Star Trek IMAX

[HappinessNow]

Anyone planning on going to the Star Trek IMAX or regular Star Trek movie this opening weekend?

Yes, Yes! I bought tickets in advance for the Star Trek IMAX! comes naturally with being a geek I guess.

So fess up, anybody else planning on going this weekend?

If you did see it what did you think about it?

Spoilers permitted - you've been warned. ;)

Poll added for your forum posting pleasure, "please enjoy the music while your party is reached"

[canadiandude007]

I will be this weekend.

[Sealbhach]

IMAX is great!

.

[drawkcab]

The movie looks awful but I might have to go see it anyway.

[Spiritous]

I am XD

[TheOrangePeanut]

I am, in Nashville

[swoll1980]

The movie doesn't look very trek-ish. I would be very surprised if it's worth $1 to watch, let alone $10, or more.

Add: let alone is an idiom for; If it's not x it surely isn't y. For those that ain't from round here.

[CJ Master]

The movie doesn't look very trek-ish. I would be very surprised if it's worth $1 to watch, let alone $10, or more.

Add: let alone is an idiom for; If it's not x it surely isn't y. For those that ain't from round here.

I agree. I'm a trekkie, and this doesn't look trekish at all...

[Sunflower1970]

I see a special IMAX screening tonight. :)
Can't wait!

[oldos2er]

I agree. I'm a trekkie, and this doesn't look trekish at all...

I saw a TV commercial for the new Trek movie the other day. I thought everyone knew the Enterprise was built in space....

[LightB]

I will be surprised if this movie isn't crap. If I see it it's by accident.

[HappinessNow]

I know a lot of fans of Star Trek who bought tickets weeks in advance.

A lot of people have a more positive perspective about this movie and life in general.

[LightB]

I see nothing positive about squandering hard earned money and dumbing down the populace.

[Sunflower1970]

I saw this last night. I'm not really a Trekkie, although I have enjoyed the original series, TNG, DS9, etc etc. I thought this was a fantastic version. No dumbing down. Just more action added in than what the original series had. Pine makes a great Kirk. He's able to make the character his own while still being true to Shatner's Kirk.

My husband who doesn't like Star Trek at all enjoyed this quite a bit, too.

The way this movie is set up they were able to stay true to the original while creating something brand-spankin' new, IMHO (it relates to the story line so I don't want to say much in case I spoil it)

I will say, though, this in IMAX wasn't as impressive as I thought it'd be. I expected shots like in The Dark Knight where the entire screen was filled and I felt like I was really a part of the action. Instead, this seemed to be a 70mm print. I don't think an IMAX camera was ever used. So, whether one sees it in IMAX or at a regular theater there's really little difference.

[oldos2er]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

[LowSky]

The movie doesn't look very trek-ish. I would be very surprised if it's worth $1 to watch, let alone $10, or more.

Add: let alone is an idiom for; If it's not x it surely isn't y. For those that ain't from round here.


I agree. I'm a trekkie, and this doesn't look trekish at all...

Being more of a Star Wars nerd, how is the new movie not Trekish?
there the Enterprise, Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the gang. From what it looks of the trailer the movie movie is based on the never aired orginal pilot with Captain Pike in charge and the rest of the gang going throught star fleet academy and such.


I saw a TV commercial for the new Trek movie the other day. I thought everyone knew the Enterprise was built in space....

Just because you saw a Starship being built on Earth doesnt mean its the Enterprise (unless it had the Enterprise name on the ship that was being built)... as far as I remember (from watching TNG here and there) many ships looked alike, much like many warships built today. Kirk could have just been visiting a star fleet building site, not the Enterpirses in particular, of course someone who saw the film can confirm this

[Sunflower1970]

Just because you saw a Starship being built on Earth doesnt mean its the Enterprise (unless it had the Enterprise name on the ship that was being built)... as far as I remember (from watching TNG here and there) many ships looked alike, much like many warships built today. Kirk could have just been visiting a star fleet building site, not the Enterpirses in particular, of course someone who saw the film can confirm this

From what I could tell, some of the building of the ships happened on ground--in Iowa of all places, then they're flown up and completed in space. The Enterprise is already built and is ready for its maiden voyage with Pike as Captain. It looked like it was implied that the Enterprise in this alternate timeline, was built, like the other ships, on ground then flown up for completion.

