When I first saw this at theatres I never noticed the lens flare thing. But once it was pointed out to me, I can't see anything else... (See what I did there.)

Abrams film left me feeling 'meh' so I'll catch the next one at home...

Looks entertaining, but what is it with J.J. Abrams and jumping off of things and or facediving through debris fields?

You're bashing season 3... seriously? The Season with Flaming Moe's, among many other classics. Simpsons bashing is so in vogue, you'd think it's a JJ Abrams Star Trek movie trailer.

I still don't get how J.J. Abrams is 'pioneering'. What did he pioneer exactly? Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan, but as far as I can tell, he didn't pioneer shit.

Sorry, but this comment touched a nerve with me.

If that's truly the case, then you really need to find other more important things to be personally "embarrassed" about. Perhaps you should start thinking about things that might have more personal relevance, or at least, that you have some personal or financial accountability to be embarrassed for. Unless your last name is Abrams, I can't see how a movie trailer possibly reflects personally on you.

This looks awesome and I plan on seeing it in the theater.

The mission generally dictates the engineering and design of a mechanical system. The Buran and the Shuttle are prime examples. The new X-37 resembles both in general shape because a reusable "space plane" needs certain specific physical characteristics.

The Mig-25 looks like the F-15 because both were originally designed as high altitude, high mach interceptors. The demand placed on the system by the overly large engines dictates the shape.

The basic principles of radar "stealth" dictate certain shapes to be effective. The Have-Blue shape was effective against high frequency radar through deflection. As materials technology advanced, e.g. radio absorbing materials, more aerodynamic shapes could be implemented and still retain "stealthy" characteristics, if not improve upon them.

All the F-22 vs Pak50, M1a1 Abrams vs T80 videos are funny. The 1 versus 1 advantages are fun to debate, but its the entire system that wins or loses the fight. In the same vein, its common knowledge that German armor in WW2 was vastly superior to American armor in every technical way. Similarly, German fighter aircraft were more maneuverable than the P-47s and P-51s that they fought. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, this superiority was not enough to defeat the allied system as it rolled east across Europe.

The term 5th generation does not define the aircraft themselves, but the system they belong to. If you read wikipedia, this does not mesh, but the wiki values maneuverability (which is inherently limited by the pilot), stealth features (limited by current materials and design), advanced avionics (what does this mean?) and multi-role capabilities (we have had this since the 1980's). The key to 5th generation fighters and its defining characteristic is the ability to integrate the new fighters with every other piece of war equipment in the theatre, not just in tactical use, but the total meshing of sensors and 2-way data links. Its the difference between a war of attrition and a war of "look first, shoot first".

The Russians appear to be building an excellent stealth fighter that looks sexy as hell. The Chinese are doing the same. What they both lack at the current time is the "backend" systems to make these new 5th generation-esque vehicles fully capable. The Pak50 and the J20 won't be sharing targeting data with their Navy or other ground forces anytime soon.

As with all things, it's not necessarily a law change that need to happen. Laws don't drive the zeitgeist, the zeitgeist drive laws (or should).

People need to be dissuaded from wanting to have guns. In Europe, people don't really want a gun, and don't even see a need for one. Sure, there are hunters and they have guns, and sure you can get one if you're in a dangerous area with bears and shit, but actually getting a gun is when you're hunted by mafia or something like that and you're desperate. Why would you ever want to walk around with a gun? I don't really get it.

Perhaps people have a fantasy about being a hero, where they shoot the bad guy. Everyone has that as a kid; most kids also grow up.

There's something deeply satisfying about firing a gun - power at your fingertips. Control. Maybe it's a control thing. People don't like to be out of control, with a gun they always have something to fall back on to control the situation.

Maybe it's a macho thing, although women carry guns too. I don't know the statistic of it, but I would imagine more men do than women. Men are intrinsically destructive while women are creative - it's our nature. We men beat up our rivals to gain access to that sweetest fruit of all: peach. Perhaps it's an extension of power; an penis extension. Don't pull the trigger, squeeze it tenderly. You are the gun; look down the aim at your target and fire.

Maybe there's some brain vs brawn in it. I would wager good money that as intelligence goes up, gun ownership goes down. No statistics to back it up, but I'd love to see if it's true. Brains are taking over everything - it's the decade of the Nerd. Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams could get all the girls and gets all the admiration in the big world, while Dick McKickaball failed to make the team and married Candace the exotic dancer his friends hired for him on his 21st birthday. But at least he could shoot JJ Abrams in the face with his 4½ inch death stick.

Society doesn't really gain much from guns does it?

It has its own market and thus gets people to move money around with someone around to skim the top. dft said this in point 2 as well. This could be done for worse stuff though - snuff porn has a market; heroin has a market.

Mutually Assured Destruction is always a fun acronym to throw around. If everyone does eye for an eye, the world will go blind, I've heard somewhere. Probably a shitty western or something.

Feelings of security? If I have a gun, do I feel safer from the people around me that may or may not also have guns? I would feel safer in my home, I think. If I feared home invasions. Home invasions are a weird thing; very rare in europe to the best of my knowledge, even though we don't have guns. Seems like something that would only happen if there was an enormous disparity between poor and rich, making the poor desperate (and lazy) enough to want to do a home invasion. If Brian the Aryan Man-God makes 10 million billion $$ a year, and Rommel the Dirty Mexican doesn't get anything because he has to pay child support off his social security and also cover his meth addication, then the chance of Rommel doing a home invasion is greater than if Rommel makes half of what Brian does. Maybe we need to raise the floor, instead of raising the ceiling on the extrema of wealth to lose the desire of guns.

Maybe it's all of the factors at once, and we have someone like the NRA pushing everyone to want all of them. I want security. I'm afraid. I have a small dick. Home invasions happen all the time. Schools get shot by crazies, I need to defend myself.

Bang!

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

There... the demons went away. Guns are your friends.

Ha, thanks.

I was actually regretting that I didn't go for my original impulse and ask whether this might be a clip from JJ Abrams old childhood home movies.

I thought it looked awesome. Actually I think it might be my favorite trailer since Star Trek. http://videosift.com/video/J-J-Abrams-Star-Trek-Trailer-3-5-2009

ugh I'm so sick of the inception style BRRAAAGGGHHHHH drone that seems to be used in every trailer these days. Also J.J. Abrams is a good director no doubt, but pioneering? What exactly did he pioneer? The overuse of lens flares?

I fail to see the appeal of J.J. Abrams. He seems to have a consistent track record of setting a viewer up with a tease, stringing them along for the required length of time and then leaving their heads scratching and thinking "that could have been so much better".

Or maybe that's just me?

>> ^radx:

Well, this seems to work, sort of. But it's as wonky as it gets, if you ask me.
<object width="500" height="344" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep">
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TBS/cvp/teamcoco_drupal_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=41587" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<embed wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TBS/cvp/teamcoco_drupal_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=41587" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="500" height="344">
</embed><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
</object>
If you want to embed other Team Coco videos, just replace the "41587" with the respective ID of your clip. Twice. >> ^ant:
>> ^radx:
@lucky760, could you take a look at this? Or are those iframe shenanigans on hold until 5.0 is deployed?

Bah, http://teamcoco.com/video/jj-abrams-gives-an-exclu
sive-sneak-peek-of-star-trek-into-darkness as well.



Thanks. I will try that later. We need an automated iframe converter for VS.

Well, this seems to work, sort of. But it's as wonky as it gets, if you ask me.

<object width="500" height="344" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep">
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TBS/cvp/teamcoco_drupal_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=41587" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<embed wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TBS/cvp/teamcoco_drupal_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=41587" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="500" height="344">
</embed><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
</object>

If you want to embed other Team Coco videos, just replace the "41587" with the respective ID of your clip. Twice. >> ^ant:

>> ^radx:
@lucky760, could you take a look at this? Or are those iframe shenanigans on hold until 5.0 is deployed?

Bah, http://teamcoco.com/video/jj-abrams-gives-an-exclu
sive-sneak-peek-of-star-trek-into-darkness as well.

>> ^radx:

@lucky760, could you take a look at this? Or are those iframe shenanigans on hold until 5.0 is deployed?


Bah, http://teamcoco.com/video/jj-abrams-gives-an-exclusive-sneak-peek-of-star-trek-into-darkness as well.