If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   Paramount will air the first nine minutes of Star Trek: Into Lensflare on December 14th on IMAX. Difficulty: you have to buy a ticket to see The Hobbit   (deadline.com) divider line 142
    More: PSA, Star Trek, IMAX, hobbits, Bad Robot, The Hobbit, Ghost Protocol, Bryan Burk, okays  
•       •       •

2847 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Nov 2012 at 11:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-14 08:43:15 PM
you say that like its a bad thing, subby.
 
2012-11-14 09:21:09 PM
It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.
 
2012-11-14 09:24:01 PM
Thats not a difficult prospect.

ToxicMunkee: It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.


And this.
 
2012-11-14 09:31:34 PM
Well, ok. If you insist.
 
2012-11-14 09:35:58 PM
I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,
 
2012-11-14 09:38:53 PM
Sounds good to me.

Now just to get together with my friend to figure out where we'll be going to see it, and when I'm going to catch her up on the Lord of the Rings movies.
 
2012-11-14 10:09:21 PM
For the second time today, shut up and take my money.
 
2012-11-14 11:05:33 PM
You know what the first film needed? MOAR LENZ FLAIR!

And I agree:
www.geekzenith.com
 
2012-11-14 11:26:37 PM
I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.
 
2012-11-14 11:31:32 PM

Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.


You posted that without reading this thread so far didn't you? ;^)
 
2012-11-14 11:41:24 PM
At least they're not pulling a Nolan and showing it ONLY at IMAX locations that still use film. The nearest theatre to me with the Dark Knight Rises prologue was a 7 hour drive.
 
2012-11-14 11:43:49 PM
i just searched for the closest IMAX theater to me. i would have to drive a little over an hour to get to one. greenville sc or knoxville tn.
 
2012-11-14 11:45:48 PM
i.imgur.com
Subby you ol' son of a gun!
 
2012-11-14 11:46:11 PM

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i just searched for the closest IMAX theater to me. i would have to drive a little over an hour to get to one. greenville sc or knoxville tn.


If you want to drive up to DC, there's 6 or so all around the city.
 
2012-11-14 11:47:49 PM

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,


So what, you'll hang around the movie theater like the guy in The Terminal for a year?
 
2012-11-14 11:48:56 PM

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,


48fps I might like to check out - but it looks like only the 3D version is 48fps. I ain't doing 3D.
 
2012-11-14 11:49:31 PM
We...could do that.
 
2012-11-14 11:50:14 PM
I'm guessing that for the person who's interested in the next Star Trek movie, having to see The Hobbit is not such a great difficulty.
 
2012-11-14 11:52:15 PM
The only difficulty for me, subby, is living three hundred miles from an iMax.
 
2012-11-14 11:52:46 PM
I just have to drive five minutes to get to an IMAX.
 
2012-11-14 11:56:43 PM

sno man: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

You posted that without reading this thread so far didn't you? ;^)


My comment was totally serious. Totally.
 
2012-11-15 12:08:46 AM
This could mean longer waits between showings as theater employees clean up the nerdgasms.
 
2012-11-15 12:13:18 AM
why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer
 
2012-11-15 12:13:48 AM

Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.


*raises hand*

/ ....although I find Frank Herbert's "Dune" a little more compelling
// book, not movie
 
2012-11-15 12:15:33 AM

thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer


Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.
 
2012-11-15 12:18:59 AM

Mentat: sno man: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

You posted that without reading this thread so far didn't you? ;^)

My comment was totally serious. Totally.

 

www.transformer-ivan.net
 
2012-11-15 12:20:40 AM

fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.


IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.

/ wish I could forget SW: Episode 1...
 
2012-11-15 12:21:10 AM
Who wants to see the first 9 minutes of a film? That's like paying for half a handjob.
 
2012-11-15 12:22:36 AM

ToxicMunkee: It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.


Why?

I'd love to watch it again but that shiat is farked.

They need to edit it withouth the damn things.

/farking lazy
 
2012-11-15 12:23:59 AM

thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer


Because most people are smart enough not to pay to watch a trailer?

/what were the trailers before Meet Joe Black?
 
2012-11-15 12:26:16 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.

IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.

/ wish I could forget SW: Episode 1...


Star Wars!!! That was it. Ha. I bet those fans feel stupid now.

/even though they already proved it by buying a ticket to a trailer
 
2012-11-15 12:26:48 AM

fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.


The Dark Knight Rises teaser was before MI:4 (which wasn't awful, but not worth the IMAX mark up).
 
2012-11-15 12:26:55 AM
Also, there really were too many...
http://vimeo.com/13430244
 
2012-11-15 12:30:22 AM

alienated: you say that like its a bad thing, subby.


A nine minute trailer followed by a 150 minute trailer? Sounds like a raw deal
 
2012-11-15 12:32:11 AM
Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.
 
2012-11-15 12:33:14 AM
Because a Hobbit audience is totally a STar Trek audience too.
 
2012-11-15 12:35:10 AM

lewismarktwo: Who wants to see the first 9 minutes of a film? That's like paying for half a handjob.


Half-handjobs usually end in blowjobs.
 
2012-11-15 12:36:13 AM
Movies are stealing age-old ideas from video games.

This is the revolution you were promised in the olden days of the Genesis.

Thought it would be more exciting, honestly... but the Marvel "stingers" hit the right note on the idea... IN THE SEQUEL, HAMMERS FALLING OUT OF THE FARKING SKY!!! BUY A GODDAMN TICKET!!!...

...and you ACTUALLY want to.
 
2012-11-15 01:00:44 AM

ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.


I thought it was pretty good apart from Abrams mandatory "everyone has daddy issues" nonsense. That man needs therapy.

I can understand why trekkies didn't like it. There was too much action.

//wrath of khan was boring and goofy
 
2012-11-15 01:01:46 AM

ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.


Obvious troll is Obvious.
 
2012-11-15 01:05:12 AM
This just in: You can like BOTH Star Trek and The Hobbit

/Worf killed Dumbledore
 
2012-11-15 01:17:17 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 48fps I might like to check out - but it looks like only the 3D version is 48fps. I ain't doing 3D.


Nice eye patch there Cyclops.

/what??? real life is 3D????
 
2012-11-15 01:26:46 AM
Am I the only person on the planet to never have seen the new Star Trek? Anyway, I'm seeing The Hobbit no matter what.
 
2012-11-15 01:27:17 AM

INeedAName: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i just searched for the closest IMAX theater to me. i would have to drive a little over an hour to get to one. greenville sc or knoxville tn.

If you want to drive up to DC, there's 6 or so all around the city.


that would be a 7.5 hour trip.
 
2012-11-15 01:30:05 AM

peterthx: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 48fps I might like to check out - but it looks like only the 3D version is 48fps. I ain't doing 3D.

Nice eye patch there Cyclops.

/what??? real life is 3D????


In real life, you can focus on different areas and see better.
 
2012-11-15 01:36:58 AM

moothemagiccow: ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.

I thought it was pretty good apart from Abrams mandatory "everyone has daddy issues" nonsense. That man needs therapy.

I can understand why trekkies didn't like it. There was too much action.

//wrath of khan was boring and goofy


The Daddy issues of Kirk and Spock made sense. Spock's always had issues with his father and in TNG his father died before they could be resolved. In Star Trek '09 they were forced to face their issues and move forward. Kirk's daddy issues was first being that his father wasn't there and then thanks to Pike, it became living up to the legend that his father became in the 10 minutes he spent in command of the Kelvin, which became his motivation while in the Academy.

As a life long Trek fan, I'll admit that Star Trek 09 is not the worst Trek movie (Star Treks 1 and 5 compete for that spot), but it's not the best (2, 6 and 8 compete for that spot), but it's better than 3, 9 and 10. The only part that I didn't like was the look of the Enterprise, and I'm just talking about the exterior look. Interiors, I loved the dirty looks of the Engineering sections and shiny white clean looks of the Bridge. In many ways, it's interiors were better than the TNG bridge and engineering sections.

Though, honestly, instead of a new movie, I'd rather see a new series. Star Trek does much much better as a tv series than as a movie series. And if they went with a tv series, I'd actually want two series. One series would be set a few years after the last episode of Voyager and Nemesis, maybe shortly after Spock's failed attempt to save Romulas. In short, in the STO era. The other series I would like to see set in the Abrams-verse. Let's explore that a bit.
 
2012-11-15 01:40:28 AM

StoPPeRmobile: In real life, you can focus on different areas and see better.


You can't do that with a 2D film either so not sure what you're getting at....
 
2012-11-15 01:40:36 AM

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,


A minimum of 4 endings per film multiplied by three films means the film will have more endings than a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book
 
2012-11-15 01:44:56 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

*raises hand*


*also raises hand*


/ ....although I find Frank Herbert's "Dune" a little more compelling
// book, not movie


Agreed! Except I find it "a lot" more compelling.

/hey baby, how YOU doin'?
 
2012-11-15 01:50:08 AM
I find myself completely disinterested in "The Hobbit" for some reason. I'm exactly meh about the whole thing. Same way about Star Trek, although I found the reboot/rework of the universe quite fascinating (to coin a phrase).

...does this mean I'm finally getting old?
 
2012-11-15 01:51:27 AM

Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.


Wait, your serious ? Let me laugh harder jpeg

Seriously- I am not just a Tolkien geek. I so heart Trek stuff. And Star Wars stuff, and B5, Space: Above and Beyond, Xanth, Ringworld... I could go on for a long time.
 
2012-11-15 01:52:09 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.

IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.


True Story: I paid money to see the Episode 1 trailer.* I got to see the Wing Commander movie afterwards, which sucked beyond all belief. And to add insult to injury, when I got out of the theater...some asshole broke into my car and stole my CD player and my CDs, which was a couple of J-Rock albums, some game soundtracks and a few burned disks.

That was one long car ride home in silence.

*That's what I like to tell myself, rather than admitting to paying actual money to see the Wing Commander movie
 
2012-11-15 01:53:02 AM

Gyrfalcon: ..does this mean I'm finally getting old?


It means that your taste in stuff has changed or does not flow with some popular things.
Thats okay. Be yourself, its all that you can do.
 
2012-11-15 01:57:34 AM

RevRaven: Forbidden Doughnut: fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.

IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.

True Story: I paid money to see the Episode 1 trailer.* I got to see the Wing Commander movie afterwards, which sucked beyond all belief. And to add insult to injury, when I got out of the theater...some asshole broke into my car and stole my CD player and my CDs, which was a couple of J-Rock albums, some game soundtracks and a few burned disks.

That was one long car ride home in silence.

*That's what I like to tell myself, rather than admitting to paying actual money to see the Wing Commander movie


Then a delayed punchline: Episode I itself.
 
