|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 11:49:38 GMT -5
The "trailer" is just test-CG footage.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 26, 2016 16:41:21 GMT -5
The "trailer" is just test-CG footage. It certainly is, in much the same way that the last teaser was just a look at the logo, but its still a little lackluster as it was very primitive animation...like the kind of stuff my friends were putting together for their animation classes back at school. If this was for a fan film I'd be saying it was great but I expect a lot more from the real thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 26, 2016 19:59:46 GMT -5
The "trailer" is just test-CG footage. It certainly is, in much the same way that the last teaser was just a look at the logo, but its still a little lackluster as it was very primitive animation...like the kind of stuff my friends were putting together for their animation classes back at school. If this was for a fan film I'd be saying it was great but I expect a lot more from the real thing. Plus the opening shot looks more like a rip-off of 2001 than a homage. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 26, 2016 20:45:14 GMT -5
It certainly is, in much the same way that the last teaser was just a look at the logo, but its still a little lackluster as it was very primitive animation...like the kind of stuff my friends were putting together for their animation classes back at school. If this was for a fan film I'd be saying it was great but I expect a lot more from the real thing. Plus the opening shot looks more like a rip-off of 2001 than a homage. Yeah, they definitely leaned pretty heavily on that imagery though I do like that they used Ralph McQuarrie's concept art.  |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 30, 2016 5:04:08 GMT -5
I lost all interest in the ST reboot after having to sit through the first Godawful film. That was one of the most eye-rollingly bad films, chock full of excruciatingly bad/corny dialogue, that I have ever seen. It had none of the philosophical message or heart that I associate with ST. But, in a film with many, many flaws, perhaps the worst was that it seemed ridiculous to me that Kirk, who had acted like a douche for the entire film, could suddenly take command of the Enterprise and that his crew would follow him. I just couldn't buy into that at all.
I don't know, I guess I'm not the target audience. I'm not a hardcore ST fan and really, if it hasn't got Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley in it, I'm not really interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Jul 30, 2016 16:16:46 GMT -5
I lost all interest in the ST reboot after having to sit through the first Godawful film. That was one of the most eye-rollingly bad films, chock full of excruciatingly bad/corny dialogue, that I have ever seen. It had none of the philosophical message or heart that I associate with ST. But, in a film with many, many flaws, perhaps the worst was that it seemed ridiculous to me that Kirk, who had acted like a douche for the entire film, could suddenly take command of the Enterprise and that his crew would follow him. I just couldn't buy into that at all. I don't know, I guess I'm not the target audience. I'm not a hardcore ST fan and really, if it hasn't got Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley in it, I'm not really interested. That's how I initially felt about Star Trek 2009, but I made peace with the notion that they weren't going for the 'seek out new life and new civilisations' angle and picked a more action-driven high-energy approach instead. The portrayal of the characters began to click with me, and by the time 'Into Darkness' came along I was hooked on the various character arcs as well as the greater plotline. Haven't been motivated to watch Beyond, strangely enough, but that's because there are a lot of other movies I'd like to see instead and spend my money on. I can always see it later on DVD. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 30, 2016 18:33:45 GMT -5
I just watched the final episode of Voyager. It had the same qulities and flaws as the rest of the series.
Qualities : we care about these characters.
Flaws : the basic plot itself makes little sense. The story's conclusion introduces ground shaking changes that are never addressed again.
spoiler space for those who care and still haven't seen it...
An older admiral Janeway, ten years after the return of Voyager on Earth, decides to use time-travel technology to go back in time and make sure Voyager returns home faster than it did. (We are told it took something like twenty years for the ship to finally return to the alpha quadrant). Seems that Janeway feels guilty about all her crewmates who died during those long Her plan involves getting the Voyager from long ago to go to a Borg transwarp conduit node and use it to get gome.
Oh, god, where to begin? If Janeway can time-travel, why not just keep Voyager from getting lost in the first place? Why bring along anti-Borg weapons and shield that might fall into their hands (which they do?) I'm sure that the prospect of the Borg getting their hands on future tech ology is WAY more frightening that the idea Seven of nine died a few years ago.
Voyager naturally returns home after all, loaded with futuristic torpedoes that can blow up a Borg cube in one shot and shields that can resist their weapons. Will those change the balance of power in the alpha quadrant? Apparently not, since in the subsequent Star Trek films (in which we even meet admiral Janeway), they don't seem to play much of a role.
