|
|
|
Fixxxer
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2008, 12:10:31 AM » |
|
Yeah, no. This movie looks gaytarded.
Let.
It.
Die.
k?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
58% of all deaths are fatal.
99% of all lawyers ruin it for the rest of them.
|
|
|
|
Zazoo
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2008, 05:02:59 AM » |
|
I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm a huge trek fan.
Quite a big revamp of the Star Trek universe though. It will be interesting to see how it is received by the hard-core trek fans.
~Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FritzDaKat
Full Member
Rep: 8
 Offline
Posts: 186
2334.50 credits
View Inventory
Send Money to FritzDaKat
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2008, 05:52:50 AM » |
|
C'mon, they're fans, you know it's gonna be one big Nerd war at GenCon arguing over the technical innacuracies. (I'm gettin' old & out of touch, do they still have those anymore?)  "But they didnt use Hydroponics, they used Aeroponics in the Biosphere area!", "But Aeroponics would be impossible to sustain under the low gravity environment as the droplets would hang in the air and lead to root rot of their food supply!) Ahh, the purist's You KNOW this is gonna lead to another offshoot of "Magic ~ The gathering" decks. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 22, 2008, 03:53:32 PM by FritzDaKat »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lazerblade
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2008, 02:20:46 PM » |
|
My only concern is that with the movies they keep moving backwards. Enterprise is pre-Kirk, yet today's special effects and imagination can expand far beyond what was even remotely capable back then. Why go backwards? I want to see the outcome, not the damn beginning! I already know what happens after that!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Shrap. You've left us, but not without impacting our lives. |
|
|
FritzDaKat
Full Member
Rep: 8
Offline
Posts: 186
2334.50 credits
View Inventory
Send Money to FritzDaKat
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2008, 03:55:57 PM » |
|
Might also wonder why Society has more historians and anthropologists than Philosophers, or at least why the historians and anthropologists get more attention than modern Philosophers in the media. Mabey it's just a fear of the unknown's in the future reflecting in culture, art imitating life? Mabey I think too much.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 22, 2008, 03:58:44 PM by FritzDaKat »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
achilles118
ft. drum is gotham and I am batman
Full Member
Rep: 5
Offline
Posts: 287
5685.00 credits
View Inventory
Send Money to achilles118
rock on
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2008, 05:52:49 PM » |
|
I think it's more that philosophers are viewed as loons until there profisy(sp?) comes true, thread oficialy high jacked
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FritzDaKat
Full Member
Rep: 8
Offline
Posts: 186
2334.50 credits
View Inventory
Send Money to FritzDaKat
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2008, 06:32:07 PM » |
|
Noooo, not Phortune tellers,, Philosophers! Like Aristotle, Socrates, Lao Tsu, William S. Burroughs etc. :p Looking towards the future in the sense of social evolution not so much actual prediction of events to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
achilles118
ft. drum is gotham and I am batman
Full Member
Rep: 5
Offline
Posts: 287
5685.00 credits
View Inventory
Send Money to achilles118
rock on
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2008, 09:34:00 PM » |
|
right and Im sure at the time people thought they were completely insane.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FritzDaKat
Full Member
Rep: 8
Offline
Posts: 186
2334.50 credits
View Inventory
Send Money to FritzDaKat
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2008, 02:50:54 AM » |
|
Eh', with the exception of Burroughs they were pretty well respected in their time and still are for the most part. But agreed, Burroghs definatly falls under the insightful loon category. I mean popular culture tended to look down on anthropologists moreso back then as it clashed with the Creationist thories held by the moral majority of the time, still true in some cases. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BajaBravo
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2008, 01:56:30 PM » |
|
My only concern is that with the movies they keep moving backwards. Enterprise is pre-Kirk, yet today's special effects and imagination can expand far beyond what was even remotely capable back then. Why go backwards? I want to see the outcome, not the damn beginning! I already know what happens after that! I think this might be more than a prequel. I think it might be a re-boot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fixxxer
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2008, 12:25:24 AM » |
|
I think this might be more than a prequel. I think it might be a re-boot.
Much like Batman Begins, Casino Royale, etc, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
58% of all deaths are fatal.
99% of all lawyers ruin it for the rest of them.
|
|
|
|
DaSmerg
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2009, 03:50:24 PM » |
|
The intention is a bit of a re-boot for this new Star Trek flick.
I dunno, I'm looking forward to it. I'll happily admit I'm a Trek fan but no hard core Trekkie. I would agree with others though that the way forward might have been by moving the franchise forward with a new story arc but alas, retelling of movies/tv made just a few years ago seems to be en vouge atm.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutt_Dog
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2009, 02:33:48 PM » |
|
Saw it twice in the theatres...yes its that good...and I am far from being a Treki...or a Star Trek fan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
