Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Trek » Star Trek Into Darkness
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Warp Speeds (was: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness) [message #106312 is a reply to message #106278] Sun, 25 August 2013 17:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
YourName is currently offline  YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <5219ed38$0$15904$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:

>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:09:27 GMT, Wiseguy wrote:

>>

>>> When did they travel from one side of the galaxy to the other in one

>>> episode?

>>

>> I meant that in one episode, they can travel all over the galaxy

>> (whether that takes a day or a week isn't my point), and in another

>> episode, they are confined to a small quadrant. The latter makes much

>> more sense, of course. ST:V (which you mentioned) is one example --

>> they are able to travel from Earth to this neutral planet and then to

>> the center of the galaxy all in the space of what seems like days.

>> And then of course you have the issue of real-time communications

>> being possible at extreme distances in some episodes and not possible

>> in others, etc etc. My point to whiny-boy "Your Name" is that the

>> "consistency" he is demanding from an alternate time-line,

>> time-travel, re-boot story doesn't even exist in prior canon.

>

> Fascinating subject!

>

> Several web pages are dedicated to this phenomena.

>

> http://www.ditl.org/pagarticle.php?ArticleID=17&ListID=A rticles

>

> http://www.stardestroyer.net/mrwong/wiki/index.php/Warp_driv e

>

>

http://www.startrek.com/boards-topic/33200950/Warp-Highways- explain-a-lot-_1111774056_33200950
>

> Personally I think Scotty invented a 'plot inducer' and modified the

> Enterprise engines with it. Since he limited its use, generally ships in the

> 24th century never were as fast as the ones Kirk commanded. ;-)


I don't know (and don't really care) exactly what Private "I know Nothing"
Schultz is on about, but we obviously don't see every single second of
Star Trek universe life on-screen. If nothing is happening for five days
of space travel that is relevant to the story, then we don't see those
five days of space travel on-screen ... even ignoring the fact that
fitting five days into a one hour show is impossible, it would be
incredibly boring for viewers to watch. It would also be pretty inane if
every time they went anywhere someone said "It will take us five days to
get therer" or "It has taken us five days to get here". :-\
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106316 is a reply to message #106280] Sun, 25 August 2013 22:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bast is currently offline  Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 19:49:53 -0400, Bast wrote:

>

>> I really wished they just "restored" TOS to bigger screen Blu Ray, and

>> offered us a copy of the REAL TOS,....with a WHITE Enterprise, and Kirk

>> wearing gold tunics.

>

> If you had bought your blu rays instead of stealing the content, you

> would have what you want. They can be put into "original" mode

> without the new effects.




Not really. The "original mode" is just the same DVD quality it was before,
and not remastered/restored.
That's why I just STOLE IT.
Not going to pay again for another EXACT copy of what I already have paid
for.

....Bad enough paramount crucified us with the original DVD's, by not
offering them as a complete set with a slight discount. And were too damn
cheap to even include some extras on the DVD's.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106362 is a reply to message #106316] Mon, 26 August 2013 08:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Corporal Hammer is currently offline  Lance Corporal Hammer
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:57:10 -0400, Bast wrote:

> Not really. The "original mode" is just the same DVD quality it was before,

> and not remastered/restored.


No, it's not the same as the DVDs from before, it's actually lower
quality since you get the raw scans in the scenes that have been
upgraded. (This was my sole complaint about the Blu-rays.) But I
digress.

> That's why I just STOLE IT.

> Not going to pay again for another EXACT copy of what I already have paid

> for.


What nonsense. If it is exactly the same, why download it again at
all? Apparently you wanted it, but have rationalized not going down
to the store and paying for it.

> ...Bad enough paramount crucified us with the original DVD's, by not

> offering them as a complete set with a slight discount. And were too damn

> cheap to even include some extras on the DVD's.


Don't whine to me about the DVD sets. When I bought my first DVD
player I started collecting the ORIGINAL DVD releases of TOS as they
were being released -- $15 for a two-episode disc x 40, all the way
through! I skipped on the boxed sets when they came out and didn't
buy again until the Blu-rays. The Blu-rays are perfect for me and the
DVDs are a nice bit in the collection and probably the best way to
view the original cuts.

