Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Star Trek

  1. May 23, 2009 #1
    Just saw Star Trek like an hour ago with my friend and it was great! :biggrin: I've never actually seen the show but I think I can make time. How did you guys like it?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 23, 2009 #2
    You've never seen that actual episodes of the original Star Trek?
  4. May 23, 2009 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Hey now, no need to tell the young 'uns about how, when we were kids, we walked 10 miles uphill both ways to school (in hail, sleet, and sometimes hurricane), and watched Star Trek!

    Seriously though, to the OP, I got into Star Trek by watching Star Trek: The Next Generation (it premiered when I was a kid), then found Star Trek in syndication, and then watched Deep Space 9, Voyager, and even Enterprise as they all came and went. I'd have to say my favourite was Deep Space 9, but if you ask 10 different Trek fans what their favourite brand of Star Trek, and who their favourite captain was, you'd probably get 10 different answers. (There's 10+ if you include the ones that only came out in book format)

    I also enjoyed the original, but found it a little campy at times (keep in mind that it was made in the 60s when laptops and cell phones were pipe dreams, and the most powerful computers are surpassed by today's calculators). But since sci-fi is more about the human element than anything, there were a few really great episodes, and mostly good ones that explored this (and don't get me wrong, a couple of real doozies--can't have gems all the time). At the time, it was ground-breaking, pushing-the-envelope entertainment, which met an untimely demise.

    Or so I think, for what it's worth.
  5. May 23, 2009 #4

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. May 23, 2009 #5
    Comparing with the others, I thought that it was rather terrible. Sure the special effects were great, but the plot could of used some filling.
  7. May 23, 2009 #6

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am thinking about going to see it today. Maybe my time would be better spent working on "real" spacetime warps, i.e., working on "exotic" solutions to Einstein's equation in general relativity.
  8. May 23, 2009 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They let you watch Star Trek at school? :bugeye: :uhh:
  9. May 23, 2009 #8
    I had never seen Star Trek either, and I have to admit I was a bit confused during the movie, but it was really, really awesome!!
  10. May 23, 2009 #9
    Thats the way I felt :smile:
  11. May 23, 2009 #10
    That's because you haven't seen a real episode of ST to realize how bad the movie was.
  12. May 23, 2009 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Face it Cyrus, you are like a voice crying out in the wilderness.
  13. May 23, 2009 #12
    Not really, considering critics said the same thing. Look, I'm a big fan of Star Trek, the series. But that movie was trash. The plot was shallow, there was no moral dilemmas. What was the point of watching that movie?

    I'd rank that movie pretty low. At least last two batman episodes had some story to them. The first one was a Journey of who batman is, and the second one had moral choices in it. What does star trek have?

    PS: Why was the inside of this state of the art ship an f'in moonshine plant? Talk about one lousy movie set. So the bridge is futuristic. The teleporters are futuristic. As for the main part that actually POWERS the ship - thats from the 1920's..........okayyy..

    Im sorry, this movie was an epic failure.
    Last edited: May 23, 2009
  14. May 23, 2009 #13
    Wow Cyrus, I have usually totally disagree with you about politics and philosophy, but for once I totally agree with you: this movie did not capture anything about what makes Star Trek good, just a few heavily cliched catch phrases.

    As a fan of the TNG era, I thought that maybe fans of TOS could survive on the movie's nostalgia alone, but now I see that that was overly optimistic. Even though I will not see another Abrams Trek in theater, I am still looking forward to some eventual TNG/Voy/DS9 remakes.

    I should say, however, that I don't like any Hollywood action movies (althoug again agreeing with Cyrus, at least Batman was better than this). For someone who likes those this trek movie is probably fine.
  15. May 23, 2009 #14
    could someone recommend a good starting point for watching some good star trek? I heard that TNG and DS9 were good, what are the main differences between the series? Is the original star trek worth watching?
  16. May 23, 2009 #15
    If you are under 30 years old the original star trek is probably not worth watching. I recommend starting with TNG, although it is important not to get turned off by the several bad episodes in the first few seasons. To avoid these I use the following episode ratings site:


    I can safely recommend the four star episodes, and also the three star epsiodes once your a fan, but two stars and below are not worth watching.
  17. May 23, 2009 #16
    Will I understand the plot no matter where I start or do I need to watch the first few episodes first?
  18. May 23, 2009 #17
    For TNG I recommend watching the pilot episode, to learn the characters names and so on, and then you can pretty much float around the seasons if you want. When I first saw these on TV they would appear in a random order and I still developed a like for the series. I think TNG was pretty considerate of viewers 'dropping in' at random points of the series, with a minimum of references that require actual background.

    If you want to go straight some good stuff, I recommend "The Measure Of A Man", and "Who watches the watchers?" since these appear in the second and third season. Once you get to the fourth season of TNG it is hard to go back to the earlier episodes, but it is worth watching them to build up the scope of the entire series.
  19. May 23, 2009 #18
    Last edited: May 23, 2009
  20. May 23, 2009 #19

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The point was clearly to set up an endless stream of sequels. If nothing else, that movie was one long character-establishing shot. They walk essentially unimpeded through the plot; toss in a few deus ex machinas, leave a few minutes on the cutting room floor, and then the movie ends as they are just about to finally do something.

    It has some funny moments. In fact it was funnier than most comedys these days.
  21. May 23, 2009 #20
    Heh, my sentiments as well. I usually don't agree with Cyrus either, but this time I think we're of the same mind.

    The movie captured almost nothing of what Star Trek was about. One of the directors (Roberto Orci I think) explicitly stated that he tried to play down the utopian view of the future, as he tried to convey via the bar fight scene showing humans fighting each other. He thereby destroyed one of the most appealing aspects of Star Trek.

    And there's more. One of the hallmarks of Star Trek is that they take controversial issues and play with them in a setting where they can do no one any harm. One of the great things about Star Trek is that most of the episodes addressed matters of science, philosophy, and ethics. They didn't always come to conclusions that agreed with most viewers. Heck, I probably disagreed with the central message of the show more often than not. But at least it got people thinking about things. In the movie, there was no discussion of philosophy and ethics, lest viewers be required to use any higher brain functions during the film. Science also got no mention, as indicated b the absence of any technobabble. Now, I'll be the first to say that Star Trek doesn't usually get its science right (as us physicists can notice from even a cursory viewing of the shows), but at least it gives the show an appeal to those who are scientifically inclined. This was absent from the film. Technobabble has the interesting effect of making the unbelievable seem plausible. Destroying a planet isn't necessarily implausible; after all, we swallowed the Genesis device. But the foolishness with "red matter" was almost juvenile, as no explanation was provided.

    Star Trek is certainly entertaining...at least in the way that one might find "The Fast and the Furious" entertaining. It was a lot of special effects and action, and no thought or philosophical commentary. I certainly think that special effects are a very valuable thing in a film, but they don't substitute for the things that characterize Star Trek. Those things were absent from this film. Maybe they would have done better to call it Star Wreck, so as to avoid any association with the Star Trek franchise.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Star Trek
  1. Star Trek Dream Team (Replies: 5)

  2. The Star Trek (Voyager). (Replies: 21)