Bruce Greenwood: Capt. Pike is ESSENTIAL to Star Trek's sequel
By
BafflingBeerMan,
Posted on: 2010-08-17 10:29 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
apparently your definition of excellent and Oxford's differ greatly. i blame the English.
|
Originally Posted by The_Foo
******* nerds. That movie was excellent.
|
Quote:
What about 'universal acclaim'?
|
Originally Posted by Veritech
apparently your definition of excellent and Oxford's differ greatly. i blame the English.
|
@Demobot
Also on Steam
Pike is the R2-D2 of the Star Trek universe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Veritech
apparently your definition of excellent and Oxford's differ greatly. i blame the English.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demobot
What about 'universal acclaim'?
|
Quote:
Ever check out the engine room on a well taken care of ship or yacht? They are not nearly as incongruous as the engineering on JJ's Enterprise and they are cleaner than you'd think. |
Originally Posted by Energor
ok this is going to sound waaay more A-hole then I mean it to be (which is zero) but have you ever opened the hood on your car? how does that look anything like the dashboard and seats inside the car?
seriously. it's all grease, oil, matte(sp) metal moving gears, belts,etc. while the dashboard is sleak, smooth, shiny with buttons and lights. granted now cars engines are so compact that they look more like a box than all the parts of an engine from 20 years ago, so they do look sleaker and more like the inside but not enough really. |
And speaking of sleek engineering, it all depends on the manufacturer. This is the engine compartment from a 2011 Mustang GT. While its clearly an IMO moment, this looks a helluva lot more integrated than the new Enterprise's engineering.
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Quote:
it's got a better rating on Rotten Tomatoes. neither site actually affects my opinion that Star Trek was big 'ol pile of meh with a great cast.
|
Originally Posted by Demobot
What about 'universal acclaim'?
|
Quote:
I have to agree with the Foo on this. That movie rekindled the spark TOS started. Before that the only good movie was Khan. TNG, much like the second Highlander movie was a heaping pile of guano that never happened. DS9 was only watchable after they decided to follow in the steps of Babylon 5 and have a plot that lasted more than two episodes. Finally the only thing worth watching on Hooter Trek was Jeri Ryan's bewbs.|
Originally Posted by The_Foo
******* nerds. That movie was excellent.
|
Nerdrage rebuttal in three . . . two . . . one . . .
Quote:
Nerd speed ahead, Mr. Sulu...|
Originally Posted by Energor
Quote:
seriously. it's all grease, oil, matte(sp) metal moving gears, belts,etc. while the dashboard is sleak, smooth, shiny with buttons and lights. granted now cars engines are so compact that they look more like a box than all the parts of an engine from 20 years ago, so they do look sleaker and more like the inside but not enough really. The differences between the bridge and the engine room never struck me as odd. (other than the giant waterslide coolant with a blender attachment that scotty was in) |
Imagine how nice car engines a few hundred years from now are going to look in relation to the rest of the car (of course assuming we still use anything like a car at that point).
Anyway have you ever seen -any- of the rest of the Star Trek shows or movies? We sure as heck know Abrams hasn't. Even Enterprise (which is suppose to be set like 100 years -before- this latest movie) has an engine room that at least stylistically matches the bridge. JJ couldn't have made these two things on his new ship look much different if he had used the look and styling of a cathedral versus the insides of an igloo.
I'm not suggesting the bridge has to be all that much cleaner/nicer than the engine room of a ship. I'm just suggesting it has to look like it's ON the same ship that bridge is on an not some kind of holodeck simulation.
P.S. I won't even mention (much) the failure of scale Abrams achieved with that stupid engine room of his. If that 'room' was actually on a ship the ship would have to be about 3 times bigger than it actually was to accommodate it.
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Star Trek 11 made more money than any other two Star Trek movies combined. Which means that more people watched that movie than watched the others.
The type of Star Trek fans who liked the garbage that was ST: Nemesis should have done a better job of supporting Star Trek in the only way that counts: with their dollar.
The Star Trek franchise is currently working like a perfect democracy. They're doing what the largest percentage of people want. Sorry if that ain't you, but that's how things work.
And yes, I liked ST11 better than any Star Trek movie since the Wrath of Khan.
Quote:
This.
|
Originally Posted by The_Foo
******* nerds. That movie was excellent.
|
Quote:
Well I spent my money watching this "perfectly democratic" movie just like I spent my money watching all the others. I'd even say this Star Trek movie was probably (overall) better than many of the others.|
Originally Posted by Peregrine_Falcon
Star Trek 11 made more money than any other two Star Trek movies combined. Which means that more people watched that movie than watched the others.
The type of Star Trek fans who liked the garbage that was ST: Nemesis should have done a better job of supporting Star Trek in the only way that counts: with their dollar. The Star Trek franchise is currently working like a perfect democracy. They're doing what the largest percentage of people want. Sorry if that ain't you, but that's how things work. And yes, I liked ST11 better than any Star Trek movie since the Wrath of Khan. |
But then again the "the largest percentage of [what] people want" now-a-days are things like reality TV and Transformer-type movies. That's pretty much what they got with this dressed up in a Star Trek coat. I rest my case.
Just because a movie might be one of the most successful of a series doesn't necessarily exclude it from being terribly flawed. Case in point Independence Day was a very successful movie at the box office but I could probably compile a phonebook-sized list of all the things that was wrong/stupid about it.
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Overall I enjoyed the reboot despite some plot holes/flaws. However one must also take into account that there is not a lot of official canon history about the lives of the Enterprise crew BEFORE they were posted to the Enterprise.
However I'm of the opinion that the Star Trek franchise has exhausted its matter/antimatter energy reserves and that its dilithium crystals are shattered beyond repair.
Put the franchise into the cemetery and give it a nice send off.
Quote:
That's pretty much how Abrams managed to "get away with" as much as he did. He was at least smart enough to tinker with the one corner of the canon that was the least established until now. I actually believe the character backgrounds and initial meetings/interactions were the strongest part of this film. Too bad Abrams couldn't create a decent storyline to surround and bind all of that together. He could have avoided the whole "time travel" nonsense completely if it wasn't a priority to give Leonard Nimoy 10 more minutes of screentime. |
Originally Posted by Nericus
Overall I enjoyed the reboot despite some plot holes/flaws. However one must also take into account that there is not a lot of official canon history about the lives of the Enterprise crew BEFORE they were posted to the Enterprise.
|
Quote:
|
However I'm of the opinion that the Star Trek franchise has exhausted its matter/antimatter energy reserves and that its dilithium crystals are shattered beyond repair. Put the franchise into the cemetery and give it a nice send off. |
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Quote:
I get what you are saying, and you make a good point in what will car engines look like in the future. (but even that pic that was posted however cool it looked didn't look like a dashboard as far as I'm concerened) The engine room did look like a warehouse more than an engine room, but I still don't think it took away from the movie. It's like saying a garage is supposed to look like the living room just because it is part of the same house. it's not. you don't carpet or hang paintings in the garage (unless maybe you are super rich) you have dirty concret floors with oil spots and tools lying around. they often look nothing like anything you find in the rest of the house. |
Originally Posted by Lothic
Nerd speed ahead, Mr. Sulu...
Imagine how nice car engines a few hundred years from now are going to look in relation to the rest of the car (of course assuming we still use anything like a car at that point). Anyway have you ever seen -any- of the rest of the Star Trek shows or movies? We sure as heck know Abrams hasn't. Even Enterprise (which is suppose to be set like 100 years -before- this latest movie) has an engine room that at least stylistically matches the bridge. JJ couldn't have made these two things on his new ship look much different if he had used the look and styling of a cathedral versus the insides of an igloo. I'm not suggesting the bridge has to be all that much cleaner/nicer than the engine room of a ship. I'm just suggesting it has to look like it's ON the same ship that bridge is on an not some kind of holodeck simulation. P.S. I won't even mention (much) the failure of scale Abrams achieved with that stupid engine room of his. If that 'room' was actually on a ship the ship would have to be about 3 times bigger than it actually was to accommodate it. |
And as for the size thing, I have to disagree there as well. the ship is basically a flying city. when you see the shots of ppl looking out windows or doing things on the hull (from any of the movies) they are super small. it's not a skyscrapper it's a skyline. IIRC i've heard in either movies or TNG that the crew of the Enterprise is in the thousands. you need quarters for each of those members or families. plus room for them to move around and not get cabin fever, etc. I think this movie probably gave a more realistic ratio of engine room to ship than any before.
but thats just me.
