1515 replies to this topic

[Stefancos]

Spock seeing Vulcan's demise from the other planet as if its in cinemascope. It should not have even been visable.

Agreed. Without a telescope for Spock, this was impossible. Even for dramatic license, Vulcan and that planet would not be as close as Endor and the Death Star II, unless that's what Abrams was going for. I'll give you this as a plot hole only so that Spock Prime meets Kirk, so they can meet plot hole Scotty the Clown. If Nero had been smart, he would have kept Spock Prime close so he couldn't cause any problems. Also, since Nero knows his history (future?), he would remember Spock is half human. Watching Earth get destroyed as well would be like two daggers through his heart, rather than just watching Vulcan eat it. Guess the filmmakers overlooked that one.

In Abrahams (and the writers) defense. The original cut of Star Trek TPM did show a planet or moon in very close proximity to Vulcan.
So there is definatly a precedent.

[Wojo]

Agreed, the precedent is there.

Delta Vega in the film is a reference to an unrelated planet from the TOS episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". In an interview with TrekMovie.com:

"For the Trek fans, this film includes many little references. For example you have Kirk dropped off on the planet Delta Vega, which was seen in second Star Trek pilot. It is a cool reference, but didn’t you also fudge canon by ignoring that Delta Vega was way out next to the galactic barrier."

Writer Roberto Orci: True. Yeah we did. We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg, than a new name with no importance.

And from Memory Alpha:

According to Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which ambassador Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be 'impressionistic for a general audience.' He thought of Delta Vega as being in an orbit close to Vulcan's, and that the original idea -- having Spock view the planet's destruction through a telescope or some other device -- '[wasn't] very cinematic.' [2]

Delta Vega is an icy Class M planet in the Vulcan system. Its orbit carried it near enough to Vulcan that the other planet could be seen from Delta Vega's surface.


Maybe there are two planets with the same name, like how city names are recycled in various states and countries. It doesn't have to be the original Delta Vega.

I just thought in the movie that the Enterprise traveled for several minutes a great distance from Vulcan towards the Laurentian system before they jettisoned Kirk onto the icy planet. If that planet was close enough to Vulcan to view it from below, they made a big U-turn.

Perhaps we are meant to think that Spock did view the demise from a telescope, or could actually see it from his viewpoint. At any rate, the replay is in his mind's eye. Maybe if he's psychic enough to "hear" V'Ger, he can hear six billion voices crying out in panic and then suddenly were silenced...

[Quint]

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

If so I think its a shame, since the Abrams Trek movie was clearly very good, as I remember it.

[Charlie Brigden]

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

If so I think its a shame, since the Abrams' Trek movie was clearly very good, as I remember it.

I think it's maybe a split, possibly 60/40 in favour. I like it very much and I find it very fun, and it's not a bad movie, but I do have issues with it. But I'm not against a sequel, I'd just like some things tightened up a bit.

[Datameister]

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

I can't speak for "most", but I know I liked it quite a bit, particularly after seeing it one or two more times. Like all films, it has flaws. And in greater number than is sometimes the case. But they weren't enough to prevent me from enjoying the film quite a bit.

[John Crichton]

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

No, I think it's a vocal minority drowning out the majority. I certainly still love it.

We could always have a poll.

[Quint]

Speaking of which, has Josh abandoned us again?

[Jacob]

... Star Trek TPM did show...

Hmmm... Star Trek: The Phantom Menace...

[Diego]

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

If so I think its a shame, since the Abrams Trek movie was clearly very good, as I remember it.

I loved it when I watched, of course, it's the only Star Trek I've ever seen, so I had no expectations and I do not have any knowledge to find any contradictions or mischaracterizations. Been meaning to get it on Blu-Ray but it's too expensive for the moment.

[Wojo]

Strange, I still knew what Stef meant.

[Stefancos]

Don't call me Stef!

[Wojo]

Make 7-Up yours.

[Drax]

Don't call me Stef!

Sure, Steph!

[Uni]

UNI, In replying to Wojo, I answered with all the problems I have with the film, not just plot holes. But all the problems I have are legit and to this point no one has tried to defend them because most are indefensable.

Fair enough . . . though I do wonder what you mean by "legit." Legitimate in the sense that you're entitled to your opinion, certainly; but legit in the sense that they're gospel truth? I don't think so. You did bring up several very accurate plot problems with the movie, which I (along with Wojo) agree with. But the reason several of the others are "indefensible" isn't because they can't be defended, but rather because there's no need to defend them, any more than there's a need to defend Klingons having ridges on their foreheads in every iteration after TOS. It's artistic choice, that's all. If you don't like it, you're welcome to express your (legitimate!) feelings, but no one really needs to take the time to back up the reason they happened to like it.

And I still stand by my own (legitimate? Yes!) assertion that it's still a better movie than Star Trek V could ever be, if for no other reason than I enjoyed the ride this time, where as The Final Frontier just made me feel all terrible inside.

- Uni

[Datameister]

I enjoy the film more than the first, third, and fifth films. TWOK is...TWOK, and thus pretty difficult to beat in terms of Star Trek filmdom, and I definitely like the fourth film as well. It's harder for me to judge the sixth film.

[Joey]

UNI, In replying to Wojo, I answered with all the problems I have with the film, not just plot holes. But all the problems I have are legit and to this point no one has tried to defend them because most are indefensable.

