Dobber Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) it's pretty but it seems waaaaaaaay off. How so? Looks pretty accurate to me. Chris Edited March 8, 2013 by Dobber Quote
anime52k8 Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 For the kit builders, Revell Germany will release a decent-sized model this summer: Quote
David Hingtgen Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Is that just the kit or have they officially changed the paint to more like the refit? Quote
Hikuro Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 How so? Looks pretty accurate to me. Chris color scheme and details don't seem right. It's pretty, but the things I like about the realism of the enterprise doesn't feel captured in this model. Quote
anime52k8 Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 color scheme and details don't seem right. It's pretty, but the things I like about the realism of the enterprise doesn't feel captured in this model. The markings are the same, it's just that the colors are brighter and have more contrast. Quote
Vepariga Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 whats the 'disc' made of? looks like its inflatable or some kind of foam from the edges..maybe its just how its painted that gives the illusion Quote
Hikuro Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Well I think some of that illusion are the decals. But who knows, it's 62 parts, that's more than the 1/1000 Enterprise I built last year. The markings are the same, it's just that the colors are brighter and have more contrast. Probably, I think I'm just use to the darkness of space it's surrounded with, not bright lights in a room. Quote
electric indigo Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Note that the model displayed is just a quick mockup they printed for the Nuremberg toy fair. Quote
TehPW Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 http://trekmovie.com/2013/03/09/shot-by-shot-analysis-of-star-trek-into-darkness-alternative-teaser/ I asked on the site but everyone was too bust bitching to answer me, ill ask here: who thinks the debrie that Kirk space flies though is the remains of Star Fleet ships, possibly the fleet base itself? note the still of the new conny-shaped vessel. possibly the ship that Harrison is seen sitting on his command seat in previous trailers? things are getting interesting, especially in light that some folks dont think that ship that plows into San fransico bay and into the city isn't the JJ-prise Quote
Hikuro Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 you know, I'm not gonna speculate anything. When this happens ppl first started to think cumberbatch was a new Kahn, that doesn't seem to be the case. ppl think this enterprise is gonna crash and burn and we'll finally get the TV series enterprise, which I hope isn't the case. Quote
electric indigo Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 According to the analysis at trekmovie, the Enterprise is already in the ocean at the planet with the volcano; sending her into Francisco bay again later in the movie would be kinda lame. Maybe it's Harrison's ship crashing? Quote
TehPW Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 thats what i think, now that his ship (or a ship is seen in orbit that looks nothing like the previous Kelvin-ish ships seen in ST2009) has been seen and it looks simular to the SF bay crashing vessel... Quote
Lobizon Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Unexpected New Trailer For Star Trek Into Darkness Quote
EXO Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 If you think you're going to get me to watch this by flashing this on the screen then you're a goddamn genius!!! Quote
azrael Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 If you think you're going to get me to watch this by flashing this on the screen then you're a goddamn genius!!! See...sex does sell. Quote
Lobizon Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 Trailer Easter Eggs Lead To New Star Trek Into Darkness International Poster Artwork Quote
taksraven Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 If you think you're going to get me to watch this by flashing this on the screen STID.JPG then you're a goddamn genius!!! Actually, it just gets me to go to the google image search to see what film I *really* want to *see* her in.... The answer to that question is Crossing Over Quote
Duke Togo Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 Man, lots of whining on the interwebs over the new Star Trek movie trailers and posters. "That's not Star Trek!" They're right, its not; this has balls. The new prime directive: kick ass! Quote
taksraven Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 I can understand the fanboy whining to a certain degree. This certainly isn't Roddenberry's "Star Trek", but with him gone all anybody could do is emulate him anyway. It's pretty clear that before his death, Roddenberry was becoming increasingly unhappy about the more militaristic tone that was being taken with Trek and Starfleet, especially in the films, but if you believe what is written, the last Trek project that he had the most control over was the first Trek film. (And most fanboys whine about that film too) Ultimately, the fanboys can whine as much as they want, but it has to be remembered that "The Wrath of Khan", the most violent and least exploration-based Trek project up until that point, brought the franchise back from the dead. It is still the most popular Trek film ever and even though "Into Darkness" is not a direct remake by the looks of it, it certainly seems to be trying to achieve the same sort of impact. Quote
lechuck Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 Ultimately, the fanboys can whine as much as they want, but it has to be remembered that "The Wrath of Khan", the most violent and least exploration-based Trek project up until that point, brought the franchise back from the dead. It is still the most popular Trek film ever and even though "Into Darkness" is not a direct remake by the looks of it, it certainly seems to be trying to achieve the same sort of impact. Start Trek IV was very popular too, part V could of had them at a zoo and saving Pandas or something. Point is, original Trek was very varied in stories, but always with some key moral/ethical point in focus. IV had environmental stuff for exapmple - and yes even II had it - remember "Genesis Project" and the implications that were being discussed. New ST, hmmm... lets see.... don't do time travel? Going crash, boom, bang just puts Star Trek in the same pile of shows with this concept, nothing to alienate it, to put it above other shows... Quote
TehPW Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 ok... so who the hell is John Harrison? and what did Section 31 do that totally pissed him off? http://badrobot.com/stid/twitter/ even more mind blowing sh*t. Battle damage at warp speed... it seems that JJ likes sucking out helpless red shirts in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace. I swear im gonna have erectile disfunctions by the time this movie is out, im so mecharosed... Quote
EXO Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Start Trek IV was very popular too, part V could of had them at a zoo and saving Pandas or something. Point is, original Trek was very varied in stories, but always with some key moral/ethical point in focus. IV had environmental stuff for exapmple - and yes even II had it - remember "Genesis Project" and the implications that were being discussed. New ST, hmmm... lets see.... don't do time travel? Going crash, boom, bang just puts Star Trek in the same pile of shows with this concept, nothing to alienate it, to put it above other shows... That's why I think Star Trek is a property made for TV. The diminishing numbers of fans that go to the movies to see what Star Trek is suppose to be shows that a 2 hour movie just isn't enough time to involve people to a deeper story. But yet shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Justified have that slow boiler type of storylines that really attract viewers. Even Galactica had a good balance of story depth and adventure. Maybe they should have 12 episodes seasons for Star Trek that explore one full mission instead. But at the same time if people keep seeing the Abrams version, it'll be too much to have 2 running storylines with the same characters. When you look at the numbers, The Original Star Trek movie had better returns than The Abrams version. The original almost tripled it's production budget domestically (Probably more than quadrupled worldwide) and the last ST just passed the double mark. Quote
myk Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Man, lots of whining on the interwebs over the new Star Trek movie trailers and posters. "That's not Star Trek!" They're right, its not; this has balls. The new prime directive: kick ass! They haven't even seen it yet, what's there to whine about? Jesus they sound like a bunch of guys on an animation message board waiting for a new transformable toy from a small Japenese company to debut... Quote
miles316 Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Holy dead man walking batman is that Chekov wearing a Red shirt? Quote
Atharun Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 I wonder if Section 31 is involved with story somehow. Quote
taksraven Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 New ST, hmmm... lets see.... don't do time travel? Really, that's all you saw in it? Quote
taksraven Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 That's why I think Star Trek is a property made for TV. The diminishing numbers of fans that go to the movies to see what Star Trek is suppose to be shows that a 2 hour movie just isn't enough time to involve people to a deeper story. But yet shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Justified have that slow boiler type of storylines that really attract viewers. Even Galactica had a good balance of story depth and adventure. Maybe they should have 12 episodes seasons for Star Trek that explore one full mission instead. But at the same time if people keep seeing the Abrams version, it'll be too much to have 2 running storylines with the same characters. When you look at the numbers, The Original Star Trek movie had better returns than The Abrams version. The original almost tripled it's production budget domestically (Probably more than quadrupled worldwide) and the last ST just passed the double mark. It is true, the very "episodic" nature of the original Trek that was pretty much carried over into most of the other TV series (yes, I know that there were exceptions) really did limit the show in a lot of ways. You generally knew that by the end of the episode things were going to be "back to normal" or as they were at the start of the episode, with *very* little room for true storyline development. Of course, when the original Trek series was on in the 1960's, I think most TV shows operated in this way. Its a pity that this anchor from the past carried over into the new TV versions. That's one of the fundamental reasons why anime appealed to me from an early age, with plot and storyline development being commonplace...... Quote
Vepariga Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 loved that new trailer,made me all tingley. 'Dat Carol, Those awesome monologue voice overs,Them sound effects...Going to be a great film indeedy Quote
myk Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 I wonder if Section 31 is involved with story somehow. I actually enjoyed the Section 31 and Mirror Universe stories, even though I don't think they are considered canon... Quote
Keith Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 It is true, the very "episodic" nature of the original Trek that was pretty much carried over into most of the other TV series (yes, I know that there were exceptions) really did limit the show in a lot of ways. You generally knew that by the end of the episode things were going to be "back to normal" or as they were at the start of the episode, with *very* little room for true storyline development. Of course, when the original Trek series was on in the 1960's, I think most TV shows operated in this way. Its a pity that this anchor from the past carried over into the new TV versions. That's one of the fundamental reasons why anime appealed to me from an early age, with plot and storyline development being commonplace...... Totally agree. Space Battleship Yamato is a prime example of ST done right. Quote
rotorhead Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) Upon closer frame by frame examination from that trailer, or at least play/pause/play, the Enterprise IS heavily damaged and re-entering the atmosphere. You can make out the NCC-1701 on the saucer section just as it's ripping away. It also looked like the starboard warp nacelle was shot to hell, but the forward part of the port nacelle was intact. A couple frames forward: we see a starship crashing into the bay with ... not JJ'prise nacelles. They do, however, look a LOT like the refit Enterprise nacelles from TMP: rectangular. I also thought that the angle of the nacelles seemed a bit lower/flatter than those of the JJprise. Whatever it was, it seemed HUGE. I mean, as I saw it crush a lighthouse, it's size seemed closer to what I'd thought a Galaxy class was. Edit: ok, I just noticed Dobber said the same thing about the nacelles a few pages back. One other possible difference I noticed was at the point where it crushed the lighthouse, the main deflector did not look like the Enterprise's dish but more like an inset deflector array a'la the Excelsior. Edited March 23, 2013 by rotorhead Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.