he comes across. :D

I think Gene Roddenberry would be happy with this. Leonard Nimoy seems to think Gene would be proud of this movie. There is a quote of Roddenberry saying that he wishes sometime in the future someone fresh would take hold of Star Trek and redefine it and move it even further than he did. I think JJ Abrams has done this. Gene would be proud.

if the movie ends up being anything as exciting as the trailor, I'll be a happy man


I think it was more exciting than the trailer. The trailer gave everyone a taste of the movie but didn't give too much away. I didn't want it to end when the movie was winding down, so yeah, I'd say it's worth going to see.

[Yeagermeister]

I think Gene Roddenberry would be happy with this. Leonard Nimoy seems to think Gene would be proud of this movie. There is a quote of Roddenberry saying that he wishes sometime in the future someone fresh would take hold of Star Trek and redefine it and move it even further than he did. I think JJ Abrams has done this. Gene would be proud.



I think it was more exciting than the trailer. The trailer gave everyone a taste of the movie but didn't give too much away. I didn't want it to end when the movie was winding down, so yeah, I'd say it's worth going to see.

I hadn't heard about that.

[Bob Sacamano]

I think Gene Roddenberry would be happy with this. Leonard Nimoy seems to think Gene would be proud of this movie. There is a quote of Roddenberry saying that he wishes sometime in the future someone fresh would take hold of Star Trek and redefine it and move it even further than he did. I think JJ Abrams has done this. Gene would be proud.



I think it was more exciting than the trailer. The trailer gave everyone a taste of the movie but didn't give too much away. I didn't want it to end when the movie was winding down, so yeah, I'd say it's worth going to see.

then I'm down

I hadn't heard about that.

that's why we only wake you up for the important meetings :lmao2:

[Sam I Am]

just got back from seeing it for a team event.

best star trek movie to date.

Better than the Wrath of Kahn? :)

[Bob Sacamano]

Better than the Wrath of Kahn? :)

QUaN!

oh

[iceberg]

Better than the Wrath of Kahn? :)

that was a good movie, to be sure. but this is just a great movie overall. funny, suspensefull...i HATE heights and there's one scene in particular were i had to keep holding my breathe.

great movie. hard to compare to the older movies, but so far i'd put it as the best.

[Yeagermeister]

that's why we only wake you up for the important meetings :lmao2:

SSDD :D

[burmafrd]

As long as its made clear this is all AU then its ok by me.
Fact is that if you go by the timeline that Roddenberry made and supported over the years this is all AU. Spock was on the Enterprise for 17 years before Kirk took command. Scotty was older by at least 10 years then Kirk; Uhura, Checkov and Sulu all several years younger. So they could NOT be all in the Academy at the same time. It was also established that Kirk was a very dedicated cadet not chasing tail everywhere and very much someone that really had his nose buried in the books. I could go on but that is the gist of it. And these examples were all supported in many books and many lectures given by ROddenberry over the years. Not just in the original series but in the movies as well. Once again as long as its understood that this is AU then I have no problem with it and hope it does very well. It was time to restart things anyway- and nothing else would have gotten the support of Paramount.

[AmarilloCowboyFan]

Kind wished they would have did one with the crew from Star Trek enterprise...a rated R one so we could see more T'pal and somehow work it in so Seven of Nine winds up on the ship getting Vulcan pressure treatments from T'Pal.:D


haha, i like the way you think!

[Kangaroo]

As long as its made clear this is all AU then its ok by me.
Fact is that if you go by the timeline that Roddenberry made and supported over the years this is all AU. Spock was on the Enterprise for 17 years before Kirk took command. Scotty was older by at least 10 years then Kirk; Uhura, Checkov and Sulu all several years younger. So they could NOT be all in the Academy at the same time. It was also established that Kirk was a very dedicated cadet not chasing tail everywhere and very much someone that really had his nose buried in the books. I could go on but that is the gist of it. And these examples were all supported in many books and many lectures given by ROddenberry over the years. Not just in the original series but in the movies as well. Once again as long as its understood that this is AU then I have no problem with it and hope it does very well. It was time to restart things anyway- and nothing else would have gotten the support of Paramount.
It was very while done IMO and I thought it was better than Kahn which was my favorite and the only one I thought was truly a great movie. I enjoyed some of the others but they where solid movies and funny.

The series was made in the 70's on low budget and was great I grew up watching the reruns.

[CowboyMike]

As long as its made clear this is all AU then its ok by me.


Well, they kind of explain that. I don't want to give details away without anyone seeing it. Let's just say it's a reboot, but it couldn't have happened without everything (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, Movies) happening before. It honors Star Trek's past while at the same time starting anew.


Better than the Wrath of Kahn? :)

I'd say The Wrath of Kahn is still number one. This is a close second. It's setting everything up for a Wrath of Kahn like sequel, though, I think.

[Bob Sacamano]

alright trekkies, calm down

[kmp77]

I thought it was very good...very well made and quite exciting. Also it's the "biggest" Trek to date...quite grand. I can't wait for the sequel. This thing will make over $100 mill this weekend and deserves to do so.

[ChldsPlay]

I thought it was very good...very well made and quite exciting. Also it's the "biggest" Trek to date...quite grand. I can't wait for the sequel. This thing will make over $100 mill this weekend and deserves to do so.

I HAD fully expected that, but if the turnout at my local theater is any indication it'll make about $20 million. Obviously it won't be that low, but for some reason there was just almost nobody there last night. I could have walked in as the movie was starting and gotten a seat smack dab in the middle and at the perfect distance. Normally for a movie this big on opening night I'd have to get there about an hour ahead of time (which I unfortunately did do last night).

[DallasEast]

Trek... redone.

Loved it. They took the Star Trek franchise from its beginnings, dismantled it, threw out some elements and reassembled what was left into something fresh and new.

It will not end up as being the best movie of the summer. Not even close, but J.J. Abrams has breathed new life back into Trek. The franchise's formula had run its natural course. This change at its very core will help revitalize it for a new generation of fans.

Non-Trek fans may not like it. Heck, some Trek fans may not as well, but I'm damn proud of this bold move. There were some things which I didn't like. The young actor playing Pavel Chekov used a Russian accent which was way too thick. Hopefully, he'll do a little better in the sequel. ;)

Live long and prosper.

[Dodger12]

I HAD fully expected that, but if the turnout at my local theater is any indication it'll make about $20 million. Obviously it won't be that low, but for some reason there was just almost nobody there last night. I could have walked in as the movie was starting and gotten a seat smack dab in the middle and at the perfect distance. Normally for a movie this big on opening night I'd have to get there about an hour ahead of time (which I unfortunately did do last night).

I too went an hour before the movie started and thought they'd be sold out. I was even more shocked when he lady at the window told me only 5 tickets had been sold. By the time the movie started, there were maybe 20 people in theater which I thought was strange.

