|
Yonic Symbolism posted:Hence, I'm sure "game of thrones in space" is coming sooner or later. Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy?
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
All I can think of is the scene in Futurama where their ship's being dragged underwater. "Five thousand feet! That's over one hundred and fifty atmospheres of pressure!" "How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?" "Well, it's a spaceship, so anywhere between zero and one."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
If you accept Galaxy Quest as the tenth Star Trek film - between Insurrection and Nemesis - the even/odd theory works a lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
On the topic of colour design, here's something from the production of TOS:Bob Justman, producer posted:We're all in outer space, Jerry [Finnerman, director of photography], and we're in color. NBC claims to be the first full-color network, so let's prove it for them. When you light the sets, throw wild colors in – magenta, red, green, any color you can find – especially behind the actors when they're in a close shot. Be dramatic. In fact, go overboard. Backlight the women and make them more beautiful. Take some chances. Nobody can tell you that's not the way the future will look. How can they? They ain't been there yet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I think he was supposed to give a cameo in the form of a recorded message given to Pine-Kirk by Spock. God that would have been awesome You're referring to this and I agree entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:It didn't contradict it so much as have a lot of poo poo the film never brought up. So, it complemented the film?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
Trek '09 already was a Star Wars movie. Desert-dwelling farmboy destined for greatness follows his deceased father's footsteps among the stars and saves the universe, bustling rough cantina with aliens, planet-destroying superweapon with unambiguously evil villain, non-English-speaking supporting character, implausibly large "Galactic Senate"-style meeting room populated mainly with CGI, full CGI cities full of flying cars, "punch it"...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
So what we're actually saying is it would be better if the brewery set was used for the ship's sewage and water processing system, which we still have indeed never seen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Honestly, is there a big, important reason why a ship cannot jump to warp from an atmosphere? I mean without a paragraph about sci fi magic technobabble that the average movie goer won't give a poo poo about. Imagine a sonic boom but literally a million times more destructive?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
echoplex posted:I got some real 9/11 vibes from that scene on a gut level, but I haven't worked out whether that was clever or merely exploitative. It almost felt redundant to me, as if they had an extra $4.5m in special effects budget so they thought "well, might as well throw a [I don't know how much I can spoil] starship wreck in there too". It came out of nowhere.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Tequila Bob posted:My main problem with ST09 was that the overall plot was basically "Here's this new bad guy. He's doing bad things. Let's kill him! OK, roll credits." (If anyone wants to tell me I'm missing something there, I'm willing to listen.) This one, on the other hand, was surprisingly explicit in its condemnation of the darker, war-like side of Starfleet. It reminded me of what I liked about the TV shows - that these people are reflecting on their own choices, and always striving to become better. I actually also had this problem with ST09. The genocidal villain is completely defeated, on the ropes, at your mercy, screaming at you "What I would like best of all is for you to kill me right now!", and you... do exactly what he tells you to do? I was immediately interested when this movie started explicitly questioning that approach and then when Kirk came around to the more adult point of view. I was very impressed with that piece of character growth. And then after all that hand-wringing about it being more right and proper to bring the bad guy home alive, to face a proper trial, there still was no trial!
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:In Star Trek 09, how come the bad guy didn't just fly to Romulus and warn the planet, once he realized he traveled back in time? Who says he didn't?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Interestingly, only the people who are familiar with the callbacks are bitching about the callbacks. I seriously don't think the Kirk death scene is falling flat to anyone, since even the most critical people are begrudgingly admitting it was pretty well done. I actually got nothing at all out of that scene, just because the resolution had been telegraphed so obviously. All the way through it, I couldn't think of anything else. It's one thing to have a pretty good idea how things will end up by the end of the movie, but to know exactly how just deflated the whole thing for me. Maybe on a second viewing it'll work better.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
echoplex posted:And everyone using their communicators like they were iPhones was brilliant. I was glad that they actually went to the trouble to demonstrate that, despite all of our advances in mobile communications technology, Star Trek communicators are still light years ahead of any iPhone: namely, that one scene where Kirk phones Scotty up even though Scotty is in a bar in a completely different star system.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Also completely unrelated, but with all the gravity nonsense how did that tribble stay on the table? Tribbles are perfectly capable of sticking to walls.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't place their opinion very highly, even if they did happen to like a film that I liked. Wasn't this review a commentary on their own excessively nitpicky coverage of the Star Wars prequels?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Was I the only one who thought the coolest thing in this movie was the mobile hole in Khan's prison cell glass?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I don't understand how so many are hung up on the Enterprise not having backup when "Enterprise is the only ship in the sector" has been accepted without any issue for so long. Maxwell Lord posted:Tell me about it. I've said this twice and it doesn't seem to ever get through. Do you people not understand how Star Trek works? It's not so much the "only ship in range" thing as the "accepted without issue" thing. If you think anything in Star Trek has ever been accepted without issue, you're the one who doesn't understand how Star Trek works. In earlier eras of Star Trek there was usually some sort of lip service paid to scientific accuracy. There were technical manuals and in the TNG era onwards there was a huge amount of technobabble. I forget exactly how things went in the TOS era but there were certainly big books of actual starship blueprints. This kind of thing actively encouraged viewers to think about the background of the Star Trek universe - it also encouraged nerds to nitpick the little things, especially when mistakes were made or "established facts" were deliberately ignored for the sake of a story. This kind of training is difficult to let go of.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What is Star Trek? To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no one has gone before! Unironically.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
Star Trek is...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Jubilee3rd posted:How do coordinates work for revolving objects like planets? Are they fixed points in space or relative? The short answer to your implicit question is: no, four two-digit numbers won't do it. Nothing is really "fixed" in space. Everything is relative. Even if you choose some arbitrary object and "fix it", you'll find that the rest of the universe is still in motion. In reality, to specify the location of an object in orbit, you first need to know what it's orbiting (I think it's Jupiter in this case) and what that central object's "reference direction" is. The reference direction is probably a standardised thing which you can look up in an almanac. Once you've got that, it takes six parameters to completely specify an orbit, and one additional parameter to specify a position on that orbit. And the numbers are pretty long, too. But it's not so good for the flow of the movie to have a character spend five minutes reading numbers out over the phone. In fact, I wonder why they bothered at all, other than to crowbar a "47" reference in there. qntm fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
The joke is that Star Trek is now Star Wars and the only difference between them is the shape of the spaceships.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:Okay, now that that's out of the way, we can get back to talking about space ships shooting lasers. I never thought about it until someone brought it up, but why park the Enterprise underwater on Nibiru? What's wrong with sitting in orbit and beaming up Kirk & McCoy when they're out of site of the natives? I know, the real answer is "because special effects and tension." But what are the practical reasons for it? This is Star Trek. Since 2009 there's an implicit invitation for the old guard of Trek fans to make up their own technobabble explanations for this kind of thing. E: Actually, thinking about it, maybe there's a novelisation you can refer to qntm fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:You're so torpedoist. Torpedoism is really all about class.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I want to point out that just because the characters don't acknowledge something doesn't mean its not a significant part of the film/series/whatever. Or that it is, for that matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:46
|
|