B5TV.COM. Babylon 5 forums Babylon 5 message for the fans from Claudia Christian Babylon 5
Old May 16th 09, 23:01   #61
B5_Obsessed
First One
 
B5_Obsessed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,942
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluveal View Post
On Spock...

Spock is very logical, but they play up the "child of two worlds" bit. They have a great scene where he is bullied by some other Vulcan kids (which in and of itself was pretty funny,) but he obviously struggled with his half human/half Vulcan self.

I've always considered Spock (and most Vulcans) to be logical and devoid of emotion to a certain extent. I think there is always a button somewhere you can really push and get a reaction, but in doing so, you're waking the dragon, so to say. I've never considered Vulcans to be incapable of emotion, but rather they repress it in order to keep that dragon "caged." I remember watching episodes in which Spock was pushed/pressed or otherwise manipulated into emotional feeling and he was a force to be reckoned with.

Considering that this likely took place before the series (on the canon-timeline,) Spock probably hadn't fully embraced his Vulcan side yet, so the humanity in him slips out, but you also see him realizing that logic might be the best road for him. I don't want to really say too much (don't want to ruin things!)"
From the way I understand it, Vulcans, like Romulans, do possess emotions but after centuries of bloody wars they followed the teachings of Surak about 1000 years prior to Spock's time and began supprssing those emotions and embracing logic. Spock is attempting to do what his fellow Vulcans can do much more easily, but the human brain does not have the same amount of control and so it is very difficult for him. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before" he openly mocks human emotion and says he knows nothing but logic. Methinks he doth protest too much. But then in "The Naked Time" we see he is a basket case under his carefully crafted veneer of control.
B5_Obsessed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 02:17   #62
for the one
Ambassador
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Posts: 296
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
Without sounding too harsh, there is NO NEED to explain why the Enterprise, Warp, the Transporters, and Phasers look different. Its a reboot. A relaunch. A fresh coat of paint on an old franchise. They get to change physical appearances without an explaination from cannon.

And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE don't try to explain these changes by using Star Trek: Enterprise. Have you no soul?

Okay so it wasn't my favorite of all the Star Trek series ether, but the following episodes I felt were very good:
Vox Sola, Mine Field, Dead Stop, Dawn, Cease Fire, Canamar, Regeneration, Judgement, Bounty (in certain parts), Azati Prime, Storm Front I & II, Borderland, Cold Station 12, The Augments, The Forge, Awakening, Kir Shara, Babel One, United, The Aenar, Affliction, Divergence, Bound and In a Mirror Darkly I & II.
Those episodes for the most part I loved, save for the occasional raunchy segments or cuss words.

As for the other episodes some I didn't like because of the idiology the writer was trying to shove down my throat. The series was uber pro liberal, west coast, politically correct but not from my religious stand point. I'm not self righteous or judgemental, I just set my moral standards relatively high. I don't which to argue that point. It simply is the way I was raised. To each his own... Peace out.
__________________
"You have always been here."- Kosh

CCC CCC CCC
CCCCC CCCCC C
CCC C CCC C C
C C C c
C CCC C
C C

CCCCCCCCC cccccccc
CCCCCCCCC cc
CCCCCCC CC

ccccc
ccccc
cccccccc
cccccccc
(My version of a 8 bit Atari 2600 Terminator)
for the one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 03:00   #63
for the one
Ambassador
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Posts: 296
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
Yes, there was that too. Rather silly. I try to suspend a little belief when watching movies like this, but sometimes things just scream out at me when they are that obvious.



So not wanting to get into a big geeky debate here, but I think your assesment is wrong here on a couple of counts for me. First, I don't agree with the timeline stuff. Before Vulcan being destroyed, the only interference with the timeline ws the destruction of one single starfleet ship. That event would not make Chekov be born a good 10 years earlier than he was in the TOS universe.

More importantly, deep down I am certainly NOT trying to think that these are all one and the same. I went into this with the mentality that this was JJ Abrams Star Trek. Its a whole different thing and not related or based upon the original. What I saw on the screen only went to reinforce that, not make me think otherwise. In fact, one little tidbit you posted after this one actually contradicted yourself (at least I thought it did) and pretty much sums up my point on all of this:



This, I believe, is exactly right as far as the time travel stuff goes. To date in the Star Trek universe of Roddenberry, all time travel only served to keep things as they originally were, they never made things different. It just turned out that the ST crew from the future served to create the past they already knew. Even Rick Bermans ST First Contact had the same approach --- all playing in the same universe/sandbox. This movie did not. They even went out of their way in the movie to explain it as such with dialogue. It created a BRANCH universe. The TOS/TNG universe is still out there and continuing on...this one is now different. Its the first time this has ever been done in Trek.

The point I was trying to convey is that, for my money, they really didnt need to do this. I think they could have just done a reboot/reimaging and be done with it. No need to come up with fancy attempted sci-fi explainations, just call it a reboot and be on your way and come up with a story to give JJ's vision of how things may have started in Kirk career. But I do agree with your second point, and they stated it in the movie as such, this is now a different alternate reality that these movies will take place in (if others are made).

