PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek - 2009



GregMalick
05-08-2009, 01:31 AM
Just got back from a 7:00pm pre-showing.

My recommendation is to See it!

Superb Characterization.
Great visual effects.
Interesting Story.

The best part: These are characters you grow to love.




oh yeah... Alice just walked in and says she wants to see it again.
I guess that means two thumbs up.

SplineGod
05-08-2009, 02:32 AM
I totally agree. Fun movie :)

Panikos
05-08-2009, 03:20 AM
Yes, it is a great movie.
Very nice story, nice scenery, effects, characters, animation.
Young Spock meets his future self :D

OnlineRender
05-08-2009, 04:00 AM
cant wait taken the Wife "not my first choice " :) to IMAX tonight ..whoooooo popcorn , bigscreen , and kirk , what else can you ask for

IMI
05-08-2009, 04:32 AM
Did they remember to take the gaffer's tape off the bridge console in the final cut? ;)

(In the original trailer you could clearly see a roll of gaffer's tape sitting on the captain's control panel thingy whatever-it's-called)

Surrealist.
05-08-2009, 05:07 AM
Did they remember to take the gaffer's tape off the bridge console in the final cut? ;)

(In the original trailer you could clearly see a roll of gaffer's tape sitting on the captain's control panel thingy whatever-it's-called)

LOL!

What trailer was that? Do you have a link?

IMI
05-08-2009, 07:18 AM
LOL!

What trailer was that? Do you have a link?

Yeah right here: CLICKY LINKY (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91767&highlight=star+trek+trailer&page=3)


See post # 32, in the screenshot uploaded by danielkaiser.


EDIT:
Oh I'm sorry, no you weren't in that thread.

colkai
05-08-2009, 07:27 AM
Off to see it tonight with my best buddy and our respective missus'. :)

Nangleator
05-08-2009, 08:19 AM
Starship? I can believe that.
Aliens? I can believe that.
Everyone speaks English? Okay...

Running a starship, day-to-day, without fat rolls of duct tape all around... No freaking way!

I'd say leave it in. And show guys repairing battle damage with it. Much more realistic!

BigHache
05-08-2009, 12:47 PM
I'd say leave it in. And show guys repairing battle damage with it. Much more realistic!

LOL!

I caught a showing last night in IMAX. I'd go see it again tonight.

Cageman
05-08-2009, 01:41 PM
I have yet to see it, but I was very happy to see that Star Trek finaly got a reboot. I'm sure I will enjoy it.

:)

Andyjaggy
05-08-2009, 03:26 PM
Great movie. Go see it.

thomascheng
05-08-2009, 05:32 PM
I really enjoyed this movie, I want more. They did a smart thing by not making this a prequel and continuing the timeline, if that makes any sense.

danielkaiser
05-08-2009, 08:32 PM
Did they remember to take the gaffer's tape off the bridge console in the final cut? ;)

(In the original trailer you could clearly see a roll of gaffer's tape sitting on the captain's control panel thingy whatever-it's-called)

Yea it's gone from the shot. you know I was looking for that truck across the bridge.

BTW cool flick, here's looking forward to the next.

JamesCurtis
05-08-2009, 10:20 PM
Yeah definitely loved it! I wonder if this is a one shot deal or the start of a whole new series of movies?

IgnusFast
05-08-2009, 10:24 PM
Start of a new series of movies - Abrams is already on tap for at LEAST one more.

And I absolutely LOVED the Trek near-first - non-humanoid aliens, no forehead appliances required!!!

colkai
05-09-2009, 03:18 AM
Some of the camera work left me a bit dizzy but beyond that, great movie.
We all loved it and how they handled the "reboot" storywise, actually made sense.

Must of been good, as we were heading home my wife said, "I'm going to need to watch that again". If you knew my wife, you'd know it's darn rare she says that after a film! :)

warrenwc
05-09-2009, 08:38 AM
:agree::agree::agree:
Fastest two hours I've spent watching a movie in a long time.:thumbsup:

Andyjaggy
05-10-2009, 07:24 AM
There is a shot in the film where the Enterprise rises up out of a gas atmosphere that absolutely sent chills down my back. A gorgeous CG shot. I actually went and saw the movie again yesterday. :)

There was only one part in the movie I could have done without, the big red monster creature screaming into the camera, but even then it did have a certain plot element to play, which was one of the really good things about this movie, it starts and you are immediately thrown into the action, and it doesn't stop. Almost every shot moves the plot forward instead of just being there for the sake of being there.

mav3rick
05-10-2009, 07:57 AM
watched it last week .. love it

steamthunk
05-10-2009, 08:41 AM
Honestly, with all of the universe in play can we not stay away from time travel in Trek? I didn't think the story was all that strong from a threats/villain perspective. It's the TOS Enterprise crew (rebooted) that we know and are interested in that saves the movie. If this was a new series from scratch I'm not sure how it would have all held up as an exciting and novel SF movie.

Having said that, there's always been a certain plodding deliberate nature to Star Trek movies (omg ST:The Motion Picture). This one picked up the pace and that was refreshing to me. I really liked the idea of John Cho as Sulu. I'm a casual Trek fan at best, but have seen all the movies and I think this one moves to the top 3.


ST: Undiscovered Country
ST:Wrath of Khan
ST: Reboot me plz because I'm a mess

Matt
05-10-2009, 09:27 AM
I loved it! Might go see it again!

bazsa73
05-10-2009, 09:47 AM
ST: Undiscovered Country
ST:Wrath of Khan
ST: Reboot me plz because I'm a mess


I like 4th also, that episode is so stupid with the whales. And that hysterical greenpeace-femino-emancipator bimbo who goes with them, oh no!

cresshead
05-10-2009, 10:03 AM
short review

visuals>very good fx
script >> meh...
bad guys> ikky poo
action> same level as say transformers
acting/actors...patchy..some good some awful
logic> not much
over hyped> yes
prospects for new films> good

should you leave your brain at home for this one?...absolutley you'll really enjoy it if you do

mattclary
05-10-2009, 01:19 PM
There were some plot holes/machinations you could drive a battle star through and not scratch the paint, but it was a freaking incredible joyride.

