These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#101 - 2012-12-23 15:56:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
jason hill wrote:
he he
funney Big smile



um...........no.

Fantasy Island has absolutely no relevance towards the Star Trek Sequel.

Please stop posting.

"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
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#102 - 2012-12-23 18:00:03 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
jason hill wrote:
he he
funney Big smile



um...........no.

Fantasy Island has absolutely no relevance towards the Star Trek Sequel.

Please stop posting.


I think it's a reference to the actor in Fantasy Island ... Ricardo Montalban ....

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#103 - 2012-12-23 18:11:18 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
jason hill wrote:
he he
funney Big smile



um...........no.

Fantasy Island has absolutely no relevance towards the Star Trek Sequel.

Please stop posting.


I think it's a reference to the actor in Fantasy Island ... Ricardo Montalban ....



Maybe so, but the character has been confirmed as to not be featured in "Star Trek: Into Darkness". (I'm still laughing at the lens flairs added to the poster by Cracked).

"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
Borascus
#104 - 2012-12-23 18:12:20 UTC
I really thought you'd locked this thread.

Blatant Abrams Trolling is Blatant! might have caused a second degree thread-locking.

http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/12/23/Benedict-Cumberbatch-Also-Reveals-Details-of-His-Villain-John-Harrison-in-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-MINOR-SPOILER.shtml

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#105 - 2012-12-23 18:14:37 UTC
This outdoes the Fantasy Island clip if you really want to go there:

1975 Chrysler Cordoba Ad

"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
#106 - 2012-12-23 18:16:34 UTC
Borascus wrote:
I really thought you'd locked this thread.

Blatant Abrams Trolling is Blatant! might have caused a second degree thread-locking.



Erm, thanks for posting but this really makes no sense.

"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
#107 - 2012-12-27 18:14:24 UTC
New article: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/60161

So, villain is 'sorta superhuman'. Name 'John Harrison' may be a ruse. Cryopods are visible in trailer. The villian is long confirmed to be from TOS.

What with the blonde girl also being confirmed as Dr. Carol Marcus, the winds seem to be swinging towards Khan again.

Gary Mitchell or Khan ?

"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
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#108 - 2012-12-27 19:57:45 UTC
Call me a Star Trek nerd if you want but I don't consider the Abrahamsverse Star Trek it does not have anything from Gene Roddenberry's original vision and replaces it with lots of explosions and unneeded drama.

The original series was far ahead of it's time, with a black woman as a member of the command crew and also having a peace message that is still almost unthinkable in most sci-fi-movies and series. The Klingons were for example often the antagonists but never the villains, which is a very important difference.

Abrahams starts with lots of drama, Kirk being born on a starship that is is about to be destroyed, his father sacrificing himself etc and continues with a romulan villain that decides to blow up planets because... um why exactly? Which makes him the kind of cardboard box villains I loathe to see in any movie, star trek or otherwise.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2012-12-27 21:05:06 UTC
AlleyKat wrote:
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!










yes but the first time the met not the wrath!
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#110 - 2012-12-27 21:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Tian Jade wrote:
Call me a Star Trek nerd if you want but I don't consider the Abrahamsverse Star Trek it does not have anything from Gene Roddenberry's original vision and replaces it with lots of explosions and unneeded drama.

The original series was far ahead of it's time, with a black woman as a member of the command crew and also having a peace message that is still almost unthinkable in most sci-fi-movies and series. The Klingons were for example often the antagonists but never the villains, which is a very important difference.

Abrahams starts with lots of drama, Kirk being born on a starship that is is about to be destroyed, his father sacrificing himself etc and continues with a romulan villain that decides to blow up planets because... um why exactly? Which makes him the kind of cardboard box villains I loathe to see in any movie, star trek or otherwise.


Everything in your 2nd paragraph that you said was not in the film is. Either you are a moron, or are trolling.

Also, he blows up a planet, not PLANETS. Vulcan. In fact not blown up. IMPLODED. Why ? Because Spock failed to save Romulus from a supernova.