--
Hammer
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106363 is a reply to message #106257] Mon, 26 August 2013 09:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daniel47@teranews.com is currently offline  Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote:
> In article <DQ%Rt.185047$Dy1.24695@fx18.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com"

> <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:


<Snip>

>> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are

>> better than their later incarnations!)

>

> That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against. Everyone

> has one and they're all different.


Sorry, my "opinions are pointless to argue against", but your opinions
*have to be agreed with*!!

Does the term "egotistical" apply here??

> I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by definition and

> execution, different products to the original,


So ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY are all parts of a re-boot, i.e. *Not* part of
ST:TOS, so, to be true to yourself, you must hate them as well!!

> so re-using the same name

> for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence, and

> logic from EVERY conceivable angle.


See my para just above!!

> Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or is

> sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a logical

> examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the pointless

> opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and utterly misses the point

> and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with the established

> franchise.


And Your Name usually simply reverts to the pointless opinion-based "I
don't like it", which completely and utterly misses the point and
doesn't in any way mean it actually mis-fits with the established franchise.

>> How is it, Your Name, that you can accept that ST:NG/ST:DS9/ST:VOY and

>> the first six films are continuations of the ST:TOS universe, but cannot

>> accept ST:2009 or ST:ID as continuations?? Same universe, just different

>> interpretations.

>

> It's an EXTREMELY simple concept. :-\

>

> A proper franchise is a set of parts that fits together properly and sensibly.


Yes, so either ST:2009 and ST:ID do form part of this "proper franchise"
or ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY don't!!

> JJ Abrams' movies and the "Enterprise" TV series decided the original

> ideas weren't "good enough", and so made lots of ill-fitting changes.


So say you, and it would appear, you alone!

> Since they are obviously changed, they are really a different product,


So say you, and it would appear, you alone!

> therefore they can't sensibly or logically be part of the same franchise

> and shouldn't have the same name.


So say you, and it would appear, you alone!
(Oh, look!! I'm repeating myself in an effort to make a point ... just
like Your Name does!!)

> In the case of JJ Abrams' movies, the half-assed concocted excuse of a

> time travel story doesn't work


So say you, and it would appear, you alone!

> - there are still far too many ill-fitting

> and non-sensical changes.

>

> At best these silly "reboots" are a sub-franchise, which in itself is

> moronically stupid and just creates a confused mess where nobody really

> knows what "Star Trek"


Including, you, Your Name!!

> is (or "Batman", or "Battlestar Galacica" or any of

> the other franchises ruined by idiotic "reboots" re-using the same name

> for a different product).

>

> When even the people making these "reboots" are saying they are different,

> you really have to wonder about the brains of some (so-called) "fans" who

> continue to blindly claim they're the same thing, let alone the morons in

> studio management and marketing that release them under the original's

> name. :-(


But you say they are different, Your Name!!

>> Sure, these later incarnations have different production values compared

>> to ST:TOS, but then ST:NG/ST:DS9/ST:VOY and the films also had different

>> production values compared to ST:TOS.

>

> The original Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager,

> all fit together without piles of contradictions and changes. Yes, there

> are some minor contradictions, but on the whole they do fit together as a

> single entity - the real "Star Trek" franchise.


As does, in the opinion of most of those here abouts, ST:Ent, ST:2009
and ST:ID also fit together in this single "Star Trek" franchise!

Live with it!

Daniel
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106455 is a reply to message #106363] Mon, 26 August 2013 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
YourName is currently offline  YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <UQISt.284104$Su6.92434@fx16.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com"
<dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:

>> In article <DQ%Rt.185047$Dy1.24695@fx18.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com"

>> <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>

> <Snip>

>

>>> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are

>>> better than their later incarnations!)

>>

>> That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against. Everyone

>> has one and they're all different.

