Author Topic: New Star Trek movie opening soon so new product tie in commercials (Read 8004 times)

FatherXmas · « **on:** May 08, 2013, 05:59:37 PM »

Night-Hawk07 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2013, 07:18:16 PM »

Fascinating.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2013, 08:20:23 PM »

Quote from: Night-Hawk07 on May 08, 2013, 07:18:16 PM

Fascinating.

Yep, Stanford's self driving car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxHcJTs2Sxk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UaYIHiiOA

houtex · « **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2013, 11:29:01 PM »

"Tecnically, we're not inside..." *pinch*

Awesome.

Rust · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2013, 01:53:55 AM »

I loved every minute of that commercial. Why is it the TOS Alumni seem to get substantially more awesome as they get older? I mean, Nimoy was doing The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins! There was a period of time he wouldn't even fess up to recording it to begin with, despite video evidence.

Coincidentally...Nimoy's looking...I don't want to say "rough" because that implies he seems ill. But he's definitely looking his age as compared to 2009. Frankly, he looks a lot like my grandfather did in the final decade of his life.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2013, 04:17:21 AM »

Well he's 82 and it looks as if he hadn't been to a barber since the last time he was on Fringe in the flesh.

TimtheEnchanter · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2013, 04:05:17 PM »

My wife and I died laughing when that car commercial hit the net.

I also got a kick out of this ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5c8qTVq9ZI

Lightslinger · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2013, 11:11:59 AM »

Hopefully seeing Into Darkness tonight, if not definitely this weekend, anyone seen it yet?

I'm glad I happened upon a blurb somewhere on the net about: DO NOT SEE THIS IN 3D, ESPECIALLY IMAX 3D. Apparently the 3D was very, very botched and ruins a lot of action because of how badly it was done, the problem is made worse on IMAX.

I don't mind 3D and have outright enjoyed it in some well done movies, but I know Abrams is not a fan so I can see how this application of 3D went bad. So, word of warning Titan, don't see this movie in 3D.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2013, 04:09:20 PM »

I have mix feelings about this movie. I sense Trekers are so NOT going to like it. Even more than Marvel fanboys hating Iron-Man 3 for how they blendered the Extremis story arc and completely altering the Mandarin. And then later, so they don't feel left out, DC fanboys will get to rant over canon changes in Man of Steel. And with JJ at the helm Star War fans won't have to wait too long to join the party.

Why does it feel like the popular kids are taking over our SF/Fantasy and are ruining it in the name of making it more popular?

JaguarX · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2013, 04:49:31 PM »

Money.

Lightslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2013, 04:59:29 PM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on May 16, 2013, 04:09:20 PM

I have mix feelings about this movie. I sense Trekers are so NOT going to like it. Even more than Marvel fanboys hating Iron-Man 3 for how they blendered the Extremis story arc and completely altering the Mandarin. And then later, so they don't feel left out, DC fanboys will get to rant over canon changes in Man of Steel. And with JJ at the helm Star War fans won't have to wait too long to join the party.

Why does it feel like the popular kids are taking over our SF/Fantasy and are ruining it in the name of making it more popular?

I grew up a Trekkie, loved Star Wars and was an avid Superman fan at the age of 4 and I just...don't agree with you. These are movies and artistic endeavors, things change and evolve and these franchises are no different. Sure, money is a factor, just like it is in pretty much anything in the world.

Fanboys will rant, haters will hate, and an entirely new generation will get to enjoy these franchises (assuming the movies are good) along with some of the old guard like myself who have spent decades enjoying these characters.

JaguarX · « **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:05:43 PM »

Yep. But there are many that rant about any little change. There were reported rants about Superman changes in the 60s that was looked at as part of the canon by 1970 and more rants about the changes to 60s version and so on. Someone some is always ranting. Even if left the same there would be rants about not changing it. So if the artist is damned if they do damned if they don't they might as well make it how they envision it and or which change have potential to rake in the larger audience.

TimtheEnchanter · « **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:12:40 PM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on May 16, 2013, 04:09:20 PM

Why does it feel like the popular kids are taking over our SF/Fantasy and are ruining it in the name of making it more popular?

