http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...onvert-your-classic-car-to-battery-power.html
Two words: electric power.
The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...onvert-your-classic-car-to-battery-power.html
Two words: electric power.
So much of the technobabble in the Trek spinoffs was meaningless made-up deus-ex-machina gibberish that had nothing to do with real-world science or technology, so I don't see how anybody would be using it on a daily basis in real life.
Kor
Sure, some of it was. But lots of it was not.There is no way to explain the Q away as being other than escapees from Bewitched. And the sentient Doctor hologram of Voyager was ridiculous. Still, none of that ruined the fendamental foundations of Star Trek like magic Kahn reanimation blood, or Red Matter, or transwarp beaming. In this movie, the transporter is working so why don't they just beam everyone to earth from wherever they are? Nobody has to worry about being killed, as I'm sure there is a stash of magic tribble blood on hand to bring them back to life. Deus Ex Machina indeed!
But the Genesis Torpedo! THAT WAS THE HIGH BAR OF ACCURATE STAR TREK SCIENCE!
You can certainly cherry pick with the best of them.
Like I said, lots of it was, lots of it wasn’t. I am not cherry picking.
Still, nothing in pre-2009 Trek changed things as much as say...transwarp beaming. Do you realize that if somebody can use a suitcase sized transwarp transporter to go from earth to Quo'nos, that starships are pretty much obsolete? And that Kahn magic blood. 
It did to some degree, because we had "protein resequencers" in Star Trek: Enterprise.
When they start putting out decent music they'll have earned some respect.
And that Kahn magic blood.
Yeah... go watch "Unnatural Selection". It pretty much makes 24th century medical technology obsolete.
Sucks for you. Well, now you have something new to think about.
Star Trek Enterprise?
I guess that was to be expected. 
This is a real eye opener to see so much support for non-Trek here. But hey, I am not a hater, so I will read the comments here and then give my full on rants at my website. 
.Because I've been watching Star Trek for nearly fifty years, know what it is, what I expect and what I want (and so rarely have seen in the years since 1969). That's why I call this Star Trek.
That's all cool. My only question is what in the trailer tells you this movie fits your definition of Trek?
I liked the trailer and I did get a TOS vibe. But, I don't have a great sense for what the movie will be like beyond a few hints. I mean, sure, there will action and explosions. That's fine and doesn't preclude it from being Trek. But, what makes you call this Star Trek? I hope you're right though!
Mr Awe
The music makes it seem like a fan put the official footage to the song? I like 'Sabotage' by The Beastie Boys but this didn't work for me. 
Looks cool but hopefully we will get a trailer with more majestic feels next time.
Looks cool but hopefully we will get a trailer with more majestic feels next time. 
Last I checked, Enterprise was a licensed Trek-based product.
I agree about the de-aging. But that "augment blood" was created for the Into Dumbness movie, along with the completely impossible Red Matter and transwarp beaming. The "Kahn" of STID was ridiculous and pathetic IMO. I think they should have done the Gary Mitchell thing with Cumberbach, because a pale Brit would NEVER have the name Kahn Noonien Singh. And he magically has the knowledge to design starships more advanced than anything in the NuStarfleet? Mkay, sure.
Oh, and his hand weapon was powerful enough to take out Klingon warbirds (two of them) with a single shot. Is the majority of the membership here okay with this stuff in Trek?
I for one don't understand the use of the term "Fast and Furious in Space" to disparage the new Star Trek film.
The Fast and Furious films all have their charms, but the last three in particular were fantastic.
The Fast and Furious films all have their charms, but the last three in particular were fantastic.
Just to put this out there, critical reviews and word of mouth semed to kill SPECTRE at the US box office. It was a Bond movie for crying out loud, one of the biggest and longest running franchises out there. The same happened with Terminator Genysis. Both long running, profitable franchises, which each put out one shit film and nobody in the US watched them.
It seems the US movie public either has some level of franchise fatigue or zero tolerance for crap tentpole movies.
The majority of Star Trek fans, both hardcore and fair weather, are already hating on Beyond like hating's going out of fashion. Unless that view is changed PDQ, the film, following on from Into Darkness which many fans didn't like either, is dead in the water. If the US don't watch it, overseas box office won't save it.
SPECTRE hasn't even taken $200m in the US after 6 weeks, compared to Skyfall's final US gross of $304m. The consequences, if it were to happen, of Beyond suffering that same kind of drop off, when Into Darkness only took $228m, will probably lead to no more Trek films.
It seems the US movie public either has some level of franchise fatigue or zero tolerance for crap tentpole movies.
The majority of Star Trek fans, both hardcore and fair weather, are already hating on Beyond like hating's going out of fashion. Unless that view is changed PDQ, the film, following on from Into Darkness which many fans didn't like either, is dead in the water. If the US don't watch it, overseas box office won't save it.
SPECTRE hasn't even taken $200m in the US after 6 weeks, compared to Skyfall's final US gross of $304m. The consequences, if it were to happen, of Beyond suffering that same kind of drop off, when Into Darkness only took $228m, will probably lead to no more Trek films.
Star Trek is not The Fast and the Furious.
Last I checked, Enterprise was a licensed Trek-based product.
Of course it is. Not saying it isn't. Im saying it is not really faithful to Star Trek, and that is why the core Trek fandom did not watch it much (and evidently neither did non-Trek viewers). It still lasted longer than TOS.
I did not like the thinly disguised Akira-class starship they used for the NX-01. I did not like the emotional and unlikely T'Pol as a Vulcan, although she was hot as hell. I did a rewatch of Enterprise and I like it a lot more than any of the NuTrek garbage, even though I put it at the bottom of the "real Trek" TV series. The new movies just don't make that list. They are on their own list. These are just my opinions! Not meant to attack anyone for thinking different.
And how do we know when in the film the ship eats it?
Why would you subtract those?
I don't care how the comparison turns out. I've never even seen a Lin movie. My only concern is about using the correct methodology for a valid comparison.
Mr Awe
Similar threads
