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.

(Some Guy)   New Star Trek trailer. Things blow up, Kirk gets rebellious, and there's a giant fish   (youtube.googleapis.com) divider line 118
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

4945 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Mar 2013 at 9:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-10 08:11:09 AM  

Your_Huckleberry: Obviously the reboot made tons of money and no one can deny it re-charged the franchise. It belongs to Abrahms now. There is something odd about him being 'in control' of both Star Trek and Star Wars, but that's the way it is. He's got the keys


I don't think it's odd.  It's safe, vanilla and without risk because JJ isn't an auteur the will take either franchise in some artistic, challenging direction and he'll bring in the movies on budget.  This has what Hollywood has been doing for decades.

After seeing the first Trek flick and watching his speech on Star Wars and mystery I'm seriously doubting whether he truly "gets" either franchise, but that's not really the point, is it?  The point is to make money and he'll do so in spades.

I'm not an Abrams hater.  He makes good movies.  I doubt he'll every make GREAT movies, however.  It's just not in his DNA to take the sort of risks that make great films stand apart for posterity.
 
2013-03-10 08:23:39 AM  

Ginnungagap42: Ishkur: You know what I'd like to see?

A Star Trek movie that uses true science fiction to explore humanity's sense of wonder at the infinite. It could have a real philosophical puzzler with a Rod Serling-esque twist at the end, and spark profound contemplation on life, reality, and the nature of the human condition. I miss when Star Trek meant discovery and exploration of the unknown and unexplained.

But hey.... gotta sell movie tickets or something.


I came here to say almost exactly this.



That's for episodic TV, not ooo shiny! summer movies.
I'm pretty confident we will see Star Trek on TV again after this movie crew runs its course.
 
2013-03-10 08:39:12 AM  
(watches trailer after work, at last)  They do like the spacesuits now.. rather too expensive to use them on TV much.

The last movie was a very big What If: how would Kirk be different if he grew up without a father, and how will Spock be losing his mother and his homeworld suddenly.  We will continue to see the answer to that question in future movies, if done right.
 
2013-03-10 08:46:26 AM  
So strap in and prepare yourself for another 2 hour long Juicy Fruit commercial.
 
2013-03-10 09:39:34 AM  
I like this clip, you know, it's exciting.
 
2013-03-10 09:41:17 AM  

theorellior: GAT_00: And one of the earlier trailers quite clearly showed Enterprise shot to hell and crashing.

It was built in the middle of the canyons of Iowa, they'll be able to lift it out of the gravity well no problem.


Yes, Iowa is known for its many canyons.
 
2013-03-10 10:21:39 AM  

cptjeff: Confabulat: But who cares about that crap, it was always about Kirk and Spock and McCoy getting into wacky adventures.

Did you "purists" never notice that? It was a fun and silly show, with lots of green sex and space hippies and tribbles and Mudd. Sorry you didn't ever catch onto that part.


Well, it was about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, anyway. But your childish mind missed that each represented elements of the human condition, and that those wacky adventures were largly morality plays that pitted those various human impulses against each other.

It was fun and silly in many respects, but if you weren't 8, you might have caught on to a few deeper levels than that.



I think **some** of us are reading a little too much into a TV series. Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this????? Several posters on here have basically stated their lives have been defined by  a campy TV show that was about sexing up green chicks, the mating habits of gerbils and sexing up green chicks.

I saw the re-boot, enjoyed the hell out of it because I'm not looking for a deeper hidden meaning! If I want that, I'll actually listen to my wife the next time she speaks and try to figure out what she **really** means and how I messed up by not meeting her emotional needs.....
 
2013-03-10 10:21:39 AM  

Confabulat: J.J. Abrams's version of Trek is the version of Trek I grew up dreaming about back in the 70s and 80s. I was a kid and it was pretty hard to find Star Trek reruns but I ate them up when I could.

When I was in college they debuted The Next Generation and I watched it and liked it, but it always fell short of TOS for me. The other shows other than DS9 are nonsense and should be ignored.

But who cares about that crap, it was always about Kirk and Spock and McCoy getting into wacky adventures.

Did you "purists" never notice that? It was a fun and silly show, with lots of green sex and space hippies and tribbles and Mudd. Sorry you didn't ever catch onto that part.

Tell me more about how wise and brilliant it was.Brain brain, where is brain?


The first time, or two, that I saw the new Trek movie, there were some groaningly silly moments. Then, as I remembered, and watched, some of the original series (Netflix FTW) I realized how silly it also was.

Almost every episode ended with a pun, Spock's raised eyebrow, and Kirk with a pained grin. The entire ship's interior looked like it was painted by hippies on LSD with unpopular paint color remnants bought from Home Depot. (Which might have been true, btw... well, except for the Home Depot bit) But most of it was just the actors often going over the top... often. It was frequently silly, cheesy, campy... but it was fun and entertaining.

There were truly some excellent episodes with very good acting. Balance of Terror, The Doomsday Machine come to mind. For the most part they were silly characters. C'mon... Trelane, tribbles, Nazis, swordfighting Sulu (which was faaabulous!) the aforementioned missing brain, Chicago gangsters, Native Americans, US flag worshiping natives, Abe Lincoln, hippies, assheads, transporter "accidents" etc.

I think the idea that Star Trek was cerebral and serious came from TNG and DS9 (though they had some silly stuff too.) When I think of the new Trek... it is far less silly than TOS. Let's see what comes of it.
 
2013-03-10 11:38:28 AM  

kendelrio: Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this?????


Hi, welcome to the Star Trek thread.
 
2013-03-10 11:53:23 AM  

that bosnian sniper: kendelrio: Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this?????