I grew up on Star Trek and here's my take but don't read if you don't like some spoilers:

This movie is going to be extremely popular with the younger "new" Star Trek audience. As a sci-fi movie taking away the historical aspects of the characters, it's a must see film; great specal effects and action. But as an "old timer" Star Trek fan, I thought it fell short developing the characters and the plot, as it got very confusing at times. Too bad because it was a missed oportunity for JJ Abrams. The first half hour of the movie was absolutely unreal in its intensity, special effects and story telling as it started to develop Kirk's character and that theme carried over in the second half hour as the other chracters were introduced. From there things leveled out and in some cases, got a little silly with Spock and Uhura (what the hell was that and why was it necessary for the film?).

Other headscratchers: The fleet's flagship being manned by a rookie crew who hadn't even completed the academy? The universe is threatened by an oversized mining ship that's armed to the teeth? The villain blames Spock for not being able to stop a supernova from destroying his planet? I could go on and on but you get the idea. It's a weak plot.

This movie won't win an Acadamy Award for best picture but if you want a night of good entertainment with your kids, go see it.

[ConcordCowboy]

My wife and I loved it.

Nice Reboot.

It's got the makings of a good thing here if they do it right.

[DallasEast]

I too went an hour before the movie started and thought they'd be sold out. I was even more shocked when he lady at the window told me only 5 tickets had been sold. By the time the movie started, there were maybe 20 people in theater which I thought was strange.

I grew up on Star Trek and here's my take but don't read if you don't like some spoilers:

This movie is going to be extremely popular with the younger "new" Star Trek audience. As a sci-fi movie taking away the historical aspects of the characters, it's a must see film; great specal effects and action. But as an "old timer" Star Trek fan, I thought it fell short developing the characters and the plot, as it got very confusing at times. Too bad because it was a missed oportunity for JJ Abrams. The first half hour of the movie was absolutely unreal in its intensity, special effects and story telling as it started to develop Kirk's character and that theme carried over in the second half hour as the other chracters were introduced. From there things leveled out and in some cases, got a little silly with Spock and Uhura (what the hell was that and why was it necessary for the film?).

Other headscratchers: The fleet's flagship being manned by a rookie crew who hadn't even completed the academy? The universe is threatened by an oversized mining ship that's armed to the teeth? The villain blames Spock for not being able to stop a supernova from destroying his planet? I could go on and on but you get the idea. It's a weak plot.

This movie won't win an Acadamy Award for best picture but if you want a night of good entertainment with your kids, go see it.
I had a long reply set up, but lost it. Darn it. :bang2: Hopefully I won't lose a shorter version this time.

I agree about Uhura's, Sulu's and Chekov's character development, especially Pavel's, but disagree about Kirk's and Spock's. They were solid in my opinion. McCoy's and Scotty's could have been better, but I'm okay with how they were presented. Taking into account of the movie's time contrasts, I think that Abrams' did a very good job, although not great or fantastic, with the reintroduction of the original series' characters.

I thought that the plot was very solid from start to finish.

Abrams' deserves a two big thumbs up in my book for the Spock/Uhura scenes. He's reinventing a half-human/half-Vulcan character which will explore that duality to the extreme. It drew a huge 'wow' from me and a big laugh too. He's laying the basis for the reinvention of Star Trek and that character twist is truly necessary for the newer generation of fans to accept the movies/shows which will follow this one.

Here's a few explanations without giving away TOO many spoilers ( :crossed: ):

The explanation behind supplementing Academy cadets into the ship crews of not only the Enterprise, but also other ships docked in orbit, was explained with the subplot of Starfleet deploying the majority of the fleet--along with the seasoned officers and crews--to deal with the coming threat.
Nero himself explained that he outfitted the mining ship to enact his revenge. The key here is when the technology to upgrade his ship came from.
Spock corroborated Nero's account. Speaking with Kirk, Spock recited the plan which he presented to the Romulan Council for eliminating the supernova threat. Abrams assumes that 24th century communication (which has established for viewers in ST:THG and DS9) for Romulan citizens is advanced enough to make them all aware of that plan.Again, I disagree. The plot was solid, but it will not appeal very much with more mainstream/non-Trek fans--so I do agree with you about how popular the film will eventually be for some moviegoers and film critics. It's a good movie, but I would recommend that ticket buyers go in with an open mind and even possibly catch some of J.J. Abrams' previous work--like Mission Impossible III and Cloverfield--beforehand. I really do believe that his film will spark a lot of renewed interest in the Star Trek franchise for newer fans.

[Heisenberg]

In case anyone was wondering, it did $7 million Thursday night and $24 million Friday. So, there's a good chance it'll crack $50+ million over the weekend.

[ScipioCowboy]

Better than the Wrath of Kahn? :)

No, at least in my opinion.

WOK was much truer to Roddenberry's vision of Trek than this most recent Trek film, which is also a good movie in its own right.

However, people who have spent most of their lives ambivalent towards Trek aren't likely to give two shakes about Roddenberry's vision. They will be far more dazzled by and receptive to this new film -- a reality I can accept and even respect.

WOK was a smart sci-fi action picture that tackled complex themes such as loss, sacrifice, and death in a substantive way. This new Trek film is a very good action picture with the most modern special effects available.

It's a good movie, but nothing beats WOK.;)

[ScipioCowboy]

that was a good movie, to be sure. but this is just a great movie overall. funny, suspensefull...i HATE heights and there's one scene in particular were i had to keep holding my breathe.

great movie. hard to compare to the older movies, but so far i'd put it as the best.

Nothing beats WOK.

You're dead to me.:mad: :p:

[TheCount]

Saw it with the fiance and we both loved it, being the closet-geek she is, she actually knows more about the mytology than I do. A friend of ours is a big Trekkie and thought it was just okay.

[Achozen]

Not much of a Star Trek fan, but I liked it.

Green Chick > *

[Sam I Am]

Saw it Saturday. Execellent. I love the way it's setup to create more movies with the new cast.

[joseephuss]

I liked it. I am not a Trekkie. Never watched more than a handful of any of the newer series and the ones I did see I found uninteresting. Still I watched several of the movies once they reached cable and enjoyed a few of them. I don't think any of them were truly good movies except for Wrath of Kahn.

This new one was very entertaining. I am a simple person. The part I liked the most is that when the ships fired weapons they actually fired a lot of weapons. It was not a single blast here or there. It was what one would truly expect from a star ship engaged in battle. Guns were a blazing.

[theogt]

What a fantastic movie.

I'm now a Trekkie.

[DallasEast]

Just my opinion, but Abrams wasn't seeking to "out do" any of the previous movies which evolved from both the original series and its sequel. Instead, he's trying to re-energize the Star Trek series with this film.

If my folks can be believed, I began watching the original series during its final season at age three. While I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie, I am most definitely a Trekker.

From my own viewpoint, Star Trek should not be compared with any of the previous films. Both the classic and animated series gave birth to The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Seach For Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country--while the sequel birthed Generations, First Contact, Insurrection :thumbdo: and Nemesis.

These films emphasize what Star Trek has become--which is, with respect, old. The tried and true formula which pushed the films onto the big screen had long since peaked with First Contact. The time for injecting new blood and vision into the Star Trek franchise had long since elapsed. Quite frankly, there is no greater example than the Enterprise series for illustrating just how new material wasn't cutting it any more for television either (And no. I loved Voyager, so I'm not including it with the decline :p ).

Star Trek has returned Gene Roddenberry's vision back to its roots--back to where it began and that's where my comparison begins and ends. Abrams is no Roddenberry, but he does grasp much of what made Star Trek initially appealed to fans forty years ago. While his film doesn't match Roddenberry's landmark creation, Abrams has gotten off to a heck of a good start by re-infusing Roddenberry's "morality play" methodology.

That's the real basis of Star Trek's appeal for so many for so long and I am so happy that someone has finally attempted to take Roddenberry's mantle--albeit that it may be for one movie only. :)

[Bob Sacamano]

we got DE all wound up too

[CowboyMike]

What a fantastic movie.

I'm now a Trekkie.

Welcome. You have been assimilated.

Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Risk... is your business. That's what this starship is all about.

May you live long and prosper.

[TheCount]

I'm excited to see what happens with the next movie, he had a lot laid out already as far as what to do with this first movie, where the series goes next should be interesting.

I wish someone would have done the Star Wars prequels other than Lucas, that's for sure. Maybe after he's dead we'll finally see another good Star Wars movie.

[MrMom]

There were definitely some plot holes and things that took me out of the experience, but I had a great time overall.

Now for Terminator Salvation, which I'm sure will have just as many plot holes, but I'm hyped for it.

[theogt]

In Bruges was a great movie -- probably Farrell's best, though I liked Tigerland a lot.

[kristie]

saw with my husband. loved it. :)

[Sam I Am]

saw with my husband. loved it. :)

My wife wouldn't step foot near a Star Trek movie. Although, when Revenge of the Sith came out for some odd reason she offered to go to this movie with me. Of course, I haven't lived that day down since. :mad:

[Duane]

In Bruges was a great movie -- probably Farrell's best, though I liked Tigerland a lot.

Very funny movie but too much graphic violence for my taste.

[mldardy]

Very funny movie but too much graphic violence for my taste.
Yeah especially at the end. Some of that stuff is crazy.

[DallasEast]

we got DE all wound up too
Just for that, I'm setting my phaser to FRAG!!! :mad:

:)

[the kid 05]

Just for that, I'm setting my phaser to FRAG!!! :mad:

:)

they have a grenade throwing phaser?

[Sam I Am]

they have a grenade throwing phaser?

I prefer the rail throwing phaser. ;)

[Ren]

Worst spoiler ever

when they parachute jump reminded me of this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJn9Wqm2Ryk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJn9Wqm2Ryk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:lmao2:

[TheCount]

Worst spoiler ever

when they parachute jump reminded me of this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJn9Wqm2Ryk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJn9Wqm2Ryk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:lmao2:

I think that was the whole point, as soon as that guy went up on the screen everybody in our theater started laughing cause we knew he was a goner.

[Guli]

it was poor at best. As a comedy like "How much for just the planet" it was fair, I have read better fan fic. As science Fiction is was poor. As Star Trek it manages to score a negative number. :mad:

The plot had ENORMOUS holes in it. The acting was weak. The writing showed a total lack of comprehension of even simple scientific concepts. You can do that in fantasy not in science fiction.

[ChldsPlay]

it was poor at best. As a comedy like "How much for just the planet" it was fair, I have read better fan fic. As science Fiction is was poor. As Star Trek it manages to score a negative number. :mad:

The plot had ENORMOUS holes in it. The acting was weak. The writing showed a total lack of comprehension of even simple scientific concepts. You can do that in fantasy not in science fiction.

Bolded part is definitely not true. And science fiction shows lack of simple scientific concepts all the time, especially in tv and movies. There really wasn't anything too blatant in this movie compared to any other. There were some plot holes though...or at least plot stretches.

[CliffnMesquite]

Damn! I had a summer cabin on Mount Seleya. I better talk to my insurance guy. :mad:

[Duane]

My girlfriend and I saw it yesterday and both really enjoyed it.

[DallasEast]

it was poor at best. As a comedy like "How much for just the planet" it was fair, I have read better fan fic. As science Fiction is was poor. As Star Trek it manages to score a negative number. :mad:

The plot had ENORMOUS holes in it. The acting was weak. The writing showed a total lack of comprehension of even simple scientific concepts. You can do that in fantasy not in science fiction.
Please elaborate on these plot holes.

[DallasEast]

Damn! I had a summer cabin on Mount Seleya. I better talk to my insurance guy. :mad:
:laugh2:

[DallasEast]

Worst spoiler ever

when they parachute jump reminded me of this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJn9Wqm2Ryk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJn9Wqm2Ryk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:lmao2:
:lmao2::bow:

[Guli]

Please elaborate on these plot holes.

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.

7. Do I need to mention chekov

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.

9. spock saw vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?



This is just a start You want more I have got time.

[Kangaroo]

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.

7. Do I need to mention chekov

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.

9. spock saw vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?



This is just a start You want more I have got time.

Which fits every other Star Trek movie stretches

I mean we did have them sling shooting around the Sun as time travel to get whales

[Yeagermeister]

Which fits every other Star Trek movie stretches

I mean we did have them sling shooting around the Sun as time travel to get whales

Captain there be whales here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ShiningStar]

Which fits every other Star Trek movie stretches

I mean we did have them sling shooting around the Sun as time travel to get whales


Lets clear this up, they went around the sun, not THROUGH it.

[theogt]

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.None of these are "plot holes." They're scientific errors, which no one cares about, except nerds who try to sound smart.

7. Do I need to mention chekovNo idea what you're talking about here.

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.This wasn't a plot hole. There were apparently several years between him joining Star Fleet (or whatever its called) and when they boarded the USS Enterprise. The movie just skipped forward. No plot hole, you just need to pay more attention.

9. spock saw vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!Was he in another star system? Or was he on another adjacent planet/moon?

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?No. No one cares. It's not a "plot hole" it's just bad science.

This is just a start You want more I have got time.Please, give more, because these are all ****. The only plot hole you pointed out was a result of you not understanding what was going on.

[ShiningStar]

None of these are "plot holes." They're scientific errors, which no one cares about, except nerds who try to sound smart.

No idea what you're talking about here.

This wasn't a plot hole. There were apparently several years between him joining Star Fleet (or whatever its called) and when they boarded the USS Enterprise. The movie just skipped forward. No plot hole, you just need to pay more attention.

Was he in another star system? Or was he on another adjacent planet/moon?

No. No one cares. It's not a "plot hole" it's just bad science.

Please, give more, because these are all ****. The only plot hole you pointed out was a result of you not understanding what was going on.


im just guessing you didnt watch the movie, or just dont understand the original star trek or you dont understand plots in movies, either way good luck with that.

[theogt]

im just guessing you didnt watch the movie, or just dont understand the original star trek or you dont understand plots in movies, either way good luck with that.Never even watched the original Star Trek, though I'm not sure how dumb you would have to be to think someone couldn't "understand" it.

[ShiningStar]

Never even watched the original Star Trek, though I'm not sure how dumb you would have to be to think someone couldn't "understand" it.


are we down to personal insults Theogt? That doesnt stop your post from being wrong, but again, i dont blame you if you never saw the original, easily this movie was not made for the fans and other people ive talked to all agree it wasnt for fans, it was for people that wanted shiny baubles with the word star trek attached to it.

[theogt]

are we down to personal insults Theogt? That doesnt stop your post from being wrong, but again, i dont blame you if you never saw the original, easily this movie was not made for the fans and other people ive talked to all agree it wasnt for fans, it was for people that wanted shiny baubles with the word star trek attached to it.Wrong about what?

I don't think there's any need to argue whether it was a good movie or not, generally, as that is a given at this point. It's received one of the highest ratings ever from Rotten Tomatoes (please look up what that is before you even begin to make a response).

[ShiningStar]

Wrong about what?


When he boarded the USS Enterprise, McCoy smuggled him on, you dont smuggle people that have a right to be on the ship. In which for some reason the captain had no problem with this and even made him first officer, than somehow he makes captain, yes i know its explained, but it does make ones mind melt watching it at the same time. Its just bad writing plain and simple.

So he goes from cadet, to being smuggled on the ship, to first officer, to captain. Oh yeah happens everyday in the military.

[ShiningStar]

Wrong about what?

I don't think there's any need to argue whether it was a good movie or not, generally, as that is a given at this point. It's received one of the highest ratings ever from Rotten Tomatoes (please look up what that is before you even begin to make a response).


Oh lords, please dont tell me you use a website to give you your opinions.

[theogt]

When he boarded the USS Enterprise, McCoy smuggled him on, you dont smuggle people that have a right to be on the ship. In which for some reason the captain had no problem with this and even made him first officer, than somehow he makes captain, yes i know its explained, but it does make ones mind melt watching it at the same time. Its just bad writing plain and simple.

So he goes from cadet, to being smuggled on the ship, to first officer, to captain. Oh yeah happens everyday in the military.He went from being a cadet to being trained to be a first officer level person in a span of years. He was then on academic suspension, so he had to be smuggled onto the ship. Where's the plot hole?

[theogt]

Oh lords, please dont tell me you use a website to give you your opinions.No, of course I form my opinion. I'm not sure how you read what I wrote and assumed otherwise. Of course, you tend to have a problem comprehending what you read on a regular basis.

My point about Rotten Tomatoes was that it takes a survey a large number of critics. If such a high percentage of critics believe it is a good movie, then it's obviously not up for debate whether or not it was a good movie, generally. I hope this makes sense to you now.

[ShiningStar]

He went from being a cadet to being trained to be a first officer level person in a span of years. He was then on academic suspension, so he had to be smuggled onto the ship. Where's the plot hole?


You just try hard to argue points regardless.

[ShiningStar]

No, of course I form my opinion. I'm not sure how you read what I wrote and assumed otherwise. Of course, you tend to have a problem comprehending what you read on a regular basis.

My point about Rotten Tomatoes was that it takes a survey a large number of critics. If such a high percentage of critics believe it is a good movie, then it's obviously not up for debate whether or not it was a good movie, generally. I hope this makes sense to you now.


Well you believe anything you read regardless if those guys were paid for their opinion or not. I choose to write what i feel and the movie was horrible to me and had a ton of plot holes and bad science and acting and writing. If its great for you, so be it.

[theogt]

You just try hard to argue points regardless.Look, I asked you where I was wrong and you failed to point out the plot hole. Was there any point to your response or are you just blowing smoke?

Well you believe anything you read regardless if those guys were paid for their opinion or not. I choose to write what i feel and the movie was horrible to me and had a ton of plot holes and bad science and acting and writing. If its great for you, so be it.Great. I couldn't really care less one way or the other. I never responded to whether you liked it or not. If you have some sort of logical response to my post about plot holes, then feel free to address it any point, but if you're just going to respond with your own personal opinion, don't bother.

[ShiningStar]

Look, I asked you where I was wrong and you failed to point out the plot hole. Was there any point to your response or are you just blowing smoke?

Great. I couldn't really care less one way or the other. I never responded to whether you liked it or not. If you have some sort of logical response to my post about plot holes, then feel free to address it any point, but if you're just going to respond with your own personal opinion, don't bother.


Yes, i did tell you where you were wrong, whether you got it or you didnt is entirely up to you.

You failed to realize that Kirk is smuggled on the ship, he doesnt have first officer training, there is no training, there is a test, he wasnt up to that point in the movie. He was a cadet turned first officer, by the captain, which was horribly done, than made captain by field appointment, which the person never keeps, nor gets going from cadet to captain.


Also, thank you for stopping iwth the personal insults.

[theogt]

Yes, i did tell you where you were wrong, whether you got it or you didnt is entirely up to you.

You failed to realize that Kirk is smuggled on the ship, he doesnt have first officer training, there is no training, there is a test, he wasnt up to that point in the movie. He was a cadet turned first officer, by the captain, which was horribly done, than made captain by field appointment, which the person never keeps, nor gets going from cadet to captain.


Also, thank you for stopping iwth the personal insults.So you think he showed up to the academy one day and apparently the VERY NEXT DAY was tested on knowing how to captain a starship? Could it possibly be that there was a time lapse in the movie wherein the students were provided training?

Wow, I know directors have to dumb movies down for the average viewer, but it's a stretch to ask them to get down to your level.

[ShiningStar]

So you think he showed up to the academy one day and apparently the VERY NEXT DAY was tested on knowing how to captain a starship? Could it possibly be that there was a time lapse in the movie wherein the students were provided training?

Wow, I know directors have to dumb movies down for the average viewer, but it's a stretch to ask them to get down to your level.


NO they dont, they make it real clear, he does the training for cadet in 3 years not 4. You might have missed it, but its kewl. I understand. These were kids, or youngsters who were giving a ship to fly around with, they make no bones about the mere fact that Chekov who was quoted as being 17 was on the bridge. So they clearly threw out extra training for bridge members of a ship. Again you missed that.

Much like Scottie, they just pick him up and he goes to head of engineering for the mere reason, they like him, i guess. Maybe the rest of engineering was dead, i dont know. Like Guli said, lots of plot holes. But hey, it gets a passing grade from you.

[burmafrd]

Yeah plot holes out the yang. But what do you expect from Hollywood?
THose that know anything about ships crews and officers, and not even military ones at that, KNOW that it takes years of EXPERIENCE to be capeable of doing the missions.
NO one is going to be any good as a graduate of an academy alone.
Why do you think graduates of Annapolis are commissioned as ENSIGNS
not CAPTAINS?

[Joe Rod]

Movie was pretty entertaining. I have no beef with spending my cash to see it. Kirk sure did get beat up a lot, though.

[theogt]

NO they dont, they make it real clear, he does the training for cadet in 3 years not 4. You might have missed it, but its kewl. I understand.No, I got it. That training was the reason there was no plot hole. You claimed he went from being a cadet one day to a captain the next. That's obviously not true. He was a cadet, went through training, reached first officer level, was suspended, became acting first officer after being smuggled on ship, then promoted to captain in the field.

There's no hole. It all happened in sequence. There's no logical break.

These were kids, or youngsters who were giving a ship to fly around with, they make no bones about the mere fact that Chekov who was quoted as being 17 was on the bridge. So they clearly threw out extra training for bridge members of a ship. Again you missed that.
What's wrong with him being 17? You do realize that some kids are smart enough to start school early, no?


Much like Scottie, they just pick him up and he goes to head of engineering for the mere reason, they like him, i guess. Maybe the rest of engineering was dead, i dont know. Like Guli said, lots of plot holes. But hey, it gets a passing grade from you.Scotty (for someone who "understood" the originals, you sure do have a problem spelling their names) invented the very technology they were using on the ship. I think that probably puts him above the rest of the egineering crew.

[ShiningStar]

No, I got it. That training was the reason there was no plot hole. You claimed he went from being a cadet one day to a captain the next. That's obviously not true. He was a cadet, went through training, reached first officer level, was suspended, became acting first officer after being smuggled on ship, then promoted to captain in the field.

There's no hole. It all happened in sequence. There's no logical break.

What's wrong with him being 17? You do realize that some kids are smart enough to start school early, no?


Scotty (for someone who "understood" the originals, you sure do have a problem spelling their names) invented the very technology they were using on the ship. I think that probably puts him above the rest of the egineering crew.


Im sorry, when listening to Tv Shows you dont get the correct spelling to their names. Also no, no one else knew he was GIVEN his own formula by Spock, so that promoted him to "NO ONE" still. Unless you got another version of the movie which shown every other engineer on the ship getting a memo that showed he did something. They didnt, so that made no sense either.

Chekov was still horrible. Its easier for you since you werent a Trekkie to begin with from the old days, but thats fine, i understand.

Also you dont invent, you discover, inventing is for inventions. Scotty would have discovered time travel and i highly doubt that as well. Yet another part of the movie which was mind boggling.

[Bob Sacamano]

theo taking on a trekkie about trekkie matters lol

[ShiningStar]

theo taking on a trekkie about trekkie matters lol


and not even doing a good job. He does try tho. And the sad part is, im not even a true trekkie, but what the heck, he wants to see it as he wants to see it and to heck with evidence or fact.

[theogt]

Im sorry, when listening to Tv Shows you dont get the correct spelling to their names. Also no, no one else knew he was GIVEN his own formula by Spock, so that promoted him to "NO ONE" still. Unless you got another version of the movie which shown every other engineer on the ship getting a memo that showed he did something. They didnt, so that made no sense either.No, he invented the technology. Spock just gave him the formula to some enhancement to the technoogy.

If you paid closer attention to the movie, you might have caught this.

Chekov was still horrible. Its easier for you since you werent a Trekkie to begin with from the old days, but thats fine, i understand.Again, I couldn't care less about your personal opinion. We're talking about plot holes. And you've yet to point one out.

Also you dont invent, you discover, inventing is for inventions. Scotty would have discovered time travel and i highly doubt that as well. Yet another part of the movie which was mind boggling.LOL! You most certainly do "invent" new technologies and devices. He invented the technology/device used on the starship.

[ShiningStar]

No, he invented the technology. Spock just gave him the formula to some enhancement to the technoogy.

If you paid closer attention to the movie, you might have caught this.

Again, I couldn't care less about your personal opinion. We're talking about plot holes. And you've yet to point one out.

LOL! You most certainly do "invent" new technologies and devices. He invented the technology/device used on the starship.


He did not invent "Time travel" Im not even going to get into that one. And again, Spock gave him the piece he was going to discover in the future, but since Spock needed the time travel he gave the finished formula to Spock. Its a sad sad sad plot line, and it was horrible. Once Time Travel is discovered, or put into science fiction, the universe goes to heck.

What technology or device did he invent and use on the ship?

[theogt]

theo taking on a trekkie about trekkie matters lolNo, I have no clue about "trekkie matters." I wouldn't argue about them as I don't care. I'm simply arguing the alleged plot holes in the recent movie.

[Bob Sacamano]

and not even doing a good job. He does try tho. And the sad part is, im not even a true trekkie, but what the heck, he wants to see it as he wants to see it and to heck with evidence or fact.

he's a presumptious guy isn't he?:laugh2:

[ShiningStar]

he's a presumptious guy isn't he?:laugh2:


:bow::bow::bow: :lmao2::lmao2:


I was going to add something else, but you know what, you are just classic with your humor as is.

[theogt]

He did not invent "Time travel" Im not even going to get into that one.

What technology or device did he invent and use on the ship?He invented the technology where they beam from one place to another -- used when they say "beam me up, Scotty." He may have "discovered" the science behind it, but he invented the technology used on the ship. This is discussed when he meets the older Spock.

[ShiningStar]

He invented the technology where they beam from one place to another -- used when they say "beam me up, Scotty." He may have "discovered" the science behind it, but he invented the technology used on the ship. This is discussed when he meets the older Spock.


You're saying Scotty invented teleportation, or the teleport pads?

[theogt]

You're saying Scotty invented teleportation, or the teleport pads?That's what was said in the movie.

[Bob Sacamano]

That's what was said in the movie.

which one though?

[theogt]

which one though?The only one I've seen -- the current one.

[ShiningStar]

He cant answer either way, either something else gives him his idea to make an answer, or he just throws it back in the face of the person whos asking him.

Now you proclaimed that Scotty invented either teleportation or the teleport pads and i want to know which?

[ShiningStar]

Heres some reading for you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Scott

[theogt]

He cant answer either way, either something else gives him his idea to make an answer, or he just throws it back in the face of the person whos asking him.

Now you proclaimed that Scotty invented either teleportation or the teleport pads and i want to know which?I'm not sure they distinguished between the two in the conversation. Why does it matter?

Heres some reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_ScottNo thanks. I don't care to know about the previous versions/history of the show.

[ShiningStar]

I'm not sure they distinguished between the two in the conversation. Why does it matter?

No thanks. I don't care to know about the previous versions/history of the show.


Facts be damned yah? So you just want to go off by what the new movie says and to heck with the rest?

So be it, i understand, its easier that way.

[DallasEast]

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.

7. Do I need to mention chekov

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.

9. spock saw vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?



This is just a start You want more I have got time.
Oh, by all means. Knock yourself out.

I've also changed my mind. There are 'plot holes' in every film, television series, etc. which has ever been (or ever will) produced. The latest Star Trek movie is (thus) no different.

Well, I thought that the story flowed from start to finish well, but I should have nit-picked the science (from a 21st century scientific perspective) to death, along with the standard non-use of thruster boots, fictional Starfleet Academy and career advancement policies, yada yada yada. That's entertainment.

It's still a good movie and an equally good reboot on J.J. Abrams part in my opinion (as ignorant as that is). I'm outta this latest "Trash Star Trek" incarnation/thread. And thanks to you, theogt, for saving me the humongous headache. :)

[theogt]

Facts be damned yah? So you just want to go off by what the new movie says and to heck with the rest?

So be it, i understand, its easier that way.My goodness, you're dense. The discussion was about plot holes in the CURRENT movie, not the past movies.

[ShiningStar]

My goodness, you're dense. The discussion was about plot holes in the CURRENT movie, not the past movies.


and yet they were giving to you and you didnt even give any a chance you said NAH UH and went from there. I tried to expand for you and bring new light to certain ideas and you shut it out. I cant help it if you dont want to learn or engage in good conversation. I tried and you just want to argue argue argue and insult. Well thats all well and good, if i have to come down to that level, if the elevator goes that far, so be it.