2012-11-15 01:57:48 AM

Gyrfalcon: I find myself completely disinterested in "The Hobbit" for some reason. I'm exactly meh about the whole thing. Same way about Star Trek, although I found the reboot/rework of the universe quite fascinating (to coin a phrase).

...does this mean I'm finally getting old?


Not old. Just dead inside.
 
2012-11-15 02:02:10 AM
It was fun watching the internet learn a new phrase after the last star trek movie.
 
2012-11-15 02:08:05 AM
Also: Time to rip on JJ.

The reboot was neat, but it wasn't Star Trek. I don't wanna have to type out my whole rant again (I guess I should save the damn thing to a text file), but it was Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek. If you took the Trek trappings out, it could have been any generic sci-fi action movie. I'm not shiatting on sci-fi action flicks, nor having action in a Star Trek movie, but it wasn't really Star Trek.

It was more akin to Star Wars actually, structurally anyways. Which is fine...for a Star Wars movie. But as a Star Trek movie (and a reboot! A reboot of the most internally cohesive fictional universe ever written, for Christ's sake. What, too constipated creatively to do something new in a 500+ year timeline? Couldn't do another Next Generation new crew/ship idea? Nooo, had to go back to the TOS in the 60s), it was very much Star Trek in name only.

Star Trek works best as a TV series as Great Janitor said above. The movies are fun (even the bad ones can be, what parts don't hurt your brain), and the reboot is okay but by no means anything great. But another series (idealy set Post DS9/Voyager so we can finally see what happened in the aftermath of the friggin' Dominion War) would be fanfarkingtastic. I vaguely remember, in one of the threads about the various pitches made by people for a new series, that word was no new TV series until JJ's films run their course, so 2016-2017 or so.

/Redesign of the Enterprise was awful
//Bridge looked like it was designed by Apple
///Casting was pretty damn good though
\\\Destroying Romulus and discarding the real timeline was a mistake of easy script writing versus actually trying
\\I'm hoping they'll tie everything together in the third one and reset or merge JJ-reality with the real timeline
\And Shatner better have a goddamn cameo. What woulda been his cameo in the reboot would have been farking awesome. And let him do the "Space, the Final Frontier" narration please
 
2012-11-15 02:12:29 AM

RevRaven: it was Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek


It was star trek for the internet generation who have short attention spans.

But it was still star trek. deal with it.
 
2012-11-15 02:20:24 AM

ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.


ikttvs.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-15 02:30:34 AM
Hobbit + Star Trek preview?

tgfb.net
 
2012-11-15 02:41:58 AM

Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.


Not that you were serious, but count me in the "not in the overlap" group.
 
2012-11-15 02:41:59 AM
Is the Hobbit that bad that studios have to bribe fans to see it by teasing them with a Star Trek preview?
 
2012-11-15 02:46:36 AM

Great Janitor: The Daddy issues of Kirk and Spock made sense


Yeah, but it's an annoying trait of Abrams works running all the way back to Felicity. He really needs help.
 
2012-11-15 02:51:07 AM
You show movies and previews at the theater, you don't air them.
 
2012-11-15 02:52:56 AM

alienated: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

Wait, your serious ? Let me laugh harder jpeg

Seriously- I am not just a Tolkien geek. I so heart Trek stuff. And Star Wars stuff, and B5, Space: Above and Beyond, Xanth, Ringworld... I could go on for a long time.


This. People claiming that fantasy and sci-fi audiences don't overlap know nothing about nerds.
 
2012-11-15 02:55:20 AM

log_jammin: It was fun watching the internet learn a new phrase after the last star trek movie.


What phrase?
 
2012-11-15 03:02:16 AM

lewismarktwo: What phrase?


"lens flares!"
 
2012-11-15 03:04:14 AM

log_jammin: lewismarktwo: What phrase?

"lens flares!"


I figgured that's what you meant, but it didn't seem that obscure before then. Thinking about it, it makes sense.
 
2012-11-15 03:12:59 AM

lewismarktwo: log_jammin: lewismarktwo: What phrase?

"lens flares!"

I figgured that's what you meant, but it didn't seem that obscure before then. Thinking about it, it makes sense.


Oh shiat, drop shadows are next.
 
2012-11-15 03:23:42 AM

Great Janitor: As a life long Trek fan, I'll admit that Star Trek 09 is not the worst Trek movie (Star Treks 1 and 5 compete for that spot), but it's not the best (2, 6 and 8 compete for that spot), but it's better than 3, 9 and 10.


You're a Trek fan in name only.
 
2012-11-15 03:29:36 AM
The Hobbit is coming out in a month?
 
2012-11-15 03:33:15 AM
I saw The Two Towers on IMAX and got motion sick with the swooping down into a castle scenes.
 
2012-11-15 04:13:50 AM
Gee, thanks. Nine more minutes of manky shiat to sit through before I get to see the movie I paid money to see. Thanks, but I'll pass.
 
2012-11-15 04:17:56 AM

log_jammin: RevRaven: it was Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek

It was star trek for the internet generation who have short attention spans.

But it was still star trek. deal with it.


In the same sense that Starship Troopers was Starship Troopers: that is, not at all.
 
2012-11-15 04:19:22 AM

Ed Grubermann: Gee, thanks. Nine more minutes of manky shiat to sit through before I get to see the movie I paid money to see. Thanks, but I'll pass.


