Options

[Star Trek] The voyage begins again...

12346»

Posts

  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I can't wait to see the nuTrek version of The Voyage Home

    cause you know that fucking probe is still on its way!
    this will never happen

    they call spock and he's all "that probe is the most dangerous adversary we ever faced" "but you said the same about khan" "go get some whales already, sheesh"
    nimoy : (

    Here's what I'm wondering

    is the new timeline's version of 1986 still visited by the old timeline's Enterprise crew? I mean, the split happened in the early 23rd century, so everything that happened before that should still be the same, right?

    What happens when New Kirk And Crew go back and run into how a different version of themselves already did that?

    What if they also go back to 1986 and run into them?

    Time travel, man.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    SnicketysnickSnicketysnick The Greatest Hype Man in WesterosRegistered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I can't wait to see the nuTrek version of The Voyage Home

    cause you know that fucking probe is still on its way!
    this will never happen

    they call spock and he's all "that probe is the most dangerous adversary we ever faced" "but you said the same about khan" "go get some whales already, sheesh"
    nimoy : (

    Here's what I'm wondering

    is the new timeline's version of 1986 still visited by the old timeline's Enterprise crew? I mean, the split happened in the early 23rd century, so everything that happened before that should still be the same, right?

    What happens when New Kirk And Crew go back and run into how a different version of themselves already did that?

    What if they also go back to 1986 and run into them?

    Time travel, man.

    Chris Pine has to fistfight Shatner to decide who gets the whale.

    7qmGNt5.png
    D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I really feel like those expectations arose from rose-colored glasses, though.

    They sure didn't.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    Desert LeviathanDesert Leviathan Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I can't wait to see the nuTrek version of The Voyage Home

    cause you know that fucking probe is still on its way!
    this will never happen

    they call spock and he's all "that probe is the most dangerous adversary we ever faced" "but you said the same about khan" "go get some whales already, sheesh"
    nimoy : (

    Here's what I'm wondering

    is the new timeline's version of 1986 still visited by the old timeline's Enterprise crew? I mean, the split happened in the early 23rd century, so everything that happened before that should still be the same, right?

    What happens when New Kirk And Crew go back and run into how a different version of themselves already did that?

    What if they also go back to 1986 and run into them?

    Time travel, man.

    They could do it like the DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" episode. Crap... that's actually Reboot Trek I'd be willing to watch.

    Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I can't wait to see the nuTrek version of The Voyage Home

    cause you know that fucking probe is still on its way!
    this will never happen

    they call spock and he's all "that probe is the most dangerous adversary we ever faced" "but you said the same about khan" "go get some whales already, sheesh"
    nimoy : (

    Here's what I'm wondering

    is the new timeline's version of 1986 still visited by the old timeline's Enterprise crew? I mean, the split happened in the early 23rd century, so everything that happened before that should still be the same, right?

    What happens when New Kirk And Crew go back and run into how a different version of themselves already did that?

    What if they also go back to 1986 and run into them?

    Time travel, man.

    Real answer is that split universes don't actually work that way and they'd go to a functionally-identical-but-separate version of 1986. But that's less fun.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    JayKaosJayKaos Registered User regular
    I'm disappointed that I can't find a tumblr gif of O'Briens going "I hate temporal mechanics."

    Steam | SW-0844-0908-6004 and my Switch code
  • Options
    TrippyJingTrippyJing Moses supposes his toeses are roses. But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered User regular
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I really feel like those expectations arose from rose-colored glasses, though.

    They sure didn't.

    Like, are you talking about the series as a whole, or are you just talking about the movies? Because before 2009, there were only two Star Trek movies that I would've considered rewatching.

    b1ehrMM.gif
  • Options
    NaphtaliNaphtali Hazy + Flow SeaRegistered User regular
    I wish Into Darkness did more of its own thing

    Militarization of the Federation could have been handled without introducing Khan again

    Steam | Nintendo ID: Naphtali | Wish List
  • Options
    ElbasunuElbasunu Registered User regular
    I don't like military federation stuff. I think DS9 handled it well, for sure, but it's still not the trek I'd like to see. There's something to be said about putting humanity's best face forward on a television show. I'd much prefer TNG's idyllic outlook to DS9's VERY WELL DONE outlook.

    g1xfUKU.png?10zfegkyoor3b.png
    Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
  • Options
    nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.

    EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
    Can we stop saying this? Into Darkness was not a remake of WoK. That they used Khan and tried to use a single famous scene in the movie to comment on the characters does not constitute a remake.

    Quire.jpg
  • Options
    joshgotrojoshgotro Deviled Egg The Land of REAL CHILIRegistered User regular
    Ear worms or GTFO.

  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I really feel like those expectations arose from rose-colored glasses, though.

    They sure didn't.

    Like, are you talking about the series as a whole, or are you just talking about the movies? Because before 2009, there were only two Star Trek movies that I would've considered rewatching.

    I feel the same way. My expectations for the movies have been almost constantly let down. Those expectations are set by the shows, not the previous movies.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    TrippyJingTrippyJing Moses supposes his toeses are roses. But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered User regular
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I really feel like those expectations arose from rose-colored glasses, though.

    They sure didn't.

    Like, are you talking about the series as a whole, or are you just talking about the movies? Because before 2009, there were only two Star Trek movies that I would've considered rewatching.

    I feel the same way. My expectations for the movies have been almost constantly let down. Those expectations are set by the shows, not the previous movies.

    Okay, because I've been exclusively talking about the movies throughout this whole conversation.

    b1ehrMM.gif
  • Options
    Lost CanuckLost Canuck World's Greatest Escape Artist Doctor Vundabar's Murder MachineRegistered User regular
    My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.

    EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
    Can we stop saying this? Into Darkness was not a remake of WoK. That they used Khan and tried to use a single famous scene in the movie to comment on the characters does not constitute a remake.

    In both situations Khan's motivation is to protect his people, Khan has control of a superweapon, and a main character sacrifices themselves to save the Enterprise only to be miraculously resurrected later. Entire lines of dialogue, including perhaps the most famous line from the series are reused by Into Darkness. It's not a 100% remake, but it is pretty damn similar.

    QYW8SHm.jpg
    Nintendo Switch friend code: SW-4012-4821-3053
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    Elbasunu wrote: »
    I don't like military federation stuff. I think DS9 handled it well, for sure, but it's still not the trek I'd like to see. There's something to be said about putting humanity's best face forward on a television show. I'd much prefer TNG's idyllic outlook to DS9's VERY WELL DONE outlook.

    This is actually one of the things I don't like about the Star Trek universe, in that war is still a constant that pops up all the time and all over the place, and yet most of the series don't have anything that looks like a convincing military. The exception is actually Enterprise, which I think had the only soldiers that actually looked and felt like soldiers.

  • Options
    nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.

    EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
    Can we stop saying this? Into Darkness was not a remake of WoK. That they used Khan and tried to use a single famous scene in the movie to comment on the characters does not constitute a remake.

    In both situations Khan's motivation is to protect his people, Khan has control of a superweapon, and a main character sacrifices themselves to save the Enterprise only to be miraculously resurrected later. Entire lines of dialogue, including perhaps the most famous line from the series are reused by Into Darkness. It's not a 100% remake, but it is pretty damn similar.

    Khans motivation in Wrath of Khan is not to protect his people.

    Quire.jpg
  • Options
    Lost CanuckLost Canuck World's Greatest Escape Artist Doctor Vundabar's Murder MachineRegistered User regular
    My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.

    EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
    Can we stop saying this? Into Darkness was not a remake of WoK. That they used Khan and tried to use a single famous scene in the movie to comment on the characters does not constitute a remake.

    In both situations Khan's motivation is to protect his people, Khan has control of a superweapon, and a main character sacrifices themselves to save the Enterprise only to be miraculously resurrected later. Entire lines of dialogue, including perhaps the most famous line from the series are reused by Into Darkness. It's not a 100% remake, but it is pretty damn similar.

    Khans motivation in Wrath of Khan is not to protect his people.

    Khan's main motivation is revenge, but I always read into his theft of Genesis as a way to acquire a weapon that would have the aftereffect of creating a new home for him and his crew.

    QYW8SHm.jpg
    Nintendo Switch friend code: SW-4012-4821-3053
  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    sarukun wrote: »
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.

    How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
    Eeeeeeh.

    It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.

    It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.

    If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.

    Yeah, this just strikes me as a great way to not have fun at the movies.
    I don't disagree. I had plenty of complaints about previous movies too. Doesn't make the complaint any less valid, just because they keep doing it wrong.

    See, now this is just you being stubborn with what "Star Trek" supposedly "is", or, if I'm being generous, what you like best about it. I am the grand poobah of "man I wish this chocolate had some peanut butter in it", but I think you're a little more responsible for your expectations when you say something like this than the movie is.

    sarukun on
  • Options
    MysstMysst King Monkey of Hedonism IslandRegistered User regular
    My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.

    EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
    Can we stop saying this? Into Darkness was not a remake of WoK. That they used Khan and tried to use a single famous scene in the movie to comment on the characters does not constitute a remake.

    In both situations Khan's motivation is to protect his people, Khan has control of a superweapon, and a main character sacrifices themselves to save the Enterprise only to be miraculously resurrected later. Entire lines of dialogue, including perhaps the most famous line from the series are reused by Into Darkness. It's not a 100% remake, but it is pretty damn similar.

    Khans motivation in Wrath of Khan is not to protect his people.

    Khan's main motivation is revenge, but I always read into his theft of Genesis as a way to acquire a weapon that would have the aftereffect of creating a new home for him and his crew.

    He tasks me. He tasks me! AND I SHALL HAVE HIM. I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!

    ikbUJdU.jpg
  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Naphtali wrote: »
    I wish Into Darkness did more of its own thing

    Militarization of the Federation could have been handled without introducing Khan again

    I agree with this in principle, though I think Khan is a particularly appropriate price of Trek lore to go with that theme. They were so busy dancing around the "Is he or isn't he" nonsense that they wasted a bunch of the movie obfuscation. If they'd just played it straight from the get go I feel like it could have been way more effective.

    sarukun on
  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    sarukun wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.