Energor lvl50 Elec/Elec Blaster 492 Badges
Noob Killer lvl50 Fire/Fire Tank
Goth-Gal lvl50 Stone/Mace Tank
Agent Brian lvl42 Emp/Rad Defender
Biker Queen lvl50 Thugs/Force Field Mastermind
Quote:
Classic Enterprise had a crew of 400 or so, Enterprise D had about 1000+ including the families and children.
|
Originally Posted by Energor
I get what you are saying, and you make a good point in what will car engines look like in the future. (but even that pic that was posted however cool it looked didn't look like a dashboard as far as I'm concerened) The engine room did look like a warehouse more than an engine room, but I still don't think it took away from the movie. It's like saying a garage is supposed to look like the living room just because it is part of the same house. it's not. you don't carpet or hang paintings in the garage (unless maybe you are super rich) you have dirty concret floors with oil spots and tools lying around. they often look nothing like anything you find in the rest of the house.
And as for the size thing, I have to disagree there as well. the ship is basically a flying city. when you see the shots of ppl looking out windows or doing things on the hull (from any of the movies) they are super small. it's not a skyscrapper it's a skyline. IIRC i've heard in either movies or TNG that the crew of the Enterprise is in the thousands. you need quarters for each of those members or families. plus room for them to move around and not get cabin fever, etc. I think this movie probably gave a more realistic ratio of engine room to ship than any before. but thats just me. |
Again I never strictly said an engine room had to look pristine and clean. I'm just saying an industrial distillery the size of a warehouse does not look appropriate on a 23rd century ship that has an iBridge that looks like a 27th century timewarp vessel. Sorry, but it doesn't.
And for another bit of "Star Trek 101" I'll cover what's wrong with the size of the engine room we saw: The crew of a galaxy class ship in the time of TNG might have had over thousand family/crew. But since this movie was technically set at the "beginning" of the TOS era the ships were relatively smaller (even considering the "reimagining" of Abrams). The numbers always varied a bit depending on what source you cite, but the Constitution class Enterprise never had more than around 400-500 crew.
According to every dimension you care to mention for ANY of these ships (TOS, TNG and/or AbramsTrek) a room the size of the one we saw in this movie was ridiculously too big. Even though the JJprise was pegged at being like 700 meters long the room we saw would have filled maybe half of that in all three dimensions. Stupidity on that order simply doesn't deserve to be in a movie that otherwise has some good things going for it all things considered.
I don't mind that Abrams decided to toy around with established Star Trek canon.
But when he made simple "set scaling" and design choice errors I don't see the need to cut him any slack. *shrugs*
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Quote:
Well given that this reboot involved time travel which grossly changed the past, it was fitting to have one of the original crew show up and Spock was perhaps the most fitting. Kirk was not possible due his being dead on Veridian 3 (STUPID DEATH!), having Sulu, Chekov or Uhura wouldn't have had as much resonance or impact. Plus Nimoy now gets to retire on a high note with a good send off to old Spock.|
Originally Posted by Lothic
That's pretty much how Abrams managed to "get away with" as much as he did. He was at least smart enough to tinker with the one corner of the canon that was the least established until now. I actually believe the character backgrounds and initial meetings/interactions were the strongest part of this film. Too bad Abrams couldn't create a decent storyline to surround and bind all of that together. He could have avoided the whole "time travel" nonsense completely if it wasn't a priority to give Leonard Nimoy 10 more minutes of screentime.
|
Quote:
|
I could see the argument for letting the franchise rest for a number of years. But to shelve it permanently is probably not needed. And besides now that Abrams' film has made money the studio execs probably won't let it get its beauty sleep regardless.
|
Still, a reboot is the only thing that can revive the franchise:
1. Classic Trek is not standing the test of time, I've seen the CGI remastered episodes and they are a definite improvement for the most part (though one cannot improve upon weak script of Spock's Brain or the hippie episode), case in point: The Doomsday Machine episode was fantastic.
2. TNG: when it started it pretty much junked old Trek and its continuity, not counting the season 1 episode that was a remake of the classic episode with the dying sun and everyone getting the drunk disease. However many of the alien races from old Trek were junked and new ones brought in (not necessarily a bad thing). The Romulans were made into an almost credible threat but were tossed aside, among other things that hurt the show including the haphazard continuity it had (Warp speed limits being established then junked and forgotten)
3. DS9: only became good when the Dominion War started and the Defiant was added, and even then.....
4. Voyager: the series that blew a gaping hole in the hull of the Star Trek franchise. Kept expecting a Lost in Space cameo with the Jupiter 2 flying by......
5. Enterprise: not a good idea to make a prequel series to a 40+ year old original series, especially from an FX and ship technology point of view......
