Page: 1 2 3 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 Sean162
Male, 13-17, Europe
 58 Posts
|
Monday, October 12, 2009 11:03:26 AM
Fu.ckers copied the Dark Knight soundtrack. |
|
Sean162
Male, 13-17, Europe
58 Posts
|
Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:41:37 PM
Fu.ckers copied the Dark Knight soundtrack. |
|
 Soader
Male, 18-29, Europe
88 Posts
|
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:18:43 AM
i dont think ill ever be able to see Zachary Quinto as good after heroes. |
|
 Negative_One
Male, 30-39, Western US
2488 Posts
|
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:03:59 AM
YeeeAAWN! |
|
 rgsupergrove
Male, 18-29, Australia
847 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 11:28:19 PM
.....we dont have a captain....yes we do...OMGoodness, lame alert. I mean, the next line should be, yeah kid now fuuck off and go finish moppign the floors.... |
|
 JMoney100
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
312 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 11:09:42 PM
despite the fact that JJ Abrams is raping the franchise of any dignity it had left, this poo looks sick. definitely seeing this |
|
 Diablo-Gio
Male, 18-29, Europe
22 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 5:19:49 PM
i hate star trek, but this looks awesome |
|
 AGit
Male, 30-39, Europe
527 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 12:12:17 PM
I hope Spock cuts a head open (which is a really drated up thing to wish for, to be honest) |
|
 screwzlooose
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
131 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 6:16:47 AM
Angilion- i dont care. |
|
 mehh
Female, 18-29, Australia
529 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 6:10:39 AM
Sounds like a dodgy script. But then that's kind of a pre-requisite for star trek |
|
 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 2:00:35 AM
"Is there a specific detail that is setting you people off? Because its annoying. The movie looks good. But I cant begin to fathom what might possibly be wrong with it."It does look good. If it wasn't being passed off as Star Trek, I'd want to see it. If it's as good as the trailers make it out to be, I'd want to see this new sci-fi story from Abrams become a TV series. It being good isn't the point. The point is that it's being passed off as a prequel to the original Star Trek *and it isn't*. It is completely incompatible with the existing story in numerous ways. This film has been made to bury the original Star Trek, to replace it, to over-write it. That's what's wrong with it, from the point of view of Star Trek fans. Being a good film just means it's more efficient at erasing the original Star Trek. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 1:52:31 AM
"Angillion, I will have to agree, or disagree with you after I have seen the movie."No, you don't. You can already know that this film is completely incompatible with established Star Trek. All you have to do is know anything much about the original Star Trek that this film is meant to replace (while being falsely claimed to be a prequel to it). In short, you can verify my previous post any time you like, without having to watch this film. Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek. JJ Abrams is now burying it under his own version...a version that couldn't exist without Gene Roddenberry creating ST in the first place. It's so indescribably rude. JJ Abrams could have made a sci-fi story of his own that could stand on its own merit. Instead, he decided to stand on the back of Gene Roddenberry's and push it into the mud to hide it with his own version of it. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Monday, March 09, 2009 1:41:49 AM
Jerm_Leather:If you are a "huge Star Trek fan", how come you haven't noticed that Abrams has completely written off Star Trek? He's changed dates, ages, personal histories...nothing matches with the original at all. So he's chosen to discard Star Trek and replace it with something else under the same name. It's not like Gene Roddenberry is still alive to complain about his creation being used to delete itself. This is not a prequel. It is an over-writing. |
|
 tie_died
Female, 18-29, Canada
215 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:15:36 PM
ugg, this looks like crap. i don't think i'll be paying to see a bunch of emo kids in space |
|
 Lionhart2
Male, 40-49, Australia
5382 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:07:22 PM
> langdonhill
> Picard is just about a billion times better than KirkCAPTAIN, THERE'S A GIANT SPACE ALIEN ATTACKING THE SHIP!
Kirk: Rips shirt off, seduces it, zaps it in the back with a phaser while its lip-analogues are busy.
Picard: Has Ship's Lawyer draft a stern letter of protest.
Sisko: Stares it down then plays it at baseball with the future of the Federation as a stake.
Janeway: Whines it to death with butchly high-pitched morals speech.
