|
Apple Jax posted:Looks like it could be a nacelle or something. But, who knows. It looks like nacelle for a smaller ship. If you watch the trailer (as I have about twenty times) you'll see the ship is way too small to be the Enterprise plus it's shaped all wrong. The ship crashing into the water looks like the Enterprise, though.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Stormageddon posted: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. Star Trek - The Motion Picture: save the Earth from V'Ger Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan: save the Federation from a madman with a doomsday device Star Trek - The Search for Spock: k, not much Earth saving going on here Star Trek - The Voyage Home: save the Earth from a killer probe, and from its own shortsightedness Star Trek - The Final Frontier: save the galaxy from a madman and an omnipotent God who wants a starship Star Trek - The Undiscovered Country: not much Earth saving here either Star Trek - Generations: not much Earth saving here either Star Trek - First Contact: save Earth, the Federation, and the future from the Borg Star Trek - Insurrection: not much Earth saving going on Star Trek - Nemesis: save the Earth from ClonePicard By my count, that's 6 of 10 Prime Trek movies that are directly "save the Earth/Federation." All of the movies that are considered "good" are firmly in that camp, with the notable exception of The Undiscovered Country. This isn't saying that the good movies are ONLY in the villainy camp, but most are. Trek movies have almost always been actiony popcorn flicks. That's what movies are. For sci-fi, people don't want to go and sit in a theater for two hours and watch a blown-up version of Encounter at Farpoint. This doesn't diminish the quality of the franchise, it's just something different. I like my Trek to be a lot of things. I like it cerebral. I like it dramatic. I like it deep, with amazing character and story development. I like it funny. I like it sad. I like it goofy. I like it cheesy. I like it campy. Are my nerdpanties all in a bunch because JJ Trek isn't a big-screen deep-thinker like Measure of a Man? No, because SO many of the other reasons that I listed for liking Star Trek still apply. It's the same argument Star Trek fans have had since there was Star Trek fandom, just translated over into "Prime Trek" versus "JJTrek." It's the same Kirk and Picard argument, the same Trek vs. Wars poo poo. It's dumb. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, because you know as well as I do that you're all gonna see the thing on opening weekend and probably enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
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. I think the shape is pretty distinct in motion, and it's kind of insane to claim that could possibly say anything other than NCC-17.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Clearly they are taking the Submarine aspect of Star Trek to its logical end. edit: Nick Meyer and the person who wrote Balance of Terror must be really pumped about this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
This isn't really worth nitpicking over despite the fact that this is a Star Trek thread, but don't you think it's a little over the top to say that it's insane not see the 17 in this picture? Those numbers could be anything. I see a 3 and a 2. Or maybe a 5. It could also be a 17 I guess. I think this is a "Face on Mars" kind of thing. Now that I look at the video, though, I guess it could be a single nacelle of the Enterprise emerging. I can't really tell anymore. I guess I'm not familiar enough with the new Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Aside from being faintly visible, is there some other significant Star Trek NCC ship they're going to tease in their Star Trek teaser trailer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Aside from being faintly visible, is there some other significant Star Trek NCC ship they're going to tease in their Star Trek teaser trailer? They could be teasing that it's the Enterprise when it isn't -- every ship says "NCC" on it. Judging by the shape I now think it does look like it, but you can't make out the numbers at all and that was deliberate. edit: But yeah, if I had to guess anything at this point I'd guess Enterprise. Mulaney Power Move fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Drone posted:By my count, that's 6 of 10 Prime Trek movies that are directly "save the Earth/Federation." All of the movies that are considered "good" are firmly in that camp, with the notable exception of The Undiscovered Country. This isn't saying that the good movies are ONLY in the villainy camp, but most are. You've got some bizarre definitions of "villainy action movies". At least two of the films on your list do feature the Earth under attack, but are nothing at all like the formulaic Trek of the last 10-15 years. The Motion Picture was a slow-paced homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey, while The Voyage Home was a lighthearted adventure-comedy where not a single shot was fired in anger. I wager you won't see movies like that from JJ (not that I blame him solely: Trek films were getting formulaic long before he showed up). The sad part isn't that JJ is making slick formulaic sci-fi action films (the 2009 film was pretty good, for what it was). The sad part is that people (including, I guess, you) can't even conceive of Trek being anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Drone posted:Star Trek - The Motion Picture: save the Earth from V'Ger A fair point, but the movies haven't really been universally loved, either. Plus the series didn't earn renown for the movies, but for the series and the elements of sci fi within. But a fair point. As far as the ship:There are actually a lot of NCC class ships Not sure why they would show off something besides the Enterprise in a trailer for Star Trek, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