When I went to Skyfall last night, after the 5th or so preview/commercial I actually had to take a moment to remember what movie it was I went there to see.
 
2012-11-15 04:24:46 AM

Ed Grubermann: In the same sense that Starship Troopers was Starship Troopers: that is, not at all.


worst analogy ever. or at least in this thread.
 
2012-11-15 04:40:32 AM

RevRaven: It was more akin to Star Wars actually, structurally anyways. Which is fine...for a Star Wars movie. But as a Star Trek movie (and a reboot! A reboot of the most internally cohesive fictional universe ever written, for Christ's sake.


That's where I stared laughing out loud.
 
2012-11-15 05:36:56 AM
One of the movies must be really bad to stoop to this level of marketing. I'm thinking its the Hobbit.
 
2012-11-15 05:53:42 AM

RevRaven: another series (idealy set Post DS9/Voyager so we can finally see what happened in the aftermath of the friggin' Dominion War) would be fanfarkingtastic.


Go play Star Trek Online. It isn't perfect but for the foreseeable future it is the only new canon story material you are getting in the original timeline. The new season just started. The most recent events are the Romulans finally colonizing a new homeworld. The game is free to play so you have nothing to lose.

Link
 
2012-11-15 06:26:58 AM

texdent: I just have to drive five minutes to get to an IMAX.


I have you beat. A ten minute walk, or a sub-two minute drive. What do I win?
 
2012-11-15 07:30:35 AM

ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.


You, sir, are an idiot of the highest order.
 
2012-11-15 07:39:53 AM
First nine minutes? So you will see the camera slowly, slowly panning over a lush hillside and then... record scratch...coming soon

/as opposed to the ad preview which will show the all the surprises, boss monsters and enough footage to talk like you're seen the movie at the water cooler after it comes out.
 
2012-11-15 07:47:30 AM
Will singularities explode?

Will weapons be set at maximium?

We can only guess in excitement.
 
2012-11-15 07:57:05 AM

RevRaven: Forbidden Doughnut: fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.

IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.

True Story: I paid money to see the Episode 1 trailer.* I got to see the Wing Commander movie afterwards, which sucked beyond all belief. And to add insult to injury, when I got out of the theater...some asshole broke into my car and stole my CD player and my CDs, which was a couple of J-Rock albums, some game soundtracks and a few burned disks.

That was one long car ride home in silence.

*That's what I like to tell myself, rather than admitting to paying actual money to see the Wing Commander movie


Aside from the break-in, that was also me. I went to Wing Commander because of the trailer, but I thought that WC would be a fun popcorn movie. Instead I watched a movie that made Episode I look good.

And as someone who owns the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition trilogy and the 2 disk DVD of the new Star Trek, this announcement officially puts the Hobbit into "Shut up and take my money" territory. I can't wait, and the idea that people only like one or the other franchise is silly at best and delusional ignorance at worst.

The opening 12 sequence of Star Trek 09 is still more compelling than the last 2 Next Gen movies combined. I can't wait to see what's in store for us this time.
 
2012-11-15 07:57:34 AM

ToxicMunkee: It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.


Yea this
 
2012-11-15 08:06:45 AM
"In order to touch Keira Knightly's boobs, you have to buy a ticket to touch Scarlett Johansson's boobs."

Oh, man. That is a difficult question.
 
2012-11-15 08:09:11 AM
StoPPeRmobile


ToxicMunkee: It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.

Why?

I'd love to watch it again but that shiat is farked.

They need to edit it withouth the damn things.

If you cut out the scenes with lens flair all you're left with are the scenes that look like Michael J Fox was the camera man.
 
2012-11-15 08:30:39 AM
I got my IMAX Hobbit tickets last week... Thank you, Internets!
 
2012-11-15 08:32:43 AM

MurphyMurphy: Ed Grubermann: Gee, thanks. Nine more minutes of manky shiat to sit through before I get to see the movie I paid money to see. Thanks, but I'll pass.

When I went to Skyfall last night, after the 5th or so preview/commercial I actually had to take a moment to remember what movie it was I went there to see.


While I agree about commercials, some of us like previews. I follow what's in production and hope to see bits of a movie I'm interested in that's in the pipeline.
 
2012-11-15 08:40:28 AM

Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.


That's the point. Get a group of people who are passionate about something else to pay to see your movie they otherwise wouldn't see, and you make more money.
 
2012-11-15 09:05:04 AM
9 minutes? UNless 7 of it is the opening credits, that'll show too much movie for me.
 
2012-11-15 09:12:36 AM
So, if I want to see The Hobbit I have to sit through the first nine minutes of Star Trek? That is a problem.

/How much are they paying me?
 
2012-11-15 09:13:06 AM

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,


That will be the third movie. The first two movies will have no ending.
 
2012-11-15 09:23:33 AM

I am sure the Hobbit will be great for fans of the book.

IMO, book was boring and weirdly

*RANDOM 8 versed song here*


paced.

Give me Lens Flare 2/ST 12/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it. I don't care how much they used. Movie was REALLY GOOD. Not perfect (Kirk ends up on JUST the right part of the planet to meet up with [redacted]? Bit of a stretch), yet quite enjoyable. Certainly better then all TNG movies (including first contact which I liked).

Would I pay to see the trailer? Of course not. I'll just wait for it to show up online somewhere.

I will pay to see the actual ST movie though.

/First National Bastard to the "bash new Star Trek film as 'fun, watchable' phone, First National Bastard to the "bash new Star Trek film as 'fun, watchable' phone.
 
2012-11-15 09:29:35 AM

RevRaven: but it wasn't Star Trek.\


This video is all I think of when I hear ST fans saying "it's not ST" .

/"apparently there isn't even one scene set at a long table where interstellar diplomacy is debated in endless detail"
 
2012-11-15 09:36:04 AM
I'm sure i'll never be able to see their sales ad on youtube later

I guess i'll go so the ho-bite
 
2012-11-15 09:48:06 AM
I'll tell you what, Paramount: I'll give up biatching about lens flare in exchange for a decent line of Star Trek ship toys, preferably the same size as the old Micro Machines.

/don't tell them I don't biatch about lens flare to begin with
 
2012-11-15 09:49:02 AM
I'd hit it!
 
2012-11-15 09:53:52 AM
I really enjoyed the latest Star Trek in the same way that I really enjoyed Serenity, yeah it doesn't have the same feel as the series that I loved but it was entertaining, had great action and great visuals. That is exactly what big blockbuster movies are all about. How anyone could walk into a movie theater to see a movie that they have seen advertised for months and is making huge profits at the box office and still expect it to be in line with their narrow interpretation of the source material is beyond me.

If you want star trek or lord of the rings or firefly or (insert your favorite comic book, fantasy or sci-fi story here) movies to be made you have to understand that they will be tailored to please a wider audience than the hardcore fans otherwise they won't be made. All the nerd rage over these movies is just a feeble attempt to get nerddom back to the fringes of society so you can feel special and smarter than the average joe. Grow up.

/watchmen is the exception
//that movie was pretty damn faithful to it's source material
///and a good movie too
 
2012-11-15 10:03:14 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

Not that you were serious, but count me in the "not in the overlap" group.


Me too. I started reading the Hobbit once, put it down after 40 pages, when Fredo's 9th dinner was described in glorious, glorious detail. Christ, Stephen King's coke-fueled books got to the point quicker.

Saw all 3 LoTR movies, didn't like a-one of them. I went on Randall's rant (from Clerks II) before that movie was filmed. And Peter Jackson needs to learn how to end a film - if your test audiences start getting up but you know there's 583,098 minutes of film left, EDIT THE DAMN THING SO WE'RE NOT HOLDING IN A PISS FOR THE LAST THIRD OF YOUR MOVIE.

moothemagiccow: Great Janitor: The Daddy issues of Kirk and Spock made sense

Yeah, but it's an annoying trait of Abrams works running all the way back to Felicity. He really needs help.


If JJ needs help, WTF does Disney need? 24-hour life coaches with a battalion of psychiatrists on speed-dial and more mood-altering drugs in the nightstand than the Dead's tour bus?
 
2012-11-15 10:04:54 AM
the only problem with this is it's only one hobbit movie
 
2012-11-15 10:05:07 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

Not that you were serious, but count me in the "not in the overlap" group.


I see some nerdy Venn diagram potential here...
 
2012-11-15 10:05:51 AM

Egoy3k: If you want star trek or lord of the rings or firefly or (insert your favorite comic book, fantasy or sci-fi story here) movies to be made you have to understand that they will be tailored to please a wider audience than the hardcore fans otherwise they won't be made. All the nerd rage over these movies is just a feeble attempt to get nerddom back to the fringes of society so you can feel special and smarter than the average joe. Grow up.


They also have to have a more grandiose plot. Your average "alien of the week" story isn't going to get a sniff of a greenlight; you have to have higher stakes.

That works in II and VI. Wrath of Khan was Moby Dick with climactic action reminiscent of Das Boot. Undiscovered Country was a myriad of Hamlet characters wrapped in an "end of the Cold War" allegory.

And sometimes it doesn't work. The Motionless picture had a great story, but the pacing should be the subject of ridicule in every freshman Intro to Drama class. Final Frontier had some amazing scenes - particularly the "I don't want my pain taken away! I NEED my pain!" scene might be some of the best philosophical introspection in the entire tenure of the original cast. But that movie got reworked so much it was inevitable that it came out as a trainwreck.
 
2012-11-15 10:09:05 AM

UNC_Samurai: Final Frontier is Willam Shattner masturbating himself over his own character

.

FTFY. MAN that movie is bad.
 
2012-11-15 10:09:26 AM

ToxicMunkee: It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.


It's not the actual lens flare I have a problem with, it's the guys style and he (so far) makes good popcorn movies. But there are some scenes in the first movie where it's so overly bright compared to the preceding scene it actually gives me eye strain. That I've a problem with not his love of lens flare effects.

So hopefully he dials that down a bit in the new movie.
 
2012-11-15 10:14:23 AM

alienated: Space: Above and Beyond


If ever there was a show that went out in style it was SAAB. The "we know we're cancelled, lets rock and kill EVERYTHING!" ending was glorious.

It should REALLY be rebooted, the show had a lot of promise and the characters were quite good and well fleshed out.

In fact, fark it. I'm off to watch it.
 
2012-11-15 10:28:59 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.


Actually, it was The Waterboy. Link
 
2012-11-15 10:36:33 AM
Silly nerds, there will never be another star trek TV show. Nor any other scific show. They cost too much money to make and you don't want to sit through their commercials. You did it to yourselves.
 
2012-11-15 10:38:21 AM

Egoy3k: /watchmen is the exception
//that movie was pretty damn faithful to it's source material
///and a good movie too


Amen.
 
