|
galagazombie posted:No one who makes this argument has ever seen the episode where Barclay fights worm monsters in the Transporter because that episode showed you remain conscious and intact when transporting, you just hang out in some limbo and can even get trapped there by the aforementioned worm monsters, Wait, that actually makes Transporters even more horrifying honestly. Nah that was just Barclay's latest transporter clone tripping out as the matter stream reintegrated him
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
galagazombie posted:you remain conscious and intact when transporting, you just hang out in some limbo and can even get trapped there by the aforementioned worm monsters, Wait, that actually makes Transporters even more horrifying honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Plus Kirk and Co keep talking throughout a beam up in Star Trek IV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
And in VI, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
And II.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
And I. You know, if screaming counts. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
loving Transporters. I mean, do they not have a Wiki in the future for transporter accidents? We have; Transporter experiments leaving dudes in limbo for decades (enterprise) Beaming a dude up during a windstorm and having leaves integrated into his body (enterprise) Rocks fusing themselves into the walls of the transporter booth (Enterprise) Evil mirror universe kirk/dog (TOS) Out-of-phase Kirk (TOS) Melty people (TMP) Out of phase Geordi and Ro Laren (TNG) Splitting 1 person into 2 people (Thomas/Will Riker, TNG) De-Aging (TNG) loving Time Travel! (DS9) Being turned into a loving computer program! (DS9) loving TUVIX (VOY) Jesus. I think I see McCoy's point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Who in enterprise was left in limbo for decades? Scotty was but that was TNG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Doc Emerson's son.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:loving Transporters. I mean, do they not have a Wiki in the future for transporter accidents? Kirk was split into two people, Riker was duplicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Because if you could do this there'd be no tension because as soon as hostilities started each ship would beam the crew off the other ship and into space. The way transporters are depicted in Trek makes no sense and leads to all kinds of "why didn't they just use the transporter" scenarios. It only really makes sense if you are transporting from one pad to another; you need a transmitter and a receiver. Then you can save site-to-site transporting for those instances where you need to show how an alien has more advanced tech
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Also yeah, that wasn't mirror universe kirk. He was split into his positive and negative self or however they explained it. Both were one side of Kirk's personality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I think I read somewhere you can beam a baby out of the womb but it'll kill the mother? But like 100 years later they fix that problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Also yeah, that wasn't mirror universe kirk. He was split into his positive and negative self or however they explained it. Both were one side of Kirk's personality. However, the Mirror Universe was ALSO reached via transporter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I know DS9 went a little into the press, but I would love to see tabloid news from the Star Trek universe, assuming all the random adventures that happen aren't classified. There must be whole cults worshipping the Q and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Just sat through the Motion Picture and after sitting through the long, deliberate fetishisation shots of the Enterprise it reminded me of something that really bothered me about Beyond. No one seemed particularly upset at the fact the Enterprise was completely and utterly destroyed, let alone the many red shirts alongside her (I suppose that latter part is as per normal). I don't recall Scotty even minding much at all, who the first time we see post Enterprise destruction is joking around. Well into the movie, Kirk does push on a bit about saving the crew, but generally does not seem to acknowledge that he's practically lost half of them already. It's been years since I've seen Star Trek 3, so I can't remember how it was dealt with there, but I thought they'd be pissed. It feels like they were all aware they would just get another one and continue as if nothing happened. I generally enjoyed the movie, but that point felt particularly off to me, given what we've come to associate with this those characters and this franchise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
In III Kirk is literally like "My God what have I done." With a thousand yard stare as we see its remain come down. McCoy tells him he just did what he did best by turning their imminent death into a fighting chance to live again. The Enterprise even just having to crash land in Generations is like a huge deal, and at the end of Trek 4 them getting a new Enterprise is like super awe inspiring to them. I haven't seen Beyond (or even Into Darkness) yet but the ship not being hyper feitishized as their home, life and reason to exist is really unusual for Star Trek in general. And you see that in tons of sci-fi even today even in video games. So it not being in Beyond would definitely stand out to me too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
The burning corpse of Enterprise hitting atmo on the Genesis planet was in the commercials for the movie. Star Trek III is the first movie I can remember seeing in theater, and even having it spoiled and even being such a young age it was just shock. ST3 is the weakest of the original movies in my book, but that sequence and Kirk's questioning still really gets me. It's weird because I grew up with TNG as my main Trek and it was my favorite show at the time, but in Generations the destruction of the ship was more of a "oh, wow", while the death of the original Enterprise feels solemn and depressing at its passing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
It would be nice if it were illegal to spoil huge moments of a movie in trailer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:It would be nice if it were illegal to spoil huge moments of a movie in trailer. Remember when Gandalf was in the trailers for the LotR:Two Towers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:It would be nice if it were illegal to spoil huge moments of a movie in trailer. Roddenberry was pissed after he read the script and learned that the Enterprise was getting blown up, so he leaked it to the fanzines. (Just as he did with Spock's death, which is why Meyer put it into the Kobayashi Maru bit at the beginning of II, as a fake-out.) Since Star Trek was never a huge moneymaker, Paramount decided to put the destruction in the commercials for III just to try to draw in new eyes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
