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  
•       •       •

4941 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
 
2013-03-09 04:27:41 PM
So, the main villain is a giant fish!

Didn't see that one coming... :P
 
2013-03-09 04:30:54 PM
I think I just had a nerdgasm.
 
2013-03-09 05:00:02 PM
Only thing is where do you keep the franchise going when each successive movie features an order of magnitude greater number of spectacular explosions and space battles? I mean I love me some space battles but two movies from now it's going to have to start with the Enterprise exploding and end with the universe exploding. HEY time to jump to a DIFFERENT timeline...
 
2013-03-09 09:07:16 PM
Needs more speaking by Benedict Cumberbatch.


/but it was really damn cool
 
2013-03-09 09:09:09 PM

Bathia_Mapes: I think I just had a nerdgasm.


This one disappointed me.  It's the first one I've seen that actually gives credence to the 'generic action sci-fi masquerading as Star Trek' theory.
 
2013-03-09 09:11:32 PM
26.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-09 09:13:46 PM
Near as I can tell its all coming down to a disagreement on the prime directive. The prequel comics and the opening surely indicate that as the major conflict.
 
2013-03-09 09:22:49 PM

Donnchadha: [26.media.tumblr.com image 500x282]


Ah fishy fishy fishy oooohhhh!
 
2013-03-09 09:30:09 PM
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.
 
2013-03-09 09:32:55 PM
At the end it kinda looks like they unattached the two parts of the ship and crash landed the saucer part. Original.
 
2013-03-09 09:33:04 PM

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.


Yeah, but you know what?  TMP was farking boring.  Until the reboot, IV was still the highest grossing ST movie to date, and that was without adjusting for inflation.
 
2013-03-09 09:34:58 PM

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.
 
2013-03-09 09:35:03 PM

Kid Mojo: At the end it kinda looks like they unattached the two parts of the ship and crash landed the saucer part. Original.


Actually, though it was never used, Constitution-class ships supposedly have the ability to separate the secondary hull in the event of an emergency.  They can't be reattached without a Starbase doing the work, but if that actually happens, it wouldn't be without precedent.

And one of the earlier trailers quite clearly showed Enterprise shot to hell and crashing.
 
2013-03-09 09:35:37 PM

vossiewulf: Only thing is where do you keep the franchise going when each successive movie features an order of magnitude greater number of spectacular explosions and space battles? I mean I love me some space battles but two movies from now it's going to have to start with the Enterprise exploding and end with the universe exploding. HEY time to jump to a DIFFERENT timeline...


I like the Planet of the Apes method. Blow up the entire planet in part two, then still have three more sequels.
 
2013-03-09 09:36:15 PM

Ishkur: 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.


That was the first movie and the fifth movie and people hated them. The only successful Trek movies are about a psychotic dude usually out for revenge.
 
2013-03-09 09:36:55 PM
i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-09 09:36:57 PM
fishy fishy fishy fish.
 
2013-03-09 09:37:41 PM

GAT_00: This one disappointed me.  It's the first one I've seen that actually gives credence to the 'generic action sci-fi masquerading as Star Trek' theory.


Considering that Star Trek was masquerading as sci-fi - I see this as a step up.
 
2013-03-09 09:40:10 PM

Ishkur: 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 see you answered your own question.

/and if you want profound contemplation of life, reality, and the nature of the human condition - read a book
 
2013-03-09 09:41:09 PM

Ishkur: 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.


upload.wikimedia.org

Ishkur: I miss when Star Trek meant discovery and exploration of the unknown and unexplained.


Uh, it was fiction. It didn't explore much of anything. It's a story. On TV. With actors and sets and bad special effects.
 
2013-03-09 09:41:17 PM

gingerjet: Ishkur: 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 see you answered your own question.

/and if you want profound contemplation of life, reality, and the nature of the human condition - read a book


Elitist snobbery of Star Trek.  I sense a high schooler.
 
2013-03-09 09:46:40 PM

GAT_00: gingerjet: Ishkur: 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 see you answered your own question.

/and if you want profound contemplation of life, reality, and the nature of the human condition - read a book

Elitist snobbery of Star Trek.  I sense a high schooler.


Herbert!  Herbert!  Herbert!
 
2013-03-09 09:51:22 PM

Captain Steroid: So, the main villain is a giant fish!

Didn't see that one coming... :P


KOOOIIII!
 
