(Topic ID: 63041)

Picture of a real STERN STAR TREK & REVIEW!!!!


By eXidy

6 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 280 posts
  • 129 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 5 years ago by SteveP3
  • Topic is favorited by 5 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 18 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

Screen_Shot_2013-09-16_at_10.53.16_PM..png
image.jpg
The-dude.jpg
th.jpeg
image.jpg
MM_jon.jpg
WashMyEyesWithSoap.jpg
review.jpg
PCV.jpg
StarTrek-Pro-Detail-04.JPG
pf4.jpg
pf3.jpg
pf2.jpg
pf1.jpg
stpro4.jpg
stpro3.jpg

There are 280 posts in this topic. You are on page 6 of 6.
#251 6 years ago
Quoted from RobT:

Explain to me how Taylor isn't part of the "true problem" that you refer to simply because he traded a pin with "sweat equity" instead of all
cash.

You know what Rob, he is part of the "true problem", you are correct. A problem that I am certain will never be resolved. He "bought" WOZ back when JJP said the game would be released with finished code. That didn't happen so he was essentially lied to. It is apparent that there is always going to be someone buying into the new game craze that either knows there will be code issues or doesn't know, regardless they are contributing to the problem. I guess we will know where things stand 10-20 years from now.

#252 6 years ago
Quoted from zr11990:

He would NEVER hook up with a human chick, much less bicker in public with her nor be affectionate toward her in public.

With his mother being human, you don't think him hooking up with a human is possible?

#253 6 years ago
Quoted from PW79:

Today I learned ING is a bad word

then you definately don't want to visit *this* site
http://www.ing.com/Our-Company.htm

#254 6 years ago
Quoted from zr11990:

So when was Romulus destroyed, and why do we need a alternate universe? I love the new Star Trek but I have 2 problems with it. 1 it needs to be a TV show so we can have 1 hour a week instead of a 2 hour movie every 2 years and 2 Spock is a whiney ass, namby pamby, who is clearly overly emotional. The original Spock was twice the "Spock" this guy is. He would NEVER hook up with a human chick, much less bicker in public with her nor be affectionate toward her in public. Unless he were under the influence of the spores of an alien pod which took over his personality or going through Pon Farr ( I'm sure I mis-spelled it)

I wasn't a fan of doing "alternate universe" timeline Star Trek....no reason it couldn't have just been the "young adventures" of the ST crew without a timeline retcon...but, it is what it is - time travel was used as a plotpoint and events of the old ST timeline were changed - that's why it's an alternate universe.

As far as the character's personalities...keep in mind - this is the characters in their youth. In the original show they were already "older and wiser"...so, I don't see Spock's youthful fling with Uhura as untrue to the character.

Quoted from jarjarisgod:

Have you seen Zoe Saldana? Spock would be stupid not to bed down with her when given the chance!

She sets his phazer to stun!

#255 6 years ago
Quoted from Rarehero:

I wasn't a fan of doing "alternate universe" timeline Star Trek....no reason it couldn't have just been the "young adventures" of the ST crew without a timeline retcon.

Couldn't agree more. I liked the first movie quite a bit, but the time travel thing was a huge negative and totally unnecessary.

#256 6 years ago
Quoted from The_Dude_Abides:

The Drama pinheads here come up with cracks me up sometimes. I love the site and even enjoy many of the comments made by members I don't often see eye to eye with but sometimes it gets taken too far.
If some did not buy pins when they came out before playing in this market where home use buyers make up a large portion of the sales I would argue that the pin industry would be dead or almost dead. If no one bought WOZ, Sterns new release, Predator, Magic Girl, JPops Zombie pin before playing them then most if not all the companies making them would not be in business.
It's obvious that some do not like where the prices are at for new pins and I can see why. However, to blame those that buy pins and say they are ruining the hobby could not be further from the truth. New pin prices seem to be going in the direction of being only for those with a good deal of disposable income. That is the direction the growth in the hobby and market has taken things. To blame those that choose to buy and enjoy them is short sighted IMO. Why can't someone spend their money to buy a product that they love/enjoy? Is it not their money to spend on what they need and enjoy? Should they really forgo buying something they want simply because the item is too expensive for some to buy? Seriously some of you are treating this recent pinball boom that was accompanied by price increases on new pins like a witch hunt. Constantly looking for someone to blame for new pin prices going higher than you want them too. Vilifying those that get excited and enjoy buying pins they have never played will not help reduce the cost of pinball machines as most adults will continue to spend their money as they see fit.

