So did I - it was good entertainment, and enormously successful against the studio's investment.
If Abrams can do something like this with "Star Trek" he'll have made the first interesting Trek movie in decades.
SPY PHOTOS at AICN
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
So did I - it was good entertainment, and enormously successful against the studio's investment.
If Abrams can do something like this with "Star Trek" he'll have made the first interesting Trek movie in decades.
So did I - it was good entertainment, and enormously successful against the studio's investment.
If Abrams can do something like this with "Star Trek" he'll have made the first interesting Trek movie in decades.
QFT7kd-l
And therein lies your problem, my friend, you won't be told anything. You've patently written off this movie as a bunch of crap while knowing next to nothing about it. Making feeble comparisons with something else you don't like seems to be enough for you to justify yourself in not only disliking but criticising this unfinished movie, along with anyone who has anything to do with it's production. You haven't seen a single frame of the movie, and yet you already know how similar it is to BSG?
Debating this movie with you is a waste of time, as you don't seem to be able to present a logical argument to back up your criticism - "it looks like something I don't like, so it must be crap" is what I believe is called a hasty generalisation. Comparing it to BSG - and writing off the movie - just because the set is dirty (Shuttle Full of Miners in Dirty Seat Shocker - more at 11) is almost as dumb as the complaint that the ship's registry typeface was wrong.
Still, if you're not going to see it, then more popcorn for the rest of us.
Wait, the typeface is wrong?! Well SHIT, this movie is gonna suck now! Boycott!
And therein lies your problem, my friend, you won't be told anything. You've patently written off this movie as a bunch of crap while knowing next to nothing about it. Making feeble comparisons with something else you don't like seems to be enough for you to justify yourself in not only disliking but criticising this unfinished movie, along with anyone who has anything to do with it's production. You haven't seen a single frame of the movie, and yet you already know how similar it is to BSG?
Debating this movie with you is a waste of time, as you don't seem to be able to present a logical argument to back up your criticism - "it looks like something I don't like, so it must be crap" is what I believe is called a hasty generalisation. Comparing it to BSG - and writing off the movie - just because the set is dirty (Shuttle Full of Miners in Dirty Seat Shocker - more at 11) is almost as dumb as the complaint that the ship's registry typeface was wrong.
Still, if you're not going to see it, then more popcorn for the rest of us.
Wait, the typeface is wrong?! Well SHIT, this movie is gonna suck now! Boycott!
Yup, I could retcon anything, but the typeface?!
The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!
Well, I think this looks fine... just fine.
It's not the Constitution-class starship's shuttlecraft. But the assumption that it is, is one of the things that bugs me SOOO much about how the "Trek Universe" has come to be seen by so many people.
The argument is made that "there's too much continuity" but that's utter crap. The problem isn't that there's too much continuity... the problem is that people become "caged in" by the little teeny bits of continuity that they know (and are personally fond of) and fail to be able to think outside that particular box.
Look, the real world is dirty... always has been, always will be. The idea that EVERYTHING is going to be pristine and clean is... well, it's just STUPID.
This is a working shuttle. It looks more like a mine-worker car, or maybe a future version of a Blackhawk troop transport helicopter. But just because those two things exist in the real world, that doesn't mean that we don't also have Cessna Citation X jets which are smooth, slick, glass-cockpitted, pristinely clean, and just over-the-top in every way.
The Trek Universe (tm) isn't CONSTRAINED by the fact that we've seen ONE FREAKIN' TOS-ERA SHUTTLECRAFT. There are probably tens of thousands (if not more!) types of shuttles in service during that time period... one or more configurations or hull designs for every possible purpose you can envision.
This particular one is set up to carry cargo and passengers in a very utilitarian fashion. It's a "grunt transport" whether it's civilian or military (and it can be Starfleet and still civilian, just like there are lots of civilians serving the US military in various situations, remember).
Starfleet Admiralty would travel on something quite different, I'm sure! They'd be flying on the 23rd-century equivalent of a Citation X, complete with mahogany and calf-skin-leather interior!
It's not the Constitution-class starship's shuttlecraft. But the assumption that it is, is one of the things that bugs me SOOO much about how the "Trek Universe" has come to be seen by so many people.
The argument is made that "there's too much continuity" but that's utter crap. The problem isn't that there's too much continuity... the problem is that people become "caged in" by the little teeny bits of continuity that they know (and are personally fond of) and fail to be able to think outside that particular box.
Look, the real world is dirty... always has been, always will be. The idea that EVERYTHING is going to be pristine and clean is... well, it's just STUPID.
This is a working shuttle. It looks more like a mine-worker car, or maybe a future version of a Blackhawk troop transport helicopter. But just because those two things exist in the real world, that doesn't mean that we don't also have Cessna Citation X jets which are smooth, slick, glass-cockpitted, pristinely clean, and just over-the-top in every way.
The Trek Universe (tm) isn't CONSTRAINED by the fact that we've seen ONE FREAKIN' TOS-ERA SHUTTLECRAFT. There are probably tens of thousands (if not more!) types of shuttles in service during that time period... one or more configurations or hull designs for every possible purpose you can envision.
This particular one is set up to carry cargo and passengers in a very utilitarian fashion. It's a "grunt transport" whether it's civilian or military (and it can be Starfleet and still civilian, just like there are lots of civilians serving the US military in various situations, remember).
Starfleet Admiralty would travel on something quite different, I'm sure! They'd be flying on the 23rd-century equivalent of a Citation X, complete with mahogany and calf-skin-leather interior!
Except that we've seen dozens of shuttle from various movies, and 5 series, and we had yet to see a dirt shuttle like this. There's thinking outside the known box, and then there's making stuff up to suit your own opinion.
The "known" Star Trek universe has set a pretty standard precedent for having clean equipment. Again, dozens of ships and shuttle of various series taking place in many different time periods.
My uncle served on a Canadian ship carrying Sea Kings (
) and they are very clean as per they’re routine servicing.
Now we're talking about a prosperous future with fantastic technologies. Is it so un-realistic to have the shuttle service crew keep a little shuttle clean?
ON the other hand, with regards to the picture. We have no context for what or who is using the shuttle in the picture. It could be lost and have gone through a tonne of crap. They are a long way from their home and cleaning is the last thing on the priority list.
That however does not negate my argument that Starfleet keeps their ships in regular service, clean! To think that they don't have the ability to clean with ease in the future is, well, it's just
!
The "known" Star Trek universe has set a pretty standard precedent for having clean equipment. Again, dozens of ships and shuttle of various series taking place in many different time periods.
My uncle served on a Canadian ship carrying Sea Kings (
) and they are very clean as per they’re routine servicing. Now we're talking about a prosperous future with fantastic technologies. Is it so un-realistic to have the shuttle service crew keep a little shuttle clean?
ON the other hand, with regards to the picture. We have no context for what or who is using the shuttle in the picture. It could be lost and have gone through a tonne of crap. They are a long way from their home and cleaning is the last thing on the priority list.
That however does not negate my argument that Starfleet keeps their ships in regular service, clean! To think that they don't have the ability to clean with ease in the future is, well, it's just
!
Last edited:
Except that we've seen dozens of shuttle from various movies, and 5 series, and we had yet to see a dirt shuttle like this. There's thinking outside the known box, and then there's making stuff up to suit your own opinion.
The "known" Star Trek universe has set a pretty standard precedent for having clean equipment. Again, dozens of ships and shuttle of various series taking place in many different time periods.
My uncle served on a Canadian ship carrying Sea Kings (
Now we're talking about a prosperous future with fantastic technologies. Is it so un-realistic to have the shuttle service crew keep a little shuttle clean?
ON the other hand, with regards to the picture. We have no context for what or who is using the shuttle in the picture. It could be lost and have gone through a tonne of crap. They are a long way from their home and cleaning is the last thing on the priority list.
That however does not negate my argument that Starfleet keeps their ships in regular service, clean! To think that they don't have the ability to clean with ease in the future is, well, it's just
They didn't have the ability to cure baldness either. Or aging, even if it was proven it could be done when Picard became young accidentally. they didn't even have shields that could stay a 100% just after three phaser shots. Let's collectively roll our eyes at those too!
I know. That's why almost none of it ever looks real.
Except that we've seen dozens of shuttle from various movies, and 5 series, and we had yet to see a dirt shuttle like this. There's thinking outside the known box, and then there's making stuff up to suit your own opinion.
The "known" Star Trek universe has set a pretty standard precedent for having clean equipment. Again, dozens of ships and shuttle of various series taking place in many different time periods.
My uncle served on a Canadian ship carrying Sea Kings (
Now we're talking about a prosperous future with fantastic technologies. Is it so un-realistic to have the shuttle service crew keep a little shuttle clean?
ON the other hand, with regards to the picture. We have no context for what or who is using the shuttle in the picture. It could be lost and have gone through a tonne of crap. They are a long way from their home and cleaning is the last thing on the priority list.
That however does not negate my argument that Starfleet keeps their ships in regular service, clean! To think that they don't have the ability to clean with ease in the future is, well, it's just
They didn't have the ability to cure baldness either. Or aging, even if it was proven it could be done when Picard became young accidentally. they didn't even have shields that could stay a 100% just after three phaser shots. Let's collectively roll our eyes at those too!
I have yet to see a real starship, warp drive, teleportation, food replicators, or complex holograms... As for dirt ships, using my point above, technically none of the stuff on Star Trek looks "REAL".
Great arguement fellahs- time to move on.
Exactly!
In fact it doesn't have "NCC-anything" written on it's side. All it has is the number "70172" on the side, with no recognizable Starfleet markings whatsoever.
I'm not saying this isn't a "Federation-operated 'shuttle' " of some sort, but there is nothing that tells me this is the "shuttlecraft" that we are all accustomed to seeing in Star Trek.
Last edited:
So, when you see a US Navy vessel, you declare it's fake?
Honestly, we're not looking at a cruise-liner here, we're just comparing it with an expectation that a military-use ship would be maintained to military-specs, and not look like Cousin Jimbo's abandoned old car that's used for keepin' the chickens in three foot tall grass.
The idea that 'dirt = teh realz!' is based on a moron's view of how equipment is maintained out in the field.
Please submit your irrefutable confirmation as to exactly what kind of vehicle that is here: ______________ . Thank you.
Also, I'm baking a cake and I wonder if you could sample the taste of this raw egg for me. You see, I'm trying to determine how good the finished cake is going to taste, and I can't think of any better way to do it.
Small Unit Transport of the type the US Navy uses with transport helicopters. The apt comparison would be how well maintained a Bell is on a US Carrier.
Now, if this is a civilian refining facility or something, this changes somewhat, but only just. I imagine that regulations would require maintenance and care of equipment as well. Certainly, not US mining venture today would allow its equipment to fall into such a state while still being used.
Last edited:
Says who?
Horrible analogy... As someone who actually does cook, you CAN indeed speculate how your cake may come out by sampling your ingredients.
Taste that egg, and you may find it to be rotten- but do you still go ahead and put it in?
I was looking at pictures of the latest STS launch and couldn't help but notice how remarkably clean this ship was. Kind of odd, because they come back a little more dirty. But it would be odd and unrealistic for NASA to clean up their ships... Very unrealistic. After all, we live in a dirty world.
Hey, I don't give a shit at all about the dirt.
To paraphrase the great rock and roll band manager Ian Faith, "Fuck the dirt!"
I don't give a shit if the shuttlecraft is pink and has feathers, as long as the movie entertains me.
I expect that I will thoroughly enjoy this movie. It won't be the best movie ever. It won't be the worst.
It will probably be the best Star Trek offering we have had in a very long time. And for that, I am grateful.
I am, however, mystified and entertained by those fans who are so sure that they can predict the success or failure of the movie from a few props. You can't of course. But please continue. It's hilarious.
Quick, someone Photoshop that.
And thank you for backing up my point about literally hating people, and feeling free to attack personally anyone that doesn't whole-sale back up the greatness of this movie.
And I'm sure Akiraprise, who reads this thread every day, will give you a warning for calling everyone that doesn't like the look so far as 'freaks and weridos'.
