New Star Trek Scene stolen from Rush's Red Barchetta??

Well, it wasn't quite two lanes wide.... I thought the same thing when the preview first came up. I'm like "new Rush video???"
But the Red Barchetta is a Ferrari and not a Vette.
Handled pretty good for a 250 year old car though.
Red Barchetta by Rush Song Images

 

I liked it ~ a LOT

 

Big deal, that also describes every Anime ever made.

 

"Every nerve aware", yep, that's what most drivers are missing
these days.
.
_H*

 

No, they still have that. Unfortunately, what they're aware of is their conversation on their cell phone.

 

Is it just me, or do the shots of the interior of the Enterprise look like the ship is a little too shiny and advanced? Where's all the old school tech they had in the original movie?

That being said, I'll be seeing this movie for sure... From what little the previews show, it seems like the actors were selected pretty well.

 

Yes, I agree... it's a very shiny, advanced ship. Not like the clunky, push-button technology of the original Enterprise...

I also remember the intensity of Spock in the first few episodes of ST... will this version have that? we'll see...

Dang... now I have something ELSE to look forward to... how long???

 

Moving Pictures... Best Rush album evah!!

 

... Except A Farewell to Kings ... and Hemispheres.

 

Maybe they'll throw in something like the recently canceled Battlestar Galactica had brought up. In the pilot of BSG, one of the sleeper Cylon agents was a tour guide aboard the BSG, which was decomissioned and about to be turned into a museum

The fellow was walking with reports, pointing out things like "manual valves, phones with cords, computers that barely even deserve the name." The original Battlestar's had to be purposely designed to be as primative as possible, to avoid jamming and backdoor-style exploits.

Indeed, the Cylons were able to quickly win the war by taking advantage of the shiny new ships massive integrated technology, and quite literally turning them off in flight.

A good Star Trek 2 sequel would have an encounter with an alien race, maybe even the Borg, that could easily take over the shiny new integrated electronics.

I too am a bit miffed that the campy "technology" of the original ST is missing. Of course, in 1968, a "computer" was barely solid state technology, and occupied several floors in a building. Nobody back then could imagine touch screens, fuzzy logic, etc

Correction: 2001:A Space Odyssey got more right than wrong. It was too far ahead of itself though. Most audiences back then walked away going "huh?"

Only minor fixes are needed to bring 2001 into our time. The spacecraft had impressive flat panel displays, like the current Honeywell PlaneView system used on Gulfstream G550 business jets, or the Honeywell commercial avionics used on the Boeing 777 and Airbus A380. . Remove the "IBM" label and put on a Honeywell label, and it would be almost entirely correct

 

+1

 

Oops worng thread for this sorry read my post in the other Star Trek thread for my thoughts on Star Trek.

Wildkow

 

When the original Star Trek came out (I never saw it until several years later at some friends' house) I used to listen to Pacifica radio in Los Angeles. Star Trek cost more money for each single episode than Pacifica's entire budget for a year. And yet a single random hour's programming on Pacifica was more worthwhile than an entire year of Star Trek, as I saw several years later at my neighbors' place. The pathetic acting (Shatner worst of all) the incompetent writing, the ridiculous premises (they travel to a far end of the galaxy and find people almost identical to us, except for a funny wrinkle in their forehead, etc., etc., etc.) No wonder this country's going down the toilet, when people admire the original Star Trek series.

It would be surprising if this movie were not better than the original series. It would be nearly impossible to make anything worse. Now, if this movie outdoes Galaxy Quest, I'll be impressed. (The best line of Sigourney Weaver's acting career: "I've got one job on this ship. It's a stupid job, but I'm going to do it!" Pretty well sums up Star Trek.)

 

Sorry, Daniel, you kinda missed the point of the original Star Trek.
The point of it was NOT the distant galaxies, or the technology, it was a vehicle for addressing social mores and prejudices that were current to the '60s.
Not unlike Rod Serling's Night Gallery, where often the basic plot was something to do with prejudice, or race relations, sexism, or war, dressed up in some sort of fantasy trappings.

I'm thinking about getting a ST emblem as a tattoo.

 

I always thought the "point" was that the Russians (Romulans) and Chinese (Klingons) could not be trusted and the only way to deal with them was to kill them. Lousy writing, crappy acting, and an openly pro-war message (this was during the Vietnam war, of course).

 

Perhaps if you cConsider it was almost a 1/2 century ago that NBC aired the original Star Trek show. Consider Gilligan? Crap Bewitched? Crap (your choice here?) crap. It was the nature of weekly shows.

Go back a couple more decades and the crap increases exponentially:



You pick the topic ... monster movies ... action movies ... the farther back you go ... the more crap you get. I was maybe 8 or 9 when star trek came out in the 1960's and it blew us kids away. I'll just flip by the 60's shows now, because as things progressed farther along, the cheezy factor gets more glaring ... but back then?