Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 09:46:06 PM

Title: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 09:46:06 PM
This Thursday.  :nerd:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 09:47:04 PM
:yawn:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 05, 2009, 09:47:53 PM
Tim, you look different somehow. do something with the hair?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 05, 2009, 09:51:51 PM
I'll watch it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 05, 2009, 09:55:07 PM
me too.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 05, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
I'll watch it, even though time-travelling Romulans from the future is a stupid idea, as is fucking up the timeline.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 10:17:24 PM
I shall be there.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
I'll watch it, even though time-travelling Romulans from the future is a stupid idea, as is fucking up the timeline.
Ditto. I figure I'll shoot for expectations of a horrible brainless action-film "reimagining" of the Trek universe. That way, the only surprises for me will be pleasant. ^_^
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 05, 2009, 10:41:24 PM
Many of the previous movies are so bad that unless this one is horrible it pretty much gets a buy :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 10:57:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2009, 10:41:24 PM
Many of the previous movies are so bad that unless this one is horrible it pretty much gets a buy :lol:
None of the TNG-era movies are really glaringly bad. I rewatched Insurrection recently and found that a lot of the complaints about it were really overblown.

I would also say that the only good one was First Contact, and that was probably because it didn't even land in the normal Trek format. Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis all fell into the "last-minute save from the weekly doomsday device" trap, with Generations and Nemesis trying to save face with token sacrifices by Kirk and Data, respectively.

I'm actually predisposed to like the idea of this one because it sounds as if it's not going to be a complete save, and the human cost feels less like a shoestring budget when it's not a overhyped retirement of a washed-up overdramatic actor or exploring the "sacrifice signifies humanity" aspect too little, too late, when the character's earned a penchant as mostly comic relief.

And thus another one of my rants comes to a close. Methinks I really need less free time to overthink these things. :blink:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 09:47:04 PM
:yawn:

Indeed.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:06:47 PM
Aw crap Vinraith agreeing with me on movies, hold me i r scared.
:P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:06:47 PM
Aw crap Vinraith agreeing with me on movies, hold me i r scared.
:P

:D It just shows you how right we both are. A point of agreement like this can only occur when the movie is, in this case, objectively :yawn:.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.

It's pretty sparse, isn't it? I figure the wife will want to see UP, and Pixar's never bad so that's fine, but there's nothing I'm particularly excited about in the entire pile and that's very unusual.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:18:39 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.

It's pretty sparse, isn't it? I figure the wife will want to see UP, and Pixar's never bad so that's fine, but there's nothing I'm particularly excited about in the entire pile and that's very unusual.

Yeah Hangover looks like some potential, Public Enemies from Michael Mann has promise, but could turn out to be like Miami Vice instead of Heat.

I mean i'm sure i'll be compelled to go check out the GeeWhizbang movies (Transformers, GI JoE, Harry Potter) by friends but all in all it is kinda meh.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:33:04 PM
What is this thread about?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 11:35:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:33:04 PM
What is this thread about?

New Star Trek movie out on Thursday. Will probably suck, but a lot of us will see it regardless, just for peace of mind.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:37:27 PM
It'll probably suck, but I'll see it regardless.

Oh wait, did somebody say that already?


Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:33:04 PM
What is this thread about?



The new Star Wars prequel.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:38:47 PM
Georgr Lucas sukcs.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:43:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:18:39 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.

It's pretty sparse, isn't it? I figure the wife will want to see UP, and Pixar's never bad so that's fine, but there's nothing I'm particularly excited about in the entire pile and that's very unusual.

Yeah Hangover looks like some potential, Public Enemies from Michael Mann has promise, but could turn out to be like Miami Vice instead of Heat.

I mean i'm sure i'll be compelled to go check out the GeeWhizbang movies (Transformers, GI JoE, Harry Potter) by friends but all in all it is kinda meh.

I can understand the others just on a "something to see" basis, but the GI Joe trailers look painfully bad. Out of all the big budget special-effects fests this summer (including the topic of this thread) that one looks like it'd be the hardest to sit through to me.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 06, 2009, 12:37:22 AM
Star Trek - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoP3C76ioTU&feature=channel

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 06, 2009, 01:10:17 AM
oh right, you americans can't write dates correctly. Thought it was months away.

it's DD/MM/YYYY!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sophie Scholl on May 06, 2009, 01:17:06 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 06, 2009, 01:10:17 AM
oh right, you americans can't write dates correctly. Thought it was months away.

it's DD/MM/YYYY!

You can write the dates that way for movies from your country. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 03:25:42 AM
Time Travel does screw up the future time line. They can re-write all of the subsequent history we have already watched.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 03:34:06 AM
It'll probably suck, but I'll see it regardless.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 03:36:01 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 03:34:06 AM
It'll probably suck, but I'll see it regardless.

I hate it when that happens....
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Doing it with time travel....probally not.


Quoteoh right, you americans can't write dates correctly. Thought it was months away.

it's DD/MM/YYYY!
Or year-month-day.
Month-day-year is just plain illogical.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 03:41:55 AM
Well, I keep hoping Star Trek movies are going to be like First Contact.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
It's doomed :weep:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 05:36:43 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
It's doomed :weep:

They may call it 11, but in a way it is the first, all the other ones shift one and the odds become evens and evens become odds.. confused yet?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 06, 2009, 05:37:00 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
It's doomed :weep:

The chain was broken with #10: Nemesis. :bleeding:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:42:39 AM
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2009, 05:43:41 AM
34 Fresh, 0 Rotten :w00t:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 05:55:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:42:39 AM
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

The Onion Gets It Right Again!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 06:11:02 AM
These days I only go to matinees, and that is how I will see this, primarily because friends asked.  I have no great desire to see it myself, especially after hearing that it involves time travel. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 06:20:52 AM
I'd like to see it. Maybe my dad will come with me.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:13:06 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 06:11:02 AM
These days I only go to matinees, and that is how I will see this, primarily because friends asked.  I have no great desire to see it myself, especially after hearing that it involves time travel.

That makes me want to see it even more.  Please please please tell me there's a DeLorean in the movie  :w00t: *fingers crossed*
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Inferior to the original.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?

Also, there's the new Superman, which, while it wasn't as good as the Batman reboot, was FAR AND AWAY better than Superman 4. :bleeding: ^ :bleeding:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?

Also, there's the new Superman, which, while it wasn't as good as the Batman reboot, was FAR AND AWAY better than Superman 4. :bleeding: ^ :bleeding:
But not as good as Superman or Superman II.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 07:29:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Batman?
Inferior to the original.

Debatable.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:31:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:26:34 AM
But not as good as Superman or Superman II.

Can't argue with that.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/

I'm going to see the new Star Trek film on Friday but the time travel story sounds a bit crap from what I've heard.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 07:29:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Batman?
Inferior to the original.

