Star Trek Premiere Gets Standing Ovation, Surprise Showing In Austin

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Star Trek Premiere Gets Standing Ovation, Surprise Showing In Austin

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday April 8, 2009 @03:05AM from the set-phasers-to-awesome dept.

MrKaos writes "Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment, J.J. Abrams appears to have impressed Star Trek fans at the official world premiere of Star Trek, who gave the film a five-minute standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House in Australia today. Meanwhile, mere hours beforehand, flummoxed fans at the Alamo Drafthouse theater in Austin, TX, deceived into thinking they were seeing a special, extended version of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, were pleasantly surprised when a disguised Leonard Nimoy greeted them and announced they would be seeing the new film in its entirety. ILM's influence on the film is reported as visually stunning, and lucky Australian fans are scheduled to see the movie first, as it opens a day before the American release."

437 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Shakrai · 2009-04-08 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny

.... I'd hate to see this guy have to do another plot synopsis ;)

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Its already off to a rough start its 11. that makes it an ODD ST....
  Have they broken the ST curse?
2. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by rpillala · 2009-04-08 03:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This post is a better movie than Nemesis.
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
3. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by 0racle · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Since he could even make Nemesis entertaining, I'd like to see him take a whack at this one.
  
  --
  "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
4. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Shakrai · 2009-04-08 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  This post is a better movie than Nemesis.
  I'll make sure my next one consists entirely of "KARMA DOWN TO 40%" type utterances ;)
  If the new ST movies contains a single line of "shields down to whatever percent" or an exploding console I'm going to walk out in disgust. What other Trek cliches have run their course?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
5. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Shakrai · 2009-04-08 04:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Have they broken the ST curse?
  Yes, the even numbered ones suck now too ;) Oh wait, that's not what you meant.... n/m
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
6. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by OakDragon · 2009-04-08 04:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What other Trek cliches have run their course?
  
  "If your shirt be red, soon ye'll be dead."
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
7. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by d'fim · 2009-04-08 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I prefer to call it "Star Trek: Nematode"
  Somehow, it just feels right.
  
  --
  Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
8. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by d'fim · 2009-04-08 05:12 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  I prefer to call it "Star Trek: Nematode".
  Somehow it just feels right.
  
  --
  Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
9. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Shakrai · 2009-04-08 05:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Kirk: The away team will consist of Spock, Bones, myself and Ensign Smith.
  Ensign Smith: Fuck
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
10. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by IndustrialComplex · 2009-04-08 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "shields down to whatever percent"
  Out of curiosity, what is wrong with that?
  I've always viewed it as a measurement of intensity that is rebuilt over time. Since we aren't dealing with something as simple as magnetic fields (which would be amazing if projected to something the size of the enterprise).
  I don't know exactly as I'm not really that into ST. But what's wrong with the % measurement?
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
11. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-04-08 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that Ensign Toast?
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
12. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by dmwst30 · 2009-04-08 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  1.) % is a measure of how much more damage your shields take before they drop and you start having the ship explode.
  2.) less consistently, shield % ALSO seems to measure how well the shields stop further impacts. 50% shields seem to shield less well than 100% shields, although this isn't a 1:1 correlation.
13. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Shakrai · 2009-04-08 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But what's wrong with the % measurement?
  It's become a cheesy plot device that (along with exploding consoles) is used to convey suspense in the absence of good writing?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
14. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Maxo-Texas · 2009-04-08 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It is amazing what a good actor can do with a single word.
  To this day, William Shatner's reading of "Shields!" still sends a little chill down my spine.
  Ham may he have been- he could load a word with such conviction and emotion that you believed it down to your soul.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
15. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Shakrai · 2009-04-08 06:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It is amazing what a good actor can do with a single word.
  Or sentence for that matter. I think my favorite acting moment from Star Trek was Patrick Stewart screaming "THERE.... ARE..... FOUR.... LIGHTS"
  
  Ham may he have been- he could load a word with such conviction and emotion that you believed it down to your soul.
  Denny Crane!
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
16. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Maxo-Texas · 2009-04-08 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes. That was a good one.
  There is a difference between an actor doing a good job delivering their lines and selling those lines to you. Good writers are required too of course.
  Sort of a 1984 reference too.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
17. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Joe+Tie. · 2009-04-08 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  At least Nematodes provide a rich and interesting history of scientific progress. Nemesis just has data on a dune buggy.
  
  --
  Everything will be taken away from you.
18. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by rpillala · 2009-04-08 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  What other Trek cliches have run their course?
  The main deflector. It is simultaneously nonessential (in First Contact, when assessing the Borg threat to the ship) and the answer to nearly every limitation of the ship's capability. "If we modify the main deflector to emit _______, we MIGHT be able to generate a pulse that would ________. That MIGHT just do the trick." Thanks, Geordi, the sooner you get started the sooner you can get back to masturbating into the holodeck.
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
19. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-08 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  The Enterprise is only 300 feet long - smaller than a modern aircraft carrier. Anyway I always thought of the shields as being a series of emitters spread all over the ship, and if half the emitters have burned-out, then you only have 50% strength on the shields. Burned-out emitters can be replaced, but not during battle. ----- In the modern army we have a similar deal with active armor which "blows out" to deflect incoming missiles or shells, but once the armor is used, it's done.
  Trivia:
  The shield effect in Star Trek TNG was generated with an upside-down glass bowl, and sand was poured over it. Why? Because this show was created when CGI was still too costly for a television show (1987), so they used the old-fashioned method of physically-filming objects. One of the early uses of CGI was in season 4 showing the Enterprise "run" through a bunch of asteroids. They used a 68000 Macintosh - it looked pretty bad (pixelated).
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
20. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by morcego · 2009-04-08 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  This post is a better movie than Nemesis
  Yes but, which one is the worst: Nemesis or Generations ?
  
  --
  morcego
21. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by hardburn · 2009-04-08 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure the original Enterprise is around 300 meters, not feet. The Enterprise-D was around 800m, and the E a little over 1km (though with about half as many decks as the D).
  
  --
  Not a typewriter
22. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by ArsonSmith · 2009-04-08 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I always figured it was some type of capacitance rating. And why they were able to recharge shields. Large capacitors that were constantly charged from the core, but when taking heavy damage the capacitors may lose some of their power. The shields still protect at 100%, (which is less than 100% protection as they still take some physical damage as well) but once the capacitors hit 0% then the shields are gone.
  guess they could also polarize the haul platting.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
23. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by canonymous · 2009-04-08 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you've never watched the later Trek series then you won't have encountered this, but in Voyager, and Enterprise (substitute "hull plating" for "shields"), "action" scenes consist of:
  
  Bridge shakes, console explodes.
  
  Ensign X says "Captain! Shields down to 80%", shot of captain looking worried.
  
  External shot of ship being attacked by aliens.
  
  Bridge shakes, console explodes, "Shields down to 60%", repeat until:
  
  [the captain delivers a speech to the aliens on how we are Not So Different|a member of the enemy crew with a Heart of Gold sees the light and betrays his evil commander|they reroute the impulse engines through the EPS conduits to generate a polaron pulse in the main deflector dish] to end the battle.
24. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by mvdwege · 2009-04-08 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I am quite partial to his anti-Borg rant in 'First Contact'. Given a decent script, Stewart can really let it rip. "The line must be drawn HERE!", it's chilling to see the otherwise cool Jean-Luc Picard totally lose it.
  Mart
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
25. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by neBelcnU · 2009-04-08 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oxford Scientific Films (http://www.osf.co.uk/) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Scientific_Films) has been selling these skills for decades, and AFAIK they're still doing quite well. CGI is still shockingly expensive, and remarkably slow for rendering. With huge experience in time-lapse and micro photography, they're happy to show some amazing full-screen effects in a fraction of the time.
  OSF is primarily a documentary house, but they've got a LOT of tricks up their sleeves.
  Nope, don't work for them, not in that industry anymore, but I thought I'd add my voice to the "old skool" ways. Esp. in a thread about Star Trek.
26. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by prisoner-of-enigma · 2009-04-08 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or how about:
  Sulu: (low voice) Phasers locked.
  Khan: Time's up, Admiral!
  Kirk: Here it comes. Now, Mr. Spock.
  That "here it comes" was just priceless. I know everyone makes fun of the obligatory "KHAN!" scream, but ST:II was full of excellent dialogue. Of course, having Ricardo Montalban did wonders for the movie every time he uttered a line. Probably the best ST villain ever. All the "take over the world" or "destroy the world" plots are pretty hollow, but revenge is indeed a dish best served...cold.
  What happened to all the good writers who gave us ST:II, ST:VI, and ST:FC? Were they fired for an excess of talent and replaced with worthless hacks from the Batman-and-Robin school of screenwriting?
  
  --
  In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
27. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Hurricane78 · 2009-04-08 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  A have to absolutely agree to that. Patrick Steward always was my favorite character for exactly such scenes.
  This, and the episode where he plays the flute, still give me chills.
  As you may know, the four lights thing comes from the book/movie 1984, where they are fingers. So it's a bit of a remake. But more in a honoring than a rip-off kind of way.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
28. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Hurricane78 · 2009-04-08 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, captain, but both are so weak, that our devices can barely pick them up at all. It is impossible to tell the difference at such low levels.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
29. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 11:40 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  "shields down to whatever percent"
  Out of curiosity, what is wrong with that?
  I've always viewed it as a measurement of intensity that is rebuilt over time. Since we aren't dealing with something as simple as magnetic fields (which would be amazing if projected to something the size of the enterprise).
  I don't know exactly as I'm not really that into ST. But what's wrong with the % measurement?
  Either sheilds down to 10% lets 90% of crap through, or the sheilds have only 10% of their lifetime to protect at full power.
  "Sheilds have failed!" comes to mind. Full power to the sheilds, then bug out when they burn out.
  Who wants sheilds that let in 90% of the crap?!?
  [all assuming an hypothetical 23rd Century, of course.]
30. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by p0tat03 · 2009-04-08 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  What about "structural integrity down to 20 percent!"?
  How is it that you can quantify "structural integrity"? If they said "aft bulkheads 3 through 7 have been breached!" it would be a hell of a lot more believable.
31. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by lena_10326 · 2009-04-08 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  What about "structural integrity down to 20 percent!"?
  Maybe there are carefully placed gravity emitters throughout the ship's skeleton to prevent the ship from ripping apart when it maneuvers sharply. An opposing force must be applied throughout the ship to counter the torque, which would be enormous for the size, mass, and velocity of the ship. Much like the shield capacitors mentioned above, there would be a capacitor attached to each emitter. The percent value is just a real-time measurement of remaining power stored in those capacitors.
  The capacitor theory (or maybe even a battery theory) would be more plausible because the warp core and impulse engines aren't 100% reliable. They both can cycle so an energy dip to the gravity emitters, no matter how short a time period, could destroy the ship or passengers if the ship is rotating or orbiting a high-density gravity sink during the power cycle.
  
  --
  Camping on quad since 1996.
32. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by ultranova · 2009-04-08 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  The main deflector. It is simultaneously nonessential (in First Contact, when assessing the Borg threat to the ship) and the answer to nearly every limitation of the ship's capability.
  
  So it's pretty bloody essential after all ;). That, or better writers...
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
33. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by JosKarith · 2009-04-08 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's called the Structural Integrity Field - a force field running through all the main structures and hull plating. Once it's gone there's no maneuvering except for thrusters as even the impulse engines would shred the ship. It works in tandem with the Inertial Dampers that prevent the crew being smeared all over the nearest wall every time the ship makes a turn...
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
34. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by AP31R0N · 2009-04-09 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Is that a question or a statement? It has the wording of a statement, but you've marked it as a question.
  
  --
  Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
35. Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  KHAAAAAAAAAAN!
Wait...what? by gnarlyhotep · 2009-04-08 03:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment"

When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?

Jeez, miss one meeting...
1. Re:Wait...what? by enilnomi · 2009-04-08 03:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
  No, you just didn't see Transformers.
  
  --
  education is no substitute for intelligence
2. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 03:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Jeez, miss one meeting...
  Speaking of which, your dues are not current. Please remit $263.81 as soon as possible. We also voted you "Most likely to annoy others at the theater by leaving to go to the bathroom during a pivotal scene".
  Congrats, I understand this is the 4th straight year you've won the award. ;P
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
3. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 03:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No, you just didn't see Transformers.
  What? Are you mad? Two words: Morgan Fox.
  +5 insightful.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
4. Re:Wait...what? by dietdew7 · 2009-04-08 03:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Megan Fox
5. Re:Wait...what? by paitre · 2009-04-08 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Uuuh.
  Get her name right, moron.
  MEGAN Fox.
  MEGAN.
6. Re:Wait...what? by geekoid · 2009-04-08 03:34 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Transformers was awesome.
  Pure action excitement. I can't wait to see it yet again.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:Wait...what? by clang_jangle · 2009-04-08 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's just the uninformed younger generation. They haven't had much opportunity to experience great science fiction, since they don't read novels and few great science fiction films have been made in their lifetime.
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
8. Re:Wait...what? by VShael · 2009-04-08 03:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Not to be confused with Megan Freeman.
9. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Megan Fox
10. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Evidently you didn't either? Or Iron Man?
11. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 03:49 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  My apologizes, fellow geeks of slashdot. In my defense, a co-worker named Morgan walked in as I was typing that. (no, she's not hot, sadly)
  Anyway...I'll get me coat. /self-flagellates with a spaghetti (mmm, spaghetti) noodle.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
12. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Moron" is a little harsh there Chief.
  But yes, you're obviously correct. Megan. Feel free to go ahead and remove that wad from your panties now. ;P
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
13. Re:Wait...what? by xouumalperxe · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
  Hell, did I lose the memo that said that crap scifi (or is it syfy?) can't be entertaining?
14. Re:Wait...what? by mdf356 · 2009-04-08 04:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Transformers was awesome.
  Pure action excitement. I can't wait to see it yet again.~
  FTFY.
  
  --
  Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
15. Re:Wait...what? by DeepHurtn! · 2009-04-08 04:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I wish it was pure action excitement -- there was far too little giant-robots-smashing-each other and waaaay too much Shia Leboeuf-being-fucking-Shia Laboeuf. God, I hate that guy.
16. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 04:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh God, now I'm confused, I just imagined this Megan Fox/Morgan Freeman hybrid narrating The Shawshank Transformers:
  "I wish I could tell you that Optimus Prime fought the good fight, and the Decepticons let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but earth is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew. Things went on like that for awhile - earth life consists of routine, and then more routine. Every so often, Optimus Prime would show up with fresh bruises. The Decepticons kept at him - sometimes he was able to fight 'em off, sometimes not. And that's how it went for Optimus - that was his routine. I do believe those first two years were the worst for him, and I also believe that if things had gone on that way, this place would have got the best of him."
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
17. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Megan Fox, leaning over the engine. The whole movie could have been just that. Maybe some tunes from the car for commenting on Megan's body.
  And she is single again.
  Dam this two heads and only enough blood for one curse!!
18. Re:Wait...what? by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Transformers isn't really science fiction. It's a World War II French Resistance movie with robots.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
19. Re:Wait...what? by jollyreaper · 2009-04-08 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  "I wish I could tell you that Optimus Prime fought the good fight, and the Decepticons let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but earth is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew. Things went on like that for awhile - earth life consists of routine, and then more routine. Every so often, Optimus Prime would show up with fresh bruises. The Decepticons kept at him - sometimes he was able to fight 'em off, sometimes not. And that's how it went for Optimus - that was his routine. I do believe those first two years were the worst for him, and I also believe that if things had gone on that way, this place would have got the best of him."
  And I'm imagining this combined with the Robot Chicken prostate cancer sketch.
  "I'm a robot, don't have an ass and can't be raped. But YOU have and ass and YOU will be raped. Or maybe it'll just be your childhood memories, Lucas ain't the only one out there."
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
20. Re:Wait...what? by MozeeToby · 2009-04-08 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think what he meant was "Proving that science fiction can still be great pop-culture entertainment".
  There's a big difference between what a sci-fi fan finds entertaining (speculation about future technology and society, viewing the problems of today through the lens of fantasy) and what the average guy on the street finds entertaining (I'm going to resist the temptation to lampoon the average guy's tastes).
  Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
21. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Define science fiction. In my books, if (most) chicks like it, it's not science fiction. (sorry to be anonymous, I modded here.)
22. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 04:54 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  only on slashdot is a comment that happened solely to me regarded as "redundant". What, you guys all work at the NSA or something? /checks to make sure camera is off.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
23. Re:Wait...what? by desinc · 2009-04-08 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I am out of mod points, but I'm straining my brain trying to mentally beam them out to you paitre.
  Megan deserves this.
24. Re:Wait...what? by MrKaos · 2009-04-08 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  When was this something that needed to be proven?
  
  You are, of course, absolutely correct. I just wanted an excuse to say Science Fiction instead of Sy Fy or Syence Fycshun, which scars me with it's idiocracy.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
25. Re:Wait...what? by niktemadur · 2009-04-08 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Get her name right, moron.
  Shouldn't that be "Get A BRAIN! MORANS"?
  In the link above, picture in your mind's eye a Photoshop job with "Star Trek" in the t-shirt and "GO MEGAN" in the other cardboard. Unfortunately, I don't do Photoshop.
  
  --
  Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
26. Re:Wait...what? by MrKaos · 2009-04-08 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There's a big difference between what a sci-fi fan finds entertaining and what the average guy on the street finds entertaining.
  Exactly! Most of the Science Fiction Entertainment I get is from Sci Fi Books. I grew up reading Clarke (read 2001 when I was 9). I just read through all of Alastair Reynolds 'Revelation Space' series, I thought 'Marrow' Robert Reed was great, I've consumed most of Bear's writings. I've got boxes of Science Fiction books downstairs that I've read but haven't got around to getting rid of. Besides, the pictures are better in the books than the movies.
  Even so I can't resist the eye candy of a well made Science Fiction movie.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
27. Re:Wait...what? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2009-04-08 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
  I'm onto your game.
  First you say that science fiction as entertainment doesn't need to be proven. You say that science fiction is valid entertainment whether we believe in it or not. That we must take it on faith.
  Next post, you'll be telling us that Xenu is real. Wait and see if you don't.
28. Re:Wait...what? by acedotcom · 2009-04-08 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  jeez, dude, just get over it.
  
  --
  they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
29. Re:Wait...what? by DJRumpy · 2009-04-08 05:30 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  A recent Slashdot study found that 10 out of 10 prefer the 'Elite' SciFi as opposed to the 0 out of 10 who prefer the 'crap' ScyPhy...
30. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  No, I'm sure it was Morgan Fox in Transformers... Hmm...maybe we are talking about different movies?
31. Re:Wait...what? by osu-neko · 2009-04-08 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not sure if that would have saved it. There has to be a reason for me to care, or giant robots smashing each other is just boring. Something unexpected happening would have been helpful, too, but when a movie is so utterly predictable, has no real compelling story or reason to care about what is happening in it... giant robots, well rendered, fighting each other, would make a cool few minutes for a short of some sort. After a few minutes, even that gets boring if there's nothing else...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
32. Re:Wait...what? by Cpt_Kirks · 2009-04-08 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Feel free to go ahead and remove that wad from your panties now"
  I would LOVE to put a wad in her panties...
  Wait.
  I should say something "trekkie", right?
  ONLY if she was an Orion Slave Girl, OK?
  THEN, I would love to put a wad in...
  (Damn, when the frakk is 05/08 going to GET HERE!?!?!)
33. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmmm; I wonder what size trowel she uses to apply her makeup?
34. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  The younger generation is reading. I realized the other day that the Harry Potter generation still reads avidly, but they never developed taste. *Cough*twilight*cough*
35. Re:Wait...what? by TheRaven64 · 2009-04-08 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to SciFi in the USA? Most of the science fiction I've read that was published between the '40s and '80s came from the USA, but the only good current authors seem to be British. Are there secretly lots of good American science fiction writers that aren't exported?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
36. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  The voice of Morgan, the body of Megan? The magical negro and fully-objectified pop tart? Where's the problem again?
37. Re:Wait...what? by actionbastard · 2009-04-08 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Transformers was awesome. Pure action excitement. I can wait to see it yet again.~ FTFTBOY.
  
  --
  Sig this!
38. Re:Wait...what? by TenBrothers · 2009-04-08 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  So there's sci-fi, and then there's REAL sci-fi. Your descriptions necessarily entails any science fiction becoming popular makes it lose its REAL sci-fi status. Whatever that is. This is akin to saying a band "sells out" when they actually get popular, or the fans who don't want a particular band to be popular because they knew about them first. Science fiction is a genre. That's all it is. There is no membership. The so-called fans do not determine what is "real" sci-fi and what isn't anymore than hipster indie-cred band followers determine what "real" music is or is not.
39. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  I know! There should be a giant blender that's always on. Twice the suspense of "Will it blend?" because you also wonder who it'll blend. Sure the movie'd still get boring, but it'd be way better than anything you can currently hope for from Transformers movies.
40. Re:Wait...what? by Random+BedHead+Ed · 2009-04-08 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Even the giant robots smacking each other more, or in unexpected ways, wouldn't help it. The problem is that they weren't all that well-rendered when they got moving. When they really got fighting and transforming they became big CGI blurs. Supposedly photorealistic, but I think they fell short. Morgan Fox really was the best part of the movie.
41. Re:Wait...what? by jalefkowit · 2009-04-08 07:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Pure action excitement.
  
  You misspelled "excrement."
  
  --
  Read my blog.
42. Re:Wait...what? by dontmakemethink · 2009-04-08 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  "that's it, you fight, it's better that way!"
  But then entered the true villain - part man, part robot, ALL SEX MACHINE... it's ROBOCOCK!!
  "Dead or alive, I'm coming in you!"
  
  --
  
  War as we knew it was obsolete
  Nothing could beat complete denial
  - Emily Haines
43. Re:Wait...what? by inerlogic · 2009-04-08 08:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  morgan, megan.....
  whatever.... she got her money, i stuck her in a cab, who cares what her name was....
44. Re:Wait...what? by omnichad · 2009-04-08 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you got the memo that crap Sci-Fi is now called SyFy. Glad it has its own name now. Not to knock their big shows, but do you ever watch that channel during the day or on the weekend?
45. Re:Wait...what? by Haoie · 2009-04-08 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but for every Children of Man, there's a Babylon AD.
  
  --
  If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
46. Re:Wait...what? by afabbro · 2009-04-08 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
  I've always thought that Star Trek was science fiction, while Star Wars was space opera. Star Trek usually explored some science fiction concept in each episode. You might say the ideas were crap (they sometimes were), but each episode introduced a new idea, explored it, etc.
  On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story. The space setting is merely a style. Same thing is pretty much true for Battlestar Galactica - the story is great, but it's not really science fiction in the sense of exploring new ideas. You could retell either BSG or Star Wars as Westerns or Fantasy or sword and sandals, etc.
  That's not to say that Star Wars or BSG are bad, just that they are space opera - stories with the trappings of space - not science fiction. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are not set in space that are science fiction.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
47. Re:Wait...what? by hardburn · 2009-04-08 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There have never been that many hard SF movies made in any time period, and most of them are passed off as boring by whatever generation is growing up at the time. George Lucas didn't get famous for THX-1138, and Kubrick put audiences to sleep with 2001: A Space Odyssey.
  Further, there are no fewer kids reading now than there were 30 years ago. After public education took over, literacy rates went to all time historical highs, but it didn't last. Reading for fun was nearly killed off by TV, and the first TV generation grew up a long time ago.
  In short, people of every generation are dumb, and putting the blame just on the current one is silly.
  
  --
  Not a typewriter
48. Re:Wait...what? by Nyeerrmm · 2009-04-08 09:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  While I agree with the analysis of Star Trek v. Star Wars, I'd argue BSG touches a lot of 'true sci-fi' topics, particularly the lines between machine and sentience, and the dangers associated with creating more and more intelligent machines.
  Also I'd say its more than just a space opera because it explores the practical implications of multi-world society, and seems much more realistic than Star Wars in terms of social commentary and realism... although I realize that doesn't necessarily push it more into sci-fi rather than just being generally more substantial.
49. Re:Wait...what? by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you, but I think we need to add another definition to the spectrum. Specifically, there is a great deal of sci-fi that is what I'd call hardcore sci-fi, and what a sci-fi nerd would absolutely approve of, but which is also complete pulp.
  For instance (and I'm sure I'll get some downmods for even taking the guy's name in vain), even though I have read and greatly enjoyed a lot of Asimov, I do not consider him to be a writer on the level of men like Fitzgerald or Steinbeck. Much of the sci-fi genre is, as you say, just pop sci-fi, but there's a lot a lot of the "real" stuff can be pretty hackish when you get down to it.
  FWIW I find guys like Vonnegut and PKD to be the ideal: they're not just "sci-fi writers" but plain old writers who happen to fit nicely within the genre. I like things like ST:TOS and The Twilight Zone for the same reasons. Even if there weren't robots and aliens, it'd still be thoughtful.
50. Re:Wait...what? by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  +1, everything that needed to be said has just been said
51. Re:Wait...what? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2009-04-08 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, did I lose the memo that said that crap scifi (or is it syfy?) can't be entertaining?
  A while back we used to pronounce it "Skiffy". We made the distinction:
  - SF was a significant work of science fiction.
  - SciFi was "Sun of the Fifty Foot Toad devours Cleveland".
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
52. Re:Wait...what? by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's true but I think what he was saying was more along the lines of:
  Sci-fi is at its best when it asks questions regarding certain aspects of life or satirizes certain aspects of living. Sci-fi is at its worst when someone takes Rambo and slaps a wrist communicator on him (not that I don't like Rambo). But take Armageddon: was that sci-fi? Probably. Good sci-fi, though?
  I'm not sure I agree with your call for egalitarianism though. There's plenty of good and terrible music out there. Say what you will about scenesters, at least they're still going to shows.
  I mean, I've known honest-to-god hipsters and to be sure, they're a strange and ridiculous breed. But they can't breathe the air once you leave a couple of specific blocks in Brooklyn. So I think what a lot of people call hipsters are just the people who still care enough about music to go out and buy it. People vaguely criticize "indie cred" because it's mild enough to be blue collar without being full-on anti-intellectual. Like how calling someone a "liberal" makes you seem manly. I can't even think of any bands that have sold over 100 records and still deserve that association.
53. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Oh God, now I'm confused, I just imagined this Megan Fox/Morgan Freeman hybrid narrating The Shawshank Transformers:
  "I wish I could tell you that Optimus Prime fought the good fight, and the Decepticons let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but earth is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew. Things went on like that for awhile - earth life consists of routine, and then more routine. Every so often, Optimus Prime would show up with fresh bruises. The Decepticons kept at him - sometimes he was able to fight 'em off, sometimes not. And that's how it went for Optimus - that was his routine. I do believe those first two years were the worst for him, and I also believe that if things had gone on that way, this place would have got the best of him."
  THIS POST WINS! GIVE IT UP. NO OTHER COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
54. Re:Wait...what? by glittalogik · 2009-04-08 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  For every Alien, there's an Outlander .
55. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Megan Fox isn't anything special. Quite average looking really.
56. Re:Wait...what? by Phroggy · 2009-04-08 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are not set in space that are science fiction.
  28 Days Later comes to mind as an example. It's sci-fi/horror, but the sci-fi part is definitely sci-fi.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
57. Re:Wait...what? by caitsith01 · 2009-04-08 12:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story.
  Yeah! Like that John Wayne movie where the Sheriff has a giant, slow moving device which can destroy entire towns, and only throwing a rock off a horse from close range at a particular point on the surface of the device can destroy it! And wagons can travel faster than light, but this capability sometimes breaks down, leading to exciting chase sequences before the wagon zips away to an unknown location! And cowboys can use mysterious powers to control physical objects and influence other people!
  Frankly, if Star Wars can be a Western I think anything can be a Western.
  What aspects of Star Trek are so unique that you cannot draw similar parallels?
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
58. Re:Wait...what? by tyrione · 2009-04-08 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you branch out into other genres of fiction and non-fiction. You'll enjoy life more.
59. Re:Wait...what? by tyrione · 2009-04-08 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Also, the kind of Opera that ignores all the science behind it's Archaeologically ancient Societies with Robots and Bars while wearing tights and cruising through space like one drives to the grocery store.
60. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  Right.. cause about half the women I see are hotter. Douchebag!
61. Re:Wait...what? by BobisOnlyBob · 2009-04-08 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I have mod points but you're all maxed out, so I'll just say this is the first genuine laugh-out-loud moment I've had on /. in weeks, so 'grats.
  Grats to the GP as well, I won't be forgetting Morgan Fox or Megan Freeman any time soon.
62. Re:Wait...what? by JBaustian · 2009-04-08 17:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The original Star Wars, A New Hope, was largely based on Kurosawa's HIdden Fortress (Toshiro Mifune delivers a princess through enemy territory, accompanied by two lovable but trouble-prone droids, er, peasants.)
  
  Kurosawa was hugely influenced by American westerns and American detective stories.
  
  However, just because Star Wars COULD be remade as a Western, does not mean it should be. Ask Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson.
63. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'll just get you a copy of the memo.
64. Re:Wait...what? by caitsith01 · 2009-04-08 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I rather meant though that any movie "could be a western" if sufficiently reduced. Star Trek: two young cowboys from rival families are forced to work together to defeat the an evil new gang of bad guys who have come to town after their parents are unexpectedly killed.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
65. Re:Wait...what? by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was funny.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
66. Re:Wait...what? by Choozy · 2009-04-08 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  I must admit, I found transformers started off quite interesting... until the robots showed themselves and it basically turned into robot slugfest. It's like the writer wrote half a script, went on a 2 week bender and just came back and wrote insert robots fighting each other here.
67. Re:Wait...what? by ravster · 2009-04-09 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! Like that John Wayne movie where the Sheriff has a giant, slow moving device which can destroy entire towns,
  You mean like a bunch of thugs with AK-47s?
  
  and only throwing a rock off a horse from close range at a particular point on the surface of the device can destroy it!
  Like a grenade? Or some kind of explosive device? Possibly hurled over a great distance by a catapult?
  
  And wagons can travel faster than light,
  Or just really really fast.
  
  but this capability sometimes breaks down, leading to exciting chase sequences before the wagon zips away to an unknown location!
  Hey, improper maintenance is bad for any machinery.
  
  And cowboys can use mysterious powers to control physical objects and influence other people!
  
  Or they can use guns to make 'em do things, or just pay them money, or seduce them.
  
  Frankly, if Star Wars can be a Western I think anything can be a Western.
  
  Yup.
  
  What aspects of Star Trek are so unique that you cannot draw similar parallels?
  I can't think of any.
68. Re:Wait...what? by MrKaos · 2009-04-09 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you branch out into other genres of fiction and non-fiction. You'll enjoy life more.
  I do read other things like I recently read the report into the 911 Commission which gives insight how to read the report into 911. I don't mind books on business and psychology and of course loads of computer text books - but I guess that's not entertainment.
  I get so busy but you are probably right, any suggestions of what is worth the time to read?
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
69. Re:Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Just play Six Degrees... Megan Fox was in Transformers, but also in "How To Lose Friend and Irritate People" with Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty in the new ST.
  There. Trekkified (even in a relevant way!) and HOTTTTTTT.
refunds by gEvil+(beta) · 2009-04-08 03:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Those guys in Austin should demand a refund! They paid for a ticket for The Wrath of Khan, but that's not what they got. If it were me I'd be raising hell.

--
This guy's the limit!
1. Re:refunds by LordEd · 2009-04-08 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  If it were me I'd be raising hell.
  Sure, then you'd have to get your own www.refuuund.com page.
2. Re:refunds by reSonans · 2009-04-08 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  They paid for a ticket for The Wrath of Khan, but that's not what they got. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
  I believe most cinemas will refund your ticket if you leave within the first 15 minutes of the film. YMMV.
  On the other hand, though, who do you think is attending a screening of a "special, extended version" of The Wrath of Khan? It's a safe play for the organizers to assume that it will be mostly die-hard fans, and "rewarding" them with a surprise showing of a brand-new Star Trek film is a very inexpensive and effective publicity stunt. (FWIW, I read about this first in the mainstream media.)
  I'm as cynical as most about Star Trek and Hollywood. But this is pretty cool, especially the introduction by Leonard Nimoy.
  
  --
  Light the blue touch-paper and retire immediately.
3. Re:refunds by bickle · 2009-04-08 04:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Me too. I'd be yelling "CON!!!!!!!!!!"
4. Re:refunds by Rei · 2009-04-08 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  I can't help but wonder what kind of dork I am, that I really want to see the new Star Trek movie... but mainly just to see if the Aptera 2e that was present during filming made it into any shots ;)
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
5. Re:refunds by rpillala · 2009-04-08 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah if it were me, from hell's heart I stab at [Nimoy] and then I would chase him round the Alamo Drafthouse and round the bat bridge and round perdition's flames before I gave him up.
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Ah yes, STUNNING! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:13 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm sure it is visually stunning. Too bad I think it'll be intellectually dumbing.
Leonard Nimoy in disguise? by 14erCleaner · 2009-04-08 03:15 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess he didn't wear his ears.

--
Have you read my blog lately?
1. Re:Leonard Nimoy in disguise? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Wait what? Wear his ears? They aren't real?!?
2. Re:Leonard Nimoy in disguise? by Rompicollo · 2009-04-08 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Next they'll be telling us is that his blood isn't really green. What a mind-blow that would be!
New blood by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2009-04-08 03:15 · Score: 1

Well, it is nice to see some new blood in the Star Trek franchise.
Perhaps J. J. has an idea or two. We all know Brannon Braga and Rick Berman ran out of ideas years ago.
I am looking forward to the latest Star Trek outing with slight optimism.

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
1. Re:New blood by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-04-08 03:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, you see, the Enterprise crashes on this planet, and all sorts of spooky things happen.
  Meanwhile, these aliens, called "The Others" keep harassing the crew.
  And there are lots of flashbacks to just before the Enterprise crashes.
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
2. Re:New blood by TypoNAM · 2009-04-08 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think I've seen that before, oh wait I know....
  Hold on give me a second here...
  Ah now I remember, it's called Prison Break, right?
  right?..... ;)
  I know... I know... get lost, I see how it is!
  
  --
  This space is not for rent.
3. Re:New blood by iced_773 · 2009-04-08 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the part about the Defiant coming along on an unspecified mission, taking some of them off the planet before blowing up, and the Federation Six encountering all sorts of international conspiracy before deciding they need to go back to the planet, and then going back in time to the 2190s when Section 31 has a base there.
  And then there's the button you have to push before Omega particles are released, but I was never really clear on that one.
4. Re:New blood by srealm · 2009-04-08 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I thought new blood entered the franchise every time someone was forced to watch Enterprise. I know that made me want to slash MY wrists unless I turned it off.
5. Re:New blood by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough, the Lost blogs call show extras "redshirts" because so many of them die in the same episode they debut in.
visually stunning by gEvil+(beta) · 2009-04-08 03:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like how the "visually stunning" link goes to a tech article about the equipment used for the Sydney showing. Maybe Soulskill can fill us in on how that ties in to ILM.

--
This guy's the limit!
An awesome film-going statement! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

I suspect there were some Star Trek fans like myself at this screening. I do not worship all things Trek. As the fan that I am, I would not hesitate to criticize the film if they screwed it up and screwed with Star Trek too much. With that in mind, it's a safe bet the reaction of the audience is genuine, albeit emotional (Leonard Nimoy as a surprise guest [would that be an oxymoron (was he dressed in Vulcan prostitute garb?)?]?) because of the whole spectacle presented to them. Purple monkey dishwasher.
Still, the general release and the reviews thereof I expect will be manly positive and full of delectable man-sex.
-Dan East
1. Re:An awesome film-going statement! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Your ability to use nested Parentheses and Brackets intrigues me.
2. Re:An awesome film-going statement! by jonaskoelker · 2009-04-08 03:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  (Leonard Nimoy as a surprise guest [would that be an oxymoron (was he dressed in Vulcan prostitute garb?)?]?)
  (loop (print (eval (read)))) ;-)
3. Re:An awesome film-going statement! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  (Leonard Nimoy as a surprise guest [would that be an oxymoron (was he dressed in Vulcan prostitute garb?)?]?)
  (loop (print (eval (read)))) ;-)
  Haha, since he uses rectangular brackets '[' it's probably some kind of troll to make lisp programmers to read some bastardly language like Perl. Always remember - at the first sight, Perl can look like anything. Even like your intestines.
Review? by mikesd81 · 2009-04-08 03:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

It got an ovation, great. But are they allowing anyone to release any reviews? Was some of the ovation left over from the shock of what the actual movie was?

--
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
1. Re:Review? by VShael · 2009-04-08 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  There are TONS of reviews. Mostly insanely positive.
  The most negative I've seen ran along the lines of "It's good, but not great."
2. Re:Review? by Chyeld · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It was a screening to people who would actually take time out of their lives to go see a remastered version of Wrath of Khan. Which isn't anything against those folk, that was a good movie. But in terms of objective "this was a good movie on it's own merits" reviews, do you honestly expect to see any?
  This was a binary choice: either they all loved it because it was the next Star Trek movie. Meaning it didn't stink as bad as Nemesis. Or they burnt down the theater because it was the next Star Trek movie and it stunk as bad as Nemesis.
3. Re:Review? by Quothz · 2009-04-08 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It got an ovation, great. But are they allowing anyone to release any reviews?
  TFA is a review.
4. Re:Review? by Sun.Jedi · 2009-04-08 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Reviews from a clearly biased crowd -- they were there to see a 27 year old movie with an advertised 10 extra minutes of footage.
  I'm not pissing on the parade, just making the point that I would not have expected a negative review, given the circumstances.
5. Re:Review? by Comboman · 2009-04-08 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary. Fans of a 27 year old movie would be more likely to give a negative review if it didn't live up to the best of the franchise (think back to the pre-release reviews of "The Phantom Menace").
  
  --
  Support Right To Repair Legislation.
6. Re:Review? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  TFA is a review.
  BS. It's a marketing puff piece masquerading as a review.
  The usual marketing scam where they pretend to be a third party and also fraudulently claim "everybody likes it". These lowlifes should be in jail.
Idea shortage in LA by Animats · 2009-04-08 03:19 · Score: 0, Troll

Forty years on, and they're still flogging this thing. Hollywood has a major idea shortage.
I'd like to see any of David Weber's space operas turned into a series. Or Bujold's. We need some new thinking. Not rehashes of dead TV shows and old comic books.
1. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Richard_at_work · 2009-04-08 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I personally think David Webers Safehold series would be excellent for a movie series :)
2. Re:Idea shortage in LA by J-1000 · 2009-04-08 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  While I'll never get tired of seeing new Star Trek movies, you do have a point. 90% of what we see today is either a sequel, a retread, or a copycat. The fat cats are mostly interested in safe bets.
3. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Narpak · 2009-04-08 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Personally as long as something is done well it don't have to be new. If the new incarnation of Star Trek is well made and entertaining, then I nothing is better than that. It is far easier for "established" licenses to get the budget movies like this get. Of course I wouldn't mind seeing something darker and more gritty than Star Trek within the realm of science fiction. But at least a well made movie constructed on an old concept is better than a crap movie based upon a new concept.
  
  --
  The Long Now Foundation
4. Re:Idea shortage in LA by PhxBlue · 2009-04-08 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see any of David Weber's space operas turned into a series.
  I'd agree with this, by and large, but how would you incorporate Weber's 20-page digressions into the 500-year history of Manpower, Inc., etc.? I stopped reading "Storm from the Shadows" because Weber's en media res divergences into the Honorverse -- while fascinating -- was getting in the way of the story. They needed to be in a glossary or on a Wiki or something.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
5. Re:Idea shortage in LA by tjonnyc999 · 2009-04-08 03:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Or Herbert's "Dune" saga. And no, a corny 80's cinematic abortion + a severely dumbed-down miniseries does not do the books any kind of justice.
6. Re:Idea shortage in LA by LoudMusic · 2009-04-08 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Forty years on, and they're still flogging this thing. Hollywood has a major idea shortage.
  I'd like to see any of David Weber's space operas turned into a series. Or Bujold's. We need some new thinking. Not rehashes of dead TV shows and old comic books.
  Where I tend to agree with your sentiment, there is value in already being familiar with the history of the characters and "getting on with the story".
  
  --
  No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
7. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Anonymous+Monkey · 2009-04-08 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Great, hear I go with a "Me Too!" post. Yea, trek is dead for me. I remember the original Star Trek and how it came off as just a kind of fun space show, and then about six to twelve hours my juvenile mind would get the social commentary about racialism or genocide or what ever and suddenly feel like 'eww, that was kinda sick.' And then I would spend the next few days wondering if a better decision could have been made. Half way through TNG it seemed like everything just got to comfortable. If Picard made a decesion it was the right one, and everything was happy after that. By the time of Enterprise the show lost it's ability to moralize. Now it's just gone. Ok, end of rant.
  
  --
  We are the Borg...
8. Re:Idea shortage in LA by TheRaven64 · 2009-04-08 03:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Am I the only one to see the irony in someone claiming that the solution to the lack of original ideas is to copy ideas from books?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
9. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Personally as long as something is done well it don't have to be new. If the new incarnation of Star Trek is well made and entertaining, then I nothing is better than that. It is far easier for "established" licenses to get the budget movies like this get. Of course I wouldn't mind seeing something darker and more gritty than Star Trek within the realm of science fiction. But at least a well made movie constructed on an old concept is better than a crap movie based upon a new concept.
  "Stranger in a Strange Land," perhaps?
10. Re:Idea shortage in LA by WillAdams · 2009-04-08 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  The Greeks invented everything --- all else is variation.
  William
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
11. Re:Idea shortage in LA by nine-times · 2009-04-08 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Let's not fool ourselves here-- if you think Hollywood has an idea shortage because they're recycling old ideas, stories, and characters, then all of humanity has had an idea shortage for a few thousand years, at least. And I say "at least" because the writers then may have been stealing ideas, but we just don't have records of the ideas they stole.
  This era of reboots is fantastic in my opinion. It's what cultures do when they have a rich culture to draw from, which is that they take the old ideas and stories, and reinvent and reimagine them in a way that makes them relevant and poignant for the time. The original series was great for its time, but yeah, it's becoming increasingly dated as a relic of the 60s. The general setup of a band of explorers and the characters themselves, however, still have relevance.
12. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  This is your big opportunity! Go fot it Mitchell!
13. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Cube+Steak · 2009-04-08 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  We need some new thinking. Not rehashes of dead TV shows and old comic books.
  So your solution to the rehashing of dead TV shows and old comic books is to rehash novels?
14. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Daswolfen · 2009-04-08 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Honor Harrington would probably be better suited as a series. While the ship battles would be impressive (who wouldnt love to see ships of the wall being destroyed by X-Ray laser warheads on IMAX), its the personal interactions that make the series stand out above regular sci-fi.
  On a side note, Id love to see the Flint/Weber Ring of Fire get the movie treatment.
  
  --
  Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
15. Re:Idea shortage in LA by dpilot · 2009-04-08 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Oh heck, if you want space opera, it would be great to see something - anything by E.E. Doc Smith turned into a movie. In order to not be downright ludicrous, it would need to be done with tongue heavily in cheek, like "Big Trouble in Little China". (How anyone could say some of those lines, keep it straight, and not crack up on the spot is beyond me.)
  On the mildly more serious side of space opera, I seem to remember hearing that someone is taking on "The Foundation Trilogy".
  Or for newer space opera, any of Alistair Reynolds or Peter K Hamilton stuff would work well. I don't think general audiences are ready yet for Iaian Banks or The Culture.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
16. Re:Idea shortage in LA by jojisan · 2009-04-08 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I GROK THIS
  
  --
  <sig> I wish I had a </sig>
17. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Narpak · 2009-04-08 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not a bad idea. Though I was thinking more along the line of the Gap Series; that deserves to be made into several movies if you ask me.
  
  --
  The Long Now Foundation
18. Re:Idea shortage in LA by MightyMartian · 2009-04-08 03:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I still think they should make a movie of Zelazny's Lord of Light. One of the best damned SF books ever written. Besides, who wouldn't watch a movie with a talking monkey.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
19. Re:Idea shortage in LA by maxume · 2009-04-08 03:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Dude, you would complain about a blowjob.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
20. Re:Idea shortage in LA by corbettw · 2009-04-08 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Taking ideas from other mediums and rehashing them for the screen is different from rehashing old movies how exactly?
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
21. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see King's Dark Tower series done properly.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
22. Re:Idea shortage in LA by sageres · 2009-04-08 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  As long as all of the Mike's sex scenes are filmed and shown in its entirety...
23. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Tsunayoshi · 2009-04-08 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  But would it really be done properly? I'd love to see the Dark Tower on film, but after seeing how the Harry Potter's have turned out compared to the books, I'm not enthused about a series that long making it to screen intact.
  
  --
  "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
24. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Em+Emalb · 2009-04-08 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, it would be hard as hell to do it up right, I do know that. Could it be done? Sure. Would the studios spend the time and money to make it properly? Probably not.
  (for the record, while the HP books were immensely better than the movies, the movies themselves weren't too horrid.)
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
25. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  How about just simply picking one of the earlier-on stories. Heh...just about any of the pieces about Honor and the ships she commanded and it'd work. Most of them don't have divergences in plot like that; my pick would be On Basilisk Station.
26. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Provocateur · 2009-04-08 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Careful what you wish for: mention this phrase 'who wouldn't watch a movie with a talking monkey' to a Hollywood exec and it automatically gets appended with '...opposite Samuel L. Jackson!'
  
  --
  WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
27. Re:Idea shortage in LA by ekimminau · 2009-04-08 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I would REALLY like to see a true representation of the book Armor rather than the obvious ripoff delivered with Starship Troopers.
  
  --
  Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
28. Re:Idea shortage in LA by networkBoy · 2009-04-08 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  only if it is true to the book and not like starship troopers (or I robot for that matter).
  Honestly I would love to se either author's future history timelines made into a movie franchise. Either could get you ~30 hours of movie footage over 10-15 movies. Releasing one a year that's a 15 year timeline of revenue without re-hashing existing story lines. You could release every 6 months I suppose. Thing is I doubt any studio is even remotely interested in a project of that magnitude.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
29. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Povno · 2009-04-08 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Whether or not it happens remains to be seen but this is intriguing not the less.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Tower_(series)#Film_adaptation
  
  P.S. I only linked Wikipedia because the other available sources are blocked at work. But you can use Wiki's links to read further.
  
  --
  sudo apt-get lost
30. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm, I thought the HP movies were better adaptations of the books than, say, the LotR movies to their books.
31. Re:Idea shortage in LA by An+ominous+Cow+art · 2009-04-08 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or for newer space opera, any of Alistair Reynolds or Peter K Hamilton stuff would work well. I don't think general audiences are ready yet for Iaian Banks or The Culture.
  I think Consider Phlebas would make a good movie. There's enough action and special effects to appeal to a wide audience.
  Lensman movies, done right, could be great.
32. Re:Idea shortage in LA by witherstaff · 2009-04-08 05:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Lord of Light would be a great movie. Amber could be a really good miniseries if done right - not a sci fi/scyfy/whatever , but a HBO Deadwood or Rome funded project.
  The only book I've heard being worked on for a movie that interests me lately is Rama. Although how bad they'll screw that up I'm not sure.
33. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Which is funny since Armor is a clear ripoff of the Starship Troopers novel.
34. Re:Idea shortage in LA by osu-neko · 2009-04-08 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's not possible to do any good novel justice in a movie. A two hour movie can do justice to a short story. A miniseries can do justice to a novella. A good novel requires a series, and probably two or three seasons. It's not a question of whether a movie is going to bastardize the book it's based on, the question is just, how badly?
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
35. Re:Idea shortage in LA by osu-neko · 2009-04-08 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  We could always rehash Shakespeare a few more times. He did a really good job rehashing Greek tragedies...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
36. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Hottie+Parms · 2009-04-08 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I read most of this book while commuting to work each morning. I blushed.
37. Re:Idea shortage in LA by tjonnyc999 · 2009-04-08 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  All too true. I just find it amazing that a fictional universe that spans dozens of written works, thousands of years of history, and hundreds of characters, has been cinematically represented by only a movie and a miniseries. FFS, Hollywood, there's 2.3 metric shit-tons of inspiration here.
38. Re:Idea shortage in LA by dwye · 2009-04-08 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  > We need some new thinking. Not rehashes of dead TV shows and old comic books.
  Yeah. After all, Shakespeare never stooped to stealing plots from previous works.
  Oh, wait...
39. Re:Idea shortage in LA by Maxo-Texas · 2009-04-08 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  At least the animated Star Ship Troopers series finally got power armor.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
40. Re:Idea shortage in LA by dpilot · 2009-04-08 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Once I saw that "Starship Troopers" wasn't going to be done in the John Wayne style that would have suited Heinlein well, I began to wish they hadn't done it at all. If you're not going to play it straight, and I'll admit that "Starship Troopers" done straight probably wouldn't sail past the mid 1960's, don't do it. If you want the theme, but want to twist it into modern themes, then do Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" instead. Where "Starship Troopers" is interstellar war ala WWII, "The Forever War" is interstellar war ala Vietnam, but both are basics of interstellar war, just that the latter is more advanced, as well as more bitter.
  And if you just want farce, then Harry Harrison's "Bill, the Galactic Hero" manages to skewer "Starship Troopers", "The Foundation Trilogy", and any number of other stories inhabiting that range, all in the same book.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
41. Re:Idea shortage in LA by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-04-08 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it sucks, doesn't it?
42. Re:Idea shortage in LA by PhxBlue · 2009-04-08 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Likewise. That was one of the best books, if not the best, of the series. "Ashes of Victory" was pretty good, too, though I'm not sure how that book's bittersweet ending would translate to the big screen.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
43. Re:Idea shortage in LA by J+Story · 2009-04-08 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  In general I have found that movies based on books tend to be more complex and "complete". Of course, such movies rarely do justice to the book, but it is a case of having to condense something well, rather than trying to puff out a "concept" into a 90-minute script.
44. Re:Idea shortage in LA by kashani · 2009-04-09 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, you mean David Weber's rehash of Horatio Hornblower? :-P
  Not that I didn't enjoy the first couple of books, but there isn't anything new in them.
  
  --
  - Why is the ninja... so deadly?
Sounds awesome.. by Gravatron · 2009-04-08 03:22 · Score: 1

Wish I could have been there. Didn't even know about the showing here in Austin till after the fact.
1. Re:Sounds awesome.. by SydShamino · 2009-04-08 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I'm a Fantastic Fest 2009 VIP ticket holder, and I wasn't notified of the free Khan showing at all (despite the article mentioning that FF folks were specifically invited).
  My email is registered with the festival, I subscribe to their news feed, and nothing.
  Oh well. Mandatory vacation in Q3 this year means I'll get to take the entire week of FF off for the first time, increasing the number of kickass films I'll get to see then.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
All trekkies by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

The audience consisted of trekkies, but I'm wondering; does that make the 5min. standing ovation more, or less impressive?
1. Re:All trekkies by ultraexactzz · 2009-04-08 03:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's an odd-numbered film, so I'm thinking it would be more impressive. Uphill climb, and all that.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
2. Re:All trekkies by Atzanteol · 2009-04-08 03:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  More. How many trekkies do you know that can stand for 5 minutes?
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
3. Re:All trekkies by elrous0 · 2009-04-08 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The guy from Spaced (I think his name was Simon Pegg) always used to say that odd-numbered Trek's ALWAYS sucked. He was a wise man, that one.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
4. Re:All trekkies by Nimey · 2009-04-08 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  That pattern may be broken, because the last even-numbered film sucked like an odd.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
5. Re:All trekkies by BobNET · 2009-04-08 03:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Just as there are no sequels to the Matrix, Insurrection is the most recent Trek movie made. That makes this the tenth, so the odd-even rule still stands...
6. Re:All trekkies by Fallus+Shempus · 2009-04-08 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the guy who is actually playing Scotty in the new film?
7. Re:All trekkies by Cube+Steak · 2009-04-08 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm more amazed that their is a material that can support the collective fat asses of a theater full of trekkies.
8. Re:All trekkies by ultraexactzz · 2009-04-08 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  ...Which makes it more than ironic that he plays Scotty in an odd-numbered film. Maybe he'll get a chance to break the trend.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
9. Re:All trekkies by Tetsujin · 2009-04-08 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Just as there are no sequels to the Matrix, Insurrection is the most recent Trek movie made. That makes this the tenth, so the odd-even rule still stands...
  Interesting... You reject the fact that Nemesis was ever made - but you keep Insurrection around?
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
10. Re:All trekkies by chebucto · 2009-04-08 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Insurrection was cheesy; the premise was a stretch, but the characters stayed intact and it had some redeeming moments. All in all it was no worse than any other odd-numbered trek movie. It may have left people cracking wise and pointing out ironies, but there was nothing positively bad about it.
  Nemesis, on the other hand, was shit. It felt like the people who made it hated the fact they had to make it; there was no joy, no fun, no invention... it was all darkness and slime-green lighting, disgusting enemies, vile, stupid-looking enemy ships (unlike, say, the cool-looking Bird of Prey or Warbird), and a plot so uninspired you groan when you find out what's going on. It made you feel empty just for watching it. It destroyed the franchise so completely one wonders if the writers and actors wanted that to happen.
  Compare this to, say, the recent X-Files movie: not great, but it kept the spirit of the series alive and left open the door for a better sequel.
  
  --
  The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
11. Re:All trekkies by CorporateSuit · 2009-04-08 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  More. How many trekkies do you know that can stand for 5 minutes?
  Maybe they stood up and clapped in shifts.
  
  --
  I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
12. Re:All trekkies by fermion · 2009-04-08 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  But not real trekkies. Real trekkies have no use for remastered versions of star trek, or remastered versions of star wars, or that horrible thing they did to red dwarf when they rereleased it.
  Honestly, we want something new, even if it is crap. I sort of forgave the remastering of The Star Wars movie, as it was something kind of interesting to do. But everything after that was just redundant.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
13. Re:All trekkies by yammosk · 2009-04-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  but the characters stayed intact and it had some redeeming moments.
  Paraphrased
  Picard: Mr. Worf, is that a zit?
  Worf: Sir, I'm going through puberty!
  Paraphrased 2
  Crusher: Deanna, do you feel like your boobs are bigger. *checks herself*
  The whole movie was like this. Insurrection was total crap.
14. Re:All trekkies by epiphani · 2009-04-08 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. And such a shame that Metallica died horribly in that plane crash right after the black album...
  
  --
  .
15. Re:All trekkies by Tetsujin · 2009-04-08 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  but the characters stayed intact and it had some redeeming moments.
  Paraphrased
  Picard: Mr. Worf, is that a zit?
  Worf: Sir, I'm going through puberty!
  Paraphrased 2
  Crusher: Deanna, do you feel like your boobs are bigger. *checks herself*
  The whole movie was like this. Insurrection was total crap.
  On a similar note, it always baffled me how people could keep up this whole "odd-even" rule in the face of Star Trek 4...
  But, then again, I like "The (slow-)Motion Picture"...
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
16. Re:All trekkies by Selfbain · 2009-04-08 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  They were probably all just shouting continuity mistakes and it was misinterpreted as an ovation.
  
  --
  Well, it has never been successfully tested.
17. Re:All trekkies by elrous0 · 2009-04-08 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Data: In case of a water landing, I am designed to be used as a flotation device.
  ...And that's when I walked out of the theater, never to watch another new Trek movie again.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
18. Re:All trekkies by rho · 2009-04-08 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Compare this to, say, the recent X-Files movie: not great, but it kept the spirit of the series alive and left open the door for a better sequel.
  What?
  X-Files: I Want to Believe, and I Believe This Movie is Shit.
  I guess you're right, though. It did keep to the spirit of the series. All of the action occurred in pitch black shadows and all of the important character development was presented in inaudible whispers.
  
  --
  Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
19. Re:All trekkies by pluther · 2009-04-08 09:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  They were doing the wave.
  It just took five minutes to get all the way across the theater.
  
  --
  If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
20. Re:All trekkies by snuf23 · 2009-04-08 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  And oh sweet irony that Mr Pegg plays Scotty in an odd-numbered Trek film.
  
  --
  Sometimes my arms bend back.
21. Re:All trekkies by Trogre · 2009-04-08 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  First Contact is the most recent Trek movie made.
  Fixed that for you.
  (actually I'd be inclined to re-splice the series with just Insurrection cut out. Nemesis, while not the strongest Trek movie, was much better than its predecessor)
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
22. Re:All trekkies by snuf23 · 2009-04-08 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you consider Star Trek IV as an eighties comedy rather than a sci-fi movie it is pretty entertaining.
  
  --
  Sometimes my arms bend back.
23. Re:All trekkies by ElectricTurtle · 2009-04-08 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  They were both equally bad, just in different ways. Insurrection was boring as hell. I have a hard time remembering it exists. It might have made a passable TNG episode, but it couldn't scale up to be a movie. As other responders have mentioned, the characters were turned almost into cartoons of themselves at times in what I perceived to be attempts at alleviating the pervasive ennui of the plot.
  
  Nemesis, rather than being boring per se, was more like the idiots running the franchise taking turns relieving themselves on Gene Roddenberry's grave. It was a disgusting Frankenstein's monster of plot devices from some of the movies and shows that didn't suck, as though ripping them into tiny pieces and sewing them together would be as magical and compelling as their natural and original form.
  
  Both movies provide an incredibly low bar for the newest one. Quite frankly I would rather watch ST:I or ST:V than ST:IX or ST:X.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
24. Re:All trekkies by ElectricTurtle · 2009-04-08 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I'm concerned, people who don't like ST:IV don't like Star Trek. The Original Series frequently frequently used stories that were driven by humor and drama in either the real past through time travel (Tomorrow is Yesterday, The City on the Edge of Forever, Assignment: Earth) or through analogues of the past (Miri, Shore Leave, The Squire of Gothos, Who Mourns for Adonais, A Piece of the Action, The Omega Glory, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, The Paradise Syndrome, Spectre of the Gun, Plato's Stepchildren) albeit too frequently by way of the ludicrous Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development.
  
  While certainly they all weren't good episodes, some of the best ones like A Piece of the Action, Bread and Circuses, etc. were well-written, well-acted, generally engaging and integral to the quality and tone of the series. ST:IV was made very much in that tradition.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
25. Re:All trekkies by dcam · 2009-04-08 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  And there are only three Indiana Jones Movies.
  
  --
  meh
We can all move on as soon as... by Xistenz99 · 2009-04-08 03:25 · Score: 0

the original series fans admit, that while being a great show, it was pretty cheesy. I love the original series movies and was always a big fan of The Next Generation tv show. I am glad that they brought in somebody new, that may not have been a huge fan, but still respects the material because Star Trek before this movie is dead.
Always a bride's maid, never a bride by LoadWB · 2009-04-08 03:25 · Score: 1

Man, nothing cool like that ever happens around here.
1. Re:Always a bride's maid, never a bride by Itninja · 2009-04-08 04:03 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Just in point of fact. A bridesmaid is a woman who stands with the bride on her wedding day. A "bride's maid" is someone hired to clean the brides house (I guess).
  
  --
  I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
2. Re:Always a bride's maid, never a bride by LoadWB · 2009-04-09 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes the fingers work faster than the brain. Thanks for pointing that out.
Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by Gizzmonic · 2009-04-08 03:26 · Score: 1

I love the (original) Alamo Drafthouse. Austin is the center of the Texas film industry, but that industry is in danger due to poaching from states like Lousiana and New Mexico. If you live in Texas, write your state representative and senator and get them to support Representative Dawnna Duke's economic incentive bill.
You'll be glad you did!

--
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
1. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by geekoid · 2009-04-08 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's not poaching, it's called 'lower operating costs.'
  Or are people from other states literally coming in, grabbing film crew, and dragging them away?
  Hollywood needs to have some more incentives for filming their. Sadly people think taxing business is the way to go, when all it does it drive jobs away.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by Zordak · 2009-04-08 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  write your state representative and senator and get them to support Representative Dawnna Duke's economic incentive bill.
  Or you could just let them succeed or fail on their own merits like every other industr...
  Never mind. Apparently, that's not how we do things anymore in America (or Texas). So yeah, give 'em a handout. Just make sure it's tied to some venue tax in Austin, so I don't have to pay for it.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
3. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by Dan667 · 2009-04-08 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I am all for good movies, but they should have to pay taxes like everyone else. Not sure how giving free money away to people who make movies is helping the people of Texas?
4. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by elrous0 · 2009-04-08 04:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And for God's sake, build a crazy-expensive professional sports stadium on the taxpayers' dime while you're at it. This is America, dammit!
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-08 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since when was a tax reduction (which is precisely what Rep. Duke's bill is) a handout?
  One is giving something; the other is reducing the amount you're (forcibly) taking.
6. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-08 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Other locales have industry-specific tax cuts for the movie industry -- and since they did that, folks in that industry here have gotten considerably less work as filming moves elsewhere.
  Charging people making movies in Texas less -- so we can be cost-competitive with other states -- is a net benefit; the movie industry brings in jobs, and the people working those jobs spend money, even if their employers do pay less of it to the state.
7. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by fishdan · 2009-04-08 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  >but that industry is in danger due to poaching from states like Lousiana and New Mexico. >If you live in Texas, write your state representative and senator and get them to support >Representative Dawnna Duke's economic incentive bill. If you live in Louisiana or New Mexico, find some random rep/sen in Texas and tell them how they better not waste any more money on films that make $$$. :)
  
  --
  Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
8. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by Dan667 · 2009-04-08 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  But this is not quite as rosy as you are painting. If a $1 million tax break is given to a movie, how many jobs have to be made by that movie to break even? I can see tax breaks where there is a net benefit, but I have yet to see that with Texas Movie Making. Being a "cool" industry is not enough to give away money.
9. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by An+ominous+Cow+art · 2009-04-08 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  And let some goddamned bank, cable, or wireless company plaster its name on it!
10. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by the+eric+conspiracy · 2009-04-08 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably Alamo Drafthouse makes use of various services provided by the government. With a tax subsidy they are no longer having to pay for them.
11. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-08 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  The argument here is that the $1m tax break is $1m that, if we weren't providing the tax break, we wouldn't get at all, because the movie would be getting made elsewhere. Whatever we collect even after providing the break is thus gravy.
  And, again, direct revenue isn't the whole picture -- funds spent by people while traveling to Texas to work is money that wouldn't be in our economy otherwise; it's not just the state government that gains.
12. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-08 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? The Drafthouse shows movies (and does a damned fine job of it); it's companies making movies at issue here. Having a movie made is a great boost to the local economy -- while there are certainly locals who get relevant jobs, there are also a great many people involved who come, spend money, and leave. Since folks working on movies are largely temporary residents, related city services are largely paid for by the businesses housing them: If you travel somewhere on a business trip, the hotel you're at pays for the water, electricity, sewer, fire protection &c. you use while there.
  This bill (which already passed the House) gives a rebate against sales taxes paid on in-state spending -- but all that money being spent, except the refunded taxes, stays in the local economy even after the folks working on the project go back home. I could see the objection if the focus were on local companies getting their state services at a discount -- but the way the movie industry works, that's generally not true around here. What's the down side?
13. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by earlymon · 2009-04-08 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  ...poaching from states like Lousiana and New Mexico...
  Film making began in New Mexico in 1898. We - New Mexico - DEFINED the Western, and as you no doubt know, most "Texas Westerns" were shot here as well. And it's not just Westerns, unless you don't want to count drama, comedy, action/adventure and SciFi.
  But hey, Texas is no Johnny-come-lately, either. After all, the first film shot in Texas was documentation of the hurricane around Galveston in 1900.
  And, gee, that was only two years after New Mexico had started and only a year after New Mexico started to define genres in film making.
  So, other than your complete ignorance of the facts, golly yes, New Mexico is poaching your film industry.
  Pardon me, but the floor is on rapid approach to my body, already convulsing in hysterical laughter.
  I'm sorry, I'm probably being harsh. Maybe you should mention that Microsoft and atom bombs started in Texas and make up the ground you've lost.
  Sources:
  http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/FF/ecf1.html
  http://nmfilmmuseum.org/history/romance.php
  On a serious note - I like your posts and am not flaming you. Teasing the hell out of you, but not flaming.
  Few states have depth in film making. I wish Texas the best of luck, seriously. But please, give props where due. We poach on no one.
  And for others, if you've never been to Austin, check it out.
  
