# Star Trek- Better than I thought it was going to be!



## JoeB131

Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness". 


*(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *

 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.  

 Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes. 

SPOILERS- 
 After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons. 

 They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.  

Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.  

Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock. 

 The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.  

The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.   

Worth watching.  Yes.


----------



## Swagger

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.


----------



## longknife

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.


----------



## Moonglow

Swagger said:


> I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.
> 
> Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.



My wife does not like  the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Moonglow said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.
> 
> Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like  the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
Click to expand...


A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.


----------



## Harry Dresden

longknife said:


> I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.
> 
> I'll wait til it shows up on cable.



well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....


----------



## JoeB131

I saw it.  I think it was an odd mixture of some really nice nods to the classic Trek, and some things in there that really were silly.  

Especially the action sequences.


----------



## Ringel05

Harry Dresden said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.
> 
> I'll wait til it shows up on cable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
Click to expand...


Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

God damnit. Now im going to have to go see it.  After reading this thread, minus the spoilers, my interest was peaked. So I went to look qt all the reviews on Fandango and of course the lowest was an 88. Since when do critics and fans EVER agree? 

IMAX 3D tomorrow.  A movie like this deserves the full treatment I suppose so I'll mortgage my house tomorrow to pay the price. Gonna watch the last one tonight I guess.


----------



## JoeB131

Gramps, I saw it in 3-D and found it sort of distracting, actually.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Ringel05 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.
> 
> I'll wait til it shows up on cable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
> While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........
Click to expand...


Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....


----------



## Ringel05

Harry Dresden said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
> While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....
Click to expand...


You're a traditionalist, it's okay and to a certain degree so am I but hey, it's only a movie and ya can't please everyone.


----------



## Moonglow

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.
> 
> Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like  the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...



How the hell would you know how it would be if all things were equal, including income.


"Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation."
 Amenemope


----------



## Moonglow

Harry Dresden said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
> While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....
Click to expand...


Hey it's Chicolini in the avatar!


----------



## JohnL.Burke

JoeB131 said:


> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.



  I want to see the movie but I always wait till the movie comes out on dvd because I hate associating with people as a rule. I loved the first Star Trek in it's current incarnation but my only hesitation about "Into Darkness" is that it seems to take place on Earth. Where's the trek part? Am I wrong? Does Kirk get to pick up chicks on another planet at least? Just wondering.


----------



## JoeB131

Some of the action happens on Earth, some on the Klingon Homeworld, some on other planets.  

And Kirk manages to get some alien "tail"... literally.  Heh, heh, heh.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

JoeB131 said:


> Some of the action happens on Earth, some on the Klingon Homeworld, some on other planets.
> 
> And Kirk manages to get some alien "tail"... literally.  Heh, heh, heh.



 That's great news. Thanks for telling me.


----------



## JoeB131

When you see it, you'll get the joke.


----------



## MisterBeale

RetiredGySgt said:


> A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.


This is SO not true.  We would need to get rid of partisan politics.  The false left/right paradigm, and most importantly, fiat currency as a means to control price signals.  The elites on this planet, the slim one percent of the planet, hold over ninety-five percent of the wealth.  You are very ignorant if this is your belief.  The world's resources, labor, and economic potential are enough so that all people on the planet could live a lower class, or lower middle class existence easily.  Probably within a decade, everyone could have a middle class life style if we redefined what that meant, NOT CONSUMERISM.  You don't need a car, we don't need tons of gadgets, and lots and lots of cloths.  Live simply, so that other may simply live.  How many outfits does your average Star Trek crew member have?  How many personal possessions?  How many "toys?"  

What would it take?  The decentralization of power structures.  The elimination of bloodlines controlling the destiny of humankind's future.  A truly egalitarian society where all men and women have an even shot at deciding our future.  While certain families are more concerned with maintaining their grip on control of the planet; the intellectual, scientific, and spiritual development of the planet has been hamstrung.  Essentially, we are crippled by a global cabal that has an iron grip on us.  Much like episode 23 Season 1 from Star Trek Enterprise, we are like the Mazarites, corrupt and wasteful to the core.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fallen_Hero

If you want to know the why and the wherefores, DEMAND the press reveal what goes on inside those secrete meetings that the one percent hold to decide what wars our leaders will start next, and how they plan to manipulate the world economy through their global trade organizations and central banks.  It takes more money to fight high tech wars than to feed, cloth and educate the world.  Too big to fail?  Try a population too stupid to care.


----------



## MisterBeale

For the most part, my son and I enjoyed it for what it was worth, and silly brainless action movie.  Don't analyze it or try to geek it out as a "Star Trek" movie, you'll ruin the experience for yourself.  I could think of a zillion different inconsistancies that just make you go, why?

Like, why didn't they just scan the volcano in the beginning, find an approriate place to beam down the bomb from space, and have a timer on it?  Oh yeah, b/c that wouldn't have made the opening sequence quite as exciting, and that is how they would have done it back in the sixties, in the traditional Star Trek.

At the end of the movie, when they needed some of Khan's blood to miraculously bring Kirk back from the dead?  They had all Khan's other crew members on ice, sitting right there, who are supposedly just like him, right?  So why was it SOOOO important to make sure they got Khan back alive?  Oh yeah, for drama effect.  They couldn't just use some of the crew member DNA that was sitting RIGHT THERE!  At the end of the movie, they have Khan and his whole crew on ice still, does this mean that in all subsequent Star Trek movies, no one in the galaxy need every die again?

There was just tons of crap like that, all through the movie.  But Americans are so brain dead today, they would never think anything about it, it is about sitting back and enjoying the experience, letting the movie doing the thinking for you.  My eleven year old loved it.    But really, that is what this is for right?  To make money and get the general populace to enjoy and unite around a slice of what is uniquely a part of Americana.

For me, what I thought was the best, was the underlying implicit moral of the story, something that WILL NEVER be forgotten by those of us who know what they did to this country, these evil elites.  And that is what this movie is a testament to.  Truth, honor, loyalty, and goodness.  Sure, they can call people who know the truth, "conspiracy theorists" or "nutters" out in civil society, but we are legion, and we control the cool aspects of culture.  And it will be passed down in movies like this, so the children WILL know what is possible, and what is the truth.  Kids see stuff like this, and despite what they see in the media, despite what they are conditioned in the schools, they begin to question the dominant paradigm and the motives of our corrupt leaders.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP4PnZCKzMY]The Star Trek 9/11 Truther Connection - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.



They invented immortality and eternal youth, and you dismiss it as a cheap lot gimmick? What the fuck, did your brain die when you sat down? Khan was not a ignorant Muslim extremists, he was a well educated genius who quoted from Paradise Lost and saw himself in the role of Ahab in TWoK. His obsession with Kirk in the movie worked because we could understand that he saw Kirk as the whale, and knew that Kirk, even though he was an asshole, did not cause the problems Kahn had. That is what made the pathos of his final speech so powerful, we knew that he was even more delusional than Ahab when he triggered the Genesis device.

For a guy that insisted that he didn't want to know about the original cannon, Abrams did everything he could to tug at the heartstrings of the fans by repeating the exact same scene that killed Spock, only making it ridiculous beyond imagination by having a guy that flunked out t=of the academy sacrifice himself to save everyone else.

Kirk
Would
Not
Do
That.

Neither Kirk. The one in the new movies is too stupid to know what to do, the one in the TV shows would find another way.

This movie is a complete flop, and may have killed the entire franchise. The only hope we have is if they fire Abrams and reboot the series again, doing it with someone who actually understands that Star Trek is supposed to be a bit pretentious. If they don't there won't be anything after 2016.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ringel05 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.
> 
> I'll wait til it shows up on cable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
> While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........
Click to expand...


There is a difference between re-imagining Star Trek for an audience that demands more action and turning it into Space 1999 for idiots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Harry Dresden said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
> While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....
Click to expand...


He could have even gone back and showed Kirk's first day on the enterprise without turning him into a Luke Skywalker clone who is completely unqualified to command a starship.


----------



## JoeB131

Quantum Windbag said:


> They invented immortality and eternal youth, and you dismiss it as a cheap lot gimmick? What the fuck, did your brain die when you sat down?



It's science fiction-  Frankly, the Genesis Device in TWOK was a bigger plot problem than shooting up someone with Khan's blood to save their lives. (And they had to spend the whole next movie fixing it.) 





Quantum Windbag said:


> Khan was not a ignorant Muslim extremists, he was a well educated genius who quoted from Paradise Lost and saw himself in the role of Ahab in TWoK.



Actually, I thought the Melville/Milton quoting Khan was a bit contrived.  And can you please check your anti-Muslim agenda at the door of the theatre? 




Quantum Windbag said:


> His obsession with Kirk in the movie worked because we could understand that he saw Kirk as the whale, and knew that Kirk, even though he was an asshole, did not cause the problems Kahn had. That is what made the pathos of his final speech so powerful, we knew that he was even more delusional than Ahab when he triggered the Genesis device.



Oh, please. Ricardo was chewing up the scenery and his pathos was about as fake as his plastic chest muscles.   Not that TWOK wasn't a great movie. It was. I would even go so far as to say it was vastly better than this movie made on 1/20th the budget.  





Quantum Windbag said:


> For a guy that insisted that he didn't want to know about the original cannon, Abrams did everything he could to tug at the heartstrings of the fans by repeating the exact same scene that killed Spock, only making it ridiculous beyond imagination by having a guy that flunked out t=of the academy sacrifice himself to save everyone else.
> 
> Kirk
> Would
> Not
> Do
> That.
> 
> Neither Kirk. The one in the new movies is too stupid to know what to do, the one in the TV shows would find another way.



Whatever, dude.  I think the problem is, you are approaching this movie like a Trek nerd, and what I discovered from years of arguing on Trek boards is that there is no pleasing those people.  

If you went looking for a thoughtful Sci-Fi movie, you were going to be disappointed, but Trek hasn't done one of those since Star Trek VI.  



Quantum Windbag said:


> This movie is a complete flop, and may have killed the entire franchise. The only hope we have is if they fire Abrams and reboot the series again, doing it with someone who actually understands that Star Trek is supposed to be a bit pretentious. If they don't there won't be anything after 2016.



The movie had a budget of 185 million and has made 259 million worldwide so far. 

I do think they need a new director, that they probably need to develop the characters more. (I also think that Pine and Quinto are totally wrong for their roles. JMHO).


----------



## Ringel05

MisterBeale said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.
> 
> 
> 
> This is SO not true.  We would need to get rid of partisan politics.  The false left/right paradigm, and most importantly, fiat currency as a means to control price signals.  The elites on this planet, the slim one percent of the planet, hold over ninety-five percent of the wealth.  You are very ignorant if this is your belief.  The world's resources, labor, and economic potential are enough so that all people on the planet could live a lower class, or lower middle class existence easily.  Probably within a decade, everyone could have a middle class life style if we redefined what that meant, NOT CONSUMERISM.  You don't need a car, we don't need tons of gadgets, and lots and lots of cloths.  Live simply, so that other may simply live.  How many outfits does your average Star Trek crew member have?  How many personal possessions?  How many "toys?"
> 
> What would it take?  The decentralization of power structures.  The elimination of bloodlines controlling the destiny of humankind's future.  A truly egalitarian society where all men and women have an even shot at deciding our future.  While certain families are more concerned with maintaining their grip on control of the planet; the intellectual, scientific, and spiritual development of the planet has been hamstrung.  Essentially, we are crippled by a global cabal that has an iron grip on us.  Much like episode 23 Season 1 from Star Trek Enterprise, we are like the Mazarites, corrupt and wasteful to the core.
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fallen_Hero
> 
> If you want to know the why and the wherefores, DEMAND the press reveal what goes on inside those secrete meetings that the one percent hold to decide what wars our leaders will start next, and how they plan to manipulate the world economy through their global trade organizations and central banks.  It takes more money to fight high tech wars than to feed, cloth and educate the world.  Too big to fail?  Try a population too stupid to care.
Click to expand...


Hopefully you don't think this theoretical construct will actually work in the real world.


----------



## Sallow

I think all the actors are doing a great job channeling their roles.

Come on..Kirk wakes up with 2 cat ladies..

How Shatner is that?


----------



## theHawk

JoeB131 said:


> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, let&#8217;s just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, it&#8217;s enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerd&#8217;s wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but he&#8217;s completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously there&#8217;s no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.




The only thing that kept me interested were the remakes of characters we all know, like you mentioned: Carol Marcus, Khan, ect.  

I agree that the new McCoy and Spock are great, but I'm not buying Chris Pine's Kirk.  Kirk wasn't ever that wild in the old show or the movies.

I'm still not entirely sold on these Abrams' Star Trek movies.  There's just way too much stuff they do just for the sake of having a gimick, so at times it feels like I am watching a Micheal Bay movie, and I just want to put a gun to my head and end it.  A perfect example is the opening scene of this one.  These scenes that Abrams puts in are just so "un-Star trek" that they just pretty much ruin the movie.

I'd prefer if they just go back to making regular Star Trek movies with TNG or even do a Voyager or DS9 one.  Even the bad ones are better the Abrams' garbage.


----------



## MisterBeale

Ringel05 said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.
> 
> 
> 
> This is SO not true.  We would need to get rid of partisan politics.  The false left/right paradigm, and most importantly, fiat currency as a means to control price signals.  The elites on this planet, the slim one percent of the planet, hold over ninety-five percent of the wealth.  You are very ignorant if this is your belief.  The world's resources, labor, and economic potential are enough so that all people on the planet could live a lower class, or lower middle class existence easily.  Probably within a decade, everyone could have a middle class life style if we redefined what that meant, NOT CONSUMERISM.  You don't need a car, we don't need tons of gadgets, and lots and lots of cloths.  Live simply, so that other may simply live.  How many outfits does your average Star Trek crew member have?  How many personal possessions?  How many "toys?"
> 
> What would it take?  The decentralization of power structures.  The elimination of bloodlines controlling the destiny of humankind's future.  A truly egalitarian society where all men and women have an even shot at deciding our future.  While certain families are more concerned with maintaining their grip on control of the planet; the intellectual, scientific, and spiritual development of the planet has been hamstrung.  Essentially, we are crippled by a global cabal that has an iron grip on us.  Much like episode 23 Season 1 from Star Trek Enterprise, we are like the Mazarites, corrupt and wasteful to the core.
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fallen_Hero
> 
> If you want to know the why and the wherefores, DEMAND the press reveal what goes on inside those secrete meetings that the one percent hold to decide what wars our leaders will start next, and how they plan to manipulate the world economy through their global trade organizations and central banks.  It takes more money to fight high tech wars than to feed, cloth and educate the world.  Too big to fail?  Try a population too stupid to care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully you don't think this theoretical construct will actually work in the real world.
Click to expand...


Of course not.  It is too late for that.  The minds of men have been hopelessly dulled by the elites in their indoctrination institutions.  Once the mighty aurochs grew in the wild and were able to fend for themselves.  No more.  Like the self-sufficient rugged free thinking individual, they are now extincit, leaving behind only their distant cousin, the domesticated herd cow.  Wolf packs wouldn't dare to challenge an individual in an aurochs herd, their only hope would be to separate the old, infirm or weak from the pack.  How long do you think a herd of cattle would last against a pack of wolves?  Even the strongest bulls standing together would melt away with out the protection of their human masters, much like civil society believes now w/o their masters.  I mean, look at this. . . . .  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DigiWS1YhxI]Black Friday Crowd Rushing into Urban Outfitters - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixoNk0cm4kY]Black Friday Shopping Madness 2011 Raw Footage Compilation - Tom Petty Remix - YouTube[/ame]

So it goes with modern man.  Humans today are helpless, made that way by centralized governments, and their insidious indoctrination institutions and corporate controlled media.  Even the tone of your cross makes me wonder whether you have the ability for independent thought outside of the dominant paradigm.

No, in order for a "Star Trek" world to exist, it has to happen, it has to start with the individual.  WE the individual have to take responsibility.  When everyone STOPS giving gifts and material shit at Christmas, and stops giving birthday gifts to everyone every year, and stops giving gifts for every single little puissant holiday created by corporations, THEN maybe, just maybe, we will have a change.  But the change starts with US.  Not by blaming them, or the system.  They might have done it to us, but if they were gone, the damage they have done still remains.  The aurochs, the independent spirit is still extinct.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcMxyq7UH8c]Knowledge Reigns Supreme 'Burger King' - YouTube[/ame]

Learn to say, "I'm good,"  And a Star Trek future will be here sooner than we would believe.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Quantum Windbag said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience.  Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
> While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have even gone back and showed Kirk's first day on the enterprise without turning him into a Luke Skywalker clone who is completely unqualified to command a starship.
Click to expand...


yep.......commands a Ship and was never even a Ist Officer or even a LT.Commander....that was realistic....


----------



## Harry Dresden

theHawk said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that kept me interested were the remakes of characters we all know, like you mentioned: Carol Marcus, Khan, ect.
> 
> I agree that the new McCoy and Spock are great, but I'm not buying Chris Pine's Kirk.  Kirk wasn't ever that wild in the old show or the movies.
> 
> I'm still not entirely sold on these Abrams' Star Trek movies.  There's just way too much stuff they do just for the sake of having a gimick, so at times it feels like I am watching a Micheal Bay movie, and I just want to put a gun to my head and end it.  A perfect example is the opening scene of this one.  These scenes that Abrams puts in are just so "un-Star trek" that they just pretty much ruin the movie.
> 
> I'd prefer if they just go back to making regular Star Trek movies with TNG or even do a Voyager or DS9 one.  Even the bad ones are better the Abrams' garbage.
Click to expand...


they should have let  J. Michael Straczynski do the film.....he expressed interest to do it...and said he would have gone for it.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> It's science fiction-  Frankly, the Genesis Device in TWOK was a bigger plot problem than shooting up someone with Khan's blood to save their lives. (And they had to spend the whole next movie fixing it.)



Protomatter makes more sense than injecting human blood into dead  tribbles and discovering it cures death. How is human blood, even  bioengineered human blood, compatibale with a species that humans had  never encountered? Why would a doctor with all the advanced technology of Starfleet medical inject random dead things with human blood anyway? Was he secretly hoping the tribble would eat Khan?



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I thought the Melville/Milton quoting Khan was a bit contrived.  And can you please check your anti-Muslim agenda at the door of the theatre?



My anti Muslim agenda? I didn't make the movie.



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, please. Ricardo was chewing up the scenery and his pathos was about as fake as his plastic chest muscles.   Not that TWOK wasn't a great movie. It was. I would even go so far as to say it was vastly better than this movie made on 1/20th the budget.



It was meant to be over the top, just like Moby Dick. Star Trek was always over the top, but it knew it. Why else would Kirk stumble across Greek gods and a bioengineered superman who he couldn't possibly defeat, yet still manage to save the day? The references to classic literature just reinforced that element, and is what distinguished Star Trek from Lost in Space.



JoeB131 said:


> Whatever, dude.  I think the problem is, you are approaching this movie like a Trek nerd, and what I discovered from years of arguing on Trek boards is that there is no pleasing those people.
> 
> If you went looking for a thoughtful Sci-Fi movie, you were going to be disappointed, but Trek hasn't done one of those since Star Trek VI.



I approached this movie the same way I do all movies, hoping to be able to escape reality without being insulted. I could have accepted the Enterprise hiding in the ocean instead of in space. I could even have accepted that a primitive culture would be entirely wiped out by a volcano that wasn't even going to impact the planet as much as Krakatoa impacted Earth. What I could not accept is a cold fusion bomb that would freeze the lava. That made me sit up and actually say what the fuck out loud.



JoeB131 said:


> The movie had a budget of 185 million and has made 259 million worldwide so far.
> 
> I do think they need a new director, that they probably need to develop the characters more. (I also think that Pine and Quinto are totally wrong for their roles. JMHO).



First, you forgot the massive promotional budget Paramount poured into this movie. Second, it has made less money that the first Abrams Star Trek movie, and it is making a fraction of the amount of money Paramount wants a film like this to make. It is a flop, even though it will make money. 

By the way, I actually think Quinto nailed Spock, though I do keep expecting him to slice someone's head open.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Harry Dresden said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have even gone back and showed Kirk's first day on the enterprise without turning him into a Luke Skywalker clone who is completely unqualified to command a starship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yep.......commands a Ship and was never even a Ist Officer or even a LT.Commander....that was realistic....
Click to expand...


Hey, he was a first officer for almost 3 minutes before he got tossed off the ship for mutiny.


----------



## Ringel05

MisterBeale said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is SO not true.  We would need to get rid of partisan politics.  The false left/right paradigm, and most importantly, fiat currency as a means to control price signals.  The elites on this planet, the slim one percent of the planet, hold over ninety-five percent of the wealth.  You are very ignorant if this is your belief.  The world's resources, labor, and economic potential are enough so that all people on the planet could live a lower class, or lower middle class existence easily.  Probably within a decade, everyone could have a middle class life style if we redefined what that meant, NOT CONSUMERISM.  You don't need a car, we don't need tons of gadgets, and lots and lots of cloths.  Live simply, so that other may simply live.  How many outfits does your average Star Trek crew member have?  How many personal possessions?  How many "toys?"
> 
> What would it take?  The decentralization of power structures.  The elimination of bloodlines controlling the destiny of humankind's future.  A truly egalitarian society where all men and women have an even shot at deciding our future.  While certain families are more concerned with maintaining their grip on control of the planet; the intellectual, scientific, and spiritual development of the planet has been hamstrung.  Essentially, we are crippled by a global cabal that has an iron grip on us.  Much like episode 23 Season 1 from Star Trek Enterprise, we are like the Mazarites, corrupt and wasteful to the core.
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fallen_Hero
> 
> If you want to know the why and the wherefores, DEMAND the press reveal what goes on inside those secrete meetings that the one percent hold to decide what wars our leaders will start next, and how they plan to manipulate the world economy through their global trade organizations and central banks.  It takes more money to fight high tech wars than to feed, cloth and educate the world.  Too big to fail?  Try a population too stupid to care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully you don't think this theoretical construct will actually work in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is too late for that.  The minds of men have been hopelessly dulled by the elites in their indoctrination institutions.  Once the mighty aurochs grew in the wild and were able to fend for themselves.  No more.  Like the self-sufficient rugged free thinking individual, they are now extincit, leaving behind only their distant cousin, the domesticated herd cow.  Wolf packs wouldn't dare to challenge an individual in an aurochs herd, their only hope would be to separate the old, infirm or weak from the pack.  How long do you think a herd of cattle would last against a pack of wolves?  Even the strongest bulls standing together would melt away with out the protection of their human masters, much like civil society believes now w/o their masters.  I mean, look at this. . . . .
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DigiWS1YhxI]Black Friday Crowd Rushing into Urban Outfitters - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixoNk0cm4kY]Black Friday Shopping Madness 2011 Raw Footage Compilation - Tom Petty Remix - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> So it goes with modern man.  Humans today are helpless, made that way by centralized governments, and their insidious indoctrination institutions and corporate controlled media.  Even the tone of your cross makes me wonder whether you have the ability for independent thought outside of the dominant paradigm.
> 
> No, in order for a "Star Trek" world to exist, it has to happen, it has to start with the individual.  WE the individual have to take responsibility.  When everyone STOPS giving gifts and material shit at Christmas, and stops giving birthday gifts to everyone every year, and stops giving gifts for every single little puissant holiday created by corporations, THEN maybe, just maybe, we will have a change.  But the change starts with US.  Not by blaming them, or the system.  They might have done it to us, but if they were gone, the damage they have done still remains.  The aurochs, the independent spirit is still extinct.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcMxyq7UH8c]Knowledge Reigns Supreme 'Burger King' - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Learn to say, "I'm good,"  And a Star Trek future will be here sooner than we would believe.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's the elites fault.......... 
The independent spirit is extinct....... 

