New Star Trek Trailer Explodes Into Darkness
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
OT: Speaking of BWOMs, just watched a trailer there on IMDB for some film called "The Rift" - it seems to be about some mysterious rifts opening in the sky, seemingly portals to a realm of middling CGI - and the use of BWOMs in that one.... Until we get a parody BWOM trailer, that one will have to do...thiosk said:
Anyway, back to the topic of our blonde haired woman, can't help but notice in the comparison pics above her parting is on the opposite side in the film than it is in the series. Almost looking at it in a mirror. Uhoh, maybe we are actually in the mirror universe!
As much as it may make us sound like Voltaire (at about the 5-minute mark), I gotta agree. I liked the first but the trailer for the second...it doesn't tell me anything. Who is that angry human and if he's been exiled for so long then why does he dress like a Jhonan Vasquez fan? I loved the one moment in the trailer where it just shows a bunch of people looking vaguely up and then suddenly gasping in horror.Andy Chalk said:
I can see a lot of people are still going to hate this movie, because the cast is still refreshingly young, the visuals are crisp and good looking, and there is action and excitement on the screen. I can almost hear the "but the ship isn't hanging on a wire anymore" and "the cast of Star Trek must never be younger than 50 years of age". I just made myself even more excited about this movie- didn't think it possible
And you just made all your comments irrelevantRogue 09 said:You're an idiotKipiru said:I can see a lot of people are still going to hate this movie, because the cast is still refreshingly young, the visuals are crisp and good looking, and there is action and excitement on the screen. I can almost hear the "but the ship isn't hanging on a wire anymore" and "the cast of Star Trek must never be younger than 50 years of age". I just made myself even more excited about this movie- didn't think it possible
Kipiru said:I can see a lot of people are still going to hate this movie, because the cast is still refreshingly young, the visuals are crisp and good looking, and there is action and excitement on the screen. I can almost hear the "but the ship isn't hanging on a wire anymore" and "the cast of Star Trek must never be younger than 50 years of age". I just made myself even more excited about this movie- didn't think it possible
I will officially hate it for the same reason i hated the first, it will use the science understanding of a 2 year old because jj abrams does not know or care about science stuff, he wants things that look pretty that explode alot, and he can do alot of fast cuts with the camera.
the scripts, "science" and dialogue, will be about as vapid as a daytime soap opera with a miltimillion dollar fx budget. all flash and no substence.
that was the issue with the new trek vs the old. and i pity you if you really cannot see the difference in treks.
I am going to inhale this movie.Azuaron said:
Benedict is one of my favorite actors atm. He kills every performance I see him do >.>...
Ok I've only seen him in Sherlock, good enough for me.
And I should pity you for not being able to enjoy a piece of fiction and missing the point of the Star Trek franchise altogether- the struggle of every individual to better himself. All of you keep banging on about the outer shell, the trivial things that do not hold any meaning to the feel and heart of the movie. The plot wasn't any less good than any other Star trek movie or episode. The dialogue and the performanse of the actors are too subjective to be pointed out at all and the same goes for the explosions and the overall amount of action in the movie. These things do not make the movie bad, just not good for you. And if you had just gone with your first sentense of "I will officially hate it for the same reason i hated the first". then I would have just run along with it, cause everyone has the right to an oppinion. But going along like you did and that "nobel peace prise winner" above, Rogue 09, is simply stupid and shows only bitterness and an unhealthy desire to show yourself as somethnig more.cerebus23 said:Kipiru said:I can see a lot of people are still going to hate this movie, because the cast is still refreshingly young, the visuals are crisp and good looking, and there is action and excitement on the screen. I can almost hear the "but the ship isn't hanging on a wire anymore" and "the cast of Star Trek must never be younger than 50 years of age". I just made myself even more excited about this movie- didn't think it possible
I will officially hate it for the same reason i hated the first, it will use the science understanding of a 2 year old because jj abrams does not know or care about science stuff, he wants things that look pretty that explode alot, and he can do alot of fast cuts with the camera.
the scripts, "science" and dialogue, will be about as vapid as a daytime soap opera with a miltimillion dollar fx budget. all flash and no substence.
that was the issue with the new trek vs the old. and i pity you if you really cannot see the difference in treks.
Compared to the 2009 film's first teaser, nothing in this one generates much excitement for me. I say that as someone who is heavily looking forward to this.
You think Star Trek was based on science? I like you... you're funny.cerebus23 said:Kipiru said:I can see a lot of people are still going to hate this movie, because the cast is still refreshingly young, the visuals are crisp and good looking, and there is action and excitement on the screen. I can almost hear the "but the ship isn't hanging on a wire anymore" and "the cast of Star Trek must never be younger than 50 years of age". I just made myself even more excited about this movie- didn't think it possible
I will officially hate it for the same reason i hated the first, it will use the science understanding of a 2 year old because jj abrams does not know or care about science stuff, he wants things that look pretty that explode alot, and he can do alot of fast cuts with the camera.
the scripts, "science" and dialogue, will be about as vapid as a daytime soap opera with a miltimillion dollar fx budget. all flash and no substence.
that was the issue with the new trek vs the old. and i pity you if you really cannot see the difference in treks.