[Yeagermeister]

Ok enough with the name calling.

Cut it out

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok enough with the name calling.

Cut it out
ok

poopyhead

[Yeagermeister]

ok

poopyhead

You never did say how far along you are. We need to plan for the baby shower. :D

[Sam I Am]

Ok enough with the name calling.

Cut it out

I didn't call anyone a name toilet dork!

[Yeagermeister]

I didn't call anyone a name toilet dork!

You got to have Faith

[theogt]

and yet they were giving to you and you didnt even give any a chance you said NAH UH and went from there. I tried to expand for you and bring new light to certain ideas and you shut it out. I cant help it if you dont want to learn or engage in good conversation. I tried and you just want to argue argue argue and insult. Well thats all well and good, if i have to come down to that level, if the elevator goes that far, so be it.Again, this wasn't a conversation about the older shows. This was a conversation about plot holes in the current one.

[Sam I Am]

You got to have Faith

Pot, kettle is black!

[Rogah]

I can't believe how riled up some people are getting over a simple movie... I am just going to make the following observations...

1) When I go to see a movie that takes place in the future involving instellar space travel, time travel, other planets, "subspace" communication and little green women, I don't even remotely expect or hope to see something that consistently obeys the laws of physics. I accept going in that I will see things that aren't even remotely possible, even in theory. So to me, any criticism of the physics of the movie is just too ridiculous to address because it would be a never ending conversation. The very premise of the movie violates the laws of physics, so I don't really care when all the other little things in the movie do the same.

2) Was the movie perfect? No. Did it have plot holes? Yup. But overall I thought it was a fun ride, worth the price of admission, and worth picking up on DVD 6 months or so from now. As far as eye candy goes, you could do a lot worse.

[ShiningStar]

Again, this wasn't a conversation about the older shows. This was a conversation about plot holes in the current one.


And they were all handed to you, So there is nothing more to say that you just want to argue that which you admitted you are going to limit.

[Doomsday]

Went to see it with my Parents, Sister and her husband and we all enjoyed it.

We go to the movies to relax and enjoy our selves, not to sit back and nit pick it do death. Was it perfect? No, but neither were the original Star Trek movies. They were just fun!

[Yeagermeister]

Went to see it with my Parents, Sister and her husband and we all enjoyed it.

We go to the movies to relax and enjoy our selves, not to sit back and nit pick it do death. Was it perfect? No, but neither were the original Star Trek movies. They were just fun!

:hammer:

[tomson75]

Went to see it with my Parents, Sister and her husband and we all enjoyed it.

We go to the movies to relax and enjoy our selves, not to sit back and nit pick it do death. Was it perfect? No, but neither were the original Star Trek movies. They were just fun!

How dare you interrupt this dork-fight with your non-dorkiness! I was enjoying this thread until you came along.

:nono2:

[theogt]

And they were all handed to you, So there is nothing more to say that you just want to argue that which you admitted you are going to limit.You pointed out what you thought were plot holes. I showed you why they were not. And you changed the subject.

[Sam I Am]

You pointed out what you thought were plot holes. I showed you why they were not. And you changed the subject.

No comment. :laugh2:

[TheCount]

I've got a friend that every movie he sees, he has to critique every little detail. He's incapable of just enjoying a movie.

I used to go see movies with him, now I don't. No one does.

[Bob Sacamano]

How dare you interrupt this dork-fight with your non-dorkiness! I was enjoying this thread until you came along.

:nono2:

:muttley:

[burmafrd]

Ugh for opening multiple tabs

[burmafrd]

The large plot holes in the current movie are a problem that veteran trekkers have with it- say what you want about the other movies they did not have the holes this one does. ANd that is on Abrams.
So what if its popular with the ignorant and ill informed= Star Trek always tried BEFORE to be better then that.

[WarC]

You could tell by the way this movie was advertised that it was targetting the "downtrodden youth", the post-Trekkies that they're trying to get interested in the franchise.


However we'll always be Star Wars fans. Empire baby!

[Guli]

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.


None of these are "plot holes." They're scientific errors, which no one cares about, except nerds who try to sound smart.

First of all I am a propellerhead not a nerd!

Second
Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

That makes divergence from simple reality, fantasy. If this was a d&d movie or Star Wars then your statement would have some weight.
Since this is Science Fiction that makes "scientific errors" a major plot hole.


7. Do I need to mention chekov

No idea what you're talking about here.

In the movie it is stated that he is 17 17-4=13 does anyone believe that any military organization accepts 13 year old children into service? As he was in uniform not in cadet red we can surmise that he has time in so he could have been even younger when he was inducted.

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.

This wasn't a plot hole. There were apparently several years between him joining Star Fleet (or whatever its called) and when they boarded the USS Enterprise. The movie just skipped forward. No plot hole, you just need to pay more attention.

I did pay attention. Kirk was on disciplinary review his name was not called it was McCoy that got him on board the Enterprise. At the end of the movie we see him back at the Academy being promoted to Captain (While still in his cadet red) and then relieving Captain Pike who is still recovering from his injuries. It was not years it was not even weeks as still later we see Spock talk to Spock about leaving Starfleet Go see the movie again and take notes this time.


9. Spock saw Vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!

Was he in another star system? Or was he on another adjacent planet/moon?

If he was on another planet in the same system vulcan would be a dot of light in the night sky. If he was in another system then only the star would be visible.

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?

No. No one cares. It's not a "plot hole" it's just bad science.

When the enterprise gets too close to the artificial singularity the ship stars to rip apart because of intense gravity but the romulan and spock's ship do not have to deal with gravity because if you ignore it, it does not exist(more commonly described as bad writing).

In science fiction bad science IS a plot hole.

Please, give more, because these are all ****. The only plot hole you pointed out was a result of you not understanding what was going on.

I would love to have an intelligent discussion with someone with a clue that someone is not you. :horse:

[Cochese]

You can call me a Trekker, or a Trekkie, but as a hard core Star Trek fan, I loved this film. Its is absolutely brilliant, it is getting the old school fans and the new scifi film fans to come together.

[CliffnMesquite]

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.


None of these are "plot holes." They're scientific errors, which no one cares about, except nerds who try to sound smart.

First of all I am a propellerhead not a nerd!

Second
Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

That makes divergence from simple reality, fantasy. If this was a d&d movie or Star Wars then your statement would have some weight.
Since this is Science Fiction that makes "scientific errors" a major plot hole.


7. Do I need to mention chekov

No idea what you're talking about here.

In the movie it is stated that he is 17 17-4=13 does anyone believe that any military organization accepts 13 year old children into service? As he was in uniform not in cadet red we can surmise that he has time in so he could have been even younger when he was inducted.

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.

This wasn't a plot hole. There were apparently several years between him joining Star Fleet (or whatever its called) and when they boarded the USS Enterprise. The movie just skipped forward. No plot hole, you just need to pay more attention.