Tell me again what world insulated laboratory you live in?  You know, the one that doesn't take real human nature into account..........


----------



## Zona

JoeB131 said:


> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.



You forgot about the Nurse Chapel reference.  (God I am such a trekkie geek.)


----------



## MisterBeale

Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, I actually think Quinto nailed Spock, though I do keep expecting him to slice someone's head open.


Agreed.  That's probably the number one reason I go to see the film, to watch him in it.  Fun to watch actor.  lol

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWtuCdUtDg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWtuCdUtDg[/ame]


----------



## MisterBeale

Ringel05 said:


> Yeah, it's the elites fault..........
> The independent spirit is extinct.......
> 
> Tell me again what world insulated laboratory you live in?  You know, the one that doesn't take real human nature into account..........


There is no such thing as "human nature."  Study a little cultural Anthropology and some epistemological Philosophy and you would know this.  Either sign up for some classes at your local University or go to the Library and READ and stop believing everything you watch and hear from the MSM.  It is apparent to me you watch too much TV.  Since that is all you seem to find your way clear to do, I recommend a wonderful series by Desmond Morris called the Human Animal.  Look it up.  You would understand that Humans are the result of the societies they are raised in and what they choose to put into their heads.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Animal_%28TV_series%29

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTsp9A7OaBI]The Human Animal by Desmond Morris - The Language of the Body - YouTube[/ame]

You know, someone asked, "Why can't we have a world like the Star Trek Universe?" And my multidisciplinary degree in Philosophy, Anthropology, English and Graduate work in Political Science I thought made me uniquely qualified to answer that question.  Added to that, I have family that has been involved in esoteric activities going back many generations.  I think I have a firm grip on the world situation.  It really is an epistemological question which is at once simple and complex.  WE ALL bear responsibility, and yet, there are certain power centers that have taken the power away, certainly intentionally from the masses.  It isn't conspiracy, any more than the aristocracy of Europe conspired against the peasantry of Europe in the middle ages.

What?  Do you think George Orwell and Aldous Huxley just got the ideas for their dystopian science fiction out of their asses?  The reason our world resembles more of a _1984_ or _A Brave New World_ than a _Star Trek_ has to do with the nastiness and selfishness of our leaders and the ignorance of our populace, it isn't a mystery.  

And you sir, are an unqualified troll for attacking me and derailing the thread.  YOU are one of those in the populace that I am referring to, ignorant and in denial.  I can only assume that you thought the movie was wonderful and held no allusion to what is going on in our world today.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Ok so I'm going to have to unsubscribe to avoid this I see. With all that's gone on in the last couple weeks I haven't had a chance to see it and im afraid you all are gonna inadvertently post spoilers without warnings. 

Ill be back (yea I know, wrong movie)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Moonglow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like  the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell would you know how it would be if all things were equal, including income.
> 
> 
> "Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation."
> Amenemope
Click to expand...


Everything is not equal and that is my point, to make it seem that way would require we all lower our standards tp what would give the majority the same status. And that is 3rd world.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MisterBeale said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.
> 
> 
> 
> This is SO not true.  We would need to get rid of partisan politics.  The false left/right paradigm, and most importantly, fiat currency as a means to control price signals.  The elites on this planet, the slim one percent of the planet, hold over ninety-five percent of the wealth.  You are very ignorant if this is your belief.  The world's resources, labor, and economic potential are enough so that all people on the planet could live a lower class, or lower middle class existence easily.  Probably within a decade, everyone could have a middle class life style if we redefined what that meant, NOT CONSUMERISM.  You don't need a car, we don't need tons of gadgets, and lots and lots of cloths.  Live simply, so that other may simply live.  How many outfits does your average Star Trek crew member have?  How many personal possessions?  How many "toys?"
> 
> What would it take?  The decentralization of power structures.  The elimination of bloodlines controlling the destiny of humankind's future.  A truly egalitarian society where all men and women have an even shot at deciding our future.  While certain families are more concerned with maintaining their grip on control of the planet; the intellectual, scientific, and spiritual development of the planet has been hamstrung.  Essentially, we are crippled by a global cabal that has an iron grip on us.  Much like episode 23 Season 1 from Star Trek Enterprise, we are like the Mazarites, corrupt and wasteful to the core.
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fallen_Hero
> 
> If you want to know the why and the wherefores, DEMAND the press reveal what goes on inside those secrete meetings that the one percent hold to decide what wars our leaders will start next, and how they plan to manipulate the world economy through their global trade organizations and central banks.  It takes more money to fight high tech wars than to feed, cloth and educate the world.  Too big to fail?  Try a population too stupid to care.
Click to expand...


In other words the 1st world and the 2nd must give up what it has and become more like the 3rd world, thanks for proving the point.


----------



## Montrovant

To avoid the strange political or social diatribes and get back to the actual movie....

I think these new Trek movies are fine.  They don't meet the standards of the best previous Trek films, but are definitely better than the worst.  I'd prefer a little less action/humor of the summer blockbuster and a little more depth to the plot, a little more character development, but I understand that is the exception rather than the rule and I'm not going into these films looking for too much.

That said, I did have one big problem with this movie, and that's the connections to Wrath of Khan.

When they decided to reboot Star Trek and create an alternate reality for it, I think they should have pretty much abandoned the old movies and series.  Use the theme of Star Trek, even the main characters, but take it to entirely new places.  This attempt to mesh the old into the new doesn't work.  It's entirely too contrived.  All of the references, rather than inspiring any fond memories, merely highlight their attempt to put more butts in the seats.  Not only that, it seems like laziness; can't they get someone to write a new story?  They have to steal from the old?  And really, you are forced to suspend disbelief even within the context of the story to think that these characters would find a way to interact in this new, different timeline.

I assume they will continue to make these movies if the actors are under contract or willing to sign up for more, as both of the reboot movies have been profitable.  I just hope that if they do, they stop pulling things from the old Star Trek and embrace the idea of making it their own.


----------



## Ringel05

MisterBeale said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's the elites fault..........
> The independent spirit is extinct.......
> 
> Tell me again what world insulated laboratory you live in?  You know, the one that doesn't take real human nature into account..........
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "human nature."  Study a little cultural Anthropology and some epistemological Philosophy and you would know this.  Either sign up for some classes at your local University or go to the Library and READ and stop believing everything you watch and hear from the MSM.  It is apparent to me you watch too much TV.  Since that is all you seem to find your way clear to do, I recommend a wonderful series by Desmond Morris called the Human Animal.  Look it up.  You would understand that Humans are the result of the societies they are raised in and what they choose to put into their heads.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Animal_%28TV_series%29
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTsp9A7OaBI]The Human Animal by Desmond Morris - The Language of the Body - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You know, someone asked, "Why can't we have a world like the Star Trek Universe?" And my multidisciplinary degree in Philosophy, Anthropology, English and Graduate work in Political Science I thought made me uniquely qualified to answer that question.  Added to that, I have family that has been involved in esoteric activities going back many generations.  I think I have a firm grip on the world situation.  It really is an epistemological question which is at once simple and complex.  WE ALL bear responsibility, and yet, there are certain power centers that have taken the power away, certainly intentionally from the masses.  It isn't conspiracy, any more than the aristocracy of Europe conspired against the peasantry of Europe in the middle ages.
> 
> What?  Do you think George Orwell and Aldous Huxley just got the ideas for their dystopian science fiction out of their asses?  The reason our world resembles more of a _1984_ or _A Brave New World_ than a _Star Trek_ has to do with the nastiness and selfishness of our leaders and the ignorance of our populace, it isn't a mystery.
> 
> And you sir, are an unqualified troll for attacking me and derailing the thread.  YOU are one of those in the populace that I am referring to, ignorant and in denial.  I can only assume that you thought the movie was wonderful and held no allusion to what is going on in our world today.
Click to expand...

You make a hell of a lot of assumptions for someone with no knowledge of the subject.  No such thing as human nature...........??!!!  You kidding..... right?  
I took Cultural Anthropology, Sociology and Psychology not to mention decades of human study.  You're the one who needs to stop listening to the nutcases (and the voices in your head) and do some reading, take some classes yourself, i.e. get your head out of your ass and look at the real world, your ivory research tower has no windows.  Oh and I rarely watch TV and I know for a fact the MSM get's it wrong about 80% of the time.  
As for delusional, you are the definition and when you post myopically focused, uneducated tripe like you've posting then you deserve derision.  Besides I was simply responding to the unrealistic, uninformed crap you posted and that makes me the troll........ and the one going off topic....... ?  Not even a good deflection Sparky.
Also, Desmond Morris is a Zoologist who made the scientific mistake of attempting to explain a complex subject by narrowly focusing his singular field of study and making scientifically suspect correlative associations while at the same time making tons of money doing it.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> To avoid the strange political or social diatribes and get back to the actual movie....
> 
> I think these new Trek movies are fine.  They don't meet the standards of the best previous Trek films, but are definitely better than the worst.  I'd prefer a little less action/humor of the summer blockbuster and a little more depth to the plot, a little more character development, but I understand that is the exception rather than the rule and I'm not going into these films looking for too much.
> 
> That said, I did have one big problem with this movie, and that's the connections to Wrath of Khan.
> 
> When they decided to reboot Star Trek and create an alternate reality for it, I think they should have pretty much abandoned the old movies and series.  Use the theme of Star Trek, even the main characters, but take it to entirely new places. * This attempt to mesh the old into the new doesn't work.*  It's entirely too contrived.  All of the references, rather than inspiring any fond memories, merely highlight their attempt to put more butts in the seats.  Not only that, it seems like laziness; can't they get someone to write a new story?  They have to steal from the old?  And really, you are forced to suspend disbelief even within the context of the story to think that these characters would find a way to interact in this new, different timeline.
> 
> I assume they will continue to make these movies if the actors are under contract or willing to sign up for more, as both of the reboot movies have been profitable.  I just hope that if they do, they stop pulling things from the old Star Trek and embrace the idea of making it their own.



one of the reasons Roddenberry wanted to keep the Original Trek out of the Next Generation as much as possible....get it to stand on its own....


----------



## MisterBeale

Ringel05 said:


> Also, Desmond Morris is a Zoologist who made the scientific mistake of attempting to explain a complex subject by narrowly focusing his singular field of study and making scientifically suspect correlative associations while at the same time making tons of money doing it.



In order to keep the discussion elevated, I'll refrain from addressing your personal attacks. 

As far as Morris is concerned? It matters so very little what one specifically gets a degree in, only that it is tangentially related.  If it were Primatology, Physical Anthropology, Sociology-Biology, I still wouldn't care, why should you?  You should be old enough and wise enough by now to know that.  It matters how one develops what they know and grows beyond their training that is important.  You're amateurish critique of his work is wholly off base, and indeed, the antithesis what I am getting at.

I noticed you had no problem attacking my claim or my proof, but offering up proof of your own, or even laying out specifics, hmmm, that seems much more difficult for you.  Tell me Einstein, WHAT is human nature, and what specifically prevents human societies from being conditioned into mass servitude?  How do you disagree with and claim that Plato's Dialogs are incorrect?  For only if they are indeed in error, and this so called "human nature" manifests to prevent Socrates dire warning to mankind can we ever have a Star Trek universe.


