StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Someone explain the plot to me...so Spock screws up somehow (late?) and Romulus goes boom via supernova, but he still creates a black hole (why? If Romulus is destroyed, why bother?). Nero, who is nearby (why? Was he chasing Spock? The movie didn't give the impression that a lot of time passed between Romulus' destruction and the black hole's creation...) gets sucked in first so he pops out earlier in the other universe. He waits 25 years (and no one notices...? How did he get repairs done after being rammed by the Kelvin?) for old Spock to pop out.

Spoiler That's what you can get just from the movie, and the comic goes into this in-depth.

SylasGaunt wrote: Because the blast is still a threat to other nearby planets like oh.. Vulcan.

I'm not so hot on my ST geography. How far away is Vulcan from Romulus?

And did Spock say that the star threatened the galaxy (I suffer from mild hearing loss, so I might have misheard that part).

which is when Nero, now with a souped-up ship, shows up to get payback.

Now that makes sense. The mind meld was a bit confusing, the scenes went by quite quickly. And I was wondering how a mining ship got flak missiles if it went after Spock right away.

I don't really want to go through the plot because the movie is only two days old. I imagine there's a decent summary on wikipedia, or the Trek-wiki (I'm sure there is one, but I don't know its name).

There were a lot of TOS episodes that didn't have any kind of greater "message" to them. I don't really see the problem.

First, who said it was a problem? I liked the movie, but I don't think it rates as particularly good science fiction.

Second, all of TOS - even the really bad bits - was at least trying to be decent science fiction. It had as one of its lead characters an alien who doesn't just -look- different, but whose philosophy, character and society were radically at odds with the rest of the crew. And the Spock-Kirk-McCoy interplay was central to the show.

My point was to get Androsphinx to actually justify his position that SF somehow needs to be about more than advanced technology being the key to a plot-point

There are lots of movies which have the background of sci-fi but with dialogue, plot and characters straight out of the late 20th century. They can be very good action movies, or comedies, or romances or mysteries or whatever - but if they don't actually use their setting to any effect then they're space opera, or space fantasy, or whatever other label you want to give them. I consider sci-fi to be something where the sci- is more than just window-dressing.

It's nice for an SF movie to demonstrate why this technology is relevant to humanity somehow, but frankly I don't think that has to be a requirement; otherwise a lot of movies would come off as ham-fisted.

I think you're slightly misreading what I wrote. It's not that the technology needs to say something relevant to humanity, it's that some aspect of the setting should say or do or mean something. For example, take the last Star Trek movie that was both a good movie and good sci-fi:

The Undiscovered Country was a great re-working of the classic storyline of cop-is-framed-and-must-escape-and-stop-an-evil-plot, with a contemporary detente backdrop, but which was also quality sci-fi because setting the Cold War (and especially the end of the Cold War) in space with aliens instead of communists is interesting. Having any number of recognisable actions and phrases put in space with aliens is thought-provoking. Seeing aliens claim Shakespeare as one of their own gives a new perspective on the way that Art was used in the Cold War. Having the phrase "inalienable human rights" be taken as an insult was a stroke of genius (I used to use it on occasion to explain Orientalism to students, but none of them have seen the movie anymore).

Insurrection, OTOH, was exactly what you described - a straightforward action-adventure which tried for about ten minutes to shoe horn in some actual sci-fi and was none the better for it. Or maybe it was originally a sci-fi movie about eternal life but which was turned into an action-adventure movie instead - who knows?


I think your concern is just a definitional one - that you and I mean different things when we say sci-fi. I see that my earlier use was a bit ambiguous, but I though that the contrast of "Good Action Movie" and "poor sci-fi movie" would make it clear.

And did Spock say that the star threatened the galaxy

I think so. I assume there's a technobabble explanation somewhere.

That about it? Why attack the Klingons?

This is a leftover from a whole subplot that ws filmed but got cut from the movie. Spoiler Anyway, if I'm reading things right, the battle between the Narada and the Klingons at Rura Penthe was supposed to be in the movie, so I'm hoping it was finished enough to eventually end up in the DVD.

I saw it last night and I liked it a lot. I particularly like:
Spoiler I love the look of Nero's ship - not because of practicality but because its something truly different and menacing looking, in a way that nothing since the Borg in their early days (before they got ruined as usual in Trek) has been. Although that interior is a health and safety nightmare as usual (seriously, what is it about sci-fi villains and their distain for the idea of not getting killed walking to your workstation by the giant pit?). The enterprise engineering deck was also a revelation - what, real actual pipes and valving, vessels and machinery? On a ship engine deck, never! Although they did overdo the industrialness a little bit imo.