Debatable.
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:50:44 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
Not at all.  Both films were based on the comics of the time.  They were both faithful adaptations of the existing comics, and were separated by a generation.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 06, 2009, 07:52:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:22:42 AM

Also, there's the new Superman, which, while it wasn't as good as the Batman reboot, was FAR AND AWAY better than Superman 4. :bleeding: ^ :bleeding:

The new Superman wasn't really a reboot though. It took the first 2 films as canon and just pretended what came after that didn't happen (or was it only 4 they ignored?)

And Batman Begins was rather good. Dark Knight was so-so but Begins trounces the 80s/90s series.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 06, 2009, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/
The 1949 Batman was a serial, not a movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2009, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/
The 1949 Batman was a serial, not a movie.
Ah ok.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Meh, it was still a dominant part.  But the series was so awful that that was no surprise.  In the end they couldn't even let it stand on its own and had to have a TNG tie in.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Meh, it was still a dominant part.  But the series was so awful that that was no surprise.  In the end they couldn't even let it stand on its own and had to have a TNG tie in.
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Still better than the final episode of BSG.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.

No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:10:46 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Still better than the final episode of BSG.

Everything is. I have to admit, it was almost worth the awfulness just to have a cultural reference point to which everything else compares favorably.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Best Batman.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 10:31:19 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.

No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?
Sadly, Trek was never interested in continuity, and at times the writers went out of their way to eliminate it as much as possible.  My concerns are similar to yours.  The characters were all defined by the actors who played them, the friendship between the actors came out onto the screen. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 10:32:19 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.
I can accept that.  The recent movies have done a much better job at showing Bruce Wayne as frivolous and flighty.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

Why not do so?

Nobody will go out and see a new Star Trek movie about a bunch of nobodies; the movies were terrible, Voyager was terrible, and Enterprise was, well, terrible. So you have to try to make Star Trek fresh and exciting, while at the same time giving people a positive reference point.

20 somethings blowing shit up will do nicely, and by repackaging the movie as Kirk, you get some buzz and name value.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

Why not do so?

Nobody will go out and see a new Star Trek movie about a bunch of nobodies; the movies were terrible, Voyager was terrible, and Enterprise was, well, terrible. So you have to try to make Star Trek fresh and exciting, while at the same time giving people a positive reference point.

20 somethings blowing shit up will do nicely, and by repackaging the movie as Kirk, you get some buzz and name value.

*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grallon on May 06, 2009, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 06:20:52 AM
I'd like to see it. Maybe my dad will come with me.



I'll go with you GF - haven't had a proper date in ages.  Time we get aquainted properly anyway  :P




G.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 06, 2009, 11:25:12 AM
I think this film actually looks quite good.
When I first heard of it I was just banging my head at the horror- a prequel about how Kirk and Spock met at the academy...It just had everything wrong about it.
This though looks like it may work; its only the Star Trek tag that could ruin it. Star Trek is never gonna be cool.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AMsay the Tim Burton version is better as a whole,

Tim Burton is the Michael Bay of pseudo-fantasy shit, chock full of heady uber-goth Victorian-steampunk Timmay-spooge goodness.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:32:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Doing it with time travel....probally not.

This.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:36:32 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 11:20:51 AM
*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D

I didn't realize Bernd Schneider posted here. :P

Anyway, sanctity of the original be damned, the franchise has been foundering for some time and needs a swift kick to either end it or get it back up again. The problem is just that time travel as a reboot mechanism happens to be a sore spot with most sci-fi fans.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:36:32 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 11:20:51 AM
*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D

I didn't realize Bernd Schneider posted here. :P

Anyway, sanctity of the original be damned, the franchise has been foundering for some time and needs a swift kick to either end it or get it back up again. The problem is just that time travel as a reboot mechanism happens to be a sore spot with most sci-fi fans.
That's because it works as an occasional episode, not as the central plot device after two other Trek movies used it.  This isn't Doctor Who.  Doctor Who kicks ass. 

If they are gonna 're-imagine' things they should imagine up a good plot that doesn't rely on tired lame stock like time travel. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 06, 2009, 11:29:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AMsay the Tim Burton version is better as a whole,

Tim Burton is the Michael Bay of pseudo-fantasy shit, chock full of heady uber-goth Victorian-steampunk Timmay-spooge goodness.

You make it sound like a bad thing.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: starbright on May 06, 2009, 11:30:59 PM
I will go to one of those 4 am viewings.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 02:56:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.

Keaton was up against Jack Nicholson, that gives him some points out of pity. But even Val Kilmer is a better actor than Keaton.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 06:37:12 AM
As I've mentioned before, I went to a Technological University in the early 90's when Star Trek The Next Generation was still on the air (and after the awful seasons had passed.)  I never followed the series that closely, but many of may fellow students loved the series with a bright, burning, nerdly passion.  I once drove a friend into a near blind rage when I scoffed at deflector shields.

Unfortunately I've lost touch with him over the years; he would have been the ideal person to see this movie with.  I've still got some friends who are trekkies; I plan to see the film with them.  That way if the film is bad I'll at least get some amusement by listening to them complain about how non-canon everything is.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 06:55:47 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:36:32 PM
Anyway, sanctity of the original be damned, the franchise has been foundering for some time and needs a swift kick to either end it or get it back up again. The problem is just that time travel as a reboot mechanism happens to be a sore spot with most sci-fi fans.

Time travel is a usually a warning sign; it's the "A wizard did it" of Sci-fi.  Also the film is supposed to take place, in part, at the Starfleet Academy.  I'm not looking forward to seeing Starfleet Mahoney and Starfleet Hightower.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 07, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Friends are going to watch it tomorrow. I'll skip that one.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 06:55:47 AMTime travel is a usually a warning sign; it's the "A wizard did it" of Sci-fi.  Also the film is supposed to take place, in part, at the Starfleet Academy.  I'm not looking forward to seeing Starfleet Mahoney and Starfleet Hightower.

But if there is a Starfleet Michael Winslow, it will more than make up for things.  Imagine how cool it'd be to hear him making phaser and transporter noises, and imitating Spock.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 09:55:58 AM
All you goddamn Michael Keaton haters can burn in hell.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 07, 2009, 10:15:42 AM
Thread is incomplete without:
Star Trekking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE)
Raumschiff Edelweiss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEpcjgYHE4U) (Edelweiss is a very popular Austrian Hefeweizen beer)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:25:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
I'll watch it, even though time-travelling Romulans from the future is a stupid idea, as is fucking up the timeline.

Time traveling villains are a Standard Trek trope. :contract:

Keeps the movie grounded in Federation space. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Inferior to the original.

The 1941 Serial? then yes. all the Batman movies/TV since have not lived up to all the Tojo bashing  & camp/noir sensibilty from Director Lambert Hillyer in that.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DisturbedPervert on May 07, 2009, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 07, 2009, 10:15:42 AM
Raumschiff Edelweiss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEpcjgYHE4U) (Edelweiss is a very popular Austrian Hefeweizen beer)

I can't believe they didn't make it big in the US.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 12:34:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 09:55:58 AM
All you goddamn Michael Keaton haters can burn in hell.