----------



## Ringel05

MisterBeale said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Desmond Morris is a Zoologist who made the scientific mistake of attempting to explain a complex subject by narrowly focusing his singular field of study and making scientifically suspect correlative associations while at the same time making tons of money doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to keep the discussion elevated, I'll refrain from addressing your personal attacks.
> 
> As far as Morris is concerned? It matters so very little what one specifically gets a degree in, only that it is tangentially related.  If it were Primatology, Physical Anthropology, Sociology-Biology, I still wouldn't care, why should you?  You should be old enough and wise enough by now to know that.  It matters how one develops what they know and grows beyond their training that is important.  You're amateurish critique of his work is wholly off base, and indeed, the antithesis what I am getting at.
> 
> I noticed you had no problem attacking my claim or my proof, but offering up proof of your own, or even laying out specifics, hmmm, that seems much more difficult for you.  Tell me Einstein, WHAT is human nature, and what specifically prevents human societies from being conditioned into mass servitude?  How do you disagree with and claim that Plato's Dialogs are incorrect?  For only if they are indeed in error, and this so called "human nature" manifests to prevent Socrates dire warning to mankind can we ever have a Star Trek universe.
Click to expand...


Inherently individuals are biased by their discipline focus, this is just as true with some scientists, perhaps even more so, primarily where money is concerned (promoting a specific postulation to sell books or gain grants).
It is well know among sociologists, psychologists and historians, as well as many other disciplines that personal motivations, (a primary aspect of human nature) determines individuals and on occasion group results.  Socrates is not completely incorrect when the 80/20 rule is taken into account.  Mass servitude conditioning can only be partially successful as we know there are and will always be detractors and resistance at various degrees and at differing levels not to mention the 2% of sociopaths that comprise the general human population.  Hence you can only push people so far before they begin to push back as history has always shown.  
Based on the obvious variances of motivation (human nature) your all or nothing postulation is seriously flawed and ultimately unworkable.
Oh and if you don't want to be called names don't start by insulting people's intelligence.


----------



## PredFan

I loved it, it was the best Star Trek yet.


----------



## PredFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They invented immortality and eternal youth, and you dismiss it as a cheap lot gimmick? What the fuck, did your brain die when you sat down? Khan was not a ignorant Muslim extremists, he was a well educated genius who quoted from Paradise Lost and saw himself in the role of Ahab in TWoK. His obsession with Kirk in the movie worked because we could understand that he saw Kirk as the whale, and knew that Kirk, even though he was an asshole, did not cause the problems Kahn had. That is what made the pathos of his final speech so powerful, we knew that he was even more delusional than Ahab when he triggered the Genesis device.
> 
> For a guy that insisted that he didn't want to know about the original cannon, Abrams did everything he could to tug at the heartstrings of the fans by repeating the exact same scene that killed Spock, only making it ridiculous beyond imagination by having a guy that flunked out t=of the academy sacrifice himself to save everyone else.
> 
> Kirk
> Would
> Not
> Do
> That.
> 
> Neither Kirk. The one in the new movies is too stupid to know what to do, the one in the TV shows would find another way.
> 
> This movie is a complete flop, and may have killed the entire franchise. The only hope we have is if they fire Abrams and reboot the series again, doing it with someone who actually understands that Star Trek is supposed to be a bit pretentious. If they don't there won't be anything after 2016.
Click to expand...


Thank goodness you're wrong about everything.


----------



## PredFan

theHawk said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that kept me interested were the remakes of characters we all know, like you mentioned: Carol Marcus, Khan, ect.
> 
> I agree that the new McCoy and Spock are great, but I'm not buying Chris Pine's Kirk.  Kirk wasn't ever that wild in the old show or the movies.
> 
> I'm still not entirely sold on these Abrams' Star Trek movies.  There's just way too much stuff they do just for the sake of having a gimick, so at times it feels like I am watching a Micheal Bay movie, and I just want to put a gun to my head and end it.  A perfect example is the opening scene of this one.  These scenes that Abrams puts in are just so "un-Star trek" that they just pretty much ruin the movie.
> 
> I'd prefer if they just go back to making regular Star Trek movies with TNG or even do a Voyager or DS9 one.  Even the bad ones are better the Abrams' garbage.
Click to expand...


The reason kirk wasn't that wild was because the original timeline was disrupted and Kirk grew up in this timeline not knowing his father.


----------



## PredFan

Get a grip people, it's science FICTION. You are actually poking holes in the facts of Star Trek?

Let it go, enjoy the movie, let's see where it takes us.


----------



## PredFan

My favorite character is Scottie. My least favorite is McCoy. The actor not only had the look but he also has the (limited) dialog down. Hopefully they will flesh his role out a little more.


----------



## Montrovant

PredFan said:


> Get a grip people, it's science FICTION. You are actually poking holes in the facts of Star Trek?
> 
> Let it go, enjoy the movie, let's see where it takes us.



I'm not sure what this comment is in relation to, but I would just like to point out that even in fictional works, consistency is important.  If the problem with the facts is that they don't make sense in the overall canon, it's a valid argument.


----------



## PredFan

Montrovant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip people, it's science FICTION. You are actually poking holes in the facts of Star Trek?
> 
> Let it go, enjoy the movie, let's see where it takes us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this comment is in relation to, but I would just like to point out that even in fictional works, consistency is important.  If the problem with the facts is that they don't make sense in the overall canon, it's a valid argument.
Click to expand...


To a point yes. It seems to me that a few are taking it too far. The fact that Kirk could go from a cadet to a captain isn't any more far fetched than a Romulan speaking perfect english.


----------



## Harry Dresden

PredFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip people, it's science FICTION. You are actually poking holes in the facts of Star Trek?
> 
> Let it go, enjoy the movie, let's see where it takes us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this comment is in relation to, but I would just like to point out that even in fictional works, consistency is important.  If the problem with the facts is that they don't make sense in the overall canon, it's a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a point yes. It seems to me that a few are taking it too far. The fact that Kirk could go from a cadet to a captain isn't any more far fetched than a Romulan speaking perfect english.
Click to expand...


they have a thing called Universal translators....you hear the Romulan in English he hears you in Romulan....and yes it is far fetched for a guy coming out of the academy and given command of 1 of the 12 Constitution Class Starships.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PredFan said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
> 
> 
> *(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD) *
> 
> Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies.  Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, lets just bring back Khan.
> 
> Does it work?  Kind of.   I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.
> 
> SPOILERS-
> After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan.  Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.
> 
> They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, its enough plot to hang an okay action movie on.  Peter Weller does a great job in his role.  The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.
> 
> Good stuff?  Carol Marcus, a Tribble,  Klingons,  a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerds wish list.
> 
> Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here.  They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet.  Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but hes completely underutilized.  Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.
> 
> The more dubious stuff.   The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did.   They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly,  STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.
> 
> The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously theres no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.
> 
> Worth watching.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that kept me interested were the remakes of characters we all know, like you mentioned: Carol Marcus, Khan, ect.
> 
> I agree that the new McCoy and Spock are great, but I'm not buying Chris Pine's Kirk.  Kirk wasn't ever that wild in the old show or the movies.
> 
> I'm still not entirely sold on these Abrams' Star Trek movies.  There's just way too much stuff they do just for the sake of having a gimick, so at times it feels like I am watching a Micheal Bay movie, and I just want to put a gun to my head and end it.  A perfect example is the opening scene of this one.  These scenes that Abrams puts in are just so "un-Star trek" that they just pretty much ruin the movie.
> 
> I'd prefer if they just go back to making regular Star Trek movies with TNG or even do a Voyager or DS9 one.  Even the bad ones are better the Abrams' garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason kirk wasn't that wild was because the original timeline was disrupted and Kirk grew up in this timeline not knowing his father.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

Can you explain how the disrupted timeline caused Star Fleet to retroactively induct Kirk's mother, who was never in Star Fleet? If your theory was right then the disruption to Kirk's timeline would have occurred after Nero came back, not before. It also would not have moved the main Star Fleet dockyard from Mars to Iowa, nor would it have preemptively forced Star Fleet to drop all admissions standards just so Kirk could get on the Enterprise.

Kirk is wild because Abram's likes Star Wars and never saw Star Trek.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PredFan said:


> Get a grip people, it's science FICTION. You are actually poking holes in the facts of Star Trek?
> 
> Let it go, enjoy the movie, let's see where it takes us.



Actually, it is SCIENCE fiction. Science always comes first in science fiction. If you want to ignore science you should stick to watching Star Wars, where a parsec is a unit of time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PredFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip people, it's science FICTION. You are actually poking holes in the facts of Star Trek?
> 
> Let it go, enjoy the movie, let's see where it takes us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this comment is in relation to, but I would just like to point out that even in fictional works, consistency is important.  If the problem with the facts is that they don't make sense in the overall canon, it's a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a point yes. It seems to me that a few are taking it too far. The fact that Kirk could go from a cadet to a captain isn't any more far fetched than a Romulan speaking perfect english.
Click to expand...


Nero had a universal translator, a device invented in Star Trek to instantaneously translate all speech into something understandable to everyone who can hear it. That does not mean he could speak English anymore that the TARDIS translation matrix means that Clara could speak Russian. That makes the jump from expelled cadet to Captain even less defensible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Harry Dresden said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this comment is in relation to, but I would just like to point out that even in fictional works, consistency is important.  If the problem with the facts is that they don't make sense in the overall canon, it's a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a point yes. It seems to me that a few are taking it too far. The fact that Kirk could go from a cadet to a captain isn't any more far fetched than a Romulan speaking perfect english.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they have a thing called Universal translators....you hear the Romulan in English he hears you in Romulan....and yes it is far fetched for a guy coming out of the academy and given command of 1 of the 12 Constitution Class Starships.....
Click to expand...


It is even more farfetched when you remember that he actually on suspension from the academy when he made captain.


----------



## Mr. H.

We saw it this afternoon and thought it kicked ass. Every bit as good as the first.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Going to see it tonight along with Will Smiths new movie. Taking all the kids to the drive in to see it.


----------



## Montrovant

Grampa Murked U said:


> Going to see it tonight along with Will Smiths new movie. Taking all the kids to the drive in to see it.



I just read a brief review that said the new Smith movie was pretty bad, but I'm still curious.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going to see it tonight along with Will Smiths new movie. Taking all the kids to the drive in to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just read a brief review that said the new Smith movie was pretty bad, but I'm still curious.
Click to expand...


I understand it is the best M. Night Shamalayan movie since "Sixth Sense."


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going to see it tonight along with Will Smiths new movie. Taking all the kids to the drive in to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just read a brief review that said the new Smith movie was pretty bad, but I'm still curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it is the best M. Night Shamalayan movie since "Sixth Sense."
Click to expand...


That would be odd, considering I don't think Sixth Sense was his best movie.   I preferred both Unbreakable and Signs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read a brief review that said the new Smith movie was pretty bad, but I'm still curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it is the best M. Night Shamalayan movie since "Sixth Sense."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be odd, considering I don't think Sixth Sense was his best movie.   I preferred both Unbreakable and Signs.
Click to expand...


I think the point is that his movies suck.


----------



## Mr. H.

Signs sucked major balls. Mel Gibson is a ruinous actor.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it is the best M. Night Shamalayan movie since "Sixth Sense."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be odd, considering I don't think Sixth Sense was his best movie.   I preferred both Unbreakable and Signs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is that his movies suck.
Click to expand...


Meh, his first few were good, but after that, not so much.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Well I'm back and I don't even know where to begin. 

SPOILERS

I feel sorry for Will Smith.  He is a talented actor trapped in a TERRIBLE script. The visuals were nice enough but everything else was shit. He was cast as a total drill sarge which is completely out of his element. Then there was the whole liberal political bullshit shoved down your throat right off the bat with the whole humans are parasites to the earth routine. It really irritates me when movies and music push political propaganda so blatantly. The redemption and forgiveness part of the story was ok I guess. Save your money. Not even worth a rent.

JJ Abrams. ......sigh

Way to totally rip off a clasic script with an iconic bad guy and totally do it a disservice.  I've stated before that his movies are good for nothing but explosions and cgi. Without that he would have had nil. 

