I can get the point of a more “industrial” look, but re-dressed Budweiser brewery was laughably BAD. Heck, I know some people who serve in the military who couldn’t stand it either. I’m not saying there should be pipes and stuff, but not the kind that were seen in the movie.

And that gives me another point – WATER TURBINE CONTROL…serioulsy, does the Enterprise run on hydroelectric power or something? You know how friggin’ impractical that is? This is a part where the story fails…big time.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be pipes and such, but not the kind we saw in the flick.

From your imagination, mostly. Only post #7 (out of, currently, about 170 posts) expressed hatred for any specific element of the film, and post #99 implied by omission that there were elements he hated. So, that’s two posts, containing “all this demonic hatred.”

Of course, there are other posts _accusing_ others of hating, but that’s just more hobgoblins.

“Eat your beets or the HATERS will get you, little Billy!”

I’m still a little puzzled by the “these guys can’t know Star Trek!” fervor. Like or don’t like the final product or specific decisions – but, come on, it’s not like we’re the only people who’ve ever seen the darned TV show or who can look up Trek stuff in libraries and on the Internet. There was a lot of Star Trek expertise handy during the whole project, at least from what I’ve read. One could argue that these guys could know Trek better than some of the folks working on TOS — it’s now an inescapable part of our culture, and every aspect of the darned show, from design to continuity, has been nitpicked, dissected and probed for decades. They made the reboot their own, and I think some pretty ballsy choices were made.

I agree!

I’ve been watching “Star Trek” (The REAL “Star Trek”!) since the first episode aired WAY back in September 1966, and I was NOT impressed by anything in this so called “reboot” in the least.
Scott Chambliss’ attitude seems quite arrogant in terms of “his designs,” and I really don’t care for that.
The entire production of this film dropped the ball on the whole concept of “Star Trek” anyway, so I don’t even consider it a part of Gene Roddenberry’s original vision at all.
Chambliss is not worthy of kissing the hem of Matt Jeffries’ bath robe!
This film was bad in all aspects. Bad story, bad production design, bad cinematography, and above all, bad direction!

I have written it off as a nightmare that Ambassedor Spock has after imbibing in some tainted Romulan Ale.

Until someone at Paramount realizes what a mess they let Jar Jar Abrams create, then “Star Trek” is dead.

Star Trek: 1966-2009: R.I.P.

Why venerate pathetic, wasteful slaughters? I certainly do not think of Agincourt as pathetic or wasteful. Not in the least. I certainly do not venerate it.

Shakespeare’s “Henry V” is a work of fiction, much as Star Trek is a work of fiction although many are distracted from that reality. I might have been more careful to make explicit reference that I compared one fictional heroic sacrifice to an earlier, (generally acclaimed as a) classic fictional heroic sacrifice. Please I was not comparing fiction to reality!

However, there is an underlying thread to your question that bears address: self-sacrifice for a greater good is what separates Man from the animal kingdom. It is the essence of the Christian character, beginning with the example of our Master himself.

Mere life is, in and of itself, irrelevant to a certain degree. What matters is how we face the challenges life throws at us and to face them well.

Perhaps this is an English or Anglophilic concept but the Stoics also embraced it. I think I even heard something like this from the pen of one Gene Roddenberry, albeit in his youth, “A man either takes on life as he meets it and licks it – or he starts to wither away and die” or something very near to that.

Food for thought if nothing else.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

99. Michael Hall – September 26, 2009

<>
(And #46 “C.S. Lewis”: I think the battle you meant to refer to was the one at Agincourt. Though why political conservatives insist on venerating these pathetic, wasteful slaughters is a mystery to me; TOS certainly didn’t.)