|
Astroman posted:Whether they go with Khan (my preference) or Gary Mitchell (seems more likely at this point), I just hope they actually intelligently play with the "rebooted" universe as an alternate timeline and not just "hey it's a reimagineering and we'll just redo what we wanna." Like they do make intelligent decisions that the changes we see all stem from Nero's arrival. This would be nice, but I wouldn't hold your breath. There's next to no profit incentive in it that isn't already given with just doing whatever they want to.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Well, largely anyways. Yeah Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations, the Final Frontier, and even The Motion Picture are genuine poo poo to varying degrees. Generations in particular marked the turning point when it became painfully apparent that no one at Paramount had the slightest idea on what a good TNG movie would look like, although luckily someone remembered they had the Borg and used that chip up for First Contact.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
Did you miss that thread? I'm still convinced it's mostly just bullshit, but some goon made a disgustingly well-researched proposal on the inner depth of the Transformers flicks, almost going on a shot-by-shot analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:You're absolutely right, it just needs to be entertaining and/or emotionally compelling. JJTrek was neither IMO I like you. You're not going to fit in very well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
Gary Mitchell taking the name Khan, or at least a scene where he considers taking the name and goes "No, too obvious" followed by a slow-mo lens flare wink into the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
I can literally tune my nerd ears to the sperg frequency and hear some poor lord whining "COULD STILL BE KHAN COULD STILL BE KHAN"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, then tech the tech so we can tech tech the tech while we tech.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
LitigiousChimp posted:It's a ship that can handle the stress of accelerating to FTL speeds without falling apart, why do you think a little water pressure would be too much for it? Sperg Answer: The Deflector Array basically makes the Enterprise shielded in a bubble, so the answer to your question is "water pressure shouldn't be an issue at all, provided the Deflector Array is still working."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
BulletRiddled posted:This is why nerds shouldn't be given what they want ever. Kahn isn't a particularily interesting villain once you take him away from the themes of Wrath, and the current crew is WAY too young to attempt anything like that right now. That's why Gary Mitchell would be the best possible compromise, in a marketing sense. It gives everything that's decent about Space Seed plus the angle of "one of their own" turning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:That's what the deflector field is for Can we get a "  Non-Trekkie " spreadsheet/FAQ to post on every page so this kind-of Old-Trek knowledge is easily answered? I swear this exact same conversation happened last page.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Because most sane rational people don't actually watch a trailer and start contemplating the physics of a star ship submerged in water. As I said earlier you had to turn your brain off and just accept the premises presented to you in every single series. Outside of that the quality of the series more has to do with the execution. This is true, but that will never make "turn your brain off" a stupid and maliciously reductive argument.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
See my previous statement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:Not expecting every movie to be a loving documentary instead of a story is called watching the movie, it is not "turning your brain off" See what I mean about maliciously reductive? E- Whatever, enough of that tangent. Honestly it doesn't bug me that the Enterprise is underwater, but I also don't think it's wrong to question it or say the movie is lesser for featuring it--the same way I think that most of Star Trek is way trashier than its reputation due to similar abuse of science and I can point to nearly every movie or episode for specific examples. Plus it's loving Star Trek, as far as franchises go it's only eclipsed by Lord of the Rings for meaningless nerd conversations about stupid minutiae no one cares about. mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:Star Trek V is bad because it was implemented badly by people who didn't have the budget or talent to match their ambitions but its heart is in the right place. Nemesis is bad because it's a boring cash-in on a dying franchise with contempt for its fanbase. It has no heart and no right place to put it. This guy knows what's up. Say what you want about how lovely early TNG and Star Trek V were, they were clearly made by people who wanted to keep the franchise alive and respected the people who paid their sponsors. Around the time of Generations it was almost like the people managing the franchise had a backlash at all the success and were trying to see how much poo poo they could pass off as chocolate. DFu4ever posted:Insurrection's only real fault is that it had an astoundingly boring premise and was completely forgettable in every way. Insurrection becomes much more loathsome the more you watch it and think about the premise, and becomes even more loathsome when you hear about the original pitch and how the story was neutered into a terrible and lovely romantic idea of "rural simplicity." It was originally going to be more of a Heart of Darkness story with Picard finding his Kurtz on the planet with healing properties, then looked like it was going to be more of a "split the crew against each other" thing with the relocation plot, then somehow turned into a bland pile of horrible when all of those elements were stripped out. A shame too, either or both those movies sound awesome. To top it off the Baku are selfish, unlikable shitheads with no redeeming qualities yet we're supposed to root for them. This becomes even more detestable when you realize that the Baku aren't even native to the planet and want to hog the healing properties for themselves. As if that weren't enough, all the Baku are white people and inadvertently play into the racism Star Trek stumbles into in the name of "progressiveness" when you consider that there was a notable TNG episode with a similar plot (including SPACE INDIANS) that ended with the natives (who were all SPACE INDIANS) being forced to leave. mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
The Voyage Home is schlocky junk food cinema but it's supported and carried almost entirely by the novelty of the TOS actors pretending to be their characters in then-contemporary San Fransisco. The fact that they didn't revisit that well in any other movie helps strengthen it as there's no other film in the series quite like it. It's definitely a case of tonal whiplash after II and III, but it holds up on its own unless you go in expecting II and III.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
In the IMAX preview I was actually surprised with how much I liked Pine as Kirk. Then again the cast of 2009 Trek is genuinely very good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
I don't know man. Avatar, The Total Recall remake, Dredd, pretty much every futuristic movie since at least Gattaca and the Lost in Space remake seem to love going straight for the hard steel and muted colors the closer you get to Earth. I haven't seen as much of that in JJTrek, but it's definitely there, especially in the new preview with London. In fact that was my biggest "gently caress yeah" moment to the recent Oblivion trailer, the fact that for the first time I felt like I was actually seeing sci-fi book covers that showcase brilliant white and metal technology alongside verdant greens and contrasting shades of earthy brown. It reminded me a lot of the old cover to "The White Mountains" only with more of an Apple/Portal vibe:  I actually felt the scenes on the Class M planet were too colorful, like a live-action Thunderbirds or Power Rangers. That's not a bad thing mind you, it really isn't. It felt TOS as hell in a good way--at least if you're ok with being absolutely exhausted by all the frentic pacing and ENERGY the movie is throwing around. It almost looks like Earth is designed to be more of a calling to "reality" contrasting with the fantastic adventures the crew finds itself in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Yeah, Oblivion is playing it really smart by not falling into the same uncreative visual trap that this movie is apparently wallowing in. I wasn't saying Oblivion > Into Darkness' visual style, especially not based on a comparison of trailers. While they're both sci-fi flicks Oblivion looks like an 80s sci-fi book brought to life, while Into Darkness looks like a mix of Minority Report and Thunderbirds/Power Rangers/TOS. And again the IMAX preview--and I saw it in IMAX--is loving colorful, in the second half at least. The first half is very dreary, although it seems to be deliberate since the entire situation involves a husband and wife going to the hospital to watch over their terminally ill child and clearly working through the complex bits of grief; it's not until Cumberbatch appears, saying he can save the girl, that the scene switches and suddenly color is loving everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
E- Ah crafty bastard specified TOS. Nevermind. How huge must Abrams ego be? If I were him I'd consider myself absolute king of geekdom by this point, or at least a powerful duke.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
E-- ^^^ While I'm not a huge fan of AbramsTrek, I begrudgingly respect it for refusing to be an exact retread. Remember, retreading outdated TNG philosophies are what killed Voyager and Enterprise. Snark aside killing Kirk would be poison for the films going forward and though Abrams loves some shock value he's a great marketer above almost all else. While Kirk dying would be fantastic press, there's too large a void filled by him. I'd argue even greater than Spock.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You mean, in that Spock's playing against Kirk, that his charm unfolds only in opposition to Kirk? In the sense that Kirk is more integral to the TOS cast playing off of each other. You can't really slot Picard or Sisko or any other "type" of captain in there without the TOS crew turning into people just doing their jobs, because without a ridiculous horny cowboy to compel them all to be crazy motherfuckers the TOS characters are just too darn professional. While it'd suffer immensely from "not Spock" syndrome, you could ultimately do that with another type of Science Officer, in my humble opinion. I don't meant to say it's impossible mind you, there's no such thing as a bad concept. But there is such a thing as an execution that's too hard to pull off.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Ryan Gosling as Han Solo. Peter Dinklage as R2D2.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Yeah, if you compare the Prometheus script pre- vs post-Lindelof, he made it a lot better. Lindelof sucks and everyone knows it. Don't feed the trolls for a derail.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
gently caress that, Waltz for Obi Wan. Who says the old and wise always have to be British? First one to say Ian McKellan or Patrick Stewart gets a pimp slap by the by.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
You know drat well that's never going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:Well all the good captains want to keep being captain and apparently they can keep being captain if they want. So that only leaves the lovely captains to be promoted to admiral. Think of all the times that Starfleet made terrible decisions: it was almost always an admiral's fault. This makes a distressing amount of sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Kirk was an Admiral in the sense that an Elephant Seal is an Elephant. He had the title, but no one really thought of him as an Admiral.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
I wouldn't say TMP is.... I do get that sense from TUC though. So is this guy Khan or not? I really hope he's not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