Right, now there is a post worth hanging on the wall as an example. j-e-f-f-e-r-s puts up a well formed and logical defence of his attitude towards the movie and does not stoop to verbal abuse. I still like the 2009 movie, but I can't argue with the contradictions above. They simply do not matter to me enough to spoil my fun.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:I'm probably going to hate this one for the same reason I hated the last one: It's written by the same screenwriting duo who cursed us with all three Transformers films. And goddamn, does it show.Kipiru said:I can see a lot of people are still going to hate this movie, because the cast is still refreshingly young, the visuals are crisp and good looking, and there is action and excitement on the screen. I can almost hear the "but the ship isn't hanging on a wire anymore" and "the cast of Star Trek must never be younger than 50 years of age". I just made myself even more excited about this movie- didn't think it possible
Ignoring the way that they absolutely raped physics in the last film, the fact that the story couldn't even stick to the internal logic of the universe presented meant that I couldn't get into it at all. Nothing in the film makes sense. Everything is plagued with plot holes and completely illogical reasoning.
- Why do the bad guys need to drill a hole into a planet before deploying the red matter to create a black hole? Why don't they just deploy the red matter next to the planet? Wouldn't that have made destroying Vulcan and Earth so much easier?
- If Old Spock was close enough to Vulcan on his snow moon to see its destruction so clearly, why didn't his moon also get sucked in and destroyed? Do black holes only affect designated planets?
- How the hell does dumping a lot of mass in the vacuum of space help a spaceship escape a black hole? Even more importantly, how does detonating a load of explosives help you escape a goddamn black hole in a vacuum? Surely you'd just blow your own ship up, then still get sucked in.
- How on earth does getting sucked into a black hole send you back in time? Black holes are areas of immense gravity. Anything sucked in would be crushed into sub atomic matter, and condensed into a space no bigger than a molecule.
- Why was Kirk marooned on a moon, rather than being arrested, held in a cell, and put on trial for mutiny? You know, like an actual modern fleet would do. What kind of 'advanced' space faring fleet abandons due process and justice for leaving people on lifeless rocks?
-If Nero is so pissed off about his planet getting destroyed, why the hell didn't he tell the Romulans it was going to get destroyed when he got sent back in time? Why is he so angry about Romulus getting destroyed when it is no longer destroyed, and he could prevent it from being destroyed in future if he only got off his arse?
The story of Star Trek doesn't make any sense at all. It is simply a sequence of set-pieces strung together by ham-fisted dialogue and complete absences of logic. There isn't a single moment of the ethical dilemma, moral conundrum, existential drama or philosophical problem that made the original series (and the follow ups) so famous. While Star Trek was never 'hard' sci-fi, it still had the ability to make viewers think, to challenge them by presenting them with moral and philosophical problems that couldn't be easily solved.
So yeah, I'm not optimistic about the follow up. To me, it looks like they're taking Wrath Of Khan, and remaking it. Why both fucking rebooting the series if you're just going to remake all the same films anyway?
I honestly think that Star Wars 2009 is a worse prequel than the Star Wars prequels. At least Episodes I-III tried to be thematically and canonically consistent with the original trilogy. The only thing that ties Trek'09 to the original series is the character names.
Star trek was grounded in some decent science, that was as much a part of the show as anything else. To be fair after the man himself died, they could not even get the elevators right on the enterprise or the decks, how the heck can i expect them to have some common sense om the way wormholes and black holes and how they work when they cannt even get the decks right on the ships, they only had several books full of referance on the various ships.
roddenberry for all his camp put some intellect into his scifi, that is what was the core of trek and the first movie was gawd awful from a science standpoint i actually goraned any time they mentioned anything to dowith black hole white holes dark matter and etc because it ignored any and all undersanding for the hows the the whys they are what they are and they do what they do.
The really bad part of it it is at lest they could have swapped a few words around here and there and made it work, but they were just so not bothered about any of that just just they got some science sounding stuff in there.
but yes i understand full well that the average movie goer has the attention span of a gnat, and the intellect to match because of it. little more effort and we all could get better movies made, just requires us to think a bit more an stop just going with it cause they shovel this drivel out there.
roddenberry for all his camp put some intellect into his scifi, that is what was the core of trek and the first movie was gawd awful from a science standpoint i actually goraned any time they mentioned anything to dowith black hole white holes dark matter and etc because it ignored any and all undersanding for the hows the the whys they are what they are and they do what they do.
The really bad part of it it is at lest they could have swapped a few words around here and there and made it work, but they were just so not bothered about any of that just just they got some science sounding stuff in there.
but yes i understand full well that the average movie goer has the attention span of a gnat, and the intellect to match because of it. little more effort and we all could get better movies made, just requires us to think a bit more an stop just going with it cause they shovel this drivel out there.
Yeah... no. Cumberbatch is not Khan.
Khan = human
Cumberbatch in the trailer = pointy ears.
Also, the writers or what have you said it's not Khan.
It'll probably be some sort of ripple effect thing after Nero fucked up the timeline. This, together with pointy ears and hints of militaristic culture on that planet Cumberbatch is speaking in the first seconds of the trailer makes me deduce (hur hur, see what I did there?) that he is a Romulan of some sort.
Khan = human
Cumberbatch in the trailer = pointy ears.
Also, the writers or what have you said it's not Khan.
It'll probably be some sort of ripple effect thing after Nero fucked up the timeline. This, together with pointy ears and hints of militaristic culture on that planet Cumberbatch is speaking in the first seconds of the trailer makes me deduce (hur hur, see what I did there?) that he is a Romulan of some sort.