Star Trek!

[The Dark Side of Will]

Simon Pegg as Scotty?! Are you fucking kidding me? Forget it, this movie is going to blow.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/fullcredits

And Simon Pegg was in MI:III also... crap.

I hope that they don't try to push the pill to us that the entire original crew went through Starfleet Academy together. That would be absolutely ridiculous and I'd probably walk out of the theatre and ask for my money back.


Karl Urban as McCoy? Strange.

[Boscolingus]

So, uh....

There completely bypassing the original constitution-class and going straight for the constitution-class refit right off the bat?

No hokey red nacells and gold satelite dish for the deflector? that's weak!

And I agree, I think they are trying to do the whole Space: 90210 with everyone going through academy together. From the original series, Scotty was nearly twice the age of every damn person on the ship!

And I thought Rick Berman and Michael Piller killed Star Trek, this is worse than killing, it's reanimating the dead!

Now that that's said... What the hell afre the huge ginormous structures in the back ground off in the distance of kirk racing the 'vette and later kirk on the bike?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Exactly...

Using US Navy ranks and promotion schedules, Kirk would have to have at least 16 years of commissioned service under his belt to even be considered for promotion to Captain. Uhura and Sulu were Lieutenants (between 4 and 8 years) and Chekov was an Ensign (0-2 years).

Kirk and Spock couldn't even have been peers at the academy because for Kirk to be promoted to Captain before Spock, Spock would had to have missed an early promotion opportunity... which is absurd. Kirk would have to be from 1 to 3 years ahead of Spock at the academy. I think it could even be more than 3 since Spock wasn't promoted to Captain during the original series, which aired for 3 seasons, but (IIRC) was a Captain for the first movie.

I'm not sure how old Scotty was, but he may have been enlisted for a while and then gotten his commission. As CHENG (Chief Engineer) he would have been at least a LCDR... probably closer to being Spock's peer than Uhura/Sulu's.


I guess those are just big futuristic structures... out in the middle of cornfields. Maybe Kirk grew up on the outskirts of Des Moines. Maybe they're grain elevators for the enormous amount of genetically engineered wheat that allows the Earth to sustain a 15 billion+ population in the 22nd (23rd?) century. :thumbleft:

[Boscolingus]

Exactly...


Maybe they're grain elevators for the enormous amount of genetically engineered wheat that allows the Earth to sustain a 15 billion+ population in the 22nd (23rd?) century. :thumbleft:

Which would make sense, according to one of the books I read, first contact was actually only a couple decades from now and one of the Vulcans that was stranded here managed to develop a cure/treatment for the impending grain shortage caused by some organism.

All the conjecture with the mix and match timelines confuses the FUCK out of me. At least with Star Wars they don't fuck with time travel, I'll give them that.

[Series8217]

New Star Trek is to old Star Trek as Fallout 3 is to Fallout.
This has become a frightening trend with awesome franchises lately...

[Boscolingus]

Seriously...

Try going on www.imdb.com ...

Wolverine movie,
GI Joe,
The Day the Earth Stood Still,
Watchmen,
Halo,

It would seem that the only original movies nowadays are goddam chick flicks!!

[DiggityBiggity]

New Star Trek is to old Star Trek as Fallout 3 is to Fallout.
This has become a frightening trend with awesome franchises lately...

I've never played the original Fallouts, I take it I am really missing something??? I love this 3rd one, should I stop playing and pick up the PC versions of 1 and 2??

[crzyone]

So, uh....

There completely bypassing the original constitution-class and going straight for the constitution-class refit right off the bat?

No hokey red nacells and gold satelite dish for the deflector? that's weak!

It does have spinny engines, check out the teaser trailer on that site. They should get rid of the dish, might have been high tech in the 60s would look pretty bad today.

Ok, just did a google image search and here it is... blah... Doesn't look ANYTHING like it should. THis will piss off the Star Trek fan base...

They didn't HAVE to mess with the hull and saucer design... especially how the engineering hull and saucer are attached to eachother... WTF were they thinking? I can see getting rid of the dish but man...




On another note-
I bought the original movie series on DVD a few months ago and watched them all over again. One thing that really stands out is how REAL the ships look. Using real models looks way better than anything computer generated. I think that will be the only let down for me with the new movie. Judging by the trailer it's all CGI and won't look as good as the original movies.

