|
Apple Jax posted:They're still glasses I'd have to put on top of my normal glasses My parents have these and they love them. They used to have the same problem as you. Maybe they'd work for you too?
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:That being said, I really hope they switch it up, and we get to hear Spock deliver the "Of all the souls I've encountered..." line. It would kind of sound like an insult coming from him, though, haha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
MichiganCubbie posted:My parents have these and they love them. They used to have the same problem as you. Maybe they'd work for you too? It would be a piece of cake to pop out the lenses of a regular pair of 3D glasses and affix them to your own somehow. Do a sweet custom job. Put some gears on there, go steampunk. Get some goggles. Oh jesus I just realized there is no doubt someone out there rocking a pair of custom steampunk 3D goggles to every 3D movie they go to, so forget I said anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
I like Star Trek but hate JJA and Lindelof, but this movie sounds like it just might not have the mandatory horrible plotting, so I've gone from a definite no to a "possibly".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
This teaser trailer makes it look like yet another really generic Action Extravaganza With Sci-Fi Elements, But Don't Worry, No Spaceships, So Don't Worry About Feeling Nerdy If You See It In Theaters. It could have promise but there's really not a single element in that trailer worth getting excited about, unlike say the first Prometheus trailer which had a lot of cool poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Polo-Rican posted:This teaser trailer makes it look like yet another really generic Action Extravaganza With Sci-Fi Elements, But Don't Worry, No Spaceships, So Don't Worry About Feeling Nerdy If You See It In Theaters. It could have promise but there's really not a single element in that trailer worth getting excited about, unlike say the first Prometheus trailer which had a lot of cool poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Polo-Rican posted:This teaser trailer makes it look like yet another really generic Action Extravaganza With Sci-Fi Elements, But Don't Worry, No Spaceships, So Don't Worry About Feeling Nerdy If You See It In Theaters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Who's idea was it to fly the Enterprise under water? drat it, Troi, get out of the bridge! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
I for one welcome the new movie even more after seeing the trailer. The red plant planet reminds me of the planets of the day from the original shows (the kind that had weird overgrowth and atypical coloured skies) on a bigger budget. That Klingon planet looks pretty spot on and in line with how I remember Qo'noS from TNG, and it'll be interesting to see it for the first time in TOS era (entire planet couldn't be that different from how it would have appeared back then, not in a space of six-seven years from Nero's visit). I wasn't sold completely on the "i will take my vengeance  " line itself but holy poo poo Benedict did a fine job with everything else in the trailer. It's gonna be a show to say the least I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Mogomra posted:Who's idea was it to fly the Enterprise under water? drat it, Troi, get out of the bridge! Neither the ship coming out of the water, nor the one crashing into water is the Enterprise. Both are shaped all wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Seeing Cumberbatch in a Starfleet uniform really kind of sells me that he's Mitchell, comics be damned
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Well, I saw the new trailer. I'm not feeling anything. It's certainly got a lot of stuff exploding and people kicking each other and a bad guy who is bad. It looks really generic and that teaser makes it look like a movie I've already seen a million times. Meh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Neither the ship coming out of the water, nor the one crashing into water is the Enterprise. Both are shaped all wrong. I thought I could make out "NCC-1701" on the one coming out of water? A friend of mine from years back was having a trailer discussion on Facebook just now, and apparently he was saying there's something on TrekMovie about how the crashing ship is named "Yamato." Kinda interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
To the trailer's detriment, it attempts to imitate the Avengers trailer extremely closely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
There are probably a lot of good marketing reasons to make the trailer more actiony and less Trek-y. Even so, I got a good kick out of watching it and I'm looking forward to more. Spaceships crashing into and rising out of water are cool. I've always thought underwater starships were awesome though, like that episode of Voyager when they converted into a submarine and explored the all-water planet. The extended Japanese version that builds on the fact that this movie is playing the "Enterprise crew is Kirk's family" angle was pretty cool, too, I like that take on things and hope it's more than a gimmick. Also I think trying to extrapolate that the whole movie will be Avengers in space from a ~1 minute actiony trailer is silly. speng31b fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Well, I saw the new trailer. I'm not feeling anything. It's certainly got a lot of stuff exploding and people kicking each other and a bad guy who is bad. It looks really generic and that teaser makes it look like a movie I've already seen a million times. Meh. My feeling as well. The first JJ Abrams movie was pretty far from what TOS was, but this looks even farther. Just a generic action movie with maybe some Star Trek elements/characters in it. People will buy tickets to go see it, a lot of people not fans of Star Trek will go see it, which is what they're going for. It really just looks like it'll be a super hero movie that might take place in space for maybe a second.