No, you're not the only one who is scared by this trailer!

[Lapis Exilis]

Stag said:
I just don't understand where are all these noobs are coming from and posting threads bashing the movie because it doesn't not meet some arcane point in TREK canon.

My dear, only the ubergeeks have been posting on this board long after the death of dreams that was ENT. Now that there is new big screen Trek featuring Kirk and Spock, many people (including those who have been essentially absent from fandom since the mid-1980s) are rediscovering their inner geek and coming to the board. It is only natural and happens in any fandom when a major project is in the offing.

As for the "science" of Star Trek, I think folks need to step back and take a good, honest look at our beloved franchise. Let me be clear up front: I love Star Trek, I grew up with it, I watched every incarnation. But this it exists in a universe where thousands of alien species look suspiciously like humans with pieces of latex stuck on their heads, where half a dozen extraordinarily improbable technologies are taken for granted, where time travel is somehow not the most important technology in existence, where gangsters and Romans and other alternate Earths are explained away with somewhat silly "parallel development" theories.

To be fair both the Nazis in space and the Romans in space were introduced by interfering humans who landed on the planet. It was The Omega Glory which had the really dumb parallel development story, and Miri which had the really dumb parallel earth. And of course all the stories were pretty much for the express purpose of being able to use existing sets and costumes as the show's budget dwindled. All while the first three were just bad, Miri introduced the awesome and legendary "Bonk! Bonk! On the Head!" and "NO MORE BLAH BLAH BLAH!" lines, so it is to be forgiven.

And no, I am not Robert Orci.

Really??

Me neither. More's the pity. I could write a truly ground-breaking and simultaneously faithful TOS movie. Here's hoping Mr. Orci can too.

 

[Michael Chris]

I still don't get this, but it is funny.

DUDE?

 

[ancient]

I still don't get this, but it is funny.

DUDE?

Dude what?

 

[sebialex]

This is just too good.

Energy requirements: I have posted in another thread the calculations on the energy requirements, and basically you need 10 million times more energy to accelerate the Enterprise to half the speed of light, than to bring it from Earth to orbit.

Technology to get it to orbit: Who gives a fu*@. (Transporters, warp, shields, time travel, a galaxy filled with humanoid life which evolved at the same time as humans, Q: all of these are more impossible to attain than getting a ship into space).

TOS aesthetics: well shit, back then they had to imagine how things would look in the future, and they got a lot of the designs wrong. The clunky, box like shapes do not represent the designs of the present, and definitely not the future (just look at all the airplanes, cars and building designs of tomorrow and you can see a huge difference). TOS design is not coming back.

 

[Stag]

I solved the problem, I went back through the trailer and found a qick look at the Starfleet launch facility... Notice the one nacelle ship being built in the shipyards.

Also, this proves the ship was built in the San Fran area... Pacific Ocean in the foreground, Rockies in the background.

 

[M'Sharak]

I still don't get this, but it is funny.

Even though it looks like a badger, I believe it's supposed to represent a groundhog, which is an allusion to the Bill Murray movie in which the same day occurs over and over and over again, much as have the arguments often found taking place in this forum since it was first established. SP seems to be rating these on a scale of 5, so that four (as in the above example) represents an argument mostly hashing over old ground, but with one or two relatively fresh new elements. Two and a half groundhogs (actually badgers, but who's keeping score, anyway?) would still be an old argument, but with a greater number of new points added, while five would be pretty much the Same Old Unadulterated Sh*t, and nothing new whatsoever.

Of course, I could be completely off-base, but it amuses me to believe that this is what it means. They make me smile, too.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I would concur with that analysis.

And when the arguments get entirely out of hand, say hello to my little friend:

 

[ancient]

I still don't get this, but it is funny.

Even though it looks like a badger, I believe it's supposed to represent a groundhog, which is an allusion to the Bill Murray movie in which the same day occurs over and over and over again, much as have the arguments often found taking place in this forum since it was first established. SP seems to be rating these on a scale of 5, so that four (as in the above example) represents an argument mostly hashing over old ground, but with one or two relatively fresh new elements. Two and a half groundhogs (actually badgers, but who's keeping score, anyway?) would still be an old argument, but with a greater number of new points added, while five would be pretty much the Same Old Unadulterated Sh*t, and nothing new whatsoever.

Of course, I could be completely off-base, but it amuses me to believe that this is what it means. They make me smile, too.

Ah ha. Well, in that case it's very appropriate here.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think the heart of that long, detailed, post is this:

Star Trek inspired at least a couple of generations to go into science, medicine, writing, engineering, etc.

Star Wars pretty much inspired kids to go into special effects.

Who's gonna be inspired by this monstrosity? And inspired to do what? Drive expensive cars off cliffs? Be an insubordinate little twerp in the hope that you'll still stumble onto your destiny?

JJ and his merry band of mischief makers know the words of Star Trek, but not the language.

 

[Gepard]

Star Trek inspired at least a couple of generations to go into science, medicine, writing, engineering, etc.

Star Wars pretty much inspired kids to go into special effects.

If a television show is the heart and soul of why somebody chose "X" career path, that's pretty fucking pathetic.

