SPY PHOTOS at AICN

[Tom Servo]

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.

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.

I didnt know the STS worked at a mining/refinery operation. Wow, you learn something everyday.

But seriously (in your best Lewis Black voice)....OMG ITS DIRT ON A SHUTTLE! THE HUMANITY! IT'S GONNA SUCK! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

This shuttle is more like this within the context of the Trek universe:

http://empoweringcommunities.anu.edu.au/images/MiningTruck.jpg

then this:

http://www.ed.arizona.edu/ward/Sonic/shuttle.jpg

In the trek universe, going into space is about as normal as getting on a train, or driving in a car. Its part of everyones daily lives.

 

[M'Sharak]

Good Lord! Leave it to Star Trek fans to act as if some dirt on the floor of a fictional, 23rd century shuttlecraft is the cinematic equivalent of a human rights violation. No wonder everybody in the real world thinks we're all freaks and weirdos.

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'.

You know, Vance, I don't think that's what Vektor said at all, nor do I think that Akiraprise is likely to read it that way. Please don't claim attacks where none exist.

 

[Cyrus]

A pink shuttle with feathers does sound cool.

 

[Vance]

You know, Vance, I don't think that's what Vektor said at all, nor do I think that Akiraprise is likely to read it that way. Please don't claim attacks where none exist.

Actually, that's precisely what he said. After all, could you kindly point to something I said to the effect of 'the movie's ruined' by this?

And Akiraprise misread a similar post by me earlier this thread (which he, of course, reads every day) that happened to go the other way and immediately put out a warning.

So please don't insult my intelligence by claiming there isn't a strong bias on the part of the moderation here when it comes to opinions regarding this movie. It's pretty self-evident that if you're not part of the group-think on this forum, then you're fair game to attack, harass, and insult.

 

[Patrickivan]

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.

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.

I didnt know the STS worked at a mining/refinery operation. Wow, you learn something everyday.

But seriously (in your best Lewis Black voice)....OMG ITS DIRT ON A SHUTTLE! THE HUMANITY! IT'S GONNA SUCK! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

This shuttle is more like this within the context of the Trek universe:

http://empoweringcommunities.anu.edu.au/images/MiningTruck.jpg

then this:

http://www.ed.arizona.edu/ward/Sonic/shuttle.jpg

In the trek universe, going into space is about as normal as getting on a train, or driving in a car. Its part of everyones daily lives.

I didn't actually say anything about how the movie could be. Especially based on if there's dirt on a shuttle or not... In fact, I also believe that we don't have any context to base any conclusive statements about why the ship looks the way it does. Could have just gone through a lot of shit and hasn't made it back for servicing...

By the way, I also don't recall saying that the STS worked at a mining/refinery operation, nor have I read that about the shuttle craft in the picture. Did JJ release that specific information, or are you just assuming that it works there? Could have just landed for an away mission. Could be a scraped old shuttle...

But since you so easily want to put words in my mouth, let me do the same to you. How dare you say that the Beatles sucked! How dare you!!!

 

[ancient]

Well, I think this looks fine... just fine.
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.

For the win.

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.

Point = Missed

"I've seen dozens of cars today. None were white. Obviously, there are no white cars in the universe."

That's the logic at play here, and it's being applied to a fictional universe, which is even more nonsensical. This look is great, it's realistic, and it looks like TOS. I'm content with that. We've seen a few variations on the same basic shuttle, carrying out the same basic shuttle functions. To my knowledge we've never seen a ship like this one. So is there a real reason that a ship like this shouldn't exist? Nope.

Dirt = Canon. News at 11.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

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?

To paraphrase the wise Guinan from "Best of Both Worlds, Part 2"...

"If a man is pretty sure that he is going to dislike Star Trek XI tomorrow, he's probably going to find a way to make it happen."

So you go on ahead and convince yourself how rotten that egg is, and how, by extension, that cake is going to be. You are almost certain to find out that you were right, no matter how good the movie turns out to be.

Many others in this thread think the egg tastes just fine, or are at least willing to wait until the cake is finished and give it a fair chance.

Sounds like your cake has already gone bad. And it hasn't even been made yet. Sucks to be your cake.

 

[Michael]

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?

To paraphrase the wise Guinan from "Best of Both Worlds, Part 2"...

