Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

star trek 11

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • star trek 11

    I'm not much of a star trek fan but i figure there's probably a few star trek fans on here! star trek 11
    the space that is mine



    We miss 'ya brother dime. We know your up there jamming with Cliff and Chuck. Stay metal :salute: :rockon:


  • #2
    Originally posted by tpryce93
    I'm not much of a star trek fan but i figure there's probably a few star trek fans on here! star trek 11


    I was just about to post this!

    Here's another link.

    http://www.trektoday.com/news/210406_01.shtml


    Looks like their trying to do a mixture of retro with fresh talent.

    JJ Abrahams is one of Hollywood's hottest commodities.

    I wonder if the new movie will have a new look or get the DS9 Trials and Tibblations treatment?

    If the want to stay with continuity then they should have the ole 60's look with everything.

    Needless to say, it sounds like a huge risk they're taking here. It's about time though. Star Trek hasn't taken any huge risks in years. Maybe this will revitalize the franchise.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is like a good news/bad news thing for me. Good news that JJ is doing that. That's actually HUGE.

      Bad news because I have so much less than no interest in that time period! I could care less how many blue babes Kirk bagged at the academy. To me, this is more like a historical documentary than an adventure.

      I've seen every episode of TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise (shut up, WhoDey...). I want something contemporary or in the future of that. I want the characters I love (and wouldn't an all-star cast kick arse?) and a large scale adventure. I don't want to learn about the acne-clearing properties of tribbles and the Kobiyashi Maru test, which at that point is probably nothing more than a PS7 game. If Enterprise is any indications as to the limitations the Federation was dealing with versus what we all know and love, then unless the Academy is located in one of the island's hatches from Lost and Evageline Lilly is at tactical I don't think it's going to reinvigorate the franchise. I think it's the exact opposite of what's needed.

      But that's just my long-winded and reference-laden opinion...
      Victory and defeat are matters of the temporary force of circumstance.



      Thanks, Snk16!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Eldritch
        This is like a good news/bad news thing for me. Good news that JJ is doing that. That's actually HUGE.

        Bad news because I have so much less than no interest in that time period! I could care less how many blue babes Kirk bagged at the academy. To me, this is more like a historical documentary than an adventure.

        I've seen every episode of TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise (shut up, WhoDey...). I want something contemporary or in the future of that. I want the characters I love (and wouldn't an all-star cast kick arse?) and a large scale adventure. I don't want to learn about the acne-clearing properties of tribbles and the Kobiyashi Maru test, which at that point is probably nothing more than a PS7 game. If Enterprise is any indications as to the limitations the Federation was dealing with versus what we all know and love, then unless the Academy is located in one of the island's hatches from Lost and Evageline Lilly is at tactical I don't think it's going to reinvigorate the franchise. I think it's the exact opposite of what's needed.

        But that's just my long-winded and reference-laden opinion...



        I think if they go 60's style with the movie than I'll be very interested. I think THAT might perk the interest of the general moving going public as well. If they make it a slightly more advanced looking like the show Enterprise, then I think the movie will be mostly ignored, Much like the last two Trek movies.

        Comment


        • #5
          BTW you can watch star trek enterprise the TV show on G4
          the space that is mine



          We miss 'ya brother dime. We know your up there jamming with Cliff and Chuck. Stay metal :salute: :rockon:

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tpryce93
            BTW you can watch star trek enterprise the TV show on G4

            I beleive you can watch Star Trek The Next Generation on there as well.

            Comment


            • #7
              I like Star Trek. I'll have to check this one out too.
              Emancipate your mind!
              The People's Poster

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Eldritch
                This is like a good news/bad news thing for me. Good news that JJ is doing that. That's actually HUGE.

                Bad news because I have so much less than no interest in that time period! I could care less how many blue babes Kirk bagged at the academy. To me, this is more like a historical documentary than an adventure.

                I've seen every episode of TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise (shut up, WhoDey...). I want something contemporary or in the future of that. I want the characters I love (and wouldn't an all-star cast kick arse?) and a large scale adventure. I don't want to learn about the acne-clearing properties of tribbles and the Kobiyashi Maru test, which at that point is probably nothing more than a PS7 game. If Enterprise is any indications as to the limitations the Federation was dealing with versus what we all know and love, then unless the Academy is located in one of the island's hatches from Lost and Evageline Lilly is at tactical I don't think it's going to reinvigorate the franchise. I think it's the exact opposite of what's needed.

                But that's just my long-winded and reference-laden opinion...
                Geek alert! Geek alert! Beep beep beep beep beep!



                With the exception of Voyager (which I deplored - THEY. LANDED. THE. SHIP. WTF) and Enterprise, which I just never got a chance to see, I'm actually a Trek fan, and I'll probably see this. I'd still rather see more DS9, though.
                HEAR ME ROAR!
                sigpic
                Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Much like the last two Trek movies
                  I very much enjoyed Nemesis and Insurrection.

                  I am very disappointed in this announcment and WILL NOT be watching it at all. I am not interested whatsoever. I truly believe this will be the last Star Trek movie. They (Paramount) are destroying the franchise.
                  The Browns are gone; I'm not a fan of the Impostors

                  The real Browns are in Baltimore, see?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
                    Geek alert! Geek alert! Beep beep beep beep beep!



                    With the exception of Voyager (which I deplored - THEY. LANDED. THE. SHIP. WTF) and Enterprise, which I just never got a chance to see, I'm actually a Trek fan, and I'll probably see this. I'd still rather see more DS9, though.


                    What was wrong with landing the ship?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Dark Knight
                      What was wrong with landing the ship?
                      Star cruisers are built in outer space because they lack the sufficient propulsion power to act against the gravitational pull of a planet inside its atmosphere. If this weren't a problem, there would be

                      1.) No need to beam people down planetside
                      2.) No space stations near inhabitable planets - they'd be redundant.
                      HEAR ME ROAR!
                      sigpic
                      Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
                        Star cruisers are built in outer space because they lack the sufficient propulsion power to act against the gravitational pull of a planet inside its atmosphere. If this weren't a problem, there would be

                        1.) No need to beam people down planetside
                        2.) No space stations near inhabitable planets - they'd be redundant.

                        Geek alert! Geek alert! Beep beep beep beep beep!


                        Victory and defeat are matters of the temporary force of circumstance.



                        Thanks, Snk16!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
                          Star cruisers are built in outer space because they lack the sufficient propulsion power to act against the gravitational pull of a planet inside its atmosphere. If this weren't a problem, there would be

                          1.) No need to beam people down planetside
                          2.) No space stations near inhabitable planets - they'd be redundant.

                          Voyager can break out of most Atmospheres using thrusters. It is a much smaller vessel than say the Galaxy Class Enterprise-D.

                          Just because you have transporter tech, it shouldn't negate a space vehicles landing capabilites. There plenty of reasons to land a ship that can not be helped with transporter technology.


                          Space Stations wouldn't be redundant. Not all Star Fleet vessels had landing capability.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Dark Knight
                            Voyager can break out of most Atmospheres using thrusters. It is a much smaller vessel than say the Galaxy Class Enterprise-D.

                            Just because you have transporter tech, it shouldn't negate a space vehicles landing capabilites. There plenty of reasons to land a ship that can not be helped with transporter technology.


                            Space Stations wouldn't be redundant. Not all Star Fleet vessels had landing capability.
                            I can see the smaller vessels, like transports and runabouts, having landing capability. However, the larger vessels with saucer arrays don't really make a whole lot of sense to me.

                            I'm not as big of a Star Trek geek as some, but I remember seeing that and it bothering me.

                            I didn't like Voyager anyhow, though.
                            HEAR ME ROAR!
                            sigpic
                            Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Eldritch
                              Geek alert! Geek alert! Beep beep beep beep beep!


                              Turnabout's fair play. Touche'.
                              HEAR ME ROAR!
                              sigpic
                              Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X