https://youtube.com/watch?v=a3d9cK83gZQ
Top Poster of the Day:
peepeehands
Current Registered Users: 28,684
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
/h/nerdshit SETTINGS /h/nerdshit LOG /h/nerdshit MODS /h/nerdshit EXILEES /h/nerdshit FOLLOWERS /h/nerdshit BLOCKERS
Current software version: b103b34
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Star Trek V is not canon and you know it. You're just a troll!
I think my main objection to this is the assumption that the intermix chamber has to go straight up vertically to the impulse engines. Now I probably haven't read Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise or The Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual since the 1990s (okay, I'm lying about the latter, I was flipping through it last week
), but do we even know if it connects to the impulse engines?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How the frick did you get my reference lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I just watched it recently. First time since I saw it in the theater.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Star Trek V is equally canon as all the weird episodes of TOS, which contain bizarre events or obvious inconsistencies that are never mentioned again. V is tonally the most faithful Trek movie to the original series, which is exactly why certain Trekcels would rather erase it, and let the movies/TNG reboot the canon into something that doesn't embarrass their serious nerd sensibilities. They get mad at artifacts like V or early TNG precisely because there's no real clean line from one thing to another.
Now I'm not saying V is a great movie. And fans tend to be much kinder to IV, which is also closer to the spirit of TOS. But Kirk vs. "God" will live forever as a top Trek moment. TOS type weirdness always served high-concept adventure storytelling. It took big swings, and the misses were worth it for the hits.
Trek canon exists in broad strokes; everything "sort of" happened, but it can't be reduced to a singular historical record.
!trekkies
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More broadly, all canon discussion for fiction is fake and straight. I enjoy good fiction as fiction, and the creative process (including liberties, forgetting, or revising) is part of the fun for episodic storytelling. If it's bad, it won't be bad because it didn't match the canon.
I mean what do you get when you try to go into the deep lore? The Star Wars prequels.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I was thinking today how much more interesting 40k was when a lot was unknown or something only the old losers at the game store knew. The more they explain the dumber it becomes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah it's not a great movie in general but it doesn't deserve all the hate it gets. Going on a quest to find God, finding him, and then it turns out you actually accidentally found Satan is a thought-provoking idea. And a lot of the stuff with Sybok is interesting.
People whine about social media a lot, but back then you had the opposite problem. A small coterie of movie critics in New York, Chicago, and LA would write in newspapers and come up with a consensus about what opinion to have about movies. And unless you actually went out and watched all the allegedly bad movies, you had no idea if they were actually bad.
I think a lot of the reason why it kinda sucks is that they tried to be cheap by going to some other special effects company instead of ILM. This company totally fricked it up and just could not deliver the special effects shots on time. Which doesn't just mean the special effects look bad. The script is written with the assumption that you'll get these shots, so if they don't exist that means you've got to frick around in editing to try to make a story that makes sense.
But there are NOT 78 decks on the Enterprise.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, the decks is just one of those things to ignore. It sticks out to people (paradoxically) because it's just a brief sight gag that doesn't affect anything, but then that just makes you go "Why did you do that in the first place?"
Whereas people tend to let extreme deviations on transporter and holodeck stuff slide because it's usually used as the basis for a story that couldn't exist without it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Exactly. If it was an important plot point in a story I liked, I would justify it to myself.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context