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.

(Star Trek)   The first trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness is here. Plenty of awesome for you to love and lens flare for you to hate   (startrek.com) divider line 359
    More: Spiffy, lens flares  
•       •       •

6463 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Dec 2012 at 9:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-06 06:09:56 AM
It does look pretty cool.
 
2012-12-06 07:00:34 AM
This is where I SQUEEEE! and giggle like a school girl. I so can't wait.
 
2012-12-06 08:24:31 AM
img243.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-06 08:56:36 AM
So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

www.joblo.com
subspacecomms.com
 
2012-12-06 09:03:04 AM
www.giantfreakinrobot.com
This photo is begging for a photoshop contest.
 
2012-12-06 09:06:40 AM
Between being Sauron, Smaug, Khaaaaaan and Holmes Benedict Cumberbatch has been a busy bee the past few years.
 
2012-12-06 09:07:32 AM
I just viewed it about 15 minutes ago, before this link appeared on Fark.

Damnit, they REALLY don't want to give this guy a name yet.
 
2012-12-06 09:09:58 AM
Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?
 
2012-12-06 09:10:55 AM
it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...
 
2012-12-06 09:11:33 AM

Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?


Out of curiosity, why WOULDN'T the Enterprise be watertight?
 
2012-12-06 09:12:36 AM

FeedTheCollapse: but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all


Same here. Looks awesome, but not sure if trek.

/Not that I particularly care, never been a big trekkie.
 
2012-12-06 09:14:17 AM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Out of curiosity, why WOULDN'T the Enterprise be watertight?


Well, there's a big difference between keeping air in while in vacuum, and keeping water out. I'm also sure there some electronic components that do fine in a vacuum, that would suffer greatly from salt water exposure.
 
2012-12-06 09:15:06 AM
If the Enterprise is AIRtight it had better be watertight.

Looks cool I'll be there
 
2012-12-06 09:16:01 AM
Shut up, take my money, blah blah blah.

And the voiceover by Cumberbatch only seals the deal.
 
2012-12-06 09:17:53 AM

Alphax: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Out of curiosity, why WOULDN'T the Enterprise be watertight?

Well, there's a big difference between keeping air in while in vacuum, and keeping water out. I'm also sure there some electronic components that do fine in a vacuum, that would suffer greatly from salt water exposure.


We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.
 
2012-12-06 09:18:49 AM
Geez subby, at least link to the HD trailer. 360p is for entertaining mutants and farm animals.
 
2012-12-06 09:20:58 AM
Anyone else think that the enterprise dragging its saucer along the water reminded you of that damn pizza cutter.
 
2012-12-06 09:21:14 AM

Carth: Alphax: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Out of curiosity, why WOULDN'T the Enterprise be watertight?

Well, there's a big difference between keeping air in while in vacuum, and keeping water out. I'm also sure there some electronic components that do fine in a vacuum, that would suffer greatly from salt water exposure.

We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.


Well, we've never seen the Enterprise go lower than the upper atmosphere before. (couple times in the original series)
 
2012-12-06 09:21:17 AM
 
2012-12-06 09:22:30 AM

Teufelaffe: Geez subby, at least link to the HD trailer. 360p is for entertaining mutants and farm animals.


*fist shake*
 
2012-12-06 09:23:08 AM

RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.


My thoughts too. It could be incidental and it is Khan, but that's a pretty big hint that Gary Mitchell has come back to me.
 
2012-12-06 09:23:45 AM

Alphax: Damnit, they REALLY don't want to give this guy a name yet.


RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.


I think that's your answer. It's Gary Mitchell. Or at least a take on that story.

As for the trailer, it was ACTION!!! Didn't give me a Star Trek vibe at all. Just generic ACTION!!! sequences to make sure you know it promises ACTION!!!
 
2012-12-06 09:24:22 AM

FeedTheCollapse: it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...


That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.
 
2012-12-06 09:25:01 AM
I think it's gary mitchell, and that he was part of starfleet and got buggered to the point of having to leave him behind and 'HE'S BACK EVEN THO YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF ME'.

Only other option I can think of, he's Khan, only woken by THIS star trek crew, and comes to terms with it and becomes a valuable member of starfleet until he remembers he's superawesome and now wants to blow up the federation to put his own empire back in place.
 
2012-12-06 09:25:10 AM

Alphax: Well, we've never seen the Enterprise go lower than the upper atmosphere before. (couple times in the original series)


www.wired.com
Are you forgetting that the Enterprise was built in Iowa in the 2009 movie?
 
2012-12-06 09:25:49 AM
I hope there's even more lens flare than last time. I love it.
 
2012-12-06 09:27:24 AM

RexTalionis: Alphax: Well, we've never seen the Enterprise go lower than the upper atmosphere before. (couple times in the original series)

[www.wired.com image 630x268]
Are you forgetting that the Enterprise was built in Iowa in the 2009 movie?


Don't see a name on that ship.. granted, most of the other ships that got trashed over Vulcan were shaped differently. Probably is it.
 
2012-12-06 09:28:45 AM
Ben Finney went and got himself all juiced up.
 
2012-12-06 09:30:10 AM

Even With A Chainsaw: FeedTheCollapse: it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...

That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.


Hush. Star Trek was more entertaining than ANY of the franchise I've seen in the last 10 years.

//except Jeri Ryan's catsuit.
 
2012-12-06 09:32:46 AM

Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.


Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.
 
2012-12-06 09:33:42 AM

swahnhennessy: Alphax: Damnit, they REALLY don't want to give this guy a name yet.

RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

I think that's your answer. It's Gary Mitchell. Or at least a take on that story.

As for the trailer, it was ACTION!!! Didn't give me a Star Trek vibe at all. Just generic ACTION!!! sequences to make sure you know it promises ACTION!!!


Where Nobody Has Gone Before could still have happened between the movies.
 
2012-12-06 09:34:12 AM

Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?


Water tight?

4.bp.blogspot.com
Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one (in reference to how much atm of pressure it can withstand).
 
2012-12-06 09:34:46 AM
As far as the ship in the water is concerned, who says it's the Enterprise, it could be another ship of the same class.
 
2012-12-06 09:35:25 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.


Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.
 
2012-12-06 09:36:23 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.


Yea, you laugh now but when you get caught in a space hurricane you'll be happy they spent the money.
 
2012-12-06 09:37:16 AM

Lexx: Even With A Chainsaw: FeedTheCollapse: it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...

That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.

Hush. Star Trek was more entertaining than ANY of the franchise I've seen in the last 10 years.

//except Jeri Ryan's catsuit.


I assumed Even With A Chainsaw is referring to the most recent trailer. Star Trek '09 was definitely a Trek movie, but the new teaser looks more like a completely unrelated Sci-Fi/Action movie; not a bad one mind you, but one that's completely different. Maybe that's the point and that they're trying to differentiate this series from being more than just a reboot of TOS, but more likely I think a full trailer will probably indicate otherwise.
 
2012-12-06 09:38:19 AM

RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

[www.joblo.com image 656x269]
[subspacecomms.com image 618x464]


I have a very base knowledge of the original series, unlike my mom who watched the new movie and was naming characters and saying things like "well THAT didnt happen" when spocks mom died. But even I remember the moody hot Dehner episode, and I find it exciting that she is back, didnt she die in the original episode? Love that the new timeline gives new stuff for old characters who never had a chance.
 
2012-12-06 09:38:31 AM

GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.


Well, it did crash land into the bay. That could've caused some rupturing of the hull or something.
 
2012-12-06 09:39:38 AM

GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.


Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?
 
2012-12-06 09:40:09 AM

PsyLord: Well, it did crash land into the bay. That could've caused some rupturing of the hull or something.


The whales had to get out somehow.
 
2012-12-06 09:41:44 AM

RexTalionis: Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?


How YOU doin'?
 
2012-12-06 09:41:46 AM

swahnhennessy: PsyLord: Well, it did crash land into the bay. That could've caused some rupturing of the hull or something.

The whales had to get out somehow.


They were taking on water before Kirk pulled the manual release switch to open the holding tank and release the whales.
 
2012-12-06 09:42:17 AM
forcefields solve everything if it needs to go underwater.
 
2012-12-06 09:42:29 AM

FeedTheCollapse: Lexx: Even With A Chainsaw: FeedTheCollapse: it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...

That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.

Hush. Star Trek was more entertaining than ANY of the franchise I've seen in the last 10 years.

//except Jeri Ryan's catsuit.

I assumed Even With A Chainsaw is referring to the most recent trailer. Star Trek '09 was definitely a Trek movie, but the new teaser looks more like a completely unrelated Sci-Fi/Action movie; not a bad one mind you, but one that's completely different. Maybe that's the point and that they're trying to differentiate this series from being more than just a reboot of TOS, but more likely I think a full trailer will probably indicate otherwise.


You have to admit 09 star trek had very obvious issues. The coincidental meeting with spock and that pointless momster chase for starters.
 
2012-12-06 09:44:01 AM

RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?


It's power systems were working when it was there, whereas the BOP wasn't due to the probe.
 
2012-12-06 09:44:37 AM
Hmmm, that's weird. It seems that my pants have gotten rather moist around the groin area.

Oh and ILM deserve every penny for the splendid visuals they create.
 
2012-12-06 09:44:38 AM
I am VERY psyched to see this... and would be happy to have the bad guy be Gary Mitchell.

Agreed that the trailer isn't terribly Star Trek though. In fact, the music reminds me of the trailer for Prometheus.
 
2012-12-06 09:44:43 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.


Not to let my nerd flag fly but you can't go faster than Warp 10 or you turn into a salamander and have to bang the captain.
 
2012-12-06 09:45:49 AM

RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?


But voyager took place a hundred and fifty years later! obviously they would have those kind of kinks ironed out by that length of time, but NOT in the future!

/this is how everyone sounds when nitpicking this issue.
//suspend your disbelief and enjoy the flares
 
2012-12-06 09:46:15 AM

Boudyro: Not to let my nerd flag fly


Oh come on, let it fly! Let it fly!
 
2012-12-06 09:46:23 AM

Boudyro: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Not to let my nerd flag fly but you can't go faster than Warp 10 or you turn into a salamander and have to bang the captain.


Didn't they go faster than warp 10 in the final episode of TNG when Picard went to the future?
 
2012-12-06 09:47:21 AM

Lydia_C: I am VERY psyched to see this... and would be happy to have the bad guy be Gary Mitchell.

Agreed that the trailer isn't terribly Star Trek though. In fact, the music reminds me of the trailer for Prometheus.


.....which has the original grandaddy of blaring trumpets to thank, Inception. Any try hard too deep for you action movie that wants to be epic does that blaring sound now.
 
2012-12-06 09:48:29 AM

Jaws_Victim: FeedTheCollapse: Lexx: Even With A Chainsaw: FeedTheCollapse: it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...

That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.

Hush. Star Trek was more entertaining than ANY of the franchise I've seen in the last 10 years.

//except Jeri Ryan's catsuit.

I assumed Even With A Chainsaw is referring to the most recent trailer. Star Trek '09 was definitely a Trek movie, but the new teaser looks more like a completely unrelated Sci-Fi/Action movie; not a bad one mind you, but one that's completely different. Maybe that's the point and that they're trying to differentiate this series from being more than just a reboot of TOS, but more likely I think a full trailer will probably indicate otherwise.

You have to admit 09 star trek had very obvious issues. The coincidental meeting with spock and that pointless momster chase for starters.


It's STAR TREK, for chrissakes. My biggest issues were with the *terrible* abuse of black hole physics, but that's neither here nor there. Yeah, I'll admit they should've added maybe 3-5 minutes worth of material explaining A: wtf Nero had been up to for the what, 20+ years that he was kicking around in the past?
 
2012-12-06 09:50:20 AM
Aside from Ensign Blondie, I didn't really see anything interesting in that trailer.
 
2012-12-06 09:51:09 AM

RexTalionis: [www.giantfreakinrobot.com image 578x246]
This photo is begging for a photoshop contest.


Open wide, Kirk's coming!
 
2012-12-06 09:51:15 AM

Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?


One might assume so since the vacuum of space would suck all the air out of it if it wasn't.
 
2012-12-06 09:51:22 AM

Lexx: Jaws_Victim: FeedTheCollapse: Lexx: Even With A Chainsaw: FeedTheCollapse: it looks nice... but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all. Maybe that's the point or maybe another preview will give me a different impression...

That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.

Hush. Star Trek was more entertaining than ANY of the franchise I've seen in the last 10 years.

//except Jeri Ryan's catsuit.

I assumed Even With A Chainsaw is referring to the most recent trailer. Star Trek '09 was definitely a Trek movie, but the new teaser looks more like a completely unrelated Sci-Fi/Action movie; not a bad one mind you, but one that's completely different. Maybe that's the point and that they're trying to differentiate this series from being more than just a reboot of TOS, but more likely I think a full trailer will probably indicate otherwise.

You have to admit 09 star trek had very obvious issues. The coincidental meeting with spock and that pointless momster chase for starters.

It's STAR TREK, for chrissakes. My biggest issues were with the *terrible* abuse of black hole physics, but that's neither here nor there. Yeah, I'll admit they should've added maybe 3-5 minutes worth of material explaining A: wtf Nero had been up to for the what, 20+ years that he was kicking around in the past?


He was farking orion slave girls, obviously. But yeah, i did enjoy it. I want to see some tng characters eventually too.
 
2012-12-06 09:51:28 AM
Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?
 
2012-12-06 09:52:22 AM

Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?


Yea, those movies did horrible.
 
2012-12-06 09:52:34 AM

PsyLord: They were taking on water before Kirk pulled the manual release switch to open the holding tank and release the whales.


That's right.
 
2012-12-06 09:54:35 AM

Boudyro: Not to let my nerd flag fly but you can't go faster than Warp 10 or you turn into a salamander and have to bang the captain


Nerd Power Up!!!!

In the original series they could travel faster than warp 9 with 13 being the max of the original NC-1701-A. In the next generation they re-indexed warp speed making 10 the fastest.
 
2012-12-06 09:55:02 AM

Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.


This. Thinking mans trek is for the tv series. Movies are for blowing shiat up. See: plinkards summary of differences between tv jean luc picard and movies picard.
 
2012-12-06 09:55:29 AM

Carth: Boudyro: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Not to let my nerd flag fly but you can't go faster than Warp 10 or you turn into a salamander and have to bang the captain.

Didn't they go faster than warp 10 in the final episode of TNG when Picard went to the future?


They went something like warp 100000 in the 4th or 5th episode of the 1st season of TNG with Wesley and his weird alien buddy moved the ship with Happy Thoughts.
 
2012-12-06 09:55:59 AM
If the trend of recycling TOS storylines for the new movies continue, I predict that Star Trek XIII will feature the Yangs and the Kohms.
1.bp.blogspot.com

/E plebnista...
 
2012-12-06 09:56:13 AM
I think I'll pass. The '09 was not bad, not regretful that I saw it, but have never looked at it since. If I catch the new one for super-cheap maybe.
 
2012-12-06 09:56:41 AM

Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?


As history would show you can't have exploration without there being some form of combat resulting from it.

Especially with Star Trek seeing as how the Federation are practically communists while everyone else in the galaxy appears to be free market based.
 
2012-12-06 09:56:52 AM

Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.


It *is* possible to make good ones. Anyway, the best ones HAD space combat, but it wasn't what the movie was all about. One of my favorites, The Undiscovered Country, had a lot to say about xenophobia, diplomacy, forgiveness, etc, and managed to rock an awesome battle sequence all the same. And the villain's motivation was to protect the way of life of his homeworld in the face of a changing world. This whole Captain Ahab routine they keep falling back on is seriously getting old. Hell, Picard was the snarling one out for revenge in First Contact. You know, there are other things that can motivate people...
 
2012-12-06 09:56:53 AM

Joe_diGriz: HD quality, non-YouTube version here

/Seriously, 360p?


Joe diGriz? Any relation to "Slippery" Jim diGriz??
 
2012-12-06 09:56:55 AM

Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?


NERDY COMMENT: Idoubt it, since space craft are designed to keep together in the vacuum of space, the pressure of the oceanwould crush it. Thought I don't know much about reflector shields.
 
2012-12-06 09:57:09 AM
Nice trailer. But I'm getting a strong Dark Knight Rises vibe from it, which is a little disconcerting.
 
2012-12-06 09:57:20 AM

Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.


What does god need with a quality script?
 
2012-12-06 09:57:55 AM

Boudyro: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Not to let my nerd flag fly but you can't go faster than Warp 10 or you turn into a salamander and have to bang the captain.


The warp scae was recalibrated by the time of TNG. In the old days you saw Kirk going Warp 15+.
 
2012-12-06 09:58:34 AM

danny_kay: RexTalionis: Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?

How YOU doin'?


Aww yeah, I am ultra-nerdy today.
 
2012-12-06 09:59:17 AM
Shut up and take my money.
 
2012-12-06 09:59:48 AM

Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.


Yeah, they did so horrible that they made 6 (7 if you count Generations) starring the original cast, and 4 starring the TNG cast... though 3/4 of the TNG ones did suck.

What franchise has more films, except for James Bond?
 
2012-12-06 09:59:50 AM
Well, I am all jazzed up about it. I liked the Abrams Star Trek, lens flare and all.


/Still waiting on a good TNG movie.
 
2012-12-06 10:00:36 AM

Samwise Gamgee: What franchise has more films, except for James Bond?


Ernest go to Rura Penthe?
 
2012-12-06 10:04:12 AM
I'm sure I heard a while back that Carol Marcus was going to be introduced as a love interest for Kirk...

The hot blonde girl in the trailer would seem like a good fit for that role.

/just saying
 
2012-12-06 10:05:30 AM
i284.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 10:07:30 AM
trekweb.com

Incidentally, IDW Comics have started a comic book series of Star Trek where they adapt all the episodes of The Original Series, but drawn with the new cast:

trekweb.com

Funnily enough, the first issue was about Gary Mitchell:
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-06 10:07:57 AM

Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?


More like a frog's ass.
 
2012-12-06 10:08:33 AM
In other news, the 2009 Star Trek is no longer available on Netflix streaming. I am really beginning to hate the entertainment industry and the idiotic licencing games they play.
 
2012-12-06 10:09:08 AM

Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?


Wouldn't shields make it watertight?
 
2012-12-06 10:09:28 AM

Samwise Gamgee: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah, they did so horrible that they made 6 (7 if you count Generations) starring the original cast, and 4 starring the TNG cast... though 3/4 of the TNG ones did suck.

What franchise has more films, except for James Bond?


Friday the 13th had 10 films. 11 if you count Freddy Vs. Jason, and 12 if you count the remake.
 
2012-12-06 10:09:56 AM

RexTalionis: Funnily enough, the first issue was about Gary Mitchell:


Er, second issue.
 
2012-12-06 10:10:49 AM

DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?


If so, it would never sink. The amount of air contained within the shield area would make the ship float.
 
2012-12-06 10:11:48 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?

If so, it would never sink. The amount of air contained within the shield area would make the ship float.


There's no air in the shield area in the new ST. In the 2009 film there's no 'bubble', I think.
 
2012-12-06 10:12:01 AM
This could very well be a good movie, but watching the Enterprise emerge from water caused the theme song from STAR BLAZERS to start playing in my head. Now, I'm quitely hoping that this film will have a poorly dubbed English language track and that the Enterprise's sensor dish will be replaced with a wave-motion gun.
 
2012-12-06 10:12:54 AM
WHAT IS ALL THIS EXPLOSIONS AND SHOOTINGS AND PUNCHES AND JUMPS?! Where is the cerebral, thought provoking exploration and diplomacy stories from the Star Trek we know and love... I mean, in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", they... uh... no one punc- um... no one fired a ph.... errr...

YAY! STAR TREK IS BACK!!!
 
2012-12-06 10:13:08 AM
Go watch the Japanese version of the trailer for this little snippet at the end. Picture link, possible spoiler...  

/think they're just farking with us
 
2012-12-06 10:13:19 AM

DamnYankees: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?

If so, it would never sink. The amount of air contained within the shield area would make the ship float.

There's no air in the shield area in the new ST. In the 2009 film there's no 'bubble', I think.


They also seemed to have little effect on Romulan missiles.
 
2012-12-06 10:14:04 AM

PsyLord:
Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one (in reference to how much atm of pressure it can withstand).


Came for the Professor, leaving satisfied.
 
2012-12-06 10:17:00 AM

DamnYankees: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?

If so, it would never sink. The amount of air contained within the shield area would make the ship float.

There's no air in the shield area in the new ST. In the 2009 film there's no 'bubble', I think.


I was working on the premise that if a shield could make the ship airtight it would also make it buoyant. or are you saying that the shield is basically right at the skin of the ship. I always thought they looked like:

www.stardestroyer.net

Which would explain

www.stardestroyer.net 

/this thread went nerd factor brazillion quick
 
2012-12-06 10:18:30 AM
I....think I'm waiting for cable on this one.
 
2012-12-06 10:18:38 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: I was working on the premise that if a shield could make the ship airtight it would also make it buoyant. or are you saying that the shield is basically right at the skin of the ship. I always thought they looked like:


In the new ST it looked like a skin, correct. I don't recall ever seeing a bubble.
 
2012-12-06 10:21:49 AM

DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?


Wouldn't the farking hull make it watertight? The ship travels through the vacuum of space and has an internal atmosphere? Why wouldn't it also be watertight?
 
2012-12-06 10:21:55 AM
They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh
 
2012-12-06 10:23:40 AM

Mugato: Wouldn't the farking hull make it watertight? The ship travels through the vacuum of space and has an internal atmosphere? Why wouldn't it also be watertight?


Your point. It's good.

Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh


Correct, it's not. He's playing Gary Mitchell. I thought that was well known.
 
2012-12-06 10:25:07 AM

GAT_00: Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.


You can be water tight and still sink. It's all about buoyancy. I doubt a Bird of Prey displaces its own weight. I'm sure the same can be said of The Enterprise.

/I can't believe I'm getting into this discussion.
 
2012-12-06 10:29:04 AM

Mugato: DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?

Wouldn't the farking hull make it watertight? The ship travels through the vacuum of space and has an internal atmosphere? Why wouldn't it also be watertight?


The pressure would be in the opposite direction under water, or in the lower atmosphere.
 
2012-12-06 10:30:13 AM

Mugato: DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?

Wouldn't the farking hull make it watertight? The ship travels through the vacuum of space and has an internal atmosphere? Why wouldn't it also be watertight?


The exterior hull might not be air tight and only house an internal pressure vessel. Systems that do not require an atmosphere like electronics etc do not need to be inside the pressure vessel and waste air.
 
2012-12-06 10:31:45 AM
The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.
 
2012-12-06 10:33:20 AM
Not impressed.
It looks like every other action flick of the last few years. Nothing Trek about it, at least from this trailer.
 
2012-12-06 10:33:45 AM

DamnYankees: Mugato: Wouldn't the farking hull make it watertight? The ship travels through the vacuum of space and has an internal atmosphere? Why wouldn't it also be watertight?

Your point. It's good.

Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh

Correct, it's not. He's playing Gary Mitchell. I thought that was well known.


So what's he want revenge for? Being given Q like powers? Or does he flip out when they turn on him like in the original...
Mitchel was originally a classmate and old friend of Kirk, maybe he wants revenge for having to actually work his way up through the ranks.
 
2012-12-06 10:35:20 AM

Mentat: Aside from Ensign Blondie, I didn't really see anything interesting in that trailer.


seriously what is this movie even about
 
2012-12-06 10:37:36 AM

Lydia_C: Agreed that the trailer isn't terribly Star Trek though.


Right, other than the ship.
 
2012-12-06 10:37:41 AM

Alphax: The pressure would be in the opposite direction under water, or in the lower atmosphere.


What difference would that make though? I can't believe they wouldn't design the ship with materials that couldn't handle going under water. If it's an issue of pressure, I don't think the Enterprise sinks into the Mariana Trench.

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: The exterior hull might not be air tight and only house an internal pressure vessel. Systems that do not require an atmosphere like electronics etc do not need to be inside the pressure vessel and waste air.


Starships go into nebulae and other gaseous forms. There's no way they would design a starship that wouldn't be airtight. Completely airtight. Like Lindsey Lohan on a Saturday night. Thank you!
 
2012-12-06 10:40:43 AM
1. Since the end scene is the silhouette of a ship that at least LOOKS like Enterprise crashing, logic suggests that the Enterprise-like vessel leaving the water could easily be being towed out by a tractor beam of some kind.

2. Star Trek 2 has as many plot holes as ST '09. Just less lens flare. (I love both)

3.

Samwise Gamgee: Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?


Why would I watch a 2 hour movie about exploration? A TV series? Sure. I am knee deep in a complete rewatch of the whole of all ST TV series on Netflix (halfway thru Season 6 of Voyager ATM). It makes sense to have interstellar diplomacy and exploration over long period of time. For a 2 hour experience? I disagree. ALL the 2 part episodes of all these series has been action ones as well FYI. Yes, 6 was a good example of how you can try and twine both of them. 5 and Insurrection are examples of how BADLY it can be done however.
 
2012-12-06 10:44:58 AM

Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh


And the Dark Knight Rises folks repeatedly said that Talia Al Ghul was not in the movie. And the Lost folks repeatedly said that the survivors weren't dead and in purgatory. And oh look, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are involved in both involved in Lost and Star Trek! Trust nothing until the movie comes out.
 
2012-12-06 10:45:43 AM

Mentat: Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh

And the Dark Knight Rises folks repeatedly said that Talia Al Ghul was not in the movie. And the Lost folks repeatedly said that the survivors weren't dead and in purgatory. And oh look, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are involved in both involved in Lost and Star Trek! Trust nothing until the movie comes out.


Oh god, another person who didn't understand the end of Lost.
 
2012-12-06 10:47:01 AM
I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

/still looked cool though
//are they destroying the entire Federation in two movies though?
 
2012-12-06 10:48:24 AM

Jim from Saint Paul: 2. Star Trek 2 has as many plot holes as ST '09. Just less lens flare. (I love both)


I really doubt that. I don't know if Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek but I'm sure it doesn't have as many lazily written coincidences. And Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek.

But in any case, the one thing they're not doing is remaking previous films. So just because there's a hand on glass giving the Vulcan salute doesn't mean they're remaking Wrath of Khan. Besides which, if Spock 2.0 dies, he's farked since Vulcan is gone and they can't bring him back to life. So they wouldn't do that.

Why does it have to be a villain that we already know? Is that an official statement?
 
2012-12-06 10:50:41 AM

Mugato: Starships go into nebulae and other gaseous forms. There's no way they would design a starship that wouldn't be airtight. Completely airtight. Like Lindsey Lohan on a Saturday night. Thank you!


Outside of emergency situations like Wrath of Khan do you ever actually see a starship intentionally enter a nebula?
 
2012-12-06 10:51:31 AM

RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

In the event of a water landing, I have been designed to serve as a floatation device

//Nerd Factor 9, Mr Sulu
 
2012-12-06 10:52:06 AM

Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.


They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.
 
2012-12-06 10:53:59 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Mugato: Starships go into nebulae and other gaseous forms. There's no way they would design a starship that wouldn't be airtight. Completely airtight. Like Lindsey Lohan on a Saturday night. Thank you!

Outside of emergency situations like Wrath of Khan do you ever actually see a starship intentionally enter a nebula?


Yeah, a shiatload of times in the various series but the point is, wouldn't they design a ship to have the ability to do that?
 
2012-12-06 10:54:59 AM

DamnYankees: Mentat: Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh

And the Dark Knight Rises folks repeatedly said that Talia Al Ghul was not in the movie. And the Lost folks repeatedly said that the survivors weren't dead and in purgatory. And oh look, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are involved in both involved in Lost and Star Trek! Trust nothing until the movie comes out.

Oh god, another person who didn't understand the end of Lost.


THIS.

Season 6 scenes not on the island were long after they were all dead.

What happened on the Island happened. They were all meeting in "the afterlife" in the scenes not involving something happening on the island.

How farking hard can this be people?
 
2012-12-06 10:57:26 AM
Uh... why are people going to such extreme lengths to determine whether or not a Star Trek ship could survive submersion? Maybe it can't dive to the bottom of the ocean, but they could certainly survive submersion.

Remember, Star Trek ships aren't like:

2.bp.blogspot.com

They can survive meteorite impacts, extreme space weather and antimatter weapons exploding against their skin. I'm sure they can handle the same submersive rigors as a $75 Swatch.
 
2012-12-06 10:58:14 AM

tinderfitles: Anyone else think that the enterprise dragging its saucer along the water reminded you of that damn pizza cutter.


a.tgcdn.net
 
2012-12-06 10:59:59 AM

PIP_the_TROLL: They can survive meteorite impacts,


No, they can't, if only for the reason that meteorites are space rocks that have already passed through the Earth's atmosphere and impacted the planet. There'd be no reason for there to be a meteorite in space.
 
2012-12-06 11:00:42 AM
Earth Trek!
 
2012-12-06 11:03:04 AM
Jesus you guys are nerdy.   I love it.
 
2012-12-06 11:03:58 AM
In the future, everything will be bathed in orange and teal.
 
2012-12-06 11:04:35 AM
/ hangs head in shame

I forgot about the recalibration they did to warp speed . . . As penance I will now go re-read the TNG teach manual, and recite Sisko's closing monologue from "In the Pale Moonlight" 5 times.
 
2012-12-06 11:04:50 AM

Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: 2. Star Trek 2 has as many plot holes as ST '09. Just less lens flare. (I love both)

I really doubt that. I don't know if Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek but I'm sure it doesn't have as many lazily written coincidences. And Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek.

But in any case, the one thing they're not doing is remaking previous films. So just because there's a hand on glass giving the Vulcan salute doesn't mean they're remaking Wrath of Khan. Besides which, if Spock 2.0 dies, he's farked since Vulcan is gone and they can't bring him back to life. So they wouldn't do that.

Why does it have to be a villain that we already know? Is that an official statement?


Kahn Plot holes (a few for now, have to go to work here for a bit):

1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?
 
2012-12-06 11:05:32 AM

RexTalionis: PIP_the_TROLL: They can survive meteorite impacts,

No, they can't, if only for the reason that meteorites are space rocks that have already passed through the Earth's atmosphere and impacted the planet. There'd be no reason for there to be a meteorite in space.


My apologies, I meant meteoroid.
 
2012-12-06 11:05:48 AM

Jim from Saint Paul: DamnYankees: Mentat: Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh

And the Dark Knight Rises folks repeatedly said that Talia Al Ghul was not in the movie. And the Lost folks repeatedly said that the survivors weren't dead and in purgatory. And oh look, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are involved in both involved in Lost and Star Trek! Trust nothing until the movie comes out.

Oh god, another person who didn't understand the end of Lost.

THIS.

Season 6 scenes not on the island were long after they were all dead.

What happened on the Island happened. They were all meeting in "the afterlife" in the scenes not involving something happening on the island.

How farking hard can this be people?



Just admit they had no idea they'd make it to Season 6 and made something up.
 
2012-12-06 11:07:25 AM
Never thought of it being Gary Mitchell. That would be cool and it fits the description of "The one man doomsday device" or what ever. really psyched now.
 
2012-12-06 11:08:53 AM
Dammit Sherlock, Moriarty didn't best you that badly. There's no reason to loose your head and blow everything up! Honestly, what would Watson say? Why don't you have a seat right over here and have a cup of tea while you think about what you've done. We've already called your brother and he's quite disappointed in you.

/that thought went through my head the entire trailer
//it will most likely go through my head the entire movie as well
/yes, I'll be the chick giggling in the bad row
 
2012-12-06 11:09:16 AM
When I read that you could see the first 9 minutes of this movie just by going to see the Hobbit I had a little nerdgazm. Excuse me while I get a towel.
 
2012-12-06 11:09:24 AM

JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.


They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(
 
2012-12-06 11:11:23 AM
Well, I think it looks pretty awesome and I will definitely go see it on the big screen. Even if it's a C- movie I will likely enjoy the hell out of it.
 
2012-12-06 11:11:30 AM

Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.


And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.
 
2012-12-06 11:14:47 AM

Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(


Spock always dies in the second movie.
 
2012-12-06 11:16:55 AM

Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.



The Enterprise has 3 forms of propulsion (4 if you count blowing up the warp core).  Impulse (nukes), Warp (something weird and stuff) and thrusters...think fire extinguishers.  How they hell did they get it off the Iowa cornfields without annhialiating the entire state?
 
That's worse than a 10 year old stealing a corvette and wrecking it in the Iowa Grand Canyon.
 
2012-12-06 11:17:04 AM
Jim from Saint Paul: 1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

I'll grant this as a minor plot hole because they didn't know what happened to the system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

I don't know anything about the EU books but Chekov was never on the bridge when Khan was there. Khan was also never on the bridge. Khan was given access to everything about the Enterprise. Normally you serve on a ship for a while before you become part of the bridge crew. There's no reason why Khan wouldn't have remembered Chekov based on either meeting him or seeing his Starfleet profile. This is a super genius afterall. Not a plothole.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

How is Khan not having any battle experience a plot hole? 

I'm sorry but these are pretty weak compared to to the plot holes in Trek '09.
 
2012-12-06 11:18:50 AM

Nurglitch: Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(

Spock always dies in the second movie.



They can't afford to off any more vulcans.
 
2012-12-06 11:21:05 AM

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: Dammit Sherlock, Moriarty didn't best you that badly. There's no reason to loose your head and blow everything up! Honestly, what would Watson say? Why don't you have a seat right over here and have a cup of tea while you think about what you've done. We've already called your brother and he's quite disappointed in you.

/that thought went through my head the entire trailer
//it will most likely go through my head the entire movie as well
/yes, I'll be the chick giggling in the bad row


That would of actually made a great Star Trek TNG Movie. Moriarty returns after being tricked again and seeks vengeance on the Enterprise E crew. Maybe give him a Wrath of Khan feel and have him take over another Star Ship or even taking over the Enterprise E.
 
