Spoiler-ish predictions from current STID trailer

[CorporalClegg]

Cucumberpatch.

[HaventGotALife]

The Enterprise is destroyed in this movie, from what I saw in the Super Bowl ad. I think Kirk fouls up and he loses his ship because of it. 2009 Kirk but fraught with consequences. I think, from what they are saying, that there will be attacks on earth the Kirk should've been able to stop. That would make a much more interesting movie. It's about the burden of command. And it would leave this Kirk as close to broken as he ever was.

[foxhot]

Robin's father from ''V'' asked:
''Is it really that hard to spell his name correctly?''

Yes. Corporal Clegg commented:
''Traditionally, hands on opposite sides of glass have seldom depicted a death scene.''

Except in the classic film Abrams is homaging. At the very least he appears to want us to think Spock's in trouble again. I think it's a misdirection.

[chardman]

It's pretty darn obvious that what lie beyond the glass wall in the trailer, is identical to the cell from the picture we've all seen of Cumberbatch in the brig.

In other films where we've seen two people "touching" their hands to either side of a glass wall, invariably, one of the two is incarcerated, and the other a visitor. Seeing as Abrams makes his films for mainstream audiences, and NOT the fans, it's pretty much a safe bet that this stereotypical prison visitation scene, is intended as an homage to other prison visitation scenes, and is most likely not a bit of misdirection designed to make a small faction of Trekkie go apeshit.

HaventGotALife wrote:

---

The Enterprise is destroyed in this movie, from what I saw in the Super Bowl ad.

Er... no. What we see in that ad is a ship of fairly common Starfleet design, albeit with nacelles that are shaped nothing like those of Enterprise, wrecking into a bay. Moreover, you can tell by the skyscrapers that are in the foreground of the shot, that this ship is freaking huge compared to Enterprise.

I'm guessing it's a long-lost and forgotten colony ship from the earliest days of Starfleet, and the source of both Harrison, and his ire against a Federation that he perceives as having essentially abandoned/forgotten him and his fellow crewmates. A colony ship also pretty much explains the cryo-tubes we see in the ad, and the fact that there's a really big wreck, and presumably at least a few resulting fatalities, pretty much explains the funeral scene we see as well.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

foxhot wrote:

---

Three months from now, this post could be very prescient, or very embarrassing. We shall see.

Given that in one post you mangled the name of the main guest star, misidentified McCoy as Sulu and got confused about the whole hands-on-glass thing then based speculation on that...

...I'm going with the "very embarrassing" option. High confidence.

[CorporalClegg]

chardman wrote:

---

In other films where we've seen two people "touching" their hands to either side of a glass wall, invariably, one of the two is incarcerated, and the other a visitor. Seeing as Abrams makes his films for mainstream audiences, and NOT the fans, it's pretty much a safe bet that this stereotypical prison visitation scene, is intended as an homage to other prison visitation scenes, and is most likely not a bit of misdirection designed to make a small faction of Trekkie go apeshit.

Exactly! [TM.]

Or more to the point, this is a classic film scene that's been homaged by every great director of the last forty years:



This is not:

[BeatleJWOL]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Cucumberpatch.

Benadryl Lumberjacks?

[M'Sharak]

foxhot wrote:

---

Yes.

Except in the classic film Abrams is homaging. At the very least he appears to want us to think Spock's in trouble again. I think it's a misdirection.

Fixed your quote attributions. The board's Quote and Multi-Quote functions will do it all for you at the click of a button; it's both much easier to read than the way you had it and links back to the post(s) being quoted.

[billcosby]

Cumberbatch lunges naturally past the cucumber patch. Say that 10 times fast.
The 9 minutes before The Hobbit seems rife with spoilers for analysis. Is anyone on that?
I'm not so sure they'll kill anyone off this time around... we are just getting used to the nuances of the characters (see: Tasha Yar) but if it is only to be 3 films and nothing else, why not kill the entire crew in the next one?

[daveyNY]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Given that in one post you mangled the name of the main guest star, misidentified McCoy as Sulu and got confused about the whole hands-on-glass thing then based speculation on that...

...I'm going with the "very embarrassing" option. High confidence.

I'm sooo happy I wasn't drinking anything when I read this...

[Flux Capacitor]

For all we know, that scene isn't even in the movie. Baby Spock, anybody? We could be getting all worked up for nothing.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

chardman wrote:

---

Moreover, you can tell by the skyscrapers that are in the foreground of the shot, that this ship is freaking huge compared to Enterprise.

I'm guessing it's a long-lost and forgotten colony ship from the earliest days of Starfleet, and the source of both Harrison, and his ire against a Federation that he perceives as having essentially abandoned/forgotten him and his fellow crewmates. A colony ship also pretty much explains the cryo-tubes we see in the ad, and the fact that there's a really big wreck, and presumably at least a few resulting fatalities, pretty much explains the funeral scene we see as well.

The Enterprise was made far bigger in the last movie, in order to fit the dozens of large shuttles, enourmous engineering section and corridor network around and behind the bridge - up from the 289m of the original series to 725m (possibly as big as 1200m!) Although I don't think the ship skimming the water is the Enterprise, it's definitely in the same size range.

[foxhot]

Flux Capacitor is riight about trailers showing not-in-the-movie moments. I consider that fraud, and that problem's been happening in movie since at least 1988. For all we know Cumblebatch isn't even actually appearing in it. Stranger things have happened. Michael Biehn was in a TERMINATOR 2 trailer, yet not even the movie. I'm still miffed about that.

[chardman]

King Daniel wrote:

---

The Enterprise was made far bigger in the last movie, in order to fit the dozens of large shuttles, enourmous engineering section and corridor network around and behind the bridge - up from the 289m of the original series to 725m (possibly as big as 1200m!) Although I don't think the ship skimming the water is the Enterprise, it's definitely in the same size range.

I don't think so. While I am well aware that the JJprise is much bigger than any previous version of the ship, the ship in the bay appears, at least to my eye, and judging by the buildings in the foreground, to be vastly larger still.

Granted, keeping things in properly scaled proportion is a special effects failing of many a film, so the seemingly massive size of the vessel may just be a mistake. Thus far, I;m assuming it's not a mistake, and that this ship actually is supposed to be significantly larger than Enterprise.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

foxhot wrote:

---

I consider that fraud, and that problem's been happening in movie since at least 1988. For all we know Cumblebatch isn't even actually appearing in it.

No, and no.