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Given he's talking about how he's returned, I wouldn't be surprised if the movie is structured with dramatic pathos-filled flashbacks telling the origin story of Cumberbatch in parallel to the movie. That'd be a way to get around needing to have a whole backstory first.ComposerGuy posted:Except that: In JJVerse, the Enterprise was built on Earth (in Iowa, no less), meaning at some point that sucker had to lift off and deal with the strain of exiting Earth's gravity and atmosphere. I'll grant you it isn't quite the same a deep-sea diving, but still. I dunno, if I were building her I'd build her on Earth and have tugs lift her and her supports into space, not just blast off. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
I'm glad everyone is able to figure all that stuff out based on a 60 second teaser trailer with bits and pieces cut together to create some sort of mystery. I like Trek, I like the last movie, and I'm looking forward to the next. Sorry all the hardcore Trek nerds can't enjoy it. It's not like the majority of the Trek stuff before JJ's movies was great anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:I'm glad everyone is able to figure all that stuff out based on a 60 second teaser trailer with bits and pieces cut together to create some sort of mystery. Have you met Trek fans? Endless speculation and fanwanking is how we entertain ourselves. Don't take that away from us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:I'm glad everyone is able to figure all that stuff out based on a 60 second teaser trailer with bits and pieces cut together to create some sort of mystery. I'm pretty hardcore. I've seen every episode of all six series, every movie tons of times, and I'm looking forward to this. I loved the last movie and would rate it in the top five, wavering between third and fifth best depending on mood, but I'm going to see this at Midnight opening night. Every single one of us will be seeing it, regardless of the bitching. It's our nature. After all, we're only human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Given he's talking about how he's returned, I wouldn't be surprised if the movie is structured with dramatic pathos-filled flashbacks telling the origin story of Cumberbatch in parallel to the movie. That'd be a way to get around needing to have a whole backstory first. Let's not forget that Mitchell/Garth debuted in the episode they took their wrath on the crew in. They weren't set up as a terrifying threat, say, four episodes before - they showed up, people said "oh so and so did this before, he used to be this way but X happened to make him the way he is". In fact, a lot of great classic Trek stories started out with a bad guy who does bad guy things that gets more humanized as the story goes on. Fleshing out characters that seem one dimension at first was a strong point of the original series (even if by today's standards they'd still be cheesy/wooden). The Golden Gael fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
I liked the last Star Trek, but I'm not exactly sure that dark and menacing is the direction I want see at this point. We'll see how it works out, but I hope it doesn't turn out to be like another "Nemesis" where you're left with a sick and tired feeling at the end. I know JJ Abrams would rather do Star Wars than Star Trek, and that's apparent in the last movie, but I was hoping for something more Star Trekky the second time around now that we're all going to see it either way. Like, I don't know, a fun space adventure -- which can certainly have dark elements -- where we see the characters grow (because thematically we DO need to see that at this point) with maybe even some philosophical elements. I dunno, something that captures the spirit of TOS or TNG. This trailer just reminded me of the new Batman movies, which I guess is marketable -- but, there's Batman and there's Star Trek. I dunno. Also, there just wasn't enough SPACE in the trailer. It was almost all on earth. Which apparently is dark, grimy, and militaristic now. This actually brings me to a small complaint about something I didn't like about the first movie: the depiction of earth. You got facist looking speeder-bike cops, huge canyons in Illinois from strip-mining, and apparently corporations such as Nokia and Anheiser Busch still flourish after poverty and want have been eliminated. I miss communist-Utopia Star Trek  Oh well, it was just a teaser trailer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:I'm glad everyone is able to figure all that stuff out based on a 60 second teaser trailer with bits and pieces cut together to create some sort of mystery. I didn't see any ships in space, ticket not bought. Hrrrmmph. Some Other Guy posted:I liked the last Star Trek, but I'm not exactly sure that dark and menacing is the direction I want see at this point. We'll see how it works out, but I hope it doesn't turn out to be like another "Nemesis" where you're left with a sick and tired feeling at the end. Isn't this just a teaser FOR the teaser?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Polo-Rican posted:This teaser trailer makes it look like yet another really generic Action Extravaganza With Sci-Fi Elements, But Don't Worry, No Spaceships, So Don't Worry About Feeling Nerdy If You See It In Theaters. It could have promise but there's really not a single element in that trailer worth getting excited about, unlike say the first Prometheus trailer which had a lot of cool poo poo. I'm with you. I was kind of hoping for a Star Trek movie that looked like it had at least some, you know, star trekking. To quote Picard, "Does anyone remember when we were explorers?" And honestly, while I'm pretty sure we all know Cumberbatch is likely not playing Khan, but rather Gary Mitchell, it looks like you can change the title of this thread to They might as well have brought back KHAAAAAAAAN in Star Trek 2013 after all, since from what little we can see it seems to be a pretty generic revenge plot with a Khan-like villain. Pew pew pew! If JJ Abrams does nothing but put out a slick, well-made sci-fi action movie every three or four years, it's not the worst thing in the world. I enjoyed Trek 09 at the time and was looking forward to more Trek films from him. But I was kind of hoping, once they had established the universe and re-introduced the characters, they'd stretch their legs a bit with the next film. It's just a teaser, but so far this looks the opposite of leg-stretching.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:This actually brings me to a small complaint about something I didn't like about the first movie: the depiction of earth. You got facist looking speeder-bike cops, huge canyons in Illinois from strip-mining, and apparently corporations such as Nokia and Anheiser Busch still flourish after poverty and want have been eliminated. I miss communist-Utopia Star Trek I made this case in the TVIV Trek thread, but considering it's firmly established as a separate universe from TOS/TNG/etc, I feel like it's a bit like being annoyed that the Mirror Universe is dark and over-the-top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
der juicen posted:I didn't see any ships in space, ticket not bought. Hrrrmmph. My problem is that the last time we got a movie that had LOT's of shots of ships in space, it was Nemesis.... OrganizedEntropy fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
I just really hope this Trek doesn't end with a contrived cliffhanger. These are fun action movies, not stories with a plot. They shouldn't pretend otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
I'm not even really hating on the movie or passing judgement on it based on a short trailer that basically tells us nothing about the movie. I'm just saying the trailer does absolutely nothing to excite me. This trailer would probably have been better off as a TV spot or something, rather than our introduction to the new movie. Like... this just doesn't seem terribly interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
OrganizedEntropy posted:My problem is that the last time we got a movie that had LOT's of shots of ships in space, it was Nemesis.... Actually, we got JJTrek, and it was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:This actually brings me to a small complaint about something I didn't like about the first movie: the depiction of earth. You got facist looking speeder-bike cops, huge canyons in Illinois from strip-mining, and apparently corporations such as Nokia and Anheiser Busch still flourish after poverty and want have been eliminated. I miss communist-Utopia Star Trek When they were doing the Mattes of San Francisco for the first Trek movie, they were instructed by Roddenberry to make the whole area greener and leafier and less built up than 20th century San Fran. I think I'd prefer to live in that Trek than towering grey lifeless megacity Trek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I made this case in the TVIV Trek thread, but considering it's firmly established as a separate universe from TOS/TNG/etc, I feel like it's a bit like being annoyed that the Mirror Universe is dark and over-the-top. Yeah, but they never made a Star Trek movie about the mirror universe or presented that as the Star Trek universe. It's mostly a small complaint, but from a sociological standpoint it's interesting to see how thematically the new Star Trek universe has evolved from this hopeful Utopia into what it was in the last movie and whatever it's going to be in the new one. Don't get me wrong, I loved DS9, which of course was darker and in many ways might have made Gene spin in his grave, but that works because DS9 needed to be a different series. They'd certainly never make a DS9 movie. I guess I'll put it this way: from a movie making standpoint I can understand it. You can't just market a movie to the hardcore nerd fans. It bothers more on that sociological level that Star Trek has to be this to sell itself. But again, it's just a teaser trailer so who knows how the movie will be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Between this trailer and watching the behind the scenes features on the TNG BluRays, the problem with this poo poo is pretty obvious: There Are No Longer Enough Nerds Working In Star Trek. Wait... so this big spaceship can just chill out underwater and that's all okay? Because both environments aren't breathable, I guess it makes no difference! There are just so many things in the first movie, and it looks to be in this one that would get the immediate veto from some stereotypical nerd producer or staff member. Couple that with the fact that people are no longer trying to tell classic vein science fiction stories and you end up with a poorly thought out, poorly plotted, viciously unscientific generic action movie with a thin veneer of something vaguely "star trek-y" Gary Mitchell wasn't about PEW PEW MIND BULLETS, ACTION, EXPLOSIONS. The original writer didn't even want him to get into a physical confrontation with Kirk because that sort of thing is beneath him. I seriously doubt we're going to get any kind of worthy morality tale about absolute power or humanity here. Remember, when Gene was talking to Patrick Stewart about what Star Trek "was" he told him to read Horatio Hornblower. When he talked to writers, he told them to write that story that they had always wanted to tell but never has been given the opportunity to. He didn't tell Stewart to read Flash Gordon, and while he might have "actioned-up" some scripts for TV, there was a very real core of classic sci fi storytelling there. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:I guess I'll put it this way: from a movie making standpoint I can understand it. You can't just market a movie to the hardcore nerd fans. It bothers more on that sociological level that Star Trek has to be this to sell itself. These few sentences pretty much sum up my take on the thing. It -would- be a shame if the movie were an extended version of the trailer, but there are plenty of good reasons for a trailer to be a trailer and it really doesn't work for extrapolating anything about the whole movie. So, out of respect for my own sanity over the coming months, I choose optimism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Drone posted:I thought I could make out "NCC-1701" on the one coming out of water? The USS Yamato was another Galaxy class ship that got blown up in one of the early seasons of TNG. Also, you can make out NCC 17 in the trailer, but not the rest of it, I sharpened it to see if you can see the rest but you can't: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
JJTrek isn't Star Trek. Thematically, from the half-black half-white aliens in TOS to Space 9/11 in ENT, Star Trek has always been at it's heart about exploring a specific aspect of the human condition, albeit with very heavy handed space metaphors that demand very little of the audience. ST3 was about the bonds of friendship and family. ST5, aside from being an exploration about how totally awesome William Shatner is and how he'd totally win in a fight with god, guys, was an attempt to explore the line between religiousness and fanaticism. Generations was about growing old. Nemisis was about facing up to the mistakes of your youth, then ramming a ship into them. All bad films that completely hosed up what they were trying to accomplish, but they at least attempted to keep to that core principle of exploring humanity via space-metaphor. JJTrek was a film about....well, from the three main characters and their arcs, Spock basically learns that watching your entire planet get blown da gently caress up mess you up for at least half an hour. Kirk's arc was basically him learning how acting like a petulant manchild will get you your own Starship by your mid-20's so long as you're really, really committed to being an utter shithead. And Uhura's arc basically seemed to be about how to loving management will get you your dream job. Welcome to your beautiful optimistic utopia, shitheads. I loves me a dumb action comic book movie, don't get me wrong. JJTrek was fine action spectacle, and there's not the slightest hint from that preview for ST:IN that we're not in for more of the same. The only way 'my' Star Trek could happen again is if it was a low budget indie movie that'll still make a reasonable profit off nerds alone. I'm completely happy to sit back, turn my brain completely off, and watch the hot space chicks and laugh at Kirk and Spock's jokes and gawp at the big space zoomy wooshbang pew pew, just like I would if the first logo in that trailer was 'Marvel'. But it ain't Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
I wasn't super hyped for this, but goddamn that teaser... Cumberbatch was a fantastic casting decision. Looks loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
In the first episode of TOS, they encounter a race of telepathic beings on a far distant planet, and face a threat the likes of which they never experienced in the bowels of space. In the first episode of TNG, the crew meet an omnipotent alien who has never actually experienced humanity before, despite all the power of his people. It paint humanity in a frail light, showing that despite all achievement, we were still insignificant in the grand universe. In the first episode of DS9, we are introduced to a far off space station, showing how far humanity has reached into the stars. In Voyager, the crew is stranded 70000 light years away from home, far beyond the reaches of contact and alone in the far reaching universe. And now, two movies in a row, Earth is under attack from some world destroying threat. That is my problem. They are shrinking a universe known for being big and mysterious into another "kicking rear end and saving earth" movie. It bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Stormageddon posted:In the first episode of TOS, they encounter a race of telepathic beings on a far distant planet, and face a threat the likes of which they never experienced in the bowels of space. That's a really good explanation and if I were to say I have one big problem with the JJ Abrams Trek, this is it. Wasn't the point supposed to be exploration and discovery? I guess it takes a modicum of creativity to come up with interesting tension that isn't literally an existential crisis for all of humanity. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
kippa posted:The USS Yamato was another Galaxy class ship that got blown up in one of the early seasons of TNG. That's not shaped like the Enterprise at all. It looks more like a shuttle-craft or a science ship or something. I don't really see how you can make out the "17" either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:That's not shaped like the Enterprise at all. It looks more like a shuttle-craft or a science ship or something. I don't really see how you can make out the "17" either. Looks like it could be a nacelle or something. But, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:30
|
|