It's a PG-13 Rating, and Bridge panoramas are online...

[M'Sharak]

*ahem!*

The MPAA rating and/or Bridge panoramas, and not other posters, please?

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

What's that have to do with anything? I remember when I was nailing 19 year old girls. So what?

This movie didn't get a PG-13 rating for a boob.

The point is that movie ratings have gotten stricter over the years

Terrible point, they've gotten way looser.

And WTF does it have to do with the discussion.

Stricter in some areas (nudity), looser in others (violence).

 

[Mr. B]

I can't say the panorama's have endeared me to the bridge design. It still looks absurd and I suspect the design is going to age about as well as the bridge in TMP. All that clear glass and the hostess stations could not be more pointless.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

It is extremely bright. It is also cold, sterile, and colorless: four words I'd use to describe the bridge.

Rather, it serves to become a technicolor parody of the original

Ummm...yes...it seems the haters have to get together to get their story straight.

Nah. The cheerleading squad is so good at mindless groupthink, the "haters" could never hope to compete.

That's typical.

If somebody likes it, it's mindless group think but if someone hates it, well they're reasoned and thoughtful and not a bunch of cry-babies.

 

[Aragorn]

That's typical.

If somebody likes it, it's mindless group think but if someone hates it, well their reasoned and thoughtful and not a bunch of cry-babies.

On the bright side, the haters will probably go see the movie more times than anyone else so they can keep picking it apart to fulfill their own prophecies and spend the other 22 hours of the day on the internet telling everyone how right they were.

 

[shapeshifter]

I got a bad feeling about this...

 

[CaptainHawk1]

That's typical.

If somebody likes it, it's mindless group think but if someone hates it, well they're reasoned and thoughtful and not a bunch of cry-babies.

On the bright side, the haters will probably go see the movie more times than anyone else so they can keep picking it apart to fulfill their own prophecies and spend the other 22 hours of the day on the internet telling everyone how right they were.

Probably, but the problem is that they'll actually leave Mom's basement for those 2 hours.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I was at Blockbuster the other day and the back of a box listed smoking as one of the reasons for the PG-13. I think most TV shows and movies these days would be rated PG-13 if they were actually submitted to the MPAA. I think PG-13 is a quite acceptable and predictable rating for a movie like this these days.

As a bit of comparison, in its day, ST:TMP, 2001, Planet of the Apes and The Andromeda Strain were all rated G.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

That's typical.

If somebody likes it, it's mindless group think but if someone hates it, well they're reasoned and thoughtful and not a bunch of cry-babies.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b264/Jamjam123us/fail-1.jpg

...

On the bright side, the haters will probably go see the movie more times than anyone else so they can keep picking it apart to fulfill their own prophecies and spend the other 22 hours of the day on the internet telling everyone how right they were.

...

...

Probably, but the problem is that they'll actually leave Mom's basement for those 2 hours.

Is there a part of "knock off taking potshots at the people who disagree with you, and stick to the topic" which was unclear, guys? I shouldn't have to say it twice.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I was at Blockbuster the other day and the back of a box listed smoking as one of the reasons for the PG-13. I think most TV shows and movies these days would be rated PG-13 if they were actually submitted to the MPAA. I think PG-13 is a quite acceptable and predictable rating for a movie like this these days.

Simply because a description is listed under the MPAA, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a reason for the rating. It is simply a warning for the consumers so they can make an informed decision.

I read an article in EW last year abou the MPAA ratings where "unnamed" producers complained becausethe problem with MPAA is that there is no standard.

TPTB simply decide arbitrarily based on the film as a whole and their own personal opinions.

A boob here and a boob there is not a deciding factor. It's about the number of boobs and the context that they are shown combined with the other factors ofthe movie.

The MPAA system of standards is retarded because there is no standard.

It's kind of like you can't define indecency or what's obscene but you know it when you see it which is stupid (in my learned opinon) in law and with the movie industry.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I was at Blockbuster the other day and the back of a box listed smoking as one of the reasons for the PG-13. I think most TV shows and movies these days would be rated PG-13 if they were actually submitted to the MPAA. I think PG-13 is a quite acceptable and predictable rating for a movie like this these days.

Simply because a description is listed under the MPAA, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a reason for the rating. It is simply a warning for the consumers so they can make an informed decision.

May not be the sole cause but it would be a contributor I think. You have limited space to list things and if something gets listed I would assume it is because it was seen as significant.

 

[Sector 7]

The PG-13 rating is actually a boost for this film. I would not be surprised if Paramount/JJ Abrams intentionally went for it. A rating of G or even PG would probably not be as attractive to a mainstream audience as a PG-13 rating. PG-13 for violence and sexual situations is appealing to action lovers.

*My how the times have changed. I was threatened by mods for having the word hater in my sig line a few months ago, now they are calling themselves by the term. *

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I was at Blockbuster the other day and the back of a box listed smoking as one of the reasons for the PG-13. I think most TV shows and movies these days would be rated PG-13 if they were actually submitted to the MPAA. I think PG-13 is a quite acceptable and predictable rating for a movie like this these days.

Simply because a description is listed under the MPAA, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a reason for the rating. It is simply a warning for the consumers so they can make an informed decision.

May not be the sole cause but it would be a contributor I think. You have limited space to list things and if something gets listed I would assume it is because it was seen as significant.

You would think, but not always. Some of the stuff they put in the description line is so innocuous that it doesn't make sense that it has anything to due with the MPAA rating.

The PG-13 rating is actually a boost for this film. I would not be surprised if Paramount/JJ Abrams intentionally went for it. A rating of G or even PG would probably not be as attractive to a mainstream audience as a PG-13 rating. PG-13 for violence and sexual situations is appealing to action lovers.

This I totally agree with. PG is passé for the audience they are trying to nab on this. This isn't a "take-your-eight-year-old-to-see-this-film" Star Trek.

Good for them. It means it won't be watered down.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Ummm...yes...it seems the haters have to get together to get their story straight.

Nah. The cheerleading squad is so good at mindless groupthink, the "haters" could never hope to compete.

That's typical.

If somebody likes it, it's mindless group think but if someone hates it, well they're reasoned and thoughtful and not a bunch of cry-babies.

That's actually kinda funny.

Seriously, though: those of you who like this bridge design (and this new Enterprise and any other aspect of this movie) post as if you've never disliked anything and have never posted about it. Somehow I doubt that is the case. So why must every one who doesn't share your "optimism and enthusiasm" (more accurately, your taste) need to be constantly derided as cry-babies and haters?

Clever picture, though. Should become an avatar...

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Nah. The cheerleading squad is so good at mindless groupthink, the "haters" could never hope to compete.

That's typical.

If somebody likes it, it's mindless group think but if someone hates it, well they're reasoned and thoughtful and not a bunch of cry-babies.

That's actually kinda funny.

Seriously, though: those of you who like this bridge design (and this new Enterprise and any other aspect of this movie) post as if you've never disliked anything and have never posted about it. Somehow I doubt that is the case. So why must every one who doesn't share your "optimism and enthusiasm" (more accurately, your taste) need to be constantly derided as cry-babies and haters?

Clever picture, though. Should become an avatar...

I'm glad you like the pic. Hijacked it from another site.

To be quite honest, I'm not a big fan of the bridge myself but I accept it. I'm certainly no cheerleader (because it ain't really even logically canon) but it does look pretty slick and Trek isn't just the sets.

The haters are using it (and the ship... which I despise BTW) as exhibit "A" of the downfall of Trek and that if you even think it looks cool you're a traitor to the franchise.

There are die-hard TOS fans who actually are talking about boycotting the film because the ship isn't c. 1966 and the ship sets aren't made from cardboard and hard candies for buttons. They'r also the same folks who are basing their opinion of the whole movie based on the trailers.

There's a big difference between being a hater (and there are a ton of them around here) and just being critical because it doesn't appeal to you.