  --
  Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
14. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by Dan667 · 2009-04-08 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  So you believe that it is currently costing nothing to run texas government and that businesses are purely giving huge sums of taxes to government? Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Feel free to post some numbers.
15. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-08 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? I can't determine which numbers would be useful to refute your argument, because I don't see what it has to do with anything I said.
16. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by JackieBrown · 2009-04-08 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  What is funny is how we keep hearing from Hollywood actors and directors how we should give more in taxes to help others.
  We listen to them tell us how uncaring big buisnesses are using loopholes to get around their civic duties of supporting everyone else.
  Yet, when it comes down to it, they do the same damn thing.
17. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-08 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  What is funny is how we keep hearing from Hollywood actors and directors how we should give more in taxes to help others.
  I don't keep hearing that from Hollywood actors and directors. Maybe you're stereotyping those gosh-durned liberals again? [If providing counterexamples, don't forget the plurals! You specified more than one actor, and more than one director].
18. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by Dan667 · 2009-04-09 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  So if a business comes to texas and sets up shop, you are arguing that all the taxes they pay are pure gravy. That makes no sense at all. They use roads. They user services. They need to pay taxes to support what they are getting. You are also arguing that they are creating jobs, and that that too is pure bonus. But this is just not reasonable thinking if the company is using more services and being more of a burden than they are paying in taxes and jobs. I am saying they are not able to be a desirable business for the texas community if they are given huge tax breaks. Post some numbers that prove otherwise, they don't exist showing a good result.
19. Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome by cduffy · 2009-04-09 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh; I see you're taking some of my rhetoric a bit literally; let me replace it with a more straightforward description of what's proposed.
  Texas funds itself through sales taxes (~60% of state income) and property taxes (~40% of state income). This constitutes a partial refund of the former, not (in any form) of the latter. However, businesses making movies in Texas don't generally, as you say, "set up shop" -- they rarely buy property here, settle in, and use city services delivered to that property. Instead, they rent property (owned by someone else who is, presumably, already paying property taxes for services delivered to that location), hire people, spend money locally, shoot their film, and then leave.
  Movies once shot here have moved to Louisiana or New Mexico, which refund 25% of sales taxes (and employment taxes paid wrt resident employees; Texas, by contrast, does not have a state income tax) and have landscapes able to stand in for the Texas region; these states have, after reviewing the financial effectiveness of these programs, seen fit to continue them. The Texas bill under consideration refunds 5% of in-state spending, leaving an effective 3.25% tax rate -- considerably lower, to be sure. However, as this is a targeted mechanism to get out-of-state funds into the Texas economy (whereupon they will be presumably be spent by the parties receiving them, and taxed during each such transaction), it makes sense to accept a discount in doing so.
  I do assert that accepting an appropriately balanced reduction in tax rate in such a manner as to be focused on attracting out-of-state funds is likely to be wildly net-revenue-positive for the state. I do not assert that this specific bill, as presently implemented, is so balanced -- though my intuition certainly points in that direction, and the people employed to evaluate it on my behalf (the state legislature) so far seem to agree.
It was free by tylersoze · 2009-04-08 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well actually it was a free screening. I got there too late and was turned away because the theater was full. It would've been cool to see Nimoy. I say I would have walked out since I really wanted to see Khan, but honestly I'm sure the atomosphere was totally electric after Nimoy came out. I think all the good reviews coming out from that are more than likely colored by that fact. I'm sure I would have been caught up in it too even though I could give a crap about seeing the new one.
1. Re:It was free by Gadget_Guy · 2009-04-08 03:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Hang on, you say that you could give a crap about seeing the new film?
  Well I certainly wouldn't want to sit in your seat during the next session then!
2. Re:It was free by conejito_andarin · 2009-04-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this exactly what TFA said?
3. Re:It was free by bondjamesbond · 2009-04-08 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Nimoy was a client of the entertainment law firm that I used to work at in LA. Other stars would come in, and I wouldn't even notice, but when he came in, I was a bit star struck.
4. Re:It was free by conejito_andarin · 2009-04-08 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  yes, sorry, i know, wrong thread. dummy.
These are fans by geekoid · 2009-04-08 03:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

there opinion needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I hope it is worth it.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:These are fans by mea37 · 2009-04-08 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You mean like how Star Wars fans went easy on Lucas for Episodes I-III?
2. Re:These are fans by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  that's neither here nor there.
3. Re:These are fans by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Um, we did. As much disappointment as there was, the fan community really didn't acknowledge how bad Episode I was until Episode II broke us.
IDL by Thelasko · 2009-04-08 03:30 · Score: 1

Apparently, they get to see the movie a day earlier, not including those extra few hours they get from being just on the other side of the International Date Line. Or do I have that backwards?

--
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Slashdot Freudian Slip Of The Day by Dystopian+Rebel · 2009-04-08 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Two words: Morgan Fox
Every time he thinks about Megan Fox, he thinks about his organ.

--
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
1. Re:Slashdot Freudian Slip Of The Day by hal2814 · 2009-04-08 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Every time he thinks about Megan Fox, he thinks about his organ."
  And then a kitten dies. Or is that hairy palms? Or going blind? Well, you get the idea...
2. Re:Slashdot Freudian Slip Of The Day by khellendros1984 · 2009-04-08 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Or...he thinks of the Playboy girl that actually *is* named Morgan Fox...
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Nuclear wessels by dkleinsc · 2009-04-08 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

FTFA:

Anton Yelchin's Russian accent in his portrayal of Chekov does get a bit annoying.
What do you expect Yelchin to do with that part, now that Koenig completely immortalized bad accents for Chekov?

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:Nuclear wessels by geminidomino · 2009-04-08 05:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's sad... Walter Koenig's name doesn't make me think of Chekov anymore...
  "Anatomically impossible, Mr. Garibaldi. But you're welcome to try."
2. Re:Nuclear wessels by XanC · 2009-04-08 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oh he can do the bad accent. Don't you worry. Right in the beginning, he's trying to enter an authorization code, and the computer doesn't understand "wictor, wictor". Brilliant!
3. Re:Nuclear wessels by Nimey · 2009-04-08 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Too right. Walter Koenig will always be Bester to me now, because it was a wonderful character and he did a magnificent job at it.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
4. Re:Nuclear wessels by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  He did such a great job in the role of Bester. The contrast between lines that were horrifically serious or seriously funny was fascinating. Koenig's role as Bester has pretty much superceded my memories of him as Chekov too. It's so much better.
  Bester: "Well, there's just no delicate way to say this...."
  [pause]
  Bester: "I want your body"
  Lyta Alexander: "WHAT??!! Are you out of your mind?"
  Bester: "Heh, that's a very funny question to ask a telepath, ... since we spend so much of our time in other peoples' minds. I don't want it now, Lyta, just when you are not ... using it anymore, after ... your passing."
5. Re:Nuclear wessels by JackieBrown · 2009-04-08 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Bester was a much darker and interesting character than Chekov.
  It boosted his reputation to me as an actor. Especially when you consider the moment he steps on a scifi set he reeks of Chekov.
6. Re:Nuclear wessels by Nimey · 2009-04-08 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Especially when you consider the moment he steps on a scifi set he reeks of Chekov.
  Oh no! I don't even think of Chekov when I see him (and I used to be a trekkie), I always think of Bester, and get a small feeling of loathing when I do. ;-)
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
7. Re:Nuclear wessels by geminidomino · 2009-04-08 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no! I don't even think of Chekov when I see him (and I used to be a trekkie), I always think of Bester, and get a small feeling of loathing when I do. ;-)
  Just serves to prove how incredible he was in the role.
8. Re:Nuclear wessels by dkleinsc · 2009-04-09 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely I prefer him as Bester. But you can't ignore his work as Chekov, since that more-or-less made his career. Plus he got a couple of Saturn awards as Chekov.
  Frankly, Bester's greatest moment was when he's sitting down telling Garibaldi exactly what has happened to him. He's so deliciously evil.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
9. Re:Nuclear wessels by geminidomino · 2009-04-09 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Chekov may have made his career, but I don't think it would be insulting to say that Bester *defined* it.
Christopher Pike? by scubamage · 2009-04-08 03:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just curious, is Christopher Pike the captain of the enterprise? I saw some guy introduce himself as Kirk in the trailer. However since this is supposed to be predating the early series, Kirk wouldn't be captain yet. Pike would. Or is this yet another one of the billion plot holes?
1. Re:Christopher Pike? by Nimey · 2009-04-08 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Might be Robert April if it's that early, if RA is actually canonical and not just for the novels.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
2. Re:Christopher Pike? by Abcd1234 · 2009-04-08 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Pike would. Or is this yet another one of the billion plot holes?
  If, by plot holes, you mean elements they changed as part of the *reset that this movie represents*.
  Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
3. Re:Christopher Pike? by scubamage · 2009-04-08 03:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What exactly does not following large metal guns have to do with anything? Badum-ching!
4. Re:Christopher Pike? by scubamage · 2009-04-08 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  I believe RA is in fact part of canon. I just know that in the Cage Pike hands off the enterprise to Kirk :)
5. Re:Christopher Pike? by rpillala · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If the small snips of reviews I've read are any indication, only spoilers can explain this. So we'll have to wait and see, or not see. I'm on the fence like I was with Watchmen.
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
6. Re:Christopher Pike? by dtolman · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well - there's someone cast as Christopher Pike...
7. Re:Christopher Pike? by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 04:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
  The part where you don't join us in frothing at the mouth and taking up pitch forks and torches in outcry against this heinous heresy!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
8. Re:Christopher Pike? by MTTECHYBOY · 2009-04-08 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure Kirk (In the Trailer) was there to make sure everyone got the lowest price on Hotel rooms!!!
9. Re:Christopher Pike? by Spectre · 2009-04-08 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not following cannon is a bad idea, you certainly don't want to be in front of the cannon. It can be painful or even a LLE (Life Limiting Event).
  Now, not following canon is something that tends to irritate a fan base.
  Sorry to pick on your typing, it isn't as bad as the people who inevitably mis-type rogue as (a personal pet peeve of mine).
  
  --
  "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
10. Re:Christopher Pike? by tylersoze · 2009-04-08 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  The "cannon" part. What are cannons doing in a Star Trek movie. That's not canon at all!
11. Re:Christopher Pike? by john83 · 2009-04-08 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen the latest trailer?
  
  ***POSSIBLE SPOILER***
  
  It looks to me like Kirk takes over as captain when more senior crew are killed in action.
  
  --
  Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
12. Re:Christopher Pike? by Reziac · 2009-04-08 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  No ion cannons??
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
13. Re:Christopher Pike? by ion.simon.c · 2009-04-08 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Can you give me your spoiler-free opinion of Watchmen?
14. Re:Christopher Pike? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
  so do the cannons you are not following make the billion plot holes by shooting at the film?
15. Re:Christopher Pike? by catmistake · 2009-04-08 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure about Pike, but its obvious from the trqiler I saw that a jr officer Kirk assumes command after something bad happens, and commands and gets them out of the scrape, then is formally given the command because he's so good at it.... dang, I don't even really need to see it, so it better be good.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
16. Re:Christopher Pike? by rpillala · 2009-04-08 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  All my opinions about Watchmen (the movie) are spoiler free since I haven't seen it :)
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
17. Re:Christopher Pike? by lessthan · 2009-04-08 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Drama, not an action movie. Read the comic=seen the movie.
  
  --
  Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
18. Re:Christopher Pike? by moggie_xev · 2009-04-08 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Can you give me your spoiler-free opinion of Watchmen?
  Its worth going to the cinema to watch it. I enjoyed it a lot, but it took a while to come to that conclusion. It was along time ago that I read the book.
19. Re:Christopher Pike? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  Someone should notify the BSG reimaging fans about this. A lot of them missed the riot-boat.
20. Re:Christopher Pike? by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you didn't ask me, but...
  As someone who had previously read the book, I felt that it's not a story that translates well to film, and on top of that Snyder's "style" (lots of slo-mo with those low whooshy sounds) distracts too much from the little bit of story they left in.
  As an action movie, it's very different and you may appreciate and enjoy that difference. Watchmen broke enough cliches 20 years ago that even now told as a movie there are still some moments where you will be pleasantly surprised at the story-telling.
  It's a good story and they got the main gist of it, but a lot the gravity of the original had to do with the time spent fleshing out the characters, time you don't have in a typical movie format. Also, the comic itself played around with the form of a comic book, for instance, there's another comic within it, and it has a few straight-up book chapters as well.
  It's definitely entertaining, and it's off the beaten path. But if you like the movie you'll love the book. And I know everyone says that about everything, but I'm someone who doesn't always find that to be true and I found it to be true for Watchmen.
21. Re:Christopher Pike? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, Pike is the Captain and Kirk is only a cadet. It has been confirmed that the film also represents an alternate timeline from the Star Trek characters we know. This allows them to keep close to established canon but also change things that won't be able to affect existing continuity.
22. Re:Christopher Pike? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
  I would rather follow a cannon in front of me than be cannonized.
I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by elrous0 · 2009-04-08 03:37 · Score: 1

I bet there were actually more than a few people pissed off that they had to forgo what is definitely the best of the series. Barring the new one being a true masterpiece, I would rather have seen a nice print of Khan.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by tnk1 · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If they were pissed, they are morons. They've seen Khan a hundred times already in every format imaginable. Chances are good that the real event will happen again.
  I mean, if this is actually a good film, who wouldn't want to be able to tell their friends that they got to see if first? With Nimoy, no less?
2. Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by elrous0 · 2009-04-08 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but what if it were a bad film--and Nimoy turned out to be a drunk old queen who keep trying to grab your junk? Would you still be happy THEN?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  what if it were a bad film--and Nimoy turned out to be a drunk old queen who keep trying to grab your junk?
  Hey - leave my saturday nights out of this!
4. Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by dcowart · 2009-04-08 05:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I might have to turn in my slashdot id for this but, I have never seen Wrath of Kahn in any form... just never got around to it.
  And I'm totally jealous of those that got to see the new movie!
  
  --
  www.rdex.net
5. Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by tnk1 · 2009-04-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well... Trekkies may be very pleased indeed to have Spock play with their jewels.
  And what's the problem with a bad movie? There's nothing more satisfying for a fanboy than to talk about how their childhood has been raped by whatever the latest movie in the franchise is.
  It's a win-win situation for them, all around.
6. Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan by tnk1 · 2009-04-08 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen the Wrath of Kahn either, but I hear that the musical bits are something you should not miss.
Re:bastard australians by interstellar_donkey · 2009-04-08 03:40 · Score: 1

No kidding. What's the deal here. Kirk? Grew up in Iowa or something. Original Enterprise crew? Some Americans, a Russian, an Asian and a Scott.
Australians? I think there was one episode in TOS where a doomed red shirt looked like he might be Australian, but that was about it.
And despite being relatively new to the Federation, they decide to place their headquarters on Earth. Did they pick Sydney? No. They picked San Francisco, USA.
So why the heck do Australians get to see this movie first? Star Trek has nothing to do Australia.
All this means is that the first cam torrents to come out the day before the rest of the world's opening will be from a guy sitting behind some bloke who shouts out "Crike! 'ats some bloody good special effects!" every five minutes.

--
The Internet is generally stupid
I doubt it's any good by realmolo · 2009-04-08 03:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Remember, this was a screening attended by trekkies and Harry Knowles-type movie dorks. These aren't people that know what a good movie is.
Hell, the trailers for the new Trek movie seem to indicate that Abrams took inspiration from - God help us - the Star Wars prequels.
It'll suck. Like almost all science-fiction movies from the past 15 or 20 years. And I'm a sci-fi fan.
1. Re:I doubt it's any good by ben0207 · 2009-04-08 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's quaint. You're a sci-fi fan, but you appear to have not watched any new sci-fi for 15 to 20 years.
  What about Serenity / Firefly?
  
  --
  cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
2. Re:I doubt it's any good by lessthan · 2009-04-08 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  These aren't people that know what a good movie is.
  I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
  Of course, the article could have exaggerated or outright lied.
  
  --
  Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
3. Re:I doubt it's any good by bigjarom · 2009-04-08 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And I'm a sci-fi fan.
  Don't you know? They changed the spelling to "Syfy"
4. Re:I doubt it's any good by geekoid · 2009-04-08 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  "It'll suck. Like almost all science-fiction movies from the past 15 or 20 years. And I'm a sci-fi fan."
  Apparently not, since there has been some great sci-fi since 89.
  Is suspect you actually like needless picking and sci-fi movies, as well as intentionally missing their points.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:I doubt it's any good by geekoid · 2009-04-08 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  People like him just like to complain. I would wager any good sci-fi you present him with would be excused away.
  Firefly? crap, it's just a western! and such.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
6. Re:I doubt it's any good by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Firefly was a western.
7. Re:I doubt it's any good by _Sprocket_ · 2009-04-08 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Firefly was a western.
  So's Star Trek.
8. Re:I doubt it's any good by PMuse · 2009-04-08 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  The best part of them changing to "SyFy" is that now I can say I'm a scifi fan again.
  
  --
  "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
9. Re:I doubt it's any good by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because if you watch too much of it you may get syfylis.
10. Re:I doubt it's any good by TrekkieGod · 2009-04-08 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
  Fans are very critical, but typically not immediately after watching the movie. It takes a few days for the hype to die down before you're able to critically assess a movie (unless it's a steaming pile of crap like Nemesis).
  However, even if the new movie is as bad as Nemesis, they had several things to keep the excitement high. They were all trek fans (were there for Wrath of Khan) who were surprised with the opportunity to see the movie before anyone else, with Leonard Nimoy present.
  Hell, I saw people clapping at the end of Phantom Menace, and there were no actors from the movie there.* They were doing that just because it had been so long since they saw a new Star Wars movie, and they were so excited, that just seeing people swing lightsabers was enough to get them excited. It took a few days before they actually thought about the movie and came to the realization that, "hold on...it actually sucked. Wtf was up with that Jar Jar fellow?"
  *I hate it when people do that in theaters. Who are they applauding? You clap in a play because there are live actors who can appreciate knowing you enjoyed their performance. I've also seen people clap on airplanes when we touch down on the runaway, and also don't understand that. Are they applauding the pilot? Because he needs to do a bit more than to manage a successful landing to actually deserve applause. If he manages to do it with no engines on the Hudson River on the other hand, then I'll join in.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Already covered by Solr_Flare · 2009-04-08 03:41 · Score: 4, Informative

It's actually, apparently, all well explained. Including other stuff like the Enterprise being built on the ground instead of in space.

--
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
clever PR move by SethJohnson · 2009-04-08 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most stuff like this gets previewed in Austin in order to buy Harry Knowles' endorsement. It's not a high barrier to entry. Studios usually just massage his ego with a visit to their set, an advance screening on his birthday, or bring him up on stage to introduce a screening. As if he knows two shits about anything (that youtube link is to a video of him introducing the Star Trek premiere mentioned in TFA).

Seth

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
And in the back row... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 03:50 · Score: 2, Funny

One lonely, obese man cries out for Kahn.
When will Shatner finally admit his defeat?
1. Re:And in the back row... by HasselhoffThePaladin · 2009-04-08 04:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  This comment's even funnier when you hear about Shatner's attempts to get into the movie.
2. Re:And in the back row... by gardyloo · 2009-04-08 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  All you need to do is to rearrange things into Haiku form, and that could be epic.
3. Re:And in the back row... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  And in the back row
  A lonely man cries for Kahn
  Shatner's days have passed
Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 03:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Those guys in Austin should demand a refund! They paid for a ticket for The Wrath of Khan, but that's not what they got. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
The story I heard via word of mouth was that they were actually going to play Wrath of Khan, with ten minutes of sneak-preview footage from the movie that hadn't been seen before as a bonus. However shortly after Wrath started playing, the old and damaged film caught fire and was destroyed. Then Nimoy revealed himself, and instead of showing the 10 minute teaser, they showed the whole film.
linky I found on a Drafthouse blog, btw.
I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't.
The last time I had a film burn up (actually it was the projector bulb that exploded, side effect was the print was destroyed) all I got was a lousy refund. Getting to watch a world premiere of a movie I'd probably be interested in, rather than having my night out ruined, is way way better than a refund.
I seriously fucking wish I had been there and I may have been but I didn't even know they were running Wrath. Why do I not check the Drafthouse web page more often?!

--

The enemies of Democracy are
1. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Richard_at_work · 2009-04-08 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why would they have had the entire film print there, just in case? It doesn't make sense...
2. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by mdf356 · 2009-04-08 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why did I move from Austin last winter?!
  Oh, yeah, it's because the summer really sucked. :-)
  
  --
  Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
3. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 04:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A lamp burning the film would only destroy about five feet of it. The damaged print can be prepared and the show completed (trust me, I've done it). You can't "destroy a print" in a projector, unless it's silver nitrate, and you need a special projection booth with fire suppression in order to run those legally (and the Austin Drafthouse doesn't have that kind of booth. Trust me, I've run films there).
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
4. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 04:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why would they have had the entire film print there, just in case? It doesn't make sense...
  Because the movie was about to be released for-reals, so they'd need to be given a print?
  But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting which the blog says the owner was surprised and upset over, or having the writers for Khan there who started an impromptu Q&A session between when the film melted and Nimoy showed up. So either this was all theatrics (certainly possible at the Alamo) with some rough execution (also possible ;), or the only intended surprise was Nimoy's visit but the owner managed to work something out.
  Either way, it sounds pretty cool to me. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
5. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's rather trivial to "fake" a print burning up.
6. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't."
  Oh, come on. What are the statistical chances of Nimoy being present when any film, let alone a Star Trek film, let alone on the day before release of a new Star Trek film, bursts into flames in the projector and they happen to have the whole new film ready to go rather than only 10 minutes of it? The odds against must be astronomical. (We'll call it the "Nimoy paradox")
  It was a dramatic setup. I like it, actually. It's funny (reminds me of a trick Monty Python used to use). But the whole thing was almost certainly staged.
7. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by SteveFoerster · 2009-04-08 04:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The story I heard via word of mouth was that they were actually going to play Wrath of Khan, with ten minutes of sneak-preview footage from the movie that hadn't been seen before as a bonus. However shortly after Wrath started playing, the old and damaged film caught fire and was destroyed. Then Nimoy revealed himself, and instead of showing the 10 minute teaser, they showed the whole film.
  Wow, that doesn't sound at all unlikely. By the way, did you know that because of a bizarre lexicographical quirk that the word "gullible" isn't actually in the dictionary?
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
8. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, why would they have a copy of the new Star Trek film on hand the day before the official release of the new Star Trek film? It truly makes no sense.
  But yes, I believe it was just theatrics. The detail that from the first-hand impressions I'm reading it sounds like the theatrics weren't exactly smooth actually lends authenticity. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
9. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 05:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah, why would they have a copy of the new Star Trek film on hand the day before the official release of the new Star Trek film?
  
  On what planet is April 7th a day before May 8th?
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
10. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by MrKaos · 2009-04-08 05:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting
  
  It must of been planned. What better way to ensure you have a group of hard core Trek fans there than by say 'it's an extended Wrath of Khan'. The burn up must of been staged and Abrams was testing the film on the hardcore fans to gauge the reaction. Got to give it to him on knowing his market.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
11. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by SydShamino · 2009-04-08 05:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Paramount created about six minutes of brand-new Khan film that included a simulated melt/burn. This was what they played. It was all part of the show.
  There had to be a reason to stop Khan and then have "dead time" to fill while the projectionist loaded the movie they intended to premiere.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
12. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by sootman · 2009-04-08 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  It was obviously a setup. (And a very good one at that.) No way would they send the theater the entire print and say "but only show 10 minutes of it!" It was planned all along. If they would have advertised "World premier of new movie!" they would have had a million people show up. Advertising "Special screening of a 27-year-old movie!" guarantees that only true fans would appear, which was exactly the audience they wanted for this event.
  As for the print, it didn't actually catch fire. What happens is if the projector jams, the film stops moving past the lamp, which is very hot, and the bit of film that's directly in front of the bulb melts from the heat. Makes for a very neat effect on screen. I read the description of what happened and I could prep a print to do that in about 20 minutes. (Used to be a projectionist.) Or maybe they went so far as to make a special print and the burning was just an effect. I think they did that in Gindhouse. They've certainly got the resources to do that (wouldn't take much) even for a one-time event.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
13. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  What about the projector bulb exploding? That's just what the theater told us (not the drafthouse btw, this is totally unrelated for curiosities' sake), but it certainly sounded accurate. In the theater we heard a loud bang, saw a blinding flash of light, and then there was nothing. Could that have been one of the silver nitrate ones?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
14. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Paramount created about six minutes of brand-new Khan film that included a simulated melt/burn. This was what they played. It was all part of the show.
  Those clever bastards. That's sweet. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
15. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Richard_at_work · 2009-04-08 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Because the movie was about to be released for-reals, so they'd need to be given a print?
  But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting which the blog says the owner was surprised and upset over, or having the writers for Khan there who started an impromptu Q&A session between when the film melted and Nimoy showed up. So either this was all theatrics (certainly possible at the Alamo) with some rough execution (also possible ;), or the only intended surprise was Nimoy's visit but the owner managed to work something out.
  Either way, it sounds pretty cool to me. :)
  The problem is, the movie isnt due for release for another month - there is no reason at all for a cinema which is not doing one of the premier screenings around the world to have a full copy of the show on site a full month ahead of its release, that would be a security risk.
  I don't think there can be any doubt that this was planned well ahead of schedule.
16. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  By the way, did you know that because of a bizarre lexicographical quirk that the word "gullible" isn't actually in the dictionary?
  
  Lexicographical? Is that AGP or do I need a new mobo?
17. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, ask the AC who said it was the day before release. Guess that's what I get for believing them instead of googling.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
18. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it isn't, because gulible is only spelled with one 'l'.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
19. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  why would they just happen to have an entire copy of the film handy as backup?
20. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  It was writers for the new Trek movie that were present.
21. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Random+Destruction · 2009-04-08 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  They could have just dropped the film in a new projector and kept going after the damaged portion. They probably couldn't just replace the bulb, as i bet there's glass everywhere after one of those things goes.
  
  --
  :x
22. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Maxo-Texas · 2009-04-08 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  and "guilible" is what you do when you say Gnome sucks.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
23. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by TheRaven64 · 2009-04-08 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Has someone been letting the Brannon Braga writes Slashdot threads?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
24. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Ksevio · 2009-04-08 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well since the entire film isn't in front of the lamp at the same time (it's usually on a platter next to the projector), unless the lamp blew up most of the projection booth they could just splice back together the film with only a loss of around a second. If it was nitrate film (which is very uncommon) it probably would have done a lot of damage to the projector and booth and at that point they would most likely be worried about evacuating everyone rather than refunding them some how.
25. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Random+BedHead+Ed · 2009-04-08 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot thread, Brannon Braga version: The threads are de-evolving into lizards! We've got to stop this before they spray us with venom!
26. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Although it now occurs to me that the setup could have been better if they had Shatner rather than Nimoy.
  Just imagine: Wrath of Kahn is rolling, lamp starts burning through, everyone panics and the screen eventually goes blank. Then Shatner walks out....
  "Kaaaaaaaaahn!!!!"
27. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by ozbird · 2009-04-08 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  The odds against must be astronomical.
  
  Illogical, actually.
28. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by audunr · 2009-04-08 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  What are the statistical chances of Nimoy being present when any film, let alone a Star Trek film, let alone on the day before release of a new Star Trek film, bursts into flames in the projector and they happen to have the whole new film ready to go rather than only 10 minutes of it?
  I think there was a TNG episode where this happened.
29. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Also, giving the fans a screening before the media, that's pretty respectable.
30. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by hondo77 · 2009-04-08 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it isn't, because gulible is only spelled with one 'l'.
  Wrong, Captain Pedantic.
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
31. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by ubernostrum · 2009-04-08 10:25 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  On what planet is April 7th a day before May 8th?
  