....because they ARE?

I still don't know how I feel about Abrams as a director overall, but I think that's because all I've really gotten in the film world is a re-envisioning of an old franchise. I want to get an actual fair assessment by seeing something ORIGINAL, where I have no expectations. That said, if Into Darkness was a movie based on a new IP, I'd want to see it. But as Star Trek, I don't.

As for WHY this crap keeps happening? It's the producers' obsession with no-risk investments. In order for a project to get plenty of funding, it HAS to be something that is already popular, no matter how obscure that popular thing is. Classic modern example, typical alien invasion story contorted into a weird shape so it can tie-in with the battleship board game.

Yes, the most logical thing to do in cases like Star Trek: let it be, until someone can find a way of getting it to work. Or if you want something like this red-matter rebooted version of Star Trek, invent your own freaking sci-fi universe instead of bastardizing a beloved one that already exists to the point that represents the polar opposite of what it used to. But no, they can't do that. That would be a risk, and venture capitalists don't like risks (irony).

Lightslinger · « **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:51:33 PM »

Quote from: JaguarX on May 16, 2013, 05:05:43 PM

Yep. But there are many that rant about any little change. There were reported rants about Superman changes in the 60s that was looked at as part of the canon by 1970 and more rants about the changes to 60s version and so on. Someone some is always ranting. Even if left the same there would be rants about not changing it. So if the artist is damned if they do damned if they don't they might as well make it how they envision it and or which change have potential to rake in the larger audience.

This

Quote from: TimtheEnchanter on May 16, 2013, 05:12:40 PM

....because they ARE?

I still don't know how I feel about Abrams as a director overall, but I think that's because all I've really gotten in the film world is a re-envisioning of an old franchise. I want to get an actual fair assessment by seeing something ORIGINAL, where I have no expectations. That said, if Into Darkness was a movie based on a new IP, I'd want to see it. But as Star Trek, I don't.

As for WHY this crap keeps happening? It's the producers' obsession with no-risk investments. In order for a project to get plenty of funding, it HAS to be something that is already popular, no matter how obscure that popular thing is. Classic modern example, typical alien invasion story contorted into a weird shape so it can tie-in with the battleship board game.

Yes, the most logical thing to do in cases like Star Trek: let it be, until someone can find a way of getting it to work. Or if you want something like this red-matter rebooted version of Star Trek, invent your own freaking sci-fi universe instead of bastardizing a beloved one that already exists to the point that represents the polar opposite of what it used to. But no, they can't do that. That would be a risk, and venture capitalists don't like risks (irony).

Paramount owns Star Trek, they know the property has value and potential. What's wrong with them saying "We want to explore some new opportunities with Star Trek." Star Trek movies were making less and less money, the last couple of TV series were borderline failures, they decided to tell a radically different story.

Just because things look different and there's a new universe of Star Trek stories to tell does not make it any less Star Trek than the rest. I see fanboys turn their nose up because it's not "real" Star Trek, yes it is. The story of JJ's movie is just as much Star Trek as First Contact or any other movie was.

If you didn't like the movie, that's cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just don't assume everyone, even all Star Trek fans agree. Some of us really enjoyed the new Star Trek and are excited to see what's in store for the franchise going ahead.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:03:41 PM »

Star Trek, Star Wars and comic book super heroes all have one thing in common. A huge amount of canon that weighs them down. Now at least in comics they can kick off parallel universes where the stories can evolve differently from one another, collapsing the multiverse every decade or two retconning the popular parts of each back into the new "Prime" verse and start all over again.

It really hadn't been done with Star Trek, other than Enterprise and the damn time war but that's how they pulled it off with the first JJ Star Trek, time travel, nuke Vulcan and everything is now up for grabs. ST:TOS is no more the only historical baggage you need to worry about is what came before. Sure they had the Enterprise built on the ground and the engineering compartment now looks like the inside of a very clean brewery and is now the size of an aircraft carrier. But that's minor as to where you can draw your story ideas from. Slate's clean. That also means you can turn everyone's idea about what should be happening upside down and the old fans will be equally surprised and in the dark about what is going on.

