Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I'm now officially a Trekette.

The next new one will be seen wearing the Troi inspired mini-dress from the TNG pilot.

Back to topic, how quick this girl goes to talkin' fashion!, is anyone else waiting in anticipation for the release?

Definitely. Looks like they've done a pretty good job of casting. Let's just hope the story is decent.

First film I've been exited about in years  :laugh:

I'm so stoked about it.  I just wish my mother had lived long enough to see it - she was a massive trek fan from back in her days in the Spock official fan club.  She passed away in January.

Quote from: interalia on April 26, 2009, 02:26:07 AM
I'm so stoked about it.  I just wish my mother had lived long enough to see it - she was a massive trek fan from back in her days in the Spock official fan club.  She passed away in January.

I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I will think of you both and pray for your happiness

Back in the Seventies, it seemed like such a dream that there would ever be more Star Trek; so I have to be thrilled that there are now eleven movies and hundreds of more episodes.

On the other hand, according to Rodenberry, one of the things that made Trek great was that,  since they couldn't afford massive special effects, they had to have real great stories.  So I am disappointed that this movie is so visual and so much about special effects.

Like so many other things, I see the glass as both half empty and half full.

I dunno, it's written by one of the Lost guys so I wouldn't count out the story department yet.

Anything Star Trek is a good thing.  I have been a Trekie since Kirk, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Solo and Spock.

Live Long And Prosper,
Janet

Looks awesome! Can't wait! ;D

Jay

Quote from: interalia on April 26, 2009, 02:26:07 AM
I'm so stoked about it.  I just wish my mother had lived long enough to see it - she was a massive trek fan from back in her days in the Spock official fan club.  She passed away in January.

Mom will be there with you in spirit.
I'm not the only Trek fan...cooool ;)

My kids are very excited! I was not a trekie as a kid but have one son in particular who likes anything scifi like. I am looking forward to seeing it with them.
Myles

I would see it but...I dunno...right now I'm too much of a Data fan lol

Its a good flick. Great special effects, excellent casting. A well done prequel/reboot. I won't give away the big spoiler, but it is huge.

I believe the target date for the sequel is 2011.

Now give me more bloody Harry Potter!!!

You want us to stab Harry Potter to death?  >:-)

Virginia... you stay away from Harry!!!

Sorry, thought you were hungry  >:-)

I saw it tonight and it was on par with Wrath of Khan.  It was a good story, even a key scene in a turbolift.

I guess my biggest beef is that Scotty and McCoy were way too young and Sulu a little too old.  Scotty and McCoy were a generation older than the bridge crew, and Sulu was significantly younger than Kirk.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 09, 2009, 12:14:44 AM
I saw it tonight and it was on par with Wrath of Khan.  It was a good story, even a key scene in a turbolift.

I guess my biggest beef is that Scotty and McCoy were way too young and Sulu a little too old.  Scotty and McCoy were a generation older than the bridge crew, and Sulu was significantly younger than Kirk.

Could you confuse us a little more please? Now I'm thinking of band members I've played with  ???

Wrath of Khanesque was my first thought, in more ways than one.

Leonard Nimoy was quoted in todays Palm Beach Post, " After the first film, I felt that Star Trek was a beached whale, and the second movie put it back in the water. This film hopefully will do the same thing."

I thought Scotty was along the lines of say 3-5 yreas older than Kirk. McCoy about 8-10 years older. Than again I'm often wrong.

If they were all the same age, like high school buddies in space, what fun would that be? actually, that might be fun  :laugh:

Quote from: michellesofl on May 09, 2009, 12:40:17 AM
I thought Scotty was along the lines of say 3-5 yreas older than Kirk. McCoy about 8-10 years older. Than again I'm often wrong.

No.  You remember the episode "The Deadly Years", where the landing party all gets older, except for Chekov, because he was scared?  Scotty gets the oldest, then McCoy.

I looked it up on the official website.  Scotty was born in 2222.  McCoy was born in 2227.  Kirk was born in 2233.  Sulu was born in 2237.

Gee, I guess I can change my gender, but I'll always be a total Star Trek nerd.

Once a Trekie, always a Trekie  :laugh:

I haven't liked any of the films but loved the TV versions (and no pun intended). The TV shows had to be short and good tight stories, the films have been long overdrawn FTX events. Hope the new one is good.

