You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Third Star Trek Trailer

Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 3:00am

Post 1 of 79

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Not sure how long it will stay up... but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gty9tLOXpwk


Much better than the last trailer. It's good to see what looks like some strong characterization.
Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 4:05am

Post 2 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Chris Pine.......is........Kirk.

This was obviously much less of a tribute and much more of an 'assurance montage' for Trekkies to show what the biggest question mark in their minds, James T. Kirk, will be like in the film. Also much more of a slow-burn-style of action; also likely peddling to Trekkies 'intellectual' desires to be found in the film.

Personally, I've always loved Pine and think he's the next Christian Bale/Matt Damon/Take-your-pick/diverse 'drama-action' star. I think he'll be great in this.

L33t street. Terrific music.

Last edited Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 4:12am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 4:11am

Post 3 of 79

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

that was great trailer and I can finally see myself watching this. my thoughts on star trek has changed a lot over 1 year
Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 4:19am

Post 4 of 79

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Wow.
So that's why Sylar shaved his eyebrow in Heroes.
Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 9:26am

Post 5 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Looks fantastic. Much, much better than the previous trailers. While it has all the boisterous action, it also shows signs of characters and interesting ideas.

And as Atom says, Chris Pine is Kirk. There's a particular shot in this where he turns to camera while sitting in the captain's chair. And he is Kirk.

Brilliant.
Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 7:32pm

Post 6 of 79

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/

http://www.startrekmovie.com
Posted: Fri, 6th Mar 2009, 9:40pm

Post 7 of 79

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I was a bit sceptical after seeing the first few trailers (I'm also not a big Star Trek fan) but after seeing this one, it seriously blew me away. I need to see this, I can't wait until it hits theatres!

Amazing trailer with even more amazing music!
Posted: Sat, 7th Mar 2009, 12:08am

Post 8 of 79

NuttyBanana

Force: 730 | Joined: 23rd Nov 2004 | Posts: 711

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Agreed, the first thing I thought after watching was how great the music was.
Posted: Sat, 7th Mar 2009, 10:28pm

Post 9 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Heh, they've already furtively edited the trailer a slight bit. I had it open from yesterday on Apple trailers and opened a new window with it- only to realize instead of having the lines "I hope you know what you're doing." "So do I."- there's a longer shot of Kirk looking up at Spock and Spock looking back at him in acknowledgment.

I can't decide which I like more, I just found it funny how slight and secretly they clipped it up differently in the time of one day.
Posted: Mon, 9th Mar 2009, 10:16am

Post 10 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, they took out my favourite bit of the trailer. Bah.
Posted: Mon, 9th Mar 2009, 7:17pm

Post 11 of 79

Jonnie

Force: 1420 | Joined: 10th Jun 2005 | Posts: 129

VisionLab User VideoWrap User

Gold Member

still well excited about it though
Posted: Mon, 9th Mar 2009, 10:45pm

Post 12 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hmm... This has made me less excited about the film. Not nearly as strong as even the first trailer.

I'm still going to see it, and I really hope it's good, but that trailer kinda ruined the hype for me.
Posted: Mon, 9th Mar 2009, 11:37pm

Post 13 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I've not been too fond of any of the Star Trek trailers I've seen so far really. They all focus too much on WOW/ACTION/OMGTHISISSOCOOLANDLARGEANDGRAND and show no sign of interesting ideas and concepts. Which to me, has always been what Star Trek is about and why it's so different from the usual sci-fi fare. And this kind of looks like they make it accessible to a larger audience but leaving out the essentials.

But I'll reserve judgement for when I see it.
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 3:58am

Post 14 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

You won't like it, Soll.
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 4:31am

Post 15 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -3

And for the gold:

Still hating everything, aren't we, Sollthar? biggrin
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 6:39am

Post 16 of 79

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

And for the gold:

Still hating everything, aren't we, Sollthar? biggrin
Almost. He liked Gran Torino.
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 7:15am

Post 17 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

They all focus too much on WOW/ACTION/OMGTHISISSOCOOLANDLARGEANDGRAND and show no sign of interesting ideas and concepts.
Yes, this is exactly why I'm turned off by the recent ones. Too many flashy effects and (presumably) pointless sex scenes. I'm really hoping it focuses more on Kirk before entering space than it does in space. And I hope there's less action than the trailer makes it seem.
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 7:18am

Post 18 of 79

Jonnie

Force: 1420 | Joined: 10th Jun 2005 | Posts: 129

VisionLab User VideoWrap User

Gold Member

If there are any peeps out there that have seen the other films, i think it's safe to say this will be the best of them...there's been some real shockers!
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 8:15am

Post 19 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

And for the gold:

Still hating everything, aren't we, Sollthar? biggrin
Having a discerning palette doesn't mean that you hate everything. I just means that you have taste, and don't lap up any old thing that happens to include an explosion. smile
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 9:05am

Post 20 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Still having to repeat the same bit of boring, unintelligent and unfunny information several times, have we Atom?

Though I must say, I prefer you that way. You grow from deeply annoying to simply boring and overlookable, which is much less of a hassle.


If there are any peeps out there that have seen the other films, i think it's safe to say this will be the best of them...there's been some real shockers!
I've seen all of the films and all of the Star Trek Episodes of all the series except for "Enterprise". And no doubt, there's some real crap films and some few cringeworthy episodes. (Star Trek 5 anyone?) smile

Though Star Trek 6 and 8, which are by far my two favorite ones, if not the only ones of the films I really like, both have a highly interesting concept and good character interaction. They also don't miss out on action. So action's never a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when it's all there is. Judging from the trailer, I can't see this one get anywhere near those two. But who knows.

And I'm watching the next generation again at the moment and must say, it's still fantastic, despite the somewhat dated visuals. But the ideas and concept behind it are clever and often timeless.

But as I said, I'll definately go watch it and reserve final judgement for when I see it.
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 9:24am

Post 21 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, Next Gen, the original series and the best Trek movies all hinge around great ideas. Sometimes they have cool action too, but it's not the main thrust of the drama.

You should come out of a Trek film/episode going "hmmmm, interesting!", not "whoah, cool!"

If you can come out doing both that's even better, of course. smile
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 10:08am

Post 22 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -3

I just tire of the same 'bore, this looks terrible blahblahblah' for literally every trailer that passes through here.

The fact that I've found that response to be usable so many times isn't just an indication of how annoying I can be- it shows there's something to be said of always seeming to have a 'no-fun, negative' response to any kind of blockbuster fare that arises.

It's not simply guarding your movie tastes at that point, it's disliking things for the sake of it; or at least not giving them a fair chance. In many respects, always lumping every upcoming film into the 'bam bam this is vacuous' category isn't just unfair- it's insulting to the movies. Especially some that, well, are likely terrific.

Enough. I'm determined to point out there's some smirk of enjoyment in that face of yours when you see these movies. biggrin

Last edited Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 10:11am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 10:11am

Post 23 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I think you're having trouble with the "people having differing opinions" concept again, Atom. smile
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 10:12am

Post 24 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-3

Tarn wrote:

I think you're having trouble with the "people having differing opinions" concept again, Atom. smile
Consistency of simply not liking everything isn't an opinion. wink
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 10:24am

Post 25 of 79

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

It is a "taste" though. Thats the point. People are allowed to have tastes. (Last time I checked, at least).
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 3:13pm

Post 26 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

You should come out of a Trek film/episode going "hmmmm, interesting!", not "whoah, cool!"
Well said, yeah. Obviously though, Star Trek means something different for each one so I'm sure some people will be happy with more action.
I personally always liked that feeling of "family" and "home" most. I don't know why, but the TNG series really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy cause I simply really like the characters and their chemistry. It's a place I would want to be in. And it has interesting concepts and adventure too. smile
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 5:00pm

Post 27 of 79

No Respite Productions

Force: 985 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 482

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Sollthar wrote:



but the TNG series really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy
Me too, Patrick Stewart in a tight fitting one piece uniform? Grrrrowl!

Hey, did I say that out loud?
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 5:31pm

Post 28 of 79

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

No Respite Productions wrote:


Hey, did I say that out loud?
You certainly did. But let me be the first to say Gates McFadden in a tight one-piece uniform... me likey a hot doc...


"I'll meet you down in Sickbay for my physical examination now doctor." twisted
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 5:35pm

Post 29 of 79

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

No, No, No.

There was only one trek babe, and that was Natasha Ya:
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 8:22pm

Post 30 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Just to clarify, my post was more of a jab at the movie than a jab at Sollthar. I can certainly understand that knowing too much about filmmaking and seeing to many movies can make you unable or less prone to enjoy basic summer popcorn flicks. Luckily I still have some youth left in me, though so I'm really looking forward to it... the music in this trailer is brilliant!

And T'Pol is the best one. Show was crap though.
Posted: Tue, 10th Mar 2009, 10:32pm

Post 31 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I can certainly understand that knowing too much about filmmaking and seeing to many movies can make you unable or less prone to enjoy basic summer popcorn flicks.
Heh, just to make that clear: I enjoy a lot of mindless Bluckbusters. That just doesn't mean I enjoy anything the filmmaking industry throws at me and go OMGTHISISSOCOOL at it just because it has nice cars, big explosions or girls in latex uniforms and this years blockbusters all look a bit dull to me really. Just doesn't appear to be a great blockbuster year for me. Anyone who enjoys it, hey! Awesome for you, hope you have a good time. I'm not bothered that people enjoy films I don't.
The whole "people have different tastes thing" some people have such a hard time to grasp... wink

Plus Blockbusters are statistically made 13 to 25 year olds. The problem is: I'm not in that cathegory anymore, unfortunately. Age. You can't stop it you know. smile


Oh, and when it comes to Star Trek babes, nothing beats seven of nine. She has two great arguments for her...
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 1:27am

Post 32 of 79

Moonloon1

Force: 2344 | Joined: 15th Oct 2007 | Posts: 334

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MacOS User

Gold Member

I agree and let me add that as you get older your tastes change. I watch movies mainly as an escape from the norm and to enjoy a different world. Thats probably why I like Sci-Fi the most. I see flaws in every movie I watch but I still enjoy most of them.

But as far as Star Trek babes 7 of 9 had me watching a show that was so so. And if Enterprise didn't have Tpol (Jolene Blalock) I would never bother. And with a three year old here we don't get to watch much TV except Spiderman, Batman and Spongebob...Ha!
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 9:58am

Post 33 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

For some reason Star Trek has always been the complete opposite of sexy for me. The female characters have always seemed so....asexual, so that whenever they try and do something vaguely romantic in the show it's like uncomfortably watching your parents. Perhaps it's because I associate Trek with 'family' so much? Or maybe it's just because the female characters in Next Gen are so horrifically 80s and badly written?

Trek and sex appeal just don't go together for me. smile
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 10:21am

Post 34 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

The whole "people have different tastes thing" some people have such a hard time to grasp... wink
I suppose it's hard to grasp by virtue of the fact that, lately, you have shot down not just a few - but EVERY - film that has had buzz posted about it. If this is part of a larger trend in your general tastes, that's fine - that's just not what it looks like. At all, actually.

Like clockwork, in fact, every time there's a new thread about a film, it seems you can be sure that you'll be there to condemn it, in a way. There's the line of argument that if something goes without saying - then just don't say it. I believe you, yourself, have told me this before. In this case, I think it goes without saying that any Hollywood movie thread posted on here is going to receive your negative impression of it, near guaranteed - likewise, it's just as obvious that Atom is going to respond to that. In many varied, non-cynical ways, that makes you and him both in the wrong, not just him. wink

I suppose it's just that, lately, your discerning palette has yet to provide any real contrast - it seems stuck on a discernment that everything is bad! biggrin

But I digress....

Tarn wrote:

Perhaps it's because I associate Trek with 'family' so much? Or maybe it's just because the female characters in Next Gen are so horrifically 80s and badly written?

Trek and sex appeal just don't go together for me. smile
I'd agree partially. There's sex appeal in the show just from the people they cast and how they costume them - that's sort of inherent. Short of all that, however, there has always been this sort of asexual, strange association regarding what few episodes of Star Trek I've seen. I dunno what this is based upon, but the 'family' association (given that I only ever watched 'Trek' when I was home sick from school?) seems pretty close.
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 11:50am

Post 35 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2/-3

I suppose it's hard to grasp by virtue of the fact that, lately, you have shot down not just a few - but EVERY - film that has had buzz posted about it. If this is part of a larger trend in your general tastes, that's fine - that's just not what it looks like.
*sigh*

I like some films, others I don't. This is a public forum, I chose to express my thoughts on the topic posted. That's entirely my business and, and frankly, I don't even care what it looks like for you or atom. I'm not having to justify my film taste to anyone, nor do I "have to provide contrast in my opinion". I have to provide nothing, entirely nothing. Last time I checked, you didn't rule this world and it wasn't a law to offer only opinions and statements ben and atom agree with or understand when offering thoughts on a hollwood film.

There's the line of argument that if something goes without saying - then just don't say it.
This is a public forum, I can chose to offer my thoughts on any subject discussed independently of wheter ben and atom want to hear it or not.

The difference between atoms comments and mine is, I offer my thoughts on a film, in a film topic, in a film board that is public. I'm on topic. He keeps commenting on my "persona" with comments like "YOU hate evrything" or "Surprse surprise", which isn't welcomed. That serves no factual purpose about the topic at hand, the movie, but is on an entirely personal level.

He has nor right to do that: He's not my friend, nor my collegue, nor do I like him, find him funny or witty or clever, nor do I care about what he has to say about me. If he has to offer his thoughts on the film at hand, hey, he's welcome to, whatever his thoughts are, positive or negative. His public comments towards me are off-topic and unwanted.
He can think about me whatever he wants too, so can you. Keep that to yourself, it has no place in a "film topic".

I will continue to offer my thoughts on films. If you or he don't want to hear them because you find them repetitive, skip them, without saying a word. I'll chose to do that with atom from now on. I hope he has the decency of doing the same and we can end this childsplay here and now. I will.
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 12:01pm

Post 36 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +2

It's also a completely strawman argument, of course. Just because most movies that Atom talks about are disliked by Sollthar doesn't mean that he hates all movies. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you think you are at the centre of the universe.

I've talked to Sollthar recently about all kinds of movies that he loves, or of which he has an even-handed viewpoint, as well as ones he dislikes. Same as, you know....most people. So the whole assumption is just plain stupid, really.

Atom might disagree with Sollthar's taste, but the only thing that is repetitive and tedious here are Atom's continual, petty little comments that clog up topics and spoil good discussion. And because of that, any further ramblings down this pointless route will be deleted. We want to talk about Star Trek, not Andrew Adams.

So say we all. (well, except Ben3308, I guess)
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 1:20pm

Post 37 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think that, for this trailer especially, it's very character and story driven; at least in terms of what we're shown visually.

Bits of Bana and Quinto's dialogue suggests different aspects of the story, and the pacing/editing/montage of it all shows well the general backstory (Kirk's father leading the ship, him enlisting) and the basic particulars of Star Trek ("We've got no captain....yes we do" and then we know Kirk is captain, etc).

In fact, I don't really see where this trailer is worse in terms of doing what a trailer should than the previous one. Is it not more entertaining, more informative, more awe-inspiring, less vacuous, and more meaningful to the viewer overall? For me, at least, it satisfies all of those - especially in comparison the the previous trailer (which, admittedly, was still excellent). In terms of the vacuous (aforementioned) nature of it all, I also have a hard time finding exactly where people are getting this from, short of what, some transitional shots to help keep pace? By and large, the action is in there as a bit of a hook to support the character arc and dialogue we hear, not supplant it.
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 1:27pm

Post 38 of 79

Moonloon1

Force: 2344 | Joined: 15th Oct 2007 | Posts: 334

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Probably one of the most overlooked aspects of this forum are the cultural differences. The diversity of the people on these forums is the reason I like it. And the basic arrogance of everyone in general to not realize that people from different parts of the world have very different mindsets. My wife is German and it amazes me how different our world views are. Ok Tarn, that is the third time you have referenced the strawman argument and I had to go look it up the first time.... different stories.... different lifestyles.... different cultures. And on Ben3308 and Atom all I can say is Texas, you see different cultures even in America (and I mean that in a humorous way). Anyway I look forward to seeing the new Star Trek and finding out for myself if it's good or bad, at least to me.

Last edited Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 1:50pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 1:38pm

Post 39 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

It's also a completely strawman argument, of course. Just because most movies that Atom talks about are disliked by Sollthar doesn't mean that he hates all movies. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you think you are at the centre of the universe.
Very true, but it's a red herring to bring up the 'I don't have to validate your thoughts' bits, seeing as it doesn't resolve any of the real argument. The bottom line is that to make an assumption of 'everything' like Atom has, he doesn't have to be at the center of the universe, just the center of showing a salient understanding of the topics discussed at FXHome. Which isn't, all things considered, too far a stretch. If only Hollywood movies end up being discussed at FXHome, then on a long enough timeline, is it really worth it for Sollthar to throw in his disparaging opinion? I'm not so sure.

That makes the film discussion 'vacuous Hollywood movie'-centric, which would be something that anyone who isn't into that wouldn't have much business partaking in. I'm a United Methodist Christian, but you don't see me walking into other church denominations like a town crier and denouncing them. It's still legal, but at a certain point it exceeds the courtesies of those who are a part of the object of negativity.

This is, of course, presupposing that we only talk about Hollywood. And it's a complete generalization of the forums and Sollthar's opinion on movies. Obviously. However, most topics recently have been about Hollywood films, and all of Sollthar's responses there are negative. Following this trend, you might say his interjection - starts to seem old and unnecessary; a lot like Bryan M. Block when it comes to political rhetoric.

You don't have to keep this post up, but I kept my more inflammatory, long-winded thoughts to myself this time. biggrin

I'll have to digress again, to, merely to state that my other Star Trek thoughts are two posts up, Moonloon just unluckily separated my posts. wink
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 2:02pm

Post 40 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

If only Hollywood movies end up being discussed at FXHome, then on a long enough timeline, is it really worth it for Sollthar to throw in his disparaging opinion? I'm not so sure.
You do know that The Mummy Returns is one of Sollthar's all-time favourite movies, right?


Anyway, Star Trek - I think this trailer does have a couple of promising bits in it, but you do kinda have to hunt for them. For one, there's the "Kirk was a great man, but it was in another time" line, which hints at potentially interesting time travel/alternate universey type things. Also the "captained a starship for 5 minutes, saved 800 lives), which is a really nice idea.

Those are the two bits that intrigue me so far. Hopefully it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 6:45pm

Post 41 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn, not sure if you want to know, but if you do, here's the basic idea behind the plot (spoiler given away in the first few minutes):

The vulcan guy played by Eric Bana erases the whole timeline from the original Star Trek TV show, and changes something which makes Kirk become more of a loser than a hero... at first, anyway.

---


Atom and Ben, here's something to ponder: nobody here in this region of Montreal likes Superbad. Like, nobody. Same goes for every Judd Apatow-style movie, they're just not liked. That's a pretty big cultural difference with Texas, and in general I'd have said we're not really all that different in Canada. So imagine Switzerland. Then add age to that, and the fact that his life must have been ENTIRELY different to yours or to anyone around you's life, and you might understand why people are all different, and how different they may be.

Yes, that can be boring for you if you like big budget hollywood movies (for the record, I love em), but that doesn't make him wrong or untitled to state the fact that he doesn't like it. Wouldn't it be boring otherwise? Build a robot clone army if that's what you're after.
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 6:59pm

Post 42 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -6

Convenient, isn't it, that all of the positive ratings I've been given have been stripped, all of the ratings I've given out have disappeared; but the number of negative ratings that have piled on have increased. Can you say 'uneven moderation'?

I'm sorry you're now deciding to skip all of my posts without even looking at the content, Sollthar. I think it shows an incredible lack-of-respect for me, and I'm sorry we've reached that point. It is something I'd of course codemn and hope new users don't do- and something I find unadvisable to 'recommend'- but if that's how it is between us I'll have to deal with that myself.

My joke of hating everything isn't personal- it is, I thought quote obviously, a light poking to the fable 'if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all'; a tennant of the forums you yourself taught me, buddy. biggrin Perhaps that's why it's always humorous and biting to me?


But enough of that, back to Star Trek! The timeline alteration you mention, Pooky, really interests me. I'm excited to see how they go about it.

Either way, I think this movie looks excellent. Aside from the material, Abrams himself intrigues me as a director. As many know, his other feature film M:I3 is one of my all-time favorite movies from which I used to borrow techniques and narrative strategies. (most notably in Cover's Story.)
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 11:08pm

Post 43 of 79

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +3/-2

Okay, guys, no need to give negative ratings to every post Atom makes. He's just voicing his opinion. I don't see why his opinion is some how less than Sollthar's or anyone else's.. Oh, and I also noticed that his +1 was also removed, but none of his -1 were... ?
Posted: Wed, 11th Mar 2009, 11:21pm

Post 44 of 79

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

It will be interesting to see how they deal with the time-traveling. It has potential to be really cool, but it is also the perfect excuse to mess around and take liberties with the canon. Not that I care (or even know) much Trek canon or the "actual" timeline...
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 5:49am

Post 45 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +3/-3

Thrawn wrote:

Okay, guys, no need to give negative ratings to every post Atom makes.
There's also no need for Atom and Ben to hijack every single thread they post in, but they do it anyway. And as we all know, the only way to stop them is to lock the thread.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 5:54am

Post 46 of 79

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

For one, there's the "Kirk was a great man, but it was in another time" line, which hints at potentially interesting time travel/alternate universey type things.
Hmm, I didn't hear it as that at all. Maybe it's just me, but didn't it go more along the lines of "Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.". Although if he does say "time" instead with the emphasis on time travel, that would indeed open up a couple of cool concepts. smile

I must say though I have a way of totally butchering lines I hear in trailers. Which would explain my confusion around the "Tonight we die in hell!" line from the 300 trailer. wink
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 5:59am

Post 47 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think Tarn got both lines slightly wrong- although I'll agree they're both definitely the high-geekasm-goosebumps-points in the editing of the trailer.

As far as I can discern it's

"Your father was captain of a starship for 6 minutes......he saved 800 lives; including yours."

"James T. Kirk was a great man.....but that was another life!"
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 7:21am

Post 48 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I think Tarn got both lines slightly wrong- although I'll agree they're both definitely the high-geekasm-goosebumps-points in the editing of the trailer.

As far as I can discern it's

"Your father was captain of a starship for 6 minutes......he saved 800 lives; including yours."

"James T. Kirk was a great man.....but that was another life!"
I don't know much about the "history" of Star Trek, but those lines confused me a bit in the trailer. I didn't realize that Kirk's father was also named James T. Kirk, and was also the captain of a starship, so I was like "are they talking about Kirk's son?"

