test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Into Darkness Dreadnought :Q___
avengerkid1993
Member Posts: 323 Arc User
what to say ?
I WANT IT NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WANT IT NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post edited by avengerkid1993 on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The ship looks terrible, and it's a terrible idea. And it's still quite weak in comparison to most 23rd century tech.
*amen Bro*
Its amazing how many people really don't like the great change that Abrams has brought to Trek and how some of those people can't stand the fact that Gene's Trek is now outdated along with the so called Trek cannon which I have no time for. I gave Abrams a chance and he has succeeded both in my view and that of Paramount studios so there
No he has killed it. Into Darkness is Wrath of Kahn Redux and badly redux. And the ship is TRIBBLE. NO JJ SHIPS EVER!
and one or two people saw the jj movie
First of all my previous point proven it seems lol and second yeah I can see why some people might think it was a Wrath Of Khan remade but no since its completely different not to mention an original story for this movie obviously Abrams borrowed some characters from Khan but he definitely stamped his authority on it including his style of directing
For the moment STO doesn't have the rights to use any of Abrams Trek ships since Paramount own the rights and of course they would have to negotiate a suitable price which I suspect is quite high right now lol. When they do eventually add Abrams Trek ships and uniforms etc you can exercise personal choice and not buy and those of us like me will just because its awesome
(the price of some new shiny servers maybe)
there is not one original concept , original idea or original line in into darkness
it could have been made on the budget of a single episode of DS9 and STILL been better
Interesting what movie were you watching I think you need to watch it again
The end product is a high quality pacey Star Trek movie which appeals to a wider audience. Cumberbatch's Khan you could better empathize with therefore a much better Khan this time round for he is not 1 dimensional and therefore has way more substance to him. Also I would submit that the global profits this movie has made at the box office doesn't support the assertion that he did a terrible job of it.
All I keep hearing about is how Abrams has ruined Trek ok how? By bringing his unique style and talent to the table along with some new ideas on how a Trek movie should be made along with new actors who bring their own unique take on those characters and thus make them their own.
Has he ruined Trek? By laying the seeds for a possible new series of Star Trek possibly done by Seth Mcfarlane who has expressed great interest to Paramount that he would love to do it. So yeah I suppose Abrams has done a terrible job oh no what will we do with a evolved Trek ahhhh lol.
Well except the new Romulan Lockbox ships which are all Narada inspired.
No thank you I already had to disinfect my eyeballs once
clearly you never saw "charlies angels " the movie
or the reboot of karate kid
its all about Money from people too young to remember the real thing
Original?
We sat there (four of us) and identified elements from
Universal soldier (plus one sequal)
Wok
A couple of Episodes of Dark angel
Bourne legacy
The Matrix
At least one episode of mission impossible
And a sizeable chunk of the "expanded universe" novels
Action junkies and 14 year olds??
except he isn't khan he is "neo" with added "bourne" and a touch of "max"
basically I would shoot him in the face on sight simply because he had NO redeeming qualities
it made a loss
Compared to Real trek (some of which is still showing almost 50 years down time) it has made less per $ invested than the pilot episode
Talent????
Actors??
He could not even cast the right Ethnic types or accents
no he has merely ruined two films
he should not be allowed NEAR it
his cartoon series make a joke out of paedophillia and the TRIBBLE
abrams should have stuck to what he is good at
Crappy slacker comedy
I dont like Into Darkness because its a dumb film that doesnt make sense. The Enterprise flew to the boarders of Klingon space to fire long range torpedoes at Qo'Nos (why did they change the spelling for the film? For morons who can't read?). Exactly how "Long Range" are these torpedoes, because they have to be able to travel at warp speed. Wouldnt any passive klingon ship or out post pick it up and destroy it?
How could an unregistered cargo ship be able to enter Qo'nos atmosphere? Again, the Klingons must of picked it up and would likely of shot it out the sky.
Thirdly, why the FRAK does Spock shout Khan? Nobody in my cinema took that scene seriously. Everyone laughed. "But Tryulis, Kirk shouted it in the original and now Kirk died. So Spock did it" - I understand that but it doesnt make sense to the plot. Beyond Spock being a logical Vulcan who would accept Kirks sacrifice as necessary in order to save the ship, the fact remains, Admiral Marcus was the one who disabled the Enterprise, making Kirk go down to the engine room. Not Khan.
Finally. Why is that Kirks death is always treated terribly on the big screen? If your killing him, kill him. They killed Spock for Christ sake, yeah the next film brought him back, but in 1982, you thought he was dead. For Kirk to be brought back to life via "magic Khan blood" is the stupidest and lamest piece of writing I've ever seen.
--- P.S. Bones experimented with Khans blood by putting it into a Tribble;
Human Blood, injected into an Alien with completely different body work.... how is this guy a Doctor?
Vice Admiral Dir Sonatra, I.R.W. Kholairlha, Scimitar Class Warbird
Vice Admiral Oshin S'ree, USS Steamrunner, Steamrunner Class
TEN FORWARD FLEET
Unfortunately, i never watched The Old Series
But hey, you can't say that JJ Abrams movies are TRIBBLE, they aren't.
I really liked these films.
And the Dreadnought from Into Darkness is pretty awesome :Q__
Please stop rehashing comments and placing old Trek films on pedestal. Bringing Spock back by a magic weapon is very much different and great story telling ....blah blah. Besides McCoy's skills at being a doc is no different than him curing an incurable disease or putting Spock's brain back in. In other words, your ******** about the new movie is pointless, it has been made and done, so put it with the other Trek films.
Back to the topic, no Vengeance in STO, let's repeat no Vengeance in STO due to legal issues and other complex corporate TRIBBLE. So, in other words, let's start a new threat about having the Vengeance be in STO.
Khan used Scotties device to beam to Qo'nos... Why didn't they just Beam a small team behind after him. The Klingons obviously didn't know he was there, but no take a whole starship, and fire torpedoes at their home world surely they won't track down who made them.
Oh that's right he took the device with him and the guy who invented it was part of the crew of the Enterprise.
Besides all that, Logically a one off ship that had never gone into production 200 years ago would never be released as a T5 ship because that makes no sense.
Once the Defiant fixed the problems with it that ship went into production, they didn't all come with cloaking devices but. The Dreadnought (Galaxy X) was Admiral Rikers ship heavily modified again the modifications to the Galaxy would have been considered and possibly used to upgrade some of the fleet. Heck I consider the game to have Galaxy 1, Galaxy 2 & Galaxy X as ships. A Gal 1 has Saucer Separation (The Z-Store version) the Gal 2 (T4) does not.
But the nail in the coffin is Cryptic don't own the rights to it, and can't get them as others above have said.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?
absolutely correct. Into Darkness is nothing more than a hack job Wrath of Khan combined with Diane Carey's Dreadnought! novel.
He twisted it and warped it, the only thing that Trek has in common with his TRIBBLE is names. Of course its popular it has name on it first off and we know there are millions of idiots who will follow something because of someones name.
Second off I doubt a whole lot except core trek fans are seeing it for being trek as much for seeing it for all of the action and special effects. (some probably to see a very attractive woman in her panties.)
They didn't change the name at all. That's how it was spelled in the script for Star Trek VI. And it's really only the phonetic English spelling of the place. It's also how it is spelled in a large number of scripts from DS9. You're barking up the wrong tree here if you want to pin that spelling issue on Abrams.
According to DStahl in a recent interview, Cryptic is working on bringing together more movie elements into the game. This means people asking for the Vengeance have gotten Cryptic's attention. So there's more of a "yes Vengeance" movement afoot than the "no Vengeance" movement you're backing. There's no legal issues and complex corporate TRIBBLE that can't be worked out. Which is what Cryptic is attempting to do.
Yeah that entire thread got submarined when DStahl answered a question in a recent interview stating that Cryptic is always looking to do more movie material in STO and are open to the idea and are working on ways to get the stuff into the game.
Essentially CBS hasn't said no to JJ-Trek things the way people keep thinking they have.
CBS, Cryptic and Paramount all like the idea of making more money. So the more people push for the USS Vengeance, the more traction such an idea gets. Money is money.
Also, if you didn't know, the Vengeance bares a slight resemblance to one of Perpetual's own ship designs.
well, the Narada was technically made in the prime universe, so it would have been more likely to get in, but it was still owned by paramount (Just like the enterprise E, which is why it has never been shown in the game) however, since the concept of the narada was prime universe, if CBS said so, they could easily add narada inspired ships.
P.s. CBS has no control over JJTrek, but that doesnt stop cryptic/CBS to try and negotiate with paramount on things. so while its "highly unlikely it will ever be seen in STO." its not a flat out "no" like the "No T5 connie" statements.
So in short: it is more likely that we will see the Vengeance in game before a T5 connie.
Yeah but its a matter off if they will pay enough money and there would be enough people to make the money. I highly doubt anything JJ based is going to make it in game for free...
*EDIT: I seem to remember that in a recent "Ask Cryptic" Dstahl said there might be a change for the Achilles from "Dominion Wars"...and I remember one of the various discussion about games from other companies and someone pointed out Simon & Schuster are connected to CBS and it might be somewhat easier to get materials from them than other companies.
Maybe that's the way they're going with their attempts to get materials from other sources.*
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I dont think people want what is basically A Connie version of the Galaxy X, besides, it'd be too connie like to get to be a T5 ship.
Edit: also apparently the Federation-class is a little iffy territory: