Movie News

Copernicus on the Science of J. J. Abrams' STAR TREK!!

Published at: June 10, 2011, 11:38 a.m. CST by AICNStaff

 

I’m very excited about the HERO COMPLEX film festival this weekend!  They will show DICK TRACY with Warren Beatty,  SUPERMAN I and II (The Donner Cut) with Richard Donner, THE INCREDIBLES with supervising animator Dave Mullins, IRON MAN 1 & 2 with Jon Favreau, the STAR TREK II:  THE WRATH OF KHAN with Nicolas Meyer, and STAR TREK (2009) with Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof.  So in preparation, I thought I’d write about something I’ve been meaning to cover for a long time:  the science of STAR TREK!

Since there might be people coming to this article who don’t know me, my real job is a staff astronomer at Las Cumbres Observatory and faculty at UC Santa Barbara.  The main focus of my research is supernovae.  I’m also a host of the series KNOWN UNIVERSE on NatGeo.

Since this always comes up, let me reiterate the premise I’ve followed for all of these articles, whether they are about THOR, GREEN LANTERN, or AVATAR.  If you need to bend some of the known laws of physics to tell a good story, that’s fine.  I’m very happy with the Enterprise going faster than light.  But if you get the fundamentals of how the universe works wrong just because you are lazy or sloppy it really takes me out of the movie.  Who do you respect more, Stanley Kubrick, whose details enrich his films and elevate the viewer to a higher metaphysical state of being, or Michael Bay, whose disdain for even a fig leaf of plausibility actually causes devolution in audiences?

In this article, I’m just going to cover the 2009 J. J. Abrams STAR TREK reboot.  If you’d like a more detailed look at some of the broader questions in the Trek concept or history, I recommend Lawrence Krauss’ excellent book, THE PHYSICS OF STAR TREK.  For example, do the transporters work by beaming your actual matter or just the information about your atoms and their positions?  Depending on the particular need in the plot, the show has treated it both ways.  Since you can’t revive characters by restoring them from their last beaming, that implies that you need the atoms.  On the other hand, the episode with two Rikers implies all you need is the information.  But the physics implications, and energy requirements, are quite different – they differ by a factor of the speed of light squared.  The point isn’t to be pedantic, it is to have some fun while thinking deep thoughts and pondering the ways of the universe.

 

STAR TREK (2009)

I’m a pretty big Trek fan.  But after a while the shows and films just became formulaic.  Or, more precisely, the formula from the old series just wore thin after a few decades.  And with each new series they would not so much invent new characters as copy characters that worked previously:  honorable commander, nonhuman outsider, inexperienced youngster, folksy human, sexy vixen, and crew member from a once-enemy species.   Things got so predictable that they even lost a giant space geek like me. 

That’s why I was happy to hear they were putting a stop to the endless string of sometimes wayward copies and going right back to the characters that inspired it all. The franchise was in desperate need of someone who wouldn’t play it safe, and they hit the jackpot with J. J. Abrams.  He and the team behind this Trek did a stellar job.  There was great action, it was true to the characters, and it was funny and exciting too.  I understand it wasn’t for everyone, but every time I hear a rant about how different it is, I think of this Onion clip:  Trekkies bash new Star Trek film as fun, watchable.

But there is one thing that this Trek mangled pretty badly:  the science.  In fact, they got things so wrong that it ruined some of my colleagues’ enjoyment of the film.   I still enjoyed it, but there are times when I want to throw something at the screen.   By now I hope everyone who wants to see the film already has.  So I won’t summarize the plot, I’ll just get right into the science.

 

THE COSMIC COINCIDENCE

The fun really begins when Kirk is forcibly marooned on a planet near Vulcan.  He calls it Delta Vega, but it is certainly not the Delta Vega from the original series.

He’s got a whole planet that he could have set down on (big enough to have Earth gravity), yet he is barely there a minute before he runs into his bestest bud in the universe!

Now you can take this improbability and square it, because a few minutes later they run into Montgomery Scott.  Relying on coincidence to drive the plot is just sloppy writing.  That is barely science, but it bugs the hell out of me.

Would it have killed them to have thrown in an exchange like:

KIRK:  “What are the odds of meeting you here!”

ELDER SPOCK:  “Unity.  The only continent on this moon is 20 square kilometers.”

But what really bugs me is something else.  In a mind meld, Spock reveals that he watched the destruction of Vulcan from this planet.  Apparently, they were going to have him see this through a telescope, but decided it would be more cinematic if he just looked up and saw it with his naked eye.

I actually agree with that decision – it makes a great spectacle to witness the destruction of another planet from the surface of a planetoid.  But the problem is that for Vulcan to loom that large in the sky, larger than our moon, Delta Vega could not be a separate planet.   It would have to be a moon of Vulcan.  You can calculate how far away it is by its angular size:  d=206265 * D / X, where D is the linear diameter Vulcan, and X is the angle it subtends in arcseconds.  If Vulcan is about the same size as Earth (it basically has to be because it has similar gravity), and the angular size of Vulcan as seen from Delta Vega is about two degrees (a guestimate based on the fact that our moon subtends half a degree), then Delta Vega is about as far as the Moon is from Earth.  Anything that close would become gravitationally bound.  So regardless of what other background sources say, I’m going to treat Delta Vega as a moon of Vulcan. 

Technically if they are of comparable size it really should be considered a binary planet.  I’d have made it smaller (a true moon), and made the Kirk escaping the monster scene more fun by having him still adjusting to the low gravity on that moon.  I’ve actually had to run on a reduced gravity machine for KNOWN UNIVERSE – it is strange and crazy.

Incidentally, I thought the destruction of Vulcan looked very cool.  It was a little faster than it would have been physically, but that’s just dramatic license.   The crumbling of the planet would have been a pressure wave, so it is limited by the sound speed through the planet.  This is basically the speed of P-waves in earthquakes, about 8 kilometers per second.  Even Twitter is faster than earthquakes.  It should have taken about half an hour to destroy the planet.  They can’t take the time to show that in a film, but it is fun that we can calculate that!

 

THAT’S NOT A SUPERNOVA, IT’S A PLOT DEVICE

In explaining how he came to be freezing his balls off, Oldster Spock tells Pine-Kirk, “129 years from now, a star will explode and threaten to destroy the galaxy.  The star went supernova, consuming everything in its path.  I promised the Romulans that I would save their planet.  We outfitted our fastest ship.  Using Red Matter, I would create a black hole, which would absorb the exploding star.  I was en route when the unthinkable happened.  The supernova destroyed Romulus.”

Sigh.  Even my Astro 1 students can do better than this.  Spock, you are an inspiration to scientists and little nerds everywhere, and it breaks my heart to hear you spouting such gibberish.  A supernova, the destruction of a star, can temporarily outshine an entire galaxy, but it cannot “destroy the galaxy.”   A supernova happens about every hundred years in a galaxy like the Milky Way (although we’re overdue with the last one being whatever created Cass A 300 years ago).  Somewhere in the universe a supernova is happening every second.  I’ve participated in the discovery of thousands of them.  Their host galaxies are still here. 

 

This rare nearby supernova in the galaxy M51 was discovered a few days ago by the group I belong to, The Palomar Transient Factory, and others.  Notice the galaxy is still there.  We’re studying it intensely now.  Image credit: Chip Gentry / Austin Astronomical Society.

 

And if the star giving life to Romulus went supernova, what good is absorbing the supernova into a black hole going to do?  So what if they don’t burn in the supernova, now they are going to freeze without a star!  So Spock wasn’t exactly saving their planet – more like giving them a few days to get off it before the atmosphere freezes out and it becomes an ice ball.

And another thing, if your sun goes supernova, it isn’t “unthinkable” that the planet would be destroyed.  It’s quite thinkable!  Well, life would be destroyed.   If you think the deadly wrath of a tornado can induce awe, contemplate a supernova.

I often think of that when I’m at the telescope – interesting new supernova for me – death for billions.

Technically, the body of the planet (if rocky) could survive in some form, albeit stripped of its atmosphere and pesky life forms.  While theoretically a planet could present a big enough target to absorb enough energy from a supernova to disintegrate it (I actually calculated this), in reality it probably wouldn’t happen.  The blast wave of the supernova would mostly take the path of least resistance and just blow around the planet.  But those are details.  This looks cool, so I’m actually glad they did it this way:

But how quick would Spock have to be with his fastest ship? 

For a star to go supernova, it would have to be at least 8 times the mass of the sun.  So Romulus would have to be farther away from its star than the Earth is to the Sun to be habitable.  Let’s say it is 10 times the Earth-Sun distance (basically where Saturn is).  That would be 1.5 billion kilometers.  The material in a supernova is flying out at about 10,000 km/s.  So it would hit the planet 150,000 seconds, or 42 hours after the star exploded.  Spock is a character who likes to calculate random shit for no better reason than just to show off and infuriate humans.  And he flubbed this basic arithmetic with billions of lives on the line?  He was “en route when the unthinkable happened!?”  “Oops, sorry Romulans, I was on the way, but I guess I miscalculated how much time your entire species, every species on the planet, and even those Bat-faced Remans had left.”  “Unthinkable,” my ass!  If I gave this homework problem to my students, and they wrote “unthinkable” as the answer, I’d not only fail them, I’d call their parents to tell them that they should never have reproduced.  Abrams-Spock, your ignorance is so vast that it has become genocidal.  You are a genocidal moron!  Billions of Romulans are now vapor because you ditched the Vulcan Science Academy to help Kirk chase tail around the galaxy.

 

IT GETS WORSE

Ok, in geek-speak, if you treat only the film as cononical, then that’s the way it went down.  But there was a prequel comic, Countdown, which the writers of the film, Orci and Kurtzman, had some involvement in.  If you believe the comic, then the star that exploded was the Hobus star, and it wasn’t even the home star of Romulus!  Turns out, this supernova just expanded and expanded, eating star systems all around the galaxy.  This is ludicrous.

Aside from the energetics, which don’t work, there is the speed problem.  At a typical velocity for the stuff ejected from the supernova (the technical term is ejecta) of  10,000 km/s, it would take a century to travel the typical distance to the nearest star (about 3 lightyears).  Even if this material were going as fast as has ever been seen in a supernova, about a tenth the speed of light, and the star that exploded was in the next star system over from Romulus, the blast would have taken more than 30 years to reach Romulus.  So well before the first season of ST:TNG the Romulans would have been furrowing their furrowed brows off.  Even if the supernova ejecta were traveling at the speed of light (an impossibility), it would have taken three years to threaten Romulus.  So in this scenario, Spock isn’t stupid, he’s just lazy.

 

WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE

If they wanted to preserve the “threatening the galaxy” angle, they should have invented some new kind of space disturbance, rather than relying on a supernova, whose properties are known.  But one thing I don’t like about previous Trek incarnations is the random made-up technobabble of the week.  There is a certain amount of verisimilitude you get by invoking an actual supernova.  But you can’t just use the word without the meaning.  So keep it a supernova.  In that case, Spock should have said: “129 years from now, a star will explode and threaten to destroy the galaxy Romulus.  The star went supernova, consuming everything in its path.  I promised the Romulans that I would save their planet.  We outfitted our fastest ship.  Using red matter, I would create a black hole, which would absorb the exploding star.  I was en route when the unthinkable happened.  [But I was too late.]  The supernova destroyed Romulus.”

 

RED MATTER

Surprisingly enough, I don’t hate Red Matter, although the way it was dealt with could have been handled much better.  The script called for (1) something to stop a supernova, (2) the creation of a black hole / wormhole to make time travel possible, (3) something that would destroy Vulcan, (4) something to create a black hole at the end of the film.  So why not invent a MacGuffin that can do all that?  Sounds crazy, but so does Dark Matter – invisible matter that only interacts gravitationally, and we think that stuff is the predominant form of matter in the universe.  Baryonic matter, the stuff we (and stars) are made of, is the weird stuff as far as the universe is concerned.

The problem with Red Matter is that it is now the ultimate weapon in the Star Trek universe.  A syringe of it can destroy a planet – or even a star or supernova!  Why screw around with photon torpedoes when you can have Red Matter torpedoes?  And shields would be pointless.  I suppose you could say that all the Red Matter in the Trek universe was destroyed at the end of the film.  Well, ok, then why was Spock hauling around all the red matter in the universe!  He only needed a syringe!  Spock is like a redneck hauling around a pickup truck full of dynamite.   Or even worse… antimatter.  That’s dangerous!  What if he crashed?  Not only would he become a black hole, they’d have no more chances to fix this or any other supernova. 

And there is another thing about carrying around a giant red orb that can be used as a weapon.  A syringe you can hide.  But a giant red orb?  When Nero and crew captured Spock’s vessel, it sure didn’t take them long to find the ultimate secret weapon in Spock’s ship.  “Henchman – search the ship for… whoa!  What’s that giant red thing?”  Nero then uses this to destroy Vulcan.   So dumbass redneck Spock is responsible for destroying not only all Romulans, but all Vulcans too!  I don’t think even villains in the Star Trek universe have wiped out two species, including their own.

 

BLACK HOLES

Black holes are called that because nothing can escape, not even light.  But in the Star Trek universe really good characters can escape from them, but bad guys sometimes get crushed.  On other occasions they make you go back in time.  Maybe they should call them Plot Holes.  Technically a supernova can create a black hole, so they didn’t necessarily need Red Matter to do it.  But there are a few things you get by invoking Red Matter – a black hole sometimes can’t stop a supernova, but maybe a Red Matter enhanced one can.  And maybe Red Matter can turn an our-universe black hole into a Trek-universe black hole.  I’m actually fine with Red Matter time traveling black holes.

 

SATURN

Near the end of the film, our heroes warp right into the atmosphere of Titan and hide there.  Love it!  Seeing the Enterprise rise out of a real astronomical body is one of the most amazing images in all of Star Trek history.

The problem comes when Chekov opens his damn fool mouth.  First he seems uncertain about which moon of Saturn to hide in.  Titan is the only real choice – it is by far the largest and the only one with an atmosphere!  But then he says, “The magnetic distortion from the planet’s rings will make us invisible to Nero’s sensors.”  Ok, Saturn does have a magnetic field, so that’s almost plausible.  But it’s weaker than the Earth’s, and even an iPhone can handle the Earth’s magnetic field.  I bet a 24th  century spaceship would have that sorted right out.   But we’ll let that slide – it would have been great if they had stopped there.  I wouldn’t have written a thing except how cool that sequence is.

The problem is the rings have nothing to do with the magnetic field! No distortion!  They are just lumps of ice and rock.  What really bugs me is that, according to the credits, they had Carolyn Porco as a science consultant, maybe the best expert on Saturn and its moons mankind has ever had.  She’s responsible for the camera on a real spaceship orbiting Saturn right now, Cassinni, and they can’t be bothered to either ask her or listen to her on this? 

Between the non-supernova and the ring magnetic field, I can only describe this as Sarah Palin writing – they want the cachet of fancy words, but they don’t know what they mean so they just make a word salad.  Words have meaning!  Even astronomical ones!   Or maybe they do know what the words mean and are ignoring it, banking on the stupidity of their audience.  That would be worse.

Ok, rant over.

I really did enjoy the movie. I get passionate about Trek because I care. The story, characters, actors, effects, music, and direction were great.   These could have all stayed the same with just a nonsense pass by an astronomer over the dialog.  A consultation with a real astronomer, who thinks about space all day long, might have even improved the film in other ways.  I can think of a million background settings and insane astronomical objects I’d love to see the Enterprise visit, even in passing.

Consider this – I grew up as a lanky logic-minded misfit.  I was inspired to be a scientist, partially because of Spock.  But now I have to face the fact that I’m smarter than Spock.  At least this one.  That makes me sad.   It doesn’t have to be this way!   The writers are experts at drama, characters, and comedy.  Get a science expert for the science. 

And you might say, “So what if you piss off a bunch of braniac astronomers.”  It is true, there aren’t many of us out there.  But we have a disproportionate effect on culture.  How many times have you seen Hubble images, or other astronomical discoveries in the news?  And just think about how many astronomy TV shows there are out there.  On mine this week, we cover replicators from Star Trek! (more HERE)  We can’t afford to have Star Trek be a laughing stock of the cognoscenti.  And Trek-fans themselves tend to be pretty educated when it comes to science. 

I can’t wait for the next Trek.  But I hope they really do go where no one has gone before.  I want to see strange new worlds and new civilizations.  And I hope the astronomy is bad-ass.

 

-Andy Howell  aka Copernicus

Email or follow me on Twitter.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 10, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Chapter one: LENSFLARE!!!!!!!

    by Bag_of_Hammers

  • June 10, 2011, noon CST

    lol

    by Briestro

    Hilarious, I felt the same way exactly about the film. I loved it, but wanted to throw shit at the screen at least 10 times. LOL Redneck Spock, that is hysterical. B

  • June 10, 2011, 12:02 p.m. CST

    I am glad to see that he has a problem with the

    by Ingeld

    black hole stopping the supernova but not saving the planet. I am not scientists but I knew when I saw that, that the planet Romulas could not survive for long without its star.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Relax and repeat after me: "It's only a movie"

    by Playkins

    I seriously dislike this kind of nit-pickery, however entertaining to read it may be. I also have an equal dislike for people that think Michael Bay is somehow responsible for dumbing down America.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:05 p.m. CST

    My method of fighting a supernova.

    by cookylamoo

    Would be to show the star any episode from the first four seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation, thus boring and calming the star back into a less agitated state.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Damn it, Copernicus, I am a writer/director, not a scientist!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Couldn't help myself. However, this is a great ARTICLE! Maybe Boborci, Abrams & Co. can give you guys a call for the next film!

  • June 10, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    The thing that always bothers me the most in JJ Treck is . . .

    by One-Eyed Willy

    That in the beginning scene with the Kelvin, the captain goes to board the shuttle by coming down a huge elevator, then they switch to the external view and the shuttlebay is on the top, not the bottom - so he would have to come UP an elevator. I know it's stupid, but it bugs the shit outta me every time

  • June 10, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Honestly, you're being quite kind with the flick.

    by Chewtoy

    I really expected some comment on how the transporters can apparently move matter far faster than the already-faster-than-light ships. Or why you would need to drill to the center of a planet to plant a black hole within it. Surely a black hole right next to a planet is lethal? And really, you could do an article like this for every field represented. Run it down from a military perspective about how promotions and transfer of command works (gotta love a ship with one Admiral and nothing else but cadets.) Or the idea that there's a code that would shut down all of a planet's defenses, that couldn't be overridden if used, and (worst of all) that wouldn't be changed if the enemy should capture an admiral who *knows what it is*. The whole plot is full of such fucking nonsense that I need to bash my head against the wall to stop noticing it. Which is a shame, because the cast and the energy of the film add up to a great deal of fun. Just... somebody slap the hell out of the writers. It's quite obviously written by the same guys who write those craptacular Michael Bay Transformers films. Can't we ask that they come up with something less moronic?

  • June 10, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    errr . . . .Trek

    by One-Eyed Willy

  • June 10, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Nailed it.

    by TheDrow

    I loved this Trek but I have to agree it was the completely ridiculous use of science that yanked me right out of it. Point for point almost everything Copernicus said made me go WTF?? when I first saw it on screen. Its just outright lazy writing and there's no excuse for it. Especially not from a storyteller as good as Abrams.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    They didn't use any of the previous Trek tech consultants

    by Boiiinng

    That was their first mistake. Their second was using Orci and Kurtzman: idiots.

  • Some are idiots, or course, but it seems like every other post now requires name calling.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    It wasn't meant to be scientific

    by matineer

    This version is much more space opera. I don't like the way they ignored science and the conventions of Star Trek-- as others have pointed out, whatever happened to deflector shields -- but that's the choice they made. As if deflectors and phasers that didn't look like cannons were too "science fiction". But why do this now?

  • June 10, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    And another thing.

    by TheDrow

    And let me add this. I don't hate Michael Bay, I'm actually a fan of most of this movies, so I'm not asking for a story to be perfect on the science. I'm just asking it to not insult my intelligence. Make it up. That's why it's called science fiction for the love of god. But don't take things that your average school kid has at least seen one or two shows about and try to use them as these massive sweeping plot devices. I'll happily accept some creative random technobabble before I'll swallow simple science used badly. And don't even get me started on the "funny meeting you here Spock". But all of that said, I still enjoyed the hell out of the movie. I just believe it could have been that much better.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:33 p.m. CST

    One issue with your supernova complaint...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    First of all, we weren't told that this supernova was happening in the star closest to Romulus. It was simply A star in the galaxy. Obviously, this was no ordinary supernova either. It may have been something that was even beyond the scope of understanding of contemporary 24th or 25th Century scientists. In the movie, even many of the people and scientists of Romulus didn't think that there was any impending danger from it. Thus, it was probably something UNSEEN before and UNKNOWN in its possible dangers. Thus, it wasn't just Romulus that was destroyed. It was the entire section of the galaxy in which Romulus existed that was destroyed by the wave of energy from a previously unseen category of "supernova" from a distant star. If Spock has successfully stopped it (via Red Matter), the Romulus sun would have still existed and kept the planet warm.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    I have a couple ?'s for Mr. Big Shot Science Guy

    by Have_Penis_Will_Travel

    but I'm not going to type them out unless he accepts the challenge

  • June 10, 2011, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Four science advisors for Thor. Were there ANY for Star Trek?

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

  • June 10, 2011, 12:42 p.m. CST

    details matter

    by tintab

    Great article Copernicus. I don't understand the response "it's only a movie". way back when, nobody ever ran out of bullets in movie gunfights. while this simplified the storytelling, new opportunities for drama, tension and action present themselves if you make it realistic: people run out of bullets, now what? I liked the new Trek as well and I'm Trekkie. But you don't have to be a scientist to realize some of the action and dramatic tension was based on a shaky scientific premise. I hope they get that right with the next film because Trek was always about a plausible future.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Thanks Copernicus

    by donkey_lasher

    I was thinking of watching this again, and re-evaluating my opinion, but now I'm just disliking it even more. Don't get me wrong, the actors did a sterling job in re-introducing us to those characters we love, but the whole story just stank. It's become a case subject against the overuse of Lens Flare, and how movies are turning into churned out products targetted at a teen audience.

  • VERY POOR bridge design. I know J.J. likes lens flares be for fuck sakes make it believeable. Too many times hanging at the Apple store I guess. At least the Kelvin's bridge seemed practical even if there were WAAAY too many screens for some reason.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Article could have been longer

    by BackwardGalaxy

    There are plenty more glaring scientific gaffs, including the one mentioned above about a black hole NEXT TO the planet would have more than sufficed for Nero's purposes. The drill was unnecessary. That one, Spock being able to SEE Vulcan die from a planet that was then unaffected, and Spock's inane explanation to Kirk of what nonsense happened to destroy Romulus really really bothered me. I love the movie, love the cast, love the energy, but those are pieces of lazy writing that easily could have been fixed. Easily fixable mistakes piss me off.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    It insults reason! Most obvious flaw? How did English language spread throughout the entire known universe in about 100 years? I mean, it isn't like Earth or the Federation conquered the universe in 100 years (from the time of First Contact to the original five year mission of Kirk's Enterprise). Heck, the universe seems more like regions in India with widespread English influence after British rule than a single language from a single planet that spread like a supervirus throughout the Known Universe. Just saying. :-)

  • June 10, 2011, 12:49 p.m. CST

    The Super Nova:

    by Twisk

    Okay, I haven't read the rest of the article. I stopped after the bit about the super nova. Yes. I agree, when you see this in the movie it's silly. It's actually explained a bit further in the comic prequel (which is a great TNG swan song, far better than Nemesis). ...the super nova is not the Romulan's star. It is a completely different star altogether. And for some unexplained reason, this particular star after going super nova just kept expanding and expanding and expanding - it would not stop. Now, given all the wacky/bizarre stuff that has happened in previous episodes through all the series - I can accept this. It's far out there. But that's Star Trek for ya.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Yeah but ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by donkey_lasher

    People were stupid back then ;o)

  • June 10, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Speaking of previously unknown types of supernovas...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1106/10SN/

  • June 10, 2011, 12:52 p.m. CST

    LOL, After Reading On...

    by Twisk

    This is ludicrous.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Huh, my entire message didn't post.

    by Twisk

    Would you consider Q ludicrous?

  • June 10, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Next week, on NEW STAR TREK

    by donkey_lasher

    KIRK PILOTS A SPITFIRE! SCOTTY CAUSES THE COLLAPSE OF THE SPACECRAFT INDUSTRY - MILLIONS OF JOBS AXED UHURU UNVIELS SOME SIDE BOOB SPOCK, FACED WITH THE FUTURE INVOLVEMENT IN THE GENOCIDE OF HIS OWN RACE, USES THE DEATH GRIP ON HIMSELF - FAILS

  • ...at the end where the Enterprise has to maintain full warp speed just to counteract the gravity of Nero's red matter-collapsing ship to avoid being sucked in. Then they eject the warp core and somehow aren't immediately destroyed along with the ejected warp core.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Time Travel and Spock

    by Nemes

    Agree with all your points. I wanted to add the following: Spock Prime knows how to time travel (without red matter black hole inducing events). At the end of the film he would have used this knowledge to travel back with a fleet of ships to before the Kelvin attack and blown the hell out of the Narada the moment it first appeared, thus patching the timeline back, more or less, to where it's supposed to be and avoiding the destruction of the Kelvin, the fleet, Vulcan, etc. The only way around this is to have the character killed before the end of the film, and they didn't do that. I loved the cast, I loved the directing (and the score!), but this writing team needs to be replaced. God help us with the sequel.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    How about the science of bring promoted from Ensign to Captain?

    by cookylamoo

    I know a few military types who'd like to know.

  • June 10, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    Love the article

    by Bass Ackwards

    I feel sorry for people who can't read a piece of geekery like this and simply take it for what it is, an interesting bit of writing. Copernicus has to practically fall all over himself explaining that he still likes the movie yet antagonistic responses still pop up from people apparently bothered at the idea of discussing a movie for any reason.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    twisk: He sums up the supernova problem above.

    by Chewtoy

    If they wanted to preserve the “threatening the galaxy” angle, they should have invented some new kind of space disturbance, rather than relying on a supernova, whose properties are known.

  • I wrote far more than the one sentence that appeared in my post above.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST

    @ chewtoy:

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    The properties of supernova's aren't known in their entirety. http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1106/10SN/

  • I think much of the original series and most of the movies walked a line between the two. I think Abrams left that line and opted for the space opera. For some that is fine, but for many scientists who went into the field because of Star Trek, I think they find it disappointing.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Star Trek Science DOESN'T EXIST

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    And Never Has. And Probably never Will. I've pointed this out in almost every Star Trek talkback but it never seems to sink in. Ronald D Moore says the writing staff called it "Tech". They weren't scientists. They were dramatists. They would leave holes in the scripts for the technical advisers to plug technobabble in that SOUNDED SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE. Data would say "Captain the Tech is Teching." And Picard would say "Can we prevent the Tech from Teching so we can reach Technopolis in time?" And Geordi would say "Well if Data and I reroute the Tech through the Techometer we can enable the Techpacitor to reach full Techocity." And Picard would say "Make it So". It's Bullshit. None of it Exists. When someone says they became a scientist because of Spock or a doctor because of McCoy, I just want to laugh. Spock isn't a scientist. He's an actor with fake ears on who spews technobabble about transporters and warp drives and photon torpedoes. McCoy isn't a doctor. He's an actor who waves a tricorder over someone and then spews technobabble about diseases and cures that don't actually exist. If Abrams Trek isn't plausible for you because Orci and Kurtzman used supernovas and black holes inaccurately would it be more plausible if they'd said "The Whozis can prevent the Whatzis if we put the MacGuffin in the FrimFram before we go on our Snipe Hunt"? You've been accepting Bullshit your entire Geek life but when someone spices it up with a little Horseshit you can't swallow it? You've been watching Spaceships exploding in a vacuum instead of imploding for how many decades but this movie is the last straw? STFU.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST

    No

    by donkey_lasher

    We believe that any spacecraft that can fly at warp speed, shoot high energy lasers, and use a force field, would contain a power source so grand, that when disrupted, it would act like a mini supernova that explodes the ship.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Star Trek is filled with illogical MacGruffins.

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    The Genesis Project? Seriously? It is easier to call it science, I suppose, when it is left unexplained. BTW, I absolutely LOVE the Wrath of Khan film. I also enjoyed the newest Trek film too. I do hope that they can more readily bridge the gap between science and fiction. Copernicus, why not contact Abrams, Orci and Co.? I imagine that they would love a private consultation between the writers, the script and your KNOWN UNIVERSE squad!

  • June 10, 2011, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Nice read! My retort for Point #1

    by theMovesMusic

    Is that he was jettisoned to a nearby base, which makes sense for Spock to camp near and to have a character inhabit. Everything else I can roll with!

  • June 10, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST

    And Copernicus my Beef isn't with You.

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Your article was very informative, and as Spock would say, "Fascinating." My Beef is with Trekkies or Trekkers or Trekoids who feel that Scotty beaming himself and Kirk onto a ship that's travelling faster than light with shields up is somehow less scientifically plausible than Scotty beaming himself onto a ship that's unshielded and orbiting a planet. IT'S A FUCKING TRANSPORTER! THEY DON'T EXIST! You've spent your life cataloguing "canon" and minutia about how a piece of technobabble works or doesn't work. It would be Sad if it wasn't so Silly.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    why build the enterprise on earth

    by kaijuturtle

    is the enterprise capable of transatmospheric flight... the bad guy Nero enters our timeline and spends how many years traveling around and carrying a grudge? how badly did he screw up the timeline anyway, to justify such a strange new alternate enterprise? it looks designed by metrosexual italian car designers from the early 21st century Nero's ship is a Romulan mining ship? miners designed that to mine rocks and planets in space? it must be hard to wash, everytime it comes out warp it must be covered by cosmic crap & debris... the new enterprise is incredibly unergonomic and unsafe in the interior, so much sparkly glass & plastic surfaces to distract, & break, etc. Spock's ship with its twirly bits is pretty silly, ....

  • But the series and movies attempted to give some basic explanations to propulsion, weapons, communications, etc. Consider Star Wars as that exact opposite. Is there any concern anywhere for how any of the technology really works? That's pure space opera. (The one time they attempted some kind of pseudo scientific explanation of the force--midicholrians--fans were up in arms). Star Trek does nod from time to time to scientific ideas that are supposed to under gird that world-- to give it a sense of realism not wanted or needed in SW. At the same time it is about character and a good story. This is what I meant by walking the line between science and space opera. I think Abram's movie strayed more into the space opera.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST

    And "CSI" type shows are full of bullshit too...

    by Chewtoy

    So obviously it makes no difference if you say a sniper killed a man with a Nerf gun from 1000 yards in one of those shows. Once you have some bullshit in, you can say anything without the quality suffering... right? If people buy the existence of silencers in films that make gunshots completely unnoticeable, then why not say a foam bullet with a suction cup tip from a toy bought at Walmart blew some guy's head off? Or you can call people on the lazy-ass bullshit when you catch it... and if everyone can catch it, well then that's a problem that should have been dealt with, and should certainly be improved upon next time.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:49 p.m. CST

    New Article

    by Aquatarkusman

    Aquatarkusman on the internet economics of single-director fellatio.

  • June 10, 2011, 1:51 p.m. CST

    No Boobies. :(

    by jamesonian

  • June 10, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Love this!

    by TheBigDogg

    Really love discussion articles like this. That's it really. All I've got. I loved the movie, regardless of physics. Even the coincidences I could take. My only issue was that they made the exact same bad guy mistakes that Nemesis made. In fact, it was very close to actually being the same bad guy.

  • June 10, 2011, 2 p.m. CST

    @ themeofme :

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    According to a 1970s interview with Roddenberry, communicators were based upon WALKIE TALKIES. They were readily available at the time. They were just SUPER walkie talkies with a fantastic range.

  • June 10, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Scotty's in the same area of that planet...

    by rev_skarekroe

    ...because they purposely dropped Kirk near the Federation outpost. Now, the fact that it's Scotty manning the outpost and not some other random person IS an unlikely coincidence...

  • June 10, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Love it.

    by bubcus

    If they're creating a black hole in the center of Vulcan and then marooning Kirk on a planet so close to it that Old-Spock could see it with his naked eye, Kirk and Old-Spock are dead meat. The world they're on will be sucked in within days or hours.

  • It has always pissed me off that he says "I was en rout when the unthinkable happened."... What? If you told me that I'd be pissed and want revenge too. Maybe not destroy another planet revenge, but some sort of revenge. That piece of dialogue is cringe worthy. I agree with others that I actually do enjoy most of that film and really love the actors and director. But get new writers.

  • June 10, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    For detailed, and now old refutations of most of the above

    by Boborci

    Go to Trekmovie.com

  • June 10, 2011, 2:29 p.m. CST

    My favorite exchange involving "Unthinkable".

    by cookylamoo

    Reed Richards: (We're broke) unless we decide to use our super-powers for CRIME which would by UNTHINKABLE. The Thing: Yeah, well I might think about it. Fantastic Four #9.

  • June 10, 2011, 2:39 p.m. CST

    @chewtoy

    by Twisk

    Absolutely, I wholeheartedly agree with you. :) ...unfortunately they decided to use the term 'Super Nova'. It sucks, but that's what they used. I'm takin' a total wild guess here, but maybe they went with the term Super Nova so that the average joe would 'get it'. [shrugs] They could have kept the words 'Super' and 'Nova' and just added somethin' to it... Like Super Super Nova. Or Extreme Super Nova. Or a Super Nova Xtreme. LOL

  • June 10, 2011, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Another silly ORIGINAL CAST coincidence...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Chekov is now stationed on a vessel at Seti Alpha 5...beams down to the planet with the Captain (instead of some red shirt scientist)...and meets Khan...who somehow recognizes him (even though he wasn't a cast member during SPACE SEED)? Great movie! Seriously. THE WRATH OF KHAN is a great movie, but you have to ignore strange coincidences, plot holes and strangely convenient plot devices. It is almost as silly as some of the plots of the original series. Gotta love those 1930s GANGSTER plots or the episode with Abraham Lincoln. And NOTHING could be as dumb as THE FINAL FRONTIER film.

  • June 10, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Again, in regard to the SUPERNOVA...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    First of all, we weren't told that this supernova was happening in the star closest to Romulus. It was simply A star in the galaxy. Obviously, this was no ordinary supernova either. It may have been something that was even beyond the scope of understanding of contemporary 24th or 25th Century scientists. In the movie, even many of the people and scientists of Romulus didn't think that there was any impending danger from it. Thus, it was probably something UNSEEN before and UNKNOWN in its possible dangers. Thus, it wasn't just Romulus that was destroyed. It was the entire section of the galaxy in which Romulus existed that was destroyed by the wave of energy from a previously unseen category of "supernova" from a distant star. If Spock has successfully stopped it (via Red Matter), the Romulus sun would have still existed and kept the planet warm. The physics and chemistry of supernovas isn't even remotely "figured out" yet. Check out the link that I provided above...from an Astronomy magazine released today!

  • June 10, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Weird...

    by bubcus

    2/3 of my post didn't show up, only a paragraph in the middle of my statement. Ah well. Love this article. Thanks again.

  • June 10, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    It wasn't meant to be good...

    by ratpack223

  • June 10, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiissm:

    by jawaburger

    . . . Even if the supernova ejecta were traveling at the speed of light (an impossibility), it would have taken three years to threaten Romulus.

  • June 10, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Holy Crap! Bob Orci is here??

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    What is at Trek Movie? What gets refuted? Hope everything's going well with the new movie!

  • June 10, 2011, 3:03 p.m. CST

    @ jawaburger :

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    True...UNLESS it was a previously undiscovered phenomenon. Remember, not even the people of 25th century Romulus were that concerned with it. Maybe they thought the same thing?

  • June 10, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Don't be sad you're now smarter than Spock

    by CT1

    At some point, the best student will become the master. He inspired and encouraged you, and you succeeded.. this shouldn't be viewed with sadness or loss, but should reveal completion of an organisms own search for meaning and value in his environment. And unfortunately, there IS one force in the universe that trumps all of the inherent laws and interesting points that you bring up, and will win everytime: The Almighty Dollar.

  • June 10, 2011, 3:12 p.m. CST

    @ jawaburger...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    BTW, it is much more possible for ENERGY from a super supernova (with no significant mass) to travel at the speed of light than it is for a huge starship to do the same.

  • June 10, 2011, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Thank You Dr. Howell

    by Coordinate_System

    For another insightful article. I'm tempted to add a few other observations, but I think I will sit back watch all of these Trek 11 yahoos try to take on a Physics Ph.D.

  • June 10, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Bob must be getting a kickback...

    by conspiracy

    shilling for another website on this one. Amateur move Roberto...

  • June 10, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Of Event Horizons and Other Things That Get Stuck In My Head

    by Have_Penis_Will_Travel

    A few years back I read a theory that with the exception of those that were created during the big bang, no other singularities exist Other massive objects behind an event horizon are events in the process of becoming singularities Due to gravitational time dilation, not enough time has elapsed for them to become actual singularities Event Horizons and Information Loss My Understanding: Particles fall into an event horizon and are violently obliterated Torn into sub-atomic particles with half falling past the event horizon and half being expelled at near light speed high energy particles So it's not a total information sink Say you could accelerate a non zero mass particle to light speed Since the closer to the speed of light, the more massive a particle becomes and at light speed it become infinitely massive it should begin the process of becoming a singularity. Thus placing it behind an event horizon. What happens to it's velocity? The universe appears to be self correcting It has it's rules Anything that violates it's rules is placed behind an event horizon

  • June 10, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Where the FUCK is Asi?

    by conspiracy

  • June 10, 2011, 3:32 p.m. CST

    @Copernicus - Another scientists take on Trek.

    by TheDrow

    @Copernicus, at the suggestion of another Talkbacker I went to check out what TrekMovie.com had to say about the science of Trek. The funny thing is, not quite as that Talkbacker believed, they very largely agree with you. Here's the article, written by Astronomer and author Philip Plait, who "runs the famed Bad Astronomy Blog". http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/ A good read if you want another scientists very similar view on the same subject. Would love to hear what you think. The Drow

  • June 10, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Sloppy or just plain lazy?

    by empty_headed_animal

    I really wanted to like this movie but the bad writing , ie plot holes, incredible coincidences , science even a little kid behind me pointed out was wrong etc.. took me out of it. Would it have killed them to pay a geek 100 bucks to research some science for the film? Sloppy and lazy. That said I am still keeping my fingers crossed for number 2. Sigh.

  • June 10, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Kevin Bacon is my piggy bank.

    by grandwiz

    You RULE Coper!

  • June 10, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Two points

    by Detached

    One, it's true, Kiddie Trek was not only bad in science, its "script" (one must use the term loosely) was an absolute sin against screenwriting. If I were to teach a screenwriting class, I would literally use this mess as an example of how *not* to do it. Second, those of you ranting against the science in TOS are full of it. Roddenberry spent a good deal of time consulting with scientists before he finally decided that rather than try to be purely accurate scientifically, he would just try to be close enough and go from there dramatically. He made some mistakes, but by and large, TOS was remarkably excellent in that regard.

  • June 10, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Conspiracy

    by Boborci

    I do it free cuz i like the site, and because it has all our responses archived for you. Your batting average on accuracy remains the same.

  • June 10, 2011, 4:03 p.m. CST

    It wasn't Romulus' star that exploded

    by Koyaanisqatsi

    It was a star called Hobus that was in that sector.

  • June 10, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    thank you Copernicus!

    by brightgeist

    as a huge TREK fan, i felt exactly like you did when seeing this movie, and you have put eloquent scientific and humorous words to my impression of the movie. <br> one more scientific thing bothered me, which you didn't mention (so perhaps i'm wrong about it): <br> how can the final black hole in the movie have such a gravitational pull as to almost sucking in the Enterprise? this black hole is created out of Spock's ship with the red matter crashing into the Narada (the Romulan ship). so the black hole should only contain the masses of those two ships plus everything that was on board. and obviously that little bit of mass couldn't be enough the create a black hole heavy enough to almost suck in the Enterprise, right? <br> in fact, the same thing should also be true about the other two black holes in the movie, the one that was created out of Vulcan and the one that sends everyone into the alternate universe (Bob Orci explained to me that they don't actually just travel back in time, but go into another universe, which explains why Spock Prime never even attempts to correct the timeline, as has been done several times before in TREK history). the black hole created out of Vulcan could only have the mass of the planet and everything on it. and the other black hole wasn't created out of anything at all except a little bit of red matter. <br> so my questiion is: does it make any scientific sense that red matter can create these black holes that suddenly have a huge mass out of nowhere? wouldn't that violate the conservation of mass?

  • June 10, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Gaucho pride!

    by El Vader

    Copernicus... love your work! These columns are fantastic and I find them highly enlightening. Despite my many degrees from UCSB, not one of them is in science of any sort (ESPECIALLY not chemistry... shudder), and I always find myself wondering the plausability of what I'm watching when I'm watching sci-fi flicks... you do a great job breaking it down for us... um... Humanities majors! :) When I hope down to SB next weekend, I'll stroll the campus praising your name! :)

  • June 10, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    We can debate my Batting average on Accuracy Bob....

    by conspiracy

    but I'm Swinging a hard wood solid .750 in Entertainment Value and Professionalism. Stick around and learn from us my friend...you'll get there one of these days as well.

  • June 10, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST

    melvin's question

    by Db

    Re: what would happen to a particle of non-zero mass if you accelerated it to light speed. You hypothesize it would become a singularity. Not exactly. Remember that the term "mass" doesn't mean how much you weigh or how many Cheetos you've eaten. Mass refers to how hard it is to speed you up. Force = mass times acceleration, right? So when you say that at light speed, a particle's mass is infinite, it's not like it becomes a black hole. It just means it would require an infinite amount of force to make it go any faster. Re: information loss, check out theories about particle-pair production at the event horizon. It seems like a "just-so-story" a bit much for my tastes. Cool article, by the way. I grew up discussing issues like this with my geek friends all the time.

  • June 10, 2011, 4:52 p.m. CST

    My method of fighting a supernova.

    by tao_pilot

    Would be to show the star any episode from the last three seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation, thus boring and calming the star back into a less agitated state.

  • June 10, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    lenny8...Excellent observation!

    by conspiracy

    And damned funny as well.

  • June 10, 2011, 5:01 p.m. CST

    BestAICNarticleEver

    by Rowsdower.ZabRowsdower

    I haven't laughed this much since the Demon Dave DeFalco tb's. Chalk one up for all of us science dorks out there. Applied science and still getting out jabs at the fallacies of the writers. Love it. Yes, the movie was visually gorgeous, fresh blood injected to a fan favorite, enough action and, for the most part, smart writing. By that I mean they never tried to dumb things down for the audience. But getting called out on the mat, so to speak, by one of their "own?" A franchise like this needs guys like Copernicus on their writing staff.

  • We give him a lot of shit...often times deservedly so...but he comes back for more; for that I respect him. PLUS...A writers job is a SHIT job in Hollywood these days...and who knows if what made it to the screen is what he and Alex really wrote; if they want to keep working we'll never know. Fuck for all we know the original script was rock solid and inspired...when you have a director who thinks physically shaking the camera is some kind of god given gift and an art form...it is entirely possible JJ himself made it the entertaining but completely jumbled, illogical, random, pandering to the fanbase mess it is. All I ask Bob is that next time...no more fucking coincidences, and limit the obvious shoving of well known Trek Traits and catch phrases into the film just to please the rubber ear wearing cousinfuckers at ComicCon. Just write a GOOD, no excuses film.

  • June 10, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    This site just keeps pushing AsimovLives into further psychosis

    by NathanGrey

  • June 10, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    shitty movie

    by happyboy

    it was fun and shiny but the story was a retread of every cliche in star trek history: starting with time travel for the 1000th time, origin paradox, stupid techobabble mcguffin and deux ex etc

  • June 10, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Copernicus

    by Shaner Jedi

    great article. it's fun to see some logic applied to movies However, I still love the movie and still love that Spock can see Vulcan being devoured.

  • June 10, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    just shoot a warp core into it

    by CT1

    solves everything

  • June 10, 2011, 6:03 p.m. CST

    The new Trek wasn't funny or watchable though

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Just shit.

  • June 10, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Fuck me

    by lookylookymoontard

    I cant believe i just read that article,nearly as boring and pointless as the proceeding talkback,why is this article here? Take this shit to StarTrek.com or whatever its called,i mean really?? Coming tomorrow "Could Bill and Ted really have met Napoleon?"

  • June 10, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Star Trek didn't even follow it's own pseudo-science

    by nyj_et

    Time-travel through a black hole? With all of the other established methods of time-travel in Star Trek, Nero and Spock travel back through tmie via a black hole? Whatta bunch of crap. It's stuff like that which will take me right out of a movie. Especially one with as weak a plot as JJ's Trek.

  • Because not playing it safe was to make a movie that was a complete copy of Star Wars? Wrong! That's as safe as it gets. Abrams Trek is one of the purest example of Hoylwood filmmaking from a studio executive perspective, total safe filmmaking following formula to a T. Total Formula Filmmaking.

  • How many people will Abrams Trek inspire to became scientists in the future? No, i don't think so. Thus, Abrams Trek fails, epically. Abrams Trek only inspires people to shove popcorn to their mouths, not the brain and sense of wonder and imagination, like the old show did. Andthey had cardboard sets, not a hundred million dollars plus of the most modern CGI at their disposal. Abrams Trek = total failure.

  • June 10, 2011, 6:17 p.m. CST

    nathangrey

    by AsimovLives

    Since when it's psychoctic to say it as it is? The psychosis cames when people are faced with reality and still ignore it to keep believing their favorite bullshit of choice.

  • June 10, 2011, 6:18 p.m. CST

    An utterly realistic sci-fi movie would be the most boring thing ever

    by AsimovLives

    Nobody calls 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY boring on my watch, mister!

  • June 10, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    there shoulds had been commas in the title above

    by AsimovLives

    It should had read "An utterly realistic sci-fi movie would be the most boring thing ever". Sorry about that.

  • Becasue that measn the filmmakers would had busted their asses to do one so. It would aslo mwean the people responsible for that movie are very intelligent and imaginative people. Any fool can make a fantasy SF movie and make it big and "exciting with ass-pulls (Abrams Trek), but it takes actual real imagiantion to make a good and compeling SF movie that's also very realistic. That's the challenge right there. One that very few in Hoylwood have the courage, the guts, the will and the intelligence to do so. So they rely instead on stupid ass-pulls (Abrams Trek).

  • Back in the day when they though the sun was a huge chunk of coal burning up there. Abrams Trek couldn't even pass that scrutiny, much less with today's science.

  • And what it does is DEUX EX MACHINAS to advance the plot everytime Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams were faced with a narrative dead end. Which the whole movie is made of. Red Matter that can create black holes? That's OK. Red Matter that can create wormholes that allow time travel? That's OK. Red Matter that creates BOTH black holes which are also wormholes that can allow time travel? Bullshit! Easy way out bullshit! that's not a plot device, it's an ass-pull deux ex machina for idiots who can't make a coherent story to begin with.

  • June 10, 2011, 6:36 p.m. CST

    There's my buddy!!!

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    How are ya Asimovs? Coming out swinging, I see.

  • June 10, 2011, 6:47 p.m. CST

    the_choppah

    by AsimovLives

    Actually, i'm done. It's late in the night hour in here and i have to hit the sack. I leave the party shennigans to you. Have a better one.

  • June 10, 2011, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Trek influence on science

    by Shubniggorath

    Apparently, no one has seen "How William Shatner Changed the World" on History. Brain surgeon invents laser that dissolves brain tumors without surgery, inspired by Dr. McCoy's forehead device in ST IV. Australian physicists have teleported photons under laboratory conditions, a precursor to transporter beams. Many other examples, I highly recommend it to all geeks of both Trek and science persuasion!

  • June 10, 2011, 7:55 p.m. CST

    F Jar Jar Trek. Where's my Prometheus SPY pics Harry?

    by Darth_Kong

  • June 10, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Star Trek for Dummies

    by SwedishChef

    I am glad that someone besides me had problems with this movie. From the dumb science to massive contrivances. All the dumb science aside, Kirk promoted from Cadet to Captain in what, a couple of days? I don't mind a mindless action flick but I never expected to check my brain at the door for a Star Trek movie. I hate to make the overused comparison...but this is definitely Star Trek via Michael Bay. Lots of action and sex but no story.

  • June 10, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Biggest problem: Spock doesn't restore the timeline.

    by robogeek.com

    First off, bravo to Andy - great stuff. But even worse than Spock being stupid is that he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and restore/repair the timeline. I mean, my God, Vulcan's destroyed, his mother killed and the entire Vulcan race nearly exterminated, and he just lets it happen - even though it's his fault, and he can fix it. Not only doesn't he take corrective action when he (and he alone) has the knowledge necessary to do so (he knows how to time travel via the Guardian, slingshot effect, etc.) - he doesn't tell anyone he can. It's unconscionable. (Think "Yesterday's Enterprise".)

  • June 10, 2011, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Star Trek Reboot was a missed opportunity...

    by MajorFrontbum

    ....but they might get it right with the next two or three reboots. Give the franchise back to people who understand what the fuck Star Trek is about.

  • June 10, 2011, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Copernicus on the Science of Star Trek 2009?

    by Diagnostic

    Little late to the party? <br> I want copernicus versus the science of Muppets:Pigs is Space! <br>

  • June 10, 2011, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Earl is Free....

    by meta4

    He's going to a boarding school you idiot. I appreciate the writer explaining the science behind Star Trek, but shitting on Michael Bay in the proccess? Why do people consider him the lowest form of filmmaking? You know what your getting into when you see his movies. He's a genre director in a wierd way.

  • June 10, 2011, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Bob Orci, Aint you supposed to be writing a script or something?

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    Get back to fucking work you Clown.

  • June 10, 2011, 9 p.m. CST

    Asi loves Tron Legacy with a Passion but hates NuTrek.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    What did I tell you Asi, you can no longer be part of the NuTrek haters club. <P> YOUR OUT!

  • June 10, 2011, 9:01 p.m. CST

    You're out rather. Damn you drunk brain!

    by Dr_PepperSpray

  • June 10, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil - RE: Transporters

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Hey, moron, the transporter technology employed in Star Trek is based on real actual science. Not theorietical Science, but REAL actual Lab-proven science. So on that basis, it's not impossible, just merely implausible by our current technoligcal and energy resources. In other words, a transporter may not exist, but the science on which it is based, does in fact exist and has been proven in a lab TODAY. Yes, scientists have actually managed to "transport" or "beam" sub-atomic particles in laboratories TODAY. Further to which, when they applied transporter technology in the previous iterations of Star Trek it was within coherent story rules that respected both scientific and logical aspects of Common sense and just linear story-telling. In the movie that plot device was just beyond stupid, it was ridiculous. You can't "transport" anything faster than light when the very basis of transportation is to convert matter into energy beams WHICH TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT!!! So it's not just bad science, it was bad LOGIC. That's exactly the kind of thing that most "geeks" or trekkies have aproblem with this new Star Trek with. It's not the fact that Star Trek as a whole is based on impossible science (It's not, for the most part. You should seriously read Lawrence Krauss' "Physics of Star Trek" as Copernicus suggested. Most of the science in classic Trek is based on REAL science). It's the fact that it doesn't even make sense when you apply the most basic of simple thought to it, and that it gets even worse if you know anything about the science involved. It was a bad science movie. It was a bad science Fiction movie. And worst of all it was a bad movie from the point of perspective of plot logic and common sense, even removing the science out of the equation. That shit may be okay for Transformers or some of the other Michael Bay crap that Orci and Kurtzman are used to - but it just doesn't fly where Star Trek - which is supposed to be an intelligent science fiction space opera - is concerned. And stop criticizing people who are raising legitimate beefs about it when it's so obvious you don't even understand the basic science any better than those 2 asshats.

  • June 10, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    It

    by orcus

  • June 10, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    It's not too often that Orcus pops out from the archives

    by orcus

    But he's sure to be damned for missing this tb. And Yes, Orcus has boring Friday nights :)

  • That they did, Copernicus. And bank they did. Lots of bank. It's not just that they were expecting their audience to be stupid enough that they could get some of these ludicrous things past them, it's the fact that they were almost willing the audience into that stupidity. Or maybe it was just some mad inside joke or a prank to see how much they could get away with before being called out for it. Either way, they won. The film was ridiculously successful, and we have yet more proof of the rapid decline of the American education system particularly in the sciences and maths. And people wonder why companies like Microsoft and Apple are shipping jobs abroad.

  • June 10, 2011, 9:34 p.m. CST

    After reading this, Orcus is gonna watch Dr Who

    by orcus

    Cleanse the palate so to speak

  • The poor chemistry, along with a poor writing, led me and anyone else with half a brain to not giving a shit about any of the characters, That's why most movies truly suck these days, because the filmmakers do a terrible job of convincing us to CARE about the characters. Of course, I realize that the modern American movie-goer does NOT have half a brain, therefore they love the CGI-filled, 3-D garbage with no plot and terrible acting. I long for the 1980s, when the acting was good, the action was tense and didn't look like CGI, the plot was solid, and the musical scores made you feel emotions as opposed to the generic garbage being composed these days.

  • June 10, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST

    BOB ORCI, 1000 DOLLARS A WEEK!!!

    by CreepyThinMan

  • June 10, 2011, 10:12 p.m. CST

    I am not Spock...

    by MrMxyzptlk

    ... and I am not an astronomer, nor am I a Trekkie, but I enjoyed this article a helluva lot. Thanks!

  • I lost faith in this movie as soon as kirk's mom pops in. People are on fire, and they have something like 4 doctors shepherding a pregnant lady around instead of, I dunno, giving medical attention to injured crew. And then said pregnant lady just happens to give birth to ye ol' captain kirk at the exact moment that his dad drives his ship into the spaceship of a guy who came back in time to mess with this baby's future best friend. and aside from the stupid ice planet coincidences, Kirk and spock are supposedly sort of marooned in this cave, they talk, and then spock's like, well, actually, why don't we walk over to the starfleet base next door. just such crap. MI3 was crap except for phil seymour hoffman. And yet, I'll end up going to see super 8. at least it wasn't written by orci and kurtzman. these guys are good how? kai_mah'gra: The lab science you're referring to is quantum entanglement (Einstein's "spooky action at a distance"), which is just never going to make a star trek transporter possible. information, maybe, but people, sorry.

  • June 10, 2011, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Phil Plait did a science review also.

    by Charlie

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/08/ba-review-star-trek/ It's worth reading, some retreading, but also plenty of other stuff.

  • Both are entertaining in their own way, but if you try to question they'll argue that they are somehow right.

  • June 10, 2011, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Nothing in JJ's Trek made any sense

    by mistergreen

    I like the guy but I didn't like it as much as the general public.

  • June 10, 2011, 11:34 p.m. CST

    Technobabble is what killed old Trek

    by slder78

    It's very difficult to create drama in sci-fi within the laws of physics. Transporters are pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to have in reality. If you want to have the science be "clean" in a Star Trek movie you get ST:TMP. And we all know how that turned out.

  • June 10, 2011, 11:36 p.m. CST

    leonardo_dicraprio

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Yes I was referring to quantum entanglement (I obviously dumbed it down) and the lab experiments conducted by Australian and European physicists in "transporting" or "beaming" protons and even photons (as weird as that sounds) in their lab. And I wasn't referring to it suggest that the "Transportation" model in Star Trek is ever going to be a reality or possible anytime in our lifetime. I was referring to it to point out the fact that the science upon which Star Trek "Transporter " or beaming technology is actually well-grounded in not just contemporary theoretical science but also practical science. In other words, it's actually been done in a lab. That being said, the energy considerations in completely destroying and recreating all the quadrillions of atoms and molecules that constitute a human being's body, are far beyond the capability of any of our available technologies and capabilities. Hence the reason I said it was IMPLAUSIBLE, and not, as that other goofball was suggesting, Impossible. The fact that it's been done in a laboratory even if just at a subatomic level, means that it's not impossible - certainly not the science behind it.

  • June 10, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I never said Transporters COULDN'T Exist. I said they DON'T Exist. And the ones on Star Trek don't exist. They just don't. Beaming a subatomic particle from one side of a lab to another is not the same thing as beaming you through a wall or beaming an Astronaut from Earth to a space station or beaming Seal Team Six into Osama Bin Laden's bedroom. When one of those things happens, get back to me. And if you go back and read Copernicus' article above he points out that Star Trek itself has used transporters in different stories in different ways which would seem to contradict each other. It's a STORYTELLING DEVICE. You have Kirk split into a good and evil half, Will Riker beamed onto a starship while an exact duplicate of him is recreated on the transporter pad of the planet he was trying to beam away from, Picard, Guinan, Keiko and Ro Laren turned into children and Tuvok and Neelix combined into Tuvix? I'm sure you or someone with more knowledge than myself could come up with some scientifically plausible explanation for one piece of technology malfunctioning in those four wildly different ways. And I probably wouldn't understand that either, since I'm such a moron, right? But you'd just be pissing in the wind because: TRANSPORTERS DON'T FUCKING EXIST!

  • June 10, 2011, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Yet another gem from JJ Trek

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    An interstellar starship with drainage pipes large enough to fit a whole human being and transparent too so that you can see him pass through the entire pipe system and come out at the other end in one piece. That's even worse than the old movie "bad science" trope of buildings (or space ships) with large enough and sturdy enough ventilation shafts to hold an adult person crawling through them without collapsing under the weight or without the need for diffusers, humidifiers or some of the other contraptions necessary to clean, filter or push air out.

  • June 10, 2011, 11:41 p.m. CST

    What Copernicus does for a living is SCIENCE

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Data and Geordi rerouting the "Frim Fram Sauce" through the " Ausen Fay" so "Chafafa" can vent out the sides ISN'T.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:03 a.m. CST

    I have an idea for a movie

    by akkosa

    its about a screenwriter who's movies make billions yet he is infamous for the most horrible writing in film history. He ends up blowing his brains out after Transformers part 6 in which he finally realizes what a disgrace he has been to the culture of humanity.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:21 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I obviously was typing my response while you were typing yours. I have no beef with you either really. I don't know if Star Trek writers make the implausible seem possible or make the impossible seem plausible. When I say it's all Bullshit I'm not saying none of it will ever exist. I'm saying none of it currently exists.For example, if you and Copernicus want to believe sending a starship through a "Stable Wormhole" is a more scientifically plausible method of entering another "Quadrant" of Space than sending a starship through a"Transwarp Hub", feel free. Or if you believe the reverse is true, so be it. They're all just storytelling devices to me. And arguing their scientific validity or lack thereof just seems deeply silly. Frank Herbert knew a hell of alot more about science and ecology than I do. But he also had characters ingesting a "Spice" so they could "Fold Space" and resurrecting their friends as "Gholas". I love the DUNE novels as much as the next guy. Doesn't mean they're not bullshit on some fundamental level. Doesn't make them Bad. Just makes them Bullshit.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Flaws in science & logic = another good column from Andy

    by veritasses

    I love reading this type of stuff, esp after I've seen the film. It's sort'a like listening to the DVD commentary track where you're gaining some new insight about the scene you're watching... and with plenty of humor to boot. Some good chuckles in there. <BR><BR> "word salad". I like that. <BR><BR> re: Smarter than Spock. Don't get cocky now! :)

  • June 11, 2011, 12:48 a.m. CST

    All of Trek is a plot hole... a FUN plot hole...

    by El Vader

    ... but a plot hole nonetheless. I mean, doesn't the existence and use of transporters - coupled with how Scotty figured out how to basically transport someone lightyears away - pretty much mean that there isn't any need for starships, let alone the Enterprise?

  • June 11, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST

    On Transporters

    by Coordinate_System

    I don't think that the issue is whether or not Transporters could really exist in the real world (personally, I doubt it: "Heisenberg Compensators", yeah, good luck with that...), but rather how they are used. Now, Trek doesn't have a great track record when it comes to consistently portraying its "Treknology", but that does not excuse the "lazy writing" regarding the transporter in Trek 11. In Trek, the transporter was used for "local" transportation (i.e. ship to planet, etc). Federation transporter technology was never shown to be capable of transporting between solar systems (although a few advanced alien civilizations, like Gary Seven's bosses, were able to do exactly that). So, we have Classic Spock and Neo Kirk stuck on "Delta Vega", and in need of getting back to the the Enterprise moving away at warp, which was by then probably light months, if not light years away. Instead of something a little more clever (or simply hitching a ride on another warp capable ship), Spock performs a Firmware upgrade on the Transporter (by entering a equation). And now, a unit that had not been able to beam out that far, suddenly can. If Scotty's Transporter had had the capacity for such feats, it would probably already be used in that way. It's a bit like upgrading the firmware on your car's onboard computer and then expecting it to fly. Without a change in the hardware, its just not going to happen. While I don't have a problem with Transporter beams having a superluminal quality, there are very good reasons to limit the range capabilities of the transporters used by the Feds and their allies and enemies: how good a story would you have if you could simply transport about the galaxy for purposes of exploration or conflict? I suppose it could be interesting, but it wouldn't be Star Trek without the Starship.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Question for Copernicus

    by Boborci

    How does warp speed work?

  • June 11, 2011, 1:32 a.m. CST

    Question for copernicus

    by Boborci

    Is quantum nechancs considered the mosrvsuccesful theory in science? If yes, is one of tbe observations based on QM the fact that reality is non local?

  • June 11, 2011, 1:33 a.m. CST

    Correctio: quantum mechanics

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Question for copernicus

    by Boborci

    Do black holes evaporate?

  • June 11, 2011, 1:40 a.m. CST

    Warp Drive

    by Coordinate_System

    My preferred explanation of Warp Drive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

  • June 11, 2011, 1:43 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    By your logic then why the hell should anyone bother watching Science fiction at all? By the very name Science FICTION - it implies that it is, you know, FICTION. But just because it is fiction doesn't mean it has to be bullshit. Jules Verne wrote a lot of Science Ficition in his day which was in fact ideas objects or concepts that did not exist at the time he wrote it. Majority of the stuff he wrote back then is now Science FACT. Ditto Leornardo da Vinci vis-a-vis some of his conceptual sketches ideas and unrealized inventions. Just because all of this stuff was FICTION when they were written, does not and did not in fact make then Bullshit. Why? Because they were based on Science FACT or factual knowledge in a way that allowed for people to make the extrapolation from Fiction to FACT once the level of human technology and knowlege allowed for it, as it did for a lot of those ideas of the likes of Jules Verne and other classic Science Fiction writers. Now bringing it back to this discussion, classic Star Trek writers (including the creator Roddenberry himself) respected the importance of writing Science Fiction that retained a connection to Science FACT by not having to rely on silly McGuffins all over the place, or worse even, stupid plot-holes and plot devices. That's the difference between good Science Fiction and bad Science Fiction. Bad science Fiction is as you would likely put it, Bullshit. Good science Fiction on the other hand, forms a much more substantive connection with our own world and our own scientific knowledge while still allowing for creativity and an interesting story (read: not crippled by internal contradictions, paradoxical plots, ludicrous inventions that defy basic comprehension and the like). In other words, if you have to jump through a billion and one hoops to explain how your thingamajig device thingy/invention in your story works or would work in a real world context, then guess what, that's bad Science Fiction. Believe it or not, Avatar which may not have had a great story, was nonetheless a very Good Science Fiction movie (see Copernicus' article reviewing the science of that movie, for the reasons as to why). In fact most of James Cameron's sci-fi movies tend too be Good Science Fiction. On the flip side, Star Wars is very very bad Science Fiction (see: explanation for Midichlorians, and hence 'the Force', and the underlying major concept behind the Star Wars universe). But because it, (like Dune) takes place in a Galaxy (and possibly Universe) far far away (and a long time ago) from ours and probably is likely as much removed, then they probably buy themselves license to bullshit as much as they want since their Universe probably doesn't obey the same laws of science and physics that our universe does. But if your story begins or takes place on Earth and in our Universe and even establishes some of the same rules which we exists by in this reality, then there's a certain expectation that you'll at least put some effort in making that connection between Actual fact and Good (science) Fiction. The writers of this latest Star Trek movie didn't even bother. And it shows by just how many ridiculous coincidences, plot holes, story contradictions, character flaws and contradictions (Spock being so smart but making dumb stupid decisions etc) litter the story in a display of them not putting in the actual effort of making their story work from a cogent Science knowlege stand-point. Unfortunately for Orci and Kurtzman, their Star Trek movie takes place in an already established universe which already respects and obeys laws that not only exist in our own real world, but which also form the basis for some of their characters' origins and personalities. So they can't just invent shit because they feel like it. Look, you're free to feel like this is a stupid thing to do - i.e. Copernicus' review of this movie from a Science perspective and his seeming nitpicking of those specific flaws. But this is something he always does on this site. If it offends you so much that he does thiis and that people like me agree with him, then guess what? You're free to ignore both the article and the talkback and spare us your insults of "geeks" like us who happen to like using more than half our brains when we watch a science fiction movie.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:51 a.m. CST

    ka let me respond to one of your points

    by Boborci

    why doesn't Spock "fix"the timeline? Because, as is stated in the movie, they are in an alternate reality. I.E., a parallel universe as defined by a favored interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. There is no way to FIX the timeline since the universe he left continues on unchanged (except for the fact that nero and spock are missing. It happens to be the reason why Spock (Nimoy) remembers his own past and not the past of young Spock. They have different histories because they are in different universes.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Another stupid plot-hole (Number 8,563) in JJ Trek.....

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    You have a time machine or the ability to travel to the past and rather than use it to travel back and warn your home planet of the impending Super Nova that will destroy it in about 25 years time, you instead decide to use it to see petty revenge against the guy who actually tried to save your planet, by making him watch the destruction of his (while still not doing anything to save your own planet). And to make it worse, you have this ship that's at least 25 years more technologically superior than anything existing as well as Spock's ship and that probably very advanced Red matter stuff - all of which would make the Romulan empire the most powerful force of the 22 Century, but what do you choose to do? Petty revenge. Yep. Genius writing there.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:57 a.m. CST

    ka - yeah - petty - like Mr. K

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 1:58 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I would assume that since Spock Prime programmed the transporter himself to send Kirk and Scotty to the Enterprise, and stayed behind, that that was a "one off". I highly doubt we'll see that transporting method used again in another Trek movie. Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk? I don't think so. Did they use the same method to get onto Nero's ship? I don't remember. In any case, it wouldn't necessarily replace starships as a means of interstellar travel. If you're going to patrol the Romulan Neutral Zone, you need starships. If you're going to colonize or evacuate a planet, you need starships. Your response to this is thoughtful, but when most people say "Well if the Transporter could do that, you wouldn't need Starships!" it shows that they're not really thinking that much. It's just another kneejerk gripe about Abrams movie. If you could just beam people onto any planet or starship light years away if you wanted, you'd still have no way of contacting them to see when they needed to be beamed back right? Unless they took a subspace transmitter along? How big are those anyway hahaha? It's not a very effective method for entering a potentially hostile enviornment is it? And Abrams movie pointed out comedically that it wasn't a very safe method to transport people to begin with. Scotty would have died if Kirk hadn't rescued him.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:02 a.m. CST

    boborci- to quote Louis Armstrong

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "Some people if they don't know- you can't tell 'em."

  • June 11, 2011, 2:30 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I'm making the same argument I've always made. Star Trek fans have been swallowing "bullshit" for years. But when boborci and his friends serve you "horseshit" instead, you balk. Why exactly? I love Harlan Ellison, but I think even he would tell you the Guardian of Forever is bullshit. It's a "stupid plot device." It's a"silly Macguffin". It's a way of getting them where the story needs them to go. So is "The Genesis Planet" or Spock having a "katra" or "slingshotting around the sun" to Time Travel. "Ludicrous inventions" all. Star Trek has been loaded with those for almost 50 years now. I love all that stuff, kai-mah'gra. Love it unabashedly. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to pull four different transporter malfunctions out of my head! But it's BULLSHIT. And I never said you and Copernicus having a scientific discussion about Star Trek was Stupid. I said it was Silly. It's not an episode of COSMOS or NOVA. It's a show where a whole planet recreates their society because someone left behind a book about Gangsters.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:30 a.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Blasted system ate my reply.

    by Coordinate_System

  • June 11, 2011, 2:33 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Ask boborci hahaha. ;^)

  • June 11, 2011, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Give me a few minutes to reconstruct my reply

    by Coordinate_System

  • June 11, 2011, 2:50 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    And as boborci just pointed out YET AGAIN and I've been pointing out for TWO FRACKING YEARS (tm ronald d moore): Abrams TREK movie takes place in a PARALLEL UNIVERSE. Why would Nero go to Romulus? It's not his Romulus. In this universe the Supernova may never occur. Or occur 100 years later. In this universe the crew could run into a female con woman named Harriet "Harry" Mudd and Kirk may try to nail her. (Feel free to use that one boborci!) And you just said "travel back in time", kai_mah'gra! He's already back in time! In a different universe! Wouldn't that make you a little crazy?! If you and asimovlives and the other "Haters" still can't understand the plot two years later, shouldn't I assume the movie is smarter than you are?

  • June 11, 2011, 2:51 a.m. CST

    up late, so what the hell --

    by Boborci

    Copernicus wrote:<P> THE COSMIC COINCIDENCE "The fun really begins when Kirk is forcibly marooned on a planet near Vulcan. He calls it Delta Vega, but it is certainly not the Delta Vega from the original series."<p> BEYOND YOUR PURVIEW AS A SCIENTIST. EMBEDDING YOUR CANON CRITIQUE HERE. ALSO, I HAVE STATED PREVIOUSLY THAT WE KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSELY TOOK THE NAME AND ALTERED ITS PLACE IN THIS ONE INSTANCE TO BE A STRAW MAN AND THORN IN THE SIDE OF CANON.<p> "He’s got a whole planet that he could have set down on (big enough to have Earth gravity), yet he is barely there a minute before he runs into his bestest bud in the universe!"<p> KIRK PURPOSELY DEPOSITED BY SPOCK NEAR OUTPOST, AS EVIDENCED BY HIS POD COMPUTER ASKING HIM TO REMAIN INSIDE UNTIL THEY PICK HIM UP. MEANWHILE, SPOCK (NIMOY) IS HEADING TO THE OUTPOST HIMSELF, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT HE IMMEDIATELY CONTINUES HIS JOURNEY THERE ONCE HE ASCERTAINS WHO KIRK IS. SPOCK (NIMOY) IS THERE BECAUSE OF THE PLANETS POSITION CLOSE TO VULCAN. KIRK, TOO, IS THERE BECAUSE THE BIG E WAS NEAR VULCAN. I AWAIT YOUR NEW MATH.<p> "Now you can take this improbability and square it, because a few minutes later they run into Montgomery Scott. Relying on coincidence to drive the plot is just sloppy writing. That is barely science, but it bugs the hell out of me."<P> HOW DID SCOTTY AND KIRK MEET, BECAUSE UNLESS YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, THEY COULD'VE MET IN VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRIME UNIVERSE, AS COULD KIRK AND SPOCK. BUT MORE GENERALLY, I REFER YOU TO THIS LINK: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#3. <P> IN PARTICULAR, SECTION FOUR, AND I QUOTE, "Probability Postulate: The probability of an outcome of a quantum experiment is proportional to the total measure of existence of all worlds with that outcome.[7] <P> ESSENTIALLY, THIS MEANS THAT THE ODDS OF EVENTS HAPPENING IN A MULTIVERSE DO NOT REDUCE DOWN TO THE ODDS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. SOME OUTCOMES ARE MORE PROBABLE THAN OTHERS. SINCE WE KNOW THAT ALL OF OUR CHARACTERS MET IN ONE UNIVERSE AND BEHAVED A CERTAIN WAY, THAT ALONE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE MAYBE MORE UNIVERSES IN WHICH THEY PROBABLY ALL MEET SOMEHOW.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:56 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I'm going to bed, Buddy. Work in the morning. Feel free to reconstruct your reply. Or just slingshot around the sun and refute my points before I've even made them. Goodnight boborci and all the ships at sea!

  • June 11, 2011, 2:56 a.m. CST

    Repost 4thedevil

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 2:57 a.m. CST

    CONTINUING ON

    by Boborci

    But what really bugs me is something else. In a mind meld, Spock reveals that he watched the destruction of Vulcan from this planet. Apparently, they were going to have him see this through a telescope, but decided it would be more cinematic if he just looked up and saw it with his naked eye.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:58 a.m. CST

    One more time.

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:03 a.m. CST

    FROM MEMORY ALPHA

    by Boborci

    Spock telepathically senses the death of the Vulcan crew of the USS Intrepid, following its disastrous encounter with a giant space amoeba in 2268. (TOS: "The Immunity Syndrome")<P> SO ABOVE ARGUMENT ANSWERED BY CANON ITSELF. SPOCK CAN TELEPATHICALLY PERCEIVE THE DEATH OF VULCANS.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:05 a.m. CST

    Let's see if this posts now.

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Now?

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Can't post.

    by Coordinate_System

    WTH?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Well, that posted.

    by Coordinate_System

    Now, I'm just talking to myself.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:07 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by Boborci

    by the strict rules of canon, which allow only what is shown on screen to be considered as such, then all I can say is canon is silent on the matter until otherwise specified.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:09 a.m. CST

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:09 a.m. CST

    by Coordinate_System

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:10 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I don't know, Hoss. I asked you first! boborci is here. Maybe he'll answer that one. And bob: Just tell them a good scientist or sci-fi fan should know the difference between something being impossible and something being merely improbable. The question is: is it plausible? As plausible as Starfleet confusing Ceti Alpha V and Ceti Alpha VI for example? Or not noticing that one of them had EXPLODED and SHIFTED THE OTHER PLANET'S ORBIT?!

  • June 11, 2011, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Actually Asimov 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY is

    by KilliK

    a very boring movie,although it is a masterpiece.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Mr Orci

    by Coordinate_System

    How are you doing this evening? I've been trying to answer Mr Cymbalta, but I can't get the system to post my reply, so I'll try to do it in pieces.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Did he give the equation to Scotty or Kirk?

    by Coordinate_System

    The dialog in the movie implied to me that, at the very least, Neo Scotty saw the equation for Transwarp Beaming.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:16 a.m. CST

    Did they use the same method to get onto Nero's ship?

    by Coordinate_System

    Nothing is mentioned explicitly, but since they were beaming from the vicinity of Saturn to Earth, I presume so. Also, see Mr. Orci's reply above.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:16 a.m. CST

    If you're going to patrol the Romulan Neutral Zone, you need starships.

    by Coordinate_System

    If the opposition is going to use Transwarp beaming for an offensive (beaming an army to a planet, or just weapons systems into orbit), Starships on the border are of little value.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST

    If you're going to colonize or evacuate a planet, you need starships.

    by Coordinate_System

    I would rather think that Transwarp beaming would be faster. Say you have X amount of Starships to transport a population. Those starships have to load their passengers, travel there, discharge their passengers, and then travel back to pick up the next batch. Presumably, the speed of a transporter beam is FTL, and while not necessarily instantaneous, it’s like an FTL subspace communication message: its travel time is proportional to the distance involved and faster than a starship’s travel time (since Neo Kirk and Neo Scotty were able to catch up to the Enterprise). A planet-wide network of Transporter Stations would seem able to get the job done faster than a fleet of ships.

