Author Topic: TREK XI - Images, Footage, Trailers, Enterprise, Discussion, etc. Thread (WARNING: SPOILERS) (Read 206787 times)

JimmyB76 · « **Reply #1300 on:** May 17, 2009, 10:57:28 AM »

Quote from: Trim on May 17, 2009, 10:24:58 AM

You had the chance to see this yet Jimmy? Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and read all this crap since my last post. :mrgreen:

heya! ya i did see it... ill find where i posted how i felt about it some pages back...

edit - here's my posts

Quote from: JimmyB76 on May 11, 2009, 07:02:43 PM

well, my bf (who is also a major trek fan) thought it was awesome and wants to see it again...
me, i dunno... it was ok, i guess... it had every element i thought it would have; it was a little cheesy here and there, it was a little over the top, a little too fast-paced, too many "close calls", very much Hollywoodized, and there were a number of things i kinda didnt like about it...
but the movie overall was ok... i wasnt very disappointed, but i wasnt very impressed either... if this is the road Star Trek is going to be going on from now on, i just don't think i'll be a big fan of this "new timeline" and all the drastic changes in it...
i'd give it a 6/10 personally...

Quote from: JimmyB76 on May 11, 2009, 09:00:02 PM

another friend of mine was supposed to go with us, but couldnt make it at the last minute, i would have liked to hear his review since he knows absolutely nothing about anything-Trek...
the movie wasnt all bad, there were some things that irked me... when did Romulans start tattooing their faces, anyway? there were some really unTrek-like factors (i guess that was the writers intentions?), it didnt feel all that familiar to me... and i would have never guessed Kirk was into The Beastie Boys lol but that's just the "sell-out" factor modern movies are laced with, to appeal to the generic audience they are targeting... oh, and the product placements lol also, i didnt really dig the whole Spock-Uhura thing; that and all the other things that are just so very unlike anything original Trek was... and unless i misunderstood something, Kirk was a cadet and was promoted to first officer? huh? a cadet to first officer just like that? and then given command, surpassing all the other higher ranking officers? (did i misunderstand something?) there were a number of things i spotted that were just a little unrealistic... (i wont list all of them lol most of them have already been said anyway)
i dunno, im just not a fan of this whole new thing... im sure ill see the sequel anyway, im just not particularly enthusiastic about this whole thing; thats just how i feel...
as far as the poll, i'd go with "It was ok. I wasn't thrilled, but I wasn't disappointed either." i feel completely in the middle...

Quote from: JimmyB76 on May 12, 2009, 09:47:52 PM

i am so getting sick of hearing "oh ya, that was explained in the comic book!" why on earth should reading a comic book be a prerequisite or whatever to understanding the movie? maybe they should have had an announcement in the beginning of the movie to the audience to read it so they understand the movie itself and all the confusing quirks...
another major weak point in writing of this movie... a movie should not need a comic book to explain many details and confusions, it should actually be the other way around...

Quote from: blaXXer on May 17, 2009, 10:39:43 AM

Hey there, Sparky, long time no see.

good to see ya again!

i started thinking you didnt like us anymore or that you were too cool for us these days

blaXXer · « **Reply #1301 on:** May 17, 2009, 11:45:37 AM »

I don't. I am.

j/k

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #1302 on:** May 17, 2009, 03:10:49 PM »

How does the new movie NOT conform with the themes of previous Trek? Let's see, does it show a group of people who at first don't know each other well, don't quite know each others' abilities, etc. etc. coming together to face against something bigger than themselves? Yes. Yes it does. It shows the crew of the Enterprise becoming a unified team.

Dalek · « **Reply #1303 on:** May 17, 2009, 04:01:18 PM »

I suppose the fact that it turned the Enterprise into a Galaxy class starship?

Nebula · « **Reply #1304 on:** May 17, 2009, 04:05:24 PM »

I don't know who are the ones who came up with the size chart but that is completely wrong....
the windows and other sections of the ship would be completely off scale.

Dalek · « **Reply #1305 on:** May 17, 2009, 04:09:28 PM »

Thats my issue. If it was that big, the shuttles would be a lot smaller.

blaXXer · « **Reply #1306 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:23:45 PM »

Quote from: Dalekanium2 on May 17, 2009, 04:01:18 PM

I suppose the fact that it turned the Enterprise into a Galaxy class starship?

And even if it were bigger, so what? How does that make the movie crap?!

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #1307 on:** May 17, 2009, 07:05:35 PM »

Quote from: Nebula on May 17, 2009, 04:05:24 PM

I don't know who are the ones who came up with the size chart but that is completely wrong....
the windows and other sections of the ship would be completely off scale.

Well they got the length from a person from the production.

Senator · « **Reply #1308 on:** May 17, 2009, 07:18:23 PM »

Quote from: Dalekanium2 on May 17, 2009, 04:01:18 PM

I suppose the fact that it turned the Enterprise into a Galaxy class starship?

