Jump to content

Saw Star Trek 'Into Darkness' last nite


Recommended Posts

I actually thought it was kind of cool that it was submersible. Not to try and get too realistic with Sci-Fi, but water isn't any different an environment than space. Astronauts routinely train in large swimming pools in their space suits.

Astronauts train in pools because given the correct buoyancy, you can fake weightlessness. It's one of the reasons I enjoy scuba diving so much. Beyond that though, the two mediums are about as opposite in nature as you can possibly get. Submarines are designed to prevent implosion. Spaceships to prevent explosion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never got why the Enterprise was submerged in the first place. They could have stayed in orbit and sent the shuttle down and no one would have seen anything. Presumably, they put the ship down at night, so why not do the whole operation at night in the first place? That way even if the Enterprise had to come down into the atmosphere, no one would have seen it, plus they would have had transporter line of sight anyway.

After seeing it, I can't help but thinking that the only reason the scene was for misdirection in the trailer where they show a ship crashing into the water and a ship rising up out of the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great movie I loved it! I just take every style of trek for its own. I have been a fan for a long time and I've seen all the trek movies and all the series. I like them all. If it has the name Star Trek attached to it I'll watch it and enjoy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Astronauts train in pools because given the correct buoyancy, you can fake weightlessness. It's one of the reasons I enjoy scuba diving so much. Beyond that though, the two mediums are about as opposite in nature as you can possibly get. Submarines are designed to prevent implosion. Spaceships to prevent explosion.

Sorry about that. I miscommunicated. I was referring to the sealed nature of the ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it tonight, IMAX 3D. Better than I had expected but not great. I can think of a half-dozen episodes of Voyager that I'd rather watch instead (and you Trek fans know what that means).

As for the plot, yeah, just enough for the casual viewer with a few links to Trek lore for the true fans. That said, the whole "alternate timeline" deal with these re-pops leaves too much room for disparity, too easy to ignore canon.

Acting, awesome all around. Benedict Cumberbatch is a god.

Worse part: Way too many scene where someone is hanging on for dear life. Terrible. And as Rider Fan said, Kirk is too young to be a captain. Am I correct in hearing that he hasn't even finished the Academy yet? ***?

Best part: Those kick arse Klingon uniforms! Wow! I know what I want to be for Halloween this year!

Steven Brown

Scale Model Soup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best Trek film EVER!!! This is a fan of 45+ years talkin' !

First one to get 4 stars too! The only thing that made me chuckle was 2 dead ships in a fight over the MOON some how travel a qtr million miles and end up in Earths gravity well.

Anyone note the reference to where the small ship came from that they flew to Kronos? It came from "The Mudd incident".

Size of the ship has certainly been determined now! Purist that can't let go of the old Trek insisted that the new ship was about the same size as the Ent-A. I was in a conference with John Eaves (production team member on Trek '09) at Wonderfest just before Trek '09 came out. He said it was about 2,300ft, roughly the same length as a Sovereign class, Ent-E. The docking port they swam through was much smaller than the docking ports on the refit, rendering the ship based on human scale as MASSIVE. As they passed by the nacels, they looked to be the length of an aircraft carrier 1,100 ft... I've server on several CVN's in my day. The deflector dish as they rose in front of the locals had to have been in excess of 45m dia. making the secondary hull around 65-70m in dia. TOS secondary hull alone is 35m dia.

Saw it with Dutycat, now my wife gets to share the joy with me. Not in 3D this time.

Absolutely loved the film, despite the quirky physics here-n-there.

Tracy

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Enterprise is submersible??? Seriously. They completely lost me at that point. I just about got up and left but figured I'd spent $20 already so might as well enjoy the air conditioning.

So, a star ship that can travel via warp drive, has gravity on board without any real explaination, can transport people from one place to another and lets see...oh yeah has lasers and tracter beams, but they lost you when it went underwater? Seriously? :woot.gif: (sorry, just having a jab funnin ya) I thought it was cool to see it underwater, why not?

I agree with the shape of the ship, pretty ugly. BUT it is better on film than in photos and drawings when you can examine it better.

I also thought the 3d wasn't really that benificial to the movie and at a few spots actually a negative. And com'on...spears at the 3d camera??? Wasn't that cheap trick outplayed in Jaws 3d?!?!?

But I liked it actually quite a bit. Good movie and I thought they got the chemistry of characters down pretty well.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved it--leaving the theatre one of my kids commented that he didn't know if Admiral Marcus was a good guy or a bad guy---it made the kid think. We talked about how the people in charge of protecting us can break the rules if they think the end justifies the means---the film had a message pertinent to today--just like The Original Series

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Drones perhaps were a topic as well.

Bill

Bingo. That's what helps make the film interesting. Good sci-fi addresses moral delimas and you found this back in the original series.

