 |
I know that Star Trek is now old news, but just in case there are still some fellow nerds out there hungry for more info, some interesting stuff just popped up:
1) Another science review of the movie, making mostly the same points I did in my review.
2) Here’s an inside look at some of the things in the original script that didn’t make it into the movie. It’s an interesting peek at some of the things the writers were thinking that may give you insight into the characters.
Tip o’ the VISOR to ParrotSketch.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Hmmm, it even has an equation for calculating a black hole’s gravity.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I don’t like that TV series at all! Especially that Deeps Space 9 trash! Very few science is in it, it’s more about, aparently future political conflicts and it’s full of ERRORS, like that warp drive thing and the teleporter. And instead of improving themselves those apparent humans of the future keep making technology to serve something as inferior and pathetic as them.
Cheers!
July 5th, 2009 at 11:03 am
There is one good thing about it however!
Ensign, set a course for Vega, no wait! Make that ‘Gliese 581 c’!
July 5th, 2009 at 11:18 am
ZERO, I’m curious: do you post here only to rain on everyone’s parade? Every single comment you have made here has been a negative one.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Zero by name, negative number by nature?
0 sounds like a “delete & bar” worthy troll to me – but as suggested before I reckon just delete his /her content and have a replacement message there instead saying something like :
“This post was deleted for being offensive /spam / trolling /whatever.”
So as not to mess up the numbering system?
(Not this message of course the other one(s) , oh y’know what I mean .. !)
PS. Can I suggest you apply the same policy to everything written by our trolling holocaust denying moon-hoaxer (& more ) troll ‘neil’ whilst we’re on with it?
July 5th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I loved the movie! I saw it twice and can’t wait til it comes out on DVD!
Love the blog and the variety of topics you post on. Something for everyone, and, while people may not agree on everything posted, MOST of us can live with that fact without resorting to rude comments and personal attacks.
Keep up the great work Phil!
July 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
No, I’m just pointing out the facts!
July 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I think the fact that the Star Trek movie can be filed under “old news” a mere two months after it came out is a testament to its utter and complete failure. I’m a huge Trekkie and I ain’t trollin’, but God, that movie was so terrible I still dream of it after big meals.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
StarTrek : The Prequel wise – fun entertaining and nicley setting things up for later movie, with a lot of bad astronomy & a severe case of convenience-itis is my verdict.
Destroying Vulcan and Romulus in the one movie -neat!
… Except what is it with destroying the home planet of heroic aliens now – first Alderaan then Gallifrey now Vulcan …
But, hey at least they did mention Vega!
Although confusing the skies fifth brightest star (second brightest in the Northern hemisphere after Arcturus) with a mere planetoid / dwarf planet /snowball w monsters and firewood is a bit of a fail really.
Can’t wait for a good SF movie with some good Science, esp. Astronomy, Fact in it…
Still ST: Prequel /Reboot will do nicely enough until then… It moved fast enough and had characterisation good enough to mostly get the hokum past.
6.5 ~ 7 / 10 on reflection – but I came out of the theatre thinking it was a fun ride.
All IMHON.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@robhoofd
Unfortunately, being as the stupid thing made $250 million domestically, I’m quite certain we’re going to be stuck with horrible sequels to it for a long time to come.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
And, hey, Phil!
That World War 3 thing in the series is something that’s very probable! You can bet that it will happen anytime in this century. But as for the aliens, no!
July 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The whole reboot thing still makes no sense. Especially the part where Spock (who we SAW take the Enterprise back in time to save a couple of whales in a previous movie) doesn’t seem to have any problem with leaving Vulcan destroyed even though he presumably has the knowledge to go back and repair the timeline. Whatever.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@zero
You are not pointing out the facts, you are being annoying. I also wonder whether the notion that they are fictional escaped you. You know, science fiction, emphasis on the fiction part, you know, so yeah, science errors abound, because you know, they are fiction.
As for Star Trek… Star Wars is better! (Getting ready for Star Trek fan attacks)
July 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
IBY,
Fiction is one thing, errors another thing!
July 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
See what happens when you feed them.
(Oops, I did it, too.)
July 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Flying sardines,
0 is a neutral number not a positive or negative one!
July 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Zero does not understanding the difference between errors and fiction.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Great blog, good movie, bad troll.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@ mk,
That’s where you’re wrong!
July 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@Zero
Nope… not at all wrong.
You’ve displayed a remarkable depth of ignorance. Most of us are laughing at you. ;^}
July 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
mk,
You’re a funny chap!
July 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
@Zero
Clearly you ain’t been watching enough TNG. Piccard is the champion of humanity. The PINNACLE of compassion and progression.
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
July 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Someone has to say this. It really is time people stopped rising to troll baits here, seriously. The good stuff is being drowned by a rising tide of absolute garbage. There’s a real and depressing pattern emerging: Phil posts a great story, a few worthwhile, relevent comments are made, then along comes a troll, they shout, and everyone goes stoopid. The original story is lost, and the troll sits there with a huge beaming smile on their face, thinking how clever they are, and every time they come back from the bathroom they check to see how many more people have fed them and are delighted to find they are still getting people’s backs up. Please, enough.
This is nothing to do with restricting free speech, something I’d never advocate. It’s about ruining a great site.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Steven,
I’ve watched the entire series and it gets on my nerves, not as much as DS9 but still annoying!
Engage!
July 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I can’t count the number of TV-shows I have stopped watching after one or two episodes because I didn’t like them.
However, I have never watched an entire series all the way through if I didn’t like it, that would take an exceptional amount of brain deathness.
Just saying.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
@ Zero
Thanks! And you’re an ignorant chap! ;^}
July 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I have to admit I’ll watch anything Trekky, even a poor episode of Voyager – and there were a few of those! – beats an episode of many other series. I had to give up on LOST tho, when I realised, halfway through a Series 2 episode, that I actually didn’t care about any of the characters, if they lived or died. Too much padding for me. BSG – genius at the start, but it too got rather weighed down by its own mysticism by the end. Babylon 5 was always watchable, and I have to admit I quite like Andromeda too, just because it’s not ashamed to be cheesy and shiny. Firefly – genius x10. Fact.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I’m not even going to suggest I am ashamed to enjoy it – I love it, errors and all and can forgive some bad science in the cause of entertainment – sadly however that view seems broadly held and probably encourages a science deficit in many directors. On balance I would much prefer to see good science in good entertainment.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I’m a big Trekkie (if you couldn’t tell by my name) and I loved it, too. I have friends who are also Trekkies who nitpick everything to death. But for me, especially as I get older and life gets more complicated, family responsibilities etc., I’m often just grateful to escape to a Trek rerun/book/movie and happily engage my suspension of disbelief to enjoy it. After I left the movie (the first time) I wondered why they had cast Winona Ryder for the middle-aged Amanda role instead of an actual middle-aged woman, and I remembered there was a clip in the trailer with her as a young woman lying on a couch on the balcony that didn’t make it to the film. Must have been just after Spock’s birth… Thanks for the article link, Phil. I know lots of people who’ll like this (just like your science review that I passed around!).
July 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
It’s so silly to talk about minor stuff like refraction of light and orbital mechanics when there’s a whole big glaring FASTER THAN LIGHT thing going on. Once you have that you’re basically in magic territory and you might as well criticize Harry Potter for improperly declined dog-Latin.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
As I mentioned, I did like the new Trek, but felt it could have used more lens flares. That’s my only beef.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
31. Michael L Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
As I mentioned, I did like the new Trek, but felt it could have used more lens flares. That’s my only beef.
Your joking right? O.O MORE lens flares?!
July 5th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
#32: Benjamin:
yes. MORE lens flares…
http://www.myextralife.com/archive.php?date=2009-05-18
July 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
30. Jake K Says: “…you might as well criticize Harry Potter for improperly declined dog-Latin.”
Hey! Eeve-lay arry-hay otter-pay alone-ay!
- Jack
July 5th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
31. Michael L Says: “I did like the new Trek, but felt it could have used more lens flares. ”
I dunno. I thought the lens flares were about right. It could have used some more camera shake, though, and spaceship interiors multiple stories high built of structural steel.
- Jack
July 6th, 2009 at 2:37 am
To Jack Hagerty @ #34:
I dunno. I thought the lens flares were about right. It could have used some more camera shake, though, and spaceship interiors multiple stories high built of structural steel.
Why yes. Also, more close-ups, more upside-down camera takes, and more glaring lights on the bridge, too.
Someone also commented that the Enterprise engine room looked like a brewery. I say they should install a full tavern next time. No wonder The Professor wasn’t impressed!!
Gruss Gott! Schweinebraten mit hausgemachten Spätzle, und zwei Leibinger hefeweizen dunkel. Ausgezeichnet!
~~~~~~
Hahahaha, if only Jim Emerson could see this.
~~~~~~
But honestly, I love Star Trek 2009. Hope the next one ups the bar further.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Phil, I think you’ll find that zero is the next head of the Lernaean Hydra. Previous heads have included Neil, Quasar, Gen. Ripper,…
P.S. Come to think of it, it almost looks like Quasar’s style of posting. Any chance they are one and the same?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
I admit I loved the new Trek movie, but having the Enterprise drop out of warp in a massive field of wreckage didn’t quite fit somehow — weren’t the long-range sensors working, or did I miss something?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:53 am
I wish someone sometime would actually do a physical review of a film without either botching the physics themselves, misinterpreting what they’re seeing, or confusing cinematic style with bad physics. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it, but I think it would be a greater wonder than a physically accurate sci-fi/action/adventure flick.
A review of a Star Trek film should never forget any of the many get-out-of-physics-free cards that the franchise has built for itself: Warp Drives, Inertial Dampeners, Hisenberg Compensators, Structural Integrity Fields, Shields, Time Travel, antigravity devices, and practical antimatter containment all have little to no physical plausibility. They are all also necessary premises, and you don’t get to bitch when they work the way they’re supposed to.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Absolutely loved the new film. The actors did a great job as young TOS characters. I especially liked Kirk. Totally believable. Also loved how the “red shirt” bought it early on. Classic TOS! I had two complaints though. 1) In the TV show, the character Checkov was only 22 and fresh out of the acadamy. That would have made him 10 years old in the timeline of the movie. What was he doing there??? 2) What was that love affair between Spock and Uhura all about? It made no sense. Other than those two things, it was a great movie. I can’t wait for the DVD to come out.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I completely enjoyed the new Star Trek.
Arthur C. Clarke used to talk about the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy. Clarke argued that he wrote Science Fiction, his stories might be possible some day.
Star Trek is Science Fantasy and all fun. I could give a care about what non-science they dream up. This film was great.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I really enjoyed the film too, and I am not a huge trekkie (but a trekkie nonetheless). I am very happy about the breakaway from the old timeline. No film these days is talked about for 2 months after it release, I think this was a good crack, breathing new life into an old series that had perhaps run its course.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Like #40 ‘American Voyager’ I too wondered what the blazes was going on with the Uhura -Spock thing.
The other thing that struck me which no one has yet mentioned – they left a black hole out there orbiting Earth when they destroyed the Romulan ship!
So how massive is that BH?
How much radiation is it emitting and how long will it last?
How will it effect the Earth & other planets? Can’t be too good a thing to have close to Earth now can it? Hmmm ..?
@ #12 Romeo Vitelli :
The whole reboot thing still makes no sense. Especially the part where Spock (who we SAW take the Enterprise back in time to save a couple of whales in a previous movie) doesn’t seem to have any problem with leaving Vulcan destroyed even though he presumably has the knowledge to go back and repair the timeline. Whatever.
Well no. Star Trek IV Voyage Home (the whales one) was set a considerably long time after the events that have taken place in the prequel so no, Spock – at least young Spock – does NOT have that ability yet.
Old Spock OTOH .. ? Hmm .. Not sure there. He’s been back in time and so maybe its his principles or time paradox issues or just too difficult to get right or something else stopping him …? (Do Vulcans get senility?
) Or maybe old Spock is plotting something like that now and we’ll find an attempt to do just that in the next movie?
Anyway, for all its faults the Prequel /reboot sure is the best Trek movie in quite a while – up there with ‘First Contact, ‘The Undiscovered Country’ ‘ & ‘Voyage Home’ in my humble opinion. Fun. Not very scientifically accurate sure but fun.
