TR Forums

Wars films >> Trek films, mainly because Star Wars barely registers as Science Fiction.

Star Trek has done well in television because of the continuing themes of exploration and mystery. It works with 30-60 minute episode lengths, but as you stretch to feature-length, you lose audience interest. This is why Star Trek: The Motion Picture was so awful. It only had about 45 minutes worth of story*, but they stretched it to 132. By comparison, Wrath of Kahn did a pretty good job of keeping a foot in the SF roots, but it pumped up the action and pacing so that it worked as a film.

Star Wars might as well be an action flick set in space. They still manage to have excellent story and themes, but the don't have any of the exploration that you find in SF television. The Abrams Trek films follow the Wars formula, and that has a divisive effect on fans. (Personally, I think the films are okay, but I still think that Trek would be better served by a television series...even long-episode, short season format would be better. ::cough::Sherlock::cough)

*Insert acknowledgement that JBI said this first.*

Oh man, if you thought I was talking about Star Wars I'm kind of hurt

Most of the flack from ST: TMP comes from the fact that it was suppose have been Phase II, but it got abridged into "The Changling 2.0".

Most of the Phase II's elements resurfaced in ST: TNG.

ST:TMP is still better then most of the newer ST flicks.

derFunkenstein wrote:

I watched the original Star Trek movie a month or so back, and it was pretty bad. Could have done without all the shuttling around in circles around the ship. 2 and 3 were really good but my favorite is 4.

Aw man. Four had potential, but the time travel deal, combined with the "hahaha, Spock is sooo not human" and the annoying whale biologist chick just ruins it. Five is better than Four. Four is known as the "accessible Trek" meaning that the only people who really like it are people who don't really like Star Trek.

derFunkenstein wrote:

And let's remember that the new Star Trek movies *aren't* Star Trek, and they make a point of shouting it during the first one.

Then they shouldn't be using Star Trek's characters, its universe, etc. That's the problem with the new Star Trek. You could substitute any characters and it wouldn't be any different. Like, the characters could all be cat people or something from Wing Commander, and the movie wouldn't be any different. JJ Abrams sucks with characters.

Vrock wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

I watched the original Star Trek movie a month or so back, and it was pretty bad. Could have done without all the shuttling around in circles around the ship. 2 and 3 were really good but my favorite is 4.

Aw man. Four had potential, but the time travel deal, combined with the "hahaha, Spock is sooo not human" and the annoying whale biologist chick just ruins it. Five is better than Four. Four is known as the "accessible Trek" meaning that the only people who really like it are people who don't really like Star Trek.

You must be the first person I've ever encountered who actually liked #5. (Unless what you're really saying here is that you merely disliked it less than #4.) Personally, I thought #4 was better than #3 or #5.

Aside: We've been stuck on this topic for a while now; I think we're getting too topical for DYMT!

Five has some decent character moments, and again is about exploring the unknown vs. just blowing stuff up. It's Star Trek. It has a really good premise, but is lacking in execution in some spots and the ending isn't very satisfying. But it's a far from a bad film. Had Shatner gotten the budget he asked for, it could have been better.

Four, on the other hand, is the "accessible Trek". It's Star Trek-light. It's for all those people who never really watched the show. Totally overrated in my opinion with too many hokey moments (Time travel, what again? Scotty invents transparent aluminum? There be whales here? Spock swimming with whales "Gracie is pregnant", Spock using the neck pinch on a punk rocker? And punk rocker? Could this film *be* any more 80s than that?) Seriously, the whole schtick i's Kirk and Gang running around in "present day", and look how fish out of water they are, hahaha! That gets old reaaaal quick.

Anyway, I rate the films as follows: II, I, III, VI, V, IV. I sometimes waffle on the order of III, VI, and I, but the rest of those are pretty firm.

OK, so more along the lines of "disliked it less than IV". Fair enough!

Oh, I forgot one. Sulu knowing how to fly a Huey. Because it's basically the same as a Constitution class starship, right?

Vrock wrote:

Oh, I forgot one. Sulu knowing how to fly a Huey. Because it's basically the same as a Constitution class starship, right?

Or a Bird of Prey??

I like 4 and I really like Sulu's line when they're about to head out "got used to flying a Huey".

At least the bird of prey was similar tech. I can buy him flying it in a pinch, and perfecting skills over the course of a few months. But the Huey, nah.

I love my kids but one teething and one toilet training really makes me want a glass or two of something strong. So much noise and mess.

Also: New Avengers movie--any good?

paulWTAMU wrote:

I love my kids but one teething and one toilet training really makes me want a glass or two of something strong. So much noise and mess.

When they reach their teens you will remember these days fondly.

The destroyer of rodents.

don't scare me like that Ned


Also, whoever wrote that PC Tune Up Malware? I want to make them eat their own genitals without ketchup. This stuff has been a pain to get rid of.

paulWTAMU wrote:

don't scare me like that Ned

Truth is painful. Adolescence is doubly painful as it is inflicted on child as well as parent.

One day she was your sweet little girl. The next day she was a raging hormonal teen who loudly blamed you for whatever might have gone wrong in her life (from her perspective). In my experience it takes about 2-3 years post-puberty before they can again converse on an adult level.

I remember, roughly, how big an jerk I was from about 12-17. I feel so bad for my parents now Particularly my dad because we butted heads worse, and because he didn't have a male role model (his dad left when my dad was like 10 or 12 and they didn't talk till I was born). So he was dealing with raging jerk me without any experience to draw from.

EDIT: Interesting way to autoedit

Keep those thoughts in mind when it happens to you. Part of being a teen is rebellion and a push-back against parental authority. We all did it because it's what teens do. If the underlying issue isn't harmful (i.e. sex/drugs/booze) be gracious.

Wife & I have a big disagreement on the cleanliness of daughter's room. Wife grew up in a large family where shared rooms were the norm; I had but one sibling and a room of my own. Daughter is very messy. Wife wants the room clean to "show it to visitor" standards whereas I just close the door.

I always had my own room as a kid, and I guess it shows. My home office looks like a hoarder's nest (well, I suppose it is time I admitted that it really *is* one...) and the mess often spills out to the adjoining finished basement. It is an ongoing struggle to keep the piles of stuff organized and in check.

that's one of the things that dad and I fought about the most.

In my defense, I still think I was kinda right--he was pissed off if I didn't dust and mop at least once a week, whereas I was more like "huh? I cleaned up the crusty underwear and dishes, ain't that OK?"

just brew it! wrote:

I always had my own room as a kid, and I guess it shows. My home office looks like a hoarder's nest (well, I suppose it is time I admitted that it really *is* one...) and the mess often spills out to the adjoining finished basement.

I can keep it to "my room" but SWMBO is a little fuzzy on the "my room" vs "our room".

What used to be my bedroom has been my father's "office" since 1985. It's a sty.

EDIT: It still has the star-spangled wallpaper I thought was so cool circa 1977 or so.

Interesting. I used to vary between letting a workspace turn into a total mess, then going for a total cleanup, repeat. Lately, though, I've settled more into "organized piles" mode with periodic, gentler cleanups.

ludi wrote:

Interesting. I used to vary between letting a workspace turn into a total mess, then going for a total cleanup, repeat. Lately, though, I've settled more into "organized piles" mode with periodic, gentler cleanups.

I used the "organized piles" approach for years. Problem is, the piles have slowly but surely gotten larger and less organized (e.g. if I can't find the correct pile for item X, I start a new pile), and I'm now teetering on the brink of losing control of the piles. You know you're in trouble when one of the larger piles is the "find the proper pile for these things" pile! I don't think anything short of an extensive purge will restore order at this point. I've started to do that at least twice in the past 6 months, but haven't made much forward progress (mostly I've just managed to keep it from getting worse).

Lately I've been quite enjoying both Opeth (Swedish death/prog metal band), and the early back catalog of Joni Mitchell ('70s Canadian folk/pop/jazz singer-songwriter). Haven't gotten to the point of putting them on "shuffle" yet, but that might be an interesting study in contrasts...

just brew it! wrote:

I used the "organized piles" approach for years. Problem is, the piles have slowly but surely gotten larger and less organized (e.g. if I can't find the correct pile for item X, I start a new pile), and I'm now teetering on the brink of losing control of the piles. You know you're in trouble when one of the larger piles is the "find the proper pile for these things" pile! I don't think anything short of an extensive purge will restore order at this point. I've started to do that at least twice in the past 6 months, but haven't made much forward progress (mostly I've just managed to keep it from getting worse).

So what you're saying is, you need folders on your desktop.

derFunkenstein wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

I used the "organized piles" approach for years. Problem is, the piles have slowly but surely gotten larger and less organized (e.g. if I can't find the correct pile for item X, I start a new pile), and I'm now teetering on the brink of losing control of the piles. You know you're in trouble when one of the larger piles is the "find the proper pile for these things" pile! I don't think anything short of an extensive purge will restore order at this point. I've started to do that at least twice in the past 6 months, but haven't made much forward progress (mostly I've just managed to keep it from getting worse).

So what you're saying is, you need folders on your desktop.

Those would be some pretty large folders; some of the piles are of things like computer cases. At least those are impossible to lose track of!

The only think I've lost track of on my desk is the &(*@#&(*$@&(#(@& remote to the Apple TV. Yes, I can use my phone, but dammit those things are expensive. $17.99 for a replacement at Best Buy.

The replacement, though: i came up with a brilliant idea. It's now taped (with packing tape) to the TV remote with the RF emitter facing the "back" of the TV remote. So I flip the bigger remote 180 degrees long-ways and the little one is there ready to use.

Just how long will the default "save" icon in just about any proggy be an image of a 3.5" floppy?

Captain Ned wrote:

Just how long will the default "save" icon in just about any proggy be an image of a 3.5" floppy?

Reminds me of how some people might not realize that the "phone" or "call" icon is a handset from the olden days...of course, my work desk still has a phone with a proper handset, so I don't think that will ever be completely lost.

But the floppy disk to "save" thing might be more interesting. Unless someone can come up with a better (and unambiguous) icon for it, it might never change.

You ever have that one co-worker that you just desperately need to throat punch? I do. Everyday.