  Australia.
  Little-known fact: in Australia it is currently the year 2057. The International Date Line is funny like that.
32. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Way to link to a typo troll site. The real Meriam-Webster is spelled with only one 'r', Captain Gulible. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
33. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by neBelcnU · 2009-04-08 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm....
  1) Nobody keeps spare prints. Profit margins are microscopic, spare prints are not cheap.
  2) As the parent poster failed to mention his fix, but typically it is to cut out 5 feet (35mm, 18"/s=3.33sec) and splice the ends together.
  3) And a since almost all projection rooms are unmanned now, the amount of film damaged depends on the accuracy of the sensors monitoring the operation. (see #1)
  3a) Though not so germane, we're way OT now, but an Imax projector can trash huge amounts of film in the blink of an eye. With the sound track separate, the only solution is to splice in black.
  -Lamp explosion--once in 18 years for me--required 2 or three "slugs" of black=.5 secs.
  -A splice-failure wrecked >1.5 secs. (6'/sec)
  -A later shards from that lamp-explosion later reappeared and destroyed >75% of a $70k print by "lathing" it on the output side.
  Jus' sayin' there ain't no spare tire, the quick-and-dirty fix is both (quick and dirty), and there are situations where it is much, much worse.
34. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by mako1138 · 2009-04-08 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Silver nitrate film stock is very old technology. Think silent, B&W films. It's extremely inflammable so they quit using it around the 1950s or so.
35. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Threshold either... Agony Booth did a very nice survey of the Braga evolution/de-evolution fixation a couple years ago.
  And no, I'm not Brannon Braga.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
36. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  The print is on a platter which is about a yard or two away from the lamphouse, which is itself built to contain the globe exploding. A globe exploding is like a shotgun going off, and glass can fly, but it's not really a fire hazard. It'll end the show though and you'll probably have to finish it in a different theater, since replacing the globe on a projector is time consuming and a little dangerous, because of all the glass and explosion hazard. The print itself is probably made of polyester and melts before it burns.
  If it had been a silver nitrate print, there would have been large visible plumes of flame coming from the portholes, followed quickly by steel-reinforced shutters (triggered by film transport failsafes) closing the portholes and the entire booth, and then alarms evacuating the entire building. Silver nitrate burns underwater, it's basically guncotton you shine light through, and it'll total a room if a reel catches fire.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
37. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  With the sound track separate, the only solution is to splice in black.
  That's not necessarily true, since most Imax screenings use a DTS timecode track and the DTS reader will just rechase the timecode across the gap.
  I've never heard of someone destroying a print the way you describe, that's extremely careless maintenance to leave glass in the equipment. If the globe blows, that closes the house for the day, you might as well take your time cleaning up the damage and running a hundred feet of leader through the thing (like you're supposed to) to make sure the gate hasn't picked up a nick.
  If the globe doesn't blow, however, and the print just snags in the projector, or a splice breaks, you can effect repairs in a hurry and put everything up again in 10 minutes.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
38. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, okay, so it sounds like they didn't necessarily have to stop the show, they could have taken the remaining film and stuck it in another projector with only a tiny break in the film -- this was a matinée and there were a couple theaters with nothing showing at that time. It was also the very last showing of the film in town anywhere, so maybe they just decided it was easier to give us refunds and send us on our way, though I wish they would given us the option of staying and watching even if we had to wait a while. The movie was a good one, The Fugitive, and the bulb blew up right as it was getting exciting halfway through, and obviously this was a long time back when movies didn't come out on VHS until long after they had left the theaters.
  And yeah I guess it was pretty obviously not silver nitrate film. :)
  Thanks for the info, that was informative. BTW, I'm rather naive about film -- if you didn't care about preserving the beginning of the movie, could you just thread the remaining film into the machine and go rather than splicing? Or bad idea?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
39. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by iluvcapra · 2009-04-08 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  The film on the platters is essentially sortof a continuous band, the film winds from the inside of one donut of film to the outside of another donut. You could skip the splicing, but you'd at least have to splice a leader onto the B-side (the second half) to prevent any more print damage, and then you'd have to collect this film onto a separate platter and then reassemble the two halves before the next show. And anyways, if you're going to restart the show in the middle, it's a good idea to run the action a few minutes before where the break took place, and you couldn't do that without repairing the splice then and there.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
40. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Hey buddy... I just checked and... it IS!
  I think someone was taking you for a ride.
41. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  And anyways, if you're going to restart the show in the middle, it's a good idea to run the action a few minutes before where the break took place, and you couldn't do that without repairing the splice then and there.
  I would have waited for them to do it. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
42. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by neBelcnU · 2009-04-08 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  No comment on DTS, post-dates my involvement. You got me there.
  A 18kw lamp weighs about 16.75 pounds IIRC. After dismantling as much of a $1.5 million dollar projector as we could, and losing as much revenue as we were allowed (4 hours), we'd collected about 16.74 pounds. As demonstrated in previous theaters where explosions had occurred, the projector will continue to rain down shards for decades.
  You know that while we'd LIKE to get it all, it is "difficult." The fact that you were able to clean up all of your 1.5kW lamp has relevance only in that you know the damage a shard could cause. Sadly, however, you're lamp was around 1/15th the size IIRC.
  Finally, if I failed to mention it before, the "lathing" was done on the output side. The offending shard took about 10 minutes to fall out of the sound insulation and lodge in the only perfect spot where it would only scratch to the yellow layer without cutting. I hope without more specific comment on your limited experience--"I've never heard of..."--the reader will understand that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  While I respect and share your desire for quality and professionalism, I resent your calling my team's actions "careless" based on that limited experience.
  And I'm really sorry but best-practices after blowing a splice at full-speed in the Imax world was thorough inspection: busting Estar at 6'/sec can shear aluminum teeth off sprockets, bend the cam's arms, and rip the registration pins out of the block. The stories of the damage caused by a break or tail-out are endless, and ugly. 10 minutes? Not even close: lost show, and work fast to see if it's turning into lost day, or even week.
  I will apologize in advance for my flame-y-ness, but I'm shocked to think that experience with a regular projector qualifies you to comment on how things MIGHT be done on a larger and radically different machine.
43. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by lordofthechia · 2009-04-08 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  If that. I got by with only excising 3 frames from a film that got stuck (and melted). That came up to 3/4"x3 (little over 2 inches) or 1/8th of a second of film. The most I've ever had to cut out was 8 frames worth (1/3rd of a sec). Then again, the projectors at the theater I worked at may have been extra gentle compared to the norm.
  
  --
  Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
44. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by bkk_diesel · 2009-04-08 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  You know this, or are speculating?
45. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  Little-known fact: in Australia it is currently the year 2057. The International Date Line is funny like that.
  And they STILL don't have flying cars?! God, I want a refund!
46. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  I guess Mercury (with its 1407.5 hour sideral rotation period) is the closer you can get in the solar system.
47. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by itsdapead · 2009-04-09 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they have had the entire film print there, just in case? It doesn't make sense...
  "Keep 'em talking Spock! We're downloading the torrent..."
  Or maybe, just maybe, it could have been a pre-planned stunt.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
48. Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned by SydShamino · 2009-04-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's what Harry's blog at AICN said.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I'm not impressed by commodore64_love · 2009-04-08 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

"gave the film a five-minute standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House in Australia today."
The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise. I suspect the applause had more to do with seeing Star Trek *return* than any relation to artistic merit.
On the other hand:
Maybe I'm just being cynical. Abrahms produces a lot of crap. Lost sucks (boring - slow as molasses), and Alias was also lousy except for the brilliant first season. I am not expecting anything from him.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
1. Re:I'm not impressed by kalirion · 2009-04-08 04:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise.
  Well, they had nothing to compare the movie to other than the series itself....
2. Re:I'm not impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing a Special Preview Showing(tm) always has this odd effect on one's critical capabilities. Even with people who should know better (Harry Knowles, looking at you). Obviously, Paramount's marketeers know this, and created just the fannish Internet buzz they wanted through this brilliant maneuver. Doesn't mean it's a bad film; just that we cannot infer anything from the positive response.
3. Re:I'm not impressed by geekoid · 2009-04-08 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  A) It's not one of the worst movie.
  B) That was the first time they hit the big screen. So it was cool just to see them together again.
  I'm expecting a bunch of people to loko knowingly to imply something is going on, a reference to oceanic airline..or space line, someone drinking Slusho, and it not actually ending.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:I'm not impressed by PCM2 · 2009-04-08 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise.
  Au contraire. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is actually the best movie in the franchise, with Wrath of Khan coming in a close second. And I'm not kidding. I would have loved to have seen a new series that followed the TMP mold (which was apparently in the works before they decided to make a feature film).
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
5. Re:I'm not impressed by El_Oscuro · 2009-04-08 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise.
  I saw this movie about 10 years ago, and buried in all of the cheesy special effects was a pretty interesting plot. All you had to do was lose the pissing contest between Kirk and the other guy, the shuttle and transporter bullshit, and maybe some of the wannabe TRON stuff at the end, and you would have a pretty damn good movie. Perhaps I should get a copy, take all of this crap out, and put it back up on TPB as "The Unreleased Directors Cut of Star Trek the Motion Picture"
  
  --
  "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
6. Re:I'm not impressed by vaporland · 2009-04-08 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  I saw ST:TMP when it first came out, and believe me, nobody in that theatre applauded.
  
  --
  Ask Me About... The 80's!
7. Re:I'm not impressed by D11011101 · 2009-04-08 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the purest piece of sci-fi in the movie series. The rest of the movies were just rehashed war movies with a sci-fi veneer. After Next Generation the franchise moved away from solving problems and just devolved into a constant war motif which is counter to why I like Star Trek. DS9 was one war after another one. Voyager was one battle after another one in an attempt to get home. Don't even get me started on the crap that was Enterprise. D11011101
8. Re:I'm not impressed by Abcd1234 · 2009-04-09 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the purest piece of sci-fi in the movie series.
  Yeah. Unfortunately they did it by recycling the TOS episode "Changling"... honestly, you'd think, for such a big budget movie, they'd at least come up with an original script, or hell, steal an idea from *another* show.
I only forsee one problem in the movie by kalirion · 2009-04-08 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

When even I look at the new Spock, I see Sylar. I'm all for actors branching out, but Sylar is just too strong a character for me to forget him quickly, no matter how good the acting is.
1. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by geekoid · 2009-04-08 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "...no matter how good the acting is."
  Since you are so predisposed to dismiss acting, no matter how good, why don't you just sit the fuck home. Oh wait, then you couldn't whine.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by raddan · 2009-04-08 05:51 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Actually, I think we finally get to find out why Spock is so dern smart. It involves cutting people's heads open!
  
  The really important question is whether the Enterprise's license plates say H3R035 on it, or something.
3. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by wannabe-retiree · 2009-04-08 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever seen him in anything else?
  Then of course you won't see him as anyone else.
4. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Think about it. A sum over the Sylar, a cage and the big headed aliens of "The Cage" equals a one big mess. The inevitable "The Cage" remake is going to be yammy!
5. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by LarryRiedel · 2009-04-08 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  See him as Sylar playing Spock.
6. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by AJWM · 2009-04-08 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  The really important question is whether the Enterprise's license plates say H3R035 on it, or something.
  Just so long as they don't have the numbers 1138 in them.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
7. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by tutori · 2009-04-08 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like this? http://www.chainsawsuit.com/20081125.shtml
8. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by Maltheus · 2009-04-08 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  So Sylar gives old Spock that haircut with his finger and then stole his powers of logic. Makes sense to me.
9. Re:I only forsee one problem in the movie by lennier · 2009-04-08 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your mind to my mind...
  your brain to my... mmm, brains...
  ticktickticktickticktick
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
bad polling? by Frosty-B-Bad · 2009-04-08 04:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

These were people coming to see a remake of Wrath of Khan, how hard is it to impress them when you show them a new Star Trek film? I mean it would be like going to a Republican convention and finding someone that would enjoy Rush Limbaugh's newest book, your not trying very hard. I would go as far as to say
FAIL.
1. Re:bad polling? by niktemadur · 2009-04-08 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  It would be like going to a Republican convention and finding someone that would enjoy Rush Limbaugh's newest book, your not trying very hard.
  Tsk tsk, now look what you just did, you've started with sci-fi then strayed into politics.
  Allow me to bring it back by substituting "Republican" with "Dune", "Rush Limbaugh" with "Baron Vladimir Harkonnen" and "newest book" with "gluttony for power and sexual indulgences of a disgusting nature".
  Now we're back on track (almost).
  
  --
  Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
There is always one trekkie by kurrentgmail.com · 2009-04-08 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

You know there was ONE huge trekkie there that was actually mad he wasn't seeing the special extended version of wrath of khan and was forced to watch the new movie.
1. Re:There is always one trekkie by Bieeanda · 2009-04-08 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  He was the one who shouted KHAN! at the news.
Nemesis broke the scales of suck by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-08 04:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Sorry, but it's not like ignoring Nemesis would result in the Trek franchise being unsullied, so I don't see it the same as the fact that there is only one Matrix movie. There were already bad Treks, including even numbered ones, and that's just part of the series charm... I guess.
No what really happened is that Nemesis was a real movie, and a real shitty movie. Nemesis was not just an even numbered Trek that sucked, it was an even numbered Trek that sucked so hard that it dragged everything around it into itself until its huge mass of suck collapsed and formed a singularity, making a wormhole into another dimension where the old odd-even rule simply doesn't apply any more.
Nemesis broke the pattern, literally. It's busted. We're in a new world where anything can happen, including good odd-numbered Treks. Also, I think Neptune is slightly more purple in this universe.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
1. Re:Nemesis broke the scales of suck by networkBoy · 2009-04-08 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  best explanation yet.
  I salute you.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
2. Re:Nemesis broke the scales of suck by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  The whole odd/even thing was wrong from early on. Here's the true breakdown:
  Star Trek : The Motion Picture - sucked
  Star Trek : The Wrath of Khan - good
  Star Trek : The Search for Spock - good
  Star Trek : The Voyage Home - sucked
  Star Trek : The Final Frontier - sucked
  Star Trek : The Undiscovered Country - good
  Star Trek : Generations - good
  Star Trek : First Contact - good
  Star Trek : Insurrection - sucked
  Star Trek : Nemesis - good
3. Re:Nemesis broke the scales of suck by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but I quite like Nemesis. I can never understand this odd/even number theory. Which set is supposed to be good and which bad?
Duh. by monkeySauce · 2009-04-08 04:08 · Score: 2, Informative

lucky Australian fans are scheduled to see the movie first, as it opens a day before the American release.
And if it wasn't opening a day before in Australia... they wouldn't get to see it first?? (before the U.S.)
In any case, Australians are NOT scheduled to see it first, as it opens TWO days before the U.S. in Belgium, France and Switzerland.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/releasedates/
Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 04:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Quote from one of the reviewers:

This 11th film is easily the best looking, most expensive, best produced iteration in the franchise. This film is going to be absolutely massive. It's epic in scale, and it's easy to see where the $150 million went.
Is anyone else actually excited by this kind of thing? Who here can say they enjoyed Reloaded or Revolutions more than The Matrix? I was really hoping for reviews to tell me how compelling the acting and story were, but it really seems to be all about the expense. Am I missing something?
1. Re:Superficial? by 77Punker · 2009-04-08 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is how they get non-trekkies into a Trek film.
2. Re:Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 04:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Then why is it on Slashdot?
3. Re:Superficial? by chihowa · 2009-04-08 04:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Who here can say they enjoyed Reloaded or Revolutions more than The Matrix?
  What are you talking about? There weren't any sequels to The Matrix.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
4. Re:Superficial? by 77Punker · 2009-04-08 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because trekkies will see it no matter what. It's the swing voters they're after.
5. Re:Superficial? by Rude+Turnip · 2009-04-08 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Reloaded is my favorite film of the trilogy because you already know that awesome stuff can happen in the world of the Matrix and it's going to end on a cliffhanger because there is a third film.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
6. Re:Superficial? by chrysrobyn · 2009-04-08 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Is anyone else actually excited by this kind of thing? Who here can say they enjoyed Reloaded or Revolutions more than The Matrix?
  
  There was only one Matrix movie. Sequels were rumored, but WERE NEVER FILMED. Accept this fact and you can be a happier person.
  
  I was really hoping for reviews to tell me how compelling the acting and story were, but it really seems to be all about the expense. Am I missing something?
  Have you seen Star Trek movies before? You were really hoping to hear about compelling acting? I enjoy Trek movies as much as the next guy (well, not to the point that I go to cons with funny ears or prosthetic foreheads, but I was disappointed when they canceled Enterprise), but to say that you enjoy Trek movies for something other than the awesome special effects, thematic elements and the glimpse at a whole other reality seems disingenuous.
  Wrath of Khan, factually the best Star Trek movie, was made for $11 million. Nemesis was $60 million. Of newer films, I enjoyed First Contact, which was made for less than $50 million. I think we can safely say that budget is not related to the enjoyment factor of a Star Trek movie.
7. Re:Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but I come to Slashdot to be treated like a smart person, not a "swing voter."
8. Re:Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  ...to say that you enjoy Trek movies for something other than the awesome special effects, thematic elements and the glimpse at a whole other reality seems disingenuous.
  This was my error then: I've only seen Wrath of Kahn and First Contact, and I didn't really like the latter. I don't have any expectations for Trek movies that don't apply to film in general.
9. Re:Superficial? by 77Punker · 2009-04-08 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the marketing department has figured out that the easiest way to make the most money is to appeal to the dumbest(broadest) audience possible while narrowly missing the point of insulting the customer.
  This is really how decisions are made in marketing.
10. Re:Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't realize Slashdot was primarily about marketing.
11. Re:Superficial? by 77Punker · 2009-04-08 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK, it's primarily ad supported. Also, I doubt another Trek film would exist if a marketing department hadn't decided there would be people out there who would pay to see it.
12. Re:Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  My point is: unless Slashdot is being paid to run this story, what interest do they have in running it? It's mainstream garbage. There are probably other more even-handed reviews that they could have looked for which is more what I come to Slashdot for!
13. Re:Superficial? by cliveholloway · 2009-04-08 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I enjoyed Reloaded more - but that only works as a whole if you disregard the hack job that was Revolutions. After the second film, the possibilities were exciting. Until Revolutions came along and the plot dissolved into a shoot 'em up.
  
  --
  -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
14. Re:Superficial? by hdon · 2009-04-08 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Please kill yourself immediately.
15. Re:Superficial? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ahh, the Matrix. I forgot how good that movie was.
  Too bad they never made any sequels.
Reset! by squarooticus · 2009-04-08 04:10 · Score: 1, Troll

Star Trek is in terrible need of a reset, like many comic book heroes have undergone multiple times over the decades. I hope this movie represents a clean break with the old universe; I mean, I loved half the Trek films, TNG, and DS9 as much as the next guy, but to preserve the essence of Trek they need to come up with character-driven stories that aren't bound by limitations in the history of the original universe.

--
[ home ]
1. Re:Reset! by Pinky's+Brain · 2009-04-08 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Could you give an example how an established universe makes it hard to write character driven stories? Cause I just don't see it.
  Hell, normal fiction seems to do just fine without a reset.
Australia? by mdarksbane · 2009-04-08 04:12 · Score: 4, Funny

But that means all of the cams will have crappy Australian subtitles!
Star Trek Forever by happy_place · 2009-04-08 04:21 · Score: 1

Sure, cynics will say it might all be for the money, but surprise fan events like this are the reason why Star Trek will be around forever. The series creators and contributors have created something amazing out of listening to the people who enjoyed the series just a bit "too much", and rather than being constantly embarrassed by them, they continue to reward them.

--
http://www.beanleafpress.com
SW != ST by geekoid · 2009-04-08 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Star Trek fans have a different mind set the Star Trek fans.
Star Wars: "You better be better then our memories of the first time we saw Star Wars bitch!"
Star Trek fans: "Alright, another Star Trek! Let's be excited for the privileged!"
Oddly enough, even people who are a fan of both have those attitudes toward the respective franchises.
I suspect it has to do with the roots of the franchise. ST was hard fought by the fans SW came out of the gates blowing people away.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Now if only they would actually RELEASE the thing by jonwil · 2009-04-08 04:21 · Score: 1

Since its had a premier in Australia and this showing in Austin, its clearly FINISHED. So there is no reason they cant be pumping out copies as fast as the film duplication labs can do it and getting this on screens NOW instead of making people wait a month or so (or whatever it is)
Standing ovation? by gmuslera · 2009-04-08 04:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Several interpretations for that;

First they got angry with the movie, destroyed all the seats, and then started hitting and slapping each one for going to see it. In a lights out, you only see a lot of standing people and the clapping sound.

Or.. the seats were all taken by the actors, red shirts, extras, old series characters, etc, so the people that went to the cine had to be standing. The movie finished, the director said "ok, now lets go for a beer to forget this" and got an ovation.

PR always give weird twists to stories.
1. Re:Standing ovation? by ShinmaWa · 2009-04-08 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  The movie finished, the director said "ok, now lets go for a beer to forget this" and got an ovation.
  You've obviously never been to the Alamo Drafthouse. You don't have to GO to get a beer. You can get beers delivered right to your seat while watching the movie. (They call it DRAFTHOUSE for a reason, you know.)
  This leaves another option -- they were all completely wasted.
  
  --
  The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
Re:bastard australians by NiceGeek · 2009-04-08 04:31 · Score: 1

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kyle
I don't think Lt. Kyle was ever officially confirmed to be an aussie but he had the accent.
More proof... by rtechie · 2009-04-08 04:31 · Score: 1

That the Alamo Drafthouse is the best movie theater (chain) ever.
Okay. Setting phasers to stun... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 04:33 · Score: 0

They had been set to "kill" ever since ST:Nemesis.
However, I'd really like to know if the same crowd gave ST:Nemesis some mild golf-clapping rather than boos. If so, their response is meaningless.
I'm thinking every review that doesn't mention how badly ST:Nemesis sucked should automatically be discounted. And if this guy is reviewing, I'll be paying full attention.
How jiggly are the effects shots? by jollyreaper · 2009-04-08 04:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's a big Hollywood trend for shakey-cam shots, be it Michael Bay, the Bourne movies, Battlestar Galactica, whatever. It'd bad enough when the camera is bobbing and weaving in a conversation between two people sitting down in a comfortable room, absolutely nausea-inducing in an action scene, and seems to have made its way into space as well. Given the limitations of model work, the old Star Treks always had a sedate and stately feel. When Babylon 5 really blew the doors off the idea of using CGI for space battles, they still used admirable constraint while pushing boundaries. Some of the battles by season 5 got a bit muddled, though.
Just going from the trailers of this movie, it looks like we might almost have a Blair Witch level of confusion and nausea in the space battle. The frantic clips appeared to be a kaleidoscope of beams, explosions, and whirling pieces of ships. Does it get any better in context?

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
1. Re:How jiggly are the effects shots? by whiledo · 2009-04-08 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Oh god, not the shakeyshot. That's the main thing I actually don't like about BSG. Sometimes I can't help but just yell "Stop moving the damn camera!" at the screen (futile and sad, I know). It's not that it's a shakey camera like you'd get if someone was filming it while walking and running as part of the action - it's the artificiality of it all. How I especially loathe the "pan-and-move conversation." The camera moves from one face to the next then slightly moves off-center. Then it moves back to the first and slightly moves again. Repeat.
  BSG seems to have pushed forward to the next level. They have all the annoying tricks already mentioned with the addition of a zoom. So they keep doing move-shake-zoom, move-shake-zoom over and over. Whether its be running through a corridor, having a conversation, addressing a crowd or engaging in a space battle. It's move-shake-zoom all over the place.
  I blame NYPD Blue, though they may well have been just a follower of the trend. I remember catching five minutes of it and thinking "who can stand to watch this show?"
  
  --
  Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
2. Re:How jiggly are the effects shots? by XanC · 2009-04-08 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  You've hit on the biggest downside of the film. That kind of camera work was distracting, but I was able to not let it annoy me. As far as downsides go, though, it could be worse, and the whole experience was _unbelievable_.
3. Re:How jiggly are the effects shots? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  I too hated the camera shaking in the NYPD Blue and could not watch it. For some reason the BSG camera shakes and clappers did't infec..interfere my enjoyment of the series. The professionals have probably learned how to use the effects better during the time.
4. Re:How jiggly are the effects shots? by jollyreaper · 2009-04-08 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  You've hit on the biggest downside of the film. That kind of camera work was distracting, but I was able to not let it annoy me. As far as downsides go, though, it could be worse, and the whole experience was _unbelievable_.
  Drat. The biggest problem with the last Bond movie is that all of the action was done Bourne-style. Casino's action was epic and dramatic yet also remained coherent. Quantum had some very expensive set piece scenes but the camera was so frantic that it was impossible to follow what was going on.
  BSG's space action felt so artificial because they were desperately trying to make it feel like Top Gun with live camera crews flying out there in space to capture the action. You go from the tracking shots as the cameraman acquires a fighter, then the quick zoom to catch the close detail, etc. Now what I've found amusing is when they do this kind of stuff in anime, stuff that predated the full CGI crazy stuff available in Hollywood. They would still deliberately create shots that looked like what you would see in Hollywood. You have the fighter taking off with a camera strapped to the belly facing back so you can see the horizon rolling with the landing gear retracting, there will be other shots where the camera is obviously "mounted" to the aircraft.
  A lot of people were tempted to do crazy shit as the technology allowed it to be done. You get crazy pans around aircraft in flight that could not have been physically accomplished, Lord of the Rings loved doing the computer-controlled camera pans over the ginormous models, moves that could not have been duplicated with a helicopter over a real landscape. Sometimes this works to sweep you into another world but other times the artificiality of the camera moves will emphasize that you're looking at something that couldn't be real. This brings the obvious reaction -- limit the camera only to what would be physically possible with a real film crew, then throw all the CGI crazy at it. This approach made Cloverfield feel realistic because you could suspend your disbelief and accept that there's a monster attacking New York and it just happened to be caught on a camcorder. But when BSG does this with the space shots, it ends up seeming as affected as the shakeycam on the interior shots.
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
5. Re:How jiggly are the effects shots? by Spasmodeus · 2009-04-08 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Confusion and nausea are the new action and excitement!
  Get with the program! If you can't tell what the hell's going on, that means it's a thrilling action sequence!
They wouldn't have been able to drag me to this... by Tetsujin · 2009-04-08 04:38 · Score: 1

...but not for the reasons you might suspect.
The audience was drawn in with the promise of seeing an extended cut of Wrath of Khan... Now, I've seen the "Director's Cut" on DVD and I can tell you - the stuff that was cut out of the film the first time around was cut out for damn good reasons. I've seen what they added back for the DVD release - I shudder to think what would happen if they put back more.

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Standing ovation -- bah by Jabbrwokk · 2009-04-08 04:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

First screening impressions sometimes don't mean anything.
I would like to piggy-back on your comment suggesting early reviews were coloured by the excitement (which is probably bang-on) and point out that in the theatre where I watched the first screening of Star Wars: Episode I, there was a standing ovation after the movie was over.
Later I realized there was a standing ovation BECAUSE the movie was over.
1. Re:Standing ovation -- bah by IndustrialComplex · 2009-04-08 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  First screening impressions sometimes don't mean anything.
  Careful there, you don't want come across as too definitive.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
2. Re:Standing ovation -- bah by Random+BedHead+Ed · 2009-04-08 07:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  in the theatre where I watched the first screening of Star Wars: Episode I, there was a standing ovation after the movie was over. Later I realized there was a standing ovation BECAUSE the movie was over.
  Meesa saw same thing!
3. Re:Standing ovation -- bah by Jabbrwokk · 2009-04-08 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  All I know is my gut says "maybe."
4. Re:Standing ovation -- bah by atraintocry · 2009-04-08 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not just excitement, but a room full of people avoiding cognitive dissonance. If I stood in line for a hours dressed like a storm trooper you can bet I'd be on my feet when it was over too. I'd even say things to my friends like, "yeah Jar-Jar was annoying but overall I really thought he added to the story because blah blah blah.".
Talk about an easy audience by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 05:02 · Score: 0

This sounds like the kind of audience that would give a standing ovation to a 4 minute movie of Shatner taking a dump. Or Star Trek 5. But I repeat myself.
Re:Now if only they would actually RELEASE the thi by Dynedain · 2009-04-08 05:36 · Score: 1

How long do you think it takes the duplication houses to pump out 10,000 copies of film and the various digital delivery formats and then get them delivered for a coordinated release date?
My guess is about a month.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Could it be? by roc97007 · 2009-04-08 06:22 · Score: 1

Finally, a decent Star Trek movie? Sorry, I meant, a decent movie based on Star Trek? The mind boggles.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Star Dreck movies are only good for one thing... by JockTroll · 2009-04-08 07:54 · Score: 0, Informative

... Which is to get all the Trekkie Pedophile Geeks in one place, so the cops can come around, taser them, beat them up and shit on their faces before arresting them and locking them in with some rougher types who will sexually humiliate them, beat them up and shit on their faces, for about 12 hours until they're tried and convicted for being Trekkie Pedophile Geeks, thrown in federal ass-rape prison where the inmates will routinely abuse them, beat them up and shit on their faces. And stab them with shanks or drown them in toilets until the Trekkie Pedophile Geeks are ready to be buried in Trekkie Pedophile Geek's Field where the worms will devour their flesh, beat them up and shit on their faces.

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Fans must see the movie by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 07:55 · Score: 0

One thing Star Trek fans need to keep in mind is that if this movie makes no money, Star Trek is over. So even if this movie sucks, fans need to go (probably multiple times). I dont really care toooo much. I want it to be awesome, but I really just want it to make lots of money, so Star Trek doesnt die. So if you want to see more Star Trek, you must attend.
Good casting. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-04-08 08:05 · Score: 1

No kidding? I didn't realize it was the same guy. That's actually pretty good casting, in a comic-book kind of way. The idea of Vulcans always kind of creeped me out. Remember Spock in the first ST movie when he showed up and his jubilant friends were weirded out by his totally inhuman response and lack of affection with their reunion as a result of having spent years back home re-calibrating his Vulcan-ness?
Having trouble with feeling is a common issue with both Spock and Sylar. In Spock we'll get to see the other side of the same coin.
Rats. I might have to actually go watch this film. I do hope that the "standing ovation" report stems from honest audience reaction rather than from the tactical play book of some PR firm.
Ugh. Who am I kidding. With luck, both are true. It's idiotic to think that marketing isn't heavily involved in this story.
Cheers!
-FL
Australians more likely to jump up and down. by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-04-08 08:19 · Score: 1

Auzzies are nuts. --Good nuts, but still nuts.
I know that is a broad generalization, but it's also generally true. --I remember visiting Spain during that "Running of the Bulls" thing, being surrounded by thousands of back-packing drunk kids from all over the world.
There were many different vantage points to watch the festivities from. You could stand on the ground and crane your neck. You could sit on the thick timbers of the fenced off roads where the bulls ran. Or you could sit waaaaaay up on the edge of various stone precipices on the stadium and various over fucking-nuts places to sit when you've got an alcoholic beverage in one hand. Guess what accent those lunatics were cheering with?
There's Public Relations tactical magic at work here, I have no doubt. The article reeks of it.
Still, I retain enough fan-boy in my genes to get excited at the mere suggestion that Star Trek might not suck. Eleven dollars? I can see clear to put my critical faculties and general discontent with Abrams on hold for a couple of hours. It can't possibly hurt more than Indy and those stupid skulls.
I hope. Oh, lordy, I do hope. --That's the genes talking as well.
-FL
April is canon by XanC · 2009-04-08 08:33 · Score: 1

He's featured prominently in the animated series I believe. But he's not in this movie.
you all have it wrong by h2sammo · 2009-04-08 08:40 · Score: 1

its MORGAN FREEMAN
Fans and FANS. by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-04-08 08:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
Well, I think there are degrees of 'Fan'.
A small subset consists of those who camp out for a week before the opening of "Phantom Menace" and who confuse the experience of camaraderie with "Good Film". I know guys who swear to this day that they loved that movie.
"Serenity" was similar, (another film I considered sub-par compared to the original series), in that the fans formed a powerful collective joy amongst themselves in the 'fight' to see a film made and who lost all critical faculty as a result.
I also couldn't stand Kevin Smith's "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back". After really enjoying "Dogma" I couldn't believe how stupid his new film was, but the fan base was so tightly wound with a sense of supporting a favored under-dog that it didn't really matter what the film was about.
I love being Fan(atical) about something, (and it doesn't happen often enough these days), but when I recommend the stuff I am that way about, I always take a moment to qualify my reviews with the fact that I'm lacking a degree of sanity on whatever I happen to be promoting with such zeal.
-FL
Re:SW != ST by The+Moof · 2009-04-08 09:24 · Score: 1

Fine, fine...

"You mean like how Star Trek fans went easy on the Star Trek: Enterprise series?"
Re:Star Dreck movies are only good for one thing.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 10:16 · Score: 0

Come on, liar. You have shown through your past posts that you LOVE space exploration. This shit is right up your alley. Say hi to the worms for me.
Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-08 11:10 · Score: 0

Anyone got it yet?
Re:bastard australians by PigIronBob · 2009-04-08 11:55 · Score: 1

That would be : "Crikey, bloody good effects aye!" Steve was a Queenslander (Victorian by birth), Queenslanders always say 'Aye' at the end of a statement with the pitch going up.

--
You never catch me alive
Re:These are *marketers* by bit01 · 2009-04-08 14:48 · Score: 1

You're being naive if think it isn't marketers.
You think they're going to leave the marketing of a multi-million movie to chance? No way.
There's probably astroturfers here on slashdot as well. See if you can spot which posts have been written by these lowlifes.
there opinion needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
A whole truckload.
I hope it is worth it.
Yep, ignore the marketing drivel. Wait and see what people you trust think of it and ignore the propaganda.
---
An unobtrusive ad is a non-functional ad. It is a non-sustainable business model.
Look At It This Way.... by I_know_Trek · 2009-04-08 15:58 · Score: 1

I have noticed a bunch of Trekkies/Trekkers yapping about the odd-numbered-movie curse with Trek... Let's face it, there was only ONE good Next Generation movie, so the curse kinda got fucked up by Picard & crew.... That being kept in mind, the re-boot is kind of the 8th movie featuring the ORIGINAL crew (if not the actual cast - except for Nimoy's appearance). So.... if this movie doesn't suck, which seems to be the concensus by those who have seen it, then the good even-numbered Treks vs the not so good odd-numbered Treks, can still somewhat be followed as bad-good-bad canon... Couldn't it? ...what do you mean by "reaching"?...
Re:bastard australians by Wild+Wizard · 2009-04-09 01:30 · Score: 1

I think you should check the international time zones first.
East coast Australia is 15 Hours in front of the east coast USA.
Or in other words we get the movie 9 hours before which is less than half a day.