2012-12-06 11:21:33 AM

Jaws_Victim: Lydia_C: I am VERY psyched to see this... and would be happy to have the bad guy be Gary Mitchell.

Agreed that the trailer isn't terribly Star Trek though. In fact, the music reminds me of the trailer for Prometheus.

.....which has the original grandaddy of blaring trumpets to thank, Inception. Any try hard too deep for you action movie that wants to be epic does that blaring sound now.


I think actually District 9 has the original source of that sound...

/the mother ship firing up at the end...
 
2012-12-06 11:22:52 AM

I_C_Weener: Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.


The Enterprise has 3 forms of propulsion (4 if you count blowing up the warp core).  Impulse (nukes), Warp (something weird and stuff) and thrusters...think fire extinguishers.  How they hell did they get it off the Iowa cornfields without annhialiating the entire state?
 
That's worse than a 10 year old stealing a corvette and wrecking it in the Iowa Grand Canyon.


They used anti-gravity sleds in both TOS and TNG i'd assume it was something similar to get it high enough it could take off safely. Or they use a tractor beam from a ship already in space.
 
2012-12-06 11:23:57 AM
WTF is this crap, not one Half Naked Green Girl made the clip?
 
2012-12-06 11:25:05 AM
looks and sounds very Dark Knight Rises(ish), not that, that is a bad thing.
 
2012-12-06 11:25:35 AM
Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?
 
2012-12-06 11:25:40 AM

Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.


The othe thing there is while they never showed it in TOS, the saucer section on the Original Enterprise could do the saucer section lifeboat thing like they did in Generations.

Voyager also had an episode where they took the delta flyer deep underwater. They did talk about modding it a bit (like they always did for any unusual mission). They also had the hull creak and pop like a submarine, and reinforced everything with the SIF as usual. It was even buoyant, as they lost engines and floated upwards. And of course the race on the water planet had ships that went either way, though they weren't able to go as deep as the flyer.
 
2012-12-06 11:26:27 AM

I_C_Weener: The Enterprise has 3 forms of propulsion (4 if you count blowing up the warp core).  Impulse (nukes), Warp (something weird and stuff) and thrusters...think fire extinguishers.  How they hell did they get it off the Iowa cornfields without annhialiating the entire state?


Sky crane
 
2012-12-06 11:26:40 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: DamnYankees: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: DamnYankees: Alphax: Also, is the Enterprise now watertight, like the Phoenix in Battle of the Planets?

Wouldn't shields make it watertight?

If so, it would never sink. The amount of air contained within the shield area would make the ship float.

There's no air in the shield area in the new ST. In the 2009 film there's no 'bubble', I think.

I was working on the premise that if a shield could make the ship airtight it would also make it buoyant. or are you saying that the shield is basically right at the skin of the ship. I always thought they looked like:

[www.stardestroyer.net image 511x363]

Which would explain

[www.stardestroyer.net image 850x364] 

/this thread went nerd factor brazillion quick


The shields are air-tight. Just one of many examples:

tng.trekcore.com
 
2012-12-06 11:27:38 AM

I_C_Weener: Jim from Saint Paul: DamnYankees: Mentat: Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh

And the Dark Knight Rises folks repeatedly said that Talia Al Ghul was not in the movie. And the Lost folks repeatedly said that the survivors weren't dead and in purgatory. And oh look, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are involved in both involved in Lost and Star Trek! Trust nothing until the movie comes out.

Oh god, another person who didn't understand the end of Lost.

THIS.

Season 6 scenes not on the island were long after they were all dead.

What happened on the Island happened. They were all meeting in "the afterlife" in the scenes not involving something happening on the island.

How farking hard can this be people?


Just admit they had no idea they'd make it to Season 6 and made something up.


That may be true but they still weren't dead.
 
2012-12-06 11:27:59 AM

RexTalionis: If the trend of recycling TOS storylines for the new movies continue, I predict that Star Trek XIII will feature the Yangs and the Kohms.
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x299]

/E plebnista...


"...and to .....the....Re. public. forwhichitstands!"
 
2012-12-06 11:28:42 AM

Carth: They used anti-gravity sleds in both TOS and TNG i'd assume it was something similar to get it high enough it could take off safely. Or they use a tractor beam from a ship already in space.


One ship tractoring another ship of equal or greater mass out of Earth's atmosphere. That makes a shiatton of sense. How did Nero's temporal incursion affect the timeline to the point where the Enterprise got built in a shipyard in space to Kirk's back yard? Maybe the building materials were powered by corn.

Crappy writing and the need to have a scene where Kirk rolls up in a motorcycle and watches the Enterprise get built. No need to explain it more than that.

/these people get a lot of money to write this shiat too
 
2012-12-06 11:29:33 AM

Carth: I_C_Weener: Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.


The Enterprise has 3 forms of propulsion (4 if you count blowing up the warp core).  Impulse (nukes), Warp (something weird and stuff) and thrusters...think fire extinguishers.  How they hell did they get it off the Iowa cornfields without annhialiating the entire state?
 
That's worse than a 10 year old stealing a corvette and wrecking it in the Iowa Grand Canyon.

They used anti-gravity sleds in both TOS and TNG i'd assume it was something similar to get it high enough it could take off safely. Or they use a tractor beam from a ship already in space.



Weak.  A tractor beam maybe.  But against gravity?  And the anti-grav was used on tiny stuff like a satellite. 
 
Nope, they burned up half of the US.  Worse than all the pollution from fossile fuels.  Nice utopia you have there.
 
Or they used a space elevator.
 
2012-12-06 11:29:56 AM

You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?


I thought so too, the nacels coming out of the water looked weird too. I'm assuming it's just because we are only seeing a few frames at some funky angle.
 
2012-12-06 11:31:35 AM

Boudyro: You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?

I thought so too, the nacels coming out of the water looked weird too. I'm assuming it's just because we are only seeing a few frames at some funky angle.



Maybe its not water, but some gas giant.
 
2012-12-06 11:31:37 AM
Just admit they had no idea they'd make it to Season 6 and made something up.

That may be true but they still weren't dead.


Oh and they did know they'd make it to 6 since season three but it's probably true they had no idea where they were going to go with it.
 
2012-12-06 11:37:26 AM

Mugato: Carth: They used anti-gravity sleds in both TOS and TNG i'd assume it was something similar to get it high enough it could take off safely. Or they use a tractor beam from a ship already in space.

One ship tractoring another ship of equal or greater mass out of Earth's atmosphere. That makes a shiatton of sense. How did Nero's temporal incursion affect the timeline to the point where the Enterprise got built in a shipyard in space to Kirk's back yard? Maybe the building materials were powered by corn.

Crappy writing and the need to have a scene where Kirk rolls up in a motorcycle and watches the Enterprise get built. No need to explain it more than that.

/these people get a lot of money to write this shiat too


A show that violates our fundamental understand of physics doesn't explain how they get ships in the air and you complain? They make shiat up as they go along. They can replicate anything they want (except for dilithiu and latinum for some reason) oh and they can't replicate any living organism but they can teleport you anywhere. Hell, sometimes they can teleport you over 40,000 light years which defeats the purpose of space ships at that point. Lets, not even talk about all the things that are wrong with a functioning holodeck.

The show and movies are fun but lets not pretend they've ever been realistic or had any scientific accuracy.
 
2012-12-06 11:38:02 AM

browneye: Nice trailer. But I'm getting a strong Dark Knight Rises vibe from it, which is a little disconcerting.


"W-what are you?"

"I AM STARFLEET'S RECKONING."
 
2012-12-06 11:41:44 AM

Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.

Enterprise

was built at the Utopia Planitia Orbital Facility near Mars. Period. The End.

I don't care what these new whippersnapper movies have to say about it. *adjusts onion-shaped phaser*
 
2012-12-06 11:41:46 AM
Woah. A month of TF. I don't know what I did to deserve it. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
 
2012-12-06 11:42:40 AM

RexTalionis: Alphax: Well, we've never seen the Enterprise go lower than the upper atmosphere before. (couple times in the original series)

[www.wired.com image 630x268]
Are you forgetting that the Enterprise was built in Iowa in the 2009 movie?


Which is typical inconsistency for Star Trek. I mean come on...the NX-01 Enterprise, the first warp capable ship was built in space, yet here they are much farther into the future building larger and more complicated ships at a ground based facility.

Same inconsistency is the reason they have several classes of Klingon Bird of Prey...but only stats for one class. The original was the scout sized B'rel Class...a bit over 100 meters long. However, in TNG they also use them as much larger versions called the K'vort Class, a battlecruiser. However, the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha does not have any actual stats for the K'vort class.
 
2012-12-06 11:44:31 AM

Lex Sluthor: Woah. A month of TF. I don't know what I did to deserve it. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.



TF needs you.  Rise to the occasion. :)
 
2012-12-06 11:47:07 AM

Samwise Gamgee: Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?


That's what happens between the films. I mean, they've got to be doing something, right? But who'd watch Star Trek for, "We found... an in... teresting newplanet, but the ex. Ploration. Wasuneventful." How about, "Stahfleet Commahnd repauted the discovery of a possibly dangerous anomaly in the Mootahra Sec Tore, but another fully-equipped and trained ship ahnd crew hahndled it just fine."
 
2012-12-06 11:47:11 AM

give me doughnuts: Enterprise was built at the Utopia Planitia Orbital Facility near Mars. Period. The End.


The Utopia Planitia Fleet Yard did not construct the NCC-1701. The NCC-1701 was constructed at the San Francisco Shipyards orbiting Earth.
 
2012-12-06 11:48:27 AM

Teufelaffe: Geez subby, at least link to the HD trailer. 360p is for entertaining mutants and farm animals.


And porn clips.
 
2012-12-06 11:50:07 AM

I_C_Weener: Lex Sluthor: Woah. A month of TF. I don't know what I did to deserve it. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.


TF needs you.  Rise to the occasion. :)


I might just do that. Cheers.
 
2012-12-06 11:51:17 AM

Carth: A show that violates our fundamental understand of physics doesn't explain how they get ships in the air and you complain? They make shiat up as they go along. They can replicate anything they want (except for dilithiu and latinum for some reason) oh and they can't replicate any living organism but they can teleport you anywhere. Hell, sometimes they can teleport you over 40,000 light years which defeats the purpose of space ships at that point. Lets, not even talk about all the things that are wrong with a functioning holodeck.

The show and movies are fun but lets not pretend they've ever been realistic or had any scientific accuracy.


It's called internal consistency. It's like saying, "Well Superman can fly so why can't Jimmy Olsen? It's just a comic book". It's the oldest "suspension of disbelief" argument in the book. Just because Star Wars has a crazy thing called The Force doesn't mean Luke can open the sunroof on his X-Wing and feel the wind in his hair in open space.

Besides which, they didn't have replicators until TNG and as far as I know, Trek '09 was the only time anyone beamed anything more than a couple thousand miles (or kilometers) away.
 
2012-12-06 11:53:31 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Teufelaffe: Geez subby, at least link to the HD trailer. 360p is for entertaining mutants and farm animals.

And porn clips tagged "vintage".


ftfy
 
2012-12-06 11:57:46 AM

Mugato: Trek '09 was the only time anyone beamed anything more than a couple thousand miles (or kilometers) away.


In the Enterprise episode Daedelus featured Emory Erickson, the inventor of the transporter, experimenting with subspace transporters, which had an unlimited range (but ultimately, a transporter accident trapped his own son in subspace).

In the TNG episode Bloodlines, Geordi and Data were able to use a modified transporter to do a subspace transport on Picard to a ship 300 billion kilometers away.
 
2012-12-06 11:58:09 AM
I watched the 'new' Star Trek (2008/2009?) movie and was all "WOW" afterwards, but after thinking about it, that movie is ... well... it's totally farking stupid. From that shiat monster bat thing that keeps Scotty company, to the really forced fighting between Kirk and Spock, who farking maroons him on an ice planet? What? Also, why is engineering a farking brewery? I mean, that looks nothing like the inside of a spaceship and everything like a brewery (where they filmed it). The enterprise did not run on beer.

This new one is all happening at earth. That's awesome. Because in a space opera, you want all the action to happen at the planet that the audience is already familiar with.
 
2012-12-06 11:58:10 AM

RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

[www.joblo.com image 656x269]
[subspacecomms.com image 618x464]


I'd've guessed Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand.
 
2012-12-06 11:58:12 AM

RexTalionis: [www.giantfreakinrobot.com image 578x246]
This photo is begging for a photoshop contest.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 11:58:29 AM

Demetrius: It does look pretty cool.


yes, GenericActionFlick#5105 looks neat.

It does not look like a Star Trek movie.
 
2012-12-06 11:59:41 AM

Carth: Between being Sauron, Smaug, Khaaaaaan and Holmes Benedict Cumberbatch has been a busy bee the past few years.


Meanwhile, Tom Hardy as Shinzon and Bane has brought down two franchises.

/And even better: He's Mad Max in the Mad Max remake.
 
2012-12-06 11:59:46 AM

Samwise Gamgee: Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?


Not really. The original series had its action episodes, its comedic episodes, it's episodes about space Nazis and tribbles and Spock's brain. I'm not a big fan of the writing in Trek '09 but I can't fault it for trying to appeal to a wider audience than fans of the V'ger movie.

TNG had a little more exploration but still the most popular episode was the Borg one where shiat blew the fark up. But a TV show can afford to do that, have a Borg episode followed by an introspective episode where Picard lives a whole different life. And the DS9 Dominion War where shiat blows the fark up.

The Trek movies that were about exploration all failed. The most popular, Wrath of Khan was about the main character's mortality. And we're a long way from giving enough of a fark about these characters to care about their mortality. I down right want most of them dead.
 
2012-12-06 12:01:14 PM

treesloth: Samwise Gamgee: Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

That's what happens between the films. I mean, they've got to be doing something, right? But who'd watch Star Trek for, "We found... an in... teresting newplanet, but the ex. Ploration. Wasuneventful." How about, "Stahfleet Commahnd repauted the discovery of a possibly dangerous anomaly in the Mootahra Sec Tore, but another fully-equipped and trained ship ahnd crew hahndled it just fine."


It doesn't have to be boring. Plenty of Star Trek episodes had excitement and character stuff without snarling villains and explosions. Most great episodes were about how conflict was avoided, not how they blew up the bad guy real good (Errand of Mercy, for instance). Then you had all the episodes about the strange stuff they'd find out their on the frontier that would make them take a hard look at themselves (The Naked Time, for instance).

Or take the movie that many fans jokingly call the best Star Trek movie ever made - Master and Commander: Far Side of the World. On its surface, it was about a game of cat and mouse against a French privateer on the high seas, but the movie was really about the humanity of the characters. And though the enemy ship had a captain, he wasn't a snarling menace - in fact, we never even saw his face (until the end, and even then there's a catch, but I won't spoil that bit for anyone who hasn't seen it).
 
2012-12-06 12:02:34 PM

RexTalionis: Mugato: Trek '09 was the only time anyone beamed anything more than a couple thousand miles (or kilometers) away.

In the Enterprise episode Daedelus featured Emory Erickson, the inventor of the transporter, experimenting with subspace transporters, which had an unlimited range (but ultimately, a transporter accident trapped his own son in subspace).

In the TNG episode Bloodlines, Geordi and Data were able to use a modified transporter to do a subspace transport on Picard to a ship 300 billion kilometers away.


Thank you, Encyclopedia StarTrekkia, doesn't really change my point.
 
2012-12-06 12:02:50 PM

You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?


The angle of the nacelle supports make the crashing ship look like the Enterprise from Enterprise, i.e. no tube-shaped section of the ship below the saucer section.

Given that the description says the villain "detonate(s) the fleet," I'm assuming most of the exterior destruction in the trailer is some kind of terrorist attack on SFHQ, and that ship we see crashing in the water is one of the other starships.
 
2012-12-06 12:06:17 PM

RexTalionis: give me doughnuts: Enterprise was built at the Utopia Planitia Orbital Facility near Mars. Period. The End.

The Utopia Planitia Fleet Yard did not construct the NCC-1701. The NCC-1701 was constructed at the San Francisco Shipyards orbiting Earth.


*FACEPALM* I saw the "-D", and it just didn't register. Vey is mir.
 
2012-12-06 12:08:40 PM

Lernaeus: Given that the description says the villain "detonate(s) the fleet," I'm assuming most of the exterior destruction in the trailer is some kind of terrorist attack on SFHQ


"Admirals, you're excused. I'm from an agency called Section 31. I'll take it from here."

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2012-12-06 12:08:50 PM

RexTalionis: [www.giantfreakinrobot.com image 578x246]
This photo is begging for a photoshop contest.


She doesn't look stressed enough for my tastes.
 
2012-12-06 12:13:16 PM

Mugato: Lernaeus: Given that the description says the villain "detonate(s) the fleet," I'm assuming most of the exterior destruction in the trailer is some kind of terrorist attack on SFHQ

"Admirals, you're excused. I'm from an agency called Section 31. I'll take it from here."

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 250x375]


The urge to fanfic is strong ... must ... resist ..
 
2012-12-06 12:13:58 PM

Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: 1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

I'll grant this as a minor plot hole because they didn't know what happened to the system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

I don't know anything about the EU books but Chekov was never on the bridge when Khan was there. Khan was also never on the bridge. Khan was given access to everything about the Enterprise. Normally you serve on a ship for a while before you become part of the bridge crew. There's no reason why Khan wouldn't have remembered Chekov based on either meeting him or seeing his Starfleet profile. This is a super genius afterall. Not a plothole.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

How is Khan not having any battle experience a plot hole? 

I'm sorry but these are pretty weak compared to to the plot holes in Trek '09.


A science vessel, from Starfleet, is unable to count or double check astrological logs from the last time someone was in the sector? I 100% disagree this is minor. That being said, I'll grant you the inexperience point.

The "knowing Chekhov" is a good. Sure, fandom has exused it away. There is nothing canonized to give the idea he was on the ship. He just shows up in season 2 with no explanation of where he came from. Even Klingon makeup has been canonized.

He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Bea.ing Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous
 
2012-12-06 12:14:32 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: DamnYankees: Mentat: Kazan: They have repeatedly said: It is absolutely not Khan Noonien Singh

And the Dark Knight Rises folks repeatedly said that Talia Al Ghul was not in the movie. And the Lost folks repeatedly said that the survivors weren't dead and in purgatory. And oh look, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are involved in both involved in Lost and Star Trek! Trust nothing until the movie comes out.

Oh god, another person who didn't understand the end of Lost.

THIS.

Season 6 scenes not on the island were long after they were all dead.

What happened on the Island happened. They were all meeting in "the afterlife" in the scenes not involving something happening on the island.

How farking hard can this be people?


It was REALLY stupid.
 
2012-12-06 12:15:57 PM
I'll wait 'til it gets to cable TV. You know TNT, FX.
 
2012-12-06 12:18:11 PM

You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?


looked like an NX Class to me
 
2012-12-06 12:18:30 PM

I_C_Weener: Nurglitch: Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(

Spock always dies in the second movie.


They can't afford to off any more vulcans.


Then they can send Spock off to revive himself, since he knows what he's going to go through once he gets revived.
 
2012-12-06 12:18:48 PM

whosits_112: Joe diGriz? Any relation to "Slippery" Jim diGriz??


Let's just that there was a certain book series that I read quite a lot when I was growing up. ;)
 
2012-12-06 12:20:55 PM

Teknowaffle: You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?

looked like an NX Class to me


They ought to blow up the NX class. That design was absurd, 200 years ahead of it's time in streamlining. It looks like a Norway or a Steamrunner, both designed post-Borg. NX-01 should have been a Daedalus-class vessel.
 
2012-12-06 12:21:10 PM
My biggest issue with 2009 is that they all leave to go to the academy in a shuttle, yet the academy is on Earth just a few scenes later.
 
2012-12-06 12:22:16 PM
Even if it is able to go underwater I doubt that is the preferred method for doing it, slamming into the water at an awkward angle, saucer section first.

That being said, that's probably not even the Enterprise.
 
2012-12-06 12:22:46 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous


I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.
 
2012-12-06 12:23:43 PM

Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous

I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.


there's a "not" in there.

/multitasking
 
2012-12-06 12:25:52 PM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: FeedTheCollapse: but I really didn't get a Star Trek vibe from it at all

Same here. Looks awesome, but not sure if trek.

/Not that I particularly care, never been a big trekkie.


Pretty sure that's the point. They "modernized" Star Trek, made it more contemporary and "realistic", and less.... trek-like.
In 2009 I got no typical Star Trek feel from that either, and it was an awesome movie.

Which, I believe whole-heartedly, is a supremely good idea.
 
2012-12-06 12:28:29 PM
i.ytimg.com

"Hey Kirk, my mother doesn't like you."

"Well I don't like your mother."
 
2012-12-06 12:32:20 PM

GAT_00: Teknowaffle: You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?

looked like an NX Class to me

They ought to blow up the NX class. That design was absurd, 200 years ahead of it's time in streamlining. It looks like a Norway or a Steamrunner, both designed post-Borg. NX-01 should have been a Daedalus-class vessel.


We saw hyper streamlining of cars back in the 30s and 40s. Makes sense that perhaps they thought that for the "concept" model they would pull out all the stops. It would be the style at the time. Much like tribbles on your belt.
 
2012-12-06 12:32:58 PM

give me doughnuts: Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.

Enterprise was built at the Utopia Planitia Orbital Facility near Mars. Period. The End.

I don't care what these new whippersnapper movies have to say about it. *adjusts onion-shaped phaser*


I thought it was just the Enterprise-D that was constructed there.
 
2012-12-06 12:33:35 PM

moothemagiccow: What happened on the Island happened. They were all meeting in "the afterlife" in the scenes not involving something happening on the island.

How farking hard can this be people?

It was REALLY stupid.


Yeah, not to derail the thread but the afterlife scene didn't seem to have anything to do with the events on the island. They all just eventually died and met in the after life for a cocktail party. So what did that scene have to do with anything that happened on the island? And why do the Lost writers still defiantly get work?
 
2012-12-06 12:37:37 PM

brigid_fitch: In the future, everything will be bathed in orange and teal.


...so just like those rounded corner photographs from the 70s that we all have? ;-)

"What goes around comes around."
 
2012-12-06 12:41:07 PM

mctwin2kman: My biggest issue with 2009 is that they all leave to go to the academy in a shuttle, yet the academy is on Earth just a few scenes later.


Wouldn't a parabolic trajectory from Iowa to California be quicker than an airflight distance? And a shuttle could easily go LEO and back for the flight .
 
2012-12-06 12:46:11 PM
Awful trailer. Take a cue from The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit or The Avengers, for that matter. Plenty of action, but also wit and intelligence to give you a story.

This was just a montage of explosions and screaming.
 
2012-12-06 12:47:44 PM

Teknowaffle: GAT_00: Teknowaffle: You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?

looked like an NX Class to me

They ought to blow up the NX class. That design was absurd, 200 years ahead of it's time in streamlining. It looks like a Norway or a Steamrunner, both designed post-Borg. NX-01 should have been a Daedalus-class vessel.

We saw hyper streamlining of cars back in the 30s and 40s. Makes sense that perhaps they thought that for the "concept" model they would pull out all the stops. It would be the style at the time. Much like tribbles on your belt.


But the Daedalus properly looks like a primitive Constitution-class ship. They took a massive step backwards in design now according to canon. It looks ridiculous.
 
2012-12-06 12:49:15 PM

Mugato: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous

I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.

there's a "not" in there.

/multitasking


Yeah, I think I can forgive erros when my auto-checker changed words and my fat fingers didn;t do what I thought they did on my phone.

And the TNG movies get worse the more cynical I become. Generations was full of crappy plot holes BEFORE I saw the Red letter Media review that showed me I had missed a few.

/still like and forgive First Contact though
 
2012-12-06 12:50:20 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Boudyro: Not to let my nerd flag fly but you can't go faster than Warp 10 or you turn into a salamander and have to bang the captain

Nerd Power Up!!!!

In the original series they could travel faster than warp 9 with 13 being the max of the original NC-1701-A. In the next generation they re-indexed warp speed making 10 the fastest.


2.bp.blogspot.com
But the old one went to 13. That's 3 faster.
 
2012-12-06 12:54:01 PM

Teknowaffle: GAT_00: Teknowaffle: You Are All Sheep: Okay..can someone with a better eye than me look at the nacelles of the ship as it's crashing/flying/towing thru the water at the end of the trailer? Do they look 'thinner', almost like the NCC-1701-A?

looked like an NX Class to me

They ought to blow up the NX class. That design was absurd, 200 years ahead of it's time in streamlining. It looks like a Norway or a Steamrunner, both designed post-Borg. NX-01 should have been a Daedalus-class vessel.

We saw hyper streamlining of cars back in the 30s and 40s. Makes sense that perhaps they thought that for the "concept" model they would pull out all the stops. It would be the style at the time. Much like tribbles on your belt.


The nacelles are totally wrong for a NX-class. They are more TMP-era like (1701-A, Reliant).
 
2012-12-06 12:54:18 PM

Wayne 985: Awful trailer. Take a cue from The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit or The Avengers, for that matter. Plenty of action, but also wit and intelligence to give you a story.

This was just a montage of explosions and screaming.


Someone is attacking earth. They are pissed. Kirk and Friends™ are in deep shiat.

Also, are you comparing the 2 and a half minute trailers for the above mentioned films to this 1 minute one? Hey, I am not telling what to like or not. Just make sure you are comparing apples to apples ya know?

/unless you hate new Trek because it's not old Trek of course
 
2012-12-06 12:55:14 PM

GAT_00: Then they can send Spock off to revive himself, since he knows what he's going to go through once he gets revived.



I thought he was busy rebuilding Vulcan society.  You know.  Farking every T'pao he can find.
 
2012-12-06 12:56:17 PM

mctwin2kman: My biggest issue with 2009 is that they all leave to go to the academy in a shuttle, yet the academy is on Earth just a few scenes later.


Guess American Airline's Boeing fleet was outdated by then.
 
2012-12-06 12:56:20 PM

mctwin2kman: My biggest issue with 2009 is that they all leave to go to the academy in a shuttle, yet the academy is on Earth just a few scenes later.


It's like the family car. You got a station wagon. You don't allways need a station wagon, but your not going to buy another vehicle, you just use the station wagon.

Starfleet has shuttles. They aren't going to buy planes when their shuttles can handle flying around Earth. Overkill? Sure. But they are a Government agency
 
2012-12-06 12:59:00 PM

Publikwerks: mctwin2kman: My biggest issue with 2009 is that they all leave to go to the academy in a shuttle, yet the academy is on Earth just a few scenes later.

It's like the family car. You got a station wagon. You don't allways need a station wagon, but your not going to buy another vehicle, you just use the station wagon.

Starfleet has shuttles. They aren't going to buy planes when their shuttles can handle flying around Earth. Overkill? Sure. But they are a Government agency


They're also the military, so if they had a shuttle that was leaving point A on Earth to drop some shiat off at an orbital station and then return to point B, and they had a bunch of cadets that need to get from A to B, why the hell not throw 'em on the shuttle?
 
2012-12-06 12:59:46 PM

Your_Huckleberry: DamnYankees: Correct, it's not. He's playing Gary Mitchell. I thought that was well known.

So what's he want revenge for? Being given Q like powers? Or does he flip out when they turn on him like in the original...
Mitchel was originally a classmate and old friend of Kirk, maybe he wants revenge for having to actually work his way up through the ranks.


In the episode, he went deep into "A God Am I" territory and had to get phasered, counter-goddess-battled, and have a big rock dropped on his head to stop him. The original plan was to maroon him. So if they manage to handle squeezing all the basics of the episode (many humans have ESP potential, galactic barrier, Mitchell goes god-mode, Mitchell gets marooned and maybe has a rock dropped on his head) into Act One of the movie, then it would make sense that his vengeance would be for marooning him (and the rock thing).

That being said, I like your idea that he's pissed about having to work like normal people. :^)
 
2012-12-06 01:01:35 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Mugato: Starships go into nebulae and other gaseous forms. There's no way they would design a starship that wouldn't be airtight. Completely airtight. Like Lindsey Lohan on a Saturday night. Thank you!

Outside of emergency situations like Wrath of Khan do you ever actually see a starship intentionally enter a nebula?


TNG: Best of Both Worlds, Voy: Workforce, DS9: Rocks and Shoals (also emergencies), Voy: Equinox, Nightingale (both by choice), TNG: In Theory (by choice - they were exploring it). Cardassians (Chain of Command) and Jem'Hadar (In Purgatory's Shadow) also like to hide in nebulae.

So, quite often.
 
2012-12-06 01:06:32 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous

I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.

there's a "not" in there.

/multitasking

Yeah, I think I can forgive erros when my auto-checker changed words and my fat fingers didn;t do what I thought they did on my phone.

And the TNG movies get worse the more cynical I become. Generations was full of crappy plot holes BEFORE I saw the Red letter Media review that showed me I had missed a few.

/still like and forgive First Contact though


Yeah, for anyone who has a problem with Red Matter, let me just retaliate with Heisenberg Compensators

Seriously, just as big of a plot hole.
 
2012-12-06 01:07:50 PM

Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(


Unless it's a bluff, and Spock is on the safe side of that glass and Mitchell, Kirk, or Bones is dying in the radiation.
 
2012-12-06 01:18:11 PM
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 01:20:00 PM

GAT_00: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous

I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.

there's a "not" in there.

/multitasking

Yeah, I think I can forgive erros when my auto-checker changed words and my fat fingers didn;t do what I thought they did on my phone.

And the TNG movies get worse the more cynical I become. Generations was full of crappy plot holes BEFORE I saw the Red letter Media review that showed me I had missed a few.

/still like and forgive First Contact though

Yeah, for anyone who has a problem with Red Matter, let me just retaliate with Heisenberg Compensators

Seriously, just as big of a plot hole.


Why do you need to carry around a couple gallon's worth of red matter if only a drop of it can create a singularity?

www.wearysloth.com

We're talking about universal armageddon!
 
2012-12-06 01:21:55 PM

PsyLord: GAT_00: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous

I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.

there's a "not" in there.

/multitasking

Yeah, I think I can forgive erros when my auto-checker changed words and my fat fingers didn;t do what I thought they did on my phone.

And the TNG movies get worse the more cynical I become. Generations was full of crappy plot holes BEFORE I saw the Red letter Media review that showed me I had missed a few.

/still like and forgive First Contact though

Yeah, for anyone who has a problem with Red Matter, let me just retaliate with Heisenberg Compensators

Seriously, just as big of a plot hole.

Why do you need to carry around a couple gallon's worth of red matter if only a drop of it can create a singularity?



We're talking about universal armageddon!


Possibly more stable to carry it in larger amounts? Think Omega particles from Voyager.
 
2012-12-06 01:23:25 PM

Son of Thunder: In the episode, he went deep into "A God Am I" territory and had to get phasered, counter-goddess-battled, and have a big rock dropped on his head to stop him. The original plan was to maroon him. So if they manage to handle squeezing all the basics of the episode (many humans have ESP potential, galactic barrier, Mitchell goes god-mode, Mitchell gets marooned and maybe has a rock dropped on his head) into Act One of the movie, then it would make sense that his vengeance would be for marooning him (and the rock thing).


The new Kirk seems just a shade too young to have that kind of back history with Gary Mitchell. Maybe Mitchell was his dad's classmate at the academy...?

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(

Unless it's a bluff, and Spock is on the safe side of that glass and Mitchell, Kirk, or Bones is dying in the radiation.


In the scene right before that, Kirk is wearing a green shirt that looks to be the same fabric as that on the arm inside the glass (and I do believe he's the one in some sort of containment, not Spock). I don't think it's more than an homage to the end of ST:II, though - maybe to show how far Kirk and Spock have come in becoming friends.
 
2012-12-06 01:30:43 PM

spazzhappy: [i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

"Hey Kirk, my mother doesn't like you."

"Well I don't like your mother."


Buzz off KHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID!
 
2012-12-06 01:31:10 PM

RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?


It was also frozen solid under ice.

/How big a nerd am I?
//Voyager > DS9
 
2012-12-06 01:31:57 PM

GAT_00: PsyLord: GAT_00: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for **Snip**



We're talking about universal armageddon!

Possibly more stable to carry it in larger amounts? Think Omega particles from Voyager.


I liked that episode.

Starfleet: We don't like this thing it makes warp drive impossible.
Voyager: PEW PEW PEW!
 
2012-12-06 01:33:58 PM
That's cuz it's not Star Trek. It's Generic Space Movie II.

THIS.

And nothing of value was shown....
static.themetapicture.com

/fark Abrams
 
2012-12-06 01:34:04 PM

Wayne 985: Awful trailer. Take a cue from The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit or The Avengers, for that matter. Plenty of action, but also wit and intelligence to give you a story.

This was just a montage of explosions and screaming.


But it stars Benedict Cumberbatch, so I really don't give a fark.

/shut up and take my money
 
2012-12-06 01:36:54 PM

Lydia_C: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(

Unless it's a bluff, and Spock is on the safe side of that glass and Mitchell, Kirk, or Bones is dying in the radiation.

In the scene right before that, Kirk is wearing a green shirt that looks to be the same fabric as that on the arm inside the glass (and I do believe he's the one in some sort of containment, not Spock). I don't think it's more than an homage to the end of ST:II, though - maybe to show how far Kirk and Spock have come in becoming friends.


Though I agree, what about THIS? They're both Spock. Old spock is on the insdie of the radiation sacrificing himself AGAIN and new Spock lives on the outside.