2013-03-09 09:54:58 PM

GAT_00: Bathia_Mapes: I think I just had a nerdgasm.

This one disappointed me.  It's the first one I've seen that actually gives credence to the 'generic action sci-fi masquerading as Star Trek' theory.


So it's just like all the other Star Trek movies?
 
2013-03-09 09:55:15 PM
SO DAMN LOUD
 
2013-03-09 10:01:16 PM
You had me at a rebellious Kirk blows a giant fish.
 
2013-03-09 10:01:17 PM
Eh. Generic Sci-Fi action movie. Yawn.
 
2013-03-09 10:08:27 PM
So a bunch of confusing camera work and, what-what, is that lens flare? That's not Trek, that's GI Joe in Space. You folks enjoy.
 
2013-03-09 10:11:03 PM

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.imgur.com
Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
 
2013-03-09 10:14:34 PM

theorellior: So a bunch of confusing camera work and, what-what, is that lens flare? That's not Trek, that's GI Joe in Space. You folks enjoy.


I will, sorry for your lots
 
2013-03-09 10:21:50 PM
Last one was a good popcorn movie. This one looks like it will be a lot of fun too. I like the reboot thing. It's like when a comic gets a new lease on life when a new team is brought in like when Alan Moore took over Swamp Thing back in the 80s. Is this new tack turning a venerated franchise towards generic sci-fi flavored action flicks rather than trying anything particularly new or profound in the field of SF proper? There's merit to that argument I suppose but I'll probably still be there the week this comes out butt in chair, popcorn at the ready.
 
2013-03-09 10:22:02 PM

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.
 
2013-03-09 10:22:55 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Uh, it was fiction. It didn't explore much of anything. It's a story. On TV. With actors and sets and bad special effects.


By any chance do you have Aspergers?
 
2013-03-09 10:24:12 PM

GAT_00: Kid Mojo: At the end it kinda looks like they unattached the two parts of the ship and crash landed the saucer part. Original.

Actually, though it was never used, Constitution-class ships supposedly have the ability to separate the secondary hull in the event of an emergency.  They can't be reattached without a Starbase doing the work, but if that actually happens, it wouldn't be without precedent.

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


Plenty of letters left in the alphabet.
 
2013-03-09 10:25:24 PM

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.
 
2013-03-09 10:25:57 PM

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.
 
2013-03-09 10:29:05 PM

Ishkur: Quantum Apostrophe: Uh, it was fiction. It didn't explore much of anything. It's a story. On TV. With actors and sets and bad special effects.

By any chance do you have Aspergers?


Hilarious coming from you.
 
2013-03-09 10:31:02 PM
Everywhere, trekkie geeks are either mid-orgasm or nerd-raging on a thousand internet boards.
 
2013-03-09 10:33:10 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Hilarious coming from you.


Says the pedantic dumbass with an unhealthy obsession with 3D printing.
 
2013-03-09 10:40:49 PM
fc03.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-09 10:41:41 PM
SilentStrider: Needs more speaking by Benedict Cumberbatch.

Agreed; it didn't meet the mandated B.C. quota for a Star Trek trailer.  I demand to see more until that quota is fulfilled.
 
2013-03-09 10:44:10 PM
 
2013-03-09 10:51:57 PM

Ishkur: Quantum Apostrophe: Hilarious coming from you.

Says the pedantic dumbass with an unhealthy obsession with 3D printing.


Hey, at least I don't think we're months away from some kind of sci-fi utopia because some smelly nerds put a glue gun on a stepper motor. I'd rather be a pedantic dumbass than an uncritical wanker who jumps on every new bandwagon no matter how foolish and delusional.

/Pedantic dumbass might make for a great slashdot login, thanks
 
2013-03-09 10:57:26 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: I'd rather be a pedantic dumbass than an uncritical wanker who jumps on every new bandwagon no matter how foolish and delusional.


Speaking of which, did you hear that wearing iridium pendants on your nipples can extend your life by three decades? Better look into it!
 
2013-03-09 10:59:42 PM
Although the movie looks good, I have to say the whole idea of hiding the Enterprise under water seems a little fishy to me.
 
2013-03-09 11:00:12 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Hey, at least I don't think we're months away from some kind of sci-fi utopia because some smelly nerds put a glue gun on a stepper motor


Who thinks that? ...no one. That's just stupid. You are inventing an imaginary foe for your neurosis who only exists in your head, and then you are fighting him right here on Fark so you can prove to everyone how sane you are.