Always remember my sister breaking up with her boyfriend during a SK TV. "Listen Hun, it's more important to see if Spock lives than to talk to you, Bye" (or words to that effect)  :laugh:

Cindy James . Boldly Going

So, they can put a Klingon spaceship flying over San Francisco, but we had to have Air Force One buzz NYC last week for a photo?  Why not just hire these guys to photoshop AF1 and let it go at that.

And, the film has caused a lot of arguments about the future of the SF skyline. 

I saw it a couple days ago.

I liked it but was dissatisfied. It did not hit the spot with me.

I am going to reserve judgment on if it was good or bad. it was just too weird for me to decide right now. after the second movie my opionion of this movie will be better informed. I just don't really know the direction they are going to take the kirk/spock relationship.

that said, I did enjoy the movie - I just wasn't amazed by it.

I forgot about the new movie. Now I'm curious again  :laugh:

Some 77 million in ticket sales. Will be interesting to see how many repeat customers that this flick gets.

They definitly have a multitude of ways to go with the plot of the sequel. "Search for "Spock" II," would be kinda nice.

I will probably be seeing "Angels and Demons" this weekend.

Take care and Trek on all.

Mich'

Saw this and thought that the special effects were pretty good (but please, please cut back on lens flares for the next one?) but that the story was not very well written and left quite a bit to be desired. Also even Martin Short could not make inflatable hands funny.

I did like the nods to the original series. I very much enjoyed the guy playing McCoy as I felt he really, really nailed the character dead on.

Overall? It was okay and I might actually catch a  sequel but it would be at the $1.50 theater rather than paying a full $9.

Quote from: Nicky on May 11, 2009, 09:23:26 PM
I saw it a couple days ago.

I liked it but was dissatisfied. It did not hit the spot with me.

I had the same feeling.  Compared to the other treks it was just so, so.  It didn't live up to the hype.

-={LR}=-

Quote from: Syne on May 26, 2009, 11:07:08 AM
Saw this and thought that the special effects were pretty good (but please, please cut back on lens flares for the next one?)

Besides the flares, I noticed the simulated dust of the virtual lens.  WALL-E captures the essence of the look of a real-world cine-camera, and now every virtual-cinematographer is gonna' flog the virtual veracity to death (mark my words...)

=K

"Lens flares?"

Can anyone explain. Keep in mind I'm half blind, so I might have missed this effect.

I've seen it! Awesome film, lots of funny bits too, mostly featuring Chekov.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 09, 2009, 12:14:44 AM
I saw it tonight and it was on par with Wrath of Khan.  It was a good story, even a key scene in a turbolift.

I guess my biggest beef is that Scotty and McCoy were way too young and Sulu a little too old.  Scotty and McCoy were a generation older than the bridge crew, and Sulu was significantly younger than Kirk.

Actually, except for Sulu, the age relationship of the main characters were all within reason to the characters in TOS in 1966.

The age relationships are not as "off" nearly as dramatically as you might think.

(I worked it out in a direct comparison for another board some months ago)


the first season was supposedly 2266, but it was also supposed to have been a couple of years into the five year mission (except the one with Gary Mitchell in it)

So Kirk was, in the first season about 33 and had been in command since 31. Nimoy was the same age.

De Kelly was 46, and playing a character that - according to your (correct) source was supposed to be 39.

Jimmy Doohan was also 46 but that's pretty irrelevant to playing 44. Knock a couple of years off of each character for the "first mission" age.

Takei was 29 - whereas Cho is 37...He's an obvious outlier here. And Sulu, in TOS, was said to be 29

Memory Alpha doesn't have a specific date for Uhura, simply saying "in the 2230's" - Nichols was 33 when TOS premiered and so she was almost as old as Shatner and her character would have been of a similar age.

So if you consider 4 years apart to be "same generation" then Shat, Nimoy, Takei, and Nichols were all essentially the same age.

Keonig too, he was THIRTY in 1966 and thus 31 when he started playing the 22 year old Checkov in TOS.


So, to summarize so far, here are the ages of the characters as of the "first mission" which might parallel (somewhat) the time frame of the film (actors age adjusted down two years likewise):

Kirk - 31, Shatner 33
Spock - 32, Nimoy 33
McCoy - 37, Kelly 44
Scott - 42, Doohan 44
Sulu - 27, Takei  27
Uhura - 31 (?), Nichols 31
Chekov - 19, Keonig 28
(but by the TOS scenario, Checkov would still be in the academy for 2 or 3 more years at this point)

In the film...
Kirk - 25 (based on dialog in the film), Pine 28
Spock - unknown (32 by TOS timeline), Quinto 31
McCoy - unknown (37), Urban 36
Scott - (42), Pegg 39
Sulu - (27), Cho 37
Uhura - (33?), Saldana 30  < Uhura having the most indeterminate character age in TOS anyway
Chekov - (19), Yelchin 19 < albeit he shouldn't have been out of the academy yet

Soooo....

