• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Started by Black Lantern,

383 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Some of these guys have crazy, custom lifts made. I know that Stallone is like 5'5 without shoes, and 5'10 with them. lol

 

Pro wrestlers heights are exaggerated by 3" to 4". The old WWF used to say Andre the Giant was 7' 4", but he's nowhere close, he's around 6' 10". Hulk Hogan was supposedly 6' 8", but he's really 6' 4" or 6' 5".

 

Their weight is exaggerated too. Brock Lesnar magically lost like 100lbs when he left the WWE and started fighting in the UFC. lol

 

Here's a cool pic of Andre the Giant standing next to the legit 7' 1" Wilt Chamberlain and 6' 1" or 6' 2" Arnold Schwarzenegger:

 

3841584581_0222528ba4_o.jpg

 

That is one wild picture. So many sites have different reports on Andre the Giant, but many say 6'11" to 7', though he was promoted as 7'4"-7'5" tall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
At its best, TNG was quite good. But actually it got good because Roddenberry became less involved. His insistance that in the future we all have evolved beyond personal conflict was a real buzz-kill when it came to generating suspenseful scripts. The 1st year of TNG was his baby-- the Wesley Crusher season. The later years were much better, and -- sad to say-- better without Roddenberry. :(

 

When I look at the writing and directing credits for random shows in the first season, I don't see Roddenberry's name on them. My understanding is that he set the framework for the show and then opened up the scripts to just about any Hollywood writers, not a staff as many shows do. Don't know the specifics of that, and I could easily be remembering wrong. I hadn't heard of his involvement changing after the first season--do you know the specifics of what he did differently in seasons 2 through 7?

 

I don't see Earth evolving beyond conflict between nations following first contact with the Vulcans as a buzz-kill at all. It changed the focus of conflict from different types of humands towards belligerent alien species. That aspect of the show also was consistent across ALL the Star Treks, wasn't it, right from the original series straight through the Enterprise prequel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
When I look at the writing and directing credits for random shows in the first season, I don't see Roddenberry's name on them. My understanding is that he set the framework for the show and then opened up the scripts to just about any Hollywood writers, not a staff as many shows do. Don't know the specifics of that, and I could easily be remembering wrong. I hadn't heard of his involvement changing after the first season--do you know the specifics of what he did differently in seasons 2 through 7?

 

Roddenberry was deeply involved in creating and producing Star Trek: The Next Generation. His participation greatly decreased after the first season but his diminished role was not disclosed because of the value of his name to fans. Indeed, he was not actively involved in subsequent spin-offs but every episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise continued to credit him as the creator. *

 

* Television as Digital Media, edited by James Bennett, Niki Strange.

 

Turns out he was perceived as the guy that made a TV flop that lucked out in getting picked up again.

 

Pages 113-114

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. It's a bit of a challenge for me with the reimagining at times as I loved the 1980s films, well at least the even numbers. lol

 

 

Not all the odd numbers are bad. I think 3 is just a continuation of two. In my mind, the pair make a great four hour Star Trek epic. Lots of great moments in 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted

4 was my favourite - between Spock trying to cuss effectively on the bus and Chekov repeating "nookyooler hwessel" over & over, it is easily the funniest movie made by the OG Star Trek crew.

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larryw7

Larryw7

Posted
Posted
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. It's a bit of a challenge for me with the reimagining at times as I loved the 1980s films, well at least the even numbers. lol

 

 

Not all the odd numbers are bad. I think 3 is just a continuation of two. In my mind, the pair make a great four hour Star Trek epic. Lots of great moments in 3.

 

 

I saw 3 on opening night in the Summer of '84(yeah, I know, I'm old). It's still one of my favorite movies in the series. Christopher Lloyd was great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ciorac

ciorac

Posted
Posted
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. It's a bit of a challenge for me with the reimagining at times as I loved the 1980s films, well at least the even numbers. lol

 

 

Not all the odd numbers are bad. I think 3 is just a continuation of two. In my mind, the pair make a great four hour Star Trek epic. Lots of great moments in 3.

 

 

I saw 3 on opening night in the Summer of '84(yeah, I know, I'm old). It's still one of my favorite movies in the series. Christopher Lloyd was great.

 

I liked all of the films of the original series cast. Sure, 1 and 5 were the weakest, but I still found plenty in them I enjoyed.

 

I've enjoyed every spinoff series as well on television, and nearly all of the movies.

 

The new continuity is nirvana for a star trek geek like me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr 9.8

Mr 9.8

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I'm not sure why "Enterprise" got such a bad rap. I was definitely sad to see it come to an early end...
Blame the death of it on all the ''fanboy'' rage against it.

Namely the Continuity problems from the very beginning caused it's downfall. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larryw7

Larryw7

Posted
Posted
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. It's a bit of a challenge for me with the reimagining at times as I loved the 1980s films, well at least the even numbers. lol

 

 

Not all the odd numbers are bad. I think 3 is just a continuation of two. In my mind, the pair make a great four hour Star Trek epic. Lots of great moments in 3.

 

 

I saw 3 on opening night in the Summer of '84(yeah, I know, I'm old). It's still one of my favorite movies in the series. Christopher Lloyd was great.

 

I liked all of the films of the original series cast. Sure, 1 and 5 were the weakest, but I still found plenty in them I enjoyed.

 

I've enjoyed every spinoff series as well on television, and nearly all of the movies.

 

The new continuity is nirvana for a star trek geek like me

I thought that the 1st one was pretty good, with really great special effects for 1979. 5 had some good moments between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. It was the weakest of the series, but still watchable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I'm not sure why "Enterprise" got such a bad rap. I was definitely sad to see it come to an early end...
Blame the death of it on all the ''fanboy'' rage against it.

Namely the Continuity problems from the very beginning caused it's downfall. :cry:

 

That and it kinda sucked (shrug) TOS is my favorite by far, but some of the other iterations are enjoyable...not Enterprise though :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
Arnold is under 6 feet :(

 

I've heard that about the modern-day Arnold as well, but supposedly he was 6' 1.5" as a young man as he was in Conan. Same thing has happened to Bill Clinton--he used to be close to 6' 2" but is now around 6'. Shrinking seems to kick in during your late 50s or 60s; dunno if it happens to everyone or not. (shrug)

 

That is quite possible. I've been told by two people I know personally who've had the chance to meet him that he's shorter than I am and I'm 5'10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted
Some of these guys have crazy, custom lifts made. I know that Stallone is like 5'5 without shoes, and 5'10 with them. lol

 

Pro wrestlers heights are exaggerated by 3" to 4". The old WWF used to say Andre the Giant was 7' 4", but he's nowhere close, he's around 6' 10". Hulk Hogan was supposedly 6' 8", but he's really 6' 4" or 6' 5".

 

Their weight is exaggerated too. Brock Lesnar magically lost like 100lbs when he left the WWE and started fighting in the UFC. lol

 

Here's a cool pic of Andre the Giant standing next to the legit 7' 1" Wilt Chamberlain and 6' 1" or 6' 2" Arnold Schwarzenegger:

 

3841584581_0222528ba4_o.jpg

 

Now THAT is an amazing photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. It's a bit of a challenge for me with the reimagining at times as I loved the 1980s films, well at least the even numbers. lol

 

 

Not all the odd numbers are bad. I think 3 is just a continuation of two. In my mind, the pair make a great four hour Star Trek epic. Lots of great moments in 3.

 

:applause:

 

I started watching the original series last night with my kiddos.

 

I had forgotten how non Star Trek the pilot was. And how like a fifties style sci fi movie as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JiveTurkeyMoFo

JiveTurkeyMoFo

Posted
Posted
Some of these guys have crazy, custom lifts made. I know that Stallone is like 5'5 without shoes, and 5'10 with them. lol

 

Pro wrestlers heights are exaggerated by 3" to 4". The old WWF used to say Andre the Giant was 7' 4", but he's nowhere close, he's around 6' 10". Hulk Hogan was supposedly 6' 8", but he's really 6' 4" or 6' 5".

 

Their weight is exaggerated too. Brock Lesnar magically lost like 100lbs when he left the WWE and started fighting in the UFC. lol

 

Here's a cool pic of Andre the Giant standing next to the legit 7' 1" Wilt Chamberlain and 6' 1" or 6' 2" Arnold Schwarzenegger:

 

3841584581_0222528ba4_o.jpg

 

Now THAT is an amazing photo.

 

Must be from the set of Conan the Destroyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted

Saw it on Saturday night.

 

First of all, I don't remember who it was, but whomever spoiled it for me by posting the word

 

 

Khan

 

 

can kiss my hairy . I hope you are never again given sex. Not even by means of cash payment.

 

What I didn't like...

 

 

1. The Spock consulting Spock thing. Really? This is not logical.

2. We are two movies in and I still don't feel the connection between Spock and Kirk, though this movie helped to push it in that direction.

3. "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" meh

 

 

What I did like...

 

 

Everything else. This movie kicks major . Perhaps my favorite Star Trek movie...evar! :cloud9:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ciorac

ciorac

Posted
Posted
Saw it on Saturday night.

 

First of all, I don't remember who it was, but whomever spoiled it for me by posting the word

 

 

Khan

 

 

can kiss my hairy . I hope you are never again given sex. Not even by means of cash payment.

 

 

What I did like...

 

 

Everything else. This movie kicks major . Perhaps my favorite Star Trek movie...evar! :cloud9:

 

 

 

(worship)

 

You have been elevated to a lofty status in my eyes Dice

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
What I did like...

 

 

Everything else. This movie kicks major . Perhaps my favorite Star Trek movie...evar! :cloud9:

 

That did it for me! I now need to own this DVD.

 

:whee:

 

Yeah, I'll be buying this one the night it releases on DVD.

I may even go see it again this weekend. I hardly ever go see anything more than once in the theater. :applause:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing