Star Trek: Round Spaceships

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Trek: Round Spaceships

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Crow_Robot posted:

So I suppose it's gotta be the Gary Mitchell plot line, right?

I'm down with that. One of the few TOS season 1 episodes I legitimately enjoyed watching.

If they are doing the thing where the comics are actually canon along with the movies then it actually isn't Gary Mitchell as he's all ready dead.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2012 16:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:34

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

AlternateAccount posted:

I am not sure a bizarro supernatural godlike character is the right way to go with star trek at this point.

Bizarro supernatural god character sums up why I thought Q was so cool.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 22:25

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

thrawn527 posted:

Would they really have the movie plot be about Mitchell using God-like powers without actually showing him get the powers and then die? I mean, background story, sure, but if they have Mitchell show up, already with God-like powers and talking about revenge, and have someone just say, "Oh, yeah, he got those powers a little while back, I thought I killed him but I guess not" that is going to be really weird.

Unless they plan on retelling the story in the comic.

That all ready happened in the first movie. Why do you think its so insane it won't happen in the second? If anything given the spoilers from the previous page it actually does sound like something the Q would do.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Dec 5, 2012

# ¿ Dec 5, 2012 13:42

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

octoroon posted:

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.

But its even debatable as to whether or not that was the intention of the original series especially by the creators own admission that Space Cold War played a large part in the motif.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2012 23:14

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Yonic Symbolism posted:

I'm not sure a Star Trek show, even a top notch one, could work today.
It was somewhat slowly paced, a lot of things happened offscreen (battles mainly consisted of people at terminals narrating what was going on), serviceable visuals, and had an optimistic view of humankind.

Isn't most of that due to the cheap budgeting of the original series?

# ¿ Dec 7, 2012 15:28

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Some Other Guy posted:

I don't really see how the line "Is there anything you wouldn't do for your family?" fits into the episode, since there's no mention of Gary's family at all in it. Maybe it's a reference to coming after Elizabeth, who also starts to develop the god powers? If they're both mutating into god beings, I guess she would be the closest thing to family.

Honestly my crazy speculation is that Yes the comics are in fact canon and while that means that it is fact Gary Mitchell. The events of the original series did in fact happen in the comics Kirk's actions was not enough. Cumberland is out for revenge.

quote:

I don't really see how the line "Is there anything you wouldn't do for your family?" fits into the episode, since there's no mention of Gary's family at all in it. Maybe it's a reference to coming after Elizabeth, who also starts to develop the god powers? If they're both mutating into god beings, I guess she would be the closest thing to family.

More wild speculation.Could he actually be referencing Kirk's brother. I'm beginning to imagine that it makes way too much sense for them to be replicating the episodes in the comics and not have them tie into the movie.
EDIT:
Hahahaha.... The comic continuity sounds hilarious. The last great threat to Star Fleet if comic continuity is part of the mainline were Tribbles

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Dec 8, 2012

# ¿ Dec 8, 2012 06:43

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Cellophane S posted:

Bottom line is that there is probably no 60s show that is more progressive than Star Trek was

What the hell? Star Trek isn't even close to being the most progressive show of the 60s. The Twilight Zone managed to do a far better job of every single thing people gush over Star Trek for with none if little of the baggage.

Jack Gladney posted:

It looks hamfisted and stupid to you because you have the benefit of 40 years of hindsight to diagnose colorblind racism as stupid, but the show absolutely has a political agenda more radical than anything you'd see on tv today in terms of challenging America's horrible culture.

Its hamfisted and stupid because its badly written. Good writing can mitigate a ton of hamfisted messages.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 9, 2012

# ¿ Dec 9, 2012 20:44

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Aatrek posted:

um

Honestly the only stereotypes that were really egregious was Deanna Troi's role which yes is actually a horrendously stupid stereotype and the aborted attempt at making the Ferengi into villains which was basically written using racist caricatures of Jews.
EDIT:
Which isn't to say that a lot of the issues had to do with bad writing. The Ferengi moved from racist caricature to well rounded in DS9 due to competent writing.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 9, 2012

# ¿ Dec 9, 2012 22:51

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

sean10mm posted:

In TOS the Enterprise survived nuclear explosions. So I don't think water pressure would be an insurmountable obstacle for their engineering skills.

Kind of like how taking off from the ground probably isn't a big deal when you can warp space-time to move at multiples of the speed of light.

Also, the whole point of a deflector shield is to prevent the ship from imploding in on itself.
EDIT:
No seriously the whole point of deflector shields is to handwave the fact that even traveling in space a tiny particle traveling really fast is enough to blow the ship into pieces.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Dec 10, 2012

# ¿ Dec 10, 2012 20:30

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

WarLocke posted:

Except ships never inherit any of that, warp drive works by moving a 'bubble' of normal space (thus 'warp field') in which the ship is sitting/floating stationary the entire time.

Except you are forgetting that if space is moving at the speed of light then there are rocks, pebbles, and pieces of dust which can ram right through your ship.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2012 22:03

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Yonic Symbolism posted:

That's what the deflector field is for

That is what I said last page. :psyduck:

MadScientistWorking posted:

Also, the whole point of a deflector shield is to prevent the ship from imploding in on itself.
EDIT:
No seriously the whole point of deflector shields is to handwave the fact that even traveling in space a tiny particle traveling really fast is enough to blow the ship into pieces.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2012 22:45

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

MikeJF posted:

The big issue isn't that they'd be incapable of making a starship that can fly in an atmophere and go underwater, it's that they didn't. They very clearly made one that's meant to stay in space, which is obvious just looking at it, and no matter what century, when you do ridiculously stressful things with something that you're not meant to do, they tend to fall apart.

Did you actually complain about that when they did it in the first movie?

Some Other Guy posted:

So much for the theory that she's the psychiatrist from "Where No Man Has Gone Before." And that was one of the main reasons that I was personally leaning toward the villain being Gary Mitchell.

Continuity wise the psychiatrist from Where No Man Has Gone Before isn't actually on the Enterprise when the comic book adaptation occurs.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Dec 11, 2012

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 05:17

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Some Other Guy posted:

These are good marketing decisions if you're reintroducing Star Trek to the masses, and it makes for an entertaining movie. It's not really the little details that bother the hardcore Star Trek fans so much I think, rather it's that they're remaking Star Trek into science fantasy instead of science fiction and turning it into "Space Adventure in Space" when fans seem to want something more, just like we wanted something more from the lovely TNG movies.

At its best Star Trek pushed heavily into science fantasy more than science fiction.

Xenophon posted:

GATT2000 is the most baller name for any Star Trek character ever

I'm really hoping he's a Bynar. The balding head and the implant on his head would match up with a Bynar.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 11, 2012

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 18:54

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Instead, they took the cowardly way out and tried saying "oh it's the same universe, the timelines just diverged" so now there's some meager ground for fans to question perceived laziness or exploitation on the part of the writers with "well wait why the hell did that happen/change?"

Well it still doesn't explain why people like Some Other Guy are utterly confused and baffled about a cyborg in the movie despite it not even being mentioned at all in TOS.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 19:04

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Some Other Guy posted:

This is more true of TOS (aside from the first movie) than the other series, which is something I and other fans these days tend to take for granted. TNG was much more concerned with the technical nuisances of how things worked, such that they consulted with NASA and all that poo poo. I've said it before, but most of us seem to have TNG in mind when we think of "what Star Trek should be."

The Next Generation had freaking space Rumpelstiltskin in it. I'm not going to complain about it either because it was of the best element of The Next Generation but the Q Continuum was more fantastical than it was based upon science.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 11, 2012

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 19:19

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Some Other Guy posted:

Most fans under the age of 30 probably don't remember just how goofy and lame TOS was at times because we're used to TNG or DS9 or something. But what are they gonna do, make a DS9 movie?

DS9 was pretty dam goofy in a lot of ways. In fact a lot of the goofy episodes were homages to the TOS. Hell the major complaint about the first season of DS9 was that it used the TNG formula which resulted in a bunch of bizarre and weird episodes.
EDIT:
On top of that I tend to find the whole distinction between science fiction, science fantasy, and fantasy kind of arbitrary to the point where it just becomes a no true scotsman.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 11, 2012

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 19:37

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

McSpanky posted:

Please, read The Making of Star Trek. And not just because this is a thread about a Star Trek movie, it's a good general resource about designing a science fiction world from the ground up. A good production makes their design features follow some semblance of internal reasoning and forethought; of course is all arbitrary on a certain level because it's all fiction, but once the rules are set you treat them as if they're real and that gives the whole thing the weight of consistent logic. And just like an airplane doesn't look like a truck because they operate in entirely different mediums under entirely different rules of force and thrust, neither should a starship and a submarine. Handwaving these simple principles away with space magic is a hack solution for lazy producers to get from point A to point B, and point B is usually baysplosions.

Any sanely engineering device is going to be over engineered and unless you can point to a freaking safety factor of the USS Enterprise you're just idiotically foaming at the mouth.
EDIT:
It also doesn't help that you kind of ignored that airplanes and submarines both operate under fluid dynamics unlike a car.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Dec 12, 2012

# ¿ Dec 12, 2012 02:56

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

McSpanky posted:

Jesus Christ, so was the entirety of ST Nemesis among literally thousands of other horrible examples. First "just turn off your brain and enjoy the space pewpew", now popular=quality equivalency arguments? When did I fall into the mirror universe? The amount of apologizing done for this film that's virtually never tolerated elsewhere in this forum is mindblowing.

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.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2012 04:12

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

mind the walrus posted:

This is true, but that will never make "turn your brain off" a stupid and maliciously reductive argument.

I'm an engineer. If I don't turn off my brain I can and actually did dissect the Futurama joke about how many atmospheres a ship can handle thus sucking any fun or coolness out of said premise.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2012 04:24

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

MikeJF posted:

(But yeah, not that happy about the rest either. It's not the water that's the problem at all. It's the flying around flat like that in gravity, be it water or air. The ship doesn't have engines pointing down, after all)

You know this one you should be able to intuitively figure out how idiotic this statement is because the hidden assumption was that all starships had them.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2012 14:01

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

euphronius posted:

What are the major differences between the 2 trek universes now?
- Kirk is a Captain way earlier
- Vulcan is destroyed

If the comics are canon:

-Kirk's brother is still alive
-Spock is borderline suicidal
-Tribbles overran Starfleet
-Romulans have access to red matter
-Vulcans tried to wipe out the Romulans
-Spock's father tried to blow up Romulus
-Mirror universe Kirk steals the Narrada because the Klingons had no clue how to use it

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 18, 2012

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 20:32

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

euphronius posted:

So enough has happened differently where basically anything could happen going forward.

Yeah effectively in the comics there hasn't been a single retelling of a story that didn't have a significant change to it. Some of it actually was really clever like the Tribble retelling invoking TOS continuity that was created in Trials and Tribulations. In other cases the comics focused on characters that never actually existed outside of this continuity. In fact the best characterization I've seen of Kirk is him apologizing to the guy he punched in the first movie and admitting that him being captain is really unorthodox.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Dec 18, 2012

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 21:05

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Cingulate posted:

Every other Trek suffers from comparatively lacking special effects and/or cartoon space monsters.
I don't know, but it's sad to see the franchise's actually starting to look less real the more advanced the tech gets.

Uhhhhh.... Didn't the first movie literally have cartoon space aliens from the animated series? Hell, your complaint is also rather dumb in that its space. If we were to encounter aliens they would be strange. They wouldn't be humans who have makeup on their faces. The technology we would use also looks foreign and weird. The reason why trek is becoming outdated is because quite honestly it really is to conservative.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Feb 10, 2013

# ¿ Feb 10, 2013 16:41

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Cingulate posted:

I don't see how my idea is "dumb" because of ifs and fantasies. All Trek movies have Hollywood dudes with make-up, but the TOS movies feel real, and Nemesis looks like a bunch of CGI and dudes with make-up.

Well for one things its the primary reason why Back to the Future was filmed the way it was. The creators basically said that anything they tried doing will look incredibly idiotic like what ended up happening with TOS era movies so they just ignored it and turned it into a comedic element. Unfortunately, I believe the car thread that mentioned that is probably in the archives.

der juicen pegged it exactly. Why the hell does the flagship of an major organization look decrepit and militaristic? Hey guys we come in peace. Don't mind the fact that our ship looks rather mean and nasty looking. That was a huge step back from the original series were the Enterprise was pretty dam colorful for what you could do in terms of practical effects.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2013 21:33

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

BrandonGK posted:

None of the Enterprises really look decrepit or militaristic, including the Abramsprise. The only outwardly intimidating thing about them is their size.

When I think of a militaristic starship I think of something like the Sulaco from Aliens with it's utilitarian gunmetal grey hull and giant cannons mounted on each side.

Well I was referring to the interior of the refit which looked pretty dull and drab for the flagship. I remember the original series interior being more brighter.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2013 20:01

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

bobkatt013 posted:

Also teh entire episode of Spocks Brain.

And the part where the evil twins have goatees.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2013 20:27

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

thexerox123 posted:

Ripley in Alien? Carter or Dr. Weir in the Stargate Franchise? Several Firefly characters? Sarah Connor? Dana Scully?

I'm pretty sure sci-fi is not even remotely lacking in that regard, unless you're still living in the 70s.

_{(Star Trek and Star Wars aren't necessarily the best examples, though. But, Star Trek certainly isn't the worst, either.)}

You name a franchise that spans a decade and you can only name two proactive women. That isn't helping your argument.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2013 17:36

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Cingulate posted:

I have no idea why Abrams is even bothering with canonicity/call-backs so much. The TNG films didn't do that to this degree at all, neither did the TOS films (minus Khan), and he's doing a reboot, after all.

What?

How is killing off Kirk not a major call back?

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 18:44

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Mogomra posted:

Yeah, I get that people like a good foot chase in their action movies, but how do they get around the fact that they have transporters, and foot chases make absolutely no sense at all in Star Trek?

You do realize that they telegraphed what the hell happens so baddly that you should know the answer by now especially considering that the scene occurs well into the movie. Best guess that doesn't involve technobable is that whatever blows up the Enterprise probably blows out all the transporters.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 8, 2013

# ¿ Mar 8, 2013 20:53

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

AlternateAccount posted:

That still sucks. When you spend time generating contrivances to get around how the universe you're writing for invalidates the action scene you're so desperate to write because it just doesn't fit, you're making things suck.

I know we don't know that's what happens, but.

That isn't a contrivance. Blowing up the transporters is something so obvious to anyone with half a brain because of the fundamental strategic importance especially if the leading theory is correct and the villain is an augment.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2013 21:19

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Mogomra posted:

I totally understand where you coming from, but I fixed that for you because I still think it's just silly.

Its not. It was the plotline to a DS9 episode and aparently isn't that hard to do.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 8, 2013

# ¿ Mar 8, 2013 21:36

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

bobkatt013 posted:

I wonder if Benedict Cumberbatch is a Klingon disguised as human to infultrate Star Fleet. It would make him sort of like an Augment while not rehashing it, and bring the Klingon's back in a big way.

You aren't the only person thinking of that. So much so that I actually had a theory that its the guy from Trouble with Tribbles.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2013 18:33

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

mind the walrus posted:

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" "

Honestly the other leading theory I have is that he has more to do with Julian Bashir than Khan.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2013 19:01

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

McDowell posted:

I had a thought about the villain's motivation.

Maybe Section 31 worked with Spock to get as much intel/technology as possible, because once Vulcan was destroyed Spock knew the Temporal Prime Directive was hosed.

Cumber-catch is a 'by the book' super soldier dude (maybe an Augment) who found out and disagreed (knowing about the problems with Archer and the Temporal Cold War)

Uhhhhh.... You do realize that canon wise augmentation never actually dissappeared right? Honestly, a good guess is that the little girl is suffereing from a disease that the agument treatments could fix but because of Khan its illegal. The horrible thing that Starfleet has done is doom people to death due to their paranoia.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 14:39

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Supercar Gautier posted:

Yeah, that could be planetary gravity. Or the artificial gravity calibration could be going wonky. The point is, you get to watch guys running on walls without any of that parkour poo poo.

If I'm not mistaken there was spoilers referencing that scene in one of the extended previews. You are right. That scene probably takes place as its falling into the atmosphere.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 14:43

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

AlternateAccount posted:

If you've seen anything at all, anything JJ Abrams has ever done, what would ever make you think that he would suddenly start taking the time to explain something like this? It's an INHERENTLY flawed concept that can't be made sensible, but the more important thing is that he's not even going to try.

For crying out loud as pointed out multiple times inherently flawed concepts appear all the time in Trek. Hell I have a few problems with episodes of DS9 for the same exact reason as you are going off at JJ Abrahms but my response is that its just stupid not the end all of disasters that you are talking about. Why is it that this causes you to have an aneurism and all the countless other times they do a hatchet job to actual science it doesn't?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2013 21:53

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

DrNutt posted:

If it's any longer than about five minutes I for one will march right out of the theater and demand a refund.

Now we are approaching levels of not having any dam clue about modern medicine levels of whining. Technically speaking at the very maximum you can be dead for a half an hour using modern day technology. I would imagine more so using space science. Hell after careful searching that is what stasis pods are designed to do.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2013 22:32

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

jivjov posted:

Man, I've watched quite a bit of Trek, but I must've missed whatever this was from. In what circumstance does Riker have fake sideburns?

Its from an episode of Deep Space 9 where the transporter clone pretends to be Riker.

# ¿ May 17, 2013 20:46

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

bobkatt013 posted:

He was then most likly killed when the Maquis was wiped out.

I thought he ended up being surrendered to the Cardassians meaning he probably was dead long before the Maquis were wiped out.

# ¿ May 17, 2013 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:34

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

monster on a stick posted:

The "brought down by single-minded purpose" would have helped if that is what brought Khan down. They get him in ST2 because he lacks "three dimensional thinking" for the space battle; this movie just had an action set piece. All the Spock-Spock talk gives us is Old Spock reacting to Khan's name with

Actually, it did. In fact it was the major theme of the movie which honestly was just a bit heavy handed in how it was implemented because it gets mentioned at least five to six different times in the movie. Also, god dam the engineering section somehow bugged the every living daylight out of me. I sure as hell didn't notice that the engineering section was a brewery in the first movie but for some insanely weird reason I instantly and correctly picked up on fusion reactor in the second one. :psyduck:

# ¿ May 18, 2013 03:03

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Trek: Round Spaceships

«‹›2 »