Star Trek (JJ Abrams) Out Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
One last question if anybody knows. Earlier in the thread is a lot of talk about Slusho and Tagaruto. I tried to google it as it pertains to the show Lost but didn't find anything other than the casual "It's in Alias and Lost too". Would anybody mind enlightening me on Slusho, Tagaruto, and Lost?
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Awesome. Thanks for clearing that up. Nerdy as it is, I would have had a hard time enjoying any of it moving forward if there was such a giant inconsistency looming out there. It's a little disappointing that
all future movies or series will likely have no bearing on the "original" Star Trek Universe due to the fact that I really only ever got into TNG, but I have a lot of respect for the way they have been able to re-invent the series and open up an entirely clean slate (they are no longer hand-cuffed to staying consistent with the other series and are also free to re-invent the original crew as they see fit) without having to disregard all the series that came before.
[/quote]

While I see your point, it's also possible to revisit some of the old plot lines again in this new universe. Someone said they don't want Q to be in another movie, but Q would be a conduit between the realities. Also, we will be much weaker without the Vulcans so the federation will need more moxie to pull off what they did in some of the movies. The biggest concern we should have is when we come to the time period that is chronicled in Star Trek IV.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Q in another movie? He was never in any of them. Something i've always thought was a mistake.[/QUOTE]


less Q more Whoopi. her race live for centuries. maybe her character is alive now. and who is more powerful Q or Wesley Crusher?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had never really seen any episodes of Star Trek either, but I still very much enjoyed this flick. I hope they continue 1) making sequels of this calibur 2) pleasing the original Star Trek fans.

My one and only 'tiff' was (excuse my arrogance) the guy who played Charlie Bartlet with the really thick Russian accent. I didn't like him in it, but could be just me.
 
Guinan is alive right now for sure. In that one TNG episode she's alive in 1900 or something like that. The one set in San Francisco. I can't remember what it's called.

I always wanted a movie with Q and Guinan as the focus, their races have history that is only eluded to in TNG. It's be good stuff.
 
Didn't they want Q to cameo in the wedding scene in Nemesis and de Lancie Nancy Pants turn them down? I would love a Q focused movie. I honestly can't think of a bad Q episode. Ever.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']It may be far fetched - but I can't help but see similarities in LOST and the new Star Trek movie. The whole idea of time travel and alternate realities makes a good parallel. Could the theories be at all linked?[/quote]

There's more than that. Like Linkin, you need to read up on the Slusho/Tagrauto backstory and theory. It links Star Trek, Lost and Cloverfield.

And on one of the planets, Tagrauto was clearly seen on one of the buildings, which was also mentioned earlier in the thread.
 
I too would love a Q focused movie. Maybe if there is a new Star Trek series focused around the new Kirk, we can finally see how Kirk would handle Q. It might be the female looking Q though and not the male one.
 
[quote name='umcthomas']
While I see your point, it's also possible to revisit some of the old plot lines again in this new universe. Someone said they don't want Q to be in another movie, but Q would be a conduit between the realities. Also, we will be much weaker without the Vulcans so the federation will need more moxie to pull off what they did in some of the movies. The biggest concern we should have is when we come to the time period that is chronicled in Star Trek IV.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I definitely thought about the issues with Star Trek IV. I'm willing to allow for soft interpretation and just assume that
they didn't do anything to force a branching off into a parallel universe. THAT, or when they went forward in time they just went forward into a parallel universe and fixed everything there. The "old universe" just disappeared and it wouldn't mess up any of the series that followed to just assume that storytelling for that universe "ended" at Star Trek IV.

A "Q" movie would be absolutely amazing, and you make some solid points about that whole thing. Additionally, if they really wanted to (though I think it's obvious that they don't)
it wouldn't be impossible with Q or with time travel to bring them back into the original universe now that I think about it (just as they were able to bring Spock back with some clever writing shenanigans).

Everybody keeps referencing Slusho but I still can't find a good website that discusses it and links it specifically to Lost beyond comments such as "I think it's in Lost". Anybody know of a good site that clearly explains or discusses it in relation to these series?
 
I just want to say that none of us should get too worked up about canon.

There were plenty of plotholes, mistakes, and continuity errors before this movie. Let's face it, there has never been any TV series that has the 40 year rich and varied history of Star Trek save for a few soap operas. With all the different writers, casts and crews, there are bound to be times where things are off somewhat. Just take it with a grain of salt.

It's easy for our inner "Comic Book Guy" to come out, but I think it is better to enjoy everything for what it is. The only two things I can think of where nitpicking is as easy to do is in pro wrestling and comic books. The difference being that pro wrestling often just insults the intelligence of the viewers outright (face/heel) and comic books have too many reboots, Earth-2's or whatever they have to make sense of all the history.

