Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
A Good Old Fashioned Star Trek XI Starship discussion! ($$$SPOILERS$$$)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Captain Untouchable: [qb]You're making the (possibly flawed) assumption that Spock departed from Romulus. The "fastest ship" was built by the Vulcan Science Institute, so he could concievably have gone back to Vulcan to get the red matter, and tried to fly back to Romulus in Vulcan's fastest ship, but didn't make it in time before the Supernova got there.[/QUOTE][/qb] I was actually assuming he left from Vulcan. The point is that a supernova in even a nearby system wouldn't pose a direct threat to Romulus for [i]years[/i]. It's not an instantaneous event. It's not going to sneak up on you. [b] [QUOTE]Spock was the one that called it a "Black Hole". If the singularity didn't actually behave like a black hole (about which very little is known, incidentally), then perhaps it [i]wasn't[/i] an actual black hole, and Spock was generalising. Perhaps it was a micro-singularity, like the ones that were theoretically going to blink in and out of existance every few fractions of a second in the LHC at CERN? You're assuming that nothing new about science could possibly be discovered in the next couple of centuries; think about how many times scientific assumptions have been proven wrong in the past.[/b][/QUOTE]Even granting all that as potentially true, you're giving the filmmakers far too much credit and missing the point. There's a difference between the [i]rationale[/i] behind a film and the [i]rationalizations[/i] the audience comes up with to smooth things over when the former is lacking. I am criticizing one, not the other. I fully support any rationalizations we may need to posit to make sense of the nonsense displayed in the movie. I do not support a creative policy that considers these matters of scientific plausibility to be immaterial in devising the story to be told. [QUOTE][b]As for the rest... I hope you enjoyed getting the rant out of your system. I happen to agree with very little of it...[/b][/QUOTE]You are, of course, free to disagree with it. It would be a pretty boring and static world if we all agreed about everything. We all have our own points of view, and it's nice to have a place like this to talk about them with people who share some of the same interests. ;) [QUOTE][b]I don't see why such a damn good story can't be retold in such a way that it *doesn't* exclude a whole new audience.[/QUOTE][/b] You keep using the phrase "good story" without defining what you mean by it. What is so good about the story presented in the film? Grieving villain on killing spree stopped by gifted teenagers. The problem with action movies is that their stories are not created around unified controlling ideas, but rather around the desired action sequences. The story is incidental, merely a way of getting from one fight or explosion to another. The plot serves no purpose other than to showcase action and scenery-chewing. That is not what [i]Star Trek[/i] should be, IMO. It should be about presenting scientific, social, moral, and philosophical dilemmas and exploring their possible outcomes through a combination of logic (reasoned discourse and experimentation) and human ingenuity (creativity and adaptability). These issues should be ones that are--or may, in the future, be--directly relevent to our lives. There should be some kind of actual intellectual content that we can [i]learn[/i] from or that can at least get us to [i]think[/i] about something other than how cool those explosions were or what a badass Kirk is. The action should be the incidental component of the plot instead of the other way around. [QUOTE][b]I mean, come on: how many new viewers do you honestly think would have gone to see the movie, if it had just slotted in with the continuity?[/b][/QUOTE]I have no idea, but I think you are conflating at least three distinct things: a good film that stands on its own storytelling merits, a film that will draw large audiences and make a lot of money, and a film that ties in with extant material. While these certainly can be inclusive of each other, they often aren't. I'll let the producers worry about their turnaround; as a consumer my concern is the quality of the product I receive. I am not satisfied in this case, and I may be a demanding customer but don't believe I am an unsatisfiable one. [QUOTE][b]Either it would have needed to spend ages re-introducing the characters (which would be boring for fans), or it would have not bothered, and thus confused and alienated the new viewers.[/QUOTE][/b] I do not see your logic, here. Why would staying in line with continuity require extensive re-introduction of the characters? Why spend time on elaborate and contrived introductions of characters at all? Just tell an interesting and believable story that has relevence and meaning and let the character's words and actions speak for themselves. That's exactly what TOS did. The first episode was not about how the main characters met each other. No such story was necessary then and it wasn't necessary now either. It's nothing but a gimmick. [QUOTE][b]This way, they came up with a compromise that allowed them to describe familiar characters and situations, but in such a way that was new for everyone.[/b][/QUOTE]And what they ended up with was the most self-referential film the franchise has yet seen, which paradoxically seeks to distinguish itself by presenting stereotypical distillations of its source material while leaving out the complexities that made it interesting and believable in the first place. A prequel with no point. A film that at once holds no resonating siginificance outside of itself and is insignificant outside of the context of TOS's resonance within popular culture. [QUOTE][b]Its fun. It was enjoyable. You said so yourself.[/b][/QUOTE][i]After years with no ST[/i] and [i]if you didn't think about it[/i], I said. After years with no sex, even a one-night stand with a one-eyed hooker would probably feel good, until the next morning. [QUOTE][qb]At the end of the day, why the hell does anything beyond that matter? Its a [i]movie[/i], for Kirk's sake! :p [/qb][/QUOTE]To me, the motion picture is a valid and valued art form that is failing to live up to its potential and being increasingly drained of its validity and value due to commercial conceits. I suppose I feel that the movie did just what Kirk did: it cheated instead of doing its homework and delivering well-thought-out work. Maybe in the future I'll be able to enjoy the film as a somber allegory to the era and industry of its making! :p -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3