www.ditl.org

Varthikes wrote:It's this "minor crap" added to other "minor crap". Lots of minor crap becomes major crap.

And, as I said, it's not an issue whether or not it was actually stated.

When they're going against established canon, and you have an issue with that, fine. When you're even going to criticize things that were always ambiguous, I'm guessing that you're pre-predjudiced against the whole thing.

Which is fine; like I said, I'm sure Paramount won't even notice if you boycott the movie. Or if all of us did, for that matter. It's already got enough buzz and generated enough excitement to be a success, regardless. Pretty much, it comes down to: like it or lump it. This is the movie they've made. I, for one, intend to see it pretending I've never seen Star Trek before, which I think will be an interesting experience.

I actually don't have too much of a problem with it being built on terra firma. We know they have more than enough power to make leaving the planet's surface a fairly trivial matter for such a ship. I just find it looks a bit odd, particularly when you consider that the NX was built in space.

thelordharry wrote:What will you do if it's a 15 certificate film Kierann?

Well, after watching the trailer, if absolutely nothing else, it's nice to see that they kept the orginal red alert klaxon sound I wonder if the camera will rapidly pan in on the flashing red light as well?

I look like a 16 year old, I can normally get away with it.

Well gee-willikers, that looks mighty fine! I'm thinking I'll enjoy this movie - maybe alot. There might be some moments, but seriously, what episode hasn't had at least one of those?

This is trek.

All episodes have that somewhere.

Varthikes wrote:Or, it could have just been a shipyard in orbit named after San Francisco.

Yes, they could do that,but I'm not at all sure it would meet the definition of an "orbit". And it would be horribly, horribly impractical.

For one, they would use up fuel all the time, to keep above one spot... money spent, and for what?

For another, everything would have to have that thrust. Like If a travel pod undocked from the station, it would have to exert thrust to stay hovering next to it. So would every person floating in a space suit, running suit thrusters all the time.

Anything that didn't have thrusters on it would have to be tethered to something that did. If you so much as let go of a hammer it would go shooting off into the distance.

All structures which in zero gee could be nice and flimsy and light would have to be built sufficiently strong to resist the acceleration.

Actually, the effect would be identical to having the whole station and everything around it floating in a gravity field, hundreds of miles up. It would be expensive, and insanely dangerous. And what does it accomplish, really? Pretty much nothing useful.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Varthikes wrote:Or, it could have just been a shipyard in orbit named after San Francisco.

*snip*

All true, assuming said shipyard was directly over SF, but I don't think Varthikes was suggesting that - he was merely suggesting that said shipyard was named after SF. Indeed, even if someone said SF fleet yards was in orbit "over" SF it could be dismissed as a figure of speech, and that the docks were simply in geosync at the same longitude, visible from SF, rather than being directly overhead.

Trailer now in high definition goodness.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/

Holy crap this looks pretty awesome. It has a sense of scale and grandeur to it that I've rarely glimpsed in a Trek movie. Like, we can argue all day long about whether ships are better built in space, but just tell me this isn't f**kin cool :

That is nice.

Uh oh... no... can't fight... here it comes....

This looks AWESOME. Call me a silly American popcorn-addict. Call me a traitor, I don't care. That trailer really looks great. At this point I'm sold.

Here's why: At the end of the day, I want more Star Trek. Like a whiny four-year-old wants McDonald's. And there are only so many times I can dust off the old DVDs and watch old eps before they really start to lose entertainment value. In the past I've thought about taking a long (read: several year long) hiatus from watching or thinking about Trek, so I don't burn out on it completely.

Plus, this movie has a much bigger budget and more star power than Trek's ever dreamed of (no disrespect to the previous casts), and I'm sorry, but that's exciting for me. Although I'll be the first to admit (well, I'm sure thousands have beat me to it, but still...) that these attributes do not a great movie make. I'm glad they didn't use Matt Damon, Ben Afflict or any other huge stars (although that makes me curious: how big is Simon Pegg in the UK? Also, don't ask me where, but I heard somewhere that some of the aliases for Britain are pretty unpopular among the British, and I also have to admit, I'm still a bit unclear on how much sovereignty the UK's constituent states have. So my parenthetical question is: when I say UK, who am I referring to? What about Britain? England? I just feel like a constant noob on this forum, and I don't want to seem like the stereotypical A-merican.) Can you imagine Matt Damon as Kirk? He'd do that smirk of his, and... James T. Smirk is who he'd be.