This is new, fresh territory for Star Trek (something it really needed) and at the chance of sounding cliched, it's fascinating.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I just want to say that none of us should get too worked up about canon.[/QUOTE]I think that statement kinda sums up the "mission" of this movie.
Most comics and works of fiction are pretty loose with their "realities." For example, with Batman Begins, no one assumed it was linked to the previouis Batman movies, or one of the many Batman comics or TV shows. It was just its own, new depiction of Batman, and no one was really outraged or surprised by that. Same thing with the X-men movies. No explanation was needed as to why some things would be different from the comics... it was just its own thing, and that was pretty well understood.

I think they wanted to do something as simple as that with Star Trek, but for whatever reason they gave supernerds the courtesy of the alternate timeline gimmick. This movie laid the groundwork for that. In any future movies, outside of some winking references to please the old-school fans, I doubt that there will be any links to the "original" timeline at all.

[quote name='chosen1s']Yeah, I definitely thought about the issues with Star Trek IV. I'm willing to allow for soft interpretation and just assume that
they didn't do anything to force a branching off into a parallel universe. THAT, or when they went forward in time they just went forward into a parallel universe and fixed everything there. The "old universe" just disappeared and it wouldn't mess up any of the series that followed to just assume that storytelling for that universe "ended" at Star Trek IV.
[/Quote]I will be a major geek and postulate that
solar slingshot time travel and black hole time travel have different rules!
 
Everyone keeps mentioning plot holes and continuity errors, im curious to what the top ones people are referring too are.
 
[quote name='Lice']Everyone keeps mentioning plot holes and continuity errors, im curious to what the top ones people are referring too are.[/QUOTE]
The biggest one I noticed was that Scotty was able to beam himself and Kirk to the Enterprise. Assuming the ship went to warp right after they sent Kirk to the planet they should of been a very, very long way out of range of the transporter, especially a TOS era transporter.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']The biggest one I noticed was that Scotty was able to beam himself and Kirk to the Enterprise. Assuming the ship went to warp right after they sent Kirk to the planet they should of been a very, very long way out of range of the transporter, especially a TOS era transporter.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't there a whole scene where old Spock shows Scotty the formula from the future that allows one to do just that?
 
I agree, when I first saw the clip of that scene with Spock asking how they got on board, I naturally assumed they had a ship going at warp which was numerous times in the TNG-era.

Yes he did show how Scotty "invented it" but it was never shown in any other canon work being able to beam from a planet onto a ship elsewhere in the system traveling at warp.
 
[quote name='Rei no Otaku']Wasn't there a whole scene where old Spock shows Scotty the formula from the future that allows one to do just that?[/QUOTE]

That's true he did have the formula to transport in warp, but that's not really the issue I have with the scene. I thought that was actually a great reference to Star Trek IV with Scotty giving the guy the formula to transparent aluminum.

Between travel time, talking to Spock, and talking to Scotty Kirk had to be on the planet for at least an hour or two. If the Enterprise went to warp it would be out of transporter range of the planet within seconds of going to warp, even with TNG era transporters.

A big plot hole if you know about transporters, but not really enough to prevent me from enjoying the film.
 
Since Nero's ship was just a mining ship from the future, why was it armed to the teeth with torpedoes and cannons? What kind of dangerous mining are they doing near Romulus?
 
[quote name='pacifickarma']Since Nero's ship was just a mining ship from the future, why was it armed to the teeth with torpedoes and cannons? What kind of dangerous mining are they doing near Romulus?[/QUOTE]

I would imagine that Nero's ship is actually pretty lightly armed compaired to most ships from his time. Don't forget that he's 150 years in the past, his ship's weapons and shields are far superior to "current" ships.

Just think about how one of our modern naval ships would fare against a similar ship from 150 years ago. Or how one of our modern fighter planes would fare against a World War 2 fighter.
 
According to the countdown comic
the ship was actually armed with Borg technology presumably they have salvaged, but that's in no way canon
 
I just read countdown. His ship was a highly advanced ship that was built at a secret Vulcan military base. He got it after Vulcan was destroyed and planned to use it and fuck everyone up, and he did. Only thing that stopped him was being pulled back in time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a pretty cool read, check it out:

Reasons for Sabotage in Star Trek?


There seems to be more than a few complaints about JJ Abrams‘ use of the Beastie Boys‘ track Sabotage in the new Star Trek film. But it isn’t at all random, and not just inserted twenith centry pop culture. First off, the sequence in question is when 13-year-old James T Kirk steals his step-father’s antique convertable and drives it off a cliff.
I must give screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci credit on this one. I believe this scene to be a multi-layed metaphor, and the choice of music might be a call back to William Shatner, who played the James T Kirk in the original series. Deconstruction and video after the jump.

As I have written previously, this sequence is constructed to get a specific reaction: “This doesn’t look like any Star Trek movie I’ve ever seen before.” But Kirk could have been driving a [COLOR=#006400 ! important][FONT=&quot][COLOR=#006400 ! important][FONT=&quot]car[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] from any decade in history — the 2000’s, the 1990’s, the 1980’s, or the 1970’s, but for one reason or another, Abrams chose a 1960s Corvette. Some reports even say it’s a 1966 Corvette, the same year that Gene Roddenberry’s television series began to air.
Could it be that the corvette represents something more than just a fast car? I believe that by throwing the 1960’s era car off a cliff, Abrams was making a statement - “this is not your father’s Star Trek movie” - we’re throwing all that stuff away, off a cliff no less. This is the new Star Trek.” It’s worth noting that my theory originally appeared on the site in November 2008 with the same exact wording, “not your father’s Star Trek movie”, before that line was made the focus of the film’s television campaign.
As for the choice of music. Sabatoge works, even though “Intergalactic” might seem like a better fit for a sci-fi space film, because it not only expresses the character’s mood at that moment in the story, but as Topless Robot points out, it is a call back to Shatner, and his long history of mispronouncing the word sabotage as “sabo-taj.” Check out the [COLOR=#006400 ! important][FONT=&quot][COLOR=#006400 ! important][FONT=&quot]clip[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] below.
Click to expand...
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/13/reasons-for-sabotage-in-star-trek/
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']Wow - so many errors in Star Trek. Haha. Did I see Daniel Faradays mother?[/QUOTE]

You have to remember, it's the product of perhaps hundreds of writers producing a massive singular continuity over a 40 year period. But yeah, there are quite a few.

And yes, that was her. Probably one of the instances in there where it may not be an error if taken in context since in that episode
she's secretly also an android.
 
I would have to agree.

I thought the song was AWESOME and perfect for that scene in the movie regardless of any references or implied motives, but I also wondered why they used it. As a matter of fact, I believe I remember the guy next to me saying "Really? Sabotage?" when that scene started.

That movie was excellent when I was there, and amazing in hindsight.
 
Heh, that scene was probably the only part where my unfortunate IMAX seating actually worked out well. That friggin canyon felt like it was all around me.
 
I saw it at the Raleigh Imax and it was pretty impressive. The theater was a little smaller than I thought it would be but, it was my first time seeing a real movie at an Imax theater so I didn't mind. Someone said it was filmed in regular 38 mm film and than blown up to fit on imax. I didn't find the film quality degraded at all.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The nearest IMAX is 100 miles from me in Raleigh. Is it that much of a better experience?[/QUOTE]

Definitely not worth a 200 mile round trip drive...

And when its not in shot with imax cameras, barely worth the extra $5 on the ticket price IMHO
 
Very minor things aside, I really enjoyed this movie. Two hours didn't almost felt short. I can't wait for the next one.
 
Wanted to toss this out to you guys:

http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/trek-scribes-speak-complaints-addressed/#more-1201

The writers basically sat down and explained pretty much every plot hole that people were talking about. In many cases these things were shot and cut and will probably be on the DVD (like the explanation of the 25 year gap between Nero's attacks, and why the black holes caused the Narada to go back and time one time and get torn apart at the end).

Very solid explanations and it seems like these two had really thought out everything even if it didn't make the final cut.
 
Here is a video clip with the writers detailing what William Shatner would've done in the movie had his scenes made the final cut.

It sounds awesome--I wish they had done it!
 
That does sound fucking awesome. To bad they didn't just film it "just in case" would have loved to have seen it when it comes to blu-ray.
 
As a Trekkie since I was a kid, it was hard not to be all like, "THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FAIL!!", but honestly, I just didn't like the movie too much. It didn't really have a lot of meat to me and it didn't really "feel" like Star Trek, if you know what I mean. The plot and a lot of the acting just wasn't good.
 
You're complaining about plot and acting? From Star Trek? As if TOS had either. I enjoyed and still enjoy them. But masterpiece theater it ain't. It's just fun to watch and drift off into.
 
Just came back from the theater with my wife. We both loved it. This movie far exceeded my expectations. I'm really looking forward to seeing the new direction they take the franchise in subsequent films.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top