You stupendous tool.
 
2013-03-09 11:01:06 PM

theorellior: Quantum Apostrophe: I'd rather be a pedantic dumbass than an uncritical wanker who jumps on every new bandwagon no matter how foolish and delusional.

Speaking of which, did you hear that wearing iridium pendants on your nipples can extend your life by three decades? Better look into it!


If it did, I would. And so would you, you liar.
/Maybe I already do, Mr Smartypants.
 
2013-03-09 11:03:06 PM
Simpsons did it!
 
2013-03-09 11:03:12 PM
Terrible trailer.
 
2013-03-09 11:03:31 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: And so would you, you liar.


Not true! I already know it's a scam.

The REAL effect comes from wearing osmium pendants.
 
2013-03-09 11:05:55 PM

Brick-House: If you want so e major spoilers...

http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2013/03/earlier-release-dates-music -a nd-huge.html#more

You're welcome


McCoy is actually a house cat in a robotic suit?! My God, man! O.O
 
2013-03-09 11:07:13 PM

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).
 
2013-03-09 11:11:37 PM
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,

A flick to pass the afternoon/evening.
A regular ol movie, with good actors and ok lines. Maybe a few explosions, throw in a cute sassy chick maybe..

To be able to watch it and enjoy it for what it is, not what my precious little snowflake ass has convinced myself I should expect out of everything... a level of standards so high that if they were a mirror and applied to me, I'd fail at meeting in every aspect and fiber of my being

yeah, I'm glad I don't have to deal with any of that.
Some of you though.. shiat, how do you manage to get up in the morning without biatching how good of a morning it should have been?

Will be a good movie, can't wait. Had that theme song stuck in my head for a week after seeing the last one.
/Hope I pick a theater with good popcorn.
 
2013-03-09 11:13:51 PM
I'm now convinced the villain is Gary Mitchell. In the trailer Kirk is speaking to Pike as if he personally knows who the villain is, and Mitchell is supposed to be a classmate of Kirk's as well as a friend of Kirk.
 
2013-03-09 11:15:45 PM

theorellior: The REAL effect comes from wearing osmium pendants.


One thing I'd like to do if I win big at the lottery is to make "45 lbs" weight plates out of iridium and put them in a gym. For the record, each plate would weigh about 3 times the same volume of steel, which I assume the regular plates are made from.

I assume the looks on people's faces would be priceless as they try to take the plate off the rack...

But where do you find 300 pounds of iridium and the facilities to pour it into a mould??
 
2013-03-09 11:17:07 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 didn't say it was impossible or didn't exist, I said it was difficult.  What's more, Star Trek has never been hard sci-fi.  Heisenberg Compensators alone disqualify it.

Hard sci-fi is my genre of choice, as well as space opera.  Niven, Hamilton, KSR and Zahn are my favorite writers.
 
2013-03-09 11:18:13 PM
Fark, I forgot Sunshine. That was an awesome hard sci-fi movie. The weird turn into a slasher flick towards the end is debatable, but the movie did actually try to make even the Sun going out plausible by having Brian Cox come up with the backstory that it was infected by exotic matter that needed to be destroyed in order for the Sun to get restarted.
 
2013-03-10 12:00:44 AM

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.


They already made about 14 of these.
 
2013-03-10 12:01:57 AM

Mad_Radhu: Fark, I forgot Sunshine. That was an awesome hard sci-fi movie. The weird turn into a slasher flick towards the end is debatable, but the movie did actually try to make even the Sun going out plausible by having Brian Cox come up with the backstory that it was infected by exotic matter that needed to be destroyed in order for the Sun to get restarted.


Sunshine, hard science fiction? Hardly.

/sentence structure is hard
 
2013-03-10 12:11:28 AM
Looks like the last one.

Which is to say, I probably won't be seeing it in theaters. The last one was a solid action movie- that's fine. As Star Trek, which I expect to have some decent thought and serious characters, along with action and humor, it completely sucked.
 
2013-03-10 12:26:45 AM
New Star Trek trailer. Things blow up, Kirk gets rebellious, and there's a giant fish

Subby, whales are MAMMALS ... not FISH.
 