I find it somewhat humerous as the bigest Star Trek moral delima (to me personally) is the transporter. If you define transportation as a destruction and re-creation machine, than there is really no permanent death and no one is ever really in danger. Just download/print the latest stored copy. In fact, if you have transwarp teleportation- why have starships at all? :whistle:

Define teleportation in the films however...the origional series is contradicting and full of holes in what is cannon. They baisically have whatever helps furhter the plotline along for the writers. In the new JJ Abrams films, transportation seems to be more of a teleportaion of energy (via Heisenberg Uncertainty principle?) so no one is really getting destroyed/uploaded/copied/downloaded/recreated and saved as a file. Instead their matter energy is simply moved where there is a more direct line-of-sight and requires a definite "lock". Seems the JJ Abrams movies tend to use shuttles more often for transportation and transporters only in emergencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it somewhat humerous as the bigest Star Trek moral delima (to me personally) is the transporter. If you define transportation as a destruction and re-creation machine, than there is really no permanent death and no one is ever really in danger. Just download/print the latest stored copy...

You know, I've never really thought about the moral implications of tele-transporting. Interesting idea. That brings up the question, are we as a being the cells that make us or are we the organization of those cells? Or as was recently stated in Dr. Who, "The soufflé is not the soufflé, the soufflé is the recipe." I don't know the answer to that but it's worth considering for sure.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a star ship that can travel via warp drive, has gravity on board without any real explaination, can transport people from one place to another and lets see...oh yeah has lasers and tracter beams, but they lost you when it went underwater? Seriously? :woot.gif:/> (sorry, just having a jab funnin ya) I thought it was cool to see it underwater, why not?

I agree with the shape of the ship, pretty ugly. BUT it is better on film than in photos and drawings when you can examine it better.

I also thought the 3d wasn't really that benificial to the movie and at a few spots actually a negative. And com'on...spears at the 3d camera??? Wasn't that cheap trick outplayed in Jaws 3d?!?!?

But I liked it actually quite a bit. Good movie and I thought they got the chemistry of characters down pretty well.

Bill

OMG they are "Phasers" not "lasers" like seriously?!? Lasers are so......star wars tech. Poking fun too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I've never really thought about the moral implications of tele-transporting. Interesting idea. That brings up the question, are we as a being the cells that make us or are we the organization of those cells? Or as was recently stated in Dr. Who, "The soufflé is not the soufflé, the soufflé is the recipe." I don't know the answer to that but it's worth considering for sure.

Bill

Very good points made! A transporter can then be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Just beam a few thousand people and delete. Do not ever materialize them. In the STTNG series the transporter was in fact used several times to reconstruct people back to their original selves. However, I would think that a transporter computer would delete the code after successful transportation because imagine all the memory needed to store everyone's physical code and pattern. I mean think how many people use the transporter so how much memory would you need? Having a system that immediately deletes the code after successful transportation would in fact be ethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved it--leaving the theatre one of my kids commented that he didn't know if Admiral Marcus was a good guy or a bad guy---it made the kid think. We talked about how the people in charge of protecting us can break the rules if they think the end justifies the means---the film had a message pertinent to today--just like The Original Series

Smart kid! I was wondering the same thing. Admiral Marcus knew the true Khan. There certainly are parallels between Khan and OBL. Before I get clobbered with hate posts let me explain. The movie was losely related to 911. The hunt for Khan was like the hunt for OBL. Kirk and crew were faced with the moral dilemma that if it was moral to kill Khan without a trail. Some felt the same about OBL. NOT ME by the way so no hate posts okay. Anyway, by not killing Khan Kirk is responsible for everyone else who died afterwards. I mean how many people died when the Dreadnought crashed into San Fransico? Kirk put him there in control of the ship! I mean you can understand why Admiral Marcus wanted to destroy the Enterprise with Kahn aboard, unless of course you are on the Enterprise.

There is one thing that I did not like about the movies, Khan was indestructible! If he was so difficult to contain in the 23rd century, how was he captured in the 20th century? Then again maybe they should have set phasers to kill instead of stun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved it--leaving the theatre one of my kids commented that he didn't know if Admiral Marcus was a good guy or a bad guy---it made the kid think. We talked about how the people in charge of protecting us can break the rules if they think the end justifies the means---the film had a message pertinent to today--just like The Original Series

Edited by gonzalo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never in the history of cinema has a "creative" team behind a film deserved to be crushed by a steam-roller as much as JJ Abrams and his band of subhuman mouth-breathers for creating this piece of horse-fly excrement.

This movie is the cinematic equivalent of vomiting blood onto the finest china and lace doily set in a historic home.

This movie is worse than Top Gun

This movie is worse than....

...gasp....

Iron, Mother Flipping, Eagle!!!

I hope Gene Roddenberry's ghost pushes JJ Abrams into the fiery exhaust of a jet engine.

Although wasting jet exhaust on flaming such a no-talent, bottom-line, money hounding, two-bit hack, piece of dead and rotting horse anus is probably not a good idea.

In other words: No sir, I did not like it :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never in the history of cinema has a "creative" team behind a film deserved to be crushed by a steam-roller as much as JJ Abrams and his band of subhuman mouth-breathers for creating this piece of horse-fly excrement.

This movie is the cinematic equivalent of vomiting blood onto the finest china and lace doily set in a historic home.

This movie is worse than Top Gun

This movie is worse than....

...gasp....

Iron, Mother Flipping, Eagle!!!

I hope Gene Roddenberry's ghost pushes JJ Abrams into the fiery exhaust of a jet engine.

Although wasting jet exhaust on flaming such a no-talent, bottom-line, money hounding, two-bit hack, piece of dead and rotting horse anus is probably not a good idea.

In other words: No sir, I did not like it :D/>

Wow great review

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the movie with my son. As much as I bemoan the deviations from The Original Series, especially the new look, it was the most entertaining Star Trek movie that has been made yet. In fact, it will be hard to top. Most of the things that I could say that are wrong with it are the same things that were wrong with the first J.J. Abrams Trek movie: The charactors are too young, (and in this movie, ENSIGN Checkov is made Chief Engineer (???!!!!), as if he would be remotely qualified), the new Enterprise looks like a hood ornament, the bridge looks like a new branch office of a bank, but with lights that are pointed at your eyes, engineering looks like a factory, and Spock goes through pon farr with Uhura once a week now. But I did enjoy the way Abrams pulled in charactors and threads from the old Star Trek, and the story had morality issues and parallels to current events, like Star Trek TOS did.

And no, the Enterprise should not be a submarine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. That's what helps make the film interesting. Good sci-fi addresses moral delimas and you found this back in the original series.

I find it somewhat humerous as the bigest Star Trek moral delima (to me personally) is the transporter. If you define transportation as a destruction and re-creation machine, than there is really no permanent death and no one is ever really in danger. Just download/print the latest stored copy. In fact, if you have transwarp teleportation- why have starships at all? :whistle:/>

Define teleportation in the films however...the origional series is contradicting and full of holes in what is cannon. They baisically have whatever helps furhter the plotline along for the writers. In the new JJ Abrams films, transportation seems to be more of a teleportaion of energy (via Heisenberg Uncertainty principle?) so no one is really getting destroyed/uploaded/copied/downloaded/recreated and saved as a file. Instead their matter energy is simply moved where there is a more direct line-of-sight and requires a definite "lock". Seems the JJ Abrams movies tend to use shuttles more often for transportation and transporters only in emergencies.

Both new movies introduced transwarp teleportation and in the current film, apparently you can transport directly from Earth to Kronus. If they have that technology, why have any starships at all? You can just transport people vast distances. It seems like a convenient plot device, the implications of which are never really explored. Also, the blood thing at the beginning and end. McCoy said he synthesized it, so I guess in theory, now the humans have a cureall for almost anything, including death. Think that will show up again, or be conveniently forgotten in the next movie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both new movies introduced transwarp teleportation and in the current film, apparently you can transport directly from Earth to Kronus. If they have that technology, why have any starships at all? You can just transport people vast distances. It seems like a convenient plot device, the implications of which are never really explored. Also, the blood thing at the beginning and end. McCoy said he synthesized it, so I guess in theory, now the humans have a cureall for almost anything, including death. Think that will show up again, or be conveniently forgotten in the next movie?

I guess you can transport yourself anywhere you like as long as you know where anywhere is. What I mean is, you still need starships to explore to find new places to go. Even if you know where a distant planet is you don't know if you can transport to the planet because you don't know the geography of it or if it is a class M planet. Also, the prime directive would be useless, what if you beam into some tribal village on some planet? So you still need to send ships to explore first, I'm guessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you can transport yourself anywhere you like as long as you know where anywhere is. What I mean is, you still need starships to explore to find new places to go. Even if you know where a distant planet is you don't know if you can transport to the planet because you don't know the geography of it or if it is a class M planet. Also, the prime directive would be useless, what if you beam into some tribal village on some planet? So you still need to send ships to explore first, I'm guessing.

Just playing with our logic here (not tyring to destroy your argument): Why not transwarp a tiny probe ahead of time, find if the coordiantes are good-to-go, than transport your human cargo. Still no need for starships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that whole transwarp beaming thing sort of destroyed a lot of the reason for ships to exist.

The only reason for them to now, and it's a very slight reason, is that beaming doesn't allow you to encounter things along the way from point A to B.

There was no plot reason for the villain to need transwarp beaming. The script could simply have stated that he beamed to a ship in orbit and was able to warp away before security measures were in place. Given the chaos of the moment, that makes far more sense than introducing a plot device that actually moots the point of there being a USS Enterprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never in the history of cinema has a "creative" team behind a film deserved to be crushed by a steam-roller as much as JJ Abrams and his band of subhuman mouth-breathers for creating this piece of horse-fly excrement.

I take it you've not seen any movies ever made by Uwe Boll. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317676/ Your review is void just because of that :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...