    How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
    Eeeeeeh.

    It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.

    It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.

    If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.

    Yeah, this just strikes me as a great way to not have fun at the movies.
    I don't disagree. I had plenty of complaints about previous movies too. Doesn't make the complaint any less valid, just because they keep doing it wrong.

    See, now this is just you being stubborn with what "Star Trek" supposedly "is", or, if I'm being generous, what you like best about it. I am the grand poobah of "man I wish this chocolate had some peanut butter in it", but I think you're a little more responsible for your expectations when you say something like this than the movie is.

    Wait, are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed to want the movies to feel more like the TV shows? Is that seriously a thing you are trying to claim is reasonable?

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    The GeekThe Geek Oh-Two Crew, Omeganaut Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Mysst wrote: »
    My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.

    EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
    Can we stop saying this? Into Darkness was not a remake of WoK. That they used Khan and tried to use a single famous scene in the movie to comment on the characters does not constitute a remake.

    In both situations Khan's motivation is to protect his people, Khan has control of a superweapon, and a main character sacrifices themselves to save the Enterprise only to be miraculously resurrected later. Entire lines of dialogue, including perhaps the most famous line from the series are reused by Into Darkness. It's not a 100% remake, but it is pretty damn similar.

    Khans motivation in Wrath of Khan is not to protect his people.

    Khan's main motivation is revenge, but I always read into his theft of Genesis as a way to acquire a weapon that would have the aftereffect of creating a new home for him and his crew.

    He tasks me. He tasks me! AND I SHALL HAVE HIM. I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!

    https://youtu.be/V-je6hkGoL0

    BLM - ACAB
  • Options
    TrippyJingTrippyJing Moses supposes his toeses are roses. But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered User regular
    Well, it does seem to conflict with the people who want the movies to feel like movies and not stretched out episodes.

    And honestly, to those who've never seen Star Trek, it doesn't matter. And to those who have, most are going to judge a movie to the other eleven, not the whole of the series. Even the Onion video focused on just the films.

    b1ehrMM.gif
  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    sarukun wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    TrippyJing wrote: »
    I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.

    How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
    Eeeeeeh.

    It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.

    It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.

    If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.

    Yeah, this just strikes me as a great way to not have fun at the movies.
    I don't disagree. I had plenty of complaints about previous movies too. Doesn't make the complaint any less valid, just because they keep doing it wrong.

    See, now this is just you being stubborn with what "Star Trek" supposedly "is", or, if I'm being generous, what you like best about it. I am the grand poobah of "man I wish this chocolate had some peanut butter in it", but I think you're a little more responsible for your expectations when you say something like this than the movie is.

    Wait, are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed to want the movies to feel more like the TV shows? Is that seriously a thing you are trying to claim is reasonable?

    No, I'm saying that dismissing them simply because they aren't beat for beat like the TV shows is silly considering they are adapting source material for a different medium. It's not as if there's nothing of the old shows in the New Treks, just that the balance is off. And I'm trying to tell you the balance is off on purpose, and that you shouldn't expect a movie to be like a TV show because that is a surefire way to immediately be disappointed because, even if they are similar, they are still two different things and changes are inevitable when adapting a thing to a new medium.

    sarukun on
  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    I'm not dismissing them, I'm disappointed in them for not being what I wanted them to be. "You're not going to get what you want so be happy with what you get" is a bullshit statement.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    The Trek movie that was most like the TV show was Insurrection

    you don't want that

    (granted, there are ways they could have not fucked up Insurrection)

    sig.gif
  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    The Trek movie that was most like the TV show was Insurrection

    you don't want that

    (granted, there are ways they could have not fucked up Insurrection)

    Insurrection could have been really good. It wasn't, but you can see all the pieces.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    TrippyJingTrippyJing Moses supposes his toeses are roses. But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered User regular
    I think even among Trek fans you lie in the minority that expects against all odds that the movie would be like the show.

    b1ehrMM.gif
  • Options
    MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Tox wrote: »
    Jim Parsons could probably play a hell of a nuData though

    ugh please no

    edit: because you should never shoot down an idea without presenting one of your own:

    7c08b6f6617c101e3887facdac5aae86b08eaf20.jpg

    MrMonroe on
  • Options
    UrielUriel Registered User regular
    Even if the trek movies were always like the show.

    There are a LOT of bad episodes of the show.

  • Options
    MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    The Trek movie that was most like the TV show was Insurrection

    you don't want that

    (granted, there are ways they could have not fucked up Insurrection)

    Insurrection could have been really good. It wasn't, but you can see all the pieces.

    Michael Pillar should never have been entrusted with the screenplay.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpjWsfkxd_c

  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    I'm not dismissing them, I'm disappointed in them for not being what I wanted them to be. "You're not going to get what you want so be happy with what you get" is a bullshit statement.

    I'm not saying that, but clearly you just wanna be angry about it so have fun I guess.

    sarukun on
Sign In or Register to comment.