Anyways, sorry if this is a little wacky, but I had a Mocha and forgot to ask for Decaf. I hope my wasn't just because I'm hyped up on stimulants. Well, if so, I guess I know where to stop on my way to the theater next May!

Grundig wrote:how big is Simon Pegg in the UK?

Very popular - he's well know for various excellent comedy films. How well he'll do as Scotty is anyone's guess, but he's a decent actor.

Also, don't ask me where, but I heard somewhere that some of the aliases for Britain are pretty unpopular among the British, and I also have to admit, I'm still a bit unclear on how much sovereignty the UK's constituent states have. So my parenthetical question is: when I say UK, who am I referring to? What about Britain? England? I just feel like a constant noob on this forum, and I don't want to seem like the stereotypical A-merican.)

UK - United Kingom of Great Britain (England, Scotalnd and Wales) and Northern Ireland. England is governed directly from Westminster, the others have some degree of internal autonomy. Their MPs still get to vote on issues only affecting England though.

Captain Seafort wrote: UK - United Kingom of Great Britain (England, Scotalnd and Wales) and Northern Ireland. England is governed directly from Westminster, the others have some degree of internal autonomy. Their MPs still get to vote on issues only affecting England though.

I see. I think I may have asked this before and forgotten, because that answer sounds familiar. I also might have wiki'd it. It's really backwards that others can vote on England-specific issues (and not vice-versa, I take it?). Is that some sort of loophole from the days when England was a more dominant power in the Empire?

Re: the trailer, look how similar Zachary Quinto is to Spock in this capture. Also, I'm glad Winona Ryder's in the movie. Spock's got himself a hot mom!

Grundig wrote:(although that makes me curious: how big is Simon Pegg in the UK? Also, don't ask me where, but I heard somewhere that some of the aliases for Britain are pretty unpopular among the British, and I also have to admit, I'm still a bit unclear on how much sovereignty the UK's constituent states have. So my parenthetical question is: when I say UK, who am I referring to? What about Britain? England? I just feel like a constant noob on this forum, and I don't want to seem like the stereotypical A-merican.) Can you imagine Matt Damon as Kirk? He'd do that smirk of his, and... James T. Smirk is who he'd be.

Anyways, sorry if this is a little wacky, but I had a Mocha and forgot to ask for Decaf. I hope my wasn't just because I'm hyped up on stimulants. Well, if so, I guess I know where to stop on my way to the theater next May!

I wouldn't say Pegg is huge at all. He's quite well known, but he's B List I would say.

Okay... A guide to the UK. This is complicated.

The UK is more properly titled "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Britain, or Great Britain, is composed of England, Scotland, (to the North of England) and Wales (on the left side of England). All have been different nations in the past. What basically happened is that England conquered Scotland and Wales - over and over, actually. Eventually they became effectively one country. However, in the last few decades Wales and Scotland moved to have much more control over their internal affairs, rather as US states do.

It's a sore point amongst some Welsh and most Scots that they are part of the UK, given how they got that way. There was a somewhat joking sentiment to much of the griping, until Margaret Thatcher's government about twenty years ago. Very few Scots voted for her government or were likely to. She, in turn, used Scotland as a bit of a guinea pig, testing out public reaction to various laws and taxes by introducing them in Scotland first. Scots found this hugely insulting, and a good deal of genuine hatred for the English government and England in general was fostered. The politics of it are somewhat convoluted, but there's considerable support for Scotland becoming independent again. The same applies to Wales, but rather less so.

One thing that the Scots and Welsh hate with a passion is when people talk about "England" when they mean Great Britain or the UK. England is far larger than the rest in terms of population - it's been said that if 2/3 of England voted for X, whilst one third of England plus the entire of Scotland and Wales voted against, X would pass. So England is by far the dominant member of the Union, which is a sore point for Scots and Welsh.

I see. Makes sense why this scottish guy I met a few times got all ticked off when somebody asked him if he was from "England".



And no, it wasn't me

Thanks Graham, that does clear things up. Complicated, for sure.

Re: what Mark said, I guess that might be like asking a Texan if he's from California.