These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

'Star Trek 2.0 II' : UPDATED Post 121

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#61 - 2012-12-07 04:06:04 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Let's not assume that they're going to restrict themselves to TOS villains.




One of the very few things that have been said officially is that the villain is from TOS.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#62 - 2012-12-07 04:15:13 UTC
Oh, there was this little blunder as well by Karl Urban (McCoy): http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/11/12664665-so-maybe-khans-not-star-trek-2-villain-after-all?lite

Would be funny if most of the trailer was fake........and the villain is really The Gorn Smile


Although it wouldn't quite be lying to say the villain is "Sherlock Holmes".

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#63 - 2012-12-07 04:19:23 UTC
Mark Munoz wrote:
I find the Star Trek fan base fascinating they are crazy die hard and extremely protective of the series and everything pertaining to it. Almost as if it wasn't SciFi and was future history being told in the past. :)



Welp, their communicators do indeed look like cell phones.



William Gibson famously said “The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed."

The Economist, December 4, 2003”
― William Gibson

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-12-07 07:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:


Americans will always use Brits as the bad guy as Brits sound like they are actually educated. We can't have such things in America anymore, doncha know ?


It's actually a thing in SWTOR voiceacting. The empire people are played by Brits, the Republic by US folk.

Mark Munoz wrote:
I find the Star Trek fan base fascinating they are crazy die hard and extremely protective of the series and everything pertaining to it. Almost as if it wasn't SciFi and was future history being told in the past. :)


And you don't find Eve players die hard and extremely protective when the game is suggested to change? Fanboyism is universal..

As to the topic, I don't think I can be bothered about this. I'm a fan of the old Star trek from STNG forwards, but not this new incarnation. As I've said before, I managed to watch the first retcon movie by getting drunk first.
I know this retcon is more in the spirit of the original series, as it was more about action, but I still don't like it. I preferred star trek where problems were solved using brains instead of guns.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Borascus
#65 - 2012-12-07 12:11:21 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Oh, there was this little blunder as well by Karl Urban (McCoy): http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/11/12664665-so-maybe-khans-not-star-trek-2-villain-after-all?lite

Would be funny if most of the trailer was fake........and the villain is really The Gorn Smile


Although it wouldn't quite be lying to say the villain is "Sherlock Holmes".



Basically, the spoiler by Bones has a massive spoiler. Then again if it Isn't and definitely isn't Khan what is up with the War-ZONE planet.

Usually: War-torn
Something Random
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-12-07 21:48:04 UTC
Its Gary Mitchell for sure, and its all explained here, goto the end paragraph for TL/DR and follow alternate reality.

I like JJ's Star Trek, and i like the path hes chosen.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#67 - 2012-12-07 22:01:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Something Random wrote:
Its Gary Mitchell for sure, and its all explained here, goto the end paragraph for TL/DR and follow alternate reality.

I like JJ's Star Trek, and i like the path hes chosen.


Yeah.....if the movie follows that exact path, but we shall see.

For me really the proof, small though it is, is the pretty unknown blonde girl in the blue shirt seen immediately after Cumberbatch in the trailer. She just hads to be Dehner.

I don't understand why people even want to go to Khan again since that role depended specifically on the acting chops of Montalbahn. I personally would dread a re-tread. Like I said earlier, it would display non-confidence in the new ST universe and would smack of a cash grab.

It's scary how some just cannot think outside the box at all.

I also noticed at IMDB entry that it will also be an 80's flashback with minor roles for Peter Weller, and Heather Langenkamp! She's hardly been in anything at all but Wes Craven's stuff (Original and New Nightmare).


EDIT: changed Khan to Montalbahn. See, it's so ingrained I didn't even type Ricardo's name !

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Mark Munoz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-12-07 22:29:10 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:


Americans will always use Brits as the bad guy as Brits sound like they are actually educated. We can't have such things in America anymore, doncha know ?


It's actually a thing in SWTOR voiceacting. The empire people are played by Brits, the Republic by US folk.

Mark Munoz wrote:
I find the Star Trek fan base fascinating they are crazy die hard and extremely protective of the series and everything pertaining to it. Almost as if it wasn't SciFi and was future history being told in the past. :)


And you don't find Eve players die hard and extremely protective when the game is suggested to change? Fanboyism is universal..

As to the topic, I don't think I can be bothered about this. I'm a fan of the old Star trek from STNG forwards, but not this new incarnation. As I've said before, I managed to watch the first retcon movie by getting drunk first.
I know this retcon is more in the spirit of the original series, as it was more about action, but I still don't like it. I preferred star trek where problems were solved using brains instead of guns.


