shit trek suck in the 1960's, it has always sucked, AND IT ALWAYS WILL SUCK! no way would i throw my time or money away on shit like that!
I was surprised at how good it was. I got the DVD for my husband for x'mas. He's already seen it a bunch and watched it again today. LOL.
yes i did. saw it yesterday on dvd. fell asleep about 45 minutes into it. same old shit with, a few new effects. after that was over, we watch the 1979 movie alien. an oldie but, one hell of a lot better then shit trek! i just don't get 'shit trek' of 'shit wars.' they are both not sci fi, more like fantasy. i know it is unfair. i'm just too much of a hardcore sci fi guy.
first off, i DON'T hate it. what i hate is fantasy being labeled science fiction. a lot of what both star trek and star wars depects is bogus science hardcore sci fi, is like the late carl sagens' book 'contact' and, the movie adapted from the book. both the book and movie were a blockbuster hit with hardcore sci fi fans. both the book and movie crashed and burned with mainstream culture. hardcore sci fi is a subculture unto itself. oh, hell! what can i say to redeem myself? star trek and star wars are great works of fantasy and entertaining as such. i have a very strong background in science and, i do nit pick at the flaws i come across. that is due, to the education and training i have in critical thinking and logic skills. the vast majority of people, have never been educated in these skills. i know that sometimes i come across harsh. i do apologize if i come across that way.
I'll admit I'm a Trekkie, love every show from Original to Enterprise, And all 11 movies. The last one was an awesome remake, and I look forward to seeing the next one out of this new universe, Which will be out in 2012 As for Trek not being SCI-FI, I don't agree. The Science of Trek of the past is slowly being made real now, everything from communicators, phasers, transporters to warp drive have all been SCI-FI and now becoming real. Granted some some like transporters and Warp Drive are just barely being touched now, but other tech is come true like communicators. I would say Star Wars is more fantasy than SCI-FI due to not even being based in our galaxy, let alone based on a future earth like Trek. Maybe I dont have a clear grasp of difference between SCI-FI and Fantasy, but I think Trek falls into SCI-FI.
I've always dreaded Star Trek films, until this one... In previous Trek films, the pace and characters always kind of came off as 'dinasourish' to me. (Yes, I think I made that word up)... With this movie, it's like they blew the cobbwebs off...and increased the tempo of the film. I think character selection was great...and key to the success of this movie. They brought the film up to date, with modern day dialogue, interaction and humor, without sacrificing story content... In a way, like the original was done back in the late 60's during a very hip time... As far as science and all, I have to agree with dan1701d, i think much of the science and technology incorporated in the movie is very plausible...infact I heard many times sci-fi writers do indeed consult with real phyicist and other scientist, to determine the plausibility of the tech stuff they incorporate into movies or books... And often many of the writers do actually have science backgrounds...and may often incorporate technology in the film that society may only be decades or less away from... But aside from technology...it's also about character interaction... In the past, at least to me, the writers always went out of their way to make the Star Trek characters or dialogue overly stiff...you could almost tell they were reading from a script... It's as if all the characters were becoming like Spock... So yes, I found this latest edition to be very refreshing And more accurate in how people deal with each other in day to day life...
It's hard to determine which city is shit city in Tex-ass but as another Tex-ass-an I want to first greet you with a HOWDY. So what? Isn't this what fiction is for? I enjoyed Sagan's book, though I haven't yet seen the movie. But that's beside the point, which is that I don't believe science (bogus or real) should, necessarily, play a large part in works of science fiction. A good basis for a science fiction book (books being my default medium) is one which takes current trends and projects them into the future, hopefully twisting them as well in the process. I consider Star Trek (the franchise as a whole - I haven't seen the movie in question) succeeds well in this respect. It doesn't matter if the science behind it is valid, questionable, or entirely dodgy. The reason it is science fiction rather than fantasy, regardless, is that it portrays customs, models of governance, and philosophical outlooks in a futuristic setting based on those of the current day. I'm not griping at you for criticizing Star Trek. If everyone liked it then that would really be scary. I just believe your view of science fiction is far too restrictive. You mentioned hard sci-fi, and that's what it is - a sub-genre of science fiction. Put another way, if everyone thinks something is one way and you think it's the other you should at least consider the possibility that you're wrong. I hope you don't let my hyperbole there obscure the point I'm trying to make which is that science fiction defines itself.
