Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Super 8

JJ is the master of telling us absolutely nothing :)
 
He's also the master of absurdities that we overlook because it's so well crafted.

After my initial impression of AWESOME! My brain turned on and I started wondering why the train had no air support. How a truck caused that level of derailment? How a train car manages to fly through the air and why a monster wouldn't bother smashing out or just spinning open the door handle before the accident. Maybe it was restrained better.

If it's a secret train why does it say US Airforce on it?

I suspect this'll be another Star Trek. A movie I love. Masterful direction and storytelling with a plot that makes 0 sense.
 
Some teens shooting a SUPER-8 home movie capture that escaped lens flare on film, now the Government wants the evidence. Should be a good movie Brad. : )
 
My plot guess is that Super 8 cams rise from the dead and begin to kill DSLR's, none are spared :)
 
This teaser makes me not want to see the film. The CGI in the teaser is either unfinished, rushed or low budget, possibly even a sequence that isn't even in the film.. I agree with Gavin's comments on absurdities. But this is part of what is wrong with sci-fi and or tech-themed films more so today than ever before, it's not just a J.J. Abrams thing.

Abrams and his crew are truly is the masters of the anamorphic flare... At times I think that alone is how he landed the Star Trek directorial gig. Heh. Anyway, I liked his Star Trek, even though the story was lame, the villain was weak and time travel has pretty much ruined the Star Trek universe now. I don't think J.J. had a whole lot to do with the story itself on Star Trek though. I thought the casting and art direction were perfect. Definitely looking forward to the sequel. But those in the privileged position of writing for the Star Trek films need to take another look at their choices for villains in these films... That and I don't think I can ever forgive Berman and Pillar for derailing the TNG films so badly. But that's another thread altogether.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
This teaser makes me not want to see the film. The CGI in the teaser is either unfinished, rushed or low budget, possibly even a sequence that isn't even in the film.. I agree with Gavin's comments on absurdities. But this is part of what is wrong with sci-fi and or tech-themed films more so today than ever before, it's not just a J.J. Abrams thing.

Abrams and his crew are truly is the masters of the anamorphic flare... At times I think that alone is how he landed the Star Trek directorial gig. Heh. Anyway, I liked his Star Trek, even though the story was lame, the villain was weak and time travel has pretty much ruined the Star Trek universe now. I don't think J.J. had a whole lot to do with the story itself on Star Trek though.
Click to expand...

so many insults ... and i wonder u have a magical eyes ...

how does the CGI in the teaser is unfinished, rushed or low budget? which part? i don't see any sign of low quality stuff in that.

the star trek story was impressive and it had quite a amount of logic in it ... it didn't change any universe. it just created another one.. if you want to know more about the new Star Trek story u should listen to the writers commentaries in creative screenwriting podcast ...
 
C.A.Alan said:
so many insults ... and i wonder u have a magical eyes ...

how does the CGI in the teaser is unfinished, rushed or low budget? which part? i don't see any sign of low quality stuff in that.

the star trek story was impressive and it had quite a amount of logic in it ... it didn't change any universe. it just created another one.. if you want to know more about the new Star Trek story u should listen to the writers commentaries in creative screenwriting podcast ...
Click to expand...

Yeah ST made perfect sense. It's a mining ship, of course it's heavily armed. It's just a drill bit. There's no reason anyone ON EARTH could manage to shoot at it. It's unshielded, no way some phasers couldn't break it since evidently a HAND PHASER managed to blow it up. But it was moving... no wait, it was completely stationary, so it would have been ... hard to hit?

Why did they need to drill into a planet anyway? Just drop it next to a planet and evidently it creates a black hole anyway. Sure it'll take 5 minutes longer, but you don't need to drill anything.

Explain the logic of this scenario. You have a bomb. That you need to detonate. Do you A) Put it on a torpedo and fire it at the target or B) give it to a foot soldier jumping out of an airplane? Bonus question: Why only bring one bomb.

Bonus Bonus Question: Explain the logic of this scenario:

1) We can't beam you off until you blow up the rig.
2) We can't beam you out if you're flying/falling.
3) We need you to blow up the rig.

Where precisely were they supposed to go after blowing up the rig and before being beamed up? The only time they could get beamed up was when they were getting blown up. No wonder he sent an idiot, the guy who snuck on board and the guy who forgot the parking break. It was a suicide mission!

You're Spock. You're hundreds of years old and very wise. You have a ship full of an incredibly dangerous compound enough to wipe out everything you love. You're about to be boarded. Do you A) Blow up your ship to keep the material safe or B) Let them board your ship and take it for themselves? Keep in mind this is the person who already gave up his life with the quote "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

You're on a frozen planet what's the probability that your friend from the future is within walking distance? IF you're marooning your nemesis on a planet, why put them within walking distance of a place that has a communication array?

Why did they "Build the fastest ship in the galaxy" instead of just flying straight there? It seems like it would have been a lot more efficient to just send any old fast ship which was ready then and there.

You can pretty much do this to every scene in the movie. Nothing in it makes any logical sense at all.

Why did spock have evidently 10,000,000x more red matter than he needed?
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Yeah ST made perfect sense. It's a mining ship, of course it's heavily armed. It's just a drill bit. There's no reason anyone ON EARTH could manage to shoot at it. It's unshielded, no way some phasers couldn't break it since evidently a HAND PHASER managed to blow it up. But it was moving... no wait, it was completely stationary, so it would have been ... hard to hit?

Why did they need to drill into a planet anyway? Just drop it next to a planet and evidently it creates a black hole anyway. Sure it'll take 5 minutes longer, but you don't need to drill anything.

Explain the logic of this scenario. You have a bomb. That you need to detonate. Do you A) Put it on a torpedo and fire it at the target or B) give it to a foot soldier jumping out of an airplane? Bonus question: Why only bring one bomb.

Bonus Bonus Question: Explain the logic of this scenario:

1) We can't beam you off until you blow up the rig.
2) We can't beam you out if you're flying/falling.
3) We need you to blow up the rig.

Where precisely were they supposed to go after blowing up the rig and before being beamed up? The only time they could get beamed up was when they were getting blown up. No wonder he sent an idiot, the guy who snuck on board and the guy who forgot the parking break. It was a suicide mission!

You're Spock. You're hundreds of years old and very wise. You have a ship full of an incredibly dangerous compound enough to wipe out everything you love. You're about to be boarded. Do you A) Blow up your ship to keep the material safe or B) Let them board your ship and take it for themselves? Keep in mind this is the person who already gave up his life with the quote "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

You're on a frozen planet what's the probability that your friend from the future is within walking distance? IF you're marooning your nemesis on a planet, why put them within walking distance of a place that has a communication array?

Why did they "Build the fastest ship in the galaxy" instead of just flying straight there? It seems like it would have been a lot more efficient to just send any old fast ship which was ready then and there.

You can pretty much do this to every scene in the movie. Nothing in it makes any logical sense at all.

Why did spock have evidently 10,000,000x more red matter than he needed?
Click to expand...

You must be a hoot at parties :huh::biggrin::emote_22_yikes:
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Yeah ST made perfect sense. It's a mining ship, of course it's heavily armed. It's just a drill bit. There's no reason anyone ON EARTH could manage to shoot at it. It's unshielded, no way some phasers couldn't break it since evidently a HAND PHASER managed to blow it up. But it was moving... no wait, it was completely stationary, so it would have been ... hard to hit?

Why did they need to drill into a planet anyway? Just drop it next to a planet and evidently it creates a black hole anyway. Sure it'll take 5 minutes longer, but you don't need to drill anything.

Explain the logic of this scenario. You have a bomb. That you need to detonate. Do you A) Put it on a torpedo and fire it at the target or B) give it to a foot soldier jumping out of an airplane? Bonus question: Why only bring one bomb.

Bonus Bonus Question: Explain the logic of this scenario:

1) We can't beam you off until you blow up the rig.
2) We can't beam you out if you're flying/falling.
3) We need you to blow up the rig.

Where precisely were they supposed to go after blowing up the rig and before being beamed up? The only time they could get beamed up was when they were getting blown up. No wonder he sent an idiot, the guy who snuck on board and the guy who forgot the parking break. It was a suicide mission!

You're Spock. You're hundreds of years old and very wise. You have a ship full of an incredibly dangerous compound enough to wipe out everything you love. You're about to be boarded. Do you A) Blow up your ship to keep the material safe or B) Let them board your ship and take it for themselves? Keep in mind this is the person who already gave up his life with the quote "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

You're on a frozen planet what's the probability that your friend from the future is within walking distance? IF you're marooning your nemesis on a planet, why put them within walking distance of a place that has a communication array?

Why did they "Build the fastest ship in the galaxy" instead of just flying straight there? It seems like it would have been a lot more efficient to just send any old fast ship which was ready then and there.

You can pretty much do this to every scene in the movie. Nothing in it makes any logical sense at all.

Why did spock have evidently 10,000,000x more red matter than he needed?
Click to expand...

You a fan of those 90 min. Star Wars reviews?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top