My complaint was that the way they executed the time travel aspect of this story was pretty weak. When Spock was giving his mind meld with Kirk explaining what happened I was honestly thinking to myself "Oh for crying out loud, they didnt even try...."

Again though, I was still able to enjoy the movie overall which really speaks to the cast they put together and their performances. Because what they were given to work with, IMO, wasn't an outstanding script/plot. But they made it work and fun to watch.
1.) Chekov born a good 10 years earlier than he was in the TOS universe.- The 'Enterprise' show, (and yeah yeah I know you don't like it), The Xindi War may have spawned a need to repopulate the planet, after their devistating attack on Earth. This may have led to a Adam & Eve effect were Earth spent the next 110 + years promoting sex. Thus Chekov could have been conceived at a more needy time in Earth history.
2.) This, I believe, is exactly right as far as the time travel stuff goes. To date in the Star Trek universe of Roddenberry, all time travel only served to keep things as they originally were, they never made things different.- Actually the movie: First Contact blantently altered history perminently because of the Borg sphere destroyed and Picard openly admitted it.

As for the rest you said RECOIL, Galahad handled that for me rather well, thanks Galahad.
Semper Fi (Always Faithful) my friend.... Salute Galahad. Live Long And Prosper.

RECOIL I loved all the good things you said about the film. On this we are one in spirit. COOL.
__________________
"You have always been here."- Kosh

CCC CCC CCC
CCCCC CCCCC C
CCC C CCC C C
C C C c
C CCC C
C C

CCCCCCCCC cccccccc
CCCCCCCCC cc
CCCCCCC CC

ccccc
ccccc
cccccccc
cccccccc
(My version of a 8 bit Atari 2600 Terminator)

Last edited by for the one; May 17th 09 at 03:03. Reason: SP CK
for the one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 04:07   #64
hypatia
First One
 
hypatia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 27,926
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

I assumed they explained somehow the emotionalism of Spock in the scene we see in the trailer. And yes, he is young, I guess, if he's young in this version of Trek when Kirk and the lot were young (ignoring the age and lifespan difference between Spock and his human crewmates). It's an interesting choice, directorially, to decide that's the direction you're going with Spock.
__________________
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal."
-- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot
hypatia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 05:44   #65
Alluveal
Psi Cop
 
Alluveal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Posts: 1,643
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Absolutely. But, by trying to explain it here, it would spoil some stuff.

I think they're sticking pretty true to Spock, imho. I really can't say enough how well Z. Quinto does in the role.

Do any of you remember that one episode in the original Star Trek series where they landed on this planet and some spores that people breathed in made them happy all the time? Spock was all in love and such.
Alluveal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 06:26   #66
for the one
Ambassador
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Posts: 296
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluveal View Post
Absolutely. But, by trying to explain it here, it would spoil some stuff.

I think they're sticking pretty true to Spock, imho. I really can't say enough how well Z. Quinto does in the role.

Do any of you remember that one episode in the original Star Trek series where they landed on this planet and some spores that people breathed in made them happy all the time? Spock was all in love and such.


I thought Quinto did just fine as a young Spock. Showing this huge struggle were he needs to decide which side to embrace is fascinating and I feel fleshes out old Spock's character all the more.

Yes I remember, it was Star Trek episode [COLOR=#ccccff]This Side of Paradise[/COLOR].
__________________
"You have always been here."- Kosh

CCC CCC CCC
CCCCC CCCCC C
CCC C CCC C C
C C C c
C CCC C
C C

CCCCCCCCC cccccccc
CCCCCCCCC cc
CCCCCCC CC

ccccc
ccccc
cccccccc
cccccccc
(My version of a 8 bit Atari 2600 Terminator)

Last edited by for the one; May 17th 09 at 06:28. Reason: SP CK
for the one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 06:47   #67
Jade Jaguar
First One
 
Jade Jaguar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi, USA
Posts: 9,726
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

I think that the Spock in this time-branch-universe is likely to be more emotional, in part because he saw his human mother die in front of him.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin 1775

"I know that the hypnotized never lie... Do ya?"
Pete Townshend 1971

FREE LEONARD PELTIER
Jade Jaguar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 12:13   #68
squish
Lurker
 
squish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Okuaka
Posts: 11
Send a message via AIM to squish
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

OK, so I find it a really bizarre coincidence that I wore a Babylon 5 shirt to Star Trek on Friday and just happened to find this board today searching for a Matrix quote... Anyway I have tons of thoughts so here go my thoughts on this thread. To preface, I thought the movie was one of the most kickass films I've ever seen in my life. This is coming from someone who pauses every sci-fi show/movie every three minutes with his father to have a thirty minute absurd nitpicking discussion, and who thought the sole purpose of producing Generations was to prove his point the movie was going to suck no matter what. I give this one 9/10 stars, the missing one being the one that Spock collapsed with the help of the new galactic cherry kool-aid flavor, just because I hate kool-aid.

I think the paradox is that all you die hard trekkies who have major problems with the film, are completely ignoring the entire core mandate of Star Trek! To BOLDLY GO WHERE NO--[cliche auto-truncation]. It's intrinsically oxymoronic to write the billion quadrillionth movie in a series about a ship that goes looking for new adventure! This film accomplishes the impossibly brilliant balance of summarizing every major dead-horse Star Trek cliche plot element and character into a perfect "Star Trek for Dummies" book, while giving every audience member no matter who they are, the adventurous feeling like it's completely new again. Those basic, CORE plot elements are the *only* things that matter in the attempt of "Alright, let's boldy do this whole Star Trek thing all over again." It's a franchise neuralizer.

The science is insanely sound, because there *is* no science, other than throwing in a bunch of vague generic key physics words, which is all Star Trek ever does. Those words again contain the CORE of those scientific principles. The newbie gets the *feel* of the raw basics of space, time travel, black holes, and supernova-imploding cherry kool-aid matter. That's the nature of science fiction. People complain about the transporters overriding the Heisenberg principle, well, the answer is, in the science of the future, they've discovered something new! Or worked around it, or whatever. Sci-fi is the extension of physics to something less tangible, it's all theory. It's based on science, and with anything that doesn't make sense, anyone can come up with some theory to explain it, until they officially explain it in a ST physics book somewhere. The big thing is self-consistancy, and since this movie threw everything out the window while re-hashing itself, the physics is flawless. You can start complaining if the next one states that grape kool-aid was used in the collapse of the super-supernova star.

The entire idea of self-consistency of a series, begins with the first movie. Think of the whole thing as an adjacent universe where some random things are similar and some are different. When Star Trek characters fall into the darker parallel universes, things are just changed at random... Kirk and Kira are badasses, while Spock and O'brien aren't complete badguys, and it all just sorta makes sense that this is a totally random parallel universe where things work a little differently. We're just buying tickets on a surreal parallel Earth time line where Star Trek starts out differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
Then went to use this Deux Ex Machine "Red Matter" to stop the supernova after it already happened.
But that's crucially normal standard Star Trek science! How about the genesis effect? The video describing it was just ubergeneric pseudoscience... "It creates life where life wasn't before... a dead planet from a living planet... shazaam!", via the unstable matter stuff or whatever that caused it to backfire. Within the movies internally, ALL Star Trek science is just deus ex machina science babble. It's up to the "Physics of Supernova Implosion Cherry Koolaid" to come up with the details. Those are the places you can debate the details and haggle over science or nonsense. The CORE of Star Trek science--within the movies internally--is to take a bunch of super generic physics terms and explanations and mush them into generic science babble that achieves--or at least lamely feigns--a "bold new" fictional science (depending on your point of view). We get the utter utter raw basics of those principles and fictional sciences in the movies; we get the feel of them, as well as the biblical key lines describing the basics, not the details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
Characters conveniently getting dropped into key positions on the ship without much question
How else could they possibly achieve throwing all those core characters into a movie like this? It's like a Q episode where Q plucks people at random and places them randomly somewhere else in space-time. Nobody questions "continuum physics", we're just led through the suspension of disbelief that Q can drop the enterprise crew into Men In Tights on any day of the week. You can explain absolutely all these problems if you suppose that screwing around with a time line caused all sorts of plot discrepencies. Sure, this magic catch-all axiom only works for the very very very "first movie," (or at least the second first movie), but you'll have the rest of the "rebooted" Star Trek universe to say things aren't making sense any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galahad View Post
One way in which it could be believable is if the type of energy given off by the supernova had a property that destabilized the integrity of other stars... perhaps we are thinking in terms of a single explosion when in fact it was possibly a chain reaction of events started by this one catastrophe
That's a good explanation! And that's my point, that until the Star Trek universe officially describes the event, that all we have is theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galahad View Post
I take the opposite view on that... I think it was an incredibly brave thing to do. In terms of potentially alienating your established audience...
Right, I mean, they have to blow up the enterprise in every movie, why not a major planet? I'm voting for Ferenginar for Star Trek 2 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluveal View Post
I'm especially in love with ZQ as Spock. I thought he by far outshined everyone else in performance, presence and what I come to expect from Spock (reimagined or not.)
I was dreading Quinto as Spock from the moment I saw the first trailer. It ended up I sorta liked him in the role, but in general I think they made the gross mistake of thinking you don't need a superb actor for the role of someone who doesn't show a ton of emotion. I think it takes a superb actor to get the supressed emotion across with a tiny twitch of the muscles. I feel Spiner's a blah actor but played Data perfectly because it required a character with NO emotion rather than subtle emotion.
squish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 15:14   #69
Alluveal
Psi Cop
 
Alluveal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Posts: 1,643
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

First off, welcome Squish! Glad you found us.

And I like Quinto in general. I loved him in Heroes (back when I was actually watching it.) Sylar was actually one of the few things that kept me watching as long as I did.
Alluveal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th 09, 15:35   #70
Bab5nutz
First One
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,108
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Was anyone expecting a "reset button" ending? Where at the end of the film, everything would go back to the Trek universe we all know?
Bab5nutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2018 B5TV.COM