yea youre right, its going to suck

Why oh why are they building the enterprise on the surface of the earth? None of the previous shows have had starships built on earth. Even the NX-01 from Enterprise was built in space.

Are you sure you don't mean Generations? Generations felt like one long of episode of TNG to me, which is why I loved it. Same goes with the first X-Files movie.

Know what the best Star Trek movies were?

2 and 6.

Because they were dark.



Just saying.

IV was one of my favorites

Hmm, yes. And it seems they painted "USS ENTERPRISE" on the hull before it was finished and also the nacelles are powered. You do raise a good point there! Perhaps - and this is a stretch - but perhaps this isn't actually a clip from the movie and instead just something cool to get people hyped about it. I know it's scary to think of a company like Paramount creating a short clip to tease audiences but I'm afraid that's probably what happened!!

Nah, I think it's from the movie and it just wasn't smart... but looks cool.

About the "USS ENTERPRISE" though, who said it was paint? Could be something special put into the hull plates themselves during manufacturing so that it doesn't rub off after flying through space dust for a while. Considering how often the deflector dish fails, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't use paint anymore

I don't think the original Enterprise's navigational deflector ever failed.

I don't think it was even invented as a point of failure until TNG. It was just assumed that ships moving at warp wouldn't be instantly torn to shreds.

I agree. Actually, I like First Contact probably more than 2 and 6. And really, First Contact was pretty damn dark.

My breakdown goes something like this:

1. what the ****? vger hurrr awful film
2. Awesome
3. Okay
4. Rather good
5. Awful. what the **** is "my pain" anyway
6. Awesome
7. Good
8. Awesome
9. Okay
10. Okay

They just don't build 'em like they used to then...

First Contact is my favorite by far. It had the Enterprise-E, and that dark feel. I think that darkness really brought some reality to the peachy TNG era with Voyager and with Deep Space Nine especially. The last couple movies could have been better in several respects, but they nailed the mood for the films.

Inertial dampers?

*hides*

The Enterprise powered by....turbine engines?

Also they wouldn't be using manual labor and such simple welding techniques in the 23rd century.

But like Jon said it's probably not film footage.

The TNG Films were marred by sodding Brent Spiner...

Why was EVERY TNG Film basically Data based?. The other characters got dumped on, especially Worf who somehow became comic relief...

I don't think there was enough Data in the TNG movies. Data is awesome. Worf was pretty bad *** in First Contact, and it's not like he wasn't treated that way before the movies (Sir, I object! I am not a merry man!).

Oh regale us with more stories of the future oh master ship builder.

He's right, though. 23rd century spaceships are made of plywood.

Can't weld plywood.

Because Data was aspiring to be more human, you could [gasp] develop his character quite simply over a 90 minute film. That's why the writers worked with him so much rather than Worf [I AM GRUMPY ALL THE TIME AND PROUD AND VIOLENT AND LIKE HONOUR LOTS].

That and Worf has a pasty on his head.

Worf was a boring character. The only reason he wasn't a static character is because the writers were bafflingly inconsistent with his portrayal. They had a pretty good chance to develop the character once Alexander joined the cast but they fumbled it pretty badly and literally all of the TNG episodes from that point on became goofy father/son comedies where Alexander does something unklingon and Worf deals with the situation awkwardly. LOL.

Geordi didn't really have any room to develop.

The writers never figured out what they were doing with Crusher.

Riker's beard status is more dynamic than his character.

Wesley ascended to godhood, already more dynamic than the rest of the cast put together.

Deanna Troi's only character changes were motivated by the fact that she was losing her figure and couldn't dress like a slut anymore.

I like Picard. His character in TNG actually was dynamic - I think this might have even been Patrick Stewart's influence, since I at the very least expect a thespian to understand the concept of character change better than a gaggle of pulp sci fi writers who spend most of their day inventing new meanings for the word "giga-" - but I think he's almost played out. The cloning thing was god awful and there's no way or no reason Picard, as he appeared in every other movie and TV episode, would react to the situation in the way he did. Plus the casting was terrible, they previously established that Picard still had his hair when he was in Starfleet Academy,... I swear to god, they hired the first kid who would be willing to shave his head and don LED-enhanced pleather for increasingly tiny audiences.

Data was a boring character toward the end, too, and the writers couldn't come up with any way to develop him other than the blatantly obvious (which is why Brent Spiner is sick of playing him, on top of the fact that he's too old... even though in TNG season 1 they made a point of the fact that Data was designed to age realistically). Data had built-in character development and they pretty much picked him because he was the easiest to do and neither Braga nor Berman have intelligence to come up with something more creative than that.


Know why the TOS movies are collectively better than the TNG movies? Because Gene Roddenberry was still alive. Because they predate Gene Roddenberry's complete and utter senility that for some inexcusable reason made the kook hand the reins over to a man whose only prior accomplishment was serving Jim Henson coffee. Jerkbag probably laced it with strichnine too.

I agree with Jon.

Apart from the last paragraph which was brand new information for me, but is more than likely true.

But Geordie made engineering cool, don't forget that. <.<

I think trek in general works better as a series than a movie.

Jon, I can see why you'd say that, although I don't agree with all of it.

One thing regarding the last paragraph, #6 is regarded as one of the better movies. Even within this thread that's evident but I was supprised to hear on the special features of the DVD that Roddenberry didn't like the script. He didn't want racism in the federation. It didn't fit his utopian vision of the future. Thankfully they convinced him otherwise.
So... not saying you're wrong, just food for thought.

i'm guessing he would be the new Scotty one thing is for sure... if the ship was invaded by zombies or a crazed neighborhood watch...

The cast does look pretty good. I can't think of anyone better than Zachary Quinto to play Spock. He certainly looks enough like him.

I still don't get why they wouldn't get a scottish actor for scotty.

Yeah! I mean, come on, we all know that James Doohan was Scottish! Right?

...Right?

And was his accent any good?

Paul McGillion would have been the PERFECT Scotty. I'm a great fan of Simon Pegg, but he just doesn't look the part.

...Have you ever seen scottish people?








They're not allowed to be overly attractive and built like a brick **** house at the same time. Quite often neither.

And everybody b****ed about Daniel Craig not looking like Bond. Remember how redundant that argument became?

Odds on them finally using the phrase "Beam me up Scotty"?