I'll make a deal with this movie: if they put a Ferengi in it I'll like it no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:You've got some bizarre definitions of "villainy action movies". At least two of the films on your list do feature the Earth under attack, but are nothing at all like the formulaic Trek of the last 10-15 years. The Motion Picture was a slow-paced homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey, while The Voyage Home was a lighthearted adventure-comedy where not a single shot was fired in anger. I wager you won't see movies like that from JJ (not that I blame him solely: Trek films were getting formulaic long before he showed up). Yeah, the dude I was quoting was specifically calling out JJTrek 1 and 2 for being "Earth in Danger" movies. I was responding to that. Stormageddon posted:Plus the series didn't earn renown for the movies, but for the series and the elements of sci fi within. I dunno, ask any Joe Schmoe on the street about Star Trek and they'll tell you about the whales, or Khan, or the Borg, or the reboot. Kinda doubt they'll tell you about deep characters like Dukat, or that time Picard played his flute. I really, really want to see some kind of metric (if one is available) from Netflix since they've had all of Star Trek on Instant-Watch and how it correlates to the release of JJTrek movies. How many -new- Trek fans has JJ brought in, even if the "new" movies are different from the TV series we're used to? The answer is probably quite a lot. Drone fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Drone posted:I dunno, ask any Joe Schmoe on the street about Star Trek and they'll tell you about the whales, or Khan, or the Borg, or the reboot. Kinda doubt they'll tell you about deep characters like Dukat, or that time Picard played his flute. They may not sperg about the details, but I would say TNG was easily more popular than any one of the movies to "non nerds" or whatever you call them. But it was a series that spanned a decade and was well made and received. The movies probably appealed more to the nerd crowd. Drone posted:I really, really want to see some kind of metric (if one is available) from Netflix since they've had all of Star Trek on Instant-Watch and how it correlates to the release of JJTrek movies. How many -new- Trek fans has JJ brought in, even if the "new" movies are different from the TV series we're used to? The answer is probably quite a lot. I'm not meaning to be derisive about the 09 movie, I enjoyed it a lot. But it didn't do what the series was really known for prior to that, which was instill a sense of wonder about the universe and the vastness thereof, and explore morality through that lens. I am gonna go see it, I'm just sad that they seem to be remaking a movie that's been made over and over again using Star Trek characters. It's not like it's a risk to emulate the series before, slapping Star Trek on it makes it a pretty safe bet it'll move tickets. Weighing it down with spectacle doesn't seem to serve much advantage in that case. I don't want to see Star Trek end up being The Avengers in space(or, well, not space. future Earth, I guess). An alright movie with a lot of flash and fluff and pretty much easy to forget. But, you seem to insist doing that makes the film better, so you're entitled to that. I'm just saying I would like it to stay at least a bit closer to it's roots. Stormageddon fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:plus it's shaped all wrong. How "kewl" would it be to have saucer separation UNDERWATER?! (  at my own suggestion)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Unless it's only the secondary hull. Now that I've looked at more pictures of the new Enterprise design it could easily be a nacelle. When I first looked at it I thought the first half of the nacelle was the whole nacelle and then the rest that emerged a millisecond later was the ship instead of the rest of the nacelle. I also thought the saucer section should be higher and clearly visible if that much of the nacelle came out of the water, but now that I look at the new pictures I just don't know. Haven't they gone underwater in Star Trek before? Wasn't there some Voyager episode with a water world or whatever? Oh, and what about that episode of of Enterprise where they find the Xindi thing underwater?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Haven't they gone underwater in Star Trek before? Wasn't there some Voyager episode with a water world or whatever? Oh, and what about that episode of of Enterprise where they find the Xindi thing underwater? In Voyager, the Delta Flyer shuttle went underwater, but it was specifically designed in its first episode to fly in high-pressure environments. I can't remember if the shuttlepod in the Enterprise episode went underwater, but the ship certainly didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
I don't suppose the ship's shields would protect against water and/or pressure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Stormageddon posted:As far as the ship:There are actually a lot of NCC class ships Yeah, at least seventeen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
