Those Cadet uniforms were pretty snappy. Granted it's the same color scheme DS9 ended up using, but the TNG collars were better than the turtleneck shirts. Especially when the shirts seemed to be purple for some reason.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:35 pm
by adr
Michael dorn does a really good mr worf impression
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:58 pm
by Darth Tedious
Hey is this the for-real-actual poster and whatnot?
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:16 pm
by Bounty
Looks legit.
The preview screening had a scene with the Enterprise hiding under water.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:24 pm
by Sandman
Basically, this is what happens when Captain Kirk gets very drunk and decides to take the Horatio Hornblower comparison a wee bit too seriously.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:25 pm
by Darth Tedious
Star Trek: Into Darkness the sea
wtf? Hiding in water? Really? Crazy
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:27 pm
by Sandman
The trailer actually seemed to show the Enterprise crashing into the ocean, so I don't think it's 'hiding', exactly...
Edited to hide spoilers on request. Highlight above to reveal.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:33 pm
by Darth Tedious
argh, spoiler tags!
Don't want to give away what was in the trailer lol
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:35 pm
by Sandman
Darth Tedious wrote:argh, spoiler tags!
Don't want to give away what was in the trailer lol
Fixed anyway, just in case someone complains seriously about it.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:06 pm
by Dr Roberts
So the new movie has Cumberbatch confirmed as Gary Mitchell right because despite all the evidence I have a friend who claims he is Khan citing a vid where Quinto called Benedict Khan by mistake.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:07 pm
by Instant Sunrise
well the enterprise was designed to fly in space, so it can withstand between 0 and 1 atmospheres.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:53 pm
by Bounty
Darth Tedious wrote:Star Trek: Into Darkness the sea
wtf? Hiding in water? Really? Crazy
Hiding from a primitive civilization. I hope it makes sense in context.
So the new movie has Cumberbatch confirmed as Gary Mitchell right because despite all the evidence I have a friend who claims he is Khan citing a vid where Quinto called Benedict Khan by mistake.
Officially he's still some new dude called Anderson or something. I'd say Mitchell's as good a guess as any, though I've heard a halfway convincing amusing theory that it's actually captain April and the movie's a remake of that TAS episode where aging runs sdrawkcab.
Also the Star Trek nerd in me is obliged to point out that the Intrepid-class starship was rated for submarine duty provided the engines were suitably waterproofed
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:27 pm
by Dr Roberts
Just read that the guy who plays Bones said He's Gary.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:57 am
by Darth Tedious
Bounty wrote:
Darth Tedious wrote:Star Trek: Into Darkness the sea
wtf? Hiding in water? Really? Crazy
Hiding from a primitive civilization. I hope it makes sense in context.
That makes even less sense!
Ah well, it's nuTrek, I don't expect it to make sense
Bounty wrote:Also the Star Trek nerd in me is obliged to point out that the Intrepid-class starship was rated for submarine duty provided the engines were suitably waterproofed
Did that fact only emerge after Fluidic Space was invented?
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:07 am
by Stofsk
Darth Tedious wrote:
Bounty wrote:Also the Star Trek nerd in me is obliged to point out that the Intrepid-class starship was rated for submarine duty provided the engines were suitably waterproofed
Did that fact only emerge after Fluidic Space was invented?
I don't care what anyone says, 'Scorpion' was an epic two-parter and one of the best stories Voyager ever told. Fluidic space be damned.
i just felt like throwing that in there, carry on
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:26 pm
by Dr Roberts
It was promising with realizing the laws of Physics would be different, then they ignored it completely.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:23 pm
by Darth Tedious
Stofsk wrote:
Darth Tedious wrote:
Bounty wrote:Also the Star Trek nerd in me is obliged to point out that the Intrepid-class starship was rated for submarine duty provided the engines were suitably waterproofed
Did that fact only emerge after Fluidic Space was invented?
I don't care what anyone says, 'Scorpion' was an epic two-parter and one of the best stories Voyager ever told. Fluidic space be damned.
i just felt like throwing that in there, carry on
I'm going to not just let that slide
Scorpion was awesome and I totally agree
Fluidic space did not ruin it
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:46 pm
by Sandman
Who the hell honestly complained that fluidic space of all things ruined Scorpion?
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:56 pm
by Dr Roberts
I thought the concept behind Scorpion was pretty neat. The handling of it, not so much...
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:08 am
by timmy
Snar snar snar
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:16 am
by Dr Roberts
That made me laugh more than I should have.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:25 am
by uraniun235
Darth Tedious wrote:Did that fact only emerge after Fluidic Space was invented?
I think it came up in the one episode where they find the planetoid made completely out of water, and there's something deep in the waterball that they need, and supposedly Voyager could be made waterproof but it would take too long so let's use the Delta Flyer...
it's been years and years since I've seen that episode why in christ do I still remember that
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:59 am
by Bounty
Because it was one of the decent ones. Also, because we're nerds.
Re: Trek Thread
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:16 am
by timmy
I don't see why, with SIF in play, a starship couldn't survive underwater
Not sure whether they use the standard propulsion systems or use tractor/repulsors to get around