|
I love how much J.J likes the Beastie Boys.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
As a long time Trek fan, I am looking forward to this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Hey relax you doubters, it's gonna be good. Think back to the old Odds and Evens rule of Star Trek movies. We had Insurrection (bad) ---> Galaxy Quest (great) ---> Nemesis (horrible) ---> Star Trek 09 (fun) ---> Star Trek Into Darkness (what the Japanese call holliboru) ----> THIS. Unless you can name a Star Trek related thing that might disrupt the sequence I think it's a lock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Hey relax you doubters, it's gonna be good. Think back to the old Odds and Evens rule of Star Trek movies. We had Insurrection (bad) ---> Galaxy Quest (great) ---> Nemesis (horrible) ---> Star Trek 09 (fun) ---> Star Trek Into Darkness (what the Japanese call holliboru) ----> THIS. Unless you can name a Star Trek related thing that might disrupt the sequence I think it's a lock. the force awakens
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
I had a friend just declare "both the Abrams movies are worse than Nemesis." It's like dude. Dude. Really think about that. Really think about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Into Darkness was voted the worst Star Trek film ever made by a bunch of nerds at a Trek Convention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Hey relax you doubters, it's gonna be good. Think back to the old Odds and Evens rule of Star Trek movies. We had Insurrection (bad) ---> Galaxy Quest (great) ---> Nemesis (horrible) ---> Star Trek 09 (fun) ---> Star Trek Into Darkness (what the Japanese call holliboru) ----> THIS. Unless you can name a Star Trek related thing that might disrupt the sequence I think it's a lock. What's that one between Galaxy Quest and 09? I don't think I've heard of it before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I loved the literal Dirtbike. They didn't even try to space it up. This movie is going to rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
It stars Tom Hardy as a skinny bald meek dude and Data explodes or something. I saw it in the theater with my Dad and I hated it. Every TNG movie was hell for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:the force awakens Gonna blow, counterbalanced by William Shatner's excellent documentary The Captains; ho ho I got dis CelticPredator posted:Into Darkness was voted the worst Star Trek film ever made by a bunch of nerds at a Trek Convention. I guarantee you like 75% of those hypocritical motherfuckers will rewatch either Abrams movie before sitting through Star Trek Generations again
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
I honestly, truly doubt it. They seem weird enough that they'd watch Generations out of spite for the Abrams movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
How deep are we gonna get into this because you could argue the DVD release with commentary by Johnathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis totally pushes Insurrection into greatness. "What is this? I don't remember this." "We shot this together, Marina! You're right there!" "I was probably thinking about the Manchester game."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
How did Into Darkness "end spaceships"? Also, the worst thing about Into Darkness was by far the title. The rest was mostly decent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Remember when we first heard that Abrams was done back in 2013 and everybody was like "give it to Frakes! It's gonna be Frakes! Bring us the man who made Clockstoppers!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How did Into Darkness "end spaceships"? Trekking Into Darkness makes more sense than Trekking Beyond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How did Into Darkness "end spaceships"? Into Darkness had interplanetary teleportation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
I wonder what the PC issue will be this time? "Let's cast a Korean to replace a Japanese guy", "Let's cast a British guy to replace a Mexican/Singh"/Alice Eve in underpants, ..-?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Actually disappointed about the third thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Into Darkness had interplanetary teleportation. Which can easily be hand waved in most situations the crew will be in. For example: you can teleport a dude across planets, but if you want backup it's going to take a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
If only Shatner had been allowed to write his own dialogue ending with "....bridge.... on the captain..." Generations woulda been saved
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Into Darkness had interplanetary teleportation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How did Into Darkness "end spaceships"? A little something called Transwarp teleportation care of a certain Montgomery Scott.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
We can teleport people between countries now but we still use planes and boats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:We can teleport people between countries now but we still use planes and boats. Yeah, if anything people should be bitching about why they didn't just use teleporters to get people up to the space station in ST09 (or to the academy, or etc).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It's unstable technology, like transwarp. In eternal beta. That's the implicit headcanon. No need to make as much of a thing out of it as saying "WE'LL JUST IGNORE IT". Also a ship is more than a way to ferry people. For example, it's pretty Lmao at you trying to make out Lin telling a film blogger they're just going to ignore it as him issuing a press release and putting it on the poster
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Remember when we first heard that Abrams was done back in 2013 and everybody was like "give it to Frakes! It's gonna be Frakes! Bring us the man who made Clockstoppers!" I remember when I was fifteen and one review said "Clockstoppers is This Generation's Back to the Future!!" and I just said, "No, gently caress you, Back to the Future is every generation's Back to the Future." That said, I still like First Contact and about half of Insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
The Enterprise is the new Worf. It's main purpose is to get the poo poo kicked out of it to drive home how badass the villain of the
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump. In fairness, by everyone you mean a ship with 200 years of additional technology and a ship built by the Space CIA to be the real best ship ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
I could not stop laughing at the trailer. It's like they're trying to bury the franchise. Slow-mo jumps from moving objects, explosions that toss people into the air, extreme sport stunts, and holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump. The Enterprise gets its poo poo kicked in in two of the movies generally regarded to be among the better entries in the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump. The Enterprise only gets its rear end kicked when it's at a disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Timby posted:The Enterprise gets its poo poo kicked in in two of the movies generally regarded to be among the better entries in the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Thought the trailer looked pretty bad. If it wasn't labeled Star Trek, it'd look like a generic rip off of Guardians of the Galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
wake me up when the villain is mudd
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump. Naval battles in space is a huge part of Star Trek though. So yeah, it would be nice for it actually fire some space cannons and sink some space Spaniards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason. e: I know this was more or less an episode of TNG but gently caress, they pretty much all are Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Harime Nui posted:You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason. That'd be pretty funny for a 50th Anniversary movie to do. I'd watch it. Cry Havoc posted:wake me up when the villain is mudd Played by Nick Frost for Maximum Effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:52
|
|