Discussion in 'The Rec Room (Sports and Entertainment)' started by arnisador, May 8, 2009.
I thought Willy Wonka in engineering.
And the winner of the biggest ST geek goes to....
That's a misconception. You may think of the new Bond movies of going against canon. In fact it is canon. We got the first book realized on screen in Casino Royal and we got a Bond who acted very much like the literary Bond in QOS.
Go back and read the books, it's all the movies that have been wrong and started wrong by starting with Dr No, then doing the stories out of order, removing the connective tissue between them so they seem like stand alone stories, introducing gadgets (which is stated many times that Bond hates). Bond is gritty, Bond hates gadges, Bond does get messed up (and tortured a lot, read CR or Moonraker for torture and grit examples), it's the movies that never got the character right and people seem to think that the caracature on screen is what Fleming, Amis, Gardner, Benson, Faulks, Higson and Westbrook wrote. Hell, even Fleming himself said that the Bond on film is a caracature of his character, so all you are saying is against canon is actaully finally in keeping with canon.
So far the best adaptations have been CR which should have been followed by Live And Let Die (where he follows Vespers betrayal to the US) but that ship has sailed. Or On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the best adaptation in the series which should have been followed by You Only Live Twice which came many years before it.
Having read Casino Royale, I'd agree that the movie's Bond was closer to the book's Bond than, say, the Bond of Roger Moore's era.
Yeah, people seem to think that the smooth lady's man who never mussed his suit is Bond. That's a misconception by the movies wanting to be a high style representation of the British gentleman.
Bond's a guy who you would be scared of. He's a cold blooded killer with a cruel face (as described by Fleming) who will to go any length to get the job done. His father was an agent, so was his uncle, he was orphaned at 11 and raised in boarding school paid for by the government because of his father's honorable service. He will do anything asked of him because the way he sees it he owes his life to his Queen.
I'm glad they actually even touched upon that in CR if only briefly. But yeah, most fans of the Bond movies have a totally wrong impression of who the character is.
Watched the movie twice... Going back for number three soon.
Loved it. Still loving it.
I'm a trekkie, so it is hard to accept the change, but the film is awesome and fits the Star Trek envisioned by Gene Rodenberry. I think if he were still alive, he would be proud of this new film.
Nothing fits ST like an alternate time line. The more I think about it the more (like you) I think Gene would love it.
I can't wait till they start doing the ST novels based on this time line, I wonder how they'll set them apart from the established universe?
Something about space combat in sci-fi that I have questioned..from Star Trek to Star Wars is the "dog fighting" style of ship to ship combat. I would think that with the ranges that real space combat would occur at that there would be a lot of long range combat.
I recall a sci-fi story somewhere where ships spent weeks/months/years trying to avoid missiles that were following them through space. All the missile had was small maneuvering engines and had to maintain enough velocity to catch up. The explosive did the rest. Energy weapons at stellar ranges couldnt remain focused enough to damage much of anything.
In the new ST..Kirk jumping from cadet to Capt. of a starship offended my "military realisim" sensibilities.
And if Nero came back through time, why didnt he just go and destroy that star that was going to kill his planet?
What I never got in the ST universe was how come they never use nukes? High yield, pretty easy to make considering they talk about their mastery of the atom, and I think it would be way more efficient that their photon torpedoes. Or plain old machine guns or rail guns mounted to the ships instead of phasers. Or how about using the transporter more tactically. When you have an enemy's sheild down from shelling them why not beam a small yeild nuke into their engine room?
What always got/gets me is the fact that the flagship of the Federation always seems to get its *** kicked in battle, shields down, phasers down, come on its the flagship, surely it can take more of a beating that that??!! It should have some smaller escorts with it and it should be able to kick ***.
Im not even going to touch on the fact that senior bridge officers are beaming down on dangerous missions, they did their time doing that ****, let the Junior officers do that dangerous stuff!!
Then you have a small ship like the Defiant, now thats a cool realistic ship that buzzes around doing lots of damage. Id much rather have fleets of Defiants then Enterprises.
Dont even get me started on cloaking technology and treaties against it with the Romulians!!
Yes! Space combat is almost always unrealistic. The few I've seen that are somewhat realistic has been Babylon 5 and the new Battlestar Galactica. Both actually show that ships will keep travelling in the same direction when their engines fail. Or that you can pull an easy 180 while flying just using maneuvering jets. Also, I liked it that BSG had guns, not ray guns.
Exactly. You're telling me that you have to fly around manually aiming your lasers? Or manually lay down flak barrages and point defense? Even right now we have computer control of these things. Or that like you say nukes never seem to exist (except in BSG). I think trek, as well as some other Sci-Fi, tries to explain the lack of projectile weapons in that shields are supposed to be completely effective against them. Sort of like Dune where guns became relics because personal shields were so effective against them. Still.
and what about realistic chairs + seat-belts for gods sake. You would think that standing at your station and getting tossed around a few times would result in some safety measures.
Star Trek ship combat is based on WW1 battleship combat. Star Wars, BSG and B5 is based on WW2 Carrier combat with some WW1 ship2ship mixed in.
Antimatter is more boom than nukes.
Good guys never fly around shields up, weapons hot. Klingons don't either, but we're faster getting it up than Feddies.
TREK_Tech vs BSG_Tech: all Trek ships have low yield shields against micrometeors and space dust. They would easily defend against inertial-mass weaponry such as bullets. BSG depend on armor plating, not energy shields for protection. Most BSG ship2ship combat requires multiple hits to chew through the armor to expose weak spots for explosive rounds to do maximum damage.
BTW There is an R2-D2 in the movie too! Im gonna have to go and watch again!
Crap. And I forgot to watch for the Shatner-Hat (Tribble toupee) LOL!
I think "realistic" space combat would be a long range game of sensors and missiles. Who ever "sees" the other guy first will launch. It may take a long time for the weapon to reach them and then it would be a game of countermeasures and counter launches.
I dont see a realistic need or even the possibility of "dogfighting" in space. Even here on Earth the game has been to engage at longer and longer distances...I see that concept accelerating manifold in a space scenario.
Yes the story line could have easily had him already in the academy and with rank and then assigned the position of First officer or Captain.
Remember that the highest rank officer on a ship is a Captain even is (s)he is only a Lieutenant.
If you look at the Original Series stripes on the sleaves, Kirk had three for Commander and Spock had three but the middle one is half the width so a Lt Commander.
Bones and others had two, while some had one and a half width and others only had one.
While Yeoman (* Read Hot Blonde who brought pad onto set for Kirk to sign *) did not have officer rank.
My friend just said the most succinct thing about the Star Trek film -
'a soulless corporate construction bent on reviving an exhausted franchise'.
That sums it up for me.
.....something else that comes to mind. With all our tech starting to point to unmanned drones, I see the manned "space fighter" as a bit of an anachronism. I see more of a futuristic battleship/missile frigate affair with long range unmanned sensor probes to extend sensor ranges. Being able to track and hold targets at extreme long range with beam weapons would be out IMO. Of course combat range will be limited by weapons, but I would think that long range would be the norm. Hell most of our current fighter aircraft are launching missiles at multiple targets over the horizon.
Of course if we are sticking to our known society in the future (Star Trek) thats one thing. If we are talking about a society "long long ago in a galaxy far far away" I guess all bets are off because they may have developed differently than we have.....123
Separate names with a comma.