Original Opening Day for New Star Trek

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:53 am

Listen...you REALLY want to see the best special effect town?

Come visit my BRAIN, baby!

Better than fuckin' Christmas lights, man!

Like an optical printer on a goddam acid trip!

It's Re-Animator on a Roman Holiday, dude!

Yeah! Baby, Yeah!

CGI ain't never had it THIS good!

Cross that lobby...and visit my brain!

Once you're in there you WON'T wanna leave - not that you'll have that choice!

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm

Postby Moderator » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:03 am

(Rob, I keep telling you. It's the little white pill, THEN the little red one. Not the other way around...!)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island

Postby kevinkirby » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:06 pm

Careful, or somebody might donate it to a medical school.

Donald Petersen
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Postby Donald Petersen » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:26 pm

Duane wrote:From the trailer, I immediately surmise two, count them TWO idiocies:

Idiocy the first: Floating motorcycles. Review Newton's Laws, JJ! Without contact with the ground, you can't control direction without using a tremendous amount of energy. Imagine sliding across a sheet of wet ice on one foot. Now imagine changing directions on a dime! I know, I know, anti gravity. But guess what? "Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction." Who gets to replace the divots on the ground (and on any other building or surface every time one of those damn things turns a corner? You? Me? The Government??? Not bloody likely.

Idiocy the second: Please don't tell me we saw the USS Enterprise being assembled.... ON THE GROUND!!! PLEASE don't tell me I saw that! In the future, along with a flying car and a portable nuclear power plant in every nuclear family's garage, it is apparently more cost effective to assemble a structure as fragile and awkward as the Enterprise on the ground, THENNNN somehow get it up through the atmosphere into space! Oh, wait: does it blast off FROM Earth? If that's so, then who in the hell replaces THAT divot?

Not even the Obama administration could pull THAT off!!


(I'm still going to see it, though....)

Duane, the latter of these two bothered me because of the "set of reality" that we SF movie buffs have accumulated over the years. The speeder bikes from ROTJ (among other things), impossible as they are, somehow feel intuitively possible, especially when extrapolated from the familiar maneuvers of traditional wheeled motorcycles, jetskis, and fighter jets. And since we're used to seeing them in movies (like ROTJ, et al), it seems like a trope I could buy.

But even the Star Trek movies of thirty years ago showed (or at least strongly implied) starship construction and maintenance taking place in very high orbit at least. We're used to the idea of orbital space stations in the Trek universe, and it's been several decades since a serious SF movie or book has posited Earthbound construction of a large space vessel that is not specifically designed for atmospheric or suborbital flight. So seeing an actual starship on the ground is jarring. It just looks wrong. I'll buy everything from Warp Factor 10 to McCoy's tricorder to Scotty's transporter beam, but the Enterprise on the ground is just wrong wrong wrong.

User avatar
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby Duane » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:51 pm

Perhaps one of the lessons the "early" star fleet learns is that cumbersomely shaped starships blow over in a strong gust of wind....

Pasadena, eh? You guys get snow up there? :wink:

Donald Petersen
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Postby Donald Petersen » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:02 am

Heh... all that new Enterprise-under-construction needs is a spring-loaded kickstand and the image will be complete!

No snow down here on Montana St., but we can easily see it up the hill from us. Not as much this week as we had last month, though.

User avatar
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:52 pm

A friend of mine works on the movie (J.J. Abrams) and he says the Enterprise will have springs under the saucer section, so that it can be pushed down and abruptly released when the ship is finished.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:50 pm

Sorry folks I'm not psychic and I've been wrong before but I have a fairly reliable turd detector and when I saw the trailer for ST it went off big time.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:30 pm

I have an UPGRADED turd detector, so I didn't even have to SEE the trailer to KNOW.

Although the spring in the saucer could REALLY make the difference for ME.

User avatar
John E Williams
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:34 am

Postby John E Williams » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:17 pm

Coming in late, but still with lots to say:

1) 2001 is still the only film that ever made me believe I was in space. I remember as a kid watching with slackened jaw the awful, horrifying moment of dead silence when Bowman re-enters Discovery and knowing intuitively that the action and effects were exactly right. (I also felt, man and boy, that 2001 was one of the most turgidly boring films ever made, but scenes like that one were not the reason why.)

2) I reject the notion that entertainment vehicles which depict the epic vastness of space without whooshes and kapows risk losing a mass audience. That doesn't make a lick of sense. If you ask me, the reasons for this particular ritual of nonsense science are more likely a matter of creative laziness, slavish industry tradition, and perhaps even sheer ignorance. As 2001 showed, depicting the vacuum of space in an interesting and even exciting way is more than possible; it's just that no one ever bothers to even try.

3) I am oddly ambivalent about this new Star Trek 11 or whatever it's called. I watched the trailers expecting to feel all cranky and outraged, but instead I responded with a semi-interested shrug. As it turns out, I have moved beyond the need to feel proprietary about Star Trek, and thank god for that. The reason for this I think is that regardless of how much I loved and adored the stupid thing (which I did for most of my life), Star Trek is in the end a piece of junk. It's not a worthless piece of junk, it's a fun, loveable, at-times-inspiring, at-times-totally-retarded piece of junk, but make no mistake -- it is junk, and life is too short to get one's pants in a wad over junk. I see this new thing as someone else's Star Trek, and god love 'em, I hope it's as fun a companion for them as mine was for me -- but I doubt it. They'd be much better off hanging out with original, fabulously fun modern junk like LOST.

Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests