JJ Abrams is a (visionary/disgrace) who must be (commended/stopped): Star Trek

[Reply #280 on:]

What...did i posted something wrong?

Because i readed days ago in Memory Alpha that it was not a reimagination , but i keep seeing those things..

sorry if that question anoys

[Reply #281 on:]

If anything, I'm just excited about the inevitable toy marketing blitz.

Also im somehow sure that the USS Kelvin desing is based in some of those RPG "destroyers" design like Centaur class or something that used one nacelle.. but im sure i saw somewhere a constitution saucer with 2 naceles placed one abobe other like in this Kelvin type configuration..


There..i found it





Its the Fletcher class destroyer.. its not canon but i was sure i had saw it anywhere..

[Reply #282 on:]

Did it ever bug anyone that every species in the galaxy is running around with cloak, then the federation makes the best cloak of them all and decides not to use it because they're "good people". The ability to cloak THROUGH anything seems like a bit of a game breaker.

[Reply #283 on:]

yeah, phase cloaked photon torpedos would be a bit hard to defend against, I'd think, and naturally there is the defensive advantage of being completely untouchable as well. That kind of treaty would be a mistake anyway, forget tactical reasons, klingons would not respect that sort of concession, they'd see it as a sign of weakness.

[Reply #284 on:]

There are so many "what they donts" in star Trek..

Is funny because in so many Star Trek vs "insert here space show" (SW and B5 ussualy) treekies always cock about "Starfleet vessels can transport a torpedo inside the enemy ship or into the power core and they win" ..

I have seen that only .. how many? one or two times? (janeway transportating a torpedo inside a ship inside a Borg sphere or something) Wouldnt they use it more frequently?

The fact is that Fed ships forbide using cloak devices.. but Klingon and Romulan ships wich use it must decloak to attack

[Reply #285 on:]

Except in Star Trek 6.

[Reply #286 on:]

Any other scifi universe beats trek long-term for one reason: Starfleet is composed entirely of morons.

For god's sake, matter transporters were in use for over 200 years before somebody said "hey, why don't we scan an apple once, then just ... not delete the pattern? We could make all the apples we want!"

[Reply #287 on:]

Point of interest - it wasn't until Atlantis that someone in the SGC Program said, "Hey, I've got a great idea!  Why don't we just beam bombs directly onto enemy ships?" Right?

[Reply #288 on:]

Any other scifi universe beats trek long-term for one reason: Starfleet is composed entirely of morons.

Voyager should have ended with the first episode, but apparently nobody on board had heard of a time bomb before. 1)set bomb, 2) set timer, 3) activate timer, 4) escape, 5) boom.  Everyone wins!

[Reply #289 on:]

Nix: No, they'd had the idea before. It wasn't until Atlantis that the Asgard allowed it.

[Reply #290 on:]

I'm one of the biggest and oldest Trek geeks alive but I have to agree about Trek being written by morons (or Starfleet consists of idiots).

At least TOS had the "out" of not being able to use the transporter during battle because they couldn't "beam" through shields.  Roddenberry often stated that the transporter would never be used as a "plot device" despite it being the case in The Enemy Within.

My biggest two grievences with all Trek varients are 1) Bad Science and 2) Inconsistant Battle Strengths.

1) Bad Science.  Anything from visiting a star system that is halfway across the galaxy that would be impossible to reach, even with ludicrous speed warp drive to badly using things like "string theory" to "trans-phasic shields" to protect the ship from the heat and radiation of being inside a star.

2) Inconsistant Battle Stregnths.  This really bugs me.  One week the Enterprise can blast a Borg cube to atoms, then the next week a TOS era Bird of Prey can go toe-to-toe with "The Big E".

And GOCAD and i. c. weiner, both of you are out-of-line with Javier.  I do remember a time when Abrams stated that he wasn't going to alter the history of TOS with this movie.  That is clearly being done now.  Granted, the francise is stale and needs a serious reboot along with bringing in new fans, I don't know if taking liberties with TOS is the right approach.  I'm willing to be it a chance and I will go to watch it when it is released but I'm also remembering the Trek fans that rebelled and quit watching ST: ENT when Berman and Braga twisted Trek history.  I was hoping that ENT would show how the Federation/Romulan war got started.  Instead, we got that horrible Xindi arc that lasted an entire season.

[Reply #291 on:]

Wait, when did Gopher say anything to Javier?

the Trek fans that rebelled and quit watching ST: ENT when Berman and Braga twisted Trek history.

The main difference I'm seeing is that JJ's being up front with the whole reboot-ness while Berman and Braga were trying to fit it into the existing continuity.

[Reply #292 on:]

Wait, when did Gopher say anything to Javier?

Oops.. You're right.  My alzhiemers is flaring up.  It wasn't Gopher but i.c. wiener who had a post after GOCAD's with the "toned down" reference.  It shows condescention towards Javier for being confused about Abram's hack-job direction with the NEW AND IMPROVED Star Trek.  It wasn't long ago that Abrams stated publicly that he wasn't going to change things with this movie, when in fact, he had planned to from the beginning.

My appologies to Gopher.

[Reply #293 on:]

I was getting as Gocad saying "Sigh, I'm coming to terms with this now" rather than "Sigh, you're an idiot". I was agreeing with that and how I was toning down my anger in the compete and utter overlooking of canon. As Nix said, at least ENT looked at canon and tried to fit it, and actually explained some story points well: the Klingon ridge storyline was well done.