I don't think you even watched the film.

We've so far seen one whole movie that was not even 2 hours long from Abrams. And it was an introductory film.

This thread is about the upcoming film and speculation, not your bad mood.

But if you insist, I was born a year before TOS hit the airwaves and have watched it since it's first syndicated rerun in 1972, so I've tuned in for 40 years + now. I have no problem at all with Star Trek 2.0

What do you want, more scenes of people sitting around a table endlessly debating political and ethical concerns ? Badly executed death scenes like Kirk's ?

I see you have no bounty so far, so I took care of that for you. Have a nice day.

"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
Dray
C.O.D.E
#111 - 2012-12-28 03:03:45 UTC
Tian Jade wrote:
Call me a Star Trek nerd if you want but I don't consider the Abrahamsverse Star Trek it does not have anything from Gene Roddenberry's original vision and replaces it with lots of explosions and unneeded drama.

The original series was far ahead of it's time, with a black woman as a member of the command crew and also having a peace message that is still almost unthinkable in most sci-fi-movies and series. The Klingons were for example often the antagonists but never the villains, which is a very important difference.

Abrahams starts with lots of drama, Kirk being born on a starship that is is about to be destroyed, his father sacrificing himself etc and continues with a romulan villain that decides to blow up planets because... um why exactly? Which makes him the kind of cardboard box villains I loathe to see in any movie, star trek or otherwise.



I loved the original ST but the next gen stuff for me was dire and instantly forgettable, ST desperately need a change and if I'm honest I wasn't looking forward to JJ Abrahams effort, I was wrong and quite enjoyed it, in fact the weakest character for me is Kirk himself, not sold on Chris Pine at all, Quinto and Urban stole the show for me and I'm looking forward to the next movie.

As for the Original movies the first 2 are great and the 3rd is ok, the rest f**king dreadful including the next gen cast movies, I'd sooner nail gun my **** to a bench then watch any of them, it's less painful and over quicker.

I think there's a lot of rose tinted glasses around as well, as much as I love the Wrath of Khan, it's hardly a towering performance by Montalban, it's good but it's a bit camp to be fair.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#112 - 2012-12-28 03:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Yeah. I did enjoy VI: The Undiscovered Country, but then it did have the same director as Wrath of Khan. I also enjoyed First Contact, but the rest of the Next Gen movies were action misfires with a non-action ensemble cast being misused.


edit: 5 typos for sakes......................

"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.
#113 - 2012-12-28 04:59:59 UTC
Dray wrote:
I think there's a lot of rose tinted glasses around as well, as much as I love the Wrath of Khan, it's hardly a towering performance by Montalban, it's good but it's a bit camp to be fair.


The directors commentary for the Wrath of Khan is very interesting from a character perspective.

The director speaks about Montalaban and that he was in a bit of low point personally, and really wasn't sure whether he could add anything to the movie. Low Esteem from working on Fantasy Island for 5 long years, one might say. Nicholas Myer was very interested in pushing Montalban's acting ability and coached him/directed him as much as possible.

The interesting comment from Nick was regarding the first time we see Montalban. He told him that a character is most interesting when they are quiet, slow, deliberate - because if they are the bad guy, you are waiting for them to slit someones throat. He said to Montalban to take his time and almost whisper at Chekov, describing how his fate has been sealed and there is no escape for him.

Probably the most interesting scene in the film, and Montalban stole it, with ease. Love the bit when he is taking off his scarf....then one of his gloves (Montalban's idea to leave one on)...and then the face mask comes off...it's cinematic poetry with no lines of dialogue to mess it up.

RIP Montalban.

AK

This space for rent.
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#114 - 2012-12-28 13:26:57 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:


Everything in your 2nd paragraph that you said was not in the film is. Either you are a moron, or are trolling.


Nice start with ad hominem attacks like a thirteen year old that just discovered the comment button on youtube.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Also, he blows up a planet, not PLANETS. Vulcan. In fact not blown up. IMPLODED. Why ? Because Spock failed to save Romulus from a supernova.