McCoy in the 70s had a fly-rear end beard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I like the concept and even the look of the engine room, but I couldn't help but think "man it's going to really really suck if they want to do any more engine room scenes in sequels." One plus about the fancy engine rooms of Treks past is that they could be done on a sound stage same as anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
penismightier posted:A lot of it is that they have it both ways - super big AND super fast and maneuverable. It makes sense because future technology whatevs, but it feels less honest and comprehendible than the ponderous Enterprise and Enterprise D. And that's one of the more minor reasons why the TNG flicks were terrible. We barely even got to know the ENT-E at all, but even with the crew shooting on TNG sets in TUC I felt I really knew the ENT-A by the end of the TOS series.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:That would be Which means you know it's just going to be Khan again. Or maybe some weird hybrid of Khan and Gary Mitchell who is functionally identical to both just so they can say " see you thought we'd do Khan but we "didn't" "
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 18:43
|
|
and better than just doing Khan again
|
PeterWeller posted:Which one? The one from 1-3 or the one from 4-6? 4-6 Naturally. Those Nacelles  I like the theory about augments, but honestly while I don't dislike JJTrek I have very little faith in JJ&Co. using the established Trek canon to good effect after ST09. They know enough to make the new movies fun and dynamic, so that's what I expect, but I do not expect anything clever or innovative like that. I would honestly bet money that if "John Harrison" or whatever really is just a new character made of slapped together Augment, Gary Mitchell, and Khan plotlines the people who came up with it thought they were being genuinely clever and that what they were doing was somehow new and unexpected.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:So what is Uhura's role now? Judging by the trailers, she has some from someone who translates alien languages, to some sort of combat special ops role. Her character is so completely random. The one recurrent action lead with a vagina. The rest are pesky details that merchandising and the script doctors sort out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:They're just trashing the Enterprise so they can rebuild it to look like the real Enterprise. A new Enterprise every movie!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
I just want to say that I was given a load of poo poo for saying "I refuse to believe Cumberbatch isn't Khan until I'm seeing the end credits in the theater" because I genuinely didn't believe JJ&Co. and the marketing had it in them to avoid retreading Khan. Everyone was all BUT JOHN HARRISON! BUT THEY SAID HE WASN'T KHAN! HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID! I loving CALLED IT BITCHES
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Regardless of execution, dredging up Khan the whitest Indian alive is and always will be a creatively septic design choice. Not because Star Trek is serious, or because Khan is sacred, but because it's a retread of a story that could have been equally resonant at this point in the timeline if they used Gary Mitchell or some random Augment. What really weirds me out is that they used the villain and didn't plaster it everywhere on all their posters and merchandise as a way to get the Trekkie hive in a fury and entice non-fans into seeing what the butthurt was about. By leaving it up to the last minute is just, well, odd. Either this is some crazy marketing gambit I could never intuit from my layman's perspective, or the management of this one was hosed in the head.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:I think this could be interesting because it sounds like a thematic mirror to Wrath of Khan where a lot of the situations are reversed. I'll agree to disagree there. I think it could be enjoyable in the same way 09 was, but I seriously doubt that mirroring situations from an old movie are going to be resonant as anything but callbacks. Sure, there's the fact that you're placing a young Kirk into no-win situations and forcing him to take a level of responsibility that he didn't at the same point in TOS is a cute sentiment, but again why the hell would you need Khan to do that? For the sake of thematic rhyming? I'm sure someone is going to try to stick their dick in my mouth over what I'm about to say next, but that's the kind of "style over substance" screenwriting mentality that makes for the lousier end of Star Trek like Insurrection and Nemesis.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
There is so much "God I love pissing off NERDS" in this thread, here, on the internet.... in a Star Trek discussion thread. A lot of y'all need to recall that "charcoal" is still a form of black and "cast-iron bowl" is still a form of pot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I know I'm the one most people are disagreeing with, but I'm not mad, FWIW. I don't like being called stupid for disliking something, but I'm settled with my opinions. I didn't like Prometheus and I think Trek 09 had lazy writing. Not looking to change anyone's mind about those movies, just explaining why I had issues with them. I'm with you actually. Not mad, just disliking the condescending ire from people who should really know better than to try and be the coolest loser. Supercar Gautier posted:Non-whiny non-pedantic nerds are exempt from my contempt. 1. You felt compelled enough to be on the internet and enter a Star Trek discussion thread. That already makes you nerdier than 3 out of 4 average people. Contempt from that source ain't exactly going to sting. 2. Your contempt ain't poo poo unless it's got actual merit behind it. Half of what I see here are dismissals of opinion because  "You're just upset because you take Star Trek too seriously" or "You din't like Prometheus because you're pedantic." A whole lot of character assassination, little examination of the flaws of the works themselves. It's almost as bad as being one of those Trekkies who defends TMP to death because "it's so intellectual."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 19:04
|
|