Been to see the New Star Trek film today
14 May 2009, 03:08 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Are the space battles too fast?
Not enough to time say " I deprived your ship of power, and when I swing around, I mean to deprive you of your life" ?
Or even to "Let them eat static" before laying one on them?
Or maybe even not enough time to discuss how Kirsty Alley can look so very do-able back then but is as big a house these days?
Nemesis was on the other night - like that alot.
Not enough to time say " I deprived your ship of power, and when I swing around, I mean to deprive you of your life" ?
Or even to "Let them eat static" before laying one on them?
Or maybe even not enough time to discuss how Kirsty Alley can look so very do-able back then but is as big a house these days?
Nemesis was on the other night - like that alot.
Last edited by EddScott; 14 May 2009 at 03:10 PM.
14 May 2009, 03:26 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without wanting to sound geeky, the 1701 isn't galaxy class and that is only 700m long anyway.
ahem.
and as for the frenetic weapons/screen action - did you see the size of the romulan ship ?! wouldn't you be firing like a b@stard ?
ahem.
and as for the frenetic weapons/screen action - did you see the size of the romulan ship ?! wouldn't you be firing like a b@stard ?
14 May 2009, 04:07 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without wanting to sound geeky, the 1701 isn't galaxy class and that is only 700m long anyway.
It's Constitution Class. I still have a soft-spot for Excelsior Class ships, they look great.
14 May 2009, 04:14 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw it on Saturday with my other half (it was her who wanted to see it, which surprised me as she is not normally a fan of SciFi stuff) - really enjoyed it. Cinema did have a few serious geeks in there which was quite funny (they really need to get out more..).
It certainly struck me as being a much better film than the previous Star Trek movies - there were better characters and a better script. All in a very enjoyable couple of hours spent in the cinema. Definitely one of those films that you need to see on a big screen.
It certainly struck me as being a much better film than the previous Star Trek movies - there were better characters and a better script. All in a very enjoyable couple of hours spent in the cinema. Definitely one of those films that you need to see on a big screen.
14 May 2009, 04:28 PM
#67
Saxo Boy - I can see where you're coming from and fair play, you certainly know your stuff! 
I guess this is their way of trying to break away from all the history of Star Trek gone-by to almost allow the new generation of potential Star Trek fans to get into it and it's great original characters without having to know the history of the other series and films and the story writers not have to spend hours, days, weeks, months, trawling through past programmes checking that everything "lines-up".
I'm looking forward to the aspect that I can watch the young "original" crew of the Star ship Enterprise do loads of stuff utilising all the modern graphics and CGI without having to worry to much about whether it fits in with everything that has already been seen in other series and movies.
I wonder if Gene Roddenberry (God rest his soul) would liked to have had the opportunity to have "another go" with the original characters but with the modern technology available today?
I guess this is their way of trying to break away from all the history of Star Trek gone-by to almost allow the new generation of potential Star Trek fans to get into it and it's great original characters without having to know the history of the other series and films and the story writers not have to spend hours, days, weeks, months, trawling through past programmes checking that everything "lines-up".
I'm looking forward to the aspect that I can watch the young "original" crew of the Star ship Enterprise do loads of stuff utilising all the modern graphics and CGI without having to worry to much about whether it fits in with everything that has already been seen in other series and movies.
I wonder if Gene Roddenberry (God rest his soul) would liked to have had the opportunity to have "another go" with the original characters but with the modern technology available today?
14 May 2009, 05:35 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 May 2009, 08:55 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 May 2009, 10:48 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Went and seen this last night.
Disappointed to say the least, 3/10 at best imo
I'm geekily a massively massive Star Trek fan and for me this wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was a movie based on the look and technology of Star Trek and that is were the similarities end.
I would compare this film more to a Fast and the Furious/Vin Diesel esq action film than a Sci-Fi film as it was shot and directed in a similar fast mucky nonsensical pace with all the flared camera lense effects that really just ruined it for me.
JJ Abrams and the rest of who put this film together in my opinion didn't have a clue what Star Trek is about and it seems they just had a crash course over a weekend so they could add in a few obvious references and i'm not sure JJA & Co. could tell the difference between StarTrek and StarWars if some scenes and music scores were to go by.
Really peeved off that i didn't like it
Disappointed to say the least, 3/10 at best imo
I'm geekily a massively massive Star Trek fan and for me this wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was a movie based on the look and technology of Star Trek and that is were the similarities end.
I would compare this film more to a Fast and the Furious/Vin Diesel esq action film than a Sci-Fi film as it was shot and directed in a similar fast mucky nonsensical pace with all the flared camera lense effects that really just ruined it for me.
JJ Abrams and the rest of who put this film together in my opinion didn't have a clue what Star Trek is about and it seems they just had a crash course over a weekend so they could add in a few obvious references and i'm not sure JJA & Co. could tell the difference between StarTrek and StarWars if some scenes and music scores were to go by.
Really peeved off that i didn't like it
25 May 2009, 11:07 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went and seen this last night.
Disappointed to say the least, 3/10 at best imo
I'm geekily a massively massive Star Trek fan and for me this wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was a movie based on the look and technology of Star Trek and that is were the similarities end.
I would compare this film more to a Fast and the Furious/Vin Diesel esq action film than a Sci-Fi film as it was shot and directed in a similar fast mucky nonsensical pace with all the flared camera lense effects that really just ruined it for me.
JJ Abrams and the rest of who put this film together in my opinion didn't have a clue what Star Trek is about and it seems they just had a crash course over a weekend so they could add in a few obvious references and i'm not sure JJA & Co. could tell the difference between StarTrek and StarWars if some scenes and music scores were to go by.
Really peeved off that i didn't like it
Disappointed to say the least, 3/10 at best imo
I'm geekily a massively massive Star Trek fan and for me this wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was a movie based on the look and technology of Star Trek and that is were the similarities end.
I would compare this film more to a Fast and the Furious/Vin Diesel esq action film than a Sci-Fi film as it was shot and directed in a similar fast mucky nonsensical pace with all the flared camera lense effects that really just ruined it for me.
JJ Abrams and the rest of who put this film together in my opinion didn't have a clue what Star Trek is about and it seems they just had a crash course over a weekend so they could add in a few obvious references and i'm not sure JJA & Co. could tell the difference between StarTrek and StarWars if some scenes and music scores were to go by.
Really peeved off that i didn't like it
26 May 2009, 06:13 AM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is Sylar?
What is a reboot? I thought it was a film?
What is DS9 and TNG?
Why was Spock kissing Lt Uhura?
Why are people taking this so seriously and not just enjoying a great film?
PS I grew up watching every episode of Capt James T Kirk as I am old and it was my era.
What is a reboot? I thought it was a film?
What is DS9 and TNG?
Why was Spock kissing Lt Uhura?
Why are people taking this so seriously and not just enjoying a great film?
PS I grew up watching every episode of Capt James T Kirk as I am old and it was my era.
26 May 2009, 09:44 AM
#77
Well I thought it was good. Seem to follow the traditional 'star trek' story lines in that it was not very complex and easy to follow.
I thought McCoy played a good role and got the original character of to a 'T'
I thought McCoy played a good role and got the original character of to a 'T'
26 May 2009, 10:52 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
I have to admit though i really did like Chekov in it, made me laugh quite a bit.
but for every good bit there was a completely awful bit, ie your fella from harold and kumar having a lightsabre and having a really rubbish sword fight.
26 May 2009, 12:14 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to remember that the original and only Star Trek was also completely awful a lot of the time with plot holes you could fly a full size Enterprise through.
The sight to William Shatner having a punch up in early editions was laughable.
But it was ground breaking in it's day unlike all the soap opera versions that followed for younger viewers.
The sight to William Shatner having a punch up in early editions was laughable.
But it was ground breaking in it's day unlike all the soap opera versions that followed for younger viewers.
26 May 2009, 01:57 PM
#81
I think it was popular as it was the only space adventure with an optomistic future, unlike star wars etc which was a bit more "fight for your life" all the time.