2013-03-10 12:29:42 AM

Ishkur: Quantum Apostrophe: Hey, at least I don't think we're months away from some kind of sci-fi utopia because some smelly nerds put a glue gun on a stepper motor

Who thinks that? ...no one. That's just stupid. You are inventing an imaginary foe for your neurosis who only exists in your head, and then you are fighting him right here on Fark so you can prove to everyone how sane you are.

You stupendous tool.


Every single 3D printing story or private space fest has the usual cluster of mental midgets running in with their sci-fi fantasies. I wager you're one of them. You probably honestly think we can 3D print entire cars or computers, right? Or if not right now, in some magical nebulous future, right?

Ten years from now, nothing will be different from now. Toys, sure, but nothing fundamental. Something tells me you're in your twenties.... You'll see.
 
2013-03-10 12:29:49 AM

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,

A flick to pass the afternoon/evening.
A regular ol movie, with good actors and ok lines. Maybe a few explosions, throw in a cute sassy chick maybe..

To be able to watch it and enjoy it for what it is, not what my precious little snowflake ass has convinced myself I should expect out of everything... a level of standards so high that if they were a mirror and applied to me, I'd fail at meeting in every aspect and fiber of my being

yeah, I'm glad I don't have to deal with any of that.
Some of you though.. shiat, how do you manage to get up in the morning without biatching how good of a morning it should have been?

Will be a good movie, can't wait. Had that theme song stuck in my head for a week after seeing the last one.
/Hope I pick a theater with good popcorn.


But but but, fridge! Nuke! Uh...midichlorians!
 
2013-03-10 12:42:20 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Every single 3D printing story or private space fest has the usual cluster of mental midgets running in with their sci-fi fantasies. I wager you're one of them.


As I already explained to you once today:

You are a god damn retard.

Quantum Apostrophe: Something tells me you're in your twenties


Protip: Stop listening to what Something says.
 
2013-03-10 12:50:53 AM

Bendal: I'm now convinced the villain is Gary Mitchell. In the trailer Kirk is speaking to Pike as if he personally knows who the villain is, and Mitchell is supposed to be a classmate of Kirk's as well as a friend of Kirk.


I'm thinking it is another from the group of superhumans that Khan led...maybe John Harrison is the leader instead of Khan in this universe. Maybe something happened to Khan. He says three things in the trailers that make me think this:

1. He tells Kirk that he is better than everything (superhuman)

2. He says "is there anything you would not do for your family?" (Leader of the other superhumans, his family)

3. He tells a man with a dying daughter that he can save her, when even the advanced medicine of the day can't. Is this a way of saying he will make the girl into a superhuman like him?

Obviously, I don't know anymore than anyone else, but this makes the most sense to me.
 
2013-03-10 12:53:53 AM

bborchar: Bendal: I'm now convinced the villain is Gary Mitchell. In the trailer Kirk is speaking to Pike as if he personally knows who the villain is, and Mitchell is supposed to be a classmate of Kirk's as well as a friend of Kirk.

I'm thinking it is another from the group of superhumans that Khan led...maybe John Harrison is the leader instead of Khan in this universe. Maybe something happened to Khan. He says three things in the trailers that make me think this:

1. He tells Kirk that he is better than everything (superhuman)

2. He says "is there anything you would not do for your family?" (Leader of the other superhumans, his family)

3. He tells a man with a dying daughter that he can save her, when even the advanced medicine of the day can't. Is this a way of saying he will make the girl into a superhuman like him?

Obviously, I don't know anymore than anyone else, but this makes the most sense to me.


*better than HIM at everything

/up late on mobile
 
2013-03-10 12:58:44 AM

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.


Brian Cox like typing detected.

GOOD.
 
2013-03-10 12:59:12 AM
Ishkur....Quantum Apostrophe...STOP IT!

Or so help me, I will turn this saucer around and when we get back to our galaxy, you two will be the sorriest beings in the quadrant.
 
2013-03-10 01:03:44 AM

GAT_00: 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 didn't say it was impossible or didn't exist, I said it was difficult.  What's more, Star Trek has never been hard sci-fi.  Heisenberg Compensators alone disqualify it.

Hard sci-fi is my genre of choice, as well as space opera.  Niven, Hamilton, KSR and Zahn are my favorite writers.


You're a rocker, through and through!

\Love that Def Leppard shirt
 
2013-03-10 01:06:49 AM

somemoron: GAT_00: 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 didn't say it was impossible or didn't exist, I said it was difficult.  What's more, Star Trek has never been hard sci-fi.  Heisenberg Compensators alone disqualify it.

