Star Trek covers EW

[MisterPL]

For anyone wondering why Kirk is wearing black, note that everyone else is wearing black, too, they've just got the black undershirt covered with blue/gold/red shirts.

I guess in the reboot, when Kirk's shirt tears off, we don't get to see his nipples.

 

[Pavonis]

Yes, the uniforms have a black undershirt, as they did (sometimes) during the original series. So, rather than ask "Why is Kirk in black?", I will change my question to "Why isn't Kirk wearing his gold/green/mustard/whatever-color-it-is tunic?"

Apparently Kirk's black shirt may be a Captains Only variant. It does have a delta shield on it.

 

[MattJC]

What part of this film have you seen on which to draw this conclusion?

What do you care if you're not going to see it anyway?

Have you even seen these pictures?

You still haven't answered these questions.

I answered your first question: Have you even seen these pictures?

As for your second: I don't like to be told fairy tales by these people in order to separate me from my money.
All I ask is for a little honesty.

 

[Pavonis]

I don't like to be told fairy tales by these people in order to separate me from my money.

So, if they say it is a reboot, you'll go see it?

 

[Amaris]

This is all coming together nicely. It makes me even more excited for the movie, and also frustrated because it's going to be 6 more months instead of one more month.


J.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Have you even seen these pictures?

You still haven't answered these questions.

I answered your first question: Have you even seen these pictures?

As for your second: I don't like to be told fairy tales by these people in order to separate me from my money.
All I ask is for a little honesty.

Good god man, what did JJ Abrams do to you? Did he pull a Nicholson-style Joker and shoot your parents? Jeeze louise, well have fun hunting him down, seeing as you're the goddamned Batman and we must be some kind of retards for being optimists.

Screw optimism. Star Trek's never been about optimisim. Gene Roddenberry wanted us all to nuke each other and fear the future.

 

[number6]

Have you even seen these pictures?

You still haven't answered these questions.

I answered your first question: Have you even seen these pictures?

As for your second: I don't like to be told fairy tales by these people in order to separate me from my money.
All I ask is for a little honesty.

So you're basing all this hatred on a few publicity pics, knowing absolutely nothing about the plot and story of the film. Ok, got it. You have no proof at all to back up your claim.

I have seen the pictures. I don't have any context to base an opinion, like most NORMAL people.

I fully expect this crew to take some artistic liscence in design, the same way each Trek Movie and series has since TAS aired in 1973.
The bridge in TMP looks nothing like it did on the TV show. The technology looks nothing like the TOS technology taken 18 months into the future (when that movie supposedly takes place). Those producers took artistic liberties. The uniforms were changed dramatically from TOS. The design of the interiors and uniforms for the other 5 Trek films look nothing like TMP. Again they took some artistic liscence. These new producers are certainly within their right to do so as all the previous producers were.

The story of this film is about how Kirk and Spock became friends, framed in some kind of altered timeline concept with an older and younger Spock. This we know. Anything beyond we don't. It this a reboot? No one really can say for sure. A reboot would simply pretend that the rest of the Trek story never happened and start fresh. There is nothing out there that would convince me that that is the case. Even if it were a reboot, I really don't care. The producers want to tell a Kirk and Spock origin story and to do that they have to cast younger actors. At some point, we just have to accept that if we want to see Kirk and Spock stories told for the big screen 40 years after the original actors have passed their believable prime or lifespan.

Current fandom has been asking for fresh blood and new ideas and we have it with this team. I want to see what they do with it. If I like it I will support it. If I don't, I won't. Coming into every thread and calling people morons and idiots and liars for producing a new Star Trek film at a time when the franchise is dormant is ignorant and immature.

I have given you the floor, sir, to seriously answer the question as to why your panties are in such a bundled wad and you have yet to give a rational answer.

I will ask you again:

Why do you care if you're not going to see this film anyway?

What parts of the film have you seen to draw such a definitive conclusion?


If you aren't going to see it because of the pictures you've seen, then fine. But you have been saying the same thing over and over again many months before any facts of this picture have been released or even discussed.
Despite every interview stating the contrary, you insist this is a reboot (whatever your definition of that is). Do you wish to deny the wetness of water as well??

If you want to just post the same unsubstantiated attacks and remarks over and over again without any proof or semblence of sanity, then clearly you are not here to post and debate the issue under the guidance of the rules of this forum and should stop.

Coming in here and posting assinine and petulant inanities makes you look like a fool. I shall not try to reason with you and have any serious conversation if you can't respect the rules and the people who disagree with you.

You can answer my questions and have some substance to back it up or you can continue to be dismissed by everyone here as a foolish windbag.


Your choice.

 

[MattJC]

I will ask you again:

Why do you care if you're not going to see this film anyway?


What parts of the film have you seen to draw such a definitive conclusion?

I care because these dickheads are telling me, as a Star Trek fan, crap that they think I'd want to here in order get me to see their fucking reboot. They are just as bad as a politician trying to pander to me to try to get me to vote for them.

That redesigned bridge of the Enterprise tells me it's a reboot.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I will ask you again:

Why do you care if you're not going to see this film anyway?


What parts of the film have you seen to draw such a definitive conclusion?

I care because these dickheads are telling me, as a Star Trek fan, crap that they think I'd want to here in order get me to see their fucking reboot.

That redesigned bridge of the Enterprise tells me it's a reboot.