I did pay attention. Kirk was on disciplinary review his name was not called it was McCoy that got him on board the Enterprise. At the end of the movie we see him back at the Academy being promoted to Captain (While still in his cadet red) and then relieving Captain Pike who is still recovering from his injuries. It was not years it was not even weeks as still later we see Spock talk to Spock about leaving Starfleet Go see the movie again and take notes this time.


9. Spock saw Vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!

Was he in another star system? Or was he on another adjacent planet/moon?

If he was on another planet in the same system vulcan would be a dot of light in the night sky. If he was in another system then only the star would be visible.

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?

No. No one cares. It's not a "plot hole" it's just bad science.

When the enterprise gets too close to the artificial singularity the ship stars to rip apart because of intense gravity but the romulan and spock's ship do not have to deal with gravity because if you ignore it, it does not exist(more commonly described as bad writing).

In science fiction bad science IS a plot hole.

Please, give more, because these are all ****. The only plot hole you pointed out was a result of you not understanding what was going on.

I would love to have an intelligent discussion with someone with a clue that someone is not you. :horse:

Yes to all points. But if you took out all the "libertys" the movie would loke like a NASA production on the boring channel.

[burmafrd]

Apollo 13 did a pretty good job of making NASA look interesting.
Sure there were liberties taken with truth but overall it was very close to what happened.
You do not have to throw cannon and common sense out the window to make a good movie in a series. Its the LAZY way out- its the EASY way out- and the dumb and stupid just lap it up.

[ChldsPlay]

1 A Star goes super nova The shock wave will be traveling at a fraction of c.
That gives the nearest star system between 80 and 1000 YEARS to evacuate.

2. Parachutes? really? in an age of thrust boots and artificial gravity?

3. Ejecting the core. If I hear someone say that one more time I will start Killing people.

4. Event Horizon. If you are close enough to a black hole that a ship capable of travelling 1000's of times faster than light cannot escape then a tiny little subluminal pop isn't going to do squat.

5. smush Being close proximity to an explosion while the ship is being ripped apart by tidal stresses.

6. Kirks dads ship collision. Movie over everyone go home. Slamming 100's of metrics ton of anything into anything at relativistic velocities means annihilation period. Not even taking into account the antimatter.


None of these are "plot holes." They're scientific errors, which no one cares about, except nerds who try to sound smart.

First of all I am a propellerhead not a nerd!

Second
Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

That makes divergence from simple reality, fantasy. If this was a d&d movie or Star Wars then your statement would have some weight.
Since this is Science Fiction that makes "scientific errors" a major plot hole.


7. Do I need to mention chekov

No idea what you're talking about here.

In the movie it is stated that he is 17 17-4=13 does anyone believe that any military organization accepts 13 year old children into service? As he was in uniform not in cadet red we can surmise that he has time in so he could have been even younger when he was inducted.

8. Kirk from cadet to captain. Did we just jump a few ranks.

This wasn't a plot hole. There were apparently several years between him joining Star Fleet (or whatever its called) and when they boarded the USS Enterprise. The movie just skipped forward. No plot hole, you just need to pay more attention.

I did pay attention. Kirk was on disciplinary review his name was not called it was McCoy that got him on board the Enterprise. At the end of the movie we see him back at the Academy being promoted to Captain (While still in his cadet red) and then relieving Captain Pike who is still recovering from his injuries. It was not years it was not even weeks as still later we see Spock talk to Spock about leaving Starfleet Go see the movie again and take notes this time.


9. Spock saw Vulcan as big as a moon from a whole other star system?!?!?!

Was he in another star system? Or was he on another adjacent planet/moon?

If he was on another planet in the same system vulcan would be a dot of light in the night sky. If he was in another system then only the star would be visible.

10. The Romulan and Spock's ship go thru a black hole. You do realize a black hole has a star at the center?

No. No one cares. It's not a "plot hole" it's just bad science.

When the enterprise gets too close to the artificial singularity the ship stars to rip apart because of intense gravity but the romulan and spock's ship do not have to deal with gravity because if you ignore it, it does not exist(more commonly described as bad writing).

In science fiction bad science IS a plot hole.

Please, give more, because these are all ****. The only plot hole you pointed out was a result of you not understanding what was going on.

I would love to have an intelligent discussion with someone with a clue that someone is not you. :horse:

If you want to be that nitpicky you can do that to EVERY SINGLE Star Trek episode and movie. You can also do that to EVERY SINGLE Science Fiction (I'll spare you the "Fantasy") movie ever made. And you are still wrong on most of your points, or they are based on assumptions about the world as it exists TODAY and what your understanding of it is. And you can't figure out that there were YEARS between when Kirk gave up his bike, got on the ship, and met McCoy, etc. and when he was promoted (IN THE FIELD!) to captain and subsequently honored with that rank permanently.

[ChldsPlay]

On another note, I saw the movie a second time last weekend and I enjoyed it much more than I did the first time. I must have just not been in the right mood last time because it's a damn good movie.

[jksmith269]

He did not invent "Time travel" Im not even going to get into that one. And again, Spock gave him the piece he was going to discover in the future, but since Spock needed the time travel he gave the finished formula to Spock. Its a sad sad sad plot line, and it was horrible. Once Time Travel is discovered, or put into science fiction, the universe goes to heck.

What technology or device did he invent and use on the ship?

Um sorry but Spock didn't give him anything to do with time travel, he showed him what he was missing to transport someone from one place to another reguardless of distance, noting to do with time travel, the line Scotty said was "I should have known it was space that was moving" which was said when Spock completed the formula he'd already started and used to "transport" the guys dog... again this had 0 to do with time travel, it was all about transporting or "beaming" someone from one location to another, nothing else...

[jksmith269]

That's what was said in the movie.

No they could already "beam" people to locations close buy, scotty enhanced that techno mumbo jumbo to where someone could be "beamed" much farther distances even "to a ship at warp speed" he said it'd "be like hitting a bullet with an even smaller bullet while riding a horse" that's how they beamed from the planet they were on to the ship...

[theogt]

No they could already "beam" people to locations close buy, scotty enhanced that techno mumbo jumbo to where someone could be "beamed" much farther distances even "to a ship at warp speed" he said it'd "be like hitting a bullet with an even smaller bullet while riding a horse" that's how they beamed from the planet they were on to the ship...It's before that. Spock asks him something like "you're the scotty that invented such and such?" when they first meet. Spock then gives him the formula to allow you to beam while in warp speed.

[PullMyFinger]

I think Gene Roddenberry would be happy with this. Leonard Nimoy seems to think Gene would be proud of this movie. There is a quote of Roddenberry saying that he wishes sometime in the future someone fresh would take hold of Star Trek and redefine it and move it even further than he did. I think JJ Abrams has done this. Gene would be proud.



I think it was more exciting than the trailer. The trailer gave everyone a taste of the movie but didn't give too much away. I didn't want it to end when the movie was winding down, so yeah, I'd say it's worth going to see.


Its about time JJ Abrams did something good, he directed one of the worst movies ever.......Cloverfield.

[Yeagermeister]

Its about time JJ Abrams did something good, he directed one of the worst movies ever.......Cloverfield.

:hammer:

[Aikmaniac]

Good movie. I think it fits right in line with the other Star Trek movies.

I just thought the guy who played Bones went a little over the top trying to emulate the original character.

Awesome effects.

[jksmith269]

It's before that. Spock asks him something like "you're the scotty that invented such and such?" when they first meet. Spock then gives him the formula to allow you to beam while in warp speed.

yeah, they were talking about beaming long distances, scotty said to the effect star fleet said it (beaming) could only be done localy such as ship to planet or ship to close ship, but he beleived you could beam a living organism to any place reguarless of distance even onto a ship in warp, that's when the dog was brought up... Scotty did not nor was it implied that he invented "beaming"... he invented beaming to long distances, which btw was after the ST movies because in the original movies they could only beam from ship to ground or another ship close by...

[theogt]

yeah, they were talking about beaming long distances, scotty said to the effect star fleet said it (beaming) could only be done localy such as ship to planet or ship to close ship, but he beleived you could beam a living organism to any place reguarless of distance even onto a ship in warp, that's when the dog was brought up... Scotty did not nor was it implied that he invented "beaming"... he invented beaming to long distances, which btw was after the ST movies because in the original movies they could only beam from ship to ground or another ship close by...No, they said in the movie that he invented something. This was before the discussion of beaming long distances.

[ScipioCowboy]

No, they said in the movie that he invented something. This was before the discussion of beaming long distances.

The new film states that Scotty "invented" the theory of transwarp beaming. In essence, he developed the field equations that would make possible long-distance beaming.

[PullMyFinger]

:hammer:


I wrote this review about it on a website, it pretty sums up that movie.


Cloverfield

The movie abused the camcorder first person view. It was great for a while but shaky cam was pretty annoying. The movie used some guy's stupid going away party as a plot device so that when the monsters came, they'd all be together. The monster's origin wasn't even hinted at, leaving their existence and origin left COMPLETELY open for interpretation. I'm all for making the viewer think, but that was just lazy writing.The end, aka "Thanks for your money", tried to use "the camcorder as the storyteller" but completely failed. Massive disappointment.

I am still throwing up from this. . .I don't not even know what to call it. . . .Sucky? No it was worse then that. I didn't have any regrets in my life until I saw this movie. It has made me so frustrated I do not even know how to explain. The whole thing could have been great-besides the fact that there was no script and no image. Everything was just a blurry image of stupid screams. I kept praying that the monster would eat the camera guy to end my misery.

It was torture! Watching this movie was t-o-r-t-u-r-e! There is no reason to go and see this movie. Unless of course you are looking for a bad time, big headache, and somehow to waste your money. This could have been a good movie.. But it wasn't. The trailer was more interesting than the movie. The movie can be summed up in one word: Worthless. Can they even call this a movie? From what I've seen the producers have no right in calling this a movie. How did they manage to put this on the big screen?

This movie tries to hard to be cool... The 9-11 flashbacks were a little has been. The whole first half hour dragged on for so long, you were probably woken up by the first bang. And after that, you were just trying to prevent yourself from going into epileptic fits. This movie is so shaky, boring, dragtastic.

I pray to god that this style of film making dies with this film. I did not pay $9 to watch a guy run around with a handheld video camera. If Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla meets Starship Troopers meets You Tube is your thing, then this movie is for you.

Please ... save yourself the 70 minutes.

[theogt]

The new film states that Scotty "invented" the theory of transwarp beaming. In essence, he developed the field equations that would make possible long-distance beaming.There you go. I didn't catch it word for word. Clearly, he has the experience to be put in charge once on the Enterprise. Thus, no plot hole.

[burmafrd]

What was really AU was making the whole crew the same age.

[ChldsPlay]

I wrote this review about it on a website, it pretty sums up that movie.


Cloverfield

The movie abused the camcorder first person view. It was great for a while but shaky cam was pretty annoying. The movie used some guy's stupid going away party as a plot device so that when the monsters came, they'd all be together. The monster's origin wasn't even hinted at, leaving their existence and origin left COMPLETELY open for interpretation. I'm all for making the viewer think, but that was just lazy writing.The end, aka "Thanks for your money", tried to use "the camcorder as the storyteller" but completely failed. Massive disappointment.

I am still throwing up from this. . .I don't not even know what to call it. . . .Sucky? No it was worse then that. I didn't have any regrets in my life until I saw this movie. It has made me so frustrated I do not even know how to explain. The whole thing could have been great-besides the fact that there was no script and no image. Everything was just a blurry image of stupid screams. I kept praying that the monster would eat the camera guy to end my misery.

It was torture! Watching this movie was t-o-r-t-u-r-e! There is no reason to go and see this movie. Unless of course you are looking for a bad time, big headache, and somehow to waste your money. This could have been a good movie.. But it wasn't. The trailer was more interesting than the movie. The movie can be summed up in one word: Worthless. Can they even call this a movie? From what I've seen the producers have no right in calling this a movie. How did they manage to put this on the big screen?

This movie tries to hard to be cool... The 9-11 flashbacks were a little has been. The whole first half hour dragged on for so long, you were probably woken up by the first bang. And after that, you were just trying to prevent yourself from going into epileptic fits. This movie is so shaky, boring, dragtastic.

I pray to god that this style of film making dies with this film. I did not pay $9 to watch a guy run around with a handheld video camera. If Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla meets Starship Troopers meets You Tube is your thing, then this movie is for you.

Please ... save yourself the 70 minutes.

There's nothing wrong with Cloverfield if you have 90 minutes to kill and want to watch something different from the norm. Some people are bothered by the shaky cam, others have no problem with it. You're wrong about them not hinting at the monster's origins though. It's not specific, but it is hinted at.

But it seems your main gripe is that it is with a handheld camera. I'm not sure what the hell you expected going in, but anyone who had seen anything about the movie before hand should have known what it was and that there would be lots of shaking. Running with camera = shaking! It seems you are being overly hard on the movie simply because you couldn't handle the fast moving imagery and it caused you some sort of motion sickness.

If you want a movie that is truly torture, watch Pi by Aronofsky.

[DallasEast]

You never know how much other people's opinions differ from your own until read about them on the internet. I loved Cloverfield.

Finally, a (giant) monster movie unique to the U.S. market. No touchy-feely, "The monster is my friend, let's all go bowling together!" nonsense.

J.J. Abrams made a film which dealt with a what if. How would an ordinary citizen(s) life be affected by an attacking giant monster? He didn't make a movie from the perspective of what an Army general or an angry president or the media or some scientists or a top secret counterattack agency.

He asked, "What would you do?"

Now, how do you capture that singular viewpoint on film? From the general's warroom? From the halls of the White House? From the middle of an Associated Press newsroom? From some laboratory safely tucked away at Norad? From Area 51? How?

From the lens of a handheld camcorder carried by ordinary people who found themselves right smack dab in the thick of it.

Cloverfield isn't for everyone. If Godzilla or King Kong struck without warning, there will always be some nerdy scientist or bleached blonde who will save the day. And the number of deaths and destruction of city property will be minimal.

Who's the good little monster???? Nice monster. You're so cute. Don't eat me Mr. Monster. You're such a good boy... girl... it... Here! Have a Scooby snack!