RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Content filter

Want to find something specific?

Filter content by category

Filter content by date

Trek SET Award

Posted by T'Bonz - 13/11/13 at 12:11 pm


Share |

STSetAwards

The Third Annual SET Awards were held today and Star Trek into Darkness was one of the honorees.

The SET Awards are “presented to movies, TV series, radio and TV news programs, print and online journalism for accurate and impactful entertainment portraying and promoting the fields of science, engineering, technology and mathematics.”

Co-hosted by Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Alison Haislip (The Morning After), the honorees included:

  • Star Trek into Darkness (Feature Film)
  • World War Z (feature Film)
  • The Big Bang Theory Season Six (Comedy Series)
  • Elementary: Two Possibilities (Drama Series)
  • NCIS: Detour (Drama Series)
  • Person of Interest: Season 2 (Technologist Award)
  • Grey’s Anatomy: Idle Hands (Drama Series)
  • Space Warrior (TV Movie)
  • Escape From Planet Earth (Children’s Production)
  • The Big Brain Theory: Pure Genius: Season 1 (Documentary/Unscripted Non-fiction)
  • Mythbusters: Season 11 (Documentary/Unscripted Non-fiction)
  • Nova: Season 40 (Documentary/Unscripted Non-fiction)
  • Science of the Summer Olympics (Original Internet Content)
  • Fantastic Four: Road Trip comic book (Scientist Award)
  • The Jackhammer Elegies by Stefan Jaeger (Scientist Award)
  • Fox’s Bones: The Bod in the Pod (Scientist Award)
  • Iron Man 3 (Engineer Award)

Filmmaker Bryan Singer (X-Men: Days of Future Past) received the Bob Gurr Leadership & Inspiration Award for his “body of work utilizing and featuring cutting edge science, engineering, and technology including the X-Men movies and Superman Returns.”

Source: PRWeb

  • nevilleross

    Good to see that Star Trek Into Darkness get recognized for science

  • bydefault

    What utter BS. The first JJ-Trek movie informed mass audiences that ONE supernova can threaten an ENTIRE galaxy and the second had our favorite science officer use cold fusion to FREEZE a volcano. Will the third movie involve hot-wiring a vehicle in order to MELT it? A Golden Turkey award for bad science is much more in order.

  • milojthatch

    “Accurate and impactful?” About science? JJ-Trek? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh my gosh, what a fares! Clearly this film is getting a free ride because it has the “Star Trek” name in it and there isn’t anything being made that is REAL Star Trek. But I enjoyed the laugh!

  • AirSarge

    Really? A brewery portrayed as an engine room is “…..accurate and impactful entertainment portraying and promoting the fields of science, engineering, technology and mathematics”.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Are you sure you don’t mean mistaken for science?

  • random

    not everyone dislikes the movie….its a great action star trek movie

  • Jon

    Guess this is worth a re-post from myself (posted it to TrekWeb already):

    Sorry, but someone will have to explain to me how STID would inspire
    anyone to a career other than how to make a movie that is so loud,
    explosion and CGI-laden as to fool a good number of folks into
    overlooking the terrible script, uber-lazy writing, and awful science
    that goes way beyond any possible suspension of disbelief that was so
    glaringly present in STID.

    I myself was inspired to become a biological scientist by TOS’s “The
    Immunity Syndrome.” A good but not great episode with some fascinating
    concepts and terrific character moments. The special effects were there
    (for the time), but the writing and characterizations is what shined
    through to me and kept me re-watching this episode and so many of the
    others.

    I almost walked out of STID…it just was not “Star Trek” to me. No
    desire to see it again at all, and I can only hope that the next one
    returns to ST’s core of human condition statements, moral conundrums,
    and riveting/poignant character moments.