Hi, welcome to the Star Trek thread.


i447.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-10 12:07:46 PM  

kendelrio: I think **some** of us are reading a little too much into a TV series. Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this?????


Martin Luther King Jr. who famously talked Nichelle Nichols out of quitting because she inspired black folks everywhere.

Not to mention astronauts Ronald McNair, Candy Torres, Sally Ride and Judith Resnik along with countless other scientists, doctors and engineers that have spent the decades after they grew up watching the original Trek a better place for us all.

Sure, it was occasionally campy.  But it's a pretty ignorant position to take that it wasn't until later incarnations that it became cerebral.  Roddenberry was in a constant battle with the network because despite the 60s sexual vibe he wanted to include women in positions of power, or black folks as officers.  Or deal with actual issues tearing the nation apart such as the war in Vietnam or race relations.

It's sad that folks who enjoy the fun but shallow newer movies to the original series need to try and bring the original series down.  It's seems they would be much happier if they could just find a shiny object to stare at rather than attack a show that was way ahead of it's time.
 
2013-03-10 12:51:53 PM  

MurphyMurphy: I feed off internet crying, I think it makes good movies like this that much more enjoyable.

Knowing I don't have my head up my ass so far I can actually sit down and watch a farking movie

... a movie, not a epic undertaking of man that must somehow exceed every landmark that's occurred before it. An hour and 30min story with cinematography and special effects,


People like you are part of the problem.  Just about every movie that was less than 100 minutes was total crap.  If they can't find 90m worth of material, then it's not a story worth telling.
 
2013-03-10 01:46:08 PM  

Blathering Idjut: kendelrio: I think **some** of us are reading a little too much into a TV series. Honestly, who dissects a freaking TV show like this?????

Martin Luther King Jr. who famously talked Nichelle Nichols out of quitting because she inspired black folks everywhere.

Not to mention astronauts Ronald McNair, Candy Torres, Sally Ride and Judith Resnik along with countless other scientists, doctors and engineers that have spent the decades after they grew up watching the original Trek a better place for us all.

Sure, it was occasionally campy.  But it's a pretty ignorant position to take that it wasn't until later incarnations that it became cerebral.  Roddenberry was in a constant battle with the network because despite the 60s sexual vibe he wanted to include women in positions of power, or black folks as officers.  Or deal with actual issues tearing the nation apart such as the war in Vietnam or race relations.

It's sad that folks who enjoy the fun but shallow newer movies to the original series need to try and bring the original series down.  It's seems they would be much happier if they could just find a shiny object to stare at rather than attack a show that was way ahead of it's time.


Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the original series to and I understand the issues addressed on it. (A RUSSIAN> on our tv????), I just don't attach that much importance to ANY tv show....

/except Airwolf...
 
2013-03-10 02:05:10 PM  

Mad_Radhu: GAT_00: Ishkur: Mugato: That was the first movie and the fifth movie and people hated them

The first movie was a paper-thin TOS plot stretched out for two hours. The problem wasn't the idea, the problem was the pacing. The fifth movie was just awful for a number of dumb reasons (Uhuru strip tease/God/bad SFX, etc.)

Hard sci fi is attempted every now and then with mixed acclaim. The most recent one I remember was Moon. I don't mind action movies or even Star Trek movies where the action drives the plot. I just hope the new one has a little more substance to it and is more cohesive than the last one.

Hard sci-fi is difficult in movies because you simply can't do it right in 120 pages.

2001, 12 Monkeys, The Andromeda Strain, Primer, and Gattaca were all some great hard-ish science fiction movies. Also, Contact would have benefited from more time to tell its story, but they did a decent job telling the story in 2 hours (I just wish the last part of the story was fit in because some of the themes just don't work without the big twist of the atheist scientist finding proof the universe was created via the path of math and reason instead of faith and prayer).


I don't know about 'hard' sci-fi, but Looper was the best sci-fi film I've seen in some years.
 
2013-03-10 02:20:05 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe: You probably honestly think we can 3D print entire cars

We're getting there:  http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/extras/articles/jay-lenos-3d-printer-re p laces-rusty-old-parts-1/

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=256862&dfpPParams=ind_ 18 3,industry_auto,aid_256862&dfpLayout=article

 Your crusade against 3D printing is way off-base. You may not be able to print an engine block, but you can print the sand mold used to cast the metal, like so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8MaVaqNr3U

 You're insane if you really think that 3D printing is no big deal.
 
2013-03-10 05:57:10 PM  
With all the yelling and corny catch phrases isn't this "Battleship" in space?

Oh, wait, Daemon Lindenhoff wrote this.  I'll be skipping this one.
 
2013-03-10 06:37:09 PM  

shooosh: theorellior: GAT_00: And one of the earlier trailers quite clearly showed Enterprise shot to hell and crashing.

It was built in the middle of the canyons of Iowa, they'll be able to lift it out of the gravity well no problem.

Yes, Iowa is known for its many canyons.


I always assumed the canyons were the result of huge amounts of rock being scooped out and then transformed into building material for the starships. They basically feed it into a machine that rips apart the matter and reconfigures it into what they need for the ship like a replicator (some sort of advanced carbon nano-tube fiber type thingy).
 
2013-03-12 07:42:25 AM  

kendelrio: Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the original series to and I understand the issues addressed on it. (A RUSSIAN> on our tv????), I just don't attach that much importance to ANY tv show....

/except Airwolf...


duh da da duh dadaduh da da duh duh duh duh duh duh... it's so much easier to DUH the themsong than it is to translate into text.
 
Displayed 18 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report