I'm sure that the scripts for Star Wars will bear no resemblance to any of the post RotJ history the novels have outlined. Other than 30+ years elapsing, Luke being the only surviving Jedi and Leia and Han likely married, for a while at least, everything else is up for grabs.

Iron-Man 3 hate comes from the bait and switch of the trailer. As much as we hate it when trailers give it all away, this is the case where the trailer led fans to believe they were sticking close to the extremis plot and having a Mandarin who was as menacing as the comics and then gave us something very different. Aren't you all happy that you were surprised? Wait. Put down those pitchforks. But it tested so well. AHHH!

And right now I know of two debates going on right now about Man of Steel. There is the whole "where did his signature red briefs go?" (I hear it happened in the 52 reboot as well so there is at least some consistancy) and then there's the "what happen to Krypton" alteration.

And this is a problem for established fans. We like our canon. It's like a nice relaxing warm bath that we can soak in after a hard day. Major canon changes is like pouring yourself that warm bath and when you stick your foot into it you discovered the water heater is on the blink. But you were so looking forward to that warm bath that disappointment is naturally the result. We then take it out on the plumber or building super or owner.

Lightslinger · « **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:38:14 PM »

The Onion's coverage of the new Star Trek:
"Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"
http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

TimtheEnchanter · « **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:45:25 PM »

I already gave up on Star Wars years ago. RotS was good enough, but once they entered into the DragonBallZ Jedi of the Old Republic, that was the end of it for me. I had hopes that maybe Disney might do something DIFFERENT than what we've seen before, and then they give the games to the biggest game tyrant, and give Abrams control over the two biggest sci-fi franchises in history. Just... no. Maybe by some weird chance, something cool will happen, since Abrams aim seemed to be to turn Star Trek into Star Wars. Maybe he can give back to Star Wars what it lost, the genuine feel of a gritty war-torn universe. I won't be holding my breath though.

And for the record, it takes a LOT more than removing Superman's tighty reddies to make me discredit the film. My concern is what will it FEEL like? Will this still be Superman? Or is he going to be an angsty teenager who can only cope with the loss of his family by beating the snot out of criminals to within an inch of their lives? From what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem to have the same kind of drastic alterations that Star Trek did. If you want to change the Starfleet uniforms, go right ahead. That happened with practically every Star Trek film ever made, and nobody seemed to take issue with it. Even the Phasers (including HOW they killed or stunned) repeatedly got complete redesigns. I don't remember a lot of people flipping out about it. When you do a complete flip-flop on someone's personality though or in Star Trek's case, an entire universe, THEN you're entering into dangerous territory. The classic allure of Star Trek was its somewhat whimsical and hopeful outlook on the future. It was still a dangerous place, but at least humanity had figured SOMETHING out, something meaningful to their evolution as a species. That seems completely lost in the reboot of Star Trek. Now it just feels like modern humans with better toys, more of the same trash that I keep wishing our civilization would get away from. That's a much bigger deal than painting the enterprise a different color.

As for old Trek... if they wanted to be radical and give us something we'd never seen before, the solution was simple. TV show centered around a Klingon ship.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2013, 08:56:59 PM »

But how would you feel if you found out Kal-el's parents are very much alive? That he's now a political refugee?

Just tossing out rage inducing ideas.

JaguarX · « **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2013, 09:04:00 PM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on May 16, 2013, 08:56:59 PM

But how would you feel if you found out Kal-el's parents are very much alive? That he's now a political refugee?

O_O

WHAT!!!???

*goes into eternal nerd rage mode and nerd smashes the computer.*

TimtheEnchanter · « **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2013, 11:02:15 PM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on May 16, 2013, 08:56:59 PM

But how would you feel if you found out Kal-el's parents are very much alive? That he's now a political refugee?

Just tossing out rage inducing ideas.

Depends... maybe they're just changing WHEN Krypton turns to ash. Technically he was originally a political refugee anyway, since evacuating the planet was forbidden. It's just that there was nobody left alive shortly after his departure.

Or are you saying the Kents are actually them, and they're hiding under a false identity?