    And maybe not film engineering in a brewery…

  • Jon

    I also have to say that I was in attendance at last weekend’s Trek convention at San Francisco and there was nary a mention of STID. At the auction, signed photos of the new cast went for next to nothing with almost no bids, there were hardly any items for sale related to the new movie at the vendor tables, and no one was talking about it at all. In retrospect, I wish someone had at least asked of some of the celebrity guests in attendance, particularly the Shat, what he/she thought of the new movie…it would certainly have spiced up things if nothing else :)

  • m

    Awards are awards. It’s hard to see how they could freeze a volcano (itself not very practical) with a “cold fusion” bomb and get a science award. They did go to some (present day) scientific locations, however. But I would think they would get an award for showing what the future should look like, not by using the present as the future.

  • Blue Thunder

    Better Into Darkness than Continues and Farragut.

  • bydefault

    Yet another non sequitur, unless you intend to discuss the science portrayed in these fan films. If so, please enlighten us.

  • nevilleross

    At least it’s getting something from an important institution/organization that matters, unlike a bunch of whiny, so-called ‘fans’ like you who can’t let Star Trek progress.

  • nevilleross

    He’s not using a non-sequitor, but saying the truth, which idiots like you can’t accept.

  • nevilleross

    Good; in future, keep your whiny, opinionated, old moronic stuck-in-the-past ass away from the real Star Trek and stick to the fan shows (which don’t have half the audience that the movies do.) The rest of the planet that’s moved on doesn’t need you.

  • milojthatch

    In the long run, JJ-Trek will be forgotten while people will still care about “the out-dated 60′s show”.

  • milojthatch

    Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? Didn’t your mother ever teach you it’s not nice to call people idiots…unless it’s about JJ Abrams and friends of course.

  • Jon

    Ahh yes…the inevitable personal, straw man attacks from the folks who liked the movie against those who dare give their honest opinion that disagrees with theirs. Sigh…I guess it’s too much to ask these days for a reasoned, respectful argument presenting your case as to why this award might actually be deserved by STID.

    And hey, if this is the direction that Trek will go henceforth, so be it….but I certainly have a right to express my displeasure at the prospect without being called pointless names that lend nothing to the actual discussion at hand.

    If you liked the movie nevilleross, that’s great! But rather than call me names, how about letting us know why this movie was great and why it was true to Trek’s core story-telling principles as stated so often by its creator in just about every interview he ever gave during his lifetime on this subject?

    Or as I always like to ask, is there any criticism of the movie that you would accept as valid at all?

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I have no problem with Star Trek progressing. I’ve praised the 2009 film in this forum quite a bit, and was looking forward to a sequel that was perhaps a little less…. well… retarded.
    My expression of disbelief at this award is because there is pretty much zero scientific accuracy in STiD. If this were a Golden Globe or a People’s Choice award or an MTV moon-guy-thingy, I’d have no problem with it at all. It’s a popular film, and there are some good things in it. But an award for scientific accuracy? I wonder if Bill Nye was able to keep a straight face when he presented it.

  • nevilleross

    You’re not offering valid criticism, just repeating the same laundry list of dislike that have already been dealt with on the BBS of Trek Today by a lot of others. If you sincerely hate the movies, then good, do so, but please SHUT THE FRACK UP AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE. Nobody cares anymore, the movie’s made millions and satisfied Paramount, and the franchise has been saved; that’s all that matters. Better yet, if you can do better at writing a Star Trek movie, then do so instead of flapping your gums about it all of the time online.

  • nevilleross

    What to you is ‘real’ Star Trek? Please define that stupid term for the rest of us who aren’t rabid idiots stuck in the past who can’t progress.

  • nevilleross

    Ooh, poor baby, you and others here have been waking up on the wrong side of the bed with regards to this movie and the previous one ever since 2009. Get a life, get over yourselves and your sense of entitlement, and find something else to watch.

  • milojthatch

    Star Trek before JJ Abrams. You know what, you’re kind of coming off as a little annoying. You are free to disagree, but please bring it down a notch.

  • milojthatch

    Are you Bob Orci? Oh my gosh, you sound like Bob Orci!

  • Jon

    Such anger my friend…you might want to see a psychologist for that :) . I offer my opinion, and your response is just another insult now coupled with an expletive? Assuming you are not a 12 year-old in reality, you are sure acting like one.

    I happen to have liked the 2009 reboot quite a bit…I had some problems with it, but it was a good reboot overall, I liked the new cast, and I was looking forward to another even better installment for the next time. What I got was not at all good and not really “Star Trek” to me, and I am saying so. And no, I’m not going to repeat what others who also didn’t like the movie have already said as I agree with them. And I don’t mind repeating my displeasure as I am definitely upset at the direction that the franchise is going, and I hope that the powers-that-be take note. I find these debates enjoyable and a bit cathartic actually.

    Yes, the movie made some money, but most of the bean counters have chimed in with rather muted, tepid comments on the matter and if you read between the lines, you can definitely tell that they were underwhelmed by the movie’s performance and were expecting better. So yes, the franchise will continue, but it is my hope that the next one will return to Trek’s core roots overall and be better…that’s all I’m really saying. And I’m happy to keep repeating it…no anger is intended, just healthy emotional release :) .

    If not, I’ll be more than happy to ignore future Trek just as you can enjoy it to your heart’s content.

    So what we have what is known as a difference of opinion. No need for the anger and the expletives, wouldn’t you say?

  • Guest

    But the award wasn’t for being “a great action star trek movie.”

  • Guest

    He is a compensated shill. Ignore him.

  • Guest

    It’s telling that you cannot defend the “science” in the movie, but only call people names.

  • BotanyCameos

    Someone did ask Shatner what he thinks of STID, at a different occasion, and he gave great praise both to the movie and to Abrams.

    Because unlike the bitter whining haters and other little keyboard warriors, he actually has a brain and knows how to use it. He can actually appreciate and enjoy good entertainment and Star Trek as a whole.

  • BotanyCameos

    Guest: “He is a compensated shill. Ignore him.”

    Hahahahaha!! Aw, children. You get funnier with each comment.

  • BotanyCameos

    You children really have no other argument, do you? lol

    You harassed that man until he stopped communicating with fans, and now you attempt the same on everyone who enjoyed the movie also. With childish little barbs like “you sound like Orci”. lol

    But too bad, the movie was well received by the public at large, while the whining haters are a small minority that rabidly pollutes comment sections to make up for how little of you there is.

    Enjoy your hate and stupidity, while we enjoy Star Trek in general, something you can’t even understand, or you wouldn’t be wasting time on that hatred and constant whining.

  • Jon

    But you have to wonder…even if Shat didn’t care for the movie, is he really going to say so, particularly at a convention? If he were to out-and-out criticize the movie, there would be consequences such as not being considered for a cameo in the next segment or negative fan reaction from folks like yourself who cannot seem to accept that a good number of Trek fans did not like this movie and have a right to say so without being called names or otherwise insulted, for instance.

    I read an interview off of a Trek site shortly after the movie came out (I forget which one), in which he did not come right out and say he didn’t like the movie, but again, you could read between the lines of his comments to see he felt that the movie was not true to the core of what Star Trek should be. Wish I could find that link…

    BTW, I do have a pretty darn good brain on me…got me through quite a bit of graduate school to the prominent position I now hold at a very respected research institute that regularly produces Nobel prize and other such award winners in scientific research. And my brain allows me to enjoy (and critique) the types of entertainment that I do whilst also respectfully stating my position for when I don’t care for something (such as STID) without the need to insult those who disagree. Did I call you a name or insult you personally for not liking this movie? I have said over and over again that if you are someone who did like this movie, that’s great…enjoy it as is your right of course.

    Kind of ironic that Trek is supposed to promote tolerance for all points of view, but those of us who dare criticize it now are apparently not to be tolerated.

    Think about it my friend…

  • Jon

    Why do you feel that those who didn’t like the movie and feel the need to say so are just “haters” or “stupid?” I didn’t like the movie, but I certainly do not fall into either category, nor would I assign such mean-spirited comments to those who disagree. You liked the movie, others didn’t. Have a respectful debate on the subject without hurling insults. You’d be surprised at how much fun it can be, and you might even make some new friends.

