View Full Version : New Star Trek movie
Boarder
12/11/2008, 07:04 PM
I'm sure I'll be horribly disappointed ala the fake Star Warses but this trailer looks kind of cool.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/
royalfan5
12/11/2008, 07:12 PM
I'm fully on-board with this.
King Crimson
12/11/2008, 09:13 PM
i don't know. i didn't see any green chicks.
I think since it has the stink of JJ Abrams, it's gonna suck. But, Simon Pegg always makes me laugh, and I don't have the deep and abiding love for the Trek franchise as I did for Star Wars. So they can f*ck it up and no one has to die.
SoonerStormchaser
12/12/2008, 11:49 AM
OUT!
sooneron
12/12/2008, 01:02 PM
That will be kick ***!!!
... On my plasma down in the basement.
Boarder
12/12/2008, 02:18 PM
I don't have the deep and abiding love for the Trek franchise as I did for Star Wars. So they can f*ck it up and no one has to die.
This will make it better for me, too. That's why "horribly disappointed" was a bit harsh, I now think.
On an almost totally unrelated note, I find myself enjoying the Clone Wars series. As long as Padme and Jar-Jar don't show up too often, that is.
ousoonerfan
12/12/2008, 03:55 PM
On an almost totally unrelated note, I find myself enjoying the Clone Wars series. As long as Padme and Jar-Jar don't show up too often, that is.
Me too. My eight year old boy won't let me miss it. Now I'm hooked.
My only complaint is that Cartoon Network's website sucks balls with their updating schedule. I missed one episode, now I have to just watch them as they're posted online, but there's about a two-week delay between broadcast and posting. F*ckers.
Also, how many warships can Grevious get blow'd up before SOMEONE says something about it? Sheesh.
KC//CRIMSON
12/12/2008, 04:00 PM
I see Harold, is Kumar in there too?
Pricetag
12/12/2008, 04:03 PM
How could a ship like Enterprise possibly be built in gravity?
Something to do with a polar bear and a giant blurry monster, I think.
Boarder
12/12/2008, 11:00 PM
How could a ship like Enterprise possibly be built in gravity?
Magic Dust, man....
OldDarth
12/13/2008, 05:40 PM
i don't know. i didn't see any green chicks.
Rachel Nichols appears as an Orion in Star Trek XI.
You know what's super cool? Making a troll just to post a pic 'cause you know it violates the board rules. God bless the internets.
OldDarth
12/13/2008, 07:19 PM
Picture removed. Apologies - was not aware of that.
John Kochtoston
12/13/2008, 10:40 PM
How could a ship like Enterprise possibly be built in gravity?
See, this is what concerns me. What else is Abrahms gonna **** up from the canon? The Enterprise was/will be built at the Utopia Planitia Shipyards, which orbit Mars....
Uhh, I mean, uhh, didja see that game? And I bang girls all the time. Especially my Canadian girlfriend. Yeah, that's what I meant.
OldDarth
12/13/2008, 10:57 PM
Forget canon. Treat the movie as a new entity. Any callbacks to what went on before should be taken as gifts.
BTW Majel Roddenberry has been tapped to do the computer voice again so there is one callback.
Geek alert - John you are talking about the Enterprise D not the original.
soonerinkaty
12/13/2008, 11:08 PM
I saw the trailer while i was at The Day the Earth Stood Still and was blown away by the Star Trek trailer. I cant wait for it to come out.
John Kochtoston
12/14/2008, 12:35 AM
Forget canon. Treat the movie as a new entity. Any callbacks to what went on before should be taken as gifts.
BTW Majel Roddenberry has been tapped to do the computer voice again so there is one callback.
Geek alert - John you are talking about the Enterprise D not the original.
Yeah, whoops on that. Still the San Francisco ship yards were also supposed to be in orbit.