Star Trek has always been about the iconic characters and the stories they have to tell. Problem is Kirk, Spock, Picard and to a lesser extent Janeway all developed characters that resonated over time with their prospective audiences over so when you saw them on the big screen (obviously not Janeway) it was a relationship you were ready to rekindle.  Aside from this new Spock I think all the other characters are empty shells. Sure they mimic the traditional characters but that's it. There is no depth to any of them. And as I stated I have no respect for this total rip off of an already established story. JJ said when he first got Star Trek that this new timeline would afford him to take established characters in a new direction.  Well that's a big ole fail. Visuals aside this movie was about a 4/10 for me. I also didn't enjoy the references to the war on terror although I will give him a pass for that because Star Trek has always been a reflection of current events.

This series needs a NEW crew with a new story line developed on TV for a few years before it returns to the silver screen. Star Trek deserves better than Hollywood noob actors right out of the box.

Sorry for the rant. It's late and I was disappointed


----------



## JoeB131

Grampa Murked U said:


> This series needs a NEW crew with a new story line developed on TV for a few years before it returns to the silver screen. Star Trek deserves better than Hollywood noob actors right out of the box.
> 
> Sorry for the rant. It's late and I was disappointed



Not at all.  I think you make some good points. 

I do think the ultimately blaphemy is about to take place here, but overall, I'm not sure that a new TV crew setting up a new set of movies is a good idea. 

There's no desire to make movies with the _Voyager, Deep Space Nine _or _Enterprise_ crews, and there's a reason for that.  

Let's be really honest, as much affection as we had for the TNG crew, all four of their movie outings were horrible.   _First Contact _was almost a good movie, but it relied on a vengeful Picard wanting to murder the Borg for sticking things in him.  (Forgetting that Picard dealt with the Borg on other occassions and was completely cool-headed about it.)

For the Original Crew, let's not forget the Odd/Even Meme-  The odd numbered ones were awful and the even numbered ones were good. And even that's a little cheap. 

_The Motionless Picture _and the _Final Frontier _sucked.  The directors (one of whom happened to be Shatner) didn't really understand the characters.  _The Search for Spock_ was better than people give it credit for, but at the end of the day, it was just about resetting the last movie and getting Spock back into his body.  

For the even number ones, "_The Undiscovered Country_" has the same problem _First Contact_ Does.  It completely relies on the Captain being bent on Revenge so he can learn a lesson in the end.  It means they had to write Kirk as an anti-Klingon bigot before he could redeem himself. 

_Save the Whales_... Er, _The Voyage Home _was a fun romp, watching the characters act in our time.  There's nothing special about it, though. 

Ironically, _the Wrath of Khan_, the film nearly all of them tried to replicate, especially this new one, was kind of a happy accident.  It was made on the cheap, and they didn't know if they were going to release it as a Made for TV or Big Screen production.  Special effects footage was reused.  There were a mish-mash of four plot threads they put on the screen.  And it turned out to be pretty good, maybe because it was allowed to develop organically instead of 50 suits saying, "Hey, we need to have that in there, too."


----------



## Montrovant

I've always felt that the reason the movies based on the original series worked so well (or at least some of them) and the Next Generation movies did not is the amount of time between the television and film incarnations.  There was a big gap between the OS and the movies, where TNG went almost immediately to the big screen.  It ended up that TNG movies were like long tv episodes.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> I've always felt that the reason the movies based on the original series worked so well (or at least some of them) and the Next Generation movies did not is the amount of time between the television and film incarnations.  There was a big gap between the OS and the movies, where TNG went almost immediately to the big screen.  It ended up that TNG movies were like long tv episodes.



it also has a lot to do with who is running the show.....and Rick Berman is considered the guy who slowly killed Star Trek.....


----------



## Ropey

I'll be taking in the new one this upcoming week. I found the first reboot an excellent movie of Star Trek. After that one, I'm hooked again.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Ropey said:


> I'll be taking in the new one this upcoming week. I found the first reboot an excellent movie of Star Trek. After that one, I'm hooked again.



i am hoping if one thing happens because of these movies is that Paramount will get Pocket Books to get the Novels rolling again like they were before....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Grampa Murked U said:


> Well I'm back and I don't even know where to begin.
> 
> SPOILERS
> 
> I feel sorry for Will Smith.  He is a talented actor trapped in a TERRIBLE script. The visuals were nice enough but everything else was shit. He was cast as a total drill sarge which is completely out of his element. Then there was the whole liberal political bullshit shoved down your throat right off the bat with the whole humans are parasites to the earth routine. It really irritates me when movies and music push political propaganda so blatantly. The redemption and forgiveness part of the story was ok I guess. Save your money. Not even worth a rent.
> 
> JJ Abrams. ......sigh
> 
> Way to totally rip off a clasic script with an iconic bad guy and totally do it a disservice.  I've stated before that his movies are good for nothing but explosions and cgi. Without that he would have had nil.
> 
> Star Trek has always been about the iconic characters and the stories they have to tell. Problem is Kirk, Spock, Picard and to a lesser extent Janeway all developed characters that resonated over time with their prospective audiences over so when you saw them on the big screen (obviously not Janeway) it was a relationship you were ready to rekindle.  Aside from this new Spock I think all the other characters are empty shells. Sure they mimic the traditional characters but that's it. There is no depth to any of them. And as I stated I have no respect for this total rip off of an already established story. JJ said when he first got Star Trek that this new timeline would afford him to take established characters in a new direction.  Well that's a big ole fail. Visuals aside this movie was about a 4/10 for me. I also didn't enjoy the references to the war on terror although I will give him a pass for that because Star Trek has always been a reflection of current events.
> 
> This series needs a NEW crew with a new story line developed on TV for a few years before it returns to the silver screen. Star Trek deserves better than Hollywood noob actors right out of the box.
> 
> Sorry for the rant. It's late and I was disappointed



Exactly. Batman has been rebooted so many times, yet the only time the movies went off on a tangent is when they gave them to Burton. I wouldn't have a problem with a reboot of Star Trek if they actually started with a new story instead of trying to turn them into an expensive version of crap.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Two favorite ST movies?

Mine are Wrath of Khan
First Contact (I love the borg as an enemy)


----------



## Ropey

Harry Dresden said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be taking in the new one this upcoming week. I found the first reboot an excellent movie of Star Trek. After that one, I'm hooked again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am hoping if one thing happens because of these movies is that Paramount will get Pocket Books to get the Novels rolling again like they were before....
Click to expand...


It's a rather good idea. New young trekkers.


----------



## Montrovant

Grampa Murked U said:


> Two favorite ST movies?
> 
> Mine are Wrath of Khan
> First Contact (I love the borg as an enemy)



I disagree about First Contact, but I also was a fan of the borg.  All the Next Gen movies were just too much like long episodes for my taste.

I'd probably go with Wrath of Khan followed by The Undiscovered Country.


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be taking in the new one this upcoming week. I found the first reboot an excellent movie of Star Trek. After that one, I'm hooked again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am hoping if one thing happens because of these movies is that Paramount will get Pocket Books to get the Novels rolling again like they were before....
Click to expand...


Aren't they still rolling out ST novels based on all the various series?  I know that hundreds of them have already been written.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

montrovant said:


> grampa murked u said:
> 
> 
> 
> two favorite st movies?
> 
> Mine are wrath of khan
> first contact (i love the borg as an enemy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i disagree about first contact, but i also was a fan of the borg.  All the next gen movies were just too much like long episodes for my taste.
> 
> I'd probably go with wrath of khan followed by the undiscovered country.
Click to expand...


fly her apart then!


----------



## JoeB131

Grampa Murked U said:


> montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grampa murked u said:
> 
> 
> 
> two favorite st movies?
> 
> Mine are wrath of khan
> first contact (i love the borg as an enemy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i disagree about first contact, but i also was a fan of the borg.  All the next gen movies were just too much like long episodes for my taste.
> 
> I'd probably go with wrath of khan followed by the undiscovered country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fly her apart then!
Click to expand...


Here's how I'd rate them. 

The Wrath of Khan. 
Voyage Home
Undiscovered Country - Dinged for Racist Kirk. 
The Search for Spock- Fun, but just a contrivance to bring back Spock. 
First Contact
The Motion Picture (Or as I like to call it, The MOtionless Picture.) 
The Final Frontier
Insurrection
Nemesis
Generations. - HATED it because they destroyed the Enterprise D and killed Kirk for no good reason.  

If I were to rate Abrams two movies, I'd put them just above First Contact.


----------



## Ropey

I confess an appreciation for McLean & McLean's Star Trek Parody

Disclaimer (Bad Language mmmkay) 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZlW38HfX4]maclean & maclean star trek parody.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden

Ropey said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be taking in the new one this upcoming week. I found the first reboot an excellent movie of Star Trek. After that one, I'm hooked again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am hoping if one thing happens because of these movies is that Paramount will get Pocket Books to get the Novels rolling again like they were before....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a rather good idea. New young trekkers.
Click to expand...


the books were mostly well written.....some really good adventures.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be taking in the new one this upcoming week. I found the first reboot an excellent movie of Star Trek. After that one, I'm hooked again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am hoping if one thing happens because of these movies is that Paramount will get Pocket Books to get the Novels rolling again like they were before....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't they still rolling out ST novels based on all the various series?  I know that hundreds of them have already been written.
Click to expand...


no.....the OS and NG are still there but not every 3 months like before they are doing about 3 a year.....DS9 hasnt had one in at least 2 years ...Voyager about 1 a year if that.....Titan far and few between.....New Frontier far and few between.....Corp of Engineers just stopped ......they developed Slipstream Drive now and Voyager is leading a group of 7 ships back to the Delta Quadrant....Titan met the Beings who created the Borg and told them what has transpired with them and these beings came out of their self imposed seclusion to end the Borg threat...for good......so far the "new" guys haven't had any original adventures just the novelizations of the movies....


----------



## Harry Dresden

oh and Data aint dead.....


----------



## JoeB131

Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations. 

Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".


----------



## Oddball

Harry Dresden said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.
> 
> I'll wait til it shows up on cable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
Click to expand...

Right-o.

Abrams starts the new time line so he doesn't have to go with any of the old story and plot lines, then what does he come up with for his sequel?....Khan?

Seriously weak.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.
> 
> Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".



he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.
> 
> Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....
Click to expand...


Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.  

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad... 

Why? 

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.
> 
> Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
Click to expand...


the novels are way more imaginative than the shows were and had much better stories....if Voyager had the stories the novels had it would not have been considered so ho-hum.....

*Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters*

if you stayed away from the Novels.....how do you know?....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Oddball said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.
> 
> I'll wait til it shows up on cable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right-o.
> 
> Abrams starts the new time line so he doesn't have to go with any of the old story and plot lines, then what does he come up with for his sequel?....Khan?
> 
> Seriously weak.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

The first movie sucked because he turned Star Trek into Star Wars. The second movie tanked the entire franchise because he then tried to tie it into something that Star Trek actually did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.
> 
> Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
Click to expand...


You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character. 

Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan


----------



## JoeB131

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.
> 
> Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan
Click to expand...


That's understandable. There was that period during the 1970's when they weren't controlling the Fan Fic and you had stories like the one where they made Kirk and Spock gay.


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the novels are way more imaginative than the shows were and had much better stories....if Voyager had the stories the novels had it would not have been considered so ho-hum.....
> 
> *Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters*
> 
> if you stayed away from the Novels.....how do you know?....
Click to expand...


I do occassional get them. My relatives have given me them as gifts over the years and such.  And frankly, they are awful.  

Now, I have read some of the Babylon 5 novelizations, which are pretty good.  (Even though they are often written by the same people, like Peter David.)  This is because JMS allows the characters to be developed beyond their parameters.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.
> 
> Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan
Click to expand...


exactly.....you can AFTER the series is done playing.......


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the novels are way more imaginative than the shows were and had much better stories....if Voyager had the stories the novels had it would not have been considered so ho-hum.....
> 
> *Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters*
> 
> if you stayed away from the Novels.....how do you know?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do occassional get them. My relatives have given me them as gifts over the years and such.  And frankly, they are awful.
> 
> Now, I have read some of the Babylon 5 novelizations, which are pretty good.  (Even though they are often written by the same people, like Peter David.)  This is because JMS allows the characters to be developed beyond their parameters.
Click to expand...