Theres obviously plot holes and the like, but it seems like a good film to me and better than any of the TNG films. The only question is whether they can fix the faults in the next one (as there will no doubt be) or whether they will go too far into action movie territory and make a POS like that Vin Diesel thing with the undead people in it.

PS: Anyone else notice the death of a Star Trek cliche - the ships don't near perfectly align in the Z-position like chess pieces on a 2D board, but sit at 3D angles to each other based on their angles of approach.

PS: Anyone else notice the death of a Star Trek cliche - the ships don't near perfectly align in the Z-position like chess pieces on a 2D board, but sit at 3D angles to each other based on their angles of approach.

Not until they did that really neat upside-down zoomout of the bridge over Vulcan. It's refreshing - with all-CGI, there's no more reason not to do it.

<spoilers snipped> The previous Trek films have been too saccharine and weak for it.

That was one of the things I really liked about it. I would have expected nothing less from the man who had passers-by take pictures of the Statute of Liberty's head as it lay in a Manhattan street.

Androsphinx wrote: First, who said it was a problem? I liked the movie, but I don't think it rates as particularly good science fiction.

You called it bad science fiction. To me that indicates there's a problem.

Second, all of TOS - even the really bad bits - was at least trying to be decent science fiction. It had as one of its lead characters an alien who doesn't just -look- different, but whose philosophy, character and society were radically at odds with the rest of the crew. And the Spock-Kirk-McCoy interplay was central to the show.

None of this is required to meet the criteria for being considered sci-fi.

There are lots of movies which have the background of sci-fi but with dialogue, plot and characters straight out of the late 20th century. They can be very good action movies, or comedies, or romances or mysteries or whatever - but if they don't actually use their setting to any effect then they're space opera, or space fantasy, or whatever other label you want to give them. I consider sci-fi to be something where the sci- is more than just window-dressing.

And no true Scotsmen refuse haggis.

I think your concern is just a definitional one - that you and I mean different things when we say sci-fi. I see that my earlier use was a bit ambiguous, but I though that the contrast of "Good Action Movie" and "poor sci-fi movie" would make it clear.

My concern is that saying something is bad at being <genre x> without giving any explanation or objective criteria as why that's the case is absurd.

Roger Ebert had essentially the same opinion: that the new Star Trek is not really a science fiction movie. His reasoning was a bit different: that its insults to reason and science are so egregious that it's all "fi" and no "sci", so you should really ignore the science entirely and treat it as popcorn escapism.

Darth Wong wrote:Roger Ebert had essentially the same opinion: that the new Star Trek is not really a science fiction movie. His reasoning was a bit different: that its insults to reason and science are so egregious that it's all "fi" and no "sci", so you should really ignore the science entirely and treat it as popcorn escapism.

Ebert's review is on page 5 of this thread. The money quote is:

I understand the Star Trek science has never been intended as plausible. I understand this is not science fiction but an Ark movie using a starship.

It's funny that General Zod has such a problem with my personal, subjective opinion, and not with this review which he posted himself on Wednesday.

Androsphinx wrote: It's funny that General Zod has such a problem with my personal, subjective opinion, and not with this review which he posted himself on Wednesday.

Perhaps because I didn't feel like dissecting the review which covered multiple points and just perhaps because Roger Ebert was not available to justify his position further? It couldn't possibly be because someone might take an issue with someone saying that a movie should do more, but not bothering to clarify exactly what that "more" should be in order to meet some vague standard.

Has anyone ever really watched Star Trek for the science?

Going into the theater looking for anything other than a summer action type movie seems pretty silly if you've seen any of the previews.

Everyone I've heard talk about it has said that its amazing, so we'll see. Yeah, it's got some baffling "science" in it that makes one cringe, but then again, I liked Aliens despite the fact that the entire movie was built on the future's US Marine Corp being complete and total fuck ups for no other reason than the xenos to be menacing, or the Fifth Element, which tossed science and logic (really, infinite genetic knowledge doctor?) out the window and still was one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.

Havok wrote:Has anyone ever really watched Star Trek for the science?

Besides rabid Trekkies?