Yes, BUT. If the Enterprise A is so big, imagine how big a Galaxy class starship in the JJverse is going to be!

Billz · « **Reply #1309 on:** May 17, 2009, 07:29:11 PM »

The JJPrise is roughly the same size as the TOS Enterprise. Its kinda easy to tell how big it is.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #1310 on:** May 17, 2009, 07:34:44 PM »

Quote from: Billz on May 17, 2009, 07:29:11 PM

The JJPrise is roughly the same size as the TOS Enterprise. Its kinda easy to tell how big it is.

I use the "TMP-style saucer" as reference, to conclude that the JJverse Connie is roughly the same size as the TMP Connie. Hell would literally have to freeze over before I believe it to be over 700 meters in length.

Okay, so the engine room and shuttlebay weren't necessarily it's correct size. It wouldn't be the first time in Star Trek history that stuff appears to be bigger on the inside, than it's suppose to be externally. Voyagers shuttle bay being a prime example. We know for a fact that it's not very big, and yet somehow it manages to contain: A full shuttle compliment, the Delta Flyer as well as Neelix's cargo ship. And nobody bats an eye about that? Puh-lease. *sarcasm*

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #1311 on:** May 17, 2009, 09:41:20 PM »

Once again, I say that I don't believe the TMP Enterprise is as small as it's made out to be, otherwise crew members walking on the top deck of the saucer rim would have windows at their feet.

EDIT: Paramount's thinking big. They're predicting $400 million worldwide by the end of the theatrical run. :shock:

blaXXer · « **Reply #1312 on:** May 18, 2009, 01:44:30 AM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on May 17, 2009, 09:41:20 PM

Once again, I say that I don't believe the TMP Enterprise is as small as it's made out to be, otherwise crew members walking on the top deck of the saucer rim would have windows at their feet.

EDIT: Paramount's thinking big. They're predicting $400 million worldwide by the end of the theatrical run. :shock:

Then guess how much the DVD release will make ;) Trek's popular again. YAY us!

Darkthunder · « **Reply #1313 on:** May 18, 2009, 03:38:11 AM »

Nay-sayers be damned

Dalek · « **Reply #1314 on:** May 18, 2009, 11:39:17 AM »

Quote from: Senator on May 17, 2009, 07:18:23 PM

Quote from: Dalekanium2 on May 17, 2009, 04:01:18 PM
I suppose the fact that it turned the Enterprise into a Galaxy class starship?
imagine how big a Galaxy class starship in the JJverse is going to be!

Would "bloody stupid" be the correct answer?

Quote from: Kori Barnes on May 17, 2009, 07:05:35 PM

Quote from: Nebula on May 17, 2009, 04:05:24 PM
I don't know who are the ones who came up with the size chart but that is completely wrong....
the windows and other sections of the ship would be completely off scale.

Well they got the length from a person from the production.

Then he doesn't know wtf he's on about then! The windows would have to be the size of cinema screens!

RCgothic · « **Reply #1315 on:** May 18, 2009, 12:20:35 PM »

Memory alpha runs six supposedly backscreen lengths. 725m, 600m, 900m or 760m.

The most plausible is 760m from http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com/ww/

Also, the windows are barely large enough to be individually resolved, so I have no doubts about a 760m length, given the size of interior sets and the shuttles. http://screenrant.com/new-star-trek-movie-uss-enterprise-vic-4205/

limey BSc. · « **Reply #1316 on:** May 18, 2009, 01:44:03 PM »

Quote from: RCgothic on May 18, 2009, 12:20:35 PM

Memory alpha runs six supposedly backscreen lengths. 725m, 600m, 900m or 760m.

The most plausible is 760m from http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com/ww/

Also, the windows are barely large enough to be individually resolved, so I have no doubts about a 760m length, given the size of interior sets and the shuttles. http://screenrant.com/new-star-trek-movie-uss-enterprise-vic-4205/

Quote from: Darkthunder on May 17, 2009, 07:34:44 PM

Hell would literally have to freeze over before I believe it to be over 700 meters in length.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #1317 on:** May 18, 2009, 03:54:33 PM »

If that was suppose to be sarcasm, you failed at it

captain_obvious · « **Reply #1318 on:** May 18, 2009, 05:50:49 PM »

Quote from: Darkthunder on May 17, 2009, 10:56:16 AM

Paul Mcgillion should've been Scotty all along, but instead he got a bit part in the new movie, some instructor at the academy, handing out assignments.

BOO!!! HISSS!!!! HERESY!!!! *throws toaster*
:arms:

limey BSc. · « **Reply #1319 on:** May 18, 2009, 05:53:24 PM »

Quote from: captain_obvious on May 18, 2009, 05:50:49 PM

BOO!!! HISSS!!!! HERESY!!!! *throws toaster*
:arms:

He's a far better Scot than Simon Pegg!

News:

Author Topic: TREK XI - Images, Footage, Trailers, Enterprise, Discussion, etc. Thread (WARNING: SPOILERS) (Read 206787 times)