Mind you, personally, my vote for best SF TV /movie franchise ever would still have to go to ‘Babylon-5′ with ‘Dr Who’ and ‘Firefly’ following. I actually didn’t mind ‘Jeremiah’ either … (Been a long time since I saw any trek n0w – I don’t hate it or anything although its just a little saccharine and light for my taste. Trek : TNG was great, DS9 & ‘Voyager’ had their moments, ‘Enterprise’ turned me off after a couple of episodes as pretty dreadful.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@Pu:
)
(Do Vulcans get senility?
Yes, in one TNG episode, Sarak was suffering from some disease that caused the equivalent of Alzheimer’s *, causing problems because of his ‘telepathic’ (one SF concept I do NOT like) ability. I believe that’s also the one that ‘killed’ the character.
*kicking to anti-vax, the ‘increase’ in diagnosis of Autism is partially due to the definition. Once, Alzheimer’s Disease was simply ’senile dementia’, and considered to be ‘natural’ after achieving a certain age… the ‘creation’ of the Alzheimer’s diagnosis was when a patient was discovered suffering from it BELOW that ‘certain age’.
J/P=?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Maybe I’m just a bitter 30-something crank, but I found the new Trek to be insultingly cavalier in its disposal of the existing time-line.
“Hey, fans, you know the universe that you’ve helped keep alive lo these many years? Well, I’m JJ Abrams and I just kicked it to pieces in the name of ‘rebooting’. Be sure to tune into ‘Lost’ on ABC!”
From a nerd-fan level, the reboot created a bunch of annoying paradoxes. Chief amonng them is the fact that characters from AFTER point-of-divergence (Picard and company) traveld back in time to BEFORE the point-of-divergence and saved the world from the Borg… Now how is that going to play out correctly in the new, Vulcan-less timeline? IT MAKES NO SENSE dangit! Argggghhhh! Geek-anger rising!!!
Ok… geekrage dissapated. From a non-nerd level, it just seems mean to dismiss the existing storyline with only a single tossed of line of dialog to cover it. My aunt, who got me into Trek, has been a trekkie since TOS aired, and she was heartbroken when I told her how the new movie went down. Surely a way could have been found to re-energize the franchise without disenfranchising the loyal old gaurd…
Oh well, its not really important, after all… But it still bugs me.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I think the movie was fantastic! Yes, Abrams and the writers took the lazy way out by throwing out all the existing continuity…but, oh well. It is still a fantastic movie on its own merits.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:41 am
To Brian Schlosser @ #45:
Chief amonng them is the fact that characters from AFTER point-of-divergence (Picard and company) traveld back in time to BEFORE the point-of-divergence and saved the world from the Borg… Now how is that going to play out correctly in the new, Vulcan-less timeline?
It can still play out correctly. Remember that in the days of Dr. Zefram Cochran, Vulcan has not yet been annihilated; and so, First Contact can still happen.
As for Capt. Picard and company, they’ll still come around even after the Narada point-of-divergence. Fandom dictates this, and Paramount knows.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I also am unhappy about losing our beloved Trekiverse but at least we get a replacement.
I enjoyed that Spock is embracing his human half. Spock and Uhura together? The language nerd and the science nerd make an excellent match.
Uhura was superb. Now we see a communications expert who does much more than just answer the phone.
“…they left a black hole out there orbiting Earth when they destroyed the Romulan ship!
So how massive is that BH?”
The black hole would have the mass of the Romulan ship plus the “red matter” used to make the black hole. If it’s in a stable orbit it’s no threat as long as its location is tracked and ships avoid it. It would have no effect on Earth and certainly none on the other planets. Without matter spiraling in, it would emit only Hawking radiation.
I glanced at the review Phil linked. The author spent lots of time on the orbit of the Romulan ship while it was drilling. Obviously in was nowhere near geo-synch orbit, so it would have to use its engines to hover over one spot.
That brings up the TOS adventures with decaying orbits when the engines fail. Once again, the ship is much closer than geo-synch orbit, perhaps because transporters can’t reach that far. If you want to sit over your away team, you would use your impulse engines (thrust-vectored so the ship doesn’t have be tail-down) to give you enough lift to stay in orbit. If the engines fail, you’re moving much too slowly to maintain orbit and down you go. The ship often moves over the planet’s surface but sometimes is stationary, such as when it blasted Vaal.