Hard sci-fi is my genre of choice, as well as space opera.  Niven, Hamilton, KSR and Zahn are my favorite writers.

You're a rocker, through and through!

\Love that Def Leppard shirt


wat
 
2013-03-10 01:10:34 AM
Go watch Joe Dirt.  Jeezus, I didn't think THAT would be obscure...  The last line of your post is reminiscent of the title character defending his manhood.

\Need sleep, alcohol, or vast quantities of both.
 
2013-03-10 01:11:13 AM

somemoron: Go watch Joe Dirt.  Jeezus, I didn't think THAT would be obscure...  The last line of your post is reminiscent of the title character defending his manhood.

\Need sleep, alcohol, or vast quantities of both.


That was for GAT_00... I really do need sleep.  Damn.
 
2013-03-10 03:08:14 AM

GAT_00: 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 didn't say it was impossible or didn't exist, I said it was difficult.  What's more, Star Trek has never been hard sci-fi.  Heisenberg Compensators alone disqualify it.

Hard sci-fi is my genre of choice, as well as space opera.  Niven, Hamilton, KSR and Zahn are my favorite writers.


I have to think the "Leviathan Wales" books COULD be awesome as movies. Well, the first 2, seeing as the third isn't out yet. But expensive.

/And could very easily be an unwatchable mess if the script isn't handled well
//Maybe ab HBO mini-series....
 
2013-03-10 03:29:24 AM
drawception.com
 
2013-03-10 03:35:24 AM

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'm sure a great deal of the Star Trek fan base would like that. But if you go in that direction, you risk alienating the mainstream audience and a box office bomb, potentially leading to another hiatus.

The new movie looks exciting, and while it may not be the thought provoking epic it could be, it's greasing the skids for the future. We might get a new TV series out of this revival, who knows?

Basically, Star Trek is enjoying good times now - enjoy the ride.
 
2013-03-10 03:46:32 AM

FiendishFellow05: I'm sure a great deal of the Star Trek fan base would like that. But if you go in that direction, you risk alienating the mainstream audience and a box office bomb, potentially leading to another hiatus.


As part of that core audience, I'm already alienated. The last one was way too fast paced and shallow for my taste- the key to Star Trek has always been character and story. That one had neither. From the preview, it looks like this is going to be the same. Mainstream audience they may have, but this version of Star Trek isn't anywhere close to the real thing. It's another bubblegum action flick, just cashing in on what amounts to just a name at this point.

JJ Abrams can fark off. He's not going to be getting my money unless this next movie turns out very, very different from both the last one, and how this one is being advertized. I'll stick with my reruns on netflix, thanks.


FiendishFellow05: Basically, Star Trek is enjoying good times now - enjoy the ride.


Star Trek is not enjoying good times. Star Trek is dead. 'JJ Abrams does generic space action flick' is what's doing fine. Fine if you like that, but I'm not particularly interested in it.
 
2013-03-10 04:01:54 AM
Well I have no idea, but I will guess Harriman has turned against the Prime Directive. The comics drop hints and they are now considered Trek canon in this universe:

In nu-Trek universe, Capt. April's Number One was apparently the father of Carol Marcus, who is obviously Kirk's love interest in the next one (we all met their son in Wrath of Khan after all).

Since this is now nu-Trek canon I won't say anything about that but I bet it's still all about the Prime Directive.
 
2013-03-10 04:03:17 AM

cptjeff: Star Trek is not enjoying good times.


Pine away for those glory years of Voyager.
 
2013-03-10 04:17:09 AM
I've read aguments online that Cumberbatch IS April. Well reasoned out too, hehe.


The  Enterprise is ferrying  U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, and his wife,Enterprise's tractor beam to stop it. This results in the  Enterprise being dragged behind the alien ship straight through the nova remnant, only to emerge with the other vessel in a bizarre alternate universe in which empty space is white, speckled with black stars.

Kirk, his crew, and the Aprils quickly discover that they have entered an antimatter universe, in which ships fly backward and time itself moves in reverse, as demonstrated by Dr. April'shttp://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/characters/ANI/bi o/68755 .html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: none; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 170, 0); font-weight: bold; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Karla Five, an explorer who passed into our "positive matter? universe by accident, and was using the Beta Niobe nova as a means of returning home. Karla explains that if a star goes nova in one universe at the same time as its counterpart in the other universe does, then the paired stars can be used as a means of crossing between universes. Unfortunately, the "window? Karla used to cross back into her home universe is now closed, preventing the  Enterprise from returning home by simply retracing her steps.

