shavedape
Well Known GateFan
I did watch it up until they moved it from Friday nights to Saturday mornings about a year ago. I never seem to catch it now and they never rerun it it seems.
It has a name: Star Trek: Into Darkness.
- Thread starter Overmind One
- Start date
I did watch it up until they moved it from Friday nights to Saturday mornings about a year ago. I never seem to catch it now and they never rerun it it seems.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
I liked Kirk's line "Punch it.". I wouldn't mind if that became his "Engage!". It suits his personality.
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
new "international trailer" from 2 days ago. like that Peter Weller is in it. He can add in a bright spot to just about any dog of a movie (not saying this is one)
in the 2:30 min or so, with all the destruction and doom-I like how the trailer director managed to get in a shot of a blond in her underwear- "bright shiny objects"= booms, blasts, zings, zaps, tits and ass
in the 2:30 min or so, with all the destruction and doom-I like how the trailer director managed to get in a shot of a blond in her underwear- "bright shiny objects"= booms, blasts, zings, zaps, tits and ass
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Yawn
This will be the first trek movie I won't bother to see at the movies since Undiscovered Country.
This will be the first trek movie I won't bother to see at the movies since Undiscovered Country.
I completely agree...
They overdid it. If the movie is anything like that trailer, it will be overdone, stuff with fluff and lacking in Trek-ness. JJ Abrams is not all that, but they seem to be giving him everything now since he is the current favorite. Star Trek AND Star Wars? Not a good sign. George Lucas could not have written for Trek before the last 2009 movie (cause it was simpleminded and couldn't go wrong being the first new Trek). But this next one seems....lacking.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Quite true, but I can go on trends, and the trend for scifi in movieland is big ships, big guns, big explosions and big tits.
Not to me they didnt. I already knew Khan. I already knew his story, where we had left off with him in TOS, etc. The context was much different too...there was still REAL science fiction being written, on the air and on the big screens. The dumbing down effect of dreck like Twilight and SGU and NuBSG and the other soapfi crap was not a factor. Wait...why take my word for it? here is the original official trailer for the movie:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/02/01/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-trailer (I cant embed because it's at IGN)
Im not at all seeing "simpleminded". The new one relies on glitzy CGI and lens flares and fluff. This is fine for Star Wars or The Avengers, but for Star Trek? Abram's Trek is soulless.
--- merged: Mar 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM ---
Yes, but...but Abram's Trek has big GREEN tits!
I am very very happy that the new Enterprise is destroyed in this next movie. I am REALLY hoping that the new ship has a more logical design (from an engineering standpoint) than the ridiculously modified version in the 2009 movie. I still cant get over the curved nacelles and the swoopy lighted "race lines" and bulbous shapes they had. Only the saucer section was right.
Is Abrams going to connect with the original (read: older) fanbase or going for a new one, pulling a Brad Wright on the franchise?
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Well, we know from the series that Federation starships are equipped with navigation shields that shield the ship from space debris, so, unless the ship lost ALL power, including backup and batteries, there's no reason why it should be burning through the atmosphere and losing chunks as we saw in the trailer.
I hate manufactured inconsistency for the purpose of a "cool scene" or "cool story".
I hate manufactured inconsistency for the purpose of a "cool scene" or "cool story".
Me too. And I still do not understand why the trend in the Trek movies always has the entire ship destroyed like every other movie. How the hell will the continuity be maintained when NCC-1701 is destroyed in the new timeline? NCC-1701-A was not supposed to come along for a while. And yeah, what happened to the shields? I think Abrams may kill Trek the way Brad Wright killed Stargate by changing fundamental things in Trek because he does not understand them. At the root of the appeal of Star Trek is exploration and discovery, not tits and ass and explosions. Leave that stuff to Transformers and Avengers and such. What happened to the thinking person's Trek?
Im still very pissed about the damned ship. This thing is horrible:
Ill go see the movie just to see it get destroyed.
