Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by King Daniel Beyond, Jan 20, 2013.
Cause they are full of Sh7t
^Now, that's uncalled for.
I haven't a clue. Just jumping to conspiracy-filled conclusions.
That's not "leaked", it was an official release of a trailer, being analyzed. A leak is something they don't want us seeing - like that footage of Spock fighting Harrison from several months ago.
Nice find, though. I hadn't noticed the police/fighter/whatever hangar being what detonates in London. I thought they were cryo tubes or maybe missiles.
I still don't see it.
A bit of the way down the page - the police or fighter or whatever craft it is seen attacking the Starfleet conference in the second trailer - it looks like what explodes in London in the Superbowl commercial might be a hangar full of them.
EDIT: Missed the bit about a Connie nacelle. I don't see that in there.
Glad it's not just me. I don't see anything like that, besides the ship possibly hitting the bay.
I'm find it impossible to tell with that ship. It's obviously badly damaged. There could be a secondary hull underneath, given the angle it comes in at. That could be an old-style nacelle cap, buzzard collector, whatever, on the left. All I know is, there's some insistence put about, that it isn't the Enterprise. What exactly is that based on?
I seriously have no idea what to expect anymore.
There's just so much new information coming in that is just so left field.
Well, what's wrong with not knowing what to expect? The best way to find out the contents of a story is to watch or read the story itself. The movie will be out in only a few months, and then we'll know.
Now I'm not saying it's a bad thing at all, merely that I just don't know what to expect anymore.
Spoilers are dilemma. So long as those who know are tightlipped, in theory it's all a fun game of deductive reasoning based on what pieces of the puzzle are purposefully put out there.
Right now, is the time and place to decide whether or not anyone needs to stay away... if they want to remain 100% free from knowing too much. I mean, a month from now they'll be press screenings and journalists who won't be able to contain themselves. Even if they think an article is free from spoilerific detail, a hardcore Star Trek fan will spot something for sure.
They're full of Shat?
I knew Shatner would be the villain!
Seriously though, Cumberbatch isn't playing Khan.
Seriously though, how do you know that?
Umm, because we know his character is named John Harrison, and because two members of the film's cast have explicitly said he's not playing Khan. And we've never had anything but rumor, speculation, and wishful thinking to suggest that he was Khan, and it is never wise to trust rumors.
Cast members have stated it was Gary Mitchell too so anything they say is fact and is in no way playing with people's expectations then is it???
^Burden of proof. We have several pieces of evidence pointing to not-Khan. We had only one statement from a cast member suggesting Gary Mitchell, with no corroboration. We have zero evidence pointing to Khan, because rumors are not evidence. Given a choice between multiple conflicting hypotheses, the one that has several corroborating pieces of evidence (including the actual name of the character in official press releases, for gods' sake) is obviously preferable over one that has only a single unsubstantiated claim or one that has nothing but rumor to support it.
Rumors of Khan aside, I keep coming back to those Starfleet sideburns Cumberbatch has. OK, you can put a uniform on Khan, it was done in "Space Seed", but the sideburns? How are those explained? He was given a uniform and a haircut? They're more regulation TOS Starfleet than Pine's are, for crying out loud.
Further, I agree, denials have to be believed until real evidence points the other way. It's all rumor, and those are fun, but they don't count.
I believe he's connected to Khan somehow...
I believe that, too, as I've posted several times. But I don't think he's from the Botany Bay.
Separate names with a comma.