So glad I never saw a trailer for III, because the whole sequence from Kirk starting the self-destruct to the Enterprise burning up had me start out going "No, wait, they can't blow up the Enterprise" through sheer stunned disbelief as they actually did to "holy poo poo, that hit me as hard as when Spock died."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
You know, for all the flak Star Trek 2009 gets it sure isn't that far off from 1991's abandoned "Star Trek: The First Adventure" (what a god awful title):quote:"In outline form, it was the story of Kirk and Spock meeting for the first time as cadets here on Earth. We've got a young Jim Kirk, who's kind of cocky and wild. He's not exactly what you might think starship captain material might be. He's like one of these kids who would rather fly hot planes and chase girls. Spock is this brilliant, arrogant, aloof to the point of obnoxiousness, genius. It's this mask he's hiding behind to cover his own conflicting Human emotions. He's an outcast, he left Vulcan in shame against his father's wishes and, like all adolescents, he's trying to find a place to fit in, but he keeps screwing it up."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
We rewatched Star Trek III tonight! It was fun. All three of the nuTrek movies are better
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:In III Kirk is literally like "My God what have I done." With a thousand yard stare as we see its remain come down. McCoy tells him he just did what he did best by turning their imminent death into a fighting chance to live again. The Enterprise even just having to crash land in Generations is like a huge deal, and at the end of Trek 4 them getting a new Enterprise is like super awe inspiring to them. The event itself in Beyond is treated hugely - hell, the death throes of the ship go on for about 20 minutes as it's torn to shreds piece by piece, and the final part of the saucer crashing on Altima is epic tragic music and all - but they kinda move on fairly quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
If I were to have one criticism of Beyond, it's that it's a bit rushed. I wish there was a bit more downtime in there for moments like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:It would be nice if it were illegal to spoil huge moments of a movie in trailer. - James Cameron, 1991
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Movie companies don't give a poo poo if you enjoy the movie, as long as you bought the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
ElectricSheep posted:- James Cameron, 1991 People say this but everyone one earth knew Arnold was the good guy this time even way before any trailers were out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Yeah, it was spoiled for me on a news stand magazine before the main trailer had come out. The only trailer I'd seen at that point was a teaser on the VHS of Total Recall. This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgV7-MJwUBw
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Terminator 2 was built on three levels of marketing: announce the movie, then reveal there are two Terminators, and in the month prior to the movie's release, put out a trailer that unequivocally states Arnold is playing a good guy Terminator. But the key is that nothing about Cyberdyne or Miles Dyson or most of the actual plot or characterization is in the trailers - the twist that the first movie "stopping" the future only causes it to metamorphose into a different vector of occurrence, revealing that the Connors aren't just fighting machines, but rather fate itself now, is entirely covered up. Watching the trailer just makes it look like a giant chase film much in the vein of the first one, down to even seeming to have a strong horror tinge with the T-1000 melting through/into/from things and shoving sharp objects through doors and windows. They gave away Arnold being a good guy since Arnold was essentially a children's hero at this point and was like America's favorite movie star, period. It was a given based on where his career was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
My kid was 8 or 9 when we introduced him to the Terminator movies last year, and somehow he'd already been spoiled and knew the twist in the second one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
I like the moment in III when Kirk stumbles backward when learning David was killed. Apparently it was totally accidental but it really helps sell the emotional weight of that scene. The overarching theme of the trek films from II to VI is living with consequences after the carefree adventures and while they have issues, taken as a whole I'm quite fond of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I like the moment in III when Kirk stumbles backward when learning David was killed. Apparently it was totally accidental The fall during rehearsals was accidental. The fall in the actual take used in the film was planned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Yeah, the camera movement there is way too on-target to be an accident during a take.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:Yeah, the camera movement there is way too on-target to be an accident during a take. Also, Shatner braces himself before he trips. He really telegraphs it. As originally planned, Kirk was to fall backwards into his chair, Nimoy's idea being that it was his one place of refuge. During rehearsal, Shatner forgot about the step between the floor and the elevated deck the chair was on, and did a swan dive with a half-gainer. Nimoy loved it and said that's how they should shoot it. I'm not sure how the "it was totally accidental" thing became such a widely accepted urban legend, considering Shatner himself -- who's no stranger to stretching the truth -- cops to it in one of his books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I thought you were agreeing with the Beyond/Who comparison. The argument was that Beyond wasn't like Who because it has in-universe explanations for what happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Taear posted:The argument was that Beyond wasn't like Who because it has in-universe explanations for what happens. Yeah. I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Timby posted:Also, Shatner braces himself before he trips. He really telegraphs it. As originally planned, Kirk was to fall backwards into his chair, Nimoy's idea being that it was his one place of refuge. During rehearsal, Shatner forgot about the step between the floor and the elevated deck the chair was on, and did a swan dive with a half-gainer. Nimoy loved it and said that's how they should shoot it. It's such a good scene though. When people say that Shatner can't act, I point to THAT scene, and the Starship Porn from TMP, when you can see the reflection of the Enterprise in the window and there's more emotion on his face in that ONE goddamn scene than in all of Nemesis. Except for Troi crying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
So apparently both Chris Pine and the two guys who are supposedly writing the fourth of these have expressed interest in an old fashioned beam-down-to-the-planet-and-see-what's-going-on. These are the guys who were originally writing Star Trek 3 before it became Beyond, and they said there may not even been a villain. Does anyone think the studio would allow it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:23
|
|