Joe they were not awful.....if they were they would not sold as well as they did.....they were way more imaginative than the TV Shows.....and  the first 9 Bab 5 novels were written by 8 different writers.....David only wrote the "The Centauri Trilogy " and two novelizations of the TV Movies.... the other 2 Trilogies were written by 2 other Authors....


----------



## Oddball

Quantum Windbag said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....
> 
> 
> 
> Right-o.
> 
> Abrams starts the new time line so he doesn't have to go with any of the old story and plot lines, then what does he come up with for his sequel?....Khan?
> 
> Seriously weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The first movie sucked because he turned Star Trek into Star Wars. The second movie tanked the entire franchise because he then tried to tie it into something that Star Trek actually did.
Click to expand...

I liked the first one, despite the several plot holes.....And I especially liked the idea of the new timeline to pump in some fresh air and new plot lines.


Then Abrams punts and rehashes the Khan thing...I won't even bother until it shows up on cable.


----------



## Mr. H.

Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.
> 
> But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.
> 
> Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's understandable. There was that period during the 1970's when they weren't controlling the Fan Fic and you had stories like the one where they made Kirk and Spock gay.
Click to expand...


They still don't control fanfic, there is a large market for it, and all sorts of things have happened.

http://trekfanfiction.net/


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mr. H. said:


> Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!



It saves me $10, and tells Abrams he shouldn't be in charge of a series where people think.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It saves me $10, and tells Abrams he shouldn't be in charge of a series where people think.
Click to expand...


i agree about Abrams.....wrong guy for this franchise.....


----------



## JoeB131

Harry Dresden said:


> [
> 
> Joe they were not awful.....if they were they would not sold as well as they did.....they were way more imaginative than the TV Shows.....and  the first 9 Bab 5 novels were written by 8 different writers.....David only wrote the "The Centauri Trilogy " and two novelizations of the TV Movies.... the other 2 Trilogies were written by 2 other Authors....



Something selling is not an indication of quality.  Just ask Steven King (SARCASM). 

I thought Peter David also wrote the Psi-Corps trilogy books.


----------



## mudwhistle

Moonglow said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.
> 
> Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
Click to expand...

 
The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.


----------



## jon_berzerk

mudwhistle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.
> 
> Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.
Click to expand...


i heard it was good 

have not gone yet


----------



## mudwhistle

jon_berzerk said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i heard it was good
> 
> have not gone yet
Click to expand...

 
I would rather wait till it comes out in Blueray. 

Very few movies are worth going to a theater and risk getting shot over.


----------



## jon_berzerk

mudwhistle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i heard it was good
> 
> have not gone yet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather wait till it comes out in Blueray.
> 
> Very few movies are worth going to a theater and risk getting shot over.
Click to expand...


i am not to worried about that 

out here


----------



## JoeB131

mudwhistle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i heard it was good
> 
> have not gone yet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather wait till it comes out in Blueray.
> 
> Very few movies are worth going to a theater and risk getting shot over.
Click to expand...


Well, that wouldn't be a problem if you gun whacks didn't let every psycho in the country practice he "Second Amendment Rights".  

I did notice when I went to see it, the theatre ran a "Cover your Ass" promo.  It had such utterly useless advice as "Let theatre management know if you see anyone suspicious" and "Make sure you walk calmly to the exits".


----------



## mudwhistle

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i heard it was good
> 
> have not gone yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather wait till it comes out in Blueray.
> 
> Very few movies are worth going to a theater and risk getting shot over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that wouldn't be a problem if you gun whacks didn't let every psycho in the country practice he "Second Amendment Rights".
> 
> I did notice when I went to see it, the theatre ran a "Cover your Ass" promo. It had such utterly useless advice as "Let theatre management know if you see anyone suspicious" and "Make sure you walk calmly to the exits".
Click to expand...

 
I think the problem is the lack of treatment those wackjobs get while living in liberal states. You see, even nutjobs have rights. In some states it takes practically an act of congress to get them committed. 

But the real reason I don't like going to the movies is the fact that very few of them are worth putting up with the hassle of driving there, paying $20 to see when I can wait till it comes out and pay for a DVD and see it as many times as I want. 

Fact is most of the crap that Hollywood produces isn't worth watching.


----------



## Oddball

Harry Dresden said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It saves me $10, and tells Abrams he shouldn't be in charge of a series where people think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i agree about Abrams.....wrong guy for this franchise.....
Click to expand...

Could be worse....Could be Bruckheimer.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Joe they were not awful.....if they were they would not sold as well as they did.....they were way more imaginative than the TV Shows.....and  the first 9 Bab 5 novels were written by 8 different writers.....David only wrote the "The Centauri Trilogy " and two novelizations of the TV Movies.... the other 2 Trilogies were written by 2 other Authors....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something selling is not an indication of quality.  Just ask Steven King (SARCASM).
> 
> I thought Peter David also wrote the Psi-Corps trilogy books.
Click to expand...


there are so many books Joe that if they are as bad as you think they are, don't you think that after about 6-7 books that they would have kinda died out?......i sure as hell would have stopped reading them if they sucked....why read 200 shitty novels?.....
and no David did not write that Trilogy.....J. Gregory Keyes did....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Oddball said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It saves me $10, and tells Abrams he shouldn't be in charge of a series where people think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree about Abrams.....wrong guy for this franchise.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be worse....Could be Bruckheimer.
Click to expand...


or Tim Burton.....


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Harry Dresden said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i agree about Abrams.....wrong guy for this franchise.....
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse....Could be Bruckheimer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or Tim Burton.....
Click to expand...


At least Tim Burton has imagination.  All those other two have are big explosions.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

mudwhistle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.
> 
> Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.
Click to expand...


You must be drunk. The new spock could pass as the original on sight or sound.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Grampa Murked U said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse....Could be Bruckheimer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or Tim Burton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least Tim Burton has imagination.  All those other two have are big explosions.
Click to expand...


he would destroy Star trek as bad as he would have destroyed Superman if they would have  followed through and let him make that movie.....Burton has imagination....but not for this type of Sci-Fi.....not his forte....


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> or Tim Burton.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least Tim Burton has imagination.  All those other two have are big explosions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he would destroy Star trek as bad as he would have destroyed Superman if they would have  followed through and let him make that movie.....Burton has imagination....but not for this type of Sci-Fi.....not his forte....
Click to expand...


He might not have destroyed Superman.  I thought he did a good job with the first Batman.  It was, at the time, the best comic book movie that had been made.  Sure, it had some issues, and it led to horrible, horrible sequels, but it was great at the time.

Plus, Superman is an easy character to ruin.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least Tim Burton has imagination.  All those other two have are big explosions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he would destroy Star trek as bad as he would have destroyed Superman if they would have  followed through and let him make that movie.....Burton has imagination....but not for this type of Sci-Fi.....not his forte....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might not have destroyed Superman.  I thought he did a good job with the first Batman.  It was, at the time, the best comic book movie that had been made.  Sure, it had some issues, and it led to horrible, horrible sequels, but it was great at the time.
> 
> Plus, Superman is an easy character to ruin.
Click to expand...


apparently you did not see who was in line to play Superman and how Burton was going to change the costume...


Kevin Smith was hired to write the script....the only plus of this thing....but he was gone after he told Jon Peters that Superman does not fight Polar Bears who apparently attack him at his fortress....Kevin said Peters insisted that he has to fight a Polar Bear.....Nicolas Cage was picked to play Supes.....

Bullet Dodged: What Burton?s Superman Would?ve Looked Like « Spinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> he would destroy Star trek as bad as he would have destroyed Superman if they would have  followed through and let him make that movie.....Burton has imagination....but not for this type of Sci-Fi.....not his forte....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He might not have destroyed Superman.  I thought he did a good job with the first Batman.  It was, at the time, the best comic book movie that had been made.  Sure, it had some issues, and it led to horrible, horrible sequels, but it was great at the time.
> 
> Plus, Superman is an easy character to ruin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently you did not see who was in line to play Superman and how Burton was going to change the costume...
> 
> 
> Kevin Smith was hired to write the script....the only plus of this thing....but he was gone after he told Jon Peters that Superman does not fight Polar Bears who apparently attack him at his fortress....Kevin said Peters insisted that he has to fight a Polar Bear.....Nicolas Cage was picked to play Supes.....
> 
> Bullet Dodged: What Burton?s Superman Would?ve Looked Like « Spinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily
Click to expand...


OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.

I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears! 

Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!

So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He might not have destroyed Superman.  I thought he did a good job with the first Batman.  It was, at the time, the best comic book movie that had been made.  Sure, it had some issues, and it led to horrible, horrible sequels, but it was great at the time.
> 
> Plus, Superman is an easy character to ruin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently you did not see who was in line to play Superman and how Burton was going to change the costume...
> 
> 
> Kevin Smith was hired to write the script....the only plus of this thing....but he was gone after he told Jon Peters that Superman does not fight Polar Bears who apparently attack him at his fortress....Kevin said Peters insisted that he has to fight a Polar Bear.....Nicolas Cage was picked to play Supes.....
> 
> Bullet Dodged: What Burton?s Superman Would?ve Looked Like « Spinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
Click to expand...


He made one good Batman movie because fans were scared shitless about what he was going to do with it, and the studio didn't give him free reign with the character. When he got to do it is way we ended up with nipples on the costumes and this.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> He might not have destroyed Superman.  I thought he did a good job with the first Batman.  It was, at the time, the best comic book movie that had been made.  Sure, it had some issues, and it led to horrible, horrible sequels, but it was great at the time.
> 
> Plus, Superman is an easy character to ruin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently you did not see who was in line to play Superman and how Burton was going to change the costume...
> 
> 
> Kevin Smith was hired to write the script....the only plus of this thing....but he was gone after he told Jon Peters that Superman does not fight Polar Bears who apparently attack him at his fortress....Kevin said Peters insisted that he has to fight a Polar Bear.....Nicolas Cage was picked to play Supes.....
> 
> Bullet Dodged: What Burton?s Superman Would?ve Looked Like « Spinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
Click to expand...

the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently you did not see who was in line to play Superman and how Burton was going to change the costume...
> 
> 
> Kevin Smith was hired to write the script....the only plus of this thing....but he was gone after he told Jon Peters that Superman does not fight Polar Bears who apparently attack him at his fortress....Kevin said Peters insisted that he has to fight a Polar Bear.....Nicolas Cage was picked to play Supes.....
> 
> Bullet Dodged: What Burton?s Superman Would?ve Looked Like « Spinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He made one good Batman movie because fans were scared shitless about what he was going to do with it, and the studio didn't give him free reign with the character. When he got to do it is way we ended up with nipples on the costumes and this.
Click to expand...


I thought Burton stopped after the second one.  Wasn't it after that the whole nipple thing started, and almost all the other incredibly ridiculous things they did?  I mean, sure, the second movie had the penguins firing missiles from their backs, and that's the scene that sticks with me and makes me really hate that second one....but it was still so much better than the Carrey Riddler, Schwartzenegger Mr. Freeze, etc.


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently you did not see who was in line to play Superman and how Burton was going to change the costume...
> 
> 
> Kevin Smith was hired to write the script....the only plus of this thing....but he was gone after he told Jon Peters that Superman does not fight Polar Bears who apparently attack him at his fortress....Kevin said Peters insisted that he has to fight a Polar Bear.....Nicolas Cage was picked to play Supes.....
> 
> Bullet Dodged: What Burton?s Superman Would?ve Looked Like « Spinoff Online ? TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....
Click to expand...


Those people would be very wrong. 

First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.

Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman.  I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.  

I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.