Certainly sounds like one of my earliest predictions (like 5 years ago) about the project may have been right though, that they were going to do away with the loneliness aspect of his character.

houtex · « **Reply #20 on:** May 17, 2013, 04:10:19 AM »

re: Trekkies...

I'm a Trekkie. I love Abrams Trek. I love ALL Trek. But that doesn't mean I dress up in the costumes and start nitpicking every stinking thing they got wrong with the reboot, or even Enterprise's mishaps. THAT is a "Trekker." Way way different, ya ask me, the two.

It's entertainment. Even TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY got their *own* canon wrong. It happens. Tis fiction, it tis. Take it with a grain of salt and just... let it go man. Be entertained.

As such, I liked Trek '09, and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna like Trek '13. I hope. I'll let ya know tomorrow night, after I see it.

/Oh, and in Lois and Clark, the Kents were very much alive all through the series. Nobody cared, show went on, Lois and Clark got married... things do NOT have to be what was written/drawn before, and it can be just fine.
//You just have to let it go. Ender's Game is gonna be *AWESOME*. And suck because it's not going to be anything like the book.

TimtheEnchanter · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2013, 05:19:32 AM »

Heh, as far as I knew, Trekkies were people who were fans from the very beginning, and Trekkers were fans who came on board with TNG or beyond. Never heard either had anything to do with cosplay or detail-oriented analyses.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #22 on:** May 17, 2013, 07:44:23 AM »

Trekers are Trekies who think the word Trekies sound undignifying.

houtex · « **Reply #23 on:** May 18, 2013, 06:43:20 AM »

Yeah, that too. Totally being way too serious about a fictional series... although they're both spelled with two 'k's.

As I myself will point out to anyone... Stuff ain't real, people.

'course, they'd be all "no, we have tricorders and hyposprays and cloaking things (stealth and now actual cloaking cloth...)"

And I'd be all "where's the transporter? Hell, where's warp drive?"

And... well, ok, time to stop.

---

Saw the movie. It rocks. A lot. And since I purposely didn't get anything spoilt by any source except a trailer here and there? There were a few "Oh, wow, lookie there what they did!" moments. And I figured out something immediately upon one particular action by a particular someone, and no I won't say any spoilers.

Go. Watch. Enjoy Trek.

TimtheEnchanter · « **Reply #24 on:** May 18, 2013, 06:59:20 AM »

Quote from: houtex on May 18, 2013, 06:43:20 AM

Yeah, that too. Totally being way too serious about a fictional series... although they're both spelled with two 'k's.

As I myself will point out to anyone... Stuff ain't real, people.

Ehh... I could try and explain the viewpoint of why people are actually getting annoyed with Abrams, but it seems it would be an utter waste of time.

I'll try to simplify it.

You know how we've reacted to the idea of CoH 'coming back' in the form of some iPhone game? That's how AbramsTrek looks to fans of the classics. Fun? Sure. Looks cool? Absolutely. Substance...... *scanners detect no signs of life*

FatherXmas · « **Reply #25 on:** May 18, 2013, 08:44:41 AM »

Humor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiQ9piVgtWM

Olde Glory · « **Reply #26 on:** May 18, 2013, 09:32:57 AM »

Over the years, my viewpoint has changed on this subject. I collected comic books in the 80's and 90's. When a tv show or movie came out, it was a sure lock that it would be a retelling/re-imagining, piss-poor adaptation-with-different-character story telling. Cannon was at the very least altered (if not totally ignored) to put the most popular character of the day (Wolverine) in the story. It really used to really piss me off.

Then, as I got older, had kids and a career, etc, I stopped collecting comics. I kept up with the major story arcs via the internet but didn't have the same level of involvement.

Now I watch movies and TV shows with my kids and enjoy them all. Why? Because I don't really care about what is cannon. DC does a really good job of it with their animated offerings. It might be because they just say, "to hell with it" and reboot things every leap year. It might also be that since their characters are based on an archetype you just have to have a general sense of who a character is for the story to work. Marvel is a little more involved but it was still fun watching ASM and seeing what makes the character cool for my kids. They aren't mad that MJ and Peter were forced apart by an editorial decision. Their response was, "I like Gwen Stacy".

