test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Star Trek Online and Into Darkness - A wishful thought

rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
Hey, first time poster but avid STO player here. Something that crossed my mind a while back that I'd like to see happen is that Cryptic will do something special for the release of Star trek: Into Darkness. Specifically, I would like to see the type of constitution class that the Enterprise was in the JJ Abram's movies be released as a special promotion for free, perhaps along with other FED ships from the movies like the Kelvin, the ships seen around spacedock and maybe even the shuttles. Say something along the lines that they were recovered from the Tholian's extra dimensional experiments like the mirror universe ships.
Afterwards, have them as some sort of lock box item or veteran award. :cool:

I know this has probably already been asked and may also be contested. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm posting in the right section for this. However, I just really wanted to speak my mind and I would like the chance to get these ships in the game. So hopefully Cryptic reads this, or they are already on it. ;)
Post edited by rossi320 on
«1345678

Comments

  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The new Romulan Content is going to be released at the same time as the new movie.


    But there will be NO JJ Enterprise, because that Enterprise belongs in another timeline and secondly, Cryptic has no rights to the new Star Trek movies. Just the original series up to Star Trek Nemesis.
  • rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The new Romulan Content is going to be released at the same time as the new movie.


    But there will be NO JJ Enterprise, because that Enterprise belongs in another timeline and secondly, Cryptic has no rights to the new Star Trek movies. Just the original series up to Star Trek Nemesis.

    Well, that's why I mentioned that the explanation for obtaining it could be through the Tholians, as they are plucking out and capturing ships such as from the mirror universe via mucking with dimensional barriers (which seems to be their MO for some reason, huh). Since the JJ ships not only belong in another timeline but are also from another universe, they could easily do the same with the JJ ships. In fact they could probably pull them across time as well as in ENT "A mirror darkly", the mirror tholians captured the USS Defiant from the main universe's TOS era. So yeah, I think they're probably capable of doing something like that.

    Although, your second point does throw this idea right out the window doesn't it? Damn, that's a real shame. :(
    I am wondering though, where does it say that Cryptic doesn't have the rights to any of JJ's stuff. Just wondering.
  • voyagerfan9751voyagerfan9751 Member Posts: 1,120 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    rossi320 wrote: »
    Well, that's why I mentioned that the explanation for obtaining it could be through the Tholians, as they are plucking out and capturing ships such as from the mirror universe via mucking with dimensional barriers (which seems to be their MO for some reason, huh). Since the JJ ships not only belong in another timeline but are also from another universe, they could easily do the same with the JJ ships. In fact they could probably pull them across time as well as in ENT "A mirror darkly", the mirror tholians captured the USS Defiant from the main universe's TOS era. So yeah, I think they're probably capable of doing something like that.

    Although, your second point does throw this idea right out the window doesn't it? Damn, that's a real shame. :(
    I am wondering though, where does it say that Cryptic doesn't have the rights to any of JJ's stuff. Just wondering.

    Cryptic has said repeatedly whenever the subject of including things from the JJ movies comes up. Their license is with CBS, who owns the TV series, and movies up to Nemesis. Paramount has the rights to JJverse, so anything in there is off limits to Cryptic. Same goes for other games or the books. Though books are sketchy, Some things are part of CBS' Licenses, some aren't. That is why it took so long to get the Vesta in the game. Cryptic had to aquire the rights for it, so it required some work to get in the game.
  • rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Cryptic has said repeatedly whenever the subject of including things from the JJ movies comes up. Their license is with CBS, who owns the TV series, and movies up to Nemesis. Paramount has the rights to JJverse, so anything in there is off limits to Cryptic. Same goes for other games or the books. Though books are sketchy, Some things are part of CBS' Licenses, some aren't. That is why it took so long to get the Vesta in the game. Cryptic had to aquire the rights for it, so it required some work to get in the game.

    Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Like I said, first time poster so I don't know much of the behind the scenes stuff going on. Still wonder that, if Cryptic really wanted it, could they acquire the rights or would the hassle just not be worth the effort?

    Well, branching off that I guess I'll ask another question. If Cryptic DID get the rights and COULD put the ships or ships in, would any of you guys want them? I know a fair amount of people have strong feeling on the JJ Enterprise and, well, everything else that he has done regarding Star Trek. In which case, I'm interested to know who would or wouldn't want the JJ ships in the game and what are your own specific reasons why and why not?

    Personally, I'd like them in. More content at the very least, and I have an open mind about the subject too. Could be fun. So, discuss.
  • lizweilizwei Member Posts: 936 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I'm not very fond of JJ's Boobyprize. Maybe because I can't stand that movie or anything in it.
    Well except for Leonard Nimoy and Karl Urban.

    Suffice to say if the Boobyprize really does eat it in Into Darkness, I shall cheer.
  • voyagerfan9751voyagerfan9751 Member Posts: 1,120 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    lizwei wrote: »
    I'm not very fond of JJ's Boobyprize. Maybe because I can't stand that movie or anything in it.
    Well except for Leonard Nimoy and Karl Urban.

