www.ditl.org

More riduculous than people evolving into newts because they went too fast, or finding cracks in black holes?
Trek has always been filled with terrible science, despite how it liked to claim the opposite. This is just par for the course. Stupid, but not exactly out of the blue.

I think I don't have to belabour the point that I'm probably one of the more technical-minded nitpicky over-analysing fans of Star Trek that there is. And yet, for all that there was crappy science, and for all that at least SOME of it could be easily fixed... it just doesn't bother me. It just honestly doesn't trouble me on any level beyond a bit of good natured "oh well *I* would have done it this way...."

I've not seen a Trek film yet that didn't bugger about with science on some level. Star Trek II? Nebulas look NOTHING like that in real life, you know. But it's a great movie, so nobody even raises the issue. Literally, I've never seen one person so much as point it out.

Yeah, XI has some bad science. But hey - it's a kick ass movie. And thanks to this, there will be a XII, maybe a XIII... maybe even a new series somewhere along the line.

So you know what? I forgive it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I think I don't have to belabour the point that I'm probably one of the more technical-minded nitpicky over-analysing fans of Star Trek that there is. And yet, for all that there was crappy science, and for all that at least SOME of it could be easily fixed... it just doesn't bother me. It just honestly doesn't trouble me on any level beyond a bit of good natured "oh well *I* would have done it this way...."

I've not seen a Trek film yet that didn't bugger about with science on some level. Star Trek II? Nebulas look NOTHING like that in real life, you know. But it's a great movie, so nobody even raises the issue. Literally, I've never seen one person so much as point it out.

Yeah, XI has some bad science. But hey - it's a kick ass movie. And thanks to this, there will be a XII, maybe a XIII... maybe even a new series somewhere along the line.

So you know what? I forgive it.

That's what I was saying earlier. I realized I really don't care about the nitpicks, so long as they get the characters right and a decent story. This movie has given me hope that Star Trek may continue for a while. As to the characters, they got the McCoy/Spock dynamic down well. We didn't see a lot of it but what we saw was good. Also, young Kirk did well as a Kirk with all of the arrogance and none of the experience, plenty of room to grow there.

I took my friend to see it, I think she liked it more than she let on cuz she knew I'd never let her live it down if she said "I liked the movie." The most she gave it was 'not bad" but I heard some "wows" and "whoa" and "cool" etc. from the seat next to me during the film

Good points guys, thanks.

Is it worth 4/5 though?

Because I'm tempted to give it that.

Lazar wrote: Oh I don't know - in STII, the film's MacGuffin was able to turn a nebula into a terrestrial planet. Or the idea of Praxis sending out a faster than light shockwave that could damage a ship as far away as the neutral zone in STVI?

Rochey wrote:Yeah, because Trek's never mutilated science before now, right? It did that on every second episode. The new film's no more ridiculous in the science department than old Trek was.

Royal_Foxx wrote:OK, like taking apart a human's molecules and reassembling them is scientifically plausible?

I understand this, and I addressed it in the post. It was actually the main point of the reply:

Grundig wrote:But hey, there are so many other inconsistencies elsewhere in the franchise that if this is the worst, the filmmakers deserve a freaking trophy. I mean, I guess if you have to choose between a strong story and scientific plausibility, ditch the science, because it's Sci-Fi after all. IMHO.

I like the way Graham puts it too.

GrahamKennedy wrote:What annoys me isn't so much that there is bad science, but that the bad science could so easily be fixed.

The nits I mentioned didn't ruin anything for me. I'm glad most people can roll with them, really. They created a hiccup in my suspension of disbelief because the errors were pretty obvious to me. And they wouldn't have been overlooked in past Trek. In the past, for example, Trek would have spent at least a full minute on Data's explanation of the phenomenon, why it's dangerous, followed by Geordi piping up enthusiastically with a creative solution. Then Picard would say Make it so, and someone would linger to talk to someone else about their misgivings... Commercial break, Captain's Log, etc. I think the filmmakers just streamlined everything as much as possible because there was so much story and action to get to. As it was it was 2 hrs and 6 minutes; I can't imagine them trimming one more second out of the movie.

On a different topic, I'm finding myself really excited about the sequels. It's that What's Gonna Happen Next?!?!?!?! feeling that I get so rarely these days (the strongest moments for me were the end of Star Trek 2 and the end of The Empire Strikes Back). And it comes from the way they handled the reboot/prequel idea. What I was most afraid of when I found out it was a prequel was that the writers would sooooo bogged down by the established canon that nothing exciting and daring could ever possibly happen. But the fact that the alternate reality is left unresolved means anything at all can happen. And when was the last time you felt that way about Kirk, Spock and Bones??? I am so thrilled about this open-ended-ness!

Took my wife to see it (for our "together time"), and she is NOT a Trek fan. But, even she liked it so much she wants to see it a second time............so they did SOMETHING right 8)

Mark wrote:Took my wife to see it (for our "together time")...

So... How was that?

Mark has a wife?!?!

I don't think she'll be joining us on here any time soon, then mark would have to be a good boy.

thelordharry wrote:Mark has a wife?!?!

News to me *she says as she sharpens her knife*

thelordharry wrote:Mark has a wife?!?!

Not exactly, no. Read back, or he can clarify. I'd say he doesn't have one, at the moment.

Grundig wrote:In the past, for example, Trek would have spent at least a full minute on Data's explanation of the phenomenon, why it's dangerous, followed by Geordi piping up enthusiastically with a creative solution. Then Picard would say Make it so, and someone would linger to talk to someone else about their misgivings...

Well, sometimes I felt they did it too much, especially in the movies, when you want things to go faster and the pacing to be better.
And also, those explanations usually were at the origin of some pretty bad science.

I'm going to see the movie tonight at IMAX, in English to boot, so yay...
I already know I'll love it...

Indeed.........I have a wife. We've been seperated for 4 years in July. We go through phases of complete seperation, usually when she gets herself arrested, I may start seeing somebody else. Then we go through periods of seeing if we can put things back together. Not very healthy, I know.................................

Mark wrote:Indeed.........I have a wife. We've been separated for 4 years in July. We go through phases of complete separation, usually when she gets herself arrested, I may start seeing somebody else. Then we go through periods of seeing if we can put things back together. Not very healthy, I know.................................

Yeah, that could cause a lot of anxiety, and it just sucks period, I think I remember you mentioning her before, getting arrested or something for shoplifting, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

And yeah, that can't be good on your emotions.

Nickswitz wrote:I'm sure he noticed a lot more than us, being as he's seen it 5 times already!

Six actually, once on Thursday, four times on Saturday and once on IMAX on Sunday. I must say the IMAX was very disappointing, we have a digital projector in the largest screen in the cinema we go to and it was every bit as good as the IMAX show. If you don't have digital projection in your cinema, or it's particularly small, then by all means go to the IMAX. We won't be bothering to go to the IMAX again. My prediction digital projection is going to kill off IMAX.