Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, in that timeline he seduced the Orion chick (I have no issues with her being at Starfleet) into reprogramming it.

I'm ok with it, like I said it's best not to think about it. The idea Kirk got to be Captain of Starfleet's Flagship and save the world on his first day by sleeping with green chicks and punching aliens in the face is just Kirk. That's how he rolls.

That's not even the least plausible thing in the movie. After Nero kills George Kirk be just hangs around in the same spot for like 25 years just staring at a piece of space. Just cause he really doesn't like Spock. Even if a guy doesn't like Spock that much what about the rest of the crew? They all just sat around being bitter together?

Like I said just don't think about it.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
After Nero kills George Kirk be just hangs around in the same spot for like 25 years just staring at a piece of space.

This goes back to the comic book tie in thing. Crashing the ship into Nero's ship damaged it, and at some point Nero got caught by Klingons and sent to prison. The part in the movie where Uhura talks about listening in to Klingons getting attacked was the ship getting Nero our of prison to go meet old Spock. The ship is sort of alive (it is part Borg), and I believe they were waiting for it to 'heal' or something along those lines.

Found the deleted scene on youtube.




Still, a lot of the stuff that isn't explained should have been explained in the movie, as it often made no sense without it. Secondary characters back stories and the like are fine for outside information, but major plot points should actually be in the film.

I still enjoyed the film, I just wish they had done a few things differently.

Wow. That totally filled in a big plot hole for me. They should have kept that stuff in because another problem I had was Nero was such an underdeveloped character. You can see how that hardship would increase his hate level for Spock even more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.s. Nero's ship is part Borg?! WTF?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

P.s. Nero's ship is part Borg?! WTF?

In the Star Trek prequel comic book miniseries Star Trek: Countdown, the Narada's advanced weaponry and appearance are explained as being the result of the ship being retrofitted with salvaged and reverse-engineered Borg technology. The Tal Shiar in the 24th century had been experimenting with Borg technology, and Nero's ship was the experimental vessel used. The Borg nanoprobes allowed the ship to grow and repair itself, and also take on a much larger and more menacing appearance. This information also appeared on the Blu-ray release of the film in the supplement section "Starships."

The Borg connection paid off in the sequel to Countdown, Star Trek: Nero. After Nero escapes from Rura Penthe – the "Klingon prison planet" – the Narada takes him to V'Ger, which Nero uses to calculate where Spock will arrive.

Why would the use super-advanced experimental technology on a mining ship?

Because reasons.

As far as I remember the talk on the STO forums, Nero and his mining ship just happened to pick up what remained of the Romulan government that escaped into space, and used the Praetor's seal of office to gain both knowledge of the existence and location of a supersecret Tal Shiar Borg experimentation facility, as well as entrance to it. And because the Tal Shiar is apparently all RAWR KILL EVERYONE as well, they thought that Nero's ship would be just perfect for being souped up with all that superweapon tech they had stashed. Because that would totally change things in the universe. Or something.

In my opinion, the comic book opened up a whole load of new plot holes in its desperate attempt to close existing ones. The whole story of the movie just seems to be things simply "happening" to fall into place to create a chain of events. Best not think about it, just lean back and be entertained.

Well ya, of course I agree with that but I guess it may have also suffered from some bad editing decisions.

That too.

The movie really had its moments, I won't deny that. It's like the pieces were there (actor quality, budget), but they weren't quite arranged right.

I'm sure I am more critical of it because I'm somewhat passionate about the original. Like with the BSG remake, I would have enjoyed that movie more if I hadn't seen what it tried to "replace". Buuut I still was entertained, so it wasn't a total waste of money. In fact, the dislike only came up after having left the cinema as I began to ponder on the way back home what I had just seen.

See that was your mistake: thinking! Anyway, the way I feel about it is Star Trek is it isn't the best Trek movie by any means (First Contact is my favorite) but it's the "coolest". The cast is cool, the phasers are cooler, the transporters are cooler, the lens flare is flarier, etc. Star Trek needed an injection of cool: it was on its death bed.

And you like old BSG more than the new one!! NERDRAGE!!!!!!

Guess the "cool" just doesn't affect me as much. I like neat FX just as much as anyone, but some movies turn it up to a point where it just appears like sensory overload intended to cover up the flaws of the wafer-thin story.

As for BSG ... well, yeah. At least the original had cool laser guns and classic Star Wars-style leather jackets rather than having its ground troops look like the NYPD SWAT in space (am I really the only one who was bothered by the MP5s and Humvees?). Also, the original Cylons and their ships totally looked "more spacey" than the new "WE NEED MORE SPIKY BITS HERE" designs. And let's not even talk about the gender-swaps of the characters ... don't get me wrong, I thought that, for example, Cain was rather badass - but making her a woman just came across as being done because they wanted to have some lesbian action there. And oh goddess, the sex. You'd have someone feth someone else in just about every 2nd episode, plus the blonde sexbomb in her cocktail dress shoving her rack into the camera all the friggin' time. It's like the series didn't take itself serious.
Just like the new Trek, it had its moments. I actually purchased the "Razor" DVD, although in part that was because it featured the original designs. And because that Lieutenant was a really cool character. It's a shame, tho, some of the episodes had really good stories. I liked that little arc about occupied Caprica with its little puppet-government, for example.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
See that was your mistake: thinking! Anyway, the way I feel about it is Star Trek is it isn't the best Trek movie by any means (First Contact is my favorite) but it's the "coolest". The cast is cool, the phasers are cooler, the transporters are cooler, the lens flare is flarier, etc. Star Trek needed an injection of cool: it was on its death bed.

And you like old BSG more than the new one!! NERDRAGE!!!!!!

I don't know how you expect anybody to take your opinion seriously when you just came out and said "I enjoyed the movie because it was
'cool'."

Since when can a person not think something is cool? It seems an odd argument to tell someone they aren't allowed to like something.

"I enjoyed and thought it was cool, but Amaya didn't think it was cool, and didn't like me using the word 'cool', so i guess it wasn't".

Please show me where I said he could not think the movie is cool.

You said you cannot take anyone seriously that says they think something is cool, and states it as such. If you cannot understand the implications and connotations of your own writing, then perhaps you should take some time and think more carefully on what you say and how you say it.

Just to bring something up, at the beginning of the film, star trek, the USS Kelvin, is it an Apollo class scout ship or something else?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Kelvin
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kelvin_type

They call it a "survey vessel." Multipurpose scout/science vessel hybrid. Par for the course since Starfleet is mildly military.

 Amaya wrote:
Par for the course since Starfleet is mildly military.

Unless we are talking TOS, in which it was very military.

I don't see how it was militaristic at all in TOS. DS9 was the most militaristic of the series. The military aspect of Starfleet was secondary to the science/exploration function in TOS and TNG. YMMV depending on specific episodes/storylines.

 Amaya wrote:
I don't see how it was militaristic at all in TOS.

Watch it again. They are portrayed very strongly as a military organization, just not many of the episodes revolve around that aspect, but it influences the stories quite a bit. There is even an episode where Kirk is asked his opinion and he says "I'm a military man, my response is to attack, but what you need is a diplomat", or something to that effect. The line between the Federation as government organization and Starfleet as military is more clearly delineated.

You're describing what is essentially "informed ability." Simply stating that he is a military man or that Starfleet is a military organization doesn't make it so. After further consideration, I'll retract my statement on DS9 being the most militaristic. None of the Star Trek shows really are.

Discipline is lax, especially under Kirk, protocol is frequently hand waived, fraternization is rampant (not so much in TOS), and Roddonberry's intent was for Starfleet to be more akin to the Coast Guard/a descendant of NASA than a full blown military organization. The exact portrayal is inconistent though, due to the episodic nature of most of the series.

There is a definite military aspect to it, but it comparison to say Bablyon 5's Earth Force, Starfleet is certainly military lite.

Yes, but then Roddenberry died. DS9 is very militaristic. It features a pretty collossal space-war.

4-hour co-op single-player campaign with phoned-in voice acting.

I'm sure it'll be great.

DS9 did feature a colossal war. It also featured a crew that slept with each other and randomly went off on personal missions.

Anyway, I've previously always said there wasn't much of a military presence in Star trek until DS9 but I just watched Star Trek VI (for some reason) which is about Star Fleet being deactivated because the Kligons are also going to disarm. It was like Detent in space. This seems to suggest Star Fleet was viewed more as a military organization back in Kirk's day.

They were just discussing dismantling bases in the neutral zone and potentially scaling back, not disbanding the Fleet. VI is the most militaristic of the films, its not really a good example that applies to all of the series.

They mention that the Federation will still need explorers so perhaps that is when Star Fleet transitions into a mostly exploratory fleet that we see in Picard's time.

I always thought that Starfleet featured an interesting thin line between being a military and just being "militaristic" - the latter even being described as a mostly human characteristic in some sources, and sort-of explaining why the majority of personnel comes from this species.

To bring this into perspective, think of Picard's outburst in "First Contact" where he smashes his little ships. Starfleet is kind of like that. The humans in the setting strive to be peaceful and idealistic. They do not conciously want to be soldiers and look down upon those who do as being "barbaric". But deep down in the darkest depths of humanity's soul there sits a monster, a remnant of millennia of aggression, that waits for a chance to spring into action. And when Starfleet is pushed into a corner, exactly this happens, and suddenly your peaceful and idealistic explorers will start picking up guns.

There was a line from Quark regarding this trait, too, which he spoke in an episode of DS9 during the Dominion War, where he and Nog were stranded in a warzone together with a detachment of Starfleet crewmen playing infantry - and having become frighteningly good at doing so, one of them showing obvious symptoms of PTSD.

"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."

Yes, I was actually thinking of that very scene when you started. Once again that was post Roddenberry though. He was an idealist and I think he actually thought humanity was good at its core.

Roddenberry was the original Lucas. He did a lot of things to feth up Star Trek. He is the one of the main reasons that the portrayal of Starfleet is a military is inconsistent and he pushed through a lot of stupid crap that makes not fething sense and detracts from the series, such as no money (all money is is an abstract way to value goods and services, its not inherently evil), the Federation can't cloak because they're the good guys, and humans are so perfect that no Starfleet officers would go rogue. He came up with a good setting, did a decent job when involved with TOS, but the best Star Trek was made when he was unable to interfere with it.