    Suffice to say if the Boobyprize really does eat it in Into Darkness, I shall cheer.

    Honestly, it isn't a terrible movie in its own right, but there are so many inconsistencies with it that it can be frustrating. It Just seems JJ Abrams wanted to make a sci-fi movie more then a Star Trek one, so there are so many things that just don't make sense.
  • thecosmic1thecosmic1 Member Posts: 9,365 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    rossi320 wrote: »
    Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Like I said, first time poster so I don't know much of the behind the scenes stuff going on. Still wonder that, if Cryptic really wanted it, could they acquire the rights or would the hassle just not be worth the effort?
    It would not be worth the hassle. Every piece of new content would need to be approved by CBS, approved by Paramount, and approved by JJ - and they would all expect compensation for their efforts.
    STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
  • darkelfofficerdarkelfofficer Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Honestly, it isn't a terrible movie in its own right

    No, it is. The writing is bad, the direction is bad, the production design is bad, the cinematography is bad, the acting is bad. There is nothing good about that movie.

    That they butchered the TOS characters into caricatures to make them EXXXTREME is secondary to how horrible that movie is.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The First film was abomination
    the second is said to be WORSE
    Live long and Prosper
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    sollvax wrote: »
    The First film was abomination
    the second is said to be WORSE

    this^^^^^^^^^
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    No, it is. The writing is bad, the direction is bad, the production design is bad, the cinematography is bad, the acting is bad. There is nothing good about that movie.

    That they butchered the TOS characters into caricatures to make them EXXXTREME is secondary to how horrible that movie is.

    Ehhh, that sounds a bit biased doesn't it? The movie was successful so something in there worked. For one, I liked it. Wouldn't peg it as my favourite movie but I still like it. Besides, they're NOT the TOS characters. They are alternates from another reality. The originals have practically been left untouched.

    Well, I won't force you to change your opinion. See way too many people on the Internet trying to do that. If you don't like it then, ok, you didn't like it, it didn't work for you. I'll accept that.
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    sollvax wrote: »
    The First film was abomination
    the second is said to be WORSE

    From people who seen the first 45 Minutes in Brazil, it does seem to be pretty bad. As we thought with the 2009 movie, Abrams is making it action than the classic Star Trek of story.
  • lizweilizwei Member Posts: 936 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I really wish people would stop using the "it's successful" defence.

    Success does not equal quality.
    Yes. Star Trek 2009 is a successful movie, and JJ Abrams is a successful director. However, I argue that neither deserve it, for the same reason that Twilight, Call of Duty and Michael Bay do not deserve their success. It's all schlock appealing to the lowest common denominator and I am certain that centuries from now, historians will look back on this era and wonder just what combination of drugs, alcohol and gasoline our society was hooked on in order to enjoy this kind of garbage.
  • rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    daan2006 wrote: »
    this^^^^^^^^^
    sollvax wrote: »
    The First film was abomination
    the second is said to be WORSE

    But the second movie isn't even out yet. Give it a chance first by watching it, then judge it for yourself.

    Anyway, this isn't a discussion about the movies, it about whether you want the movie's ships in the game or not.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    According to my source

    Phasers with RECOIL
    just for a start (he managed to stand less than 15 minutes)
    Live long and Prosper
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    rossi320 wrote: »
    Ehhh, that sounds a bit biased doesn't it? The movie was successful so something in there worked.

    key part of that is the first one not the second 1 also I believe any movie that did not follow picard would have dun just as well if not better as much as I love TNG I would have loved a DS9 movie or VOY or hell one dun around riker

    but this is my opinion
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • lizweilizwei Member Posts: 936 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    sollvax wrote: »
    According to my source

    Phasers with RECOIL
    just for a start (he managed to stand less than 15 minutes)

    Hey, compared to supernovas that blow up planets in other star systems and yet their shockwave can be cancelled out at the source along with black holes that serve as time portals sometimes and actual black holes other times depending on what the plot arbitrarily wants them to be, energy weapons with recoil are practically science fact.
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    rossi320 wrote: »
    But the second movie isn't even out yet. Give it a chance first by watching it, then judge it for yourself.

    I gave him that on the first one not again
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • darkelfofficerdarkelfofficer Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    lizwei wrote: »
    I really wish people would stop using the "it's successful" defence.

    Success does not equal quality.
    Yes. Star Trek 2009 is a successful movie, and JJ Abrams is a successful director. However, I argue that neither deserve it, for the same reason that Twilight, Call of Duty and Michael Bay do not deserve their success. It's all schlock appealing to the lowest common denominator and I am certain that centuries from now, historians will look back on this era and wonder just what combination of drugs, alcohol and gasoline our society was hooked on in order to enjoy this kind of garbage.

    Every era has garbage. Those historians in the future will have their own particular garbage that are popular. And there's nothing inherently wrong with appealing to the lowest common denominator... Die Hard is an action movie with little depth, but it's still a good movie. Abrams' Star Trek, however, is not.
  • jam3s1701jam3s1701 Member Posts: 1,825 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    KEEP THAT RUBBISH AWAY FROM WHAT IS THE LAST SURE SHREDD OF TRUE TREK

    Yes I shouted because the thought of star trek online being contaminated with that!!! Makes me want lol erm hulk out and smash
    JtaDmwW.png
  • catoblepasbetacatoblepasbeta Member Posts: 1,532 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Ugh. I just hoep that NuTrek will go off in the corner and quietly pass away. It did absolutely nothing for the established series, except nuke the Romulans in the Prime universe (and interestingly enough, the Vulcans in the JJ universe, did spock steal his lunch money, or does he just naturally hate folks with pointy ears?) It might have brought in a lot of folks who don't normally like ST, but it did it at the expense of turning Trek into something it wasn't, and alienating/ putting on hiatus the works of three other series and eight other films. (strangely enough, Enterprise is the only series unaffected). JJ's Trek is pretty much to the letter the definition of a sellout.

    Please, no more JJ Trek in STO. What we have already is more than enough.
  • jexsamxjexsamx Member Posts: 2,803 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    No, it is. The writing is bad, the direction is bad, the production design is bad, the cinematography is bad, the acting is bad. There is nothing good about that movie.

    That they butchered the TOS characters into caricatures to make them EXXXTREME is secondary to how horrible that movie is.

    Either you didn't actually watch it or your fanboy goggles are on so tight as to cut off the oxygen to your brain.

    ST09 was a decent movie. Not good, per se. But not bad either. Performances were generally serviceable, with one or two standouts. The only bad set and production design was the obvious brewery that was engineering. Everything else was pretty solid assuming you aren't living in the past. The only flaw with the cinematography was the damned lens flare with Abrams himself said was over the top in hindsight.

    In short it was exactly what it was intended to be - a summer blockbuster, nothing more, nothing less. And it succeeded at that.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    jam3s1701 wrote: »
    KEEP THAT RUBBISH AWAY FROM WHAT IS THE LAST SURE SHREDD OF TRUE TREK

    Yes I shouted because the thought of star trek online being contaminated with that!!! Makes me want lol erm hulk out and smash

    "TRUE TREK"... to You...

    There's really no sense in getting so dramatic about it.

    We get it..., it doesn't appeal to you...,

    ... but that doesn't change the fact that IT IS a part of Trek Canon now.

    I'm not crazy about the way the ship looks either, but I don't go off the deep end about it...

    It is an entertaining movie, there's no arguing with the fact that it made tons of money and Paramount was very happy to let JJ make another (and probably a third).

    Both of which, will also be an Official part of Trek Canon.

    It would be in Cryptics best interest to at the very least, try to acquire the rights to add parts of this new Trek to Their game.

    It can only make more money for Them & PWE in the long run.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • jkstocbrjkstocbr Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Cryptics game engine can not handle all the lense flare that is required.
  • rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Alrighty then, I was right, this a touchy subject for the community. Only 3 pages in and people already seem vehemently against the idea. The idea of the new movies at least, not many of you are actually stating your opinion on the ship's inclusion to the game but I guess that goes hand in hand with what you thought about the movie. Oh well.

    Even if was in the game, I'd probably not use them anyway myself. I'm too busy gathering up resources for the Odyssey and extra ship space for it(which is a b***h to do but I'm really not fussed on paying for it) so I won't have the room or resources for it anyway.
  • transam83transam83 Member Posts: 33 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    A few opinions here on these forums full of children really do not matter. Million of people liked the 2009 film, including myself.

    That is why another film was made. It was not certain at first if Jj was going to direct another one until the overwhelming positive feedback he received from the fans that changed his mind.

    So once again, your few meaningless opinions are moot at this point.

    If anything was bad , it was the cheap sci-fi that was TOS. Horrible tv show and terrible acting if you ask me.
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    jkstocbr wrote: »
    Cryptics game engine can not handle all the lense flare that is required.

    lololololololololololol
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • voyagerfan9751voyagerfan9751 Member Posts: 1,120 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    lizwei wrote: »
    I really wish people would stop using the "it's successful" defence.

    Success does not equal quality.
    Yes. Star Trek 2009 is a successful movie, and JJ Abrams is a successful director. However, I argue that neither deserve it, for the same reason that Twilight, Call of Duty and Michael Bay do not deserve their success. It's all schlock appealing to the lowest common denominator and I am certain that centuries from now, historians will look back on this era and wonder just what combination of drugs, alcohol and gasoline our society was hooked on in order to enjoy this kind of garbage.

    For the highlight parts, you have just become my favorite poster of the forums.

    For the life of me, I will never, NEVER understand what has made Twilight so appealing. I forced myself to watch the first movie and it was by far the most boring movie I have ever seen in my life.
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    For the highlight parts, you have just become my favorite poster of the forums.

    For the life of me, I will never, NEVER understand what has made Twilight so appealing. I forced myself to watch the first movie and it was by far the most boring movie I have ever seen in my life.

    its a a vampire chick flick :)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • rossi320rossi320 Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    jkstocbr wrote: »
    Cryptics game engine can not handle all the lense flare that is required.

    :D That's actually pretty funny! Thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.