  • That’s a good point, but nothing says we have to send people first. “Send a droid,” except for the beaming part, it’s what we do now.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:22 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system proves Alternate Universes exist

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    In his universe boborci and I haven't already responded to his posts.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system well said.I mentioned that

    by KilliK

    major plothole about the ST's technological limitations when the movie was first premiered. It is one of the very best examples which clearly illustrates that JJ and his writers were completely clueless about the ST universe and they had no idea of how to promote the story without using lazy and very convenient ways. In fact there is also another major mistake on how transporters are used in the prequel comic which was published after the movie's premiere. The story in the comic is set in the TNG era,and there is a scene where Nero destroys half a dozen of Federation ships,by tricking theirs transporters: The Federation ships arrive at his destroyed mining ship,and they offer to save his crew by teleporting them to their ships.Nero agrees but instead of putting his crew on his ship's teleporters,he puts mines (!) which then are transported back to the federation ships and then they explode by destroying them. I am sorry but if JJ and his hack writers had watched at least the first two seasons of TNG,he would know that this kind of thing is fucking impossible.There were TNG episodes which clearly showed that the transporters were using security measures which prevented this kind of attacks,biological,chemical,cοnventional,etc. But from a guy who tries hard to become the new SS and a bunch of writers who wrote episodes for the Xena/Hercules episodes i dont expect anything more.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    In My Universe

    by Coordinate_System

    I wouldn't bother with butterflies or daffodils, it would start with Lasers, 8 c'clock, Day 1.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    When the subject of scientific realism in 2001 is brough up, theistic evolution is all you think? And what's that to do withthe movie, anyway? There are no gods in the movie, it's very advanced aliens. So, where's the theism in it? Induced evolution cause by the influences of another spieces exists and occurs everyday here on Earth (and evolution happens everyday on Earth, be it caused by natural or man-caused influences). How often the actions of men caused an evolutionary consequence on other spieces? Shall i mention the dogs or horses breeding programs as the most obvious example?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST

    mugato5150

    by AsimovLives

    Actually the ST TV shows (specially those) and occasionally the movies did tried to explain how things worked. Half the technobabble was dedicated to that. And a good part of it was actually based on actual science, at elast theoretical science which most of it has yet to meet a practical apliance.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:32 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I really do need to go to sleep! But it's a Chicken and Egg Argument isn't it? "A planet wide network of transporter stations would seem to get the job done faster than a fleet of ships"? But wouldn't you need a fleet of ships to bring a planet wide network of transporter stations to the planet? Or would you just have transporters transporting transporters? To quote Ensign Gumby: "My Brain Hurts!"

  • June 11, 2011, 3:34 a.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by Coordinate_System

    Just build them there. Or transport the parts there. Have a good night.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:34 a.m. CST

    dr_pepperspray

    by AsimovLives

    First of all, it's "YOU'RE OUT". Secondly, of course i like TRON LEGACY,it's a good movie. I don't love it, but i got a hell of a hell of a good time watching it. It is a good movie that i like and enjoyed, a movie i have no problem defending anytime of the day. Abrams Trek is stupid and retard. So what's so hard for you to understand about this? Are you just trolling or something or you really don't understand?

  • June 11, 2011, 3:36 a.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Hello old chum! Why aren't you and boborci ever in these talkbacks at the same time? That would be hilarious.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:45 a.m. CST

    killik

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Funny how those transporters have all kind of super scientific safeguards that prevent attacks but somehow don't prevent Riker from being duplicated. Or Picard, Guinan, Keiko and Ro Laren from being turned into Children. Or Tuvok and Neelix from being combined into Tuvix. Or my favorite of all time: The DS9 crew's "patterns" being stored as characters in Bashir's holodeck Spy program until they can be "reconstituted". Sing along Children! "Just a Spoonful of Science helps the Bullshit go Down! The Bullshit go Dowwwnnn! The Bullshit Go Down! Just a Spoonful of Science helps the Bullshit go Down! In the Most Technobabbly Way!"

  • June 11, 2011, 3:45 a.m. CST

    kilik

    by Coordinate_System

    Sorry to plagiarize, however inadvertently.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:50 a.m. CST

    moving right along - C said:

    by Boborci

    THAT’S NOT A SUPERNOVA, IT’S A PLOT DEVICE

  • June 11, 2011, 3:51 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by AsimovLives

    According to scientist and astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, who worte a bok dedicated to the physics of Star Trek and who's also a big trekkie, teleportation technology is one thing where he's absolutly convinced that it will be impossible to achieve, regardless of how advanced a technology might be. The problem is that what's need to do to achieve teleportation. which basically amounts to the same as to destroy any object through exteme nuclear force. If teleportation is the process of desconstruction an object and send it atom by atom to another place and reconstruct it again at destiny, this is the real problem. Because to seperate individual atoms from the molecules where they are agregated at, it means the use of nuclear energy. Consider the hydrogen bomb, which is in effect sliping the hydrogen atom. This is what would be needed for a teleportation device. And it can only be achieved by using extreme high temperatures. but hydrogen atom is the easiest to split. All others are harder and requite much more energy. It means to achieve temperatures similiar that those that exists at the core big stars. How big? The types of starts that wehn they die they turn into supernovae or blackholes. And while an hydrogen bomb only needs to achieve a very high solar temperature for a split second so it can detonate the hydrogen, during a teleportation sequence that temperature would be needed to be mantained for as long as the deatomization process would take. And then use the same amount of energy to recombine. For example, if you have a gold wedding ring and you had to be teleported, the teleport device, JUST FOR THE RING, would need to meet temperature and energy levels sufficient to be able to split the atomof gold. How to achieve that? Well, gold is only produced in nature in one occasion: the exploding moment of a supernova. So a teleport device would need to achieve that stupendous amountof energy that a supernova is able to at that moment. Which is just gigantic! It's the most energetic moment found in the universe everytime it occurs, with only the Big Bang itself surpassing it. In effect, one could say everytime a teleportation occurs, it was like creating a miniature momentof the Big Bang, because atoms would had to be split and then rebuild again, with the rebuild part being the equivalent of the whole recreation of the history of the universe, but happening at a short interval of time instead of the millions of years it took. Simply put, the problem here is that it's impossible to achieve the type of energy requirements. Everytime a teleportation would occured, it would need the amount of energies that only suns can produced, and not evne matter/anti-matter anihallation, which is what powers everything in the ST universe, can create as much as would be required. And that«'s just the begining of it's problems. The reason why scientists were able to teleport what they have so far is because they have been teleporting photons and electrons, which are objects without mass, with residual mass as they more actually describe. Objects which are essencially just litle more then energy (or a wave energy signature), that's easier. But if they had to teleport a subatomic object like a proton or a neutron, the problem is raised exponencially. If i had to guess, the practical aplication for the teleportation process that exists today would be to achieve a true life ansible comunication machine.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:52 a.m. CST

    AFTER A PAGE OF ARGUMENTATION

    by Boborci

    COPERNICUS ULTIMATELY CONCLUDES: WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE If they wanted to preserve the “threatening the galaxy” angle, they should have invented some new kind of space disturbance, rather than relying on a supernova, whose properties are known. But one thing I don’t like about previous Trek incarnations is the random made-up technobabble of the week. There is a certain amount of verisimilitude you get by invoking an actual supernova. But you can’t just use the word without the meaning. So keep it a supernova. In that case, Spock should have said: “129 years from now, a star will explode and threaten to destroy the galaxy Romulus. The star went supernova, consuming everything in its path. I promised the Romulans that I would save their planet. We outfitted our fastest ship. Using red matter, I would create a black hole, which would absorb the exploding star. I was en route when the unthinkable happened. [But I was too late.] The supernova destroyed Romulus.”

  • June 11, 2011, 3:54 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by AsimovLives

    To finish: at the 60s and 70s and even a bit into the 80s, the teleportation device would seem like a possible consequence of future technology. But today we know that it's bascially soethignimpossible to achieve, no matter how advanced. By the way, teleportation was not invented by Star Trek, it had been already used in SF before, predating it by quite a few decades. The most notorious example is from WB cartoon DUCK DODGERS IN THE 24 CENTURY AND A HALF.

  • The only thing the movie got right is that stars, supernova, planets and black holes do exist. The rest is pure bullshit.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:56 a.m. CST

    SO AFTER ALL THAT

    by Boborci

    Coop would keep the term SUPERNOVA! He would merely add one line to Spock, "BUT I WAS TOO LATE," without which you seem to feel it is impossible for others to deduce that Spock was too late from observing the fact that he was too late. Finally, you would lose the line, "...the unthinkable..." <p> from oxford's online dictionary: UNTHINKABLE: adjective (of a situation or event) too unlikely or undesirable to be considered a possibility: it was unthinkable that John could be dead (as nounthe unthinkable) the unthinkable happened — I spoke up We figured it would be more obvious that we meant the word as defined above, and as is commonly used, say in news casts, to describe "unthinkable acts of violence," etc.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    RED MATTER

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 3:59 a.m. CST

    The film was ridiculously successful

    by AsimovLives

    Not abroad it was. Ridiculously sucessful is not an expression that should be used about Abrams TRek, a movie which made about the same bank as the deemed failure TERMINATOR CONSTIPATION. If one wants to use such expressions as ridiculously sucessful, it's INCEPTION that should be an example of that.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:59 a.m. CST

    Coop writes:

    by Boborci

    "Surprisingly enough, I don’t hate Red Matter, although the way it was dealt with could have been handled much better. The script called for (1) something to stop a supernova, (2) the creation of a black hole / wormhole to make time travel possible, (3) something that would destroy Vulcan, (4) something to create a black hole at the end of the film. So why not invent a MacGuffin that can do all that? Sounds crazy, but so does Dark Matter – invisible matter that only interacts gravitationally, and we think that stuff is the predominant form of matter in the universe. Baryonic matter, the stuff we (and stars) are made of, is the weird stuff as far as the universe is concerned." <p> Very good! We actually based Red Matter on Dark matter, as Black holes are associated with great mass, and Dark Matter is, as you point out, the predominant mass in the universe.

  • If you lack imagination and talent, yes. If you have talent and imagination, it's a challenge that rewards with rich fruits. It's too often ignored the potential for drama that actual real physics can present, specially space physics.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:03 a.m. CST

    the problem, coop writes:

    by Boborci

    The problem with Red Matter is that it is now the ultimate weapon in the Star Trek universe. A syringe of it can destroy a planet – or even a star or supernova! Why screw around with photon torpedoes when you can have Red Matter torpedoes? And shields would be pointless. I suppose you could say that all the Red Matter in the Trek universe was destroyed at the end of the film. Well, ok, then why was Spock hauling around all the red matter in the universe! He only needed a syringe! Spock is like a redneck hauling around a pickup truck full of dynamite. Or even worse… antimatter. That’s dangerous! What if he crashed? Not only would he become a black hole, they’d have no more chances to fix this or any other supernova. <P> again, this seems beyond your purview as a scientists, but what the hell? First off, all the Red Matter is gone by the end of the film, as you point out. It is a technology from the future, which Spock makes clear when he deduces only a future technology would have the ability to make a black hole. But even if it were around, we still have guns and tanks in a world of nukes, right?

  • June 11, 2011, 4:07 a.m. CST

    Let That Be Your Last Talkback

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    asimovlives as BELE: "Are you blind, dr-pepperspray? Look at TRON LEGACY! Look at it!" < p >cymbalta4thedevil as KIRK: "TRON LEGACY is bullshit on the one side and horseshit on the other."< p >asimovlives as BELE: "TRON LEGACY is Bullshit on the RIGHT side."< p > cymbalta4thedevil as KIRK: "I fail to see the significant difference." < p > asimovlives as BELE: "Abrams Trek is Horseshit on the Right Side. All his movies are Horseshit on the Right Side!"

  • June 11, 2011, 4:07 a.m. CST

    coop writes:

    by Boborci

    "BLACK HOLES Black holes are called that because nothing can escape, not even light."<P> Except that Hawking provided theoretical model for the "evaportation" of Black Holes, meaning they're not really black.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Coop continues:

    by Boborci

    "But in the Star Trek universe really good characters can escape from them, but bad guys sometimes get crushed. On other occasions they make you go back in time. Maybe they should call them Plot Holes. " <P> I REFER YOU TO THIS SUMMARY BASED ON JOHN WHEELER AND KIP THORN'S WORK. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1446.html<P> In particular, I quote, "All worm holes are black holes, but not all black holes are worm holes. Black holes are solutions to Einstein's general relativistic equation for gravity, and there are many individual black hole 'solutions' depending on the properties of the matter that went into forming the black hole. Although all of these solutions contain an internal singularity, the mathematics seems to suggest that some of these singularities are 'avoidable' and others are not. If the black hole is not rotating ( i.e. has zero angular momentum) the solution is the famous, static 'Schwarschild Black Hole' whose geometric center contains the unavoidable singularity. If it is rotating, you get some version of the 'Kerr Black Hole' and the singularity is deformed into a ring, and for some paths entering the black hole, this kind of singularity is avoidable. "

  • June 11, 2011, 4:14 a.m. CST

    and for good measure

    by Boborci

    read this article, just to prove the point about how common this line of thinking is today. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11745-could-black-holes-be-portals-to-other-universes.html

  • June 11, 2011, 4:16 a.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Don't try to compare MOBY DICK with Abrams Trek. I consider Moby dick to be the best american book ever writen. Few things can turn on my berserk button as fast as comparing a shitty stupid idiotic movie like Abrams Trek with Moby Dick. So, please friend, just don't. Please! There is nothing in the revenge actions of Nero in Abrams Trek that can be compared to Mody Dick. Starting withthe fact that Ahab was an actual intelligent and capable captain who knew his busines sand knew what he was doing, unlike that assclown sub-copy of Khan called Nero. That's for starters.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:19 a.m. CST

    as for "good guys make it through and bad guys get crushed"

    by Boborci

    good guys and bad guys went through, because both had functioning, warp capable starships. Much like the reason that a swimmer cannot avoid a whirpool but a person in a ship can navigate around it. Also note that the very black holes that are thought to evaporate are also rotating, which happens to be the very type of blackhole that would have a deformed singularity which would allow navigation around it. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!! Nero dies at the end because his ship, his shields, etc, are damaged, and as such he is a swimmer without a ship.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Let That Be Your Last Talkback- Epilogue

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    the_choppah as SULU: "Their Talkback's dead. Does it matter now which one's right?" < p > coordinate_system as SPOCK: "Not to Lokai and Bele. All that matters to them is their Abrams hate." < p > genderblender as UHURA: "Do you suppose that's all they ever had, sir?" < p > cymbalta4thedevil as KIRK: "No. ... But it's all they have left."

  • June 11, 2011, 4:20 a.m. CST

    SATURN

    by Boborci

    great, I'll give this one to you. Though you agree that there are magnetic distortions, they are not caused by the rings. Congrats.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Paralel universe schushery!!!

    by AsimovLives

    So because it's set in a paralle universe everything is ok now, hem? Yeah, great coup out! Must be the defaul explanation from Bobby Orci everytime somebody points out a plot hole in Abrams Trek: "But it's paralel universe!". Yeah, so? I mean, the Orci guy doen't even know and understand what kind of paralel universe the Spock and Nero guy fell into. Is it a branch out of the original Star Trek universe? Is it a miror universe? They don't know, and the proof is that there's not even an hint of explanation in the movie, and Orci has always avoided answering that question for fear he might give the wrong answer and upset and turn out the fandom. The paralel unverse expalins nothing. It certaily doesn't explain why there's a fate that connects all the characters intoteh same ship, it doens't expalins why the federation has an economic capitalist system and a federation at the same time, and it sure doesn't explain why everybody acts like idiots and children. Or maybe in this a paralel universe where imposisble coincidences are just daily occurences and deux ex machinas are always waiting at the enarest conner to save designated heroes from impossible obstacles and unsurmontable difficulties caused by bad screenwriting.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:24 a.m. CST

    and finally

    by Boborci

    I take you at your word that your criticisms are based solely on your love of Star Trek. Hopefully, my responses will be received in the same spirit. Live long and Prosper!

  • June 11, 2011, 4:27 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    You find 2001 boring. Others disagree. I found all the movies writen by Bob Orci to be skullnumbing boring like hell, with a particular shout out to the Transformers movies, which are two of the most fucking boring shit i ever had the displeasure to experience in all my life.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:31 a.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by AsimovLives

    Yes, it was comedic that scotty was teleported EXACTLY into a tube filled with water. Had he been teleported into what would be a much more plausible circusntance as directly into a wall or a beam, the dude wouldhad been fused to one and instead ofa jolly funny moment we would had a tragic one. This is where deux ex machina bullshit is set to work. Becasue idiotic screenwriters like bob Orci and his compadrs can't understand the implciations of the stuff they write in their stories. It was all treated as a comedy opportunity, instead of the nightmare fuel that it truly is. I mean, Abrams Trek was not supposed to be a SF satire like THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, was it? Was it?

  • June 11, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    If he was in a parallel universe as you claim, (and somehow knew this) and did not want to save that particular Romulus, since, as you clumsily put it "it was not his Romulus", then what the hell was he seeking revenge against a Vulcan that wasn't the one that spawned the Spock whom he blamed for his planet's (or rather his version of Romulus') destruction? If he has no stake in that version of Romulus because its a parallel universe Romulus then by that same logic, that version of Vulcan that he destroyed has no blame for what happened to his planet. Or did this not occur to you when you blurted out or typed out that ridiculous response? This is what happens when you don't bother thinking your arguments through more than a couple of levels deep just like those 2 assclowns Orci and Kurtzman. Oh and for future refence, that lame "Parallel Universe" nonsense excuse that BobORci came up with after the movie is a textbook example of lazy writing and incompetent RetConning at it's best. Especially when you don't understand the implications of parallel Universes and alternate timelines - which you clearly don't. I'm not going to go into a debate of just how stupid it is to use the parallel universe theory to explain the divergent storyline into a timeline or a universe where the laws of physics (or of basic logic, for that matter) no longer matter, because that would involve having to explain the intricacies of M-theory to someone who's incapable of getting even the simple basics of Quantum mechanics. So let's just move on. I understand the plot perfectly. I just can't abide the stupidity which you seem so willing to overlook or maybe are just incapable of grasping. You can't use "Parallel Universe" to dismiss the fact that he wouldn't save his planet on the one hand (because it wasn't the same planet as his that was destroyed), and yet on the other hand blithely ignore the fact that that "Parallel Universe" excuse also has grave implications on whether or not he can legitimately blame or seek revenge against people in this same "parallel universe" that you claim he has no stake in. No wonder you enjoyed the movie; you seem completely incapable of thinking more than 1 or 2 layers deep, just like I imagine what the intended audience of this joke of a movie was.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:51 a.m. CST

    Wow interesting

    by CT1

    Well this confirms it, boborci is the new Quint. Frank Oz involved.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:58 a.m. CST

    on parallel universes

    by Boborci

    uhm... let's see, google the term ALTERNATE REALITY, which is said IN THE FIRGGIN MOVIE and then tell me where google ranks it as being synonymous with PARALLEL UNIVERSE as described by Quantum Mechanics.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:58 a.m. CST

    Ill save you the trouble. IT'S THE FIRST HIT!

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 5 a.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    I completely understand the science behind both Teleportation as it's used in Star Trek as well as the lab-based teleportation that has been achieved today in the sub-atomic context. I'm also completely aware of Krauss' take on the matter and I read his book (I actually have the book right now). And even Krauss himself, while stating that it's unlikely that we will ever be able to acheive the type of TEleportation that they talk about in Star Trek, nevertheless concedes that the science upon which they base their transporter technology is sound and solid contemporary science backed by those aforementioned lab tests. Which is the point I was making to cymbalta4thedevil; that the science of teleportation, or transporters or beaming technology in Star Trek is not only sound but is also possible even with modern technology (albeit at subatomic level) and thus you can't call it impossible per se. You can, however, state that it is implausible that we will ever be able to scale it up all the way to transporting human size objects because of the energy requirements in dematerializing all those atoms, and also the speed and memory capacity necessary of the computers to store all that transporter information. These are things that are simply not acheivable in our lifetime or anytime soon after that. But there's a big difference between claiming something is impossible (especially when it's already been done, at whatever leve) and claiming it's implausible (which, while doubting the possibility, does not completely shut the door on some exotic technology, invention, discovery, or knowledge beyond our current grasp that would allow us to cross that threshold.) And that's the reason why even Krauss himself stated that it was only implausible and not impossible. And I don't know whether or not you realized this, but I'm not really suporting this movie in any way shape or form. By making this transporter argument I was trying to point out the fact to cymbalta4thedevil that Star Trek writers before this latest JJ abortion, actaully used to pay attentiont to real world science and theoretical physics to construct their fictional devices which at least allowed them to somewhat ground their story on some level closer to reality than just magic. This latest movie, did none of that; completely ignored any intelligent scientific discourse or considerations and then compounded the problem and made everything worse by trying to cover up their screw-ups with gigantic gaping plot holes and logic holes. So you could say we are on the same side of the argument and I don't really know what we're debating this about.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:01 a.m. CST

    on Nero saving his planet

    by Boborci

    he says that only by destroying the federation can romulus truly be saved. He is trying to save it. He clearly believes the federation to be an existential threat to the existence of romulus because he obviously believes Romulus was purposely left to die. If he'd succeeded, he would then have about 100 years to use all the red matter he wants to save his world or warn it.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:03 a.m. CST

    Science. It's what's for dinner.

    by Rob Hill

    I never expect 100% accurate science in film. I'm not going to see a damned documentary. Where's the fun in that? On the other hand, I've always valued Star Trek for approaching science in a (mostly) believable way. I pay more attention to the characters and their motivations anyhow. A good story is about characters you can connect with. Does it ultimately matter if the numbers aren't perfect? Does it really matter if something simply cannot work for a story to be entertaining? If you want your stories to be perfectly plausible, I suggest you stop reading/watching anything other than non-fiction. And thereby let your imagination die. Star Trek doesn't get everything right, but it does get most things right. It gets enough right to inspire. Who cares if radiation doesn't come from rings around Saturn? I enjoy it in the spirit it was presented. That's all I got.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:04 a.m. CST

    kai

    by Boborci

    it may be less embarrassing for you to twitter pictures of your genitalia than to continue to opine;)

  • June 11, 2011, 5:07 a.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Regardless of whether you're referring to Alternate reality or Parallel Universe, how in the world do you explain Nero seeking revenge against people in an Alternate reality that had nothing to do with the destruction of his version of Romulus, especially if we are to allow for the stupidity of the explanation absolving him of using the time travel to save his planet instead of seeking petty revenge? Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Either the alternate reality/parallel universe bullcrap means that you don't have to save Romulus because it's not your version of Romulus that was destroyed (and by extension, you also cannot seek revenge against that version of Vulcan neither also by the same reasoning), or it means that you do have to save Romulus primarily because it's the same one, just like the Vulcan you're seeking to destroy is (supposedly) the same one that spawns that same Spock who didn't save your planet. You. Can. Not. Have. It. Both. Ways!

  • June 11, 2011, 5:12 a.m. CST

    Kai - all that you need to understand the movie

    by Boborci

    Is now typed on this board. And I. did. Have. It. Both. Ways. Prequel/Sequel free from canon within canon. Sleep well.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:12 a.m. CST

    is boborci the real orci? i think Orci's talkback nickname

    by KilliK

    was with capital letters?

  • June 11, 2011, 5:13 a.m. CST

    Boborci, and for the record......

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    We're not the ones who introduced "Parallel Universes" into this discussion. It was one of your minions/lemmings cymbalta4thedevil who did. Regardless, the stupidity of the storyline doesn't work either way. Parallel Universes, Alternate realities, Alternate Timelines....whatever you way you choose to retcon your stupid story, it still doesn't explain the dumbness of doing one thing to escape responsibility of saving your planet while idiotically and childishly seeking revenge against another planet which belongs in the same frame of reference and reasoning as the one you just said you didn't have to save.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Leave him alone you savages!

    by CT1

    Look, don't mind them, they're just a little awestruck and want to vent now that they're aware somebody of impact is actually reading what they're expressing and interacting with them. So without getting all "fanboy" on you, let me just ask if you wouldn't mind sharing with all your fans where you rank The Dark Knight in your list of all time favorite movies ever created? thanks!

  • June 11, 2011, 5:17 a.m. CST

    Ct1

    by Boborci

    I never rank movies until they r ten years old.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:17 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil blame the writers for being lazy

    by KilliK

    self-contradicting your own established character and rules is one of the major weaknesses of long running franchises.it's one of the main reasons i stopped reading DC/MARVEL comics.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:20 a.m. CST

    oh

    by CT1

    well this is disappointing news for fans.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:20 a.m. CST

    Missing the point

    by Rob Hill

    If you want purity, go to a classroom. If you want a good story, see a film. Where's the problem? You don't demand an accurate explanation for how a lightsaber works. You don't question the scientific validity of a replicant. I don't hear people bitching about why you can have cowboy robots go crazy and start killing people when we can't even make a damned robot that complex. You're all missing the point. You're missing the forest for the trees. And the forest is pretty damned cool.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:22 a.m. CST

    Asimov and other people agree with me.

    by KilliK

    And you know what,it is not just an opinion of taste.there is a strong basis behind it,and that is the fact that story and characters are non-existent in 2001. Personally i consider 2001 as one of the best scifi movies ever,and one of my favorites,but that doesnt meant that i dont find it boring as fuck. I usually watch it by fastforwing to the point of interests i like,i am not that crazy to sit and watch a 10m scene with a spacestation orbiting earth while Blue Danube is playing,no matter how poetic that scene is.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Ct1 - why - just wanna have perspective;)

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    You want embarrassing? Just look at all you've typed on this board by way of defense of this movie. Or better yet, take a look in the mirror. You can't even answer simple basic questions that challenge your stupid "Alternate Reality" bullshit, and the best you can come up with by way of a response is to make some crack about my genitalia? That's hilarious. Just because you have embarrassing genitalia doesn't mean that everyone else does, any more than just because you're an general embarrassment to humanity as a species doesn't mean that everyone else you speak to is as well.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Kai

    by Boborci

    Dont knpw how i could answer more thoroughly. As for a snapshpt if your thought process, you just called me pathetic for answering questions in depth, with sources, while simulateneously attacking me for not answering anything.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:32 a.m. CST

    It's ok if you hate it

    by CT1

    Yeah, I guess you have a point, it does seem a little brash to claim your all-time favorite film that inspires you and moves you is only 3 years old.. I agree it probably needs more thought and reflection, and seeing it through the prism of a fresh set of eyes as far as growing and changing throughout life, so I respect your decision. I mean hey, if you ever wanted to share your thoughts about your OWN favorite movie/Inception, I'm sure the fans will be ready and eager to listen.

  • Stuff anybody could know just by reading the wikipedia.

  • I just wanted to point soemthing out about Teleportation, that's all. The fact that teleportation will never seem to be able to turn into a reality doesn't bother me in my enjoyment of Star Trek. But as you said it, even it migth not be something that wille xist for a macroscopic reality, the science behind it is not based on fantasy but on real known science. Keep up the good work, friend.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:39 a.m. CST

    Here's your basis for a warp drive, asimov

    by Rob Hill

    The Alcubierre drive. It's theoretical, but it's fun to think about.

  • well you know what they say,if you say it too many times,at the end you might even believe it.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:50 a.m. CST

    Boborci

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    You didn't answer anything in depth. Despite claiming that you have.. I asked you pointedly how you square the fact that Nero felt absolved from having to save his home planet from the impending Super Nova despite having time-travelled to the past to allow him to do so, because, as you and others, clumsily explained it, he had no affinity to this particular version of Romulus (on account of it being the "Alternate Reality/Parallel Universe/Alternate Timeline" Romlus and having nothing to do with his Romulus that was destroyed) and yet on the other hand he had no problems seeking revenge against a Vulcan planet that lay in the very same reality/timeline/universe as that Romulus that he didn't feel he had to save, and which by your own logic should bear no blame for what happened to his planet. And the sum total of your response was that he was "saving the Romulan Empire by attacking the Federation - i.e Vulcan" - which is not even an answer to the question I asked but just further example of more bullshit Retconning. Again I ask you, what obligation would he have to saving the Romulan Empire in that same alternate reality when, as you've already pointed out, it has nothing to do with the one he left behind when he traveled to the past? You just keep dancing around these questions with your bullshit and your genitalia nonsense, and yet when asked the question you only spout more bullshit about your answer already being here on the talkback. WHERE???? Point it out to me? Qute it? You know how to copy-paste, right? Or do you need a very young child to come and assist you in that regard, and show you how to work out that computer thingamajig? WHERE DID YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?????

  • June 11, 2011, 5:50 a.m. CST

    Another lame nonsense about the paralel universe exucuse is...

    by AsimovLives

    ... so Spock finds himself in a paralel universe,a nd because it's not his own, he just goes passive about saving anybody in the new universe he finds hismelf in? Last time i checked, Spock is one who believes in the sanctity of that all life, and it was not just because soemthing is form a paralel universe he would lay his hand low and let things be. He would do all he could to save anybody from this universe from Nero's rampage. He wouldn't just sit his ass on a cave waiting for an impossible coincidecne to occur. The Spock that's in that movie, that they call Spock Prime, is not the Spock i know from the older shows and movies. It's played by the same actor, but it doesn't act or speak like THE SPOCK. That Spock seems to be as much from a paralel universe as the one played by Quinto. It's the passivity that is seen in the characters in Abrams Trek that i find shocking. they are only into the action if there's a demand for an action scene where shit bows up and lasers fired. But there is no action in their intents and ambitions. there is not a single atempt to correct the dammage done by Nero. Completly at odds with the spirit of the Star Trek crew seen in the TV shows and movies, they never atempt to correct the harm done, they just patch things up. They don't cure the desease, they just put a bandage. It's ridiculous! It's the most passive Star Trek thing i ever seen in my whole life. When in previous ST shows the crw had to let soemthing stay the same, was for a good excuse, like in CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER where the saving the life of a woman would cause a cathastrophe for both the world and mankind in general. In Abrams Trek, there's no reason whatsoever for the characters to not do their utermost to solve the problems caused by Nero. Even if that implied the resolution of themselves in the correction. Because Nero caused, in effect, a worst word to happen thansk to his crossing over which implied the death of billions and ruined so many lifes of those who survived. The real attitude as becoming the enterprise crew would be to resolve that, even if that mean they as they are now would disappear from existence. But that would mean to follow the ST mantra of "the neds of the many outweigth the neds of the few or one". So the lifes of a bunch of guys would get erased and reset, but billions would be saved. That's the type of maths the crew of the Enterprise would make and they would accept that willingly and get to work. aving lives is their business, not just sitting around and saying "c'est la vie". They would be pro-actinve. And in Abrams Trek, they aren't. And don't give me a paralel universe to excuse that, because that would be nonsense. The crew of the Enterprise are there to save lives, not to see stuff blow up.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:55 a.m. CST

    from boboorci

    by AsimovLives

    "he says that only by destroying the federation can romulus truly be saved. He is trying to save it. He clearly believes the federation to be an existential threat to the existence of romulus because he obviously believes Romulus was purposely left to die. If he'd succeeded, he would then have about 100 years to use all the red matter he wants to save his world or warn it." Then why is not that in the movie? Why do you need to say that outside the movie? why isn't the movie self-suficient in poviding it's own plot logic. Why does the writer of the movie needs to go off-record and actualyl explain what's going on and the characters motivations? It's not that the characters motivations in the movie are subtle and mysterious, specuially concerning Nero, it's that they are completly nonexistence WITHIN the movie. This is why so many of us are so critical about the movie, that you have to explain it in a forum, when the movie itself can't. That's poor storytelling. That's poor scriptwriting. That's a poor job you and your compadres Kurtzman and Abrams did. That's why your movie is bad.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:55 a.m. CST

    See "on nero saving Romulus" above.

    by Boborci

    He is trying to save romulus by eliminating whar he thinks will be its greatest threat (the federatioj), which he states right in the movie. Can we agree on that first before you confuse yourself eith part two of your question?

  • June 11, 2011, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Hey kai

    by Rob Hill

    OK, for the sake of argument, let's say your home town was destroyed, intentionally or otherwise, and you found a scapegoat to get phenomenally pissed off at, rationally or not. Then, somehow you got thrown back in time to a point where you could take steps to make sure that never happened. Along the way you realize that you can make your scapegoat feel as horrible as you do right now, preemptively, AND feel like you're doing the right thing at the same time. My question is this: would you feel cold and calculating as to how you were going to fix things, or would you let your all-encompassing need for passionate revenge change your priorities to the point of obsession for the object of your hatred?

  • June 11, 2011, 5:57 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You can throw around all the scientific terms you want if it makes you feel intellectually superior. You're the one who doesn't understand the fucking plot of a movie you claim to be smarter than. You say "If he was in a Parallel Universe..." What do you mean IF? The movie says so! boborci isn't "retconning" that two years later! It's in the fucking dialogue! "It's not his Romulus." There's nothing clumsy about the way I put that. I was trying to make it clear to pedants like you who would rather sit there clinging to 40 years of bullshit made up on the fly Trek minutia and "canon" as if it was Holy Writ and muttering "But... But..." to yourselves than PAY ATTENTION TO THE INFORMATION COMMUNICATED VERBALLY AND VISUALLY IN THE FUCKING MOVIE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE WATCHED. This is an altered timeline. In an alternate uiniverse. What could be more "Star Trek" than that story? Spock Prime and Nero are both TRAPPED there. They have no technobabble way to get home. Nero has no way of knowing if the same events that occurred in their universe will occur in this one. So why would he go warn Romulus about a Supernova that may never even happen? And Spock Prime has no way of "fixing" this timeline because he has no way of knowing what "differences" would have naturally occurred in this universe if he and Nero had never even shown up. The Federation and Starfleet were already different before they got there. Different Ships. Different Uniforms. Budweiser and Nokia etc etc. So why would he slingshot around the sun and go back in time to prevent Nero's actions? He'd still be trapped in the alternate universe. Couldn't he accidentally cause subtle changes to the timeline for the rest of his life regardless of what he does merely by existing? Nero is driven so insane with rage waiting for Spock Prime to come through the "black hole" that he's become a genocidal maniac. Of course his revenge makes no sense! Would it make any more sense if he was in his own universe? Spock didn't destroy Romulus. The Supernova did! Would Nero destroying Vulcan in the prime universe make them "even"? His revenge is nothing but the impotent rage of a madman. And part of him knows that. And that just makes him angrier and crazier. Are you going to argue he could "legitimately blame or seek revenge" against Spock and Vulcan if he was still in the Prime Universe? Really? Why Exactly? It's like Khan blaming Kirk for Ceti Alpha VI blowing up. How the fuck is that Kirk's fault? Would Khan have wanted Kirk or Starfleet coming back every few years to check on him? I understand alternate universes more than you think I do. And you must have watched an alternate universe version of this movie because you seem to grasp fuckall about what goes on in the movie the rest of us watched back in 2009. kai_mah'gra, at this point you're in "asimovlives syndrome". I can't tell if you have: a) a plank in front of your eyes b) a board up your butt or c) your head so far up your own ass you're trying to save money by using the same piece of wood for both.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Vonotar -right

    by Boborci

    And in our case, he has both. Make them suffer and remove one main threat to home world.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:02 a.m. CST

    Cymbalta niw that s finally the bed time story i needed!

    by Boborci

    Thanks n good night. Amd thanks to Hero Complex for riling us all up on this magical night.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:05 a.m. CST

    vonotar

    by AsimovLives

    Defiantly rhe characters are the most imporant thing in a SF story (inless it being a draamtization of hard science it the own porpose of the story). But consider science accurancy as the icing of the cake. You have this thrilling exciting story where interesting characteers have a great adventure. And it's all served with a great scientific accyuracy. It makes the show so much better. Scientific accurancy is like having a movie where the set design is very well done, where the cinematography is beautiful, where the score sounds beautiful and emotional. You cna still tell a good tale without theneed of pretty sets, photography or a score, but they certainly helps the viewing experience, it is the chantilly that makes the cake so much more tasty. When a movie has a high degree of scientic accuranc,y is also means that the filmmakers did their research. Which takes effort. Which means that the filmmakers took their job seriously and made an effort. And for me, i rather get more enthralled and excited to see a movie where the filmmakers took that extra effort, which i take it as a respect for the audiences. that makes a movie viewing so much more rewarding and entertaining. And blatant scientific innacuracies take me off a movie. There's things for which we have to suspend our disbelief. Like faster-then-light travel for ST, because without it there would be no ST at all. But suspension of disbelief is not for everthing that's presented. That would not be suspension of disbelief but just mindless slavish passivity. Just because you can accept faster-then-light travel doesn't mean you have to swallow it all, doesn't mean you can have blackholes acting liek wormholes at the convinience of the plot or instant blackholes what eat up planets in seconds or absurdly close planets from different systems be able to be seen at the naked eye or the erasing of the effects of inertia from a fall.

  • Ladies and gentleman, the words of a Holywood insider. This is who are making the movies we watch. Behold! It's fucked up beyond all possible repair. Total complete FUBAR!

  • June 11, 2011, 6:11 a.m. CST

    boborci - sequel news?

    by CARTMANEZ

    i know you prob cant tell us anything but have you any idea when we might get an annoucement on when the sequel is due? (it would suck if we had to wait until summer 2013...)

  • June 11, 2011, 6:12 a.m. CST

    Sorry, no idea.

    by Boborci

  • He's being cautious, just in case one day he might get a juicy contract to work for the people involved with THE DARK KNIGHT. If he replied, it would had made a statment that could bite him in the ass in the future. Becasue stuff like this would eventually get into the light. Holywood people actually do their research, specially to get leverage other others. Orci, as a skeming holywood insider, he knows where not to compromise himself. Dont' ever expect him to give a true hoenst opinion, because form his point of view, that could hurt him in the long run. This is also why he's so defensive of Abrams Trek in here and why he won't admit to a faul in his movie or bad stroytelling: it's him showing off to the people in charge of the New Trek that he's loyal and totally onboard. It's all politics, man.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:13 a.m. CST

    And as usual: boborci is RIGHT

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    What's a better, more visceral or bloodthirsty "revenge"? Nero giving future / alternate universe tech to Romulus and letting them decide what to do with it? Or just destroying Vulcan, Earth and most of the ships in Starfleet himself and going on to rule the galaxy muahahahahaha! What would KHAN do?

  • June 11, 2011, 6:15 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by Rob Hill

    I can see and understand your point without totally agreeing with it. I don't expect all of the writers of the sci-fi I enjoy to be PhD's in theoretical physics or radio astronomy or whatever. Most of the highly educated people I know can't tell a good story worth a damn. They try, but you get so bogged down in the minutia of how/why this works that building an engaging/exciting story around it is akin to listening to the Grand Adventure of Wally Quark in CERN. Not exactly the stuff of multi-million dollar entertainment. I understand that you like your plot to be more realistic. I enjoy character interaction and the drama that creates. There simply wouldn't be a story otherwise. No worries.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:17 a.m. CST

    boborci's been giving honest answers all night

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You guys are the ones who keep falling back on the same tired arguments from two years ago no many how many times we explain exactly why you're wrong.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:19 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    There is a story in 2001. The most interesting and fun thing about 2001 is that originally the story was dependent on a lot of narration which would cover the movie like as it did on a later Kubrick movie, like BARRY LYNDON. Imagine, if you will, that originally 2001 was to have such a thing as a movie long runing naration or voice over like CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON. Then at the late minute, Kubrick removed the narration. The story in 2001 is still there. It's quite easy to graps. It's the subtext that's not explained. Part of it existed in the narration which was eliminated. Thus, we now get hints from dialogue and narrative, but never a full out explanation. Which is cool. That is not what happened with ABRAMS TREK. As for the boringdocking scene and such in 2001, i find them enthralling. I find them enthralling because they are so long. any filmamker could had rushed them. It takes great discipline and self-assurance from a filmmaker to let them linger as Kubrick did. And that's why the movie is still talked to this day. Kubrick didn't made 2001 the banal way. What you find boring in 2001 is part of the reason why it's an enduring classic.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:20 a.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by Rob Hill

    I think the draw of watching villains is the sheer amount of over-the-top batshittery they become capable of. Are the best ones ever logical? Sometimes, but that's downright scary. I like my heavies played in the grand "I'm going to destroy everything because I've totally given in to my baser impulses" vein. They're way more fun to watch self-destruct. Khan would have quoted Melville or Milton and gone balls-out to kill everything he could. Just to prove he could.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:23 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by AsimovLives

    Look at how Orci's grammar failed in his last post to you. I think you actually hit a nerve with the guy. I think you actually made him pissed off. It really hit home. Wow! Good job, friend. You mananged to put an Holywood big on the defensive and pissed off. As Darth Vader would say, impressive, most impressive. How i love to see geks having balls and stand up to and call out an Holywood big shot, instead of just wetting their pants and kiss their asses just because of their mere presence. Specially an hack like Orci.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:26 a.m. CST

    Funny asi

    by Boborci

    Mispellling cuz ive been up all night here leading the blind.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Too... Much... Fun... Zzzzzzzzzz

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 6:28 a.m. CST

    NO he wouldn't do that to his fans

    by CT1

    Listen, I know where you're coming from, I really do, but I just refuse to believe he'd deprive the fans of the things they truly want to know deep in their hearts... and over what? His IMAGE? That's really shallow, man, I know some people have issues with his work, but we have to learn to seperate that from who the man is himself, and what he means to his fans. Just because somebody doesn't like Star Trek or Transformers, hey it's all opinion, man, but it doesn't automatically mean he would be a cruel monster to his fans.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:29 a.m. CST

    More Proof You Morons Don't Pay Attention

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I never said it was a PARALLEL Universe. Or MIRROR Universe. I said it was an ALTERNATE Universe. It was different from the Jump Off. If boborci and abrams and co had wanted to they could have pulled a BSG and made Chekov or Sulu a GIRL. How many times do I have to say this? THIS ISN'T YOUR UNIVERSE, MONKEY BOY! You'll accept a universe where Spock has a beard and the crew is promoted through assassination. You'll buy a universe where Tasha Yar is still alive and goes back in time with a previous Enterprise. You have no beef with Worf bouncing around between multiple universes: he's married to Troi, Wesley's still on the ship, Riker killed Locutus but the Borg are still winning etc etc etc. But you won't accept this one? WHAT KIND OF STAR TREK FANS ARE YOU?

  • Little suprise that the Transformers movies are so terribly writen. It's telling. I guess Orci suffers from the same problem that Bay and Abrams already have: completly surounded by yesmen, they already lost all perspective. They have convinced themselves they can do no wrong, and all those who cricitise them are just mean-spirited evildoers. Pathetic! I fucking hope COWBOYS AND ALIENS flops. Now that would be true karma.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Asi and you actually think you read them and understood them

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 6:36 a.m. CST

    Good-night, sweet prince boborci

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    and flights of Orion Slave Girls sing thee to thy rest.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Cymbalta4thedevil u 2, thanks

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 6:37 a.m. CST

    As anybody asked Bobby here how's the Abrams Trek 2 script going?

    by AsimovLives

    70 page long treatment and not evne a first draft? What's taking you so long? Nolan and his brother mannaged to write, and then produce and release a sequel to BATMAN BEGINS in the same time you and Abrams have been goofing around sicne the first Abrams Trek was released. And Nolan also mannaged to made a movie inbetwen during that time. So, what's taking so long? And no, super 8 will not do as an explanation. Stop jerking around and get down to business. You may lose your fanbase if you keep fucking around instead of getting busy. Thoughi can undestand why it's taking so long to crack up a story as a sequel to ABRAMS TREK. I mean, that movie has to be one of the biggest dead-end movie ever made. But a narrative dead-end never stoped you before, Bobby. Just pull another deux ex machina and be done with it. Get bitching, dude. The only thing i have in common with the Abrams Trek fanboys is that i'm also dead curious to see what your crew will come up with for the sequel. I can't hardly wait for the comedic opportunity that the sequel will be. If it ever gets made. And if it's not, fuck it, that's for the best, anyway.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Noone Even Noticed my Last Battlefield Parody

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    :'-(

  • June 11, 2011, 6:40 a.m. CST

    Hey vonotar

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    You do realize that it was about 22-25 years in between the time Nero first travelled back in time to the past, and when he actually took his revenge right? In other words he got back to the past during Kirk's birth and then hang around for the next couple of decades until right around the time Kirk would have graduated Starfleet Academy before taking his revenge on Vulcan. The half-baked reasoning given in the movie is that this was because Spock didn't get back to the past until that point in time, but the bottom line is that 25 or so years is a damn long time during which to hold a petty grduge when the fate of your entire planet is at stake. Not to mention the fact that it's also long enough for someone who's resourceful enough to engineer a solution to his planet's predicament and STILL get the revenge he feels he so richly deserves. But Nero didn't do any of that (or at least that's what we're led to believe). What does he do instead? He gets to the past; realizes he got to there too early so he takes it out on a starfleet vessel and Kirk's father, and then rather than figure out a way to either warn the Romulans or prove to them that a Super Nova is headed their way down the road, he skulks around for about 25 years waiting for Kirk to arrive before carrying out his childish vendetta. I don't know about you, but if it were me, I'm pretty certain 25 years would be long enough for me to get over it, and get to saving my planet, my people and most importantly, my family again, and if I still felt sore about it, then maybe I would then take revenge on Spock himsels as opposed to his entire planet which had nothing to do with my planet's (which by that time I will have hopefully already saved) destruction. But that's just me.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:44 a.m. CST

    The future

    by Rob Hill

    I honestly can't wait to see what lies in store for this new universe. Without Vulcan as a moderating force, what happens to the UFP? It's whole character could shift. Would the Federation reach out and try to make a lasting peace with the Romulans now that they know what (might) happen if they get angry? It's a whole new dynamic now. How many advances in Federation tech came directly from working with the Vulcans? Hooray! Fresh perspectives make for great storytelling.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:45 a.m. CST

    boborci - do you ever check out the imdb boards?

    by CARTMANEZ

    i had to delete my account as i was getting nothing done in real life. that place is even more addictive than AIC or TM.com i cant re-register as they now have something whereby you have to register with your amazon account - no thanks its abit cold turkey at the moment though

  • June 11, 2011, 6:47 a.m. CST

    Asimov please bro dont do this

    by CT1

    Look there's no need for this, its ok man just chill I mean fuck he already said he hated The Dark Knight, and you throw Batman and Nolan in his face as an example in some post disguised as a logical discussion to insult him? Not cool, it doesn't have to be this way.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:47 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I can see why you wanted boborci to change his story. You sure keep changing YOURS.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:47 a.m. CST

    Kai

    by Rob Hill

    Er...you know that Nero was captured by the Klingons and spent much of that time brooding in Rura Penthe, right? Have you seen the deleted scenes or read the book? Klingon jail would make me crazier than a shithouse rat. I would probably lose all traces of rational thought and focus on revenge, Monte Cristo-style. Makes sense to me.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:47 a.m. CST

    khai - spock had the red matter.

    by Boborci

  • That's bullshit! And you know it. And even I know it. And do you know how I know it? Because YOU said so. YOU already established the notion that Nero does not consider the Romulus in this alternate reality to be the same as the one he left behind (hence the reason he doesn't try to save it directly), so what affinity does he have to "saving it by eliminating what he thinks will be its greatest threat" in a future that he no longer has any access to and which may have nothing at all to do with the future of this particular Alternate reality? And again, why not just save it directly first - i.e. by warning them of the impending SuperNova and initating an evacuation of some sort (25 years is plenty of time enough to evacuate an entire planet) rather than using the considerable resources of his (relatively) advanced ship to trying to destroy this other thing he perceives to be a threat (the Federation) and which, by your own logic, he still would have no certitude would also be a threat to his Romulus, sorry, this Romulus (which he has no affinity to, remember)in the future? You're just tying yourself in knots with your ridiculous retconning and remixing of the story in a way that makes even worse sense than what was already there before that didn't even make sense in the first place.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:50 a.m. CST

    Quote me then

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 6:51 a.m. CST

    TM.com?? what site is that?

    by KilliK

    the url sends me to an advertisement company.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:53 a.m. CST

    ct1

    by AsimovLives

    Using logic will always end up insulting Orci because he's so beref of it. His ABRAMS TREK movie proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt the guy hasn't the slightest idea of what logic is. He sure used the word a lot, but he lacks any understanding of the concept.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:54 a.m. CST

    But u better hurry. Fading fast

    by Boborci

    Incidently, since you only just tonight realized that the movie, 2 years after the fact, takes place in an alternate reality, dont u figure it might be wise to shut the fuck up for two minutes and think before you attack again?

  • And as boborci just pointed out YET AGAIN and I've been pointing out for TWO FRACKING YEARS (tm ronald d moore): Abrams TREK movie takes place in a PARALLEL UNIVERSE. Why would Nero go to Romulus?

  • June 11, 2011, 6:57 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra wasnt Nero's intention to destroy

    by KilliK

    the alternate Vulcan planet because he knew that Spock-Prime cared for his alternate home-planet as well and its destruction would have hurt him in the same way? He knew that Spock-Prime was trapped in the ice planet and could witness the destruction from there,so he destroyed the alternate Vulcan in order to hurt him and get his revenge. That is Bob Orci's point.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Not quoting me, are you?

    by Boborci

  • re-post: This is what YOU said at Jun 11, 2011 2:50:44 AM CDT (titled kai_mah'gra) of this very talkback; YOUR comment:- ....'And as boborci just pointed out YET AGAIN and I've been pointing out for TWO FRACKING YEARS (tm ronald d moore): Abrams TREK movie takes place in a PARALLEL UNIVERSE. Why would Nero go to Romulus?'.... Those are YOUR words. YOU!!!! Just scroll up and see for yourself. Do you see "Parallel Universe" in that quote and comment of YOURS? (hint : it's capitalized hint, again : YOU are the moron who capitalized it) Now remind me again, who is the moron, and who has a problem with attention span and not being able to remember what they themselves wrote? Idjiot!

  • June 11, 2011, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Deploy the unnecessarily slow drilling mechanism!

    by photoboy

    You missed the part where Nero spends an hour drilling to the centre of Vulcan, leaving his ship totally vulnerable to attack when all he needed to do was lob some red matter out the airlock and warp away. I guess at some point the script called for a large enough gravitational force to cause the red matter to implode into a black hole and that's what the drilling was for, which would have made good sense. Unfortunately the rest of the film contradicts this so we're left with a really blatant and stupid plot hole. The depiction of black holes as large holes in space is also inaccurate. If you need to make them visible to the naked eye (not possible) it should look like a very small black sphere, it's a singularity, not a hole. And I question the sanity of Starfleet for making Kirk a captain before he even finished the academy when he and every other idiot on the Enterprise bridge stood there gawking at the screen as Nero's ship was sucked into a massive black hole and the Enterprise was nearly sucked in after it. And let's not even get into the bullshit of ejecting the anti-matter and detonating it to escape the black hole. Normally I'm very forgiving of plot holes and bad science, but I've come to expect better from Trek over the years. The old Trek might have become formulaic (I think the new Trek is just as formulaic), but at least old Trek got its science right most of the time, or at least tried to be realistic. e.g. in All Good Things, they use a Tomographic Imaging Scanner to scan a time anomaly, which is actually a type of high definition scanning. Abrams Trek had a few good things going for it (I'm still not sold on the score) but it was far too vapid and brainless to be a proper Star Trek.

  • June 11, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    Nero says, in the movie, thste will destroy the federation

    by Boborci

    Because onky the can Romulus be "truly saved." TRUE OR FALSE

  • June 11, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    Nero says, in the movie, thste will destroy the federation

    by Boborci

    Because onky the can Romulus be "truly saved." TRUE OR FALSE

  • June 11, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    Nero says, in the movie, thste will destroy the federation

    by Boborci

    Because onky the can Romulus be "truly saved." TRUE OR FALSE

  • June 11, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    ...and on and on and on...

    by Rob Hill

    I've said my piece. Thank you, all who participated. Hopefully some good information got thrown around, and maybe some will actually stick. Have a good day, all. I'll come back to talk some other time.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:01 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Why do you keep insisting that the Romulus in this alternate universe is going to be hit by the exact same supernova that destroyed Romulus in the prime universe? What scientific theory the rest of us aren't as enlightened about as you are makes that inevitable? Remember it's an alternate universe. Not a parallel universe. Not a mirror universe. That supernova could hit five years early or 130 years later. Or... NOT. AT. ALL.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST

    kai u r quoting cymbalta... Sigh...

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 7:05 a.m. CST

    And if Nero said it, it's worth repeating 3 times

    by AsimovLives

  • June 11, 2011, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Hey Moron! Again I'm talking to you cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    And then to add insult to injury, you repeated it (parallel Universe) yet again in your second post responding to me right before denying you ever said "Parallel Universe" and instead said "alternate reality". You really are an idiot with the attention span of a pregnant Yak, aren't you? No wonder the movie was made for people like you with room temperature IQ.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:08 a.m. CST

    PARALLEL, MIRROR or ALTERNATE?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Feel free to pull scientific psycho... I mean techno...babble explanations for the important differences between each of those three universe concepts out of the black hole full of hemorrhoidal red matter known as your ASS!

  • I just proved that he is.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Dont know why it posted 3 times

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Ct1. I hope so!

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 7:12 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Okay fine, if we buy into the notion that you're now selling that the Romulus in the Alternate Universe had nothing to do with the one he left behind, can we also agree that the Vulcan he also sought to destroy also had nothing to do with producing the Spock who he thinks was partly responsible for the destruction of his planet? Or is that too difficult for your tiny little brain to comprehend? Furthermore, can we also agree that since he doesn't know that a Super nova will destroy Romulus in this reality, then he also can't be certain that the Federation will be a threat to Romulus in the future of this reality too, and that he also has no reason to want to destroy them, or Earth? Again, too much for your tiny wittle bwain? Or should I draw pictures? And don't give me the silly "irrational villain" nonsense neither. That shit don't fly. Not when Nero had a good 25 years at least to work all this out and/or to get over his irrational anger of a planet and federation that had nothing to do with the destruction of his own.

  • Scientific theory proper. If a star has the exact conditions to became a supernova, it will became a supernova, because the physics of it will make it inevitable. Basically, a star goes supernova because of how it is. It's a natural consequence of how it is. So, unless the paralel universe in ABRAMS TREK has different physic laws tehn the one from the original Star Trek universe, the even that will destroy will happen again. The only way it will not happen is if Nero actually do something about it doe to both his knowledge of that's to come and the use of the very solution that he has on his very ship. If anything, Nero wouldn't put Spock on some ice palent and then blow up Vulcan as a take that. He would enslave Spock and force him to save Romulus in advance. Which was Spock's porpose all along. The drama would came form the fact that, since this is the past, the romulan would be suspicious of Nero's intentions (they are a very secretive and paranoid people), and would think that Nero was some Federation agent intended on BLOWING their star on porpose to eradicate them. By this logical consequenc eof the scenario presented by Abrams Trek, the real story would be the Enterprise crew trying to save both Spock and Nero from the romulans while learning of what's to ahppen and prevent both the inevitablity of the supernova with the stuff that future Spock brough, the capacity of the Narada thansk to it's future technology, and the also repair the dammange done by the splitting of the univers,e which they might could becaus ethey had with them the very stuff that created it in the first place. Intheprocess, they could had turned Nero from a stupid shallow ass khan clone villaininto a tragic character, sudffering from a Casandra complex, meaning, one who knows what will happen in the future but like the proverbial mythological Cassandra, nobody believing him, specially those who should, his fellow romulans. You know what's so tragic about ABRAMS TREK? It had the potential to actuallybe made into so many different type of good exciting stories. The one i put above i came up with in just 5 minuts and it's a better logical consequence to the very premise of ABRAMS TREK then what the movie came up with. With ABRAMS TREK, the very people who made it didn't udnerstand the potentials of their very own story. That's so pathetic! So pathetic! Instead, they made the dumbest story they could form it, and one which even sits ill with their very own premise they created. The fucking movie is beyond belief! They just didn't care, they just didn't give a fuck! It's not a question of it being Star Trek or not, it's just basic storytelling.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:19 a.m. CST

    I DID say PARALLEL. Sorry. Mea Culpa.

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I meant ALTERNATE. PARALLEL might imply that the exact same fucking things that have already happened in the PRIME Universe are going to happen in this ALTERNATE one the exact same way. Which would be almost as boring and pointless as a pedantic kai_mah'gra lecture on the "hard science foundations" and "lack of plot holes" in a show that has a transporter split Kirk into two twins that have seperate personalities and conveniently forgets that THE SHIP HAS FUCKING SHUTTLES THAT COULD GO RESCUE THOSE FREEZING CREWMAN instead of letting Scotty tinker with the transporter for hours on end.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Asimov you confuse story with plot.

    by KilliK

    2001 had a plot and nothing else: Aliens caused the evolution of the human race.An AI suddenly becomes insane and kills two people.The remaining astronaut enters a wormhole.and that it's. Actually i think that it is enduring classic because of it's open for debate ending and the group thinking effect.I have never met someone whose first comment about the movie is the orbiting scene and how thrilled they get when they watch. Well they do mention it,but mostly as an example of how grounded to reality 2001's science was. And you should take into consideration that one of Kubrick's main criticisms is the fact that his movies usually tend to be too much intellectual and less emotional.and i think 2001 is the prime example of that. Now if you prefer films with the minimum amount of emotion invested on them,then by all means be my guest but dont try to persuade me that if i find them boring is because i dont "get them" or misunderstood them or i am just unable to distinguish their hidden appeal. sorry but it doesnt work like this.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:21 a.m. CST

    boborci

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    So why the hell does NEro care about saving the Romulus in this Alternate Reality (via destroying the Federation in this reality vis-avis your quote from the movie) if he knows it's not the same as the Romulus that he left behind and was destroyed? And if he doesn't know it is different and that a potentially different fate awaits it, then why the hell doesn't he save it directly from this impending disaster which he (mistakenly?) believes will also happen to it in the future as happened to the one he left behind? So far you've assumed both positions and both sides of the coin. You previously assumed that he knew it was an alternate reality Romulus that had nothing to do with the one that was destroyed (hence the reason he saw no need to save it from a disaster which might never happen in this reality) and you've now also assumed that he doesn't know it's an alternate reality Romulus and thus still cares about whether or not the Federation in this reality is a threat to it. Like I said before, you can't have it both ways. Read these questions I asked very carefully and then read them again. And when you're done, read them one more time. And then think very carefully before answering because, so far all you done is dig yourself deeper into your hole of bullshit and logical nonsense with your contradictions and half-baked explanations.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:22 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra you keep missing Orci's point

    by KilliK

    Nero's intention was to destroy the alternate Vulcan planet because he knew that Spock-Prime cared for his alternate home-planet as well and its destruction would have hurt him in the same way. He knew that Spock-Prime was trapped in the ice planet and could witness the destruction from there,so he destroyed the alternate Vulcan in order to hurt him and get his revenge. That is Bob Orci's point. Cant you fucking get it?

  • June 11, 2011, 7:28 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    So in other words, you admit that you're an idiot with short or rather non-existent attention span who can't even remember what the hell you said before calling other people Morons for correctly remembering what YOU said and calling YOU out on it. Thanks for that. Next time try not tripping over your 2 sole brains cells and letting your blatant stupidity show so obviously. It's bad enough that you can't even make a cogent coherent logical argument without devolving into the revisionist bullshit of your own comments.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:30 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I got so bored with your pedantry that I clicked over to yahoo and typed in "alternate universe theory" which led me to the wikipedia entry for "multiverse" which states that "parallel universe" "alternate universe" and "alternate reality" are all interchangeable terms for THE SAME FUCKING THING.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:37 a.m. CST

    killik

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    That's not his point. And I don't know why you're insisting on pushing it. Are you that desperate for attention from me? Okay I'll bite. Among boborci's numerous revolving points is the supposition that Nero knows that this Vulcan (as with this Romulus) is not the same as the one he left behind when he time-travelled on account of the "Alternate reality/universe spiel that boborci and his disciples are trying to push now. Which is all well and good except for the fact that if he himself has no affinity to the Romulus of this timeline/alternate reality as not to be motivated to want to save it, then what makes him think that Spock would likewise have any affinity to this particular Vulcan if he also likewise knows that anything Nero does to it will not affect the Vulcan he also left behind in the future when he time-travelled to the past as well? Are you seeing where the contradiction is? Or are you like, boborci stuck in cerebral first gear and incapable of comprehending the logical plot-holes more than 2 or 3 levels deep? It gets even worse when you take boborci's other position that assumes taht Nero does not know that this is not the same Vulcan/Romulus or rather that they are Alternate reality versions of them. Because then the question arises as to why he doesn't attempt to save this Romulus and planet that he thinks is his home and the same as the one he left behind destroyed, first, before going to seek his revenge against Spock. Particularly when you consider the fact that he has over 25 years to do so and to do both comfortably. Either way it doesn't work.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Well Asi, Im afraid I am going to have to dissapoint

    by southafricanguy

    you because 2001 bores the ever loving shit out of me. I, like you, prefer an adherence to reality in sci-fi, or at least consistant internal logic. But 2001 just feels too much like I am watching actual space travel. I dont know, maybe its a little of a generational thing. I was born in 1980, so I never saw 2001 until I was in high school with a group of friends. We seriously reached a point where we just could nt take it anymore. Since then I have rewatched it several times, and I recognize it as a significant acheivement, and for the skill that went into making it, but I will never be able to enjoy such a dry, slow moving film, its just not me (andf I hate M bay films, including fast cuts, overuse of close ups, etc...) but 2001 just pushes it too far. Funnily I 1000 times prefer other Kubrick films to 2001. But then I alwyas had an odd reaction to Kubricks films. I cant just accept them as masterpieces becuse everyone and their uncle at some poinbt seemed to agree they were. I love Eyes wide shut (i admit, the orgy scene is awsome, but thats not why I like it...no really....) the shining, full metal jacket, Barry Lyndon, Spartacus...but alternatively I did not enjoy Dr sTANGELOVE, clockwork orange or 2001. All just way too cold, slow moving, and rather pretensious imho....

  • June 11, 2011, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Anyway....if that is indeed you Boborci......I just

    by southafricanguy

    want to say that you and your partner reallt\y do write some of the dumbset scripts of the past few years.....

  • June 11, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I've been up all night and I made a mistake. Which I've since admitted. Which makes me a better and wiser man than you. Are you EVER going to respond to the multiple posts I've made pointing out numerous examples of OTHER versions of Star Trek having plot holes, Macguffins, and "ridiculous inventions"? Or are you just going to keep fucking that chicken?

  • June 11, 2011, 7:41 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    So why the hell why you denying saying it? Or does this new nugget of information you suddenly dug up somehow change the fact that you tried to run away from your own words? Likewise why the hell did your hero boborci try to deny it? OR is he also not aware of that same nugget of information? Are you two only now just discovering the wonderful art of finding information from the internet to ensure that you actually know what you're talking about before you actually say it? Get with the program.

  • Seriously must this guy be thrown around as the best director all the damn time? Nolan this and Nolan that. I'll give credit where it's do but come the fuck on. He's made enjoyable films to me but they werent the best to me. I liked Inception the first two times when it was Dark City and then The Matrix.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:45 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    No, actually, i see that the opposite is true. I see a lot of people mistake plot with story. 2001 has little plot to it. Intentionally so. But it has a lot of story. In many today's movies, like ABRAMS TREK, they have a lot of plotting but very little story to speak of. It seems the talent to tell a story with an economic plot has been lost by most people making movies in Holywood this days.

  • Now you're coming across as petty. This ha gone on for to long. Not trying to disrespect you cause he have a right to voice your opinion on shitty flicks that Hollywood churns out. Now whats shitty to you is gonna always be good to some one else and vice versa.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:47 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil: You made 'A' mistake????????????

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Giving yourself a little bit more credit there than you deserve, don't you think? You didn't even know what the relationship/connection between Parallel Universes, Alternate realities and Alternate Universes was until a few minutes ago, (Despite even denying that you said one of them) and suddenly you somehow think you only made ONE mistake in the rest of the pile of garbage you typed up there???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • June 11, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Oh and you admitting your mistake (coming as it did so late before you realized it, and in fact actually repeating said mistake right before denying you ever said it) doesn't make you a better nor wiser man than me. It just makes you slow, pathetic, lamentably oblivious (to your own bullshit, no less) and laughable. Next time, you'll probably be better served by going to Yahoo or Wikipedia FIRST before jumping onto a talkback or wherever to dish out your ignorance and bullshit.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'gra

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You and asimovlives seemed to be implying that a "Parallel Universe" is a different scientific concept that operates under different rules than an "Alternate Universe" or to use boborci's term "Alternate Reality". I normally prefer the term ALTERNATE because the word itself implies DIFFERENCES. The "alternate version" of a Bob Dylan song for example, might have different words, different instruments, it might even be in 3/4 time instead of 4/4. I therefore thought I hadn't used the word PARALLEL because I usually DON'T. Now that I've admitted that I did, and also pointed out that "alternate" and "parallel" seem to be interchangeable terms for the same concept, I've realized that you're even more of a pedant than I thought you were.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:05 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    I do think that there is a different between an alternative universe and a paralel universe. an alternative universe is where things are mostly alike the original universe save some dtails due to the copnsequences of branching. Like, say Kirk now being an orphan because dad was killed when he wouldn't had due to actions of Nero. A paralel universe is one that exists outside our own, and which doesn't need ours to exist. Bascially, it's a neighbour wioth his own house rules. The laws of physics in a paralel universe doesn't necessary neds to be our own universe. Adn that's ONE concept of a paralle universe. another intringuing concept of what is a paralel univese is one propose by astrophysicist Michio Kaku, as in, stuff that exists beyond the universal horizont. As the universe spands faster the futher it is form us, there's a sphere so to speak where things are expanding so fast it surpasses the speed of light. That is not to say that things are traveling faster then light, it's the universe proper that's expanding faster then the speed of light. but that means relative to us. Locally, that point in the universe things are as strady, so to speak, as to us here, and it's us who are futhering away faster then light. As suxch, all the stuff that exists outside this horizont can count as a paralel universe because in effect it's impossible to see, much less even reach it. The universe as we know it is congulmerated into a giant structure made of hyper-galaxies. Ouside of that structure there's this huge unimaginable void. UIt means there are other giant structures which are in fact their own universes. So, bascially, a universe is congulmeration of stuff united in a common stucture caused mostly by gravity. THe thing that happesn in ABRAMS TREK is that Orci and friends never figured out, and they never actually ever answered, what kind of universe Spock Prime and Nero find themselves in. If it is a alternative univers,e then that's a universe that was created by the very spliting of the timelines. If it's a paralel universe, then why are things so much the same, while not at the same time? In fact, if that is an alternative univers,e why the blantant differences from the original ST univese? The problem with the other universe that Orci and friends come up with is that it doesn't work as an alternative universe because it's too different, nor as a paralel universe because it's too similiar. All this problem couldhad been easily resolved if Orci and the rest of the sdudes who made Abrams Trek had had the nerve to admit that the Star Trek presented in ABRAMS TREK has nothing to do with the Star Trek that had been done so far. that it's A TOTAL COMPLETE REBOOT of all things Star Trek. Which i suspect was the inicial intentional. Cast away the old star trek, go back to formula. And somewhere along the line, they got cold feet. And they come up, at the last minute, this alternative/paralel universe excuse so not to alienate the already established ST fans, which would serve as the basis for this movie's audience. Frankly, i would had been a bit more fogiving of ABRAMS TREK if they had actually had the strengh of their conviction and actually done a full on reboot of Star Trek, and let the chips fall as they may. The movie would still be stupid and bad, but at least it had the balls to try to be it's own thing, which i can respect. As such, ABRAMS TREK doesn't even have that. It's this marasm that's neither fish nor meat. It's this salamander of non-assuming idioticy with an excuse of paralel/alternative universes as an easy to use bandage to excuse the plot holes and logical inconsistencies within.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:07 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    I never understood the compçaisn about Kubrick's movies lacking emotion. What, just because they are smart? Nonsense! I find lots of emotions in all of Kubrick's movies. They might not be melodrametic as favoured by most, but that's not Kubrick's problem. There's far mroe dry unemotional filmmakers out there deserving of that epythat, Michaelangelo Antonioni being one of them.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:10 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Where did I imply that they are different scientific concepts? Why don't you actually go back up and read my posts again and this time try to take note of how I use hash-marks (like so: Alternate reality/parallel Universe/Alternate timeline) and come back and tell me how that implies different meaning? Why don't you actually try paying attention when you write (or read) posts, - even your own - before exposing yourself to looking like a complete idiot like you so successfully have done multiple times in this thread already? And then you launch into this weird little ramble trying to explain why you possibly couldn't have meant to say "Parallel" (even though you did) and Bob Dylan and some other nonsense. Like geeeez........get a grip, buddy. Furthermore, boborci was the first person to protest the use of "Parallel Universe" as a concept explaining the story (as opposed to "Alternate reality"); followed briskly by you denying that you ever said it (even though we all know you're the one that actually introduced it into this discussion) right before you miraculously discovered through the magic of the internet search engine, that for scientific purposes they are interchangeable. Now you're accusing me of being a pedant in a post where you still can't get your facts straight (vis-a-vis me implying that they are different concepts - which I never did, obviously). You're just a barrel worth of laughs, aren't you? Word of advice : Pay attention. To what you read, and to what you write. You sped past the point of embarrassing yourself now.

  • And? That's it? That's a motivation to have his ass parked inthe same spot in space FOR FUCKING 25 YEARS? In what way does this even make any sense, even for the mind of a madman? In a story, even the madman need a logic to their actiosn, even if they are skewed. Nero sitting in the same spot for 25 years so he could have a take that on Spock seems pretty stupid plotting to me, if you ask me. Waiting for 25 years so he could have a few seconds of satisfaction, and not even being around to gloat to Spock's face? What kind of lame ass revenger is this Nero clown? For a guy obsessed with revenge, the dude doesn't even know what he wants. When soembody is that obsessive with a goal, like revenge, he has a narrow focus. So Nero was able to wait 25 years for Spock to show up, and then whenhe had his goal fullfuilled, he just departs and leaves Spock alone? He had other pressing matters? How can a man whose single-minded obsession lasted 25 years could then find pressing matters imediatly after he gets the guy he had been waiting for so long? Where the narrative and character logic of that? No, that he's a madman doesn't excuse it. This is not a social-realistic docu-drama about a mad guy who baffles his shrinks, this is STAR TREK, a fictional story. One which needs internal consistency within itself and the very characters that inhabited it. Orci has no answers to give because he hasn't though of them. Because he didn't even contemplated the conseqwuences of his own story's ramifications. He just wrote a collection of stuff blowing up, people freneticaly running and lame comedy for the sake of a easy profit for the studios who hired him. All his insufficient explanations are just reconning stuff he pulled out (and again not very well though out) made after the fact. Maybe his retconning stuff is enough for the people who were satisfied with the movie and can't care less about the movie's faults and problems for whatever personal reasons, but for anybody with soemthing of a critical mind, it's jarring. It reeks of con.

  • That's not the problem. The problem is the stupid reason why it's so.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:22 a.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    But you're insisting that boborci or JJ Abrams' concept of a "parallel" or "alternative" universe MATCHES your own concept. I call it an "alternate universe" because it's so obviously different fromthe Prime Universe we're familiar with. And it was ALREADY different before Nero and Spock got there. The movie shows this and tells this. It wasn't "parallel" until they showed up and then suddenly changed drastically. It didn't become an "alternate" because of their presence. It was already going to be different in some ways. The Ships looked different. The uniforms were different. Product and Brand names still existed etc. But they created other differences by being there. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? It seems to be for so many people. This movie's script is actually pretty complex from a sci-fi and Star Trek standpoint. It's like instead of doing one "episode" in an "alternate universe" and going back to the prime one they said OK the movies are in this alternate universe from now on. There's nothing "safe" or "formulaic" about that decision.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:28 a.m. CST

    Timely Analysis

    by Jim Halpert

    Didn't this movie come out two years ago? (Although I suppose, in the grand scheme of time and space where supernovae occur but once a century, it arrives in but the blink of a millennial eye.)

  • June 11, 2011, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Love these, how about one for that Bay asteroid movie?

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    Or Transformers?

  • June 11, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    kai_mah'grah

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I have stayed up all night in this stupid talkback when I should have been sleeping because I enjoy bantering with asimovlives and boborci and they both joined in right when I was about to log off! I now have to get in the shower and go to work. You, on the other hand, go back and dig up a semantic error I made FIVE FUCKING HOURS AGO but have yet to respond in any substantial way to ANY of the posts I made with YOUR name on them. Is the Guardian of Forever a MacGuffin or not? What is the hard science basis for Spock having a "katra"? Is a Starfleet science vessel not knowing the difference between Ceti Alpha V and VI or that one of them had exploded and shifted the orbit of the other any more plausible than anything that occurs in boborci's script? Explain why the Genesis Planet project is less of a "ludicrous invention" than Red Matter. RESPOND to those instead of IGNORING them. And I will leave it to the_choppah and cobra-kai and any other AICN Talkbacker who reads this talkback in the next 5 or 6 hours before I return: Is kai_mah'grah an insufferable pretentious douchebag and needledicked nitpicker? Or is cymbalta4thedevil a moron? CAST YOUR VOTES HERE!

  • June 11, 2011, 9:04 a.m. CST

    oh and kai_mah'grah

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    If you were on fire in front of me, screaming for help, I wouldn't piss on you to put you out. But I would sincerely hope before you burned to death that you had provided us all with an erudite hard science based sociological treatise on how a planet would base their entire developing society on a book about Gangsters that a Starfleet member mistakenly left behind.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    i love this talkback

    by animas

    should be a weekly column on aicn about each different aspect of how 2009 Trek is the epitome of bad writing. I actually think the bad science is the least of the awful writing, but every detail of the script should be fully analyzed and displayed as HOW TO NOT WRITE A MOVIE.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:15 a.m. CST

    boborci is missing point re: Spock restoring timeline

    by robogeek.com

    Bob, I love ya, but you're missing the point. ;-) Whether or not Spock's time travel actually led him to a _parallel_ timeline/universe (which is never stated in the film, sorry) or spawned/created an _alternate_ timeline/universe that replaced the original ("Prime") timeline (which is much more strongly implied by the film, and totally reinforced by established Trek canon) is almost beside the point -- the destruction of Vulcan and near extermination of the Vulcan race is ultimately precipitated by the actions of Spock (Prime). It is unthinkable (ahem) that Spock would not take responsibility for this and set things right, esp. given that he has the power/ability/knowledge to do so, and there is clear, established precedent that he _must_ do so (going back to The City on the Edge of Forever, if you mess up the timeline, you must fix it, that's the rule). Still a great movie, but what'd be really great would be if you tackled this moral dilemma head-on in the sequel (a la "Yesterday's Enterprise"). Search your feelings, Luke - you know it to be true! ;-)

  • June 11, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    Actually you didn't make the error "FIVE FUCKING HOURS AGO". You made it 2 HOURS AGO. Your post denying that you ever said "Parallel Universes" (which, as we all know, is a claim that was somewhere between an outright lie and intellectual malfeasance or stupidity) was posted at Jun 11, 2011 6:29:01 AM CDT (which is a little over 2 hours before you posted your most recent post at Jun 11, 2011 8:42:08 AM CDT). Math is a problem for you too, huh? (But then again, the original post that that referred to where you actually did say "Parallel Universe", which may in fact have been "FUCKING HOURS AGO", was in actual fact, not an error - at least insofar as the use of "Parallel Universe" is concerned - which, as you've recently established, is interchangeable with Alternate Universe and Alternate Reality. This is, of course to say nothing of the logic and argument of said post which was still flawed through and through) Yes, yes, I know. I'm being a pedant and needlessly nitpicking and all that. But this goes right to the heart of the matter of what I said regarding your seemingly congenital inability to pay attention even to your own posts and your own words and that now infamous non-existent attention span of yours. I haven't responded to those other posts of yours because you're asking ridiculous questions to try and establish JJ's Trek as being less ludicrous than it actaully is, by painting it in the same vein as the other Star Trek movies/TV episodes. Nobody said that any of the previous movies didn't have McGuffins or considerable stretches of credulity insofar as the science in them is concerned. The difference is that when they employed McGuffins in those movies, they at least tried to ensure that they were coherent within the story structure such that they didn't have to perform logical acrobatics to make the story still work like they tried in JJ's Trek and not even then. Yes, the Genesis planet was s ludicrous concept, and you may not remember at the time, but the writers of that particular movie got bashed in the Trekkie community for coming up with such an idea. As they also did, for coming up with the Gaurdian of Forever, a trip to the center of the Galaxy and some of the many other inexplicable McGuffins and plot devices they've come up with over the years. Nobody gave them a pass. The problem and large difference with this latest Trek is that it's filled to the brim with these nonsensical McGuffins, logical inconsistencies, plot contrivances and massive logic plot holes. As for your vote: Isn't it obvious? cymbalta4thedevil is a moron. We already established this over "FIVE FUCKING HOURS AGO" and everything you've posted after that has merely been confirmation after the fact.. I can'tbelieve you even thought it necessary to ask.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    I never saw bobby Orci ever explainwith that detail that the Abrams Trek universe is a mirror universe. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Abrams Trek universe is a miror like universe. Thjen why did they crossed with through a wormhole/blackhole/plot-device thing? It was established in TOS, namely the episode MIRROR, MIRRO, that the crossing to mirror universes was done from a very freaky and unusual malfunction of the teleporter. So why it it happening through wormhole in Abrams Trek? Made worst that there is a ST series which has a wormwhole called DEEP SPACE 9 and they don't go time traveling much in it, with the exception of that hommage episode with the tribbles, which is hardly cannon but just the produces of the show having fun. And your expalnation is basically tryingto have the cake and eat it too. It's an arrangement of conviniences. It's convinient that at one time it's a paralel unives ethen it's convinient hat it's a alternative universe. No, you can't do that, freind. Either stick to one or the other for the sake of coeherence and narrative clarity. The very act you have to come up with both explanations is proof enough of what an later in the day ass-pull the whole paralel univese thing was in the movie. The movies doesn't explain a single thing about the alternatrive/paralel/different universe the movie is set in. I saw the movie twice and all there is is just spock saying "paralel universe" in a single line, all the characters look as if they are pretrsding something important wa said, and then they just go rush to the next action stuff. To say the subject is skimmed is an understatment. But the most important thing is, you are gettign your info from OUTSIDE the movie, in this case, from Orci's own lame explanations after the fact. It's canon by retconning. It's absurd!

  • June 11, 2011, 9:37 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    science behind a katra? Easy: the same science behind copy and pasting information from different hard-drives. Our brains are chemical-electrical operate organs. Our personality and all we are and know are the rsult of chemical connections in our brains operated by electrical impulses. So the katra is basically copying and pasting all there is on one brain to another. That's the basic explanation. Nothing too beffudling to get an explanation about, is it? Teleporting and warp drive are far more complext subjects, in fact.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:38 a.m. CST

    and cymbalta4thedevil, one question:

    by AsimovLives

    Why are you demanding from other talkbackers what you do not demand from Orci and his movie?

  • June 11, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    animas

    by AsimovLives

    "but every detail of the script should be fully analyzed and displayed as HOW TO NOT WRITE A MOVIE" Isn't that the truth!

  • June 11, 2011, 9:46 a.m. CST

    kai'--quantum entanglement's about information, not matter

    by leonardo_dicraprio

    sorry--had other things to do on a friday night. (okay, it was sleeping) look up your experiments on quantum entanglement. no particle is transported, but information 'moves' faster than the speed of light (one particle 'knows' that there's a change in the state of another particle instantaneously). I think transporters in Star Trek are fine and cool, but they shouldn't use quantum entanglement to justify them. Should be a transportation of information, not matter (recreate yourself (and your clothes) from the protons and electrons hanging around. might suck all the air out of wherever you're going, but that'd be cool).

  • June 11, 2011, 9:49 a.m. CST

    also there is a bit of irony in copernicus' article

    by animas

    in that his show Known Universe seems like it is written by the likes of Bob Orci. Not in terms of bad science, but an approach of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator, insulting the audience with childish scenarios and explosions for no reason other than a lame attempt at bait. Makes me wonder if Orci's approach is intentional from a scheming marketing sense, or maybe he does feel some guilt for inflicting such garbage into the Star TRek universe.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    But Moby Dick is about a revange gone mad, while Abrams Trek has this stupid revenge thingy that is not even internally consistent to the story it tells. But you are right, as a plot device, the tale of revenge is pretty old. There's nothing deity about the monolith as there is nothing uspernatural about a car, evne if a more primitive people would think it to be so because they can't compreend how it works. that's the monolith to us, an incredibly advanced device that we can't compreend how it works because it's so damn advanced. Ther's nothing sueprnatural in 2001. But there's lots of awe inspiring things going on. Just because something in causes awe doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. Tehre's other movies that try to cause awe through th depiction of the supernatural. 2001 is not one of them.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    animas, i hate dumbing down on science shows.

    by AsimovLives

    It completly goes agasint the very point of why to have a science show, doesn't it? The "making acessible to audiences" excuse is just bullshit. The type of people who like Michael Bay/JJ abrams explosathrons bullshit are not attracted to science. The people who are attracted to science are not interested in Michael Bay/JJ Abrams explosathrons bullshit. So why even trying to merge the two? Turning science into an excuse to hacve explosions and stupid CGI that makes a poor representation of the actual science that's being presented? What kind of idiots make this shit? Why can't there be made science shows like Cosmos anymore? I'm certain there is an audience for TRULY thoughful science TV shows which can present their pieces without that stupid over-blown super-rapid edited bulslhit style. Just fucking show the cience, don't try to out-race Michael Bay. How hard it is to understand?

  • June 11, 2011, 10:27 a.m. CST

    The Thing About Old Trek VS. New Trek

    by Real Deal

    The problem with ST in the good old days was there simply was too much of it. Two TV shows a week plus all of the reruns and an upcoming movie every two years is the real reason it ran into trouble. The technobable was simply a device to get around the fact that we will probably be able to do a lot of the things shown in a show about the 24th century it's just we don't know all of the specifics for now. I loved the old Trek but it simply painted itself into a corner with it's very tight cannon and the studio execs milking it to death. I also loved JJ's Trek as it was a breath of fresh air. Did it have problems? Oh yes! I shook my head when I saw the bit about a super nova threatening the galaxy. I also didn't like the fact that we had a big budget movie filming it's engine room in what was obviously a brewery. However I still loved the film because of what it was very sucessful in doing. That was it was entertaining and it got me involved in the characters. The science problems with the film could have been easily solved by calling the super nova something else. Just simply changing the plot devices ( and maybe a little technobable ) and everything would have been good. Things like the transporter we are a long time in figuring it out but there is some indication that we may be able to do something like it someday. As a matter of fact alot of the things depicted in Trek are inching ever closer to reality everyday. An example is Warp drive. Scientists for years were saying it was iompossible. They're not saying that anymore. As a matter of fact there's a Physicist Miguel Alcubierre that has written a paper on the subject right now! A good source for some of this material is available in a book titled " The Physics Of The Impossible " by Micho Kaku a professor of theorectical physics who just also happens to be a big Science Fiction fan. However what JJ did is something that has been missing in Trek for a while now. That was it was fun and entertaining. It had a newness to it that you weren't really sure what would happen to the characters because all of the pieces on the board had been reset. The very tight cannon that had bogged the old Trek down wasn't a problem here. The bottom line is they wouldn't have to do too much to fix the problems they had with the first film because one thing it wasn't was boring or slow which was the problem they had with STTMP. I look forward to the next film with great anticipation.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST

    The only thing that Bobby Orci regreats about Abrams Trek...

    by AsimovLives

    ... is that the movie didn't made the same box office numbers that Transformers 2 did. Or Ttrransformers 1, for that matter. That is the only thing that burns his soul at night and makes him scream mea culpa to his overlords. All the rest like proper storytellign he can't give a shit. As long it's not money it's not improtant. Why are Orci and his compadres taking so long to make Abrasm Trek 2? Becasue they are trying to come up with a formula to fool audiences into seeing the movie with the same numbers as Trasformers 2. Fuck a good proper story, all they care is just how best to con the people to watch their movie.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Re : mattman

    by Real Deal

    That was one other thing in that their villan was kind of weak. Khan used revenge but it worked very well. Even though back then it was also a well worn technique. I just hope the come up with a more solid antagonist next time. However that by itself didn't make it a bad film. I think Asimov doesn't understand that. He just has this personal vendetta against anything JJ Abrams does and what he doesn't get is that no one really cares.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST

    alternate/parallel

    by leonardo_dicraprio

    I'm not a fan of the movie, but I think the alternate/parallel thing is the only thing they could have done to liberate them from TOS & the other movies without alienating fanboys. I know I'm an apostate here, but establishing a narrative canon in any series like this is a shame. And here's where I get real heretical, but a star wars story line where vadar really did betray and murder luke's dad would be so much cooler than the empire/jedi denouement (to me). the story of them being buddies and the betrayal (a la monte cristo?) in the clone wars (which would not have involved robot and clone armies)--super cool. And in TOS, if you're going to go back to Kirk and Spock, and you're not a hack, you're only going to do it if you can have a free hand, where you're not shackled to everything that happened in the original series and movies. That said, I really thought the movie was chock full of tedious spectacle. Great for watching on a long-haul flight, though.

  • Guns with unlimited ammo. Hero's surviving what in real life would be crippling or fatal gunshot wounds. Cars making incredible jumps, landing with no damage and continuing a chase. People not recognizing a Super hero because he is wearing glasses. Chipmunks capable of human speech. The list is endless.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Keep 'em smart!

    by bma2192

    Even with the knowledge that "I" have...which as far as technical stuff like this goes, I believe should be "common knowledge", I had a hard time with the plot devices and supernova gibberish too. In fact, you were able to articulate every single thing that bothered me about this movie with the added bonus of having the actual educated information to back it up! I feel as though a weight has been lifted--thanks! --how can a team of adults with such a large budget to work with get these things so wrong--? Especially since all it would take to make certain scenes more plausible amounted to a simple edit here and an added line of dialog there-- anyways, I would not change a WORD of your analysis, but I DO hope that this somehow reaches the ears of JJ since they're in the middle of writing part 2 and they have you on board, if nothing else, as a barometer to bounce their ideas off of so that they dont have to be embarrassed about their lack of science chops. Trek was, in fact, a really fun and good movie--but these glitches could have been easily avoided.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST

    boborci is wrong about...

    by Detached

    saying Spock could just "sense" the death of Vulcans. He cites "The Immunity Syndrome" where Nimoy realizes that the 400 Vulcans on the Intrepid just died ('cause the giant amoeba ate them). He says that shows Spock could sense the death of Vulcans. Well... no. Spock in that episode had established a link with the Intrepid via the Enterprise sensors. He didn't just stare at the viewscreen and so "Oh, look. All those Vulcans are dead, Jim."

  • June 11, 2011, 11:06 a.m. CST

    arthur c. clarke on a "realistic" sf movie

    by Detached

    Clarke's three laws of prediction: 1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Sorry, but I'm always amused when scientists today (or just people interested in science) pronounce this or that development or invention "impossible." Since, you know, we already know just everything there is to know. Or not.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Re : detached

    by Real Deal

    I've watched " The Immunity Syndrome " many times over the years and I do believe what Spock was experiencing was telepathy not anything to do with the sensors which he just happened to be monitoring at the same time. I'll rewatch that part again right now just to be sure but I do believe what he was talking about when he felt the Vulcans die was telepathy. I think you may have just put the two together since he just stepped away from the viewer. But I think it was the well established vulcan telepathy.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:17 a.m. CST

    @ kai_mah'gra

    by Detached

    I've always thought the same thing... the writers & producers seemed to expect their audience to be mindless.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    wonderful article

    by ragingfluff

    copernicus, thank you for your insight. I'm not a huge Trek fan anyway so tend to watch these films allowing for a lot of nonsense. But I have a question re. Kubrick and Ridley Scott. Am I correct in stating that there is no sound in space? I think there isn't which is why the Star Wars battles are silly and not scientifically accurate, but leave that aside because it's a cartoon. In 2001, you don't hear a thing when you see the spaceships move. In Alien, in spite of the film's fantastic tagline, the first time you see the Nostromo you can hear a thrumming engine noise. Is that an error on Ridley Scott's part? Or some sort of artistic choice? Does that error bother you? Again, wonderful article. Can we have more like it please? How about one about the science of "Armageddon"? (which I thought had a lot of pseudo-science babble and also JJ Abrams had a hand in the script)

  • June 11, 2011, 11:30 a.m. CST

    that would be my advice to any science film-maker

    by animas

    challenge your audience to use their brain.... we like it.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Re : mattman

    by Real Deal

    I've always loved 2001 and glad they didn't have Orson Wells narrate the film as was the original plan ( it would have made it cheesy even though I liked Mr. Wells ). I've never seen the monolith as any other than a construct from an alien society which like the apes ( or the astronauts on the moon later ) touched it but it was so advanced they couldn't make heads or tails out of it. I've gt a Bluray copy of the film and everytime I watch it I appreciate the amount of detail Mr. Kubrick put into the film. So much so that it's special FXs still hold up after all these years. I also like The Shining and Barry Lyndon as well as Doctor Strangelove. All of his films really. The man was a master craftsman.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Re : animas

    by Real Deal

    Exactly! They really don't need to dumb it down so much. That would be something that 2001 didn't do and I respect the film a lot for that.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Trek won't be back till it's back on tv

    by SmokingRobot

    These movies....one every THREE AND A HALF YEARS? That's no way to do Trek.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK TAKES PLACE 200 YEARS IN THE FUTURE

    by BSB

    You can't apply current science to the physics of tomorrow. Duh.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Hilarious!!

    by IKilledSuperman

    Man, your contributions are the best this site has to offer! I was laughing so hard my keyboard broke...uhm...almost.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    OK, for the most part, but ...

    by The StarWolf

    The new transporter effect looked silly. Old ones worked far better for me. Enterprise weapons seemed like popguns compared to earlier designs. Hope they 'upgrade' to the familiar beam weapons by the next film. Shaky cam battle scenes making it almost impossible to follow what the heck was going on. Bad camera work. Inexcusable. Starfleet now knows there are people out there who can destroy planets. OK, none of these peaceful ships of exploration. They're cranking out nothing but the largest, most heavily armed battleships or dreadnoughts they can come up with. Oh yeah, bad edit, too, where the ships jump to warp and in the very next scene "Arrival at Vulcan in three minutes". Say what?

  • June 11, 2011, 12:37 p.m. CST

    actually, TOS was 300 years in the future...

    by Detached

  • June 11, 2011, 12:39 p.m. CST

    TRUE, BOB

    by BSB

    I'm on your side buddy!

  • June 11, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    re 2001...

    by Detached

    The film is incomprehensible to almost any average moviegoer. You need to read the book (and the book about the movie) to truly follow it. It's great if you know what's going on, not so much if you don't.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    What the Universe Allows

    by Coordinate_System

    Sorry, but I'm always amused when scientists today (or just people interested in science) pronounce this or that development or invention "impossible." Since, you know, we already know just everything there is to know. Or not.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Re : detached

    by Real Deal

    Well incomprehensible to some movie goers I suppose. Not really " Any average moviegoer ". Lots of people seem to get it in the reviews of the time. I was in high school in 1968 and myself and the friend I went with didn't seem to have a problem. It was just different in that it didn't do all the thinking work for you. As I've said before if they had gone with narration like the original plan it would have come off as clumsy.

  • That's a good observation, but there are some fundamental limits to what is allowed in the Universe. Warp Drive and Transporters may simply be beyond the range of what is possible.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    You can't apply current science to the physics of tomorrow. Duh.

    by Coordinate_System

    Science always builds on itself. Just like one needs arithmetic to learn fractions or analytic geometry to learn trigonometry, the science of today is built on the science of yesterday. The science of tomorrow will be built on the science today.

  • June 11, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Re : coordinate_system

    by Real Deal

    Yes I always find it funny when someone says something is impossible. Back in the early part of the 1900's most scientists were saying there was little use in taking physics in college and planning a career around it as we have already discovered most of what there was out there and were very close to finishing the unified field theory. The trouble was after that we kept discovring new things and even Einstein chased that to his death. I believe we are really close to finishing the Grand Unified Theory or theory of everything now for real but it won't be the end. Instead it will only raise more questions than it answers. It will however help with our basic understanding of how things work ( because there's lots of gaps there ).

  • June 11, 2011, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Noone Even Noticed my Last Battlefield Parody

    by Coordinate_System

    I noticed it: coordinate_system as SPOCK Thanks for the compliment!

  • June 11, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by Coordinate_System

    Upwards and onwards!

  • June 11, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    I don't have any personal vendetta against Abrams. If i saw him burning, i would piss on him to put out the fire and save his life. But he is a terrible filmmaker, a con artist who constantly fools audiences and geeks alike (as well the critics), and his movies are either weak or terrible in Abrams Trek case. That is not so hard to understand, is it, friend? But i agree with you on one thing: revenge as a villain motive is rather very well worn out. Andanytime a St antagonist seeks out revenge, he will automatically be compared to Khan,it's inevitable. Also because most certainly he will be a cheap copy of Khan to begin with. It didn't worked for STAR TREK NEMESIS, certainy doesn't as well for Abrams Trek.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Where is my new Trek tv show?

    by UltraTron

    What? Can't think of anything for a spaceship capable of exploring the entire universe to do?

  • They could indeed. There was a lot of potential in that rpemise. And still they fucked up. They could had come up with dozens of different scenarions, all that could had made for a good movie. And they handpicked the worst way to develop their own premise. How more dumb and incompetent they can be? I can't evne imagine what they will being to the sequel. Wait, i know: even more exploding planets!

  • June 11, 2011, 1:42 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    Dude, if you think that the monolith is a deity, that's you projecting that unto it. The mvoie doesn't explain how it operates, yes. But it alos makes no mystery of it's origins, which is extra-terrestrial. The monolith IS an extra-terrstrial object, not the manifestation of a deity. That's beyond obvious. The movie is a Sf movie about the influence of advanced aliens on humanity, it's not a Jesus Christ tale. It's ETs, not angels and saints. Don't go with the god of gaps on 2001, mate. Leave that shit to the creationists.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    And Barry Lyndon is spectacular.

    by AsimovLives

    About time that movie gets the respect and admiration it deserves. Funny to think that the movie was actually a trial ruin for a movie that never got made, Kubrick's own NAPOLEON project. I once read the script, and the movie would had been sweet.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    " I don't have any personal vendetta against Abrams. If i saw him burning, i would piss on him to put out the fire and save his life " Uh huh. LOL! You just can't stand it that not very many think this way. The film had it's flaws. As do all other ST films. Just different ones. It' fresh approach however more than made up for that. Sorry you don't see it that way.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:51 p.m. CST

    bsb

    by AsimovLives

    Actually you can aply the science of today to the future. That's the very foundation of SF. St aplied what is mostly theoretical scence of today and made it had a pratical aplication. That's pretty much SF in a nutshell.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:52 p.m. CST

    real deal re 2001

    by Detached

    I (re-)watched 2001 as a senior in college (1977) with some friends. One of them was an engineering student, a bright guy. Another friend & I were explaining it to him as it went along. At one point he said "I'm glad you guys are you are here or I wouldn't know WHAT was going on." I suspect he was fairly typical. JMO, of course. Many people do come away wondering what the monolith was all about, what the "star child" is all about, what the ending "means," etc etc. If you read the book- and really the book about the book & about the movie- then it's all simple. Watching the film by itself- not so much. Again, JMO, of course.

  • June 11, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    re coordinate system & science

    by Detached

    yes, transporters and warp drive MAY be beyond what's possible... but many scientistis do believe some form of FTL is indeed possible (and other amazing breakthroughs may be too). i just think it's **incredibly** arrogant for scientists (& others) to believe we have a handle on what's possible and what isn't. science really isn't all that developed yet, and neither is our understanding of the universe. who knows what we may learn.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Anyone see what happened to the sun tbis week?

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Or read about, i should say? Copernicus?

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Re : boborci

    by Real Deal

    Yes there was a rather large flare! Not something that could even come close threatening the galaxy however.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Not why i bring it up. Any other guesses?

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Re : boborci

    by Real Deal

    Ok why did you bring it up? Here's what I read : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43345867/ns/technology_and_science-space/

  • June 11, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST

    A Really Good Example Of What an Indiviual Star Could Threaten....

    by Real Deal

    wthin it's own star system ( I say that mostly because of the huge distances between the stars and the limiting factor of the speed of light ) is in the movie " Knowing ".

  • June 11, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Heres a link to article about solar activity this week.

    by Boborci

    http://www.suite101.com/content/vast-solar-eruption-shocks-nasa-and-raises-doubts-on-sun-theory-a327330

  • June 11, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    It«'s not the bad science alone that makes Abrams Trek bad.

    by AsimovLives

    The movie could had bad physics and still be a good movie (Star Wars as the crowning example of that). But the movie is just plain bad, and the bad science is just the icing of all the elements that make it such a terrible movie. The bad science is one nail in the coffin but not the stake at it's heart. And who are we to blame for the terribleness and stupidity of Abrams Trek? Well, one of them is non other then somebody who's also posting in here, our friend Bobby Orci. A round of applauses, ladies and gentlemen.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Also......

    by Real Deal

    I should have said a star with the mass of our sun. It's really too small to go supernova which of course would be much worse than a flare or coronal mass ejection. And yes it seems l;ike we're in a more active period which could be bad for communicaions at times. If one of those managed to hit us as depicted in the movie " Knowing " it would be bad news for us. We'd be fried to a crisp. Life would have to start all over again here.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Asi, ill take the blame for Star Trek anytime.

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 2:29 p.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    Everutime a scientist makes a claim that it might be possible to do FTL travel, they are always very vague,adn they always say that in bad science shows. For those who actualyl make an argumentabout the possibility of FTL and what it implies, their conclusiosn are always far less optimsitic, if not downright fatalistic. It's already beyond what we can do today to make people go to mars, the problem of a FTL travel is a million times harder, at the very least.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Re : boborci

    by Real Deal

    I tried your link. However it didn't work. It just got me to the site. Can you try again as there are many. Does it say anything different than the MSNBC one that I posted?

  • June 11, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    We could go to Mars today. It's not a lack of science it's a lack of money.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Its a little more forthcoming a about the fact

    by Boborci

    That scientists may have to rethink how the sun works, as NASA admits the observations may "shatter" what we think we know about the sun.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:40 p.m. CST

    asi re 2001

    by Detached

    I see your point about the mystery... and that's fine. Me, I like to know what's happening in a film (for the most part, anyway). I enjoy 2001 far more understanding who the aliens were, what their mission was, where the "hotel room" was, and so on. I would guess most moviegoers feel the same way... JMO.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:41 p.m. CST

    boborci, question...

    by Detached

    why should we believe you are who you say you are?

  • June 11, 2011, 2:43 p.m. CST

    About Warp Drive

    by Real Deal

    A little info from Professor Alcubierre Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive As he states it's possible. We don't have the science today to produce the power necessary but it's still possible someday.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    You shouldnt. I would assume i am not boborci

    by Boborci

    Doesnt change the debates above, so who cares?

  • June 11, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    detached

    by Continentalop

    Other mods have confirmed this is boborci in the past. I remember during one of the Transformer TBs Harry confirming it was him. This guy isn't like JettLi claiming Firefly will be in the next Batman movie (what happened to him?).

  • June 11, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    asi re FTL

    by Detached

    It's not always during bad science shows. As far back as the mid-80s I read a UPI story about a scientist at Stanford (I think it was- may have been somewhere else in California) working on FTL, and one quote that stuck out to me was "The equations say it's possible." At least, that's how I remember it, but it was along those lines. It was from somewhere highly respectable, and in a wire story, not a bad science show. Also, in the documentary "How William Shatner Changed the World," they talked to another scientist who was working on FTL. You can claim that was a "bad science" show, but - well, it wasn't. That said, keep in mind that by definition scientists who go outside the consensus of the moment tend to end up being looked down upon. That doesn't make them wrong though.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Re : boborci

    by Real Deal

    Ok. I'll bite. If you are the real thing then don't get me wrong I loved the new movie! However there were certain things about the movie's science that didn't make sense. Not the first time for ST but they were things that most school kids would pick up on these days. One of them is how could a star going supernova threaten any parent galaxy? Way too small an explosion that would take hundreds if not thousands of years to reach other star systems. If you aren't the real Bob Orci you're just a troll trying to get a rise out of this forum who doesn't know any better.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    And who gives a shit about if the science in this film is accurate?

    by Continentalop

    Sorry, but that is just people who don't like the film looking for further reasons why they hate that film. I mean Star Wars has horrible science, and so does many classic Sci-Fi movies such as Alien, Terminator, Godzilla, Them! and Iron Man, and we can all overlook the bad science because we love or like those movies. No, the problem with Star Trek has always been the SENSIBILITIES of the filmmakers. You seem like a nice guy Bob, and maybe Abrams is a nice guy to work for, but your filmmaking sensibilities are the complete antithesis of what I look for in a film. Your films have far too many scenes about characters being emotional and far too few scenes that make me feel any sort of emotion. It is like the pop 40 charts of cinema vs the truly great song writers and musicians. Your Star Trek is like Avril Lavigne's cover song of "Knocking at Heaven's Door", well produced and catchy but lacking any sort of depth or true artistry. Sorry, that's how I feel Bob, but still best of luck with the next ST movie.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    ps re FTL

    by Detached

    I've read a fair amount about it myself, and I agree it's extraordinarily difficult. However, I'm sure steam engines seemed very difficult at one point too. Certainly heavier than air travel was almost incomprehensible. Etc etc. Yes, I know, the response is always "but we know so much more now." And that's my point- we do *not* know nearly as much as we think we do.

  • June 11, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Re : continentalop

    by Real Deal

    I've been a fan of ST since 1966 whan I was 13. I've always been forgiving for the mistakes since I love the concept. However the science we're talking about is pretty basic and shouldn't be overlooked if it can be helped because it's stuff that most people will recognize as wrong or impossible without further explaination. It's better to do a little reasearch first and come up with a plausible plot device than a glaring error that most school kids would identify. Since the errors in the new movie are few and I loved the other aspects of the movie I personally overlook them.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by Boborci

    I'll admit some creative license, but even copernicus agrees he wouldve kept the term. As for threatening the whol galaxy, when the news reports say, "armed man threatens neighborhood," do you take that to mean he can kill everyone in the hood. Or, "Gobal warming threatens the planet?" In the words of george carlin, the planet is not going anywhere... WE ARE! Finally on this point, memoryalpha cites the fereration as spanning about 10,000 light years, which is within some estimates of the range of a supernova, so it could be said it threatens the known galaxy.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Once Again About Current Theories Concerning Warp Drive

    by Real Deal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

  • June 11, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by Continentalop

    I understand what you're saying. But I think with any concept where you stretch the boundaries of the plausible, you can't get away with a lot if you make it so the audiences are involved or not (I mean look at the ridiculous science in Dr. Who, yet the fans of that show never loose their suspension of disbelief). It's what Hitchcock called "Refrigerator Logic." Well made films that get the audiences involved can have many implausible or impossible moments that we will over look as we watch the film. So what I am getting at it that if the "bad science" of Star Trek really bothered you as you watched it, that is just a symptom that you didn't like the film to begin with.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Alcubierre Drive

    by Coordinate_System

    While it remains my preferred explanation of Warp Drive, quantum effects may prohibit it: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/ http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0141 >shrug<

  • June 11, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Re : boborc

    by Real Deal

    Sigh! When you say global warming threatens the planet it means what it says. It indicates a range of effect. So in that sense it does threaten the planet with Global warming and it's effects. It's doesn't say Global Warming will destroy the planet. It theatens the planet with climate change. So how could a single Super Nova threaten the galaxy? After thousands of lightyears the force of the threat would be diminished. and it would appear as a brite light nothing more. If it was close by and was say directed right at us we'd be in trouble but it would still take years to reach us ( the closest star system is 4.3 light years away so even at the speed of light it would take that long to get here. Many stars are even farther apart. What was shown in the movie was Romulas blowing up which just wouldn't happen unless it was it's parent star and even if it was you still have the " Threaten the galaxy notion. How would it threaten the galaxy? If you are for real you should have replaced this with some unknown effect that would have the possibility of threatening anything as a large as the galaxy. I'm just saying do a little reasearch next time and you won't run into this. Roddenberry used to keep scince book on his desk when creating ST just so this wouldn't happen. That is if you really are Bob Orci.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:19 p.m. CST

    assymuffizz

    by Continentalop

    I agree. You just said my point 100 times more succinctly.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Re : continentalop

    by Real Deal

    Not so! As I've stated previously many times now I loved the movie and even overlooked bad scince even in the old ST. Because I'll let some things slip. Not every movie is as perfect as 2001. Or you could even go back as far as a movie like " Fobidden Planet ". That was made in 1956! I was 3 years old! And yet they did their homework and didn't get much wrong. I love SF and think that most of this will be real someday. We may not get there exactly in the way depicted in the movies but we will get there. So I overlook certain things. I'm just saying supplying good basic science that any school kid recognizes makes the program more enjoyable.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    How is 2001 perfect, real deal?

    by Continentalop

    It's 2011 and we still don't have hot space stewardess walking on velcro ceilings to bring us food. Fucking Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick fucking us up with high expectations. ;) The Road Warrior is the most accurate movie about the future, especially with gas right now over $4.00 a gallon!

  • June 11, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Re : coordinate_system

    by Real Deal

    Yes that was referenced in the wiki article I posted. There are other difficulties as well ( read the end of the Wiki article ) however I tend to think that there's always a way around these things.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by Coordinate_System

    I tend to think that there's always a way around these things.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    I tend to think that there's always a way around these things.

    by Coordinate_System

    Could be.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    So while you guys were up all night arguing Trek...

    by JonRD463

    ...I was out at an awesome party last night, where I hooked up with this amazing girl. Smart, funny, and hot as hell. We ended up spending the night together. In fact, she just left. Awesome cook, too. She woke me up with French toast.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Re : continentalop

    by Real Deal

    Oh please! Clark didn't take into count the number of recessions, needless wars, and visionless leaders we've had. There's nothing in 2001 we couldn't be doing with today's science right now. The stumbling block is money. And on that subject the welfare dept. Spends every 8 days the budget of the space program, americans spend 3 times that amount on cigarettes, and we won't even talk about the military or mismangement at NASA. Space travel fell pray to a lack of interest in the latter half of the 20th century. Something that's starting to turn around now. Trust me if private enterprise could show how big a profit we could be making people would be falling over each other to get up there. Here's a little education : http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/ Something on a side note if you ever watch 2001 when the astronauts are on board Discovery and are watching a news program while eating dinner notice what they're watching it on. Small rectangular devices that look very much like an iPad! 2001 had it right. What went wrong in reality was people not science.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Jonrd463

    by Continentalop

    Talk about bad writing, you couldn't even get me to suspend disbelief for two paragraphs.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by Continentalop

    You obviously didn't get that I was joking. I was hoping the ;) would make that apparent.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Also

    by Real Deal

    I tend to be a bit of an optimist. This economic crisis that's even closed down american manned spaceflight for awhile won't last forever. Gas cars are becoming a thing of the past and everytime we have a crisis like this it becomes more and more apparent in people's minds. Just watch. The price of gas will go back down ( as we haven't exausted the dead dinosaurs yet ) but it will spur development of alternatives. I really don't see road warriors in our future. I read a quote in a magazine recently that said when faced with adversity humans often exaust every other option before choosing the right one. I've found this to be true.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Re : continentalop

    by Real Deal

    Sorry I didn't catch that. This talkback ( as always ) could be a little more modern and include emoticons and such.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    No problem real deal

    by Continentalop

    Considering how overly critical most tbers are, I can see why you'd assume I was being serious.

  • June 11, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Re : jonrd463

    by Real Deal

    That's nice. How is that relevant to me? I'm married and almost 60. As much as I'd like to think young girls who are a good cook are standing in line to go out with guys that are almost 60..... by the way my current wife is also a good cook and french toast is easy.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "Why do you demand from other talkbackers what you don't demand from Orci and his movie?" I don't demand anything from boborci. Or his Movie. I wanted to be ENTERTAINED. And I was. Enormously. NO MOVIE IS PERFECT. No movie is without plot holes either. You and I both love CITIZEN KANE for example. I've pointed out in numerous talkbacks that Orson Welles has characters communicating information to the reporter that they were not actually present to witness. Bernstein relates the conversations that occurred when Kane took over the newspaper. But Bernstein was outside with the furniture movers. Welles creates a montage of several years worth of breakfast table conversations deteriorating into arguments that occurred between Kane and his deceased wife. But Kane and his wife are dead. And Jed Leland was present for none of those conversations. Who's telling the reporter about them? And when the camera pans upward into the wings of a theater and shows two workers reacting to one of Susan's disastrous performances: Whose POV is that? And yet CITIZEN KANE is widely praised as one of the greatest films ever made and you and I were both entertained by it. You're the one demanding things from JJ Abrams and boborci that you don't demand from Orson Welles and Herman J Mankiewicz. If I wanted a movie about SCIENCE that actually currently exists or is plausible in the near future I would have watched a DOCUMENTARY. And if I wanted a movie tied to four decades of made up on the fly "canon" technobabble and minutia about the rules governing the operation of BULLSHIT STORYGENERATING DEVICES THAT MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER EVER EXIST? I would have watched any other of the previous TEN Star Trek films or any given episode of the five previous Star Trek series. (6 if you include the cartoons.)

  • June 11, 2011, 4:23 p.m. CST

    I will demand boborci explain Kirk's Rapid Promotions

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    When one of you pedantic pussies explains why Kirk and his buddies weren't Court Martialed and Drummed out of Starfleet in ST: TVH for the Shit they pulled in ST: TSFS.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST

    I will demand boborci explain Red Matter

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    When one of you Needledicked Nitpickers explains how the Genesis Planet regenerates and rapidly ages the katra less ZOMBIE SPOCK.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Hilarious:)

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    I will demand boborci explains ParaMirrorAltRemixUniverse

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    When one of you Dickless Turds explains why you have no beef with the umpteen other "universes" we've been shown in the hundreds of hours we've pissed away watching Star Trek, but this particular one leaves sand in your vagina.

  • June 11, 2011, 4:35 p.m. CST

    I will demand boborci bring back the Orion Chick

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Actually I WILL demand that boborci! Escape Pod? Survivor Beamouts? That girl was hotter than a $2 pistol at the Compton Swap Meet!

  • June 11, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by AssyMuffJizz

    Everyone hates a sycophant.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:18 p.m. CST

    even, secretly, the object of sycophantic praise

    by AssyMuffJizz

  • June 11, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Like I've Said Before

    by Real Deal

    The new movie isn't the only ST movie where I've ignored things. It's just they made so much effort on the new movie in other areas ( a much larger budget for example ) if they wanted to do ST right they'd at least do a little research. While you're at it you could go all the way back to TOS and ask the writers to explain the sling shot effect. Wink, wink.

  • June 11, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    boborci's exploding credibili. . , er, sun.

    by leonardo_dicraprio

    dudes, if anyone went to that link, take a second to look at the source. All the posts were written by Mulder's sister.

  • It made you a fuck load more money than most of us will ever earn?

  • June 11, 2011, 6:48 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    Going to Mars is not just a question of money. there's much to yet be known before such a travel to be made. First of all, there's still engeneering problems which are not yet resolved. And then ther's the really big problem: nobody knows how humans will react to such a long travel in such a closed space. Made even worst because it's a travel in which happens without the protection of a magnetic field, qwhich saves us, and even the austronauts that orbit Earth, from the worst that the sun can produce. As for our current solar activity, it's know that exists within the sun a period of higher and lower activity on regular internals of about 11 years, i think. I'm quoting from memory on that. But today we know that the sun has periods, like seasons, of activity. Periods inside larger periods. The sun is actually a very active thing, far more then inicially predicted.

  • June 11, 2011, 6:53 p.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    From the movie you can have a pretty good idea what's going on with th aliens. Their goal is to uplift any spieces which has potential for intelligence. That's what they do with the apes we see at the start. Then they patiently wait that those apes evolve enough to be able to have basic spaceflight. That's the whole point of the scenes in the Moon. When the sunlight first strikes the monolith which was DELIBERATLY buried, it sends a radio sign directed to Jupiter. Bascially, the aliens make the humans follow a cornbread trail until they reach the bigger monolith which is in fact a stargate into who knows where. And in there the final stage happens, the final uplifting. The Hotel Room, if you will, is a construct made by trhe aliens so the human can life in. And quite a nice hotel room it is. And as the dude lives out the rest of his life, he gets his final uplift in his dying moments, when he stopes being human and becames something futher down the line. And then he returns home, Earth, already transformered into mankind's next stage, the Star Child. It's pretty weasy to understand the movie in terms of what happens in it. It's the implciations and the why it happens that's the kicker and is still making people debate over it after all this years.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    Ithink people overlook how hard it is for a FTL thing to work. It's not just a matter of engeneering. It's teh fact we still don't evne have the necessary theoritical background for it to even have any pluasability to be a possible thing to work. At best what we have here is a more then basic notion of what could be the principle of it. It's like knowing that steam has pressure and you could move things with it, but you can't even produce a steam caldrom to begin the testing. And this story of going to space, the difficulties about it is not mere extrapolation of what happend before. You can't compare space travel to what happened during the time of the discoveries. If i have to make a comparison, to make a woprkable starship, today we are futher from it then what a pre-historic stone age man would to build a Bugatti Veyron. The jump ahead is far bigger my a great magnitute then what we have already achieved from pre-history to today. People just like to dismiss the real big problem ahed just for the sake of some romantic notions of humanity gallantly roaming to the stars. I also love that dream, it's my biggest dream, but it's not possible. Travel to other stars, frankly, i don't think it will ever be possible. Mankind will be stuck to our solar system. Hopefully, there's more stuff, hidden planets and brown stars, orbiting our sun or in it's neighbourhood then he have found so far.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Specifically which engineering problems are you refering to? And there have already been proposals for solving the radiation problem. Closed space problems have been studied since the start of the space program. http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01858/text-only/manned_problems.html http://www.racetomars.ca/mars/article_effects.jsp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records The record for the longest time in space for a human is 438 days. One proposal for a trip to mars is 260. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2811.html As you can see people have already been thinking about this. The problem isn't really new science like FTL or warp drive it's refining existing science. That's takes money. But it's really something we could accomplish now. Also as you can see it's something I follow pretty closely.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    boborci

    by AsimovLives

    Supernovas don't threaten other stars up to 10,000 light years. that's absurd. don't msitake the light they can emit in a short moemtnwith the radiation they emit. Yes, they emit a great amount of radiation that can eradicate the life of a Earth-like planet a few light years away. But that's it. After a while, the atoms that carry the radiation gets so dispersed they stop being a threat. About 20 light years or so, a supernova presents no danger. But it sure makes for an impressive light show.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:09 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    "I don't demand anything from boborci." Don't i know it! You know why i demand? Because i payed to watch the fucking movie. I more then earned my right to criticise his ass.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    " Travel to other stars, frankly, i don't think it will ever be possible " You really think too small. At the rate we are going the next 50 years will see machines that can surpass the human brain in thinking power. Our knowlege is increasing exponentially. We may not see any answer to FTL in our lifetime ( let alone a working model ) but give it 100 to 150 years. I'm alot more optimistic about it than you are. As a matter of fact the rate that our science will increase ( based on how fast it's increasing now ) is more scary than anything.

  • They were court martialled! Was there a scene you didn't saw? Or are you who mistake court martial for PUNISHMENT? They were court martialled, and they wee given sentense, which had mitigating factors which in the end they got a slap on the wrist and in Kirk's case a demotion to captaincy, which was just what he wanted anywasy. Butnthat mvoei has the procedual right. They sacved Earth but they were still court martialled for the stuff they did in those two previous movies. Of the thing si have problems with ST:TVH, that is not one of them. They actually did the proper thing.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    asimovlives continues his crusade.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Show me where I complained.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    " Supernovas don't threaten other stars up to 10,000 light years....... " I've already explained this to him but he doesn't seem to get it.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:36 p.m. CST

    I am not a boborci sychophant

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I would rather have bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails than watch either TRANSFORMERS movie again. He gets no pass from me on those. I've told him so. But I also believe that STAR TREK's script is much more complexly structured and subversively Trek-ian than even some of you who enjoyed it give him credit for. And the fact that Spazimovlives and kai_mahjong are still having difficulty processing the basic plot elements of the film TWO FUCKING YEARS LATER proves if nothing else that the film continues to be smarter than they are.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    You are all still debating this shit?

    by Subtitles_Off

    Lens flares! Pa-powie!

  • June 11, 2011, 7:58 p.m. CST

    asi my friend...

    by Detached

    ... it seems obvious you grew up reading (& probably watching) a lot of science fiction. but i can tell you, most (or at least a good percentage) of moviegoers will not get all that from watching 2001. i have watched 2001 with people who just had no idea what was going on. "Does that big block represent God?" - that's a very common question/ sentiment, for instance. "What happened to him at the end? "What was that baby in space?" I could give other examples, but believe me, among average filmgoers, 2001 is a very, very confusing film- and kind of boring, to be honest.

  • June 11, 2011, 7:58 p.m. CST

    Bsb - its not all it's cracked up to be

    by Boborci

  • June 11, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    to asi re FTL

    by Detached

    I largely agree with you re the engineering problems of FTL. Not to mention the energy issues. I'm not romanticizing the issue at all. My only point is that there is no way we can say with certainty that it won't ever happen. Knowledge is rapidly exploding and will probably grow at an even faster rate in the years ahead. I simply don't believe we can ever say never...

  • June 11, 2011, 8:10 p.m. CST

    BOB - MY ASS WOULD LIKE TO BE THE JUDGE OF THAT, SIR

    by BSB

  • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is all.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    sorry, cymbalta...

    by Detached

    ... but it's hardly just asi and kai who didn't like Kiddie Trek. I know plenty of people who gave it a thumbs down. They won't be back for the sequel (if there is one) unless it's a good deal better.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    continentalop...

    by Detached

    thanks!

  • June 11, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Actually we're both right. They were court martialed in ST:TVH. But the charges against everyone but Kirk were DROPPED, so can you really say they were sentenced? See, I have no problem admitting when I've made an error. Unlike that Cockless Wonder, kai_mahbrainhurts.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    okay, boborci...

    by Detached

    assuming it is you, just wondering if you're going to answer my question re spock from "immunity syndrome." if not, no big deal. and assuming you are you, i do give you big props for showing up here. i think some of your answers have been pretty good. and fwiw, i did (to my surprise) like the first transformers movie. so i'm not someone who just bashes everything in sight. for that matter, i'm really looking forward to cowboys and aliens.

  • June 11, 2011, 8:41 p.m. CST

    detached

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I have no problem with people not LIKING that movie. I have a problem with people who don't UNDERSTAND it well enough to debate its flaws and merits properly. All opinions aren't equally valid. I may feel NASA spent too much money going to the moon. That's an opinion. You may feel NASA never actually went to the moon. That's another opinion. asimovlives and kai_mahdickhurtswhenIpeeDoc seem to have the opinion that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. That's about how much their opinion of Abrams' TREK is based in facts we can all agree on.

  • In the past there have been those individuals making claims as to who they are. There are a few Indiana Jones threads that Orcus can think of. Come to think of it, was the Walter B hullaballoo ever proved or disproved?

  • June 11, 2011, 8:56 p.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by Detached

    well, i'll let asi & kai defend their own opinions... for myself, i know enough about screenwriting to form very valid opinions of films. that's enough for me...

  • June 11, 2011, 9:03 p.m. CST

    ORCI, 1000 DOLLARS A WEEK!!!

    by CreepyThinMan

  • June 11, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST

    I've been Debating this Shit for Almost 2 Years

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Remember when asimovlives was calling it DAWSON'S TREK because he thought the crew was too young? And then I pointed out that Pine was only a few years younger than Shatner was when they started the first season and Quinto was actually a few years OLDER than Nimoy? So that stupid meme Died. And then some people seemed confused over whether the film takes place in an Alternate Universe or if it's just an Altered Timeline in the Prime Universe? You know... like kai_mahjong still was FUCKING YESTERDAY in this Talkback? Even though the film makes all of that perfectly clear in both EXPOSITIONAL BACKSTORY DIALOGUE AND IMAGERY during Spock Prime's mindmeld with Kirk? That many of you didn't actually hear because you were too busy whining like stuck pigs over the implausible coincidence of Kirk and Spock Prime meeting each other on a planet that Nero and Spock both intentionally sent them to BECAUSE IT HAD A FUCKING STARBASE ON IT? That was the Funniest Fuckup of all! How many MORONS in these talkbacks were saying "Why is Spock condemning Kirk to freeze to death when there's a perfectly good brig?" And now, kai_mahmommaalwayssaidlifeizlakaboxachoklits comes into this talkback with Delusions of Adequacy, thinking he's going to convince anyone with two brain cells to rub together for warmth that boborci's script is somehow less based in the tradition of Star Trekian science and future tech than "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?" and Computers that let themselves be Talked to Death? kai- you're such a lousy Star Trek fan that you wasted hours complaining that a ROMULAN didn't behave LOGICALLY enough for you? Wasn't that the whole reason that the Romulans split off from the Vulcans in the first place? Because the Vulcans wanted to embrace Logic and Peaceful Coexistence with Other Life Forms and Romulans wanted to go on Killing and Conquering? And you want Nero to behave like Spock or Sarek would when he's been stewing for two decades in Rura Penthe? Cold? Sure. Calculating? Not So Much.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Real Deal

    by JonRD463

    Relevant to you specifically? Not much, I suppose. But I'll bet my rather satisfied left nut that for every 1 of you here, there are 20 spending their weekend frothing at the mouth over improper representations of science fiction, followed by tearful fap sessions to pictures of Chase Masterson.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    I demand that boborci be given a Black Box

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    and that bsb gets his fill of Black Cocks.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    detached

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I welcome your very valid opinions sir! I welcome asimovlives and kai_mah'gra's opinions too. kai seems to know more about hard science than I do. He also seems to know less about the history of Star Trek pseudoscience than he thinks he does. And asimovlives is fun as hell to talk movies with when the subject isn't the filmography of Bay and Abrams. And boborci is exactly who he says he is. The Mod Squad confirmed that back in 2009.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Re : jonrd463

    by Real Deal

    Well it appears asimovlives isn't the only one who thinks too small. You know what they say : " The ones who talk about it the most are the ones in reality who are getting it the least ".

  • June 11, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Re : detached

    by Real Deal

    Well I could be mean by saying maybe you've been hanging with the wrong crowd. People who are caught up in only watching movies that are completely predictable and all laid out for them probably wouldn't understand. On a positive note I don't believe they make up most of the movie going public out there like they would have you believe.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Re : orcus

    by Real Deal

    Him the genuine article? Uh no I really don't think so.

  • June 11, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    The Moderators of AICN have confirmed that bob orci is... wait for it... the real deal.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:15 p.m. CST

    cymbalta...

    by Detached

    thanks! i could write a longgggg dissertation on my background with TOS, screenwriting, movies & tv in general... but suffice it to say, i just enjoy the discussion :)

  • June 11, 2011, 10:16 p.m. CST

    BSB GETS HIS FILL OF BLACK COCKS

    by BSB

    I just threw up in my mouth. Thanks.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:20 p.m. CST

    real deal...

    by Detached

    I'm not so much talking about my own friends, just people I've happened to watch 2001 with over the years (like when it happened to come on TV when I was in college). That said, I have no doubt that what I said before was correct: most people won't really follow 2001. Most people go to the movies to be entertained. 2001 was arguably a big-budget art house film. I watched it once with someone who had an IQ of 144 and was *very* and I mean *VERY* familiar with films. And when it was over, he just turned to me and said, "Well, that was a waste of three hours." I'm not one to underestimate the public in general, but 2001 IMHO is a special case.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST

    i should add...

    by Detached

    just to be clear, i'm not a screenwriter, i've just read a good deal about the subject. enough to be familiar with what works and what doesn't.

  • God going, Cym.

  • June 11, 2011, 10:54 p.m. CST

    detached

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Well remember too: I would never say STAR TREK is a flawless screenplay. I think boborci and friends might have bitten off more than they could chew trying to (re)introduce almost a dozen major and minor characters that should seem familiar without really being Xeroxes of the originals, in a new Universe that has obvious differences from what Trek fans have been used to, while also introducing a very complicated dual time travel plot into this alternate universe. But as I keep arguing, I think if there are plot holes or lapses of judgement it comes from trying to do too much in a smart way rather than trying to do too little in a dumb way. I think the sequel will prove if these guys can just tell a compelling story in this new Trek or not. They've laid all the groundwork for it. Could the science be better or more plausible? I'll grant you that. What I won't grant anyone is that the science in Star Trek has ALWAYS been grounded in reality before boborci and Abrams came along and went Full Goose Bozo. That's just BULLSHIT. And asimovlives and kai_mah'grah KNOW THAT. Any one of us could pull out an episode of TOS that's more ridiculous than Abrams' movie. And most of us would be mocking one of someone else's favorites.

  • June 11, 2011, 11:32 p.m. CST

    In Brightest Day In Blackest Night

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    bsb or scarjo: whose ass is more tight?

  • June 11, 2011, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Chris Hemsworth is The Mighty Thor!

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    And bsb'th ath ith mighty thore too!

  • June 11, 2011, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Thor, Deadpool and bsb

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Marvel Two-in-One?

  • June 11, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    bsb- Hero for Homoerotic Humor Hire

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    bsb: "I've Quit Smoking!" cymbalta4thedevil: "Yeah, but you haven't quit Flaming!" bsb: "That was Below the Belt!" cymbalta4thedevil: "That's why you Liked it Sugar!"

  • June 12, 2011, 12:01 a.m. CST

    70's bsb goes Comics Shopping

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "Do you have Giant-Size Man-Thing?"

  • June 12, 2011, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Goodnight bsb

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Sweet Dreams of Chris and Ryan. :0)

  • June 12, 2011, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Time Travel, Alternate Universes, Red Matter?

    by TrekMadeMeWonder

    That's what you gave us for Star Trek?!! I am STILL shocked at the story you two presented. I'd forgive some of the MAJOR (real or fan perceived) plotholes due to the Writer's strike (that you have commented before was a hindrance to a "flawless" storyline) that apparently interrupted ST09's production. But come on, Give us back the Star Trek's Prime Universe onscreen in the next movie! Or, at least move toward it. Every main character would know of it. What's your beef with the Prime line anyhow? Sure you can say, "there would be no suspense knowing that the characters would all still be around in 40 years. But in my opinion you went WAY over board with the time Time Travel, Alternate Universes, Red Matter explaination as a way of not dealing with Star Trek's original storylines. You should have really "kept it real simple." Funny how everyone here does not offer up thier own story idea. Way back in 2008 I wrote my own story for ST09 when I knew (early on) that the production was going off track (Sorry my opinion). So, I took a few hours to write my own synopsis for what I thought would be a good reboot of the franchise. Its still online and if you google "Trekmademewonder," you'll see it's still the first link. If I may so myself, alot of Trek fans seemed to REALLY like it. And, it steered clear of the clumsy Time Travel, Alternate Universes, Red Matter explainations, while also providing the good drama, heroism, REAL science fiction, and Vulcan mysticism. Here is a review from fans at the time who thought it was the "real deal spoiler script leaked onto TrekMovie. Its been online for a few years now... http://www.megomuseum.com/community/showthread.php?t=15013 Bob. Please send me an email if you would like to talk Trek and plenty of story lines. I have plenty of time for all things Trek. Especially for a succesful writer and frequent online poster like yourself (I really dig that you take the time to share your thoughts here). Out.

  • June 12, 2011, 12:44 a.m. CST

    by the way

    by TrekMadeMeWonder

    You can email me at startrekthemovie @ gmail.com I know. I am a shamless self promoter. ;)

  • June 12, 2011, 12:48 a.m. CST

    Funny

    by TrekMadeMeWonder

    In retrospect how my original stroy idea parralled your guys' plotline. Right down to the Enterprise hiding in the atmosphere of a gaseous planet. HA!

  • June 12, 2011, 12:51 a.m. CST

    CYMBALTA

    by BSB

    That shit is gold my man. If I weren't busy playing with Gobblincocks (not what you think, hoss) in the political TB I'd have paid you my compliments sooner. Thanks for the laffs.

  • June 12, 2011, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Oh poor wittle cymbalta4thedevil

    by Kai_Mah'gra

    He's been reduced to making juvenile grade school playground insults of my name in lieu of making a cogent argument in defense of his ridiculous position. What's wrong cymbalta4thedevil? Is all that heavy thinking too much for your puny wittle bwain to handle? Maybe you should go back to doing what your so good at. making idiotic and ludicrous arguments in defense of that piece of shit script and movie. Leave the insults for those with more experience and brainpower to handle it than you have - you know, like young children.

  • June 12, 2011, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Re : cymbalta4thedevil

    by Real Deal

    " The Moderators of AICN have confirmed that bob orci is... wait for it... the real deal. " So you say.

  • June 12, 2011, 1:53 a.m. CST

    What's the science behind lusty green-skinned ladies?

    by Dennis_Moore

    Oh, and Red Matter is fucking stupid. Worst idea in any skiffy movie, ever.

  • June 12, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Is your fave superhero Nava? Hardeeharhar.

    by Dennis_Moore

  • Not too suprising, is it? Like most Hoylwood writers, he picks up some scientific notion, completly misunderstands it and then puts in a movie and in such a way that has no reseblance to reality whatsoever. Typical.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:41 a.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    You cna come across as a Bobby Orci syncopant, evne though your avertion of the Trasnformers movies. All thansk to his defense and the stupid movie he was part of called Abrams Trek. Of this fame i don't think you will not be able to shake off that easily. The irony is that you have proved to be a far smarter and better person then Orci. The dude and the fucking movie he made with Abrams don't deserve such a champion.

  • I'd like to know where you came to that conclusion. Considering the astronomic stuff i ahve said before. For your information, there is no myth of moon made of cheese where i live. Secondly, the moon was always for me,a s far i can remember, what it actually is: a rock up in the sky. There's no moment in my life where i was educated to think of the moon as anything otherwise.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:50 a.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    No, it's not that i think too small, it's guys like you who compeltly understimate the problem. You guys understimate the problem to make it nonexistent. This is way beyond "inthe future they will do it, science is advancing rapidly, etc..." It goes far beyond that. Whenever people get optimistic ideas of future spacetravel in FTL spaceships, it just proves you ar enot exactly understaning the very thing and the problem that faces it. Not even I understand the whole complexity and the problem that it is, and i'm not in the most romantically optimistic group. Whatever i said of the hardships of future space exploration, the truth is that it's ever far harder then that. Far, far harder.

  • Colonization of other solar system planet WITH automations (robots and alike), yes. Traveling to the stars? No. In that regard, Star Trek is super-optimistic.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    Funny that i never had a problem with understanding what was the story of 2001. At least has what's presented onscreen. The other more subtextual implications, well, that's the stuff that is still debated to this day. but what's happen in the movie proper, it never seems like much of a mystery to me. sure the way the movie is made and how it was edited, it is very ellyptical and it's not edited in a conventional way. Still, i don't find it hard to understand the story, so to speak. It's the deeper meanings which, like everybody else, which i'm still exploring and debating after i watched it. Well, i do remember that whe i first saw 2001 i was a teen. I saw it in VHS. I liked the movie but i was like "i would had liked better if there had been more people talking about what is happening". Like a stupid teen, i wanted exposition about the shit that was happening onscreen. But just a mere one year after i saw 2001, i became a huge fan and wouldn't want one single secondof it changed. I was still a teen when my love for 2001 became. 2001 was not love at first sight as BLADE RUNNER and APOCALYPSE NOW were, but now it's a movie i can't see myself depart from no matter what. 2001 for me represents one of those instance where cinema was justified.

  • June 12, 2011, 4 a.m. CST

    Did BSB just came out of the closet?

    by AsimovLives

  • June 12, 2011, 4:04 a.m. CST

    sithmenace_returns

    by AsimovLives

    "but can't acknowledge any fuck ups in the Shatner films" There's an old saying: two wrongs do not make a right. For whatever wrongs there is in the Shatner movies, it will not mitigate the wrongs in Abrams Trek. Bringing up the wrongs in the Shatner movies is not even an argument if you are discussing Abrams Trek. That's a fallacy. It's a fallacy typically used by people who want to divert attention from the subject at hand in lieu of proper argumentation. And it doesn't help at all to advance your position at all.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:33 a.m. CST

    Nova, not Nava, Fuckin' computer stuttering

    by Dennis_Moore

  • June 12, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by Detached

    well, i could go through the script and point out, shall we say, "decificencies" that go beyond plot holes. they're just bad writing, imho. artificial drama for the sake of drama among other things. but by this point it's not worth it- and thankfully, i've just forgotten a lot of that movie. i would point out, though, that as a *general* rule, though, it's not fair to compare a tv script with a movie script. sometimes writers do get more time for a tv script. but by and large, many of those TOS scripts were tossed out relatively quickly. a movie script gets a lot more time and work.

  • June 12, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST

    asimov lives

    by Detached

    well, as i said before, i'll guess- and it is a guess- that you've read a good deal more science fiction than the average bear. that would make it easier to follow a story like 2001 - which, as i've mentioned, isn't much of a story to begin with - just told in an unusual way. and that's where the problem is for your average person- the symbolism, the unusual images, etc. that's not something they see in - well, practically anything else.

  • June 12, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    Ye4ah, i think you're right. And i have an example of that right from yesterday. Me and my friends went to see THE TREE OF LIFE. Suffice to say, that movies doesn't have a strighfoward narrative. And tha'ts exclusing the moments when the movie suddently turnes into a NATIONAL GEAOGRAPHIC documentary depciting the start of the solar system and the beginings of the Earth and life which includes a bit with dynosaurs. Now, i liked the movie. I think i understood much of the symbology and meaning behind the imagery. And the movie is gorgeaus beyond belief. Best use of CGI since probably JURASSIC PARK. But you should see the reaction of one of my pals to the movie. He went berkerk! And this is a guy who loves 2001. So I think i understand what you are saying about 2001 and the so-called average audience's reactions. In a funny twist, it was the kids in the late 60s and early 70s that made the movie the legend and the classic that is. And the movie was actually quite popular back then. Take out the metaphysical stuff, and the movie was a SF movie of the kind that had never seen before in the whole history of cinema. Many people went to see it because of the special effects, and for those back then, the slow pacing of the scenes that showed off the SFX were very welcomed.

  • June 12, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    I also find your nick to be very funnily ironic. If anything you are but detached.

  • June 12, 2011, 9:47 a.m. CST

    asimov lives

    by Detached

    tree of life- that's a very good comparison. i wouldn't have thought of that. if anything (from what i've read), it's probably far more filled with imagery and symbolism than 2001 is. i remember reading about people going to see 2001 just for "the light show." it was a real trip for them. i have to say that, to this day, 2001 has some of the highest production values i've ever seen. and you're right about slower pacing. i talked to a friend of mine who is very literate in terms of books and some screenwriting... but she is younger than me (she's around 37)- so she finally watches the godfather and complains that nothing happens, it's too slow! i about keeled over. btw, interesting observation about my username. hadn't thought of that... :)

  • June 12, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST

    2001 Is Boring to Idiots

    by Autodidact

    I'm not saying it's the most hyper stimulating movie around, but 2001 is NOT boring. I wish mainstream film in general would have more long, uninterrupted, slow moving shots.

  • June 12, 2011, 10:52 a.m. CST

    I agree with Mr. AsimovLives

    by Coordinate_System

    in that two wrongs don't make a right. I personally have no problem with acknowledging the shortcomings of previous Treks. There are plenty to choose from. As for Trek 11, I just call 'em as I see 'em. If Trek 12 is written/thought out better, with a reduction (or preferably the elimination) of puerile humor and the characters (particularly Kirk and Scotty) are written in a more mature manner, then I will have no problem acknowledging that. If Trek 11 tickled you and you ended up enjoying it, OK. It's OK to like dumb movies. I enjoyed movies like Crank or Shoot'em Up. But I don't for a second think that they are Good in any way (more of a guilty pleasure). If you can't discern a difference between what you Enjoy and what is Good, then, that is no one else's problem but yours.

  • June 12, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Trek nerds . . .

    by Thall_Joben

    You know these anally retentive attempts to enforce a realistic model of science upon these stories were what smacked trek to the deck originally. Let's get one thing straight - its just a fucking story. Stop trying to explain the joke - you only make it unfunny. IT'S FICTION NOT A SCIENTIFIC TREATISE. Stop trying to turn a piece of entertainment into something that would bore the crap out of anyone who actually knows where a clitoris is.

  • June 12, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Boborci should Hire Copernicus as a consultant

    by veritasses

    He's an established, respected expert in his field, clearly knows and loves Star Trek, has no problems speaking and writing about difficult topics in a way the layman can understand, offers alternative/creative solutions and isn't so stuck in his ways that he can't compromise over a sticky point, has his own TV show and has thus dealt with producers, writers and other creative types and he has a good sense of humor. What more do you need?<BR><BR> And if you get one of your most analytical, cogent, science critics to be an ally, it can only work in your favor.

  • June 12, 2011, noon CST

    thall_joben

    by AsimovLives

    I can't tell you how fed up i am with that non-argument hat the people who dislike Abrams Trek have to be trekkie nerds. If anything, it's proved that it helps not to be a trekkie to see Abrams Tek for the crpa movie that it is. From what i have seen, the trekkies were so jadded about the bad trek they had lately and the long time without any new show, that they took Abrams Trek in a "that will do" attitude, as if they were starved to death people to whom even the crappiest of foods served in the tiniest of morsels would taste like the fiest of emperors. No, you do not need to be a trekkie to understand why Abrams Trek is so bad. Abrams Trek is not a bad movie because it's also a bad Star trek movie. Abrams Trek is a bad movie because it's a bad movie for all the reasons that shitty movies are bad. Even discounting how they screwed up Star Trek, it's still a bad movie on it's own right. Even if Star Trek had never existed before, if all that was presented in the movie had been created for the very first time and the movie was called SPACE ADVENTURE: THE MOVIE, it would still be shit.

  • June 12, 2011, 12:05 p.m. CST

    veritasses, desist of that hope

    by AsimovLives

    for Abrams TRek thay had as scietific consultant non other then Caroline Porco. Caroline Porco is a legend among the scientific comunity, not just for her scientific work but also her actions as a promotion and populazier of science. She is, one could say, a female version of Carl Sagan. And yet her consulting capacity didn't prevented the movie to be as stupid as it is in regard to all things a movie cna be stupid, including the scientific stuff. If Caroline Porco, a revered scientist legend among the scientific and popular science comunities couldn't help elevate Abrams Trek, how less so can Copernicus, who is totally wrapped around Abrams's finger?

  • June 12, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Real Deal

    by orcus

    Exactly. Anyone can make a claim. If this individual was truly who they said they were you would have thought Harry or those who run this site would have gone though the process of authentication. When Mori still here, there was an individual called Jett in one of the Indiana Jones 4 tb's who claimed to have insider knowledge of the movie. Mori gave him the 3rd degree cross referencing what he knew against this users claim. In the end this guy was proven to be full of shit. Orcus had to give props to Mori for that, we need more folks like him running the show here. He was a hardass but he was a fair hardass

  • June 12, 2011, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    So what you're basically saying is that you have a better understanding of this than me? LOL Well for one thing how old are you? In my lifetime do you know how many impossible things I've seen come to fruition? I will grant that this will take many inventions along the way in engineering so the craft doesn't fly apart and then there's the problem with even speeds approaching the speed of light. At that velocity you'll need something to keep even microscopic particles from penetrating the hull. I'm no physicist but I have read SF all of my life ( 58 years ) and have read many real world articles on the subject so I'm aware of the problems involved. However it's the type of problem that you have no more backing to proclaim that we will never leave the solar system ( I don't know any experts on the subject that are saying that do you? ). I just know how many impossible things have become possible all of my life. There's an old saying " Where there's a will there's a way ". I believe they will find it. Sorry if you can't see that.

  • June 12, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    As far the boborci here not getting it I still don't think he's the real thing.

  • June 12, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    Heh? What age has to do with anything? And you can't compare the advancement of, say, computers and Ipods and TVs with what's required for FTL or interstellar travel in any form. they are not comparable in the slightest. As we are today, interstellar light is to us what building a Bugattin Veyron is to the cavemen of pre-history. I might even be erring by optimism. The problem is worst then even me in my less then optimistic attitude can phatom. It's far far worst, and it does ruin our romantic desire for fast interstellar travel and mankind colonizing any system of our choice and meeting alien civilizations. I think too often we let our love for SF cloud our understanding of the reality of this thing. And "in the future we will be able do more" will not do. Yes, the technology of the future will make us today look like we are living in the middle ages. But things don't stop with just extrapolating, or should i say, bad extrapolations that don't take into account the real magnitude of the problem. We also should take into account such factors as economics. In the end, it's economics that will fuck up any chance mankind has to jump to another planet,s much more the stars. Basically, if the cost is too much, it will not happen. You can bet your old man's ass that in the future, the rest of the solar systme will be colonized by remote controlled robots which enough advanced aritificial intelligence to be able to resolve local problems without the intervention of humans. The colonization of our solar systme will be a party for robots, not humans. Because it's just too fucking dangerous for us. We are not made to go planet hoping, much less star hoping. And for your information, i'm 40 years old.

  • June 12, 2011, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    "Where there's a will there's a way ". Where there is no money there is no will. " Ha, hahahahahahahahahaha! So now you know the economic conditions for the next 300 years? LOL! You've really shown your cards this time! Please! Things will change economic wise many times while we're still alive and after we're gone. Once again you're injecting your frustrations with our current problems into a intellectual question about the future hundreds of years from now. You have absolutely no way of knowing how much money will be spent on space hundreds of years from now. I'm willing to bet however that we will reach a point in oh say about the next 50 to 100 years where we will wonder how we survived without space travel. It will become that ingrained in how we do things. And that's just in the solar system.

  • June 12, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST

    asimovlives: Part One

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I know you don't think the Moon is made of Green Cheese. I was making a hyperbolic joke about people looking at the same thing in different ways and coming up with wildly different conclusions. For example: if you had a son and he asked you why the Sky is Blue and you started to say "Well, son the Sky is Blue because..." and I came up and said "What are you talking about Shithead? The Sky is GREEN!" You would assume that I was either crazy or not looking at the same Sky as you and your son are. In any case, I'm not seeing it the same way, am I? Some of your issues with Abrams TREK make sense. Some of them don't. And some of them seem so wildly out of left field that I wonder if we're watching the same movie. I'll give you an example of that below in another post, OK?

  • June 12, 2011, 1:42 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by veritasses

    Perhaps Caroline Porco was hired too late in the creative process or maybe there were issues with their working relationship?<BR><BR> We must always have hope, no? Even if it's so futile that expressing the odds means using scientific notation, I will cling to that little bit of hope. :)

  • June 12, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Re : thall_joben

    by Real Deal

    I think it's really funny that young guys come on here criticize People who like ST and their counter argument involves their sex life! LOL! Jesus! How stereotypical!

  • June 12, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST

    asimovlives: Part Two

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    You argue that one of the major failings of Abrams TREK is that they never EXPLAIN the nature of the Alternate Universe. But asimov: Why would they? Why should they? The film doesn't start in the Prime Universe, go to a weird Alternate Universe, and then come back to the Prime Universe, the way umpteen other Star Trek stories have. The film is SET in the Alternate Universe. It begins there. It ends there. Spock Prime and Nero's crew are the weirdos from another universe who don't belong there. They're the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION. The crew of this Enterprise doesn't see their universe as some weird alternate one that needs to be changed or fixed. It's their Universe! They don't need to explain it to themselves or us. Why should their Universe be more like the Prime one? Why should their timeline be "corrected"? It was always going to be different in some ways anyway! And they're the Crew we're going to be watching and rooting for, from now on! It's a very subversive and science fiction thing to do, really. boborci and friends are saying from the Jump Off: THIS ISN'T THE STAR TREK YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH. This is a New Universe we're playing in. Some things will be similar. Some things will be different. Even wildly, controversially different. But this is where we're staying. We're not going back. We hope you like it. And if you don't: there's still hundreds of hours of films and TV you can watch. People are still writing novels and comics and video games in that Prime Universe. We didn't KILL it. We're just going somewhere else and doing something different in our Movies. I think Gene Roddenberry would love that idea! His family certainly seemed to enjoy it. For once, they really are Boldly Going where Noone has Gone Before. What you see as a FLAW, I see as a STRENGTH. You don't have to agree with me. But can you accept that what you're demanding that they should have done doesn't really make any sense? Spock Prime got it right away. As usual, he found it "Fascinating." You, like many others, are just pissed that it's so different and you want your old Star Trek back. Good Luck with That.

  • June 12, 2011, 2:03 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    boborci is the real Bob Orci. The AICN moderators have researched and confirmed that. They've spoken with Bob Orci about it. It's him. I'm sorry if you weren't around 2 years ago or were and just missed or ignored that information. But it's not just me saying so. It's the Mods and Bob Orci saying so.

  • June 12, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Star Trek: The Next Generation Gap

    by Coordinate_System

    you want your old Star Trek back

  • June 12, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Star Trek: The Next Generation Gap

    by Coordinate_System

    Well, now we are starting to get at the heart of this little dispute >you want your old Star Trek back< >But this is where we're staying. We're not going back.< and so forth. There will come a time (sooner than you think), when the prime focus of Hollywood/pop culture/etc will have moved from your generation to the next. In other words, where we are now, you will someday be. So, I suppose you should savor your status now, because it is temporary. Its all part of the tension between generations that usually seems to develop. And one of the reasons that Grandparents and Grandchildren are Natural Allies. Also: >they had the balls to make it entertaining again for the first time in 15 years< Entertaining to You, does not equal Entertaining to All. I found Trek 11 disappointing and insulting.

  • June 12, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    again

    by Coordinate_System

    Well, now we are starting to get at the heart of this little dispute: you want your old Star Trek back But this is where we're staying. We're not going back. and so forth. There will come a time (sooner than you think), when the prime focus of Hollywood/pop culture/etc will have moved from your generation to the next. In other words, where we are now, you will someday be. So, I suppose you should savor your status now, because it is temporary. Its all part of the tension between generations that usually seems to develop. And one of the reasons that Grandparents and Grandchildren are Natural Allies. Also: they had the balls to make it entertaining again for the first time in 15 years Entertaining to You, does not equal Entertaining to All. I found Trek 11 disappointing and insulting.

  • June 12, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    kai_mah'grah

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    A Word of Advice: If you want to WIN an Argument, which clearly your sorry excuse for a life seems to depend on doing, argue from a firm foundation. And don't argue two different things that have nothing to do with each other, while being laughably, catastrophically wrong about one of them. I'm winning this argument because there's no argument to have. Your FIRST argument is that Abrams TREK movie has faulty science. I have no beef with that. boborci might, but I don't. I told Copernicus that right away. I'm not a scientist, much less a friendly, engaging and informative one like he is. I have no horse in that race. I assume he knows more than I do. About that anyway. I'm sure Copernicus would agree there are other topics I might know more than he does about. Like Indian Food, or Mid 60's Jamaican Ska Music for example. The problem is: unlike an actual humble scientist like Copernicus, you assume you know more than I do about every topic on Earth, because you're a snarky, smarmy self satisfied shithead who has to lord over everyone with your brilliant brain and wealth of knowledge. And when it comes to Star Trek, you're WRONG. Your SECOND argument is that Abrams TREK movie is the Joker, the Wild Card in the Deck, the Odd Man Out etc etc and that every other iteration of Star Trek has been firmly grounded in science and largely devoid of plot holes, coincidences, deus ex machinas, Macguffins etc etc. And you're WRONG about that. You're talking out your Ass. You're so Full of Shit we can Smell it on your Breath. Through the INTERNET! Have you ever heard the phrase "The Exception that Proves the Rule"? I assume a science douche like you would have. Well Abrams TREK isn't that. Because if I can pull a half dozen examples about transporter malfunctions from 3 different series and another half dozen examples of ridiculous things from STAR TREKs 2, 3 and 4 then your Rule really isn't a Rule anymore is it? It's a Belief. You believe something about Star Trek that is factually, demonstrably FALSE. I understand your impulse. You're a TREK Geek and you want Star Trek to be seen as smart and cool. Well I'm a Trek Geek too. And you're right. Star Trek IS Smart and Cool. You're also a SCIENCE Nerd. So you want Science to be seen as Smart and Cool. I'm not a Science Nerd. But you're right about that too. Science IS Smart and Cool. But Star Trek ISN'T Science. Never Was. Still Isn't. The Two Things are Smart and Cool for Different Reasons. What you're doing is akin to someone watching an SNL episode from the 70's and saying "John Belushi rules! Samurais are Cool. I want to learn Japanese!" Belushi was Hilarious. Samurais are Cool. I wish I spoke Japanese too. But Belushi is a comedian playing a Samurai and he's not speaking Japanese. He's speaking Gibberish. The characters on Star Trek aren't NASA scientists trying to figure out how to bring the Apollo 13 crew back safely. They're larger than life heroes in colorful uniforms speaking technobabble. It's bullshit phony tech jargon to get them into or out of a scenario. boborci knows that. Why don't you? Ronald D Moore, who spent half his professional life writing ST:TNG and ST:DS9 happily admits it and finds it hilarious that you science nerds would ever assume otherwise. Do you see now, finally how deeply wrong and truly silly you've been for the past two days? Pick a Fight You Can Win Next Time.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    Seems i hit a nerve with you about my less then rosy opinion of how the future of space travel will be.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    veritasses

    by AsimovLives

    I have to tell you that i find all this busines sof Holywood SF blockbusters hiring real scientists as scirntific consultantsand then in the end they still make this compeltly unsicnetific movies to be baffling to say the least. Maybethe studuios ar after the prestige that is to have the name of NASA acossiated with their movie. It certainly is what happend in the case of ARMAGEDDON, where they payed THREE scientists for the previlege of using some of NASA's own facilities for some scenes. So, i guess it's just a matter of prestige and politicking. It's as if they hire a real scientist the mvoie gets some legitimacy. Seems that was also the spirit of them hiring Caroline Porco for Abrams Trek. Proco is quite a trekkie, a well know one, as so many current scientists are, among others like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawkins. But when you have a movie like Abrams Trek which has little to no care for scirntific plausability and still has a legitimate scientist in it's payrole, i can only concluded that there has to besome cynical intentions like, as i said before, ridoing on her prestige as a very respected and admired scientist.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    sithmenace_returns, don't be daft

    by AsimovLives

  • June 12, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    Let me just say that i feel honoured that you spent so much time and such effort to reply to me that you had to divide it in two parts. You honour me, sir. Why would Abrams and Co need to explain the altwernative/paralel univese thing in their Abrams Trek movie? Because they brough it in. Simple as that. You bering a new thing to the play, you better state the rules qyuite clearly for every else understands. Or else it all looks like an ass-pull. Which was, regarding that movie. Also, remember this: creators also lie. The level of retcon after the fact that has been going on about Abrams Trek is simply stagering. I never seen anything like this before.

  • June 12, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    coordinate_system

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I don't know how old you are. I'm 42. But there are people my age and older who enjoyed what Abrams and boborci gave us 2 summers ago. We were entertained by it. And not just because it had hot young people playing characters our parents were watching back in the 60's when they weren't fooling around and creating us. It's NOT a Generational thing at all. It was a Fresh and Fun take on it. New Wine from an Old Bottle. There's a strain in Star Trek that rears its head occasionally that I jokingly like to call "Star Trek for People Who Don't Like Star Trek." Or don't like what Star Trek has stagnated into, or what other people think Star Trek should be. My favorite example of this is DEEP SPACE NINE. Deep Space Nine was created by Rick Berman and Michael Piller. But it was invaded and taken over by Ira Stephen Behr and Ronald D Moore and alot of writers who hated the constraints they'd been put under at TNG and wanted to try something different. And that's what they gave us. Don't just bounce around the Galaxy showing other Planets why you're so much Better and Smarter and More Advanced or Enlightened. Stay in one place and get your hands Dirty. Build something. Deal with the real implications of Politics and Religion and Money and War. All that stuff Roddenberry wanted to push aside and say We've Moved Beyond That. Well the Bajorans and Cardassians and Ferengi and the Dominion haven't. So now what do you Starfleet people do? You have to live with these people and deal with them for years not just 45 minutes and commercials. It was a fascinating Star Trek idea. And alot of TOS and TNG fans hated that too.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:07 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil and kai_mah'grah: now, now, guys!

    by AsimovLives

    Remember what your grandmothers told you: politeness costs nothing. Behave.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    It was a Fresh and Fun take on it.

    by AsimovLives

    Fresh certainly was, by way of Michael Bay. Though Michael Bay has long outstayed his welcome, if you ask me. As for fun, i beg to differ. I'm one of those who finds no fun in watching a movie which is basically the filmmakers calling me stupid for two hours straight. I don't take well to that kind of thing. I rather filmmakers play smart with me then playing dumb, if you get my meaning. And Star Trek had a reputation of being smart SF, something that Team Abrams didn't deem fit to perpectuate.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST

    What Star Trek are We Talking About Again?

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    That's the Real Question. Anytime someone says Star Trek is ALWAYS this or Star Trek is NEVER that or Star Trek USED TO BE this and Now it's SOMETHING ELSE and if it doesn't hit all the marks on my Checklist it ISN'T REALLY STAR TREK, I just wanna Laugh. It's Silly. One of the problems with Star Trek fans is the Cult of Gene Roddenberry. Gene said this. Gene believed that. Gene would have wanted it a certain way. When many of the things we love about Star Trek had nothing to do with Gene Roddenberry. And Gene liked people who would argue with him creatively and convince him to do something else. When Gene created ST:TNG he didn't want the crew to argue with each other! No internal conflict. This is the Next Generation and we've moved past that. Which killed one of the things we loved about Star Trek in the first place! Kirk and Spock and Bones bickering with each other to find a solution! Do you remember how fun it was when Ensign Ro Laren was introduced and we FINALLY had someone in a Starfleet uniform who would talk smack again? Gene didn't want WORF! No Klingons. That's Old Stuff. He had to be talked into it. Majel Barrett Roddenberry thought Gene wouldn't have liked what DS9 turned into, but that's what was so Genius about it. A bunch of alien races who said FUCK YOU STARFLEET! You Think You're Better than We Are? PROVE IT! It brought a whole new Punk Rock kind of energy to the whole thing. Ultimately, Star Trek is whatever the people currently making it say it is. Abrams Trek isn't TOS. But it also isn't Enterprise which wasn't Voyager which isn't DS9 which was a Big Fuck You to TNG which wasn't TOS either. Deal with It, Fanboy! :0P

  • June 12, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    cymbalta re DS9

    by Detached

    actually, as i recall, it was rick berman who injected "religion" into ds9- he thought roddenberry was wrong for trying to pretend it didn't exist in the 24th century (they made it clear in tos that it was around in the 23rd). also, keep in mind, the whole of ds9 failed. even the producers called it "a bunch of people in a room shouting at each other." it was until the crew got the defiant, and the show began to expand, that it is widely considered to have gotten better.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    " Seems i hit a nerve " No. Not at all. I just pointed out how your take on the future was very subjective mixed with some possible personal frustration. Really now asimovlives not enough money in the future for hundreds of years? That's your argument?

  • June 12, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Re : cymbalta4thedevil

    by Real Deal

    Anyone on line can use a name. On another forum that I frequent someone is called " George Bush ". So if that was years ago why doesn't anyone else here remember that? Perhaps the mods would like to step in now to confirm that he's what he claims to be? Just for clarification. You see I wouldn't want to insult him as I'm a big fan of Fringe as well.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:49 p.m. CST

    cymbalta re "Gene wanted..."

    by Detached

    There's some truth in what you say- but at the same time, ANY series or series of books has certain parameters that make it what it is. You don't just all of a sudden say, "Ha ha, just kidding!" and change the basic concepts. If you do, you will lose audience and credibility. You can work within those parameters - like, for instance, Worf being on the TNG crew - but that doesn't change the basic format. It's when you start altering characters or basic foundations that you run into problems. And like it or not, ST was - for the most part- usually "about" something. Sometimes too much so (the examples are numerous). Sometimes more subtly so ("The City on the Edge of Forever," which did indeed have a theme at its core). Once in a while it was just fun ("The Trouble with Tribbles") - but just once in a while. It was not, however, a mindless dumb action popcorn flick or show. Which is what many people feel Kiddie Trek was. I call it Kiddie Trek because it really was a kids' movie, a la (IMHO) Star Wars. I am not one who liked the heavy-handed messages that Roddenberry tried to pile on (especially in TNG). But go back to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and go forward... and the best Treks were - subtly or not- saying something, or at least just plain adult. They weren't just about "entertainment" and "popcorn" etc...

  • June 12, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    asi... yes.

    by Detached

    You said: I'm one of those who finds no fun in watching a movie which is basically the filmmakers calling me stupid for two hours straight. And i agree. One of the big flaws of JJ Trek came from Abrams himself when talking about the sequel: "It shouldn't take itself too seriously." Oh really? Does ST II not take itself seriously? The Doomsday Machine? The Nake Time? The Enemy Within? Balance of Terror? The list is endless. But then, that was TV for grownups. Or as George Takei said, "quality." The simple fact is, it was episodes like those that MADE tos. As for a mindless popcorn action movie... in a few years, it will be forgotten as just being... another mindless popcorn action movie. Fifty years later, TOS is still remembered. Kiddie Trek will do well to last 50 months.

  • June 12, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I have no problem being polite. kai_mahmatoldmenottocome wasn't polite to me. He did it first. He called me a moron and a goofball and implied my brain was too small to process his complicated explanation of the multiverse theory, which wikipedia accomplishes in a few brief paragraphs with the added plus of not having to wade through the condescending douchebaggery he would be also compelled to throw in. Because he's so much smarter than you, me, God, and everyone else who isn't him. I always try to be polite to you, too. Until you start foaming at the mouth saying I must be an eeeediot if I actually enjoy JarJar Abrams RetardTrek, the stinkiest bowel movement ever to be committed on celluloid. Then I call you spazimovlives: Portuguese GoatFucker. Hahaha. ;^)

  • June 12, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    Economy is not just reduced to money. It's about the equation of cost/gain. And by cost it's not just money. Or rather, money represents the amount of resourses, effort, technology and personal, and that versus the practical result. If ther result outweights the expenditure, then yes, it's worthy. But frankly, how economy has been going on lately in this past decades, more and more i see with suspision that the time of the great space exploration will not happen. Not as we might had though it would in the past. It will be far less glamourous. It will be robots walking on those other planets, not us. We are stuck here. If mining will even happen off-world, it will be robots, not humans. The actual crisis just put into perspective how things are really in this type of economy we have presently,: it's too vulnerable to misrepresentation. To create a false representation of the real welth in the world with it's how it's represented in money. and this will not stop now. More crisis like this will happen in the future. In the pas,t in the decdes you and i lived, they were all so optimistic as to how things would evolved, how today we would had bases on the moon and mars, boldly adventuring in all over our solar system by now. Some even though that 2001 was too conservative, that things would be even better in the distant year of 2001. Look at how we ar enow, where space exploration is getting more and more expensive and there's less and less resourses for it. The things that are put in space with regularity are those with true profite potential, telecomunication satellites. Fro a scientific explation probe to get funding, scientists have to go hant in hand looking for funding form everywhere, and they spend as much time if not more on such admistratives tasks then the science proper. It's easy to be less then optimistic about the future of space exploration. I call it being realistic. I leave the optimism for fiction, not reality.

  • And i never called anybody an eeediot. Idiot, however, another matter. And wikipedia is your friend.

  • June 12, 2011, 5:35 p.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    If we are lucky, Team Abrams will spend so much time fucking around with the script for the second Abrams Trek movie that they lose momentum and eventually call quits on it and move on to other things. And as they will pass on Star Trek, the franchise will get another reboot (because Paramount will never give up on milking their very own cashcow property), and this time, hopefully, St will be given to people who actually care and respect it, like Nolan with Batman, and who are also eager to make a smart and good movie that lives up to Star Trek's reputation, like Nolan with Batman. With luck, Abrams Trek will be seen as a curio without a follow up, a failed experiment that was not fated to be. Here's to hoping. And if Abrams Trek 2 eventualy get made, well, at the very least it will be good for a few laughs at it, since now we already know what to expect from the brain trust of Abrams Team. The only sport and fun to get from watching a bad movie like Abrams Trek is to mock it, couch potato style.

  • June 12, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST

    detached

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Oh I definitely give Berman credit for getting the DS9 ball rolling. He and Piller created it. I just think Behr and Moore and those guys were the ones who broke the windows and spray painted the walls and ran up the Jolly Roger and went crazy with it. And Berman let them do it, which is hilarious. I mean, Behr brought David Weddle in because he wrote a book on Sam Peckinpah. "I like IF THEY MOVE, KILL EM! You should write Star Trek!" Hahaha. Who else would do that? It will always be the Black Sheep of 90's era Trek. And I agree that it took awhile to really get consistently good. When I bought the DVD sets I started with Season Four because that's when Worf came in. Bought 5 through 7 and got the first three later. It ran for seven years so there are dozens of episodes that don't quite work. But I think they took more subversive chances than any other Star Trek before or since. Bisexual Trills. Nog getting his legs blown off. Those Kinky Mirror Universe episodes where Kira has slept with everyone in the cast apparently. All the Klingon stuff with Martok and Gowron. The Dominion War. It was almost always "about something", and when it wasn't, they were bringing back Kang, Kor and Koloth, challenging Vulcans to a baseball game (and losing) or doing an Oceans 11 heist to reboot Vic Fontaine's holodeck program. Definitely not what anyone's stereotype of a Star Trek show should be.

  • June 12, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    asi... who knows?

    by Detached

    To be fair to Orci & K, they were given a difficult task. Reboot the franchise. And with a big budget, put enough butts in the seats to not only pay for the thing, but (hopefully, at least) ensure a sequel or two. In that respect, mission accomplished. I still believe that had they done it "right," (and your someone-like-Nolan idea is a great concept), then more Baby Boomers (like myself) would have gone to see it, and it would have made more $$. As it was, adjusted for ticket price inflation, it really was only about as successful as ST I-IV, and it should have (again, IMHO) been more in the $300, even $400m range- by attracting not only younger moviegoers but more Boomers. As it was, Boomers I knew who saw the original movies pretty much stayed away, for whatever reason. I'll be fair here and say that just because the first film didn't work (for many people, anyway) doesn't mean they can't do a good one the second time around (although that "it shouldn't take itself too seriously" comment by Abrams is a big concern). I mean, many TOS eps had "meaning" but it was just mentioned in a line or two (The Doomsday Machine is a great example).

  • June 12, 2011, 6:18 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I have no idea what you look like. So I enjoy picturing you as Ren from REN AND STIMPY. "Cymbalta you Eeeeediot!"

  • June 12, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Great Article on Jim Emerson's SCANNERS blog

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "Into the Great Big Boring." All about how some of us love films that others think are boring or find boring what others find exciting. You can find it on rogerebert.com He's going to tear Abrams a new one soon apparently also, which asimovlives should enjoy.

  • June 12, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    How i look like? Imagine looks-younger-then-his-age 40 years old, brunet with straight hair, brown eyed, 5 foot 10 tall, white skinned, average looks (though some have called me attractive, in an adorkable kinda way), sort of jewish looking crossed with typical latino looks. Not a very fashion conscious dresser, usually favouring casual wear, though i can dress quite well on occasions. That's how i look in a nutshell. I love Ren & Stimpy. I can be far more laid-back then what my words sugest. I can also be far more agressive then i have indicate in here.

  • June 12, 2011, 6:58 p.m. CST

    detached

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I think the important word in "It shouldn't take itself too seriously" is TOO. Star Trek:TOS took itself seriously. "City on the Edge of Forever". "Balance of Terror" etc. But it didn't take itself TOO seriously. Or we wouldn't have Tribbles and Harry Mudd and Sulu as a Musketeer with his shirt off while Riley's singing "I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen", right? TNG took itself seriously. The Borg episodes. "The Measure of a Man." etc. But it didn't take itself TOO seriously. Or we wouldn't have Risa and Vash and Dixon Hill and so on. DS9 took itself seriously. In some ways it's the most serious Star Trek of all. But it also gave us Vic Fontaine and Bashir's 60's spy program and the glorious vision that is Chase Masterson's Dabo girl turned Ferengi First Lady. I think Abrams TREK took itself much more seriously than you and asimovlives do. We'll probably NEVER agree on that. I think if they follow their stated wish to create a deeper, darker sequel that will stand with other deeper darker sequels (EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, DARK KNIGHT, SPIDERMAN 2 etc) we'll get a good movie. We're not going to get GODFATHER II. It's a Star Trek movie. And as I keep trying to tell kai_mamamia: HE'S taking Star Trek TOO seriously.

  • June 12, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    cymbalta...

    by Detached

    You're right, DS9 will always be something of a black sheep - but they took risks (not all of which worked), which neither Voyager nor Enterprise did (TOS sure did). Ron Moore once said (or so I was told) that all he did on BS Galactica was what he wanted to do on Voyager, but they wouldn't let him. Personally, I wish they would just let Trek die, and (heaven forbid!) come up with something new. Maybe at some point that will happen, but probably not yet...

  • June 12, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    The funny thing is that in a ratio of budget to box offcie results, and if we adjust to inflaction, Abrams Trek's is far less sucessful then tmost of the rpevious ST:TOS movies made, with only Star Trek 5 coming out below Abrams Trek in that regard. The major reason is that Abrams Trek is, by far,the most expensive ST mvoie ever made, believe it or not. Even adjustedto inflaction, the movie is about 40 millions more expensive then STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE is that movie's budget was adjusted to today's inflaction. In fact, ST:TMP was a far more profitable movie then Abrams Trek. The most profitable ones are as yet ST2, 4 and TMP. Paramount itself once admited that the box office result of Abrams Trek was below their expectations. If they had too high expectations for the movie is another matter, but Paramout is know to constantly doing this, because they are obsessed with formula filmmaking. They are the studio which invented the High Concept type of filmmaking in the early 1980s, anyway.

  • June 12, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    This is one of the things you and I actually agree on about Abrams movie. I sometimes think the delay with a sequel has more to do with MONEY and making deals than with whether they have a script they all want to do or not. That's a Big Cast to have to schedule around. It made Chris Pine a star giving him plenty of other opportunities. Zoe Saldana is the hottest Black actress in Hollywood right now. Simon Pegg has other irons in the fire. Abrams has SUPER 8 out now. Orci has COWBOYS AND ALIENS coming. Are any of those people going to take a Pay Cut if Paramount is balking at the Budget?

  • June 12, 2011, 7:47 p.m. CST

    detached

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I sincerely believe that if you and I both live long enough to have great grandchildren, they will be watching some kind of 3-D hologram re-re-reboot of STAR TREK and they'll think TOS looks like an old B & W Silent Western or something while we sit in Floating Ergonomic La Z Boys behind them mumbling that Shatner and Nimoy are still The Only Cast that Matters hahaha.

  • June 12, 2011, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Cymbalta

    by Coordinate_System

    I'm 42 as well (aren't we supposed to get the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?), and virtually all of the Trek fans (older) that I have spoken with, with the exception of one my "cousin-in-law" (younger) and one cousin (also younger), they were disappointed with it. Different strokes, I reckon. But I just can't shake the feeling that Hollywood is talking past me and toward the Gen-Ys. Now, I have nothing against Gen Y, I tend to get along better with them than the Baby Boomers at work, but their sensibilities (cinematic, at least) are not mine. And if there is even a grain of truth behind my initial assertion, then I have to wonder if Paramount runs the risk of alienating the older fan base. The younger fans, while interested in "Geekdom", may not have the same "brand loyalty" toward Trek as their forebears. Anyway, that's my 2 cents on that particular subject. As for DS9, that was certainly a different take on Trek, and I really liked it. Its last seasons had some of the best episodes of Trek. It suffered from some of the same problems as other incarnations of Trek, but I never had the impression that it was "dumbed down". I also liked TOS, TNG, Voyager (at least the premise of it, I think they wasted a lot of potential there), and the last season of Enterprise.

  • June 12, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    cymbalta- why so, uh, "serious" - ? :)

    by Detached

    I see your point. But you're right, I don't think we agree on JJ Trek. It just came across to me as a popcorn movie, which even ST IV - the lightest in the TOS series- wasn't. Again, I know Orci & K'man had a tough assignment, and they had to get butts in seats and all that. They went the route of the high entertainment factor. And I will give them leeway on a sequel (which I think will happen for the same reason Trek09 happened - $$ in Paramount's eyes). Maybe it will be better. I don't have a problem with the actors, and I've known since 1995 or 96 that TOS was going to be rebooted, so I didn't have a problem with the concept. The question is where do they go from here... As for our grandkids watching some form of Trek- unfortunately, I think you may well be right. I will caveat that with this point, though:we'll never see TNG or any other sequel rebooted, only TOS. We may see future sequel series on TV, but I suspect only TOS will ever be revived on the big screen...

  • June 12, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST

    asi re budgets...

    by Detached

    The TMP budget was $44m in 1979 dollars, however, that included all the money spent on the abandoned reboot of TOS as a TV series. ST II will probably always be the most profitable of the films, since it had an insane ratio of 7:1 or so profit to budget. One thing Abrams & Co. have going for them on the budget for a sequel is that the sets are for the most part built, so they don't have to worry about that cost. And - just guessing- but I suspect Paramount may have written the salaries for ST sequels into Pine & Co's contracts for the first film. That could limit the damage their salaries would do to a sequel's budget. But again, that's just a guess.

  • June 12, 2011, 8:16 p.m. CST

    WOLVERINE VS DR. HORRIBLE!

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    On the TONY's!

  • June 12, 2011, 9:01 p.m. CST

    boborci (Next time you're on Here)

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    All this talking about previous Star Trek incarnations got me thinking. Have you and Alex and Damon and JJ ever considered inviting some previous Star Trek WRITERS over for drinks or a party or something and just shoot the shit and spitball ideas about where they would go if someone gave them the keys again? Have any writers from the previous incarnations given you feedback privately on what they thought about the first movie? I'm not naive about how Hollywood works. I know writers like to be paid for their ideas obviously. But if I were you and Nicholas Mayer or Ronald D Moore or Ira Steven Behr or whoever offered me some free advice or constructive criticism, I would certainly welcome it. We know most of the actors from previous incarnations have given you the thumbs up. What do the WRITERS think? Maybe some of the talkbackers would shut up about how your writing isn't "Star Trek" enough if they knew people who wrote Star Trek for a decade or more disagree with them? Just a Thought.

  • June 12, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Once again you're predicting the way the economy will be for hundreds of years in the future? LOL! This really shows how you are the one who's not looking at things in a realistic manner. AL no one can know how things are going to workout that far ahead. As far as manned space exploration goes things look kind of negative right now because of the economy and the way NASA has handled things. I do agree with Obama that getting private companies involved will help spur growth. That's the way it worked when air travel was new. And hows the economy been in the last few decades? Well just a few years ago when Clinton was in office we were just coming off of the longest running bull market in history. For the first time in a long time we had a surplus. Bush of course went through it in 6 months but it did happen. I guess not living in this country ( is that right as you've seemed to indicate that? ) you missed that. As I've said this downturn is bad but won't last forever. And most of the experts ( not you or I ) agree there is still a need for humans in space. There's things you just can't do with a robot yet. By that time space travel for humans will be the norm. Also over population will spur the need to expand outward. The thing is AL we either grow up, leave home, or die in the womb. That's the way I see it. And it's also the way most futurists see it. Warp drive is another question but when the need exists ( and all we have to do is find something intriguing out there like another earth or life ) they'll probably want to send robots first but humans will follow. But expecting the economy to stay this way forever not only sounds negative it sounds like manic depressive.

  • June 12, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    By the way.....

    by Real Deal

    " space exploration is getting more and more expensive " Where did you get that one? It's much less expensive now than it was in the 60's. Do a little research. And like anything the more you do it the less expensive it becomes. And there's money to be made out there. Did you realize there's manufacturing that you can do out there you can't do here on earth. There's also medicines you can make in a perfect zero G environment that can't here on earth. And then of course theres all the raw materials. Also the fact that the moon has much more frozen water than we expected makes it almost a shoe in for colonization.

  • June 12, 2011, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Oh for Fucks Sake people...

    by conspiracy

    Roberto...you realize you are enabling this multi-day insanity. I mean some ball busting fun is good and all...but for Gods sake men...get away from your computers and phones for awhile! And Bob...don't you have a movie to write/rewrite and a premier to prepare for? This can't be healthy for you either dude. Your wife HAS to be shaking her head in shame...Unless you are sneaking here to act like a 12yr old when she isn't looking like the rest of us are.

  • June 12, 2011, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Asi.....hey dude, whats up? How are things

    by southafricanguy

    in Portuegal these days Asi? I have seen the whole economic fiasco going on there in the news. Im just wondering how its affecting things.

  • June 12, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    As...Im a Kubrick fan, but 2001 still just leaves me

    by southafricanguy

    utterly cold. I can respect it, and appreciate its achievements, even if I dont personally care for it. Frankly I prefer Clark's book, imho it just does a better job of laying things out, and it does nt move a t a glacial pace.

  • June 12, 2011, 11:12 p.m. CST

    realdeal......so if I may ask dude, what is stopping

    by southafricanguy

    us from getting to Mars in the near future? Is it just an issue of money?

  • June 12, 2011, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Oh...and Asi, I have been meaning to ask you what

    by southafricanguy

    you think about the fact that Damon Lindelof, one of the brain trusts behind JJ's Trek has rewritten Scott's Prometheus. I dont know about you but that scare the ever loving shit out of me Asi.... Let me just repeat that...he c-wrote JJ's trek script with Orci and Kurtzman......And he has re-written Scott's Prometheus...aka the is, but isnt (whomever we are currently believing) prequal Alien film.....

  • June 12, 2011, 11:29 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil .....you make a lot of really

    by southafricanguy

    good points dude. I agree with your assessment. I do think the delay if about money. Pine and Saldana both have careers taking off, (and its not like the other actors are wanting for work either), and the creative team of JJ, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof are all heavily involved in other things..... And ultimatly I think we all know that an international BO of 385 million for a film that cost 150 million (and frankly I have to say that I have no idea where that money all went as JJ's trek does not look like a 150 million dollar film to my layman eyes) is nothing to go ape shit over. Basically once you factor in advertising costs, how much profit did this film actually make? I guess my point is that Trek film have never been massive hits, so just how much money (as in how high a budget) will Paramount be willing to give future Trek films? And if they cut the budget, and in my opinion Trek does not need a huge budget when you look at what they have achieved in the past on small budgets (the undiscovered country was only 27 million apprantly). Would JJ and co want to be involved?

  • June 13, 2011, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Conspiracy -lol- i am sneaking over here!

    by Boborci

  • June 13, 2011, 1:12 a.m. CST

    boborci

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    How'd the Friday Q & A go?

  • June 13, 2011, 2:26 a.m. CST

    Friday was fun

    by Boborci

    And i met Copernicus there, and we got into it before i was drsgged onstage. Thats why i responded here.

  • June 13, 2011, 6:15 a.m. CST

    This is the most nitpicking and bitchiest rant I've ever read

    by SuperSaiyan2112

    It's no surprise that the majority of you fat fucks are eating this shit up. Seriously, Copernicus...why do you even bother claiming that you enjoy the film when you come off as more of a whiney douche than the majority of talkbackers here.

  • June 13, 2011, 6:56 a.m. CST

    Bob Orci: going out of his way to prove 2+2=22

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    What did I say earlier? Its like arguing with Sarah Palin. <P> It's okay to admit you made a stupid movie.

  • June 13, 2011, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Asi: "your" vs "you're"

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    Yeah, I know I messed that up, that's why I admitted it with the next post. <P> And yes, I'm trolling you only because its a lot more fun then retreading the same tired arguments.

  • June 13, 2011, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Nice article, until you called me stupid

    by bah

    "banking on the stupidity of their audience", because any fool knows the magnetic properties of Saturn. By the way, you're a terrible writer. You use "actually" and "technically" way too much.

  • June 13, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Pepperspray n pals

    by Boborci

    After my detailed responses, thats all you got? Just take on one! Just One! Do as i did. Quote me and refute. Black holes, perhaps? Or how about the coicidence math. Get to it.

  • June 13, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    sithmenace_returns, what, you think you deserved more?

    by AsimovLives

  • June 13, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST

    cymbalta4thedevil

    by AsimovLives

    You hit on an important point, one that it seems that Abrams is not taking too seriously: to bring back the whole crew again for the movie. It will be a nightmare to match up all the different schedules of all those actors, some of which, as you very well said, have become bigger thanks to the movie and others that came after it. And as yuou also pointed out, there's also the question of the paycheck. There's no way some of those actor will work for the near scale paychecks they did with the first movie. And if we consider that, as Holywood habit, the sequel is always a bigger movie movie then the first (rising up the stakes, as they call it, which basically means, more shit blows up), it's fair to say the budget for the next Abrams Trek will be something of near or above 200 million dollars. And considering that Paramount is the most money pitching studio in thewhole of Holywood, you can tell that things are not going to get easier the more time passes. And of course, so much of the delay has to be about Abrams playing politics with the studio. It's not hard to guess that Abrams is betting on SUPER 8 to use it in his strong-arm game with the studios.

  • June 13, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    detached

    by AsimovLives

    "One thing Abrams & Co. have going for them on the budget for a sequel is that the sets are for the most part built" And for the Abramsprise engine room, all they need to do is to return to the Budweisser brewery facility, where they shot it for the first movie.

  • June 13, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    You can't compare the taking to the air to the taking to space. Adn frabnkly, i don't see any solution in the private secotr. The private secotor, specially the investors, ar enotoriously conservative and cautious about where to invest their money, and with very good reasons. Except comunication satellites, there's no money in space, there's no return of investment as things are and in any economic cliamte in which the system is alike ours today. Scientific exploration of space is non-profitable, which is the major reason why sdpace programs find so hard to get funding beside state sponsorship or form institutions dedicated to science. As i child of the 50s, i can understand why you stillr etain such a positive attitude toward space exploration int he future. A a child of the 70s, i know things are not that rosy. In fact, they are grey. I wish i could partake in your optimism, but i can't.

  • June 13, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    southafricanguy

    by AsimovLives

    Things in my country are alike a circus right now, only it's just not funny. I like my country and the things in it, but i fucking detest the assclowns who are governing it.

  • Well, maybe Damon Lindelof is a better writer without the nefarious influence of Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams. Maybe Scott will squeeze his balls blue until he can produce a script worthy of being called one. Or maybe it's all fucked up!

  • June 13, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    southafricanguy

    by AsimovLives

    Actually, ST movies have been quite profitable to Paramount. It's their most steady income franchise. While the box ofcie numbers might notlok too spectacular, if you convert them adjusted to inflaction they became more serious money. But the biggest thing is that excluding THE MOTION PCITURE and ABRAMS TREK, ST movies always had modest budgets, going for relatively low budgets for ST 2, 3 and 5 to medium budgets for 4 and 6. The ratio of budget to box office makes all of the St movies, with the exclusion of Abrams Trek and ST 5, to be good money earners. The top are still ST 2 and 4 to this day, with TMP, 6 and 3 coming close behind. And as a fellow above said, the ratio of budget to box office of ST2 is about 1:7, which makes it, by far the most profitable ST movie ever made. Abrams Trek, for all it's fanfare, can't claim nothing of such. The more time passes the less convinced am I that there will be a second movie any time soon. Don't expect to see one next year.

  • June 13, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    dr_pepperspray

    by AsimovLives

    Alright then. As long you have fun. And sorry for the their/they're thing. It's just a pet peeve i have. You know how it is.

  • June 13, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    because any fool knows the magnetic properties of Saturn

    by AsimovLives

    Behold Wikipedia. It teaches you things. The scientific wikis are actually quite well research and scrutinized. They even provide you with the formulae, for Newton's sake!

  • June 13, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    dubster32

    by AsimovLives

    You implying that scientists and people interested in science don'tg et layed? tell that to all the conquiests of Albert Einstein. That guy saw more pussy in a year then you could ever dream to get in your whole life and the next. Same with Richard Feynman, who was also an accomplished drummer to rival Keith Moon.

  • June 13, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by bah

    So now I'm stupid because I didn't research Saturn's magnetism before going to the movie? Or was I supposed to view the movie, take notes, and then come home and research whether it made sense?

  • It was a fun article until that point.

  • June 13, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST

    The Hobus(sp) Nova

    by erykthedead

    The Star Trek MMO that is out now is considered cannon in the TNG universe and according to it the Romulans were developing some sort of evil weapons in that system (metagenic? Which is apparenlty the name of very Death Star class weapon in Star Trek). The surprise nova combined with whatever the hell they were doing caused a subspace shock-wave, much like Krono's moon in ST6. As we all know the subspace crap is FTL. Yes I'm embarrassed to be point this out to a real physicist like it's a real fact.

  • June 13, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    bah

    by AsimovLives

    Ddi i deliberatly called you stupid? By those very words? Jesus, dude, gain some thickness to yoru skin. Adn take that as a chance to go learn more. That's what stuff like Copernicus' article is all about, to make people curious to know more.

  • So, as such, he called stupid nobody. It's one thing to call atention to people's ignorance about so many astronomic subjects. And it's true, too many people are ignorant about astronomic subjects. Because there is a geenral lack of interest in eitehr present them in a really isntructive and inteligent way, from TV shows, and there is also a lot of numbness about it from the people at large. If there is soething that copernicus and many scientists are almenting is that today's newest generations are the least interested in science and scientific knowledge that has been known since the industrial revolution. It's not just the lack of knowledge about science, but the lack of interest in science. And you can't refute that. If you take that as impling an insult to your intelligence and calling you stupid, i think you are misunderstanding his intentions and what he said. And again, if after reading the Copernicus' article, the only people who come out looking stupid are the filmmakers of ABRASM TREK. Including our friend Bobby Orci.

  • June 13, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    erykthedead

    by AsimovLives

    It doesn't matter if subspace doesn't exist in reality. It exists and it's an extablished thing in the fictional world of Star Trek, so it's OK. It's too bad that thehacks who made ABRAMS TREK couldn't have bothered to put that in the movie itself, so that the movie could he self-explanatiory. Instead of all that getting info and making sense of the stuff presented in the movie from dfifferent sources, that kind of bulslhit which is nothing but just a lame atempt at retconning the crap they couldn't had bothered with when they made the movie because they were too dumb and incompetent to notice, or too self-indulgent and lazy to bother.

  • June 13, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Had it said "ignorance", that would have been fine

    by bah

    I'll freely (not to be read as "proudly") admit that I'm ignorant of much of astronomy. It doesn't make me stupid, however. Read the sentence I quoted again. He says that either the filmmakers don't know the science, or they're hoping the audience is stupid and doesn't know it.

  • June 13, 2011, 4:49 p.m. CST

    bah

    by AsimovLives

    The way i read that sentense, it's the filmmakers who presume that the audiences are stupid, not Copernicus himself. and it's true, hackboys like Bay, Abrams and Orci do presume that audiences are stupid. That's what Coprnicus is saying. He says, Orci and pals didn't cared about scientific rigour because THEY think/presume audiences are stupid. THEY, Orci, Abrams, Kurtzman and Lindenoff. Not Copernicus.

  • I had assumed that Saturn would had a stronger one because it's so much larger then Earth itself. But Saturn is a strange planet. i once read that Saturn, despiste it's side, it's much less dense then Earth. In fact, it's the less dense planet of the solar system. It's density is so low, it could float on water. Think about it.

  • June 13, 2011, 6:28 p.m. CST

    I would have responded earlier but I had to work.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    Bob Orci replies: ..SPOCK (NIMOY) IS THERE BECAUSE OF THE PLANETS POSITION CLOSE TO VULCAN. KIRK, TOO, IS THERE BECAUSE THE BIG E WAS NEAR VULCAN. I AWAIT YOUR NEW MATH." <P> But, Copernicus originally wrote: <P> "But the problem is that for Vulcan to loom that large in the sky, larger than our moon, Delta Vega could not be a separate planet. It would have to be a moon of Vulcan. You can calculate how far away it is by its angular size: d=206265 * D / X, where D is the linear diameter Vulcan, and X is the angle it subtends in arcseconds. If Vulcan is about the same size as Earth (it basically has to be because it has similar gravity), and the angular size of Vulcan as seen from Delta Vega is about two degrees (a guestimate based on the fact that our moon subtends half a degree), then Delta Vega is about as far as the Moon is from Earth." <P> My Question: Why does Delta Vega have this tiny outpost where little Scotty has no idea what just happened? Aren't the Vulcans a major race in Star Trek? I'm pretty sure they'd colonize the hell out of their little ice-ball moon or at the very least there would be a bigger federation presence there. It literally has breathable air is a ball of water, which stop me if I'm wrong, is probably pretty rare. <P> Bob Orci also responses: SO ABOVE ARGUMENT ANSWERED BY CANON ITSELF. SPOCK CAN TELEPATHICALLY PERCEIVE THE DEATH OF VULCANS. <P> My Response: This may be a fault of the VFX guys for not conveying Spock's point of view properly. To the audience's eye, the destruction of Vulcan looks like a mere flash back and not something Spock experienced like Obi Wan Kenobi. It's unfortunately not clear, but that may not be your fault specifically. I didn't read your script. <P> Bob Orci: ALL OF OUR CHARACTERS MET IN ONE UNIVERSE AND BEHAVED A CERTAIN WAY, THAT ALONE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE MAYBE MORE UNIVERSES IN WHICH THEY PROBABLY ALL MEET SOMEHOW. <P> So you're saying we only got to see the universe where their meeting seemed the most ridiculously convenient? ...No! Please tell me I'm mistaken. ...So the next time I see a movie with a visible C-stand in the shot I should just assume that universe has random C-stands about? <P> Bob Orci: Very good! We actually based Red Matter on Dark matter <P> My mind is truly blown. (Sorry, I couldn't help but be snarky about this one) <P> Bob Orci: Also note that the very black holes that are thought to evaporate are also rotating, which happens to be the very type of blackhole that would have a deformed singularity which would allow navigation around it. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!! Nero dies at the end because his ship, his shields, etc, are damaged, and as such he is a swimmer without a ship. <P> I don't think they were navigating around a black hole, one ship created a black hole and the other literally fell in behind it. Scotty jettisoned the warp core of the Big E causing an explosion that helped push it out of the event horizon -- or at least it looked like it was ass deep into a black hole. Again, I don't know how you wrote it. Phil Plait had the best argument to this: "On Earth, detonating a bomb creates a shock wave, an expanding wave of pressure as the force from the explosion propagates through the air. In space — wait for it, wait for it… — there’s no air! So you don’t get a shock wave. When the matter and antimatter in the core combine, you get a fierce blast of electromagnetic radiation (fancy science-talk for light) in the form of gamma rays, and an expanding very thin shell of vaporized atoms from the material in the warp core itself. To propel the Big E to safety, the bomb would have to transfer momentum to the ship. This is like hitting a pool ball with another one; the moving ball has momentum, which it then gives to the other one, causing it to move. Detonating the warp core would generate a lot of light, but only a tiny bit of mass would explode outward, so the momentum transfer would be minimal. What would really happen is the ship would be vaporized from the massive release of energy. Oops! That would’ve made for a dramatic ending to the movie, but not a terribly satisfying one." <P> However, no one has successfully explained to me why the Flag ship of the federation only had one Admiral and nothing but cadets. Also I can't remember if Kirk was demoted or discharged, in either case how he went from that rank to Captain is beyond me. "Oh he saved the universe" Yeah, nice try. <P> *sigh*. Whatever. Time to make dinner.