Blowing up /imploding/ disintegrating whatever is basically the same in movie-science. Abrahams wanted a bang and make sure that everyone understands that the original series and everything that followed does not exist any more in 'his' Star Trek.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I don't think you even watched the film.


Wrong

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
We've so far seen one whole movie that was not even 2 hours long from Abrams. And it was an introductory film.


The few teaser info we already got show the same premise as the first movie. A lot of destruction as an excuse to use the budget of special effects, but I will reserve judgement until I got to see the full movie.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
This thread is about the upcoming film and speculation, not your bad mood.


My mood is quite fine right now, but the sarcasm is off the scale. Thanks for asking.
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#115 - 2012-12-28 13:27:29 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
But if you insist, I was born a year before TOS hit the airwaves and have watched it since it's first syndicated rerun in 1972, so I've tuned in for 40 years + now. I have no problem at all with Star Trek 2.0


You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Understood?

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
What do you want, more scenes of people sitting around a table endlessly debating political and ethical concerns ? Badly executed death scenes like Kirk's ?


What I really wanted was more Star Trek that build on the existing material. I consider Star Trek: The undiscovered country and Star Trek: The first Contact as the best of the series, for different reasons, but I never said all Star Trek movies and scenes should be the same.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I see you have no bounty so far, so I took care of that for you. Have a nice day.


Come on, I am in a very small corporation, you could at least cough up the ISK for a for a wardec. This makes you look not only petty, but also cheap.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#116 - 2012-12-28 13:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Tian Jade wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:


Everything in your 2nd paragraph that you said was not in the film is. Either you are a moron, or are trolling.


Nice start with ad hominem attacks like a thirteen year old that just discovered the comment button on youtube.




Sorry but I must base my opinion on the material as presented, and it was very very not thought out on your part. Still makes no sense whatsoever, and still sounds like a troll.

Oh well, it doesn't matter as even among lifelong fans you are in a tiny, tiny minority in your opinion......which came across as that of a 13 year old....indeed.



edit: also your posting was way off topic as, again, it had absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd film speculation conversation AT ALL. Derailed utterly.

"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
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#117 - 2012-12-28 13:40:20 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Tian Jade wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:


Everything in your 2nd paragraph that you said was not in the film is. Either you are a moron, or are trolling.


Nice start with ad hominem attacks like a thirteen year old that just discovered the comment button on youtube.




Sorry but I must base my opinion on the material as presented, and it was very very not thought out on your part. Still makes no sense whatsoever, and still sounds like a troll.

Oh well, it doesn't matter as even among lifelong fans you are in a tiny, tiny minority in your opinion......which came across as that of a 13 year old....indeed.



edit: also your posting was way off topic as, again, it had absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd film speculation conversation AT ALL. Derailed utterly.


I did not derail the thread I was just pointing out that I don't trust Abrahams ability to make another Star Trek movie. Warp-capable beer-breweries are an awesome idea in itself, but I don't want any of them called Enterprise.

No I was not trolling but I think you are.

I mentioned before, there are ingame means for you to settle this if you want to get me. Smile
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#118 - 2012-12-28 13:51:59 UTC
Tian Jade wrote:


No I was not trolling but I think you are.



That's about the last thing anyone familiar with my posts the past 3 years would say.

This is the RL equivalent of "I know you are but what am I, infinity".

As someone quite closely related to Star Trek once said "Get a life."

"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
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#119 - 2012-12-28 13:59:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tian Jade
You brought the matter on a personal level, which you are quick to forget.


Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
"Get a life."


Yes, I think you really should.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#120 - 2012-12-28 14:03:17 UTC
Tian Jade wrote:
You brought the matter on a personal level, which you are quick to forget.





Yes I did indeed, to point out your paper thin ideas in your OP and how distracting they were as they had nothing to do AT ALL with "Star Trek: Into Darkness".

"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