And there a lot of haters here. Those of us who are regularly referred to as "cheerleaders" really aren't. Most off us just fall into the camp of "let's see the whole movie first before we take a dump on it" and it's kind of hard to have a rational discussion with people when they come from the perspective of "It's not the Trek I know so it must suck!"

As I told my 2 year old the other day when she said she didn't like peanut butter and fluff sandwiches, "how do you know you don't like it, if you haven't tried it?"

I am what you would call cautiously optimistic. There is no reason to think that this film is going to be anything but positive for he franchise and for the epic adventure of Trek in general... yet.

Let's give it until 05/08 before we declare how much it sucks.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

The only Starfleet bridge design to incorporate a controversial "giant sucking turbine" ceiling ultimately responsible for the deaths of 34 crewpeople.

As Leonard McCoy put it, "just who in the fuck thought that was a good idea, anyway?!"

TGT

 

[Brutal Strudel]

To Captain Hawk: I'm with you almost all the way (and thanks for replying to my post in the spirit I intended). I would characterize my own position as mildly pessimistic--I haven't seen anything that makes me think this movie will be good in the way I want it to be. I don't see this as any more prejudicial than the way in which I would evaluate any potential use of my disposable time and income--indeed, in all honesty, it is far less so since, my lack of enthusiasm over some of the dialogue, the production design or the Gundamprise aside, I will almost certainly pay to see this movie on opening weekend.

You know what, though? I could be dead wrong. I was very optimistic regarding both Watchmen and the BSG finale and was somewhat disappointed--though hardly bitterly so--by both. Perhaps this film, which I expect to dislike, will surprise me by being the fun, reinvigorated and fan-invigorating Trek you optimists (In honor of the thoughtful civility in your post, I hereby foreswear use of the term "cheerleader") are hoping for.

I still utterly hate that silly disco floor, though. Not crazy about anything in this new bridge, really...

 

[Aragorn]

I read an article in EW last year about the MPAA ratings where "unnamed" producers complained because the problem with MPAA is that there is no standard.

There is no standard. The Ray Liotta brain scene in Hannibal was R because it's Ridley Scott, Anthony Hopkins, David Mamet and Dino De Laurentiis/MGM/Universal. Imagine what type of rating would get slapped onto a small Sundance movie with the same scene.

 

[Classic Fan]

Cool.

Those panoramas are amazing.

We finally get to see detail on the controls and functions, especially those on the captains chair.

I like the graphics, very different and fresh and above all, cool as hell. I like how the viewscreen retains the KITT inspired indicator lights on the top and bottom during red alert. Do you reckon theyre a constant feature of the viewer/window like most Trek productions? (other than first two pilot eps and movies 1-4 of course).

The bridge, as i have said in the other thread, looks more like a traditional bridge in images rather than on film. Maybe its lighting or camera.

Im liking more and more though.


to the bashers.

 

[pookha]

I read an article in
EW last year about the MPAA ratings where "unnamed" producers complained
because the problem with MPAA is that there is no standard.

There is no standard. The Ray Liotta brain scene in Hanniba
l was R because it's Ridley Scott, Anthony Hopkins,
David Mamet and Dino De Laurentiis/MGM/Universal.
Imagine what type of rating would get slapped onto
a small Sundance movie with the same scene.

yeah over the years the bigger studios seemed have gotten better treatment.

i dont know if this has been posted but this is from the mpaa web site.

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by
the Rating Board to parents to determine whether
their children under age 13 should view the motion picture,
as some material might not be suited for them.
A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating
in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language,
adult activities or other elements, but does not
reach the restricted R category. The theme of
the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating
greater than PG-13, although depictions of
activities related to a mature theme may result
in a restricted rating for the motion picture.
Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating.
More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating,
but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture
generally will not be sexually oriented.
There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie,
but generally not both realistic and
extreme or persistent violence.
A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher
sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive,
initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one
such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one
of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating
Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture
PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority,
the Raters feel that most American parents would believe
that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of
the context or manner in which the words are used or
because the use of those words in the motion
picture is inconspicuous.

maybe the movie got the rating from langauge,
whatever nero does to pike
or perhaps from the kirk uncle story line.