/I know the hand looks too young.
//Will try to restrain the suppositions now, but that was fun.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:45 PM

Lydia_C: Son of Thunder: In the episode, he went deep into "A God Am I" territory and had to get phasered, counter-goddess-battled, and have a big rock dropped on his head to stop him. The original plan was to maroon him. So if they manage to handle squeezing all the basics of the episode (many humans have ESP potential, galactic barrier, Mitchell goes god-mode, Mitchell gets marooned and maybe has a rock dropped on his head) into Act One of the movie, then it would make sense that his vengeance would be for marooning him (and the rock thing).

The new Kirk seems just a shade too young to have that kind of back history with Gary Mitchell. Maybe Mitchell was his dad's classmate at the academy...?

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Captain Steroid: JayCab: The Japanese trailer (at Apple) has an extra 14 seconds with a... let's just call it an homage.

They're gonna kill Spock!

Again! :-(

Unless it's a bluff, and Spock is on the safe side of that glass and Mitchell, Kirk, or Bones is dying in the radiation.

In the scene right before that, Kirk is wearing a green shirt that looks to be the same fabric as that on the arm inside the glass (and I do believe he's the one in some sort of containment, not Spock). I don't think it's more than an homage to the end of ST:II, though - maybe to show how far Kirk and Spock have come in becoming friends.


This is Star Trek. Killing a character is like taaking a walk.

First off, they have two Spocks right now. I can't count the episodes that have resulted in the crew getting into some sort of fountain of youth. Be it transporter accident, or a planet that regenerates you, they can take old Spock, and make him young again.

Or they can clone him

Or they can invoke one of the numerous ways of bringing people back from the dead. Like Q or nanites. I mean, if Gandalf can do it by falling into a deep hole, Star Trek can pull it off.

Anyway - dying in Star Trek is only permanent when a contract is not resigned.
 
2012-12-06 01:38:45 PM
The trailer contains a scene of the Enterprise emerging from the ocean... before a scene of the Enterprise crashing into the ocean.
Way to kill the suspense before it even starts.
 
2012-12-06 01:39:22 PM

chewielouie: RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?

It was also frozen solid under ice.

/How big a nerd am I?
//Voyager > DS9


Most outlandish thing said in this entire awesomely nerdy thread.
 
2012-12-06 01:42:40 PM

Soonerpsycho: [i.imgur.com image 672x543]
[i.imgur.com image 600x255]


*FAP*

Also, the extended trailer almost screams Kahn now that Mr Villian he's talking about "his family".
 
2012-12-06 01:45:44 PM

GAT_00: RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

My thoughts too. It could be incidental and it is Khan, but that's a pretty big hint that Gary Mitchell has come back to me.


Remember you heard it here first. The villain will be called Gary Mitchell and the story will be the same/similar to TOS, but at some point in the third act we will find out that Gary Mitchell in an identity assumed by the evil Khan to infiltrate Starfleet and destroy it from the inside. So you get both stories and JTK gets to yell KHANNNNN!!!!! at the end.
 
2012-12-06 01:47:37 PM
I'll say it here for the record:

Cumberbatch is Khan. At the end of the Japanese trailer, it's Khan's hand you see in the foreground and Spock's in the background. They are somehow related.

Speculation is speculation.
 
2012-12-06 01:50:13 PM

chewielouie:
/How big a nerd am I?
//Voyager > DS9


Oh you're a big nerd alright.

You're just one whos opinion on Star Trek has been made invalid, straight from your own mouthfingers.
 
2012-12-06 01:50:58 PM

chewielouie: /How big a nerd am I?
//Voyager > DS9


Blasphemy.
 
2012-12-06 01:51:38 PM

chewielouie: //Voyager > DS9


*Fistbump*

On my 4th attempt to make it through DS9... so painful. Have had trouble making it to the end of season 2 so far. We'll see how this pass goes. Doesn't help that I have an inherent dislike of Ferenghi and stories about the wormhole's cigarette filter* just don't capture me.

*They don't go out and find things, all the crap just pass by and through them.

/Also dislike the douchey doctor
//And whiney Kira
 
2012-12-06 01:54:20 PM

Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.


Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG
 
2012-12-06 01:56:34 PM

Leo Bloom's Freakout: chewielouie: //Voyager > DS9

*Fistbump*

On my 4th attempt to make it through DS9... so painful. Have had trouble making it to the end of season 2 so far. We'll see how this pass goes. Doesn't help that I have an inherent dislike of Ferenghi and stories about the wormhole's cigarette filter* just don't capture me.

*They don't go out and find things, all the crap just pass by and through them.

/Also dislike the douchey doctor
//And whiney Kira


Ok, I will preface this with saying "It's not as bad as people act like it is. The Doctor and Seven are interesting characters."

So.... I am halway through season 6 of Voyager. I am watching a Borg children. Borg. Children. GTFO.

/whiney Klingon woman who's episodes are all awful except for the first one
//Kim is still considered the child of the group 6 years in
///INDIANS IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE
 
2012-12-06 01:59:00 PM
Other that a few shots of the primary color uniforms it's almost impossible to tell that's a Star Trek movie from that trailer. I know some of you think that's a good thing. You would be the same folks who love the heck out of Michael Bay films and other shiny objects.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:43 PM

Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?


and Indiana Jones was an archaeologist, I don't want to watch him sweep sand of a tablet for two hours. I want to see him biatchslap nazis, get the girl, the idol, and then beat up more nazis.
 
2012-12-06 02:12:47 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Leo Bloom's Freakout: chewielouie: //Voyager > DS9

*Fistbump*

On my 4th attempt to make it through DS9... so painful. Have had trouble making it to the end of season 2 so far. We'll see how this pass goes. Doesn't help that I have an inherent dislike of Ferenghi and stories about the wormhole's cigarette filter* just don't capture me.

*They don't go out and find things, all the crap just pass by and through them.

/Also dislike the douchey doctor
//And whiney Kira

Ok, I will preface this with saying "It's not as bad as people act like it is. The Doctor and Seven are interesting characters."

So.... I am halway through season 6 of Voyager. I am watching a Borg children. Borg. Children. GTFO.

/whiney Klingon woman who's episodes are all awful except for the first one
//Kim is still considered the child of the group 6 years in
///INDIANS IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE


It's not perfect, granted. And the Doctor and Seven are in my top tier of all-time favorite ST characters. Overall though, I just found the stories (even the cheesey ones that are requisite in all ST from time to time) much more engaging than anything I've seen from DS9. Nothing I've seen in it feels anything other than flat. I don't care what happens to them or their space station, and have trouble having them convince me.

Kim being a child the whole time? That always struck Mrs Bloom and I as odd, but whatever. B'elana I thought had a small amount of growth by the end of it, no worse than Troi ("I sense anger captain..." "Oh really Troi? Is that perhaps why they are raining torpedoes on us?").

Indians in space were corny, but I liked Chakotay well enough. I thought his split between being ancient spiritualist in a ST universe had some interesting parallels to his Federation/Maquis split, which in turn has parallels in Seven's Borg/human division.

Janeway and Q were up there with Picard and Q in enjoyment while having it's own unique dynamic.
 
2012-12-06 02:23:35 PM
I'm not going to be able to watch this movie without seeing Zachary Quinto in his American Horror Story role. If this Spock goes into pon farr they are hosed.
 
2012-12-06 02:25:38 PM

Alphax: Well, we've never seen the Enterprise go lower than the upper atmosphere before. (couple times in the original series)


This is a picture of the Enterprise going lower than the upper atmosphere. In fact i'm pretty sure it made it all the way to the surface.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 02:29:29 PM

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Jim from Saint Paul: Leo Bloom's Freakout: chewielouie: //Voyager > DS9


Janeway and Q were up there with Picard and Q in enjoyment while having it's own unique dynamic.


I just finished the episode where Q wanted to have a baby with Janeway. Loved it.
 
2012-12-06 02:33:17 PM

Leo Bloom's Freakout:
It's not perfect, granted. And the Doctor and Seven are in my top tier of all-time favorite ST characters. Overall though, I just found the stories (even the cheesey ones that are requisite in all ST from time to time) much more engaging than anything I've seen from DS9. Nothing I've seen in it feels anything other than flat. I don't care what happens to them or their space station, and have trouble having them convince me.

Kim being a child the whole time? That always struck Mrs Bloom and I as odd, but whatever. B'elana I thought had a small amount of growth by the end of it, no worse than Troi ("I sense anger captain..." "Oh really Troi? Is that perhaps why they are raining torpedoes on us?").

Indians in space were corny, but I liked Chakotay well enough. I thought his split between being ancient spiritualist in a ST universe had some interesting parallels to his Federation/Maquis split, which in turn has parallels in Seven's Borg/human division.

Janeway and Q were up there with Picard and Q in enjoyment while having it's own unique dynamic.


Ok, so Sisko punches Q in the face. Read that again: DUDE PUNCHES A Q IN THE FACE. You can;t get much more badass then that.

Your comparissons to TNG characters, while they have merit, are not pertinent to DS9 Vs Voy discussion.

I think that Voyager is the most like TOS in the idea that it's a bunch of stories that don;t intersect with each other, yet there isn't a constant thread. Oh there is a *goal*: "Get Voyager home". Yet the premise of the show itself doesn't allow it to have the kind of narrative that DS9 does. The Space station isn't going anywhere, it's all the people/races that become the moving parts. Characters grow and develop. Voyager just runs along experiencing things and never being able to stick around and rereference them. No one on that ship develops as a character EXCEPT 7 and the Doc. Whether they have to or not is, of course, up for debate.

Even the annoying Jake and Nog episodes from DS9 get better because they become "Nog" episodes. HE is the most underated character in all of ST lore.

Now before you think I go to far off with my praise, I could do without the last 3 seasons constanly referring back to Vic Fontaine. His episode with Nog is actually pretty good, dealing with PTSD. Yet it gets old by the end.

/Nog
 
2012-12-06 02:36:36 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: I could do without the last 3 seasons constanly referring back to Vic Fontaine.


It's funny you say that because he first appeared in Season 6.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:59 PM

RexTalionis: Jim from Saint Paul: I could do without the last 3 seasons constanly referring back to Vic Fontaine.

It's funny you say that because he first appeared in Season 6.


Ok. Your geek penis is bigger then mine.

I was off by 1 season. Congratulations.
 
2012-12-06 02:39:06 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Even the annoying Jake and Nog episodes from DS9 get better because they become "Nog" episodes. HE is the most underated character in all of ST lore.

Now before you think I go to far off with my praise, I could do without the last 3 seasons constanly referring back to Vic Fontaine. His episode with Nog is actually pretty good, dealing with PTSD. Yet it gets old by the end.

/Nog


What nog may look like:
www.rachaelray.com
 
2012-12-06 02:39:11 PM
Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?
 
2012-12-06 02:40:09 PM
Looked like "The Avengers."
 
2012-12-06 02:41:32 PM

Gilligann: Alphax: Well, we've never seen the Enterprise go lower than the upper atmosphere before. (couple times in the original series)

This is a picture of the Enterprise going lower than the upper atmosphere. In fact i'm pretty sure it made it all the way to the surface.

[i.imgur.com image 850x356]


That really doesn't count for any version of the discussion though. They were blowing the thing up BEFORE it hit the atmosphere.
 
2012-12-06 02:42:26 PM
In the Pale Moonlight

//DS9>Voy
///Argument Over.
 
2012-12-06 02:54:49 PM

Publikwerks: RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 605x331]

In the event of a water landing, I have been designed to serve as a floatation device

//Nerd Factor 9, Mr Sulu


Wait... that actually happened in the movie? That's completely inconsistent with Descent where Geordi recounts how Data sank straight to the bottom of the lake and had to walk out.

/steps off soapbox
 
2012-12-06 02:54:56 PM
I'm just not feeling the love. Definitely giving this one a pass.
 
2012-12-06 02:55:44 PM

Public Call Box: give me doughnuts: Bendal: Mugato: Bendal: I always thought (at least the original series made it clear) that the Enterprise couldn't enter an atmosphere, due to its non-aerodynamic shape and the shields wouldn't work in a dense atmosphere either. Plus the concern over having a warp drive with antimatter within a planet's biosphere.

They went out of their way to change continuity to having the Enterprise being built in the cornfields of Iowa. How do you think they got it out of there?

Voyager had the ability to land on a planet's surface. I understand that was like 80 years later but.... they built the Enterprise in the corn fields of Iowa.

And no doubt kept the antimatter and warp engines cold until it was heavy-lifted out of the atmosphere to the spacedock we saw the ship in, too.

Enterprise was built at the Utopia Planitia Orbital Facility near Mars. Period. The End.

I don't care what these new whippersnapper movies have to say about it. *adjusts onion-shaped phaser*

I thought it was just the Enterprise-D that was constructed there.


According to TOS canon, Enterprise and Enterprise-A were constructed at the San Francisco Fleet Yards.
 
2012-12-06 03:00:49 PM

OneCrazyIvan: Publikwerks: RexTalionis: GAT_00: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Carth: We're talking about a civilization that has mastered faster than light travel and teleportation. I would hope they could engineer a spaceship that could also go underwater.

Sounds like a typical government project

Gentlemen here is our prototype design of the new Constitution Class Starship. Will hold a crew of approximately 700. With two of the new LN-64B Mod 1 warp engines it will be able to sustain Warp 9 with an upper limit of Warp 13. The sensor bays will be able...

Is it waterproof?

Ugghh, excuse me sir?

You know, can it go under water?

Well sir we don't envision a scenario where the cruiser would have to be submerged so we...

I want it waterproof.

Roger that sir, we will get the engineers working on that.

Counter-argument: the Bird of Prey was clearly space worthy and it sunk.

Yeah, well, Voyager was able to travel through fluidic space, which is even denser than water.

/How big of a nerd am I?

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 605x331]

In the event of a water landing, I have been designed to serve as a floatation device

//Nerd Factor 9, Mr Sulu

Wait... that actually happened in the movie? That's completely inconsistent with Descent where Geordi recounts how Data sank straight to the bottom of the lake and had to walk out.

/steps off soapbox


Welcome to your first cynical step into a larger "What the hell were they thinking" world.

Earth tones people. Earth tones!
 
2012-12-06 03:08:19 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG


The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.
 
2012-12-06 03:11:06 PM

Samwise Gamgee: ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG

The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.


Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?
 
2012-12-06 03:13:14 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Samwise Gamgee: ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG

The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.

Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?


Time's Arrow.
 
2012-12-06 03:13:53 PM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-06 03:15:55 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Wait... that actually happened in the movie? That's completely inconsistent with Descent where Geordi recounts how Data sank straight to the bottom of the lake and had to walk out.

/steps off soapbox

Welcome to your first cynical step into a larger "What the hell were they thinking" world.

Earth tones people. Earth tones!


The problem is as soon as they gave Data the emotion chip, he became a gimmick.

www.pageofreviews.com
Look, Data is playing with a tricoder

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
Now he singing a song about lifeforms! He soooo crazy

borgdotcom.files.wordpress.com
And now he's got flesh

1.bp.blogspot.com

And singing...oh god.


He was much cooler when he was thrill-killing Borg 
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-06 03:21:17 PM
They're going to recycle the revenge motive for the second movie's villain?
 
2012-12-06 03:32:29 PM
so was that patrick stewart narrating?
 
2012-12-06 03:35:04 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 03:38:38 PM
DS9 should have spent more time Quark-centered. I always thought that Quark's bar was the Rick's Cafe American of DS9, with Odo as a more uptight version of Louie.

Needed more Cardassians/Nazis.
 
2012-12-06 03:38:56 PM

RexTalionis: Jim from Saint Paul: Samwise Gamgee: ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG

The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.

Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?

Time's Arrow.


And did you enjoy those episodes? Would you have paid money to go out and see it?

Personally, I would not of. I enjoyed it enough, yet it certainly didn;t have a "movie" feel to it.
 
2012-12-06 03:39:58 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?

Time's Arrow.

And did you enjoy those episodes? Would you have paid money to go out and see it?

Personally, I would not of. I enjoyed it enough, yet it certainly didn;t have a "movie" feel to it.


Yes, I did. And I'll be buying those episodes on Bluray as soon as Paramount finishes remastering it.
 
2012-12-06 03:40:25 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: [i.imgur.com image 576x245]


*snicker*

/funnied
 
2012-12-06 03:41:58 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: 2. Star Trek 2 has as many plot holes as ST '09. Just less lens flare. (I love both)

I really doubt that. I don't know if Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek but I'm sure it doesn't have as many lazily written coincidences. And Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek.

But in any case, the one thing they're not doing is remaking previous films. So just because there's a hand on glass giving the Vulcan salute doesn't mean they're remaking Wrath of Khan. Besides which, if Spock 2.0 dies, he's farked since Vulcan is gone and they can't bring him back to life. So they wouldn't do that.

Why does it have to be a villain that we already know? Is that an official statement?

Kahn Plot holes (a few for now, have to go to work here for a bit):

1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?


Plot holes . . . it does not mean, what I think you think it means.
 
2012-12-06 03:42:00 PM

Publikwerks: The problem is as soon as they gave Data the emotion chip, he became a gimmick.


Not to mention the fact that it sort of ruined the character's arc. Data's quest was to rise above the sum of his parts in his quest to be more 'human'. Rather than demonstrating that he can have personal growth, he finally gets his 'humanity' in the form of a bolt-on chip.

At least when The Wizard gave the Tin Man a heart, it was just a metaphor to show that the Tin Man had heart all along.
 
2012-12-06 03:43:04 PM

RexTalionis: Jim from Saint Paul: Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?

Time's Arrow.

And did you enjoy those episodes? Would you have paid money to go out and see it?

Personally, I would not of. I enjoyed it enough, yet it certainly didn;t have a "movie" feel to it.

Yes, I did. And I'll be buying those episodes on Bluray as soon as Paramount finishes remastering it.


Then there ya go. I'm glad you did.

I, personally, enjoyed when the shows went back and forth between action and exploration. When the ST movies go "exploration" with it, we get ST:TMP. While I do enjoy it, I am glad I only paid $5.00 at Walmart for it.
 
2012-12-06 03:43:19 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Samwise Gamgee: ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG

The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.

Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?


And again, I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids. At least just try to begin that the premise of the franchise is the same...
 
2012-12-06 03:45:59 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: so was that patrick stewart narrating?


Nope. Google "Benedict Cumberbatch" -- he was also in War Horse, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and BBC's Sherlock, among a bunch of other things. He's also set to play Smaug and the Necromancer in the three Hobbit movies. People have said his voice is like a jaguar trapped in a cello.
 
2012-12-06 03:53:41 PM

chewielouie: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: 2. Star Trek 2 has as many plot holes as ST '09. Just less lens flare. (I love both)

I really doubt that. I don't know if Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek but I'm sure it doesn't have as many lazily written coincidences. And Star Trek 2 has less plot holes than the new Trek.

But in any case, the one thing they're not doing is remaking previous films. So just because there's a hand on glass giving the Vulcan salute doesn't mean they're remaking Wrath of Khan. Besides which, if Spock 2.0 dies, he's farked since Vulcan is gone and they can't bring him back to life. So they wouldn't do that.

Why does it have to be a villain that we already know? Is that an official statement?

Kahn Plot holes (a few for now, have to go to work here for a bit):

1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

Plot holes . . . it does not mean, what I think you think it means.


Please elaborate.

If you follow my responses to others on this, you can see I am quite hospitable and not nerd ragey.
 
2012-12-06 03:59:28 PM

Samwise Gamgee: Jim from Saint Paul: Samwise Gamgee: ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG

The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.

Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?

And again, I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids. At least just try to begin that the premise of the franchise is the same...


Only episode 6 did a good job of staying true to the series and not be TOTALLY about space combat. By then end we still have prison break, Von Trapping and an assaination attempt.

TMP is the movie that best shows what a 2 hour version of exploration would work and feel like. It's also, by a huge majority, considered the most boring of them all. These people need to watch ST 5 of course.
 
2012-12-06 04:10:04 PM
Whar Orion Slave Girl, Whar?
 
2012-12-06 04:14:08 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: TMP is the movie that best shows what a 2 hour version of exploration would work and feel like. It's also, by a huge majority, considered the most boring of them all. These people need to watch ST 5 of course.


5 wasn't necessarily boring, just terrible.
 
2012-12-06 04:21:29 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Samwise Gamgee: ItchyMcDoogle: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah if you want explor'in you have over 2 bloated hours of the Trek movie. I will admit that it would not hurt to have a dash of it but it works alot better on TV where they can take the time to do so. Id like to see a TV show based on the new movies but then id have to wonder how this new timeline affects TNG

The original Star Trek did it just fine in 50-minute standalone episodes (no story arcs back then). Go out exploring, find something weird or scary, examine the human condition. I'm not suggesting that we watch two hours of people cataloging asteroids, ferchrissakes.

Again, 2 hours. Is there, in your opinion, a 2 part episode of TOS (or any of the others for that matter), that felt like an "exploration" and not a "space combat" episode?


Some of these are "space diplomacy" rather than "space exploration" but that's to be expected.

TNG:

All Good Things...
Unification
Time's Arrow
Birthright

VOY:

Future's End
The Killing Game (a different sort of action, though, hard call).
 
2012-12-06 04:43:29 PM
Hmm. I'll watch it.

But Abrams, you damn well better have Kzin in ST3.
 
2012-12-06 05:03:12 PM

give me doughnuts: DS9 should have spent more time Quark-centered. I always thought that Quark's bar was the Rick's Cafe American of DS9, with Odo as a more uptight version of Louie.

Needed more Cardassians/Nazis.


Quark was awesome.
 
2012-12-06 05:12:13 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: chewielouie: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul:
Kahn Plot holes (a few for now, have to go to work here for a bit):

1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

Plot holes . . . it does not mean, what I think you think it means.

Please elaborate.

If you follow my responses to others on this, you can see I am quite hospitable and not nerd ragey.


1. Was a mistake, not a plot hole.
2. While Checkov may never have met Khan in TOS, he most likely heard him. Nevertheless, it is not a plot hole of the movie.
3. This one is most definitely not a plot hole. Spock just finished telling Kirk how Kahn thinks based upon his behavior and emotions. Kirk uses his experience to overcome and laugh at the "superior intellect."
 
2012-12-06 05:13:40 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: 2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

If you follow my responses to others on this, you can see I am quite hospitable and not nerd ragey.


KHAN. K-H-A-N god dammit. It's on the box! In the main title! Why can't people spell it right???
 
2012-12-06 05:15:33 PM

peterthx: Jim from Saint Paul: 2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

If you follow my responses to others on this, you can see I am quite hospitable and not nerd ragey.

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN. K-H-A-N god dammit. It's on the box! In the main title! Why can't people spell it right???


FTFY
 
2012-12-06 06:02:36 PM
Just wanted to drop this here. Knowing the guys talent as a actor, if they give him the script, and work it out the inevitable contradictions to cannon... Benedict Cumberbatch could become one of Star Trek's Transcendental Villains rivaling even Khan. I am praying they do not screw this up,
 
2012-12-06 06:25:04 PM

2CountyFairs: Samwise Gamgee: Carth: Samwise Gamgee: Another snarling Space Villain motivated by revenge. This schtick is getting old.

Anyone remember when Trek used to be about exploration and not motherfarking combat all the time?

Yea, those movies did horrible.

Yeah, they did so horrible that they made 6 (7 if you count Generations) starring the original cast, and 4 starring the TNG cast... though 3/4 of the TNG ones did suck.

What franchise has more films, except for James Bond?

Friday the 13th had 10 films. 11 if you count Freddy Vs. Jason, and 12 if you count the remake.


Sherlock Holmes.

Not sure if that qualifies as a franchise, though.
 
2012-12-06 06:48:58 PM
th08.deviantart.net

"Five thousand feet!"
"Dear Lord! That's over one hundred and fifty atmospheres of pressure."
"How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?"
"Well, it's a space ship. So I'd say anywhere between zero and one."
 
2012-12-06 07:33:50 PM

IlGreven: RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

[www.joblo.com image 656x269]
[subspacecomms.com image 618x464]

I'd've guessed Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand.


Chapel was my guess as well. Or if Khan is involved maybe Marla McGivers? Though the hair is the wrong color.
 
2012-12-06 07:37:58 PM

Surool: Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?


How can you tell? I couldn't make out the NCC number on the engine.
 
2012-12-06 07:45:14 PM

fusillade762: IlGreven: RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

[www.joblo.com image 656x269]
[subspacecomms.com image 618x464]

I'd've guessed Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand.

Chapel was my guess as well. Or if Khan is involved maybe Marla McGivers? Though the hair is the wrong color.


It is Elizabeth Dehner.... Facepalm... this is the trailer teaser... How much more ovbious does it get????
 
2012-12-06 07:53:59 PM

fusillade762: Surool: Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?

How can you tell? I couldn't make out the NCC number on the engine.


I think it is the Enterprise, without the saucer section....
 
2012-12-06 08:00:24 PM

GAT_00: PsyLord: GAT_00: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: He didn't know him. The entire basis of Kahn getting off the planet is good after excused for goof.

/to be clear, Beaming Kirk to the ice planet all the way up to "hey there is a federation post near here" is just as ridiculous

I don't know, firing Kirk onto Hoth instead of just throwing him into the brig and Kirk runs into both Spock 1.0 and Scotty? That's shiattier writing that Khan knowing who Chekov was?

Okay dude, truce. Just don't get me started on the TNG movies.

there's a "not" in there.

/multitasking

Yeah, I think I can forgive erros when my auto-checker changed words and my fat fingers didn;t do what I thought they did on my phone.

And the TNG movies get worse the more cynical I become. Generations was full of crappy plot holes BEFORE I saw the Red letter Media review that showed me I had missed a few.

/still like and forgive First Contact though

Yeah, for anyone who has a problem with Red Matter, let me just retaliate with Heisenberg Compensators

Seriously, just as big of a plot hole.

Why do you need to carry around a couple gallon's worth of red matter if only a drop of it can create a singularity?



We're talking about universal armageddon!

Possibly more stable to carry it in larger amounts? Think Omega particles from Voyager.


Also, to anyone who hasn't seen Plinkett's review of Star Trek (2009) it's a really solid review.
 
2012-12-06 08:05:05 PM

FeedTheCollapse: Star Trek '09 was definitely a Trek movie...


Really?

You thought a movie that was pretty much a Star Wars remake was definitely a Trek movie.

Have you actually watched Star Trek before?
 
2012-12-06 08:06:42 PM
Pinkkett... who should have his own fark tag btw.... Gave the movie a pass at best. I got the feeling that he thought JJA did not screw up the movie more than we Trekies were willing to tolerate... Lens fare and all....
 
2012-12-06 08:26:19 PM

justanothersumguy: Pinkkett... who should have his own fark tag btw.... Gave the movie a pass at best. I got the feeling that he thought JJA did not screw up the movie more than we Trekies were willing to tolerate... Lens fare and all....


Exactly. I think he appreciated it for what it was...action packed entertainment for the masses. He even admits it's not a science fiction movie but an action movie. The fact the JJ succeeded in entertaining him in the theatre is why he gave it a pass.
 
2012-12-06 08:44:32 PM

Kaybeck: Really?

You thought a movie that was pretty much a Star Wars remake was definitely a Trek movie.

Have you actually watched Star Trek before?


Yeah, I loved the part where Kirk and Nero dueled with lightsabers. How about when they had Kirk piloting down a trench while Spock told him to use the Force?

/stupid comparison for a stupid statement
//watched TREK when TOS episodes were first run on NBC
///loved TREK '09 and it *is* STAR TREK
 
2012-12-06 09:04:27 PM

justanothersumguy: Pinkkett... who should have his own fark tag btw....


Jesus, again with the Plinket...you guys are like the movie geek version of Oprah disciples.
 
2012-12-06 09:13:00 PM

Mugato: justanothersumguy: Pinkkett... who should have his own fark tag btw....

Jesus, again with the Plinket...you guys are like the movie geek version of Oprah disciples.


Let me see your nerd card.... Ah, yes. Thank you very much.... rip rip rip.
 
2012-12-06 09:15:03 PM
i.imgur.com


Torn off insignia. Speaks to the possibility of Gary Mitchell.
 
2012-12-06 09:18:04 PM

peterthx: Yeah, I loved the part where Kirk and Nero dueled with lightsabers. How about when they had Kirk piloting down a trench while Spock told him to use the Force?

/stupid comparison for a stupid statement
//watched TREK when TOS episodes were first run on NBC
///loved TREK '09 and it *is* STAR TREK


How has this obligatory link not appeared in this thread:

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
 
2012-12-06 09:27:50 PM

Invisible Pedestrian: How has this obligatory link not appeared in this thread:

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'


Been an Onion reader for years so I laughed my ass off when I saw that particular article.

/did you know the Empire State Building was declared "giant ape proof" when built?
 
2012-12-06 09:39:04 PM

100 Watt Walrus: [i.imgur.com image 850x516]

Torn off insignia. Speaks to the possibility of Gary Mitchell.


It is Gary Mitchell... And it could be Epic.
 
2012-12-06 09:48:52 PM

chewielouie: Jim from Saint Paul: chewielouie: Jim from Saint Paul: Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul:
Kahn Plot holes (a few for now, have to go to work here for a bit):

1. Starfleet computers are unable to count. "This is Citi Alpha 5!" Wait, so that means there were 6 planets/astarl-bodies at least. "6 was destoryed and threw this one out of orbit". So again, Starfleet humans and computers are unable to count how many planets are in a star system.

2. Checkov never saw Kahn. oh, I know they tried to excuse it away in ST EU books and such. It has NEVER been retconned in the series. It's a mistake.

3. Anyone with a playstation 1 could beat Kahn in a space fight. "HE does have a penchant for 2-Dimensional thinking". Enterprise goes down then up, peepew, WE WIN (to albeit awesome music). REALLY?

Plot holes . . . it does not mean, what I think you think it means.

Please elaborate.

If you follow my responses to others on this, you can see I am quite hospitable and not nerd ragey.

1. Was a mistake, not a plot hole.
2. While Checkov may never have met Khan in TOS, he most likely heard him. Nevertheless, it is not a plot hole of the movie.
3. This one is most definitely not a plot hole. Spock just finished telling Kirk how Kahn thinks based upon his behavior and emotions. Kirk uses his experience to overcome and laugh at the "superior intellect."


If one is looking for a plot hole in Wrath Of Khan, look no further than some fine adventures in warp speed.

Kirk gets the call from Dr.Marcus, contacts Starfleet Command, consults with Spock, takes command, tells Sulu to set course for Regula.
At warp five.

Spock tells Kirk there is no contact with Regula-("they are unable to respond, ey are unwilling to respond")Kirk asks Spock ,"How far?" The response from Spock being: "Twelve hours, fifty seven minutes, present speed"
Which, as far as we know, was warp five. Warp five is something like 150 times the speed of light. (Begs the side question of why warp five and not warp eight? A twelve hour trip at warp five would take a minute or so at eight)
Neither Kirk or Spock know what Genesis is that Dr.Marcus had mentioned, so they meet up with Bones for Genesis Movie Time in Kirk's quarters.
IMMEDIATLY after the movie and discussion, they get a call from the bridge, head up and are attacked by the Reliant and Khan-during this attack they lose the warp drive. The warp drive Spock dies trying to fix at the end. And yet, after the battle and Scotty's nephew buying it, Kirk orders "best speed" to Regula.
Which they arrive at in the next scene. Without warp drive. The trip was quoted at just under 13 hours at 150 times the speed of light, and they turn around and somehow make it in less than a century? You'd think they're at least fix the warp drive during such a long trip, or someone from Starfleet would come looking.

That one sticks out to me as much as Chekov knowing Khan and still not counting how Many planets there were in the Ceti Alpha system. But yeah, there were bigger ones in the reboot.
 
2012-12-06 10:04:23 PM

justanothersumguy: fusillade762: IlGreven: RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

[www.joblo.com image 656x269]
[subspacecomms.com image 618x464]

I'd've guessed Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand.

Chapel was my guess as well. Or if Khan is involved maybe Marla McGivers? Though the hair is the wrong color.

It is Elizabeth Dehner.... Facepalm... this is the trailer teaser... How much more ovbious does it get????


Saving this comment so I can make fun of you if you turn out to be wrong.
 
2012-12-06 10:10:06 PM

justanothersumguy: fusillade762: Surool: Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?

How can you tell? I couldn't make out the NCC number on the engine.

I think it is the Enterprise, without the saucer section....


Best shot I could get.

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-06 10:13:01 PM
Ok, Star Trek Farker Nerds, let's make this clear... This Movie is not going to be about Melville... Moby Dick like SO MANY other Star Trek Themes... If JJ has done what I think he has, from just watching the trailer.... We are facing Paradise Lost. Milton.
 
2012-12-06 10:16:45 PM

Surool: Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?


Refit, or even -A.
 
2012-12-06 10:18:57 PM

fusillade762: justanothersumguy: fusillade762: IlGreven: RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

[www.joblo.com image 656x269]
[subspacecomms.com image 618x464]

I'd've guessed Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand.

Chapel was my guess as well. Or if Khan is involved maybe Marla McGivers? Though the hair is the wrong color.

It is Elizabeth Dehner.... Facepalm... this is the trailer teaser... How much more ovbious does it get????

Saving this comment so I can make fun of you if you turn out to be wrong.


Nerd Card.... rip, rip, rip
 
2012-12-06 10:32:39 PM
1. The ship that hits the water is a different model of ship. The nacelles are spread out wide in a V and the nacelle struts are angular and jointed twice. The new Enterprise has smooth nacelles that are held by curved struts that are nearly upright like a U.

2. It's not Gary Mitchell, it's Garth of Izar that's the villain in this film. Gary Mitchell wouldn't be getting physical with the crew, he'd be staring at them and stopping their hearts or something.

3. I'm betting the blonde is nurse Chapel, although that's just a SWAG.
 
2012-12-06 10:44:24 PM

justanothersumguy: fusillade762: Surool: Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?

How can you tell? I couldn't make out the NCC number on the engine.

I think it is the Enterprise, without the saucer section....


i46.tinypic.com


Sorry, but that doesn't look like the same shape of engine to me. The bottom of the Enterprise nacelle doesn't jog upward at the rear like it does on the ship rising from the water. The Enterprise nacelle is mostly a straight line along the bottom. Plus there isn't enough engine in front of that NCC number either.

It looks like the much smaller engine of a perhaps Runabout-sized craft that you could submerge for an ambush... which would make more sense anyway.
 
2012-12-06 10:47:20 PM

browser_snake: 1. The ship that hits the water is a different model of ship. The nacelles are spread out wide in a V and the nacelle struts are angular and jointed twice. The new Enterprise has smooth nacelles that are held by curved struts that are nearly upright like a U.

2. It's not Gary Mitchell, it's Garth of Izar that's the villain in this film. Gary Mitchell wouldn't be getting physical with the crew, he'd be staring at them and stopping their hearts or something.

3. I'm betting the blonde is nurse Chapel, although that's just a SWAG.


As someone else mentioned, the ship that hits the water looks a bit like an NX, though I'd be surprised if this new alternative universe features ships that look exactly like the ones of the original neighborhood. The ones coming out of the water does look like the new Enterprise, though.

If it's Garth and not Mitchell, it appears Garth sure can jump.
 
2012-12-06 10:48:58 PM

browser_snake: 2. It's not Gary Mitchell, it's Garth of Izar that's the villain in this film. Gary Mitchell wouldn't be getting physical with the crew, he'd be staring at them and stopping their hearts or something.


Could be Mitchell not yet at "full power." Or just pissed off enough to break out the bare knuckles. Besides, Garth was Pike's contemporary at the Academy. Cumberbatch is too young to being playing Garth. Whereas Mitchell was Kirk's contemporary. (FYI, Cumberbatch is ~4 years older than Pine.)

Also...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 11:11:02 PM

Five Tails of Fury: Hmm. I'll watch it.

But Abrams, you damn well better have Kzin in ST3.


You'll need to take that up with the lawyers from Niven's estate
 
2012-12-06 11:54:45 PM

Surool: justanothersumguy: fusillade762: Surool: Has anybody noticed that the ship rising out of the water is NOT the Enterprise?

How can you tell? I couldn't make out the NCC number on the engine.

I think it is the Enterprise, without the saucer section....

Sorry, but that doesn't look like the same shape of engine to me. The bottom of the Enterprise nacelle doesn't jog upward at the rear like it does on the ship rising from the water. The Enterprise nacelle is mostly a straight line along the bottom. Plus there isn't enough engine in front of that NCC number either.

It looks like the much smaller engine of a perhaps Runabout-sized craft that you could submerge for an ambush... which would make more sense anyway.


Looks like you're right. Enterprise engine nacelle from Star Trek (2009):
www.teufelaffe.com

Unless they've done a major redesign in the new movie, the ship rising from the water is not the Enterprise.
 
2012-12-07 12:06:54 AM
I think the perspective is fooling you guys, along with that screencap not being the best quality. Here's my impression of the nacelle from a better screencap:

img580.imageshack.us 

Definitely looks like the Enterprise to me. Again, I think it's just the closeness and angle that we're seeing it from that makes the nacelle look a little odd.

Also, the registry on the side is fairly clearly NCC-17... hard to make out the rest of the numbers, but very unlikely they'd have another ship with the same style nacelles plus a registry that close to the Enterprise.
 
2012-12-07 12:19:21 AM

DreadnaughtZeta: I think the perspective is fooling you guys, along with that screencap not being the best quality. Here's my impression of the nacelle from a better screencap:

[img580.imageshack.us image 800x345] 

Definitely looks like the Enterprise to me. Again, I think it's just the closeness and angle that we're seeing it from that makes the nacelle look a little odd.

Also, the registry on the side is fairly clearly NCC-17... hard to make out the rest of the numbers, but very unlikely they'd have another ship with the same style nacelles plus a registry that close to the Enterprise.


Watch it again. There is no engine where you put that bottom line. You can wish as hard as you want and it still won't be true.
 
2012-12-07 12:29:34 AM

Surool: DreadnaughtZeta: I think the perspective is fooling you guys, along with that screencap not being the best quality. Here's my impression of the nacelle from a better screencap:

[img580.imageshack.us image 800x345] 

Definitely looks like the Enterprise to me. Again, I think it's just the closeness and angle that we're seeing it from that makes the nacelle look a little odd.

Also, the registry on the side is fairly clearly NCC-17... hard to make out the rest of the numbers, but very unlikely they'd have another ship with the same style nacelles plus a registry that close to the Enterprise.

Watch it again. There is no engine where you put that bottom line. You can wish as hard as you want and it still won't be true.


Actually there is. Here's the image I drew the lines on:

img831.imageshack.us

And I did watch it again, there's definitely solid engine where you say there's a cutout.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:02 AM

RexTalionis: Time's Arrow.


Time's Arrow was bad though
 
2012-12-07 01:33:09 AM
www.teufelaffe.com
img831.imageshack.us

I've reversed the shot from the blu-ray of the 2009 movie to make it easier to see the differences.

The trailing edge in the new trailer shot has more of an angle than the 2009 one.
In the 2009 shot, the "fins" start almost immediately at the end of the nacelle, in the new trailer shot, what could be seen as a fin doesn't start until farther down the nacelle.
The nacelle in the new trailer is lacking the small dome visible at the top of the nacelle on its aft end in the 2009 shot.
The lip of the raised area of the front of the nacelle in the 2009 shot should be clearly visible in the new trailer shot if they were the same design.

Again, unless they've redesigned the Enterprise for the new movie, that ship ain't her.
 
2012-12-07 01:42:07 AM

justabitdisturbed: it's Khan's hand you see in the foreground


Hard to say, but doesn't look like Cumberbatch's pornographic giant spider hands.



eeyore102:
Nope. Google "Benedict Cumberbatch" -- he was also in War Horse, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and BBC's Sherlock, among a bunch of other things. He's also set to play Smaug and the Necromancer in the three Hobbit movies. People have said his voice is like a jaguar trapped in a cello.

Or go to Youtube and listen to him read Ode to a Nightingale.

I've given this thread hand porn AND voice porn. So I think my job is done.
 
2012-12-07 02:07:26 AM

Teufelaffe: [www.teufelaffe.com image 850x318]
[img831.imageshack.us image 800x345]

I've reversed the shot from the blu-ray of the 2009 movie to make it easier to see the differences.

The trailing edge in the new trailer shot has more of an angle than the 2009 one.
In the 2009 shot, the "fins" start almost immediately at the end of the nacelle, in the new trailer shot, what could be seen as a fin doesn't start until farther down the nacelle.
The nacelle in the new trailer is lacking the small dome visible at the top of the nacelle on its aft end in the 2009 shot.
The lip of the raised area of the front of the nacelle in the 2009 shot should be clearly visible in the new trailer shot if they were the same design.

Again, unless they've redesigned the Enterprise for the new movie, that ship ain't her.


It *is* her, it's been confirmed elsewhere too (cough*RobertOrci*cough).

Your screencap doesn't take into account that the Enterprise's fins move when it's preparing to warp.
 
2012-12-07 02:27:35 AM

if_i_really_have_to: Hard to say, but doesn't look like Cumberbatch's pornographic giant spider hands.


Hmm.. (holds my left hand up) Looks a lot like my hands.. save that my fingers are slightly fatter these days. Course, I am about half Brit.
 
2012-12-07 03:04:46 AM

peterthx: It *is* her, it's been confirmed elsewhere too (cough*RobertOrci*cough).


Of course you have a link for this, right?
 
2012-12-07 03:10:07 AM
Ok, here's the screencap I put up earlier:

imageshack.us

Using Ricky "MadMan1701A" Wallace's awesome model, I got this after setting up the camera to match:

imageshack.us

Composited over the screencap:

imageshack.us 

Perfect fit.
 
2012-12-07 03:17:42 AM

DreadnaughtZeta: Ok, here's the screencap I put up earlier:

[imageshack.us image 800x345]

Using Ricky "MadMan1701A" Wallace's awesome model, I got this after setting up the camera to match:

[imageshack.us image 800x345]

Composited over the screencap:

[imageshack.us image 800x345] 

Perfect fit.


Thank you Commander.... This is the End of Thread. Well done.
 
2012-12-07 04:31:31 AM

Jaws_Victim: that pointless momster chase


Did I miss the scene where Kirk goes cougar hunting?
 
2012-12-07 04:42:44 AM

Jim from Saint Paul: Ok, I will preface this with saying "It's not as bad as people act like it is. The Doctor and Seven are interesting characters."

So.... I am halway through season 6 of Voyager. I am watching a Borg children. Borg. Children. GTFO.

/whiney Klingon woman who's episodes are all awful except for the first one
//Kim is still considered the child of the group 6 years in
///INDIANS IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

To add to the plothole vibe in this thread, don't forget about the mysterious case of the magical disappearing Borg baby. Muy important one episode, never spoken of again. Maybe Seven smothered it between episodes.

Oh, and to that guy up a ways that said VOY > DS9: good job, 9/10, you know how to troll a Trek thread.

/Nevar forget
//Oh lord
 
2012-12-07 06:05:45 AM
I happen to have liked Voyager. It had it's problems to be sure, but the concept of being stranded out in the far reaches of the galaxy and trying to get home, while exploring new worlds and trying to avoid violating the Prime was solid.
 
2012-12-07 09:01:23 AM

peterthx: Teufelaffe: [www.teufelaffe.com image 850x318]
[img831.imageshack.us image 800x345]

I've reversed the shot from the blu-ray of the 2009 movie to make it easier to see the differences.

The trailing edge in the new trailer shot has more of an angle than the 2009 one.
In the 2009 shot, the "fins" start almost immediately at the end of the nacelle, in the new trailer shot, what could be seen as a fin doesn't start until farther down the nacelle.
The nacelle in the new trailer is lacking the small dome visible at the top of the nacelle on its aft end in the 2009 shot.
The lip of the raised area of the front of the nacelle in the 2009 shot should be clearly visible in the new trailer shot if they were the same design.

Again, unless they've redesigned the Enterprise for the new movie, that ship ain't her.

It *is* her, it's been confirmed elsewhere too (cough*RobertOrci*cough).

Your screencap doesn't take into account that the Enterprise's fins move when it's preparing to warp.


The fins move out from the nacelle, not back or forward, so their movement as shown in the 2009 film would not account for the discrepancy between the fore/aft placement of the fin on the nacelle. Which leads to...


DreadnaughtZeta: Using Ricky "MadMan1701A" Wallace's awesome model, I got this after setting up the camera to match:

[imageshack.us image 800x345]


Look at the nacelle from the model you posted. Now look at the shot from the 2009 movie. They're not the same design. What have I said at least twice in this thread? Unless they've redesigned the Enterprise...

I am more than willing to accept that they may have redesigned the Enterprise for the new film. However, if they have not, then either the ship rising out of the water is not the Enterprise, or they need to sit down with their FX team and have a long talk about visual continuity.
 
2012-12-07 09:59:05 AM

Teufelaffe: peterthx: Teufelaffe: [www.teufelaffe.com image 850x318]
[img831.imageshack.us image 800x345]

I've reversed the shot from the blu-ray of the 2009 movie to make it easier to see the differences.

The trailing edge in the new trailer shot has more of an angle than the 2009 one.
In the 2009 shot, the "fins" start almost immediately at the end of the nacelle, in the new trailer shot, what could be seen as a fin doesn't start until farther down the nacelle.
The nacelle in the new trailer is lacking the small dome visible at the top of the nacelle on its aft end in the 2009 shot.
The lip of the raised area of the front of the nacelle in the 2009 shot should be clearly visible in the new trailer shot if they were the same design.

Again, unless they've redesigned the Enterprise for the new movie, that ship ain't her.

It *is* her, it's been confirmed elsewhere too (cough*RobertOrci*cough).

Your screencap doesn't take into account that the Enterprise's fins move when it's preparing to warp.

The fins move out from the nacelle, not back or forward, so their movement as shown in the 2009 film would not account for the discrepancy between the fore/aft placement of the fin on the nacelle. Which leads to...


DreadnaughtZeta: Using Ricky "MadMan1701A" Wallace's awesome model, I got this after setting up the camera to match:

[imageshack.us image 800x345]

Look at the nacelle from the model you posted. Now look at the shot from the 2009 movie. They're not the same design. What have I said at least twice in this thread? Unless they've redesigned the Enterprise...

I am more than willing to accept that they may have redesigned the Enterprise for the new film. However, if they have not, then either the ship rising out of the water is not the Enterprise, or they need to sit down with their FX team and have a long talk about visual continuity.


The nacelle is exactly the same design. I'm really stumped how you can continue to see differences that don't exist. The fins are in the same place, the overall shape is identical. You can even make out the ridge along the back of the bump up at the front of it.

You're just letting a strange angle and a bunch of water make you see the thing differently than it actually is.
 
2012-12-07 10:43:36 AM

Jim from Saint Paul:

So.... I am halway through season 6 of Voyager. I am watching a Borg children. Borg. Children. GTFO.



Not sure if this was pointed out to you, but the original TNG Borg episode (Q Who) established that Borg kept children in nurseries and assimilation began early. They were still working on the Borg backstory and how assimilation worked, but the very first episode to feature the Borg had Borg children.
 
2012-12-07 10:47:35 AM

DreadnaughtZeta: The nacelle is exactly the same design. I'm really stumped how you can continue to see differences that don't exist. The fins are in the same place, the overall shape is identical. You can even make out the ridge along the back of the bump up at the front of it.

You're just letting a strange angle and a bunch of water make you see the thing differently than it actually is.


You seriously think these are the exact same design?

imageshack.us
www.teufelaffe.com

Top design: Fin extends almost halfway the length of the nacelle.
Bottom design: Fin only extends maybe a third the length of the nacelle.

Top design: Rear edge of nacelle is a ~45° cut.
Bottom design: Rear edge of nacelle is a ~70° cut,

Top design: Fins have angular edges and a flat top.
Bottom design: Fins have rounded edges and a rounded top.
 
2012-12-07 10:53:33 AM

peterthx: It *is* her, it's been confirmed elsewhere too (cough*RobertOrci*cough).


Do you have a cite for that? I am not doubting you, but I'm wondering if it's Orci actually verifying it with info from the cast/crew, or Orci doing what people are doing in this thread and looking at the nacelle shot in the trailer and assuming it's the Enterprise. I'm curious to see which it is.

Also, again, to be abundantly clear, I am NOT saying that the ship in the trailer is absolutely not the Enterprise. What I am saying is that it is absolutely not the Enterprise as it appeared in the 2009 movie.  If they redesigned the Enterprise for the new film, then the shot in the trailer could very well be the Enterprise.
 
2012-12-07 10:57:23 AM
The ship coming out of the water could be another Constitution class star ship. In the original series, we did run into several Constitution classes in service other then the Enterprise (U.S.S. Defiant comes to mind). So it could be a sister ship of her or maybe a Constitution Retrofit.
 
2012-12-07 11:17:11 AM

yves0010: The ship coming out of the water could be another Constitution class star ship. In the original series, we did run into several Constitution classes in service other then the Enterprise (U.S.S. Defiant comes to mind). So it could be a sister ship of her or maybe a Constitution Retrofit.


What would be cool is if it were the NCC-1701 enterprise from TOS, which was mothballed for the larger version once the whole Nero thing came up. Perhaps submerged to be a museum of sorts in the bay and Khan/Mitchell/whoever takes it over.
 
2012-12-07 11:20:06 AM

You Are All Sheep: yves0010: The ship coming out of the water could be another Constitution class star ship. In the original series, we did run into several Constitution classes in service other then the Enterprise (U.S.S. Defiant comes to mind). So it could be a sister ship of her or maybe a Constitution Retrofit.

What would be cool is if it were the NCC-1701 enterprise from TOS, which was mothballed for the larger version once the whole Nero thing came up. Perhaps submerged to be a museum of sorts in the bay and Khan/Mitchell/whoever takes it over.


I kinda hope it could be another Constitution class ship. Would love to see a Constitution Vs Constitution battle.
 
2012-12-07 11:23:15 AM

Teufelaffe: DreadnaughtZeta: The nacelle is exactly the same design. I'm really stumped how you can continue to see differences that don't exist. The fins are in the same place, the overall shape is identical. You can even make out the ridge along the back of the bump up at the front of it.

You're just letting a strange angle and a bunch of water make you see the thing differently than it actually is.

You seriously think these are the exact same design?

[imageshack.us image 800x345]
[www.teufelaffe.com image 850x318]

Top design: Fin extends almost halfway the length of the nacelle.
Bottom design: Fin only extends maybe a third the length of the nacelle.

Top design: Rear edge of nacelle is a ~45° cut.
Bottom design: Rear edge of nacelle is a ~70° cut,

Top design: Fins have angular edges and a flat top.
Bottom design: Fins have rounded edges and a rounded top.


Again: in that screenshot the Enterprise is about to go to warp. The nacelles change their shape as the ship preps for warp. Watch those shots on the Blu-ray carefully, it's subtle but it's a noticeable change. Ryan Church and ILM talk about it in the making of materials (another plug for Cinefex here).