2012-11-15 10:45:19 AM

Omis: Silly nerds, there will never be another star trek TV show. Nor any other scific show.They cost too much money to make and you don't want to sit through their commercials. You did it to yourselves.


i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-11-15 10:48:22 AM

Techhell: "In order to touch Keira Knightly's boobs, you have to buy a ticket to touch Scarlett Johansson's boobs."

Oh, man. That is a difficult question.


it is a trick question. Keira Knightly HAS NO BOOBS.
 
2012-11-15 10:55:16 AM
Guess Im a rare one...Im a Trek and LoTR fan. However I must admit Ive never seen the newest Trek...Ive heard so many bad things I refuse to pay to see it...so when it eventually hits regular cable TV Ill check it out.

The Hobbit however may be the first movie to get to to pay theater prices in several years.
 
2012-11-15 10:58:58 AM

alienated: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

Wait, your serious ? Let me laugh harder jpeg


Yes, I was clearly being serious.
 
2012-11-15 11:06:53 AM

Sultan Of Herf: Guess Im a rare one...Im a Trek and LoTR fan. However I must admit Ive never seen the newest Trek...Ive heard so many bad things I refuse to pay to see it...so when it eventually hits regular cable TV Ill check it out.

The Hobbit however may be the first movie to get to to pay theater prices in several years.


what bad things? bullshiat on fark? the fact that it is the highest rated Trek film ever and made the most money of any Trek film never made you think "oh, I like Trek, maybe i should see this film" or do you just listen to bullcrap on fark?

Because Trek 09 was freaking awesome.

/lifelong Trek fan, the new film was great and really made most of the older films look like crap (except for Wrath of Khan).
 
2012-11-15 11:13:26 AM
As a person that doesn't care to pay extra for IMAX nor wants to see the next Star Trek, I'm not heartbroken over missing the preview.

/yes, the butthurt does still sting.
 
2012-11-15 11:16:02 AM

peterthx: StoPPeRmobile: In real life, you can focus on different areas and see better.

You can't do that with a 2D film either so not sure what you're getting at....


I think I get what he's saying. Actually, I get headaches and eye strain when trying to watch movies in 3-D. The problem is that you are looking at a 3-D scene, but EVERYTHING is in focus. Maybe other people are fine, but my brain can't make heads or tails of it. If it's a scene with short depth (inside a room or something), I don't have much of an issue... But if it's an outdoor scene with some serious depth, I get horrible eye strain.

The worst was when I watched a preview for some dance movie. Everyone was dancing in the street and the camera panned back to a long shot with people dancing for blocks down the road. I instantly got a major headache. I'm seeing a long shot with dozens of people dancing at different depths, but they are all in focus. It's not something your brain is used to dealing with. (Part of the headache might have been from being forced to watch a preview for a stupid dancing movie... I can't be sure.)
 
2012-11-15 11:25:20 AM
Why do people keep referring to the the Star Trek reboot as Star Trek 9?

It wasn't #9, that was Insurrection (which I wish I could forget). The JJ reboot is the eleventh Star Trek film. Into Darkness will be the twelfth.

ST 1-6 - original cast
ST 7 - Generations with mixed cast
ST 8-10 - TNG cast
ST 11-12 - reboot cast + Nimoy
 
2012-11-15 11:55:41 AM

madgonad: Why do people keep referring to the the Star Trek reboot as Star Trek 9?

It wasn't #9, that was Insurrection (which I wish I could forget). The JJ reboot is the eleventh Star Trek film. Into Darkness will be the twelfth.

ST 1-6 - original cast
ST 7 - Generations with mixed cast
ST 8-10 - TNG cast
ST 11-12 - reboot cast + Nimoy


they call it Trek '09. Because it is the Trek film that came out in 2009.
 
2012-11-15 12:22:47 PM
I'm completely ambivalent about a new Star Trek movie - Karl Urban was good, Simon Pegg is always entertaining, everything else was pretty meh.

I am, however, farking excited about getting to see more Middle Earth movies. JUST TAKE MY MONEY!

Convincing the girlfriend to go to the IMAX in the next town over may be difficult. I'm considering just organizing a trip with my D&D group, it would be easier. She laughed at me when I got all happy when we saw Wreck-It Ralph and the trailer for the Hobbit played - I hadn't seen the trailer on the big screen yet.
 
2012-11-15 12:29:21 PM

Alphax: RevRaven: It was more akin to Star Wars actually, structurally anyways. Which is fine...for a Star Wars movie. But as a Star Trek movie (and a reboot! A reboot of the most internally cohesive fictional universe ever written, for Christ's sake.

That's where I stared laughing out loud.


That's where I realized he was trolling.
 
2012-11-15 12:51:44 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Omis: Silly nerds, there will never be another star trek TV show. Nor any other scific show.They cost too much money to make and you don't want to sit through their commercials. You did it to yourselves.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x286]


I was gonna let that slide and point out that I'd rather watch a 'talk heads' SciFi show like Pioneer One than I would a 'dark & gritty' shlokfest that the big studios want to put out.

But when I saw you'd yanked that image from the dailyfail I just had to reply to you and complement you on a good choice for image host. Nicely done and well played.
 
2012-11-15 01:28:22 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: I am sure the Hobbit will be great for fans of the book.


Kidding, right? The flick is sure to eviscerate the book with Peter Jackson & Co.'s made-up backstory in place of the songs.
 
