You have a accident in the middle of space with no other ships around. Where do you transport to?
I will await your answer
Saw it again. Some new thoughts.
- Thread starter AJBryant
- Start date
You have a accident in the middle of space with no other ships around. Where do you transport to?
I will await your answer
Geez, can we get over the lens flare issue already??? C'mon.... Talk about beating a dead horse.
Perhaps we need a new subforum called "LENS FLARES SUCKZ!" so the rest of us can avoid the mutual admiration society of lens flare haters.
(Add me to the list of people who are not bothered by them at all)
Only if the lens flares lovers get their own subforum too called "Why i dont mind being blinded at the Cinema".
I'm glad you werent bothered by them, personally i like to watch films where i can actually make out whats happening on the screen. When even rewinding Chekov on a futuristic TiVo causes epic lens flares, it starts to grate on me.
Really? Because everyone I saw it with could see what was happening just fine. Maybe your theatre had its projector tuned wrong... or you're so damn fixated on something trivial that you were blinded by your own nerd rage.
Nope, me as well. I actually liked the way they made the movie feel.
They also seem like a pretty silly thing to get worked up over, but then again it's pretty childish to expect a movie to be made in exactly the mold you want it to be made in, so that's the kind of person we're dealing with here.
Hardly an equivalent situation. "Not bothered" does not equal "Love it" in any sensible version of the English language. And if you could not "actually make out what's happening on the screen", perhaps you need to have your vision checked. I had no such trouble--and I suspect few others did either. You can dislike the lens flares all you want, but let's not generalize your discomfort excessively.Geez, can we get over the lens flare issue already??? C'mon.... Talk about beating a dead horse.
Perhaps we need a new subforum called "LENS FLARES SUCKZ!" so the rest of us can avoid the mutual admiration society of lens flare haters.
(Add me to the list of people who are not bothered by them at all)
Only if the lens flares lovers get their own subforum too called "Why i dont mind being blinded at the Cinema".
I'm glad you werent bothered by them, personally i like to watch films where i can actually make out whats happening on the screen. When even rewinding Chekov on a futuristic TiVo causes epic lens flares, it starts to grate on me.
IMO the bigger issue with cramming bodies in a shuttle is the limited oxygen rather than physical space.
Yes because i quite clearly have Nerd rage, you will of course notice the dozens of threads i have opened with the topic "OMG Lens Flares"
. The Lens flares were irritating to me, thats my opinion. And i have just as much right to post it as those that were not bothered by them, as does anyone else who found them annoying.
I dont think that would be a problem. Star Trek has always had no problems recycling the atmosphere aboard their ships. If anything Shuttles would have the most advanced version of life support aboard if they are going to be relied on as escape craft for the entire crew.
You have no rights.
Yes because i quite clearly have Nerd rage, you will of course notice the dozens of threads i have opened with the topic "OMG Lens Flares"
The Lens flares were irritating to me, thats my opinion. And i have just as much right to post it as those that were not bothered by them, as does anyone else who found them annoying.
Oh yeah, that just happened.
So they can build giant star ships that travel hundreds of times the speed of light; but not produce a shuttle life support system that can sustain 40 people for a two weeks or so?
-frank
Yes because i quite clearly have Nerd rage, you will of course notice the dozens of threads i have opened with the topic "OMG Lens Flares"
The Lens flares were irritating to me, thats my opinion. And i have just as much right to post it as those that were not bothered by them, as does anyone else who found them annoying.
"I thought the lens flares were intrusive" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"I couldn't see what was happening on the screen because of the lens flares" is a refutable wild overexaggeration -- i.e. nerd rage.
Getting back to the part where military institutions don't and won't look the same from one generation to the next, let alone 200+ years...
The British Royal Navy of the late 1700s/early 1800s took on midshipmen and master's mates -- officer candidates who learned their duties from scratch aboard active ships of war while under the tutelage of the captain and whatever mentors he chose to bring on -- as young as twelve. If you came on as a mid older than eighteen, you were generally thought to be too old. If you failed to be promoted to lieutenant (the equivalent of a bridge officer) by 25, your career began to look problematic.
Keep in mind that these young teenagers faced the prospect of agonizing death by horrific injury or disease and there was no academy-training for them. They went straight from either no education or a standard Latin schoolboy education into dangerous war zones. Yet they were still considered professional soldiers.
And Starfleet isn't a military! Starfleet officers/enlistees are not soldiers at all, let alone professional ones!
The British Royal Navy of the late 1700s/early 1800s took on midshipmen and master's mates -- officer candidates who learned their duties from scratch aboard active ships of war while under the tutelage of the captain and whatever mentors he chose to bring on -- as young as twelve. If you came on as a mid older than eighteen, you were generally thought to be too old. If you failed to be promoted to lieutenant (the equivalent of a bridge officer) by 25, your career began to look problematic.
Keep in mind that these young teenagers faced the prospect of agonizing death by horrific injury or disease and there was no academy-training for them. They went straight from either no education or a standard Latin schoolboy education into dangerous war zones. Yet they were still considered professional soldiers.
And Starfleet isn't a military! Starfleet officers/enlistees are not soldiers at all, let alone professional ones!
Last edited:
Well, I'll agree with you to an extent. Pike did call it a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada. Sounds military-ish to me. But who knows exactly what the military protocols will be in 200 years?
One thing is for sure, it seemed to me what Orci and Kurtzman wanted to do most in this movie was have everyone in their familiar places by the end. To that end, they stretched the credulilty of how it probably should've happened. What I mean is if that meant they had to create some implausible and only slightly believable circumstances to make that happen fast, sobeit. Kirk has to be in the captain's chair at the end of the movie. McCoy has to be chief medical officer, Scotty needs to be in engineering, and so on. They can't wait until the third movie to have everyone where they belong by following a more logical progression of events.
It certainly seems like a stretch considering how barren those shuttles look. Not only do you need physical space for 40+, you need the air (550 liters of pure oxygen per person per day), food, water and some means of 'waste extraction.'
I doubt 23rd century life support systems rely on stored tanks of O2. That's not to say it wouldn't stretch the life support systems to their breaking point. But then again, if they are supposed to serve as lifeboats, we can give the engineers credit for not being idiots, and assume they thought of that.
T'would be stinky though.
And for the record, I cared not one whit about the lens flare, didn't even notice it the first time around.
Well, you probably didn't hear anyone complain about their butt itching, either, but that doesn't mean that someone's didn't.
I've heard from people complaining about the whole lens flare/epileptic camera thing. They tend to be over 21. Younger folks seem okay with it.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Lens flares and an unsteady camera aren't a new thing in cinema - they are used for quite a few years now.
I didn't hear one complaint from my 67 years old friend about the cinematography when we saw the movie last night.
Guess I'm a "young" 41 year old.
When I saw Castaway, several years ago, a number of people complained about feeling "motion sickness" during and after the film (my wife being among them). Same deal when I saw that abomination The Blair Witch Project. So, from prior experience, I've concluded that people, if bothered sufficiently, will complain about things onscreen that cause them discomfort. Not a scientific observation, granted, but I don't conduct formal experiments every waking moment of my life to help me reach conclusions, either.
As someone noted above, finding the lens flare intrusive is a legitimate gripe. Claiming it prevents you from actually seeing anything on the screen is ridiculous nonsense (unless you have a vision problem--in which case a visit to the eye doctor is in order).
I did.
Why is it ridiculous if, indeed, it caused them problems? No one has to experience life as you, me, or anyone else does.
Similar threads