Does anyone know how much of this movie is based on ST "canon" and how much of it is made up for the action film crowd/JJ Abrams Daddy Issues Club?
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 7:33am

Post 49 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

I didn't realize that Kirk's father was also named James T. Kirk
He's not. From just Wikipedia-ing it, his name is George.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 7:36am

Post 50 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

So then are they referencing Kirk himself, or are they changing the history of the saga? I'm confused.

Edit: Ohhh, time travel? What will they think of next?

Ps. Ben, I got your PM, and responded, but Messaging hasn't worked for me for a long time, so I'm not sure if it worked or not. Lemme know.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 7:49am

Post 51 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

As far as any of us know, it's time travel - or altered time by Eric Bana, who is seeking to make Kirk 'not a hero' in the alternate timeline. This is all conjecture, though.

Got your message, mine's messed up too.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 8:03am

Post 52 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

As far as any of us know, it's time travel - or altered time by Eric Bana, who is seeking to make Kirk 'not a hero' in the alternate timeline. This is all conjecture, though.
I didn't even know Bana was in it. Apparently I'm not paying very close attention to this film.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 8:13am

Post 53 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bana is the villain. He's the "That was another life!" and the "FIRE EVERYTHING!!!!" guy, but they've got him in prosthetics so it's harder to tell.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:14am

Post 54 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The 'FIRE EVERYTHING!' line, though fun, is what worries me the most about this trailer. It's just such a silly, OTT, blockbustery, designed-for-the-trailer kind of line. I'm no military buff, but I'm pretty sure that shouting 'FIRE EVERYTHING!' would be rather pointless and confusing in the heat of battle.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:30am

Post 55 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Makes it seem more moment-of-truth-esque, I'd say. That's all.

Does it seem more 'explosions/Hollywood' because it panders to a moment-of-truth type audience? Maybe a little bit, but I'm sure it makes sense and has purpose in the film just as it does in the trailer. 'FIRE EVERYTHING!' would infer a catastrophically large surprise attack on something Bana holds value to, at least by my presupposition.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:31am

Post 56 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

^^^ I'm picturing it more like: "Oh sh*t, they're beating us! FIRE EVERYTHING!"

Tarn wrote:

The 'FIRE EVERYTHING!' line, though fun, is what worries me the most about this trailer. It's just such a silly, OTT, blockbustery, designed-for-the-trailer kind of line. I'm no military buff, but I'm pretty sure that shouting 'FIRE EVERYTHING!' would be rather pointless and confusing in the heat of battle.
Agreed. That was one of the lines that killed the trailer for me. It makes the villain seem immature and inexperienced.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:33am

Post 57 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

Makes it seem more moment-of-truth-esque, I'd say. That's all.

Does it seem more 'explosions/Hollywood' because it panders to a moment-of-truth type audience? Maybe a little bit, but I'm sure it makes sense and has purpose in the film just as it does in the trailer. 'FIRE EVERYTHING!' would infer a catastrophically large surprise attack on something Bana holds value to, at least by my presupposition.
The point, though, is that if his reaction to a surprise attack/major problem is to panic and scream "FIRE EVERYHING!" like a moron, he's not exactly going to be a major threat to the combined brains and brawn of McCoy, Spock and Kirk.

What is this 'moment-of-truth' audience concept you're referring to? Sounds like university lecturer make-it-up-as-you-go jargon to me. smile
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:37am

Post 58 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Maybe it's just clever trailer editing and he's really saying "FIRE EVERYTHING, but not at once. Do it strategically. We need to outsmart Starfleet!"
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:48am

Post 59 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

The point, though, is that if his reaction to a surprise attack/major problem is to panic and scream "FIRE EVERYHING!" like a moron, he's not exactly going to be a major threat to the combined brains and brawn of McCoy, Spock and Kirk.
I would say, though, that the 'FIRE EVERYTHING' attitude of Bana (incensed, panicked, moment-of-truth-esque biggrin) is slightly worrisome, but altogether supported by the exposition earlier on that he's been "waiting for this [his] entire life". Lord knows if I had plans I'd waited my entire life to execute, I'd try to be exact, but be more nervous about them and even more angry were they disrupted.