Also, i liked the little 'human' touches. Kirk with his broken glasses, Sulu with his cup of tea as captain on Excelsior
Also, i liked the little 'human' touches. Kirk with his broken glasses, Sulu with his cup of tea as captain on Excelsior
26 May 2009, 03:47 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I'm not struggling with the concept at all, I just think using an 'alternate reality' is a cop out. It was good to have some episodes in TOS, Enterprise and DS9 that occasionally dipped into the alternate reality (where humans are called terrans) but what they seem to be doing here is setting this new reality (where vulcan is destroyed) as the reality and that everything picard, sisco and janeway experienced is an alternate to that. That's a slap in the face where you've subscribed to the reality portrayed through the storylines of TNG, DS9 and VOY.
What I fear they will do next is run a series of stories/films over the next few years where basically the entire star trek universe will be completely different. No more warp reactors and technobable...oh no, we'll have steam powered ships with lots of valves to turn, etc. No more will the ships primarily be ships of peace and exploration....oh no, when they fire there will be mad phaser fire and missile/torpedo fire from all over the ship because they are 'action' ships. In short they will make it darker and grittier to attract a new breed of viewers when, tbh, star trek IMHO was never envisaged to be like your Babylon 5's, etc.
It just has a totally different feel to it. Generally in star trek when a ship opens fire it's a few scathing lances of phaser fire and a few bursts of torpedo's. Even if there are many ships exchanging fire this allows the viewer to capture and appreciate the size (and grace) of what are supposed to be exceptionally large vessels. I mean, a Galaxy Glass starship is supposed to be nearly a kilometre long! In this new film it seemed like any time someone opened fire there was 20+ projectiles and continuous frantic streams of phaser fire. This, and the camera angles, made everything seem less graceful and smaller.
This is about as frantic as it should ever be IMHO. The viewer is given time to appreciate the design, relative size and manoeuvrability of each ship and each shot appears targeted, thought out and powerful. If this was done in the style of this new film there would be 1000x more 'shots' fired and it would just be a clutter of action. As a case and point you can see in this vid that the birds of prey and defiant are more involved in the action with tighter manoeuvers and more frequent fire. The larger ships (warbird, vorch'a class and galaxy class) move slower, with more grace and more considered fire.
What I fear they will do next is run a series of stories/films over the next few years where basically the entire star trek universe will be completely different. No more warp reactors and technobable...oh no, we'll have steam powered ships with lots of valves to turn, etc. No more will the ships primarily be ships of peace and exploration....oh no, when they fire there will be mad phaser fire and missile/torpedo fire from all over the ship because they are 'action' ships. In short they will make it darker and grittier to attract a new breed of viewers when, tbh, star trek IMHO was never envisaged to be like your Babylon 5's, etc.
It just has a totally different feel to it. Generally in star trek when a ship opens fire it's a few scathing lances of phaser fire and a few bursts of torpedo's. Even if there are many ships exchanging fire this allows the viewer to capture and appreciate the size (and grace) of what are supposed to be exceptionally large vessels. I mean, a Galaxy Glass starship is supposed to be nearly a kilometre long! In this new film it seemed like any time someone opened fire there was 20+ projectiles and continuous frantic streams of phaser fire. This, and the camera angles, made everything seem less graceful and smaller.
This is about as frantic as it should ever be IMHO. The viewer is given time to appreciate the design, relative size and manoeuvrability of each ship and each shot appears targeted, thought out and powerful. If this was done in the style of this new film there would be 1000x more 'shots' fired and it would just be a clutter of action. As a case and point you can see in this vid that the birds of prey and defiant are more involved in the action with tighter manoeuvers and more frequent fire. The larger ships (warbird, vorch'a class and galaxy class) move slower, with more grace and more considered fire.
What kind of second rate, student animation project crap is that? If these are supposed to be large ships the physics are completely wrong, never mind the animation quality and subject.
It also looks nothing like Star Trek.
If you want decent physics check out any of the Star Wars movies - especially Star Wars III. The Star Trek film is up with them to my eyes.
26 May 2009, 04:10 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you mean it looks nothing like Star Trek. It is Star Trek IMHO.
