'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN - Page 3

ancient · June 29 2008, 04:36 AM

I for one can be sustained quite nicely with a few pics of the Ship & uniforms. Maybe a ship interior! I want nothing detailed about the plot, that's what going to the actual movie is for.

Gep Malakai · June 29 2008, 05:12 AM

Starship Polaris wrote:

Jack Bauer wrote:

Apple?

Yeah, they're a little west coast company that makes consumer gadgets and used to release Beatles albums. I think they also own a couple of companies that manufacture white and dayglo translucent plastics.

They also, apparently, manufacture a superior Starfleet bridge.

Aragorn · June 29 2008, 05:15 AM

Tyson wrote:

I basically agree with this. We're not really being told anything about this film, which is really irritating for those of us who want desperately to be excited over it. All these articles and "leaks" with the exception of a few blurry photos of the set, are basically non-information.

I understand the need for secrecy, but it's it's starting to become frustrating to those of us looking for good reasons to feel good about this film.

What are you talking about???? According to a certain poster, he already has more than enough information about the movie to form a 100% complete and accurate negative review of it! Which will completely validated by the 15 times he goes to see it in search of more things to hate that will fulfill his prophecy.

TJinPgh · June 29 2008, 05:34 AM

Aragorn wrote:

What are you talking about???? According to a certain poster, he already has more than enough information about the movie to form a 100% complete and accurate negative review of it! Which will completely validated by the 15 times he goes to see it in search of more things to hate that will fulfill his prophecy.

Since there's more than one of us out there that doesn't think that this movie will be successful, I won't make assumptions about whom you are speaking.

I'll simply say that I will never know whether this movie is any good or not, as I have no intention of seeing it.

But, as I've said in the past, the fact that I believe it will be a box office failure has nothing to do with my personal decision to not go see it.

I no longer patronize recast and re-imagined films. At least those I know ahead of time fall into those categories.

I was a big fan of Get Smart, but I won't be seeing that one, either.

Will I ever see this movie? Probably. It will show up on some non-premium TV channel sooner or later.

ancient · June 29 2008, 04:07 PM

b-wuh?

Admiral Buzzkill · June 29 2008, 11:46 PM

Gep Malakai wrote:

Starship Polaris wrote:

Jack Bauer wrote:

Apple?

Yeah, they're a little west coast company that makes consumer gadgets and used to release Beatles albums. I think they also own a couple of companies that manufacture white and dayglo translucent plastics.

They also, apparently, manufacture a superior Starfleet bridge.

Actually, Knowles only said that it looked like Apple product - in fact, the Enterprise Bridge is manufactured by Samsung.

MANT! · June 30 2008, 04:07 AM

I'm looking forward to seein this puppy...

Aragorn · June 30 2008, 05:37 AM

Well, TJinPgh, unless you've actually said that every piece of information that's come out about this movie (which everyone else says is a whole lot about nothing) is more than enough to form a conclusive and decisive negative opinion on everything about the movie (I guess a blurry picture of John Cho's back is as good as watching the actual movie from start to finish), and spend all your time bitching on this board about how bad it's going to be, then I'm not talking to you.

Gep Malakai · June 30 2008, 06:27 AM

Starship Polaris wrote:

Actually, Knowles only said that it looked like Apple product - in fact, the Enterprise Bridge is manufactured by Samsung.

Ah, crud. Oh well. I heard Starfleet was switching to Intel anyway.

TJinPgh · June 30 2008, 06:28 AM

Aragorn wrote:

Well, TJinPgh, unless you've actually said that every piece of information that's come out about this movie (which everyone else says is a whole lot about nothing) is more than enough to form a conclusive and decisive negative opinion on everything about the movie (I guess a blurry picture of John Cho's back is as good as watching the actual movie from start to finish), and spend all your time bitching on this board about how bad it's going to be, then I'm not talking to you.

Sarcasm duly noted.

Though, I reject the notion that forming a negative opinion based on the information that's been released is no more or less valid than forming a positive one.

I'll simply say I'm an American movie goer. We form opinions on movies on a weekly basis having been given far less information than what's gone around these boards.

Which, as I said before, is something that any Trek movie must contend with if they are going to try to attract something beyond the existing Trek fan.

There isn't a movie goer much above the age of 15 that doesn't already have an opinion of everything Star Trek. Most of those opinions are negative despite the fact that most have probably never seen a single episode or movie.

As an aside, I don't recall myself ever, personally, having said I think this movie will be bad.

I've said that I no longer patronize movies done like this and have yet to see anything compelling me to change my mind. I've also said I think it will be the second Trek movie in a row to earn less than it cost to make. In this case, I suspect substantially less.

Neither has much to do with the quality of the story.

TJinPgh · June 30 2008, 06:32 AM

ancient wrote:

b-wuh?

who was that aimed at, ancient?

Aragorn · June 30 2008, 06:59 AM

Actually, that wasn't sarcasm. I'm actually describing someone on this board who thinks like that. In case you couldn't tell, I'm not exactly a fan of the Stewey types on here.

TJinPgh · June 30 2008, 03:46 PM

Fair enough.

I admit that my comments have been borderline what you've described. And, since I was the only person like that who happened to be posting in this particular thread, I figured I should at least consider the possibility that you were speaking of me.

At any rate, you're correct in saying it would be unfair to say that this movie will be bad without having seen it.

By the same token, I don't think it's unfair to say that there are elements about it that we know that we may or may not believe will make us, as individuals, not like the film.

For example. We know the bulk of the casting. And, as such, we know that despite what seem to be a couple of very good casting choices, there are at least one or two that appear to be completely wrong. Wrong, unless you give credibility to the character sheet that was reportedly leaked back at the beginning of this project.

We also know the general plot outline for the movie. A plot that's essentially the same as ST: OGAM.

The enemy (Nero/Charlie Evans) travels back in time hoping to kill Kirk and unravel the time line. A vulcan gets killed trying to stop them (Old Spock/Young Tuvok) but manages to mind meld with somebody (Young Spock/Harriman) that gives him enough info to set things right.

Given how things changed in OGAM and Yesterday's Enterprise, I suppose some of those altered character traits make a certain amount of sense. Which is fine, so long as they correct the differences by film's end.

If they do, however, casting somebody like Karl Urban will still be wrong. Which is why I, personally, don't believe that the timeline will be corrected. At least, not completely.

I suspect that there is a reason why the PTB behind this film said from the start that this movie is NOT Star Trek XI, but rather simply "Star Trek."

June 29 2008, 04:36 AM	#31
ancient Vice Admiral Location: United States	Re: 'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN I for one can be sustained quite nicely with a few pics of the Ship & uniforms. Maybe a ship interior! I want nothing detailed about the plot, that's what going to the actual movie is for. __________________ ---------------------------- Time Travel was and will be confusing

June 29 2008, 04:07 PM	#35
ancient Vice Admiral Location: United States	Re: 'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN b-wuh? __________________ ---------------------------- Time Travel was and will be confusing

June 30 2008, 04:07 AM	#37
MANT! Rear Admiral Location: Mare Island Naval Shipyard	Re: 'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN I'm looking forward to seein this puppy... __________________ "Young lady, human/insect mutation is far from an exact science..."

June 30 2008, 05:37 AM	#38
Aragorn Admiral	Re: 'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN Well, TJinPgh, unless you've actually said that every piece of information that's come out about this movie (which everyone else says is a whole lot about nothing) is more than enough to form a conclusive and decisive negative opinion on everything about the movie (I guess a blurry picture of John Cho's back is as good as watching the actual movie from start to finish), and spend all your time bitching on this board about how bad it's going to be, then I'm not talking to you.

June 30 2008, 06:59 AM	#42
Aragorn Admiral	Re: 'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN Actually, that wasn't sarcasm. I'm actually describing someone on this board who thinks like that. In case you couldn't tell, I'm not exactly a fan of the Stewey types on here.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

June 30 2008, 03:46 PM	#43
TJinPgh Captain	Re: 'Star Trek XI' Spoilers From AICN Fair enough. I admit that my comments have been borderline what you've described. And, since I was the only person like that who happened to be posting in this particular thread, I figured I should at least consider the possibility that you were speaking of me. At any rate, you're correct in saying it would be unfair to say that this movie will be bad without having seen it. By the same token, I don't think it's unfair to say that there are elements about it that we know that we may or may not believe will make us, as individuals, not like the film. For example. We know the bulk of the casting. And, as such, we know that despite what seem to be a couple of very good casting choices, there are at least one or two that appear to be completely wrong. Wrong, unless you give credibility to the character sheet that was reportedly leaked back at the beginning of this project. We also know the general plot outline for the movie. A plot that's essentially the same as ST: OGAM. The enemy (Nero/Charlie Evans) travels back in time hoping to kill Kirk and unravel the time line. A vulcan gets killed trying to stop them (Old Spock/Young Tuvok) but manages to mind meld with somebody (Young Spock/Harriman) that gives him enough info to set things right. Given how things changed in OGAM and Yesterday's Enterprise, I suppose some of those altered character traits make a certain amount of sense. Which is fine, so long as they correct the differences by film's end. If they do, however, casting somebody like Karl Urban will still be wrong. Which is why I, personally, don't believe that the timeline will be corrected. At least, not completely. I suspect that there is a reason why the PTB behind this film said from the start that this movie is NOT Star Trek XI, but rather simply "Star Trek."