NeuroTypical Posted May 19, 2013 Report Share Posted May 19, 2013 Roddenberry should stick to scifi and leave his weird politics out of it.Whoa - you either got zero trekkie cred, or you tossed that out there to see if any would jump! Roddenberry died in 1991. His involvement in things StarTrek went away after the first season of ST:TNG. Deep Space 9 started in 1993, and made the Ferengi what they became under his 'successors'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted May 19, 2013 Report Share Posted May 19, 2013 Roddenberry died in 1991. His involvement in things StarTrek went away after the first season of ST:TNG. Deep Space 9 started in 1993, and made the Ferengi what they became under his 'successors'.Meh. I still talk about Heinlein in the present tense fairly often too. The successors were pretty true to Roddenberry's vision of a socialist utopia; they just expanded on and made some of his subtleties much more hamfistedly blatant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted May 19, 2013 Report Share Posted May 19, 2013 I wouldn't stick my reputation on that: It gets interesting at 5:44 into that video clip. :)Ferengi aren't inherently charitable. At least based on the breakdown of charitable donations by political party affiliation, those "greedy American capitalists" are some of the most charitable people on Earth. Ferenginar before the forced "charity" through taxation is what the Progressives want us to think a true capitalist society would be like without the same process here; those with no marketable abilities would simply be allowed to starve, if not actually sold for spare body parts.Frankly, that clip reminds me a bit of Swift's "A Modest Proposal;" it satirizes the very idea of Libertarian capitalism by proposing their variant of it as a solution to the socialist utopia. Besides, Vizzini as the Nagus (apparently Miracle Max and Valerie were otherwise occupied) was clearly intended to portray the whole race as a bunch of idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted May 20, 2013 Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 After reading the review at Vorts review link, I will not be seeing it. 1. I hate reboots. I stopped watching Bond movies after the first Daniel Craig move. and now will be doing so with Star Trek and the other two reasons would be spoilers but have to do with characters from past Star Treks that are completely changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windseeker Posted May 20, 2013 Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 I saw the new Star Trek and while I agree with Vorts comments, I came away from the movie feeling entertained. It has good entertainment value and that’s about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 and the other two reasons would be spoilers but have to do with characters from past Star Treks that are completely changed.You realize that this is a spoilers thread, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted May 20, 2013 Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 You realize that this is a spoilers thread, right?Fine, if anyone doesn't want a spoiler don't read any further.Captain Pike was alive and transported to Talos 4 where he is living out his life, no longer a cripple (well its kind of a a mind thing actually).Khan -- stupid from what I read about it, and also not faithful to the continuity timeline.But then its a reboot and as I said before I hate reboots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Fine, if anyone doesn't want a spoiler don't read any further.Captain Pike was alive and transported to Talos 4 where he is living out his life, no longer a cripple (well its kind of a a mind thing actually).Khan -- stupid from what I read about it, and also not faithful to the continuity timeline.But then its a reboot and as I said before I hate reboots.I'm guessing you did not see the first J J Abrams Star Trek movie, which is set in an alternate reality due to a time travel event; therefore, even though the characters are the same, the events in their lives will be different than what we witnessed in TOS.I found the movie entertaining. It was definitely an action movie, but I was disappointed by the lack of character development. I barely remember the TOS Khan episode and have never seen Wrath of Khan (which makes me think I better rent it), so the character of Khan was fine. I wanted to know a little bit more about Admiral Marcus and what made him tick and the same with his daughter. Why bring characters into a story if you're not going to give them some depth? But I do find, that a second viewing sometimes helps understand the movie in a different light; I know the story now, so in watching it again I might see things I may have missed the first time.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetorian_Brow Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 I thought it was boring and badly written. The first scene with the volcano ruined it for me, as the thing was preposterous, even with science fiction and the bad sappy non death scene with Kirk was just bad. I realize that the death scene was a flip of when Spock died in a previous film but really? The most exciting thing about the whole film was that the Tribles were back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.