I just came back from watching it and in many ways it wasn't a Star Trek film, the bad guy was reasonbly beliveble, there wasn't an overflow of technobabble, the heroes were flawed but not stupid due to the "needs of the plot" (well not noticibly so at least), the sets didn't look like movie sets and so on...

that said it was a reasonbly good film, certainly I wouldn't call it a master peice or the "best film ever!", but a good solid film nontheless. there's flaws ofc but I can't really go to those without spoiling too much, but have to say it's imho worth the ticket.

the characters seemed to work well enough and be close enough to the orginals without trying to copy them, they even gave McCoy a "I'm a doctor, not a..." moment and Kirk seemed to chase green skinned alien babes (in this case literally).

I would have hoped a bit more of Kirk senior (aka George Kirk) but it wasn't a major fault

Going into the theater looking for anything other than a summer action type movie seems pretty silly if you've seen any of the previews.

Indeed since it was nothing more then that, though personally I don't consider that a bad thing.

Besides rabid Trekkies?

well duh, for them watching trek is more a religious seremony then entertainment, why should we care about them.

Havok wrote:Has anyone ever really watched Star Trek for the science?

Going into the theater looking for anything other than a summer action type movie seems pretty silly if you've seen any of the previews.

There is actually an excellent movie coming out in the next couple of weeks called The Brothers Bloom which a FaoF was involved with, and although it's a quirky caper/con flick, they took every loud noise in the whole film and made a trailer that looks like an action movie.

But back to Trek, I wasn't really expecting anything more than a big empty spectacle and so wasn't disappointed. But this is nowhere near "one of the best science fiction movies of all time", or whatever other fanwank is stuck to the first few pages of this thread.

Bounty wrote:

PS: Anyone else notice the death of a Star Trek cliche - the ships don't near perfectly align in the Z-position like chess pieces on a 2D board, but sit at 3D angles to each other based on their angles of approach.

Not until they did that really neat upside-down zoomout of the bridge over Vulcan. It's refreshing - with all-CGI, there's no more reason not to do it.

something else I liked that is similar was the times when they would go from the pressurized ship with sound to the vacuum of space and not have any sound (like FIREFLY). It happened a few times and was kinda nice to see they realize sound does not travel in space. Although there were many scenes were they do have sound effects used in space, but it was nice to see those few where they got it right. After all a ship battle with no sound would be a bit boring.

General Zod wrote:

Havok wrote:Has anyone ever really watched Star Trek for the science?

Besides rabid Trekkies?

It's not just the rabid ones. Ever since TNG came out, all of Trek fandom has been infected with pretentiousness on that score.

Death from the Sea wrote: It happened a few times and was kinda nice to see they realize sound does not travel in space. Although there were many scenes were they do have sound effects used in space, but it was nice to see those few where they got it right. After all a ship battle with no sound would be a bit boring.

They had this in the original Trek movies too (in the space-suits on V'Ger?); depends on who's directing I suppose.

something else I liked that is similar was the times when they would go from the pressurized ship with sound to the vacuum of space and not have any sound (like FIREFLY).

Maybe it was my imagination, but it looked like the space scenes as viewed by the "camera" had full sound, while the ones where characters go into space Spoiler had the sound go mute. If that was deliberate, it was a pretty clever touch.

What about in First Contact? I forget if there was mood music, heavy breathing or just silence.

Androsphinx wrote:What about in First Contact? I forget if there was mood music, heavy breathing or just silence.

The dish scene? That had full sound.

General Zod wrote:

Havok wrote:Has anyone ever really watched Star Trek for the science?

Besides rabid Trekkies?

Just to echo Mike's sentiment...the general public. Remember the stream of articles and events that are attributed that Trek created something? Or the ideas that Trek being attributed to some discovery or tangent? Hell, the popular idea is that we have foundations with Trek's visionary view of science and the future, regardless of how much bullshit or handwaving that idea is. It is hardly just a small closeted part of the population, and to think otherwise is deluding oneself.

Ghost Rider wrote: Just to echo Mike's sentiment...the general public. Remember the stream of articles and events that are attributed that Trek created something? Or the ideas that Trek being attributed to some discovery or tangent?

Trek and the mainstream science have been bed pals, regardless of how wildly inaccurate Trek is. It is hardly just a small closeted part of the population, and to think otherwise is deluding oneself.

I'd have to wonder how many of those writers were rabid Trekkies themselves but just didn't want to admit it, personally. But yeah, those kind of articles were always irritating.

So i'm going to step up and shoot the 600 pound elephant in the room by asking the obvious question.

Is it better than any of the SW prequels?