Caught myself welling up about every 15 minutes it seemed. I found it very moving and enjoyable. I wish they would make a TV series with this cast, but don't see how that is possible.

m4a2000
05-10-2009, 02:56 PM
Did anyone check the credits? LucasArts did most of the movie's CG.

cresshead
05-10-2009, 04:39 PM
I loved it! Might go see it again!

same here...was action packed to say the least...micheal bay would have been proud!

mattclary
05-10-2009, 04:58 PM
Did anyone check the credits? LucasArts did most of the movie's CG.

Are there any blockbusters that Lucas DOESN'T do the effects for?

tyrot
05-10-2009, 07:21 PM
dear jin

where are you?!! I cannot be the only person who really thinks that...this movie sucked...

After watching trailers literally hundreds of times..i wanted to see a decent cool movie with a nice storyline..

I just cannot start my rant...All i can say...Abrams CANNOT survive from his TV-ish directing abilities, he CANNOT spot overacting, he doesn't give a ..... about plot holes, ..

There was a Black Hole in the movie ...yes but i saw it only in script...

Is there any hope left in Holllywood about character development? Decent storyline? BlackHole-less scripts? What is really going on ...i dont get it...

worst!

jin choung
05-10-2009, 09:09 PM
actually i loved it!

the entire rationale for the reboot revolved around a central, BRILLIANT conceit. articulated in the movie. two words.

it answers the question that no other franchise re-boot answers or can answer - and in a way that only trek can perhaps: "WHY?"

brilliant.

from the inside jokes about "red shirts" to revived sound effects and voices, green chicks, etc, it was as true in spirit as it was different in concept. perhaps even more faithful than the first star trek movie was (in particular, the design of the nacelles bear the mark ilm's distaste for the original series' art direction).

loved that they threw out the old trek bible though. heard there were explicit rules that the ship can only ever be shot upright and stable but the camera was all over the place when it came to space shots and imo, it was the better for it.

the only thing that i had a problem with was the ending - why stick around the vicinity of a motherfing singularity to deliver a completely redundant, superfluous coup-de-grace when the issue was already settled.

liked the idea that they resorted to a very "project orion", "anathem" solution to get out of the pickle but the fact that there was no command to shift all power to aft shields was kinda thoughtless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on thing i really missed was any evidence of "SHIELDS".... never once did i see the intervention of a mother fing shield... where the f were they?!

maybe that's why they didn't bother to call for any at the finale.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chris pine and zach quinto were great and while chekhov was a one note joke, i didn't mind much... after all, he didn't get much action in the show either. mr. scott was awesome... love that actor. and nimoy was awesome too and remarkably spry for an old guy... shatner must be spinning in his grave.

zoe saldana is a galactic wet dream on screen but she's a bit freakishly thin off the big screen... saw her on jimmy kimmel and there's a discrepancy....

jin

p.s. i'm pretty sure that every time you use the transporter, the person at the origin location dies but an identical copy is shipped to the new location.... no one else would know (because it's an exact copy).... but freaky.

jin choung
05-10-2009, 09:17 PM
Are there any blockbusters that Lucas DOESN'T do the effects for?

pixar flicks. lotr movies (might've been a minor vendor). spider-man movies. james bond movies.

they're definitely not the only primary (and major) vfx vendor anymore.

digital domain
weta
sony picture imageworks
forgot the english ones....

etc.

and nobody's exclusive now either. you headline one, do emergency triage on another, etc.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
05-10-2009, 11:29 PM
p.s. i'm pretty sure that every time you use the transporter, the person at the origin location dies but an identical copy is shipped to the new location.... no one else would know (because it's an exact copy).... but freaky.

Jin, rent The Prestige if you have not already. I sometimes hate to go to sleep for the same reason you mentioned above. In other words:

conscious before sleep=transporter A
conscious after sleep=transporter B

Of course the conscious A and conscious B are linked by dreams and other brain activity but the idea is still troubling enough to routinely inspire insomnia.

As for the movie. Saw it twice this weekend.

jin choung
05-11-2009, 12:15 AM
Of course the conscious A and conscious B are linked by dreams and other brain activity but the idea is still troubling enough to routinely inspire insomnia.


saw the prestige. as a huge fan of chris nolan, gotta say i was a bit disappointed. also thought the girl that drowned was a thousand times hotter than scarlet johansson.

but yah, similar idea to transporter... but i don't see the essential link to sleep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, i don't see the issue with sleep because "i" still feel the same. even if the pre-sleep me is somehow radically different from the post-sleep me, the experience of "i" and "me" is intact.

no "me" is annihilated that i can tell.

this wouldn't be true if i'm right about the transporters.... in essence, the transporter works by doing a complete quantum state scan of me in location A but that process of scanning destroys the original object.

my experience of "i"ness would be one of annihilation. death. as complete and as sure as if i was not "transported" but merely hit with some kind of disintegrator.

to EVERYONE ELSE, there is no interruption of the experience of "me"... my copy at location B would be EXACTLY the same as i was in location A. to everyone else, they would perceive "me2" at location B as "me1".

but me2 is a copy. the me1 original's life was extinguished and my "i"ness is one of death. the fact that me2 is my exact copy doesn't mitigate the fact that me1 is destroyed. me2 would feel like nothing special happened. me2 would feel like the transporter was successful. but me2 would be a new life that began at location B.

again, that makes a difference to me1. but not to ANYONE else including me2.

freaky. mccoy was right to distrust transporters.

but in sleep, me1 always feels like me1. if every morning, me2, 3, 4, is created, me1 never suffers the experience of death. there is never a me that stops.

if me1 never experiences cessation, then it is indistinguishable from being the same (even if there is voodoo going on in the bg).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

arnold schwarzenegger's "the sixth day" actually explores these issues pretty well and what happens when the clone is activated before the source is destroyed.

jin

p.s. there's a good article on this on the latest geek magazine. it's the first external source that confirmed that others have thought this too because i've held this belief about transporters for a long time. and the worst thing about it was that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to TEST if someone is actually being killed!

colkai
05-11-2009, 02:25 AM
same here...was action packed to say the least...micheal bay would have been proud!

The audience at our showing definitely got into it. When Bones said "dammit I'm a doctor not...." the whole place erupted! :D

JCG
05-11-2009, 02:29 AM
also, i don't see the issue with sleep because "i" still feel the same. even if the pre-sleep me is somehow radically different from the post-sleep me, the experience of "i" and "me" is intact.

no "me" is annihilated that i can tell. I think that's his point. His theory, if I understood it correctly, is that the experience of falling asleep is the exact same feeling of being annihilated because it is, in fact, "being annihilated". After your consciousness "dies into sleep," a brand new one is born when you wake up and has access to all the memories and experiences stored in your brain. Since memory is physical, the new "me" would go on from there believing that he has experienced all those past happenings.

The experience on the other end would match the physically annihilated people of the other two examples from an introspective standpoint. Even if the post-transporter / post-TeslaChamber person is a completely new being, created right there on the spot, 'the experience of "i" and "me" is intact' in the exact same way as for a person who just woke up. As far as they can tell no "they" has been annihilated either.

The only difference between the two is that in the sleep example, the two beings (your former self and your new self) would use the same body.

Anyway, I should stop trying to interpret other people's theories because I probably get them all wrong.


We could also take that theory one step further. Since the subatomic particles that make us up are constantly shifting to the far reaches of the universe and back, it is possible that every infinitesimal fraction of a second, each one of us is physically annihilated at the quantum level and recreated completely anew. We only perceive our life as continuous because it happens so fast and because every new copy is almost identical to the previous one (except it is a fraction of a second older).

jin choung
05-11-2009, 02:35 AM
I think that's his point. His theory, if I understood it correctly, is that the experience of falling asleep is the exact same feeling of being annihilated because it is, in fact, "being annihilated". After your consciousness "dies into sleep," a brand new one is born when you wake up and has access to all the memories and experiences stored in your brain. Since memory is physical, the new "me" would go on from there believing that he has experienced all those past happenings.

The experience on the other end would match the physically annihilated people of the other two examples from an introspective standpoint. Even if the post-transporter / post-TeslaChamber person is a completely new being, created right there on the spot, 'the experience of "i" and "me" is intact' in the exact same way as for a person who just woke up. As far as they can tell no "they" has been annihilated either.

The only difference between the two is that in the sleep example, the two beings (your former self and your new self) would use the same body.

Anyway, I should stop trying to interpret other people's theories because I probably get them all wrong.


We could also take that theory one step further. Since the subatomic particles that make us up are constantly shifting to the far reaches of the universe and back, it is possible that every infinitesimal fraction of a second, each one of us is physically annihilated at the quantum level and recreated completely anew. We only perceive our life as continuous because it happens so fast and because every new copy is almost identical to the previous one (except it is a fraction of a second older).

that's what i mean. it's a DIFFERENT scenario.

in a transporter, me1 ACTUALLY dies. his experience of life STOPS. whatever the sensation of death is, that is what he experiences.

in sleep, no matter what changes have happened in "me2", it is NOT just me2 feeling like nothing happened, me1 still feels like life continues.

if me1 goes to sleep tonight and tomorrow morning, me1 feels the nothingness of annihilation, then sleep is akin.

but this is not my experience. for what you're saying to happen, my CONSCIOUSNESS would have to "jump" to me2, me3, etc... but why would it do that necessarily.

and like i said, if me1 simply feels like life continues (no matter what "actually" happened), then for all intents and purposes, NOTHING HAPPENED except for what seemed to happen - fall asleep, wake up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to re-iterate, in a transporter, ONE PERSON can tell the difference - me1. me1 would know the difference. me1 dies.

in the sleep scenario, me1 doesn't even know the difference. it's not just that me2 and everyone else thinks that nothing is different - even me1 thinks nothing is different. in which case, it's not useful to say that ANYTHING really happened except that which seemed to happen. sleep and wake.

jin

OnlineRender
05-11-2009, 02:38 AM
im going to get slatted for this but....

" i didnt like it "

i thought the CGI was amazing , the script was solid , the acting was decent and the overall story was good " and the reference dilouge to old ST was funny and well delivered .

But , i just didnt like it .. maybe to much hype ,killed it for me .

also why Simmon Pegg "English and great actor ",but why as Scottie ?

jin choung
05-11-2009, 02:44 AM
i have absolutely no idea what needs to happen in order for you to get slatted but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

jin

SBowie
05-11-2009, 05:53 AM
Saw it yesterday, overall quite impressed. It's true, even while watching it I thought the red-monster scene was too close to a typical Star Wars scene with Jurassic Park's T-Rex gone scarlet. However I thought the casting was excellent, and the performances better than I'd hoped for, although perhaps not truly superb. I was impressed that they didn't just turn out caricatures of the familiar characters..

It can't have been easy to deliver the mandatory clichés without smirking on the one hand, or being pretentiousness on the other - but by and large they pulled it off. The lines fit the context, seemed reasonably natural, and worked better than I'd expected. There was enough freshness to the personalities that the actors could own their roles without losing sight of the originals. The guy who played 'Bones' may have had the toughest job, so easy to go over the top in a character that is always close to that line; I thought he did creditably well, playing it just a little 'pre-curmudgeonly'.

(Plot holes? Well, it is Star Trek, so of course there were lots). Overall, very nicely done.

mattclary
05-11-2009, 06:38 AM
his experience of life STOPS. whatever the sensation of death is, that is what he experiences.

If my eventual death is no more painful than a transport seems to be, I can live with that. ;)

Lightwolf
05-11-2009, 07:26 AM
... shatner must be spinning in his grave.
I'm afraid you'd have to wait for that until he actually pushes up the daisies... :D

Cheers,
Mike

danielkaiser
05-11-2009, 07:30 AM
Of course the conscious A and conscious B are linked by dreams and other brain activity but the idea is still troubling enough to routinely inspire insomnia.

Read the Four Nobel Truths of Suffering, by the Buddha, that may help with the insomnia.

As far as I'm concerned change occurs moment to moment, as I am not the same person I was 5 minutes ago.

jin choung
05-11-2009, 09:47 AM
I'm afraid you'd have to wait for that until he actually pushes up the daisies... :D

Cheers,
Mike

that was the joke

Jin

Lightwolf
05-11-2009, 09:54 AM
that was the joke
Oh ... allright ... I hope the movie is better ;) :help:

Cheers,
Mike

Chris S. (Fez)
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
in the sleep scenario, me1 doesn't even know the difference. it's not just that me2 and everyone else thinks that nothing is different - even me1 thinks nothing is different. in which case, it's not useful to say that ANYTHING really happened except that which seemed to happen. sleep and wake.

jin

When Jin1's stream of conscious is interrupted by sleep is he seamlessly replaced by Jin2? Is Jin1 left behind in the blackness? Similarly, on the transporter pad Jin1 is destroyed and recreated as Jin2. Because the two are not linked by a continuous stream of conscious they are arguably not the same being.

The conscious of Jin1 might have been replaced with the conscious of Jin2 during sleep and nonone, not even you, would know. So what's the difference between sleeping/waking and transporting?

The difference is that there IS a stream of conscious connecting Jin1 and Jin2. Conversely, a guy being beamed is brain dead for the split second it takes to tear him apart and put him back together. My "concern" with sleep is that dreams and other abtract brain activities are not sufficient to maintain the stream of conscious to keep Chris1 intact...

Speaking of which...I like Scotty2 but he may be a bit too goofy. Scotty1 brought more dignity to the role (not to mention melodrama).

cresshead
05-11-2009, 11:40 AM
first off...just to drop back in here..i like the film, its entertaining

second...it's not gonna stamp itself into movie history like starwars, alien, terminator, aliens, the abyss or t2 so let's get those rose tinted specs off your heads right this second!

it's a nice film...2hrs simply whizz by for sure just like they did with transformers.

there's alot you can knock this film with but it holds together thru the action sequences being so well done.

it may do very well at the boxoffice cos some [me also]may go back to see it again as the action sequences are so neat you just can't see it once on the big screen can ya?
...and yeah will be getting this on dvd for sure.

jin choung
05-11-2009, 11:49 AM
The conscious of Jin1 might have been replaced with the conscious of Jin2 during sleep and nonone, not even you, would know. So what's the difference between sleeping/waking and transporting?

again, the difference is WHO KNOWS that something is different:

1. transporter: me1 dies. me2 is a perfect copy. everyone else can't tell the difference.

BUT

me1 dies and knows the difference. his life is over as surely as if someone shot him in the head.

2. sleep: me1 sleeps. me2 "is a perfect copy". everyone else can't tell the difference.

but in this case, me1 CAN'T TELL that anything happened either.

there is no entity in this scenario that experiences "eternal sleep", whose story stops.

in your description, you're saying that somehow, your consciousness has shifted to me2 but that would not be the case. or you're saying that somehow the morning you is me2 and you're wondering if me1 is dead or something.... but that is a superfluous question.

if the transition is that seamless, then it is the equivalent of nothing actually having happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

another way to look at it.

let's say that we tweak the transporter so that instead of destroying me1, it just "copies"... so in file terms, it's a copy, not a move. :)

so at that point, you have two mes, both wanting to live, both wanting to go on with their day.

and then, someone comes and shoots me1 in the head.

THAT is exactly remniscent to what happens in a transporter. one person KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE and that's me1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

there is no equivalent to that in sleep.

as i said, if there is NO ENTITY that can tell that anything happened, not even me1 who does not perceive a cessation of his life/consciousness or if it is perceived to simply continue in me2, then no matter what is "actually" happening, it is equivalent to nothing happening.

jin

mikala
05-11-2009, 11:56 AM
Holy crap 90210 in space with a dash of Dallas "it was all a dream" crap mixed in. Oh yes with a bit of old Spock hastily thrown in to try and legitimize the whole load of crap that was the (Passing of the torch) story. Still trying to milk the Star Trek cash cow I guess.
FX were excellent however.

jin choung
05-11-2009, 01:05 PM
@chris-

in my mind, i've been trying to figure out how to make my take on it clearer, and i think it's not clear now because of the nebulous framing of death in these scenarios, so let's make it clearer by accepting this:

EVERYONE WHO DIES GOES TO HEAVEN (yes, we'll say that there is a heaven and everyone goes there ok? pearly gates, clouds, the whole shebang)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in the transporter scenario, i'm saying that every time someone uses the transporter, the person at the start point dies... GOES TO HEAVEN.

that means that if kirk uses the transporter 20 times, there are 20 kirks in heaven going "wtf just happened?!" and they will see clouds, float around on wings and have chats with the saints.

but in the scenario of sleep, when i go to sleep tonight, there is no "me" that ends up in heaven. there is no "me" that begins experiencing life in the clouds playing a harp. whatever i know of "me" only experiences the life i always knew.

at that point, you might say that the consciousness was transferred over somehow to me2... but at that point, i'm saying that that is the equivalent of nothing of import happening. if it is that seamless, if there is not a consciousness in heaven taking harp lessons, if the only being "you" just continues existing in me2, then even if somehow me2 is entirely new or something like that, there is nothing of significance that actually happened.

jin

waverguy
05-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Holy crap 90210 in space with a dash of Dallas "it was all a dream" crap mixed in. Oh yes with a bit of old Spock hastily thrown in to try and legitimize the whole load of crap that was the (Passing of the torch) story. Still trying to milk the Star Trek cash cow I guess.
FX were excellent however.

I agree the FX were excellent. I'm not impressed with whole rebooting thing. Why not just tell a story of that time frame without making a new reality? That would be new (rebooted) and it would throw a bone to all the die hard Trek fans. Unless, of course, the reboot was to show that Kirk and Spock both had the HOTS for Uruha.:stumped: :D

OnlineRender
05-11-2009, 01:12 PM
http://simplythebest.net/fonts/TVshow_fonts_2.html

STAR TREK FONTS ":)

Mike_RB
05-11-2009, 01:37 PM
@chris-

in my mind, i've been trying to figure out how to make my take on it clearer, and i think it's not clear now because of the nebulous framing of death in these scenarios, so let's make it clearer by accepting this:

EVERYONE WHO DIES GOES TO HEAVEN (yes, we'll say that there is a heaven and everyone goes there ok? pearly gates, clouds, the whole shebang)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in the transporter scenario, i'm saying that every time someone uses the transporter, the person at the start point dies... GOES TO HEAVEN.

that means that if kirk uses the transporter 20 times, there are 20 kirks in heaven going "wtf just happened?!" and they will see clouds, float around on wings and have chats with the saints.

but in the scenario of sleep, when i go to sleep tonight, there is no "me" that ends up in heaven. there is no "me" that begins experiencing life in the clouds playing a harp. whatever i know of "me" only experiences the life i always knew.

at that point, you might say that the consciousness was transferred over somehow to me2... but at that point, i'm saying that that is the equivalent of nothing of import happening. if it is that seamless, if there is not a consciousness in heaven taking harp lessons, if the only being "you" just continues existing in me2, then even if somehow me2 is entirely new or something like that, there is nothing of significance that actually happened.

jin

You're forgetting one other scenario. You build one new brain cell of jin2 at a time and get it doing the job of the old one, then decommission the old single cell, and build the next new one. Sync them up and integrate them one at a time and 'you' wouldn't notice you've been replaced. Much like how cells in your body turnover now. This in fact the method that would work best if we ever do get the capacity to 'upload' peoples consciousness patterns. Duplicate in hardware one cell at a time using nanotechnology, then once you've been switched to hardware, emulate in software. Instead of having to kill off me1 all at once, you kill off me1 slowly enough that he doesn't notice he's become me2. The threshold for 'noticing' this swap might be much more than 1 cell, but it would be hard to determine that. :)

jin choung
05-11-2009, 01:42 PM
I agree the FX were excellent. I'm not impressed with whole rebooting thing. Why not just tell a story of that time frame without making a new reality? That would be new (rebooted) and it would throw a bone to all the die hard Trek fans.

but then you run into a problem:

1. you have an existing CONTINUITY that you must conform to. trek already has an established timeline of what happens to the crew of the uss enterprise from their tv shows as well as the movies.

(i.e. eventually they run into kahn, then they run into kahn again, spock dies, spock is reborn on genesis, etc)

that means that you can't run into that time period and just change things.

2. which is what EVERY OTHER reboot does. it just changes the past or adds new/different events without any explanation.

at least in trek, there is an explanation.

jin

jin choung
05-11-2009, 01:57 PM
You're forgetting one other scenario. You build one new brain cell of jin2 at a time and get it doing the job of the old one, then decommission the old single cell, and build the next new one. Sync them up and integrate them one at a time and 'you' wouldn't notice you've been replaced. Much like how cells in your body turnover now.

i thought about this too but even in your body, this happens everywhere except one place - your brain.

brain cells don't die and regenerate like the rest of the cells in your body. science seems to be discovering that there is a degree of regenerative ability in neurons that was previously thought impossible but still, this cycle of death/rebirth doesn't happen in the brain.

that's interesting as heck.

also, in regards to sync/comm/decomm, we're just using euphemisms... decomm means death.

at which point, we have the same situation. whatever matter exists at the departure location is in fact destroyed.

again, it's a subtle thing but there's no necessary reason why the consciousness of me1 would "transfer" over to me2 instead of simply being a copy... such that if me1 were NOT destroyed, both me1 and me2 could exist and live.

there is no "me" apart from the meat and that my "meness" would be "transferred over" to me2 such that if me1 were not destroyed, it would be an "empty husk" without a "soul".

that's the important point.

i think you guys are thinking of some kind of a "soul" (for lack of a better word, not meant as derision) that TRANSFERS over. but i'm saying that there is no necessary reason why THAT would happen over a simple copy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNLESS of course, there is some kind of fundamental property of our consciousness that is linked somehow to quantum phenom so that such "transfers" are a necessary part of "entanglement".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

but once again, the really insidious thing about this though is that there would be NO WAY TO TEST IT!

for all intents and purposes, to the rest of the world, me1 came out on the other side perfectly sound. they would be unaware that it is in fact me2 and that me1 died. and no test could ferret that out!

again, freaky.

jin

Mike_RB
05-11-2009, 02:02 PM
i thought about this too but even in your body, this happens everywhere except one place - your brain.

Doesnt matter, scoop out any one cell in my brain i bet i'm still me. Replace that with one doing the same job or a hardware equivalent, i'm still me. So do them one at a time and we're good man. Sign me up! After version 2.0 of the process goes gold.

jin choung
05-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Doesnt matter, scoop out any one cell in my brain i bet i'm still me. Replace that with one doing the same job or a hardware equivalent, i'm still me. So do them one at a time and we're good man. Sign me up!

that's true but remember we're not replacing it back into your head at the point of departure. that one cell's state is going somewhere else.

if you want to scoop out one cell at a time like you're talking about, you will eventually reach a point where there are enough cells missing at me1 that me1 first deteriores to brain damage and then dies.

same effect of getting shot in the head , just neater.

again, the key is that the cell you scoop out is not coming back to me1. it's gone to me2.

Jin

Mike_RB
05-11-2009, 03:27 PM
that's true but remember we're not replacing it back into your head at the point of departure. that one cell's state is going somewhere else.

if you want to scoop out one cell at a time like you're talking about, you will eventually reach a point where there are enough cells missing at me1 that me1 first deteriores to brain damage and then dies.

same effect of getting shot in the head , just neater.

again, the key is that the cell you scoop out is not coming back to me1. it's gone to me2.

Jin

I'm talking about keeping the communication live with the new cell even if its not co located any more. At some point you'd have half a brain in either location whipping messages back and forth, but it would still be ONE consciousness. Your limiting yourself to chemical gradient communication, within a skull... which is damn slow. I think its in the hundred to thousand feet per second range, the only reason it seems quick is because of the short distances between receptors.

cresshead
05-11-2009, 04:42 PM
so anyway...back to the film and off the topic of trek logic/science!

overall>> very good
story>> abit poo
script>> some good dialogue in there
bad guys>> pretty poor effort
bad guys spaceship>> amazing very much like a certain object that hit the earth in another sci -fi film in design/looks
music>> not upto it really lacked a good score and songs were horrible.
sound design>> extreemly brilliant
acting>> okay
casting>> overall pretty good
camera work>> whoooshy....
lens flares>> how many?>>all of them!

jin choung
05-11-2009, 08:59 PM
really? i didn't like the pointy bad guy space ship. it seems like it's another in a long line of enemy space ships that are just not "designed" at all... the good guys stuff looks awesome but the bad guys....

the last bad guy ship in trek i really dug was the bird of prey!

that thing rocked.

jin

cresshead
05-11-2009, 09:43 PM
well i mainly like the drilling rig on that ship...that performed very well and the overall shape/outline of the bad ship did look menacing..which served it's purpose well
the interiors were rubbish though...looks like they used energy saving bulbs back on romulas and staffed the ships with nine inch nails fan clones!

jasonwestmas
05-11-2009, 09:56 PM
Not much of climax in the story, it pretty much started out dramatic and ended dramatically. EXCELLENT Action scenes and characterization! Loved em. Overall I was bored by the bad guys. Not much of a "emotional" quarrel between the good, the bad and ugly, which I think is completely necessary but not really there. Overall the conflicts felt like I was peering into an ant colony, you knew there was a struggle in their lives but it was tough to really experience it because we were looking at it from too far away. The visuals were of course wonderfully present in the movie.