[MikeTheC]

God bless The Onion. Topical and hilarious as ever!

Anyhow, a friend and I have tickets to see it this Thursday in IMAX. It'll be interesting. I really didn't want to go see it, since I basically share the sentiments of others here who think it'll likely be a waste of time. But you never know, it might actually not suck.

I guess by then we'll all know one way or the other.

I'm thinking (and what better place for it than here amongst us tech-savvy sci fi geeks) of starting up a spoilers-declared thread to discuss the new film once I've had a chance to see and analyze it. Anyone else think that's a good idea?

[oldos2er]

Just because you saw a Starship being built on Earth doesnt mean its the Enterprise (unless it had the Enterprise name on the ship that was being built)... as far as I remember (from watching TNG here and there) many ships looked alike, much like many warships built today. Kirk could have just been visiting a star fleet building site, not the Enterpirses in particular, of course someone who saw the film can confirm this

Anything as large as a Starship, Enterprise or not, would be assembled in space.

Not that I'm a hard-core Trekker or anything....

[oldos2er]

I'm thinking (and what better place for it than here amongst us tech-savvy sci fi geeks) of starting up a spoilers-declared thread to discuss the new film once I've had a chance to see and analyze it. Anyone else think that's a good idea?

Sure.

I'm still undecided on whether to go see it or not.

[HappinessNow]

I saw this last night. I'm not really a Trekkie, although I have enjoyed the original series, TNG, DS9, etc etc. I thought this was a fantastic version. No dumbing down. Just more action added in than what the original series had. Pine makes a great Kirk. He's able to make the character his own while still being true to Shatner's Kirk.

My husband who doesn't like Star Trek at all enjoyed this quite a bit, too.

The way this movie is set up they were able to stay true to the original while creating something brand-spankin' new, IMHO (it relates to the story line so I don't want to say much in case I spoil it)

I will say, though, this in IMAX wasn't as impressive as I thought it'd be. I expected shots like in The Dark Knight where the entire screen was filled and I felt like I was really a part of the action. Instead, this seemed to be a 70mm print. I don't think an IMAX camera was ever used. So, whether one sees it in IMAX or at a regular theater there's really little difference.How did you see it last night? I thought the opening in limited cities was May 7th?

[thewolfman]

I live in Germany and am a native English speaker although I do speak German. I think I will wait until it comes out on DVD to watch it in the original language.

PS: I am a Trekkie Fan and have all the films on DVD and I think from what I have seen from the advertisment; it looks quite good.

[Sunflower1970]

How did you see it last night? I thought the opening in limited cities was May 7th?

It's opening May 8th here. Aintitcoolnews.com had a special sneak preview. Harry had a message on his site that said if you were one of the first 300+ to email him, you'd be put on a list (with a guest) to get in to see the IMAX version. I saw the message just minutes after he posted it, and my name got on the list.

[MikeTheC]

I saw a TV commercial for the new Trek movie the other day. I thought everyone knew the Enterprise was built in space....

IIRC, the original Constitution-class Enterprise was built in the San Francisco orbital shipyard. Galaxy-class Enterprise was built at McKinley in Mars orbit. I'm not sure about the others.

Actually, putting all the "Trek geekdom knowledge" aside for a moment, one has to consider the size, bulk and configuration of Enterprise, and the logistics of lifting such a heavy body into orbit. It's ridiculous. Heck, one only has to look at how the ISS was built (and continues to be added to) to have a sense for how insane it would be, even in the 23rd century. The structural loads encountered in pushing Enterprise through the atmosphere alone would be substantial.

[LowSky]

The structural loads encountered in pushing Enterprise through the atmosphere alone would be substantial.

that is true. todays spacecraft and stations are basically only tight enought to hold atmosphere without exploding. One good hit and our current equiptment falls apart like a house of cards.
So to have a ship built much like a current naval ship it may have to be built in space, or maybe on the mooon.

[Sunflower1970]

...Couldn't they just build parts of it then 'beam' it into space near a space station, then assemble the full ship up there?

I liked seeing the ships being built on the ground. In Iowa. Near where Kirk lived (well, I got the impression he lived nearby one of the docks, at least). It had a feeling like even though this is the future, where things can be strange, there are still a few things that feel somewhat familiar.

[MikeTheC]

...Couldn't they just build parts of it then 'beam' it into space near a space station, then assemble the full ship up there?

I liked seeing the ships being built on the ground. In Iowa. Near where Kirk lived (well, I got the impression he lived nearby one of the docks, at least). It had a feeling like even though this is the future, where things can be strange, there are still a few things that feel somewhat familiar.

Lemme take a stab at answering this. This is going to involve both a healthy dose of reality and a healthy dose of being a Star Trek geek...

First off, from what we can see, they've built the ship on the ground, so whether or not they could beam it up into orbit is technically moot.

Right, so let's skip that bit for a moment. Here's an explanation I guarantee you won't see done or given on any random day on a message board, particularly not one that's located outside the confines of either über-geeks or über-physics scientists.

Transporters function by interrupting and breaking the attractive bonds of matter at what we would probably think of as the "gluon level" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle). At that level you have quarks, and quarks, depending on their arrangement, form protons, electrons or neutrons. These particles are then gathered and collected through what we would think of as a kind of "conduit"-ive process known in Trek lore as the "transporter beam". The particles thus collected are then drawn into a component known as the "transport pattern buffer". (Sorry, I'd thought to provide a link to a site for this, but I can find nothing appropriately "authoritative". It's in the ST:TNG Technical Manual, fwiw...) The reason for the pattern buffer primarily has to do with compensating for doppler shifts, but also allows for greater total mass transport, temporary detention of objects or personnel, screening for many (though not all) forms of contamination and/or disease, etc. Once that part of the transport process is complete, the patterns are released to be reassembled at the destination end.

Ok, so this leaves us with some issues. First off, even with a really, really big pattern buffer, you still have limits on the total amount of mass to be moved. There's no real definitive source I'm aware of, so I won't try to get into specifics, but clearly you're talking about breaking the ship in question up into lots of parts. Also, some matter is exceptionally dense, and other matter is exceptionally "resilient" to being transported. Moreover, some things like anti-matter require all kinds of extra care, kid-glove handling, modifications, etc., be made because they can be destructive even while in their broken-down state. Thirdly, you have what's known as the mass-to-distance ratio, which basically means that the more of one you want, the less of the other you have. The more mass, the shorter the distance.

Now, according to the ST:TNG Tech Manual (pg. 102), the transporter systems typical of the 24th century (and as found on Enterprise D) have about a 15,000 km. maximum distance. That may seem like a lot of room to work with, but consider that this is the 23rd century and whatever advances have been made by the time TNG came about haven't yet been made, so while there's no real references for it, one can assume it's likely the maximum range is shorter and the maximum mass is less (per volume of capability of the transporter system in question), so therefore you'd have to have some fairly massive transporter system to pull this off.

Now, let's also add the fact that you cannot beam something into "orbit" without the subject to be beamed having some kind of inertial velocity (17,500 mph being the minimum, I believe, for a sustainable orbit). And remember, the greater the mass, the faster it has to orbit (or the higher the orbit it has to have) just to cope with Earth's gravity well (that is, it's gravitational attraction).

All of this still basically leaves us back at square one, and begs the question of why you would go to all this trouble when you could just build it in orbit instead and save all of this difficulty?

