Star Trek 2009 - The saddest part of this movie ...
- Thread starter Bluce Ree
- Start date
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
It's called "bad writing".
Truthfully, most movies of this caliber are written by committee over a long period of time. Even though only one, or several, person(s) is given credit the list of people who have put pen to paper is almost always larger. So basically you've got a bunch of writers who come up with something, then a director who changes stuff, then a producer who changes stuff, then some writers that the hot shot director hires to rewrite it all (but give him sole credit), etc. etc. etc. Eventually a movie gets made and it has plot holes and logic flaws. That's just how it is.
Now, you want me to tell you how babies are made?
B
Backstep
Guest
Everyone knows it's storks.
Good point. Also, why the stupid spacedive onto the drill instead of just firing a torpedo at the thing or even ramming a shuttle into it? Speaking of shuttles, why the HELL was the Enterprise submerged on that planet in Into Darkness instead of a shuttle? Does this Enterprise even have shuttles? Wait...with "transwarp beaming", you dont even need shuttles or even a ship.
Just set up transporter relay systems and beam entire structures wherever you need them. Make mega transporter pads where you can beam entire settlements onto planets to colonize them, or beam pre-assembled space stations into orbit around distant planets in other solar systems...like Kahn () beamed to Quo'nos from earth using a briefcase.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Good point. Also, why the stupid spacedive onto the drill instead of just firing a torpedo at the thing or even ramming a shuttle into it? Speaking of shuttles, why the HELL was the Enterprise submerged on that planet in Into Darkness instead of a shuttle? Does this Enterprise even have shuttles? Wait...with "transwarp beaming", you dont even need shuttles or even a ship.
View attachment 28543
I'd love one of those briefcase beamer thingies.
I bet even Captain Picard would love one.
In First Contact, Data said that his "personal transporter" was experimental and designed by Geordi LaForge and was good for only one shot and relatively short range. Perhaps Geordi traveled back in time and is hiding out inventing shit like "transwarp beaming" on 23rd Century earth? 
You cant undo that kind of messup in Star Trek. Such a device cannot be made canon. I hope that whomever takes over for the next movie creates some sort of disastrous side effect when using those gadgets, preventing their use ever again. Also, I hope that the new Enterprise is NEVER seen landed on a planet or flying around like a common airliner in the atmosphere again. We have not seen any shuttles used in either 2009 or Into Darkness, except those utility shuttles used in spacedock. Abrams messed things all up.
Last edited:
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
I bet even Captain Picard would love one.
You cant undo that kind of messup in Star Trek. Such a device cannot be made canon. I hope that whomever takes over for the next movie creates some sort of disastrous side effect when using those gadgets, preventing their use ever again. Also, I hope that the new Enterprise is NEVER seen landed on a planet or flying around like a common airliner in the atmosphere again. We have not seen any shuttles used in either 2009 or Into Darkness, except those utility shuttles used in spacedock. Abrams messed things all up.
Well................
The Enterprise WAS supposed to be able to land and operate in atmospherics, but the cost of them to do it in TOS was prohibitive. If you look at the TOS Ent, it does have retractable landing struts like Voyager. IIRC, one of the reasons they wanted Voyager to be able to land was to show off something that Gene originally wanted
Last edited by a moderator:
Well................
The Enterprise WAS supposed to be able to land and operate in atmospherics, but the cost of them to do it in TOS was prohibitive. If you look at the TOS Ent, it does have retractable landing struts like Voyager. IIRC, one of the reasons they wanted Voyager to be able to land was to show off something that Gene originally wanted
Almost correct, but no.
The original concept in TOS was the detachable saucer section, and that was the only part which would have landed on planets as a ship. Even the shuttles were not part of the original concept. The landing struts on the saucer section that you can see are only two of three total struts. The third one is hidden under the connecting pylon (this is a model):In "The Making of Star Trek", Roddenberry describes the saucer section as being detachable from the ship and being able to land on planets. We first saw saucer separation in TNG, but that saucer could not land on planets. Still, the detachable saucer is from the notes of TOS, not TNG. The entire ship was never supposed to be able to land. In Voyager, the entire ship can land but it's struts are not like on Enterprise 1701 because they are designed to support the entire ship.
What we did not get to see in Voyager is The Captain's Yacht which we saw in First Contact on Enterprise 1701-E. Janeway's yacht is a nice sized ship, bigger than the Delta Flyer and they never used it or showed it. You can see it's dock on the underside of the Voyager saucer section here:
And concepts made of it show what it looked like:
It could land on planets too.
There is so much unexplored Trek from Roddenberry and Abrams screwed up the momentum.