*sigh*
I remember now why I was never mich of a fan of the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Jul 31, 2016 20:52:56 GMT -5
Recently caught the Descent two-part episode on BBC America with the Sons of Soong. I was rather surprised by how well it's aged. The conflict between Lore and Data was good and it's always fun seeing Crusher operating outside her comfort zone of the med bay. Although I was surprised when the wife told me that the actor who currently plays the medical examiner on TNT's Major Crimes played Hugh the Borg.
So, if the movie reboot timeline has been labeled as the Kelvin timeline, then should fans of it be called Kelvinists? (With ALL apologies to Dave Sim!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 31, 2016 23:13:38 GMT -5
I've never really had an issue with the movies being more of a tentpole action film that's light on the big ideas Star Trek is known for. I generally think TV is a better space for Star Trek to explore its trademark morality play and issue-oriented plotlines. I look at the movies more as a chance to get the old gang together for some fun and laughs and big bangs. If that's all Star Trek was left with, then I think I'd be upset. But with TV and movies spread out covering different angles of the franchise, I think it's enough to appeal to fans in different ways. I enjoy the reboot films for what they are, but I wouldn't want them to be representative of all that Star Trek is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Aug 2, 2016 15:18:12 GMT -5
I just saw Beyond and quite liked it, a fun ride. By now, I think Pine, Quinto, Urban, and the others have really settled into 'their' versions of these characters and I found their individual drama plots in this film to be quite moving.
I don't expect cerebral from Abrams so yes, the action was intense and frantic but wrapped around that violence was some intriguing thoughts and discussion on the nature of the peaceful stance of the Federation and Starfleet. For me, that seemed to harken back to previous comments from the days of TNG by series writers like Ron Moore who thought about the seeming peaceful utopia of the Federation and wondered, 'where's the drama and conflict in that?' While this utopia was undoubtedly one of the largest appeals of Trek, it can put certain limits on the type of stories and conflict that can be told and Moore and some of the other writers naturally felt some of that constriction.
Also, I loved the very touching nod and respect to the passing of Nimoy within the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Aug 2, 2016 17:01:27 GMT -5
The Sisko had something to say about when Trek's Utopia met with reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 2, 2016 18:32:26 GMT -5
So apparently the new tv show is a part of the original continuity and not the continuity of the new movies and it takes place after Enterprise but before the original series. We'll see how it shakes out, there's nothing that has really blown me away yet but it's Trek so I'll probably enjoy it to some extent either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 2, 2016 22:04:45 GMT -5
So apparently the new tv show is a part of the original continuity and not the continuity of the new movies and it takes place after Enterprise but before the original series. We'll see how it shakes out, there's nothing that has really blown me away yet but it's Trek so I'll probably enjoy it to some extent either way. Does it matter which timeline they say it's in if it happens before TOS? Technically, couldn't it be in both? |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Aug 3, 2016 0:06:57 GMT -5
So apparently the new tv show is a part of the original continuity and not the continuity of the new movies and it takes place after Enterprise but before the original series. We'll see how it shakes out, there's nothing that has really blown me away yet but it's Trek so I'll probably enjoy it to some extent either way. Does it matter which timeline they say it's in if it happens before TOS? Technically, couldn't it be in both? Depends on how far before TOS. According to the first Abrams film, the Kelvin timeline split off from main continuity when Nero's ship traveled back to the past, which happened right around Kirk's birth. So if the TV show is set within Kirk's lifetime, they need to specify. Having said that -- I thought it was indicated a while ago that this show would not be taking place in the Kelvin timeline. Originally I heard that it was supposed be set between the events of Star Trek VI and TNG, but it looks like they decided to go back even further. I read an interview with Brian Fuller that said the hull registry of the new startship is the clue -- NCC-1031. Assuming that they are numbered in order, this would indicate that it takes place 670 starships prior to the Enterprise being constructed. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 3, 2016 0:32:07 GMT -5
Does it matter which timeline they say it's in if it happens before TOS? Technically, couldn't it be in both? Depends on how far before TOS. According to the first Abrams film, the Kelvin timeline split off from main continuity when Nero's ship traveled back to the past, which happened right around Kirk's birth. So if the TV show is set within Kirk's lifetime, they need to specify. Having said that -- I thought it was indicated a while ago that this show would not be taking place in the Kelvin timeline. Originally I heard that it was supposed be set between the events of Star Trek VI and TNG, but it looks like they decided to go back even further. I read an interview with Brian Fuller that said the hull registry of the new startship is the clue -- NCC-1031. Assuming that they are numbered in order, this would indicate that it takes place 670 starships prior to the Enterprise being constructed. More than 670 if any other starships got letters added after being rebuilt... |
|
