Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Who says they didn't? At some point Nero sent the intergalactic equivalent of an email saying "Sup Romulus and Remus, there's a star nearby probably gonna go supernova in a century or two, might wanna get ready."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Hell, a modern bulldozer ''now'' can be a military vehicle with only slight modifications. The Narada was the Killdozer ''InSpace''!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
At no point is there ever a "cheating is good message". I have no idea where you got that idea.
Changed line(s) 434,435 (click to see context) from:
* The entire "cheating is good" message of the film. Now, this film stole a lot from Wrath of Khan, so the filmmakers had to have watched that movie. Did they not notice that the lesson from ''that'' movie was "cheating is ''bad''"? Kirk ''himself'' says so at the end. Sure, Kirk has his cool moment when he gets them out of the Genesis planet, but ''Spock dies''. Kirk loses one of his best friends. And Kirk, having never faced death, doesn't know how to react; he is paralized. And he comes to understand that ''no win scenarios '''exist'''.'' Kirk is forced to accept the real world; that there are limits to even his ability to "change the conditions." This is called CharacterDevelopment. Kirk-2009? Yea, he gets ''none'' of that. He's the same arrogant, smarmy douchebag from the beginning of the film to the end. His arrogance is ''rewarded'', not punished.
** Also, that line Spock in 2009 says about citing regulations against Kirk and Spock going to Nero's ship, but Kirk disregarding it? Did the filmmakers also not notice that Kirk learned a lesson about that in Khan as well? That is, he should ''listen'' to Starfleet regulations, that if he had, none of that movie would have happened. It really annoys me that this movie is taking the immature attitude towards Kirk's character, that everything he currently thinks and feels is 100% right, and he never, ''ever'' experiences any consequences for any of his jackass stunts.
** Also, that line Spock in 2009 says about citing regulations against Kirk and Spock going to Nero's ship, but Kirk disregarding it? Did the filmmakers also not notice that Kirk learned a lesson about that in Khan as well? That is, he should ''listen'' to Starfleet regulations, that if he had, none of that movie would have happened. It really annoys me that this movie is taking the immature attitude towards Kirk's character, that everything he currently thinks and feels is 100% right, and he never, ''ever'' experiences any consequences for any of his jackass stunts.
to:
** Also, that line Spock in 2009 says about citing regulations against Kirk and Spock going to Nero's ship, but Kirk disregarding it? Did the filmmakers also not notice that Kirk learned a lesson about that in Khan as well? That is, he should ''listen'' to Starfleet regulations, that if he had, none of that movie would have happened. It really annoys me that this movie is taking the immature attitude towards Kirk's character, that everything he currently thinks and feels is 100% right, and he never, ''ever'' experiences any consequences for any of his jackass stunts.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** They do have sensor probes, though, which they use with some regularity (at least on the shows). Anyway, a human(oid) is better at thinking on his/her/its feet than an unmanned probe. And ultimately, even if you could accomplish the mission with drones and robots, as you put it, what's the point? By that logic, a postcard of the Eiffel Tower is just as good as the real thing.
Added DiffLines:
*** I still don't buy it. Why introduce moving parts into a design that doesn't need them and in fact would function better without them? Plus, [[YourMileageMayVary just as a matter of opinion,]] the spinny thing just looks ridiculous.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 397 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Just on the 'inhuman stamina' part, the scene where Kirk provokes Spock into showing emotion works very well in-story. But here's the thing: Vulcans are ''strong''. First punch - broken jaw; second punch - shattered ribcage; third punch (which Kirk blocks) - broken wrist; fourth punch - crushed oesophagus. And then Spock even grabs Kirk's neck and ''squeezes'' - Kirk would at the least require medical attention, but all we see is a bloody nose and a little dizziness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***** Do a Google search - this has been a topic of conversation for ''decades''. If you can't be bothered to do a search, stardestroyer.net is a good place to start.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** This explanation is 100% correct, but it opens up its own whole separate can of JustBugsMe... gets kind of philosophical, but isn't everyone who gets transported somewhere essentially being murdered? What emerges from the destination pad is a perfect copy, one that ''thinks'' it's you, and to all intents and purposes ''is'' you... but you're dead. The copy will even step off the pad saying ''Whew, guess I was wrong, it doesn't kill you after all...'' and, when that copy is transported/murdered, the next copy will think the same thing, and the next, and the next... Long story short, you'd never get me in one of those things.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
******** I've read in (I believe) the Trek Encyclopedia that the male miniskirts were a conscious ShoutOut to the microskirts in TOS. I don't think they were intended to be taken seriously, but they certainly weren't a mistake.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92,93 (click to see context) from:
** I think that's just RuleOfCool. If I remember rightly that sequence was shot in counterpoint to the sequence near the start of the film where the Kelvin fires its excape pods.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92 (click to see context) from:
to:
** I think that's just RuleOfCool. If I remember rightly that sequence was shot in counterpoint to the sequence near the start of the film where the Kelvin fires its excape pods.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It can understand a regular Russian accent however I like to believe that instead of being an obvious fake he just has a very specific regional accent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 430 (click to see context) from:
* ''Really'' superficial, but: why is Chekov's hair curly? Seriously, This Troper could deal with pretty much every military/physics/timey wimey situation listed above, but Chekov's hair is still bugging me a year later! I would almost even prefer the terrible TOS Monkees wig make a comeback.
to:
* ''Really'' superficial, but: why is Chekov's hair curly? Seriously, This Troper could deal with pretty much every military/physics/timey wimey situation listed above, but Chekov's hair is still bugging me a year later! It seems like an UnnecessaryMakeover. I would almost even prefer the terrible TOS Monkees wig make a comeback.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 429 (click to see context) :
Added DiffLines:
* ''Really'' superficial, but: why is Chekov's hair curly? Seriously, This Troper could deal with pretty much every military/physics/timey wimey situation listed above, but Chekov's hair is still bugging me a year later! I would almost even prefer the terrible TOS Monkees wig make a comeback.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Russian accent
Added DiffLines:
* How is it that the Federation is made up of people from over 150 different planets yet the computer on the Enterprise still cannot understand a Russian accent?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 427 (click to see context) from:
* The entire "cheating is good" message of the film. Now, this film stole a lot from Wrath of Khan, so the filmmakers had to have watched that movie. Did they not notice that the lesson from ''that'' movie was "cheating is ''bad''"? Kirk ''himself'' says so at the end. Sure, Kirk has his cool moment when he gets them out of the Genesis planet, but ''Spock dies''. Kirk loses one of his best friends. And Kirk, having never faced death, doesn't know how to react; he is paralized. And he comes to understand that ''no win scenarios '''exist'''.'' Kirk is forced to accept the real world; that there are limits to even his ability to "change the conditions." This is called CharacterDevelopment.
to:
* The entire "cheating is good" message of the film. Now, this film stole a lot from Wrath of Khan, so the filmmakers had to have watched that movie. Did they not notice that the lesson from ''that'' movie was "cheating is ''bad''"? Kirk ''himself'' says so at the end. Sure, Kirk has his cool moment when he gets them out of the Genesis planet, but ''Spock dies''. Kirk loses one of his best friends. And Kirk, having never faced death, doesn't know how to react; he is paralized. And he comes to understand that ''no win scenarios '''exist'''.'' Kirk is forced to accept the real world; that there are limits to even his ability to "change the conditions." This is called CharacterDevelopment. Kirk-2009? Yea, he gets ''none'' of that. He's the same arrogant, smarmy douchebag from the beginning of the film to the end. His arrogance is ''rewarded'', not punished.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 425 (click to see context) from:
* How much gravity does an artificial black hole have? When it's inside a planet, we see people on the surface walking normally.
to:
* How much gravity does an artificial black hole have? When it's inside a planet, we see people on the surface walking normally.normally.