Karla leads the  Enterprise to her universe's version of Earth, her homeworld of  http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/characters/ANI/bio/68715 .html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: none; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 170, 0); font-weight: bold; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">old manwho is Karla Five's son, and an infant who is her father. Despite her society's progressive loss of knowledge as the individuals in it regress in age, Karla contrives a way to coordinate two stellar novae - one in the matter universe, the other in the antimatter universe - in order to create a gateway for the  Enterprise. Karla sacrifices her own ship, using it to tow Kirk's vessel through the portal at a sufficiently high speed to prevent the passage from destroying it. But before the journey home can commence, the effects of reversed time begin having noticeable effects on Kirk and his entire crew; everyone aboard is losing experience and expertise because they are growing younger by the moment.

While the captain and crew regress to toddlerhood and infancy, the Aprils - who are much older than everyone else aboard - have been restored to full adult vigor. Commodore April takes command, safely piloting the  Enterprise through the interdimensional portal. Once the starship is back in normal space, the Aprils use the transporter - which retains a molecular memory of every crewmember at his or her correct ages - to restore everyone to normal. The Aprils briefly consider hanging onto their newly acquired youth, but ultimately decide that living one's life over again makes sense only if one has regrets; like the  Enterprise crew, they enter the transporter, which restores them to their real ages. Once back en route to the commodore's retirement ceremony on Babel, the Aprils are gratified to learn that their decisive actions in the antimatter universe have caused Starfleet to review its mandatory retirement policy; Robert and Sarah April may indeed receiv
 
2013-03-10 04:18:58 AM
Easily a better read than stupid Computer.
 
2013-03-10 04:24:08 AM
That's OLD Trek canon by the way.
 
2013-03-10 04:28:30 AM
Not so much lens flare. Trek is never been hard Sci-Fi, it has been popular Sci-fi.  This is the series the coined "techno-babble", and reversing the flow to solve problems.
 
2013-03-10 04:33:14 AM

Confabulat: cptjeff: Star Trek is not enjoying good times.

Pine away for those glory years of Voyager.


Voyager sucked. Most of Enterprise sucked. But while it was a sad reflection of the better Trek, it at least tried. JJ Trek stole the names and pissed all over everything else that made the franchise what it was. It didn't attempt to reach any deep issues. It didn't try to play on the tensions between the sides of humanity revealed by the characters. Hell, I'm not sure it had any real, or even marginally believable characters, apart from Nimoy Spock. It was an action movie. As an action movie, it wasn't completely awful. But I gave it a couple of chances, and it only got worse with repeated viewing.

Rather than this shait, I'll just watch Wrath of Khan again. You know, something that was carried by a script that dealt with age, death, past mistakes, redemption... Serious themes, not shiny objects. The action was there, but it was about more, and didn't need a zillion lens flares to make it an engaging movie. Or maybe all of Deep Space 9. The remastered versions give the Original Series a nice facelift.

Basically, I want something that doesn't insult my intelligence. I get the desire to update it, to bring the sets and effects up to modern standards, but when you remove any semblance of content- well, let's just say when I come out of a movie both intellectually and emotionally dumber, I ain't coming back for a repeat performance.
 
2013-03-10 04:34:40 AM

cptjeff: Confabulat: cptjeff: Star Trek is not enjoying good times.

Pine away for those glory years of Voyager.

Voyager sucked. Most of Enterprise sucked. But while it was a sad reflection of the better Trek, it at least tried. JJ Trek stole the names and pissed all over everything else that made the franchise what it was. It didn't attempt to reach any deep issues. It didn't try to play on the tensions between the sides of humanity revealed by the characters. Hell, I'm not sure it had any real, or even marginally believable characters, apart from Nimoy Spock. It was an action movie. As an action movie, it wasn't completely awful. But I gave it a couple of chances, and it only got worse with repeated viewing.

Rather than this shait, I'll just watch Wrath of Khan again. You know, something that was carried by a script that dealt with age, death, past mistakes, redemption... Serious themes, not shiny objects. The action was there, but it was about more, and didn't need a zillion lens flares to make it an engaging movie. Or maybe all of Deep Space 9. The remastered versions give the Original Series a nice facelift.

