|
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? 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
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Aatrek posted:Drew McWeeny over at HitFix has a very compelling theory about Cumberbatch's true nature. Huh. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Drew McWeeny over at HitFix has a very compelling theory about Cumberbatch's true nature. Huh, I've never heard of Commodore April before. I just assumed they were sticking with the TOS episodes. I've never read any of the books or watched the animated series, so no wonder I can't figure out who this character is supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Robert April was the first captain of the Enterprise, before Pike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I'm actually hoping we see a maturation of Kirk in this movie (hopefully he starts it off a little more wizened) and he's not just running from set to set stammering like he's a reject from Transformers. I was fine with it in the first movie since he was sorta out of the chain of command as a pseudo-stowaway until Pike threw him in as 1st officer. I just can't see Pine pulling this off and ever seeming like someone with some legitimate gravity and authority. In fact, I'd say if the casting were better and we actually believed for even a second that he were, a lot of these complaints about these movies would be minimized. edit: In retrospect, I can't remember a single CHARACTER moment from any of the leads in the entire movie(which confessedly, I've only seen twice.) I can't think of any real interesting traits or moments that weren't just silly poo poo like I DRIVE CARS OFF CLIFFS BECAUSE I AM A REBEL or the verbal middle finger to the science council, both of which were kinda terrible scenes in context. Meanwhile, I remember Pike's character pretty vividly and even GEORGE Kirk made more of an impression on me than his doofus son.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
I think dude is right. It is April. Now I just need to sit down and watch "The Counter-Clock Incident "
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
We were all wrong, Star Trek is crossing over with the Croods
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I think dude is right. It is April. Now I just need to sit down and watch "The Counter-Clock Incident " I still have this gut feeling that this is going to be a Kahn movie, or Set up for a JJ version of Wrath of Kahn in movie #3, which will probably be titled "Star Trek Vengeance" as a nod to the original. I do not see JJ using a character with the last name of April, and expect the world to take him serious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
I have to admit that the idea of Cumberbatch being April, Pike saving the Enterprise (and thus becoming disfigured enough to become his silently beepy wheelchair self) with an introduction to Khan for the next movie intrigues me much more than a straight up Wrath Of Khan or Where No Man Has Gone Before retelling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If it can escape a black hole (mostly) undamaged I think a little water would be okay. Don't be ridiculous, spaceships can't go in water 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Your definition is a little broad if an Apollo reentry capsule is a spaceship in your eyes. I mean, not to mention those things were designed to do that...
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Don't be ridiculous, spaceships can't go in water I don't think people were arguing that spaceships are witches and melt when they come in contact with liquid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
At the risk of being a total sperg, I will point out that spaceships in Star Trek have, in fact, traveled around underwater: Although it's from Voyager, where they didn't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
I'm just gonna also echo the earlier sentiments that, with the technology necessary to withstand the extreme stresses and damage the ships experience constantly, water should be a piece of cake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Underwater is just like space!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:At the risk of being a total sperg, I will point out that spaceships in Star Trek have, in fact, traveled around underwater:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:At the risk of being a total sperg, I will point out that spaceships in Star Trek have, in fact, traveled around underwater: Ironically, even notoriously fucks-not-given, "technobabble = literal space magic" Voyager pointed out that spacecraft are designed for vacuum, not oceans and the shuttle had problems staying under water for extended periods of time, and it was impossible for Voyager itself to make the trip into that water planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Here's the thing: the ship can do whatever the gently caress they want it to because they can arbitrarily say it can because they are making the movie. If they say the Enterprise is powered exclusively by burning photocopies of Detective Comics #27, then it is. Deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Yeah, they can do anything they want, and it can be as retarded as they like. Oh, so they launched the main power source to escape a black hole last movie, welp ANYTHING GOES! This is like people posting the dinghy air drop from Temple of Doom to justify the nuclear fridge landing from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, as if one dumbass thing that beggars credulity justifies another. No, it just means both are silly and render any verisimilitude of danger as arbitrary as the smegmatron particles that bounce off the main dessert dish.
McSpanky fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Yeah, they can do anything they want, and it can be as retarded as they like. Oh, so they launched the main power source to escape a black hole last movie, welp ANYTHING GOES! This is like people posting the dinghy air drop from Temple of Doom to justify the nuclear fridge landing from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, as if one dumbass thing that beggars credulity justifies another. No, it just means both are silly and render any verisimilitude of danger as arbitrary as the smegmatron particles that bounce off the main dessert dish. Explain to me again why a literal bubble of space time and a ship going faster than light isn't "silly and renders danger arbitrary" but a ship going underwater is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Explain to me again why a literal bubble of space time and a ship going faster than light isn't "silly and renders danger arbitrary" but a ship going underwater is? 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Nothing says "I am a Star Trek fan!" quite like whining about Star Trek. Fixed. My thoughts on the revelations of today are that I've actually accepted them more than I did yesterday. Carol Marcus, Ms. "I hate the military" serving in Starfleet? That's not so far out. Besides "different timeline," we never were told she WASN'T in Starfleet in TOS. Hell, how did she and Kirk meet? It's not at all uncommon for a civilian scientist to be in the military for a project and be given clearance and a rank commensurate to their experience. She could have been in Starfleet in the OT and then bailed. John Harrison instead of Gary Mitchell. You know, I'm surprisingly OK with this. I originally wanted Khan because he's still out there. He's a Thing that Exists in the new timeline and there's no reason NOT to address him. But Mitchell? What are the odds that the same guy will go through the Galactic Barrier in 2 very different timelines. It was stretching things to begin with. So hopefully here Gary Mitchell is just some dude serving on a ship somewhere who may or may not have went to the Academy w/Kirk, Bones, Uhura, etc. Of course, he also could have died at the hands of Nero.  In any case, if "Harrison" is superpowered, he may not even have gotten those powers due to the Galactic Barrier. In which case we may have, Carol Marcus aside, a whole new story here, which is kinda cool. The April is Harrison theory? Eh, I don't like it though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
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. You're right, let me think about the rules about a spaceship in Star Trek: 1. It is constantly under pressure by various forces which in the audience's day to day life would be almost certainly lethal. 2. To counteract this, a force field is put in place which makes it so the ship can survive these dangerous situations. Now, let's look at a ship underwater. 1. It is constantly under pressure by various forces which in the audience's day to day life would be almost certainly lethal. Now, how can a ship survive underwater? Oh, I know: 2. To counteract this, a force field is put in place which makes it so the ship can survive these dangerous situations. ---------- Doesn't seem that hard at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Congratulations, you failed the "hack writer" portion of the exam. Or passed it, if you're releasing a film in the months of May, June, July, August or December.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
You guys are blowing my mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Spaceships going underwater doesn't really bother me because that's what UFOs are known to do in real life anyway. "Budweiser Classic" existing in the future is what bothers me. THAT'S the beer you replicate in the future?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Congratulations, you failed the "hack writer" portion of the exam. Or passed it, if you're releasing a film in the months of May, June, July, August or December. It may seem hacky to you but it's apparently good enough to make it to major motion picture level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Stayne Falls posted:It may seem hacky to you but it's apparently good enough to make it to major motion picture level. 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. On a completely and utterly unrelated note, how many people here are Voyager fans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Spaceships going underwater doesn't really bother me because that's what UFOs are known to do in real life anyway. Presumably the nuclear war that ravaged earth would destroy most of the beer reserves in the world. Since we know much of Kansas was spared it's safe to assume that cases of Bud were probably the easiest to find pre-war brew and thus drunk not in appreciation of the flavor but as a memory of pre-bomb earth. Or its product placement that's marginally better than the shoes in I, Robot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Or Sprint phones/tablets on Fringe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
The image of the ship going underwater has visual/conceptual value that outweighs the number of shits anyone in the world gives about its plausibility in a loving Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Stayne Falls posted:Or Sprint phones/tablets on Fringe. I don't know what would make you feel like there's conspicuous product placement in Fringe. *backs up car, model badge conspicuously in shot* *every member of Fringe Division drives a Ford without fail* *even the AU cabbie's car is a Ford*
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
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. Please, tell me more about how I need to turn off my brain to conceptualize a ship going 20 feet underwater 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:This is true, but that will never make "turn your brain off" a stupid and maliciously reductive argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
See my previous statement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted: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. Good scifi has a semblance of internal reasoning and forethought. Star Trek - along with the overwhelming majority of space operas ever filmed - is loving horrible scifi. That doesn't stop it being fun to watch though. I mean Christ, as far as bad plot devices go, an underwater spaceship is so far down the list of Star Trek's crimes it isn't even worth considering. coffeetable fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
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" Oh no, there's sound and compustion in space. Welp can't enjoy the movie without turning my brain off. Oh no, there's wizards and elves and magic in this movie. Wizards aren't real. How can they expect me to believe this? Turning my brain off. Oh no, that guy did something his boss would not let him get away with in real life. Brain go off. Oh no, there's background music. Real life doesn't have background music. And somehow time cuts from one moment to the next without things happening in between. Gotta turn the brain off. Hemingway To Go! fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:48
|
|