But what if the next one is worse?
And those Jetsons sounds for the shuttles, the swirly transporter effect, the little horned creature hanging out with Scotty...not liking the direction this is going.
OMNI
My avatar speaks for itself.
ALL trek ships are mindboggingly ugly and unrealistic.Me too. And I still do not understand why the trend in the Trek movies always has the entire ship destroyed like every other movie. How the hell will the continuity be maintained when NCC-1701 is destroyed in the new timeline? NCC-1701-A was not supposed to come along for a while. And yeah, what happened to the shields? I think Abrams may kill Trek the way Brad Wright killed Stargate by changing fundamental things in Trek because he does not understand them. At the root of the appeal of Star Trek is exploration and discovery, not tits and ass and explosions. Leave that stuff to Transformers and Avengers and such. What happened to the thinking person's Trek?
Im still very pissed about the damned ship. This thing is horrible:
View attachment 27973
Ill go see the movie just to see it get destroyed.
View attachment 27974
And those Jetsons sounds for the shuttles, the swirly transporter effect, the little horned creature hanging out with Scotty...not liking the direction this is going.
I agree. But the designs were logical when you know the basis of the (imagined) warp engine concept. For instance, if you really love Trek, you would know why the warp core in Enterprise and TOS were horizontal and not vertical like in TNG. The warp nacelles need to be uniformly straight because of the warp coils. Every Trek ship had perfectly straight warp nacelles with no "power bulges" or decorative elements on them. Ship builders today need to create the standard boat hull, from the smallest rowboat to the largest passenger liner, because it is the most stable. There are variations like flatbottoms and dual hull ships, but still the basic nautical design is consistent all around. This was the concept of the first Trek ships. They were even built at the Naval Shipyards in Norfolk VA (all this according to Roddenberry's notes in The Making of Star Trek). The design of straight warp nacelles was perfectly carried into First Contact and the Phoenix. The nacelles on that ship were exactly like those on the original TOS Enterprise, only smaller. CONSISTENCY.
But this latest one was just dumb. An immature vision of the Enterprise made to appeal to the New Camaro (with NASCAR stickers) boy-racer crowd. Next thing we know the Starfleet insignia will change to something weird too.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
I agree. But the designs were logical when you know the basis of the (imagined) warp engine concept. For instance, if you really love Trek, you would know why the warp core in Enterprise and TOS were horizontal and not vertical like in TNG. The warp nacelles need to be uniformly straight because of the warp coils. Every Trek ship had perfectly straight warp nacelles with no "power bulges" or decorative elements on them. Ship builders today need to create the standard boat hull, from the smallest rowboat to the largest passenger liner, because it is the most stable. There are variations like flatbottoms and dual hull ships, but still the basic nautical design is consistent all around. This was the concept of the first Trek ships. They were even built at the Naval Shipyards in Norfolk VA (all this according to Roddenberry's notes in The Making of Star Trek). The design of straight warp nacelles was perfectly carried into First Contact and the Phoenix. The nacelles on that ship were exactly like those on the original TOS Enterprise, only smaller. CONSISTENCY.
But this latest one was just dumb. An immature vision of the Enterprise made to appeal to the New Camaro (with NASCAR stickers) boy-racer crowd. Next thing we know the Starfleet insignia will change to something weird too.
Yes! I vote for Howard the Duck decals!
Yes! I vote for Howard the Duck decals!
.But seriously, what will we see next? The last Trek from Abrams actually employed PRODUCT PLACEMENT! The Nokia phone built into Kirk's father's Mustang (as far as I know) is the only obvious product placement ever used in a Trek movie. Does this mean that objects like communicators and tricorders and sensor arrays will start sporting brand names "discreetly" printed in the corners? Abrams needs to read The Making of Star Trek. He would know that no entity such as Nokia could exist in the Trek universe after WWIII. There was no money used, and no corporations so WTF?