Oh so a redesigned bridge shows it's a reboot? TMP, ST5, ST6, TNG, Generations, FC, and Nemesis must be reboots then. Huh. Didn't know that.

 

[Pavonis]

So if it is a reboot, and they ADMIT IT, would you see it?

I mean, if your objection is to the description, that's one thing. If your objection is to the existence of the movie, though, that's a whole other thing. Are you clear on why you don't like it?

 

[M'Sharak]

[...]

Coming in here and posting assinine and petulant inanities makes you look like a fool. I shall not try to reason with you and have any serious conversation if you can't respect the rules and the people who disagree with you.

You can answer my questions and have some substance to back it up or you can continue to be dismissed by everyone here as a foolish windbag.


Your choice.

I'll suggest, just for the sake of being difficult, that that might be the topic for a thread of its own, and further that if you both were to back the language down a notch or two, it might be a Good Thing.

 

[MattJC]

I will ask you again:

Why do you care if you're not going to see this film anyway?


What parts of the film have you seen to draw such a definitive conclusion?

I care because these dickheads are telling me, as a Star Trek fan, crap that they think I'd want to here in order get me to see their fucking reboot.

That redesigned bridge of the Enterprise tells me it's a reboot.

Oh so a redesigned bridge shows it's a reboot? TMP, ST5, ST6, TNG, Generations, FC, and Nemesis must be reboots then. Huh. Didn't know that.

The producers claim this movie is set just a few years before TOS.
I find it hard to believe that this shiny state of the art peice of garbage is supposed to be the same bridge we seen in TOS.

 

[MattJC]

So if it is a reboot, and they ADMIT IT, would you see it?

I mean, if your objection is to the description, that's one thing. If your objection is to the existence of the movie, though, that's a whole other thing. Are you clear on why you don't like it?

No, I would not. I don't want a reboot.
At this point all I want from them is to just say it's a reboot and be done with it, and not try to con people like me who don't want a reboot out of money.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I care because these dickheads are telling me, as a Star Trek fan, crap that they think I'd want to here in order get me to see their fucking reboot.

That redesigned bridge of the Enterprise tells me it's a reboot.

Oh so a redesigned bridge shows it's a reboot? TMP, ST5, ST6, TNG, Generations, FC, and Nemesis must be reboots then. Huh. Didn't know that.

The producers claim this movie is set just a few years before TOS.
I find it hard to believe that this shiny state of the art peice of garbage is supposed to be the same bridge we seen in TOS.

TMP takes place a little over a year after TOS. And Roddenberry expects us to believe that that shiny state of the art garbage is the Enterprise?

 

[Pavonis]

So if it is a reboot, and they ADMIT IT, would you see it?

I mean, if your objection is to the description, that's one thing. If your objection is to the existence of the movie, though, that's a whole other thing. Are you clear on why you don't like it?

No, I would not. I don't want a reboot.
At this point all I want from them is to just say it's a reboot and be done with it, and not try to con people like me who don't want a reboot out of money.

Well, if you're not going to see it, you're no longer in their target demographic, and they're not going to change their tune for you. But now at least you have your visual proof that it is a reboot, and since you're not going to see it, you can just ignore it, if possible (it may be difficult).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, it's certainly different. I think we can now safely throw any preconceptions out the window. ** waits for Dennis to squeal with glee **

Squealllll!

(I'll note here that what I told you about the "Kelvin" appears to be contradicted by one of these images.)

BTW, notice the red vinyl flooring on the bridge set? They seem to be working those TOS red accents in where they can.

MTV refers to that standing station as the "communications desk."

This looks the way I'd expect a big-budget recreation of the original series might look if all of the post-TOS (and by post-TOS, I'm including the TOS-based movies) were disregarded and the producers worked from the premise that the original series comprised their frame of reference. And in that regard I'm very, very pleased.

 

[MattJC]

So if it is a reboot, and they ADMIT IT, would you see it?

I mean, if your objection is to the description, that's one thing. If your objection is to the existence of the movie, though, that's a whole other thing. Are you clear on why you don't like it?

No, I would not. I don't want a reboot.
At this point all I want from them is to just say it's a reboot and be done with it, and not try to con people like me who don't want a reboot out of money.

Well, if you're not going to see it, you're no longer in their target demographic, and they're not going to change their tune for you. But now at least you have your visual proof that it is a reboot, and since you're not going to see it, you can just ignore it, if possible (it may be difficult).

I want them to admit it first before I can ignore it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You can answer my questions and have some substance to back it up or you can continue to be dismissed by everyone here as a foolish windbag.

There's not anything to be done about the latter at this point.

 

[Pavonis]

No, I would not. I don't want a reboot.
At this point all I want from them is to just say it's a reboot and be done with it, and not try to con people like me who don't want a reboot out of money.

Well, if you're not going to see it, you're no longer in their target demographic, and they're not going to change their tune for you. But now at least you have your visual proof that it is a reboot, and since you're not going to see it, you can just ignore it, if possible (it may be difficult).

I want them to admit it first before I can ignore it.

Wow, you're stubborn. And not even towards a useful end! It's clearly a visual reboot, what more do you really expect to get?

 

[number6]

You can answer my questions and have some substance to back it up or you can continue to be dismissed by everyone here as a foolish windbag.

There's not anything to be done about the latter at this point.

Hey.. at least give me an E for effort in trying to reason with the guy.