Couldn't agree more! Let's not turn pinball into the whole Occupy Wall Street, 99% vs 1% mess.

#257 6 years ago

Any of you guys watching Breaking Bad?
Hilarious comment from the cop assigned to wire tap Badger and Skinny Pete.
"I had to listen to him talk about something called Babylon 5 for an hour and a half!"

You guys need to get a room.

: P

#258 6 years ago
Quoted from RobT:

Couldn't agree more. I liked the first movie quite a bit, but the time travel thing was a huge negative and totally unnecessary.

Couldn't disagree more. Prequels are boring. You are simply, as a writer, boxing yourself in when you create a prequel. The audience ALREADY knows who's alive and who's dead in the future. Leaves little room for surprise without stretching credibility.

Reboots can be OK, sometimes, but they also wipe away the continuity set by the original property. That's not good for fans of the original storyline/timeline/continuity.

What Paramount did with these new movies is ingenious, IMHO. You get a fresh start with a young cast, nothing SET IN STONE, and yet the original timeline is still perfectly intact for future Star Trek TV shows, should they surface. The only difference is, Spock is missing and Romulus is destroyed. Really looking forward how this changes the balance of power in the Alpha/Beta quadrant.

My 2 cents as a long time Start Trek fan.

#259 6 years ago
Quoted from Napabar:

Couldn't disagree more. Prequels are boring. You are simply, as a writer, boxing yourself in when you create a prequel. The audience ALREADY knows who's alive and who's dead in the future. Leaves little room for surprise without stretching credibility.
Reboots can be OK, sometimes, but they also wipe away the continuity set by the original property. That's not good for fans of the original storyline/timeline/continuity.
What Paramount did with these new movies is ingenious, IMHO. You get a fresh start with a young cast, nothing SET IN STONE, and yet the original timeline is still perfectly intact for future Star Trek TV shows, should they surface. The only difference is, Spock is missing and Romulus is destroyed. Really looking forward how this changes the balance of power in the Alpha/Beta quadrant.
My 2 cents as a long time Start Trek fan.

Valid points, but what I DON'T like about the reboot is that the movies are generic over-the-top space action spectacles that dump the Star Trek "philosophy" in favor of special effects and simplistic-but-thrown-in-your-face character motivations. (But what do you expect from JJ Abrams?) Does the franchise a disservice IMO.

My 2 cents as a longtime Trek fan (since the original series aired...)

#260 6 years ago
Quoted from StevenP:

Valid points, but what I DON'T like about the reboot is that the movies are generic over-the-top space action spectacles that dump the Star Trek "philosophy" in favor of special effects and simplistic-but-thrown-in-your-face character motivations. (But what do you expect from JJ Abrams?) Does the franchise a disservice IMO.
My 2 cents as a longtime Trek fan (since the original series aired...)

In other words they made it more 'current'?

#261 6 years ago
Quoted from StevenP:

Valid points, but what I DON'T like about the reboot is that the movies are generic over-the-top space action spectacles that dump the Star Trek "philosophy" in favor of special effects and simplistic-but-thrown-in-your-face character motivations. (But what do you expect from JJ Abrams?) Does the franchise a disservice IMO.
My 2 cents as a longtime Trek fan (since the original series aired...)

That's true, they sacrifice some of the "Trek" feel us long-time fans have enjoyed to appeal to a larger audience. That being said, the results have paid off.

If you look at the first 10 Star Trek movies, they averaged $75.5 million U.S. domestic. The two new ones averaged $243.5 million U.S. domestic, with a lot larger international sales than Star Trek usually grosses. And these new numbers far exceed inflation being factored in.

Paramount has a winner on their hands with this formula. And for us old-timers, they can always do a TV show in the Prime timeline again....perhaps in the early 25th century.

#262 6 years ago
Quoted from Napabar:

That's true, they sacrifice some of the "Trek" feel us long-time fans have enjoyed to appeal to a larger audience. That being said, the results have paid off.
If you look at the first 10 Star Trek movies, they averaged $75.5 million U.S. domestic. The two new ones averaged $243.5 million U.S. domestic, with a lot larger international sales than Star Trek usually grosses. And these new numbers far exceed inflation being factored in.
Paramount has a winner on their hands with this formula. And for us old-timers, they can always do a TV show in the Prime timeline again....perhaps in the early 25th century.

I'm with you. The new Trek is excellent. For the first time my wife and kids are watching Star Trek as well. I think Abbrams has done a great job.

#263 6 years ago
Quoted from Napabar:

That's true, they sacrifice some of the "Trek" feel us long-time fans have enjoyed to appeal to a larger audience. That being said, the results have paid off.

If you look at the first 10 Star Trek movies, they averaged $75.5 million U.S. domestic. The two new ones averaged $243.5 million U.S. domestic, with a lot larger international sales than Star Trek usually grosses. And these new numbers far exceed inflation being factored in.

Paramount has a winner on their hands with this formula. And for us old-timers, they can always do a TV show in the Prime timeline again....perhaps in the early 25th century.

It is good popcorn entertainment, but it only Star Trek by virtue of having characters with the same names and it being based in space. The characters are caricatures of what came before, and action/explosions has been substituted for plot. There is not even an attempt at having any "science" in the science fiction that Trek at least attempted to do.

More popular, yes. More money for Paramount, yep. Better? That is subjective of course, but for me, nope.

#264 6 years ago
Quoted from RobT:

Couldn't agree more.

Ditto!

#265 6 years ago

I think if SM and STTNG got together and had a baby, it could be a good thing.

This is a lot of conversation about a pin that no one has played or really even seen yet....

#266 6 years ago

The new Treks have lots of action, but they are not as deep as Insurrection or Nemesis.

Fun, popcorn gobblin films..shrugs.

#267 6 years ago
Quoted from paul_8788:

It is good popcorn entertainment, but it only Star Trek by virtue of having characters with the same names and it being based in space. The characters are caricatures of what came before, and action/explosions has been substituted for plot. There is not even an attempt at having any "science" in the science fiction that Trek at least attempted to do.
More popular, yes. More money for Paramount, yep. Better? That is subjective of course, but for me, nope.

Exactly. Well said. And the sheer number of plot holes and inconsistencies (along with ludicrous scenes contrived just to showcase more special effects) is shameful.

#268 6 years ago
Quoted from Napabar:

Couldn't disagree more. Prequels are boring. You are simply, as a writer, boxing yourself in when you create a prequel. The audience ALREADY knows who's alive and who's dead in the future. Leaves little room for surprise without stretching credibility.
Reboots can be OK, sometimes, but they also wipe away the continuity set by the original property. That's not good for fans of the original storyline/timeline/continuity.
What Paramount did with these new movies is ingenious, IMHO. You get a fresh start with a young cast, nothing SET IN STONE, and yet the original timeline is still perfectly intact for future Star Trek TV shows, should they surface. The only difference is, Spock is missing and Romulus is destroyed. Really looking forward how this changes the balance of power in the Alpha/Beta quadrant.
My 2 cents as a long time Start Trek fan.

I really can't figure out what you were disagreeing with me about?

Edit: nevermind, got it, and I see what you are saying. Still, to me, the time travel stuff rarely works as it almost always leaves huge inconsistencies.

#269 6 years ago
Quoted from RTR:

I think if SM and STTNG got together and had a baby,

It would have sticky photon blasters! And a pointy eared spider

#270 6 years ago

I just started watching the original series on Netflix. I love the sexually-charged Star Trek of the swinging 60's. Beam up my trousers, Miss Uhura!

#271 6 years ago
Quoted from vid1900:

The new Treks have lots of action, but they are not as deep as Insurrection or Nemesis.
Fun, popcorn gobblin films..shrugs.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the first "new" ST film (seemed like it had some heart, not just stupid explosions). Into Darkness was "good enough" for a stupid summer movie, but not much more than that.

If you are satisfied by a bunch of action sequences strung together, then yes Into Darkness does that.

If you want a movie with some consequences to the characters actions and some interesting plot? Nope.

Highlights for me (SPOILERS):
- Remember when Kirk lost command of the Enterpise for an afternoon?
- Enterprise does not fire a single shot in the entire movie if I recall correctly. Not a deal breaker, but considering the "Wrath of Khan" aping it is weird.
- Starfleet communicators can now call from the middle of nowhere in Klingon space to a bar in our solar system. Huh?
- Personal transporter devices that can hop solar systems. Huh? If these exist, just beam a bomb somehwere you want it to go and boom. Movie over.
- nobody tries (apparently) to stop the Vengeance from killing 100,000's(?) of people near the end of the movie... at the very least the Enterprise should have called 911.
- Khan blood cures space herpes.