I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He made one good Batman movie because fans were scared shitless about what he was going to do with it, and the studio didn't give him free reign with the character. When he got to do it is way we ended up with nipples on the costumes and this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Burton stopped after the second one.  Wasn't it after that the whole nipple thing started, and almost all the other incredibly ridiculous things they did?  I mean, sure, the second movie had the penguins firing missiles from their backs, and that's the scene that sticks with me and makes me really hate that second one....but it was still so much better than the Carrey Riddler, Schwartzenegger Mr. Freeze, etc.
Click to expand...


Burton was the producer of the third movie.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
> 
> 
> 
> the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman.  I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
Click to expand...


I think you are cutting off tons of good movies, the first Superman movie was in the 1940s, not 1978.


----------



## mudwhistle

Grampa Murked U said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be drunk. The new spock could pass as the original on sight or sound.
Click to expand...

 
The new Spock acts too human.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I give you the Cage thing was terrible.  Then again, this was long before he settled into his B-movie persona of today.  He actually had some draw at the time.  But yes, I think a bad choice.
> 
> I'm sure the polar bear fighting would also have been terrible, but it has the advantage of being polar bears!
> 
> Like I said, it's an easy character to ruin.  I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.  I tried to go back and watch the Reeves movies, and wow, they were awful.  I think I prefer the crappy Brandon Routh version!
> 
> So, this sounds like it would have been horrendous, but you never know.....he was able to make at least one good Batman movie!
> 
> 
> 
> the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman.  I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
Click to expand...


*Those people would be very wrong.*

you will find that Comic fans (Super Hero Hype) did not think Burtons Batman was all that great....for one....Batman for 50 years was a guy 6'3....and here comes 5'8 Keaton....why? ...because Burton said i have never seen a big guy who can act..........he was lucky Keaton did a credible acting job....but after that one they all sucked.... *

First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.*

being that Blade and the Crow fought the bad guys.....they are considered Super hero's.....a Comic Book movie would be like "Archie and Veronica"......

but its all what you like....Superman did say that Batman is the most dangerous guy in the Justice League....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman.  I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are cutting off tons of good movies, the first Superman movie was in the 1940s, not 1978.
Click to expand...


that was a serial not a movie.....the Fleischer Cartoons were great.....


----------



## mudwhistle

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies. I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman. I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Those people would be very wrong.*
> 
> you will find that Comic fans (Super Hero Hype) did not think Burtons Batman was all that great....for one....Batman for 50 years was a guy 6'3....and here comes 5'8 Keaton....why? ...because Burton said i have never seen a big guy who can act..........he was lucky Keaton did a credible acting job....but after that one they all sucked....
> 
> *First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies. I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.*
> 
> being that Blade and the Crow fought the bad guys.....they are considered Super hero's.....a Comic Book movie would be like "Archie and Veronica"......
> 
> but its all what you like....Superman did say that Batman is the most dangerous guy in the Justice League....
Click to expand...

 
Batman would have been a much more dangerous guy if he would have carried a gun.


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first Superman movie is considered the first Movie based on Comics actually done well.....some consider it the best from that Century....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman.  I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Those people would be very wrong.*
> 
> you will find that Comic fans (Super Hero Hype) did not think Burtons Batman was all that great....for one....Batman for 50 years was a guy 6'3....and here comes 5'8 Keaton....why? ...because Burton said i have never seen a big guy who can act..........he was lucky Keaton did a credible acting job....but after that one they all sucked.... *
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.*
> 
> being that Blade and the Crow fought the bad guys.....they are considered Super hero's.....a Comic Book movie would be like "Archie and Veronica"......
> 
> but its all what you like....Superman did say that Batman is the most dangerous guy in the Justice League....
Click to expand...


The Crow is not the average super hero comic.  He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.

Blade is a bit closer to a hero, but still not within the normal mold.

I was a Batman fan before Burton's movie.  I loved it when I saw it.  Yes, I didn't think Keaton was a good choice....but then he pulled it off.

Yes, the rest sucked.  The second one had some redeeming qualities, but still too many problems.  The rest didn't even have redeeming characteristics.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

You guys take this shit seriously huh? Lol

Ftr I liked batman beginning where he was in that below ground dungeon the best. Although I loved Jacks joker


----------



## Montrovant

Grampa Murked U said:


> You guys take this shit seriously huh? Lol
> 
> Ftr I liked batman beginning where he was in that below ground dungeon the best. Although I loved Jacks joker



After Ledger, Nicholson's joker is just average.


----------



## Montrovant

It's amazing how little we're talking about Star Trek at this point in the thread.


----------



## JoeB131

Montrovant said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys take this shit seriously huh? Lol
> 
> Ftr I liked batman beginning where he was in that below ground dungeon the best. Although I loved Jacks joker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Ledger, Nicholson's joker is just average.
Click to expand...


Ledger made  Nicholson look like Caesar Romero.


----------



## Harry Dresden

mudwhistle said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies. I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman. I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those people would be very wrong.*
> 
> you will find that Comic fans (Super Hero Hype) did not think Burtons Batman was all that great....for one....Batman for 50 years was a guy 6'3....and here comes 5'8 Keaton....why? ...because Burton said i have never seen a big guy who can act..........he was lucky Keaton did a credible acting job....but after that one they all sucked....
> 
> *First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies. I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.*
> 
> being that Blade and the Crow fought the bad guys.....they are considered Super hero's.....a Comic Book movie would be like "Archie and Veronica"......
> 
> but its all what you like....Superman did say that Batman is the most dangerous guy in the Justice League....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Batman would have been a much more dangerous guy if he would have carried a gun.
Click to expand...


Mud i think REALISTICALLY ....he would....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those people would be very wrong.
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.
> 
> Still, I prefer Batman by a long shot to Superman.  I've seen both multiple times, and Batman holds up better, at least for now.
> 
> I think Blade holds up better as well, but again, not exactly the typical comic book hero movie.
> 
> I guess Batman is the only comic hero movie I can think of better than Superman, pre-2000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those people would be very wrong.*
> 
> you will find that Comic fans (Super Hero Hype) did not think Burtons Batman was all that great....for one....Batman for 50 years was a guy 6'3....and here comes 5'8 Keaton....why? ...because Burton said i have never seen a big guy who can act..........he was lucky Keaton did a credible acting job....but after that one they all sucked.... *
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.*
> 
> being that Blade and the Crow fought the bad guys.....they are considered Super hero's.....a Comic Book movie would be like "Archie and Veronica"......
> 
> but its all what you like....Superman did say that Batman is the most dangerous guy in the Justice League....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Crow is not the average super hero comic.  He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.
> 
> Blade is a bit closer to a hero, but still not within the normal mold.
> 
> I was a Batman fan before Burton's movie.  I loved it when I saw it.  Yes, I didn't think Keaton was a good choice....but then he pulled it off.
> 
> Yes, the rest sucked.  The second one had some redeeming qualities, but still too many problems.  The rest didn't even have redeeming characteristics.
Click to expand...


* He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.*

so is Batmans and the Punisher....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Grampa Murked U said:


> You guys take this shit seriously huh? Lol
> 
> Ftr I liked batman beginning where he was in that below ground dungeon the best. Although I loved Jacks joker



i was raised with comics in the late 50's and 60's.....Heath Ledger was the way the Joker is supposed to be.........a pure psychopath....


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those people would be very wrong.*
> 
> you will find that Comic fans (Super Hero Hype) did not think Burtons Batman was all that great....for one....Batman for 50 years was a guy 6'3....and here comes 5'8 Keaton....why? ...because Burton said i have never seen a big guy who can act..........he was lucky Keaton did a credible acting job....but after that one they all sucked.... *
> 
> First, you have to decide if you are talking all comic book movies, or just comic book hero movies.  I consider The Crow probably the best ever comic book movie, but it's not your typical hero movie.*
> 
> being that Blade and the Crow fought the bad guys.....they are considered Super hero's.....a Comic Book movie would be like "Archie and Veronica"......
> 
> but its all what you like....Superman did say that Batman is the most dangerous guy in the Justice League....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Crow is not the average super hero comic.  He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.
> 
> Blade is a bit closer to a hero, but still not within the normal mold.
> 
> I was a Batman fan before Burton's movie.  I loved it when I saw it.  Yes, I didn't think Keaton was a good choice....but then he pulled it off.
> 
> Yes, the rest sucked.  The second one had some redeeming qualities, but still too many problems.  The rest didn't even have redeeming characteristics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.*
> 
> so is Batmans and the Punisher....
Click to expand...


Batman may have been inspired to become a hero by revenge, but he became a hero.  He protects the innocent, he saves people from criminals.  

You have more of a point with the Punisher.  That character has been kept intentionally morally murky.  Some versions have been a bit heroic, others have not been at all.  The Punisher has long finished the direct revenge aspect of his story, though.  Of course, none of the Punisher movies were all that good.  

The Crow was not an ongoing series like Punisher or Batman.  There was no need to make a character that acted heroic.  It was a short series that revolved entirely around this revenge scenario.  He and his girlfriend are killed, he comes back to get revenge on those who did it, comic ends.  It wasn't a world of super heroes, he wasn't a vigilante of a Batman or Punisher stripe, he didn't want to go after anyone but those responsible for his and his girl's death.  It was a very different dynamic than the average comic book hero.

I read the Crow and have read a decent amount of Batman and Punisher comics, so I'm not entirely speaking out of my ass.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Crow is not the average super hero comic.  He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.
> 
> Blade is a bit closer to a hero, but still not within the normal mold.
> 
> I was a Batman fan before Burton's movie.  I loved it when I saw it.  Yes, I didn't think Keaton was a good choice....but then he pulled it off.
> 
> Yes, the rest sucked.  The second one had some redeeming qualities, but still too many problems.  The rest didn't even have redeeming characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.*
> 
> so is Batmans and the Punisher....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Batman may have been inspired to become a hero by revenge, but he became a hero.  He protects the innocent, he saves people from criminals.
> 
> You have more of a point with the Punisher.  That character has been kept intentionally morally murky.  Some versions have been a bit heroic, others have not been at all.  The Punisher has long finished the direct revenge aspect of his story, though.  Of course, none of the Punisher movies were all that good.
> 
> The Crow was not an ongoing series like Punisher or Batman.  There was no need to make a character that acted heroic.  It was a short series that revolved entirely around this revenge scenario.  He and his girlfriend are killed, he comes back to get revenge on those who did it, comic ends.  It wasn't a world of super heroes, he wasn't a vigilante of a Batman or Punisher stripe, he didn't want to go after anyone but those responsible for his and his girl's death.  It was a very different dynamic than the average comic book hero.
> 
> I read the Crow and have read a decent amount of Batman and Punisher comics, so I'm not entirely speaking out of my ass.
Click to expand...


the Crow has a whole series of Graphic Novels.....so it just did not end...there are five different Crows (in the novels).....and whether you like it or not.....Comic Vine one of the major listers of Comics has the Crow classified as a "Super Hero" because he has abilities and fights evil.....just the way it is.... 

the 3rd Punisher movie was considered by the Punishers fan club i guess you can call them..... to be vastly superior to the others.....they gave it a high ranking.....


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> * He's not really a hero at all, the story is one of revenge.*
> 
> so is Batmans and the Punisher....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batman may have been inspired to become a hero by revenge, but he became a hero.  He protects the innocent, he saves people from criminals.
> 
> You have more of a point with the Punisher.  That character has been kept intentionally morally murky.  Some versions have been a bit heroic, others have not been at all.  The Punisher has long finished the direct revenge aspect of his story, though.  Of course, none of the Punisher movies were all that good.
> 
> The Crow was not an ongoing series like Punisher or Batman.  There was no need to make a character that acted heroic.  It was a short series that revolved entirely around this revenge scenario.  He and his girlfriend are killed, he comes back to get revenge on those who did it, comic ends.  It wasn't a world of super heroes, he wasn't a vigilante of a Batman or Punisher stripe, he didn't want to go after anyone but those responsible for his and his girl's death.  It was a very different dynamic than the average comic book hero.
> 
> I read the Crow and have read a decent amount of Batman and Punisher comics, so I'm not entirely speaking out of my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Crow has a whole series of Graphic Novels.....so it just did not end...there are five different Crows (in the novels).....and whether you like it or not.....Comic Vine one of the major listers of Comics has the Crow classified as a "Super Hero" because he has abilities and fights evil.....just the way it is....
> 
> the 3rd Punisher movie was considered by the Punishers fan club i guess you can call them..... to be vastly superior to the others.....they gave it a high ranking.....
Click to expand...


Bah.  First, I don't count all the different Crow characters as one hero, so that's not really a good argument.  Second, at least in the original, he wasn't fighting evil so much, he was avenging his and his fiance's murder.  It was very specific, he didn't concern himself with the evils of the world, just what had been done to him.  Third, I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  The character simply does not fit into the traditional super hero mold.  

Powers don't make a comic book hero.  Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.  In fact, there is an entire Batman, Inc. currently filled with non-powered heroes.  Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes.  Powers are only indicative of the difference between hero and super-hero.

The third Punisher movie may have been the best of the bunch (which was the third?  The Jane/Travolta one, or that War Zone version?) but that doesn't say much.  It's like picking one of the Fast and Furious movies or the Transformers movies and saying they are the best of the bunch.  That's the best in a pile of shitty movies.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Batman may have been inspired to become a hero by revenge, but he became a hero.  He protects the innocent, he saves people from criminals.
> 
> You have more of a point with the Punisher.  That character has been kept intentionally morally murky.  Some versions have been a bit heroic, others have not been at all.  The Punisher has long finished the direct revenge aspect of his story, though.  Of course, none of the Punisher movies were all that good.
> 
> The Crow was not an ongoing series like Punisher or Batman.  There was no need to make a character that acted heroic.  It was a short series that revolved entirely around this revenge scenario.  He and his girlfriend are killed, he comes back to get revenge on those who did it, comic ends.  It wasn't a world of super heroes, he wasn't a vigilante of a Batman or Punisher stripe, he didn't want to go after anyone but those responsible for his and his girl's death.  It was a very different dynamic than the average comic book hero.
> 
> I read the Crow and have read a decent amount of Batman and Punisher comics, so I'm not entirely speaking out of my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Crow has a whole series of Graphic Novels.....so it just did not end...there are five different Crows (in the novels).....and whether you like it or not.....Comic Vine one of the major listers of Comics has the Crow classified as a "Super Hero" because he has abilities and fights evil.....just the way it is....
> 
> the 3rd Punisher movie was considered by the Punishers fan club i guess you can call them..... to be vastly superior to the others.....they gave it a high ranking.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bah.  First, I don't count all the different Crow characters as one hero, so that's not really a good argument.  Second, at least in the original, he wasn't fighting evil so much, he was avenging his and his fiance's murder.  It was very specific, he didn't concern himself with the evils of the world, just what had been done to him.  Third, I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  The character simply does not fit into the traditional super hero mold.
> 
> Powers don't make a comic book hero.  Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.  In fact, there is an entire Batman, Inc. currently filled with non-powered heroes.  Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes.  Powers are only indicative of the difference between hero and super-hero.
> 
> The third Punisher movie may have been the best of the bunch (which was the third?  The Jane/Travolta one, or that War Zone version?) but that doesn't say much.  It's like picking one of the Fast and Furious movies or the Transformers movies and saying they are the best of the bunch.  That's the best in a pile of shitty movies.
Click to expand...

* I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  *

well when you become one of the Authorities in the Comic World then i will take into consideration what you say....they have a little bit more on their side than you or me..... 

*Powers don't make a comic book hero.*

never said it did.....

* Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.*

thats right....he is also Considered a Super Hero because he fits the criteria laid out,like a Secret Identity,a Costume,amazing gadgets.....etc....

* Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes*

thats because they dont fight evil......

and it was the War Zone Punisher movie.....Thomas Jane was no Punisher....


----------



## Montrovant

Harry Dresden said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Crow has a whole series of Graphic Novels.....so it just did not end...there are five different Crows (in the novels).....and whether you like it or not.....Comic Vine one of the major listers of Comics has the Crow classified as a "Super Hero" because he has abilities and fights evil.....just the way it is....
> 
> the 3rd Punisher movie was considered by the Punishers fan club i guess you can call them..... to be vastly superior to the others.....they gave it a high ranking.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bah.  First, I don't count all the different Crow characters as one hero, so that's not really a good argument.  Second, at least in the original, he wasn't fighting evil so much, he was avenging his and his fiance's murder.  It was very specific, he didn't concern himself with the evils of the world, just what had been done to him.  Third, I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  The character simply does not fit into the traditional super hero mold.
> 
> Powers don't make a comic book hero.  Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.  In fact, there is an entire Batman, Inc. currently filled with non-powered heroes.  Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes.  Powers are only indicative of the difference between hero and super-hero.
> 
> The third Punisher movie may have been the best of the bunch (which was the third?  The Jane/Travolta one, or that War Zone version?) but that doesn't say much.  It's like picking one of the Fast and Furious movies or the Transformers movies and saying they are the best of the bunch.  That's the best in a pile of shitty movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  *
> 
> well when you become one of the Authorities in the Comic World then i will take into consideration what you say....they have a little bit more on their side than you or me.....
> 
> *Powers don't make a comic book hero.*
> 
> never said it did.....
> 
> * Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.*
> 
> thats right....he is also Considered a Super Hero because he fits the criteria laid out,like a Secret Identity,a Costume,amazing gadgets.....etc....
> 
> * Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes*
> 
> thats because they dont fight evil......
> 
> and it was the War Zone Punisher movie.....Thomas Jane was no Punisher....
Click to expand...


From what I've read, Jane was actually decently well liked as the Punisher.  He did a short called Dirty Laundry that wasn't too bad.

Punisher really isn't a great movie character though.  Most iterations of the Punisher don't have enough depth.  

If Comic Vine is an authority of some sort, well, I've never known.   The definition of super hero I've always seen is that the hero must have some sort of powers.  That's what the super is about.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Montrovant said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bah.  First, I don't count all the different Crow characters as one hero, so that's not really a good argument.  Second, at least in the original, he wasn't fighting evil so much, he was avenging his and his fiance's murder.  It was very specific, he didn't concern himself with the evils of the world, just what had been done to him.  Third, I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  The character simply does not fit into the traditional super hero mold.
> 
> Powers don't make a comic book hero.  Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.  In fact, there is an entire Batman, Inc. currently filled with non-powered heroes.  Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes.  Powers are only indicative of the difference between hero and super-hero.
> 
> The third Punisher movie may have been the best of the bunch (which was the third?  The Jane/Travolta one, or that War Zone version?) but that doesn't say much.  It's like picking one of the Fast and Furious movies or the Transformers movies and saying they are the best of the bunch.  That's the best in a pile of shitty movies.
> 
> 
> 
> * I don't care if Comic Vine calls the Crow a super hero.  *
> 
> well when you become one of the Authorities in the Comic World then i will take into consideration what you say....they have a little bit more on their side than you or me.....
> 
> *Powers don't make a comic book hero.*
> 
> never said it did.....
> 
> * Batman has no powers, but is a comic book hero.*
> 
> thats right....he is also Considered a Super Hero because he fits the criteria laid out,like a Secret Identity,a Costume,amazing gadgets.....etc....
> 
> * Many villains have powers and are clearly not heroes*
> 
> thats because they dont fight evil......
> 
> and it was the War Zone Punisher movie.....Thomas Jane was no Punisher....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jane was actually decently well liked as the Punisher.  He did a short called Dirty Laundry that wasn't too bad.
> 
> Punisher really isn't a great movie character though.  Most iterations of the Punisher don't have enough depth.
> 
> If Comic Vine is an authority of some sort, well, I've never known.   The definition of super hero I've always seen is that the hero must have some sort of powers.  That's what the super is about.
Click to expand...

i have a definition from a Comic Encyclopedia that i have that was given by Marvel and DC who share ownership of the United States trademark for the phrases "Super Hero" and "Super Heroes".......and according to what they have......as long as that non-powered guy has 
Extraordinary abilities 
a Strong Moral Code 
a Secret Identity 
a Costume 
a Head Quarters 
and a supporting Cast of Villians.....he/she is considered a Super Hero.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

hey Montro....how did we get into comics on a Star Trek Thread?........who is the scoundrel who led us astray.... .


----------



## Missourian

Saw it today,  loved it!

Now I can finally read the thread.


----------



## Moonglow

I have enjoyed all the Star Trek movies.


----------



## Missourian

Spoiler: So I'm watching Alternate Star Trek II again...



...and I'm thinking AST III is going to be The Search for Pike.  Why else would Spock mind meld with Pike as he died?

Also,  as Kirk didn't know Dr Marcus,  but did know nurse Chapel,  I suspect Kirk has a child with Chapel.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Missourian said:


> Spoiler: So I'm watching Alternate Star Trek II again...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and I'm thinking AST III is going to be The Search for Pike.  Why else would Spock mind meld with Pike as he died?
> 
> Also,  as Kirk didn't know Dr Marcus,  but did know nurse Chapel,  I suspect Kirk has a child with Chapel.



I prefer Pegg's theory.

Simon Pegg's Star Trek Reboot Theory: Is this the "Mirror " Crew?

In fact, I am holding out the hope he is right, it certainly fits in with the more militaristic uniforms, and those stupid hats.


----------



## Montrovant

Missourian said:


> Spoiler: So I'm watching Alternate Star Trek II again...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and I'm thinking AST III is going to be The Search for Pike.  Why else would Spock mind meld with Pike as he died?
> 
> Also,  as Kirk didn't know Dr Marcus,  but did know nurse Chapel,  I suspect Kirk has a child with Chapel.



Don't say that!  That's a terrible, terrible idea to have floating around.


----------



## Missourian

Quantum Windbag said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: So I'm watching Alternate Star Trek II again...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and I'm thinking AST III is going to be The Search for Pike.  Why else would Spock mind meld with Pike as he died?
> 
> Also,  as Kirk didn't know Dr Marcus,  but did know nurse Chapel,  I suspect Kirk has a child with Chapel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer Pegg's theory.
> 
> Simon Pegg's Star Trek Reboot Theory: Is this the "Mirror " Crew?
> 
> In fact, I am holding out the hope he is right, it certainly fits in with the more militaristic uniforms, and those stupid hats.
Click to expand...



Interesting theory,  but that doesn't negate my theory,  even if this is the Mirror crew.



Spoiler: The Movies so far...



...have followed the plots of the originals.

ST I,  unstoppable megaship origin unknown first destroys a federation science ship and then a kingon fleet on it's way to destroy Earth.

ST II  Wrath of Khan.  Dr Marcus introduced.  Spock melds with McCoy.  Spock dies.

ST III Search for Spock.

AST I unstoppable megaship origin unknown first destroys a federation science  ship and then a kingon fleet on it's way to destroy all federation planets.

AST II  Into Darkness...Khan is main antagonist,  Dr Marcus introduced,  Spock Melds with Pike,  Pike dies.

AST III  Search for Pike.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Yeah, that's a mirror of the original. In the last bit of the movie


----------



## TemplarKormac

Yeah, that's a mirror of the original. In the last bit of the movie



Spoiler: Yep,



Kirk dies while trying to repair the warp core, and Spock is on the outside. As Spock's body was regenerated by the Genesis Device, Kirk is resurrected by Khan's cells. This is exactly a mirror image of the original.


----------



## JoeB131

Well, now that Abrams is moving on to Star Wars, maybe we'll get someone who will stop trying to make Star Trek into Star Wars.  

While the movie wasn't the abortion I thought it would be, at the end of the day, it was just forgettable action schlock.


----------



## hangover

I just watched it on DVD, and I thought it was the best Star Trek ever.


----------