Verlon
05-12-2009, 12:04 AM
I'm with Jin. It reobooted the franchise in a (Star Trek) credible way. It allows us to watch the antics of a young crew without knowing that Kirk cannot die until the Enterprise B launches.

There are still continuity issues (Klingons didn't get cloaking technology until "The Enterprise Incident" episode of the original series, where Romulans traded to get Klingon Warp technology, so the Klingons couldn't be de-cloaking before that time).

That said...I really like the movie. I think it was well cast in each role. If you were expecting Oscar caliber dramatic performances, I'll point you to the entire rest of the franchise.

I thought the space sequences were great, but like others didn't care much for the red thing on the ice planet.

It. was. fun.

And fun is why I go to movies.

cresshead
05-12-2009, 05:18 AM
the monsters were thrown in there for a 'monster section'....the furry monser made sense but the red thing seemed odd to be on an ice planet...seemed to behave much like a trapdoor spider yet it didn't want it's big catch and prefered to idea of trying to get the starter meal [kirk]..it sorta helped the movie along and gave another action sequence and a way to bring in old spock but was definatley an ADD ON to boost the action percentage in the film.

back to the monsters they were really well animated and felt totally IN the scene along with the snow.

SBowie
05-12-2009, 06:04 AM
really? i didn't like the pointy bad guy space ship. it seems like it's another in a long line of enemy space ships that are just not "designed" at all... the good guys stuff looks awesome but the bad guys....

the last bad guy ship in trek i really dug was the bird of prey!I can't believe I'm about to agree with Jin, but ....

There seems to be a tendency lately to make all the 'bad guy' ships look like very ugly bugs or creepy marine life. You could say the same to a greater or lesser degree about the villains. Meanwhile, the heroes are all handsome and their ships 'shiny' (as in this case, when the bridge looks like it was designed by retired Apple designers).

It's a bit like the way the cowboy heroes of the 50's all wore white hats and freshly dry-cleaned suits while the bad guys wore black and were unshaven louts. I think that, as a device, it implies that Hollywood works from an assumption that the audience is fairly stupid and needs to be spoon-fed (hmmmm).

Does it require ugliness to convey menace? I think a case can be made for the opposite. The Empire had an exquisitely cool fleet, and both the Nazis and Soviets had very stylish uniforms. I am reminded of the Paul Newman movie "The Verdict", in which James Mason - an actor's actor - played a villainous lawyer. He was a handsome older man, but Time Magazine wrote of his performance that he "can give to a three-piece suit more menace than was radiated by Darth Vader's armor".

danielkaiser
05-12-2009, 11:48 AM
both the Nazis and Soviets had very stylish uniforms.

The Nazi uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss.

As far as the Federation designs, far to much chrome plating for my taste. I did like that the hanger bay and engineering had more of an industrial look.

Lightwolf
05-12-2009, 11:52 AM
The Nazi uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss.
Produced (not exclusively either), not designed.

Cheers,
Mike - nitpicking again

doimus
05-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Saw it yesterday.
I liked the visual aspect of it - CGI, costumes, choreography, all looks fantastic.

But the story.... is.... HORRIBLE.
Seriously, yet another evil bald Romulan-in-a-big-ship who destroys planets with .... the.... LAAZERRR!!! We didn't have that since, well... last Trek movie! Doh!

At the ending fight I kind of expected Nero to yell: James Tiberius, I'm your father!

Spock.... supressed emotions... how original.... yawn.

And then they destroyed Alderaan, erm... that other planet... what the #[email protected]$! were they thinking!

IgnusFast
05-12-2009, 05:26 PM
For the sake of accuracy, I have to point out that the giant laazerrr only dug a hole to the core of the planet - the singularity inducing "red matter" actually did the planet destroying.

Not that it makes a lot more sense, but hey, I didn't write the script.... I just enjoyed the movie. :)

Cageman
05-13-2009, 02:57 AM
Are there any blockbusters that Lucas DOESN'T do the effects for?

Yeah... usually it is ILM, DD, R&H, WETA, D-Neg, Framestore, Sony and TMPC... LucasArts are responsible for gamestuff and Clone Wars (the movie and tv-series). They doing visual effects for this kind of movie was quite a surprise.

radams
05-13-2009, 08:46 AM
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Jin, but ....

There seems to be a tendency lately to make all the 'bad guy' ships look like very ugly bugs or creepy marine life. You could say the same to a greater or lesser degree about the villains. Meanwhile, the heroes are all handsome and their ships 'shiny' (as in this case, when the bridge looks like it was designed by retired Apple designers)...

Hi Steve,

Yeah I agree with both you and Jin in this regard...

I enjoyed the movie's action ride...but there were some story, performances, and concepts that did not work for me.

I know they want to reboot the franchise...and make it so that the future we know from the original Trek, will now be changed due to Nero's medling. Vulcan & Vulcans played a huge role in the background of many trek back stories... And since Spock and others know that time travel is possible...why would they not go back and correct one of the occurances...that created the destruction of either Romulus or Vulcan ?

There are some holes with that concept...And it just felt not right to kill off the whole Vulcan world...and most likely their species in the process.

It also didn't make sense that the space ships were being built on the ground...aren't they built in orbit or at a space station ?

Interesting that the Vulcan's had the technology *red matter" to create a singularity...yet missed the timing to implement it...and what about all that red matter ? that was a lot...considering they only needed a single droplet to create one.

So in this new rebooted story....Vulcan's and Romulans are mute points for the future.

In regards to the set...bridge...It did seem like it was out of an apple development team....and didn't follow any of the concept ideas from the original...which I wish they would have designed it from...but alas...no.

This bridge was too much like the original Star Trek movie....which would be fine...but that is supposed to be a different ship....and time.

The external ship design was great thou, IMHO.

the interior design, thou well implemented just didn't fit in the time line that this was supposed to be.

Cheers,

cresshead
05-13-2009, 09:09 AM
the story in regards the romulan home planet is utter poop, and with it the motivation of said black hatted romulan wanting to destroy white hatted vulcan's for trying to help them but not getting there fast enough is beyond the bounds of belief unless all romulans are totally unbalanced nutters in which case how they ever managed to get into space is also questionable.

so..story...liquid poop
script/dialoge was good if predictable
action was great even without handrails!

monsters...not needed...thrown in to extend action

and yeah i liked the film!