I was more referring to how people defend the viability of things. Such as how a blackhole acts, or guns, laser warp drives, etc. Fanboyism exists everywhere yes but what I am getting at is I find it fascinating that people go to such great lengths to prove that it COULD be true. That these things COULD exist. Its SciFi. I don't need explanations on the feasibility of its success just give me a good story and pretty explosions.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#69 - 2012-12-07 22:33:20 UTC
Mark Munoz wrote:


I was more referring to how people defend the viability of things. Such as how a blackhole acts, or guns, laser warp drives, etc. Fanboyism exists everywhere yes but what I am getting at is I find it fascinating that people go to such great lengths to prove that it COULD be true. That these things COULD exist. Its SciFi. I don't need explanations on the feasibility of its success just give me a good story and pretty explosions.



Whoa whoa whoa nelly for just a minute there...............

As a reader and watcher of SF for most of my 47 years, the ONLY thing that separates Ffantasy from SF is that true SF MUST be based in Actual or Theoritical Science. IT must be explainable. This is why Star Wars is not Science Fiction, it is Space Fantasy. With Fantasy, nothing has to be proven or be real at all. Without these factual or theoretical bases, you have no science fiction you have something else.

Mayhaps you should read Brian Aldiss' "Trillion Year Spree: A history of Science Fiction" so you will even know what you are posting about.

God I hope this was not a trollololol.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Mark Munoz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-12-07 23:36:07 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Mark Munoz wrote:


I was more referring to how people defend the viability of things. Such as how a blackhole acts, or guns, laser warp drives, etc. Fanboyism exists everywhere yes but what I am getting at is I find it fascinating that people go to such great lengths to prove that it COULD be true. That these things COULD exist. Its SciFi. I don't need explanations on the feasibility of its success just give me a good story and pretty explosions.



Whoa whoa whoa nelly for just a minute there...............

As a reader and watcher of SF for most of my 47 years, the ONLY thing that separates Ffantasy from SF is that true SF MUST be based in Actual or Theoritical Science. IT must be explainable. This is why Star Wars is not Science Fiction, it is Space Fantasy. With Fantasy, nothing has to be proven or be real at all. Without these factual or theoretical bases, you have no science fiction you have something else.

Mayhaps you should read Brian Aldiss' "Trillion Year Spree: A history of Science Fiction" so you will even know what you are posting about.

God I hope this was not a trollololol.


Clearly the mixup is that I don't make a distinction in fiction and fantasy. Sure it is wonderful that ideas are loosely based on scientific principles doesn't make the story any more true.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#71 - 2012-12-07 23:39:40 UTC
Mark Munoz wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Mark Munoz wrote:


I was more referring to how people defend the viability of things. Such as how a blackhole acts, or guns, laser warp drives, etc. Fanboyism exists everywhere yes but what I am getting at is I find it fascinating that people go to such great lengths to prove that it COULD be true. That these things COULD exist. Its SciFi. I don't need explanations on the feasibility of its success just give me a good story and pretty explosions.



Whoa whoa whoa nelly for just a minute there...............

As a reader and watcher of SF for most of my 47 years, the ONLY thing that separates Ffantasy from SF is that true SF MUST be based in Actual or Theoritical Science. IT must be explainable. This is why Star Wars is not Science Fiction, it is Space Fantasy. With Fantasy, nothing has to be proven or be real at all. Without these factual or theoretical bases, you have no science fiction you have something else.

Mayhaps you should read Brian Aldiss' "Trillion Year Spree: A history of Science Fiction" so you will even know what you are posting about.

God I hope this was not a trollololol.


Clearly the mixup is that I don't make a distinction in fiction and fantasy. Sure it is wonderful that ideas are loosely based on scientific principles doesn't make the story any more true.


I just wanted folks to be clear on the subject, that's all.

Besides, any great fiction is just writers telling the best lies.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#72 - 2012-12-10 07:06:50 UTC
Given the Stardate (2259) and Cumberbatch's deeply anglo appearance, there is no reason to believe he is Khan Noonien Singh. Even if you argue that this is a new timeline, and that Khan could've been roused from suspended animation earlier than 2267, you've still got to deal with the ethnicity issue. This can't be Khan.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59938

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#73 - 2012-12-10 12:56:30 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Given the Stardate (2259) and Cumberbatch's deeply anglo appearance, there is no reason to believe he is Khan Noonien Singh. Even if you argue that this is a new timeline, and that Khan could've been roused from suspended animation earlier than 2267, you've still got to deal with the ethnicity issue. This can't be Khan.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59938


Explain to me why a god would need a gun.

