Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > So much for the Star Trek Movie

So much for the Star Trek Movie (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
They could be mining for the materials to actually build the ships nearby.
That's what I thought too. You've got to go thru a lot of solid rock to sift out that much transparent aluminum.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 04:36 AM
 
I finally saw it tonight, a double-feature with Wolverine.

I really enjoyed it. The only big flaw to me was the whole "whoops, looky here who I found in this cave! What a COINCIDENCE!"

Lame.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I finally saw it tonight, a double-feature with Wolverine.

I really enjoyed it. The only big flaw to me was the whole "whoops, looky here who I found in this cave! What a COINCIDENCE!"

Lame.
Perhaps. But Spock and Kirk were both close to the Federation Outpost (14 miles? 14km? whatever). Neither the Romulan nor young Spock wanted their refugee dead. It's a concidence, but it's not impossible (just unlikely).

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
I just thought it was way over done and I found it distracting.
Well, I didn't think about the lens flair thing the FIRST time I saw it, but after reading the discussion here and seeing it AGAIN on Friday, I found it completely annoying and distracting. Thanks to everyone for THAT.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 11:52 PM
 
I thought the lens flare was a good idea until about halfway through when there's that scene that you can barely friggin' see because it's basically a Vegas light show.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I thought the lens flare was a good idea until about halfway through when there's that scene that you can barely friggin' see because it's basically a Vegas light show.
Which one?

There were a lot of "visually complex" sequences that confused me. Nero's ship confused the crap out of me-it was all knifey pointy parts without anything to orient to except that "maw" that people kept flying shuttles into, and no clear indication of where all those spiky weapony things came out of. The bridge was pretty complex for me too-aside from the elevator door, the captain's chair and the Nav/Helm console, I couldn't figure out where some bits were in the layout. The story went fast enough that it wasn't a major problem, but it was disconcerting.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
Something else I don't understand. Nero came out the blackhole 25 years ago but spock only came out 23+ years later and Nero was there just at the right time to great him. Huh?
You're right. It doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense is to realize that writers have always played fast and loose with the mechanics of time travel to suit the needs of the story.

This "two characters go into a time travel thing at the same time and come out at very different times" is not without precedent in Star Trek, though. The exact same thing happened in Voyager's two part episode "Future's End" from the third season. Guy comes out of the 29th century to destroy Voyager, Voyager does something to mess the guy's ship up and they end up travelling through time AND space. Future guy ends up crashing on Earth in the 1960s and Voyager ends up orbiting Earth in 1996. Same thing as Spock and Nero. Done for the same reason: to suit the needs of the story.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
Perhaps. But Spock and Kirk were both close to the Federation Outpost (14 miles? 14km? whatever). Neither the Romulan nor young Spock wanted their refugee dead. It's a concidence, but it's not impossible (just unlikely).
However, what's even more annoying is...

 


That really turned me off the first time I watched the movie.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
You're right. It doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense is to realize that writers have always played fast and loose with the mechanics of time travel to suit the needs of the story.

 
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2009, 02:28 PM
 
Star Trek screened in space

"Star Trek" has been beamed aboard the International Space Station.

Paramount Pictures said they transferred director J.J. Abrams' sci-fi franchise reboot to NASA's Mission Control in Houston. The movie was uplinked to the space station on Thursday.

NASA astronaut Michael Barratt watched the film on a laptop Friday inside the Unity module.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2009, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Well, apparently people are questioning it, but I'm not going to pretend to understand them.
Obviously they should be questioned.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 02:59 AM
 
???
( Last edited by zipperzap; May 22, 2009 at 03:03 AM. Reason: Link didn't work?)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 04:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
Oh yeah. Where the heck is there a giant gorge in Iowa?
Iowa may be flat but it ain't Kansas.
Beside there are lots of quarries in Iowa.

Pic of cliff in Iowa:


more:
Dubuque Quarry on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
You can take the dude out of So Cal, but you can't take the dude outta the dude, dude!
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 10:01 AM
 
Gavin, that quarry is quite interesting. But in the movie, the gorge looked like it was hundreds of feet deep, and maybe half a mile across... Obviously it's something other than a contemporary quarry. Just what that might be is a Very Good Question. I think what it is is an "interesting geographic feature meant to add tension to the scene." But it could instead be a "gimmick to get the audience's attention." I dunno...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 10:21 AM
 
When they use the same situation 3 times, its a gimmick.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Gavin, that quarry is quite interesting. But in the movie, the gorge looked like it was hundreds of feet deep, and maybe half a mile across... Obviously it's something other than a contemporary quarry.
...not to mention that there is WAY too much green there. The gorge Kirk sent the car down was out in the middle of a desert. I don't know about you, but when I think of Iowa, I don't think of desert. Unless, of course, they're showing the effects of global warming on the planet.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California--SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 10:49 AM
 
The New STAR TREK Movie is HORRIBLE! Think about it...

This movie is supposed to take place before TOS.

Instead, it looked like it's supposed to come after voyager.

Quite lame and disappointing.
Chris K.
White MacBook and iPod Nano 3rd Generation
Experienced Mac User
Don't hold me accountable for jokes-I have a lousy sense of humor!
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by cwkmacuser View Post
The New STAR TREK Movie is HORRIBLE! Think about it...

This movie is supposed to take place before TOS.

Instead, it looked like it's supposed to come after voyager.

Quite lame and disappointing.
You're calling the movie horrible only because they created a movie set that didn't look like it was from the 1960s?

My main complaint about the set was that the colour scheme reminded me a lot of a razor commercial or a toothbrush commercial, but that's a minor complaint.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by cwkmacuser View Post
The New STAR TREK Movie is HORRIBLE! Think about it...

This movie is supposed to take place before TOS.

Instead, it looked like it's supposed to come after voyager.

Quite lame and disappointing.
It's called a "reboot."

Not only do they want current Star Trek fans to watch the movie, but they also want to attract new viewers as well. What looked futuristic in 1967 (and indeed what looked futuristic in 1995, when Voyager came out) looks cheap and dated in 2009. That would be a way of instantly turning off newcomers to the franchise.

For example, computer displays on the original series consisted of what looked like pages written on a typewriter and then copied to a slide and projected on a screen from behind. Do you seriously expect today's audience used to flat panel screens capable of displaying detailed, high resolution graphics to accept typewriter output by a slide projector as being 200 years ahead of where we are now?

I myself loved the new ship design. And I consider myself to be a big fan of All Things Trekā„¢. Not so big that I dress up in Starfleet uniforms, but I own all the TV series and movies on DVD and I can nitpick with the best of them.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 12:02 PM
 
Gotta say finally saw it, LOVED it! As for my Star Trek cred... when I was a kid I could have told you the class of any federation ship you showed me within a couple seconds...

Anyway I loved how the first person to die on an "Away Mission" was the guy in red. I enjoyed Scotty (not sure what was with his weird buddy) in general loved all the characters. Don't like how they explained Bones' nick name it felt a bit forced. I confess I did have trouble not picturing Spock using telekenetic powers and cutting someone's head open (same actor plays Sylar in Heroes) other than that I loved it. I don't really know why they needed to drip into a planet to release the red matter...

Someone asked why a mining ship would be able to take out a federation ship. Answer: it's a long time in the future for them, weapons have advanced a great deal. I mean look at how things go from TNG to Voyager. Voyager ends up getting some big ass weapons even though it's a small ship meant for exploration. To be honest a runabout from DS9 could have probably taken out the Kelvin. And a mining ship would probably have to at least be able to protect itself from people trying to hijack them.

Anyway, yah I loved the movie. The Nokia product placement was a little odd, but I can live.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty View Post
Someone asked why a mining ship would be able to take out a federation ship. Answer: it's a long time in the future for them, weapons have advanced a great deal.
Yeah, but it's still a civilian mining ship. I mean, in real life weapons have advanced a great deal over the last century, but that doesn't mean that a 21st century fishing boat would be able to take out a WWI-era battleship or destroyer, much less a whole fleet of them.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 02:22 PM
 
Ships in the Star Trek universe seem to be pretty close to helpless with their shields down. All the rescue ships probably got blown up in one or two shots as soon as they appeared. It's not really that impressive.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 02:42 PM
 
I did notice in the movie that there was distinct lack of visualization of the shields.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
I did notice in the movie that there was distinct lack of visualization of the shields.
Yeah, and they also didn't seem to do all that much. Even with their shields still up, the first hit breached the hull.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:09 PM
 
The latter, however, is a hallmark of practically all the trek movies.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:12 PM
 
I thought usually things didn't start getting through until the shields were pretty low. Maybe it's been too long since I've seen the others.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:15 PM
 
In the shows you're right. But in the movies they always seemed to want chunks of the ship to go flying.

It's been a while since I watched any (other than Nemesis, which AMC has been mugging me with) so I could be wrong..
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:34 PM
 
What always bugged me about the shows were the shield strength countdowns.

Forward shields at 69%! 43! 29! 14! Shields down!

It's nice to partially get away from that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:36 PM
 
Heh, I I usually enjoyed that, though obviously most times there wasn't much rhyme or reason to it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 03:40 PM
 
Well, in the movies usually they are up against the Star Trek equivalent of the Death Star, so it makes sense that the shields aren't very effective. That or the shields are otherwise sabotaged, as in "Generations" and "Wrath of Khan".

I always preferred Babylon 5's shield-less combat, anyway.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 04:21 PM
 
Indeed, I think B5, and Battlestar were both great for the fact that there wasn't some magical laser stopping shield if your enemy hit you, well damn they hit you!
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California--SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 09:52 PM
 
Like I was saying. Yes, I want it to look like something BEFORE TOS. That's what it's supposed to be, right?
Chris K.
White MacBook and iPod Nano 3rd Generation
Experienced Mac User
Don't hold me accountable for jokes-I have a lousy sense of humor!
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 10:02 PM
 
I guess the "future weapons" Nero was using overwhelmed the shields. In the series (all of 'em), the slow degradation of the shields was used for dramatic emphasis. They were frequently overwhelmed or disabled, by the way. The TV production couldn't afford to physically blow up parts of their ship models though, so we seldom saw any real damage.

They did mention issues with the shields at one point, but it was more a tactical thing than a big story issue.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Neil Patrick Janus.
heh
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2009, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by cwkmacuser View Post
The New STAR TREK Movie is HORRIBLE! Think about it...

This movie is supposed to take place before TOS.

Instead, it looked like it's supposed to come after voyager.

Quite lame and disappointing.
OMG ? This is why kids should stay out of the Lounge.

You should be banned for this.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 12:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
Something else I don't understand. Nero came out the blackhole 25 years ago but spock only came out 23+ years later and Nero was there just at the right time to great him. Huh?
I thought that Nero hit the black hole only a few moments before Spock did, but what is only a few moments in our temporal dimension is years and years on the other side (like the explanations of how time is warped (slows down) as you approach the speed of light. Nero's smart and he does the math to know when to be there.

***

Having got back from the movie, I feel like I watched a bunch of Trek allusions chopped up and tossed in a bag of Star Wars vignettes and situations. Or like Star Trek got a heart transfusion and Star Wars was the donor.

It was fun.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California--SF Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 01:24 AM
 
I hope you're joking, turtle!

BTW, I'm hardly a kid! More like a young teen if you ask me
Chris K.
White MacBook and iPod Nano 3rd Generation
Experienced Mac User
Don't hold me accountable for jokes-I have a lousy sense of humor!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by cwkmacuser View Post
Like I was saying. Yes, I want it to look like something BEFORE TOS. That's what it's supposed to be, right?
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
OMG ? This is why kids should stay out of the Lounge. You should be banned for this. -t
In a way I agree the he comes off as totally naive to the realities of moviemaking if he thinks that the ship should look even more stark and primitive than in TOS. But I do think that later Star Trek series lost the functional look which the original Enterprise had. One reason Kirk's ship was so believable is that it looked like it was designed by spacecraft engineers and military shipbuilders inside and out. This wasn't totally an accident of the rushed production or low budget... believability was actually important to the shows creator and the model and set designers.