:yes:  :mad:

BEETLEJUICE!  BEETLEJUICE!  BEETLEJUICE!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:36:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2009, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/
The 1949 Batman was a serial, not a movie.

Serials are short movies. Were shown in movie theatres. also 1949 was the 2nd Batman Serial called "Batman & Robin" actually (and it was better than the movie 50 years or so later with the same name..
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 12:48:21 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Inferior to the original.

The 1941 Serial? then yes. all the Batman movies/TV since have not lived up to all the Tojo bashing  & camp/noir sensibilty from Director Lambert Hillyer in that.
What are you talking about?  Most movies before 1970 didn't actually happen.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 01:15:17 PM
It starts at 7 PM.

Why so late?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 01:15:17 PM
It starts at 7 PM.

Why so late?

Your date can't stay up that long?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
It could have been worst.  Kirk could have been a woman. ;)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
DS9 was more fond of the alternate universe though.

Voyager had a few episodes with time travel.  The episodes were good, but like you I feel time travel is overdone in sci-fi.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:05:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Inferior to the original.
- prefers men in tighs to armored men
- prefers crazy male pilots to crazy female pilots
- is a fan of Kirk
- likes to tease Martinus

I always suspected you were gay.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
But if there is a Starfleet Michael Winslow, it will more than make up for things.  Imagine how cool it'd be to hear him making phaser and transporter noises, and imitating Spock.
It's called Spaceballs, Cal. :contract:

:P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
Who's Marinus?

Dan Marino?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 02:55:13 PM
You are stupid!

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Why?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
It could have been worst.  Kirk could have been a woman. ;)
I think everyone has learned, courtesy of Voyager, that women should never be allowed to command a starship.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.
Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Why?
Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.



:blink: Seriously?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Jaron on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 07, 2009, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
Perfect!  :lmfao:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.



:blink: Seriously?
I looked it up.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

Two words: frozen pond.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:31:10 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
you need to wait after the first week-end to get a credible rating from RottenTomatoes, imho, give time for all cricits to publish, both small and big.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:31:10 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
you need to wait after the first week-end to get a credible rating from RottenTomatoes, imho, give time for all cricits to publish, both small and big.

Yes, and, cesspool though it may be, the user response section can also have some small value after awhile.

Meh, I don't even know why I care so much. I'll probably Netflix it when it comes out, but the only way I'd see it in theatres is if I got roped into going with a group of friends.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 07, 2009, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4)
Perfect!  :lmfao:
they did the same with Star Wars :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.

Big monkey movies will break your heart.  :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
I don't care if it's a good sci fi flick if it's a good film.  The Guardian gave it a good review as a fun summer blockbuster and especially liked the portrayal of Kirk and the development of his friendship with Spock.

I imagine the Star Trek fans may hate it, though I could be wrong.

Edit:  And that's no bad thing.  An excess of fan zeal has made for some bad films in my opinion - anything with Zack Snyder's involvement for example.  He's too dedicated to the original to remember that he's actually meant to be making a film.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:46:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
I don't care if it's a good sci fi flick if it's a good film. 

Which is completely fair. I have a hard time getting past the name of the movie (and the names of the characters), plain and simple.

Oh, and I also have a hard time with how fucking goofy Zachary Quinto looks as a vulcan. Does that bug anyone else?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.

it appears that people need to smack you around more on this forum.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.

it appears that people need to smack you around more on this forum.
:lol: I teach 8th graders, do you really think you guys are gonna bother me much?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.
Wrong.  You're a fanboy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:53:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.

it appears that people need to smack you around more on this forum.
:lol: I teach 8th graders, do you really think you guys are gonna bother me much?

if we tried. oh yes, if we tried harder, somebody would make you cry in your Pikachu pillow.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 04:03:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?

With shaving cream if you are William Shatner.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?

The obvious answer is you don't try. Of course, that's kind of my thought on recasting all these parts, it's always struck me as a bad idea. Nobody's going to out-Shatner Shatner, for example.

That said it's less that he doesn't look like Nimoy (which I wouldn't expect) than that he just looks odd in that make up in my opinion. As I said I haven't heard him speak in character, so I can't comment on that part.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?
Nobody's going to out-Shatner Shatner, for example.
WHAT...are you talking...about?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.

Well he does have practice at it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.

Well he does have practice at it.
And then there was that time he beat up the Rock.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.

Well he does have practice at it.
And then there was that time he beat up the Rock.

Yet he couldn't beat Matt Damon :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:51:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

the top critics - the ones who know something about film - gave it 76%.

which for 8th graders, in case anyone happens to teach them, is a B.

the movie about Donkey Kong (The King of Kong) got 96%. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:54:31 PM
AND I am still waiting for my 600 word review. since it's been a few years since you have promised us that Tim, it better have some good writing, fresh insight,  serious mythological exploration supported by a thorough bibiliography as well as correct footnote style.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

its now 90. if it continues to drop at this rate, we should be in King Kong B territory in about a week.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:51:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

the top critics - the ones who know something about film - gave it 76%.

which for 8th graders, in case anyone happens to teach them, is a B.

That's a C. :mellow:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

its now 90. if it continues to drop at this rate, we should be in King Kong B territory in about a week.
:huh: It's 93%
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Audio review on All Things Considered was entirely positive, beyond noting that the plot disappears halfway through the movie (but noting that nobody will miss it, as the rest is just so much fun).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
I liked this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyfhzqhJNbg&feature=related
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 07, 2009, 05:50:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
I liked this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyfhzqhJNbg&feature=related
True
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 05:57:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

its now 90. if it continues to drop at this rate, we should be in King Kong B territory in about a week.
:huh: It's 93%
cream of crop is 90%. as established, the others are worthless.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 06:04:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:51:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

the top critics - the ones who know something about film - gave it 76%.

which for 8th graders, in case anyone happens to teach them, is a B.

That's a C. :mellow:

apologies. your school is special.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 06:04:48 PM

apologies. your school is special.

No, Tim's special, but his grading scale appears to be the standard one here in the US.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69.

Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69.

Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P

Wow America is harsh.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69.

Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P

Wow America is harsh.

Yet, if you actually do the work and don't go out drinking every other day, it is easy as pie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:46:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Wow America is harsh.

Where we're really harsh is the head-exploding math you need to do to convert your grades to a 4.0 scale for GPA. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 06:48:11 PM
Back when I was in elementary school, 80-89 was A and 90+ was H.

Once you got out of elementary school, there were no more letter grades.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 07, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
I remember having S and or nothing. An S meant success, nothing meant you failed.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 07, 2009, 07:09:27 PM
We had NS (Not Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), G (Good), VG (Very Good) and E (Excellent) in grade school, and then number grades after that.

Though IIRC they changed the grade scheme like three times while i was in elementary school, but the one above is the only one i can remember.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:13:57 PM
This movie is going to be better than StarTrek:

Dhoom 2   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkHTl_Ct4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkHTl_Ct4E)

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.

Did you just use the F word?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.

Did you just use the F word?
Quit being a faggot.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:20:45 PM
You are a faggot!

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:20:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.

Did you just use the F word?

Um, yeah...so what?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 07, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 06:44:16 PM
Yet, if you actually do the work and don't go out drinking every other day, it is easy as pie.
Meh.
Going out beats sitting at home and playing computer games.
There's only so much work to be done.

I've heard a C is considered a bad thing in the US and a C is upper 70s/lower 80s....blimeyl. In the UK a top mark is 70+ and that is very hard to get.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grallon on May 07, 2009, 07:26:28 PM
An entertaining review from The New Yorker  :P

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane




G.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 07, 2009, 07:26:28 PM
An entertaining review from The New Yorker  :P

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane




G.

Fuck, now I'm not going to watch that crap.

Thank you, Grallon.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grallon on May 07, 2009, 07:45:45 PM
Quote

Fuck, now I'm not going to watch that crap.



What ? Not going with the flow Siege ?  ;)



G.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 07, 2009, 08:03:44 PM
That reviewer seemed annoyed for the sake of being annoyed...hmm...:shifty:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69. 
I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale.

Kinda curious where you got it from.
Quote
Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P
This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US.
Some school systems (notably Fairfax County and Montgomery County near me) experimented with an alternate grading scale much like your "traditional" one, but they are switching back as it has become apparent that colleges have ignored the "eliteness" perception the school boards wanted to project by looking so "bad-ass" and simply chose less qualified students from school boards that didn't try to fuck with perceptions.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
I've heard a C is considered a bad thing in the US and a C is upper 70s/lower 80s....blimeyl. In the UK a top mark is 70+ and that is very hard to get.
It all depends on what is being tested.  Getting 70% of the questions right on an AP exam, for instance, is very good indeed.  Getting the names of 70% of the countries in Africa right is very bad indeed.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 08:30:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PMThis "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US.
Some school systems (notably Fairfax County and Montgomery County near me) experimented with an alternate grading scale much like your "traditional" one, but they are switching back as it has become apparent that colleges have ignored the "eliteness" perception the school boards wanted to project by looking so "bad-ass" and simply chose less qualified students from school boards that didn't try to fuck with perceptions.

At my high school an A was 95-100, a B was 85-94 etc. The College Board Grading scale is pretty uniform among colleges and universities, I'm not sure how uniform it is among high schools.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 08:39:48 PM
:o :o :o :o :o

I can't believe what I just saw. When they said they screwed with the timeline they weren't kidding. Still I heartily approve. Five cocksure Captain Kirks out of five.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Habbaku on May 07, 2009, 08:40:45 PM
Taintedâ„¢.

All the same, I will probably still be dragged to the movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 07, 2009, 09:27:02 PM
Cardboard characters. Shallow. Cheesy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 09:40:32 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 07, 2009, 09:27:02 PM
Cardboard characters. Shallow. Cheesy.

My kind of movie.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 07, 2009, 10:20:37 PM
I liked the onion's take. Thanks, Seedy.

Of course, the best part was the end on the faux-teaser: And elderly black woman is still following Obama around and shedding a tear everytime he does anything.  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 07, 2009, 10:45:57 PM
All this Star Trek talk is making me want to watch Star Trek IV again.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 07, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
I enjoyed it. It was a bit predictable in all the wrong places though. And the Romulans seemed like part dirty mexican/part mobster. I did not care for Captain Nero at all.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 07, 2009, 11:58:58 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 07, 2009, 09:27:02 PM
Cardboard characters. Shallow. Cheesy.

:thumbsup:

Glad they kept the spirit of the original.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 08, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.

Especially with regard to Star Trek, apparently. According to RT's review system, the best Star Trek movie of all time is... wait for it... First Contact.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 08, 2009, 12:16:21 AM
Borg queen :wub:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 08, 2009, 12:28:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 12:16:21 AM
Borg queen :wub:

Fag!

Ok, she was hott.

I still fucking hate you.

Or nott.


Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 08, 2009, 02:32:02 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 08, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
Especially with regard to Star Trek, apparently. According to RT's review system, the best Star Trek movie of all time is... wait for it... First Contact.

But that is the best Star Trek movie of all t... Oh, wait. Right.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 03:35:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Wow America is harsh.
Or easy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2009, 05:42:42 AM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
I enjoyed it. It was a bit predictable in all the wrong places though. And the Romulans seemed like part dirty mexican/part mobster. I did not care for Captain Nero at all.
Really? I totally didn't expect the bad guys plan to be successful.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
[snip incoherent Grumbler rant]
If you bothered reading my post, I was talking about the grading system Tim would use. Elementary schools and junior high schools use the 7-point scale all the time. I wasn't talking about college; all the college courses I've seen were either 10-point scale, flat letter grade, or pass/fail.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 06:43:24 AM
Using letters is retarded anyway.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:51:01 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 05:47:35 AM
(snip defensive DSB whine that still managed to be insulting on a juvenile basis)
If you had bothered reading my post, you would have seen that I noted never having seen the 7-point scale before, and asked where you had gotten it (and the title of "Traditional US Grading Tutorial").  Whining that Tim may use a seven-point scale (when, in fact, he may not) isn't an answer to the question.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine.  But don't attribute your failure to answer on the argument that there was anything "incoherent" about:

1. "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale."

2. "Kinda curious where you got it from" or

3. "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US."
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:55:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 06:43:24 AM
Using letters is retarded anyway.
Calling the use of letter grades "retarded" is retarded.

It is all arbitrary.  So long as any system is understood, it works.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:55:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 06:43:24 AM
Using letters is retarded anyway.
Calling the use of letter grades "retarded" is retarded.

It is all arbitrary.  So long as any system is understood, it works.

Alright.

Is it understood tho? A's is excellent, C's alright & D's failure no? but it seems the grading % doesn't quite show that.

In school, I always tried to get above 70.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:11 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 08, 2009, 12:28:25 AM
Ok, she was hott.

The Borg Queen was much hotter when she was a banshee in Ghost Story. :perv:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AMIn school, I always tried to get above 70.

errr... in school, I always tried to get above 99.  :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:39:29 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AMIn school, I always tried to get above 70.

errr... in school, I always tried to get above 99.  :cool:

I was never an over achiever.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Razgovory on May 08, 2009, 07:40:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
[snip incoherent Grumbler rant]
If you bothered reading my post, I was talking about the grading system Tim would use. Elementary schools and junior high schools use the 7-point scale all the time. I wasn't talking about college; all the college courses I've seen were either 10-point scale, flat letter grade, or pass/fail.

What the fuck are you talkin about?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AMIn school, I always tried to get above 70.

errr... in school, I always tried to get above 99.  :cool:

I always did the extra credit too, so I could be lazy later.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:43:02 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:39:29 AMI was never an over achiever.

How is that being an overachiever?  :huh:

Oh wait, I forgot: French.  :)

"Mais oui, we should have a better army so we can stop being conquered by the Germans every generation."
"OVERACHIEVER!"
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:43:46 AM
I am NOT : Zoupa.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:43:46 AM
I am NOT : Zoupa.

Your blood has: the taint.  :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:54:56 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:43:46 AM
I am NOT : Zoupa.

Your blood has: the taint.  :cool:

Sure, filthy Hun.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:54:56 AMSure, filthy Hun.

Actually, I have a terrible confession to make.

My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother's maiden name: CHATEAU. :o

:weep:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:59:43 AM
My grandma's an Anglo.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 08:04:05 AM
OTOH, the Frenchies in my blood were supposedly Alsatians, so I may be free of the terrible Gallic taint.  :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AM
Alright.

Is it understood tho? A's is excellent, C's alright & D's failure no? but it seems the grading % doesn't quite show that.

In school, I always tried to get above 70.
The grading % is meaningless as such.  "Above 70" is meaningless out of context.  Above 70 Zercons? Above 70 degrees kelvin?

I am not sure I have ever encountered a person who doesn't understand that an "A" grade is something to be proud of, and a "D" is something to be ashamed of.  Within the US educational context, the letter grades are clear.  A student who scores a 70 points on my AP Euro test gets an "A" (and, since AP grades get bumped an extra level for being AP grades, that is the equivelent of a 5.0 out of 4.0 in grade point average).  One who gets 40 points gets a C+ (which counts as a B+ towards the GPA) even though it is only 50% of the possible points.

Students who get only 50% of the points on a regular test of mine, though, get an F.  On geography tests, if they only get 80% of the points that is also an F.

So, what matters to US students (and colleges, when it comes to college apps) is the average letter grade, not some percentage or arbitrary "70 points."  In canada, the letter grade system may not be well understood and the system that gave to "70 points" is well-understood, in which case that arbitrary system is the one to use.

So, raw numbers are pretty meaningless, absent some arbitrary system to give them meaning.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 08, 2009, 08:24:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
On geography tests, if they only get 80% of the points that is also an F.

I've never had a teacher do that. Any that gave tests that easy were fine with passing out A's like candy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
The problem is that grades are a mix of the objective (some people actually do perform better than others and try harder), subjective, and purely arbitrary. They will never really be totally uniform no matter what system one uses.

For example - even assuming a teacher is totally objective and consistent, what exactly are they supposed to be measuring - Performance, or effort and improvement? Or a mix of both?

For example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM
QuoteFor example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others
Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...


Thinking about it its the British system which is the strange, shitty odd one out.
70%+ = the top mark.
Then with all the other crap like only once chance to do anything it really messes things up.

But then the new Swedish system isn't much better.
98%+ is needed for a A. I prefer the old one with just G and VG.
And then there's some teachers who only give pass or fail even despite the new system- hence I have one E on my transcript (this being the lowest pass mark) :bleeding:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 08, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2009, 05:42:42 AM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
I enjoyed it. It was a bit predictable in all the wrong places though. And the Romulans seemed like part dirty mexican/part mobster. I did not care for Captain Nero at all.
Really? I totally didn't expect the bad guys plan to be successful.

I was mainly talking about Spock and their solution to the problem and various other things through out the movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM
QuoteFor example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others
Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...

In that context, it makes perfect sense though.

You cannot possibly grade a language class on a strictly relative scale if some of the people are starting off with a firm grasp of the language, and others have none. If the class level is appropriate for those who have none, then it is likely that those with a grasp are in the wrong class to begin with.

I dropped a Russian class for this exact reason. had about 30 people in the class (begining Russian for people with zero Russian), and it was taught by this grad student. About half or more of the class were obviously either native Russian speakers, or grew up in a home that spoke Russian, and the grad student taught at THEIR level. Lots of "Wow, you guys are really picking this up quickly! Lets move on!".

Mandatory language requirements for a bachelors of Science degree. Bull. Shit.

I dropped the class, and by the next semester they dropped the language requirements.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 09:26:33 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
For example - even assuming a teacher is totally objective and consistent, what exactly are they supposed to be measuring - Performance, or effort and improvement? Or a mix of both?
You reward behavior that you want repeated.  Generally speaking, this means effort more than it means outcome.  However, in AP Euro, my grades are 100% outcome-based because that is how the exam is graded.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM

Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...

It totally depends on the teacher. Languages suffer from the problem that, more than most other subjects, people come to them with vastly different levels of expertise - often they attempt to solve this problem by having different levels of class (beginner, intermediate, advanced) but in many cases there is not the resources to have so many different classes - this severly discourages newbies (who can compete against those who already speak it?) unless marking has an element of "improvement" to it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 08:24:57 AM
I've never had a teacher do that. Any that gave tests that easy were fine with passing out A's like candy.
I would guess that 80% of my students get 100% grades on the geography tests, so I still end up passing out As like candy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 09:30:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:51:01 AM
If you had bothered reading my post, you would have seen that I noted never having seen the 7-point scale before, and asked where you had gotten it (and the title of "Traditional US Grading Tutorial").  Whining that Tim may use a seven-point scale (when, in fact, he may not) isn't an answer to the question.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine.  But don't attribute your failure to answer on the argument that there was anything "incoherent" about:

1. "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale."

2. "Kinda curious where you got it from" or

3. "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US."

Points 1 & 3. I made up the name, because I didn't know the formal names for them. Every public elementary school I've heard of in NJ, PA, and NY uses a combination of the 7-point scale and NS/S/E. Some of the private schools are switching to the CBGS format to try to show more As in testing.

Point 2. My last two jobs kept me in touch with a LOT of public school teachers and principals across the country, and my grandmother teaching in PA has been griping about the format change for almost a year now.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:33:07 AM
Harris Hill elementary school in Penfield, New York does not use a 7 point scale.

So now there is at least 1 that you have heard of that does not.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM
QuoteFor example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others
Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...

In that context, it makes perfect sense though.

You cannot possibly grade a language class on a strictly relative scale if some of the people are starting off with a firm grasp of the language, and others have none. If the class level is appropriate for those who have none, then it is likely that those with a grasp are in the wrong class to begin with.

I dropped a Russian class for this exact reason. had about 30 people in the class (begining Russian for people with zero Russian), and it was taught by this grad student. About half or more of the class were obviously either native Russian speakers, or grew up in a home that spoke Russian, and the grad student taught at THEIR level. Lots of "Wow, you guys are really picking this up quickly! Lets move on!".

Mandatory language requirements for a bachelors of Science degree. Bull. Shit.

I dropped the class, and by the next semester they dropped the language requirements.

Heh it was kinda amusing in a sad sort of way to see a Chinese premed arguing angrily with the teacher - in Chinese - about getting a shittier mark in Chinese language than I; I could understand about one word in five of their argument.  :lol:

I think the problem was that these premeds were expected to take at least some non-med-related courses to be "well rounded". Naturally they chose stuff that they thought would be easy and devoted all their effort to their med-related courses, with the effect of pissing off the teachers of the courses they had chosen - taking Chinese when you already speak it, etc.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
Yeah that system sounds good. Just never encountered it.
Languages are indeed daft. I always wondered why you don't get more foreigners taking a class in their language for a easy A. Maybe they do raise the bar for them.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:49:24 AM
I wanted to argue that if they could fulfill their "language requirement" by taking Russian, I should be allowed to fill mine by taking English.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 08, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
Students who get only 50% of the points on a regular test of mine, though, get an F.  On geography tests, if they only get 80% of the points that is also an F.
If American geography classes are so difficult, how come Americans don't know where anything is?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 09:58:41 AM
I like harassing my business and economics professors, back to school style.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 10:43:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 09:30:56 AM

Quote1. "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale."

2. "Kinda curious where you got it from" or

3. "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US."

Points 1 & 3. I made up the name, because I didn't know the formal names for them. Every public elementary school I've heard of in NJ, PA, and NY uses a combination of the 7-point scale and NS/S/E. Some of the private schools are switching to the CBGS format to try to show more As in testing.
If you regard "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale" to be incoherent, then I suggest some remedial reading courses.  if the "incoherent' part was the phrase "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" then a remedial writing course is suggested, as well.

If you regard "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US" as incoherent, then you need that reading comprehension course.

How, i don't have time to look at a bunch of school systems in NY, NJ, and PA, so you may be right.  Evidence, however, is against you.  Of the http://www.fairgrade.org/Facts.aspx?cat=13 (http://www.fairgrade.org/Facts.aspx?cat=13) 44 "Top 100" high schools listed, 16 were in the states you listed as being knowledgeable about.  Four of the sixteen used non-standard grading scales.  Twleve of the sixteen used the grading scale I said was fairly universal in the US.  Zero used the grading scale you claimed that all of the schools you knew of used.  It is possible that you are just statistically unlucky in knowing only poor high schools, or it is possible that this sample (it isn't random) is not statistically significant, but it is also possible that you just made up your facts.

QuotePoint 2. My last two jobs kept me in touch with a LOT of public school teachers and principals across the country, and my grandmother teaching in PA has been griping about the format change for almost a year now.
Sorry about your grandma's discomfiture, but my job keeps me in touch with teachers, too, and most of them (and all of them in Florida, which has a state-mandated 10-point scale) disagree with your teachers.

So, I can match your anecdotes and stomp your stats.  Got anything else in your arnsenal, Mr. Reading Issues?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 08, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
I love seeing Carrot taken to task by grumbler...it is about time. :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 11:09:26 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?

I'd rate it as B+.

Oh, wait ...  :lol:

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
If American geography classes are so difficult, how come Americans don't know where anything is?
I only teach some 60 sophomores.  They know where things are.  I cannot answer for any of the other several millions of sophomores, nor for non-sophomores.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 08, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
If American geography classes are so difficult, how come Americans don't know where anything is?
I only teach some 60 sophomores.  They know where things are.  I cannot answer for any of the other several millions of sophomores, nor for non-sophomores.
Perhaps you should expand your operations.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 11:09:26 AM
I'd rate it as B+.

Oh, wait ...  :lol:
The meanings of the letter grades are not actually in dispute (and they are used widely in Europe, as well, at least in the The European Credit Transfer System).

The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:39:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Perhaps you should expand your operations.
What is funny is that my students universally enjoy the geography units, even the memorization, and get a great deal of satisfaction out of knowing that they don't fit the "geographics-challenged" label.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 08, 2009, 11:59:22 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?

I know!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
For example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others.
Bullshit. That would be funny if an Army Lieutenant got promoted because he began to get less of his men killed compared to another lieutenant that always achieved the mission with no casualties.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:18:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
Bullshit. That would be funny if an Army Lieutenant got promoted because he began to get less of his men killed compared to another lieutenant that always achieved the mission with no casualties.
If the first mission was assaulting enemy-held hilltops and the other was washing dishes, it wouldn't be funny to promote the first lieutenant ahead of the second one.   
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
Probably fewer than you think.  ;)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 08, 2009, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 08:24:57 AM
I've never had a teacher do that. Any that gave tests that easy were fine with passing out A's like candy.
I would guess that 80% of my students get 100% grades on the geography tests, so I still end up passing out As like candy.

This is heartening to hear that a big percentage of kids do well on Geography. I know a lot of young people who barely know where anyplace is anywhaere.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:27:31 PM
I was speaking to a teacher in SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) who said that in their classes it's often the people with no experience who do best because they work harder, they often have little experience of the written language and they have less ingrained grammatical errors (if you speak Bengali at home you may not be speaking proper Bengali for example). 

He said a lot of native speakers are just that, they aren't able to write or read well in the language and they don't know the grammar but they can speak and talk very well.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
At my uni a 3rd is over 40%, a 2:2 is over 50%, a 2:1 is over 60% and a first is 70%.  One of my tutors said he once gave someone's essay a 90, which is the highest mark he'd ever given, and recommended they send it to a journal.  It was published in the Dickens Quaterly Review.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 12:31:45 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
For example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others.
Bullshit. That would be funny if an Army Lieutenant got promoted because he began to get less of his men killed compared to another lieutenant that always achieved the mission with no casualties.

What if the first guy was leading a team composed entirely of deaf dumb and blind parapalegic children, and the second was leading a team of experienced US Marines?  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
At my uni a 3rd is over 40%, a 2:2 is over 50%, a 2:1 is over 60% and a first is 70%.  One of my tutors said he once gave someone's essay a 90, which is the highest mark he'd ever given, and recommended they send it to a journal.  It was published in the Dickens Quaterly Review.
Yes, but 55% of what?  And how does that what compare to the what that gets and 80% (and therefor a B-, perhaps) in ECTS-speak?  If a school looks at a student with a 2:2 and one with a B- who are academically competing for a position, which student has performed better?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Why?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Why?
Because, according to Malthus's teacher, the latter salesman showed the most "improvement".
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 12:43:41 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.

Actually - in a business way, I've seen exactly that happen.

Reason was - salesman #1's assigned territory was much more lucrative to begin with. Salesman #2 was assigned a difficult territory, to groom it. Salesman #2 therefore had the better achievement. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Why?
Because, according to Malthus's teacher, the latter salesman showed the most "improvement".
Nope.  It depends on too many other factors.

Suppose the salesman who sells $90 the first week and $100 the second week is simply selling to his relatives and expending little or no effort.  The salesman who sold $40 the first week and $70 the seond week is making cold calls.

An opening appears for a salesman in a new city.  Which salesman are you gonna send, Kemosabe?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 01:00:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
At my uni a 3rd is over 40%, a 2:2 is over 50%, a 2:1 is over 60% and a first is 70%.  One of my tutors said he once gave someone's essay a 90, which is the highest mark he'd ever given, and recommended they send it to a journal.  It was published in the Dickens Quaterly Review.
Same at Newcastle. The highest I ever got was 86% and that was in a fairly basic maths course (i.e. there was definate right and wrong answers). 100% is probally only attainable if you cure all the world's problems with your work.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cecil on May 08, 2009, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.

As long as you get the borders it tends to be fairly managable unless you are to pinpoint the exact placement of the cities. Made one of those african online geography tests once without the borders....got a dissapointingly low score.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2009, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?

Rotten Tomatoes now has it at 96%; 180 positive, and  8 negative.

Their Cream of the Crop has it at 91%; 30 positive, and 3 negative.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.

Also, my step-grandmother had the same surname.  She's another one of my grandfather's cousins (though a second cousin this time).  :Embarrass:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
QuoteI'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
In university? :blink:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:34:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.

Also, my step-grandmother had the same surname.  She's another one of my grandfather's cousins (though a second cousin this time).  :Embarrass:

Caliga has acquired the trait: inbred.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 01:35:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.

One of my ancestresses was an actual real-live witch ... or at least, was accused of being one.

They allegedly tried to hang her, and failed - she lived.

Mary Webster, aka "Half-Hanged Mary"

http://faculty.uml.edu/bmarshall/Mary%20Webster.htm
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 01:35:13 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:34:23 PMCaliga has acquired the trait: inbred.

My grandather is merely trying to preserve his noble Pennsylvania Dutchman dynasty.  :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 08, 2009, 01:45:14 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 08, 2009, 01:28:52 PM
As long as you get the borders it tends to be fairly managable unless you are to pinpoint the exact placement of the cities. Made one of those african online geography tests once without the borders....got a dissapointingly low score.

I agree, they're easy tests, but just saying there were a lot of kids in my class that struggled a bit.

@ Jos- 9th grade
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
Yep.  Maps with the countries numbered.  You have to fill in country names and capitals on a separate sheet which just has the numbers.

Kids spend about two days per continent in class on this (mostly at sheppardsoftware.com) but a few nights on their own.  They tend to get competitive, and even give with learning issues enjoyed playing the computer games and racing each other for the perfect score in the least time.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2009, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
Yep.  Maps with the countries numbered.  You have to fill in country names and capitals on a separate sheet which just has the numbers.

Kids spend about two days per continent in class on this (mostly at sheppardsoftware.com) but a few nights on their own.  They tend to get competitive, and even give with learning issues enjoyed playing the computer games and racing each other for the perfect score in the least time.

"300 quadlos on the fat Chinese kid with the spectacles."
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on May 14, 2022, 11:47:08 AM
....For general Star Trek stuff  :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 16, 2022, 09:42:41 PM
Started rewatching Deep Space Nine alongside my rewatch of TNG and man, that DS9 intro music is easily one of my favorite of all time. Definitely my favorite Star Trek intro music.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 03:02:17 AM
I watched DS9 for the first time* last year and I had a blast. Possibly my favorite Trek - although I've to find time to rewatch the best seasons/episodes of TNG.

*Only the first season aired originally in Spain
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 17, 2022, 12:03:03 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 03:02:17 AMI watched DS9 for the first time* last year and I had a blast. Possibly my favorite Trek - although I've to find time to rewatch the best seasons/episodes of TNG.

*Only the first season aired originally in Spain
Some of the TNG episodes were better, Voyager's two parters were often excellent, but as a whole, DS9 nailed them all.  It's like what B5 could have been with a budget :P 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 12:07:56 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 16, 2022, 09:42:41 PMStarted rewatching Deep Space Nine alongside my rewatch of TNG and man, that DS9 intro music is easily one of my favorite of all time. Definitely my favorite Star Trek intro music.

DS9 might be my favourite Trek, but the opening music was too slow, and played for too long.

My dark horse candidate for best Star Trek intro music?  Lower Decks. :ph34r:

Discovery and TNG are pretty decent as well.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 04:02:10 PM
No love for the original theme? It definitely wears its sixtiesness on its sleeve, but has lots of charm.

Anyway, TNG is my favorite, but a very big reason is because it's the Trek I grew up with.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 04:02:10 PMNo love for the original theme?

Anyway, TNG is my favorite, but a very big reason is because it's the Trek I grew up with.

The first bit, the original spoken word, together with the first few notes, can bring chills.

But then it goes into this weird wordless vocal bit that goes all over the place.

Hard to separate what you grew up with, so maybe I'm trying to hard to do so by mentioning Lower Decks and Disco.  TNG is good too, but maybe too bright, too much fanfare?


And there's no contest for worst Trek theme song, right?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 04:07:46 PMAnd there's no contest for worst Trek theme song, right?



For reference:

https://youtu.be/pmQsrXLofMY
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 17, 2022, 06:43:17 PM
I like Cel's opening.

this one is good too, except the music :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbsZRbwbJ4
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 04, 2022, 09:24:53 AM
Discovery has become a hate watch for me. We watch it just to make fun. Just saw the episode where tilly leads some cadets.
Man it seemed so sure it was a setup until the throwaway guy died. And even after that... Just.... Dumb dumb dumb.

The sad thing is some people out there are saying discovery sucks because of teh woke. Not just because it has gotten awful. I really did like series 1 but it has been quite a steep decline.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 09, 2022, 09:41:01 PM
I just finished getting current on Discovery the other day.

I guess I would say overall I liked it, but each season was worse than the one before it, IMO.  I really liked the Klingon focus on season 1.  Also, they kept killing off/removing the best actors, like Jason Isaacs and Michelle Yeoh.

I don't mind how woke Discovery is, and I kind of liked the Adira/Grey Tal characters.  Also, why does Burnham whisper like every other line?  My wife would not stop complaining about that  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 09, 2022, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 04:07:46 PMAnd there's no contest for worst Trek theme song, right?



For reference:

https://youtu.be/pmQsrXLofMY
I liked ENT's song  :Embarrass:

The Rod Stewart version is way better than the one they recorded for the show, though.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tonitrus on June 10, 2022, 12:26:13 AM
I like it too.  :sleep:

But I will concede it feels a little out of place.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 10, 2022, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 09, 2022, 09:41:01 PMI just finished getting current on Discovery the other day.

I guess I would say overall I liked it, but each season was worse than the one before it, IMO.  I really liked the Klingon focus on season 1.  Also, they kept killing off/removing the best actors, like Jason Isaacs and Michelle Yeoh.

I don't mind how woke Discovery is, and I kind of liked the Adira/Grey Tal characters.  Also, why does Burnham whisper like every other line?  My wife would not stop complaining about that  :lol:

For all its flaws I actually like Discovery. I think it tends to be overly (melo)dramatic and tries to be heavy on emotional scenes, but rarely pulls it off really well. And its seasons are always built around a huge existential threat to either the Federation or all life in the galaxy which is a bit silly. I was glad about the reboot in S3, and giving Michael a year off screen to loosen up a lot before rejoining the crew. S3 started great, but had a weak second half. I thought S4 had a good second half after a weaker first half. S2 remains the best IMO, though.


SNW Ep. 6 was decent, but IMHO the weakest of the bunch so far. It does the trope of one has to suffer for all to prosper that you can see coming from a mile away, and while I liked that it ended darker than Trek often does (reminded me of the early Orville episode about Bortus's kid in that regard), it left me overall a bit "eh." I did like the La'an/Uhura stuff, though. Maybe that's why it felt weaker - in just a few episodes, I like the characters already a lot, and episodes that shift focus away from them then seem to lack some of that "magic", maybe?

Not many shows make you root for or get attached to most (all?) main characters quite so quickly. The cast seem to have incredible chemistry. In sci-fi Firefly comes to mind for me. I think even Farscape took longer for me to actually like all of the main cast, but it started from the premise of prisoners on the run and everyone being suspicious of each other. Aeryn was quite insufferable at the start (but that was kinda the point). :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 10, 2022, 01:21:55 AM
Oh, and one complaint about modern Trek that stood out again in some scenes for me on this episode: their overuse of camera cranes for "dynamic shots" - I mean all the times the scenes start at or go through Dutch or upside down angles and rotates around the characters, even where there's literally nothing going on that might warrant it.

Also, little detail - I watched this episode in 2160p and noticed a detail I hadn't seen before. The Starfleet uniforms feature tiny service symbols in the fabric of their shoulders. So Pike and #1 have the "star" command symbol, Uhura the operations symbol etc. It's silly and dumb, but I love it. :lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-2tRh1UYAUiZCY.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM82-1WXIAMh5nl?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2573/6178/products/StarTrekStrangeNewWorldsCaptainPikeGoldUniformsStartfleetBlueRedTopShirts_12_1024x1024.jpg?v=1648886222)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 10, 2022, 08:48:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 10, 2022, 01:14:11 AMFor all its flaws I actually like Discovery. I think it tends to be overly (melo)dramatic and tries to be heavy on emotional scenes, but rarely pulls it off really well. And its seasons are always built around a huge existential threat to either the Federation or all life in the galaxy which is a bit silly. I was glad about the reboot in S3, and giving Michael a year off screen to loosen up a lot before rejoining the crew. S3 started great, but had a weak second half. I thought S4 had a good second half after a weaker first half. S2 remains the best IMO, though.
The 'huge existential threat' is something you see in most sci-fi/fantasy, so it doesn't bother me too much, but I prefer more episodic formats like TOS, TNG, etc. where obviously you can't do something like that.

I also discovered the other day that the old nerd psychologist guy in the future is David Cronenberg. :cool: I also liked Stacey Abram's cameo.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 10, 2022, 10:30:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2022, 08:48:52 AMI also discovered the other day that the old nerd psychologist guy in the future is David Cronenberg. :cool: I also liked Stacey Abram's cameo.

Yeah, that was interesting. Cronenberg in Star Trek is almost as "out there" as Werner Herzog in Star Wars. :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 14, 2022, 04:04:25 PM
Picard > Discovery.

That is all.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 16, 2022, 06:10:50 AM
Ok, this episode of Strange New Worlds was ... something. :lol: I didn't hate it, but it had a lot of "WTF am I even watching?" moments after its pretty standard first act or so. Towards the end, though, I realized that the episode, its tone and antics, and its over the top scenery chewing antagonist would have fit in quite perfectly with the original series (or maybe even better with the animated show).

When they showed Pike at the helm of the pirate ship standing behind an old fashioned wheel like on a sailing ship I groaned and rolled my eyes and laughed because ... yeah, it was that seemed quite appropriate for the episode.

If this had been an episode with Kirk, Scotty, McCoy etc., it would not have been out of place a single bit. I guess that's praise?  :hmm: :D

Plus there's the ending where I thought, "Whoa, we're *really* going there?"
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 16, 2022, 07:53:06 AM
It's definitely trying to imitate the original series.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 16, 2022, 12:21:09 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2022, 06:10:50 AMWhen they showed Pike at the helm of the pirate ship standing behind an old fashioned wheel like on a sailing ship 

They had inspiration.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/4be561f7-178d-46ea-a4c5-056d15df1b0d/d7g7i1m-2a4ed302-f86c-4ae9-b254-f946626bbdbf.png/v1/fill/w_751,h_1064,q_70,strp/albator_78_by_niiii_link_d7g7i1m-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTEwMCIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzRiZTU2MWY3LTE3OGQtNDZlYS1hNGM1LTA1NmQxNWRmMWIwZFwvZDdnN2kxbS0yYTRlZDMwMi1mODZjLTRhZTktYjI1NC1mOTQ2NjI2YmJkYmYucG5nIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTc3NyJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.sNECBIQv30pbPgu2CXkllMobrm9h9tloG8lnzuTIoX4)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 16, 2022, 08:38:54 PM
Most recent episode was pretty good. Liked the villain
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on June 19, 2022, 08:11:15 PM
I feel like this show is putting out bangers every week. Loving it.

And yeah that cut to Pike at the helm of an old sailing wheel was  :lol: Great stuff
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 20, 2022, 01:27:24 AM
In case people were wondering if the villain enjoyed her role:

(https://i.postimg.cc/fLP7rmWq/image.png)

:cool:

It goes back to what I mentioned above - the cast seems to have so much fun with this show, and have really good chemistry (something that TNG took a while to reach IMO). Now, I'm generally wary of shows and movies trading on nostalgia, but this one is nailing it so far and adding much needed levity. I enjoy Discovery for the most part, but it can often feel quite joyless and taking itself too seriously. SNW seems more inspired by the success of The Orville and Lower Decks (though obviously toning down the latter's over the top humor and antics).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 20, 2022, 05:55:53 AM
See up until now I did not notice that villain was trans
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 20, 2022, 08:29:37 AM
Quote from: Josephus on June 16, 2022, 08:38:54 PMMost recent episode was pretty good. Liked the villain
It could have been a little less predictable.  You could basically guess the plot by the first 5 minutes of the show, and the more it went on, the more you knew what would happen.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 21, 2022, 04:01:57 PM
Continuing to watch discovery with its boring worm hole of doom plot.

Seems its artificial! And some guy (a risan who doesn't fit in. I do like that) has an idea for an experiment to test how it works by creating a miniature.

But... At the same time the worm hole is off to eat a colony of 2000 people.

Do they do the sensible thing and wait a few hours till the rescue is done before doing their experiment, maybe doing it on an abandoned planet with lots of power and no people?
Do they hell.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on June 22, 2022, 12:25:53 PM
I also thought the villain was great, with their own motivations that actually made sense.  I also thought it was especially great that the trans actor was treated as another actor and the show runners didn't hit us over the head with the fact that they are trans (unlike Discovery).

This has become my favourite Sci fi show, by far.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on June 23, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2022, 12:25:53 PMThis has become my favourite Sci fi show, by far.


Mine too. This show is genuinely good. It's only been a handful of episodes but I feel like I've seen these characters for years. Great acting and chemistry, solid writing and characterization, and interesting stories. Feels good to be watching some good star treks man.