Lazy writing. It would have been more interesting to me if they did something surprising like:
- Khan's backstory was explored and made a sympathetic charater (e.g. yes he killed people back in the day, but it was to get his people who were being wiped out off the earth to prevent either a genocide of regular humans or his people)
AND then:
- have him join the crew to prove himself... but there would always be a question of trust. Would he betray it?
- have him punch Kirk across the room to enter the warp core to save the ship. With his Khan blood it makes sense he would be more resilient than Kirk. Plus he could more convincingly align the warp core than Kirk does with his wimpy flail kicks

#272 6 years ago
Quoted from BC_Gambit:

I was very pleasantly surprised by the first "new" ST film (seemed like it had some heart, not just stupid explosions). Into Darkness was "good enough" for a stupid summer movie, but not much more than that.
If you are satisfied by a bunch of action sequences strung together, then yes Into Darkness does that.
If you want a movie with some consequences to the characters actions and some interesting plot? Nope.
Highlights for me (SPOILERS):
- Remember when Kirk lost command of the Enterpise for an afternoon?
- Enterprise does not fire a single shot in the entire movie if I recall correctly. Not a deal breaker, but considering the "Wrath of Khan" aping it is weird.
- Starfleet communicators can now call from the middle of nowhere in Klingon space to a bar in our solar system. Huh?
- Personal transporter devices that can hop solar systems. Huh? If these exist, just beam a bomb somehwere you want it to go and boom. Movie over.
- nobody tries (apparently) to stop the Vengeance from killing 100,000's(?) of people near the end of the movie... at the very least the Enterprise should have called 911.
- Khan blood cures space herpes.
Lazy writing. It would have been more interesting to me if they did something surprising like:
- Khan's backstory was explored and made a sympathetic charater (e.g. yes he killed people back in the day, but it was to get his people who were being wiped out off the earth to prevent either a genocide of regular humans or his people)
AND then:
- have him join the crew to prove himself... but there would always be a question of trust. Would he betray it?
- have him punch Kirk across the room to enter the warp core to save the ship. With his Khan blood it makes sense he would be more resilient than Kirk. Plus he could more convincingly align the warp core than Kirk does with his wimpy flail kicks

Yeah, STID is fun, as is all of Abrams' Trek...
... but I find it pithy.

Part of the historic coolness of Trek has always been its scientific plausibility. Indeed, there were and are lots of things Trek has predicted. Even the concept of warp drive is being examined as a theoretic method of going FTL without violating the laws of physics. That's what makes it so geeky cool.

But Abrams' stuff just is internally inconsistent beyond what Trek traditionally does.

It's fun, but it's kind of dissatisfying over the entire ST theme of a history of the future.

If preAbrams Trek was like a plate of steak and lobster with a matching wine, then Abrams Trek is like a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Sweet but lacking sophistication.

These Treks are fun, but pretty plain jane scifi action. Not the prescient stuff that we usually associate with the franchise.

But there are worse things. I'll survive, somehow.

1 month later
#273 5 years ago

If the game plays like AFM (middle target, ship action), T2 (minus the cannons, lock position mainly and lane positions), with a bit of the old STTNG ramp wise, then I'm willing to give it a whirl. I've played worse, and with it being a Ritchie machine, you can guarantee it'll be fun.

#274 5 years ago
Quoted from BC_Gambit:

If you want a movie with some consequences to the characters actions and some interesting plot? Nope.

The fight at the end on the moving ship was just silly. Big fight and nobody thinks of just throwing the other off the ship

#275 5 years ago
Quoted from BC_Gambit:

I was very pleasantly surprised by the first "new" ST film (seemed like it had some heart, not just stupid explosions). Into Darkness was "good enough" for a stupid summer movie, but not much more than that.
If you are satisfied by a bunch of action sequences strung together, then yes Into Darkness does that.
If you want a movie with some consequences to the characters actions and some interesting plot? Nope.
Highlights for me (SPOILERS):
- Remember when Kirk lost command of the Enterpise for an afternoon?
- Enterprise does not fire a single shot in the entire movie if I recall correctly. Not a deal breaker, but considering the "Wrath of Khan" aping it is weird.
- Starfleet communicators can now call from the middle of nowhere in Klingon space to a bar in our solar system. Huh?
- Personal transporter devices that can hop solar systems. Huh? If these exist, just beam a bomb somehwere you want it to go and boom. Movie over.
- nobody tries (apparently) to stop the Vengeance from killing 100,000's(?) of people near the end of the movie... at the very least the Enterprise should have called 911.
- Khan blood cures space herpes.
Lazy writing. It would have been more interesting to me if they did something surprising like:
- Khan's backstory was explored and made a sympathetic charater (e.g. yes he killed people back in the day, but it was to get his people who were being wiped out off the earth to prevent either a genocide of regular humans or his people)
AND then:
- have him join the crew to prove himself... but there would always be a question of trust. Would he betray it?
- have him punch Kirk across the room to enter the warp core to save the ship. With his Khan blood it makes sense he would be more resilient than Kirk. Plus he could more convincingly align the warp core than Kirk does with his wimpy flail kicks