"They just don't want us going in there"

[Series8217]

New Star Trek is to old Star Trek as Fallout 3 is to Fallout.
This has become a frightening trend with awesome franchises lately...

I've never played the original Fallouts, I take it I am really missing something??? I love this 3rd one, should I stop playing and pick up the PC versions of 1 and 2??

Warning: rant ahead!

Fallout 1 & 2 were some of the best games ever made. FO3 is okay.. and compared to the other crap coming out in the last 5 years, it's pretty good. I didn't like it at all. Typical juvenile BethSoft* game. I've played all of their games except Oblivion, by the way. I'm actually a fan of their games. Daggerfall was one of the best games I've ever played.. though it had no storyline and BethSoft still hasn't learned how to write one.

Honestly, if you like FO3 and you're normally a console gamer, I doubt you'll like Fallout 1 & 2. They're complicated and involved. They have a learning curve. They're real RPGs not the watered down crap made today for generalized audiences. FO3 is an FPS action-adventure game... It's not even in the same genre as the originals.
If you ARE a hardcore gamer and are just putting up with the crap that comes out these days because it's all there is, the real Fallout games will be at the top of your favorite games ever list. If you like the bleak setting of FO3, but get bored by the insanely repetitive action sequences and would rather have the interesting and involved gameplay from "golden era" (mid 90's) RPGs... you will toss BethSoft's rapeage in the trash.

The real* Fallout games are challenging, and have a steeper learning curve (the post-apocalyptic world is NOT forgiving, and it shouldn't be!), the graphics are not that good (keep in mind they are mid-late 90's games -- there's no worthless fluff), but the reward is a very involved settings and storyline, and an atmosphere that gives you the chills when you think about it. The dialogue is extremely well written, moral choices are an essential part of the gameplay, your decisions have an affect on the game world and how people treat you, the entire game can be completed without killing another person, if you choose to play a diplomatic role and play it intelligently-- an option which was designed into the game from the start. Not that it isn't a challenge. The replay value is absurd; having wildly different stats makes dialogue options, quests, how people react to you, etc completely different. The gameplay is similar to the PC Baldur's Gate games, Arcanum, Ultima VII, etc. It was designed to replicate a pen and paper RPG system. Combat is turn based. The combat system is actually quite awesome, but I don't see it as the highlight of the game. It certainly isn't the focus. The story/setting is.

I would've been happier if Fallout 3 had died with Black Isle.. you know they were almost done with the REAL Fallout 3 when Interplay shut them down. It's not like BethSoft's at all. Reading the design documents that leaked out and looking at the concept art is far more interesting than even playing the game that Bethesda came up with.

Summary: If the original Star Trek movies are Fallout 1 and 2, the new Star Trek movie is Fallout 3. It has a more accessible genre to reach a generalized audience (i.e. simplified so less intelligent people will buy it too), awful acting, awful writing, and inconsistency with the original setting.

Of course some people will think it's the best thing ever; and some people will even think it's better than the original: they prefer the Star Trek High School Drama setting over beautifully executed science fiction. They don't notice the difference in writing quality because they couldn't (under?)stand science fiction enough to watch the old ones and see what good writing was like. Same for acting.

In the new Star Trek movie, science fiction is a backdrop to a young adult drama story.
In the original Star Trek movies, science fiction is the story. The plot of each film and TV episode played off of the incredible richness of the Star Trek universe.
In the new Fallout game, the post-apocalyptic setting is a backdrop to a first-person action game. In the original Fallout games, the post-apocalyptic setting was the focus. The gameplay played off of the amazing depth of the setting and its characters.


* - BethSoft / Bethesda Softworks (developers of Fo3) had nothing to do with the original Fallout games, which were made by Black Isle. The publisher of the original games (Interplay) fired off the Black Isle team in attempt to switch production over to console style action games. They promptly went bankrupt, and sold the license to the highest bidder -- Bethesda. The original developers wanted it, but could not afford it. Bethesda just made it into the only game they know how to make.. Morrowind/Oblivion/etc, but in a post-apoc setting with guns. Gameplay-wise, that's what FO3 is. FO3 has nothing to do with 1 and 2 except for the awful ripoffs of the setting, in the style of the new Star Trek movie. The plot is a mishmash of elements from the original Fallout games. They literally took every major recognizable item or story element from F1 and F2 and hacked them into a plot in an attempt to fit in with the setting. Unfortunately, they failed at any attempt at setting consistency they may have made.