BudSooner
12/14/2008, 04:04 PM
Of note, there was a article on Ain't it cool news about the timeline and other issues....the reason so many things are different in the movie is due to Kirk finding out that Nero(Eric Bana)making an attempt on Vulcan to destroy it.
Once that got started, it polluted the timeline and created a new one...hence the reason behind Kirk being on the Enterprise instead of the Farragut, and the reason he is on the ship at the same time as Captain Pike.
As for the Enterprise being built on Earth, it's not the first time the Enterprise was within the atmosphere either...though in one of the novels, Kirk was on trial for sending the ship to warp while within the gravity field of another planet...thereby incinerating the habitants atmosphere.
Or something like that, I read that one 12yrs ago.
Of this from Wiki...
The Making of Star Trek (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Making_of_Star_Trek&action=edit&redlink=1) by Gene Roddenberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry) and Stephen E. Whitfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_E._Whitfield&action=edit&redlink=1), the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco_Navy_Yards&action=edit&redlink=1) and the vessel itself was constructed in space. The film's co-writer, Roberto Orci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Orci), acknowledged depicting the Enterprise being built on Earth would cause debates among fans regarding canon. Explaining that the concept came from their own creative license and the precedent set in Star Trek novels, he said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29#cite_note-5)
Huh?
<b>
Anthony: OK, now let’s get really into it. From the trailer, and certainly from the four scene preview, there is no doubt that things are different. Pike and Kirk are hanging out in a bar. The ship looks different. Kirk is on the Enterprise and not headed to the Farragut. People are seeing Romulans…things are different. Now it has been revealed in the Entertainment Weekly article that Nero goes back in time and attacks the Kelvin, and JJ also talked about this during his previews. So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different?
Bob: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move.
Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change?
Bob: Right.
Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
Bob: Yes, and yes.</b><b>
Source.....
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39433
</b>
Pricetag
12/15/2008, 12:08 PM
That is some seriously weak sauce. How about instead of changing things up and then trying to rationalize them by ridiculous time travel angles, you respect the frigging canon and work within it? It ain't that hard. I'm no Trekkie, but sheesh.
And the thing about the simulated gravity, and the ship needing to be calibrated in gravity is ridiculous. They did that because they wanted to have Kirk ride up on his bike and see the ship under construction. This is where they have to consider the demographic they're targeting--yeah, it's a cool shot, but it isn't going to float with the fans.
BudSooner
12/15/2008, 01:05 PM
And the thing about the simulated gravity, and the ship needing to be calibrated in gravity is ridiculous. They did that because they wanted to have Kirk ride up on his bike and see the ship under construction. This is where they have to consider the demographic they're targeting--yeah, it's a cool shot, but it isn't going to float with the fans.
I know, and having watched "Voyager" where the ship landed....BLECH!
I kept waiting for the ship to hover and then suddenly drop, ****ing up the landing gear.
"Commander, take this dip**** outside and kick his ***....NICE ****ING LANDING....MORON!" :D
skycat
12/15/2008, 03:48 PM
Also, how many warships can Grevious get blow'd up before SOMEONE says something about it? Sheesh.
Yeah, I can tell that you aren't up to date.
:pop:
Also my 2 year old loves watching "spaceships, light sabres, and pow-pows."
That is some seriously weak sauce. How about instead of changing things up and then trying to rationalize them by ridiculous time travel angles, you respect the frigging canon and work within it? It ain't that hard. I'm no Trekkie, but sheesh.
And the thing about the simulated gravity, and the ship needing to be calibrated in gravity is ridiculous. They did that because they wanted to have Kirk ride up on his bike and see the ship under construction. This is where they have to consider the demographic they're targeting--yeah, it's a cool shot, but it isn't going to float with the fans.
Yeah, 'cause no one minds f*cking with decades-old continuity just so you can have a f*cking TOP GUN ripoff in the middle of your raping of classic Star Trek.
Yep, I'm gonna go ahead and say that once again, JJ Abrams can suck a dick. No-talent hack.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.