James Cawley (New Voyages) has seen the Ship (Its Aweful)
- Thread starter General_Custer
- Start date
- Status
Re: James Cawley's grammer
You know, my own personal opinion - completely uninformed, mind you - is that however far afield the production team may be going in "blue-skying" some of this during pre-production, what we ultimately see at the end of the process will be pretty familiar if not entirely satisfactory to fans who are purists. Take a look at the spy shots of Quinto as Spock, for instance. Clearly, these folks have seen some episodes of TOS.
You know, my own personal opinion - completely uninformed, mind you - is that however far afield the production team may be going in "blue-skying" some of this during pre-production, what we ultimately see at the end of the process will be pretty familiar if not entirely satisfactory to fans who are purists. Take a look at the spy shots of Quinto as Spock, for instance. Clearly, these folks have seen some episodes of TOS.
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
Re: James Cawley (New Voyages) has seen the Ship (Its Aweful
"Cruise-in"s. You put your shuttlecraft or pod in neutral, use an umbilical to hold it in place while you watch a 3-D holographic presentation.
"Cruise-in"s. You put your shuttlecraft or pod in neutral, use an umbilical to hold it in place while you watch a 3-D holographic presentation.
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
Jeez. Stop messing with Cawley! We'll get spy "photos" eventually, and no doubt realize he was right.
I don't think there are any ulterior motives involved- just a red flag that Paramount is at it again- poised to possibly screw up Trek.
(I'm noting that this place has gotten pretty fkg mean-spirited. BTW.)
Jeez. Stop messing with Cawley! We'll get spy "photos" eventually, and no doubt realize he was right.
I don't think there are any ulterior motives involved- just a red flag that Paramount is at it again- poised to possibly screw up Trek.
(I'm noting that this place has gotten pretty fkg mean-spirited. BTW.)
Re: James Cawley's grammer
Some? Not only has he seen all the TV shows, Roberto Orci has read some of the novels. Wow. That guy's a bigger nerd than I am!
And I'd be inclined to think that, on one level, this movie is like TMP: TOS with a bigger budget and more modern style. That film dumped the old look for one consistent with the late 1970s, and rubbed our noses in its ultra-expensive, Dysktra'n'Trumbull orchestrated effects fest. They even completely overhauled the look of the Klingons. Continuity? What's that?
But hey, Spock kept his bowler cut, McCoy kept whining, and Kirk got all philosophical on a giant computer.
Starship Polaris said:
what we ultimately see at the end of the process will be pretty familiar if not entirely satisfactory to fans who are purists. Take a look at the spy shots of Quinto as Spock, for instance. Clearly, these folks have seen some episodes of TOS.
Some? Not only has he seen all the TV shows, Roberto Orci has read some of the novels. Wow. That guy's a bigger nerd than I am!
And I'd be inclined to think that, on one level, this movie is like TMP: TOS with a bigger budget and more modern style. That film dumped the old look for one consistent with the late 1970s, and rubbed our noses in its ultra-expensive, Dysktra'n'Trumbull orchestrated effects fest. They even completely overhauled the look of the Klingons. Continuity? What's that?
But hey, Spock kept his bowler cut, McCoy kept whining, and Kirk got all philosophical on a giant computer.
Re: James Cawley's grammer
FESTIVAL!!!
FESTIVAL!!!
Re: James Cawley's grammer
You'd better post something pithy quick...it's almost the Red Hour!
You'd better post something pithy quick...it's almost the Red Hour!
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
Not to me nit picky, well ok yes: Trek is their's to "mess with". I think "fans" forget this sometimes.
Kegek I think hit the nail on the head. And no I don't think the changes will be so horribly beyond what we already know. If I was to judge the design ethic by the only piece of concrete evidence we got: Quinto in Spock makup I'd say things are in good hands.
Sharr
Not to me nit picky, well ok yes: Trek is their's to "mess with". I think "fans" forget this sometimes.
Kegek I think hit the nail on the head. And no I don't think the changes will be so horribly beyond what we already know. If I was to judge the design ethic by the only piece of concrete evidence we got: Quinto in Spock makup I'd say things are in good hands.
Sharr
Re: James Cawley's grammer
All Glory to Landru the Hypnotoad!
All Glory to Landru the Hypnotoad!
Re: James Cawley's grammer
If I was going to bash anyone about the first amendment being dead it would be our current President... His policies are #$DF#R #
*NO CARRIER*
If I was going to bash anyone about the first amendment being dead it would be our current President... His policies are #$DF#R #
*NO CARRIER*
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
Please don't scramble your brains against the brick wall before the visual F/X for Starship Exeter have been completed.
Thanks!
Starship Exeter Fan Club
Dear Dennis,Starship Polaris said:
Please don't scramble your brains against the brick wall before the visual F/X for Starship Exeter have been completed.
Thanks!
Starship Exeter Fan Club
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
The two experiences are sometimes similar.
The two experiences are sometimes similar.
Re: James Cawley's grammer
The 1st Amendment ONLY states (on this issue) that the Federal Government may pass no law which in any way restricts freedom of speech (targeted at, but not inherently limited to, POLITICAL speech).
SO... this commment was just silly. Unless the Feds come in and start telling him, or me, or you that we can't say something, the 1st Amendment doesn't remotely relate to this topic.
Which does NOT say that the BBS rules don't apply. If someone breaks the BBS rules, that's a different story. And the BBS has every right to smack down whoever does anything like that.
Well, to be fair, the 1st Amendment has NOTHING to do with his right to express his opinion... or of the right of people to trash him, or you, or me, for our opinions.
The 1st Amendment ONLY states (on this issue) that the Federal Government may pass no law which in any way restricts freedom of speech (targeted at, but not inherently limited to, POLITICAL speech).
SO... this commment was just silly. Unless the Feds come in and start telling him, or me, or you that we can't say something, the 1st Amendment doesn't remotely relate to this topic.
Which does NOT say that the BBS rules don't apply. If someone breaks the BBS rules, that's a different story. And the BBS has every right to smack down whoever does anything like that.
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
I feel no sense of entitlement, Dennis, but I'm not much for people that give a hint as to what they know and they go into the "I can't say anything more..." mode. Why say anything at all then?
I do realize (now) that he did it on his own forums and it wasn't exactly for world-wide distribution. Couched in that I take back what I said about the attention grab.
Starship Polaris said:
I feel no sense of entitlement, Dennis, but I'm not much for people that give a hint as to what they know and they go into the "I can't say anything more..." mode. Why say anything at all then?
I do realize (now) that he did it on his own forums and it wasn't exactly for world-wide distribution. Couched in that I take back what I said about the attention grab.
Re: MadBaggins' Spelling
You know, this thread has really gone off course and has deteriorated into petty bickering. Enough is enough. Closing.
You know, this thread has really gone off course and has deteriorated into petty bickering. Enough is enough. Closing.
- Status