Quote:
I find this interesting. (almost said fascinating, lol) I don't quite understand the "nit-picking" on the opposite stuff. i'm all about bashing hollywood for butchering any source material they get their greedy hands on. just look at dragonball evolution or supermario bros. but even successful movies like Spider-man and Transformers have horrible HORRIBLE changes to core elements of the source material. |
Originally Posted by Lothic
Again I never strictly said an engine room had to look pristine and clean. I'm just saying an industrial distillery the size of a warehouse does not look appropriate on a 23rd century ship that has an iBridge that looks like a 27th century timewarp vessel. Sorry, but it doesn't.
And for another bit of "Star Trek 101" I'll cover what's wrong with the size of the engine room we saw: The crew of a galaxy class ship in the time of TNG might have had over thousand family/crew. But since this movie was technically set at the "beginning" of the TOS era the ships were relatively smaller (even considering the "reimagining" of Abrams). The numbers always varied a bit depending on what source you cite, but the Constitution class Enterprise never had more than around 400-500 crew. According to every dimension you care to mention for ANY of these ships (TOS, TNG and/or AbramsTrek) a room the size of the one we saw in this movie was ridiculously too big. Even though the JJprise was pegged at being like 700 meters long the room we saw would have filled maybe half of that in all three dimensions. Stupidity on that order simply doesn't deserve to be in a movie that otherwise has some good things going for it all things considered. I don't mind that Abrams decided to toy around with established Star Trek canon. But when he made simple "set scaling" and design choice errors I don't see the need to cut him any slack. *shrugs* |
and yet you fixate on the size ratio of the engine room to the rest of the ship? well I'm sure you have bigger problems with the movie than that, but the way you are saying it makes it seem like that is the straw that broke the translations back. to each thier own, of course, but it seems like an aspect that should be "suspension of disbelief" i mean if you are going to care about stuff like that how about the fact that they can RUN anywhere in the ship within 60secs?
Russian kid (no way I can spell the name right) ran from bridge to transporter bay fast enough to save kirk and sulu. wouldn't that make the entire ship WAAAAY to small? I think stuff like that is just meant to be not worried about. If i was a star trek fan I'd be more annoyed with the spock/ohora love thing, or having kirks father killed, etc.
anyway not saying your opinion is wrong, just voicing mine.
Energor lvl50 Elec/Elec Blaster 492 Badges
Noob Killer lvl50 Fire/Fire Tank
Goth-Gal lvl50 Stone/Mace Tank
Agent Brian lvl42 Emp/Rad Defender
Biker Queen lvl50 Thugs/Force Field Mastermind
Quote:
I'm an engineer by trade IRL. Sci-Fi movies doing "impossible" things don't bother me as long as they explain the reason why they're defying traditional logic/physics. My "suspension of disbelief" is simple in those cases. I can even get over major canon changes, again if there's adequate explanation (i.e. the Spock/Uhura love thing and having Kirk's father killed all happened in the "alternate" timeline). I can even buy Chekov saving Kirk and Sulu because he had a few minutes to get to the Transporter Room and I happen to accept the fact that this ship is NOT THAT BIG to begin with. You are still suffering under the assumption that this is a ship as big as the one we see in TNG. |
Originally Posted by Energor
I find this interesting. (almost said fascinating, lol) I don't quite understand the "nit-picking" on the opposite stuff. i'm all about bashing hollywood for butchering any source material they get their greedy hands on. just look at dragonball evolution or supermario bros. but even successful movies like Spider-man and Transformers have horrible HORRIBLE changes to core elements of the source material.
and yet you fixate on the size ratio of the engine room to the rest of the ship? well I'm sure you have bigger problems with the movie than that, but the way you are saying it makes it seem like that is the straw that broke the translations back. to each thier own, of course, but it seems like an aspect that should be "suspension of disbelief" i mean if you are going to care about stuff like that how about the fact that they can RUN anywhere in the ship within 60secs? Russian kid (no way I can spell the name right) ran from bridge to transporter bay fast enough to save kirk and sulu. wouldn't that make the entire ship WAAAAY to small? I think stuff like that is just meant to be not worried about. If i was a star trek fan I'd be more annoyed with the spock/ohora love thing, or having kirks father killed, etc. anyway not saying your opinion is wrong, just voicing mine. |
But when things are physically impossible (like the size/layout of that engineering room relative to what they've told me about that ship) for no constructive reason that bothers me. I guess I just like to have things internally consistent in my movies, literally in the case of this room. *shrugs*
And for what it's worth this whole "engineering room size/layout" deal would be like #89 on my top 100 reasons to dislike this movie.