2012-11-15 01:29:32 PM

madgonad: Why do people keep referring to the the Star Trek reboot as Star Trek 9?


people who want to forget about nemesis and that other crappy one
 
2012-11-15 01:38:37 PM

moothemagiccow: Jim from Saint Paul: I am sure the Hobbit will be great for fans of the book.

Kidding, right? The flick is sure to eviscerate the book with Peter Jackson & Co.'s made-up backstory in place of the songs.


if I have to hear another goddamn hobbit song I might just poke knives into my ears.

fark the goddamn songs.
 
2012-11-15 01:47:37 PM

frepnog: Sultan Of Herf: Guess Im a rare one...Im a Trek and LoTR fan. However I must admit Ive never seen the newest Trek...Ive heard so many bad things I refuse to pay to see it...so when it eventually hits regular cable TV Ill check it out.

The Hobbit however may be the first movie to get to to pay theater prices in several years.

what bad things? bullshiat on fark? the fact that it is the highest rated Trek film ever and made the most money of any Trek film never made you think "oh, I like Trek, maybe i should see this film" or do you just listen to bullcrap on fark?

Because Trek 09 was freaking awesome.

/lifelong Trek fan, the new film was great and really made most of the older films look like crap (except for Wrath of Khan).


A lot of negative on here, but that doesnt sway me much...I think when it comes to movies Fark has a big touch of hipster going...hating things that are popular. Others have told me its very different from all the other Treks, which is likely a touch of good and bad. Im sure Ill see it sooner or later.
 
2012-11-15 02:36:33 PM
As if they expected the Hobbit to have a hard time selling seats...
 
2012-11-15 03:01:08 PM
Great Janitor:As a life long Trek fan, I'll admit that Star Trek 09 is not the worst Trek movie (Star Treks 1 and 5 compete for that spot), but it's not the best (2, 6 and 8 compete for that spot), but it's better than 3, 9 and 10.

No, First Contact was a horrible Star Trek movie. I would say all the Next Generation movies were bad movies. They just left behind everything that made TNG worth watching.

A review of First Contact stating why it's bad.
 
2012-11-15 03:06:32 PM

Sultan Of Herf: frepnog: Sultan Of Herf: Guess Im a rare one...Im a Trek and LoTR fan. However I must admit Ive never seen the newest Trek...Ive heard so many bad things I refuse to pay to see it...so when it eventually hits regular cable TV Ill check it out.

The Hobbit however may be the first movie to get to to pay theater prices in several years.

what bad things? bullshiat on fark? the fact that it is the highest rated Trek film ever and made the most money of any Trek film never made you think "oh, I like Trek, maybe i should see this film" or do you just listen to bullcrap on fark?

Because Trek 09 was freaking awesome.

/lifelong Trek fan, the new film was great and really made most of the older films look like crap (except for Wrath of Khan).

A lot of negative on here, but that doesnt sway me much...I think when it comes to movies Fark has a big touch of hipster going...hating things that are popular. Others have told me its very different from all the other Treks, which is likely a touch of good and bad. Im sure Ill see it sooner or later.


i don't get the "it's not trek" shiat people spout. hey look, kirk, spock and mccoy. hey look, enterprise. hey look, Leonard farking Nimoy. Most people's complaints center around lens flare (which I didn't really notice until it was pointed out), the damn way the phasers looked (the old constant laser blasts looked foolish, the star wars blaster effect looks much better) and just other nitpicking possibly that there were no long ass boring diplomacy discussions.

as a movie, it was just awesome on a stick. as a trek movie, it was the best damn trek movie ever made, only rivaled by WoK.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:59 PM

SMB2811: Great Janitor:As a life long Trek fan, I'll admit that Star Trek 09 is not the worst Trek movie (Star Treks 1 and 5 compete for that spot), but it's not the best (2, 6 and 8 compete for that spot), but it's better than 3, 9 and 10.

No, First Contact was a horrible Star Trek movie. I would say all the Next Generation movies were bad movies. They just left behind everything that made TNG worth watching.

A review of First Contact stating why it's bad.


by the time they started spending time on the unneeded black chick and ephram cochran, yep, first contact had started sucking like a drunken prom date.
 
2012-11-15 03:12:54 PM
I dunno, did there have to be so many plot holes in every single movie since Wrath of Khan? And in the new one, did the characters in the reboot have to be such utter characatures of their counterparts? It was like an SNL sketch. I'm not even going to biatch about the lens flares, even though they made it so you couldn't see WTF was going on half the time. But that's a design choice, fine. But Christ that movie had some shiatty writing. So did the TNG movies, with the possible exception of First Contact.
 
2012-11-15 03:32:11 PM

SMB2811: Great Janitor:As a life long Trek fan, I'll admit that Star Trek 09 is not the worst Trek movie (Star Treks 1 and 5 compete for that spot), but it's not the best (2, 6 and 8 compete for that spot), but it's better than 3, 9 and 10.

No, First Contact was a horrible Star Trek movie. I would say all the Next Generation movies were bad movies. They just left behind everything that made TNG worth watching.

A review of First Contact stating why it's bad.


Yeah, I already knew that was the Plinkett review before I clicked the link. And honestly, he is right. It is not a bad movie, but, Trek films tend to be rated not by themselves but as compared to other Trek films. Compare First Contact to Generations, and First Contact is the better movie. Compare it to Boondock Saints and it loses.