And what's wrong with visual effects?

 

[JuanBolio]

I think it'll inspire people to watch Star Trek again.

 

[Sharr Khan]

That anyone can be 'scared' by a trailer or the prospect of this film completely blows my mind. Its a MOVIE, not a holy doctrine and even that once in awhile gets reconsidered and or restructured.



Sharr

 

[Amaris]

I think the heart of that long, detailed, post is this:

Star Trek inspired at least a couple of generations to go into science, medicine, writing, engineering, etc.

Star Wars pretty much inspired kids to go into special effects.

Who's gonna be inspired by this monstrosity? And inspired to do what? Drive expensive cars off cliffs? Be an insubordinate little twerp in the hope that you'll still stumble onto your destiny?

JJ and his merry band of mischief makers know the words of Star Trek, but not the language.

Yes, because the Star Trek trailer is the whole movie, and all of those people inspired by the original series only watched the 5 minute intro. Not only that but those 79 episodes and six movies? Didn't count. This new Trek should be able to accomplish the same thing in one 90 second trailer.

Bravo.

J.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I haven't read this whole thread, as I don't need a migraine, but in regards to a starship surviving in earth's atmosphere, I cite this:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday", TOS

J.

You do realize that this wasn't exactly a planned maneuver within the standard operating parameters, right?

 

[Tom Servo]

I think the heart of that long, detailed, post is this:

Star Trek inspired at least a couple of generations to go into science, medicine, writing, engineering, etc.

Star Wars pretty much inspired kids to go into special effects.

Who's gonna be inspired by this monstrosity? And inspired to do what? Drive expensive cars off cliffs? Be an insubordinate little twerp in the hope that you'll still stumble onto your destiny?

JJ and his merry band of mischief makers know the words of Star Trek, but not the language.

I am a special effects major who was inspired by Star Trek.

 

[Qonos]

...Now, it is a trailer folks, and much remains to be seen, but I don’t really believe that the movie is going to come out with such huge flaws repaired (Scene 2: Young kirk flies up on his space-motorcyle and gazes upon the enterprise under construction in Space Dock... NOT), so I will wait to see it to make a final judgment, but so far, they have totally, totally lost me...

This line really confuses me (maybe I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying). I didn't see a scene with Kirk on a "space motorcycle" flying anywhere.

I DID see a cop on a hover-craft cycle, and I saw Kirk on a traditional-style wheeled motorcycle, but I didn't see anything about Kirk flying up to a space dock.

Perhaps you were being sarcastic, and the sarcasm just flew over my head?

Yeah, I guess I am being sarcastic. My point was, that the second scene would have to be re-written to put the Enterprise in construction in outer space, which is the only place you could build a ship like it, if you wanted to make the scene remotely believable (and not totally stupid). But this would mean that you couldn't do the hopelessly stupid 'rebel without a cause' guy on the 300 year-old motorcycle riding up to look at it. So if you couldn't do the scene that way, you know what you would have to do? Scrap the whole scene because it is dumb, dumb, dumb. And if you can't do that, then you probably don't have the brains to prevent having a dumb, dumb, dumb movie. The kind of movie like where a 10 year old kid has the presence of mind to jump out of a car about to careen off a cliff instead of just realistically #$%^ himself as he screams to his death!

Because the only place you can build a naval cruiser is at sea...

Oh wait they build the components on dry land and move them to a DRY DOCK and complete construction there...

 

[AlanC9]

To be fair both the Nazis in space and the Romans in space were introduced by interfering humans who landed on the planet. It was The Omega Glory which had the really dumb parallel development story, and Miri which had the really dumb parallel earth.

Nazis, yes, and the gangster world too, but the Roman world evolved on its own. Merik found a Roman culture; he didn't bring it.

 

[Amaris]

I haven't read this whole thread, as I don't need a migraine, but in regards to a starship surviving in earth's atmosphere, I cite this:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday", TOS

J.

You do realize that this wasn't exactly a planned maneuver within the standard operating parameters, right?

Did it crash?
Did it explode?
Did it fall out of the sky suddenly?

Pretty damn tough ship if you ask me.

J.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

To be fair both the Nazis in space and the Romans in space were introduced by interfering humans who landed on the planet. It was The Omega Glory which had the really dumb parallel development story, and Miri which had the really dumb parallel earth.

Nazis, yes, and the gangster world too, but the Roman world evolved on its own. Merik found a Roman culture; he didn't bring it.

Really? Ach, I'm off on my trivia. Still probably won't watch Bread and Circuses again though. Very mediocre ep. But this explains why the little bit about Son Worshippers at the end was dogging me when I posted that. I had an inkling there was some kind of parallel development in that story.

 

[ancient]

I haven't read this whole thread, as I don't need a migraine, but in regards to a starship surviving in earth's atmosphere, I cite this:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday", TOS

J.

You do realize that this wasn't exactly a planned maneuver within the standard operating parameters, right?

Did it crash?
Did it explode?
Did it fall out of the sky suddenly?

Pretty damn tough ship if you ask me.

J.

Yep, even significantly damaged as it was in that episode, there was no apparent problem with atmospheric flight.