Nothing funnier then when people try n pick apart a fictional movie. lol

#276 5 years ago
Quoted from smassa:

Nothing funnier then when people try n pick apart a fictional movie. lol

Yeah? Go here!
http://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/hitler-reacts-to-unfinished-code/page/3#post-1217709

#277 5 years ago
Quoted from smassa:

Nothing funnier then when people try n pick apart a fictional movie.

What...I saw it on TV, it has to be real!

Robert

#278 5 years ago
Quoted from Rick432:

Yeah, STID is fun, as is all of Abrams' Trek...
... but I find it pithy.
Part of the historic coolness of Trek has always been its scientific plausibility. Indeed, there were and are lots of things Trek has predicted. Even the concept of warp drive is being examined as a theoretic method of going FTL without violating the laws of physics. That's what makes it so geeky cool.
But Abrams' stuff just is internally inconsistent beyond what Trek traditionally does.
It's fun, but it's kind of dissatisfying over the entire ST theme of a history of the future.
If preAbrams Trek was like a plate of steak and lobster with a matching wine, then Abrams Trek is like a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Sweet but lacking sophistication.
These Treks are fun, but pretty plain jane scifi action. Not the prescient stuff that we usually associate with the franchise.
But there are worse things. I'll survive, somehow.

Abrams version.....first time I ever stayed awake during a Star Trek movie.

#279 5 years ago
Quoted from BC_Gambit:

I was very pleasantly surprised by the first "new" ST film (seemed like it had some heart, not just stupid explosions). Into Darkness was "good enough" for a stupid summer movie, but not much more than that.
If you are satisfied by a bunch of action sequences strung together, then yes Into Darkness does that.
If you want a movie with some consequences to the characters actions and some interesting plot? Nope.
Highlights for me (SPOILERS):- Remember when Kirk lost command of the Enterpise for an afternoon?- Enterprise does not fire a single shot in the entire movie if I recall correctly. Not a deal breaker, but considering the "Wrath of Khan" aping it is weird.- Starfleet communicators can now call from the middle of nowhere in Klingon space to a bar in our solar system. Huh?- Personal transporter devices that can hop solar systems. Huh? If these exist, just beam a bomb somehwere you want it to go and boom. Movie over.- nobody tries (apparently) to stop the Vengeance from killing 100,000's(?) of people near the end of the movie... at the very least the Enterprise should have called 911.- Khan blood cures space herpes.
Lazy writing. It would have been more interesting to me if they did something surprising like:- Khan's backstory was explored and made a sympathetic charater (e.g. yes he killed people back in the day, but it was to get his people who were being wiped out off the earth to prevent either a genocide of regular humans or his people)AND then:- have him join the crew to prove himself... but there would always be a question of trust. Would he betray it?- have him punch Kirk across the room to enter the warp core to save the ship. With his Khan blood it makes sense he would be more resilient than Kirk. Plus he could more convincingly align the warp core than Kirk does with his wimpy flail kicks

Excellent synopsis...it was sacrilegious to give that franchise to Abrams. The guy that did Gravity Alfonso Cauron or the Tron guy Kosinski would have been10x better....he didn't even get the bridge atmosopher right the place was so lit up it looked a hospital operating room. The casting was spot on though.

#280 5 years ago
Quoted from StevenP:

Valid points, but what I DON'T like about the reboot is that the movies are generic over-the-top space action spectacles that dump the Star Trek "philosophy" in favor of special effects and simplistic-but-thrown-in-your-face character motivations. (But what do you expect from JJ Abrams?) Does the franchise a disservice IMO.
My 2 cents as a longtime Trek fan (since the original series aired...)

Agreed, the new movies are bigger, dumber, action blockbusters. I look at them like 'fast food entertainment'. The writing is pretty heavy handed and the acting in some parts is just hilariously bad. They're ok to watch to pass the time but ultimately a bit forgettable.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 248.85
Cabinet - Sound/Speakers
PinWoofer
From: $ 40.00
Lighting - Interactive
Professor Pinball
From: $ 218.00
4,300
Machine - For Sale
Boca Raton , FL
There are 280 posts in this topic. You are on page 6 of 6.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside