Expecting Trailer?/Super Bowl Trailer is Live Now [SPOILERS]

[Shilliam Watner]

Kruezerman wrote:

---

I'm thinking it's air escaping from the ship, the ship looks like she lost power and has numerous hull breaches so there could be loss of air.

Or it could be smoke from inside as well.

Air wouldn't vent into bubble shapes like what you see in the trailer. It's clear water bubbling out from use of the Fire Suppression Systems at the hull breach at the front of the saucer.

[Franklin]

Shilliam Watner wrote:

---

Air wouldn't vent into bubble shapes like what you see in the trailer. It's clear water bubbling out from use of the Fire Suppression Systems at the hull breach at the front of the saucer.

I have to say that would take extreme attention to detail if that's true. Someone producing or creating the CGI would have to think as deeply as, "We need to show liquid from the fire suppression system leaking from the Enterprise as she falls through the atmosphere." They'd think that far, but get the UK flag wrong?

My guess is it's like a condensation trail made from the heat of of the fires at those points on the hull. A similar thing seems to be happening on the front of the damaged nacelle.

[M'Sharak]

Squiggy wrote:

---

"AND THE SHIRTS ARE GREEN!"

You mean "avocado," don't you?

[Worfmonger]

Franklin wrote:

---

I have to say that would take extreme attention to detail if that's true. Someone producing or creating the CGI would have to think as deeply as, "We need to show liquid from the fire suppression system leaking from the Enterprise as she falls through the atmosphere." They'd think that far, but get the UK flag wrong?

My guess is it's like a condensation trail made from the heat of of the fires at those points on the hull. A similar thing seems to be happening on the front of the damaged nacelle.

Oh, THOSE "bubbles"; I thought the reference was to the odd visual distortion around the registry and ship name.

I agree, those look more like some sort of condensation or particle trail from her contacting the upper atmosphere, before the smoke can really start billowing.

[Flake]

A 700m starship colliding with Earth could cause planet wide devastation. We can only hope they are able to soften the landing

Its *so* easy to destroy life on a planet that stuff like the death star is not necessary. Simply accelerate a small object to sufficient speed at a planet and its good bye planet. Thanks e=mc2 ! All Federation planets should have a planetary shield to absorb such things.

Also I would not like to be anywhere near a crashed starship if the anti-matter containment field dies.

[Franklin]

Flake wrote:

---

A 700m starship colliding with Earth could cause planet wide devastation. We can only hope they are able to soften the landing

Its *so* easy to destroy life on a planet that stuff like the death star is not necessary. Simply accelerate a small object to sufficient speed at a planet and its good bye planet. Thanks e=mc2 ! All Federation planets should have a planetary shield to absorb such things.

Also I would not like to be anywhere near a crashed starship if the anti-matter containment field dies.

This is correct. It's also not what 98.5% of those watching the movie will be thinking. But it is absolutely correct and raises an interesting in-universe question about the efficacy of having these starships fly around in atmospheres (and under oceans) in the first place. Still, we are the 1.5%. The other 98.5% get awed by a kewl crash. The rest of us wonder about anti-matter containment fields.

[Worfmonger]

Franklin wrote:

---

This is correct. It's also not what 98.5% of those watching the movie will be thinking. But it is absolutely correct and raises an interesting in-universe question about the efficacy of having these starships fly around in atmospheres (and under oceans) in the first place. Still, we are the 1.5%. The other 98.5% get awed by a kewl crash. The rest of us wonder about anti-matter containment fields.

While I understand the idea of small objects at extremely high speeds and their accompanying kinetic energy, I fail to see why a 700m (or 1200m, for that matter) starship would have to be responsible for an ELE, apart from the aforementioned anti-matter issue. The terminal velocity of a ship that size would be quite low, comparatively speaking, and she likely has at the very least maneuvering thrusters to slow her descent further. We'd essentially be looking at similar destruction to a 747 belly-flopping on the tarmac, adjusted for mass, of course.

[SalvorHardin]

Movietickets.com conducted a survey of active moviegoers to rank the most effective movie commercials aired during yesterday’s broadcast of the Super Bowl. The survey targeted actual moviegoers to determine which spot cut through the media clutter, and how effective those commercials were at convincing viewers to buy tickets.


The commercial for Iron Man 3 was the most remembered, with 79% saying they remembered seeing the ad during the game followed closely by the commercial for The Fast & Furious 6 (77%). Here is the breakdown in full.


Iron Man 3 – 79%
The Fast & Furious 6 – 77%
Star Trek Into Darkness – 69%
Oz The Great and Powerful – 68%
World War Z – 48%

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit...chHIyCpYpgu.01

[Flake]

Franklin wrote:

---

This is correct. It's also not what 98.5% of those watching the movie will be thinking. But it is absolutely correct and raises an interesting in-universe question about the efficacy of having these starships fly around in atmospheres (and under oceans) in the first place. Still, we are the 1.5%. The other 98.5% get awed by a kewl crash. The rest of us wonder about anti-matter containment fields.

Yup. I am aware that the laws of physics must be ignored for the sake of kewl 'splosions

I wonder what the Enterprise would do if it just stayed at full impulse on a collision course with a planet? I reckon the planet would be obliterated. Impulse is pretty darn fast :P As for warping into a planet well I reckon it would just make an enterprise shaped hole all the way thru

[BillJ]

Flake wrote:

---

As for warping into a planet well I reckon it would just make an enterprise shaped hole all the way thru

Do planets exist in subspace?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Franklin wrote:

---

Still, we are the 1.5%.

I think that you're off by at least an order of ten.

[JarodRussell]

The Fast and Furious 6? Why is it that the dumbest, simplest shit always gets the most sequels.

[Shawnster]

Flake wrote:

---

Yup. I am aware that the laws of physics must be ignored for the sake of kewl 'splosions

I wonder what the Enterprise would do if it just stayed at full impulse on a collision course with a planet? I reckon the planet would be obliterated. Impulse is pretty darn fast :P As for warping into a planet well I reckon it would just make an enterprise shaped hole all the way thru

700m does not necessarily mean sufficient MASS to do catastrophic damage to the planet. A small asteroid may have more mass than a 700m starship.

You need to find out the metric tonnage of the starship and the speed at the time of impact.

[Set Harth]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The Fast and Furious 6? Why is it that the dumbest, simplest shit always gets the most sequels.

Trek is on its 12th movie.

[Kirby]

Set Harth wrote:

---

Trek is on its 12th movie.

Quiet, you.