New Star Trek Page 147

  • Page

    of 179 First / Last

  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 15:10:45
    So did the other two.
  • oceanmotion 6 Dec 2012 15:11:40 15,641 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    oceanmotion wrote:
    Great news, they added Lindelof to the writing team, whereas before it was two other guys who did Transformers, arguably dodged a bullet right there, now for Lindelof bring the real pain.
    Lindelof worked on the first as well; that's why he's back for this.
    As a producer for the first film. More worried about his writing influence this time than being one of many producers attached to a film.
  • Scurrminator 6 Dec 2012 15:15:27 8,377 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    So were Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (as Exec Producers); they all worked on the script.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • CosmicFuzz 6 Dec 2012 15:19:58 23,120 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lindelof didn't get a writing credit though.

    Is anyone else getting a bit bored with remastered games? Read my thoughts!

  • RedSparrows 6 Dec 2012 15:20:35 21,977 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Didn't Lindelof also write Lost? Along with grandmaster shit, JJABRAMS?

    My rage knows no bounds, and very few facts.
  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 15:21:42
    Chris Pine was in Unstoppable.

    This is fun.
  • Gambit1977 6 Dec 2012 15:24:19 9,583 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Best thing Lindelof wrote was The Ultimates.
  • nickthegun 6 Dec 2012 15:29:33 58,782 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Which is some achievement since its widely credited to Mark Millar.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 6 Dec 2012 15:30:22 43,163 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lindehof wrote Lost. And what a fucking waste of time that was for everybody.

    Buz - given there are only two recogniseably Star Trek (nacelled et al) ships in the trailer, you would assume initially that they would be the Enterprise. But it doesn't seem that they bothered to include it in the trailer.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 15:31:14
    This isn't a trailer. This is a pre-teaser announcement reel.
  • LeoliansBro 6 Dec 2012 15:32:45 43,163 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's a trailer. Calling it something special is like calling a futon a 'chill out personal relaxation space'. It's still a futon.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 15:34:21
    It's a pre-announcement sneak peak clipshot preview of a teaser reel to be previewed before The Hobbit. In IMAX. On the moon.
  • RedSparrows 6 Dec 2012 15:37:58 21,977 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    IN 4D.
  • Gambit1977 6 Dec 2012 16:31:17 9,583 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @nickthegun comma and Wolverine vs Hulk missing :lol:
  • Scurrminator 6 Dec 2012 22:57:01 8,377 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I've watched the trailer several times and that is definitely the enterprise rising from the sea.
    You only see the nacelles rise BUT if you remember the redesign the nacelles were much higher than the saucer (you can actually see the edges of the saucer coming up in the HD version, bottom right).
    I reckon the other ship is sherlock's.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 23:07:44
    Maybe the villain is a whale and they're looking for vengeance after they were taken from their homes in Star Trek 4. Those shots are the whales taking their versions of the enterprise into space.
  • Spanky 6 Dec 2012 23:21:53 14,458 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Are they actually going to trek into space in this or are they just bobbing around chicago and london? I normally like some space shit in my scifi bobbins.

    Plubs

  • Khanivor 6 Dec 2012 23:24:44 40,356 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The ship rising sure looks like the Enterprise. The ship is not going up completely level though, the viewpoint is from underneath a wee bit.

    /ashamed
  • Madder-Max 7 Dec 2012 00:00:21 11,618 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I always wonder how the economy works in star trek. At what point do they do away with money and becom$e a meritocracy. In the original series kirk makes reference to the investment made in spock in terms of hundreds and thousands of monetary units. In later series they say about doing away with money (which sounds like communism) and enterprise and first contatc hint at a darker side.

    Most importantly of all however is this. Are the crew on zero contract hours?

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • DFawkes 7 Dec 2012 01:10:03 22,584 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    There's a simple explanation of money, or at least the complications of an entity like the Federation which doesn't deal with a common currency trading with other races.

    Basically, IT MAKES NO SENSE.

    NO. SENSE.


    There's also a helpful video on the subject here:

    Star Trek Economic Theory.

    Edited by DFawkes at 01:11:25 07-12-2012

    I'd kick the living daylights out of the producers of Tipping Point - Ghandi

  • RichieTenenbaum 7 Dec 2012 07:15:10 2,180 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Get ready

    BWAAAAAAAAAMMMPPP

    For vengeance

    BWAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMPPPP

    Inception has ruined trailers
  • Madder-Max 7 Dec 2012 07:46:21 11,618 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    DFawkes wrote:
    There's a simple explanation of money, or at least the complications of an entity like the Federation which doesn't deal with a common currency trading with other races.

    Basically, IT MAKES NO SENSE.

    NO. SENSE.


    There's also a helpful video on the subject here:

    Star Trek Economic Theory.
    That's brilliant

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • LeoliansBro 7 Dec 2012 08:28:47 43,163 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If that's the Enterprise, how can we not see the saucer yet but can see the secondary hull?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Buztafen 7 Dec 2012 08:49:07 16,059 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    If that's the Enterprise, how can we not see the saucer yet but can see the secondary hull?
    This, anyway my main point was the ship rising is not the same ship that's crashing later. Either could be a redesigned Enterprise (an A spec or somet) I'm betting they'll get a new ship that's 'fucking epic' at some point in the movie as they have done before...which will then be destroyed by some weak-ass weapon in the next film.

    Edited by Buztafen at 08:51:24 07-12-2012
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 09:23:28
    The saucer has been detached. Again.
  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Dec 2012 09:30:17 39,384 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Only a Galaxy class starship can do that and they haven't been invented for another 80 years.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Scurrminator 7 Dec 2012 09:37:23 8,377 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago


    That's just a render but the nacelles are higher than the saucer, you see the nacelles come up but not high enough that the saucer would be visible (the bridge is hidden by the angle and nacelle); If you look in the bottom right corner in a HD version you can see the edges of the saucer coming up.
    But the ship that crashes is definitely a different vessel. I'm guessing it might be Sherlock's being as we see him running around earth jumping through shop windows.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Scurrminator 7 Dec 2012 09:41:18 8,377 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Seems if you want to see the 9 minutes Cineworld has Exclusivity on the deal here

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • LeoliansBro 7 Dec 2012 09:42:29 43,163 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    So we're seeing the nacelles and ... what is the rest of it?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Dec 2012 09:43:23 39,384 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    That's bullshit or retarded. There's only 1 venue in London!

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 09:44:12 07-12-2012

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Page

    of 179 First / Last

Log in or register to reply