* The entire "cheating is good" message of the film. Now, this film stole a lot from Wrath of Khan, so the filmmakers had to have watched that movie. Did they not notice that the lesson from ''that'' movie was "cheating is ''bad''"? Kirk ''himself'' says so at the end. Sure, Kirk has his cool moment when he gets them out of the Genesis planet, but ''Spock dies''. Kirk loses one of his best friends. And Kirk, having never faced death, doesn't know how to react; he is paralized. And he comes to understand that ''no win scenarios '''exist'''.'' Kirk is forced to accept the real world; that there are limits to even his ability to "change the conditions." This is called CharacterDevelopment.
** Also, that line Spock in 2009 says about citing regulations against Kirk and Spock going to Nero's ship, but Kirk disregarding it? Did the filmmakers also not notice that Kirk learned a lesson about that in Khan as well? That is, he should ''listen'' to Starfleet regulations, that if he had, none of that movie would have happened. It really annoys me that this movie is taking the immature attitude towards Kirk's character, that everything he currently thinks and feels is 100% right, and he never, ''ever'' experiences any consequences for any of his jackass stunts.
* The entire "cheating is good" message of the film. Now, this film stole a lot from Wrath of Khan, so the filmmakers had to have watched that movie. Did they not notice that the lesson from ''that'' movie was "cheating is ''bad''"? Kirk ''himself'' says so at the end. Sure, Kirk has his cool moment when he gets them out of the Genesis planet, but ''Spock dies''. Kirk loses one of his best friends. And Kirk, having never faced death, doesn't know how to react; he is paralized. And he comes to understand that ''no win scenarios '''exist'''.'' Kirk is forced to accept the real world; that there are limits to even his ability to "change the conditions." This is called CharacterDevelopment.
** Also, that line Spock in 2009 says about citing regulations against Kirk and Spock going to Nero's ship, but Kirk disregarding it? Did the filmmakers also not notice that Kirk learned a lesson about that in Khan as well? That is, he should ''listen'' to Starfleet regulations, that if he had, none of that movie would have happened. It really annoys me that this movie is taking the immature attitude towards Kirk's character, that everything he currently thinks and feels is 100% right, and he never, ''ever'' experiences any consequences for any of his jackass stunts.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** But they didn't follow Kirk's lead. Watch the scene again. Kirk came to the bridge to get them to ''stop'', because they were walking into a trap. He was able to convince Pike that they were walking into a trap, but Pike never actually ''stopped'' the ship.
Added DiffLines:
**** That still doesn't explain why Pike (and every other Federation captain) at least didn't know that 47 Klingon ships had been destroyed mysteriously by a single Romulan vessel a day ago. You can be sure that if that kind of thing happened today, with 20 Russian cruisers destroyed by a single Chinese cruiser, every US captain in the fleet would know about it within hours. Hell, it'd probably even be on CNN.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** They most certainly are ''not''. In the Voyager episode "Resolutions", it is an important plot point that they ''can't'' beam through their own shields. Because they're in a fight and dropping their shields to beam would get them killed. So they have to finangle the situation so that they can drop their shields and re-raise them quickly. ''Nothing'' on Voyager was ever shown "consistently".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 91 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Furthermore, what was with that last scene when the Enterprise almost got sucked in? I mean, we've seen that the black holes created by Red Matter destroy planets and galaxy-crushing supernovae, but the only two actual ships to fall into one just went through time, no worse for wear. So why was the Enterprise almost destroyed by the black hole? And while we're at it, how in the hell was Nero's ship able to sit ''in the middle of a black hole'' for several minutes without being crushed the way Vulcan or the supernova was?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Frog Blast the Vent Core!
Changed line(s) 414 (click to see context) from:
to:
**According to some resource (I can't remember which), the Enterprise is actually ejecting some of its antimatter containment pods. I don't know if Scotty changed his plan the instant after he told Kirk, or if it was a writer error, but that explanation makes more sense.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 419 (click to see context) from:
* How did anyone onboard the ''Kelvin'' know that the ''Narada'' was crewed by Romulans? In TOS it's established that no one has ever actually seen what a Romulan looks like, prior to Kirk's encounter with them near the Neutral Zone. It's not like the ''Narada'' has a distinctly Romulan design. If anything, they should have been wondering when the crazy tattooed Vulcans had turned up.
to:
* How did anyone onboard the ''Kelvin'' know that the ''Narada'' was crewed by Romulans? In TOS it's established that no one has ever actually seen what a Romulan looks like, prior to Kirk's encounter with them near the Neutral Zone. It's not like the ''Narada'' has a distinctly Romulan design. If anything, they should have been wondering when the crazy tattooed Vulcans had turned up.up.
* How much gravity does an artificial black hole have? When it's inside a planet, we see people on the surface walking normally.
* How much gravity does an artificial black hole have? When it's inside a planet, we see people on the surface walking normally.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** JimmyStewart (yes, ''that'' JimmyStewart) went from Private to Colonel in four years, a rise that's considered ''extremely'' rapid. Cadet to Captain in five seconds is beyond ridiculous.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 416 (click to see context) from:
)
to:
* How did anyone onboard the ''Kelvin'' know that the ''Narada'' was crewed by Romulans? In TOS it's established that no one has ever actually seen what a Romulan looks like, prior to Kirk's encounter with them near the Neutral Zone. It's not like the ''Narada'' has a distinctly Romulan design. If anything, they should have been wondering when the crazy tattooed Vulcans had turned up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** What the hell comic were ''you'' reading? I don't remember any of that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** It makes more sense to assume that civilian space craft are common than that they aren't in a universe where space travel is so casual, especially within the home systems of two of the founder races of the Federation, and - even given how common habitable worlds are - there should be at least <i>some</i> space based industries. Besides when the whole planet's at stake there's no reason to stop throwing everything you've got at the problem, shouldn't there at least be waves of desperate surface to orbit shuttles making kamikaze runs at the drill while it attacks Earth?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Mr Scott pulled the same trick in Star Trek IV, so he technically invented Transparent Aluminium as well, instead of the (undoubtedly very rich) 80s engineer he gave the formula to. Give the poor Scot at least ONE achievement!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 210,211 (click to see context) from:
**** His "rapid rise through the ranks" took years the first time around, [[SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale not hours]].
to:
**** His "rapid rise through the ranks" took years the first time around, [[SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale not hours]].
hours]].
**** Assuming a 4 year Academy degree and commission at 18, 23 for Ensign... 8 years to Captain is rather fast, but certainly not unfeasible.
**** Assuming a 4 year Academy degree and commission at 18, 23 for Ensign... 8 years to Captain is rather fast, but certainly not unfeasible.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
THE NARADA WAS NOT CARRYING RULES!!!
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
** Does anyone else wonder why the ''Narada'', a mining ship, was carrying sufficient ordinance to destroy 47 well armed Klingon warships, AND several Federation ships as well?
to:
** Does anyone else wonder why the ''Narada'', a mining ship, was carrying sufficient ordinance ordnance to destroy 47 well armed Klingon warships, AND several Federation ships as well?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 117 (click to see context) from:
******* And you also waste a lot of energy on the teleportation and artificial gravity, SoYeah.
to:
******* And you also waste a lot of energy on the teleportation and artificial gravity, SoYeah.gravity.
Changed line(s) 180 (click to see context) from:
**** I'm not a fanboy. I don't even consider TOS canon, SoYeah... But Pike doesn't need a rational basis; as long as his orders are legal, Starfleet is bound by them. Like when Picard made Crusher an ensign, starfleet can't just step in and say he's not without a reason. Same applies here.
to:
**** I'm not a fanboy. I don't even consider TOS canon, SoYeah...canon. But Pike doesn't need a rational basis; as long as his orders are legal, Starfleet is bound by them. Like when Picard made Crusher an ensign, starfleet can't just step in and say he's not without a reason. Same applies here.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** But this doesn't explain why Nero and Spock went back in time to the new Enterprise/First Contact timeline, rather than creating some weird, third timeline. And it also doesn't explain why the Enterprise E, when they went "back to the future" at the end of First Contact ended up in their original timeline to carry on their adventures in Insurrection and Nemesis. Nor does it explain the Enterprise finale, in which the events of Enterprise appear to have taken place in the same continuity as the Next Generation. All these timeline and alternate reality shenanigans make me think the Temporal Cold War from Enterprise makes a lot more sense now than it did at the time.