And not all the ships are big, the defiant, birds of prey and jem hadar attack ships are smaller and manoeuvrable. The Vorcha class cruisers, Miranda Class and Excelsior class ships are medium size and the Galaxy Class ships and De'derdex (sp?) Class Romulan Warbirds are exceptionally large which is why they don't even budge when struck but rather get ripped to pieces. Also, none of the ships, not even the warbirds, are anywhere near as massive as a star destroyer or such like.
A good example of appropriate physics IMHO is a comparison between the defiant taking a hit at 1:03 which rocks the ship (we'll ignore for a minute that phasers probably have no matter or momentum) and yet when a Galaxy Class ships is laid into at 0:51 it's course isn't altered at all despite suffering severe hull breaches from a number of high energy hits.
Finally, remember that this stuff was made well over 10 years ago. We take it for granted that anything can be done on computers these days but back then this was one of the early battle scenes after they moved away from using actual scale models in a warehouse.
And not all the ships are big, the defiant, birds of prey and jem hadar attack ships are smaller and manoeuvrable. The Vorcha class cruisers, Miranda Class and Excelsior class ships are medium size and the Galaxy Class ships and De'derdex (sp?) Class Romulan Warbirds are exceptionally large which is why they don't even budge when struck but rather get ripped to pieces. Also, none of the ships, not even the warbirds, are anywhere near as massive as a star destroyer or such like.
A good example of appropriate physics IMHO is a comparison between the defiant taking a hit at 1:03 which rocks the ship (we'll ignore for a minute that phasers probably have no matter or momentum) and yet when a Galaxy Class ships is laid into at 0:51 it's course isn't altered at all despite suffering severe hull breaches from a number of high energy hits.
Finally, remember that this stuff was made well over 10 years ago. We take it for granted that anything can be done on computers these days but back then this was one of the early battle scenes after they moved away from using actual scale models in a warehouse.
26 May 2009, 04:12 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
It was shoite!
Generally, it was some of the most lazy writing ever! Not really a Startrek film at all, just a flashy space movie with a few old lines and a cameo thrown in for the fans. Definitely agree with Jamz3k and Saxo Boy. I loved the original series and this screws with everything that's ever happened (literally from the start, where Capt. Pike was originally in charge and now all that never happens).
So, nothing that you've ever watched previously in any Star Trek film actually matters, and that is the point, (before anyone starts going off on one about Trekkies, lol) the idea is that you're supposed to hark back to older films and series etc. and be able to see how things have turned out as all the stories join together etc. Not just laugh at someone saying "nucular wessals"
Generally, it was some of the most lazy writing ever! Not really a Startrek film at all, just a flashy space movie with a few old lines and a cameo thrown in for the fans. Definitely agree with Jamz3k and Saxo Boy. I loved the original series and this screws with everything that's ever happened (literally from the start, where Capt. Pike was originally in charge and now all that never happens).
So, nothing that you've ever watched previously in any Star Trek film actually matters, and that is the point, (before anyone starts going off on one about Trekkies, lol) the idea is that you're supposed to hark back to older films and series etc. and be able to see how things have turned out as all the stories join together etc. Not just laugh at someone saying "nucular wessals"
26 May 2009, 05:28 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
So, nothing that you've ever watched previously in any Star Trek film actually matters, and that is the point, (before anyone starts going off on one about Trekkies, lol) the idea is that you're supposed to hark back to older films and series etc. and be able to see how things have turned out as all the stories join together etc. Not just laugh at someone saying "nucular wessals"
26 May 2009, 05:33 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
26 May 2009, 05:48 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
lol, speaking of such things, this Galaxy Quest (1999) was probably more of a trek film than Abrams' attempt, in a lot of ways, what with all the references throughout
it & Spaceballs are two of my favourite sci-fi spoofs
26 May 2009, 05:51 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
26 May 2009, 06:06 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Spaceballs is one of very few things that are in actual fact EPIC
YouTube - Spaceballs-When Will Then be Now?
YouTube - The Funniest Moments of Spaceballs
YouTube - Spaceballs-When Will Then be Now?
YouTube - The Funniest Moments of Spaceballs