In TOS, McCoy is 6 years older than Kirk - in the movie Urban is 8 years older than Pine
In TOS, Scott is 11 years older than Kirk, in the movie Pegg is 11 years older than Pine
In TOS, Kirk, Uhura and Spock are of similar ages, ditto Quinto, Saldana and Pine
In TOS, Keonig played a character 9 years younger than himself - in the film, Cho plays a character 8 years younger than himself.

Now, there are other problems with this of course - since Kirk is getting the E 6 full years before he should (and the notion of a cadet being promoted directly to Captain is THE major plot hole in the film but, alas, there it is) SHOULD mean that all the other characters are 6 years younger as well, i.e.
Spock - 26
McCoy - 31
Scott - 36
Sulu - 23 (and you can't buy Cho as a 23 year old)
Uhura - 27ish
Chekov - 13! (was supposed to be 22 in 2267, if this is not 2264 as in TOS but 2258 then he'd be 13. On the other hand, he is the one character besides Kirk actually stated on film (17) and that puts him 8 years younger than Kirk whereas in TOS Chekov would have been 12 years younger)

So we have to simply not notice that (a) Checkov is at least 4 years too old (and the alternate timeline can't explain that) and Sulu is at least that much too old as well.

The rest are fine because it only makes sense if you are doing a series of films that you ask the main characters to "play young" in the first one to make up for real life aging between films.


Dang. What a geek-splosion...I don't know whether I should be ashamed of that lol.

Laura Hope, I think it's a sad state of affairs that you came up with the geek-splosion and I actually enjoyed it.

I remember seeing the second season of TOS in summer reruns when I was a littl'un. We had just come back from a posting overseas (my father was a Naval officer), and I was so disappointed to have missed the entire first season. Then, in the fall, the show went to an absurd time slot, nine o'clock or ten o'clock or something like that. Anway, I wasn't allowed to stay up that late. Boy, was I ever steamed. Do NOT come between a little gay geek and his Kirk/Spock fantasies! But I did find solace in Batman and Robin, Napoleon Solo and Ilya Kuriakin, and movies like Spartacus and The Searchers.

And Frederic Wertham was so worried about how Batman comics would corrupt our tender youth. I got what I needed from innocent TV shows and classic movies.

Quote from: Virginia Marie on May 09, 2009, 02:49:42 AM
Once a Trekie, always a Trekie  :laugh:

Amen to that!!! :D

(I remember when TOS was originally on air - not repeats!)  I'm dating myself.

Live long and prosper.

Shauna

yay!

Well, it certainly follows the time honored Star Trek formula: Someone goes back in time and changes history so the writers don't have to maintain consistency with previous scripts.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fparablemania.ektopos.com%2FSpock2.jpg&hash=ea670ac96067fac98bfebaae4b28b3a152d3007a)

Spock was never, ever, ever, so sexy.:icon_dribble::icon_pelvic_thrust:

Never sat thru a Star Trek ep or movie in my life, but this one was totally worth it. yep

LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I finally saw it last night!!!  SO GOOD!!!

The guy playing Bones was dead on!  YAY!!!!!!!!!!!

Better late than never!!

I know, right?  Yay for drive in double features!

Quote from: Arch on June 09, 2009, 09:51:35 PM
Laura Hope, I think it's a sad state of affairs that you came up with the geek-splosion and I actually enjoyed it.

I remember seeing the second season of TOS in summer reruns when I was a littl'un. We had just come back from a posting overseas (my father was a Naval officer), and I was so disappointed to have missed the entire first season. Then, in the fall, the show went to an absurd time slot, nine o'clock or ten o'clock or something like that. Anway, I wasn't allowed to stay up that late. Boy, was I ever steamed. Do NOT come between a little gay geek and his Kirk/Spock fantasies!

Ever see this?

Closer (Fan Video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PwpcUawjK0#lq-lq2-hq)

>:-)

LOL, Laura Hope. There's also a 2009 movie version of this:

Closer v.2 (Fan Video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeT-qLx4T6k#ws-lq-lq2-hq-vhq-hd)