As far as where Orci hangs out, any good TREK fan can find it.
 
2012-12-07 11:50:40 AM

Teufelaffe: DreadnaughtZeta: The nacelle is exactly the same design. I'm really stumped how you can continue to see differences that don't exist. The fins are in the same place, the overall shape is identical. You can even make out the ridge along the back of the bump up at the front of it.

You're just letting a strange angle and a bunch of water make you see the thing differently than it actually is.

You seriously think these are the exact same design?

[imageshack.us image 800x345]
[www.teufelaffe.com image 850x318]

Top design: Fin extends almost halfway the length of the nacelle.
Bottom design: Fin only extends maybe a third the length of the nacelle.

Top design: Rear edge of nacelle is a ~45° cut.
Bottom design: Rear edge of nacelle is a ~70° cut,

Top design: Fins have angular edges and a flat top.
Bottom design: Fins have rounded edges and a rounded top.


You're still getting confused by the perspective. The shot you're using has an extremely high focal length, distorting the proportions a bit.

The model I'm using for my comparisons can be found here. It's just about the most accurate model of the '09 Enterprise available.

the perspective on your picture is hard to match, but I eventually got my camera set up pretty close. Here's what I came up with, using the exact same model of the nacelle from before:

img341.imageshack.us

As compared to the image that you keep putting up from the first movie:

img9.imageshack.us

Same exact design, the only differences can be attributed to the fact that the model I'm using is fan-made, and while extremely close to the original, might have some slight imperfections. Also the fact that I'm trying to match the angle and focal length by eye, so not getting that quite perfect either.

All in all, the model I've used is a close representation of the one from the original film, and also closely matches the shot from the teaser. Clearly they are the same thing, no matter how much you want to see it otherwise.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:09 AM

peterthx: Again: in that screenshot the Enterprise is about to go to warp. The nacelles change their shape as the ship preps for warp


Are you deliberately not paying attention? Look at the leading edges of the fins. NOT the part that moves, but the slope that is in front of the moving parts. You know, the part that doesn't farking change?

2009 version, not prepping for warp, curved slope on leading edge.
www.teufelaffe.com

Model that matches new trailer, straight slope, NO CURVE.
imageshack.us

In addition, as seen in the final shot of the 2009 film, all the components of the fins do is move out from the nacelle, they do not change shape. The fins in the 2009 shots are a different shape from those in the model matching the new trailer.

Finally, take a look at the fins in this poster I found for the new movie:
www.teufelaffe.com

No curve, straight angles, flat top. I.e., NOT THE SAME DAMN MODEL AS USED IN THE 2009 MOVIE.

So, guess what, I was right. I said they either redesigned the Enterprise, or the ship in the trailer wasn't the Enterprise. Looks like they did a redesign.
 
2012-12-07 11:53:39 AM
so they took that Master & Command is Star Trek thing really seriously then.
 
2012-12-07 11:55:52 AM

Teufelaffe: peterthx: Again: in that screenshot the Enterprise is about to go to warp. The nacelles change their shape as the ship preps for warp

Are you deliberately not paying attention? Look at the leading edges of the fins. NOT the part that moves, but the slope that is in front of the moving parts. You know, the part that doesn't farking change?

2009 version, not prepping for warp, curved slope on leading edge.
[www.teufelaffe.com image 568x464]

Model that matches new trailer, straight slope, NO CURVE.
[imageshack.us image 800x345]

In addition, as seen in the final shot of the 2009 film, all the components of the fins do is move out from the nacelle, they do not change shape. The fins in the 2009 shots are a different shape from those in the model matching the new trailer.

Finally, take a look at the fins in this poster I found for the new movie:
[www.teufelaffe.com image 675x1000]

No curve, straight angles, flat top. I.e., NOT THE SAME DAMN MODEL AS USED IN THE 2009 MOVIE.

So, guess what, I was right. I said they either redesigned the Enterprise, or the ship in the trailer wasn't the Enterprise. Looks like they did a redesign.


Yeah, the poster you just put up was made by the guy who made the model I've been using. It's not an official poster, and uses the exact model that I've been using for my comparisons, and yes, it's not 100% accurate, but close enough to show that the engine in the teaser is the same from the original movie.
 
2012-12-07 11:57:33 AM

Teufelaffe: So, guess what, I was right. I said they either redesigned the Enterprise, or the ship in the trailer wasn't the Enterprise. Looks like they did a redesign.


Exclusive: Bob Orci reveals new designs are underway for Enterprise and more in 'Star Trek 2'
 
2012-12-07 12:23:07 PM
but very unlikely they'd have another ship with the same style nacelles plus a registry that close to the Enterprise.

Um they number ships in order so there would be a NCC-1700 (which would be the uss constitution, probably) and a 1702 as well
 
2012-12-07 12:29:43 PM

Rose McGowan Loveslave: but very unlikely they'd have another ship with the same style nacelles plus a registry that close to the Enterprise.

Um they number ships in order so there would be a NCC-1700 (which would be the uss constitution, probably) and a 1702 as well


True, I'm just saying it's unlikely. Especially since they've never had another ship the same class as the Enterprise in any of the films, and the registry numbers tend to be a bit further off than that any time they have another ship around. The closest was probably Reliant in WOK, NCC-1864.
 
2012-12-07 12:58:35 PM

MattyFridays: Jim from Saint Paul:

So.... I am halway through season 6 of Voyager. I am watching a Borg children. Borg. Children. GTFO.



Not sure if this was pointed out to you, but the original TNG Borg episode (Q Who) established that Borg kept children in nurseries and assimilation began early. They were still working on the Borg backstory and how assimilation worked, but the very first episode to feature the Borg had Borg children.


The fact that they just HAPPEN to run against a broken down Borg ship, with no reasoning for why it was broken down (meaning there was nothing on sensors till BAM broken borg ship), that just HAPPENS to have the next evolution in Seven's maturity into the human world?

MEH. MEH I SAY. That's some lazy ass writing.
 
2012-12-07 01:04:40 PM
Let's see if we can summarize the evidence:

Khan
Pros: Babbles about vengeance. Jumps around and swats Klingons like an enhanced human. Wears a weathered Starfleet uniform (Khan wore one in the original story). The Japanese trailer is teasing a twist on the Wrath of Khan ending. The blond chick could be Carol Marcus.
Cons: Cumberbatch is many things, but he's NOT a swirling miasma of ambiguous ethnicity. Blondie doesn't really scream Carol Marcus.

Gary Mitchell
Pros: Would want vengeance against Kirk. Wears a Starfleet uniform. Blondie looks a LOT like Sally Kellerman's Elizabeth Dehner. God-powers probably would allow for some of his physical stunts.
Cons: No glowing eyes. No obvious ESP. There's been an approved in-continuity nuTrek comic telling the Gary Mitchell story already (curiously without Dehner), which would make this a sequel.

Garth of Izar
Pros: Crazy, brilliant former Starfleet Officer? Check. Annnd, that's about it.
Cons: No shapeshifting. No Yvonne Craig-y green girl. And really, who cares?

Some other Botany Bay crew member
Pros: All the Khan clues still apply, with the added benefit of Cumberbatch's ethnicity working. Also, Peter Weller COULD be a Khan that was, say, thawed out some time between Kirk's birth (the branching point) and the present.
Cons: Can't think of one. I'm starting to fall into like with this idea.

Some dude with no connection to any previous Trek story
Pros: Nothing in the trailer actually augers against it.
Cons: Keeping character names a secret would be way counterproductive if you're eventually going to reveal that they're guys you've never heard of.
 
2012-12-07 01:11:24 PM

Carth: Mugato: Carth: They used anti-gravity sleds in both TOS and TNG i'd assume it was something similar to get it high enough it could take off safely. Or they use a tractor beam from a ship already in space.

One ship tractoring another ship of equal or greater mass out of Earth's atmosphere. That makes a shiatton of sense. How did Nero's temporal incursion affect the timeline to the point where the Enterprise got built in a shipyard in space to Kirk's back yard? Maybe the building materials were powered by corn.

Crappy writing and the need to have a scene where Kirk rolls up in a motorcycle and watches the Enterprise get built. No need to explain it more than that.

/these people get a lot of money to write this shiat too

A show that violates our fundamental understand of physics doesn't explain how they get ships in the air and you complain? They make shiat up as they go along. They can replicate anything they want (except for dilithiu and latinum for some reason) oh and they can't replicate any living organism but they can teleport you anywhere. Hell, sometimes they can teleport you over 40,000 light years which defeats the purpose of space ships at that point. Lets, not even talk about all the things that are wrong with a functioning holodeck.

The show and movies are fun but lets not pretend they've ever been realistic or had any scientific accuracy.


Oh, god, the replicators/transporters? I wish they'd do away with that limitation. So the deal would be that the only limitations on replicating humans was that you could only store so many people in the buffer as you had transport pads and that the replicator could only operate while there was still organic matter to pull from and power to operate. Then stick the replicator in a permanent loop glitch and pump out the same five redshirts over and over and over again with the exact same memory state at the time they transported. Ship of the damned, hundreds of copies of the same five people, and all the dead red shirts get recycled.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:34 PM
OMG Jesus was a replicator.
 
2012-12-07 01:55:14 PM

You Are All Sheep: OMG Jesus was a replicator.


THATS WHAT GOD NEEDED WITH A STARSHIP.

HOLY MOLEY.
 
2012-12-07 02:35:34 PM
I'm bored and easily amused, so here are some pictures:

global3.memecdn.com

killthehydra.com

i1.kym-cdn.com

www.omgwtfimages.com
 
2012-12-07 02:53:44 PM

RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.


My first thought was Nurse Chapel.
 
2012-12-07 03:29:36 PM

swahnhennessy: I think that's your answer. It's Gary Mitchell. Or at least a take on that story.


Here's the potential issues with that - although I might be wrong on my info. I'm pretty sure the current Star Trek monthly comics, which are re-examinations of how the reboot crew deal with classic stories, has already done Gary Mitchell. Further, I am thinking they are cannon since they are written by the same guys that wrote the screenplay.

I agree Alice Eve seems like she's Dehner, but she could also be Carol Marcus.
 
2012-12-07 03:34:35 PM

extroverted_suicide: I agree Alice Eve seems like she's Dehner, but she could also be Carol Marcus.


Juston Bieber could play David.

/nah, too manly
 
2012-12-07 03:35:56 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: /this thread went nerd factor brazillion quick


Yes, and that's why it's one of my favorite threads in months.
 
2012-12-07 03:38:44 PM

tagkc: RexTalionis: So, I'm guessing Alice Eve is the new Elizabeth Dehner.

My first thought was Nurse Chapel.


The other bandied about name is "new Carol Marcus".

All 3 plausible. First 2 are more likey then Carol.
 
2012-12-07 03:45:16 PM

MadSkillz: The enterprise did not run on beer.


Correct. It ran on scotch and something..... green.
 
2012-12-07 04:11:13 PM

extroverted_suicide: swahnhennessy: I think that's your answer. It's Gary Mitchell. Or at least a take on that story.

Here's the potential issues with that - although I might be wrong on my info. I'm pretty sure the current Star Trek monthly comics, which are re-examinations of how the reboot crew deal with classic stories, has already done Gary Mitchell. Further, I am thinking they are cannon since they are written by the same guys that wrote the screenplay.

I agree Alice Eve seems like she's Dehner, but she could also be Carol Marcus.


They could also be using the George Lucas rule of canon.

Meaning "Expanded Universe stories are canon till I say they are not. The movies trump all".

/not snarky, look at wikipedia and interviews to see what I mean
 
2012-12-07 09:57:51 PM

extroverted_suicide: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: /this thread went nerd factor brazillion quick

Yes, and that's why it's one of my favorite threads in months.


amen brother and/or sister
 
2012-12-08 12:03:22 AM

ducklord666: Let's see if we can summarize the evidence:

Khan
Pros: Babbles about vengeance. Jumps around and swats Klingons like an enhanced human. Wears a weathered Starfleet uniform (Khan wore one in the original story). The Japanese trailer is teasing a twist on the Wrath of Khan ending. The blond chick could be Carol Marcus.
Cons: Cumberbatch is many things, but he's NOT a swirling miasma of ambiguous ethnicity. Blondie doesn't really scream Carol Marcus.

Gary Mitchell
Pros: Would want vengeance against Kirk. Wears a Starfleet uniform. Blondie looks a LOT like Sally Kellerman's Elizabeth Dehner. God-powers probably would allow for some of his physical stunts.
Cons: No glowing eyes. No obvious ESP. There's been an approved in-continuity nuTrek comic telling the Gary Mitchell story already (curiously without Dehner), which would make this a sequel.

Garth of Izar
Pros: Crazy, brilliant former Starfleet Officer? Check. Annnd, that's about it.
Cons: No shapeshifting. No Yvonne Craig-y green girl. And really, who cares?

Some other Botany Bay crew member
Pros: All the Khan clues still apply, with the added benefit of Cumberbatch's ethnicity working. Also, Peter Weller COULD be a Khan that was, say, thawed out some time between Kirk's birth (the branching point) and the present.
Cons: Can't think of one. I'm starting to fall into like with this idea.

Some dude with no connection to any previous Trek story
Pros: Nothing in the trailer actually augers against it.
Cons: Keeping character names a secret would be way counterproductive if you're eventually going to reveal that they're guys you've never heard of.




Charlie X? Hope not...
 
2012-12-08 12:09:00 AM
I didn't know Cindy McCain could act...

www.joblo.com
 
2012-12-08 12:38:39 AM

Jim from Saint Paul: Wayne 985: Awful trailer. Take a cue from The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit or The Avengers, for that matter. Plenty of action, but also wit and intelligence to give you a story.

This was just a montage of explosions and screaming.

Someone is attacking earth. They are pissed. Kirk and Friends™ are in deep shiat.

Also, are you comparing the 2 and a half minute trailers for the above mentioned films to this 1 minute one? Hey, I am not telling what to like or not. Just make sure you are comparing apples to apples ya know?

/unless you hate new Trek because it's not old Trek of course


Eh, you may be right. Still, I'm cantankerous and don't like being challenged. Move along before I hit you with a switch of hickory.
 
2012-12-08 12:53:17 AM
So, what did we decide?
 
2012-12-08 11:41:08 AM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: So, what did we decide?


That Spock uses the Genisis device on a primoridal planet to create a hine for the remaining Vulcans, but like in Wrath it has a tendency to take out all living life, and Spock dies, abandoned by Starfleet where he gets a funeral, which is where Kirk is speaking.

However, Genesis takes Spock, and recreates him twice, one is pure Vulcan, and then Benny is if only his human genes were expressed.Spock is Spock, but Benny is Human Spock with all those emotions that the Vulcan genes supress, who wants revenge for the death of his Mother, and the destruction of Vulcan, and he blames Starfleet just as much as the Romulans.

/not my idea, but it sounds like it could be fun were it to be true.
 
2012-12-08 01:26:05 PM
Okay... It's mot Khan, it's idiotic. The concept that a the Enterprise in an alternate timeline would end up in the exact location at the exact time to pick up the exact space ship is ludicrous. Simply put, the odds are impossible.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be difficult you see the Enterprise sent to the ede of the galaxy, no matter what the timeline is.

That being said, it's likely someone completely different and new. Let's all remember Coverfield. We all talked about Voltron and Cthulhu.
 
2012-12-09 04:11:58 AM

Teufelaffe: peterthx: Again: in that screenshot the Enterprise is about to go to warp. The nacelles change their shape as the ship preps for warp

Are you deliberately not paying attention? Look at the leading edges of the fins. NOT the part that moves, but the slope that is in front of the moving parts. You know, the part that doesn't farking change?

2009 version, not prepping for warp, curved slope on leading edge.
[www.teufelaffe.com image 568x464]

Model that matches new trailer, straight slope, NO CURVE.
[imageshack.us image 800x345]

In addition, as seen in the final shot of the 2009 film, all the components of the fins do is move out from the nacelle, they do not change shape. The fins in the 2009 shots are a different shape from those in the model matching the new trailer.

Finally, take a look at the fins in this poster I found for the new movie:
[www.teufelaffe.com image 675x1000]

No curve, straight angles, flat top. I.e., NOT THE SAME DAMN MODEL AS USED IN THE 2009 MOVIE.

So, guess what, I was right. I said they either redesigned the Enterprise, or the ship in the trailer wasn't the Enterprise. Looks like they did a redesign.


That is hilarious, in a thread full of speculation as to whether the enterprise can go under water, whether that even is water and whether it is the enterprise, you post a Picture that clearly shoes the enterprise going into the sea in you attempt to prove that it is not what is rising out of the water.
 
2012-12-09 05:43:48 PM

Type40: That is hilarious, in a thread full of speculation as to whether the enterprise can go under water, whether that even is water and whether it is the enterprise, you post a Picture that clearly shoes the enterprise going into the sea in you attempt to prove that it is not what is rising out of the water.


Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
 
Displayed 359 of 359 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report