OT: Star Trek Movie (XI)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Nothing wrong with idealism. Cynicism certainly isn't going to save the world.

I know that and I'm a cynic.

[Randallw]

You're a cynic

I consider myself somewhat of a cynic and I always got the impression you had more faith in people than I feel I ever could. Oh well perhaps I am just more cynical, or have a different understanding of cynicism. Nevermind, I'm not in the mood lately to go on about that.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

That's because I'm also optimistic. I just like expressing optimism more than I like expressing cynicism.

If life angers me to the point I have to express cynicism, I tend to write out the rant, then delete it.

*Shrug* Works for me.

[Randallw]

Yeah I do that sometimes. I write out a long reply to something, but a minute later when I finish I can't be bothered anymore so I delete it.

I'm quick to get annoyed but even quicker to decide it's not worth bothering so I give up. Shortly after that I couldn't care less one or the other.

[Renegade 13]

I definitely won't be going to see this in theater. Then again...I rarely see ANY movie in theater, they charge too damn much. I'll watch it when it comes to Pay Per View most likely, and only then if I see reviews (from you guys perhaps? ).

I've become rather disillusioned about Star Trek...the last good movie was (in my opinion) First Contact, and it had it's bad points as well. Insurrection made me want to gag, and Nemesis wasn't a hell of a lot better.

Give me a realistic look at the future, with all the strife, war, heroes and villains on both sides, and I might hop back on the bandwagon, rather than (as others have said) idealistic unrealistic crap.

[Randallw]

I plan to see it but then again I may end up not. Going to the movies isn't much of a priority. I usually only bother once, maybe twice, a year. It's not that I'm not interested in movies but I'm not motivated enough to bother. One thing I discovered was that we actually have a rather brief opening for movies down here. On the mainland they have multiplexes with the same movie for 6 months but the local cinemas chuck them on one after the other, only lasting a month maybe two. Usually they stop being shown before I get around to it. I only saw the first Fantastic 4 film last week. a Friend of mine said you get a better experience watching big films on a screen but I'm happy to see them on tv or maybe a hand full of times a year hiring a dvd. I've never seen the latest Superman movie or the last X-men movie and I'm a pretty big comics fan.

[Atrocities]

I just like good star trek. I don't care if it reflects on moder day issues or not. I love it when it works and regret it when it does not. STMP didn't work, STTWOK did work.

TOS was far more military minded than the later incarnations. Kirk wasn't afraid to kick someones *** or employ a gambit. Picard, while one of my favorites depended upon the "lets talk it out" approach more than Gun Boat diplomacy.

When they finally were put together in that especially crappy script, generations, I felt sick over how horrible it had been done. But the chemistry was there, and I would have paid real money to see more of that on screen.

The last Star Trek movie, Nemesis, was a fantastic script, widdled down to a mind numbingly anti-star trek movie. Fans responded to this movie with an allergic reaction. No wonder given how many times the director re-wrote the script.

One thing I have noticed about movies of old compared to movies of now, the intelligence is deliberately written out of them now.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Why would I want realistic fiction? I get enough of that annoying stuff in reality.

[Randallw]

I like me a bit of realistic fiction. It makes a change from trying to read a book which puts you off by getting too fantastic. I just finished the final book in a series where the space ship battles are hard scifi. The crew is subject to high gees when they change course. They have to sling shot around planets and at one point the enemy are inconvenienced when the loyalists throw off a wormhole by throwing too much matter through one way upsetting the balance. It takes the enemy months to slow down and turn back once they miss the wormhole.

I am always intending to read all the Seaforth saga books. Basically Hornblower in space where you have to start young otherwise space travel causes T-Cancer. Through a sequence of events involving the senior officers being killed by a new enemy and the sole officer dying from T-Cancer a teenage midshipman becomes captain. He doesn't want the responsibility, the officer was too delirious to realise what he was doing, but he cannot refuse. He is the highest rank there is and must obey the rules.

I have read one book that is nearly perfect. Maybe too perfect. Instead of aliens that think like humans it had aliens evolved from dragonflies that cannot physiologically recognise other life unless it personally effects them. You can stand next to them and as long as you do nothing to hinder them they pay no attention. Which is what made it horrifying when a scientist gets in ones face to inspect it and it bites his head off. Generic horror doesn't affect me because it is not scary.

[AgentZero]

Randallw said:

Is it really technobabble when that makes perfect sense? I mean the pulse goes back in the opposite direction and damages the emitters. Looks like a feedback pulse to me.

No, it isn't. Technobabble is, by definition, incomprehensible. If the average person can understand it, or at least get get gist of it, it isn't really technobabble. Unfortunately, it is far more common in Star Trek for them to "decouple the quantum phase arrays, and reverse the polarity of the simplex magneto-organic fields, creating a inverse phase carrier wave that will disrupt the isometric polarity of their shields."

At that point, as I said, you might as well be shooting bull**** out the torpedo tubes.