"If a man is pretty sure that he is going to dislike Star Trek XI tomorrow, he's probably going to find a way to make it happen."

So you go on ahead and convince yourself how rotten that egg is, and how, by extension, that cake is going to be. You are almost certain to find out that you were right, no matter how good the movie turns out to be.

Many others in this thread think the egg tastes just fine, or are at least willing to wait until the cake is finished and give it a fair chance.

Sounds like your cake has already gone bad. And it hasn't even been made yet. Sucks to be your cake.

Man, thank you for talking about cake, I'm hungry now.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Man, thank you for talking about cake, I'm hungry now.

Look at the photographs of that shuttlecraft again. You are sure to lose your appetite.

 

[MisterPL]

The apt comparison would be how well maintained a Bell is on a US Carrier.

Actually the apt comparison would be how dirty the Bell would get after leaving the carrier and performing a mission in a similar (IE - dirty) environment. I mean, it's not like we're looking at this vessel in a hangar bay. Even so, if it has just gotten back, perhaps the support crew hasn't had a chance to clean it.

Just a thought.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I know. That's why almost none of it ever looks real.

So, when you see a US Navy vessel, you declare it's fake?

That is a poor attempt at a leading question.

When I see a live-action movie starring George Clooney, whether he looks like George Clooney or like a real human being (as much as Hollywood actors do, anyway) is never at issue. When I watch a movie like the recent "Beowulf" the question of technique and to what degree the illusion is persuasive is at issue in every shot.

"Star Trek" is filled with unreality. If you expect anyone other than Trekkies to pay it any mind at this point you'd better find better ways to draw them into its make-believe than Trekkies are accustomed to. Characters who talk and act something like human beings instead of Trekoids is a good start. Locations with real sunlight and stuff like grass that doesn't look like astroturf and rocks that don't look like fiberglass are good, too. Ships and environments that are less toy-like than what the public associates with "Star Trek" would also be a good idea.

Nothing in "Star Trek" looks real. Such artifice is in and of itself intriguing to a certain segment of the audience - always has been - a group that demonstrably numbers in the low millions, and certainly includes me. It's quite evidently a turn-off to the vast majority of potential ticket-buyers.

If you just want the movie to entertain and satisfy Trekkies... well, just keep doing things the way they've been done for decades. Don't mess with mom's recipe for macaroni and cheese - but don't expect the studio to keep throwing good money after bad. Maybe they can crank out something low-budget for the SCIFI channel in a few years.

 

[Vance]

Well, you have one big false assumption right off the bat...

That the past few movies and series have satisfied Trekkies. Obviously doing things the way that they've been done in the past decade would be a mistake... but show me where I'm asking for that?

 

[number6]

Well, you have one big false assumption right off the bat...

That the past few movies and series have satisfied Trekkies. Obviously doing things the way that they've been done in the past decade would be a mistake... but show me where I'm asking for that?

I think the ONLY thing being asked of the current fanbase is to keep their minds open.

Outside of a few smuggled pics we know very little about this film.

It is one thing to be skeptical, it is another thing simply to dismiss this film based on so little real information.

Concluding that to think otherwise is "accepting anything simply because someone slapped 'Star Trek' on it," is also a pretty weak and immature argument.

Until I've seen a finished shot of the ship, or the sets, or even the main characters in uniform, there is really nothing on which to base an informed opinion. We certainly know little of the plot and that info is certainly not coming any day soon.

I plan on keeping an open mind right up to the closing credits. There's certainly no harm or shame in that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, you have one big false assumption right off the bat...

That the past few movies and series have satisfied Trekkies.

No, the only false assumption would be that they satisfied you and folks who agree with you - that assumption, I did not make.

The last forty years of "Star Trek" have more than satisfied the vast majority of people who call themselves "Star Trek fans," else Paramount would not have made many hundres of millions of dollars profit off of the Franchise. You think most of the money they've made has somehow been generated directly off of TOS? Nope.

Trek fandom and Trek fandom alone can account for the tens of millions of dollars that "Star Trek Nemesis" grossed. Almost all the Trek fans in America went to see it - some of those who protest most loudly were first in line - and it bombed because no one else cared.

If the studio has to choose between pleasing Trekkies and attracting an actual mass audience, they'll have to dump the hard core. Fortunately, all evidence is that Trekkies will line up for this one (see Samuel T. Cogley's classic "let's cut the shit" remark for an elegant summation) so they can devote themselves to reaching out to the rest of the world.

Here's hoping they can change the thing enough to succeed.

 

[ancient]

Here's hoping they can change the thing enough to succeed.

But if we let them design new shuttles, where will it end?

The next thing we know, they'll redesign the Enterprise, the uniforms, and cast new actors.

Worse, the SHAT may not be in it!

 

[Vance]

It is one thing to be skeptical, it is another thing simply to dismiss this film based on so little real information.

Well, I'm skeptical largely because who's involved with it and their track record. I could be wrong, I'm prepared to be wrong. But going only from what I've seen, I'm not confident that I'm going to see the film at the theater at this point. The 'teaser' that was released actually had an adverse effect on me - probably not what they were going for.

Concluding that to think otherwise is "accepting anything simply because someone slapped 'Star Trek' on it," is also a pretty weak and immature argument.

I didn't say that everyone's doing that. But, you can't deny, there are some here that are doing precisely that, and others that are belligerent, and, and outright hateful, that others do not share their blind faith.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here's hoping they can change the thing enough to succeed.

But if we let them design new shuttles, where will it end?

The next thing we know, they'll redesign the Enterprise, the uniforms, and cast new actors.

Worse, the SHAT may not be in it!

Hey, life sucks...for someone else. So I hear.

 

[Vance]

The last forty years of "Star Trek" have more than satisfied the vast majority of people who call themselves "Star Trek fans," else Paramount would not have made many hundres of millions of dollars profit off of the Franchise. You think most of the money they've made has somehow been generated directly off of TOS? Nope.

Did I claim that? Did I claim that this had to look like TOS? That would be foolish, and I think most people can agree with that. You're arguing many strawmen here, for reasons that I actually can't determine.

And, no, the last decade has not been good for Trek fans. We've seen a much-beloved franchise milked to death, hard. Trek fans abandoned Voyager and Enterprise, and few went to see the last couple of films. There were some fans that stuck around... but that was it.

And, for the record, I've never seen 'Nemesis'. I have no intention of EVER seeing 'Nemesis'.

As of now, I probably won't see this new 'Star Trek' in the theater and will likely wait the two to three months for BluRay, depending on how well the movie's received overall.

Does that make me the anti-christ? Apparently so.

 

[number6]

It is one thing to be skeptical, it is another thing simply to dismiss this film based on so little real information.

Well, I'm skeptical largely because who's involved with it and their track record. I could be wrong, I'm prepared to be wrong. But going only from what I've seen, I'm not confident that I'm going to see the film at the theater at this point. The 'teaser' that was released actually had an adverse effect on me - probably not what they were going for.

Concluding that to think otherwise is "accepting anything simply because someone slapped 'Star Trek' on it," is also a pretty weak and immature argument.

I didn't say that everyone's doing that. But, you can't deny, there are some here that are doing precisely that, and others that are belligerent, and, and outright hateful, that others do not share their blind faith.

Do not confuse optimism with "blind faith."

I do see, more often than not, some hostility, but that is usually reserved for the people who continue to harp on how much it will suck and how much they refuse to see it, based on so little real information. I do not share that hostility, but I find that whole attitude tedious and counter-productive. If JMS decided to make a B5 film, I wouldn't be on a B5 BBS every day making posts about how much I hate the show and would never see a B5 film. That, to me, is immature and tiresome.

As far as Abrams track record..
I have never seen an episode of Lost or Alias, but I enjoyed MI:3 and thought that it captured the spirit of the original show better than its two predecessors (I watched the entire series first run as well as the short lived revival), and I thoroughly enjoyed Cloverfield, even without the benefit of dramamine. I like what I am hearing in the interviews and the original cast seem to think that this film is going to be bigger and better than anything we've seen. Based on this I am looking forward to seeing this film and making my own opinion once I've seen it.

I have little patience for the constant whining about how much this film is going to fail by those who seem so determined to want it so.

Of course that is entirely my opinion. YMMV.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Here's hoping they can change the thing enough to succeed.

But if we let them design new shuttles, where will it end?

The next thing we know, they'll redesign the Enterprise, the uniforms, and cast new actors.

Worse, the SHAT may not be in it!

Hey, life sucks...for someone else. So I hear.

Winning Emmys is rough. Better him than us. Poor bastard.