[MikeTheC]

Hello! As mentioned the other day, I'm starting up a thread to discuss the new Star Trek movie which officially opened on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at theaters around the U.S. and possibly elsewhere in the world as well.

In order to discuss this movie, and given it's essential nature, it is impossible to do so without there being spoilers (that is, giving away advanced details and plot points in the movie.

Therefore, it is necessary and appropriate to provide this spoiler warning so that, if you do not want the movie spoiled for you before you've had a chance to see it, you have the opportunity to back out of this thread before anything bad happens, such as learning things you don't want to know, or having all the cheese in your house inexplicably eaten (which, depending on you feel about cheese in particular and dairy products in general, could be a bad thing).

So...

SPOILER ALERT WARNING:


This thread contains spoilers and other details about the new Star Trek movie.

5


4


3


2


1


.

.

.

[MikeTheC]

Alrighty, so, let's talk about it.

First off, what are your impressions of the movie? Did you like it, feel neutral about it, dislike it, or out-and-out hate it? And regardless of which way you feel, please explain why you feel that way about it.

Oh, and if any of you folks are the guy who wore the Ubuntu cap to the Gulf Coast Town Center 7:00 IMAX show, please raise your hand and feel free to say "hi". I was two rows behind you. :)


I'll go first.

There's no question this movie is an attempt to jettison essentially the bulk of the existing established canon of the franchise and start over, in effect "rebooting" it. I'll absolutely grant that I found the new characterizations to be interesting and engaging, and I particularly liked how we see Dr. McCoy having neurosis other than just the transporter was interesting, and his whole tirade on the shuttle was fairly intense.

I am concerned about Spock being shown as being more emotional than what came before. However, let's try to remember the time and age when Gene Roddenberry created Spock, and that quite a lot of details about him were either yet to be decided or simply in a state of flux. Additionally, also on balance, I feel the movie does a better job of depicting (however briefly) the nature of the interplay of sociology and psychology, especially amongst different races.

One thing I kind of don't like (at least right now while it's still quite fresh in my mind) is the destruction of Vulcan. I'm not sure why, since clearly calamities can occur any place and at any time. Besides, if you're already throwing the baby out, why not the bath water as well, eh?

I'm also not sure about the depictions of the on-board ship support systems (water processing, etc.) To tell the truth, it's how they've designed it that I don't like. The thoughts that went through my head as I was watching that whole scene (and see if this doesn't ring a bell for you too) were the following:

Galaxy Quest
Ryan vs. Dorkman 2
70s Buck Rogers, particularly "Planet of the Slave Girls" and "The Plot to Kill A City"

Besides that, there were a pair of these things sticking up out of the helm/nav control console which looked like re-painted desktop barcode scanners.

Now, what I liked was they did a (somewhat) better job depicting a military environment, the way they handled shuttlecraft launch and landing procedures, and much of the display styling and configuration on the bridge.

BTW, anyone notice the similarity between that control bug they gave Pike and the creatures used in Wrath of Khan and the TNG episode "Conspiracy"?

Alright, so that's all I've got for the minute. What about you?

[dspari1]

For Star Trek to be successful today, it needed the modernization that the series received.

Time is altered, and the characters are going to have a new dimension added to them(Kirk without a father, and Spock without his mother or his planet, and Uhura being his girl friend), but the end of the movie did clearly show that the friendships between the characters will be the same, and that is what matters the most

That's my take on it.

[HappinessNow]

Lemme take a stab at answering this. This is going to involve both a healthy dose of reality and a healthy dose of being a Star Trek geek...

First off, from what we can see, they've built the ship on the ground, so whether or not they could beam it up into orbit is technically moot.

Right, so let's skip that bit for a moment. Here's an explanation I guarantee you won't see done or given on any random day on a message board, particularly not one that's located outside the confines of either über-geeks or über-physics scientists.