This space for rent.
Borascus
#74 - 2012-12-10 13:10:18 UTC
AlleyKat wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Given the Stardate (2259) and Cumberbatch's deeply anglo appearance, there is no reason to believe he is Khan Noonien Singh. Even if you argue that this is a new timeline, and that Khan could've been roused from suspended animation earlier than 2267, you've still got to deal with the ethnicity issue. This can't be Khan.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59938


Explain to me why a god would need a gun.


Why would someone with strong telekinetic powers need a gun?
ctx2007
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2012-12-10 21:38:01 UTC
Hmmm Peter Weller looks like its Robocop Blink

You only realise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#76 - 2012-12-10 22:29:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Alright this is getting stupid. Paramount releases this picture today. It's even at Huffington Post.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59945

There is indeed a character in the credits for the Space Seed (Khan) episode of TOS: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/fullcredits#cast

Regardless that does not seem to be a really important "iconic TOS character" as promised in earlier official news.

IMHO, at this point, the fans are sounding more angry and frustrated than intrigued, myself included. NOT a great way to promote your film at all. Boo Paramount.

Unless it really is Gary Mitchell under an assumed name at the start of the movie or something that is revealed later in the film, it's strange they would be so clumsy as to name him after that minor character from the Khan episode.

JJ Abrams just needs to get over the secrecy of his projects in this day and age, or just stay UTTERLY shut up till the end.

There, I feel better (pant, pant).


edit: reading further on the InterWebs this is indeed not going over well. We'll see what is said as official reaction. Have they not learned in 46 years not to tick off ST Fanboys ? Nope.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#77 - 2012-12-10 22:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Alright this is getting stupid. Paramount releases this picture today. It's even at Huffington Post.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59945

There is indeed a character in the credits for the Space Seed (Khan) episode of TOS: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/fullcredits#cast

Regardless that does not seem to be a really important "iconic TOS character" as promised in earlier official news.

IMHO, at this point, the fans are sounding more angry and frustrated than intrigued, myself included. NOT a great way to promote your film at all. Boo Paramount.

Unless it really is Gary Mitchell under an assumed name at the start of the movie or something that is revealed later in the film, it's strange they would be so clumsy as to name him after that minor character from the Khan episode.

JJ Abrams just needs to get over the secrecy of his projects in this day and age, or just stay UTTERLY shut up till the end.

There, I feel better (pant, pant).


edit: reading further on the InterWebs this is indeed not going over well. We'll see what is said as official reaction. Have they not learned in 46 years not to tick off ST Fanboys ? Nope.

Who? seems to be the most common reaction to this. The character is basicly so obscure, that it's practically a new one. I don't think it's a bad choice though. A new villain for a new star trek. I certainly hope that the new star wars trilogy goes the same route and clearly separates itself from the old, instead of just repeating it.
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#78 - 2012-12-10 23:24:03 UTC
So, he mentioned on the directors commentary that botany bay was next...we all inferred that as Khan...

Definitely not Gary Mitchell, then.

Good to be half right, even if it was arrogant assumption.

AK

This space for rent.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#79 - 2012-12-10 23:26:51 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Who? seems to be the most common reaction to this. The character is basicly so obscure, that it's practically a new one. I don't think it's a bad choice though. A new villain for a new star trek. I certainly hope that the new star wars trilogy goes the same route and clearly separates itself from the old, instead of just repeating it.



Yup. I'm not really sure what 'they' are trying to prove here.

I've been following movie pre-release news since I was 11 in 1976, and StarLog Magazine announced a film coming the next summer with a picture that had a really tall guy in a black cape and helmet and scary mask standing with hands on hips in a white curvy-bordered corridor. Smile

Even the news in 1982 right after "The Elepant Man" won Oscars and it was announced that David Lynch was being considered to direct "The Return of the Jedi", it was real news even if it didn't pan out (thank God). ((About 5 years ago David finally went into detail about that and he had already decided not to do it befor eeven meeting with Lucas. He seriously urged George to direct it himself telling him "It's your baby.") Of course he went with "Dune" though.

But this............is about the strangest deflection-styled PR Campaign I've ever witnessed.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#80 - 2012-12-10 23:30:08 UTC
AlleyKat wrote:
So, he mentioned on the directors commentary that botany bay was next...we all inferred that as Khan...

Definitely not Gary Mitchell, then.

Good to be half right, even if it was arrogant assumption.

AK



I don't know. The crewman named Harrison was the 'Unknown Redshirt" who Khan mentally 'suffocates' early in the episode on the bridge.

Serious obfuscation going on with the PR Department.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882