  • June 13, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Pepperspray n pals

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    Boys, I think we got ourselves a band name!

  • Oh man, wouldn't that be Epic if you could rope Him into this talk back.

  • June 13, 2011, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Could be

    by bah

    I'll concede that it may have been meant that way, but it doesn't parse that way on first reading.

  • June 13, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Dr pepper - thanks for actually engaging!

    by Boborci

    For your efforts, i will not call you an idiot and instead debate respectfully: As for proximty of delta Vega to Vulcan - as stated earlier, Spock can perceice what hapened to Vulcsn telepathically (long befor Obi Wan). Further evidence of this is that the whole backstory imparted to Kirk is done through a mind meld (telepathically). So whatever you saw, canon provides us the creative license to "witness" the detruction of Vulcan.

  • June 13, 2011, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Canon Smanon.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    It doesn't matter because you're still dealing with the language of cinema. What is shown, even though it takes place in Spock's head, is Spock looking up at the sky to see Vulcan imploding. <P> If it was your intent to make this simply a perception thing, then I don't believe that was translated very well. It comes off as literal.

  • June 13, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    dr. Pepper - as for the coincidence argument

    by Boborci

    Dont feel bad, because this is something both you and copernicus fail to understand: you feel that meeting Scotty is a great coincidence. Why? Because what are the chances that they would meet in two different universes. However, The very reaon you feel it is a coincidence is the very reason it is not. To restate the postulate i quoted, the odds cannot be calculated by the probabilities associated with one universe. Probability is determined by the outcomes in all possible universes. And similar initial conditions across similar universes will yield similar results. Why isnt Scotty and Kirks first meeting in the original universe a coincidence? Why isnt Kirk meeting bones, or Uhura a coincidence in our universe. I maynot be explaining this well, but in the end, one of the conclusions of the MWI interpretation of QM is that the most likely universes will tend to have very close copies of themselves. Since we know this crew came together before, it is evidence they will come together agaib. Nojt making this up. There is, in a sense, a fate function embedded in quatntum mechanics.

  • June 13, 2011, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Dr. Pepper - black hole

    by Boborci

    So you werent arguing black holes as wormoholes or not, just their escape at the end, right?

  • June 13, 2011, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Dr. One more thing about navigating around a blsck hole

    by Boborci

    And dont feel bad about this: a black hole and a singularity are not the same thing. A singularity is what you find at the center of a black hole. So when i say that a warp capable ship can avoid the singularity, it does not mean they did Not fall through the event horizon of the black hole.

  • June 13, 2011, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Canon smanon.

    by Boborci

    Except that you are taking literally what you see in a mind meld!

  • June 13, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Kind of Late for this story

    by Queefer Sutherland

    Or did we go back in time to the opening of Star Trek? Is the "boborci" here the real, live, Roberto Orci? If so, Bob, what in the world are you doing on a site like this? I'm used to encountering you on trekmovie.com, but you're really slumming it to come to AICN. I had no idea you would lower yourself and interact with the savages here. You're braver (or slummier) than I thought. If you are the real you, good luck with the new film. In spite of the questionable science and convenient coincidences, you guys crafted an extremely fun film and possibly the most enjoyable Star Trek movie yet.

  • June 13, 2011, 11:50 p.m. CST

    lots of discussion

    by copernicus

    Talkbackers: Been meaning to update this story for days, but many things got in the way: rest of Hero Complex fest (which was awesome), meeting friends in LA, and new supernova observations. Hell, reading this talkback took hours. But it is interesting, in between the name calling. Some of you are mean! Yes, boborci it is the real Bob Orci. Hi Bob! Glad to see you here. As he points out we did get into an interesting discussion before he got dragged on stage. Wish we could have finished it! You raise some interesting points in the talkback. I don't agree with all of them, but I do see your point often. Happy to give you a real article to rebut anything I said. Better yet, we should get together sometime and have this discussion over a beer. So much easier than over the internet. Ok, writing the update to the article now. Not sure I can get it out tonight (much to cover), but I'll try.

  • June 14, 2011, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Canon Smanonen

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    No, I'm taking literally what I'm shown. The problem with this scene is that it's not explicitly depicted that seeing vulcan in the sky is Spock's Obi-wan power to perceive something he isn't physically seeing. What I'm saying is, there isn't a moving sky, or some way to show that he's seeing through the gulf of space and time, only him looking up at the Sky which reads as "Oh, this is a literal moment that happened" as in a flash back. I don't care how you do it, if the VFX guys get all psychedelic with the imagery. If you wrote that to make the scene more science comfortable the visual artists short cut didn't translate your intentions very well, hence why the argument is even on the table. You wrote one thing, we saw another. <P> About Black holes. I'm doing my best not to be insulting, but I think your arguing something that wasn't really brought up. Copernicus questioned whether a black hole could stop a super nova not really whether black holes can evaporate. In regards to your Star Trek, how is that relevant? I have been guilty of questioning how a black hole in the place of Vulcan wouldn't end up destroying The Delta Vega moon, but it turns out a black hole that size would have basically the same gravitational pull of the planet it replaced. However since its not supposed to be a vulcan moon, never mind. <P> Also, I'm not an astrophysicist but I do believe the Event Horizon is basically the point of no return. I do actually know the difference between the two though. Once you've reached that point, the gravity becomes so intense you can't get out. So the big E is past the event horizon, getting pulled toward the singularity clued by the frantic dialog. I've seen Top Gun. When people scream "doitdoitdoit!!" its for a bloody reason! Though at that point they should be atomized, but whatever its a movie. Phil Plait's argument on Bad Astronomy was Scotty ditching the warp core wouldn't have done a whole lot except produce a lot of light. So through a somewhat weak, though star trekian plot device the Enterprise gets out and the bad guys spaghettify into the singularity. Now I have no idea how a black hole effects a ship in a subspace bubble - I guess that's for you to decide. But you're right, no matter what Nero's ship was disabled and he was unable to doitdoitdoit!! <P> So just to reiterate my last conclusion because I think I understand you correctly: Scotty and Kirk are likely to meet in all possible combinations so here we just happen to see the one that's the most convient and possibly outlandish? Or am I just completely missing your point? Also for someone who likes to preach Canon, I'm pretty sure Kirk didn't meet Scotty on some ice-world in the other Star Trek universe, nor did he meet Spock Prime in any Universe so if QM theorizes that all universes are close copies of themselves... Then HOW MOVIE?! ..... <P> I'm sure Copernicus is either busy or doing just what you guess. I would enjoy seeing his responses though.

  • June 14, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    The talk backs make a man mean.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

  • June 14, 2011, 2:02 a.m. CST

    God, this Bobby Orci is one arrogant fella.

    by AsimovLives

    The fault is the others. It's not his faul that he wrote a dumb movie where he failed to convey the narrative with clarity. No, it's the others, including a scientist, who failed to understand. Orci is smart, the others are dumbasses. What a character!

  • June 14, 2011, 2:10 a.m. CST

    dr_pepperspray

    by AsimovLives

    You are saying a lot of good and truth things. It's aso good that we can counter act and counter-ballance the stuff that Bobby Orci posts in here. Orci would love that everybody would take everything eh says as gospel ad on faith, unquestionably. Orci is being constantly taugh the error of his ways. Of course the movie intentes to show the destruction of Vulcan as being literally seen by Spock with his own eyes. Where is the bigest clue to that? Remember, when Spock is narrating his story, and the destruction of Vulcan is shown, Vulcan is seen THROUGH the moon's atmosphere. It's not an image in space, but it's Vulcan seen through the haze of the moon's atmospher,ethe same way we sometimes can see Earth's Moon on daylight. Or course the idea in the mvie is that Spock LITERALY see Vulcan being destroyed from where he stands. All that telepathic eye thing that Orci is saying inhere is another retcom form him, to cover his ass from the bad filmmaking and idiotic decision s that went to making Abrams Trek. What i'm surpised is that there's people who are actually believing the porkies he says. Talk about the power of deception.

  • June 14, 2011, 5:21 a.m. CST

    I fricking love these articles...

    by Jam Banjo

    rapidly coming to the opinion that these are the best thing Ain't It Cool has ever done. Superb work. And we know, 'its only a movie; but as Copernicus points out, you can take liberty with some things (the speed that Vulcan is destroyed) but others are so far removed from reality that they lose a little bit of faith by being sloppy. I LOVED Star Trek and can overlook these things but it's nice to see a well reasoned argument as to why - and how easy - it is to fix these things, keep some artistic license and keep everyone pretty happy! Great article man, thanks.

  • June 14, 2011, 5:30 a.m. CST

    Asimovlives and Dr_Pepperspray

    by SuperSaiyan2112

    You fat fuck losers REALLY need to get laid....SERIOUSLY. And if you guys can't find yourself a nice woman or cheap hooker to do the deed, then might I suggest that you two find a nice hotel to fuck and watch Star Trek: Generations in. GET A FUCKING LIFE.

  • Maybe I should wake my girlfriend up let her know my recently discovered deficiency.

  • June 14, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Asi: My opinion of Bob Orci has softened over the years.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    I like to give him shit, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect him for coming here and mixing it up with the fan folk.

  • June 14, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Last before I'm outta here.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    To go back to Delta Vega. Since Spock did not literally see the planet Vulcan in Delta Vega's sky, but a representation of his sense that Vulcan had been destroyed then why did Nero decide to drop him off on the planet again? <P> This is an old argument but rather true: Why didn't Nero just keep Spock on board the Narada in chains, with tape over his mouth while they proceeded to blow up Vulcan? I know your argument is that Spock is crafty but come on! You have me believe Nero, the described Romulan Rube, who spent 20 years floating in space, or taking Klingon Torture, wouldn't want to see Spock's face when he beat him? So what's the counter argument? Khan didn't get to see Kirk's face when he beat him? Khan at least got to hear Kirk break down over the communicator which was enough for him.. Nero didn't even get the satisfaction of that. <P> Also, the Quantum Mechanics argument about NuKirk meeting Spock Prime is ridiculous ... you're the writer. haha, you can have them meet at any point if its meant to be.

  • June 14, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST

    I'll have that beer

    by bah

    THEN you'll see me get stupid.

  • June 14, 2011, 9:05 a.m. CST

    And Boborci is not Orcus. Glad we got that sorted out

    by orcus

    So Orcus does not get a black box huh?

  • Then the James bond folks come in and wipe out the winners.

  • June 14, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Maybe your personal experience and the times YOU grew up in formed your ideas on space travel. And by the way people were predicting these things would happen a long time before the 60's. I'm sorry but your arguments don't hold anymore weight than when you were predicting the the new Star Trek film would tank at the box office. By the time we find out that you're wrong and I'm right on this question we'll both be dust.

  • June 14, 2011, 1:04 p.m. CST

    JJ SHOULD ONLY PRODUCE TREK2

    by studmaster

    Somebody suggested on this site or another that JJ should produce Trek2 and leave directing to someone else- someone like BRAD BIRD! JJ or bob orci or whoever with clout who might be reading this- LET BRAD BIRD DIRECT STAR TREK 2!!! I REPEAT, BRAD BIRD, SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT, MUST DIRECT STAR TREK 2!!!!!!!!!!

  • June 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    BRAD BIRD MUST DIRECT TREK2

    by studmaster

  • June 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    BRAD BIRD MUST DIRECT TREK2

    by studmaster

  • June 14, 2011, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Re : southafricanguy

    by Real Deal

    Yes right now in 2011 it's money. asimovlives was talking EVER. I mean apprently to the end of time we'll be stuck in the solar sytem and manned space flight will take a back seat to robots because we don't have the money! Now do you get the reason I find his arguments lame?

  • June 14, 2011, 1:07 p.m. CST

    BRAD BIRD MUST DIRECT TREK2

    by studmaster

    Itll be the only thing that saves it. I know he's doing MI3, but as soon as hes done, he MUST direct Trek2!!!!

  • June 14, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Re : boborci

    by Real Deal

    My apologies for doubting that you were the genuine artcle but this is the internet. While I still have some beefs with some of the science involved in the film as I've stated it's very entertaining and a breath of fresh air in the Star Trek fanchise. And the thing is I've always had beefs with some portion of any ST film but always let them go because it's entertainment. I look forward to the next one.

  • June 14, 2011, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Re: real deal

    by RocketScientist

    Of course, one man's "breath of fresh air" is another's "breath of pestilence". I can also make remake a Bible movie as splatterpunk (Well, passion of christ at least got some of the splatter...). The question though would be how many people considering themselves devout Christians would consider that a "breath of fresh air" as opposed to a mockery. You can also redo "To Kill a Mockingbird" leaving out the theme of courage and compassion, of tolerance for other-ness, but would that be a "breath of fresh air" or a run-off-the-mill lawyer movie as they come cheaper by the dozen? The problem with Abrams Star Trek is precisely that it's not a "breath of fresh air". It's a breath of DIFFERENT air for the Star Trek franchise, but said air is not in any way fresh. It is, in fact, quite stale, having been inhaled and exhaled by scores of scifi movies already.

  • June 14, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Gotta love a place where we don't kiss anybody's ass

    by orcus

    Except Moon Bloodgoods. Orcus would love to tap the dark side of the moon on that woman. DAMN!

  • June 14, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Re : rocketscientist

    by Real Deal

    Well that's your view. Not shared by many probably much to your dismay. I think it was the old Trek that had become stale from too much repetition and too much cannon. Painted into a corner so to speak. I agree with some who say it had started to take itself too seriously and had forgotten how to be fun. I know SF quite well. I read my first novel in 3rd grade so I'm not new to the genre. And who's to say who's right here. I don't think anyone can have watched more Trek than someone who's watched since day one in 1966, hung models from my ceiling when I was a teenager, read many books, went to conventions, and watched every show and movie ever made on the subject. You see I love ST probably as much you do. I love the concept. I realized however if it was to continue ( And I do want it to continue as the concept that Roddenberry envisioned was a very open ended one ) it had to do something different. Something it hadn't done before. As usual doing something different can be painful for some and a thank god blessing for others.

  • June 14, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    I'm going to go against Father Asi just a bit...

    by AssyMuffJizz

    by stating that NuTrek had some big things going for it: cast; look and feel (with some exceptions); and energy. I'm not even sure if Jar Jar was a problem. The directing seemed... well, non-offensive. The fucking writing, though, was AWFUL. I mean really AWFUL. I felt like my IQ was slowly inching downwards every minute. I've watched campy horror and sci fi films that made more sense and had better dialogue. It was that bad. Yes, a reboot was a good idea. Yes, the cast for the most part was Aces. Yes, NuTrek 2 needs different writers. Sorry, Orci. Not impressed.

  • June 14, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Bob...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Good points! After all, it is still science FICTION. If we wanted to spend two hours in pure science, we would watch KNOWN UNIVERSE (or sit through yet another University Physics lecture). I am always amazed that audacious critics of the latest STAR TREK film nitpick and nag about every last detail -- but fail to apply the same level of criticism to the original series or films. I even found a website that listed hundreds of plot holes in the original series and movies. I understand what Copernicus wrote...and I agree with some of it. However, this is a movie. I think that it is based upon as much science as some of the other films. It is just that the other films don't receive the same level of criticism. I have to say that I was very pleased with the last film...and I look forward to the next. I am suspicious that some of the loudest naysayers probably watched the film multiple times too. More importantly, the film that they probably wanted to see wouldn't have received a budget large enough to pay for William Shatner's girdle or hair plugs. Star Trek had died...and these naysayers are angry that JJ Abrams resurrected it.

  • June 14, 2011, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Good writing means doing your homework.

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    It also means the difference between typical Hollywood fodder and greatness. However, I disagree with Copernicus' statement "the fun really begins..." unless the trashing is the fun part. For me, that's when the movie started derailing...

  • June 14, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Re : ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by Real Deal

    Exactly! If you're going to pick at any Trek film science there's plenty to pick on in previous Treks. I sense a real double standard here. I'm glad JJ Abrams resurrected it! Now they'll say it had too many cliche's. Excuse me! And old Trek didn't? I don't hate the old Trek and stll watch it it's just to continue it had go in a different direction. That's what Trek was about originally. Gene Roddenberry must be spinning in his grave not because the new Trek was different but because some fans are so stuck in their ways they won't accept that difference.

  • June 14, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Of course the science wasn't great in the original series.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    Nor were the set pieces. and?

  • June 14, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST

    On double standards...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Not exactly sure for whom that comment applies. I haven't seen anyone argue that old Trek is far superior in its science. Personally, I was really happy to see Trek resurrected and I like a lot about what they did. The writing was just really lazy... Copernicus said he liked the story, but I'm not sure how he could have with the holes he punched in it (not just the science).

  • June 14, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Re : knowitallfromcali

    by Real Deal

    " The writing was just really lazy... " And what are they comparing it to? There are as many holes in the old Trek writing as there are in the science. That's why I say a double standard. I still like this movie and I still like the old. Neither is great literature or a documentary on future science. They say it's not Trek but looking for God in ST 5 was? LOL. So when they say negative things what are they comparing it to? In my mind both are good and not to be taken in a vein that they clearly are not. They are entertainment and I found th new movie entertaining and something that ST was needing for quite awhile now.

  • June 14, 2011, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Trust Me

    by Real Deal

    If someone made a Star Trek film that was great literature these same fans wouldn't like that either. They'd say it was boring and not Star Trek. I think the New Star Trek hit the nail on the head for what ST needed. To be fun and entertaining to get it going again. Maybe the next one could have a thought provoking subject with really good science. However can you name a previous ST movie that had those elements? Better to look forward to just a good thought provoking tale and a bit of a romp. That's what ST does best.

  • June 14, 2011, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Re: real deal

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    I don't know. It depends on what "they" you are referring to. Star Trek V was God-awful (pun intended), but I haven't seen anyone say they liked it. Personally, I think most of the Trek movies haven't been very good. JJ Trek is not the worst Trek movie to come out, but it's not the best, either. That would be WOK, even though it had its own plot hole you could fly a starship through. I was hoping that when they rebooted the franchise, it would be more like Casino Royale was for Bond - a new take on old characters with smart writing, but updated. In my opinion, that's not what we got. I still have hope for the movies, but I agree with those that say that Trek belongs on TV.

  • June 15, 2011, 12:13 a.m. CST

    @ real deal...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    So true. Remember: Gene Roddenberry argued and moaned over THE WRATH OF KHAN -- which is the holy grail of TREK lore. Roddenberry argued that TWOK was a war movie -- which was not his "vision" for the future. I think that this is the dichotomy of it all. Roddenberry's vision of the future was aligned with the flower power notions of the Left Coast during the mid-to-late 60s and early 70s. "Make love not war" sounds like it could have been a slogan on a poster on the walls of Seti Alpha 6 and their groovy mini skirts at the end of SPACE SEED. After all, it is no accident that Starfleet was hq'ed in San Francisco. I think that ol' Gene thought that those peace movement ideals of the time would be the wave of the future. He literally foresaw a day when the world would be united under a single utopian government, money (and 40-hour work weeks) wouldn't exist, and all corporations would exist to "help" mankind. War, hate and ambition would be almost non-existent -- and those given to such passions would simply escape to sleep for an eternity in space slumber on the Botany Bay. But like the real Haight/Ashbury movement, it was illogical, unrealistic and highly romanticized. PBS had a great documentary about the REAL hippie movement. During the height of that era, hippies were raped, drugged out and many ended up disillusioned or homeless. They forgot the idea that "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up as slaves of those who still have swords." I think that such REALITY brought about the changes to Roddenberry's flawed vision of the future. After all, the thought of space hippies would be pretty boring (outside of a weird porn titile). However, there were elements of Roddenberry's TREK that were great. The concepts were fantastic -- especially trying to balance a five year science mission of discovery with the realities of others who don't share peaceful intentions. The original series was, in many ways, hokey. The movies took the best elements of the original series, but even these were difficult to translate in popular culture. WRATH OF KHAN is one of my favorite films. It is the only truly EPIC script. However, I might like the story of THE MOTION PICTURE just a bit more. It was heavily bloated and self-important. The dialog was boring and a good hour could easily be stripped from the film. And, of course, the effects were poorly utilized. Captain Kirk's flight around the ENTERPRISE is really boring. Yet the short story of it all is interesting. A major threat is detected to the galaxy. A massive cloud and "alien" life form threatens all living things -- Klingon, Human and probably Borg. It turns out that it was mankind's own doing...an ironic danger from artificial intelligence programmed to "learn" and "yearn." It had so much potential -- but it was ultimately strangled by Roddenberry's ego and claims of a "vision." I am glad that TREK did NOT follow Roddenberry's vision. We would never have had WRATH OF KHAN, SEARCH FOR SPOCK or even UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. Trek needed a reboot -- and there was NO WAY that Paramount would have given a $25 million budget for yet another, tired Trek based upon TOS or Next Generation. I think that Abrams did a great job. Was it perfect? Of course not. But it was much better than a slumberfest that would have made AsimovLives and a few other 35+ yr olds happy. To be worthwhile, Trek had to attract a new, younger audience and balance the idealistic 23rd Century goals of Roddenberry with a healthy dose of 21st Century reality. Come to think of it, I think that the reality of the 23rd Century will be a lot like the ideals of today. The technology will change, but the ambitions, challenges and concerns of the soul will remain the same.

  • June 15, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Thank you for this

    by Aloysius

    I'm sure it will have precisely zero effect on J. J., but I feel better, so good. I enjoyed the movie too, but when Spock was looking up into the sky and seeing Vulcan collapse, it completely threw me out of the movie. Bigger than the moon? Just nuts. Most people ought to instinctively relate to the fact that the moon is the only thing other than the sun that presents a disc in the sky. Mars, Jupiter, Venus: dots! Bright dots, but not discs, not without a telescope. The work of someone who either doesn't spend any time watching the sky with imagination, or takes us all for… oh, wait.

  • June 15, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST

    jesus h christ

    by PRESIDENT BALTAR

    you know we cant see future people flying around in giant spaceships, right? damn i guess the science is all wrong idiots

  • June 15, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Hmmmm

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    So the way to entertain people under the age of 35 is to throw out logic altogether and just make lots of stuff go BOOM! Classic!

  • June 15, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    BTW, you're all welcome. This article was my idea (from Thorback)

    by AssyMuffJizz

    May 26, 2011 8:39:06 PM CDT I loved THOR by assymuffjizz How about you do an article on JAR JAR ABRAMS' BREWERY TREK. I'd *love* to see the results of that real science-massacre. --- It was a fine time indeed.

  • June 15, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Thanks Bob

    by LarryTate

    although I don't agree with some of what you say, I admire you for getting on this talk back and defending your position. Get together with Andy and debate pls. Very interesting. It's all in good fun and after all.. it's just a movie. Quantum fluctuations, anyone?

  • June 15, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST

    @ real deal

    by RocketScientist

    Doing something different for its own sake with an established franchise more often than not is simply as much creative bankruptcy as writing oneself into a corner. Because essentially, it means "Well, I have this story, but I'm lacking a stage for it - so hey, let's take this established stage, staple my story on top of it and let's call it 'doing something different'" As I said - I fully agree that it does something Star Trek hasn't done before, by and large - at least not in the various series. But seriously, could you please point out which points were truly original - as in not just new to Star Trek but not having been done before - in your eyes? I have no problem with doing something different. I have a problem with using the argument as a strawman, which in 99.999% of cases, it is. You do something different and then, when asked why you did things the way you did, the answer is "Well, we had to" - always a fine way to avoid providing an actual reason. And in quite a similar way, you say "You see I love ST probably as much you do. I love the concept. I realized however if it was to continue ( And I do want it to continue as the concept that Roddenberry envisioned was a very open ended one ) it had to do something different." without making the slightest hint of an attempt why "something" equals what has been done and how what has been done is actually compatible with the concept you say you love. Simply handwaving and saying "Well, something had to be changed and because something had to be changed it's good that something was changed" isn't a very convincing argument for any specific changes whatsoever. It's simply a catch-all excuse that would have been equally valid for a bigscreen production of the worst kind of fanfiction ever published - which is not to say that I see the movie on that level, just that your argumentation would serve on that level just as well.

  • June 15, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    @ real deal

    by RocketScientist

    Doing something different for its own sake with an established franchise more often than not is simply as much creative bankruptcy as writing oneself into a corner. Because essentially, it means "Well, I have this story, but I'm lacking a stage for it - so hey, let's take this established stage, staple my story on top of it and let's call it 'doing something different'" As I said - I fully agree that it does something Star Trek hasn't done before, by and large - at least not in the various series. But seriously, could you please point out which points were truly original - as in not just new to Star Trek but not having been done before - in your eyes? I have no problem with doing something different. I have a problem with using the argument as a strawman, which in 99.999% of cases, it is. You do something different and then, when asked why you did things the way you did, the answer is "Well, we had to" - always a fine way to avoid providing an actual reason. And in quite a similar way, you say "You see I love ST probably as much you do. I love the concept. I realized however if it was to continue ( And I do want it to continue as the concept that Roddenberry envisioned was a very open ended one ) it had to do something different." without making the slightest hint of an attempt why "something" equals what has been done and how what has been done is actually compatible with the concept you say you love. Simply handwaving and saying "Well, something had to be changed and because something had to be changed it's good that something was changed" isn't a very convincing argument for any specific changes whatsoever. It's simply a catch-all excuse that would have been equally valid for a bigscreen production of the worst kind of fanfiction ever published - which is not to say that I see the movie on that level, just that your argumentation would serve on that level just as well.

  • June 15, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    @ real deal

    by RocketScientist

    As I said - I fully agree that it does something Star Trek hasn't done before, by and large - at least not in the various series. But seriously, could you please point out which points were truly original - as in not just new to Star Trek but not having been done before - in your eyes? I have no problem with doing something different. I have a problem with using the argument as a strawman, which in 99.999% of cases, it is. You do something different and then, when asked why you did things the way you did, the answer is "Well, we had to" - always a fine way to avoid providing an actual reason. And in quite a similar way, you say "You see I love ST probably as much you do. I love the concept. I realized however if it was to continue ( And I do want it to continue as the concept that Roddenberry envisioned was a very open ended one ) it had to do something different." without making the slightest hint of an attempt why "something" equals what has been done and how what has been done is actually compatible with the concept you say you love. Because in the end, your argumentation doesn't just support the changes done, it would serve to support just about any kind of change whatsoever, and if it reduced the movie to the level of the worst fanfiction ever published - you still could say something needed to be changed for the vision to go on.

  • "ALTERED the flow of history." "Whatever our lives MIGHT have been." "Our destinies have CHANGED." Unless I'm misinterpretting something I'm baffled as to why Orci is claiming that Nero and Spock Prime got sucked back into the past of ANOTHER REALITY. The movie simply suggests through dialogue and simplicity that Nero and Spock were sucked back into the same good ol' Star Trek timeline that we've always known. If you believe in the butterfly effect which is that the slightest change in the timeline can have a vast effect. Everything preceding the attack on the Kelvin played out all the same in both timelines. The attack on the Kelvin is the butterfly effect which could easily justify all sorts of changes in the Star Trek universe. Maybe the attack on the Kelvin had a ripples effect on the way Starfleet designed their ships and uniforms and informed their technology. I think Orci is making the mistake of over-defending himself and backing into the wrong corner. A corner I suspect he didn't intend to wind up in cause now he's claiming Nero and Spock always time travelled back to the history of another reality which is wrong. It's the history of THE Star Trek reality. Maybe its a political answer for die hards who dont want to feel their timeline was abolished. Maybe a new reality was created with the attack on the Kelvin, or maybe the future of Star Trek has been erased in favor of Whatever Happens. all I know is that when they went back in time in Star Trek in the past they never pulled the "We are in an alternate reality card". As for you idiots who wonder why Spock didn't try to fix the timeline, what pray-tell could he have done? His other time travelling adventures were fixable. Here he arrived 25 years late to the party in a timeline already fucked by Nero. And its not as if he was in a time travelling ship. If history is fucked then time to count your losses and just live with it.

  • June 16, 2011, 3:23 a.m. CST

    @ccchhhrrriiisssm

    by RocketScientist

    "To be worthwhile, Trek had to attract a new, younger audience and balance the idealistic 23rd Century goals of Roddenberry with a healthy dose of 21st Century reality. " Which is precisely why it's NOT a breath of fresh air. Bringing reality into the fantastic has been done ad nauseam to the point were Peter Jackson believed that making 3000+ year-old Elves appear more "human" was something that added something to storytelling (Anyone here ever seen a 3000 year-old human not on exhibit in a museum and dead for most of that period?) The worst part about it, however, is that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fantastic to begin with. The "healthy dose of 21st century reality" is in fact always present in any kind of fantastic narrative - quite simply because it is the background above which a fantastic narrative has to rise to be fantastic to begin with and it is in that differentiation that the fantastic can make its points, because it's not bound by "what must not be cannot be". Even hard SciFi regularly takes our assumptions about what could or would not happen and, mirroring them into a different time or space or technological level, asks "Oh, really?" It questions our reference system, the rules and patterns that we take for granted. To quote Ursula LeGuin "[R]ealism is perhaps the least adequate means of understanding or portraying the incredible realities of our existence. A scientist who creates a monster in his laboratory; a librarian in the library of Babel; a wizard unable to cast a spell; a space ship having trouble in getting to Alpha Centauri: all these may be precise and profound metaphors of the human condition. The fantasist, whether he uses the ancient archetypes of myth and legend or the younger ones of science and technology, may be talking as seriously as any sociologist–and a good deal more directly–about human life as it is lived, and as it may be lived, and as it ought to be lived." Injecting some "21st century reality" (or whatever one takes that to be) into the tale itself is putting the very reference system the narrative tries to question into the narrative itself. It's like telling a fireman "Yes, do your dousing thing, but please, no hoses, pipes or buckets..." Yes, there are plenty of people who obviously love such stories. That doesn't change the fact that they're the equivalent of hammering a nail into the wall with a screwdriver - it might work with enough brute force, but if you want to hammer in a nail, wouldn't you better use a hammer and leave the screwdriver for screws? There are also plenty of people who love dime novels. That doesn't make any given dime novel a high quality narrative. If Star Trek as originally shown has been a kind of utopia in the classical sense, then injecting some "reality" into it is only going to bring it closer to said reality - thus diluting its character and in reducing the gradient also reducing the intensity and insistence of the question "Do we have to live the way we do or could there be another way, another set of values to live by?" The closer the model is to what's real, the less strong the impetus to actually question what we have and, more importantly, get up and do something.

  • June 16, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Re : rocketscientist

    by Real Deal

    " If Star Trek as originally shown has been a kind of utopia in the classical sense, then injecting some "reality" into it is only going to bring it closer to said reality - thus diluting its character and in reducing the gradient also reducing the intensity and insistence of the question "Do we have to live the way we do or could there be another way, another set of values to live by?" The closer the model is to what's real, the less strong the impetus to actually question what we have and, more importantly, get up and do something. " Well then you must have hated TWOK. It broke seriously from Roddenberry's tradition. It brought some of that reality into a Trek film and people loved it. Some say it's the best film. Roddenberry's vision was mostly represented by STTMP. Which most people say was boring ( albeit Wises reedit fixed a lot of things ). So how does that all fit with you argument?

  • June 16, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Real Deal Vs. Rocketscientist

    by EjkoUSC

    Good point on your last post Real Deal. Nick Meyer himself said that a work of art is inexorably linked to the time in which it was produced. Nothing escapes or transcends this inevitability. Not even sci-fi or fantasy. Make a movie about the year 1776 in 1923, 1973 and 2011 they will all be a reflection of the year in which they were made as much as the year they were about. Star Trek has always been concerned using cultural sensibilities of the time and hyperbolizing them or couching them in sci-fi to make contemporary points.

  • June 17, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Blow-up Dolls don't grow sentient life Dr. PepperSpray

    by SuperSaiyan2112

  • June 19, 2011, 8:41 a.m. CST

    assymuffjizz, thank you for your idea.

    by AsimovLives

  • June 20, 2011, 3:49 a.m. CST

    @real deal

    by RocketScientist

    Quite the contrary. Aside from the fact that Roddenberry's vision was mostly represented by the TV shows, TWOK had some pretty profound themes - on several levels. We have man striving to put himself onto one level with God both in being master of life and death both in deciding who that is dead should have lived and who deserves to die for it, and being master of creation. And in that, it's a logical extension of the Khan theme anyway - where originally, it was an issue of artificially bed humans - "man creating man" so to speak, we're one-uping it here with man creating worlds and in the climax the demonstration that such seemingly beneficial, life-creating powers work just as well as a fearsome weapon. We have the theme of death of loved ones and how people react to it, a theme that the movies pursue over several instances (While Kirk gets back his alter ego Spock, Kirk's son is killed in the next one and it haunts him all the way to STVI, with his feelings, though on a less directly violent level, still risking the lives of many through standing in the way of a peaceful resolution of the conflict with the Klingons) Wikipedia cites "University of Northern Colorado professor Jane Wall Hinds argues that the themes of The Wrath of Khan clash with the optimistic and transcendentalist perspectives of the original series and The Next Generation." I disagree with that. Because aside from the delusions of grandeur of the Genesis project, the actual trigger of suffering in this movie is Khan, a figure directly from the original series and a throwback to a previous, more violent phase of humanity. If anything, that made the contrast to Kirk's period the more jarring. Yes, TWOK was a far better film than TMP although Roddenberrgy was involved more heavily in TMP. But the only thing that demonstrates is that Roddenberry's WRITING was much more fit for TV. For the length of a full-blown motion picture, he didn't have the proper sense of pacing. When it comes to what movies are in Roddenberry's tradition, you could easily point at STVI as well, even though he didn't get to experience it after launch - it is a full circle from the very first appearance of the Klingons in "Errand of Mercy" - already back then, BOTH sides were chided for their conflict, and in STVI, they finally end it.

  • June 20, 2011, 4:32 a.m. CST

    @ejkousc

    by RocketScientist

    Nick Meyer himself said that a work of art is inexorably linked to the time in which it was produced. Nothing escapes or transcends this inevitability. Not even sci-fi or fantasy.

  • June 20, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    @rocketscientist

    by EjkoUSC

    Yes, I wrote that. And....?

  • June 21, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST

    be thankful

    by maximumbob

    ...you're not a doctor of medicine. If you were, every other movie would have a sequence that made you crazy.

  • June 23, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Ba dum bum

    by orcus

    Good setup, nice hook for the response

  • June 23, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Re : rocketscientist

    by Real Deal

    " Wikipedia cites "University of Northern Colorado professor Jane Wall Hinds argues that the themes of The Wrath of Khan clash with the optimistic and transcendentalist perspectives of the original series and The Next Generation." Wiki is right. Roddenberry was forced to take a back seat with TWOK because of the lack of performance and cost over runs of the first film. Roddenberry was famous for not likeing that kind of conflict in ST. I think this makes it clear that your argument doesn't fit the situation. People wanted something different from ST. A more modern take. They got that and like it as you can see by the numbers. End of story.

  • June 24, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    wrong real deal

    by orcus

    :)

  • June 26, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    Science of JJ Abrahms Star Trek

    by Jeff England

    It's oxymoron. There is no science to his movie. It's more Star Wars than Star Trek.

  • June 27, 2011, 5:55 p.m. CST

    boborci who cares what Uhuru says

    by EjkoUSC

    She's just a horndog kicking it on the bridge. She could say "did someone fart?", it doesn't mean the Enterprise bridge smells like ass. I bet your writing partner doesn't even agree that they went back into the past of a different reality. Nor should he. When they went back in time in Star Trek IV was that to a different timeline? Or only when it suits your argument (which is baffling cause you'd have an easier time defending yourself if you just acknowledged (or pretended at least) to say Nero went back in time and messed with the same star trek timeline we know and love. The bridge scene where the characters all sit down for the first time as a team and vocalize what has happened is the only scene I need. You wrote that scene (or did you? Apparently that was an Alex scene since you seem to forget the characters themselves recapitulate themselves that this is a villain from the future. not a villain from another dimension. Why wouldnt they just say that if that was the case? Cause it would be dumb and needlessly convoluted. Much like your baffling strategy in defending yourself.

  • June 28, 2011, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Looks like not everyone as left the building

    by orcus