Archer: Invites it on board to sign a peace treaty then blows its ship up while its aboard.
New-Movie Kirk: Applies more hair gel and acne lotion, then plays "Johnny B Goode" at it. |
|
Lionhart2
Male, 40-49, Australia
5382 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:58:30 PM
> BigWaFuu
> would any of you trek nerds care to explain whats wrong with the movie?Full explanation would take many posts, best to Google it and research yourself. But basically, if you make a new scifi series, you can do whatever you want. But if you are going to use an existing franchise, you have to fit in with the history that has already been established, or else you are just cashing in on a fanbase for extra profit, without REALLY making one of their movies. Established facts include that Kirk served on 2 ships prior to Enterprise, Spock was the first Vulcan ever in Starfleet, Chekov wasn't even on Enterprise at first, and none of them ever met at Starfleet Academy. McCoy joined Starfleet immediately before Season 1 to get over a bad divorce. And a hundred other things. This new Trek is just an excuse to place newer younger actors in a series to try to get a whole new generation of fans to like it. |
|
 Jerm_Leather
Male, 18-29, Western US
613 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:08:29 PM
I am a huge Star Trek fan and I have to admit that the new movie makes me very excited. I realize that there is a lot of potential for Abrams to rape the series and everything it stood for, but I am going to wait until I see the finished product to make any judgements. The fact is that I can't wait to see a young Enterprise crew facing unknown challenges. Wooo!! |
|
 hyeonkim0805
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
514 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 7:46:23 PM
The EPICNESS of this trailer is EPIC X EPIC and then some... this movie is going to be EPIC... yea... and the guy who defined the word "EPIC" LOL wtf man~ seriously get a life |
|
 Sjd-Wth
Male, 13-17, Australia
126 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 7:31:38 PM
i HATED Star Trek and i mean HATED ITThis trailer just changed my mind...looks EPIC! |
|
 wcclark
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
578 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 7:29:34 PM
Looks okay to me. My expectations aren't high, but they're not null either.We are used to William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. It is always tough to adjust to new actors portraying old characters. In short, the movie can either exceed all expectations and revive the franchise, or it will just become another Get Smart. |
|
 jadedtortois
Female, 18-29, Canada
449 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:20:05 PM
I can't wait for this to come out! :D |
|
 BigWaFuu
Male, 18-29, Western US
843 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 5:55:21 PM
So would any of you trek nerds care to explain whats wrong with the movie? And dont repeat yourself with "because Abrams is RAPING IT!" or "It doesnt fit with the timeline!"Is there a specific detail that is setting you people off? Because its annoying. The movie looks good. But I cant begin to fathom what might possibly be wrong with it. |
|
Lionhart2
Male, 40-49, Australia
5382 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 5:10:23 PM
This is Beverley Hills 90210 in space, Abrams has managed to rape Star Trek and replace it with a Charmed Mylie Cyrus Kyle etc etc emo teen angst drama which is COMPLETELY contradictory to established Star Trek canon. But then again, since that pervert Brannon Braga decided to milk Trek for enough money to fund his parties for the next 20 years and then kill it off, there's no surprise in that. |
|
 Ryan22158
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
189 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 5:08:33 PM
Angillion, I will have to agree, or disagree with you after I have seen the movie. I haven't heard or read about the movie at all. This is the first real trailer I have watched for it. I however have seen every single motion picture start trek that has been released, and liked all of them except, two. Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and The Final Frontier. This one might just go down with those if you are right. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, March 08, 2009 4:00:00 PM
Ryan22158: Unfortunately, "bastardize the Star Trek franchise" is an appropriate description of what they've done. This film is fundamentally incompatible with the Star Trek that it is supposed to be a prequel to.Essentially, JJ Abrams has chosen to delete the original Star Trek by "writing" over it with this, completely incompatible, version. He's using the famed earned by Star Trek to erase the beginning of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry's original, the very thing that made the rest of it possible. That pisses me off. It pisses me off a lot. If he had made this film without any reference to Star Trek, I'd probably like it and probably hope they made a TV series from it. This *is* a new sci-fi film. They're just pretending it's Star Trek in order to feed off Star Trek, like a parasite killing its host. I'm really annoyed about this. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