[Reply #294 on:]

No apologies necessary, I do it all the time. It's a good day if I even know who I'm talking to...>_>

[Reply #295 on:]

the Klingon ridge storyline was well done.

That was actually explained??? Wow.

**goes to look it up**

Edit: That was crap. You owe me several minutes of my life.

[Reply #296 on:]

I prefereed far the DS9 explanation (wich is compatible with any other answer)

in that episode placed in TOS "trouble with tribbles" when O'brien , Bashir and Worf are onboard the station and they see old style Klingons and they ask Worf why they dont look like Klingons and dont have ridges and Worf simply says:

"We do not discuss it with outsiders"

[Reply #297 on:]

William Shatner was good in this.

Edit: Oops, I thought this was the Rescue 911 thread.

[Reply #298 on:]

What the:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/131208_01.shtml

Now im really confused

[Reply #299 on:]

lol. "Sure, it's totally different from canon, but it's OK, it's a parallel universe! So technically it's still canon! In fact... any dumb-assed thing we could ever think of happens in some universe, so we basically wrote ourselves a blank check to do whatever the hell we feel like! Eat that, nerds!"

[Reply #300 on:]

Lol science.

Trek has 2 massive FIXIT buttons, one is labeled "Time Travel" one is labeled "Alternate Timeline"

Both are incredibly worn from use.

[Reply #301 on:]

Star Trek: Generations had that guy from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

[Reply #302 on:]

What a lame justification for changing the "history" of Trek.  If you're going to go the reimagining route with the new movie, have the nuts to just throw parts of the canon out.  You're starting over, right? 

[Reply #303 on:]

Yes, they're starting over. At least they're saying that they're not "rewriting" canon because this movie's in an alternate universe. And, since it's in an alternate universe, it doesn't matter, so let's not see it!

[Reply #304 on:]

Star Trek was GAY!

[Reply #305 on:]

An actual comment that I've submitted to FazeShift's link.  It hasn't been posted to the site yet.

The gay thing isn't a big deal to me - not my thing, I tend to prefer red headed females with ample curves. That said, the vast majority of the population is heterosexual (gays comprise 2% to 10% of the general population depending on the source being quoted), so naturally the majority of relationships on any Trek series would be of a heterosexual nature, hence Beverly Crusher's immediate termination of a relationship with the trill who gained a female host. That wouldn't make Beverly less of a person, just that same-sex coupling wasn't her thing. The Riker episode was originally meant for him to fall in love with a male of the species - Frakes was for it. Unfortunately the vast majority of viewers are heterosexuals and aren't open-minded enough to accept something as foreign to their beliefs as a gay relationship. Before people start blaming the religious right, I have quite a few liberal friends that are very homophobic. Other cultures don't accept homosexuality at all, such as most facets of Islam. The decison to not have gay characters or gay relationships on Trek was one that was pragmatic and financial - all it would take is a few upset viewers to boycott the show and threaten the companies advertising to bring a sudden and quick cancellation to the series. I personally believe that if a couple finds peace, joy and love with each other, the geder of their love interest shouldn't matter. Unfortunately most of the general population doesn't agree. Trek has always managed to bring difficult and forbidden subjects to the forefront, starting with TOS tackling such issues as Cold Wars, Proxy Wars and racism. I'm proud to see James Cawley continuing that tradition with this subplot in his latest production. I'll admit it's not my thing and I'll probably fast forward though that section but I'm glad that it's there. Maybe, just maybe it'll help form other people opinion that being gay isn't any different than being Japanese or black or Christian or Jewish or fill-in-the blank. I'm sure James Cawley will get some flack about this segment. I'll state that I support him and his bravery for having the courage to place this arc in this webisode. I think that the Great Bird of the Galaxy would be proud.

[Reply #306 on:]

So.... Nemesis was just an excuse for the writers to get what they finally wanted: The Death of Data???

Screw that... what about that time Picard was bouncing around the future, past, and present?  NOOOOO DATA, NOOOOOO!!!!!

Anyways.  When are we getting a Voyager movie?

[Reply #307 on:]

Never, probably.

[Reply #308 on:]

it's hard to justify, what with voyager not being stuck anywhere anymore. There was nothing else remarkable about that crew to justify stories about them.

[Reply #309 on:]

They could get lost in a routine mission to the Echo quadrant this time.

Edit: I'm actually just upset that Data is dead now.   

[Reply #310 on:]

it's hard to justify, what with voyager not being stuck anywhere anymore. There was nothing else remarkable about that crew to justify stories about them.

Seven Of Nine could probably release a best-selling jazzercise DVD. But nobody would buy it as a workout tool.

[Reply #311 on:]

I could get a good workout from that.

[Reply #312 on:]

Voyager had the guy with the tattoo on his face.  Chipotle was his name I think.  There should be a movie made about him.

[Reply #313 on:]

NOOOO DATA NOOOOO!!!!!

He was.. the most human.  of us all.

R.I.P. Data

[Reply #314 on:]

yes, well, I understand but you're missed the funeral by several years.

[Reply #315 on:]

That's as bad as killing off Kir--- nevermind...

[Reply #316 on:]

Spock is back on my display picture on msn

[Reply #317 on:]

R.I.P. Data

You're thinking of Nurse Chapel. Or was I the only one who noticed?

[Reply #318 on:]

R.I.P. Data

You're thinking of Nurse Chapel. Or was I the only one who noticed?

No, I noticed.  I even placed a note on trekmovie.com about her passing.

Now whe and Gene are where ever atheist go when they die.

[Reply #319 on:]

Atheist Heaven?