    Try it sometime…

  • Jon

    Aha…I found the link to the Shat’s comments :) : http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/william-shatner-gene-roddenberrys-son-star-trek-belongs-tv.html

    Here are the money quotes for hopefully a fun discussion:

    “J.J. Abrams has found the key to getting a large audience into the
    movie theater, and that’s the ride. So you get a lot of the CGI effects,
    which is the epic movie making aspect of today, whereas in Cecile B.
    Demille’s time, you had to use real people. Now you don’t need to use
    real people and you can have infinity for God’s sake.

    That’s in order to get you into the theater, because the majesty of
    the movie is shown by the large screen. But when you get into the small
    screen, you need stories… entertaining, interesting, vital stories that
    have a philosophy and also have an excitement about them, so that the
    viewer stays with it, but receives the philosophy as a byproduct. Those
    were the best of Star Trek, those kinds of stories. And that kind
    of thing, there is always room for that. That kind of imaginative
    approach that stirs young people into wanting to be connected with
    science.”

    A good read between the lines of the above (at least to me) shows that Shat really wasn’t that big a fan of STID other than the fact that it re-established the franchise a bit more. The second paragraph is particularly telling..and mostly sums up how I feel my Trek should be and what I felt was not in STID and thus made it utterly forgettable for me.

    All: Discuss! (and don’t forget to have fun while doing so!). Truly, I would like to know what others make of his comment here, but those who liked STID and those who didn’t.

  • nevilleross

    The only shills here are you and the others that hate the new movies, not me and the rest of the planet that have moved on. Look in the mirror before you speak next time.

  • Theragen Derivative

    From AbramsTrek, I learned that a supernova with the power to wipe out the entire galaxy can be neutralized with Red Matter that can do all kinds of fun things like sucking whole planets into black holes and/or sending you back in time to tell your younger self how the movie you’re in ends so that he can beam across the galaxy to harvest enough Magic Blood from a guy genetically engineered back in the 20th Century to keep your pet Tribble alive until the next millennium.

    Or something like that. I may be fuzzy on the details but I’m sure that if I either watch this movie another dozen times or beat my head into a concrete wall six or seven, it’ll all start making perfect sense. So bravo to Bad Robot for accurately and impactfully portraying and promoting the fields of science, engineering, technology and mathematics in such a way as to win the Bill Nye Seal of Approval and finally bring Star Trek up to par in those departments with Grey’s Anatomy, The Big Bang Theory, World War Z, and Sharknado.

  • Theragen Derivative

    Silly you; didn’t you know there WAS no Star Trek before JJ Abrams? Didn’t you know that five television series, ten movies, and untold billions in merchandising over four decades were all so that the name could be kept in a holding pattern for the Patron Saint of Hipsters to eventually show up in order to turn Spock into the Incredible Hulk?

  • Theragen Derivative

    This really says it all.

    Paramount has a very big long-term problem with the Trek franchise because of the Abramsverse.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Sharknado got it for meteorology, right? ‘Cause their shark biology was a little bit off, they kept mixing up black-tipped with tiger sharks.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Sharknado got it for meteorology, right? ‘Cause their shark biology was a little bit off, they kept mixing up black-tipped with tiger sharks.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    That’s a shame. The new Trek is not a total wash, and many if not most of the cast really nail it. Who wouldn’t jump at the chance to ask Zach Quinto whether making out with Zoe Saldana grosses him out, or what tokens and incantations Karl Urban uses to channel the spirit of DeForest Kelley?
    More seriously though. The ’09 Trek was a good jump-start, particularly the cast, and if fans will actually go apeshit over Enterprise, then they ought to be giving JJTrek more respect.
    I’d wager the shunning is due entirely to Star Trek Into Scientific Inaccuracy turning off even the fans of the ’09 film.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Would this be a bad time to point out that you and your other account led off with calling people stupid and idiots in a hateful manner?

  • Blue Thunder

    Real Star Trek, in my book, is a series that hasn’t been tarnished by the likes of Vic Mignogna, Dennis Bailey, and the Farragut Films staff.

  • nevilleross

    It’s telling that you have no life other than to constantly object to a movie series that you’ve already said that you’ve hated a million time over here and on other sites.