C3PX

Oh, I think Akwat's got this one!

CompMovieGuy said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Final list:

- The Undiscovered Country
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Voyage Home
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for Spock

Oh, and one last thing - how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?

Now that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was

 

 

Holy shit it is the opinion police! They've discovered I never really watched Star Trek and only look to other people for my opinion! Run for it!!!

I think it is fantastic you like FF so much. But how exactly does that make those of us who don't sheep?

For a guy who face palms a lot, you sure make me feel like face palming. You seem offended at the idea of people liking other Trek films more than FF. It isn't a matter of intelligence or of being right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion. If I liked the movies I do just because everyone else does, then that would make me a sheep. Just because I happen to like the films in close to the same order that a lot of people do, does not make me, or any one else in the same position, a sheep.

Sean is an American.

Interestingly, I found dating outside of America harder, because their was so much touching going on. It was hard to tell the difference between normal friendliness and invitations to "get friendlier". Going from no touching to touching, you know you've moved beyond a very defined boundary. All what you are used to I guess.

TheBoost said:

As near as I can tell, Trek is a fascist socialist society. The pseudo-military Starfleet rules everything with an iron fist. There's no private industry, and apparently no real political equality as the Maquis and the movie 'Insurrection' seem to show.

Insurrection was an example of corruption within Starfleet. As Picard and his crew stated, what was going on there was completely against the principals Starfleet. The Maquis stuff is DS9, and the last season of TOS. I really don't remember that stuff well. But if I remember correctly, they were terrorists, right? They had colonized planets, and now due to treaties with the Romulans, they were being forced to relocate away from Romulan space, and so they began fighting off the Romulans on their own and resisting Federation orders to move out of Romulan space, right? The Maquis storylines were told very sympathetically on the side of the Maquis, if I remember correctly. Starfleet had to relocate them as an issue of intergalactic peace, never a good situation.

In both these citations of Star Trek being somehow fascist, the "fascist" behavior is acknoledged and addressed. With Insurrection we are suppose to hate what the Starfleet guys are doing. With a Maquis, we are suppose to feel torn between the treatment of the Maquis and Starfleets obligation to keeping the peace. 

I don't see Starfleet ruling anything with an iron fist. It is more like the UN, you are not obligated to join, and its purpose is to keep peace and make galactic wide progress. If there was an iron fist, we would see the Enterprise seeking out new civilizations so they could conquer and control them, not so they could learn from them. 

Private industry is gone, in favor of advancement of society as a whole (completely absurd I agree, but this kind of a society, as unrealistic as it is, would be absolutely perfect), technology has replace the low level working class. Now instead of people working at factories and the like, everything is replicated. Everyone works and does their jobs to personally contribute to society as a whole (completely nuts, would never in a million years work in real life, but still a fun premise to consider). There is no iron fist, because everyone is allowed to do what they wish. If I want to becomes a scientist and travel to the far reaches of the galaxy and study things, I can do that. Likewise, if I wanted to do something more simple like be a shuttle pilot, I could do that too. It is never addressed what becomes of those who want to sit around and do nothing, I think the assumption is that in this more highly evolved future version of man, such laziness and lack of drive is nonexistent (again, silly unreasonable idea, but since it is just s story...)

I know nothing about Rodenberry as a man, but if I understand correctly, he was really trying to show a utopian future. I just think his personal shortsightedness and that of his writers, as well as scientific laziness, shows through quite strongly.

My goodness, it is a lousy science fiction series. What were you expecting from the man? Realistic social commentary? Accurate real world science? I don't think he was trying to show a Utopian future so much as make an enjoyable show. The fact that we are still talking about it today makes me feel safe in saying that I think he did a kick ass job.

Ragging on Trek for being shortsighted and scientifically lazy reminds me of those guys who rag on James Bond because it isn't a realistic portrayal of what spies really do. I don't think you need to explain that to anybody, they know it is fantasy and that real secret agents don't really save the world from near destruction every few years, while sleeping with no less than three provacatively named women per mission between wild fights with hoards of bad guys and extravagant chanse scenes. But it is a lot of fun for some of us, so we enjoy it anyway. A realistic show about space exploration sounds about half as interesting as a realitic spy movie.

No, seriously, DF said some good stuff in that post. Like he said, take things slow. Don't just swoop in for a kiss and risk taking her by surprise and having her react negatively. If you try something small, like putting your arm around her shoulder and she draws closer to you, or doesn't take the first opportunity to politely remove your arm, then you know you are safe to advance the touching a small degree (not talking about groping her breasts or anything, little things, like brushing your figures along the nap of her neck, or eventually getting that "safe to swoop in for a kiss moment". You sound like your on the right track, going for the hand holding is a good first step on the kinosthetics.

Go with your instincts. I imagine this girl is about the same age as you and as inexperienced as you are, so it is probably akward for her aswell. At this moment you seem uncertain of where your relationship stands. You might want to get that bit figured out. I can imagine how weird it would be to be out having a good time with a friend of yours of the opposite sex who you have no feelings for start making moves on you. Typically, if a girl is just friends with you, she isn't going to be holding your hand while going for a stroll. So like I said before, this is a good place to start. If you find yourself holding hands with her during your next "date", then I think you are safe to assume that it is actually a date and that she is into in that way.

You know I still have a problem thinking people can even like me. I'd call it paranoia but I'm taking anti-psychoctics for that. But I should of kissed her. I figure trying holding her hand next time would be a good way to find out without going too far.

Sean, I know life tosses some shit at us sometimes. Sometimes things feel really unfair, that some of the most basic things to others ought to be such a stuggle to us. Some people are shallow, but there are plenty of people out there willing to care for someone simply for who they are. I don't know anything about you, or why you feel this way about yourself. All I can say is that you really shouldn't. There is no reason for you to think that people can't like you. From all the posts I have read from you in the past, it sounds like you are trying hard to be the best you can be, and that is all any of us can do. None of us are perfect, everyone has their struggles and things they don't like about themselves. And usually the things we feel most self conscious about, or the most down on ourselves for, usually are not even immediately noticeable to those around us. A lot of guys that feel the way you do end up being so down on themselves that they find a total shit woman who walks all over them and treats them rotten. Aim high in your pursuits. There is no reason to think other people are somehow better or more likable than you are. You are Sean freakin' Wookie, man! Or whatever your real name is, and that is something to be damn proud of.

All that matters is that you behave in a manner that is to be proud of, looks and everything else don't make who we are, it is what we choose to be. Not trying to sound sappy here, bit this is the truth.

DF was also right about the whole leadership thing. All girls are different of course, but everyone has build in instincts that are universal. A womans natural instinct is to find a male who can protect her and her offspring. To appeal to that instinct, you need to show confidence, to take control of the occasion. For example, rather than picking her up, then asking her where she wants to eat, and just doing everything she says she wants to do, find out what her favorite resturant it long before hand, this can be discovered through casual conversation. Then, when you come to pick her up, tell her that is where you are going to eat, and ask her how that sounds. The end result is the same, in both cases you go eat at the place she wants, only in the second scenario you show her you are able to take control of the situation and plan out an enjoyable evening on your own.

Alternatively, if you have a hard time finding resturant ideas from her through casual conversations, another good idea is to pick out several different types of resturants in advance. Then when you pick her up you can have a conversation something like this,

YOU: "How does Italian sound to you?"
HER: "Sounds great!"
YOU: "Excellent. I know this really great place."

or

YOU: "How does Italian sound to you?"
HER: "Oh... actually, I'm not really a fan of Italian food..."
YOU: "No problem! How does Mexican sound then?"
HER: "Sounds good to me."
YOU: "Excellent. I know this really great place."

Adaptation.

DarkFather said:

 

Scandanavians and Aborigines have been genetically seperated for more than 2000 years, and they're still the same species.

 

Fascinating. And are the Scandanavians from the planet Scandanav, or have they been on the earth those whole 2,000 years just as the Aborigines?

DF makes a very valid point here. Scandinavians and Aborigines look about as different from one another as possible, while living on the same planet only separate climates. Imagine the differences there might be had they lived on two separate planets, with very different climates, atmospheres, conditions, resources, foods.

I agree they would be the same species (in fact, I have a really hard time buying into the idea of cross species evolution, but that is a whole different discussion), but they would be quite different. 2000 years is a rather short amount of time for any biological changes to take place. But then again, the vast majority of aliens in Star Trek seem to be biologically identical anyway. Silly science fiction stories! So unrealistic I can barely stand it! ;)

TheBoost said:

In a broad manner Trek does (the white/black vs. black/white aliens) but when you really look at HOW these races/cultures are written I think you see a lot of racist ideas. Notably, how species and culture are the same thing, unless your human. Only humans can have variety...

Some good points there. I guess you could take these things as racism, but I think it is more the limited scope of the story tellers.

Sometimes Trek has tried to make alien species more indepth and three dimensional, but it is true, for the most part they are defined by their cultural traits than shown to be diverse planets of people. But again, I think this is due to limited scope, not any ill will toward the created species. It is easier to say, "These are Klingons, they are violent and like to fight, etc." Than to say, "Klingons from the Eastern most continent of their planet..." I think some species have been shown to be more diverse than others. The Ferangi are perhaps the most 2D aliens on the show. All together I find them to be very shallow and poorly thought out, but again, it is just a silly sci-fi show, made up for entertainment. The fact that certain traits found in our shallow two diminsional aliens are often seen as negative character traits (greed culture of the Ferangi, culture of violence with the Klingons) just doesn't come off as racist to me.

I still think that for the most part ST has done a great job of condemning racism, and depicting it to be a very negative thing. I do agree that many poor choices of words and ideas by the writers can be seen as somewhat racist (speciesist?). But I think it is more poor communication of ideas, than something that should be seen as racism. Kirk clearly wasn't knocking vulcans by saying that Spock was the most human soul he had known. This line was suppose to be touching, not a statement that humans are superior to vulcans, but Spock was okay because Kirk precieved him more human than vulcan. I think you run into these issues when you open up a world much bigger than the minds of the men who created it. It is hard to imagine a universe filled with hundreds of inhabitable planets with just as many various species of aliens. What kind of terminology would we use? What term would be used to refer to all intelligent lifeforms (as human is used to describe all people on earth)? 

Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.  

 I'm not attacking that they all look human. That's a reality of TV/Film production. But if Vulcans and Romulans have a common ancestor and can breed, they are the same species. That's what 'species' means.

I wasn't suggesting you were attacking all species looking human. That was my own statement. Too me, it is as ridiculous that the Klingon and a human could produce offspring as it is that a Klingon and a human would look so much alike. That is the real world biological definition of the word "species". But I think we can agree in the Trek universe, a human and a klingon clearly are not the same species. If, lets say, in the real world aliens are discovered, and it somehow turns out we can breed with them, I suppose we would have to change the definition of species. Right? Or could we consider two seperate lifeforms, that evolved on different worlds, but that somehow ended up compatible for procreation, to be of the same species?

Really, I've always hated the 'Star Trek has real science' argument. Of 'Star Trek is for grown ups.'

I'd agree. Star Trek is more for grown ups. Kids can enjoy it, I know I did, but ultimately it deals with some pretty adult themes. However, the real science part of it is total BS. I have yet to meet anyone who would make that argument. Anyone who does is clearly too much of an idiot to realize that it is all just technobabble put in place to make it sound more scientific. I think it achieves this goal quite well, but it is really sad if some people decide this means that any of this stuff is in any way plausible real world science.

Sounds an awful lot like a date. I guess it all depends on the context of the event. How was it defined before it took place? Did you ask her out?

I seriously can't imagine going out on a date with someone and not knowing if it was actually a date.

A fish.

Lie all you want Booth! I know the truth! It is a conspiracy! A conspiracy! I know, because I am part of it too! HahahahhahahhaahahhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA! *cue flashes of lightning in the background and dramatic music*

TheBoost said:

It's a combination of racism, bad science, and lazy writing that plagues all Star Trek.

Lazy writing in that it allows endless "I'm torn between two worlds!" character moments.

Endless? This may have been expressed to a small degree in the original series, I honestly don't remember if it was. But the new movie you seem to really appreciate is the one that made a huge plot point of the "I'm torn between two worlds!" theme with Spock. Even though I didn't like the new movie much, I wouldn't have called that bit lazy writing. In my own personal experience, I have come across a lot of people who were torn between too cultures, or two races, and have had a hard time finding their own identity through it. I think perusing this aspect of Spock could potentially be very interesting, though the movie over played it and it just came off as Spock having a really low flash point, and being in the habit of going berserk on people, which is something even most of us emotional humans seem to be able to refrain from. Odd that someone from a culture of highly restrained peoples would have more trouble controlling himself than the average human. This is where we can talk about lazy and convenient writing.

Strangely, my memories of Spock's character seem to be the exact opposite from your take on him. I always remember him being depicted as very vulcan in nature, and facing the challenge of being surrounded by humans and struggling to understand their behavior.

Bad science in that any two organisms that can breed and produce fertile offsprings (like every race in Star Trek) should be considered the same species.

Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.  

Racism in that all alien races are defined by a single trait (/flaw) that can only be overcome by being more human.

Interesting take. I thought humans were usually considered inferior to vulcans, as well as any number of other races in the ST universe (for example, when observing emotional human behavior, Spock's response was often to cocked eyebrow and say, "fascinating" in a semi-condensending tone, as if observing a much lower species. I think it has always been suggested that vulcans have evolved further than humans. There is a lot of racism shown from the sides of Klingons, Ferangi and other species, but I have always felt Star Trek has done a good job of painting racism as a negative thing, and shown the Federation to meet all alien races with open arms. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Mind citing a few examples of aliens needing to act more human in order to become better?

Gaffer, like DF stated, Romulans and Vulcans are not the exact same species, but represent a split in their evolutionary chain. They have the same common ancestors, but somewhere along the line they went their separate ways and continued down separate evolutionary chains. Romulans continuing along the same warlike, barbaric path, and the vulcans taking the high road and becoming more spiritual and intellectual, and eventually throwing emotions out the window.

TheBoost said:

"I hated Terminator, and I can't beleive they spit on it with the shameful T2! Blasphemy!"

Boost, stop mocking VINH!

Vaderisnothayden said:

Btw, you're getting into the habit of needling me with questions that seem designed to imply my thinking makes no sense. Sometimes I ignore it. But it's getting annoying. The above question was entirely unnecessary.

...

How the fuck was Book a comic relief character?

I think you might want to lay off the crack, because you seem really paranoid, as if everyone is out to get you. It wasn't an unecessary question, it was completely relevant. It is interesting to hear you say Serenity was an insult to Firefly, when you seemed to have zero fondness for Firefly to begin with. 

I guess it would be like me saying The Animatrix was an insult to the Matrix trilogy, when in reality I don't care one bit for anything with Matrix in the title. I'd rather leave it to people who care about the series to decide which is better than what, because to me it is all equally unworthy of watching.

Ah, and I think he thought you were talking about Wash, not Book, when you said they killed off the best character. Wash was obviously comic relief. I was annoyed they killed off Book without every explaining his mysterious background that was hinted at several times during the duration of the show. That was a loose end they could have tied off, though it wouldn't have been satifactory, as it was obviously meant to be an underlying plotline over the course of the series.

Wow, Boost, your grandmother frequents wookiepedia on her iPhone? That is intense.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Can't be sure, but rcb may be referring to Steven Spielberg. Allegedly, he got teary-eyed over ROTS.

I know what rcb was refering to, it was a line from Lucas in the youtube parody I linked too. I am just not sure what film Lucas was refering to. Wow, that is pretty sad if the guy who directed Schindler's List teared up during Revenge of the freakin' Shit.

Gaffer Tape said:

rcb said:

they must've been before my time. i've heard of them, but i didn't realize they were musicals or even movies.

 Just out of curiosity... what did you think they were?

Sexual positions most likely. I can totally see the Sound of Music, the My Fair Lady, and the Music Man being the names of some very kinky (and audible) sexual acts.

Because she was playing the role of a half Vulcan, half Romulan, not a full out emotionless Vulcan. Curtis played the role as a full on Vulcan, which makes the actress change even more jarring, since they are essentially portraying two completely different personalities.

V, are you really from parts of the world that spell ass a-r-s-e? I always had you pegged as an American, but of course it is always hard to tell on the internets.

Personally, I never found much of Buffy to be all that great to boot. Friend of mine was always really into it though. There have been occasional episodes I'd have the pleasure of seeing that I found to be downright fantastic, but all in all, nothing special IMHO. Firefly on the other hand, I felt was brilliant. Of the existing episodes, they were kind of hit or miss, but it really had a lot going for it. The fact that it was cancelled is truely ashame, I think it could have made it really great.

I don't think a very good argument can be made for it being canceled because it lacked heart or the ability to connect with the characters. The bottom line is I used to watch Fox quite a lot. I only had seven channels at the time this show was on, and Fox was one of them. Yet somehow I never saw a single commercial for this show (because there really were none to speak of) and I didn't even know of its existence until well after it was canceled. Interestingly, I have many friends who really like Firefly as well, yet not a single one of them ever knew about the show while it was on. The only thing I ever saw of Firefly prior to the DVD release, was a black and white ad in a TV Guide. And from that, I assumed it was some unwatchable bull like Andromeda and didn't give it a second thought.

Had I known about it then, I would certainly have been watching every week.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Serenity was an insult to Firefly, all around low in quality and shallow. Plus they killed off the best character after giving him hardly any screen time. And Mal Reynolds was at his most annoying. Plus they focused on River, a totally unbearable character.

