|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good question. Somewhere I have an old, out of print Gene Roddenberry bio that I need to read which covers the production of Star Trek. "The Making of Star Trek" by Gerrold is a good read on that.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
I think that's the one I have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Can I nitpick about how the changed the look of the phasers? Cause the ones in the poster look really lovely and bland and I liked the phasers in the first JJTrek.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:The nacelles are all wrong. That's a huge relief for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Prate posted:Can I nitpick about how the changed the look of the phasers? Cause the ones in the poster look really lovely and bland and I liked the phasers in the first JJTrek. I think they're Klingon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:That's a huge relief for me.  On the other hand, we see it coming out of the water in the teaser trailer, so whatever it is I guess it's not a write-off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Based on the teaser scene that was shown in theatres, I think there'll be two separate scenes involving ships and water; a scene on the alien planet where they're hiding the Enterprise in the ocean and will have to emerge, and a scene where a ship (which may or may not be the Enterprise) crashes into a body of water on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I can read NCC-170... on the saucer. I am still very about this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
Kill the Enterprise in the 2nd movie, rest of the film series is gonna be about dune buggy racing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Kill the Enterprise in the 2nd movie, rest of the film series is gonna be about dune buggy racing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Based on the teaser scene that was shown in theatres, I think there'll be two separate scenes involving ships and water; a scene on the alien planet where they're hiding the Enterprise in the ocean and will have to emerge, and a scene where a ship (which may or may not be the Enterprise) crashes into a body of water on Earth. This is correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
Destroying the Enterprise in the second movie would be a big mistake is all I'm saying. I wouldn't like it one bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Destroying the Enterprise in the second movie would be a big mistake is all I'm saying. I wouldn't like it one bit. Everyone knows you have to wait until the 3rd movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
There's more than one ship with a registry number that starts with 170-. So it's possible that's not the Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Destroying the Enterprise in the second movie would be a big mistake is all I'm saying. I wouldn't like it one bit. Why exactly? Nobody has to be "attached" to the Enterprise - it would be a big action sequence, and that's all they really need it to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
It's just a ship, who cares if it blows up. Build a new one 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:It's just a ship, who cares if it blows up. Wasn't Gene Roddenberry a WW2 pilot, where the culture was to have a very personal connection with your aircraft? Also we already know the Nu-Enterprise is a toy that can tolerate insane stresses so even if it crashes it will probably fly again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:It's just a ship, who cares if it blows up. Plenty of letters left in the alphabet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
I would be fine with them blowing it up if they replaced it with the one from Star Trek 1-6. That is the bestest version of the Enterprise anyway . . .
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I just want shorter nacells and a better engineering set. If we've got to trash this Enterprise to get it then I say go for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Everyone knows you have to wait until the 3rd movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Wasn't Gene Roddenberry a WW2 pilot, where the culture was to have a very personal connection with your aircraft? Correct, whereas Harve Bennett was a Korea-era veteran, where if you crashed your helicopter, you just walked away and got a new one. Bennett's plan to destroy the Enterprise and move the crew to Excelsior was the breaking point in the relationship between Roddenberry and Bennett (which was already rocky, as Roddenberry viewed Bennett as the man who took Star Trek away from him); Roddenberry was never more than tersely civil towards him after that. Timby fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
I'm probably reading too much into this, but it seems to me that so heavily-implying the crashing of the Enterprise is probably an intentional misdirection. Basically it's a great marketing ploy and the Enterprise will be fine. For all we know, that crash happens towards the beginning of the movie and is the very act of terrorism for which Kirk is so intent on pursuing Cumberbatch's character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
^^ They had NO problem showing off the Enterprise blowing up for the Star Trek III trailer, and the Nemesis trailer proudly displayed the Enterprise-E ramming. They managed to keep the Enterprise-D crash scene out of the ads for Generations, though, and I'm glad they did because that was the most amazing thing my younger self had ever seen in a movie theater in my life at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
They're blowing up the Enterprise so they can finally get to what everyone wants to see, the Voyager.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
lizardman posted:^^ They had NO problem showing off the Enterprise blowing up for the Star Trek III trailer, and the Nemesis trailer proudly displayed the Enterprise-E ramming. I think your childhood brain blocked it out. It was in the TV spots, too. Crackpipe fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:They're blowing up the Enterprise so they can finally get to what everyone wants to see, the Voyager. The Sisko. Prophets sent someone to his dad earlier this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Intrusive Thoughts posted:It's a refreshing break from Nathan Fillion love, at least. Comfortador posted:Aren't phasers supposed to be a constant beam? Or did they change that? (Or was it both?) My memory is fuzzy. McSpanky posted:It's because Abrams is a big Star Wars fan and Star Wars blasters go pew pew pew pew, not a single-beam fzzzzzzsh. Enterprise AA | VVVVVVVVVV Assepoester fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Plenty of letters left in the alphabet. What are they going to say when Enterprise-Z is destroyed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Enterprise AA Man, I hope it's much smaller than the A, and then in 675 more ships we get the Enterprise AAA which is even smaller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:What are they going to say when Enterprise-Z is destroyed? NCC-1701AA, NCC-1701AB, etc...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
The sexy voyages of the starship Enterprise 1701-XXX
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Man, I hope it's much smaller than the A, and then in 675 more ships we get the Enterprise AAA which is even smaller. Was the Enterprise-D the biggest and squarest of them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Was the Enterprise-D the biggest and squarest of them? That would be the NCC-1701VVVVVVVVV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:That would be the NCC-1701VVVVVVVVV. Nice. Too many Vs though I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
I'm starting to wonder what the over/under is on one of the main seven being killed off for emotional impact. Does J.J. have the balls to do it? Would the studio allow it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:What are they going to say when Enterprise-Z is destroyed? Well, by then Starfleet will be making timeships, so they can just slide over into NCV-1701, NCV-1701-A...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Also we already know the Nu-Enterprise is a toy that can tolerate insane stresses so even if it crashes it will probably fly again. Getting sucked into a black hole? Bitch, please. quote:I'm starting to wonder what the over/under is on one of the main seven being killed off for emotional impact. Well, Chekhov and Sulu are probably possible options. quote:I would be fine with them blowing it up if they replaced it with the one from Star Trek 1-6. That is the bestest version of the Enterprise anyway . . . This man speaks the truth! gently caress these new rear end nacelles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Nice. Too many Vs though I think. 9V.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Whizbang posted:They're blowing up the Enterprise so they can finally get to what everyone wants to see, the Voyager. I really want this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 17:41
|
|