Fair enough . . . though I do wonder what you mean by "legit." Legitimate in the sense that you're entitled to your opinion, certainly; but legit in the sense that they're gospel truth? I don't think so. You did bring up several very accurate plot problems with the movie, which I (along with Wojo) agree with. But the reason several of the others are "indefensible" isn't because they can't be defended, but rather because there's no need to defend them, any more than there's a need to defend Klingons having ridges on their foreheads in every iteration after TOS. It's artistic choice, that's all. If you don't like it, you're welcome to express your (legitimate!) feelings, but no one really needs to take the time to back up the reason they happened to like it.

And I still stand by my own (legitimate? Yes!) assertion that it's still a better movie than Star Trek V could ever be, if for no other reason than I enjoyed the ride this time, where as The Final Frontier just made me feel all terrible inside.

- Uni

the flaw in your argument is that no one is backing up most of those, they simply choose to ignore them. It's not like anyone is saying I like Star Trek because it has these gaffs. I like Star Trek because Spock see's Vulcan collapse on itself from impossible distances. btw look back and see that I gave "MY" reasons, not yours, or Wojo's, or Drax, or Data.., just "my" reasons, certainly not gospel as you said.
And I'm in "legitimate" agreement with you that it is a better movie than Star Trek V, though I feel had that film had a substantially larger budget and longer pre-production through post production that this film had it might well have been a "legitimately" better film. It's score (V) is "legitimately" better than (XI) in any universe, and that my friend is "gospel".

[Docteur Qui]

It's a movie.

[Uni]

It's score (V) is "legitimately" better than (XI) in any universe, and that my friend is "gospel".

Amen . . . preach it, brother!

- Uni

[Wojo]

It's a movie.

Starring everybody!

[Joey]

It's a movie.

wow, what an intelligent thing to say, It's a movie.

I think we get that. But this is a site to discuss film music, films and other aspects of films.

Is your comment meant to minimize the importance or value of movies?
Others here have used that same argument with failing results.

They say it's not life or death. Maybe and maybe not but anything that cost as much as movies do, are an economics all there own, an it is the livelyhood of these people. So in essense it is life. It is the work, the craft of many people. It's the love of more than just a few. It is a passion.

unless we're talking about you, and then it's just a movie.

[Wojo]

The key word is passion. Free Willy was also just a movie. Where are its 75 pages of rambling yet passionate discussion?

[Mark Olivarez]

It's got a nice score by Basil Poledouris.

[davros72]

It's a movie.

Starring everybody!

And me!

[Blumenkohl]

This movie is eons away.

[Joey]

The key word is passion. Free Willy was also just a movie. Where are its 75 pages of rambling yet passionate discussion?

well you weren't here back in 93 when we had page after page of discussion on the merits of Free Willy, you wouldn't believe the Passion that film evoked back then. Oh and the wonderful threads back then about which was better Jurassic Park or Schindler's List, and our John Wins thread, what a classic.

[John Crichton]

This movie is eons away.

I think it'll be interesting to see if we hit page 100 before it even comes out.

[Wojo]

No, in '93 I was in sixth grade, the school didn't have the internet, and even my house, while our computer had a modem, to use the free AOL disks that arrived in the mail would have required us to make a long distance call to a different exchange, which violates the idea of "free internet."

And in '93 I don't think I knew who John Williams was, other than a concert piece the high school band played that I really liked.

Otherwise, I would have been here.

[John Crichton]

In '93 I was still three years away from owning my first computer. It took forever to talk my parents into it. I didn't know who Williams was then either.

[Mark Olivarez]

Blasphemy!!!!

[John Crichton]

The later converts are often the most devout.

[Joey]

The later converts are often the most devout.

more like Heretics

[Mark Olivarez]

[Wojo]

So original sin is being born not knowing who John Williams is? I wasn't baptized until I got my Star Wars Anthology.

I'm lucky I didn't die before then. Can you imagine burning in film composer hell for eternity?

[Mark Olivarez]

Yes.

[Joey]

Koray does it everyday.

[Trent Bennett]

Hopefully this week I'm going to redraw the new Enterprise design a tad bit differently. While I love the mesh of the original TOS enterprise and the refit, what I plan to do mostly do is just re-draw the neck and engineering hull to make it more proportion to the rest of the ship. That's been my only beef with the new design of the ship is that the engineering section just doesn't quite look right.


I'll be drawing the starboard, for, aft, ventral and vertical views.

[Pieter_Boelen]

While I loved the film as you all know I have to agree seeing Engineering the way it did made me shake my head. It didn't even look like an Engine room...well maybe it did from a steamship but come on this is a Starship, not a steamship.

Working on actual big ships myself, I can confirm this.
If anything, it does look like the engine room of a steamship, not like a modern ship in any way, shape or form.

Also, the quick promotion of Kirk is ludicrous beyond belief.
From just-graduated officer to captain of the fleet's flagship in one week? You kidding me?
It'll take me maybe two years to even go from Fourth Officer to Third Officer.
And that would be quick.

I'd imagine that after the events of Star Trek XI,
at the most, Kirk might be promoted one rank and put on the Enterprise.
OR, if he's REALLY lucky, be assigned as captain to one of the smaller ships in the fleet.

Of course I understand we just plain want to see Kirk as captain of the Enterprise,
so we'd better get that over with and get everyone in their respective seats.
I did like the movie, but it did seem very much like a "setting up" kind of movie.
Now that that's out of the way, I hope they can actually have these characters do what they're supposed to do.

[John Crichton]

Well, it's official: Leonard Nimoy has retired and will not be in the next Trek movie.

[Jason LeBlanc]

or Fringe anymore

[Datameister]

Well, I'll certainly be sad not to see him deliver another Spock performance...but he did a truly admirable job in Star Trek XI, and I think it was an appropriate send-off for his performance of the character. Makes more sense to let Zachary Quinto have his space, anyway, as Mr. Nimoy said in the article.