Transporters function by interrupting and breaking the attractive bonds of matter at what we would probably think of as the "gluon level" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle). At that level you have quarks, and quarks, depending on their arrangement, form protons, electrons or neutrons. These particles are then gathered and collected through what we would think of as a kind of "conduit"-ive process known in Trek lore as the "transporter beam". The particles thus collected are then drawn into a component known as the "transport pattern buffer". (Sorry, I'd thought to provide a link to a site for this, but I can find nothing appropriately "authoritative". It's in the ST:TNG Technical Manual, fwiw...) The reason for the pattern buffer primarily has to do with compensating for doppler shifts, but also allows for greater total mass transport, temporary detention of objects or personnel, screening for many (though not all) forms of contamination and/or disease, etc. Once that part of the transport process is complete, the patterns are released to be reassembled at the destination end.

Ok, so this leaves us with some issues. First off, even with a really, really big pattern buffer, you still have limits on the total amount of mass to be moved. There's no real definitive source I'm aware of, so I won't try to get into specifics, but clearly you're talking about breaking the ship in question up into lots of parts. Also, some matter is exceptionally dense, and other matter is exceptionally "resilient" to being transported. Moreover, some things like anti-matter require all kinds of extra care, kid-glove handling, modifications, etc., be made because they can be destructive even while in their broken-down state. Thirdly, you have what's known as the mass-to-distance ratio, which basically means that the more of one you want, the less of the other you have. The more mass, the shorter the distance.

Now, according to the ST:TNG Tech Manual (pg. 102), the transporter systems typical of the 24th century (and as found on Enterprise D) have about a 15,000 km. maximum distance. That may seem like a lot of room to work with, but consider that this is the 23rd century and whatever advances have been made by the time TNG came about haven't yet been made, so while there's no real references for it, one can assume it's likely the maximum range is shorter and the maximum mass is less (per volume of capability of the transporter system in question), so therefore you'd have to have some fairly massive transporter system to pull this off.

Now, let's also add the fact that you cannot beam something into "orbit" without the subject to be beamed having some kind of inertial velocity (17,500 mph being the minimum, I believe, for a sustainable orbit). And remember, the greater the mass, the faster it has to orbit (or the higher the orbit it has to have) just to cope with Earth's gravity well (that is, it's gravitational attraction).

All of this still basically leaves us back at square one, and begs the question of why you would go to all this trouble when you could just build it in orbit instead and save all of this difficulty?Interesting.

[CJ Master]

Interesting.

I love when people quote a post with a ton of words and they reply with one. I don't know why, but it strikes me funny for some reason. :P

...But please don't do it. >.< It annoys me too. I mean its funny, but annoying...

Ug. Maybe I AM weird...

[HappinessNow]

I love when people quote a post with a ton of words and they reply with one. I don't know why, but it strikes me funny for some reason. :P

...But please don't do it. >.< It annoys me too. I mean its funny, but annoying...

Ug. Maybe I AM weird...Perhaps...

[Polygon]

yeah, star trek opened here (may 7th) at 7 pm.

anyway, the movie was AWESOME!!11ONE. I'm not a hardcore fan, but it seems to fit the plotlines (leading up the original star trek series) well enough, although, i could of sworn i saw a certain someone in later movies...(people who have seen the movie know what i am talking about)

[HappinessNow]

yeah, star trek opened here (may 7th) at 7 pm.

anyway, the movie was AWESOME!!11ONE. I'm not a hardcore fan, but it seems to fit the plotlines (leading up the original star trek series) well enough, although, i could of sworn i saw a certain someone in later movies...(people who have seen the movie know what i am talking about)
Awesome! Thanks for sharing.

[MikeTheC]

yeah, star trek opened here (may 7th) at 7 pm.

anyway, the movie was AWESOME!!11ONE. I'm not a hardcore fan, but it seems to fit the plotlines (leading up the original star trek series) well enough, although, i could of sworn i saw a certain someone in later movies...(people who have seen the movie know what i am talking about)

Well, post who you thought you saw in this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1152621) and I'll try to answer it if I can.

[HappinessNow]

Well, post who you thought you saw in this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1152621) and I'll try to answer it if I can.

No need for a duplicate thread, it can be discussed here.

Edited OP:


Anyone planning on going to the Star Trek IMAX or regular Star Trek movie this opening weekend?

Yes, Yes! I bought tickets in advance for the Star Trek IMAX! comes naturally with being a geek I guess.

So fess up, anybody else planning on going this weekend?

If you did see it what did you think about it?

Spoilers permitted - you've been warned. ;)

[mingtien]

I'm going to drive 2 hours to Bangkok to see it next week (too busy this weekend)!

[EdThaSlayer]

They have a dub over the English over here. No English subtitles as well. I feel sad. Probably won't be able to watch it until the DVD comes out. :(

[SpriteSODA]

Seen it, didn't like it. it started quite good but the storyline is nuking the fridge and its annoying, I had it with the usual Evil Dude with Superior SpaceShip with Ultimate Weapon.

[MikeTheC]

@ SpriteSODA:

Yeah, I know how you feel. In that regard, this movie was like an "Insurrection" rip-off. I really didn't care for how they handled the whole "how Spock went back in time" thing, either. That really smacked of, well, crap.

To my mind, one has to kind of skip over/past that to otherwise enjoy the movie.

As I said in the other thread, the whole Enterprise -- what would you call it? environmental engineering? -- scene with Kirk and Scotty really didn't please me at all. That felt like a bad rip-off of Galaxy Quest-meets-Ryan vs. Dorkman 2-meets-Buck Rogers Planet of the Slave Girls/Plot to Kill a City (and if you're a 70s Buck Rogers fan, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about).

The movie did also slightly remind me, mostly because of dialog and some of the sets, just a bit of what I did like about NuBSG. Anywho...

[bapoumba]

Threads merged.

[xir_]

i saw it in the imax last night i thought i was brilliant, everyone came out liking it. i'll probably go see it again.

[MikeTheC]

Just heading out to meet up with some friends (in uniform) to promote the Friday night showing. I'll be over at the Bell Tower cinema. If you're from here, stop by and say "hi!"

[HappinessNow]

Saw the movie last night on IMAX and everybody at the end; in the movie audience, stood up clapping many with tears in their eyes (including me), the movie is simply awesome. I have never been to a movie in my life where all the audience gave the movie a standing ovation!

I will be seeing this movie again! and again! and again! and buying it when it comes available on DVD, this is the single best Star Trek show ever!

I absolutely loved the movie!

btw two of my friends that came with me saw it the night before in a non-IMAX theater and they both felt the IMAX experience is a world of difference. They felt it was very impressive and they saw the first show in a Carmike Theather which is completely digital.

[oldos2er]

Saw the movie this afternoon, wrote a small review here: http://myubuntu.ning.com/group/trekkies/forum/topics/the-last-movie-not-bad-at-all

[HappinessNow]

Saw the movie this afternoon, wrote a small review here: http://myubuntu.ning.com/group/trekkies/forum/topics/the-last-movie-not-bad-at-all
Nice review. ;)

[init1]

The movie looks awful but I might have to go see it anyway.


I will be surprised if this movie isn't crap. If I see it it's by accident.
I also thought that it would be terrible, but it ended up being absolutely awesome.

[infoseeker]

Just seen it and I thought it was quite good.

[HappinessNow]

at $72.5 million on the opening weekend the numbers don't lie, distant second X-men at $27 million.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=113286&d=1242026090

and the movie fans agree with the numbers

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=113287&d=1242026090

with Star Trek IMAX at the top!

[HappinessNow]

<gentle bump>


i saw it in the imax last night i thought i was brilliant, everyone came out liking it. i'll probably go see it again.
My thoughts exactly, although I have yet found the time to see it again. It is on my buy list when it comes out on DVD.