Andyjaggy
05-13-2009, 09:13 AM
I know they want to reboot the franchise...and make it so that the future we know from the original Trek, will now be changed due to Nero's medling. Vulcan & Vulcans played a huge role in the background of many trek back stories... And since Spock and others know that time travel is possible...why would they not go back and correct one of the occurances...that created the destruction of either Romulus or Vulcan ?

There are some holes with that concept...And it just felt not right to kill off the whole Vulcan world...and most likely their species in the process.


If I'm not mistaken the whole time travel thing was a complete mistake, it wasn't intentional and probably couldn't be duplicated, at least not with any accuracy of where and when you would end up.

doimus
05-13-2009, 10:20 AM
They do a slingshot around the sun anyday...

I just hate when Star Trek messes with time travel - it always ends in utter mess.
The only ST time travel that worked was in the 4th movie. Not because they did it right, but because that whole movie was a lighthearted comedy.

mikala
05-13-2009, 11:12 PM
They just opened the door for more of the same old same old with new faces.
Hard to make new (read tired old rehashed) adventures with dead stars. Needed new blood to have it all carry on. They said it in BSG and I think it applies pretty much here as well... "It has happened before..."

SBowie
05-14-2009, 06:32 AM
I agree, bad plot point.Perhaps 'bad plot points' were included so as to be faithful to the original? ;)

Riff_Masteroff
05-14-2009, 08:05 PM
Folks, Star Trek was just a really, really decent movie. Given that, I have two comments concerning the movie itself:

The first is that they used standard Von Duprin exit devices on the doors. You know, the thingys with the wide bar that you push to open the door.

The second is that the Kirk/Spock interchange-relationship in this particular movie reminded me of the Obama/Hillary Clinton relationship in real life. Spock (Hillary) was prepped and destined to be the Enterprise captain. The young upstart Kirk (Obama) with no experience what so ever took over the Enterprise's captain's chair from right under the nose of Spock (Hillary). And he was wonderfully successful. But of course he brought Hillary (Spock) into the fold by promoting her (him) to be a high ranking member of the crew.

Now for the REAL reason I am writing this post. The so called AMC IMAX (Image Maximum) theater was NOT much larger than the AMC regular screens. It should have been. I have been the to three IMAX genuine spec theaters and I cannot forget the wonderful viewing experience. The AMC IMAX in Potomac Mill, VA was NOT an immersive experience. The rows of seats should have been steeply raked . . . in fact they were mildly raked and of no difference to the normal AMC screens. The size of the screen was real small, and I mean tiny. The sound was good, but I wouldn't doubt to a good ear it was also compromised. For this AMC charged four USD more. IMAX, a civilized Canadian company must have allowed this to happen. A pox on them.

A little google searching brought up similar opinions and info:

http://azizisbored.tumblr.com/post/106587114/reblog-the-****-out-of-this-warning-amc-theaters-are

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/05/the-new-imax-experience-is-it-a-big-screen-or-a-big-scam.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technology/news/e3ic20ecec53f0ea15b31868f4f126e3318

http://www.imax.com


Note: the first URL was auto changed by NT to delete the f word and may not work for you. The second URL contains links to the first URL, so use that.
The first URL is useful because it shows the actual screen size comparisons.

Andyjaggy
05-15-2009, 09:08 AM
Yes Imax in an attempt to make more money has started converting regular theater room to "Imax" theaters.

Beware lest you think you are getting a true Imax experience and aren't.

http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy

Riff_Masteroff
05-15-2009, 09:58 AM
Getting on the corporate bandwagon, I recommend to IMAX corp that they begin to certify more expensive cellphones for use with their logo. For sure most CG folk wouldn't notice a qualitative difference.

Imagine: IMAX cellphones

Andyjaggy
05-15-2009, 11:09 AM
Well it's following the same road that THX did. THX certification used to mean something, now I can buy a $200.00 set of computer speakers that are THX certified. Poopy.

Andyjaggy
05-15-2009, 03:09 PM
Well real Imax can't be beat, it's a surreal experience, but these little fake mini Imax are pretty lame.

mattclary
05-17-2009, 03:26 PM
Did anyone else think of the Renaldi device from "Alias" when they saw the red matter?

jin choung
05-17-2009, 03:48 PM
no.

i thought of "the macguffin" by alfred hitchcock.

a very old device that changes names but is ever the same.

jin

Anti-Distinctly
05-17-2009, 05:05 PM
I'm a big Star Trek fan. It is my happy place :) I was scared that it was all going to be trampled upon and that world would be 'wronged' or something.
I came back from it pleasantly surprised and relieved. I could nit pick it to death (red matter macguffin, I'm pretty sure black holes would destroy a planet if it wasn't in the centre of it, where the heck were the Federation's Earth defences?, etc), but there's no point - it was an enjoyable film. I needed this after Indy 4.

Bog
05-18-2009, 06:30 AM
Saw it on Friday at the BFI IMAX in London - biggest screen in the country. WOOOT.

Then saw it again yesterday at the regular 'ding Odeon.

Still a damn fun movie. A rip-snorting action romp - and, all things being equal, this should be the Final Reason for Star Trek to Never Do Time-Travel Again.

"Oh, to Hell with the Temporal Prime Directive - what's the worst that can happen?"

"Er. Genocide. Vulcan got destroyed, remember?"

"Oh. Right... er... what's plan B again?"

I like the fact that it's jumped the tracks clear off Prior Canon. This was Enterprise's real problem: It was walled in by canon and couldn't really go anywhere because of it. This lead to crapulatious writing, but the basic premise was stuck in neutral due to canon, canon, canon. Now all bets are off: they can kill any of 'em off, any time.

I would say, though, that it would have been a great movie even if it was called Space Story, and didn't have any of the original cast or vessel names. It's another symptom of the IP Cowardice of our times that to be successful, it has to be a derivative of an existing work. That said, I guess it's the nature of the game these days that the money men would rather re-use names that have worked for decades instead of starting cold - after all, Galactica could have been called pretty much anything for all the relation to the original series it had - so them's the breaks.

Either way, as long as I get more of this, I'll be happy enough. It was fun. It was pretty. It had dodgy physics, but let's be honest: real physics as we know it right now isn't actually that much fun unless you're a hardcore science geek. Bring on the next one!

cresshead
05-18-2009, 06:42 AM
I like the fact that it's jumped the tracks clear off Prior Canon. This was Enterprise's real problem: It was walled in by canon and couldn't really go anywhere because of it. This lead to crapulatious writing, but the basic premise was stuck in neutral due to canon, canon, canon. Now all bets are off: they can kill any of 'em off, any time.




who or what is "canon"?

Bog
05-18-2009, 06:51 AM
In this instance, the third definition from www.dictionary.com (a splendid resource, I find):

3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.

Therefore, all the Trek stories that have been already told are canonical. Spock fighting Kirk over his wife in Amok Time. Kirk dying on Viridium III at Saron's hands in Generations. That which has been bound in stone and had lengthy essays written about it.

That kinda canon.

jin choung
05-18-2009, 11:37 AM
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

lol

jin

Bog
05-18-2009, 12:41 PM
HAW!

I snorted coffee out of my nose.

cresshead
05-18-2009, 01:13 PM
well....yeah...spar wars rules over spew trek

Anti-Distinctly
05-18-2009, 05:11 PM
who or what is "canon"?

It's what Star Trek fans get angry about :)

Iaian7
05-18-2009, 05:31 PM
...Now for the REAL reason I am writing this post. The so called AMC IMAX (Image Maximum) theater was NOT much larger than the AMC regular screens...

I fell for the same thing - visited the local AMC for a second viewing in an IMAX theatre, expecting a completely new experience. While the audio quality was better (and much, much louder; wether this is better or not can be debated, but FEELING warp speed is pretty darn cool!), the screen was only marginally better. Just slightly larger, and definitely digital projection (scenes featuring expanses of white seemed to suffer the most, though maybe I was just pickier the second time around). The aspect ratio also seemed off - the standard screen I first saw the film on appeared to be setup for 2.39:1, whereas the IMAX theatre appeared to be closer to 1.85:1. I could be completely mistaken (I'm not always the most observant of the obvious things!), but I would honestly prefer a smaller screen, if it's truer to the original cinematography (whatever that might be).


Did anyone else think of the Renaldi device from "Alias" when they saw the red matter?

Yep. :D J.J. Abrams seems to have a few recurring themes... basic 3D titles (Lost, Fringe, now Star Trek), spheres of red liquid (Alias, Star Trek), excessive lens flares (Fringe, Star Trek) and more. Heck, he even uses the some of same actors (if you've seen the season finale of Fringe, you know what I mean). Granted, in terms of crew (producers, writers, etc.) working with the same people is just good business - you work together in a consistent way, and know what to expect from every team member. That, I don't think, Abrams can be faulted for.

As for my thoughts on the film... overall, I loved it. Both times, I left the theatre grinning. I felt the actors were consistent - maybe no "outstanding" performances (though I quite enjoyed Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, and others), but they all seemed to be at a similar "very well cast" level. While lens artifacts were a bit inconsistent (lens dust was added... but only to entirely-CG shots? kinda obvious!), I liked some of the "dirtier" cinematography too, and even enjoyed the bad guy.

Some of the worst parts, visually speaking, were the ears during Spock's childhood scenes (just... awful! Painted to match their faces, instead of their ears, and the lighting just made it worse) and Spock's horribly manicured eyebrows (I assume this was to match the original series? Seemed Spock/Spock Prime was/were the only one/ones with the uber-fake eyebrow trims). Which is weird, I'd expect more of the digital effects to bug me, not the makeup... oh well, I'll chalk it up to working with a [painfully brilliant] makeup artist a couple years ago!

Ultimately, though, I thought it was great. Sure, it's "just" a big budget action flick, but pretty darn good at what it set out to do, if I dare say so myself. :)

cresshead
05-18-2009, 05:46 PM
It's what Star Trek fans get angry about :)

so...you.don't know either then!:)

Anti-Distinctly
05-19-2009, 04:55 AM
so...you.don't know either then!:)

Oh....I know. Possibly too much.
My girlfriend always finds it amusing that I can name the next gen episode from the briefest description of the plot or scene :)

Anti-Distinctly
05-19-2009, 05:04 AM
So... the new powers-that-be just decided to change the Star Trek canon.

It's a different time line now. So they don't have to tie everything up with the Next Gen, DS9 & Voyager universe. I thought that was quite a clever way to give them free reign to do new things. Just think of the amount of parallel universe/timeline episodes there are in existing Star Trek - this just continues along one of those as far as I'm concerned :)

mattclary
05-19-2009, 11:54 AM
People who complain that starfleet would have "corrected" the busted timeline.... I posit that this is an offshoot of the timeline we know. I think they even mentioned alternate realities in the movie. I love it, great decision! TOS was great for it's time, but I want something more modern. I loved it when Kirk slapped Dr. McCoy on the shoulder and said "Buckle up, Bones!". While Kirk was the original shoot from the hip guy, I like the edginess in the new Kirk.

jasonwestmas
05-19-2009, 01:08 PM
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

lol

jin

That's a pretty accurate assessment. I knew I've seen that movie before!

hehe.

JBT27
05-22-2009, 05:13 AM
Fixing the timeline doesn't really matter here, as it's an alternate universe. It's offset in time between the two anyway - presumably the supernova event in the original universe happened some time after all the stories we've seen - even Kirk was mentioned as being in the history books as a great man, whereas here Kirk is what, 25 or so?

Had my first viewing of it yesterday - loved it, very edgy, looks great; I'll forgive almost any storyline because frankly it's all been done before, but the characterisations and the look are new and exciting.

I don't think I want another TV series, but more of these would be most welcome :thumbsup:

Also, Sulu screwing up getting the Enterprise moving was an absolute classic of a sequence ..... made me grin anyway :D

Julian.

SBowie
05-22-2009, 05:30 AM
Fixing the timeline doesn't really matter here, as it's an alternate universe.I can be fairly content in an alternate universe that never spawns either William Riker or Captain Janeway.

JBT27
05-22-2009, 05:57 AM
I can be fairly content in an alternate universe that never spawns either William Riker or Captain Janeway.

Oh, I don't know ..... Riker could be an Academy grounds-keeper and Janeway could work in the canteen ..... :) Or vice versa of course .....

Julian.

Myagi
05-22-2009, 09:21 AM
Heathens! Burn!


well ok, I agree on Janeway :D