Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 255
# 121
12-06-2012, 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by reyan01 View Post
Beyond all else, and this doesn't just apply to nu-Trek, I am just SICK and TIRED of movie directors having this obsessional, compulsive, need to make movies 'dark and gritty' these days.
Couldn't agree with ya more Reyan! There was a time in my youth (ahhh...the heady '80s!) when I reveled in 'darker' entertainment, from sounds of 'The Cure', 'Depeche Mode' and 'The Smiths' to the literary musings of Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles'. I was (and still am) an obsessive James Bond fan, who pined for the films to reflect Ian Fleming's moodier edginess, rather than the Roger Moore era's slap-stick antics. And I still love all those things and still they still evoke the same pleasure to me.

Yet, fast-forward from my teens to just past forty, and I've become absolutely sick and tired of virtually every filmmaker these days, trying to one up Chris Nolan's 'Batman' films for sheer "darkness". Hell, much as I enjoy Daniel Craig's Bond, I so wish they would just lighten the mood a little (not back to Moore, mind ya), but a touch lighter would be nice.

Looks like the new Trek film might need a helping of light, while it's busy delving "Into Darkness". It would be nice for Trek to have a balance of fun and substance, instead of flashy violence and brooding stares, all driven by what I fear might end up being a mindless plot.

And JJ Abrams is well and capable of making some fun stuff (I love 'Fringe'). Doesn't suit him or any other filmmaker to keep pushing this Chris Nolan worship.
"Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man and let history make its own judgments." -Zefram Cochrane
Vice-Admiral Methos Corinthian
methos71
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,407
# 122
12-06-2012, 08:02 PM
my speakers were acting up when I watched the trailer... thought it was a mass effect trailer until I saw the ship crash into the ocean...

as for the bad guy.... meh maybe its the mirror universe JJ adams universe version of chuck norris... or just someone who wants revenge for whatever reason no one can remember.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,985
# 123
12-06-2012, 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by methos71 View Post
Couldn't agree with ya more Reyan! There was a time in my youth (ahhh...the heady '80s!) when I reveled in 'darker' entertainment, from sounds of 'The Cure', 'Depeche Mode' and 'The Smiths' to the literary musings of Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles'. I was (and still am) an obsessive James Bond fan, who pined for the films to reflect Ian Fleming's moodier edginess, rather than the Roger Moore era's slap-stick antics. And I still love all those things and still they still evoke the same pleasure to me.

Yet, fast-forward from my teens to just past forty, and I've become absolutely sick and tired of virtually every filmmaker these days, trying to one up Chris Nolan's 'Batman' films for sheer "darkness". Hell, much as I enjoy Daniel Craig's Bond, I so wish they would just lighten the mood a little (not back to Moore, mind ya), but a touch lighter would be nice.

Looks like the new Trek film might need a helping of light, while it's busy delving "Into Darkness". It would be nice for Trek to have a balance of fun and substance, instead of flashy violence and brooding stares, all driven by what I fear might end up being a mindless plot.

And JJ Abrams is well and capable of making some fun stuff (I love 'Fringe'). Doesn't suit him or any other filmmaker to keep pushing this Chris Nolan worship.
It happened with Comic Books in the 90's. It was stupid then too. But eventually people will get tired of it.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,875
# 124
12-06-2012, 09:10 PM
So now the Enterprise is amphibious, not only can it take off from it's construction site on the ground it's now a submersible, what's next with these films, the Enterprise coming down to zap giant guys in rubber dinosaur suits that are torching Tokyo?
Well I'll be watching it, but I think I might wait until it goes to video, because I'm sure I'll be thrown out of the theater for rolling in the aisles laughing my A-- off.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,638
# 125
12-06-2012, 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
So now the Enterprise is amphibious, not only can it take off from it's construction site on the ground it's now a submersible, what's next with these films, the Enterprise coming down to zap giant guys in rubber dinosaur suits that are torching Tokyo?
Well I'll be watching it, but I think I might wait until it goes to video, because I'm sure I'll be thrown out of the theater for rolling in the aisles laughing my A-- off.
I'd like to point out we don't know which ship that crashed and submerged. It could likely be the Enterprise, but it could also be another ship, just to throw us off.

And I might add, the fact they were crashing in the first place instead of with a prodecure, shows this wasn't exactly something the ship was meant to. But because of emergency circumstances, they're forced to make due

And I don't see how being built on the ground is a bad thing We know ST has all kinds of gravity tech, so why not use a little large-scale anti-gravs to help in construction; keep it afloat? And I really think Impulse power would clear plantery orbit in no time, even if they had to start slow by simply using thrusters to get manuevering room.
Was named Trek17, but still an author.

Last edited by trek21; 12-06-2012 at 09:59 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
# 126
12-06-2012, 10:08 PM
My new favourite trek trailer comment: At first I was skeptical, but Disneys new Star Wars movie looks awesome!
Joined August 2008
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 702
# 127
12-06-2012, 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek21 View Post
And I don't see how being built on the ground is a bad thing We know ST has all kinds of gravity tech, so why not use a little large-scale anti-gravs to help in construction; keep it afloat? And I really think Impulse power would clear plantery orbit in no time, even if they had to start slow by simply using thrusters to get manuevering room.
Building on the gound is bad because even with anti-grav sled to help manipulate the components of the ship being built gravity is still acting on the component. It can slip and fall to the ground. In a zero-g environment the components can be manipulated and moved in to place easier. In addition, a ship the size of the Enterprise would have trouble keeping form it would be more likely to crumple and buckle. A zero-g environment wouldnt have this issue.

It's simply easier to build something large and complex in zero-g.

I dont really know how the impulse drive would work in the atmosphere.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,638
# 128
12-06-2012, 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amayakitsune View Post
Building on the gound is bad because even with anti-grav sled to help manipulate the components of the ship being built gravity is still acting on the component. It can slip and fall to the ground. In a zero-g environment the components can be manipulated and moved in to place easier. In addition, a ship the size of the Enterprise would have trouble keeping form it would be more likely to crumple and buckle. A zero-g environment wouldnt have this issue.

It's simply easier to build something large and complex in zero-g.

I dont really know how the impulse drive would work in the atmosphere.
Well you'd think in a futuristic series like ST, this wouldn't be much of an issue, considering their general ease of doing things In fact, they probably rigged up some technobabble to put an anti-gravity field on the Enterprise herself, neutralizing it's weight, but not overdoing it that it started floating.

Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me

And I'd think impulse would work the same whether it was atmosphere or deep space It's designed to move the ship forward/backward/whatever direction after all, no special tricks required (unlike warp drive)
Was named Trek17, but still an author.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 702
# 129
12-06-2012, 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek21 View Post
Well you'd think in a futuristic series like ST, this wouldn't be much of an issue, considering their general ease of doing things In fact, they probably rigged up some technobabble to put an anti-gravity field on the Enterprise herself, neutralizing it's weight, but not overdoing it that it started floating.

Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me

And I'd think impulse would work the same whether it was atmosphere or deep space It's designed to move the ship forward/backward/whatever direction after all, no special tricks required (unlike warp drive)
We've never seen that intricate of a anti-gravity system in any Trek. (Closest we've seen was the room for Melora Pazlar in DS9 and that was tiny.) But nothing on the size and scale of a starship.

It probably would work just fine... but I dont know if theres some technobabble reason why it cant, as the only form of propulsion we saw used when a starship landed was thrusters when Voyager landed.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
# 130
12-07-2012, 01:16 AM
I'm recalling when the trailer for Wrath of Khan first hit. For the longest time we thought we would see a Constitution crash into another Constitution. We didn't know about the Reliant model without the lower hull yet.

When I view the ship rising from the water, I can read NCC-17...and that's it. I think the ship rising and the ship dragging forward through the water are the same starship. Not the Enterprise. And I don't think it's crashing, but heading with purpose to impact part of a highly populated San Francisco. The city itself - not Starfleet Command.
STO Forum:
Where the Human Adventure is Just Beginning!

Exploring STO Since Pavement.
Tier 2 Constitution for Fleet Refit!
Give the Art Team time to fix the K't'inga << Link
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 AM.