>

> Sorry, my "opinions are pointless to argue against", but your opinions

> *have to be agreed with*!!

>

> Does the term "egotistical" apply here??


"Good" or "bad" is simply an opinion.

The new versions being "different" is a fact. The definition of a "reboot"
means they make changes, which makes it different, which is a FACT, not an
opinion.




>> I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by definition and

>> execution, different products to the original,

>

> So ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY are all parts of a re-boot, i.e. *Not* part of

> ST:TOS, so, to be true to yourself, you must hate them as well!!


They are not a "reboot". They're a continuation and they (mstyl) fit with
what was established before.

Abrams' garbage and the "Entperirse" rubbish (Beavis & Butthead's attempt
to "reboot" the franchise) don't fit. They make all sorts of ridiculous
changes to what has already been established.




>> for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence, and

>> logic from EVERY conceivable angle.

>

> See my para just above!!

>

>> Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or is

>> sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a logical

>> examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the pointless

>> opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and utterly misses the point

>> and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with the established

>> franchise.

>

> And Your Name usually simply reverts to the pointless opinion-based "I

> don't like it", which completely and utterly misses the point and

> doesn't in any way mean it actually mis-fits with the established franchise.


Ah, yet another moron on the Internet who can't actually read and blindly
believes something is "Star Trek" simply because his worthless and
pointless opinion is "I like it" ... another imbecile who completely
misses the point to to not bother wasting time with. :-\
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106519 is a reply to message #106455] Mon, 26 August 2013 23:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wiseguy is currently offline  Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-2708130856400001@203-118-187-84.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> In article <UQISt.284104$Su6.92434@fx16.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com"

> <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>> Your Name wrote:

>>> In article <DQ%Rt.185047$Dy1.24695@fx18.iad>,

>>> "Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>>

>> <Snip>

>>

>>>> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are

>>>> better than their later incarnations!)

>>>

>>> That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against.

>>> Everyone has one and they're all different.

>>

>> Sorry, my "opinions are pointless to argue against", but your

>> opinions *have to be agreed with*!!

>>

>> Does the term "egotistical" apply here??

>

> "Good" or "bad" is simply an opinion.

>

> The new versions being "different" is a fact. The definition of a

> "reboot" means they make changes, which makes it different, which is a

> FACT, not an opinion.

>

>

>

>

>>> I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by definition and

>>> execution, different products to the original,

>>

>> So ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY are all parts of a re-boot, i.e. *Not* part

>> of ST:TOS, so, to be true to yourself, you must hate them as well!!

>

> They are not a "reboot". They're a continuation and they (mstyl) fit

> with what was established before.

>

> Abrams' garbage and the "Entperirse" rubbish (Beavis & Butthead's

> attempt to "reboot" the franchise) don't fit. They make all sorts of

> ridiculous changes to what has already been established.

>

>


Enterprise was not a reboot, it was a prequel.
No one cares if you liked it or not.

>

>

>>> for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence,

>>> and logic from EVERY conceivable angle.

>>

>> See my para just above!!

>>

>>> Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or

>>> is sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a

>>> logical examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the

>>> pointless opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and utterly

>>> misses the point and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with

>>> the established franchise.

>>

>> And Your Name usually simply reverts to the pointless opinion-based

>> "I don't like it", which completely and utterly misses the point and

>> doesn't in any way mean it actually mis-fits with the established

>> franchise.

>

> Ah, yet another moron on the Internet who can't actually read and

> blindly believes something is "Star Trek" simply because his worthless

> and pointless opinion is "I like it" ... another imbecile who

> completely misses the point to to not bother wasting time with. :-\

>
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106585 is a reply to message #106362] Tue, 27 August 2013 05:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bast is currently offline  Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:57:10 -0400, Bast wrote:

>

>> Not really. The "original mode" is just the same DVD quality it was

>> before, and not remastered/restored.

>

> No, it's not the same as the DVDs from before, it's actually lower

> quality since you get the raw scans in the scenes that have been

> upgraded. (This was my sole complaint about the Blu-rays.) But I

> digress.

>

>> That's why I just STOLE IT.

>> Not going to pay again for another EXACT copy of what I already have

>> paid for.

>

> What nonsense. If it is exactly the same, why download it again at

> all? Apparently you wanted it, but have rationalized not going down

> to the store and paying for it.

>

>> ...Bad enough paramount crucified us with the original DVD's, by not

>> offering them as a complete set with a slight discount. And were too

>> damn cheap to even include some extras on the DVD's.

>

> Don't whine to me about the DVD sets. When I bought my first DVD

> player I started collecting the ORIGINAL DVD releases of TOS as they

> were being released -- $15 for a two-episode disc x 40, all the way

> through!





That's what I was talking about.
Bought the originals (2 episodes on a disk) which were released here over a
period that must have been almost a year to complete the set
Never saw a reason to waste any money on box sets just for the sake of
collecting, as I bought the original DVD's just to watch.

.....Now they are all ripped to the hard drive, the DVD's are stored away,
and watching is only a button push




I skipped on the boxed sets when they came out and didn't
> buy again until the Blu-rays. The Blu-rays are perfect for me and the

> DVDs are a nice bit in the collection and probably the best way to

> view the original cuts.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #106629 is a reply to message #106455] Tue, 27 August 2013 09:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daniel47@teranews.com is currently offline  Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote:
> In article <UQISt.284104$Su6.92434@fx16.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com"

> <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>> Your Name wrote:

>>> In article <DQ%Rt.185047$Dy1.24695@fx18.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com"

>>> <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>>

>> <Snip>

>>

>>>> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are

>>>> better than their later incarnations!)

>>>

>>> That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against. Everyone

>>> has one and they're all different.

>>

>> Sorry, my "opinions are pointless to argue against", but your opinions

>> *have to be agreed with*!!

>>

>> Does the term "egotistical" apply here??

>

> "Good" or "bad" is simply an opinion.

>

> The new versions being "different" is a fact. The definition of a "reboot"

> means they make changes, which makes it different, which is a FACT, not an

> opinion.


The new versions being "different" is a fact ... because photographic
processes had moved on from the '60's, so they make changes to the
"Enterprise". Whoopee!! but the storyline continues, as shown by an old
Spock, in ST:UC, now being very old in ST:2009.

>>> I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by definition and

>>> execution, different products to the original,

>>

>> So ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY are all parts of a re-boot, i.e. *Not* part of

>> ST:TOS, so, to be true to yourself, you must hate them as well!!

>

> They are not a "reboot". They're a continuation and they (mstyl) fit with

> what was established before.


Exactly! "they fit with what was established before."

(and what does "(mstyl)" mean, anyway??)

> Abrams' garbage and the "Entperirse" rubbish (Beavis & Butthead's attempt

> to "reboot" the franchise) don't fit. They make all sorts of ridiculous

> changes to what has already been established.


You may or may not be impressed with either Abrams' or "Beavis &
Butthead" efforts, but, non-the-less, their works *do* fit in the ST
Universe!

>>> for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence, and

>>> logic from EVERY conceivable angle.

>>

>> See my para just above!!

>>

>>> Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or is

>>> sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a logical

>>> examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the pointless

>>> opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and utterly misses the point

>>> and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with the established

>>> franchise.

>>

>> And Your Name usually simply reverts to the pointless opinion-based "I

>> don't like it", which completely and utterly misses the point and

>> doesn't in any way mean it actually mis-fits with the established franchise.

>

> Ah, yet another moron on the Internet who can't actually read


Been able to read for many, many years!! What about you, Your Name??

> and blindly

> believes something is "Star Trek" simply because his worthless and

> pointless opinion is "I like it" ... another imbecile who completely

> misses the point to to not bother wasting time with. :-\


Sorry, can you show me anywhere that I have actually stated that "I like
it" or that "I like don't it" with regards to the modern ST films, Your
Name??

I don't think I've recently expressed opinions either way, just that
*you* cannot expect everyone to agree with *your* silly opinions!!

Daniel
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [message #110212 is a reply to message #105121] Tue, 10 September 2013 15:57 Go to previous message
wheresourblessing is currently offline  wheresourblessing
Messages: 55
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:36:09 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
<will.dockery@gmail.com> wrote:

> An interesting read on the new Star Trek stuff I ran across:

>

> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/06/clip_job_ an_exc_3.php

>

> "...Self-righteous person after self-righteous person has told me how they’re

> going to stay at home and watch “The Wrath of Khan” on repeat in protest of

> Abrams’ bastardization of a beloved story. They should do what they feel is

> best. Me? I’m going to go see the movie again."


Yet another unsolicited testimonial?

LOL.

More likely:

"Vee joos chaven't been ghetting ennuff sheckels outt of our chlatest
Chollyvood boondoggle!

Qvvick! Chymeee! Do sum prumoshen alreaddy!!"

-.-


Why are Jews such prolific peddlers of lies and falsehoods? The Jewish
religion actually advocates lying to and deceiving non-Jews. In his
scholarly study "The Truth About the Talmud," revisionist historian
Michael Hoffman noted that in Baba Kamma 113a of the Babylonian Talmud
it condones the use of lies and subterfuges to "circumvent a Gentile."
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin plainly admitted that "Jewish tradition is
tolerant of those who bend the truth... Jewish law is remarkably
tolerant of 'white lies.'" ("White Lies," My Jewish Learning Website)

Each year, religious Jews undergo a ritual in which they pledge
themselves to be recklessly dishonest, relinquishing all future oaths
and promises. This ritual, called the "Kol Nidre," is considered the
holiest of Jewish prayers. Critics, however, have called the prayer a
license to lie and cheat. (Rev. Ted Pike, "Kol Nidre: Judaism's
License To Lie," Truth Tellers, Nov. 17, 2008.) On the eve of the 'Day
of Atonement,' Jews recite these words: "All vows, obligations, oaths,
and anathemas, whether called 'onam,' 'onas,' or by any other name,
which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound,
from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we
await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled,
and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power
over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall
not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths." ("KOL NIDRE," Jewish
Encyclopedia, 1906.)

The communist doctrine -- the spawn of Jewish supremacist ideologues
-- also championed the use of lies and subterfuge to accomplish
political objectives. The communist idol and first Soviet dictator
Vladimir Lenin, a monstrous Jewish criminal who founded the Cheka, the
genocidal secret police apparatus of the Soviet regime, once said that
"a lie told often enough becomes the truth." (M. Kumar. Dictionary of
Quotations. APH Publishing: New Delhi, India, 2008. p. 134)

Promises, Lenin surmised, "are like pie-crusts--made to be broken."
(LIFE Magazine, Dec. 23, 1957.)

Extolling the virtues of deception, Lenin instructed his underlings to
"utilize all possible cunning and illegal methods, deny and conceal
the truth." ("The present stage of Soviet global expansion: sources,
goals and prospects," U.S. Army Institute for Advanced Russian and
East European Studies, p. 29.)

Undoubtedly, the Jewish propaganda of the past is propelling the
Jewish propaganda of the present. In essence, these atrocious lies are
designed to drive a wedge between the Christian world and the Muslim
world, railroading gentiles into a third world war in which the only
real victor will be World Jewry and their fabricated nation-state of
Israel. Most importantly, the religious creed of these neoconservative
warmongers is the holocaust fable ­ it is the backbone of neocon
thinking. This dangerous convergence of historical untruths, and the
blind acceptance of these falsehoods by the majority of the masses of
people, is leading the entire planet toward perpetual hostilities and
bloodshed.


"Masters Of Deception: Zionism, 9-11, and the War on Terror Hoax"
(2013) by Zander C. Fuerza

The complete book can be downloaded HERE:

http://spingola.com/ZCF.html

or HERE:

http://archive.org/details/MastersOfDeception
Pages (2): [ «    1  2]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: I love it in here
Next Topic: "What...Is...That?
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 00:48:04 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05800 seconds