[Series8217]

Also, don't all the canonical materials say that starships were always built in orbit?

Found this on the wikipedia article, which references this source: http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/intervi ... k-trailer/

According to The Making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen E. Whitfield, the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and the vessel itself was constructed in space. The film's co-writer, Roberto Orci, acknowledged depicting the Enterprise being built on Earth would cause debates among fans regarding canon. Explaining that the concept came from their own creative license and the precedent set in Star Trek novels, he said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated.

*sigh*

Will the franchise rapers ever realize that the traditional fans won't hate them so much if they either stick to canon, or call it something besides Star Trek? This same problem has been happening with all the raped settings lately as they are adapted for "generalized audiences" (this is apparently the reasoning behind the new movie's themes, according to a news article I read). Couldn't they just call it Space Movie Drama or something if they aren't sticking to the true setting?

I don't even understand it from a marketing point of view. If they want to call it Star Trek, then they want to take advantage of existing loyalty to the setting; i.e. attracting Star Trek fans to increase the viewership... but Star Trek fans want to see a Star Trek movie, so if the writers don't stick to the setting and style that Star Trek fans like, they wont watch it anyway! They alienate those fans, who run bad press for it, and probably ruin the franchise for those fans.
This means the movie ends up being appealing only to those who didn't have loyalty to the franchise. So if they called it something else they wouldn't get the bad press from the Star Trek fans, and they would still get the audience that has no idea what Star Trek is about.

Why resurrect a dormant franchise just to kill it like this?

[The Dark Side of Will]

I bought the original movie series on DVD a few months ago and watched them all over again. One thing that really stands out is how REAL the ships look. Using real models looks way better than anything computer generated. I think that will be the only let down for me with the new movie. Judging by the trailer it's all CGI and won't look as good as the original movies.

"They just don't want us going in there"

ILM has always done the ship models, space shots and such for Star Trek in the past. I hope that Paramount has at least enough sense to keep them on.

[AkursedX]

I would have expected an in-depth discussion on star trek topics over on .nl, but I didn't think the nerdiness would spread over here, lol j/k.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Also, don't all the canonical materials say that starships were always built in orbit?

Found this on the wikipedia article, which references this source: http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/intervi ... k-trailer/

Essentially what they're saying is that they don't have to appeal to fans because they tell fans what to like... :scratch:

On a somewhat related note:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/23/deep-th ... tributors/

[Emc209i]

Jesus Christ Steven! I thought you got over all of that the other day on AIM. Seriously, go get some hot chocolate, or coffee, or whatever, and then go find a nice chair to listen to some music in.

[DiggityBiggity]

If you ARE a hardcore gamer and are just putting up with the crap that comes out these days because it's all there is, the real Fallout games will be at the top of your favorite games ever list.

SWEET! I've put Fallout 3 on hold now, going to purchase the originals today.

Speaking of video games, and I'm not trying to hijack this thread... Heard of Mirrors Edge?

[Series8217]

If you ARE a hardcore gamer and are just putting up with the crap that comes out these days because it's all there is, the real Fallout games will be at the top of your favorite games ever list.

SWEET! I've put Fallout 3 on hold now, going to purchase the originals today.

There is an AWESOME deal going for the original Fallout games here:
http://www.gog.com/en/page/fallout_prom ... 89b870084b

Speaking of video games, and I'm not trying to hijack this thread... Heard of Mirrors Edge?

I saw a few screenshots of it a long time ago. It looked interesting but I didn't have a lot of info on it. Did the game come out?

[Fastback86]

I've been seeing commercials on tv for it, so I'd say yes.

[Unsafe At Any Speed]

I bought both Fallout 1 and 2 a few years ago at Wal-Mart for $10 total.

[The Dark Side of Will]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirk

Interesting info on Kirk... Supposedly given a field commission and returned to the Academy later... I guess that *might* work for continuity...

[DiggityBiggity]

I saw a few screenshots of it a long time ago. It looked interesting but I didn't have a lot of info on it. Did the game come out?

It's out, def. worth a rental.