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Quote:
This is the problem with the reboot right here. The reboot should've been done with no connection between the new and old Trek universes whatsoever. It just creates idiotic expectations from the existing fanbase and makes the writers feel obligated to continually acknowledge the old continuity (yes yes, what there was of it, etc.). It also limits them in the stories they can tell, because people will expect them to rehash old TOS episodes.|
Originally Posted by Nericus
Well given that this reboot involved time travel...
|
A clean break would've let them do anything they wanted, and all they would've had to worry about is keeping the core characters consistent with the originals. If fans want explanations for why things are different, just point to the 'different universe' sign and leave it at that. Don't try to explain it, it never goes well in Trek (I'm looking at you smooth forehead Klingons from Enterprise
).edit: Plus, with the whole time-travel thing, it's difficult to write a story that makes sense and has no gaping plot holes. Orci and Kurtzman didn't have the skill to pull it off, leaving JJTrek with holes you could drive a red giant through (though, to be fair, some of the plot holes were edit-induced). If they keep writing for the franchise, I hope they stay away from time-travel.
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch
Quote:
here's one, what about the fact that kirk/sulu should have been splattered all over the transporter room since they were falling at terminal velocity when they hit the floor? lol. if we are to believe that the transporter, naturally or cause of chekov, slowed down thier molecules it would have been nice to explain that. |
Originally Posted by Lothic
I'm an engineer by trade IRL. Sci-Fi movies doing "impossible" things don't bother me as long as they explain the reason why they're defying traditional logic/physics. My "suspension of disbelief" is simple in those cases. I can even get over major canon changes, again if there's adequate explanation (i.e. the Spock/Uhura love thing and having Kirk's father killed all happened in the "alternate" timeline). I can even buy Chekov saving Kirk and Sulu because he had a few minutes to get to the Transporter Room and I happen to accept the fact that this ship is NOT THAT BIG to begin with. You are still suffering under the assumption that this is a ship as big as the one we see in TNG.
But when things are physically impossible (like the size/layout of that engineering room relative to what they've told me about that ship) for no constructive reason that bothers me. I guess I just like to have things internally consistent in my movies, literally in the case of this room. *shrugs* And for what it's worth this whole "engineering room size/layout" deal would be like #89 on my top 100 reasons to dislike this movie. |
but once again that is just a suspension moment that we aren't supposed to worry about. the spatial relation stuff is clearly a pet peeve due to your job so its going to bother you no matter what kind of movie it is in.
thanks for the civil and fun debate.
Energor lvl50 Elec/Elec Blaster 492 Badges
Noob Killer lvl50 Fire/Fire Tank
Goth-Gal lvl50 Stone/Mace Tank
Agent Brian lvl42 Emp/Rad Defender
Biker Queen lvl50 Thugs/Force Field Mastermind
Quote:
Absolutely not. As someone that has served in the Navy on ships of similar size to the fictional Enterprise I can say for a fact it only takes a minute or two to get from the Bridge to the engine room and I didn't have turbolifts speeding me on my way.|
Originally Posted by Energor
Russian kid (no way I can spell the name right) ran from bridge to transporter bay fast enough to save kirk and sulu. wouldn't that make the entire ship WAAAAY to small?
|
Quote:
Why would they suddenly start explaining something like that when they never have in the past? I can recall more than one example where someone was beamed up to the ship while in one position (like sitting) and arrived in the transporter room standing up. If they aren't going to explain that why bother with something like comparative velocities.
|
Originally Posted by Energor
here's one, what about the fact that kirk/sulu should have been splattered all over the transporter room since they were falling at terminal velocity when they hit the floor? lol. if we are to believe that the transporter, naturally or cause of chekov, slowed down thier molecules it would have been nice to explain that.
but once again that is just a suspension moment that we aren't supposed to worry about. the spatial relation stuff is clearly a pet peeve due to your job so its going to bother you no matter what kind of movie it is in. thanks for the civil and fun debate. |
Quote:
I have no idea how an inertial dampener would work but since they have them in place to keep the living alive through warp speed and such it seems only fair the transporters would have a default setting to cancel inertia.
|
Originally Posted by Energor
here's one, what about the fact that kirk/sulu should have been splattered all over the transporter room since they were falling at terminal velocity when they hit the floor? lol. if we are to believe that the transporter, naturally or cause of chekov, slowed down thier molecules it would have been nice to explain that.
but once again that is just a suspension moment that we aren't supposed to worry about. the spatial relation stuff is clearly a pet peeve due to your job so its going to bother you no matter what kind of movie it is in. thanks for the civil and fun debate. |
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
******* nerds. That movie was excellent.