Does it mean that I'm not as much as a fan because cannon isn't important? I don't know. All I can tell you is that even though IM3 was a little off for me, I liked it.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #27 on:** May 18, 2013, 11:29:38 PM »

[Spock]
After further analysis and due consideration, I reverse my original position and now consider this movie ... acceptable.
[/Spock]

Night-Hawk07 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 19, 2013, 12:21:34 AM »

To start, I'll say that I've been a Trek fan as long as I can remember, and I'm usually very different from most. I can't say I dislike any of the first 10 movies, and consider Enterprise my favorite of the TV series. I enjoyed STXI, even though it wasn't the Star Trek I knew and loved. However, if this last movie were just a sci-fi film called "Into Darkness" I'd say it was one of the best movies I'd seen in a while. But with Star Trek tacked on, it disappoints me greatly. Abrams could have done anything with this movie, with this new timeline, and what's the first thing he does: re-hashes a previous movie. Not just any movie either, but the one most fans seem to consider the best Trek movie.

Spoiler for Hidden:

That's the thing that angers me more than anything else. There was almost no originality shown here other than how the augments are encountered, with the Admiral, USS Vengeance, etc. I'm honestly not sure if I want to see what he does with Star Wars. He might just shock the world by telling everyone that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, or that Luke and Leia are twins.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #29 on:** May 19, 2013, 01:31:25 AM »

Quote from: Night-Hawk07 on May 19, 2013, 12:21:34 AM

To start, I'll say that I've been a Trek fan as long as I can remember, and I'm usually very different from most. I can't say I dislike any of the first 10 movies, and consider Enterprise my favorite of the TV series. I enjoyed STXI, even though it wasn't the Star Trek I knew and loved. However, if this last movie were just a sci-fi film called "Into Darkness" I'd say it was one of the best movies I'd seen in a while. But with Star Trek tacked on, it disappoints me greatly. Abrams could have done anything with this movie, with this new timeline, and what's the first thing he does: re-hashes a previous movie. Not just any movie either, but the one most fans seem to consider the best Trek movie.

Spoiler for Hidden:
[/b]

Before they even said his name on screen, I knew who he was after Kirk started punching him and the guy just took it. But to "keep an open mind" I told myself "ok he's an augment, but hey that doesn't mean it has to be 'him'. Enterprise had augments without Kahn, after all (speaking of, why did the Klingons have ridges? They should've still been affected by the augment DNA since everything that happened in ENT should've happened in this timeline too)." Then they said his name, and I facepalmed. Then they had Kirk save the ship like Spock did in WOK, and I double facepalmed. Then they did the whole "I have been, and always shall be, your friend" bit just with the role reversal, and I almost facebackseated the chair in front of me. Finally, Spock did the "KAAAAAHHHHHNNNNN" yell, and I almost walked out (only didn't cause my friend was entranced by the whole thing).

That's the thing that angers me more than anything else. There was almost no originality shown here other than how the augments are encountered, with the Admiral, USS Vengeance, etc. I'm honestly not sure if I want to see what he does with Star Wars. He might just shock the world by telling everyone that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, or that Luke and Leia are twins.

First, with the Enterprise story dealing with Augments and the Klingons, it only affected one Klingon colony and not the home world. So the Klingons were left with an entire colony that could be used as breeding stock for Federation spies without the need of extensive surgery in Kirk's time. So no big thing that Klingons, like Ruffles, have ridges. Also remember back to all the ST Kirk/Spock movies with ridged Klingons. So that didn't phase me at all.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Overall it was certainly better than most of the odd number original series ST films and the last few of the NG movies which were just alright to "we only have budgets for dune buggies" and we find yet another Data prototype. And what I considered a major achievement for a JJ Abrams movie, relatively little lens flair this time around.

And as for JJ's Star Wars, he's doing episode 7, not a reboot. Sure any of the accepted novel canon may be totally ignored but for those of us who didn't soak in it, it will be a heck of a lot better than knowing how things will turn out in the prequels.

News:

Author Topic: New Star Trek movie opening soon so new product tie in commercials (Read 8004 times)