Last edited:
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
I sit corrected 
I sit corrected
Sometimes, I make myself cringe when I think about how serious I am about Star Trek. :jaded: Im such a nerd.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Nothing wrong with that dudeSometimes, I make myself cringe when I think about how serious I am about Star Trek. :jaded: Im such a nerd.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Nothing wrong with that dude
Given that it was science fiction written by people with absolutely no knowledge of science (less than even Brad Wrong and company), I never understood what the big deal was about Star Trek.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Are you referring all the way back to the originator, Gene Rodenberry? I don't know his science credentials but he seemed to be pretty good with the science stuff. Plus they had science advisers for certain shows like TNG.
But if you're talking about the new batch of movies, well, they do seem to play fast and loose with the verity of their science. I recall going into a rant about "red matter" after I saw the first Abrams movie. I'm the first one to admit that I'm "scientifically challenged" but even I know that one didn't smell right.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
They all played fast and loose with the sciences. What good science advisors do on these sets is to make the fictional science seem plausible by keeping it as close to the real theoretical sciences as possible and/or making sure the fictional science is consistent and coherent to suit the story. New Trek didn't seem to have any science advisors, or even any competent writers who gave a shit, for that matter. They just went all magic and introduced uber magic they can not take back that totaled the whole story and rendered nearly all the tech they used irrelevant and moot.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
They all played fast and loose with the sciences. What good science advisors do on these sets is to make the fictional science seem plausible by keeping it as close to the real theoretical sciences as possible and/or making sure the fictional science is consistent and coherent to suit the story. New Trek didn't seem to have any science advisors, or even any competent writers who gave a shit, for that matter. They just went all magic and introduced uber magic they can not take back that totaled the whole story and rendered nearly all the tech they used irrelevant and moot.
Most of the TOS episodes were pretty good given the level of science at the time, except for those aspects required by the budget (beaming) or the demands of a planet a week (FTL travel). TNG (including DS9, VOY, and ENT) was really bad about technobabble, and it was apparent to anyone who knew any science that the writers had zero background in the sciences because valid scientific terms were invariably used in an incorrect manner.
--- merged: Sep 14, 2013 at 10:59 AM ---
J.J. Abrams Trek had supernovas exploding with superluminal velocity and no one asked why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roddenberry's ideas were not science, they were imagined science based in scientific principles of the time. Roddenberry sought out advice and collaborated with scientific entities for plausibility even in TOS. He spoke to engineers, military personnel (NAVY specifically). No other Hollywood entity has contributed more to the motivation of scientists than Star Trek. Trek can take direct credit for much of the function and form factors of many devices which are a reality to day. I say that is a pretty big deal.
They all played fast and loose with the sciences. What good science advisors do on these sets is to make the fictional science seem plausible by keeping it as close to the real theoretical sciences as possible and/or making sure the fictional science is consistent and coherent to suit the story. New Trek didn't seem to have any science advisors, or even any competent writers who gave a shit, for that matter. They just went all magic and introduced uber magic they can not take back that totaled the whole story and rendered nearly all the tech they used irrelevant and moot.
THIS. Most of what is seen in ST 2009 and Into Darkness is Jetsons "science" and not rooted in actual science. In fact, it directly contradicts science and falls squarely into the realm of magic, just like you said. For that reason, none of it can be allowed to become Trek canon. We cant keep the "transwarp beaming", we cant keep the British Kahn and we cant have the Enterprise bridge sporting horizontally aimed spotlights. We cant have swirly transporter beams, and we cant have Red Matter or give the ability to escape black holes to early model starships (or any Trek starship).
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Well, given that a black hole will happily swallow the total energy released from a super nova, how the hell did blowing up some anti-matter at the event horizon cause an outbound shockwave??
Any civilization possessing both red matter and transwarp beaming is now god. No need for any more Trek movies in the Abrams universe because the Federation cannot be defeated and can impose their will on the entire galaxy.
I think they should pull a Bobby Ewing on Star Trek and have it all written off as a dream or perhaps a holonovel played out in a holodeck. This alternate timeline Trek CAN still be dumped pretty easily. As easily as Abrams dumped the existing canon.
This alternate timeline Trek CAN still be dumped pretty easily. As easily as Abrams dumped the existing canon.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
I think they should pull a Bobby Ewing on Star Trek and have it all written off as a dream or perhaps a holonovel played out in a holodeck.
I like the reboot concept. I think these actors fit their roles like a glove and have excellent chemistry, except for Scotty but I blame the writers for how poorly they're handling him. It feels like they're still writing him as his character from Shaun of the Dead.
You know, maybe another polluted timeline story can be told. The one thing I most hate about this Abrams atrocity is the Kobayashi Maru scene. They took what should have been a historical, pivotal moment in Kirk's career and Starfleet history and made it into a complete joke.