I'm curious. If you don't care for Whedon, and hate two of the main characters in Firefly, and seem to really like the background comic releif character who never did much of importance, how can the movie be an insult to a show you clearly didn't like?

I was going to ask that myself, but thought best to stay clear. Now that you have asked it, I endorse your question.

ChainsawAsh said:

The only purpose of the film is to retcon the changes The Wrath of Khan made (Kirk's son, the Genesis planet/device, Spock's death), the most offensive of which is resurrecting Spock.  That action cheapens his sacrifice in WoK immensely - the producers should've had the balls to kill him and keep him dead.

Yeah, that is what has always bugged me about that film. Its whole existence is to negate a great part of the previous film. Ought to have just killed David off in the last film for the dramatic ending and called it good. I guess Trek wouldn't have been the same without Spock, but why even kill him off in the first place then? I made my peace with this annoyance long ago though. Until yesterday, I hadn't seen it in years, and was able to enjoy it a lot more than I ever remembered enjoying it in my adult life.

Now you have got me face palming with all your ridiculous face palming. If you are waiting for a voice of reason, what say you chime in and let us know why we lack reason for liking the films in the order we do?

Likewise, I suppose I fail to see how someone could like The Final Frontier over The Voyage Home. The beauty of person preference at work.

I felt The Voyage Home was ridiculous, but somewhat enjoyable. I felt FF was ridiculous, and not so enjoyable. Hence the VH before the FF. I'd rather take my ridiculousness with a good dose of enjoyable, makes it go down smoother IMHO. This is probably the same reason you like FF better than VH, because you enjoyed it more.

What is with the facepalming, Comp? Seems like just about everybody I have ever talked to about this subject places 2 and 6 at the top of their list, 1 and 5 at the very bottom, and 3 and 4 in the middle.

With the TNG crew films is it more of a mixed bag though, I rarely find people who agree on them. But with TOS era films, there is very rarely much disagreement. My personal favorite TNG film is Insurrection (also the very first DVD I ever purchased), though most people absolutely hate it. I'd like the rank First Contact as my second, because I really enjoyed it, but the dumb concept of the Borg Queen being introduced really makes that hard for me. I love the whole concept of the Borg, but the idea of a Borg Queen is really weak, completely changes the nature of the Borg, and really knocks their coolness factor down quite a lot. They obviously felt the need to stick with the trend of having a villian, but I wish they had given it a pass just this once.

Since everybody else is doin' it, I'll jump on the wagon:

Wrath of Kahn
Undiscovered Country (these first two are actually a bit of a tie for me)
Search for Spock
The Motion Picture
Voyage Home
Final Frontier

I have always had a soft spot for The Undiscovered Country. It was the first Trek film I was old enough to be excited about going to the theater for. With the previous ST films I saw in the theater, I was more of tag-a-long going to the movies with my dad.

This thread has inspired me watch my way through the original six movies again. I watched The Wrath of Kahn about a month or so, and today watched III and a tiny bit of IV. After I watch V and VI, I'll double back and catch TMP. Figured I'd skip it for now since I had already seen II recently, making the next logical step III, and wasn't really in the mood for something that slow.

I always remembered III being kind of on the dull side, but it was a lot better of a movie than I remember it being. For what it was anyway. Hmm, whatever happened to even scripts and stories that take themselves seriously to a healthy degree? Are they really a thing of the past? I hope not, but I am beginning to wonder. So sick of stories that don't make sense and levels of comic relief that bring every modern action film teetering on the edge of being a comedy. Seems like people usually use the phrase "and it doesn't take itself too seriously..." as a positive attribute when reviewing a movie... maybe it is time to take a few steps back, eh?

rcb said:

they must've been before my time. i've heard of them, but i didn't realize they were musicals or even movies.

Does your mother know you are on the internet?

Just kidding, you're making me feel really old. I guess those things were before my time too, but I couldn't imagine life without them.

rcb said:

 i loved it when he said that one of his producers cried when he saw the film. now that's a burn.

What movie was he originally talking about there? I can't imagine a single George Lucas film that would bring anyone to tears (lol, tears of joy anyway), let alone a Star Wars movie that could evoke this kind of a reaction from an exec. I am pretty sure GL is lying/exaggerating here, or that executive has some serious emotional issues.

I love this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeYgju2qopM&NR=1

I think George Lucas should get into the musical restoration business. I'd really love to see what he could do with films like, The Sound of Music, The Music Man, My Fair Lady, and the likes.