Basically, I want something that doesn't insult my intelligence. I get the desire to update it, to bring the sets and effects up to modern standards, but when you remove any semblance of content- well, let's just say when I come out of a movie both intellectually and emotionally dumber, I ain't coming back for a repeat performance.


I bet you loved the whales movie too.
 
2013-03-10 04:35:39 AM

Confabulat: cptjeff: Star Trek is not enjoying good times.

Pine away for those glory years of Voyager.


Woo yeah Janeway as Paris getting it on as reptiles. True Star Trek values right there,
 
2013-03-10 04:35:42 AM
How about that Nemesis? Insurrection?

Tell me more about what REAL Trek movies are like, hehe
 
2013-03-10 04:37:16 AM
People who still hate J.J. Abrams' s version of Trek have really bad taste in entertainment.

Whaa! We're not supposed to be entertained! We're supposed to watch Spock fly through a giant robot for half an hour until some guy mates with it, cause that's STAR TREK
 
2013-03-10 04:46:52 AM
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?
 
2013-03-10 04:51:51 AM

Confabulat: People who still hate J.J. Abrams' s version of Trek have really bad taste in entertainment.


I'd say that one's my favorite Star Trek movie.. though my runner up is The Motion Picture, so my views are likely atypical.

(I'd like the Wrath of Khan better if I didn't see it a few HUNDRED times on cable already.. never need to see it again!)
 
2013-03-10 04:51:56 AM

Confabulat: I bet you loved the whales movie too.


I honestly did. It was silly without being stupid, with a few more serious bits thrown in here and there. Humorous content is still content. If JJ Trek had created characters believable enough where you could do that kind of movie without it coming across as a 2 hour long string of forced jokes, I wouldn't hate it as much. But if you did that kind of movie with neuTrek, it would come off as a sad parody.

If you don't like Star Trek, you don't like Star Trek. That's fine. But please recognize that the stuff JJ Abrams threw out there bears no semblance to anything related to Star Trek- it's a generic action movie that takes character names and settings from a series that still has some cache. Star Trek got itself on the map because it offered an option on TV that wasn't meaningless drivel. The acting was not the best, the production value was far from high, but it at least tried to make the characters real and to deal with something beyond another empty romantic farce. But with the new Trek, there's no there there. It's summer action flick #47. I gave the first one a chance, but very much doubt that I'll extend the same courtesy to this one.
 
2013-03-10 04:57:29 AM

Confabulat: People who still hate J.J. Abrams' s version of Trek have really bad taste in entertainment.


As a generic action movie, it's decently executed. If that's your thing, great. Sugary light entertainment. "Cars, Booms, and Booms XVII" in space. Lots of quick cuts, explosions, and things wooshing by the cameral.

Some of us just don't see any point to that. The original Trek offered a bit more. JJ Trek doesn't offer anything.
 
2013-03-10 05:01:34 AM

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.
 
2013-03-10 05:02:05 AM

cptjeff: The original Trek offered a bit more. JJ Trek doesn't offer anything.


I don't think that's a given.
 
2013-03-10 05:09:38 AM
Jim the Fish?

How is he these days....?
 
2013-03-10 05:09:52 AM
You can already tell from the trailer Abrams is still a lens flare whore.
 
2013-03-10 05:10:16 AM

Alphax: cptjeff: The original Trek offered a bit more. JJ Trek doesn't offer anything.

I don't think that's a given.


Well, tell me if the new movie actually bothers with something other than zoomy things, bright lights, and explosions. Unless I'm really blown away by the reviews, I won't be seeing it.
 
2013-03-10 05:18:10 AM

bborchar: 3. He tells a man with a dying daughter that he can save her, when even the advanced medicine of the day can't. Is this a way of saying he will make the girl into a superhuman like him?



SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS  Hesavesherbygivingheratransfusionofhisblood. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

/Hope that was good enough
//I'm only in it for the Cumberbatch, so I don't care if I'm spoiled
 
2013-03-10 05:43:26 AM

cptjeff: Confabulat: I bet you loved the whales movie too.

I honestly did. It was silly without being stupid, with a few more serious bits thrown in here and there. Humorous content is still content. If JJ Trek had created characters believable enough where you could do that kind of movie without it coming across as a 2 hour long string of forced jokes, I wouldn't hate it as much. But if you did that kind of movie with neuTrek, it would come off as a sad parody.

If you don't like Star Trek, you don't like Star Trek. That's fine. But please recognize that the stuff JJ Abrams threw out there bears no semblance to anything related to Star Trek- it's a generic action movie that takes character names and settings from a series that still has some cache. Star Trek got itself on the map because it offered an option on TV that wasn't meaningless drivel. The acting was not the best, the production value was far from high, but it at least tried to make the characters real and to deal with something beyond another empty romantic farce. But with the new Trek, there's no there there. It's summer action flick #47. I gave the first one a chance, but very much doubt that I'll extend the same courtesy to this one.


What you seem to be missing here is Star Trek TOS had three years to build up characters. The movies expanded on the characters we knew and put them in crazy over the top situations because you need that for movies. But they always had that underlying nuance of story and character that everyone says Star Trek should have. The reason Star Trek has that is because all the movies have been made after the television series aired. The new Trek had none of that. We have completely new characters and there is no time for subtle plots and intricate character development. Sure, they are based on old characters but there hasn't been much story so they needed to make a story that would fit in a movie.
 
2013-03-10 06:42:57 AM

ActionJoe: cptjeff: Confabulat: I bet you loved the whales movie too.

I honestly did. It was silly without being stupid, with a few more serious bits thrown in here and there. Humorous content is still content. If JJ Trek had created characters believable enough where you could do that kind of movie without it coming across as a 2 hour long string of forced jokes, I wouldn't hate it as much. But if you did that kind of movie with neuTrek, it would come off as a sad parody.

If you don't like Star Trek, you don't like Star Trek. That's fine. But please recognize that the stuff JJ Abrams threw out there bears no semblance to anything related to Star Trek- it's a generic action movie that takes character names and settings from a series that still has some cache. Star Trek got itself on the map because it offered an option on TV that wasn't meaningless drivel. The acting was not the best, the production value was far from high, but it at least tried to make the characters real and to deal with something beyond another empty romantic farce. But with the new Trek, there's no there there. It's summer action flick #47. I gave the first one a chance, but very much doubt that I'll extend the same courtesy to this one.

What you seem to be missing here is Star Trek TOS had three years to build up characters. The movies expanded on the characters we knew and put them in crazy over the top situations because you need that for movies. But they always had that underlying nuance of story and character that everyone says Star Trek should have. The reason Star Trek has that is because all the movies have been made after the television series aired. The new Trek had none of that. We have completely new characters and there is no time for subtle plots and intricate character development. Sure, they are based on old characters but there hasn't been much story so they needed to make a story that would fit in a movie.



I still feel the concept of using the alternative universe to create a blank story board is a really good idea. No doubt Abrahms and co also figured the original series characters to be better known(they are) and didn't need much backstory. However, the plan was clearly to get the crew in place in the first movie. And since this crew is much closer in age and service experience to each other than the originals, you get pure stupidity like Kirk's promotion. Almost like they'd painted themselves into a corner, they needed Kirk in command, they thought it'd be cool to have Kirk be McCoy, Spock and Uhura's classmate(actually behind her). So you get a clumsy cadet to captain climb up the ranks that ranks with Spock's Brain, the Nemesis dune buggy chase, Threshold and that racist Season One TNG episode as the worst things ever done in the entire franchise' history.
I really enjoyed the reboot the first time I saw it, and less so each time I watch it. Someone earlier mentioned that they'd seen The Wrath of Khan a hundred times, I can believe that. I can't picture watching the reboot nearly as many times as Star Trek II , First Contact or even some of the episodes. It was well made, had fantastic effects, good acting performances, I even liked the music. But it just seems more and more shallow as time goes on, it's flash. Really shiny flash, but flash all the same.
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. Nemesis was a terrible movie, just garbage, so the movie aspect of Star Trek was in trouble and there's no doubt the reboot was a huge shot in the arm. Even if I have faults with it, there's no way I can argue the reboot isn't a far,far better movie than Nemesis or The Final Frontier.
It's not like I won't go see this new one, I just don't have my hopes up for it.
 
2013-03-10 07:31:47 AM

Captain Steroid: Brick-House: If you want so e major spoilers...

http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2013/03/earlier-release-dates-music -a nd-huge.html#more

You're welcome

McCoy is actually a house cat in a robotic suit?! My God, man! O.O

 
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 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report