Abrams may drive Trek off a cliff.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
But seriously, what will we see next? The last Trek from Abrams actually employed PRODUCT PLACEMENT! The Nokia phone built into Kirk's father's Mustang (as far as I know) is the only obvious product placement ever used in a Trek movie. Does this mean that objects like communicators and tricorders and sensor arrays will start sporting brand names "discreetly" printed in the corners? Abrams needs to read The Making of Star Trek. He would know that no entity such as Nokia could exist in the Trek universe after WWIII. There was no money used, and no corporations so WTF?
Abrams may drive Trek off a cliff.
This!
Abrams didn't do too bad a job breathing new life into Trek with 2009 but I don't want to see him steer the entire franchise into GI Joe territory, which seems to be where it's headed. He's admitted that he "never got Star Trek". They shouldn't just hand him creative carte blanche and let him turn it into his pet.
And, seriously, f'k product placement. He's destroying the future Roddenberry built with that bullshit. Even his "alternate universe" bullshit of an excuse wouldn't explain it because history changed at Kirk's birth.
Goddammit I'm taking a lazy day off from exploring the city, sitting in the condo with the balcony doors open and the damned breeze, which is more like cyclone at this height, is blowing the lamp and my laptop across the table.
--- merged: Mar 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM ---
Every man has his price. You've found mine. Damn you, Abrams!!
This!
Abrams didn't do too bad a job breathing new life into Trek with 2009 but I don't want to see him steer the entire franchise into GI Joe territory, which seems to be where it's headed. He's admitted that he "never got Star Trek". They shouldn't just hand him creative carte blanche and let him turn it into his pet.
And, seriously, f'k product placement. He's destroying the future Roddenberry built with that bullshit. Even his "alternate universe" bullshit of an excuse wouldn't explain it because history changed at Kirk's birth.
Goddammit I'm taking a lazy day off from exploring the city, sitting in the condo with the balcony doors open and the damned breeze, which is more like cyclone at this height, is blowing the lamp and my laptop across the table.
--- merged: Mar 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM ---
Every man has his price. You've found mine. Damn you, Abrams!!
BTW, I got your text! It was way cool.
I wanna be where you are, cyclone breeze and all. But it is a ghost town at work today. Most of the Dev team off for Passover. Im here because I want to be, but I will most likely come in next week Mon or Tues (also Passover). Maybe our sentient universe will hear you and stop the breeze!As far as Trek, Abrams COULD easily destroy Roddenberry's vision and the entire Trek franchise with his reckless changes. Remember "hot" designer Chris Bangle? He almost single-handedly destroyed the cachet and appeal of BMW with his quirky and extreme makeover of the BMW line. The weird "fish fins" shape of the 3-Series taillamps, the chopped up pieces of the 7-Series rear end and his now signature "Bangle Butt" monstrosity of a rear end design. The solution was to fire Bangle, and fast. They redesigned away all of his new ideas and went back to a more BMW-like look and sales surged after dipping dangerously. Abrams will destroy Trek I think. He needs somebody around who DOES "get Trek".
I think they will freak out if they DONT have head ridges, or if they are not "right". OR, if the Klingon personas are not uber-macho (even the women). Klingons are very very "BUTCH" as the gay community calls it. They do not speak softly or act politely. Their uniforms and clothing all speak of warrior class people steeped in "honor" and tradition. I hope Abrams gets that.
--- merged: Mar 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM ---
I forgot to mention, I really rolled my eyes back when Eric Bana started trying to pull out a "Kaaaaaaahnnnnn!" moment with his "Spooooocccckkkkk!" scene. It was weak and not at all a shout out to fans. It was insulting. The tatted up Romulans were all wrong. Hated them. And that weird Vulcan ship with the spinning hull and weird Jetsons sounds of the engines was a complete turn off. What was with that red matter? With that, who needs photon torpedos or tri-cobalt devices? Oh, and if you want to escape a black hole, simply eject the warp core (oops, CORES) and blam...instant deus ex machina