I know this is sort of an exhaustive explanation, with very little evidence; but I do think the lines in the trailer give good credence to "FIRE EVERYTHING!!!!". wink
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:50am

Post 60 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, you're right, it is dependent on context. I think it was an unwise line to put in the trailer, though, because out of context it comes across as being very silly and 'generic sci-fi action movie'.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 9:53am

Post 61 of 79

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Also, think of it from a financial perspective. There's no way that this villain is self-funded. His arsenal was most likely built on loans or grants. In order to get a good return on their investment, the lenders need to see their weapons put to good use. If he's going to yell "FIRE EVERYTHING!", he'd better be certain it's going to work, or he just wasted a lot of money, and pissed off a lot of people. With the economy how it is? Well, you know what I mean.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 10:45am

Post 62 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I heard the Romulan use all GM parts and vehicles, too. unsure
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 11:15am

Post 63 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Star Trek does have a bit of a history in terms of getting it's own historical facts wrong or changing some things while they move along or blending thing together that don't, necessarily, go together well. So that might all be following that tradition. )

I don't exactly recall what race Banas character is, doesn't look very familiar. Looks vaguely Romulan. So maybe he's a "FIRE EVERYTHING" style race, much like the klingons are a "TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE, YEAAAAGH" type race.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 11:18am

Post 64 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

I don't exactly recall what race Banas character is, doesn't look very familiar. Looks vaguely Romulan. So maybe he's a "FIRE EVERYTHING" style race, much like the klingons are a "TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE, YEAAAAGH" type race.
Stereotyping an entire race of aliens like that isn't very politically correct, Sollthar...
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 11:20am

Post 65 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Heh. But... Ah well. Okay, so maybe he's just a "FIRE EVERYTHING" kinda guy then. smile

Even for a strategic mind, a simple "BLAST EM ALL TO HELL" approach might be tough to deal with, depending on the equipment and numbers the enemy has.

Much like the Borg for example don't do much at all. But what they do, is devastating. They don't have much strategy either, but they don't need to to destroy entire worlds.
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 11:30am

Post 66 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +4

Maybe the Romulan bailout didn't come through and he has to not only lay-off Romulans but androids as well? Hence, instead of "FIRE EVERYONE!" it's "FIRE EVERYTHING!"
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 2:47pm

Post 67 of 79

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Maybe the Romulan bailout didn't come through and he has to not only lay-off Romulans but androids as well? Hence, instead of "FIRE EVERYONE!" it's "FIRE EVERYTHING!"
Wait, what about the moral implications of having an android crew? Don't they have unions? What if they dream of electric sheep?
Posted: Thu, 12th Mar 2009, 8:17pm

Post 68 of 79

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright... to try to answer some of the questions on here. Eric Bana is a Romulan named Nero. They've made the Romulans bald to distinguish them from Vulcans. And from my logic, it looks like he will be time-traveling. And this isn't bad, because two of the very best Star Trek movies involve time traveling (Voyage Home, and First Contact). I'm hoping Leonard Nimoy will be time-traveling too.

From what I heard, the quotes were:

"Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes... he saved eight hundred lives, including yours"

"James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life!"


I think that means that Bana knows Kirk's future, but he is now attempting to kill Kirk in the past. So he's probably taunting Kirk, knowing he would become a great man if he wasn't about to interfere.

Abrams has stated there will be some issues with the ST canon, but no more than the previous movies were. Also, some will actually be addressed by the plot.

Last edited Fri, 13th Mar 2009, 2:44am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 13th Mar 2009, 1:21am

Post 69 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'm telling you people, Bana aka Nero the Romulan, goes back in time and changes the timeline so that Kirk doesn't become a hero. He ends up living somewhere in rural USA as a kind of reckless cowboy type (thus the beginning of one trailer where he runs a car into a canyon). Then stuff happens and Kirk has to lead a starship.
Posted: Fri, 13th Mar 2009, 1:57am

Post 70 of 79

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Oooh... I'm wondering if Bana attacks the George Kirk's "starship" at the beginning of the film, causing Kirk to grow up without parental guidance. It makes sense, because it looks like Bana's ship is firing on is the Kelvin, aka George Kirk's ship.

Although, didn't Kirk always grow up in Iowa? I wonder how much will be true to the existing canon, and how much will actually be altered. I can't imagine fans being happy with a bunch of crazy changes unless they're resolved in the plot. And this is going to be confusing for a lot of people... I don't know Kirk's real backstory, aside from his Iowa roots. I'm a pretty big fan, but I'm not up to speed with all the canon/facts like I am with Star Wars.

Hmmm... I have to stop overthinking this. I always get into a problem before movies come out: read spoilers, or don't read spoilers. I prefer not to, but sometimes they get through to me.
Posted: Sun, 15th Mar 2009, 5:37pm

Post 71 of 79

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

I wonder how much will be true to the existing canon, and how much will actually be altered. I can't imagine fans being happy with a bunch of crazy changes unless they're resolved in the plot.
I remember reading about some Trekkies being mad about Enterprise being built on Earth instead of in orbit (as in original canon) as The Enterprise cannot enter atmosphere due to the artificial gravity. The technology for entering atmo and landing came later with Voyager. I really hope this is relevant and explained for other reasons than that it would be cool to see Kirk watching the construction from a motorbike.