Later Star Trek series abandoned the functional look of the original Enterprise in favor of ever increasing amounts of eye-candy. Believability was still important to the show's creators but only in the sense of how far they could stretch it, rather than actually trying to achieve it. The sets and models were so swoopy that clearly all engineers and architects had been replaced by stylists and interior designers. Back in the 80's that seemed like quite and advancement over orange plywood and blinking lights but in todays era of retro-primitive shows like Battlestar the new Star Trek movie is what actually seems childishly out of date. The sets and "models" do seem like they are trying to one-up TNG and Voyager's silly glitz rather than BSG's unshakable realism. Going back to the time period before TOS would have been the perfect opportunity to do some wonderfully functional retro design that could have ushered in a new era of sci-fi moviemaking. There's no need to get dirty or militaristic like BSG: It could have been clean and white and futuristic like TOS but even more believable as a spaceship. I definitely couldn't buy the new ship as a ship at all. It was barely believable as mouthwash commercial.

Pictures are worth a thousand words... I compare TOS to the original Mercedes SL interiour. Pretty and nicely designed but still 100% functional looking.



The recent SLR has the same cool swoopy stupid look as TNG etc and is barely believable as a car at all. A parody of the old one.



This is how the new movie Enterprise should have been done.... totally modern yet retaining the functional design sense of the original. The new SL will have the retro look that makes it look more modern than if they had just tried to out swoop the ridiculous previous generation.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 08:56 AM
 
Black plastic? Yuck!

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 09:10 AM
 
TOS set dressing was supposed to look functional, but it was ALL eye candy. Gene Roddenberry was a pilot in WWII, and he had aeronautical engineers working on designs for miniatures and sets so that stuff "looked like it worked." But the "functional" part seems to have been limited to the background colors (grays, blacks) with LOTS of visuals, flashing lights and so on for eye candy.

The thing is, in 1966 it wasn't terribly easy to produce ANY eye candy, let alone the kind of stuff we can do today with a color laser printer and Lightsheet...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
Black plastic? Yuck!
Pretty hilarious how plastic has ruined everything for us! I can guarantee you that interiour is 100% leather and metal and yet you see it as awful because of your preconceptions. What would you want a car interiour to look like?

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 01:17 PM
 
The look of the new movie in a lot of places reminded me more of the original Star Wars trilogy than Star Trek. And I see that as a good thing, because I always thought those movies had a really believable look to them. It felt like a real universe.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The look of the new movie in a lot of places reminded me more of the original Star Wars trilogy than Star Trek. And I see that as a good thing, because I always thought those movies had a really believable look to them. It felt like a real universe.
The ending sequence of the battle and the end ceremony were knockoffs of Star Wars, too.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 01:28 PM
 
And Scotty getting beamed into clear plastic pipes reminded me of the fat kid in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
And Scotty getting beamed into clear plastic pipes reminded me of the fat kid in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
OMG I successfully blocked that scene out until you just mentioned it. Thanks a LOT!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The look of the new movie in a lot of places reminded me more of the original Star Wars trilogy than Star Trek. And I see that as a good thing, because I always thought those movies had a really believable look to them. It felt like a real universe.
Same here. I got feeling of Star Wars several times during the movie.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 05:01 PM
 
Since this is a Star Trek thread, I figure this is on topic enough. I was just looking at the various cover art of the various additions of War of the Worlds published over the years. I found this:



What the hell?

On topic, has anyone identified what the various aliens in the new movie might have been? None of them looked very familiar. Like Scotty's sidekick. What was that supposed to be? Or the alien in the bar at the beginning?
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 06:50 PM
 
...or the obsterics nurse at the very beginning with the HUGE eyes...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by cwkmacuser View Post
The New STAR TREK Movie is HORRIBLE! Think about it...

This movie is supposed to take place before TOS.

Instead, it looked like it's supposed to come after voyager.

Quite lame and disappointing.
It actually makes sense in the timeline of the movie, if you understand Abram's explanation. He said that the scans of the Romulan vessel the Kelvin made had seriously influenced the technology advancement of the federation.

Just got back from seeing it a second time. Really loved this movie.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2009, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Pretty hilarious how plastic has ruined everything for us! I can guarantee you that interiour is 100% leather and metal and yet you see it as awful because of your preconceptions. What would you want a car interiour to look like?
It's hard to compare a fictional Enterprise past or current to a real item such as a automobile interior. Was the captain's chair covered in stitched leather? I didn't notice.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum 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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2