Star Trek

Comes tomorrow...I'm there, in the ultra-wide screen room.

Anybody want to bet five Abe Lincoln copper coins on which will be the biggest summer blockbuster?

1. Star Trek
2. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
3. Terminator: Salvation

My bet is on Transformers, although I have much higher anticipation on Star Trek. Either way, all those three films will get an equal share of my 30 bucks.
 
I'm leaving in 2 hours to go see it again tonight in IMAX (second time, I like to avoid the crowds so I can drink and smoke in the theater, yell, throw **** at the screen etc.)

I said I wouldn't give it away, I'm not a Trekkie but I do agree with all the reviews I have read about it so far!

It'll be between Trek & Transformers here in the US, most likely Transformers worldwide.

Treks $125 million budget (bullshit - cough cough) will be recouped very fast here in the US, maybe this weekend.
 
Batutta said:
It's gonna be worse than Final Frontier!
Click to expand...

Not humanly possible. Although Nemesis was close...

It's going to be so bad Dreamworks will have to make Galaxy Quest 2 because of all the new material they'll get to make fun of!
Click to expand...

You know, I could almost live with that. :D Hell, even if this movie is a success, it could still give them good material for GQ2... can you imagine how pissed Sigourney Weaver's character would be to be recast as a teenager?
 
ChipG said:
I'm leaving in 2 hours to go see it again tonight in IMAX (second time, I like to avoid the crowds so I can drink and smoke in the theater, yell, throw shi* at the screen etc.)

I said I wouldn't give it away, I'm not a Trekkie but I do agree with all the reviews I have read about it so far!

It'll be between Trek & Transformers here in the US, most likely Transformers worldwide.

Treks $125 million budget (bullshi* - cough cough) will be recouped very fast here in the US, maybe this weekend.
Click to expand...

How the heck have you seen it?
 
Mark Harris said:
Did Fringe just have the lamest attempt at cross-promotion in history?
Click to expand...

Blaine said:
Haven't seen the show. What was the promotion?
Click to expand...

MINOR FRINGE SPOILER
They follow a lead to a Smoking Gun a la the X files type internet journalist. The lead looks promising, what he's saying sounds like the secret mythology the show is based on, then one of the interviewers picks up on the fact that the lead mentions Kahn and the interview goes downhill as they realize he's a nutjob who's conflated several things with Star Trek to make his own paranoid conspiracy world.

As for lame ... I don't know. It's certainly mitigated by the fact that the crackpot internet journalist is Clint Howard, who, among other things, is known for a notable & creepy appearance as a child on the original Star Trek.

Also ... you often need dead ends in an investigation.

Also ... being a Trek geek is completely germane to a Smoking Gun internet geek journalist, as are paranoid delusions.

So I didn't think it was all that lame, given the casting and how apropos it was to the character / situation.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
MINOR FRINGE SPOILER
They follow a lead to a Smoking Gun a la the X files type internet journalist. The lead looks promising, what he's saying sounds like the secret mythology the show is based on, then one of the interviewers picks up on the fact that the lead mentions Kahn and the interview goes downhill as they realize he's a nutjob who's conflated several things with Star Trek to make his own paranoid conspiracy world.

As for lame ... I don't know. It's certainly mitigated by the fact that the crackpot internet journalist is Clint Howard, who, among other things, is known for a notable & creepy appearance as a child on the original Star Trek.

Also ... you often need dead ends in an investigation.

Also ... being a Trek geek is completely germane to a Smoking Gun internet geek journalist, as are paranoid delusions.

So I didn't think it was all that lame, given the casting and how apropos it was to the character / situation.
Click to expand...

Well what made it lame was that he took a SHARP left turn out of what he was talking about into Trek stuff. It had nothing to do with his exceptionally accurate descriptions of ZFT up to that point. And his segue was really not very smooth.

Besides which, Trek has nothing to do with conspiracy nuts. Conspiracy nuts are not trekkies. It felt extremely tacked on when with the mildest of thought could have brought up better writing. It would have been more fitting for him to go into actual UFO conspiracy stuff, ala X-files, and that would have been a funny gag too, considering they are F.B.I.

But also, I think he was actually describing the plot of the film...
 
Mark Harris said:
Well what made it lame was that he took a SHARP left turn out of what he was talking about into Trek stuff. It had nothing to do with his exceptionally accurate descriptions of ZFT up to that point. And his segue was really not very smooth.
Click to expand...
I didn't even really notice the segue until Joshua Jackson interrupted him.
Besides which, Trek has nothing to do with conspiracy nuts. Conspiracy nuts are not trekkies.
Click to expand...
They do in so far as the most extreme (stereo types perhaps) are thought of as geeks / the type that might live in their mom's basement. OBVIOUSLY one need not be a conspiracy terrorist to be a Trekky (the PC term is Trekker thank you) but are you really going to assert that the Smoking Gun group in X-Files were not lkely to be raging Trekkies? Or that if you were casting Trekkies they wouldn't be exactly who you were expecting from central casting.
It felt extremely tacked on when with the mildest of thought could have brought up better writing. It would have been more fitting for him to go into actual UFO conspiracy stuff, ala X-files, and that would have been a funny gag too, considering they are F.B.I.
Click to expand...
I agree that a UFO angle would have been perhaps even more apropos, but remember that the guy is looney. Obviously he got ahold of some ZFT information on the net or somewhere but in his messed up head slammed it together with some Star Trek stuff.
But also, I think he was actually describing the plot of the film...
Click to expand...
Interesting, what do you mean - the new film? Yeah that's pretty heavy handed, I will have to re-examine the episode on Hulu after I see the film.
 
Brandon Rice said:
How the heck have you seen it?
Click to expand...

Twice BiOTCH! and in IMAX!

Funny thing is I'm going again tonight (thursday) this wll be the first movie I have seen in a movie theater 3 times since Star Wars.

BTW I'm putting all you RR movies on eBay for PK's charity.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
Man, this movie is getting so universally praised I'm worried it can only be a let down...It's gonna suck! It's gonna be worse than Final Frontier! It's going to be so bad Dreamworks will have to make Galaxy Quest 2 because of all the new material they'll get to make fun of!...There, I feel better.
Click to expand...

I'm getting my eyebrows waxed tomorrow.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
I didn't even really notice the segue until Joshua Jackson interrupted him.

They do in so far as the most extreme (stereo types perhaps) are thought of as geeks / the type that might live in their mom's basement. OBVIOUSLY one need not be a conspiracy terrorist to be a Trekky (the PC term is Trekker thank you) but are you really going to assert that the Smoking Gun group in X-Files were not lkely to be raging Trekkies? Or that if you were casting Trekkies they wouldn't be exactly who you were expecting from central casting.
.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that they typically wouldn't link Trek stuff to their smoking gun website. Trekkies do not link vast conspiracies to Trek lore. It was a jarring transition when the obvious transition was into typical conspiracy stuff, like UFOs, Area 51, etc.

Plus, Trekkies may have their issues with society, but they do not go around thinking they ARE characters from the show. They might play at being part of the Federation or the Klingon Empire, but they do not think they ARE Spock.

What I'm saying is this was a bad and not at all accurate use of the Trekkie stereo-type in the context. So the only reason I could imagine for them making that big a mistake was a ham-fisted reminder of the new movie directed by their boss.

All I'm saying it is is sloppy writing. It would be like me talking about a football fan and making some reference to Baseball. It would mean I clearly did not do my homework, and went with generalities. Always bad in writing.
 
Last edited:
You guys hear about the Alamo Drafthouse bait and switch last week?

Basically they advertised STAR TREK 2: WRATH OF KHAN but actually screened the new film!

if you're unfamiliar with the Alamo Drafthouse theaters here in Austin, every other row of seating has been taken out and replaced with a bar, like a bar in a, well, bar. Waitresses stealthily take your food orders on slips of paper and bring stuff to you - beer, coffee, desert, appetizers, burgers lots of good stuff. Not the best place to see SCHINDLER's LIST or SIDEWAYS maybe, but nowhere better to see something like STAR TREK.

Anyway, they advertised a free screening of STAR TREK 2 WRATH OF KAHN.

In the audience were the writers of the new STARK TREK film who introduced the movie. Something seemed wrong, the film was grainy and scratchy and melted after 10 minutes. The proprietor ran to the production booth to try and fix things while the writers of the new TREK vamped for time, until Nimoy came down the aisle in sunglasses carrying a print of the new movie which he they then screened for the surprised and thrilled audience.

Video and Blurb.
http://blog.originalalamo.com/2009/04/07/leonard-nimoy-beamed-into-the-south-lamar-alamo/
 
Mark Harris said:
I'm saying that they would never link Trek stuff to their smoking gun website. Trekkies do not link vast conspiracies to Trek lore. It was a jarring transition when the obvious transition was into typical conspiracy stuff, like UFOs, Area 51, etc.

Plus, Trekkies may have their issues with society, but they do not go around thinking they ARE characters from the show. They might play at being part of the Federation or the Klingon Empire, but they do not think they ARE Spock.

What I'm saying is this was a bad and not at all accurate use of the Trekkie stereo-type in the context. So the only reason I could imagine for them making that big a mistake was a ham-fisted reminder of the new movie directed by their boss.

All I'm saying it is is sloppy writing. It would be like me talking about a football fan and making some reference to Baseball. It would mean I clearly did not do my homework, and went with generalities. Always bad in writing.
Click to expand...

Well, there WAS the lady who wore her uniform to jury duty because she considers Starfleet to be a real organization.
 
Yep. Worked at Kinko's. There was a court case and everything because they fired her and she asserted that she should be able to wear the uniform to work on the basis of religious freedom.

No one is saying that woman, or Clint Howard's character are representative of Trekkies, but that there are one or two that go a bit far, and like any other large group - some are effin crazy.

Mark you're almost saying Trekkies CAN'T be crazy or delusional.

Mark Harris said:
I'm saying that they would never link Trek stuff to their smoking gun website. Trekkies do not link vast conspiracies to Trek lore. It was a jarring transition when the obvious transition was into typical conspiracy stuff, like UFOs, Area 51, etc.

Plus, Trekkies may have their issues with society, but they do not go around thinking they ARE characters from the show. They might play at being part of the Federation or the Klingon Empire, but they do not think they ARE Spock.

What I'm saying is this was a bad and not at all accurate use of the Trekkie stereo-type in the context. So the only reason I could imagine for them making that big a mistake was a ham-fisted reminder of the new movie directed by their boss.

All I'm saying it is is sloppy writing. It would be like me talking about a football fan and making some reference to Baseball. It would mean I clearly did not do my homework, and went with generalities. Always bad in writing.
Click to expand...
You seem to assume that being a Trekkie precludes delusions or paranoia .... not saying Trekkies are more supcetible to that ... but you seem unwiling to accept that a guy with paranoid delusions could like star trek, be a trekkie and incorproate that into his daily life.

Yeah we know why the producers did it ... but the Smoking Gun guys were sane ... often right, maybe parnoid, but sane. If I was writing their character bios, yes I would maybe include that they are trekkies. No I wouldn't excpect them to incorporate that into their paranoid consipircay theories because they are ... sane.

The Fringe guy was not sane. In addition to being paranoid he mixed up reality and fantasy and merged characters from the movies into his theories.

No one is saying that all conspiracy theorists are trekkies.

No one is saying that a conspiracy theorist trekky would necessarily co-mingle those two passions.

All they are saying is one isolated guy who spends a lot of time on the internet was a parionoid conspiracy nut who was DELUSIONAL and blended fantasy into his theories. Could have said it was all in service of "Darth", "Voldemort", "Sauroman", or the "Sundance Kid".

That would not mean that the writers/producers or I were saying that Star Wars, Potter, Ring, or Redford fanatics were all crazy or conspiracy theorists, or that all conspriacy theorists were fanatatics about any of the above.

Just one guy, who's a conspiracy nut with a lose grasp on reality blended the two.

My assertion that maybe conspiracy theorists and trekkies parked their cars in the same garage did not mean to suggest an ESSENTIAL link between the two. I said it was germane - not essential or representative. I think we can likely agree that Trekkies and the Smoking Gun website guys and Clint Howard are all Geeks. That's the common demoninator. This one geek just happens to be crazy.

Whether it was well done or not - fine. Whether it should have been done or not - ok. But bristling at the idea that a geek conspiracy theorist could plausibly be a Trekkie with a loose grasp on reality? Seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top