Can't say I was much of a Trekkie myself, but when I saw that Damon Lindelof, JJ Abrams and ILM were going to make a Star Trek reboot I had to brush up on Trek being a big fan of these guys. I saw almost the entire run of The Next Generation in preparation and I must say the series is brilliant. It really holds up.

Can't wait for this film.

Last edited Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 5:28pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 10:22am

Post 72 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, the Enterprise being built on-planet is a bit silly. I don't mind too much about canon, but from a construction/science POV it's just daft. A giant, unwieldy ship like that would be built in orbit - building it on planet would make everything vastly more difficult.
Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 1:27pm

Post 73 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

So I guess I'm the only one who finds building a starship inthe vacuum of space, in orbit extremely preposterous? I think building it on land makes much more sense- but maybe that's just me.
Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 1:35pm

Post 74 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

So I guess I'm the only one who finds building a starship inthe vacuum of space, in orbit extremely preposterous? I think building it on land makes much more sense- but maybe that's just me.
It is pretty much just you, I think, yes. smile

Orbital ship building has long been discussed (by proper scientists, that is) as the next logical step for space travel. One of the biggest problems for spaceships is escaping the Earth's insanely huge gravitational pull - that's where they use up all their fuel. You also have the major problem of designing a craft that can fly in space as well as in a planetary atmosphere - two vastly different models.

You're always going to need small craft to ferry people to orbit, of course (well, until they build a space elevator), but it makes much more sense to have small craft for that and build and keep the capital ships in space.

Think of all the energy and construction needed to support something like the Enterprise during its build. It's not like the space shuttle or the Millennium Falcon - the Enterprise shape is specifically designed for space, hence it has no landing capability. It doesn't have an "at rest" state - it'd just fall over. razz
Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 1:49pm

Post 75 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

How do you support a build crew in space, keep them from suffocating- give them somewhere to live? How do you build an airlock in a vacuum already? How do you create a flame to weld and construct? Even for the future, the whole process seems like it would be entirely counter-productive and extremely costly.

Far, far too many questions are raised for me that outweigh the, let's say 'logic' of in-orbit construction. A 'tug boat' ship that launches the Enterprise out of the atmosphere seems like the next step and proper conclusion in the movie to me.
Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 1:54pm

Post 76 of 79

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The actual International Space Station we have up there at the moment was mostly built in space. They brought a module with what is needed for people to live in and they built from that over the years - the space shuttle or the Russian Soyouz bring the pieces from Earth and they assemble the whole thing in space, wearing space suits and living in the quarters brought originally... Not that complicated.
Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 1:56pm

Post 77 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

How do you support a build crew in space, keep them from suffocating- give them somewhere to live?
You have heard of the International Space Station, right? That already exists. Fast forward to Star Trek Time when you've got light speed, artificial gravity etc etc and it's really not going to be a problem!

Even the ISS itself was partially constructed in space.

How do you build an airlock in a vacuum already?
Whaaaa?

Even for the future, the whole process seems like it would be entirely counter-productive and extremely costly.
Creating the orbital factory/dockyard would be difficult and costly. After that you'd be laughing.
Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 5:39pm

Post 78 of 79

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

How do you support a build crew in space, keep them from suffocating- give them somewhere to live? How do you build an airlock in a vacuum already?
As JohnCarter said: Modules brought from Earth are the starting point.

And as Tarn said: Once they have orbital factory/dockyard (which is what enterprise was originally built in) the rest is pretty easy.

Seen as how they have built space stations this way already, the entire operation should be very plausible.

Another thing that had original Trekkies worried was the vulcan rage displayed in the first full length trailer by Spock. I agree with them here as well. If there isn't a good reason for this it will detract from Spock's character. It would be like re-making Star Wars and having C3PO go berserk for no reason.

Edit: And is anyone else than me completely psyched about a new Michael Giacchino (LOST, The Incredibles, Ratatouille) score? If you go to the official Star Trek Movie site (http://www.startrekmovie.com/) you can hear a cue in the background.

Last edited Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 8:03pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 16th Mar 2009, 5:48pm

Post 79 of 79

No Respite Productions

Force: 985 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 482

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

How do you support a build crew in space, keep them from suffocating- give them somewhere to live? How do you build an airlock in a vacuum already? How do you create a flame to weld and construct? Even for the future, the whole process seems like it would be entirely counter-productive and extremely costly.
You've not heard of the ISS then? Being part built in space? Already in existence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS

EDIT: By jove, I spend two minutes constructing that counter argument only to find half of the website have beaten me to it sad

Curse my slothful nature!