kippa posted:The USS Yamato was another Galaxy class ship that got blown up in one of the early seasons of TNG. Which was named after the Japanese anime "Space Battleship Yamato", because Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda were big anime nerds. Also, the Yamato from the anime is shown to be lifting up from the water (since it was built from the wreck of the Japanese warship), so, if this is the Yamato, then it's a nice homage to both the anime and the Sternbach-Okuda influence on Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Maybe in the next movie they could trek to the Bajor system and try to link up with The Sisko who can help them put the timeline straight and get things back to canon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Maybe in the next movie they could trek to the Bajor system and try to link up with The Sisko who can help them put the timeline straight and get things back to canon. Oh man Sisko would be great in these movies, just yelling at people all the time about his brand of Starfleet ethics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
MrMo posted:Oh man Sisko would be great in these movies, just yelling at people all the time about his brand of Starfleet ethics. Very few cinematic endeavors would not be improved by the presence of Sisko.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Drone posted:Yeah, the dude I was quoting was specifically calling out JJTrek 1 and 2 for being "Earth in Danger" movies. I was responding to that. His point is still valid, even when compared to older movies vs. this new poo poo: Star Trek - The Motion Picture: eh, sure the Earth is maybe in danger, but there was a much larger aspect of exploring the unknown. Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan: Khan never expressed any sort of hatred toward the Federation, only Kirk. Star Trek - The Voyage Home: A weak antagonist, to be sure, but at least it was in service to the larger point the whole thing was trying to make. Star Trek - The Final Frontier: Saibok was not a galactic threat. Star Trek - First Contact: Probably the most directly SAVE THE EARTH movie. Star Trek - Nemesis: gently caress this movie. So through MOST of those anyway, the threat is something strange or fantastic and alien. Hell, most of the time, the threat isn't even specifically aggressive, it's merely acting out its nature. JJTrek? The threat is... a man... with a laser space drill. But he's REALLY pissed off. This new villain, as cool as Cumberbatch might be, doesn't appear to be a deep improvement. There's no POINT to these villains other than their inherent villainy and their very personal motivations. No greater story to tell at all. Lobok posted:I don't suppose the ship's shields would protect against water and/or pressure? Even though there are a few plot convenient contradictions, shields don't work that way and specifically rely on being able to focus their resistance on a smaller spot rather than the entire area, if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted: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. Because the franchise was over and they weren't doing anything with it. Voyager gut shot it, and it's been dead since Enterprise. quote: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" Welcome to every single loving Star Trek movie ever made, and like 3/4ths of all episodes. What is 'classic science fiction' about another boring rear end non-person having another stupid loving adventure in some early 19th/20th century fictional setting on the holodeck? Because that is like what, a dozen episodes? Oh, no, I think something sciencey is happening on the planet. What ever will we do? Lets modulate the forward deflector array! I don't know what the gently caress that means, but it usually works! Truly we are exploring the bounds of our universe and the human condition here. quote: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. And yet Gary Mitchell died because Kirk dropped rocks on him. After shooting them with a space rifle. quote: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. Remember that time Gene said Ferrengi had super-dicks that made the ladies go crazy? Lets not pretend he was a great mind. Pastamania posted:But it ain't Star Trek. By that metric Star Trek is a fairly meaningless concept that has nothing to do with anything but whatever any random person says is "Star Trek-y". Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Wasn't the point of everyone's favourite Trek movie Wrath of Khan was that the studio thought The Motion Picture was too 'deep' and 'sciency', so they made the sequel into more of an action adventure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted: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. Thank goodness, the last thing we need is nerds on Star Trek. I don't want zombies and internet memes and rants against fake gamer girls in my Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Wasn't the point of everyone's favourite Trek movie Wrath of Khan was that the studio thought The Motion Picture was too 'deep' and 'sciency', so they made the sequel into more of an action adventure? No, they just thought it was slow and dull. You can have deep and sciency and still have entertaining plots and decent pacing and lack of creepy Gene Rodenberry bald chicks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
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. That's the aft end of the nacelle, where it (still) has the two little fins sticking up. In the other shot, it's either Enterprise or something Enterprise-shaped, nose-down so the saucer is acting like a plough. Also: not only has the Golden Gate Bridge survived, but the Transamerica pyramid, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
What I want from a new star trek movie is something like "Darmok and Jalad" mashed with "The Inner Light," some action and awkward fight choreography and 40+ year old actors, because that's what I watched when I grew up and it's those kind of stories that sets star trek apart from most tv I've seen, even though episodes like that probably weren't the norm. I realize, of course, that I'll never get anything like that, so I'll probably have to make do with a very good action movie in star trek clothing, even though the wasted potential will still hurt a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Madurai posted:That's the aft end of the nacelle, where it (still) has the two little fins sticking up. In the other shot, it's either Enterprise or something Enterprise-shaped, nose-down so the saucer is acting like a plough. Yeah, I see that now. The new enterprise has some big old monster truck nacelles all right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
I wanted them to redo Balance of Terror in a way that shows Kirk confronting his inexperience and leads to an unlikely situation in which Kirk does an Enterprise C type thing, winning the admiration of the Klingons. Then they team up and together save the day, leaving us with a message of peace and cooperation whilst showing how noble Kirk is willing to be to do the right thing. And they bring in Ferengi for comedic purposes at some point. And Captain Sisko makes a cameo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Nightblade posted:What I want from a new star trek movie is something like "Darmok and Jalad" mashed with "The Inner Light," some action and awkward fight choreography and 40+ year old actors, because that's what I watched when I grew up and it's those kind of stories that sets star trek apart from most tv I've seen, even though episodes like that probably weren't the norm. Movie Star Trek has never really been that, though. Neither of those would work as a two hour movie, but they made for nearly perfect 40 minute episodes. Insurrection is probably as close to being a two hour long Star Trek episode as any of the movies have been, and it was pretty lackluster. TMP also fits this bill, and while a decent film it was still pretty boring for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:As someone pointed out to me, the last scene in the Japanese trailer isn't only a visual cue to WoK but also has the characters reversed. Spock appears to be outside the chamber, and Kirk (or whoever is in green or a darker uniform) appears to be inside and bloodied. Looks like Uhura's hand to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Stormageddon posted:Yeah, but they still, y'know, Trekked. Counterpoint, DS9.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Also: not only has the Golden Gate Bridge survived, but the Transamerica pyramid, too. Those are fine. The London Eye on the poster? Yeeeeeeeah doubt it. DFu4ever posted:Counterpoint, DS9. They trekked through the grey morality of war or something! Trek's about exploration, both physical and metaphorical, and DS9 did to a fair bit of both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
The new movie will be trekking, into darkness. It's right there in the title. That's about as movement based a title as you can get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
The problem is that banking heavily on themes of exploration in a movie is trickier than on a TV show, where the episodic format almost does the work for you. There are plenty of ways to make a Trek movie great, though, even preserving JJTrek's affinity for visual flair. For instance, maybe spend a little time on complex relationships between difference species rather than making it essentially Space Wars with the occasional unexplained extra in funny makeup. They did a little bit of this in 2009 with Spock's Vulcan upbringing, and more focus on this would be nice. Also, spend the majority of the movie in an unfamiliar setting. Future earth is cool I guess but it's been done and done and done, and existential crisis + Earth setting = disaster movie. You have literally every piece of the universe that you can potentially imagine to explore as a setting, why in the everliving gently caress would you choose future Earth? If a JJTrek movie managed to do these two things and do them well I would be happy enough, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Unless I missed something, the movie isn't necessarily set on future Earth right? I got more of an impression that Earth is being held hostage by the villain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Unless I missed something, the movie isn't necessarily set on future Earth right? I got more of an impression that Earth is being held hostage by the villain. The movie poster shows future earth in distress in the background and we have ships crashing into the water on Earth, rising out of the water (probably on Earth), and some random city shots of what looks to be earth. I would say it's a fair assumption that the movie centers around Earth, although there's always the possibility that trailer wasn't representative of the whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Because the franchise was over and they weren't doing anything with it. Voyager gut shot it, and it's been dead since Enterprise. Holodeck episodes are not INHERENTLY flawed, Fist Full Of Datas aside. And I guess we can just dismiss Heinlein as a hack too, since he sometimes wrote about FUCKIN'
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 03:10
|
|