It also reinforces what I said above, Star Trek is better as a tv series than a movie. Star Trek in general suffers in movie form the same way just about every movie based on a tv show does. Look at The Addams Family. Good movie, better sets, better costumes, better effects, but the series is 100x better than the movies were.
 
2012-11-15 03:40:12 PM

Great Janitor: Yeah, I already knew that was the Plinkett review before I clicked the link.


Oh Christ, fark Plinkett. I'm sick of constantly hearing his shiat that everyone already said 15 years ago.
 
2012-11-15 03:43:00 PM

Vaneshi: Jim from Saint Paul: Omis: Silly nerds, there will never be another star trek TV show. Nor any other scific show.They cost too much money to make and you don't want to sit through their commercials. You did it to yourselves.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x286]

I was gonna let that slide and point out that I'd rather watch a 'talk heads' SciFi show like Pioneer One than I would a 'dark & gritty' shlokfest that the big studios want to put out.

But when I saw you'd yanked that image from the dailyfail I just had to reply to you and complement you on a good choice for image host. Nicely done and well played.


I clicked the first one on google search, it just happened to be that one, lol.

I can understand your thought process on what kind of shows you'd like to see.

There ARE a few decent sci-fi shows. You're right that there may not be another Star Trek for a long time anyway.

/am knee deep in Season 4 of Voyager
//more good stuff then people remember
///but not alot more
 
2012-11-15 03:46:07 PM

frepnog: moothemagiccow: Jim from Saint Paul: I am sure the Hobbit will be great for fans of the book.

Kidding, right? The flick is sure to eviscerate the book with Peter Jackson & Co.'s made-up backstory in place of the songs.

if I have to hear another goddamn hobbit song I might just poke knives into my ears.

fark the goddamn songs.


I never like the Lord of the Rings books. Got about halfway through 2 towers. Also had read all of the Hobbit. The Hobbit, as a book, is overrated at best.

When a buddy brings it over I'll watch it. No money from me though.
 
2012-11-15 03:53:18 PM
There are only TWO theaters in the entire Tampa Bay area showing the Hobbit in full HFR 3D. I have already purchased my tickets for opening day at one of them. This Star Trek news is a nice bonus!

In my experience - yes, Star Trek and LOTR fans are one and the same (me, for example). I do not know a fellow LOTR geek who does not also love Star Trek.

Suck it, haters.
 
2012-11-15 03:55:09 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: /am knee deep in Season 4 of Voyager
//more good stuff then people remember
///but not alot more


Seven of Nine is awesome. Not just because she's hot.
 
2012-11-15 04:19:59 PM

Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: /am knee deep in Season 4 of Voyager
//more good stuff then people remember
///but not alot more

Seven of Nine is awesome. Not just because she's hot.


We have had this conversation in multiple threads.

We still agree.

:)
 
2012-11-15 05:39:36 PM
i.imgur.com 

Never has a thread amused me so much.
 
2012-11-15 06:15:30 PM
I'm holding out for a motion picture of The Silmarillion. It doesn't have to be a motion picture though, i guess; it could just be 4 hours of staring at a still picture. That would probably knock out as many people as the book.
 
2012-11-15 08:07:57 PM
There's no colon in the title, subby. It's Star Trek Into Lensflare.
 
2012-11-17 11:02:55 AM

frepnog:
i don't get the "it's not trek" shiat people spout. hey look, kirk, spock and mccoy. hey look, enterprise. hey look, Leonard farking Nimoy. Most people's complaints center around lens flare (which I didn't really notice until it was pointed out), the damn way the phasers looked (the old constant laser blasts looked foolish, the star wars blaster effect looks much better) and just other nitpicking possibly that there were no long ass boring diplomacy discussions.

as a movie, it was just awesome on a stick. as a trek movie, it was the best damn trek movie ever made, only rivaled by WoK.


Star Trek isn't about individual characters, or ships, or actors. It's not about the technology or how things look. Star Trek is about presenting "big social issues" and "science" and keeping your brain turned on. Those are the three things that make Star Trek into Star Trek. That's what makes it different than Star Wars, for example. There's many valid arguments as to how well Star Trek did that over the last two series, possibly even the last three series (I'm a huge defender of DS9, but people do have issues with it as it's the only series not set directly on a space ship) in all aspects - the writing, the acting, the effects, etc. And the movies have been utterly shiate, trying to be both Big Blockbusters and dealing with "big social issues" and "science" and hurts like hell to try to twist your brain into the knots to follow the whats and why's.

The Star Trek 09 didn't bother with "big social issues" nor did it bother with "science". It actively encouraged you to shut your brain off and just oogle the pretty scenery. It was essentially a "Transformers"-esque movie with the a Star Trek sticker slapped on it, which made it a much better movie/blockbuster than any movie with the Star Trek label movie since Star Trek IV or II. But what keeps it from being a true Star Trek movie is that there's nothing to take from the movie beyond "Ooohh... pretty.".
 
2012-11-18 01:30:26 AM

Techhell: Star Trek isn't about individual characters, or ships, or actors. It's not about the technology or how things look. Star Trek is about presenting "big social issues" and "science" and keeping your brain turned on. Those are the three things that make Star Trek into Star Trek.


Social issues showed up now and then? Science? No. I think the term was 'technobabble'.

Keeping your brain turned on? Only so that you could laugh at the pseudoscience and the plot holes. There were big, thick 'Nitpickers Guides' published for a good reason, and I saw some problems that those books missed.
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report